Why vote Sinn Fein?

ivan087

well to wrap it up, before this degrades into a slagging match, i think there are three reasons why Sinn Fein gets the vote:

1) history - people who strongly believe in a united ireland and think that SF are the only party to do this.
2) protest vote - because people believe that none of the main parties offer any real polocy alternatives to the current government
3) good ground work by local councilors and tds

policies, such as economic policies (or the lack of) seem not to matter much to SF supporters - it really does seem to come down to these 3 points.

Diorraing

ISAW wrote:

a completly bald assertion! Where is your evidence to back this up? there are plenty of much more qualified politiicians but as to intelligent how do you rate that? Does avoiding beinfg convicted of IRA membership count as being intelligent?

OK, It is an assertion to say he is the most intelligent politician but he seems to be the most intelligent leader of a party. In a debate he will never come out worse than he went in. He single-handedly managed to turn the IRA from the path of war to one of peace. Sinn Fein are rapidly growing both north and south of the border and if current trends continue they will be in Gov in bout 10/15 years.

I think he already explained so what. You can not anachronistically judge based on those times. Ireland has changed. Opinion on homosexuality, women divorce other races (all things about which SF sometimes rant ) have changed.

FF went into government 10 years after fighting as illegitimate a war as the IRA. And yes FF did fight the civil war although they weren't FF at the time it was still the same people. Their sins were forgiven within 10 years. It shows double standards (particularly on FF's behalf) to call SF unfit for government on their IRA connections

But current members of the IRA killed someone in Belfast and got all the locals to shut up and only after months and months of sustained pressure did SF begin to distance themselves from them.

Not on the orders of the IRA. Null point. Its like saying: "Gardaí were corrupt in Donegal, therefore the whole of the Gardaí are corrupt". No logical pattern

If the IRA recognise the Constitution then they MUST disband and not take direction from an Army Council but from the Oireachtas since the Constitution recognised only one Parliament and one Army.

IRA remains in place as a defensive unit in case the PSNI/British Army/Loyalists decide to attack catholic houses again. This may not be likely but fear and suspicion on the nationalist side is real and must be respected, They do not as yet have full confidence in a police force that often burnt them out of their houses and colluded with loyalists. There has been vast improvements and i have no doubt that it will acceptable within 2/3 years when Patten is fully implemented. The existence of the IRA for defensive purposes does not undermine the Oireachtas. They may think they are the countries army or whatever - thats just empty rhetoric.

Sand

He single-handedly managed to turn the IRA from the path of war to one of peace.

No, he had a lot of help from British Intelligence. As far back as the early 70s and the first IRA ceasefire they were filtering the IRA leadership in Belfast arresting hardliners and releasing or letting go moderates in favour of the ceasefire. Adams was one of the IRA leaders picked up as a hardliner, but British Intelligence in later years helped him by eliminating enemies and hardliners. In the wake of the recent informer in SFIRA, I read an article that several IRA figures have deep suspicions about Adams complicity in the deaths of several IRA figures who opposed his armalite and ballot box strategy. He mightnt have been complicit, but he cant have failed to notice that bad things tended to happen to his enemies.

So, it was far from single handed that he turned the IRA into what it is today.

Time Magazine

Zebra3 wrote:

A lot of people would say the same thing about the more so-called mainstream parties.

Huge corruption which has been prevelant throughout them, their support for a mass murder like George Bush, a Taoiseach who signed blank cheques for his boss, handing themselves huge, unjustified payrises at our expense and a Minister for "Justice" who seems to have no regard for the workings of the law and is proud to leak information on political opponents to select members of the media.

Now that I've my ranting out of me for the night I've just one more thing to add, and I've said it before:

Sinn Féin always justifiy their position relative to other wrongs.

They rarely, if ever, justify their actions/policies/opinions as entities themselves relative to what is actually right.

And with that I'm off for the night. Happy Valetine's, folks.

Zebra3

Angry Banana wrote:

That's rich from someone supporting SF!

I'm not an SF supporter, but I do notice that you don't deny all the corruption in the likes of FF and FG, you just seem happy to sweep it under the carpet.

Angry Banana wrote:

I don't George Bush can really be classified as a mass-murderer (or mass murder for that matter) without boards being shut down

Why's that? How many deaths has he been responsible for?

Angry Banana wrote:

Can you name any blank cheques the Taoiseach has signed,

Eh, all the ones for Haughey?

Angry Banana wrote:

Could you please back up the unjustified element please? How could a job that involves media scrutiny, the worst job-security in Ireland and a constant barrage of abuse while all you're doing is running the country not deserve €80,000? It's maybe €2 per citizen to pay for them. Are they not worth that?

Considering the lack of time they spend in Dail Eireann, no. Most of them are only there to represent certain interests and not the people. Worst job security? Ffs. :rolleyes:

Angry Banana wrote:

I don't Michael McDowell one bit.

Eh?

Angry Banana wrote:

Any problem with any non-Michael McDowell people?

Where would I start.......

Time Magazine

Zebra3 wrote:

I'm not an SF supporter, but I do notice that you don't deny all the corruption in the likes of FF and FG, you just seem happy to sweep it under the carpet.

I'm not a FFer, but they're got rid of the corruption. And FG are not corrupt. They've had one corrupt politician, who was expelled immediately.

Why's that? How many deaths has he been responsible for?

Whether one is "responsible" for deaths doe not make one a mass-murderer. That's reserved for someone who has actually murdered people. And there we go again, relative evils. I don't agree with the War in Iraq, and it bears no relevance to Sinn Fein.

Eh, all the ones for Haughey?

Name one. He's written no blank cheques to Haughey.

Considering the lack of time they spend in Dail Eireann, no. Most of them are only there to represent certain interests and not the people.

Time not spend in the Dail is spent in the constituency. Yes, they don't spend enough time in the Dail, but they need to spend more than half their time in the constituency in my opinion.

Worst job security? Ffs. :rolleyes:

Name any other professional job where you can be sacked at any time (snap general election) without any compensation, even if you're doing a good job.

Where would I start.......

The Shinners?

ivan087

Angry Banana wrote:

Whether one is "responsible" for deaths doe not make one a mass-murderer. That's reserved for someone who has actually murdered people.

So you have to pull the trigger to be a mass-murderer?!!??! jez poor ol hitler, saddam, etc. might as well free saddam now, he's only 'responsible' for thousands of deaths.

Time Magazine

No, you don't have to pull the trigger.

It's a bit like the problem of transitive logic, I suppose.

I suppose the best way to describe it is the intent. If you intend that your actions will murder people (be it explicit or implicit - pulling the trigger or telling someone to pull the trigger), I suppose you could be called a mass-murderer.

I don't think Bush is a mass-murderer because I believe his intention was to lower the amount of murders, and that might have happened. He failed though. I don't think that qualifies as murder.

If you don't apply that logic, Churchchill et al were mass-murderers.

Mass-murdering does not equal mass-killing, I suppose.

Anyway, way off-topic.

The_Minister

Angry Banana wrote:

No, you don't have to pull the trigger.

It's a bit like the problem of transitive logic, I suppose.

I suppose the best way to describe it is the intent. If you intend that your actions will murder people (be it explicit or implicit - pulling the trigger or telling someone to pull the trigger), I suppose you could be called a mass-murderer.

I don't think Bush is a mass-murderer because I believe his intention was to lower the amount of murders, and that might have happened. He failed though. I don't think that qualifies as murder.

If you don't apply that logic, Churchchill et al were mass-murderers.

Mass-murdering does not equal mass-killing, I suppose.

Anyway, way off-topic.

Was reading a thing about the Mai Lai (is that what its called-you know the vietnam one) massacre. The lieutenant who shot the people was held responsible because he should have disobeyed the order.

Zebra3

Angry Banana wrote:

Anyway, way off-topic.

But it's not off-topic.

People say they won't vote SF cos the IRA have killed people, yet they are happy to vote for FF or FG safe in the knowledge that those parties will assist the US in murdering people in Iraq to get their hands on the oil there.

What's the difference?

ivan087

Angry Banana wrote:

I don't think Bush is a mass-murderer because I believe his intention was to lower the amount of murders, and that might have happened. He failed though. I don't think that qualifies as murder.

i dont want to stray off target either or turn this into an iraqi war debate. but one could call bush a mass murderer in that he invaided iraq, he wasnt defending his nation.

Churchill was a mass murderer. he bombed civilians of german cities for no reason but to inflict civilian deaths. it dosnt matter what someones intention was. bombing military targets or even economic targets is war, targeting civilians is just terrorism or mass-murder. the IRA claim to have been fighting a war against the british. but really most of the killing was against innocent prodestants and innocent catholics. thats murder.

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote:

But it's not off-topic.

People say they won't vote SF cos the IRA have killed people, yet they are happy to vote for FF or FG safe in the knowledge that those parties will assist the US in murdering people in Iraq to get their hands on the oil there.

What's the difference?

Morally probably little.

However one had a mandate in that his party got a majority before during and after that war in congress.
The IRA never put their campaign to the vote,never had a mandate ie they just did it beacause they knew best apparently :rolleyes:

Justifying wrongs by saying others have wronged in completely unrelated circumstances somewhere else is the poorest form of justification by the way.

The_Minister

ivan087 wrote:

Churchill was a mass murderer. he bombed civilians of german cities for no reason but to inflict civilian deaths.

He had to do that. His bombing of German cities was the only thing that stopped the defeat of the Allies. It was one of the turning points of the war. It forced Hitler to stop bombing the RAF planes on the ground and made him bomb cities thus allowing Britain to fight back for the airspace.

ivan087

Firespinner wrote:

He had to do that. His bombing of German cities was the only thing that stopped the defeat of the Allies. It was one of the turning points of the war.

i honestly dont think that was the turning point of the war. RAF bombers were told to directly bomb the cities. Many RAF pilots stated that there was no need, and that it in fact the allies were just wasting bombs. the only point of bombing the cities was to turn the citizens against the war. this was also the reason for hitler bombing british cities. didnt work.
its mass murder whatever way you look at it. even if it did work - does that justify it. so in a way, even if you dont agree with the IRAs tactics, they were justified in bombing pubs in northern ireland and britain and terrorising people. you cant catagorise mass-murder into good and bad. its just mass-murder.
just on a side note, the falklands war is the only war i can think of where mass murder wasnt carried out. probably wrong, but i cant think of any other war where citizens were not killed directly.

Zebra3

Earthman wrote:

However one had a mandate in that his party got a majority before during and after that war in congress.

Let's get a few things straight here.

It's common knowledge that Bush didn't win the election in 2000. Therefore he didn't have a "mandate" for war, before and during it.

Secondly, his "mandate" which he got in America hardly gives him the right to murder Iraqi civilians. :rolleyes: .

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote:

Let's get a few things straight here.

It's common knowledge that Bush didn't win the election in 2000. Therefore he didn't have a "mandate" for war, before and during it.

Secondly, his "mandate" which he got in America hardly gives him the right to murder Iraqi civilians. :rolleyes: .

And this is related to sinn féin how exactly?

And you have answered my question regarding you deflecting criticism of the IRA's illegal war how exactly?

Incidently, the Republicans got a majority in both houses of congress in the US, I'd regard that a mandate.
The matter of whether one agree's with their policies is immaterial-At least they were put to a vote... Unlike the IRA

Zebra3

Earthman wrote:

And this is related to sinn féin how exactly?

Simple. People say they are voting for FF and FG cos they are morally pure blah blah blah as opposed to SF which aren't. Given the amount of people that are being murdered by the US regime which parties like FF and FG support, it doesn't give that point much credit, does it?

Earthman wrote:

And you have answered my question regarding you deflecting criticism of the IRA's illegal war how exactly?

What question? Where did you post that?

Earthman wrote:

Incidently, the Republicans got a majority in both houses of congress in the US, I'd regard that a mandate.
The matter of whether one agree's with their policies is immaterial-At least they were put to a vote... Unlike the IRA

So Bush's mates back him to invade a foreign country. Do you think the people of Iraq see that as a mandate? :rolleyes: And as Bush stole the first election, any actions he carried out as President during his first term were illegal.

Freelancer

Zebra3 wrote:

Simple. People say they are voting for FF and FG cos they are morally pure blah blah blah as opposed to SF which aren't. Given the amount of people that are being murdered by the US regime which parties like FF and FG support, it doesn't give that point much credit, does it?

Again really spurious reasoning, many if most people will say that this is foreign policy and that the US has a right to be here. Meanwhile SF members are roaming the country in vans with fake garda uniforms, or sitting in bars not seeing nothing when men are butchered before them.

I'm not a SF or FF or FG supporter, but this looks like more whataboutree

So Bush's mates back him to invade a foreign country.

Lots of members of congress and senate would resent that label.

Do you think the people of Iraq see that as a mandate? :rolleyes: And as Bush stole the first election, any actions he carried out as President during his first term were illegal.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Ah the Princess Bride.......

Who declared it illegal? Where? What jursidiction? Are G Men about to kick in the door of the oval office and say "Mr President we believe you've been running this country under false pretenses."

Look I'm not disputing the facts about the case, just your extrapolation of what that means.

Zebra3

Freelancer wrote:

Again really spurious reasoning, many if most people will say that this is foreign policy and that the US has a right to be here. .

It may be foreign policy, but that doesn't hide the fact that the current government has more blood on its' hands than SF, yet people have an issue voting SF cos of its 'pro-war' appearance.

Freelancer wrote:

Who declared it illegal? Where? What jursidiction? Are G Men about to kick in the door of the oval office and say "Mr President we believe you've been running this country under false pretenses."

Look I'm not disputing the facts about the case, just your extrapolation of what that means.

:rolleyes:

People have been refering to the lack of a mandate to illegitamise the IRA's war, but no-one has accepted that America's war, which is supported by people who resent SF's support of the IRA's war, has no mandate from the Iraqi people and by their own reasoning would be as wrong as the IRA's war.

The OP asked the question 'Why vote SF'?

A lot of people in this thread said they never would SF because they're linked with a war without a mandate, yet say they would vote FG, FF or PD even though they are linked to the same thing.

Freelancer

Zebra3 wrote:

It may be foreign policy, but that doesn't hide the fact that the current government has more blood on its' hands than SF, yet people have an issue voting SF cos of its 'pro-war' appearance.

A massive over simplification, and easy generalisation. Members of SF are engaged in criminal activity, a SF MEP last year refused to name the cold blooded murderer a crime.

Now I don't vote for either side however you cannot go and say it's fine for SF to be pro it's armed struggle, because FF and FG supported the war in Iraq. Never heard the one, about two wrongs don't make a right.

:rolleyes:

What a lucid and well thought out argument.

People have been refering to the lack of a mandate to illegitamise the IRA's war, but no-one has accepted that America's war,

For starts what about people who object to both wars? SF claimed to be anti the iraq war but scurred up for a photo op with Bush weeks before the war.

which is supported by people who resent SF's support of the IRA's war, has no mandate from the Iraqi people and by their own reasoning would be as wrong as the IRA's war.

The OP asked the question 'Why vote SF'?

A lot of people in this thread said they never would SF because they're linked with a war without a mandate, yet say they would vote FG, FF or PD even though they are linked to the same thing.

Becuase it's a tenious link. PD members or FG members or FF members aren't actively particapting in the war are they? Are they flying F-16s or storming fallujah? No Now SF members they're not robbing banks, covering up murders, shooting people in the kneecap, blowing people up, now are they? Oh no wait they are.

ivan087

Zebra3 wrote:

It may be foreign policy, but that doesn't hide the fact that the current government has more blood on its' hands than SF, yet people have an issue voting SF cos of its 'pro-war' appearance.

FF and the PDs are an elected government supporting a war. If we feel strongly about the Iraqi war then the Irish people will not vote for this present government again. thats democracy. However SF/IRA carried out a war in my name without being directly elected by the Irish people.
So how can you be democratic when you are carrying out a war, claiming to be the real Irish army, when you are not even elected by your people. Think about it. I didnt have a say in the IRAs campaign, at least I can have a say in the Iraqi war which when electing the next government (the real irish government, with the real Irish army etc).

The_Minister

There is a difference between direct killing and indirect facilitation of killing

Zebra3

Freelancer wrote:

Now I don't vote for either side however you cannot go and say it's fine for SF to be pro it's armed struggle, because FF and FG supported the war in Iraq. Never heard the one, about two wrongs don't make a right.

When did I ever say that?

Freelancer wrote:

PD members or FG members or FF members aren't actively particapting in the war are they?

So if a SF member lets someone in the IRA use his house or car on the way to murdering people then they are not actively participating in murder? Because FF, PD, and FG are all doing basically the same thing.


ivan087,

Again you miss the point. The Iraqi people are the ones who are dying in their thousands. Who the hell do the government here think they are giving their "mandate" to allow these people to be murdered because the Irish people support them? Well? It's as stupid as saying the IRA's war was fine cos SF gave them the ok. The Irish government has no right whatsoever to facilitate the US on its way to murder innocent Iraqi people. :mad:

The German people voted Hitler in, so did that give him a mandate to invade Poland and carry out mass murder there. :rolleyes:

Time Magazine

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/03/07/story90887.asp

http://www.finegael.ie/fine-gael-news.cfm/NewsID/22430/action/detail/year/2006/month/2/level/page/aid/186/

Fine Gael did not back the invasion of Iraq, and you seem not to have responded to my allegations of the low tolerance (and indeed prevalence) of corruption within the party.

Freelancer

Zebra3 wrote:

When did I ever say that?

You're saying theres a moral equvilance to the SF/IRA's "war" and the irish political parties support to the US. I mean whats your point? That it's hyprocrtical for a FF supporter to object to SF on the grounds of their links to a terrorist organisation. Or that because certain other politcal parties "support" of the Iraq war, SF's behaviour is perfectly acceptable? Seriously whats your point?

So if a SF member lets someone in the IRA use his house or car on the way to murdering people then they are not actively participating in murder? Because FF, PD, and FG are all doing basically the same thing.

Jesus.

For starts SF members are doing this. The number of SF members who supported and offered pratical support to the IRA men who murdered Robert Mc Cartney is signification.

Now you are equating acts like this, with people supporting FF/PDs who have continued to allow US logistical and support flights (that have gone on for 50 odd years) to continue to use Shannon. Thats asnine

In your moral black and white world sure they equate, but pratically there's a world of difference, not least of which is that PD and FF members can not vote for their party if they find this objectionable. SF's entire philosophy is based around this armed struggle.

Again you miss the point. The Iraqi people are the ones who are dying in their thousands. Who the hell do the government here think they are giving their "mandate" to allow these people to be murdered because the Irish people support them? Well? It's as stupid as saying the IRA's war was fine cos SF gave them the ok. The Irish government has no right whatsoever to facilitate the US on its way to murder innocent Iraqi people. :mad:

Your inane use of smiles not withstanding. You're recall the Irish government fully backed all UN attempts to ratify the invasion. Are you saying that no one has no right to intervene on foreign soil, that any piece of foreign intervention from peace keeping to strategic defence is unacceptable?

The German people voted Hitler in, so did that give him a mandate to invade Poland and carry out mass murder there. :rolleyes:

Oh look inane smiles, and you broke Godwin's law.

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote:

Simple. People say they are voting for FF and FG cos they are morally pure blah blah blah as opposed to SF which aren't. Given the amount of people that are being murdered by the US regime which parties like FF and FG support, it doesn't give that point much credit, does it?

Depends on what else you have in that cup.
If its any US product or jobs at Intel then you/they too are supporting the US war effort via taxes to them indeed British taxes too if you want to say that.
A Tired argument.

What question? Where did you post that?

You continue to say oh somebody else does it too, why do you not condemn one when you condemn the other-Thats deflection especially when they are two totally different scenarios.

So Bush's mates back him to invade a foreign country. Do you think the people of Iraq see that as a mandate? :rolleyes: And as Bush stole the first election, any actions he carried out as President during his first term were illegal.

I simply replied to your assertion that one was as bad as the other.
The Brits could throw out their government.
Nobody could have thrown out the IRA as it's not accountable.
You brought them up and I'm simply pointing out the folly of the comparison.
I made no comment on whats going on in Iraq,I just commented on the folly of the comparison.

Cork

Ferris's daugher was not authorised to condemn the mccabe murder - who or what gives sf representatives authorisation?

They now think of themselves as democarts.

Yet they cannot condemn the murder of a garda.

The IRA still have not gone away and are up to criminality.

Yet the Shinners maintain their links.

constitutionus

face it lads all the smearing and SF bashing doesnt change the fact their gonna ROMP home at the next election. doubling or trebling their vote. your real question should be why the mainstream parties cant capatilise on the obvious disatisfaction with the current gov
you can waffle on insulting people but not FG or Labour are gonna increase their mandate any where NEAR the proportion that SF will. so ask yourself this WHY has enda and pat FAILED so miserably in appealing to the mainly young NEW voters that SF are hovering up?

it couldnt , shock horror, be that they just dont WANT what they have to sell?

Cork

constitutionus wrote:

this WHY has enda and pat FAILED so miserably in appealing to the mainly young NEW voters that SF are hovering up?

Links to an illegal and criminal gang?

Maybe Labour and FG need economic policies that will drive the economy back to the stone age?

constitutionus

Cork wrote:

Links to an illegal and criminal gang?

Maybe Labour and FG need economic policies that will drive the economy back to the stone age?

if they thought it'd get em votes they'd do it but you havent answered the question. why are they failing so miserbly