Supporting a party with links to a terrorist organisation

Jackie laughlin

There is a tendency creeping in here to accept that members of SF/IRA who didn't actually kill anyone bear no responsibility. All members, voters and supporters share some responsibility.

If I vote for FF, PDs or Labour, I am to a degree responsible for what they do. I'm certainly responsible for giving them encouragement.

I'm interested too in the media sanitising these people. Surely, a convicted killer or gun runner shouldn't be treated as normal. I mean a drug dealer or a paedophile emerging from jail would not be treated seriously if they spoke on routine political matters unless they first showed remorse, expressed regret over what they had done and made it obvious that they no longer had any contact with their former criminal colleagues.

sceptre

my_house wrote:

jackie - i find so many flaws with your reasoning.

I for one am very interested in reading them. How about listing them?

my_house

unfortunately going by the boards rules, i might be accussed of attacking the poster as I find most of Jackies basis for his post based on sketchy enough information gleaned from sitting back and looking at things that have happened and stating how bad things are. I would have to refer to other times in history etc etc and make comparisons to now which wouldnt be in keeping with the thread, henceforth I have to decline the offer of elaborating.

Diogenes

my_house wrote:

unfortunately going by the boards rules, i might be accussed of attacking the poster as I find most of Jackies basis for his post based on sketchy enough information gleaned from sitting back and looking at things that have happened and stating how bad things are. I would have to refer to other times in history etc etc and make comparisons to now which wouldnt be in keeping with the thread, henceforth I have to decline the offer of elaborating.

Is your problem with Jackie? or with his reasoning? Its seems perfectly reasonable, the person who, votes for a terrorist, or gives succor and support to a terrorist, while knowing full well that they are a terrorist while doing so, must shoulder some responsibility for the terrorists actions.

What exactly is flawed about that logic?

my_house

Is your problem with Jackie? or with his reasoning? Its seems perfectly reasonable, the person who, votes for a terrorist, or gives succor and support to a terrorist, while knowing full well that they are a terrorist while doing so, must shoulder some responsibility for the terrorists actions.

the problem is that unless you are in the shoes of those supporting, then you cant make such rash statements, not unless you believe humans are not and cannot be affected by their environment. If you havent lived there, experienced the experience then how dare anyone critise those who have. again though I'd have to drag in info about maybe ww2 where people had to kill others and how that can be classed idfferently but i wont as its stretching the thread, but basically unless you walk in a mans shoes (which tobe honest in relation to the nborth not too many of the SF bashers actually have - and I mean live there for years, not until one was 3 or soemthing) and experienced what turns people to supporting the IRA - well unless you have that then iuts best not to degrade those who have as the person doing the degrading mightnt exactly have a full understanding.

Diogenes

my_house wrote:

the problem is that unless you are in the shoes of those supporting, then you cant make such rash statements, not unless you believe humans are not and cannot be affected by their environment. If you havent lived there, experienced the experience then how dare anyone critise those who have.

I reject that assertion. Plenty of people live up north who want no part with either side in the conflict.

Furhtermore to claim no one who "wasn't there" has no business expressing an opinion on a subject is such a sweeping claim, as it would mean no one could comment on anything, that happened anywhere? By your rational I am forbidden to have an opinion on the Iraq war, government spending on the health service, or the lord of the rings trilogy, because I wasn't there

again though I'd have to drag in info about maybe ww2 where people had to kill others and how that can be classed idfferently but i wont as its stretching the thread, but basically unless you walk in a mans shoes (which tobe honest in relation to the nborth not too many of the SF bashers actually have - and I mean live there for years, not until one was 3 or soemthing) and experienced what turns people to supporting the IRA - well unless you have that then iuts best not to degrade those who have as the person doing the degrading mightnt exactly have a full understanding.

In the mists of all that shoddy grammar the claim that you have to be from the north lived in the north before you're allowed to even express an opinion on the north is repeated. I've plenty of first and second hand sources to draw my opinion about the conflict, to jeer dismissively that everyone who wasn't born off the Shankill road should shut up is a form of censorship, basically trying to justify the unjustifiable by saying "you weren't there so shut it"

Jackie laughlin

Firstly, if one had to have direct experience in order to comment, study and thought would be irrelevant and few people could comment on most issues.

Secondly, I have direct experience. I live in a fragile, democratic Ireland whose stability is threatened by fascists. There is a gun runner sitting in my parliament.

Moreover, I have received direct threats from these people. I was phoned many time in the middle of the night when an organisation with which I was involved refused to support the hunger strikers. Recently, at a public gathering, while listening to a speaker, I was made to move under duress to a place behind a SF banner.

my_house

Diogenes wrote:

I reject that assertion. Plenty of people live up north who want no part with either side in the conflict.

Furhtermore to claim no one who "wasn't there" has no business expressing an opinion on a subject is such a sweeping claim, as it would mean no one could comment on anything, that happened anywhere? By your rational I am forbidden to have an opinion on the Iraq war, government spending on the health service, or the lord of the rings trilogy, because I wasn't there



In the mists of all that shoddy grammar the claim that you have to be from the north lived in the north before you're allowed to even express an opinion on the north is repeated. I've plenty of first and second hand sources to draw my opinion about the conflict, to jeer dismissively that everyone who wasn't born off the Shankill road should shut up is a form of censorship, basically trying to justify the unjustifiable by saying "you weren't there so shut it"

shoddy grammer - is that attacking the poster (intelligence etc) or the words?

my claim is that if people cant be bothered taking into consideration what makes people do things, then its best to keep quiet. you dont have to be from the north, but to say anyone who ever support the IRA or SF is a murderer etc etc etc - thats justs going too far and cant be substantiated.

sceptre

I've split this from the McConville thread, partly to ensure that thread stays on topic and partly because this is a discussion worthy in its own right outside the confines of that thread.

sceptre

my_house wrote:

I would have to refer to other times in history etc etc and make comparisons to now which wouldnt be in keeping with the thread, henceforth I have to decline the offer of elaborating.

I'd say that given that this is now in its own thread that this particular obstacle has been removed.

Jackie laughlin

No one would say that anyone who ever supported or voted for SF/IRA is a murderer. They are, however, responsible for giving their support to murder. Similarly, if a person voted for, say, the PDs they would be responsible for privatisation of state assets. We all know what we're doing when we vote.


Anyone with a shred of humanity has tried to understand the motivations of murderers. It is rash to assume that someone who condemns an action has not made genuine efforts to understand that action.

Diogenes

my_house wrote:

shoddy grammer - is that attacking the poster (intelligence etc) or the words?

Its saying I'm struggling to understand your point, you're not putting it forward in a coherant manner.

my claim is that if people cant be bothered taking into consideration what makes people do things, then its best to keep quiet.

And is anyone here not taking that into consideration? This steems from the IRA's expressed reason for murdering Mc Conville, people have put forward an alternative explaination.

And I suggest you take a look at the more complex reasons why people do "things", while I'll agree many IRA men joined up to protect their communities and unite Ireland, many more had less altrustic reasons, I'd suggest you start looking at Slab Murphy at little closer, for a start.

you dont have to be from the north, but to say anyone who ever support the IRA or SF is a murderer etc etc etc - thats justs going too far and cant be substantiated.

I'll think you'll find not a single soul on this thread said "anyone who ever supported the IRA or SF is a murderer", the closest anyone comes to such a claim is Jackie said "All members, voters and supporters share some responsibility." He does not call them murderers.

RedPlanet

Are all Germans guilty too?
Since they (the ones living during the big one) were probably working or something and thereby supporting via their labour and taxes, the SS and the extermination of people.

How about present day American's?
They are going about paying taxes that build bombs and bullets that kill Iraqi women and children. At a far greater scale then the IRA did.

joebhoy1916

Diogenes wrote:

I'd suggest you start looking at Slab Murphy at little closer, for a start.

I'll think you'll find not a single soul on this thread said "anyone who ever supported the IRA or SF is a murderer", the closest anyone comes to such a claim is Jackie said "All members, voters and supporters share some responsibility." He does not call them murderers.

So someone who supports Sinn Fein who may not even have been alive when she was killed its there responsibility! B/S

What about Slab he has land going from north to south easy for the IRA at the time to carry out attacks then come down south!

Diogenes

RedPlanet wrote:

Are all Germans guilty too?
Since they (the ones living during the big one) were probably working or something and thereby supporting via their labour and taxes, the SS and the extermination of people.

Yeah, not sure if Godwin's law applies to this site.

But the point that whistles over your head, is not every german was a nazi. People made a conscious decision to join the party. And some people played a more enthuastic roll in the holocaust.

A camap guard bears some responsibility, as does the man who drove the train there, or the man who brought the food and could see the how little food was coming in for so many people.

How about present day American's?
They are going about paying taxes that build bombs and bullets that kill Iraqi women and children. At a far greater scale then the IRA did.

Once again you are comparing a greater crime to a lesser crime in order to defend your crime, reprehensible logic.

Most americans are complicity and involved in this war, in fact 49% of Americans voted aganist Bush.

On the other hand SF supporters made a conscious decision to support a party with a paramilitary wing, to equate that to both US citizens and WW2 german citizens is just highly dubious.

joeyboy wrote:

So someone who supports Sinn Fein who may not even have been alive when she was killed its there responsibility! B/S

No joeyboy but you are supporting a party and their terrorist wing who refuse to consider her murder is a crime. You cannot divorce that stance from the rest of SFs policies.

What about Slab he has land going from north to south easy for the IRA at the time to carry out attacks then come down south!

Slab is among a select group of republicans who have made an enormous amount of money on the back of this "struggle" is the point you are missing, my-house wants us to consider "why" people got involved, I don't think he even contemptables greed was a propellent for some IRA volunteers.

RedPlanet

Diogenes

You're posting complete bollox.
My comparison was spot on.
Compare: a person places a mark on a paper "voting ballet" for SF (a legal political party).
The other person pays taxes that builds actual munitions that are currently being used against undefended persons in another country.

If you're going to argue to castigate one group, and treat them as pariahs, then you better have a closer look around you.

Why do you believe that marking a paper "voting ballet" for say... the Opposition, gets you off the hook? You're still paying taxes, still financially contributing to murder.

I say, placing a mark on a "voting ballet" is a bit of a joke tbh. It doesn't particularly matter which way you vote, or if you don't vote at all (interestingly i wonder where you put those people? Are they among the guilty or the innocent?)

Here's another example for you.
Lets say i work for Lockheed and Martin, manufacturing weapons of war in, and for, USA.
I know that those weapons are built to be used, and in the current climate, they'll be used in 3rd world countries that are incapable of defending themselves like Iraq or Afghanistan.
Now when i go to the polls, i vote "Democratic Party".
So by your "logic" i'm off the hook.
Totally innocent huh?

ISAW

my_house wrote:

shoddy grammer - is that attacking the poster (intelligence etc) or the words?

my claim is that if people cant be bothered taking into consideration what makes people do things, then its best to keep quiet. you dont have to be from the north, but to say anyone who ever support the IRA or SF is a murderer etc etc etc - thats justs going too far and cant be substantiated.

this is the classic error committed usually by Loyalists and Unionists. In the above case it is committed by a sympathiser of Republicsn Terrorism. One can cunderstand the reasons why people do things without hoving to justify the actions based on those reasons. Repub;icans can understand the reasons why peoblems ecsist in the north. But most (in fact the vast majority of Irish ) Republicans do NOT support either SF or the IRA. SF themselves support ONLY the PIRA. SF oppose all other IRA's!

Most Republicans CAN understand the resons for the peoblems but it is only those who support SF or the IRA whether CIRA RIRA OIRA or PIRA or any of the other REpublican terror groups who fail to condemn them and who justify their actions.

Sleepy

my_house wrote:

the problem is that unless you are in the shoes of those supporting, then you cant make such rash statements, not unless you believe humans are not and cannot be affected by their environment. If you havent lived there, experienced the experience then how dare anyone critise those who have. again though I'd have to drag in info about maybe ww2 where people had to kill others and how that can be classed idfferently but i wont as its stretching the thread, but basically unless you walk in a mans shoes (which tobe honest in relation to the nborth not too many of the SF bashers actually have - and I mean live there for years, not until one was 3 or soemthing) and experienced what turns people to supporting the IRA - well unless you have that then iuts best not to degrade those who have as the person doing the degrading mightnt exactly have a full understanding.

I've avoided the politics board for nearly a year because of people like yourself and I promised myself I wouldn't get dragged into IRA/Sinn Fein threads again as they have a tendency to get me banned when I speak my mind in them but I have to call you out on this post.

Using your logic, no Irish Citizen living in the Republic of Ireland has the right to an opinion on the North as we "haven't lived there". I'd like to agree with this. Can we take Sinn Fein / IRA out of our parliament and off our ballot papers now and let the UK deal with their own mess please?

To get back on topic, on this issue, I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. Voting for FF means you shoulder some of the responsibility for their incompetence and corruption; voting for the Socialist Worker's Party means you shoulder some of the responsibility for their naieveté; voting for Sinn Fein/IRA means you shoulder some of the responsibility for supporting murderers, drug dealers and criminals; voting for Fine Gael means you shoulder for some of their... well, I've forgotten what they're to be criticised for they've done so little in the last few years... but you get my drift.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

I disagree

Can we take Sinn Fein / IRA out of our parliament and off our ballot papers now and let the UK deal with their own mess please?

There is no party called Sinn Féin/IRA. Would you care to share the evidence and the ‘dogs on the street know it’ sort of evidence does not cut it? The fact is that support for Sinn Féin will grow as it has done and eventually they will get into power and end up becoming another FF. I would rather see constitutional nationalists move to forefront and keep the guns in the past. FF, FG and Labour are all parties who emerged from the shadow of the gunman. Anyway, what you want doesn’t matter. Ireland will be united. More and more former alleged volunteers will sit in the Dáil and perhaps gain power and rule over you and me whether you like it or not.

Diogenes

RedPlanet wrote:

Diogenes

You're posting complete bollox.

Here's another example for you.
Lets say i work for Lockheed and Martin, manufacturing weapons of war in, and for, USA.
I know that those weapons are built to be used, and in the current climate, they'll be used in 3rd world countries that are incapable of defending themselves like Iraq or Afghanistan.
Now when i go to the polls, i vote "Democratic Party".
So by your "logic" i'm off the hook.
Totally innocent huh?

You've switched the goalposted you've started by saying all voters now it's just workers for a arms dealer.

I'd never work for an arms maker. I could not or would not. In much the same way I could not or would not vote for SF it would be morally reprehensible. You've yet to explain why such a vote would be okay.

In much the same way I would be appalled by an enviromentalist working for a oil company or a human rights activist working for the BNP.

Your consist justification for a SF vote is to point to a greater of two evils and say "hey it could be worse we could be these guys" Thats not a ringing endorsement. For anyone.

joebhoy1916

What political party do you support?

PD'S?

Maybe you should stand in elections then if you get elected you can speak your mind in the Dail.

biko

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is a tendency creeping in here to accept that members of SF/IRA who didn't actually kill anyone bear no responsibility. All members, voters and supporters share some responsibility.

If I vote for FF, PDs or Labour, I am to a degree responsible for what they do. I'm certainly responsible for giving them encouragement.

I'm interested too in the media sanitising these people. Surely, a convicted killer or gun runner shouldn't be treated as normal. I mean a drug dealer or a paedophile emerging from jail would not be treated seriously if they spoke on routine political matters unless they first showed remorse, expressed regret over what they had done and made it obvious that they no longer had any contact with their former criminal colleagues.

Join date June 2006 and you see tendencies in this forum? If you lurked/posted as someone else here before you'd see that these opinions has always been here, at least as long as I can remember (1 year ).
Some posters differentiate between SF and IRA.
Some posters have never been north but have seen terrible things on the telly.
Some posters believe that you should be let back into society after serving time for trying to force an foreign force out.
Some posters wants to cement over the North and build a big IKEA there.

We all have a "right*" to be heard here. I'd say that there are more anti-republican posters here than republican so you can rest assured that it won't turn into a IRA recruitment centre.

*private board = no rights

Jackie laughlin

Some do argue for a benign outcome in which SF merges with FF and we all live happily ever after. However, there is no sign of SF repudiating the IRA. Moreover, SF/IRA want to rule local areas and in quite a few places do so.

SF/IRA have now accepted partition. Their objective is fascist rule not Irish unity. True they will continue to bleat about unification especially for their US financiers. In Ireland - unknown to the US financiers - people in poor estates are sold a bogus socialist line.

(Incidentally, the Labour Party unlike FF and FG did not derive from SF. It was formed to copy the emerging British Labour Party.)

There are degrees of responsibility ranging from direct action to staying silent when faced by evil.

If Nazi Germany is to have a place in this discussion, it should be remembered that Hitler and his party came to power via an election at which voters knew precisely what the Nazis were about.

biko

Jackie laughlin wrote:

If Nazi Germany is to have a place in this discussion, it should be remembered that Hitler and his party came to power via an election at which voters knew precisely what the Nazis were about.

Godwin's Law Just waited for that.

Diorraing

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is a tendency creeping in here to accept that members of SF/IRA who didn't actually kill anyone bear no responsibility. All members, voters and supporters share some responsibility.

If I vote for FF, PDs or Labour, I am to a degree responsible for what they do. I'm certainly responsible for giving them encouragement.

I'm interested too in the media sanitising these people. Surely, a convicted killer or gun runner shouldn't be treated as normal. I mean a drug dealer or a paedophile emerging from jail would not be treated seriously if they spoke on routine political matters unless they first showed remorse, expressed regret over what they had done and made it obvious that they no longer had any contact with their former criminal colleagues.

Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were born out of "terrorists", does that mean that everyone who voted for Eamonn de Valera endorse terrorism. The IRA are gone and decommissioned and its not help people like you trying to reopen old wounds. OK, so people voted for and endorsed their military campaign, they had their reasons for doing so, and maybe they were endorsing terrorism but in their eyes it was necessary to achieve their civil rights

Jackie laughlin

Unfortunately early SF did NOT make their intentions clear. Had they said they supported murder and mayhem, then a vote at the time for Dev would clearly have supported violence.

The IRA still exists. As I've already said, I saw them marching in their jackboots at the head of this year's SF parade, "Make Partition History, in Dublin. Why do they still exist? They enforce SF/IRA rule in the areas they control and seek to control.

Sgt. Sensible

Ireland's been kept in the political dark ages because of 80 years of civil war division nonsense, I hope the next 80 won't be about the Troubles.

lostexpectation

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is a tendency creeping in here to accept that members of SF/IRA who didn't actually kill anyone bear no responsibility. All members, voters and supporters share some responsibility.

If I vote for FF, PDs or Labour, I am to a degree responsible for what they do. I'm certainly responsible for giving them encouragement.

I'm interested too in the media sanitising these people. Surely, a convicted killer or gun runner shouldn't be treated as normal. I mean a drug dealer or a paedophile emerging from jail would not be treated seriously if they spoke on routine political matters unless they first showed remorse, expressed regret over what they had done and made it obvious that they no longer had any contact with their former criminal colleagues.

jackie do you no notion of how many politicians and political parties around the world have former terrorists in them? how about nelson mandela for the obvious eg?

cop on

it be hard to find any party that didn't start off with a paramilatary org, FF and FG included...

you FF/PD have their own army too

cyrus the virus

The Provisional Irish Republican Army has decommissioned their arms. A huge step.

Independent Monitoring Commission latest report as of May 2006 wrote:

It remains our absolutely clear view that the PIRA leadership has committed itself to following a peaceful path. It is working to bring the whole organisation fully along with it and has expended considerable effort to refocus the movement in support of its objective. In the last three months this process has involved the further dismantling of PIRA as a military structure.

its report made the following comments about current PIRA activity

Independent Monitoring Commission latest report as of May 2006 wrote:

We are not aware of current terrorist, paramilitary or violent activity sanctioned by the leadership. We have had no indications in the last three months of training, engineering activity, recent recruitment or targeting for the purposes of attack. There has now been a substantial erosion in PIRA’s capacity to return to a military campaign without a significant period of build-up, which in any event we do not believe they have any intentions of doing. The instructions we have previously mentioned to refrain from violence or rioting still stand.

So SF have broken there links with the terrorist organisation since it is no longer.

Last I heard the Real Irish Republican Army is still atcive, this was a small breakaway from the Provisional IRA, formed in 1986 by those opposed to Sinn Féin taking seats in Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Irish parliament. SF also have no links with the Real Irish Republican Army.its report made the following comments about current PIRA activity

If we're gonna go down this road then:

One can also say that all DUPs are "terrorist" since Ian Paisly, Peter Robinson and Ivan Foster did found Ulster Resistance.

All Germans are nazis etc

Rock Climber

Diorraing wrote:

Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were born out of "terrorists", does that mean that everyone who voted for Eamonn de Valera endorse terrorism.

They endorsed the civil war yes.For years FG voters and FF voters had one track minds as to who to vote for and it was all based on civil war politics.
Thats much less so now.

It of course does not mean that they endorsed murder and mahem in todays society.

The IRA are gone and decommissioned and its not help people like you trying to reopen old wounds.

The children,now grieving adults of Mrs mcConville had to listen to Sf representatives basically say it was ok for their mother to be murdered and her body hidden like a dog on questions and answers.For a modern political party to do that was not only a mistake, it was reprehensible and uncivilised.The carry on with regard to Garda McCabe is similar and equally reprehensible.