Why the disregard of Sinn Féin?

Iwasfrozen · 24-01-2011 02:36PM

Jim236 wrote: »

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

I'm off to Eason's to buy "Republicanism for dummies"

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:36PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

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.

Oh my god. If you really believe the bit in bold then I don't know what to say.

Hannibal · 24-01-2011 02:37PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Especially considering they had no motivation to kill Irish civilians.

What about the Springhill massacre when a British army sniper shot a 13 year old girl dead and then killed the parish priest and a passer by who rushed to her aid, the priest was waving a white cloth by the way.

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:37PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm off to Eason's to buy "Republicanism for dummies"

Clearly there is a need for such a publication.

Iwasfrozen · 24-01-2011 02:37PM

maccored wrote: »

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.

I'm sure if they were the last people on earth they's split up into smaller parties.

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:38PM

Dotsey wrote: »

What about the Springhill massacre when a British army sniper shot a 13 year old girl and then killed the parish priest and a passer by who rushed to her aid, the priest was waving a white cloth by the way.

Aidan McAnespie is another

maccored · 24-01-2011 02:39PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm sure if they were the last people on earth they's split up into smaller parties.

thats just plain silly. and it doesnt make a lick of sense. Thirdly, its off topic.

Hannibal · 24-01-2011 02:40PM

maccored wrote: »

Aidan McAnespie is another

also the Ballymurphy massacre is another. There are over 400 murder attributed to the British army during the troubles

LordSutch · 24-01-2011 03:46PM

Dotsey wrote: »

also the Ballymurphy massacre is another. There are over 400 murders attributed to the British army during the troubles

Would you care to elaborate?

danbohan · 24-01-2011 03:51PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Would you care to elaborate?

murders by the british army , seems simple enough or can you not bring yourself to think such a thing ?

LordSutch · 24-01-2011 03:52PM

400 'murders' ???

maccored · 24-01-2011 04:06PM

i would say at least. Not unless you reckon the british army cant/never murdered anyone in the north. All made up by the nationalists I suppose?

PatsytheNazi · 24-01-2011 04:16PM

Jim236 wrote: »

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

With the British army's past record of "restoring order" in Ireland, India, etc right up today in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would have thought anyone who thinks that they could possibly have any sort of sincerity would have to be a member of the Tory party or something.

Sinderella · 24-01-2011 04:22PM

The British Army did a great job of "peace keeping" in the Bogside :rolleyes:

Given that it took the British government 38 years to apologise for those 14 unjustifiable killings, I doubt we will see them admit to or apologise for many more, not in my life time. With their history of "losing" evidence and concocting lies, it would be next to impossible.

LordSutch · 24-01-2011 04:27PM

maccored wrote: »

i would say at least. Not unless you reckon the british army cant/never murdered anyone in the north. All made up by the nationalists I suppose?

In the absence of facts, I guess those 400 'murders' include IRA volunteers who were on bombing missions, what you guys call (active service)!

Still waiting . . . . . .

maccored · 24-01-2011 04:29PM

LordSutch wrote: »

In the absence of facts, I guess those 400 'murders' included IRA volunteers who were on bombing missions, or what you guys call (active service)!

Still waiting . . . . . .

Im not your babysitter or private educator. The info is out there if you can bothered finding it. Just because you cant or wont find it, doesnt mean the british havent infact been involved in numerous murders of innocents in the north.

Liam Byrne · 24-01-2011 04:35PM

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.

Assuming that your original stance is that it was a war, and not a terrorist campaign.

Jim236 wrote: »

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.

But you are making the assumption that it's OK to consider it a war, in order to expand from that original - flawed - stance.

Jim236 wrote: »

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?

This is another area where SF confuse me.

As I've said, it's not my standards that count; if someone has different standards then as long as they are consistent I'll agree to disagree.

However SF are the very ones who scream about those killings and yet excuse IRA ones as "accidents".

Jim236 wrote: »

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.

No, the hypocrisy is that SF demand justice for the ones that they see as wrong and then excuse the ones that they object to or that they'll score political points from.

IRA murders were "mistakes" or were "because the North's security forces colluded" or "because they didn't act in time" or whatever.....it's never laying blame where blame lies, but British Army actions are always despicable, with no caveats or acknowledgement of similar "mistakes" ?

I mean, if you're going around claiming that it was a war, shouldn't you be the one to accept the British Army actions as acceptable in time of war ?

Personally I don't care whether SF view all actions as acceptable in their "war" or all actions as unacceptable because it wasn't a war, but they can't have it both ways, which is usually the way they seem to want it.

I can bring myself to vote for someone I disagree with as long as their stance is consistent. SF's isn't.

LordSutch · 24-01-2011 04:37PM

maccored wrote: »

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.

I'm just surprised to learn that the army murdered 400 people during the troubles.

I never knew that before, and I'm shocked, but I also suspect that IRA 'combatants' are being included in this figure?

danbohan · 24-01-2011 04:48PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Assuming that your original stance is that it was a war, and not a terrorist campaign.

But you are making the assumption that it's OK to consider it a war, in order to expand from that original - flawed - stance.

This is another area where SF confuse me.

As I've said, it's not my standards that count; if someone has different standards then as long as they are consistent I'll agree to disagree.

However SF are the very ones who scream about those killings and yet excuse IRA ones as "accidents".

No, the hypocrisy is that SF demand justice for the ones that they see as wrong and then excuse the ones that they object to or that they'll score political points from.

IRA murders were "mistakes" or were "because the North's security forces colluded" or "because they didn't act in time" or whatever.....it's never laying blame where blame lies, but British Army actions are always despicable, with no caveats or acknowledgement of similar "mistakes" ?

I mean, if you're going around claiming that it was a war, shouldn't you be the one to accept the British Army actions as acceptable in time of war ?

Personally I don't care whether SF view all actions as acceptable in their "war" or all actions as unacceptable because it wasn't a war, but they can't have it both ways, which is usually the way they seem to want it.

I can bring myself to vote for someone I disagree with as long as their stance is consistent. SF's isn't.

because it wasn't a war

glad you think so, i am sure from your pram in limerick it did not appear so and it was pretty safe place , for those of us who lived in northern ireland in 70s 80s it appeared very much like a war to us .

danbohan · 24-01-2011 04:56PM

LordSutch wrote: »

I'm just surprised to learn that the army murdered 400 people during the troubles.

I never knew that before, and I'm shocked, but I also suspect that IRA 'combatants' are being included in this figure?

it might even include people killed by loyalist paramilitary facilitated , equipped ,and trained by the british army but then that will shock you even more !

GuanYin · 24-01-2011 04:57PM

We are enforcing a zero tolerance moderation stance on SF/NI/IRA themed threads, effective immediately.

Please be sure to read the charter before posting and ensure you maintain a civil discourse

Anyone who breaches the forum rules on these threads or who is especially disruptive, will be removed from the forum

maccored · 24-01-2011 04:58PM

LordSutch wrote: »

I'm just surprised to learn that the army murdered 400 people during the troubles.

I never knew that before, and I'm shocked, but I also suspect that IRA 'combatants' are being included in this figure?

In all honesty, there were a lot of people killed by the army and SAS, and many of them were not involved in any movement. Yer man Stone even admitted how the RUC set him up so he could kill a catholic van driver. Admittedly, yes, the number may be a mixture of army/udr/ruc - but really, its all the same thing as they were all under the control of the british government.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 24-01-2011 05:40PM

danbohan wrote: »

it might even include people killed by loyalist paramilitary facilitated , equipped ,and trained by the british army but then that will shock you even more !

No it couldn't include that because they killed over 1000 people, 80%+ were civillians who weren't even in Sinn Fein

KeithAFC · 24-01-2011 05:53PM

maccored wrote: »

Oh my god. If you really believe the bit in bold then I don't know what to say.

That is exactly what the British Army was sent in to do. After Loyalist homes were getting attacked and thus ardoyne paid the price, by being burned to the ground, the British Army came in and republicans were happy to see them. Even give them food and all sorts.

lugha · 24-01-2011 06:21PM

Jim236 wrote: »

They have evidence to show there was collusion between the UVF and British forces

Collusion? You have consistently argued on this thread that a war raged through the troubles. Well if it was a war, then what was amiss about the regulars of the BA and the irregulars of the loyalist paramilitaries forming military alliances? And a similar problem arises when complaints are made about shoot to kill policies, Loughgall, Gibraltar etc. Republicans want to argue that they were fighting a war but the British should abide by the normal peacetime policing rules.

Was it a war? Well a more important question to ask is, did republicans have authority to engage in war? Nationalists wanted, and still want, an end to British rule in Ireland, but the vast, vast majority of them made clear that such an end should be brought about by peaceful means only. The IRA treated the will of the people with contempt, and Sinn Fein defended this and continue to do so.

Which, to bring us back to the OP, is a major factor in why many would never consider voting for SF.

24-01-2011 06:23PM

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)

your comparing the abduction and murder of a mother to what would be in modern times the assassination of MI5 or even MI6 agents

LOL

Dont even compare the old IRA with the Provos, the old IRA actually fought engagements with military units while 99% of the time the provos bombed shopping centers

The reason Sinn Fein are disregarded is because they are linked with a terrorist campaign of murder - they arent linked with brave freedom fighters who stood and fought.

And the British army arent standing for election (lol) so they arent relevant to this thread
I dont think its important whether people agree or disagree on if it was a war or not (i think the British were stupid not to call it a war) but whats important is the conduct of both Sinn Fein and the IRA during the period - and thats where you`ll find people who wont vote for Sinn Fein.

Mind you Sinn Fein in recent times have been stealing the show from Labour and FG in challenging FF and the Greens in Government. In time when the current senior batch (some of those with blood on their hands) are retired from the party the votes will increase.

danbohan · 24-01-2011 07:01PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

That is exactly what the British Army was sent in to do. After Loyalist homes were getting attacked and thus ardoyne paid the price, by being burned to the ground, the British Army came in and republicans were happy to see them. Even give them food and all sorts.

of course the entire troubles in northern ireland should be blamed on nationalists , if they had not looked for their basic human rights in 1968/69 their would have no problems at all and northern ireland would still a great place and none them their fenians about the place at all .

wee truck big driver · 24-01-2011 07:24PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Dont even compare the old IRA with the Provos, the old IRA actually fought engagements with military units while 99% of the time the provos bombed shopping centers

99% of the time they bombed shopping centres would you care to back this up with some facts anything even make up something it should be interesting and your right the provos turned into a much more effective force than the old ira and they were fighting against the might of the british army who by now werent spread all over the world and where trying to hang on to the last remains of their empire. they bravely fought against one of the richest armies in the world and strong propaganda from the brits and irsh goverment who were even more afraid of the ira than the brits where a lot of these men and women who joined knew they would die for their cause (and they did) they knew that they would not get the recognition they deserved but they fought for their country because it was the right thing to do

maccored · 24-01-2011 09:05PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

That is exactly what the British Army was sent in to do. After Loyalist homes were getting attacked and thus ardoyne paid the price, by being burned to the ground, the British Army came in and republicans were happy to see them. Even give them food and all sorts.

yes, nationalists even made them tea etc - thats true. it all changed though when the army started to help out the loyalists in thei anti catholic stances though.

the soldiers I met growing up - including the ones that - off duty - chased me down omagh high street shouting 'i'll kill you you ****ing taigue' werent trying to help me - believe me.

maccored · 24-01-2011 09:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

your comparing the abduction and murder of a mother to what would be in modern times the assassination of MI5 or even MI6 agents

LOL

Dont even compare the old IRA with the Provos, the old IRA actually fought engagements with military units while 99% of the time the provos bombed shopping centers

The reason Sinn Fein are disregarded is because they are linked with a terrorist campaign of murder - they arent linked with brave freedom fighters who stood and fought.

And the British army arent standing for election (lol) so they arent relevant to this thread
I dont think its important whether people agree or disagree on if it was a war or not (i think the British were stupid not to call it a war) but whats important is the conduct of both Sinn Fein and the IRA during the period - and thats where you`ll find people who wont vote for Sinn Fein.

Mind you Sinn Fein in recent times have been stealing the show from Labour and FG in challenging FF and the Greens in Government. In time when the current senior batch (some of those with blood on their hands) are retired from the party the votes will increase.

im sorry, but thats rose tinted waffle. the 'old' ira fought as hard as the pira ever did.

Why the disregard of Sinn Féin?

Comments