Supporting a party with links to a terrorist organisation

bonkey

joebhoy1916 wrote:

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?

What do you mean you have to vote and you have to pick one of these options?

Such makebelieve situations have absolutely no bearing in the real world.

In any realworld election, even if these were the only two parties, you can still choose not to vote, or to spoil your vote.

Diogenes

bonkey wrote:

What do you mean you have to vote and you have to pick one of these options?

Such makebelieve situations have absolutely no bearing in the real world.

In any realworld election, even if these were the only two parties, you can still choose not to vote, or to spoil your vote.

Yeah it was like offering someone the choice of having a

A) Hardline Communist State
Fascist Dictatorship

And infering what your political leanings were from such a vote.

joebhoy1916

Well you say you would never vote for Sinn Fein im just wondering if you would vote for the PUP? Wouldn't be surprised if you picked PUP to be honest.

Diogenes

joebhoy1916 wrote:

Well you say you would never vote for Sinn Fein im just wondering if you would vote for the PUP? Wouldn't be surprised if you picked PUP to be honest.

Frankly I think you're becoming far too personal about this.

But no I wouldn't vote unionist, this is an example of the entrenched mindset among some republicians , anyone, who isn't with us, doesn't think like us, must be the "enemy".

ISAW

RedPlanet wrote:

Diogenes

You're posting complete bollox.
My comparison was spot on.

This would be your comparison that all Americans are responsible for the war in Iraq? and that all Germans are responsible for the WWII holocaust?

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

Let me pick out one SF policy here. Racism. Do you think someone who supports the National Front who have apolicy that foreigners be thrown out of the country is racist? SF do don't they. Carefull with your answer. You might not be toeing the party line.

The other person pays taxes that builds actual munitions that are currently being used against undefended persons in another country.

This would include munitions used against undefended people in Northern Ireland by the IRA would it?

If tax money was used to fund the IRA there would be problems here. Have you ever heard of the "Arms Trial"? And that was when Irish people were far more militiant than today.

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

Indeed if anyone is to decry terrorism in Israel Iraq Indonesia or anywhere else then they had better not apply double standards when it comes to Ireland! Funny how An Phobleacht has a line on all of the above and a different one on "volounteers" who are regarded as heroes isnt it?

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.

Sorry but SF are not in government paying funds to the IRA. If they were then the courts would remove them from government. In any case it is not a "spot on" example in spite of your cliam that it is. There is a world of difference between some voting for a group out of office and paying taxes and someone voting for a party which does not condemn or even praised those who practice racism/sexism/terrorism/etc. or who votes for a party with an unconstitutional private army.

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

Well you would say that wouldnt you? You support a party who are not in government and who have an unconstitutional private army. If they could have taken over the state with their minority of popular support you would be quite happy with your junta telling everybody what to do like the Marxist and other dictatorships they were on good terms and dealt with.

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.

Eh? No you dont! Lets say they manufacture nukes. The whole idea of nukes was they they threat of them being used stopped war. Bizarre isnt it?

But let us assume the US are in Iraq or Afghanistan. ... lets not no time

lostexpectation

Jackie Ill just laugh at you when SF get a significant increase in vote and TDs next yr laugh.

Jackie laughlin

LostExpectation,
Unless there is a concerted effort to tell the truth between now and the next election, you will have the last laugh.

I'm a socialist; I clearly won't be laughing.

lostexpectation

Jackie laughlin wrote:

LostExpectation,
Unless there is a concerted effort to tell the truth between now and the next election, you will have the last laugh.

I'm a socialist; I clearly won't be laughing.

wtf?

Mighty_Mouse

Responsibility is not an absolute concept.

So your saying that SF supporters are not "absolutely" responsible for the murders in the north?

See the way the "murderers, murderers, murderers" type of political debate leads to shaky ground?

Voting is one method of supporting.

Sorry not sure what your point is.

If the gun runner were to follow your suggestion

Sorry let me stop you there. Did I suggest the formation of a paedophile party?
Or pick an example from the sky to illustrate a point?

See the way people can get picky with landguage when you use words (that you dont me in an absolute manner) like "responsible"?

and form a party called "Reformed Gunrunners and Murderers" that would be a welcome development in that it would state that he had changed

Sorry again you've lost me.

Are you saying the IRA or Sinn Fein is a bunch of Gunrunners and Murderers?
Well seeing as the IRA was fighting a geurilla war in the north I should think so.
Wouldn't be much of a fight without either of the two above skills!!!

Now if your question is as to whether these "reformed gunrunners and murderers" wish to further their goals through completely political/peaceful methods, then I would say; yes.

If your questions is; how does a society move from voilence/revolution/civil war/wars of independance towards a civil, democractic society?

Then I would say look at the south as an example. Didn't most members of the first dail have guns in their pockets at the time?

oscarBravo

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

If your questions is; how does a society move from voilence/revolution/civil war/wars of independance towards a civil, democractic society?

By completely and unequivocally repudiating armed force as a way to achieve political goals?

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Then I would say look at the south as an example. Didn't most members of the first dail have guns in their pockets at the time?

If you're going to look at the republic as an example, wouldn't it make more sense to look at it today rather than ninety years ago?

Rock Climber

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

So your saying that SF supporters are not "absolutely" responsible for the murders in the north?

Blazé acceptance of it yes,"absolutely responsible" no.
Most of the murdering went on prior to the development of the SF "help ya out,do you want your eve gutters repaired,we'll do it for free, oh and anything else there ya cant afford and we'll sort it for ya with our flush campaign kitty "

What SF probably already know though is theres a limit to that electorate.
Gaining a share of the vast majority of the electorate who dont need that sort of thing has been inhibited by the activities of the IRA and people rightfully taking the protestations of SF personell that the IRA are separate with a pinch of salt.

whassupp2

I think there is a growing trend in Ireland at the moment. Not many youngsters who turn 18 decide to register to vote. Alot of those who do, are completely anti-government. They listen to stories every day in the news of healthcare problems etc. They have gone through an education system which even up to junior cert is anti-British. I'm speaking of Junior Cert History. The course details the 1916 rising, black and tans, plantations etc. and this has brought about an air of Republicanism amongst irelands youth culture. This can also be seen in our hatred of the English soccer team. The result is more and more people are mis-informed and turn to SF/IRA. It is theie anti-british tendencies that make them vote SF but they do not realise the what they are doing. I myself have noticed people in my school with "up the Ra" on their schoolbags and this is also the case on many Bebo profiles.

Jackie laughlin

Whassupp2,
Yes, you're right. The pseudo-republican myth created by the educational system is turning against the state. Lies always lead to trouble. (Have a look at the "McConville" thread also running here in politics.) We have a compliant media too which lends credibility to criminals by allowing them to talk about blocked drains while avoiding talking about murder. Wait until one of your mates crosses one of these thugs in public. I hope the lesson is learned relatively painlessly and before it's too late.

tallus

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Whassupp2,
Yes, you're right. The pseudo-republican myth created by the educational system is turning against the state. Lies always lead to trouble. (Have a look at the "McConville" thread also running here in politics.) We have a compliant media too which lends credibility to criminals by allowing them to talk about blocked drains while avoiding talking about murder. Wait until one of your mates crosses one of these thugs in public. I hope the lesson is learned relatively painlessly and before it's too late.

Would you care to shed light on which part of the education system is creating this pseudo republican myth ? It's the first itme I have ever heard anyone talk about it.

whassupp2

tallus wrote:

Would you care to shed light on which part of the education system is creating this pseudo republican myth ? It's the first itme I have ever heard anyone talk about it.

History....Junior Cert in particular.

Jackie laughlin

Oh come on, Tallus, the very word "republican" has a meaning in this country which would seem ludicrous anywhere else. That's why "pseudo-republican" is a more accurate description. That's something basic that the kids might be taught. Then we can start on a long, long list.

joebhoy1916

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Oh come on, Tallus, the very word "republican" has a meaning in this country which would seem ludicrous anywhere else. That's why "pseudo-republican" is a more accurate description. That's something basic that the kids might be taught. Then we can start on a long, long list.

Jesus man I hope your not planning on for goverment!!

tallus

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Oh come on, Tallus, the very word "republican" has a meaning in this country which would seem ludicrous anywhere else. That's why "pseudo-republican" is a more accurate description. That's something basic that the kids might be taught. Then we can start on a long, long list.

You mean like in the U.S.A. ? That's a republic too and they are proud of it.
I was looking for something more specific in an answer, and that reply doesn't really do it.

Jackie laughlin

Joe,
What was meant by your last posting?

Tallus,
You are ignoring the experienced response of Whassup2.

I was taught in school that "republican" was a synonym for "Irish" and that it was applied to people in the SF/IRA tradition. Teaching the kids that "republicanism" is an international political doctrine, having many variants, would be a good start.

Here's a few things that the kids might find interesting:
Sinn Fein started as a royalist party.
Unarmed civilians were shot in 1916. Children were killed.
You're not alone, kid. Lots of people found and still find Pearse's interest in young boys questionable.
The civil war was NOT fought over with partition.
British troops were deployed in the North to protect Catholics from murderous Unionists. The troops were welcomed and did their duty until they were fired on by a disgruntled IRA.
Until recently SF/IRA was called Provisional SF/IRA because they broke from the mainstream in a rejection of socialism.

That'll do to be going on with.

Jackie laughlin

Sorry. Should have read: "The civil war was NOT fought over partition".

A Dub in Glasgo

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Joe,
What was meant by your last posting?

Tallus,
You are ignoring the experienced response of Whassup2.

I was taught in school that "republican" was a synonym for "Irish" and that it was applied to people in the SF/IRA tradition. Teaching the kids that "republicanism" is an international political doctrine, having many variants, would be a good start.

Here's a few things that the kids might find interesting:
1. Sinn Fein started as a royalist party.
2. Unarmed civilians were shot in 1916. Children were killed.
3. You're not alone, kid. Lots of people found and still find Pearse's interest in young boys questionable.
4. The civil war was NOT fought over with partition.
5. British troops were deployed in the North to protect Catholics from murderous Unionists. The troops were welcomed and did their duty until they were fired on by a disgruntled IRA.
6. Until recently SF/IRA was called Provisional SF/IRA because they broke from the mainstream in a rejection of socialism.

That'll do to be going on with.

I don't know what school you went to or your age but I dont' recognise the schooling you seem to have had.

For Irish history, Republican means something quite specific. For international history, there are many variants.

1. Sinn Fein was not a royalist pary, at inception the party suggested that the Kingdom of Ireland should stand alone within the monarchy rather than being ruled from Westminster. SF had hoped that this would allow the Westminster government grant the Irish their own parliament. The UK government never did bite on that one and SF quickly dropped it.

2. Correct, I was never taught that they were not. Were you?

3. Such as?

4. ??? what are you suggesting the civil war was about?

5. The government apparatus of NI waged a murderous campaign against the nationalist people of NI. The police were nearly over-run in the battle of the Bogside by the people. The British government sent in the troops, who were initially welcomed as the police were involved in lot of the mayhem. Nationalist people saw the deployment somewhat as a victory as it was one of the first times the British government had 'interfered' in the Stormont governments affairs. The NI government then started to use the British soldiers like they used the RUC & B-Specials which then degenerated into more mayhem.

The provisionals were not even around when the British Army were on their rampage. It was nearly 1 and a half years after the deployment of British troops did the IRA kill a British soldier.

6. ??? The first time I heard the reference to SF/IRA was on this very board! (excluding hearing it from Ian Paisley). They were always referred as the IRA and Sinn Fein. The split was more to do with protecting the nationalist people from the murderous attacks of the state than a some intellectual debate about socialism & capitalism. In situations like the one faced by the nationalist people of NI, those debates were irrelevant. What was relevant was living from one day to the next and trying to put an end to the states campaign.

DublinWriter

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The provisionals were not even around when the British Army were on their rampage. It was nearly 1 and a half years after the deployment of British troops did the IRA kill a British soldier.

You obviously don't know your history. The British Army was initially deployed in NI in 1969 to stop the RUC kicking seven shades out of the Catholics. Haven't you ever seen that old footage of the aul' Biddies on the Falls bringing them out cups of tea?

Of course we all know how long that lasted.

The PIRA only came into existance later in the same year after the split with the OIRA ('O' for Official, not Old).

A Dub in Glasgo

DublinWriter wrote:

You obviously don't know your history. The British Army was initially deployed in NI in 1969 to stop the RUC kicking seven shades out of the Catholics. Haven't you ever seen that old footage of the aul' Biddies on the Falls bringing them out cups of tea?

Of course we all know how long that lasted.

The PIRA only came into existance later in the same year after the split with the OIRA ('O' for Official, not Old).

Eh?
How does that show I do not know my history?

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The decision to say "killed" as opposed to "murdered" or vice versa is a decision to take sides.

Go to RTE. Type "IRA murder" into the search engine. Read the 570 pages of results.

Then come back and say that RTE News treat the IRA "kinder" than other criminals.

It is pretty obvious that RTE don't give Sinn Fein an easy ride because Sinn Fein and a large proportion of IRA Republician supporters HATE RTE with a passion because they feel RTE is a puppet of the government and completely bias against them.

These kinda of discussions remind me of a classic page in the Irish Times a few years back that had two headlines side by side about RTE. In one it stated that RTE News had been cleared of being overly biased in support of government permission for US planes to land in Shannon over the Iraq war. The other headline read that RTE News had been cleared of being overly biased with negative reporting of the governments handling of US planes landing in Shannon.

You know a news organisation is doing something right when both sides hate them and feel they are bias.

If both you and Sinn Fein don't like RTE its clear they are reporting in a non-bias fashion, albeit a fashion you don't like because they are not of your political view point (a view point I personally share, but one I feel is very important a News media outlet would not take)

Jackie laughlin wrote:

It is the duty of journalists to sort this out in the same way as they should sort out all attempts at manipulation.

Which they do. Constantly.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

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.

That makes no sense.

Sinn Fein don't report the news, they make it. The Irish and British news media then report it. What "other source" should RTE or the BBC be going to to find out what Sinn Fein did today?

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?

I have no idea if your hypotetical is actually true, so commenting on why it is true is ridiculous.

For a start define "differently", and then give me an example of how RTE (or ITN, or the BBC) treat convicted car thiefs in the first place.

Jackie laughlin

I’ve checked with my kids and some of their friends. Nothing has changed on the educational front.

“Republican” in Ireland is a label for any combination of some or all of the following: violent, anti-British, undemocratic, fascist, Catholic, nationalist.

1. Arthur Griffith not a monarchist! You have to be joking.
What you describe is a united kingdom with home rule. Interesting!
2. The fact that unarmed police and civilians (men and women) were killed/murdered is conveniently not mentioned in school. It was news to most of the young people to whom I spoke tonight.
3. You can research this yourself. I’m sure it will even come up on Google. Quite a number of people have commented on this. Some have tried to analyse it.
4. Now I’m beginning to doubt that you’ve delved at all into this tragedy. There was little or nothing between the two sides. They split obviously pro-treaty and anti-treaty and were exercised about oaths and external relations but partition didn’t come into it.
5. You distinguish correctly between the NI government and the British government. You accept that troops were deployed to protect Catholics from unionists with murder on their minds. The troops were not under the command of Stormont. The British government favoured the civil rights movement. The IRA successfully turned a campaign for equal rights into a bloody conflict over British withdrawal and the unification of Ireland. Now they’re gasping to take seats in Stormont.
6. The term “SF/IRA” was first used by unionists to bait SF. Others were reluctant to use the term lest it imply any support for unionist bigots. However, it is now accepted as an accurate short description of the pseudo-republican movement. The provo split wasn’t concerned with ideology???? The provo leadership at the time says it was. Perhaps it was purely coincidental that all the lefties stayed with the “Officials” and all the old-style, Catholic nationalists walked to form the provos. Yeah right!

If you would like me to add another six, it would be my pleasure.

Diogenes

Jackie laughlin wrote:

2. The fact that unarmed police and civilians (men and women) were killed/murdered is conveniently not mentioned in school. It was news to most of the young people to whom I spoke tonight.

I'm sorry Jackie thats just wrong. You're doing yourself no favours by raising this. Every school boy and girl knows that the rebels were originally spat at by Irish people, over the death of innocent civilians and destruction of property casused by the rising.

Mighty_Mouse

“Republican” in Ireland is a label for any combination of some or all of the following: violent, anti-British, undemocratic, fascist, Catholic, nationalist

Stemming from your own insecurity maybe?

For me its a belief in a 32 county united Ireland,a united republic. End of.

After that the debate is what TYPE of republican you are. ie. violent, fascist, anti-british etc etc

2. The fact that unarmed police and civilians (men and women) were killed/murdered is conveniently not mentioned in school.

Your joking right?

It was news to most of the young people to whom I spoke tonight.

Jaysis!, Got to admit the idea of you preaching your biased poltical beliefs to a group of Young children gives me the shivers!

By the way providing children with the basic structures of Irish history for them to investigate/debate and make up their own minds is what I thought our current educational system was about?

They split obviously pro-treaty and anti-treaty and were exercised about oaths and external relations but partition didn’t come into it ..

A lot of things came into, one of which was partition. The significance of partition to the anti-treaty side .......well thats another debate.

But surely you can't say "it didn't come into it"?

Zombrex

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I’ve checked with my kids and some of their friends. Nothing has changed on the educational front.
...
2. The fact that unarmed police and civilians (men and women) were killed/murdered is conveniently not mentioned in school. It was news to most of the young people to whom I spoke tonight.

I despise Sinn Fein as much as the next guy, but as Diogenes points out you aren't really doing yourself any favours here.

The realities of the independence movement, the revisionist, much less bias, assessment of the facts, has been taught to Irish children for the last 20 years. I'm not sure what school your kids go to, but if they are being taught a distorted view then the school is not following standard Board of Education guidelines and I would complain.

joebhoy1916

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I’ve checked with my kids and some of their friends. Nothing has changed on the educational front.
.

Well maybe you should go back to school cause I can asure you your not taught these days as you were in I dont know maybe the 70's or 80's when you were in school! Years ago school were mostly run by catholics in the sense Priests or Nuns as I already told you they were very Pro IRA years ago but then all that kinda broke apart!

Schools are alot different now your kids must be in 3rd class or in around them lines! You never hear much about the IRA or even the likes of Pearse when in secondary school.

How often do people in school learn about the hunger strikes!

The killing of innocent catholics?

The south having to setup refugee camps?

"but if they are being taught a distorted view then the school is not following standard Board of Education guidelines and I would complain."

Yes you should do I would love to hear the reply.

"You obviously don't know your history. The British Army was initially deployed in NI in 1969 to stop the RUC kicking seven shades out of the Catholics. Haven't you ever seen that old footage of the aul' Biddies on the Falls bringing them out cups of tea?"

It was CLAIMED they were sent to help the catholics but did they?

Maybe you should look up the Black Watch!

Jackie laughlin

MightyMouse,
You say, "By the way providing children with the basic structures of Irish history for them to investigate/debate and make up their own minds is what I thought our current educational system was about?" I wish it were so.

I've never preached to a child in my life, not even my own! I verge on the scrupulous about this. Where did you get that idea? I merely said that I asked some young people about what they had been made aware of in school.

I knew about the Dubliners spitting at the 1916 prisoners. At my school they were characterised as treacherous, Dublin, bowsies.

I found out through my own efforts that the 1916 "patriots" had murdered unarmed men, women and children. The young people to whom I spoke recently had never heard of this.

Republic = a 32 county, united Ireland. That's all? Nothing more? I was prepared to give them more credit than that!

Lest we forget, this turn in the thread arose when a young person intervened to post about his/her lack of education at school. See above.