Why the disregard of Sinn Féin?

Jim236 · 24-01-2011 01:59PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What consultive group?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmniaf/171/171.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7176271.stm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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

And? Theres more to war than war itself, theres also the political implications of the troubles being considered a war.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You kind of need two sides to have a war.

And you had 2 sides.

Iwasfrozen · 24-01-2011 02:02PM

Jim236 wrote: »

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

The British army joining forces with Unionist paramilitaries to down trodden the poor old hard done by nationalists? Methinks you need to stop reading "Northern Ireland, a history - as edited by Gerry Adams".

Jim236 wrote: »

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.

Across Ireland? Really? No, sorry that one was too big. You're going to have to provide evidence for this. And I'm sure the Hauge will be very interested in it.

Jim236 · 24-01-2011 02:06PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The British army joining forces with Unionist paramilitaries to down trodden the poor old hard done by nationalists? Methinks you need to stop reading "Northern Ireland, a history - as edited by Gerry Adams".

Me thinks you need to stop being so naive and go off and educate yourself.:)

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Across Ireland? Really? No, sorry that one was too big. You're going to have to provide evidence for this. And I'm sure the Hauge will be very interested in it.

Dublin & Monaghan bombings ring a bell?

LordSutch · 24-01-2011 02:07PM

Jim236 wrote: »

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.

Well that's your 'Republican perspective' but I happen to agree with Iwasfrozen, as did most of the people on the island during the troubles, The Army & the Police were stuck in the middle, and personally speaking I would have supported the Army trying to maintain the peace, rather than have the the IRA/INLA running riot for thirty years unhindered, God knows, even with the army patrolling the streets, the Provos waged a terrible & brutal campaign of death & destruction on all sides, even against their own (knee cappings) etc.

Some bad apples in the Army & the Police for sure . . . . . .

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:08PM

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

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.

I thought this one was decent enough ....

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/16451

knipex · 24-01-2011 02:09PM

How could you vote for a party that cannot add.

They want to unilatterally burn the bond holdres and cut off all sources of funding. Then they claim that they can provide 4 billion is savings which means it wont be an issue.

But we have a budget deficit of (if on target) 15 billion.

So Sinn Fein think 15 billion - 4 billion = 0.

Where they intend getting the money to pay the other 11 billion of wages, social welfare and services I have no idea and neither do they.

They preach one line of crap down here while doing the exact opposite in Northern Ireland where they are actually in power.....

They have never given a straight answer to anything.

For all those reasons alone they should be written off.

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:10PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The British army joining forces with Unionist paramilitaries to down trodden the poor old hard done by nationalists? Methinks you need to stop reading "Northern Ireland, a history - as edited by Gerry Adams".

let me get this straight - are you saying this kind of thing DIDN'T happen? If so, are you revising history?

Jim236 · 24-01-2011 02:10PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Well that's your 'Republican perspective' but I happen to agree with Iwasfrozen, as did most of the people on the island during the troubles, The Army & the Police were stuck in the middle, and personally speaking I would have supported the Army trying to maintain the peace, rather than have the the IRA/INLA running riot for thirty years unhindered, God knows, even with the army patrolling the streets, the Provos waged a terrible & brutal campaign of death & destruction on all sides (even their own).

Some bad apples in the Army & the Police for sure . . . . . .

I'm not disputing the British Army went in with the intention of restoring order, but thats not what ended up happening...

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:11PM

knipex wrote: »

How could you vote for a party that cannot add.

They want to unilatterally burn the bond holdres and cut off all sources of funding. Then they claim that they can provide 4 billion is savings which means it wont be an issue.

But we have a budget deficit of (if on target) 15 billion.

So Sinn Fein think 15 billion - 4 billion = 0.

Where they intend getting the money to pay the other 11 billion of wages, social welfare and services I have no idea and neither do they.

They preach one line of crap down here while doing the exact opposite in Northern Ireland where they are actually in power.....

They have never given a straight answer to anything.

For all those reasons alone they should be written off.

Eh? Did you actually read their proposals, or did you just make that up on the spur of the moment?

Iwasfrozen · 24-01-2011 02:12PM

Jim236 wrote: »

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmniaf/171/171.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7176271.stm

Alright, so the report existed. But it was fobbed off regardless.

Jim236 wrote: »

And? Theres more to war than war itself, theres also the political implications of the troubles being considered a war.

Seeing as it wasn't a war that isn't a problem. Just because it is not in the British governments interest for the troubles to be considered a war does not automatically make it a war. Neither does fobbing off an obviously wrong report.

Using your logic since both the nationalist and unionist paramilitaries claim it was a war. And they have a vested interest in it being a war that must automatically mean it isn't a war! Right?

Jim236 wrote: »

And you had 2 sides.

Not when one side says there was no war you don't.

Jim236 · 24-01-2011 02:13PM

knipex wrote: »

How could you vote for a party that cannot add.

They want to unilatterally burn the bond holdres and cut off all sources of funding. Then they claim that they can provide 4 billion is savings which means it wont be an issue.

I think most people in this country want to burn the bondholders lol. You could've used the arguement "we need to save the banks and the bondholders" a year ago, but a lot has changed since then and as a result of the bailout we will now owe around €200 billion worth of borrowings from the last 2 years or so. We can't pay that money back and the markets know we can't pay that money back, which is why despite being bailed out the yield on Irish bonds remains around 9%. So we're going to lose money either way, but at least if we burn the bondholers and default on the bank debt, we won't be shouldered with hundreds of billions of debt for the next 10-20 years or who knows how long.

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:15PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not when one side says there was no war you don't.

You mean the side that had soldiers hiding in fields in tyrone spying on old women, or the ones that attacked bernadette mcaliskey (nee devlin), tried to kill her and her family and then slunk off into the night? Thats not an act of social unrest. Thats war. Just because the british wouldnt admit it, doesnt mean it wasnt.

Balmed Out · 24-01-2011 02:15PM

Regardless of was it a war or not or is it ok to blow up civilians it really doesnt get away from the disregard Sinn Fein show to the people of the republic of Ireland by having policies that dont add up.

Iwasfrozen · 24-01-2011 02:16PM

Jim236 wrote: »

Me thinks you need to stop being so naive and go off and educate yourself.:)

Me thinks you need to get a new brain. That one's been washed.

Jim236 wrote: »

Dublin & Monaghan bombings ring a bell?

Now I'm sure the Hauge will be interested in your theory the British army was being the Dublin and Monaghan bombings

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:18PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

Regardless of was it a war or not or is it ok to blow up civilians it really doesnt get away from the disregard Sinn Fein show to the people of the republic of Ireland by having policies that dont add up.

no-one said it was OK to blow civilians up - though those things do tend to happen in a war, rather than in a case of 'civil unrest'.

Anyway - what policies dont add up?

Jim236 · 24-01-2011 02:18PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Seeing as it wasn't a war that isn't a problem. Just because it is not in the British governments interest for the troubles to be considered a war does not automatically make it a war.

I never said that, I was just saying you're very, very naive if you think just because the British government doesn't consider it a war, that it musn't be a war.

Your whole arguement behind saying it wasn't a war is that the paramilitaries have a vested interest in it being considered a war. Yet we know the British government have an eqaul vested interest in it not being considered a war. So what other reasons do you have for not considering the troubles a war?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Neither does fobbing off an obviously wrong report.

What puts you in ANY position to say that report was "wrong"?!

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not when one side says there was no war you don't.

lol It doesn't matter what they say politically, their military actions are all that matter when it comes down to defining what is and isn't a war.

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:19PM

Jim236 wrote: »

I never said that, I was just saying you're very, very naive if you think just because the British government doesn't consider it a war, that it musn't be a war.

Your whole arguement behind saying it wasn't a war is that the paramilitaries have a vested interest in it being considered a war. Yet we know the British government have an eqaul vested interest in it not being considered a war. So what other reasons do you have for not considering the troubles a war?

What puts you in ANY position to say that report was "wrong"?!

lol It doesn't matter what they say politically, their military actions are all that matter when it comes down to defining what is and isn't a war.

Im telling ye, its a circular argument.

Jim236 · 24-01-2011 02:20PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Now I'm sure the Hauge will be interested in your theory the British army was being the Dublin and Monaghan bombings

Well the families of those killed would definitely be interested in seeing justice for their relatives. They have evidence to show there was collusion between the UVF and British forces, and the Irish government has repeatedly called on the British government to release documents which would show the extent of collusion, but which the British government has refused to do. If, as you say, they had no part in the bombings, why would they refuse to release the documents?

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:20PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Now I'm sure the Hauge will be interested in your theory the British army was being the Dublin and Monaghan
bombings

I dont think its just Jims theory. Many have speculated on the same thing. in fact logic falls on the side of it not being the loyalists considering they didnt have the know how and never have had the know how since. The british army though, did.

Iwasfrozen · 24-01-2011 02:24PM

maccored wrote: »

I dont think its just Jims theory. Many have speculated on the same thing. in fact logic falls on the side of it not being the loyalists considering they didnt have the know how and never have had the know how since. The british army though, did.

If the IRA new how to make bombs the loyalists did as well.

maccored wrote: »

Well the families of those killed would definitely be interested in seeing justice for their relatives. They have evidence to show there was collusion between the UVF and British forces, and the Irish government has repeatedly called on the British government to release documents which would show the extent of collusion, but which the British government has refused to do. If, as you say, they had no part in the bombings, why would they refuse to release the documents?

Maybe becuase they have MI5 agents infiltrating loyalist paramilitaries? Or did you not consider that? Regardless the British army are not behind the bombings, innocent untill proven guilty and all that. Especially considering they had no motivation to kill Irish civilians.

Maj Malfunction · 24-01-2011 02:26PM

maccored wrote: »

a lot of people who have that view have never actually read SF policies. It's usually repeating what someone else has said.

For example, does the poster somewhere in this thread who was talking about Doherty burning the bond holders not realise Doherty was talking about the bank debt that has been thrown on the publics shoulders for replayment and NOT the national sovereign debt (even though the bank debt is now sovereign)?

Is doherty's suggestion *that* crazy? I dont think it is. In fact I think it makes damned good sense.

I haven't read all their policy documents or manifesto's from cover to cover but I do listen to the news & read newspapers like everyone else. I don't share their views so suffice to say I won't be voting for them. That's democracy :-)

Jim236 · 24-01-2011 02:26PM

I give up. Iwasfrozen, go off and get a history book, you clearly haven't a clue.

LordSutch · 24-01-2011 02:26PM

Jim236 wrote: »

I'm not disputing the British Army went in with the intention of restoring order, but thats not what ended up happening...

And the IRA went in with the intention of doing what exactly? Freeing Nationalists from their Unionist chains? fighting the Army? and then as time went by just running riot by planting bombs in pub's, busses, shopping centres, shooting people dead on the streets, car bomb's, etc etc etc.

Oh yeah, I'm sure the IRAs intentions were honourable, and they now tut tut when the new generation of RIRA hoodlums try to plant bombs. Anyway, nowadays they all wear lovely suits, the moustaches have all been shaved off & the balaclavas probably given to Oxfam for the poor people of Columbia

I wouldn't vote for Sinn Fein if they were the last people on Earth.

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:28PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If the IRA new how to make bombs the loyalists did as well.

thats pretty flawed logic. the loyalists were pretty crap at the whole bomb making thing. thats why they stick to pipebombs.

Maybe becuase they have MI5 agents infiltrating loyalist paramilitaries? Or did you not consider that? Regardless the British army are not behind the bombings, innocent untill proven guilty and all that. Especially considering they had no motivation to kill Irish civilians.

it really shows just how much attention you pay to this thread when you quote jims words, with my name.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 24-01-2011 02:28PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Especially considering they had no motivation to kill Irish civilians.

They wanted the Irish government to introduce internment

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:30PM

Maj Malfunction wrote: »

I haven't read all their policy documents or manifesto's from cover to cover but I do listen to the news & read newspapers like everyone else. I don't share their views so suffice to say I won't be voting for them. That's democracy :-)

I salute your decisions, but I question your logic. newspapers and tv arent the place to get unbiased information on political parties. still - I suppose thats how this country has managed to vote FF in for the last couple of elections.

Hannibal · 24-01-2011 02:32PM

maccored wrote: »

I dont think its just Jims theory. Many have speculated on the same thing. in fact logic falls on the side of it not being the loyalists considering they didnt have the know how and never have had the know how since. The british army though, did.

There's been many acts of collusion. Another example is the attempted bombing on Pearse Street, Dublin in 1994, when the UVF killed a doorman who stopped them arming the bomb. The UVF gang in question had amongst a well known informer and the Garda special branch on duty across the road just happened to disappear for a while aswell. No conclusive answers have ever been given on this.

Iwasfrozen · 24-01-2011 02:33PM

Jim236 wrote: »

I never said that, I was just saying you're very, very naive if you think just because the British government doesn't consider it a war, that it musn't be a war.

Your whole arguement behind saying it wasn't a war is that the paramilitaries have a vested interest in it being considered a war. Yet we know the British government have an eqaul vested interest in it not being considered a war. So what other reasons do you have for not considering the troubles a war?

Exactly saying it was a war because the British didn't want it to be a war is just silly because I can say it wasn't a war becaus ethe paramilitaries did want it to be a war.

Jim236 wrote: »

What puts you in ANY position to say that report was "wrong"?!

The million other reports I'm sure were commissioned but not realised that said it wasn't a war.

Jim236 wrote: »

lol It doesn't matter what they say politically, their military actions are all that matter when it comes down to defining what is and isn't a war.

The British were there as peace keepers. Stuck between a rock and a hard place but determined not to let NI go. Just as I would expect our army to be should Cork ever experience such troubles when it breaks away to form the People's Republic.

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:33PM

LordSutch wrote: »

I wouldn't vote for Sinn Fein if they were the last people on Earth.

that makes no sense considering your idea that if SF were the only ones to exist - surely you wouldnt, therefore you wouldnt be able to vote anyway? In fact, there'd be no need for elections.

LordSutch · 24-01-2011 02:34PM

You know what I mean :rolleyes:

Why the disregard of Sinn Féin?

Comments