Sinn Fein/IRA members found with list of TDs

Rock Climber

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

man-slaughterers

= slaughterers of a man=slaughter=killed a man

lost me there, sorry!

sixth commandment(if the "castlerea five" are catholics or christians of some sort) Thou shalt not Kill
The Eight is Thou shalt not steal
The " Castlerea five" as you like to fashion them did both unlike the Birmingham six who actually were the victims of a travesty of justice and who did neither.

Now come back into the light Rockclimber and tell how we develop a stable society in Northern Ireland without compromise and agreement

I'll assume you're not advocating terror as a means of getting your will implimented over and above the democratic wishes of the vast majority of people.
To turn your question around, in 2004 if there had been no IRA campaign, what would you expect would be the situation ?
All that is happening now is one man one vote is bringing in a representative government, but not a united Ireland( the stated aim of the IRA ) The united Ireland still wont come untill a majority voted for it.
So basically what was it all for??
Bearing in mind that the 30 years of violence brought nothing but 1000's of deaths misery and bedlam.

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

sixth commandment(if the "castlerea five" are catholics or christians of some sort) Thou shalt not Kill
The Eight is Thou shalt not steal
The " Castlerea five" as you like to fashion them did both unlike the Birmingham six who actually were the victims of a travesty of justice and who did neither..

who gives a **** what the ten commandments say

Rock Climber wrote:

I'll assume you're not advocating terror as a means of getting your will implimented over and above the democratic wishes of the vast majority of people.
To turn your question around, in 2004 if there had been no IRA campaign, what would you expect would be the situation ?
All that is happening now is one man one vote is bringing in a representative government, but not a united Ireland( the stated aim of the IRA ) The united Ireland still wont come untill a majority voted for it.
So basically what was it all for??
Bearing in mind that the 30 years of violence brought nothing but 1000's of deaths misery and bedlam.

You gave the answer yourself one person one vote
no gerrymandering
nationalists and unionists sharing power(not a protestant government for a protestant people)
All ireland institutions
anti discrimination legislation
the beginning of a representative police force
It's not a united Ireland your right but that does not mean that nothing has been achieved

your not happy that people are trying to negoiate a settlement
your suggesting that the IRA has not achieved its aims yet and should resume military action untill they have forced the british army out of Ireland

Rock Climber

cdebru wrote:

your not happy that people are trying to negoiate a settlement
your suggesting that the IRA has not achieved its aims yet and should resume military action untill they have forced the british army out of Ireland

I defy you to show me where I said all that in my post :rolleyes:

who gives a **** what the ten commandments say

and are you justifying killing and stealing by that comment?
Do you not see the hypocrisy in what you've said there when, Republicans proclaim that unionists never wanted a catholic about the place...
To be a practising catholic, I'd assume Killing and stealing would be ruled out.

My point anyway wasn't a religous one, it was simply to counter the venoration that calling the McCabe killers the "castlerea five" was doing.
The Birmingham six deserved that type of attention as they were innocent whereas the McCabe killers were guilty of Killing Garda McCabe and furthermore were expressly ruled out of the early release terms of the GFA during the negotiations.

You gave the answer yourself one person one vote
no gerrymandering
nationalists and unionists sharing power(not a protestant government for a protestant people)
All ireland institutions
anti discrimination legislation
the beginning of a representative police force
It's not a united Ireland your right but that does not mean that nothing has been achieved

You've avoided my point.
Would all have that have came without an IRA? Given that without an IRA, there would have been no impediment to catholics joining the police.
Anti discrimination laws came to the south without any gun.

What possible justification was there for all the killing and bombing or do you seriously reckon that none of these things would have came by 2004 without the bombing and the killing.??

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

= slaughterers of a man=slaughter=killed a man

sixth commandment(if the "castlerea five" are catholics or christians of some sort) Thou shalt not Kill
The Eight is Thou shalt not steal
The " Castlerea five" as you like to fashion them did both unlike the Birmingham six who actually were the victims of a travesty of justice and who did neither.

Eh... Every government, group and person breaks one or more of the ten commandments. They are an irrelevance as most devout and not so devout christians will ignore them anyway!! There is only right and wrong

I'll assume you're not advocating terror as a means of getting your will implimented over and above the democratic wishes of the vast majority of people.
To turn your question around, in 2004 if there had been no IRA campaign, what would you expect would be the situation ?
All that is happening now is one man one vote is bringing in a representative government, but not a united Ireland( the stated aim of the IRA ) The united Ireland still wont come untill a majority voted for it.
So basically what was it all for??
Bearing in mind that the 30 years of violence brought nothing but 1000's of deaths misery and bedlam.

does any of that actually address the question put

Victor

Meh wrote:

If they're so peaceful what are they doing with "a sledgehammer, two pick axe handles, 8 bags of ties, radios, a black balaclava, rubber gloves and a yellow flurorescent Garda jacket, false number plates, a stun gun, CS gas and a roll of black tape"?

"Make and Do" for the kiddies?

Victor

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

That would be me... since when do dogs talk

The reference is to a quote by Martin McGuinness (?) about 1993.

Rock Climber

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Eh... Every government, group and person breaks one or more of the ten commandments. They are an irrelevance as most devout and not so devout christians will ignore them anyway!! There is only right and wrong

I only mentioned the commandments in the context that they are a central tenet of the religion that Republicans tend to defend...
The only two I mentioned are the only two that I'm aware of that there are laws against in this country.

As regards lawbreaking, it's wrong, no matter who does it, T.D, priest or IRA member, n'est pas?

does any of that actually address the question put

Of course it does,try some lateral thinking!
I questioned cdebru's logic that violence[read: mahem and murder] brought us to where we are,I questioned it by asking seriously would we not have got here sooner without it.
At no point did I say the process through which we have gone to stop the IRA campaign was wrong, just the IRA's campaign itself.

Do you see where I'm coming from?
I questioned it as a justification

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

I defy you to show me where I said all that in my post.

:rolleyes:
implication

Rock Climber wrote:

and are you justifying killing and stealing by that comment?
Do you not see the hypocrisy in what you've said there when, Republicans proclaim that unionists never wanted a catholic about the place...
To be a practising catholic, I'd assume Killing and stealing would be ruled out..??

No I 'm saying I dont give a f*ck what you think a sin is
they are in prison because what they did was illegal under the laws of the 26 counties
nothing to do with your religious sh*te
and in anyway killing or stealing is not ruled out by catholicism

Rock Climber wrote:

My point anyway wasn't a religous one, it was simply to counter the venoration that calling the McCabe killers the "castlerea five" was doing.
The Birmingham six deserved that type of attention as they were innocent whereas the McCabe killers were guilty of Killing Garda McCabe and furthermore were expressly ruled out of the early release terms of the GFA during the negotiations..??

sinnfein would dispute that as do the ulster unionists

Rock Climber wrote:

You've avoided my point.
Would all have that have came without an IRA? Given that without an IRA, there would have been no impediment to catholics joining the police.
Anti discrimination laws came to the south without any gun..??

well in 1969 there was no sign that anything in the north was going to change
it hadn't changed for the previous 50 years and there was nothing to suggest that the stormont government was about to change it ways
the modest demands of the civil rights movement led to them being beaten off the streets and the pogroms against nationalist areas of belfast
catholics had not joined the police in any numbers in the previous 50 years
when did anti discrimination laws come to the south and how quickly would they have come to the north in the face of unionist opposition

Rock Climber wrote:

What possible justification was there for all the killing and bombing or do you seriously reckon that none of these things would have came by 2004 without the bombing and the killing.??

I seriously reckon that the people who volunteered to join the IRA and risked their lives spent years in prison and died tought that this was the only way to achieve change that the best possibility for their future lay in a united Ireland and that this was the way to achieve it
I think it is easy to be smug and say these thing would have happened anyway there is no evidence that unionist would have shared power unless they were forced to

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

I only mentioned the commandments in the context that they are a central tenet of the religion that Republicans tend to defend...

now you have justed proven you know f*uck all about republicanism
republicans defend no religion
the founder of irish republicanism was wolfe tone(a protestant)

Rock Climber wrote:

Of course it does,try some lateral thinking!
I questioned cdebru's logic that violence[read: mahem and murder] brought us to where we are,I questioned it by asking seriously would we not have got here sooner without it.
At no point did I say the process through which we have gone to stop the IRA campaign was wrong, just the IRA's campaign itself.

Do you see where I'm coming from?
I questioned it as a justification

of course we are where we are now because of the IRA like it or not
would the british and irish government be spending so much time trying to sort out the north if there had not been an IRA campaign
NO

Victor

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

http://www.coiste.ie/castlerea.htm

"Castlera Five" Photo caption.

Rock Climber

cdebru wrote:

well in 1969 .........

Yeah the Berlin wall was still up then too :rolleyes:

when did anti discrimination laws come to the south and how quickly would they have come to the north in the face of unionist opposition

I'll let you google, for a history of anti discrimination laws in the 26 counties but I do know , those that came after 1969 came without violence and with the times as did the falling of the Berlin wall.
Do you seriously think that the descrimination of 1960's and 1970's NI would have survived to todays times and E.U law? ( we joined that in 1973 )

I seriously reckon that the people who volunteered to join the IRA and risked their lives spent years in prison and died tought that this was the only way to achieve change that the best possibility for their future lay in a united Ireland and that this was the way to achieve it

I don't doubt that they did, and the fervour with which some believed this, but they were wrong, they for years enhanced the division not healed it.

Looking at what has happened in recent weeks and the possibility of Paisley in government with Sinn Féin people only proves this.
It could have been happening 20 years ago within the E.U and with so many people still alive who lost their lives so pointlessly in my view.

By the way I'm not being purposefully antagonistic here, I just have a completely opposing view to you.

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

Yeah the Berlin wall was still up then too :rolleyes: .

and your point is??

Rock Climber wrote:

I'll let you google, for a history of anti discrimination laws in the 26 counties but I do know , those that came after 1969 came without violence and with the times as did the falling of the Berlin wall.
Do you seriously think that the descrimination of 1960's and 1970's NI would have survived to todays times and E.U law? ( we joined that in 1973 ).

yes

Rock Climber wrote:

I don't doubt that they did, and the fervour with which some believed this, but they were wrong, they for years enhanced the division not healed it..

in your cosy 2004 opinion

Rock Climber wrote:

Looking at what has happened in recent weeks and the possibility of Paisley in government with Sinn Féin people only proves this.
It could have been happening 20 years ago within the E.U and with so many people still alive who lost their lives so pointlessly in my view..

no it couldn't have if there had not have been conflict the unionist would not have been forced into sharing power

Rock Climber wrote:

By the way I'm not being purposefully antagonistic here, I just have a completely opposing view to you.

as is your entitlement

Cork

Rock Climber wrote:

Looking at what has happened in recent weeks and the possibility of Paisley in government with Sinn Féin people only proves this.
It could have been happening 20 years ago within the E.U and with so many people still alive who lost their lives so pointlessly in my view.

I think that the "war" was sheer stupidity. The Kangaroo courts, punishment beatings etc did nothing to advance the unity of this country.

Past & Present members of the IRA's army council will not be made answerable for their "war".

But the situation has got to move on. But I think the Castrea 3 should be left behind bars. I also think that the SF party should stop selling IRA nick nacks - It tells alot about atitudes towards the victims of the IRA.

But above all, all IRA activity has to be stopped. If the SF and DUP party can't agree - both governments should publish the deal and let the people of NI know the story.

BuffyBot

Meh wrote:

If they're so peaceful what are they doing with "a sledgehammer, two pick axe handles, 8 bags of ties, radios, a black balaclava, rubber gloves and a yellow flurorescent Garda jacket, false number plates, a stun gun, CS gas and a roll of black tape"?

Oh look, an unanswered question just begging for an answer...

Rock Climber

cdebru wrote:

and your point is??
yes

My point was the people of Eastern Germany freed themselves from communist oppression without a German Republican Army.
It took till 1989 but it happened reasonably peacefully.

Yes

So you think that , the E.U would allow a situation up untill 2004 that people couldn't vote in NI unless they owned their own house...
IE the NI authorities would have kept that going with the acceptance of the E.U,it would have only took IRA bombing and shooting to get that?
Who are you trying to kid here?
That all other rights and entitlements of catholics in NI would have been curtailed within the E.U?
Thats a ridiculous proposition

no it couldn't have if there had not have been conflict the unionist would not have been forced into sharing power

Yes they would via democracy , when the world and the E.U forced them to grant one man one vote along with every other entitlement E.U citizens have today.

in your cosy 2004 opinion

It may be a cosy 2004 opinion, but it's an opinion shared by the vast majority of the people of Ireland who never supported the IRA campaign of violence in whose name it was wrongly being committed.

A Dub in Glasgo

BuffyBot wrote:

Oh look, an unanswered question just begging for an answer...

Halloween Party? (that is an answer but it may not be the right answer)

Cork

Rock Climber wrote:

So you think that , the E.U would allow a situation up untill 2004 that people couldn't vote in NI unless they owned their own house...
.

Don't get me wrong but th IRA put back the cause of Irish unity years. The IRA and their third rate leadership only devided the population in NI.

But at least they now accept the consent principle. It is even easty with hindsight to pin point blame. But, it was John Hume who over 30 years pointed out the stupidity of the IRA.

John Hume consistantly pointed out that violence was not the answer. The SDLP saw the merit of the EU. John Hume brought much EU investment to NI.

But alas, certain people in NI believed in the policy of the aramite & the ballot box.

But we have got to move on to a situation whereby SF accepts the NI state and unionists share power.

Better late than never (hopefully)

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

I only mentioned the commandments in the context that they are a central tenet of the religion that Republicans tend to defend...
The only two I mentioned are the only two that I'm aware of that there are laws against in this country.

As regards lawbreaking, it's wrong, no matter who does it, T.D, priest or IRA member, n'est pas?

As far as I know, religion is not a fundamental tenet of Republicanism.

Do you agree with the commandment 'thou should not kill'? If you do and you think that people who do not agree should be judged, what is your opinion on capital punishment? Iraq war? WW2? Every government will agree with breaking that commandment if it is in their interest to do so. Only the naive will think they will not.

The law deals with 'lawbreaking' differently depending on who does the 'lawbreaking'. It may be universally wrong, but the state treats people differently.

Of course it does,try some lateral thinking!
I questioned cdebru's logic that violence[read: mahem and murder] brought us to where we are,I questioned it by asking seriously would we not have got here sooner without it.
At no point did I say the process through which we have gone to stop the IRA campaign was wrong, just the IRA's campaign itself.

Do you see where I'm coming from?
I questioned it as a justification

Very easy to ask that question considering it is rhetorical. Deal with the realpolitik of the situation as it is now or was at the time.

Rock Climber

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

As far as I know, religion is not a fundamental tenet of Republicanism.

I never said it was, I just asked was it not hypocritical that Republicans giving out about unionists not wanting a catholic about the place, kept breaking two central tenets of catholicism by killing and stealing.

The law deals with 'lawbreaking' differently depending on who does the 'lawbreaking'. It may be universally wrong, but the state treats people differently.

Your point is not relevant as you are talking about law enforcement.
A Garda who returns fire or who fires for the risk of being shot, will probably not be prosecuted, but if he did it indescriminately while on duty or while off duty, he would.

Do you agree with the commandment 'thou should not kill'? If you do and you think that people who do not agree should be judged, what is your opinion on capital punishment? Iraq war? WW2? Every government will agree with breaking that commandment if it is in their interest to do so. Only the naive will think they will not.

I doubt you'll find a post of mine in context that agree's with Killing.
I dont agree with capital punishment, but recognise that democratically(as well as undemocratically) elected governments have it on their statutes.
We don't and afaik neither does Britain.

As regards the Iraq war, well at the time of going to war, the UK governments support for that was at best 50:50 and fell away rapidly afterwards.

The IRA had during their "campaign" at best maybe one or two percent of the people of Ireland behind them, ie no mandate at all.
It says a lot that SF votes only rose after the cease fires and not during the terror campaign.

Deal with the realpolitik of the situation as it is now or was at the time.

Are you reading my posts at all? or just replying ad lib?
Go back a few posts and you will find this:

At no point did I say the process through which we have gone to stop the IRA campaign was wrong, just the IRA's campaign itself.

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

As regards the Iraq war, well at the time of going to war, the UK governments support for that was at best 50:50 and fell away rapidly afterwards.

The IRA had during their "campaign" at best maybe one or two percent of the people of Ireland behind them, ie no mandate at all.
It says a lot that SF votes only rose after the cease fires and not during the terror campaign.
:

So how do you suggest military action should be carried out
by opinion poll
by referrendum
on a weekly basis
if the IRA had no support at all they could not have sustained a campaign for 25 years

it could also be argued that sinn feins vote only started to rise after censorship of sinn fein ended and people could at last hear their views

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

II doubt you'll find a post of mine in context that agree's with Killing.
I dont agree with capital punishment, but recognise that democratically(as well as undemocratically) elected governments have it on their statutes.
We don't and afaik neither does Britain.

:

Do you think that killing can ever be justified
yes or no

cdebru

BuffyBot wrote:

Oh look, an unanswered question just begging for an answer...

according to the gardai they were about to hi jack a truck

BuffyBot

according to the gardai they were about to hi jack a truck

In a perfectly legal, peaceful sort of way I presume..

Rock Climber

cdebru wrote:

if the IRA had no support at all they could not have sustained a campaign for 25 years

Well I didn't say they had no support.
I find it funny when the questions get difficult, attempts are made to say I said something different.
How and ever, inteligent people are reading this thread and can see through that.

I said they had at best 2% support

by referrendum

Well we do live in a democracy and the fact remains, that their support only rose after the peace process was initiated.

it could also be argued that sinn feins vote only started to rise after censorship of sinn fein ended and people could at last hear their views

It certainly could not.
For a start, the UK ban only came in mid way towards the end of the campaign, with most of Ireland receiving UK TV and of course it being received in NI.
There was no ban in the print media.

Secondly we never saw hide nor hair of a Sinn Féin Representative in our area untill well into the peace process,mostly because they were associated with the IRA, drugs bombs and killing and werent very welcome.

Cork

Rock Climber wrote:

I said they had at best 2% support
.

The IRA had precious little support. The misery that they caused for people living in this coutry and people in the UK was immense.

Members (past and present) of the IRA Army Council showed zero leadership. Even after the ceasefire - punishment beatings continued.

If they're so peaceful what are they doing with "a sledgehammer, two pick axe handles, 8 bags of ties, radios, a black balaclava, rubber gloves and a yellow flurorescent Garda jacket, false number plates, a stun gun, CS gas and a roll of black tape"?

Has SF come up with an answer?

But hopefully they'll agree to decommissioning within the next couple of days. They'll be back on the media circuit angain and some reporter may ask them.

sceptre

cdebru wrote:

it could also be argued that sinn feins vote only started to rise after censorship of sinn fein ended and people could at last hear their views

It could well be argued that Elvis is alive and running a chipper down in Kenmare with Kurt Cobain but I'm not too sure if "could be argued" is a useful basis for either a hypothetical or esoteric discussion. Or even a practical one. If you're prepared to argue that then that's a basis for a (short, I suspect) discussion but a series of unrelated questions with no apparent point isn't much of a basis for anything.

HaVoC

I might be wrong but i tought sein fein didnt reconise the dail or the house of parliment till the the GFA they only reconised the dail that was created in 1916.
You know the whole protesting in absense thing.
Same way dev did in 1922.
But sense united ireland is close in there eyes they have reconised the dail

So my point this is why had no voted before the GFA

cdebru

HaVoC wrote:

I might be wrong but i tought sein fein didnt reconise the dail or the house of parliment till the the GFA they only reconised the dail that was created in 1916.
You know the whole protesting in absense thing.
Same way dev did in 1922.
But sense united ireland is close in there eyes they have reconised the dail

So my point this is why had no voted before the GFA

there was no dail created in 1916

provisional sinn fein dropped abstentionism of leinster house in 1986
of stormont after the GFA
and does not take seats in westminister

cdebru

sceptre wrote:

It could well be argued that Elvis is alive and running a chipper down in Kenmare with Kurt Cobain but I'm not too sure if "could be argued" is a useful basis for either a hypothetical or esoteric discussion. Or even a practical one. If you're prepared to argue that then that's a basis for a (short, I suspect) discussion but a series of unrelated questions with no apparent point isn't much of a basis for anything.

this is nonsense
none of those things could be argued
if you have a problem with the phrase "could be argued" fine
I was merely pointing out that the rise in sinn feins vote in the 26 counties coincided with the end of censorship as well as the ceasefire and there is no evidence that the ceasefire is the only reason that sinn feins vote has increased

cdebru

Rock Climber wrote:

Well I didn't say they had no support.
I find it funny when the questions get difficult, attempts are made to say I said something different.
How and ever, inteligent people are reading this thread and can see through that..

I dont find your questions difficult at all

Rock Climber wrote:

I said they had at best 2% support.

in the 26 counties or in the 32 counties

Rock Climber wrote:

Well we do live in a democracy and the fact remains, that their support only rose after the peace process was initiated. .

sinn fein only got involved in standing in elections in a serious way after the hunger strikes their support in the six counties rose in virtually every election they contested in the six counties from 1983 onwards
the support in the 26 counties only really took off with the peace process
my point is that this coincided with the end of censorship as well if you do not accept that this was the first time a lot of people heard sinn feins views on lots of issues that they had never heard before well i wont try and change your mind
it is a fact that rte would not let any member of sinn fein speak on the airwaves even on an matter unrelated to sinn fein
when the high court ruled that they were wrong to implement censorship in this way RTE appealed the ruling to the supreme court because they wanted to be more censored than the law allowed

Rock Climber wrote:

It certainly could not.
For a start, the UK ban only came in mid way towards the end of the campaign, with most of Ireland receiving UK TV and of course it being received in NI..

the british ban came into effect in 1988 only 5 years after sinn fein really started to contest elections and because of the success they were having
and most of ireland could not recieve uk channels at that time

Rock Climber wrote:

There was no ban in the print media..

yeah but tony oreily owns most of the print media end of story

Rock Climber wrote:

Secondly we never saw hide nor hair of a Sinn Féin Representative in our area untill well into the peace process,mostly because they were associated with the IRA, drugs bombs and killing and werent very welcome.

i dont know what your area is so i couldn't comment but the arguement that the IRA was involved in drugs is sh*te