Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sinn Fein- Never forget

Options
1…5681011…20

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Dotsey wrote: »


    So Sinn Féin should not be allowed into a democratic election?

    Of course they should. Have I suggested otherwise? Are you seriously trying to equate my stringent criticism of SF with an anti-democratic agenda?
    FF, FG and Labour all have a shady past and we can't keep looking into the past.

    Oh I agree. The different though, is that SF's shady past is very, very recent. Can you truly not appreciate the distinction?
    Yes McGuinness, Gerry Kelly, Pat Doherty and Martin Ferris were once leading IRA men. But look anywhere in the world and you have US Presidents who have committed far worse crimes and are never condemned,

    I condemn them. What you're basically saying is that, because some people have committed worse atrocities than the IRA and have not been condemned, that the IRA therefore should similarly escape censure? Pretty f*ked up logic if you don't mind me saying so.
    the unelected English Queen who is being celebrated this year but was head of the armed forces of many atrocities stretching back nearly 60 years.

    The most recent opinion poll in the UK had a massive majority of people in support of the monarchy, so the "unelected" bit is a red herring to be honest.

    Worse though, to insinuate that QE II had any input or say in the British army actions in Northern Ireland is ridiculous,

    Incidentally, I condemn wholeheartedly the British army for her actions in Northern Ireland. You can;t seem to bring yourself to do the same with either SF or the IRA.
    The difference with McGuinness etc is that they have faced upto the wrong doings

    They were forced to kill innocent people? Come off it.
    but crucially also understand the situation that created the mess and are working tirelessly and selflessly

    Hmm, selflessly eh? To my eyes, the likes of Adams and McGuinness are amongst the biggest winners from the peace process.
    to turn around a two sided province and are trying to build bridges between peoples and communities who have been blinded by secterian hatred for centuries. Yet somehow these same republican leaders are condemned for this

    Please...stop...with...the...deliberate...misinterpretations...

    Nobody is condemning MMG and Gerry Adams for their work in the peace process. However, their actions there doesn't absolve them or anyone else of the burden of their past actions. If I were to claim that Bertie's actions re the GFA entirely mitigated his actions in government here, or that Tony Blair's actiosn re the war in Iraq were entirely absolved because of his work in the North, I'd be ridiculed. And yet that seems to be the premise of every Sinn Fein argument.
    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Then why give warnings?

    So that they could say "well yeah, we did plant a massive bomb in the midst of civilians, but obviously we didn't mean civilian casualties".


  • Options
    #213
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Dotsey wrote: »
    Army barracks are generally well secured and difficult to get near, shopping areas can cause major commercial destruction and the costs on the state can be more severe due to lots of buildings in close proximity which is how it's a legitimate target due to costs.

    Blow 'em up at night. Simple.


  • Options
    #214
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    That was one point out of several the poster made and I was merely pointing out that it was interesting to hear some other points on it rather than the usual hsyterical screaming from some people who could give a shit about Jerry McCabe or his family but just like having a nice emotive stick to beat SF with.
    In fact talking about class, as it seems to mean so much to you, there is nothing very classy about that at all. SF seem to be the only ones with any dignity on the matter. As soon as he was killed they condemned it outright and left his family to grieve unlike FF, FG, Lab etc..who like to drag his name up every time it looks like people might actually be beginning to listen to Sinn Fein's message


    Let him family grieve? They pushed for his killers release and then a SF TD meet them on their release and shock their hands. That shows great dignity right there alright.


  • Options
    #215
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    K-9 wrote: »
    Things can go wrong with bombs to state the obvious, they can go off prematurely, incorrect warnings can be given, unclear warnings, police mishear, takes too long to clear etc. That's the problem with bombs in shopping areas. If you think a shopping centre is a legitimate target, fair enough, I'd have thought an army barracks would make more sense but there you are.

    I have said it twice so you know right well that the issue here is whether or not the IRA targeted civilians. I've pointed out that they didnt so now you've moved onto something else. What was or wasnt a legitimate target is a different discussion altogether, and one I'll be happy to have but dont pretend that's what we were talking about.
    As for blowing up economic targets in England, I felt that was fair game. If England is going to occupy Irish territory they have to deal with the consequences. It's pretty clear that the british government could care less about soldiers being blown up so the IRA hit them where it hurt, their pocket.


  • Options
    #216
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Also: Enniskillen, Kingsmill, Bayardo Bar attack...just three of may IRA attacks in which civilians were deliberately targeted, or the IRA just didn't give a sh*t that civilians would be murdered as part of the attack.

    I'm sure though, we'll get the usual mealy mothed explanations of their murders.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    I have said it twice so you know right well that the issue here is whether or not the IRA targeted civilians. I've pointed out that they didnt so now you've moved onto something else. What was or wasnt a legitimate target is a different discussion altogether, and one I'll be happy to have but dont pretend that's what we were talking about.
    As for blowing up economic targets in England, I felt that was fair game. If England is going to occupy Irish territory they have to deal with the consequences. It's pretty clear that the british government could care less about soldiers being blown up so the IRA hit them where it hurt, their pocket.

    Explain Kingsmill.


  • Options
    #218
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Then why give warnings?
    A fig-leaf? Why plant the bombs in civilian areas at all?

    It's the terrorist equivalent of a kid milling his arms at another kid and walking towards them, warning them that if they get hit, it's the other kid's fault.


  • Options
    #219
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    realies wrote: »
    As SF rise & rise in the country's political arena,You can expect much more scutinity and hyterical threads like this one here. Bit like the time when MMG decided to run in the presidential race, I don't mind the scrutiny but its the complete one sided view of some of the posters here re the troubles/war/terrorism etc that happened in the last 3/4 decades,

    Never forget http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=dublin%20bombing%20commeration%202012&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGEQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dublinmonaghanbombings.org%2Fnews.html&ei=lxHFT6TYC5CLhQed0tiUCg&usg=AFQjCNGLofPrelekxsgl84wGKkqJz2oV1w

    I think sinn feins so called rise is greatly over estimated, with the current econmic crisis in the republic and the collapse of fina foil sinn fein had a golden oppunity to capitalise they manages a paltry 14 seats, if that's all the can manage in a crisis and with the protest votes when normal politics resumes I expect sinn feins vote to decline


  • Options
    #220
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    Let him family grieve? They pushed for his killers release and then a SF TD meet them on their release and shock their hands. That shows great dignity right there alright.

    SF pushed for the full implementation of the GFA. It had difficult bits for everybody. such is the nature of compromise.


  • Options
    #221
    Hannibal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,815 ✭✭✭Hannibal


    Einhard wrote: »
    Of course they should. Have I suggested otherwise? Are you seriously trying to equate my stringent criticism of SF with an anti-democratic agenda?

    Oh I agree. The different though, is that SF's shady past is very, very recent. Can you truly not appreciate the distinction?

    I condemn them. What you're basically saying is that, because some people have committed worse atrocities than the IRA and have not been condemned, that the IRA therefore should similarly escape censure? Pretty f*ked up logic if you don't mind me saying so.

    The most recent opinion poll in the UK had a massive majority of people in support of the monarchy, so the "unelected" bit is a red herring to be honest.

    Worse though, to insinuate that QE II had any input or say in the British army actions in Northern Ireland is ridiculous,

    Incidentally, I condemn wholeheartedly the British army for her actions in Northern Ireland. You can;t seem to bring yourself to do the same with either SF or the IRA.



    They were forced to kill innocent people? Come off it.



    Hmm, selflessly eh? To my eyes, the likes of Adams and McGuinness are amongst the biggest winners from the peace process.



    Please...stop...with...the...deliberate...misinterpretations...

    Nobody is condemning MMG and Gerry Adams for their work in the peace process. However, their actions there doesn't absolve them or anyone else of the burden of their past actions. If I were to claim that Bertie's actions re the GFA entirely mitigated his actions in government here, or that Tony Blair's actiosn re the war in Iraq were entirely absolved because of his work in the North, I'd be ridiculed. And yet that seems to be the premise of every Sinn Fein argument.



    So that they could say "well yeah, we did plant a massive bomb in the midst of civilians, but obviously we didn't mean civilian casualties".
    Einhard wrote: »
    Blow 'em up at night. Simple.
    Yep simple and simplistic pretty much like your whole post. Not a lot of understanding about the causes of war and how to end war and not a lot of political realism to be honest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Warrington was part of a campaign to bring the war to England, and a bloody welcome one at that.

    You welcomed killing people in England, is that what you are saying there?


  • Options
    #223
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Dotsey wrote: »
    Yep simple and simplistic pretty much like your whole post. Not a lot of understanding about the causes of war and how to end war and not a lot of political realism to be honest.

    I gave a detailed rebutall of your post; you don't even attampt to address my points, and yet have the audacity to accuse my response as simple? Answer my points; if you don't I'll safely assume that you can't.


  • Options
    #224
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    LordSutch wrote: »
    You welcomed killing people in England, is that what you are saying there?

    I welcomed the bombing of the country that was the root cause of the problem instead of blowing up Irish towns and cities.


  • Options
    #225
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Einhard wrote: »
    people down south are obviously going to be more preoccupied with Sinn fein because it's SF on the posters outise their doors, SF canvassers asking for their vote, and SF seeking to represent them

    Fair point but SF was an all island party with a unification agenda at the time of the GFA so people really shouldn't be too surprised that they try to expand their influence on an all island basis.
    It's the same with the GFA. Many people voted for it almost under protest. They disliked its provisions, but the alternative was far worse.

    Yes, it must have been extremely difficult for people who lost innocent loved ones in the conflict. I can only imagine how painful it was to vote for something that secured the release of someone who killed a family member.
    That surely doesn't mean that, after accepting the lesser of evils, they should embrace the very people who perpetrated that very evil.

    I'm not sure SF are asking people to embrace them at the door but I take your points.


  • Options
    #226
    Hannibal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,815 ✭✭✭Hannibal


    Einhard wrote: »
    I gave a detailed rebutall of your post; you don't even attampt to address my points, and yet have the audacity to accuse my response as simple? Answer my points; if you don't I'll safely assume that you can't.
    They're not even points worth engaging in to be honest, it's mostly simplistic blinkered nonsense.


  • Options
    #227
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    Fair point but SF was an all island party with a unification agenda at the time of the GFA so people really shouldn't be too surprised that they try to expand their influence on an all island basis.

    Oh I'm not, and I don't blame them. Indeed, my attitude to SF has softened somewhat over the past few years as they've welcomed an influx of new faces untainted by association with the Troubles. If a SF canvasser darkens my door, I'll outline politely why i think their economic policies are bonkers and likely not even mention the Troubles. It's only in debates, either here or in person, with people who, to my mind, seek to downplay, deny, obfuscate, defend the murder of innocent civilians that my ire is drawn. As I mentioned earlier, I could see myself consdiring a SF vote in maybe 10-15 years, once the likes of MMG and Ferris have left the party, and their renunciation of violence has been tested by time.


    Yes, it must have been extremely difficult for people who lost innocent loved ones in the conflict. I can only imagine how painful it was to vote for something that secured the release of someone who killed a family member.

    Yes, but I don't think such reservations were confined merely to those directly affected by the Troubles.


  • Options
    #228
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Einhard wrote: »
    Explain Kingsmill.

    Kingsmill has been talked about earlier. It's well known that it was not sanctioned by the IRA Army Council and was carried out by a group of local volunteers acting of their own accord. The IRA has stood whole brigades down for such activity such is their opposition to it (eg, the brigade that planted enniskillen bomb)
    Kingsmill was also carried out at a time when loyalists were engaging in random killing sprees across south armagh and was a desperate attempt by those local volunteers to protect their community by showing they would repay such actions.
    Before you calling calling me an apologist I will once again stress that this does not make it ok and I totally and unreservedly condemn kingsmill.
    You asked me to explain it and there it is.


  • Options
    #229
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    I welcomed the bombing of the country that was the root cause of the problem instead of blowing up Irish towns and cities.

    What an ignorant and ill infommed little rant ^ That is a disgraceful thing to say, have you no morals?


  • Options
    #230
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Dotsey wrote: »
    They're not even points worth engaging in to be honest, it's mostly simplistic blinkered nonsense.

    I've re-read my post, and to be honest, I think you're talking nonsense here. It's patently not blinkered, and it's not simplistic. It's not what you want to here obviously, but then the nature of debates is engaging constructively with those who hold different opinions. That, unfortunately, seems to be beyond you.

    Just to note: you insinuated that I wanted SF out of democratic elections. I countered that I had said no such thing. You have not provided any evidence to back up your initial assertion. Indeed, you have ignored my response entirely. You made something up. You were called on it. And you refused to respond. Which of us is simplistic again?

    You then sought to equate the lack of condemnation of US presidents with blood on their hands with the condeemnation here of IRA members with blood on their hand.

    I stated that I condemn both. I pointed out that you were insinuating that the IRA should get away with criticism because, in your opinion, others have gotten away with their crimes. I pointed out what a ridiculous notion that is. I answered your shoddy analogy honestly and fairly. And you simply ignored the response.

    Finally, you lied'misprepresented a position again. You claimed that the criticism levelled against SF here is directed at their work in the peace process. I pointed out that that is manifestly not the case. Instead of finding the posts which would readily prove me wrong, you again ignored my response.

    All my responses were considered and thought-through. Two of yours at least were deliberate misprepresentations at the very least. Your response was a three line ad hominem which shirked any attempt to address my points. And you claim that my post was simplistic? Incredible. If you don;t wish to partake in a debate, then it's probably best just to stand apart altogether, rather than raise points and then respond in such a puerile manner when you are called on them.


  • Options
    #231
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    LordSutch wrote: »
    What an ignorant and ill infommed little rant ^ That is a disgraceful thing to say, have you no morals?

    There was a war going on and bombs in England drew the attention of English people to what their government was doing in Ireland. Bombs or shootings in Ireland barely made the news over there, they caused the problem so they were going to have to deal with it.
    I never said it was nice or pleasant but as a military tactic it made sense and as soon as larger bombs started wrecking england's financial centres the brits got their arses to the negotiating table fairly sharpish. Sad but true, it's the only way to deal with them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Kingsmill has been talked about earlier. It's well known that it was not sanctioned by the IRA Army Council and was carried out by a group of local volunteers acting of their own accord. The IRA has stood whole brigades down for such activity such is their opposition to it (eg, the brigade that planted enniskillen bomb)
    Did the IRA bring the perpetrators to justice? Real armies generally punish their troops for murdering civilians.


  • Options
    #233
    junder
    Registered Users Posts: 2,706 ✭✭✭junder


    The Odd thing about the while Garda McCabe thing is that according to the pira's own green book, murder of Irish state forces by an Ira activist is actully punshiable by death, and yet here we have sinn fein members meeting two people that by the Ira's own rules were guilty of serious breaches of ira law


  • Options
    #234
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Kingsmill has been talked about earlier. It's well known that it was not sanctioned by the IRA Army Council and was carried out by a group of local volunteers acting of their own accord. The IRA has stood whole brigades down for such activity such is their opposition to it (eg, the brigade that planted enniskillen bomb)
    Kingsmill was also carried out at a time when loyalists were engaging in random killing sprees across south armagh and was a desperate attempt by those local volunteers to protect their community by showing they would repay such actions.
    Before you calling calling me an apologist I will once again stress that this does not make it ok and I totally and unreservedly condemn kingsmill.
    You asked me to explain it and there it is.

    Ah, beginning to see a trend here...

    IRA plants bombs in a busy street packed with civilians...civilians rather predictably die...not the IRA's fault...blame the Brits for not getting people away...

    IRA shoots dead Protesetant workmen on their way home from work...IRA absolved of responsibility...by the IRA...

    It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. We are supposed to take the word of the IRA as definitive on matters of murder concerning the IRA? I'm sure if the British Army were to start claiming that their agents who colluded with Loyalist terrorists were rogue elements, you'd laugh in their face. And yet, when it comes to the IRA, your default position is to trust the word of the IRA on their guilt or otherwise. It's truly remarkable. What next- ask Larry Murphy whether he was actually guilty of those nasty things people said about him??


  • Options
    #235
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Did the IRA bring the perpetrators to justice? Real armies generally punish their troops for murdering civilians.

    As i said, the IRA have stood whole brigades down and expelled volunteers for such actions before. As for this particular case I dont know, I am not privy to every decision ever made by the Army Council. I certainly hope so though.


  • Options
    #236
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Kingsmill was also carried out at a time when loyalists were engaging in random killing sprees across south armagh and was a desperate attempt by those local volunteers to protect their community by showing they would repay such actions.

    The different between you and me in this, is that I condemn the Loyalist terror groups and the Republican terro groups for their sundry massacres and atrocities, whereas you seek only to absolve the IRA of their responsibility. Kingmill was rogue, Enniskillen was rogue, anything that should shame the IRA is rogue...how bloody convenient.


  • Options
    #237
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Did the IRA bring the perpetrators to justice? Real armies generally punish their troops for murdering civilians.

    Do they though, how many troops were punished after Bloody Sunday for example?


  • Options
    #238
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    guinnessdrinker wrote: »
    Do they though, how many troops were punished after Bloody Sunday for example?

    And when people condemned the British army and, even 30 years later, demaned some accountability, were the likes of Dotsey and Crookedjack telling them to shut up and move on and stop living in the past as they are wont to do when it comes to IRA atrocities?


  • Options
    #239
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    I have said it twice so you know right well that the issue here is whether or not the IRA targeted civilians. I've pointed out that they didnt so now you've moved onto something else. What was or wasnt a legitimate target is a different discussion altogether, and one I'll be happy to have but dont pretend that's what we were talking about.
    As for blowing up economic targets in England, I felt that was fair game. If England is going to occupy Irish territory they have to deal with the consequences. It's pretty clear that the british government could care less about soldiers being blown up so the IRA hit them where it hurt, their pocket.

    The inherent risk of bombing economic targets is a loss of civilian life. You originally said they didn't target civilians, the problem is their choice of economic targets made it unavoidable there would be civilian targets.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #240
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    There was a war going on and bombs in England drew the attention of English people to what their government was doing in Ireland. Bombs or shootings in Ireland barely made the news over there, they caused the problem so they were going to have to deal with it.
    I never said it was nice or pleasant but as a military tactic it made sense and as soon as larger bombs started wrecking england's financial centres the brits got their arses to the negotiating table fairly sharpish. Sad but true, it's the only way to deal with them.

    The Provisional IRA took it upon themselves to wage a Terrorist campaign on anybody and everybody who got in their way, they were the enemy within this state, they were the enemy in the North, and they were the enemy in Britain. War was never declared by the Irish people against the British people, and neither did Ireland declare war on Britain (and/or England). The Provisional IRA was a prerscribed Terrorist organisation which caused terrible hurt to many people on these two islands, they were the scourge of this island and Britain, they gave Irish people a bad name, and they put back any chance of reconcilliation between the different traditions on this island by decades - Those two sentences of yours really are a disgrace, specially considering the loss of life, and I am not even sure if you should be allowed to openly say that?

    What do you say K9.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Einhard wrote: »
    Ah, beginning to see a trend here...

    IRA plants bombs in a busy street packed with civilians...civilians rather predictably die...not the IRA's fault...blame the Brits for not getting people away...

    IRA shoots dead Protesetant workmen on their way home from work...IRA absolved of responsibility...by the IRA...

    It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. We are supposed to take the word of the IRA as definitive on matters of murder concerning the IRA? I'm sure if the British Army were to start claiming that their agents who colluded with Loyalist terrorists were rogue elements, you'd laugh in their face. And yet, when it comes to the IRA, your default position is to trust the word of the IRA on their guilt or otherwise. It's truly remarkable. What next- ask Larry Murphy whether he was actually guilty of those nasty things people said about him??

    I think you'll find I just looked at the facts. We were discussing whether or not the IRA targeted civilians and I was pointing out that this would be nonsensical as it would not further their goals and would cause them to lose support. They also gave warnings, which would be pointless if civilians were the target and I suspect that if they were the number of civilian deaths would be much higher. In fact in the first chapter of Tim Pat Coogan's The IRA, he says that one of the overriding factors of the IRA's whole campaign was a reluctance to "go for the jugular" (his term) and just kill as many people as possible. End result, the IRA did not target civilians and no amount of twisting my words will make it so they did.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement