Is it just me or have SF vanished?

blanch152 wrote: »

I have never met in real life a party member who will defend each and every policy and utterance of their political party.

However, online, I have met more than a few Sinn Fein party members (and indeed self-proclaimed non-members not even supporters of that party) who will defend to the nth degree everything that the party does.

I know people online who say they vote for one party and are legendary defenders of another party.

I dont care what you believe about me blanch, all I can do is tell you my view truthfully.

blackwhite wrote: »

More lies - I've referred repeatedly to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty referendum, as well as referenda since then - why the need to lie and state I'm talking about the 70s?

Did Sinn Féin campaign for, or against the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 (you know, the Treaty that founded the EU)?


Or you know - maybe just continue calling anyone who dares disagree with you "loopy" - that'll show everyone what a true SF-believer is really like.

maccored wrote: »

you got mermory loss or something?



thats from your earlier waffling when you started accusing me of being a liar _ BEFORE you mentioned any treaties.

And you have the cheek to call me a liar? Caught out there lad.

blackwhite wrote: »

You're the one who claimed that SF have never campainged against EU membership.

How do you square that circle to the Maastrich Treaty referendum? (never mind all the other ones they've opposed as well).


(here's a mad one for you - posters on here can actually remember what you falsely claimed on other threads as well - shocking I know!)

Keep digging - you'll find Oz eventually

I dont need to dig - you're already hard at it.

You claimed I lied as you had only talked about treaties - when I point out that in fact YOU were lying, then you deflect with the above.

you are right - people can read posts. That means they can also read yours.

All youve been doing is calling me a liar. when you got caught out on that, you start back at the start of the waffling. Stop embarrassing yourself.

maccored wrote: »

Where is the debate. I note that blanch, blackwhite, marko etc - theres no debate with you people. its just bull****. Lots of makeyuppy stuffs, lots of 'Shinners are x, y and z' even the good old 'lookit me Im trying to be an online bully by calling people names'.

no actual substance though.

I am going to refrain from responding to the first paragraph of your post, which is simple personal invective.

On the issue of responding in substance, here is a recent exchange with you in respect of the concept of "justifiable homicide".

I note that my posts go into depth, with reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, while your responses are limited to one-liner pronouncements. I will leave it to others to judge the substance.

maccored wrote: »

theres no such thing as 'justifiable homicide'. either murder is murder or people get killed in conflicts - its one or the other. you cant call one death caused by a soldier 'justiifable' yet a soldiers death as 'murder'.

blanch152 wrote: »

This is silly propaganda that ignores international law and conventions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

"Article 2 Paragraph 2 of the European Convention On Human Rights provides that that death resulted from defending oneself or others, arresting a suspect or fugitive, or suppressing riots or insurrections, will not contravene the Article when the use of force involved is "no more than absolutely necessary":"

Even the European Convention on Human Rights - remember that, Sinn Fein support it - allows for justifiable homicide. Some of the actions (only some) carried out by the security forces in Northern Ireland would be covered by those articles, none of the actions carried out by the IRA are.

So yes, in line with the ECHR, I can call one death caused by a soldier justifiable, yet condemn utterly as murder the death of a soldier.

maccored wrote: »

You need to read Article 2 again. the BA is full of suspects and fugatives.

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, yes you will because that is what you do when you avoid to answer a simple question. We are onto WWII and the Pacific theatre now... lol!

You have written 4 paragraphs there, but one sentence would have done to answer my question.

In your opinion, how did the murder of a 3 year toddler help the nationalist community?

Are you blind...

franciebrady wrote:

So the answer to your question is again - yes, sadly.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Interesting and sad read here.
There can be no justifying children in any scenario imo.
Jesus the North was hell during the troubles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/children-of-the-troubles-they-took-a-child-off-the-road-put-a-hood-over-his-head-and-killed-him-1.4037704%3fmode=amp

The thing is when you look back at the foundation of this state, every killing committed by an IRA man was murder before we achieved independence.
Every act against British rule was treason.
Everything depends on the final outcome of any conflict.
If we end up with a UI eventually, them murderers and terrorists will be written about differently from then on probably.
Oppression, murder, slavery deprivation, torture and cruelty were yesterday's normals.
The British killed on whims the world over and enacted every unimaginable version of the above on its colonials, including our own country.
All lawful because they made up their laws as they went along and justified it because they were the rulers, with the legitimate army.
Let's not forget that in our judgement of northern Ireland and the crowns version of law.

Yes, it was hell, but by the time of Sunningdale, it was clear that the British government would not return to a simple majority Unionist government, and that it was only a matter of time and peaceful effort before we would get an agreement.

Unfortunately, the continuing violence ensured that this didn't happen, and for that, the IRA carries a lot of the blame.

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, it was hell, but by the time of Sunningdale, it was clear that the British government would not return to a simple majority Unionist government, and that it was only a matter of time and peaceful effort before we would get an agreement.

Unfortunately, the continuing violence ensured that this didn't happen, and for that, the IRA carries a lot of the blame.

The 'lie down and take it while we wait for Unionists and the British to become democrats' line again.

That's all very well in the utopia up there on the impossible high moral ground. The reality was of course much more stark and different.

Unionism destroyed Sunningdale with the aid of the BA (i.e. the British). To the ordinary Nationalist northern Ireland's future was never darker. They were, in the real world left with an awful choice, lie down or continue to fight for their rights.

Claiming it 'was clear the British were not going to allow Unionist majority rule' is nonsense...that is you mixing up hindsight with the picture at the time. It wasn't in fact and again, reality, until the Anglo Irish Agreement that they finally ended the Unionist veto. Read John Hume.

Adam9213 wrote: »

Maria Cahill used to be a member of Sinn Fein she came from a staunch republican family it's quite obvious she was mad that the IRA didn't take her side in the inquiry they made into the rape and kill the man she said was responsible.

Cahill was elected National Secretary of the RNU organisation a dissident republican political party opposed to Sinn Fein during 2010 the same year she also went all over the media about her rape allegations.

It's quite clear she's bitter about being a member of Sinn Fein and having such republican connections in her family that the IRA didn't take her side in the matter.

Ironic RTE documentaries about her called , 'A Woman Alone with the IRA' despite her voluntarily being a member of the political wing of the IRA which supported IRA violence, and then complain when she is "alone with the IRA" when she's alone with the IRA because she is basically one IRA member making a claim against another IRA member is a joke, she let herself be used as a weapon by FF/FG to get back at Sinn Fein that much is obvious.

That is a very sick twisted version of the Mairia Cahill story.

Adam9213 wrote: »

I prefer to call it a more realist version of the Maria Cahill story.

You cannot question Mairia Cahill's story, apparently that is 'victim blaming'.

FG and FF completely blanked any discussion of just who Mairia Cahill was at the time. You are entirely correct, she was anti the police, pro the IRA and about to rise to the top of a dissident grouping.
And you are also correct in that she was used by FF and FG and dropped once she passed usefulness, similar to Paul Quinn's family were too.

Adam9213 wrote: »

This is how our politicians speak about high ranking dissident republicans when they make claims against Sinn Fein,

“A force to be reckoned with” – Enda Kenny , Taoiseach, Ireland.

“Incredibly courageous” – First Minister Peter Robinson, Northern Ireland

If she had made claims against anyone other than Sinn Fein her high level involvement in dissident republican organisations, PIRA connections and her Sinn Fein past would all be used as reasons why you can't trust her but since it's about Sinn Fein/IRA no one is bothered.

Not only that she was a high ranking member of a dissident republican organisation at the time which had a strong hatred towards Sinn Fein and the peace process didn't even arouse any suspicion it barely got any attention till a few years later.

That is victim shaming at least if not blaming.
Sometimes you don't help your cause by engaging is such ****e lads.
Maria Cahills, story has been vindicated by both the PSNI and SF.
Marylou even apologised to her for what she had to go through, her and two other women.
Maybe that's not the pretty truth but it's the truth nonetheless.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They are questions not about her alleged abuse but about how she was used and what FF FG ignored to use her for political gain. As is usual she was dropped like a hot potato when she was no longer useful to them.
That's the 'not pretty truth' Bish

Probably true Francie, but doesn't exonerate from the original blame.
Two posters here at least today have been using allegations against Cahill herself to form their opinion and neither mentioned that aspect, just based it on her character, which has been vindicated in relation to the abuse itself.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Except the bothersome issue of the alleged's right to vindicate himself. Mary Lou is no more a judge or jury than I am.

Wasn't there great talk of human rights conventions here a while ago?.

Don't be fooled by the Pharisees.....They will make twisted arguments to justify their way of life....They don't care how about how many children died in the troubles...They're only interested is in conserving their way of life....ESB, RTE, farms, plant hire to the local council....Understand, these are people who have never worked a day in their lives....If you pulled away their money, and cleansed state agencies of their kind...they'd have nothing....nothing to offer the world.....

blackwhite wrote: »

The Maastricht Treaty is about becoming a member of the EU - which replaces the EEC. Sinn Fein campaigned against it. Claiming that they’ve never been opposed to EU membership is a blatant lie - as they campaigned against the referendum to move from EEC membership to EU membership.

Here’s the text of the amendment - that SF campaigned against

4º The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht Treaty on the 7th day of February, 1992, and may become a member of that Union.


About as clear cut an example of campaigning against EU membership as you can get.

So either you’ve no idea what the 11th Amendment to the Irish Constitution actually was about - and made false claims based on that lack of knowledge - or you’re just pushing a falsehood because it suits the current-day SF narrative.


But sure keep the personal attacks and spinning if it makes you feel better.

hang on - democratic left and labour opposed it. SF had no TDs to oppose it

blackwhite wrote: »

The Maastricht Treaty is about becoming a member of the EU - which replaces the EEC. Sinn Fein campaigned against it. Claiming that they’ve never been opposed to EU membership is a blatant lie - as they campaigned against the referendum to move from EEC membership to EU membership.

Here’s the text of the amendment - that SF campaigned against

4º The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on the 7th day of February, 1992, and may become a member of that Union.


About as clear cut an example of campaigning against EU membership as you can get.

So either you’ve no idea what the 11th Amendment to the Irish Constitution actually was about - and made false claims based on that lack of knowledge - or you’re just pushing a falsehood because it suits the current-day SF narrative.


But sure keep the personal attacks and spinning if it makes you feel better.

How did you get from voting against the Maastricht treaty to being against the EU all in the same sentence.

Maybe if you had quoted a little bit more of the treaty you would see why the Masstricht Treaty was a very bad deal for Ireland and other small countries in Europe. We essentially gave away our right to control currency, have EU laws imposed on us despite no Irish MEP voting for them, and risked potentially losing our Neutrality.

Under Maastricht the European Community would now become the European Union, with a single currency the Euro.

The UK decided to use their opt out option in the Maastricht treaty not to adopt the Euro, but become a member of the EU.
I'm sure there many people in Ireland that might have wished we joined the EU but not adopted the Euro.

Both the the UK and Ireland decided not to adopt the Schengen Agreement which would have abolished ALL border controls that was part of the Maastricht Treaty.

The Maastricht treaty also introduced a Common Foreign and Security Policy and Cooperation in the Fields of Justice and Home Affairs.
While there were many advantages to this there was also the thorny subject of Irish Neutrality.
It was this that SF were most concerned about, and rightly sought clarification for, but at the time this was very much swept under the carpet as Ireland could not be seen as the 'disruptive schoolboy at the back of the class'

So to claim SF were anti EU could not be further from the truth, what they had was legitimate concerns over the Irish government ceding powers regarding control of our borders, the justice system and the possibility of a EU defence force or Ireland losing its Neutrality.
Our Neutrality has served us well over the years, our defence forces sent on peace keeping missions are hugely respected no matter which country they are posted to.
I think it right and proper that any agreement that would potentially erode our neutrality should be viewed with scepticism or at least have a opt out clause inserted to respect our neutrality if we as a country wish to retain that.

4º The State may ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on the 7th day of February, 1992, and may become a member of that Union.
There’s the text that Sinn Fein opposed being included in the Constitution. It takes one hell of a warped logic to claim that opposing the above doesn’t equate to opposing Irish membership of the EU.