Why the disregard of Sinn Féin?

Drumpot · 24-01-2011 10:54AM

IRcolm wrote: »

This is based on the assumption people have had similar experiences as I have. This is a genuine question, with the election imminent I'm weighing up my options and without thinking I wrote off Sinn Féin. I've never really considered voting for them and probably won't, but why is their a casual disregard of their status as a viable party to vote for.

And I don't want the first post after this to be "They're murdering Scum" and get a million thanks. (Which someone will definitely do now that I've written that).

Okay, so we have Adams who vehemently denies leading the IRA when it's plain he had more than any old casual involvement. But Fiann Fáil are a party built on violence, and the War was won by tactics similar to that employed by the IRA of modern times, with 1916 having less of a mandate. (I'd presume).

I am not advocating this, or saying I supported it. My point is, is there something beyond the paramilitary history that warrants the sneer at the 'Sinners'? Especially now that there is a vacuum in Irish politics for a credible alternative to the main parties? If I'm honest I wouldn't be too up to speed with any SF policies, but is there reason to believe they may perform well in this election if people begin to look at them in a different light, as a political part with political policies?

I agree with the principle point you make. For some reason I dont think I could vote for them which flies in the face of one of my own principles of voting for the best candidate.

That aside, there are far more reasons not to vote for them at the moment. Whatever I think of Labour's economic illiteracy, Sinn Fein's is in a differant world.

When questioned on how they would of avoided the bailout or on their populist rhetoric on how they would do everything differant, they get lost in waffle of "sure people on €80 a week are in the tax net" as if that is a solution to anything.

I used to think that Labour were the biggest threat to this countries future, due to the ridiculous/unwarranted rise in Sinn Fein's popularity (again a sign that the Irish People have learned nothing), I fear there are more wolves in the bushes.

Incidentally I was considering getting into politics as an Independent and those I spoke to (who have been involved in canvassing for differant parties) told me to beware as Sinn Fein canvassers pull down opponents posters and revert to dirty tricks. Democracy my ass . .

wee truck big driver · 24-01-2011 11:16AM

Drumpot wrote: »

Incidentally I was considering getting into politics as an Independent and those I spoke to (who have been involved in canvassing for differant parties) told me to beware as Sinn Fein canvassers pull down opponents posters and revert to dirty tricks. Democracy my ass . .

thats nasty
sure its time to ban all parties from littering the country with posters of there ugly mugs it turns my stomach

24-01-2011 11:29AM

Sinn Fein are disregarded by decent people because they side with murderers

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/sinn-fein-td-greets-garda-killers-14444155.html

Drumpot · 24-01-2011 11:32AM

wee truck big driver wrote: »

thats nasty
sure its time to ban all parties from littering the country with posters of there ugly mugs it turns my stomach

I agree completely. I dont see why people with greater monetary backing should be given an advantage by planting posters all over the place.,

All the parties talking about political reform dont really mean true reform, more moving the deckchairs to look like its reform. We should reduce the amount of TDs and be encouraging them to do more national work. I would like the idea of alligning TDs with councellors so that they can get the councellors to the jobs that TDs get stuck doing (fixing potholes, social welfare issues etc).

maccored · 24-01-2011 11:58AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Except that the bank debt is now sovereign.

cordially,
Scofflaw

which is why I included "(even though the bank debt is now sovereign)" in my post. Its a never never thing is it? Once its done, theres no point in trying to ensure it either doesnt happen again or that its impact is lessened as much as possible. Like, its done now, lets just forget about it? Thats not my idea of democracy tbh.

maccored · 24-01-2011 12:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sinn Fein are disregarded by decent people because they side with murderers

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/sinn-fein-td-greets-garda-killers-14444155.html

I dont want to sidetrack this, but god almighty. Many, many many people where killed and murdered you know. It's never right and its never OK, but theres no point in pretending SF are the only ones in that whole mess who mixed with the wrong kind. Keeping to your logic, every country and government in the world should be 'disregarded'.

LordSutch · 24-01-2011 12:17PM

maccored wrote: »

I dont want to sidetrack this, but god almighty. Many, many many people where killed and murdered you know. It's never right and its never OK, but theres no point in pretending SF are the only ones in that whole mess who mixed with the wrong kind. Keeping to your logic, every country and government in the world should be 'disregarded'.

But if you look at post #158 again, would it not dissuade you even considering voting fore a "Political Party" with so many unsavoury 'connotations/ connections' ? They're cant be many other political parties in the western world with connections like Sinn Fein have?
And if there are, would you like them representing (on the world stage) & running your country?

Can'tseeme · 24-01-2011 12:28PM

Jim236 wrote: »

I'd be a supporter of Sinn Féin and I don't believe Gerry Adams wasn't in the IRA, which is what I assume whywonder is referring to. I don't know why he doesn't just admit it like Martin McGuinness, I'm sure even those who resent him would have a lot more respect for him for being honest.

But trying to go on as if he was never a member of the IRA is just insulting the intelligence of the Irish people.

It's a fair point Jim. I get the impression Gerry is not willing to tell his past while others aren't willing to tell theirs. The media have an obsession with Gerry's role within the Republican movement. But we see little from the media on issues for example Peter Robinson's role in Ulster Resistance, the guns he brought into the north, Paisley's role within the Protestant Volunteers, etc.

maccored · 24-01-2011 12:31PM

LordSutch wrote: »

But if you look at post #158 again, would it not dissuade you even considering voting fore a "Political Party" with so many unsavoury 'connotations/ connections' ? They're cant be many other political parties in the western world with connections like Sinn Fein have?
And if there are, would you like them representing (on the world stage) & running your country?

how about moving on with life and forget looking to the past all the time? Times have changed, and SF as a party certainly have changed.

Again though, this is just sidetracking stuff.

Leiva · 24-01-2011 12:34PM

As much dislike there may be in the opposition parties to Sinn Fein , I feel the likes of Labour and FG may need to make a big decision after the GE as i feel Sinn Fein might be in a strong position to make up seats etc .

danbohan · 24-01-2011 12:34PM

LordSutch wrote: »

But if you look at post #158 again, would it not dissuade you even considering voting fore a "Political Party" with so many unsavoury 'connotations/ connections' ? They're cant be many other political parties in the western world with connections like Sinn Fein have?
And if there are, would you like them representing (on the world stage) & running your country?

whats your definition of unsavory connections , sas perhaps, paratroopers maybe all of whom would be pretty unsavory connections to a great many nationalists in the north and are connected to british goverment . wars over friend time to move on as happened in 20s and 30s here before

of course if you really want to delve in connections we could look at mr gilmores connections with eastern europes communist regimes in the past , or mr kennys partys links to nazis or fianna fails links to corruption

PatsytheNazi · 24-01-2011 12:42PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sinn Fein are disregarded by decent people because they side with murderers

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/sinn-fein-td-greets-garda-killers-14444155.html

Those who founded this state were regarded as "murderers" i.e. Micheal Collins and his squad of cop killers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Squad_(Irish_Republican_Army_unit)

PatsytheNazi · 24-01-2011 12:46PM

Can'tseeme wrote: »

It's a fair point Jim. I get the impression Gerry is not willing to tell his past while others aren't willing to tell theirs. The media have an obsession with Gerry's role within the Republican movement. But we see little from the media on issues for example Peter Robinson's role in Ulster Resistance, the guns he brought into the north, Paisley's role within the Protestant Volunteers, etc.

It wasn't just the DUP who had strong links with the loyalists. 'Moderate' David Trimble and the UUP ( called OUP back then) were invovled with Ulster Vanguard paramilitary's in the 70's.

" As his contemporary David Burnside recalled, Vanguard in 1972 was "really the only unionist organisation at the time which thought things through, tried to find a real alternative to direct rule. David Trimble was one of Vanguard’s backroom boys "

http://www.ulsternation.org.uk/Trimble.htm

Jim236 · 24-01-2011 01:09PM

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Those who founded this state were regarded as "murderers" i.e. Micheal Collins and his squad of cop killers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Squad_(Irish_Republican_Army_unit)

Spot on, yet Michael Collins and co. are now celebrated as national heroes.

The hypocrisy by some people on here is unreal. And what amazes me even more is people trying to equate the killings during the troubles to normal crimes - IT WAS A WAR! And in war, people die.

Margaret Thatchers attempts to treat the actions of the IRA as normal crimes is exactly the reason why the troubles was prolonged for longer than it needed to be, because she refused to even recognise the IRA, nevermind negotiate with them.

There are people posting in this topic attempting to lecture supporters of Sinn Féin as if they're supporters of 'murder' just because they vote for the party, and doing so without any understanding of the history of the troubles. There are people on here who would like to take a simplistic view of the troubles and believe that the IRA just went around blowing people up for no reason, and its probably convenient for some people to take this view because it suits their party affiliation. The reality though is very different, and if some people would take the time to learn their history, they'd know the IRA didn't start the troubles - that title goes to the Unionist government at the time who treated Catholics as nothing more than 2nd class citizens and openly supported active discrimination in the workplace and politics.

Some would argue the IRA could've gone down the road of SDLP, but the fact is if nothing was done and Unionists were left to run the place, there would've been widespread genocide and attempts to ethnically cleanse the North, such was the level of discrimination and hatred towards Catholics at the time.

People on here also need to put the actions of the IRA into perspective. Yes they killed people and some of their actions were just completely indefensible, but again it was a war. They were fighting against Loyalist paramilitaries who were also carrying out their own attacks, which were equally horrific, and who had the support of the British Army who killed more civilians during the troubles than anyone else.

Nobody can ignore Sinn Féin's history, but you can't hold a war against them that they didn't even start.

So can we please give up the "murdering scumbags" posts and move on? Otherwise this topic is completely pointless and should be locked.

Iwasfrozen · 24-01-2011 01:19PM

Jim236 wrote: »

Spot on, yet Michael Collins and co. are now celebrated as national heroes.

The hypocrisy by some people on here is unreal. And what amazes me even more is people trying to equate the killings during the troubles to normal crimes - IT WAS A WAR! And in war, people die.

Margaret Thatchers attempts to treat the actions of the IRA as normal crimes is exactly the reason why the troubles was prolonged for longer than it needed to be, because she refused to even recognise the IRA, nevermind negotiate with them.

There are people posting in this topic attempting to lecture supporters of Sinn Féin as if they're supporters of 'murder' just because they vote for the party, and doing so without any understanding of the history of the troubles. There are people on here who would like to take a simplistic view of the troubles and believe that the IRA just went around blowing people up for no reason, and its probably convenient for some people to take this view because it suits their party affiliation. The reality though is very different, and if some people would take the time to learn their history, they'd know the IRA didn't start the troubles - that title goes to the Unionist government at the time who treated Catholics as nothing more than 2nd class citizens and openly supported active discrimination in the workplace and politics.

Some would argue the IRA could've gone down the road of SDLP, but the fact is if nothing was done and Unionists were left to run the place, there would've been widespread genocide and attempts to ethnically cleanse the North, such was the level of discrimination and hatred towards Catholics at the time.

People on here also need to put the actions of the IRA into perspective. Yes they killed people and some of their actions were just completely indefensible, but again it was a war. They were fighting against Loyalist paramilitaries who were also carrying out their own attacks, which were equally horrific, and who had the support of the British Army who killed more civilians during the troubles than anyone else.

Nobody can ignore Sinn Féin's history, but you can't hold a war against them that they didn't even start.

So can we please give up the "murdering scumbags" posts and move on? Otherwise this topic is completely pointless and should be locked.

It wasn't war, it was a period of social unrest. Nothing more.

Jim236 · 24-01-2011 01:21PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It wasn't war, it was a period of social unrest. Nothing more.

No it was a war.

Iwasfrozen · 24-01-2011 01:22PM

Jim236 wrote: »

No it was a war.

No it wasn't.

Liam Byrne · 24-01-2011 01:25PM

Well, in Adare, it was not a war, for a number of reasons And SF's stance on that atrocity is objectionable.

And who decides whether it or not it's a war, anyway ?

A war is simply a mechanism to excuse the murder of civilians and negative impact on human rights, such as Bush's so-called "war" on terror.

Two quick points:

1) I'm the type of person who can understand a lot even if I don't agree with it, as long as the logic is sound and it doesn't impose on others who haven't agreed with it

As I've said before, if A hits B and B hits A, then that's between them, and as long as no-one hits an innocent bystander, I don't see a real problem ; as soon as one of them hurts innocent bystander C, I lose respect.

2) I would be one of the people who objects to the bundling of Ireland & the UK together

Given the above, it says a lot that SF's approach has turned me off completely; they condone inexcusable actions and then cry foul if "the other side" does the same.

Jim236 · 24-01-2011 01:32PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it wasn't.

Yes it was, and to argue otherwise is to simply rewrite history and buy into the arguement of the British government that the troubles was nothing more than a "domestic dispute". This is the same arguement they used in the UN to oppose a UN peacekeeping force being deployed to the North at the request of the Irish government.

Both Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries regarded it as a war, and the consultative group on dealing with the legacy of the troubles thinks it should be recognised by the British government as a war also.

To call the troubles nothing more than a "period of social unrest" is an insult to those who were killed. What we saw in Greece and what we're seeing now in Tunisia, thats social unrest - the troubles was not social unrest, it was a war.

Jim236 · 24-01-2011 01:36PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As I've said before, if A hits B and B hits A, then that's between them, and as long as no-one hits an innocent bystander, I don't see a real problem ; as soon as one of them hurts innocent bystander C, I lose respect.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're trying to equate the killings during the troubles to normal crimes. You're not accepting the reality of war that people die, its impossible for civilians not to get hurt. I'm not trying to justify it and I'm not saying because it was a war all should be forgiven, I'm just trying to make the point that the actions of the IRA need to be put into perspective.

And if you want to talk about bystanders being killed - the British Army killed more civilians during the troubles than anyone else. With that in mind, would you consider the British Army murderers? And if so, should the British state not appear before an international tribunal on charges of crimes against humanity?

But you'll get people on here who'll say no that its not the same thing, but turn around and use that very arguement to discredit Sinn Féin and accuse them of "murdering scumbags". Its hypocrisy at its best.

Iwasfrozen · 24-01-2011 01:45PM

Jim236 wrote: »

Yes it was, and to argue otherwise is to simply rewrite history and buy into the arguement of the British government that the troubles was nothing more than a "domestic dispute". This is the same arguement they used in the UN to oppose a UN peacekeeping force being deployed to the North at the request of the Irish government.

Both Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries regarded it as a war, and the consultative group on dealing with the legacy of the troubles thinks it should be recognised by the British government as a war also.

To call the troubles nothing more than a "period of social unrest" is an insult to those who were killed. What we saw in Greece and what we're seeing now in Tunisia, thats social unrest - the troubles was not social unrest, it was a war.

Right, and because the paramilitaries said it was a war it must have been a war. Forgetting for a second that the paramilitaries were the one's doing the blowing up and spending the time in prison. So they had a vested interest in the troubles being seen as a war.

Either way both the Birtish and Irish governments, the only two democratically elected practitioners in the troubles, considered it a period of social unrest and not a war.

And by the way periods of social unrest don't have a time span like you seem to think. But then it suits your argument to think that way.

maccored · 24-01-2011 01:48PM

it was a war because it was one. ask anyone who lived through it, or if you could, ask any of the innocent people killed on all sides. to believe it not to have been a war is very very very ****ing naive.

Jim236 · 24-01-2011 01:50PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Right, and because the paramilitaries said it was a war it must have been a war. Forgetting for a second that the paramilitaries were the one's doing the blowing up and spending the time in prison. So they had a vested interest in the troubles being seen as a war.

Either way both the Birtish and Irish governments, the only two democratically elected practitioners in the troubles, considered it a period of social unrest and not a war.

I don't think the Irish government have ever taken a stance on the issue, but what about the consultative group? And do the British government not have a vested interest in it not being considered a war?

But I suppose if the British government says its not a war, they must be right.:rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen · 24-01-2011 01:50PM

Jim236 wrote: »

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're trying to equate the killings during the troubles to normal crimes. You're not accepting the reality of war that people die, its impossible for civilians not to get hurt. I'm not trying to justify it and I'm not saying because it was a war all should be forgiven, I'm just trying to make the point that the actions of the IRA need to be put into perspective.

And if you want to talk about bystanders being killed - the British Army killed more civilians during the troubles than anyone else. With that in mind, would you consider the British Army murderers? And if so, should the British state not appear before an international tribunal on charges of crimes against humanity?

But you'll get people on here who'll say no that its not the same thing, but turn around and use that very arguement to discredit Sinn Féin and accuse them of "murdering scumbags". Its hypocrisy at its best.

The British army was trying to maintain order in Northern Ireland, not a damm easy thing. And their job wasn't made any easier by paramilitaries on either side.

Also of course they killed more civilians then the IRA. But the data is destorted because IRA members were civilians.

maccored · 24-01-2011 01:51PM

Jim236 wrote: »

And what about the consultative group? Also, do the British government not have a vested interest in it not being considered a war?

But I suppose if the British government says its not a war, they must be right.:rolleyes:

the whole 'it was a war/ it was not a war' is another of those roundabouts. People will very little experience of what was going on will always claim it was social unrest, because thats how the newspapers reported it.

LordSutch · 24-01-2011 01:53PM

Jim236 wrote: »

the British Army killed more civilians during the troubles than anyone else.

Is that a fact?

Iwasfrozen · 24-01-2011 01:54PM

Jim236 wrote: »

I don't think the Irish government have ever taken a stance on the issue, but what about the consultative group? And do the British government not have a vested interest in it not being considered a war?

But I suppose if the British government says its not a war, they must be right.:rolleyes:

What consultive group? And no they didn't, their men were being killed left right and centre.

You kind of need two sides to have a war.

Jim236 · 24-01-2011 01:56PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The British army was trying to maintain order in Northern Ireland, not a damm easy thing.

No they went in to restore order, but what it ended up being was a war between British forces/paramilitaries and Republican paramilitaries.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And their job wasn't made any easier by paramilitaries on either side.

This comment alone just proves to me you don't know what you're talking about. The British Army actively colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries to carry out attacks across Ireland. The idea that the British Army was a force for good trying to keep the peace is just complete fiction, and you're very naive if you believe that to be true.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 24-01-2011 01:59PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Right, and because the paramilitaries said it was a war it must have been a war. Forgetting for a second that the paramilitaries were the one's doing the blowing up and spending the time in prison. So they had a vested interest in the troubles being seen as a war.

Either way both the Birtish and Irish governments, the only two democratically elected practitioners in the troubles, considered it a period of social unrest and not a war.

And by the way periods of social unrest don't have a time span like you seem to think. But then it suits your argument to think that way.

Letting the prisoners out under the GFA terms was in effect admitting it was a war.

Anyway I'm off to read about the Irish Social Unrest of Independence of 1919.

Nelson Muntz · 24-01-2011 01:59PM

Because they can't be discussed without the usual 25 pages of argument about Irish history.

That & the fact that they have NO economic policies apart from tax the rich & kick the IMF / ECB out of Ireland.

Why the disregard of Sinn Féin?

Comments