Supporting a party with links to a terrorist organisation

Rock Climber

RedPlanet wrote:

Diogenes

You're posting complete bollox.

That kind of language is unnecessary when debating.It's reserved on this board only in small measure for moderators who have decided a poster is acting the muppet.Dont let me see it again.

My comparison was spot on.
Compare: a person places a mark on a paper "voting ballet" for SF (a legal political party).

Why do you feel the need to point out SF is a legal party? No one disputes that or peoples rights to either vote for it or hold similar opinions to ti.
What the opposing side to you merely frequently point out are that they think those voters are misguided.

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.

I see so you are defacto saying its alright to support a party that indirectly and directly are apoligists for a murdering and crime campaign because 0.0001% of your spending has found its way through taxes or some other route to a governments munitions spend :rolleyes:

Doesnt wash that...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet

Diogenes wrote:

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

I haven't switched any goalpost whatsoever. I am calling you out on the topic of this thread:

from the OP:
"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."

You have come onboard and posted in support of such a position.
What I am saying, is that that viewpoint is bigotted because ye are trying to discriminate against a group of people because of the way in which they mark their ballet papers.

Diogenes wrote:

You've yet to explain why such a vote would be okay.

Such is your allegation, why else do you state that 49% of American's voted against Bush? Does voting against Bush mean that you aren't part and parcel of the war machine? [No] And that is precisely what i pointed out by raising the example of the Lockheed and Martin employee.

Diogenes wrote:

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.

I have not justifiied voting for SF at all so i don't know where your getting that from. But i am pointing out that ye "humanitarians" that are so concerned with IRA activity seem to ignore the far greater scale of human suffering inflicted by other partys around you.

Diogenes

Redplanet wrote:

You have come onboard and posted in support of such a position.
What I am saying, is that that viewpoint is bigotted because ye are trying to discriminate against a group of people because of the way in which they mark their ballet papers.

How is it bigotry? Bigotry is an irrational intolerance of a social group. I'm merely saying that by supporting SF now you are supporting a politcal party who try and create some wiggle room between "the cold blooded killing of a woman" and "murder". By supporting SF 20 years ago you were giving defacto support to their active paramilitary wing, ergo had to take some responsibilty for that party and their paramilitary wing, actions.

Let me ask you, what do you think voting SF means?

Such is your allegation, why else do you state that 49% of American's voted against Bush? Does voting against Bush mean that you aren't part and parcel of the war machine? [No] And that is precisely what i pointed out by raising the example of the Lockheed and Martin employee.

By voting for Bush, or by working for lockheed and Martin, people are making a conscious and active decision that they either support or find acceptable that company or governments policies. Therefore they must accept some level of responsibility for those actions. Similiar to voting for SF.

Frankly the point you are trying to make is to muddy the waters. I would not work for Lockheed and Martin, nor would I vote SF as I find both unacceptable. By ranting about some arms manufactor you are simply trying to justify voting SF by pointing at some other greater wrong.

I have not justifiied voting for SF at all so i don't know where your getting that from. But i am pointing out that ye "humanitarians" that are so concerned with IRA activity seem to ignore the far greater scale of human suffering inflicted by other partys around you.

Hardly and yet again you wearily try and deflect attention from the wrongdoing's of SF/IRA by waving at a greater wrong.

I am not ignoring the suffering inflicted by other partys around me, however the discussion at hand is about SF/IRA and you're trying to run this debate away, by pointing to Iraq or any other conflict and saying "well thats worse"

You cannot justify any wrong doing commited by anyone by pointing out a greater wrongdoing and saying "well that's worse". No system of morality justifies its own crimes by pointing at a unconnected greater crime

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I'm interested too in the media sanitising these people. Surely, a convicted killer or gun runner shouldn't be treated as normal.

Its not the purpose or role of the media to judge which news sources are worthy enought to be reported. If the new source is news then it should be reported. Like it or not statements from Sinn Fein, and statements from the IRA, are news.

Zombrex

biko wrote:

Godwin's Law Just waited for that.

LOL

Nazi comparisons should just be banned from Boards.ie ... thought that would probably wipe half the database

oscarBravo

lostexpectation wrote:

cop on

Per Rock Climber's post above, this is drifting close to the line also.

lostexpectation wrote:

you FF/PD have their own army too

Oh yes? What army is that, then? I know you couldn't possibly be talking about the Defence Forces, as they are patently our army, answerable to our elected government - not a private army, answerable to none of us.

Sleepy

I disagree wrote:

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?

Well, there's no 32 county country called Ireland, but I'm sure you'd disagree with that and I'd know what you refer to when you say "Ireland". There may not be a political party called Sinn Fein / IRA but I prefer to use that naming convention as I don't believe any separation exists between the two organisations and you know exactly who I'm referring to so let's not worry about the semantics...

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.

No, that's an opinion, not a fact. In my opinion, it's also a very naieve one.

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.

As already pointed out to you, Labour did not emerge from the shadow of a gunman and to contrast the IRA of the twenties and thirties to the terrorists of the 70's, 80's and 90's is pretty facetious tbh.

What I want matters as much as what you want. And when the economic impact of unity is considered, the majority of this country are against a United Ireland (never mind the fact that the majority of Northerners are also against it). Again, the notion that Ireland will be united is a naieve opinion, rather than a fact. As for the theory that more and more former terrorists will sit in the Dáil, well, I guess we'll have to wait for the next election to see if that's going to transpire. I can guarantee you one thing though: Sinn Fein will never rule over me. I'd rather live in neo-con America thanks.

lostexpectation

oscarBravo wrote:

Per Rock Climber's post above, this is drifting close to the line also. Oh yes? What army is that, then? I know you couldn't possibly be talking about the Defence Forces, as they are patently our army, answerable to our elected government - not a private army, answerable to none of us.

I have equal detaste for the IRA as I have for the Army.

Sleepy

Sorry lostexpectation, I don't get that, what's your beef with the Irish Defence Forces?

Jackie laughlin

How many times does it need to be emphasised? Despite decommissioning the IRA still exists. It has been retained.

Wicknight,
Everytime a newspaper is published or the evening news is assembled the media decide what is newsworthy, what you and I ought to know about, and to a great extent they decide what you and I will talk about.

I consider it a parody of civilisation to allow an unapologetic gun-runner to talk about drains. Imagine if a convicted paedophile who maintained that what he was convicted for was not wrong were brought on to Questions and Answers to pose as a normal member of society talking about, say, education or law and order.

SF/IRA get a very easy time from the media, especially RTE. I appreciate that this is well intentioned as they are trying to support "the peace process". It is however misguided and may be damaging our democracy.

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Wicknight,
Everytime a newspaper is published or the evening news is assembled the media decide what is newsworthy, what you and I ought to know about, and to a great extent they decide what you and I will talk about.

True ...

Jackie laughlin wrote:

SF/IRA get a very easy time from the media, especially RTE.

What would you like RTE to do, refuse to air any news that involves Sinn Fein or the IRA?

How does that serve the public interest? You think the public would be just better off not knowing about what is happening in the world beyond their doorstep?

Jackie laughlin wrote:

It is however misguided and may be damaging our democracy.

You have a funny idea of democracy.

That is quite an ironic statement given that news organistations filtering news to specific events or groups that they approve of is one of the first warning signs that a country is slipping away from democracy into dictatorship.

The central requirement for a democracy is information. The population have to be informed, in an un-biased way, so they can make up their own minds.

It is not RTE's responsibility to pass judgement or opinion on Sinn Fien, the IRA, or any organistation. They are simply supposed to report what happens. You make up your own mind.

In fact that would be a very bad idea, as it would be a form of censorship, and once you start censoring the news to what the news media feels is acceptable, you have lost the main area of political information.

You mights as well just move to America and watch Fox News all day long ...

Jackie laughlin

Complete lack of bias is impossible. The decision to say "killed" as opposed to "murdered" or vice versa is a decision to take sides. Nevertheless the media can strive to be dispassionate.

I haven't and never would favour a ban on news concerning SF/IRA but they are rather good at news management. They successfully create stories and insinuate themselves into others while avoiding talk about their violence. It is the duty of journalists to sort this out in the same way as they should sort out all attempts at manipulation.

A citizen coming to a public controversy requires that all points of view appear in the media. If SF have something to say which no other source is offering, then we have to hear it. If not, let's use the other source.

Let me return to that interesting question. Why should a convicted gun runner be treated differently by the media than a convicted car thief or paedophile in a similar situation?

Sleepy

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Why should a convicted gun runner be treated differently by the media than a convicted car thief or paedophile in a similar situation?

Well we do elect the unconvicted gun runners to the Dail, let the rip us off and then give them state funerals

Jackie laughlin

Hey, Sleepy,
Is there a danger that we are going to agree on something?

joebhoy1916

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Let me return to that interesting question. Why should a convicted gun runner be treated differently by the media than a convicted car thief or paedophile in a similar situation?

Jesus christ Martin Ferris served his time can you not just leave it at that.

Sure look at the late Charlie he gave them the money to get the guns!

Who would you rather living next door to you and your kids a paedophile or an ex gun runner?

Diogenes

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Jesus christ Martin Ferris served his time can you not just leave it at that.



Who would you rather living next door to you and your kids a paedophile or an ex gun runner?

"Vote Martin Ferris, at least he's not a paedophile"

Lads I think you've found your general election slogan.

Sure look at the late Charlie he gave them the money to get the guns!

Leaving aside the contested nature of whether Haughey did or didn't give money, theres this fact; do you really think you should be pointing at Haughey, as the barometer of what is the acceptable behaviour for a politician? I'm aware he's dead and all and his politcial rehabiliation is up and running. But do you really want to be comparing Ferris to Haughey?

Jackie laughlin

I don't know of any other ex-con, who says explicitly that he regrets nothing and is unreformed, who would be allowed to present himself or herself on TV to discuss drains or justice.

Much as I'm willing to hear bad things about the late C.J. Haughey, he was not found guilty of that crime.

I wouldn't like to have any unreformed convict living next door. Gun running is accessory to murder. Is murder worse than paedophilia? Well, they're both horrible. It's a close run thing but if you insist on an answer, then OK, murder and by extention gunrunning is worse.

joebhoy1916

Not just Haughey the list goes on and on!

"I'm aware he's dead" well of course you would be unless your not from Ireland?

Why would he regret doing something that is right?

He was found not guilty because it wouldnt look good prime minister giving the IRA money and he always called thatcher a bitch god bless the man!

The whole goverment was in on giving the IRA arms ask anyone who is in the army along time them sneaking arms up to them and all the soliders on the border the taoiseach wasn't gonna stand by and let innocent catholics been murdered all the troops at one stage thought they were going over the border.

Jackie laughlin

Joebhoy,
What possible difference could it make to the argument whether or not Diogenes is Irish?

Are YOU Irish? If so, can YOU speak Irish? If you cannot, why not?

joebhoy1916

Dont change the subject. You see I could understand where he is coming from if he wasnt from Ireland! I mean he could be mad dog sitting behind a computer! Or maybe prince Willliam!

Well I always thought I wasn't much good at Irish but I passed it in my leaving cert and thats good enough for me.

darkman2

I would have been happier had the nationalists and republicans up north voted in the SDLP in such large numbers tbh:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Are YOU Irish? If so, can YOU speak Irish? If you cannot, why not?

Off-topic. Don't go there, thanks.

joebhoy1916

darkman2 wrote:

I would have been happier had the nationalists and republicans up north voted in the SDLP in such large numbers tbh:rolleyes:

Why do you think they dont vote for them!

I would be happier if George Bush wasn't president of America but he is :rolleyes:

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I wouldn't like to have any unreformed convict living next door. Gun running is accessory to murder. Is murder worse than paedophilia? Well, they're both horrible. It's a close run thing but if you insist on an answer, then OK, murder and by extention gunrunning is worse.

Jackie say there is an election you have to vote

A - Sinn Fein
B - PUP

Which one would you vote for you have to pick one?

Mighty_Mouse

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.

I'm not sure about that at all.
Mainly because the IRA did not have much of a mandate(public support) for much of the troubles yet continued terrorist activities.

Responsibility moves the argument a bit to close to saying that if the those who supported the IRA or Sinn Fein during the troubles were to retract their support the campaign would of ended.

The responsibilty for the lives taken during the troubles remains with the actively-engaged 'armed' parties on both sides. Because those supporting both parties couldnt of made a difference to stop it at the time.

I'm interested too in the media sanitising these people.

Whats an example of this? Any english newspaper, Sunday World/Irish Independay?? (2 most popular papers in republic)

If I vote for FF, PDs or Labour, I am to a degree responsible for what they do

yes because you put them in power. Thats not true in the case of most peace-keeping political republicans.

I'm certainly responsible for giving them encouragement

Thats more like it. See the distinction?

Surely, a convicted killer or gun runner shouldn't be treated as normal

Is that not the point of democracy. If ex-paedophiles wish to establish a political party called reformed-paedophillia, whose mandate was to change rules in relation to the sex-offenders registration process or something. As long as within the law they are entitled to. Wont get much of a vote though. Democracy in action.

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

Not for you to decide im afraid. Society ie democracy decides what is and isn't acceptable through the voting system.

Mighty_Mouse

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.

An example of what reasonable debate can achieve!;)

It is rash to assume that someone who condemns an action has not made genuine efforts to understand that action..

Not at all. In fact I'd like to think a person knew what they were condeming in the first place!

However, there is no sign of SF repudiating the IRA...

and no sign of FF either. The old-IRA that is...................."Fianna Fail- the republican party".

Their objective is fascist rule not Irish unity

What makes you say this. Bit of a reach to say the goal of SF is NOT Irish unity!!! You're blowing your own nicely written arguments out of the water here by ranting.

people in poor estates are sold a bogus socialist line.

Surely the only way you can judge if their claims are bogus is by their actions.

SF haven't any power down south hence can't judge em yet.

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

And? point?...........but they weren't around during the Irish Civil war & war of Indpendance. Which allows them to rant and rave about northern politics and never have to take a stance on any topic.

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.

Fair enough. A little hiccup in my whole democracy argument.!!!!!!!!!!:>
But unless you have a better alternative. ?

Censorship & dictatorship hasn't worked great anywhere either.

Jackie laughlin

JoeBhoy,
Unlike you, I'll respond to points. Did you mean "DUP"?

If Prince William presents a coherent argument, what's the problem? I'm a republican (not in your weird understanding of the word) and I quite like the idea of royals having to debate.

Diogenes

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Not just Haughey the list goes on and on!

Your point being? SF are as bad as the rest of them, thats not really a ringing endorsment to vote for them?

"I'm aware he's dead" well of course you would be unless your not from Ireland?

Actually I was refering to the fact.....oh never mind......

He was found not guilty because it wouldnt look good prime minister giving the IRA money and he always called thatcher a bitch god bless the man!

Facts? Links? Evidence? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?

Jackie laughlin

Responsibility is not an absolute concept.
Voting is one method of supporting.
If the gun runner were to follow your suggestion and form a party called "Reformed Gunrunners and Murderers" that would be a welcome development in that it would state that he had changed and would also focus media attention on the name of the party.