Why vote Sinn Fein?

Freelancer

constitutionus wrote:

your right of course. now apply that to the IRA in the 1920s

weather you like it or not ALL governments and states are born in blood.

Portugal in 74, Czech republic, current Poland, reunited german, all states born from non violent means. So your argument doesn't hold water.

you'll be voting in 17 months for parties who draw their power from the slaughter of british and irish citizens in the early part of the 20th century and theres no getting out of that.

makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside doesnt it:D

The suggestion that the great great grandfathers of a current political party where engaged in violence, therefore legitmatises the current round of IRA/SF voters again doesn't hold water.

The depth of violence, the targetting of civilians the constant war of attrition and criminality cannot be justified by saying, "sure 70 years ago, these fellas were at it".

The_Minister

In general most states were born violently Germany, France etc

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

In general most states were born violently Germany, France etc

Sure, whatever, but justifying violence because "sure they were all at it" isn't a defense.

Generally the reasons to vote for SF seem to summerise, "we're just as bad as the rest of yis used to be" Which isn't really a compelling argument to vote for them. Aside from the fact that the sinister air of violence still hangs over them, essentially all SF are suggesting is "give us 70 years and we'll just be FF or FG". Not really an argument for a party wanting "social change"

constitutionus

ISAW wrote:

...

this just in not necessarily true. India was born in passive resistance. The current government of ireland and current state was not "born in blood". It was ratafied by plebcite

first off the first thing india did was plunge into a civil war with what would become pakistan which nearly escalated to nuclear war las year. so MODERN india is born in blood

isaw wrote:

in 1937. The Vatican state was not born in blood. It was gifted by Italy. To claim that political independence can only happen by shedding blood is completly bonkers! Indeed it is against current SF policy which favours constitutional politics over militarism!

ah yes the vatican, famous bastian of peace tollerance. im not going to go into what the catholic church has done over the years in the atrocity stakes. and when was i talking about political policies i was pointing out all countries established themselves by killing someone else. why the hell do you think we still have an army, for show? it might be crap but its there to kill anyone that'd invade us

isaw wrote:

This is an anachronistic comparison! You may as well say you will be voting for a democracy founded in Greek Wars or in British Nobles demanding Magna Carta from the Monarch! Both are true but not really relevant in todays context.

were not, but the brits are. tony still has to go to the queen to constitute a government

isaw wrote:

Furthermore it wasnt only based on "slaughter2 as you claim. The Irish Parliamentary Party had been using politics for 50 years to get Home Rule. Over that time there hadnt been much in the way of "Bloodshed". Considering risings in 1530s 1550s-70s, 1594-1603, 1641, 1798 , 1800 and 1803 the political line ( although slow) had done something with bloodshed to win the Irish back some level of equal status with settlers.

and they got in a position in the first place through constant uprisings, the brits were forced to give concessions in terms of voting rights not out of the good of their heats , but because people were willing to die for em.
and we didnt get home rule. that why the rising happened

weather you like it or not the very institutions of the state were bought in blood, againts the brits and then our own people in the civil war.
even if a brand new party was running the country with no connection to the origin of the state the authority they have comes from that era

constitutionus

Freelancer wrote:

Sure, whatever, but justifying violence because "sure they were all at it" isn't a defense.

Generally the reasons to vote for SF seem to summerise, "we're just as bad as the rest of yis used to be" Which isn't really a compelling argument to vote for them. Aside from the fact that the sinister air of violence still hangs over them, essentially all SF are suggesting is "give us 70 years and we'll just be FF or FG". Not really an argument for a party wanting "social change"

im not justifying it, im just stating the hypocracy of condeming certain parties . nobodys exactly shrouded in glory here

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

im not justifying it, im just stating the hypocracy of condeming certain parties . nobodys exactly shrouded in glory here

That amounts to the same thing

Freelancer

constitutionus wrote:

im not justifying it, im just stating the hypocracy of condeming certain parties . nobodys exactly shrouded in glory here

Horsemanure I've read over your previous posts, yourself and Zebra have a habit of attacking justified criticism of SF with a "sure yis are just as bad" When the reality is far different.

Yes, elements of FF were involved in violence, generations ago, suggesting that this means that the recent, and current behaviour of SF members should also be dismissed, ignores how there are people like the Mc Cartney family who are still looking for answers for crimes commited months ago. The current and recent beahviour of the party should be seen a measure of why you should vote for them, holding a mirror to this, aganist the actions of the distant relatives of another party is a cheap and tawdry piece of misdirection and deserves only contempt.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

That amounts to the same thing

Not really. It is similar to all those 'pacifists' who go on and on about political violence yet support the governemnt re: Shannon, support the US/UK invasion of Iraq. There are very few people who condemn all violence in whatever guise or circumstances that presents itself. I think we should all have to answer some pretty fundamental questions about our own support of violence in various guises. This manifested itself in a McCarthyite witch hunt last year on this forum.


Do you or have you supported violence (including failing to condemn violence)?

Did you or have you condemned violence?

If the answer is yes to both, you are a hyprocrite when it comes to violence

Cork

cormacstrain wrote:

Any chance you could tell us what members of SF were involved in the mccartney murder(links please) ? If you cant, then what exactly (links please) do you mean by the 'current and recent beahviour of the party'?

This question needs to be put to Adams.

The McCartneys deserved better than what they got from SF.

Freelancer

cormacstrain wrote:

Any chance you could tell us what members of SF were involved in the mccartney murder(links please)

You are of course ignoration of the 7 members of the party suspended over their involvement in the murder?

Or the candiate in the bar whom "saw nothing" both events have been extensively covered in this forum and in the mainstream media. If you still refute them, I will provide links, but the evidence is in the mainstream media.

? If you cant, then what exactly (links please) do you mean by the 'current and recent beahviour of the party'?

Has Martin Ferris or Angus ever given an explanation for the men arrested with the election posters, list of TDs fake garda uniforms and the stun gun?

Also, isnt it true that its against this forums rules to blatently brand political parties without supporting evidence, since if you say (for example) 'SFIRA' then you are branding any SF members on the boards as members of the IRA? Isnt that attacking the poster not the post?

Wow, thats a mighty thin skin you have there. Would you care to explain exactly the complext tangled web between SF and the IRA? How one can be the politcal wing of the other without control over the others actions? Also I might suggest you have a wander past the online gift shop of SF and see the plethora of IRA t-shirts and gifts on sale in the SF gift shop, before you get all high n mighty.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Not really. It is similar to all those 'pacifists' who go on and on about political violence yet support the governemnt re: Shannon, support the US/UK invasion of Iraq.

"political violence" - Thats a very subjective term.
Most people would not regard IRA violence as a paralell.
I mean tens of thousands can march against the IRA and did so several times and the IRA can and did ignore them.
Tens of thousands marched against the Iraq war and governments can and did ignore them but they do so at the risk of being turfed out of their jobs.
No one could have turfed out the IRA,they did their own thing,safe in the knowledge that they didnt have to answer to joe soap in the street.

As regards Bush, he's done in my humble opinion massive damage to his parties electoral chances.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

"political violence" - Thats a very subjective term.

Fair enough - call it violence full stop

Most people would not regard IRA violence as a paralell.

Violence is violence is violence

I mean tens of thousands can march against the IRA and did so several times and the IRA can and did ignore them.
Tens of thousands marched against the Iraq war and governments can and did ignore them but they do so at the risk of being turfed out of their jobs.
No one could have turfed out the IRA,they did their own thing,safe in the knowledge that they didnt have to answer to joe soap in the street.

Still does not explain why somebody who agrees with one sort of violence and condemns another sort is not being a hypocrite

As regards Bush, he's done in my humble opinion massive damage to his parties electoral chances.

He has done bigger damage to the civilians in Iraq

Cork

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Still does not explain why somebody who agrees with one sort of violence and condemns another sort is not being a hypocrite

The Provos had zero mandate for their campaign of carnage. They ignored the Irish Public, the Pope, marches, Peace Trains etc.

SF also got meagre amounts of votes in the republic.

The Iraq situation is differant as both the US and UK are soverign governments whilst the provos were thugs.

A Dub in Glasgo

Cork wrote:

The Provos had zero mandate for their campaign of carnage. They ignored the Irish Public, the Pope, marches, Peace Trains etc.

SF also got meagre amounts of votes in the republic.

The Iraq situation is differant as both the US and UK are soverign governments whilst the provos were thugs.

So violence is justified if it is a government that carries out the deeds? Hmmm

Freelancer

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So violence is justified if it is a government that carries out the deeds? Hmmm

What a glib and handy whataboutrey, Our violence is okay because a govt violence is okay. Gosh for a supporter of such a catholic football team
you do enjoy ignoring the ethos of the religion.

A Dub in Glasgo

Freelancer wrote:

What a glib and handy whataboutrey, Our violence is okay because a govt violence is okay. Gosh for a supporter of such a catholic football team
you do enjoy ignoring the ethos of the religion.

You support violence then? For consistancy across threads you see. Nothing to do with whataboutrey and nothing to do with football and religon

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Fair enough - call it violence full stop

OK

Violence is violence is violence

OK

Still does not explain why somebody who agrees with one sort of violence and condemns another sort is not being a hypocrite

Thats simple.
If one denounces random uncontroled violence, uncontroled in the sense that its not subject to a democratic mandate and maintains that stance,one is not being hypocritical.
Violence committed by parties on behalf of a democratically elected government is not random and uncontroled.
If one condemns violence full stop and still approves of it by a government then one is being hypocritical.

Theres a disernable difference

Freelancer

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You support violence then? For consistancy across threads you see. Nothing to do with whataboutrey and nothing to do with football and religon

Where did I say I support violence? You've a disagreeable habit of trying to stuff words in people's mouths.

I'd go on but I feel your argument has been sucessfully demolished by Earthman.

Zombrex

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

It is similar to all those 'pacifists' who go on and on about political violence yet support the governemnt re: Shannon, support the US/UK invasion of Iraq.

What pacifists support the Iraq war?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

There are very few people who condemn all violence in whatever guise or circumstances that presents itself.

Very true, because there is different degrees of acceptability when it comes to violence.

For example, an armed police officer shooting dead a IRA suspect as the IRA tries to rob a bank or post office is not the same as an IRA suspect shooting dead a Gardi while the IRA tries to rob a bank or post office.

It is very convenient distraction to the discussion of the violence of groups like the IRA to say that all violence is the same and therefore if you support one form of violence you must support all forms of violence.

That is nonsense in my opinion, and I doubt you actually believe it.

The_Minister

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So violence is justified if it is a government that carries out the deeds? Hmmm

The very definition of a state is an organisation which holds the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

The very definition of a state is an organisation which holds the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

What does this pithy little bon mot have to do with anything?

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

What does this pithy little bon mot have to do with anything?

Look at the quote

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

Look at the quote

I can read, I'm just trying to figure out the point you're raising by bringing it up; that its acceptable morally but not legally for people to take up violence? Or that State's only exist to legitimatize violence?

Either statements is juvenile and a weak defence for the actions of the IRA, and has been easily dealt with by previous posters.

So again, whats your point?

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

I can read, I'm just trying to figure out the point you're raising by bringing it up; that its acceptable morally but not legally for people to take up violence? Or that State's only exist to legitimatize violence?

Either statements is juvenile and a weak defence for the actions of the IRA, and has been easily dealt with by previous posters.

So again, whats your point?

Neither. People wanted to know why state violence is OK but not the IRA's. That is why.
That is probably the most widely accepted definition of a state.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

Neither. People wanted to know why state violence is OK but not the IRA's. That is why.

Many people offered more complex and pragmatic and less pithy reasons. Don't give your little quote and claim it is cannon.

That is probably the most widely accepted definition of a state.

Really? In what circles? By whom?

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

Many people offered more complex and pragmatic and less pithy reasons. Don't give your little quote and claim it is cannon.

The problem is that states vary greatly and this definition is one of the few that encompasses every varied state.

Freelancer wrote:

Really? In what circles? By whom?

It was first coined by Max Weber the sociologist. It has since spread to the field of politics as a foundation for the comprehension of states, their interaction, and internal pacification.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

The problem is that states vary greatly and this definition is one of the few that encompasses every varied state.

So you admit that its a glib turn of phrase and scraping at its surface for just moment by asking you to consider; is there a world of diference between a police officer shooting someone who is commiting a robbery and a terrorist commiting a robbery and shooting a police officer? The answer is yes, so to use this as a justification for IRA terrorism is horsemanure.

It was first coined by Max Weber the sociologist. It has since spread to the field of politics as a foundation for the comprehension of states, their interaction, and internal pacification.

Does that prove it is the most widely accepted definition of a state?

ISAW

Firespinner wrote:

The very definition of a state is an organisation which holds the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

Just because only one army is acceptable as legimate in the state does not mean that

1. That army must always use violence
or
2. Violence is justified by illegitimate armies in the State.
or
3. State violence is always justified - mind you the opposite is most likely true - violence by non state forces is never justified.
or
4. States are defined only by their ability to use violence (although the people accepting only one army or police force does indeed have something to do with it.)

What does any of this say about Sinn Fein refusing to "authorise" people to condemn violence by their pals.

constitutionus

ISAW wrote:

3. State violence is always justified - mind you the opposite is most likely true - violence by non state forces is never justified.

then god help you if we ever end up with a hitler running this country:rolleyes:

Time Magazine

Or a Gerry Adams for that matter.

But in this grand day of globalisation, I'll just buy a plane ticket.