The Sinn Féin thread

LordSutch

FTA69 wrote:

Manslaughter you mean. Ferris was indeed an IRA Volunteer, and he did participate in the political conflict that was ongoing in Ireland. That conflict is now over and whether ye like it or not Ferris has a mandate from those in North Kerry who voted for him in large numbers. I happen to believe he was justified in his previous actions, and there are many in that particular area who would too.

Its not often that I knowingly cross swords with an IRA supporter, but if you actually believe that Ferris & the IRA were justified in their recent thirty year 'Terror campaign' of death & distruction, then I am almost lost for words ~ So you actually agree with what the Provisional IRA did to people? and you do realise that by Ferris & his jolly bunch of volunteers exterminating & attacking the 'Brits', you in (Sinn Fein/ IRA) have put back the very notion of a "United Ireland" by at least another generation.

Admittedly the shiny New Shinners like Mary Lou & Miss Spain are probably completly innocent of any wrong doing at all (god Bless em)
and they probably know nothing of what the murderous Armed struggle was all about ~ but Ferris was actively involved up to his arm pits for goodness sake ................ :mad:

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

Can you provide evidence of such?

Dogs in the street, etc etc, but you can call it my unsubstantiated opinion if it will make you feel better.

While you're feeling better, though, ask yourself this: why was one key witness prepared to go to jail for 18 months for contempt of court rather than give evidence?

Maybe he just fancied a holiday.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote:

Manslaughter you mean.

Bull****. The conviction was manslaughter because they weren't sure the murder conviction would stick due to the fact that at least one major witness refused to back up what they had previously said. As Oscar said, maybe he liked the thoughts of a free roof over his head, courtesy of the State, so much that he just decided to go back on his statement ? Maybe the thoughts of having legal, State-supported guys with guns was preferable to the alternative (which apparently would still have involved the guns) ?

And that's being generous; the manslaughter conviction was also the preferred option because Bertie & Co didn't want to piss off the terrorists because of the "peace process".

If you take a gun onto a village street for a robbery and then use it, it's murder - why else did you have the gun -(and not just an ordinary "gun" like the guy in the Virginia Tech, this was an AK47 - an assault rifle - wonder why it's called that ?) - why have it with you - loaded - unless you'd previously at least thought about using it ? That makes it premeditated. That makes it murder. And if it were in the U.S., those guys would have - rightly - gotten the chair for murdering a police officer, and there'd have been no chance for Adams, Ferris (snr & dghtr) & Co to be calling for their release.

If you're on the street and a fight breaks out and you grab a nearby gun and fire it, THEN it's spur-of-the-moment and it's probably manslaughter.

But quit hiding behind the conviction; if you believe in something, at least stand over what SF/IRA do (or hopefully "did", now that they've copped that normal people disagree with murder and robbery and criminality).

Which actually begs the question - if Ferris and Co get elected, are they going to try to get those murderers released ? If Ferris got, say, Minister for Justice (shudder!) would he be signing the release to have even more murderers and would-be robbers out on our streets ?

Another parallel - killing someone while driving drunk is actual manslaughter; so is what Ferris did attempted manslaughter ? Is it (given FTA's view of events in Adare) actually closer to what those scum with the AK47 did that day than we think ?

Villain

Oh I love the way facts are thrown out the window when it comes to Sinn Fein, this topic has been discussed in great detail here and how it relates to Martin Ferris's arrest for suspicion of drink driving I don't know.

Liam Byrne

irish1 wrote:

Oh I love the way facts are thrown out the window when it comes to Sinn Fein, this topic has been discussed in great detail here and how it relates to Martin Ferris's arrest for suspicion of drink driving I don't know.

Exactly which facts do you imply that we have thrown out the window ?

And SF are pretty good at ignoring facts themselves, or disassociating themselves from them when it suits them, so "kettle, pot".

As to how it came up, the thread raised whether Ferris' arrest would affect his election, and the opinion was that given that they supported him through much worse, it's unlikely that it would; he also refused to condemn other events which any right-thinking person would condemn. So if Kerry stands by him for those, they won't care about drunk driving.

It was only when someone tried to minimise the severity of the "worse" events that the thread went off-topic, and if someone makes claims like that, they have to expect, and accept that, people are going to post a rebuttal.

ArthurF is spot on - being associated with stuff like that sticks; if SF & Co don't want it to stick, or don't like that it sticks, then there's one solution: don't be associated with it.

No-one on this thread asked those scum to murder Gerry McCabe; no-one on this thread asked Ferris or his daughter to stubbornly refuse to condemn the atrocity. Those were their choices, not ours, and they should accept the opinion that this gives to the general public.

Unfortunately, it seems that mud doesn't stick, Mayo people elected Padraig Flynn after his scandal, Tipp people re-elect Lowry after embezzlement, Bertie takes money and regales one of the country's biggest criminal - Haughey - and each of their public opinion goes up......there's no sense to how Irish people react to scandal, and every political party seems to benefit at some stage. :rolleyes:

It's just a lot more serious when it's related to murder and to activities which set back normality.

And in that context, Ferris is likely to get off unscathed; ironic, isn't it ? It's almost a Kerry joke:

What's the difference between an SF/IRA guy being stopped by a Garda and the other way around ?

The SF/IRA guy gets to go home to his family.

Villain

Can I reply to that tristrame or are we only talking about his arrest now?

Liam Byrne

My apologies if my last post appears to have been OT post-order - it actually wasn't.

I was obviously typing as tristrame posted, and as his msg was shorter, he hit submit before I did.

Reply away to yer hearts content in this new home.
I'll move this to general election if the debate on it is going that way.

GabharBrean

OK. Let's just get to the point of this post and other's like it. Which is:

SF and its supporters are degenerate, unwashed, unreformable,
not-with-the-trend harbingers of doom.

We've never had it so good. Sure corruption at the very highest levels might be rife. Sure our civil liberties are being erroded in the name of public safety. Sure inflation is rampant. Sure the gap between the very wealthy and the rest of society is one of the highest in the world. Sure our home prices are over inflated and mortgage burdens are onerous, especially for our young. Sure our health service is deteriorating and only the well off will be able to afford quality care. Sure public infrastructure outside major urban areas doesn' exist. Sure the poor elderly and other valnerables are at risk. Etc. etc etc.

Don't worry about the issues, just worry about the enemy within. Let the good times roll on.

FTA69

Its not often that I knowingly cross swords with an IRA supporter, but if you actually believe that Ferris & the IRA were justified in their recent thirty year 'Terror campaign' of death & distruction, then I am almost lost for words

Lost for words? That's a small bit dramatic now I have to say.

So you actually agree with what the Provisional IRA did to people? and you do realise that by Ferris & his jolly bunch of volunteers exterminating & attacking the 'Brits', you in (Sinn Fein/ IRA) have put back the very notion of a "United Ireland" by at least another generation.

I'm not in Sinn Féin or the IRA first and foremost. Secondly I do agree with the armed struggle as I see no other alternative which could have been used in the context in which Republicans found themselves. The IRA originated as a result of pogroms against Nationalists, and a civil rights campaign which was beaten and shot off the streets. For many armed struggle was the only medium through which to fight the above. It might be all to easy for you to make lazy assumptions about Republicans but to be honest I doubt you have any real experience or appreciation of what their mentality was and is. Instead you retreat into half-baked assumptions about us wanting to "exterminate" people.

Bull****. The conviction was manslaughter

Indeed it was, and for people who are mad about the "rule of law" ye seem quite unwilling to accept this particular judgement.

But quit hiding behind the conviction; if you believe in something, at least stand over what SF/IRA do (or hopefully "did", now that they've copped that normal people disagree with murder and robbery and criminality

Supporting an armed struggle doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with every single action undertaken. People down here often praise the actions of the IRA during the Tan War, but I doubt they agree with their shooting octogenarian Alan Bell in the face with a .45 caliber revolver, or throwing a Mills bomb into a pub in Mayfield, Cork which killed two civilians. The thing is all wars are violent, and they can never be sanitised but unfortunately some are very necessary.

Liam Byrne

Gabharbrean - All of those are valid issues, yes. But none of them involve giving power to people who - at least passively - seem to believe that violence is OK as a means to an end, even if that violence is against some of "our own".

If an external force attacks, you're entitled to defend yourself; e.g. the Americans invading Iraq. This could be interpreted as some sort of justification for direct attacks on the British forces in the North; not saying that's my view, but I didn't live there so it's not my place to call.

But at the very least the attacks should be targetted at those directly involved, not at innocents, not at the general public and not at our own law enforcement.

And you can't put people into power if they passively support shooting the Gardai or robbing banks or, like some folk here and on other politics discussion boards, refuse to even recognise the legitimacy of the Gardai and the State and refuse to condemn it.

If you consider those views, then surely someone's views on the economy or drink-driving pale into insignificance ?

Sample Campaign Slogan: "I support the murder of Gardai, but I think stamp duty should be reduced" - would you really elect someone on that basis ?

FTA - you have hit the nail on the head with your examples. Many people would have more-or-less supported the struggle UNTIL people started indiscriminately killing civilians. If there's a report of the RUC killing civilians, the "republican movement" is up in arms (so to speak) but if it's the "republicans" that did the killing, like the example you gave for Mayfield, then it's just dismissed as "part of the casualties of war".

You can't have it both ways.

As for the "rule of law" comment; EVERYONE knows the circumstances in which the state went solely for manslaughter. You can't seriously claim that someone who decided to load an AK47 and bring it with them in order to - supposedly rob a post office - hadn't pre-meditated using it ? Why load it ? Why not wave it around, unloaded, letting people assume it was loaded ? And all that is assuming that the target was the post office, which is odd considering they rammed a car, shot people and drove off without even trying to get the cash.

And if it's premeditated, it's murder.

In fact, if someone stood up and said "we did this, and we did it because.....", I might actually - in a warped way - have more respect for them. A bit like comparing those who flew into the Twin Towers to those who left a bomb in a car on the street in Omagh; I don't for a moment condone, support or agree with either, since both events killed innocent people, but at least those who attacked on 9/11 had the conviction to be present when it happened, rather than cowardly leaving a bomb and running off home to watch the devastation on TV from the comfort of their own couch.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote:

Supporting an armed struggle doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with every single action undertaken. People down here often praise the actions of the IRA during the Tan War, but I doubt they agree with their shooting octogenarian Alan Bell in the face with a .45 caliber revolver, or throwing a Mills bomb into a pub in Mayfield, Cork which killed two civilians.

I'm sure you'll find a few down here too that praise the catholic inquisitions but not that many.You might find aswell that if presented with the option of taking every principle/accepted doing of that time, they'd quickly say no to it ergo they are being non sequitorous.

The thing is all wars are violent, and they can never be sanitised but unfortunately some are very necessary.

Some maybe but not the one that was done in the name of the people of this island in the 80's and 90's who disagreed with it in the vast majority.

Colonel Sanders

Liam Byrne wrote:

You can't have it both ways.

Hits the nail on the head IMO. How can Gerry Adams carry the coffin of a man who brought a bomb in a fish shop and killed 8 or 9 people yet condemn (along with other militant republicans) a 'shoot to kill' policy amongst british soldiers/RUC. Unloading an AK47 into a car carrying two human beings can surely be classified as 'shoot to kill' but that seems to be ok as they were fighting for the freedom of ireland (sarcasm intended)

Ulster9

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Hits the nail on the head IMO. How can Gerry Adams carry the coffin of a man who brought a bomb in a fish shop and killed 8 or 9 people yet condemn (along with other militant republicans) a 'shoot to kill' policy amongst british soldiers/RUC. Unloading an AK47 into a car carrying two human beings can surely be classified as 'shoot to kill' but that seems to be ok as they were fighting for the freedom of ireland (sarcasm intended)

Many things in conflict defy logic.People continuing to bring up emotive issues shows a lack of appreciation for the complexities of the past conflict in the North.
It may well sound like a hypocrisy but when the forces of Law have a policy of shoot first and ask questions later i think people have a right to appose it.

GabharBrean

Liam Byrne wrote:

Gabharbrean - All of those are valid issues, yes. But none of them involve giving power to people who - at least passively - seem to believe that violence is OK as a means to an end, even if that violence is against some of "our own".

If an external force attacks, you're entitled to defend yourself; e.g. the Americans invading Iraq. This could be interpreted as some sort of justification for direct attacks on the British forces in the North; not saying that's my view, but I didn't live there so it's not my place to call.

But at the very least the attacks should be targetted at those directly involved, not at innocents, not at the general public and not at our own law enforcement.

And you can't put people into power if they passively support shooting the Gardai or robbing banks or, like some folk here and on other politics discussion boards, refuse to even recognise the legitimacy of the Gardai and the State and refuse to condemn it.

If you consider those views, then surely someone's views on the economy or drink-driving pale into insignificance ?

Sample Campaign Slogan: "I support the murder of Gardai, but I think stamp duty should be reduced" - would you really elect someone on that basis ?

FTA - you have hit the nail on the head with your examples. Many people would have more-or-less supported the struggle UNTIL people started indiscriminately killing civilians. If there's a report of the RUC killing civilians, the "republican movement" is up in arms (so to speak) but if it's the "republicans" that did the killing, like the example you gave for Mayfield, then it's just dismissed as "part of the casualties of war".

You can't have it both ways.

As for the "rule of law" comment; EVERYONE knows the circumstances in which the state went solely for manslaughter. You can't seriously claim that someone who decided to load an AK47 and bring it with them in order to - supposedly rob a post office - hadn't pre-meditated using it ? Why load it ? Why not wave it around, unloaded, letting people assume it was loaded ? And all that is assuming that the target was the post office, which is odd considering they rammed a car, shot people and drove off without even trying to get the cash.

And if it's premeditated, it's murder.

In fact, if someone stood up and said "we did this, and we did it because.....", I might actually - in a warped way - have more respect for them. A bit like comparing those who flew into the Twin Towers to those who left a bomb in a car on the street in Omagh; I don't for a moment condone, support or agree with either, since both events killed innocent people, but at least those who attacked on 9/11 had the conviction to be present when it happened, rather than cowardly leaving a bomb and running off home to watch the devastation on TV from the comfort of their own couch.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I have not commented on anything you have written above in any of my previous posts.

Talk about obfusctication and deflection. Really, quote me where I've made a statement about any topic above. If you can fine, otherwise, don't put words into my mouth.

Is the campaign to demonise any Republican opinion so warped.

By the way, even the DUP didn't try to pin the blame of Omagh on SF.

Colonel Sanders

Ulster9 wrote:

It may well sound like a hypocrisy but when the forces of Law have a policy of shoot first and ask questions later i think people have a right to appose it.

When 'freedom fighters' claiming to act in the name of the irish people go out an shoot first and ask questions later people have a right to demand they rot in prison for as long as is possible. Provo gunmen never stood for me or what i believed in and they most certainly didn't in Adare that faithful day.

murphaph

Ulster9 wrote:

Many things in conflict defy logic.People continuing to bring up emotive issues shows a lack of appreciation for the complexities of the past conflict in the North.

I wasn't aware that Adare was even in 'the north'. If the IRA's campaign truly had the support of the people of the south, they wouldn't have needed to rob their money from a post office van.

Ulster9 wrote:

It may well sound like a hypocrisy...

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.....

Republicans are very quick to cry foul when the bould brits caught them out (and I wasn't shedding any tears for too many unarmed/shot in the back IRA terrorists) but any innocents they butchered were collateral damage etc. Like the good man says, ye can't have it both ways.

Colonel Sanders

murphaph wrote:

Republicans are very quick to cry foul when the bould brits caught them out (and I wasn't shedding any tears for too many unarmed/shot in the back IRA terrorists) but any innocents they butchered were collateral damage etc. Like the good man says, ye can't have it both ways.

Another man hitting nail on head. How come off duty and unarmed members of the British armed forces were 'legitimate targets' for the IRA but a 'shoot to kill' policy by security forces is classed as murder?

GabharBrean

Can anyone tell me what this thread has to do with politics and the election? Obviously this thread is nothing more a propoganda platform for right wing extremists.

While many of their opinions might have had some validity, their inability to focus on anything but Republican actions is warped beyond reality.

When they have had innocent school friends shot to death by their cronies in the British army , they can pontificate to Republicans. To add insult to injury, their British cronies then label these innocents as terrorists to deflect from the truth and walk away scott free.

When their relatives are interned without due process, they can pontificate to Republicans.

When guns are put to their heads during the marching season and told no taigues are allowed in the town, they can pontificate to Republicans.

The list goes on.

Funny thing, this time around, I was probably going to join the 60% of the voting population who doesn't bother. It really doesn't matter which bloc gets in. Things are not going to change.

But, by God, after reading the extremism of so many posts, I've changed my mind.

Colonel Sanders

GabharBrean wrote:

Can anyone tell me what this thread has to do with politics and the election?

This became a sub plot on another thread so the OP started another about the actions of IRA volunteers and the reaction of its political wing to these actions. Hence it belongs on this forum IMO

BTW next time someone comes on this forum trying to defend the actions of Loyalist terrorists they will get the same reaction from me.

Re 'shoot to kill' I agree it is wrong, undemocratic etc but it was originally brought up in the context to compare actions of the IRA and actions of the British forces. Some people on this forum thought the IRA actions 'legitimate' but not so the actions of the british forces.

GabharBrean

GabharBrean wrote:

Can anyone tell me what this thread has to do with politics and the election?

This thread has every right to be here and FYI this board is the main politics board.

Obviously this thread is nothing more a propoganda platform for right wing extremists.

Please clarify.

While many of their opinions might have had some validity, their inability to focus on anything but Republican actions is warped beyond reality.

And the topic is ? people have opinions you know and can express them here as often as they want on a myriad of political subjects.

Funny thing, this time around, I was probably going to join the 60% of the voting population who doesn't bother. It really doesn't matter which bloc gets in. Things are not going to change.

But, by God, after reading the extremism of so many posts, I've changed my mind.

You think IRA violence wasn't extremism? and it against the wishes of the people of Ireland... and you think people opposed to it are the extremists despite being the very vast majority of the people of Ireland?
I think you need to revisit your definition of extremism.
I'd imagine you were going to vote anyway and I'd encourage you to do so if you are over 18 and registered.

Ulster9

This thread is a joke.A bit of balance would be appropriate.I m not going down the road of statistics and what not.I got slated for this before even though many posters were selecting what best pushed their arguement.There are many reasons the Northern conflict raged for thirty years.All sides have to hold their hands up that is for sure.This includes the IRA,Loyalists(Still armed to the teeth),RUC/BA,British governments and Irish Governments.

All i can say to posters slagging off republicans thanks for understanding the plight of your Irish bretheren in the North who were trapped in a country without their consent, denied civil liberties,denied representation, denied parity of esteem.Perhaps you forget why the original struggle for Irish independence was necessary?
Maybe you dont know that when Nationalists sought basic reform of the Northern state.The RUC battered them of the street,the British army opened fire on them in the Streets of Derry driving people to join the ranks of the IRA for a decade.The British army raided peoples homes and interned without trial.Margaret Thatcher introduced the Criminalisation strategy to portray to the world that Ulster was just a huge criminal problem.
The people of Fermanagh/South Tyrone elected Bobby Sands to Westminister to tell Thatcher Irish republicans and Nationalist would not be criminalised.Republicans were marginalised(Somebody had to be blamed, Section 31 was upheld).
Some people on here need to catch themselves on.There are plenty of horror stories 3700 of them.

Colonel Sanders

Ulster9 wrote:

This thread is a joke.A bit of balance would be appropriate.I m not going down the road of statistics and what not.I got slated for this before even though many posters were selecting what best pushed their arguement.There are many reasons the Northern conflict raged for thirty years.All sides have to hold their hands up that is for sure.This includes the IRA,Loyalists(Still armed to the teeth),RUC/BA,British governments and Irish Governments.

This thread is entitled 'The Sinn Fein thread', start another called 'The security forces thread' or 'the loyalist thread' and i will also participate and condemn them every bit as vehemently as I have the IRA in this one.

Ulster9

ArthurF wrote:

I didnt start this thread in the first place, so how did my post get onto the Top of this page in the first place?

(My Post) #1 has been taken from another thread and used to start this Thread (but Not by me)!

How Strange > or is that allowed? and who's messing about?

Its not the first time this has happened perhaps the moderators could explain??

GabharBrean

Colonel Sanders wrote:

This became a sub plot on another thread so the OP started another about the actions of IRA volunteers and the reaction of its political wing to these actions. Hence it belongs on this forum IMO

In my humble opinion, the political vaneer of this thread is so thin as to be invisible. It has turned into a whipping post for people whose experience of the "troubles" is negligible or nil. They have no qualms in twisting fact or omitting mitigating context to promote their own petty agendas. They do a great disservice to all who have suffered. They use the suffering of some to demonise the suffering of others.

I also take great exception to the twisitng of my own posts. I reported a poster who used my username with a topic to which I had never referred to or written about. No response. I suppose this poster had to twist his response because he couldn't come up with a reasonable argument.

Colonel Sanders wrote:

BTW next time someone comes on this forum trying to defend the actions of Loyalist terrorists they will get the same reaction from me.

What about British army terrorists?

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Re 'shoot to kill' I agree it is wrong, undemocratic etc but it was originally brought up in the context to compare actions of the IRA and actions of the British forces. Some people on this forum thought the IRA actions 'legitimate' but not so the actions of the british forces.

To my mind, the way the statement was put by a previous poster above, it sounded like glorification of the Crown forces for murder of Irish men and women. Call them terrorists and that's alright.

Colonel Sanders

GabharBrean wrote:

It has turned into a whipping post for people whose experience of the "troubles" is negligible or nil.

Most people here speaking out condemning the IRA seem to be insulted that the provos carried out their 'War' in their name, in the name of the Irish people both North and South. These same people murdered Gerry McCabe amongst other gardai, these actions were wrong and indefensible IMO and most certainly were not carried out with the will of the general public south of the border, and most likely north of the border too.

GabharBrean

Tristrame wrote:

This thread has every right to be here and FYI this board is the main politics board. Please clarify.
And the topic is ? people have opinions you know and can express them here as often as they want on a myriad of political subjects.

You think IRA violence wasn't extremism? and it against the wishes of the people of Ireland... and you think people opposed to it are the extremists despite being the very vast majority of the people of Ireland?
I think you need to revisit your definition of extremism.
I'd imagine you were going to vote anyway and I'd encourage you to do so if you are over 18 and registered.

You can imagine what you like. You do not know if I was going to vote or not. I was undecided. I'm not anymore. I do not need anyone to tell me to register. My age is my own business. Unfortunately for alot of nationalists, we didn't have the option of voting on the troubles. In so many cases, we had to defend our areas whether we liked it or not. Not everyone took to the gun. But most put up any resistence they could. During the 80's and 90's voting became the best form or resistence and defiance. Long may it continue.

Ulster9

Ulster9 wrote:

Its not the first time this has happened perhaps the moderators could explain??

Certainly.I removed all the off topic stuff from the last page of the martin ferris drink driving thread and gave them a thread of their own.
Thats going to continue to happen if ye dont stay on topic in threads instead of wandering off on tangents.

GabharBrean

GabharBrean wrote:

You can imagine what you like. You do not know if I was going to vote or not. I was undecided. I'm not anymore. I do not need anyone to tell me to register. My age is my own business. Unfortunately for alot of nationalists, we didn't have the option of voting on the troubles. In so many cases, we had to defend our areas whether we liked it or not. Not everyone took to the gun. But most put up any resistence they could. During the 80's and 90's voting became the best form or resistence and defiance. Long may it continue.

I don't care who you vote for and the best of good luck to you but remember this is a discussion forum so you have to be willing to engage in debate and expect your opinions to be challenged.
Nobody is uniform.

GabharBrean

Tristrame wrote:

I don't care who you vote for and the best of good luck to you but remember this is a discussion forum so you have to be willing to engage in debate and expect your opinions to be challenged.
Nobody is uniform.

Fair enough. I have never said who I was voting for. Bar one or two exceptions, the barage of right wing extremism has been pretty uniform.

I don't think you have to be right wing to have been against what the IRA did.
It's not good to simply dismiss opposing views as right wing either.
Engagement is the healthier way.

No more discussion of moderation will be discussed here.
Read the charter.
All discussion like that will be deleted.