Sinn Fein/IRA members found with list of TDs

Nuttzz · 30-11-2004 2:40pm

Johnny_the_fox wrote:

.......or have pledged allegiance to the queen... i very much doubt that ira members have done that.

Your quite right I cant see IRA members giving their allegiance to the queen either, part of the IRA oath is to see a 32 County Socialist Republic, so that would imply that they would have to over turn the government here. The have not pledged allegiance to Britian, their oath dedicates them to overthrowing the government of the Republic of Ireland so they have no allegiance to the republic either, so where does that leave them? Fighting for some fantasy vision of Ireland perhaps?

For the source nazi's

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/troubles/origins/pira.shtml

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/014101041X/qid=1101822046/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_26_1/026-2453224-4660412 (recommended reading on the subject IMO)

shltter · 30-11-2004 3:59pm

Nuttzz wrote:

Your quite right I cant see IRA members giving their allegiance to the queen either, part of the IRA oath is to see a 32 County Socialist Republic, so that would imply that they would have to over turn the government here. The have not pledged allegiance to Britian, their oath dedicates them to overthrowing the government of the Republic of Ireland so they have no allegiance to the republic either, so where does that leave them? Fighting for some fantasy vision of Ireland perhaps?

For the source nazi's
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/troubles/origins/pira.shtml

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/014101041X/qid=1101822046/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_26_1/026-2453224-4660412 (recommended reading on the subject IMO)

how do you know what the IRA oath is have you taken it

Nuttzz · 30-11-2004 4:15pm

*sigh* Hence the second source..........

shltter · 30-11-2004 4:32pm

Nuttzz wrote:

*sigh* Hence the second source..........

the second source is book for sale i have looked at the page and the IRA oath is not on that page

has ed moloney been in the IRA i don't think so

I would have tought if this is the IRA oath then surely they have all broken it at this stage
decommisioning
attending mc aleeses inauguration

hardly the acts of a group bent on violently overthrowing the government

shltter · 30-11-2004 4:37pm

Nuttzz wrote:

, part of the IRA oath is to see a 32 County Socialist Republic, so that would imply that they would have to over turn the government here. The have not pledged allegiance to Britian, their oath dedicates them to overthrowing the government of the Republic of Ireland so they have no allegiance to the republic either, so where does that leave them? Fighting for some fantasy vision of Ireland perhaps?

For the source nazi's
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/troubles/origins/pira.shtml

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/014101041X/qid=1101822046/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_26_1/026-2453224-4660412 (recommended reading on the subject IMO)

why would seeing a 32 county socialist republic mean they had to overthrow
the government of the 26 counties

it could be established by the people of Ireland choosing it could it not
in real democratic elections

fianna fail want to create a 32 county state
as do labour and my guess is some of them would like a socialist one

Nuttzz · 30-11-2004 4:42pm

*deeper sigh* Amazon are not in the business of publishing the books on the web, they are in the business of selling the books, the IRA oath lies within... get the book from santa for xmas and have a read of it, just because he wasnt in the IRA doesnt mean he doesnt know what he is talking about. I dont care if IRA members break their oath to their organisation or not.

/edit you asked why would they have to overthrow the state? As stated in the first source they would eventually join workers in the south to overthrow capitalism. To overthrow capitalism they would have to overthrow the capitalist goverment, would they not?

shltter · 30-11-2004 5:17pm

Nuttzz wrote:

*deeper sigh* Amazon are not in the business of publishing the books on the web, they are in the business of selling the books, the IRA oath lies within... get the book from santa for xmas and have a read of it, just because he wasnt in the IRA doesnt mean he doesnt know what he is talking about. I dont care if IRA members break their oath to their organisation or not.

/edit you asked why would they have to overthrow the state? As stated in the first source they would eventually join workers in the south to overthrow capitalism. To overthrow capitalism they would have to overthrow the capitalist goverment, would they not?

sigh as much as you like

your suggesting that i should buy a book to verify your claims ok
but no thanks

right i suggest you read your sources a little more closely before you quote them
go back read the whole lot start to finish

here is the passage you refer to

Influenced by the mood of the times, the IRA embraced a Marxist agenda and gave up violence as a means of achieving a united Ireland. Its new policy was a 32-county socialist republic. Influenced by the writings of Wolfe Tone, its strategy was to unite Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter in Northern Ireland so that they would eventually join workers in the south to overthrow capitalism.

"gave up violence as a means of uniting ireland" you oddly left that bit out
I wonder why

the important bit is further down

While the IRA chose politics, militant loyalists revamped the Ulster Volunteer Force in 1966 and embarked on a sectarian campaign against Catholics.

In 1967 the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) was set up and organised street demonstrations to lobby for civil rights. The Stormont government branded the movement a front for the IRA and banned its marches. In October 1968 the RUC used heavy-handed tactics to disperse a Civil Rights Association march in Londonderry and in January 1969 a People's Democracy march was attacked. Tensions between Catholics and Protestants deepened and by August 1969 Catholics were being burned out of their homes and shot on the streets of Belfast

At an IRA convention in December 1969 the Belfast Brigade argued that the IRA had lost credibility because it failed to protect Catholics from sectarian attacks. They favoured a return to an armed strategy. But the convention voted in favour of politics and the Northern Brigade walked out and set up the Provisional Army Council.

what you quoted was the ideas of what became the Official IRA and sinn fein the workers party
then the workers party
then democrtic left
now the labour party

the IRA provisional army council was formed from people who believed that the leadership of the IRA had left nationalist areas of the north unprotected as they followed the political road

so your question as too how these people intended to create the 32 county socialist republic should be directed at the leadership of the labour party(former workers party)
or the remains of the workers party as it was their policy you quoted

Nuttzz · 30-11-2004 5:31pm

shltter wrote:

"gave up violence as a means of uniting ireland" you oddly left that bit out
I wonder why

because that was in 1962, and they returned to violence in 1969.

The Labour party wasnt formely the workers party, the workers party is still about, The WP split when 6 TD decided to form Democratic left, the DL people decided to join Labour. Your way off the mark trying to show that the Labour Party are routed in the Offical IRA (http://www.ucd.ie/politics/polactiv.html)

The WP want to see a socialist republic also (http://www.workers-party.org/wphome.htm) however they dont take an oath to do so.

If the IRA were not enemies of this state, why did the authorities in the Republic arrest and convict so many members?

shltter · 30-11-2004 5:57pm

Nuttzz wrote:

because that was in 1962, and they returned to violence in 1969.

The Labour party wasnt formely the workers party, the workers party is still about, The WP split when 6 TD decided to form Democratic left, the DL people decided to join Labour. Your way off the mark trying to show that the Labour Party are routed in the Offical IRA (http://www.ucd.ie/politics/polactiv.html)

The WP want to see a socialist republic also (http://www.workers-party.org/wphome.htm) however they dont take an oath to do so.

If the IRA were not enemies of this state, why did the authorities in the Republic arrest and convict so many members?

look you misunderstood your source or misrepresented it the views you assigned to the provisional ira were from what was to become the official ira

the leadership of the labour party are former members of the official republican movement i merely suggested that you asked them how they intended to overthrow the capitalist system as this is their policy you refered to

i did not say that the labour party are routed on the official republican movement just the leadership of the party

i didn't say that the 26 county governments did not view the IRA as enemies

however I dont think that the PIRA today is much of a threat to this state in a violent overthrowing sense

Nuttzz · 30-11-2004 6:15pm

We'll be off to the thunderdome at this rate

Sinn Fein are part of the Socialist Grouping in the EU parliament
http://www.sinnfein.ie/gaelic/news/detail/5728

This is a image available from the sinn fein website

Doesnt look like Mary Lou to me

Sinn Fein are at least sympathetic to the IRA (others would say they are one in the same) They be sympathetic to each other you would share the same basic beliefs IMO. Socialism is one of SF basic beliefs, if Sinn Fein are socialists its quite likely that you will find a lot of socalists in the IRA, You will also find that the vast majority of socalists in Ireland are not connected to the IRA or SF too.
http://www.sinnfein.ie/policies/

Pat Rabbitte, Leader of the Labour party and former member of the DL was not a member of the Offical IRA
http://www.labour.ie/patrabbitte/biography.html

Any party, other than the Cops and the defence forces, with access to automatic weapons and explosives are always a potential threat to the state either via policitcal terrorism or criminal activity IMO.

ReefBreak · 30-11-2004 6:27pm

cdebru wrote:

the pub bombings in england were wrong i doubt you will find anyone to seriously justify that

Before and after the ceasefire, Gerry Adams has been quoted as saying that the IRA bombing campaign was "justified". However, he normally uses cowardly Shinner language like "regrettable" to cover his tracks.

cdebru · 30-11-2004 6:45pm

ReefBreak wrote:

Before and after the ceasefire, Gerry Adams has been quoted as saying that the IRA bombing campaign was "justified". However, he normally uses cowardly Shinner language like "regrettable" to cover his tracks.

obviously he is speaking of the campaign as a whole
individual actions have to be judged on their own
you can not compare lets say the bombing of an army barracks with the bombimg of a pub and the murder of innocent civilians

Cork · 30-11-2004 7:20pm

cdebru wrote:

obviously he is speaking of the campaign as a whole
individual actions have to be judged on their own
you can not compare lets say the bombing of an army barracks with the bombimg of a pub and the murder of innocent civilians

Did they condemn either when they occured?

I don't think so.

But If I link exists - I'd be interested.

Rock Climber · 30-11-2004 7:32pm

cdebru wrote:

i suggest you look at your maths again
besides a vote for sinn fein is not a vote for the IRA

Well it was in the 1980's and early 90's right up untill after the second ceasefire up to including at least the point that Gerry Adams said "they haven't gone away you know"
Thats only slowly changing,It will take time, but a vote for SF all through the troubles was most definitely a vote for the IRA.
you are saying, they didn't have this ballot box in one hand and armalite in the other strategy then during the 80's
And they didn't have closed sessions at their Árdfhéiseanna to discusss how the IRA campaign was going...

You say that and you accuse me of being ill informed ...

your avoiding the question so i will ask again if the people of east germany had used arms to liberate themselves would they have been wrong
were the french resistance morally wrong

You are not comparing like with like there.
I mentioned them because a vast majority wanted that wall down and they got it down peacefully.
I never said anything about the French resistance.
However since you bring them up...
A vast majority of the French were supporting their resistance to the Germans in world war 2, unlike the 2% or less support for the IRA on this island.

sinn fein was the largest party on belfast city council

They were never the largest party on Belfast City council during the troubles.
They attained that staus only in 2001, well into the peace process as they ate into the SDLP vote.
Prior to that election and during the whole of the troubles their Belfast vote was more or less neck and neck with the SDLP.
Check your facts here
Across the whole of NI, the SDLP had by far the larger vote during the troubles with the exception of the Sands era.
Like I said that support whittled away when the IRA got back to doing what it knew best ie bombing and shooting rather than taking human rights issues to Europe.
I know Gerry Adams had the west Belfast seat, who had the other three nationalist westminister seats again prior to the peace process ie 75% of them and that was in the six counties.
SF votes in most constituencies in the 26 counties at that time wouldnt have been enough to retain deposits.
In other words, they had a mandate about as strong as that ming fellah or lord sutch in England.

and they were so popular they decided to close while they were on top

What the Irish press, yeah they closed but they were very much read during all the period we are talking about, you were giving the impression Tony o'Reilly ruled the roost.

the country is bigger than dublin and the border region and as i have already said the uk introduced a ban on sinn fein in 1988

So how massive was the SF vote in Dublin during the troubles then?
How big was the "war" mandate there? And as I pointed out to you, the BBC gave the exact same interviews , they cleverly just dubbed the voices with actors.

rte was controlled by the workers party at the time they never tried to challenge censorship in fact they enforced it beyond the wording of the law
so happy to be censured they were

Have you any evidence to back that up?

Honestly the facts in this debate are being ignored and skewed, worse than history lessons in a soviet classroom.

cdebru · 30-11-2004 8:28pm

Rock Climber wrote:

Well it was in the 1980's and early 90's right up untill after the second ceasefire up to including at least the point that Gerry Adams said "they haven't gone away you know"
Thats only slowly changing,It will take time, but a vote for SF all through the troubles was most definitely a vote for the IRA.
you are saying, they didn't have this ballot box in one hand and armalite in the other strategy then during the 80's
And they didn't have closed sessions at their Árdfhéiseanna to discusss how the IRA campaign was going

You say that and you accuse me of being ill informed .......

you are ill informed if you think a discussion on the IRA campaign took place during the closed session
people vote for sinn fein for lots of different reasons

Rock Climber wrote:

You are not comparing like with like there.
I mentioned them because a vast majority wanted that wall down and they got it down peacefully.
I never said anything about the French resistance.
However since you bring them up...
A vast majority of the French were supporting their resistance to the Germans in world war 2, unlike the 2% or less support for the IRA on this island.....

you brought up east germany i merely asked if it would have been wrong

your 2% is wrong

Rock Climber wrote:

They were never the largest party on Belfast City council during the troubles.
They attained that staus only in 2001, well into the peace process as they ate into the SDLP vote.
Prior to that election and during the whole of the troubles their Belfast vote was more or less neck and neck with the SDLP.
Check your facts here
Across the whole of NI, the SDLP had by far the larger vote during the troubles with the exception of the Sands era.
Like I said that support whittled away when the IRA got back to doing what it knew best ie bombing and shooting rather than taking human rights issues to Europe.
I know Gerry Adams had the west Belfast seat, who had the other three nationalist westminister seats again prior to the peace process ie 75% of them and that was in the six counties.
SF votes in most constituencies in the 26 counties at that time wouldnt have been enough to retain deposits.
In other words, they had a mandate about as strong as that ming fellah or lord sutch in England.....

ok here you are correct in relation to the number of seats
however sinn feins vote was the largest of any party in belfast in 1993
they however won less seats than the uup

however there vote was not neck and neck with the sdlp
1993
sinn fein 22.7%
sdlp 15.9%
not neck and neck

http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/lgbelfast.htm

Rock Climber wrote:

So how massive was the SF vote in Dublin during the troubles then?
How big was the "war" mandate there? And as I pointed out to you, the BBC gave the exact same interviews , they cleverly just dubbed the voices with actors......

i never claimed sinn fein had a massive vote in dublin during the war
they had one councillor
the same as the PDs now
the ban came in 1988 on the bbc

Rock Climber wrote:

Have you any evidence to back that up?......

people like eoghan harris joe mulholland it is well known

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/media/meehan/meehan03.htm

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/wholestory.aspx-qqqt=VINCENT%20BROWNE-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqsectionid=3-qqqc=5.1.0.0-qqqn=1-qqqx=1.asp

Rock Climber wrote:

Honestly the facts in this debate are being ignored and skewed, worse than history lessons in a soviet classroom.

you should know you are skewing them

cdebru · 30-11-2004 8:31pm

Cork wrote:

Did they condemn either when they occured?

I don't think so.

But If I link exists - I'd be interested.

why would they condemn the bombing of an army barracks when they said the campaign was justified

Sand · 30-11-2004 8:48pm

Maybe its partly because such media criticism isn't going to bring peace any closer?

Perhaps not, but how much damage will not criticising it do to Ireland political institutions when it is not a big deal for Dail parties to engage in crinimal and subversive activity? This was a principle that hard to be enforced harshly at the birth of this state - we shouldnt throw it away now because were scared to demand that it should be upheld.

And if you think a peace deal is close because a very complex document in legalese might be signed off by Adams and Paisley in the next few weeks then I feel youre mistaken. No matter how wonderfully laid out the terms of this deal are theyre worthless without follow through and a willingness to carry them out.

Contentious issues like SF endorsing the policing board and security passing to Stormont have all been deferred. Ive seen nothing to give me any hope that Adams or Paisley have changed their stripes - Paisley has already announced his intention to humiliate the IRA and make them wear sackcloth. Can you see a power sharing administration between him and SF/IRA lasting? Especially when Sinn Fein "community" activists are being convicted as IRA men, engaged in subversive and criminal behaviour? Regardless of what it says in Article 8, paragraph 2, subsection B?

I cant. And whilst Paisley will undoubtedly help end the project through his own views, Adams and co are the other half of the equation - the other half who have yet to show any distress that their members were engaged in criminality? Why should they? Everyone else is too terrified to actually point out that this sort of criminality is not acceptable so why should they care? They know that if anyone dares to confront them they can just threaten to go back to what they know best. The resulting attitude is going to contribute to the lack of peace in Northern Ireland. A man like Paisley doesnt need much of an exscuse to walk away.

Yup, and China is held to lower standards than the US when it comes to Human Rights. The same logic for the reasoning would apply - that even though it takes time, sometimes the carrot-before-stick approach really is the best and fastest way forward.

The weakness in that comparison is that whilst Chinas human rights are less than the US, Chinas poor performance does not mean a lack of human rights in the US ( purely for the sake of argument - EU is just as good ). However Sinn Feins lower standards directly impact us in Ireland, as it reinforces the obviously mistaken belief that there is no real issue the armalite and ballot box strategy.

there will always be someone to remind us that we shouldn't be dealing with these ******s (with the accompanying implication that if that means a return to violence, then so be it, as it would only prove how right we were to refuse to deal with the scum).

Youre effectively following a policy of appeasement there Bonkey. The threat from the IRA will always be "or else!" If theyre going to go back to war because we expect them to be serious about a commitment to peace - which involves a lack of subversive and crinimal activity - then there arent any foundations for a peace deal at all. Theres plenty of scope for immense damage to the Irish state though.

It might be practical to bend over backwards to accomadate them and sneak around not daring to mention the war in Northern Ireland, but not in the Republic. The IRA have been beaten here, there is no need to invite them back into our political institutions.

Rock Climber · 30-11-2004 10:52pm

cdebru wrote:

you are ill informed if you think a discussion on the IRA campaign took place during the closed session

Ah come on now cdebru, you are beggaring belief with your denials at this stage.
It's common knowledge, why SF held closed sessions at their Ard fheiseanna in the 1980's-Ask any journalist working at the time, indeed have a read of this journalist who reported on them at the time

i never claimed sinn fein had a massive vote in dublin during the war
they had one councillor
the same as the PDs now
the ban came in 1988 on the bbc

But you did claim the lack of coverage as a reason for the lack of SF seats, now if thats the case what happened in Dublin? I'll tell you, people didnt support the IRA campaign, that is all.
Was that a little pd dig there too cdebru? ( leave that to reefbreak,I'm not a pd member/supporter)
Come now we don't have to resort to that

You keep mentioning the ban, yet ignore the fact that it was circumvented by the BBC using actors to dub the voices

however there vote was not neck and neck with the sdlp
1993
sinn fein 22.7%
sdlp 15.9%
not neck and neck

Between 1985 and 1997 ie the height of the IRA campaign to the early years after the peace process,the SDLP vote in NI's local council elections, (the voting bedrock) was greater than SF.
source therefore indicating that even in NI a majority of nationalists had a distaste for the IRA campaign.

This leads me back again to the fact that SF support started growing at a rate of Knotts only when they persued the path of peace.

your 2% is wrong

Well show me where more than 2% of the Irish people north and south voted for SF during the 1980's and early 90's then??
Come on I'd like to see it...

why would they condemn the bombing of an army barracks when they said the campaign was justified

The key bit you say there is " They said "...
What they said didn't matter a penny damn really when they were performing an illegal war on behalf of the people of this island against the permission of 98% of their own people.
Those were the people whose opinion mattered as they were and are the overwhelming majority of the Irish people and not the opinion of the IRA.

you should know you are skewing them

au contraire.
I've pointed out your skewing several and many times so far,I'm tempted to introduce bullet points for you.

cdebru · 30-11-2004 10:55pm

Sand wrote:

.

Youre effectively following a policy of appeasement there Bonkey. The threat from the IRA will always be "or else!" If theyre going to go back to war because we expect them to be serious about a commitment to peace - which involves a lack of subversive and crinimal activity - then there arent any foundations for a peace deal at all. Theres plenty of scope for immense damage to the Irish state though.

It might be practical to bend over backwards to accomadate them and sneak around not daring to mention the war in Northern Ireland, but not in the Republic. The IRA have been beaten here, there is no need to invite them back into our political institutions.

I honestly think you are living in the past
the policy for the last ten years has been to bring the republican movement further and further into the political mainstream
thus making it harder for the republican movement to go back to war
more pressure is put on republicans everytime negotiations start
and they agree to things that we were told were impossible only a year or two ago
decommisioning
photographed decommisioning
the disbandment of the IRA

this is done in steps because if the things that are being asked of republicans were done 10 or 5 or 2 years ago the IRA would have split and a return to violence with a large section of the IRA would have happened
now that might have have suited some people but the view was taken that it is better to go slowly and bring along 95% of republicans
than to split them and risk being back where we were 10 years ago
so far this policy has worked and no credible group has emerged to challenge the provos from the republican side
obviously the view is that the time is now right for to push the IRA all the way now
if this agreement comes about
it should be alot firmer that previous agreement with the UUP
the DUP is not looking over its shoulder nor is Sinn Fein to any great extent
the IRA will be gone the arms will be gone
republicans will be on the policing boards

what was going on with these guys spying on government ministers is being blown out of proportion it was not an attempt to target them for assasination
it was trying to find out if they had any secrets which could be used to embarrass them later on thats it
it might not be pretty but it is pretty much part of political life
the episode with the van is much more serious
Sinn fein can not hope to be in government north or south while this carry on
is continuing if they were working for the IRA this has to stop and stop now
it is no longer acceptable
If as Sinn Fein have said the war is over then there is no need for the IRA and for this type of activity

Rock Climber · 30-11-2004 11:25pm

cdebru wrote:

I honestly think you are living in the past
the policy for the last ten years has been to bring the republican movement further and further into the political mainstream
thus making it harder for the republican movement to go back to war
more pressure is put on republicans everytime negotiations start
and they agree to things that we were told were impossible only a year or two ago
decommisioning
photographed decommisioning
the disbandment of the IRA

this is done in steps because if the things that are being asked of republicans were done 10 or 5 or 2 years ago the IRA would have split and a return to violence with a large section of the IRA would have happened
now that might have have suited some people but the view was taken that it is better to go slowly and bring along 95% of republicans
than to split them and risk being back where we were 10 years ago
so far this policy has worked and no credible group has emerged to challenge the provos from the republican side
obviously the view is that the time is now right for to push the IRA all the way now
if this agreement comes about
it should be alot firmer that previous agreement with the UUP
the DUP is not looking over its shoulder nor is Sinn Fein to any great extent
the IRA will be gone the arms will be gone
republicans will be on the policing boards

what was going on with these guys spying on government ministers is being blown out of proportion it was not an attempt to target them for assasination
it was trying to find out if they had any secrets which could be used to embarrass them later on thats it
it might not be pretty but it is pretty much part of political life
the episode with the van is much more serious
Sinn fein can not hope to be in government north or south while this carry on
is continuing if they were working for the IRA this has to stop and stop now
it is no longer acceptable
If as Sinn Fein have said the war is over then there is no need for the IRA and for this type of activity

Agreed 100% there cdebru -lets agree to disagree on the rest of our discussion ok?

cdebru · 30-11-2004 11:44pm

Rock Climber wrote:

Ah come on now cdebru, you are beggaring belief with your denials at this stage.
It's common knowledge, why SF held closed sessions at their Ard fheiseanna in the 1980's-Ask any journalist working at the time, indeed have a read of this journalist who reported on them at the time.

i did not deny their were closed sessions i denied a discussion on the ira campaign took place in the sense of a discussion debate on tactics targets etc
there was no discussion
there was an address from a person from the republican movement not a discussion

Rock Climber wrote:

But you did claim the lack of coverage as a reason for the lack of SF seats, now if thats the case what happened in Dublin? I'll tell you, people didnt support the IRA campaign, that is all.
Was that a little pd dig there too cdebru? ( leave that to reefbreak,I'm not a pd member/supporter)
Come now we don't have to resort to that .

it is an undeniable fact that the majority of irish people did not support the IRA
I merely contend that the rise in sinn feins vote is also linked to the ending of censorship I have also said that the ceasefire made it easier for people to vote for sinn fein
I can never resist a dig at the PDs sorry i just cant help myself

Rock Climber wrote:

You keep mentioning the ban, yet ignore the fact that it was circumvented by the BBC using actors to dub the voices

Between 1985 and 1997 ie the height of the IRA campaign to the early years after the peace process,the SDLP vote in NI's local council elections, (the voting bedrock) was greater than SF.
source therefore indicating that even in NI a majority of nationalists had a distaste for the IRA campaign.

This leads me back again to the fact that SF support started growing at a rate of Knotts only when they persued the path of peace.

Well show me where more than 2% of the Irish people north and south voted for SF during the 1980's and early 90's then??
Come on I'd like to see it....

european election 1984 1989 1994
i picked those because they are 32 county elections
and sinn fein had canidates in each constituency unlike general elections

as for circumvention I dont accept that interviews could be done but they were irregular opinion on a day to day basis was not possible although it think
that the bbc deserve credit for trying to get around it
and of course you have to feel sorry for the actor when the ban was lifted

Rock Climber wrote:

The key bit you say there is " They said "...
What they said didn't matter a penny damn really when they were performing an illegal war on behalf of the people of this island against the permission of 98% of their own people.
Those were the people whose opinion mattered as they were and are the overwhelming majority of the Irish people and not the opinion of the IRA..

to the best of my knowledge the IRA never said that they were acting on or at the behest or with the endorsement of the population of the 32 counties
the atitude was the brits were there and they did not need anybodies permission to attack them and that as in the past history would be kinder to them

Rock Climber wrote:

au contraire.
I've pointed out your skewing several and many times so far,I'm tempted to introduce bullet points for you.

that is a matter of opinion

cdebru · 30-11-2004 11:46pm

Rock Climber wrote:

Agreed 100% there cdebru -lets agree to disagree on the rest of our discussion ok?

oops already answered before the truce

shltter · 01-12-2004 12:07am

Nuttzz wrote:

We'll be off to the thunderdome at this rate

Sinn Fein are part of the Socialist Grouping in the EU parliament
http://www.sinnfein.ie/gaelic/news/detail/5728

This is a image available from the sinn fein website

Doesnt look like Mary Lou to me

Sinn Fein are at least sympathetic to the IRA (others would say they are one in the same) They be sympathetic to each other you would share the same basic beliefs IMO. Socialism is one of SF basic beliefs, if Sinn Fein are socialists its quite likely that you will find a lot of socalists in the IRA, You will also find that the vast majority of socalists in Ireland are not connected to the IRA or SF too.
http://www.sinnfein.ie/policies/

I never denied that sinn fein are a republican socialist party
i merely pointed out your source on an IRA oath was wrong
it refers to what became the Official IRA

Pat Rabbitte, Leader of the Labour party and former member of the DL was not a member of the Offical IRA
http://www.labour.ie/patrabbitte/biography.html

Any party, other than the Cops and the defence forces, with access to automatic weapons and explosives are always a potential threat to the state either via policitcal terrorism or criminal activity IMO.

I did not say he was however he was a member of the Official republican movement namely the workers party
which had links to the Official IRA similiar to those you ascribe to sinn fein and the IRA

of course the OIRA never disbanded or decommisioned
or went away you know
I merely suggest that as pat rabbite was a leading member of the official republican movement with close links to north korea he might be in a position to explain how he intended to overthrow the capitalist system it was their policy you refered to earlier not provisional IRA policy

bonkey · 01-12-2004 9:06am

Sand wrote:

Perhaps not, but how much damage will not criticising it do to Ireland political institutions when it is not a big deal for Dail parties to engage in crinimal and subversive activity?

I don't know.

What I believe, however, is that taking the "until you completely copitulate and forget about retaining any strength for negotiation, you're always fully and totally wrong and unacceptable" road will do more damage in the long run.

And if you think a peace deal is close because a very complex document in legalese might be signed off by Adams and Paisley in the next few weeks then I feel youre mistaken.

I don't think that at all. What I think is that doing everything in our power to make it appear that we've sided fully with the Paisely "No, No, No" mindset will not bring a peace solution...and given that the critics generally seem unwilling to move from the absolutist position of "all of this is unacceptable", the words and actions - if not the reasoning behind them - are uncannily similar.

No matter how wonderfully laid out the terms of this deal are theyre worthless without follow through and a willingness to carry them out.

And a lack of a deal is even more worthless, no?

Ive seen nothing to give me any hope that Adams or Paisley have changed their stripes

And so you'd see the way forward as breaking off negotiations with a demand that they must change them before anyone is going to try moving peace forward again?

Can you see a power sharing administration between him and SF/IRA lasting?

Nope. But I do see a power-sharing administration today being closer to reality than it was a decade ago. I see it even closer than it was twenty years ago. And I have no belief whatsoever in the existence a McSolution: something quick and easy which we could have in 3 minutes if we wanted.

And whilst Paisley will undoubtedly help end the project through his own views, Adams and co are the other half of the equation - the other half who have yet to show any distress that their members were engaged in criminality?

The more I read of your comments here, the more convinced I am that you're basically writing off the Peace Process as being already doomed. Maybe you see something I dont, but I really can't see throwing it out as a way forward to improvement.

So the reality is that whether or not Paisley will try and help end the project, unless that is what we want, then we should not give him the opportunity to do so. Similarly, unless scuppering is what we want, we should not be trying to scupper the project either.....but hounding after Sinn Fein day in and day out, baying like hounds with a Paisleyesque attitude (No No NO) isn't going to do much else in my opinion.

Everyone else is too terrified to actually point out that this sort of criminality is not acceptable so why should they care?

Because sooner or later their voters will hold them to account. However, that won't happen today, and it sure as sh1t won't happen because someone is telling the Northern voters to abandon the strongest party they have in the Peace Negotiations because they're bad people. "Lads...stop voting for this shower, because they're really bad people. OK - the result will be that the Unionists will gain control of your lives again, and the peaceprocess will be dead and buried...but thats a small price to pay". Sorry...I can't see that happening.

They know that if anyone dares to confront them they can just threaten to go back to what they know best.

They also know that threats to do so will risk irrevocably ending the Peace Process, which is why they generally don't make them.

The only threat is the implicit one which exists because of the lack of full decomissioning. Personally, I can't really fault one of many groups for not disarming while everyone around them still has their weapons stashed away. I also can't fault them for abiding by negotiated agreements on decomissioning, despte the whining of their opposition that what was negotiated and agreed upon became unaccepable once it became a reality.

A man like Paisley doesnt need much of an exscuse to walk away.

So instead, you'd prefer we gave the Republicans the excuse to walk away?

This is hte problem I'm trying to highlight, Sand. The situation up in the North is a tightrope - there isn't a hell of a lot of room to move one way or the other before coming crashing down. To be honest, I'm half convinced that the best way forward is simply to persevere with the stalemate until the involved parties (or supporters) get fed up enough to force a change themselves, or change happens through natural causes (all of the involved parties are mortal after all).

The weakness in that comparison is that whilst Chinas human rights are less than the US, Chinas poor performance does not mean a lack of human rights in the US

Mostly agreed.

However, the US (and EU etc. - as you say...) directly and indirectly support the lack of human rights, and are too scared to say "boo" over it too loudly. Oh, things get said alright...we can be sure of that....but they generally never make the headlines, and we're in no real rush over it.

However Sinn Feins lower standards directly impact us in Ireland,

So its ok to support a lack of human rights, as long as it only affects people in other countries? Thats the difference in your eyes? That makes my comparison unacceptable? Its ok to fund the continuing oppression of the odd hundred million chinamen, but as soon as we're talking about our own.....

Not for me thanks. I recognise that both situations are fundamentally situations where the big players realise that a "softly softly" approach is indeed what will catchee monkee in the end, even if it takes more time then we'd like.

Youre effectively following a policy of appeasement there Bonkey.

If thats how you want to see it, then see it that way. I still think that making ultimatums that "everything unacceptable must go before we can start to move forward" won't work, no more than an approach of "there is no requirements for you to meet at all" would.

I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that as well - the question is where to draw the line. What are we willing to put up with, for how long, from who....this is where we differ. But make no mistake....no matter where you draw that line you're effectively following a policy of appeasement as there are things that would be unacceptable in the normal run of events which you tolerate for now.

The threat from the IRA will always be "or else!"

Yes it will. As is the less-well-publicised-but-still-existant threat from unionist paramilitaries as to what will happen if their side gets too hard done by. Indeed, I can't think of a single peace-settlement following a voluntary ceasefire in the whole of history where the threat of "or else" didn't exist.

If theyre going to go back to war because we expect them to be serious about a commitment to peace - which involves a lack of subversive and crinimal activity - then there arent any foundations for a peace deal at all. Theres plenty of scope for immense damage to the Irish state though.

And would that scope be more or less then the damage a return to war will be?

See...20 years ago the thought of even signing a Peace Treaty was unthinkable. Nope...then what we needed to move forward was for the IRA to disband. 10 Years ago, we signed a Peace Treaty, but it never was going to work....what we needed to move forward was for the IRA to disband. 10 years on and we've made significant - if horridly slow - progress....and what we needed to move forward was for the IRA to disband.

I'm seeing all this moving forward, coupled with an insistence from many that what we need in order to move forward is for the IRA to disband. They haven't, and yet progress has been made. How did we possibly manage that?

We managed it by realising that sometimes it is necessary to take the slow, careful path, putting up with the unacceptable for periods of time until the time is right to make your play against it. I believe thats what we see with this issue.

jc

rien_du_tout · 01-12-2004 2:31pm

Sand wrote:

I love that Sinn Feins only response so far - apart from the undertone of "**** you, we can do what we like!" - has been to call for the closure of the Special Crinimal Court. Obviously a play for the votes of all all their terrorist constituents - an important demographic I hear.

Thank you Sand for just informing me that some of my lecturers are terrorists and may support SF due to their position on this issue. In actual fact the Special Criminal Court is seen by a significant minority in the legal profession as an injust infringement on natural justice as shown by the conviction of these two on secret evidence to which they could not properly defend themselves. The lack of a jury trial in this instance is also worrying. The judge is a party to an organ of the state, judging whether some1 has commited an offence under the offences against the state acts. Very hard to guess which side they'd come down on now isnt it?!

seán

ReefBreak · 01-12-2004 6:22pm

rien_du_tout wrote:

Thank you Sand for just informing me that some of my lecturers are terrorists and may support SF due to their position on this issue. In actual fact the Special Criminal Court is seen by a significant minority in the legal profession as an injust infringement on natural justice as shown by the conviction of these two on secret evidence to which they could not properly defend themselves. The lack of a jury trial in this instance is also worrying. The judge is a party to an organ of the state, judging whether some1 has commited an offence under the offences against the state acts. Very hard to guess which side they'd come down on now isnt it?!

seán

The Central Criminal Court was set up after it was found that the IRA had a habit of "intimidating" jurors in IRA cases. Plus, no one that supports Sinn Féin/IRA should ever talk about justice, natural or otherwise. There are plenty of innocent civilians that were murdered by the IRA that never saw justice.

jonny68 · 01-12-2004 9:45pm

What do Republicans think if the Provos have another round of decomissioning?Personally i could no longer support Sinn Fein any longer should they bow to pressure from the DUP and the Provos decomission more weapons,thats them finished then,it would take them years trying to build up an arsenal of weapons should a war situation arise again,im a long standing Republican and for that i make no apologies ,i contribute to many forums on a daily basiis involving Politics and Republicanism,having been reading through these posts, some people who have posted here are clued up,others are talking bull****......Sinn Fein MUST stand firm and cannot be allowed to be bullied by bigot Ian Paisley and his bigoted comrades in the DUP,Sinn Fein should also steadfastly refuse to join the policing board,they havent as yet and i hope they will continue to do same..nobody except dissident Republicans (Supporters of RSF/"CIRA" & 32CSM/"RIRA" )wants a return to war but ultimately it might happen and its something the Provos need to be prepared for and by putting another (4 round decomissioning) stockpile of weapons beyond use will leave them with little or nothing to fight enemy personel in the event of a return to war..,all the brave volunteers of Oglaigh NA hEireann who have gave their lives in the cause of Irish freedom did not die in vain and this would be an insult to their memory,as i said im still very much a supporter of Sinn Fein but my biggest fear is another round of decommisioning and joining the policing board) opinions please........

Villain · 02-12-2004 9:34am

jonny68 wrote:

What do Republicans think if the Provos have another round of decomissioning?Personally i could no longer support Sinn Fein any longer should they bow to pressure from the DUP and the Provos decomission more weapons,thats them finished then,it would take them years trying to build up an arsenal of weapons should a war situation arise again,im a long standing Republican and for that i make no apologies ,i contribute to many forums on a daily basiis involving Politics and Republicanism,having been reading through these posts, some people who have posted here are clued up,others are talking bull****......Sinn Fein MUST stand firm and cannot be allowed to be bullied by bigot Ian Paisley and his bigoted comrades in the DUP,Sinn Fein should also steadfastly refuse to join the policing board,they havent as yet and i hope they will continue to do same..nobody except dissident Republicans (Supporters of RSF/"CIRA" & 32CSM/"RIRA" )wants a return to war but ultimately it might happen and its something the Provos need to be prepared for and by putting another (4 round decomissioning) stockpile of weapons beyond use will leave them with little or nothing to fight enemy personel in the event of a return to war..,all the brave volunteers of Oglaigh NA hEireann who have gave their lives in the cause of Irish freedom did not die in vain and this would be an insult to their memory,as i said im still very much a supporter of Sinn Fein but my biggest fear is another round of decommisioning and joining the policing board) opinions please........

The war is over, it is time to move to politics, the IRA should cease to excist and republicans should support SF and try to reach their objectives through politics.

jonny68 · 02-12-2004 11:48am

ANYBODY who thinks the war is over is a fool,the war is NEVER over until there is a 32 county socialist democratic Republic,until the last British soldier has left Irish soil for good,anyone who thinks the war is over is in my book not a Republican and should be ashamed of themselves,we might have a ceasefire, at present, but the facts remain that the North Of Ireland is STILL under British rule, the war is NOT OVER,and to say that is an insult to the memory of the brave people who died for the cause of Irish Freedom..... :mad:

Villain · 02-12-2004 12:24pm

jonny68 wrote:

ANYBODY who thinks the war is over is a fool,the war is NEVER over until there is a 32 county socialist democratic Republic,until the last British soldier has left Irish soil for good,anyone who thinks the war is over is in my book not a Republican and should be ashamed of themselves,we might have a ceasefire, at present, but the facts remain that the North Of Ireland is STILL under British rule, the war is NOT OVER,and to say that is an insult to the memory of the brave people who died for the cause of Irish Freedom..... :mad:

Its views like yours that make sure we will never have peace or nationalists in power in the North. Terrorism acheives nothing about time you realised that, the future lies in politics.

Sinn Fein/IRA members found with list of TDs

Comments