The Sinn Féin thread

FTA69

Tristrame wrote:

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. 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.

My reference was regarding the IRA during the Tan War in 1920, a war which is regarded as having been necessary by the majority of people in the 26 Counties and has been sanitised into a goodies v villains tale peppered with patriots and glory etc. My point is that that war was far from clean, but yet it is possible to agree with that struggle in a broad sense.

Zambia

Tristrame wrote:

There should be no if's and buts.

May you never have to be forced to leave your moral high ground.

what moral high ground?
Most people in this country sing from the same hymn sheet on this.

A Dub in Glasgo

Really?

It appears when the economic well being of the country is threatened, that moral high ground goes out the window with regard to helping out in the slaughter of innocents

Zambia

Tristrame wrote:

what moral high ground?
Most people in this country sing from the same hymn sheet on this.

If that was the case SF wouldnt have any supporters when they clearly do?

off topic adig-this is the hymn sheet where the people of Ireland had a war carried out in their name without their permission by the IRA.

Zambia232

Zambia232 wrote:

If that was the case SF wouldnt have any supporters when they clearly do?

The nearly 90% that don't is most in my book anyway.

Zambia

Tristrame wrote:

off topic adig-this is the hymn sheet where the people of Ireland had a war carried out in their name without their permission by the IRA.

The nationalist poplulation of Northern Ireland reformed the IRA in their defence. That said same population has returned them as the second largest party in N.I.

Its easy to declare there are no if's or buts while living in relative safety.

Zambia232

Zambia232 wrote:

Its easy to declare there are no if's or buts while living in relative safety.

Really? warrington and Enniskillen done in my name without my permission were to save nationalists?

Time Magazine

Zambia232 wrote:

Its easy to declare there are no if's or buts while living in relative safety.

Or when you're not a supporter of an organisation that carried out horrific acts of terrorism and murder.

Or is it again a case of our democratic decision is somehow inadequate because "we don't understand." If we don't understand, I can't say we have much of a united front then, can I?

Zambia

Tristrame wrote:

Really? warrington and Enniskillen done in my name without my permission were to save nationalists?

These where horrific and yes wrong.

However I still dispute your blinkered no if's no but's coment which is what I originally disputed.

Fact is if you and your community was under attack and you had to defend yourself would you? If the answer is yes well thats an If or a but.

I'm not defending every IRA activity over the years, there are others you can argue that with.

Zambia

Ibid wrote:

Or when you're not a supporter of an organisation that carried out horrific acts of terrorism and murder.

Or is it again a case of our democratic decision is somehow inadequate because "we don't understand." If we don't understand, I can't say we have much of a united front then, can I?

I dont understand what question if any your asking?

Zambia232

Zambia232 wrote:

However I still dispute your blinkered no if's no but's coment which is what I originally disputed.

Well we part company in our thinking on this then.It's not blinkered to recognise that there is a difference between Brits out indiscrimanate bombing murdering bankrobbing and shooting as opposed to defending without all that in some kind of turf war.
I repeat permission was never sought and most certainly was never given by the Irish people for the IRA's illegal war.

Liam Byrne

Zambia232 wrote:

Fact is if you and your community was under attack and you had to defend yourself would you? If the answer is yes well thats an If or a but.

I've already said a few times that that scenario is perfectly OK by me in every aspect of life. If that was what the IRA did, I'd almost have respect for them.

That's not an "if or but" in relation to this discussion; it's a perfectly valid reaction. You could be a complete pacifist and still defend yourself when attacked without if being an if or a but.

But tell me.....who, exactly, was under attack and needing a defence in (for example) Enniskillen, Omagh or Adare ?

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

Your post comes across that way alright when you say above "and cannot be excused however"

There should be no if's and buts.

There is no if or but in relation to what I think of the killing of Garda McCabe, I have said it here in the past too Tristrame and I'm pretty sure you read it then as well, the killing was wrong, criminal and cannot be excused.

My "however" part relates to the fact that there were many many more killings that were also wrong, criminal and cannot be excused that neither you or others here seem to have a problem with being released from prison. James Morgan died 6 weeks after Garda McCabe one of his killers was released after less than 2 years, no party claimed responsibility for the killing but yet he got early release, was Garda McCabe's life worth more than James Morgan's is that why you don't give out about his killer being released or is it just that it doesn't allow you to beat the anti-SF drum?

I'm not apologising for anyone, not Sinn Fein not the IRA and certainly not the killers of Garda McCabe, I'm stating facts and providing information.

Zambia

Liam Byrne wrote:

I've already said a few times that that scenario is perfectly OK by me in every aspect of life. If that was what the IRA did, I'd almost have respect for them.

That's not an "if or but" in relation to this discussion; it's a perfectly valid reaction. You could be a complete pacifist and still defend yourself when attacked without if being an if or a but.

But tell me.....who, exactly, was under attack and needing a defence in (for example) Enniskillen, Omagh or Adare ?

Those are not the events I'm refering to. Let me spell this out for you because its seems. everyone has a pure zealousness in refering to events that I am not defending. What I am saying is the conception of the IRA was understandable given the times and situation. Liam if I remember correctly we dont differ there.

Its not disputed (by most people anyway) that at one time a scenario existed where nationalists really had to fight for themselves after there peacefull attempts to change things failed.

Dismissing everything associated with the IRA with the no ifs no butts their all scum stance is in my opinion a tad narrow minded and un helpfull. Thats all I'm saying.

Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles#Beginning_of_the_Troubles

Much of the hostile loyalist reaction to the Civil Rights Movement was linked to the ability of leaders to provoke fear within the Unionist populace that the IRA was not only behind the NICRA, but was also planning a renewed armed campaign. In fact, the IRA was moribund, had few weapons, fewer members, negligible support, and was increasingly committed (out of necessity) to non-violent politics. The first bombing campaign of the Troubles (largely directed against power stations and other infrastructure) was staged by the Loyalist Ulster Volunteer Force in 1969 to try and implicate the IRA.

Communal disturbances worsened throughout 1969, escalating in January after a march by the People's Democracy from Belfast to Londonderry was attacked by loyalists in Burntollet, County Londonderry. The RUC were accused of failing to protect the marchers. Barricades were erected in nationalist areas of Derry and Belfast in the following months. This disorder culminated in the Battle of the Bogside (August 12, 1969 - August 14, 1969) - a huge communal uprising in Derry between police and nationalists. The riot started in a confrontation between Catholic residents of the Bogside, police, and members of the Apprentice Boys of Derry who were due to march past the Bogside along the city walls.


From the same article

The IRA had been widely criticized by its supporters for failing to defend the Catholic community during the Belfast troubles of August 1969, when seven people had been killed, about 750 injured and 1,505 Catholic families had been forced out of their homes — almost five times the number of dispossessed Protestant households. One Catholic priest reported that his parishioners were contemptuously calling the IRA "I Ran Away".

Put yourself in their shoes back then.

brianthebard

Liam Byrne wrote:

That's not an "if or but" in relation to this discussion; it's a perfectly valid reaction. You could be a complete pacifist and still defend yourself when attacked without if being an if or a but.

Eh, no you can't, that's the whole point of pacifism.

murphaph

All these stories of "the IRA were formed to defend their estates from prods/RUC/brits etc." might even wash with some people if the IRA scumbags hadn't involved us in the south. If they'd kept their conflict to NI and hadn't killed our Gardai while robbing our post offices then perhaps they'd even find some sympathy.

It was all for nothing anyway. McGuinness will soon swear an oath to a british devolved assembly within the United Kingdom.

Zambia232

Zambia232 wrote:

Dismissing everything associated with the IRA with the no ifs no butts their all scum stance is in my opinion a tad narrow minded and un helpfull. Thats all I'm saying.

I disagree.The IRA lost all kudos when they decided that the people of Ireland gave them a mandate back in 1918 to carry on a campaign in the 80's and 90's in my name.
They had no such right to claim the authority that they claimed.
You can cherry pick if you want but it's still defending them which is definitive apologism.

Liam Byrne

brianthebard wrote:

Eh, no you can't, that's the whole point of pacifism.

Yes you can......if it's a last resort and it's directly against an immediate threat or aggressor. Are you suggesting that all pacifists, when faced with a life or death situation of themselves or their families, go "ok so, I'll die and you can murder and rape my family" ? :eek:

I severely doubt it.

A pacifist will definitely try to avoid unnessary conflict where possible, would certainly never harm any innocent third party, and will never claim that "the best form of defence is attack", but I'd be pretty darn sure that they'd defend themselves if absolutely necessary.

What I was saying was that the events which disgust most people have nothing to do with defence of anyone other than criminals themselves; in many cases, the defence of vulnerable people would be commendable. Sure, there may or may not have been other ways to defend the people involved, but that is not the primary objection; if anyone were to support those I would have to at least agree with their purpose - defending the vulnerable.

No, my objection is to the other activities which saw buildings bombed, innocent people killed and maimed, money stolen, drugs sold, etc. Those activities were not defending anyone and tainted any potentially noble stance or cause.

Even the law has a concept of "reasonable force"; do what you need to do when threatened, but do no more than that.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, all of the activities that people here are criticising are the ones where there was absolutely no threat and where far too much violence; those are the ones that Adams & Co should apologise profusely for and should point the fingers at those who did them - many of whom have spent no time whatsoever in jail.

Defending yourself or others is not a crime; murder and robbery are.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

My "however" part relates to the fact that there were many many more killings that were also wrong, criminal and cannot be excused that neither you or others here seem to have a problem with being released from prison. James Morgan died 6 weeks after Garda McCabe one of his killers was released after less than 2 years, no party claimed responsibility for the killing but yet he got early release, was Garda McCabe's life worth more than James Morgan's is that why you don't give out about his killer being released or is it just that it doesn't allow you to beat the anti-SF drum?

Yet again, for the sake of clarity: in my personal opinion that scumbag should also be rotting in jail for the rest of his natural. As I said, I'm equal-opportunity in that regard. And, if anyone calls to my door looking for a vote who wouldn't unequivocally condemn the scumbag in question, they'll get short shrift.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

There is no if or but in relation to what I think of the killing of Garda McCabe, I have said it here in the past too Tristrame and I'm pretty sure you read it then as well, the killing was wrong, criminal and cannot be excused.

My "however" part relates to the fact that there were many many more killings that were also wrong, criminal and cannot be excused that neither you or others here seem to have a problem with being released from prison. James Morgan died 6 weeks after Garda McCabe one of his killers was released after less than 2 years, no party claimed responsibility for the killing but yet he got early release, was Garda McCabe's life worth more than James Morgan's is that why you don't give out about his killer being released or is it just that it doesn't allow you to beat the anti-SF drum?

You can take it as read what I think of them but at least they don't have a political party looking for my vote or constantly trying to add legitimacy to what they did supposedly in my name.

I'm not apologising for anyone, not Sinn Fein not the IRA and certainly not the killers of Garda McCabe, I'm stating facts and providing information.

No you are comparing the unlike with the like,which I have to tell you equates to apologism.
Theres no politician here lauding the killers of the people you mention looking for my vote.
Oscar put it rather succinctly so I'll repeat.."I'm equal-opportunity in that regard." If a party appears to do that I'll give them short shrift.

iamhunted

Tristrame wrote:

people of Ireland had a war carried out in their name without their permission by the IRA.

are you sure the IRA werent fighting a war for those in the northern counties who were being victimised and beat to pulp by the armed forces and unionists? I never realised they were fighting to free the whole country .... i thought it was for the ones who were actually experiencing the ****e that went on.

iamhunted

Ibid wrote:

Or when you're not a supporter of an organisation that carried out horrific acts of terrorism and murder.

doesnt leave you much option in who to trust throughout the world then when you consider the various wars and world wars that have taken place.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

You can take it as read what I think of them but at least they don't have a political party looking for my vote or constantly trying to add legitimacy to what they did supposedly in my name.

Norman Coopey may not be linked to the IRA or a political party but his actions were every bit as bad as those who caused the death of Garda McCabe.

Tristrame wrote:

No you are comparing the unlike with the like,which I have to tell you equates to apologism.
Theres no politician here lauding the killers of the people you mention looking for my vote.
Oscar put it rather succinctly so I'll repeat.."I'm equal-opportunity in that regard." If a party appears to do that I'll give them short shrift.

I'll say it again incase you missed it I'm not apologising for anyone, I believe every member of Sinn Fein should condemn the killing of Garda McCabe as I did, you see Tristrame you are confusing me with a Sinn Fein supporter. I don't support all or even most of what Sinn Fein have stood for in past, as I have stated many many times here to you I voted for FF in the last election.

I guess why I may appear to support Sinn Fein is because when a discussion on here starts about Sinn Fein I don't fall in with the majority of people who just hate Sinn Fein and no matter what they do or say always will, I post my opinion and present facts, I don't only look at one side of the argument and go along with it I question and look at the other side. I also don't live in the past or a certain time period i.e. after 1960 and before 2004. I look at how things are now and how the future may be and no matter what anyone says here or anywhere I won't change my opinion that Sinn Fein have helped bring peace to this island and helped move one of the worst terrorist organisations from conflict to peace.

I don't support the IRA or Sinn Fein, I simply form my opinion based on what I know and what I believe. You can say I'm apologising for them if you like, but I know what I have said and others can form there own opinion but to be honest I was thought a long time ago that just because people don't agree with your opinion, doesn't mean you should change it.

Zambia

Tristrame wrote:

I disagree.The IRA lost all kudos when they decided that the people of Ireland gave them a mandate back in 1918 to carry on a campaign in the 80's and 90's in my name.
They had no such right to claim the authority that they claimed.
You can cherry pick if you want but it's still defending them which is definitive apologism.

Once again you vere of to some spot (80- 90's)you can preach from and avoid everything I am trying to explain to you.

Your basically sitting from an advantaged position , drawing a conculsion on thousands of people based on the actions of some of them and refusing to aknowledge any leeway (even the slightest) on any event.

As i said before long may you have the luxury of never having to leave that position.

Oh and murphaph please enlighten us to why you think the IRA where reformed and back it up.

Zambia232

Zambia232 wrote:

Once again you vere of to some spot (80- 90's)you can preach from and avoid everything I am trying to explain to you.

I don't need death and distruction carried out in my name and the majority of the people of this island without their permission explained to me thanks.

irish1 wrote:

I don't support the IRA or Sinn Fein, I simply form my opinion based on what I know and what I believe. You can say I'm apologising for them if you like, but I know what I have said and others can form there own opinion but to be honest I was thought a long time ago that just because people don't agree with your opinion, doesn't mean you should change it.

yeah right whatever.
As I said to you before,I didn't come down in the last shower and for the record I don't care who you vote for and the best of good luck to you.
You are always there though in these types of conversations with the ifs and the buts which is text book apologism.
You can dress it up whatever way you like to suit yourself but don't expect a lack of comment on it when you post it.
That won't happen.

Ulster9

Tristrame wrote:

I disagree.The IRA lost all kudos when they decided that the people of Ireland gave them a mandate back in 1918 to carry on a campaign in the 80's and 90's in my name.
They had no such right to claim the authority that they claimed.
You can cherry pick if you want but it's still defending them which is definitive apologism.

More high horse talk, many attempts were made to cease hostilities but a disingenuous british government especially under Thatcher was not interested in dialogue with Nationalists.She sought to isolate the republican community and bring it to its knees.The IRA was defending nationalist rights to exist and be heard and have parity of esteem with Unionists, republicans have nothing to apologise for.

Ulster9

Ulster9 wrote:

More high horse talk, many attempts were made to cease hostilities but a disingenuous british government especially under Thatcher was not interested in dialogue with Nationalists.She sought to isolate the republican community and bring it to its knees.The IRA was defending nationalist rights to exist and be heard and have parity of esteem with Unionists, republicans have nothing to apologise for.

Bull.The Ira went way beyond defending nationalists.They murdered bombed and shot their way around for decades using the name of the Irish people.They knocked back what we have now in the north by 20 years or more by increasing the hatrids.
They never had our permission for that.

Ulster9

Tristrame wrote:

Bull.The Ira went way beyond defending nationalists.They murdered bombed and shot their way around for decades using the name of the Irish people.They knocked back what we have now in the north by 20 years or more by increasing the hatrids.
They never had our permission for that.

Did the rebels of 1916 have permission?Sure there was many deaths but what did those who had the power to do something to remove the causes of conflict do about it?Nothing,britain treated it as a security problem they did nothing to take the heat out of the situation.They inflamed it by treating Irish nationalists as second class citizens.What did the South do about it?Nothing