Have Sinn Féin truly reformed?

El Stuntman

LuckyLloyd wrote:

That comment is inaccurate and unhelpful. The political party Sinn Feinn have nothing to do with protecting those people and were not involved in the murders in any way, shape or form. It irritates me that such a view persists in the minds of the public.

LL, you may be irritated but it is fact that SF/IRA closed ranks and would not give up the killers to the PSNI (although they did offer to shoot them themselves)

I don't know anything about the Rafferty killing but the McCartney one is a clear case of a SF/IRA coverup

Dave!

LuckyLloyd wrote:

I thought your post was generally quite reasonable. However, I think it is very important to note that the above is quite a baseless statement.

Well that's fair enough, but it's my opinion that an organisation can't convince its military wing to destroy all its weapons unless they let them maintain a significant amount of influence within the political side of things. It would require some serious skills of persuasion to have them destroy all their guns and leave everything to a party that many elements within the Republican movement consider to have sold out. I think it's a bit naive TBH to believe that the IRA don't continue to play a role with relation to SF.

Trotter

Gob&#225 wrote: »

You can believe in peace for the future and still believe violence was justified in the past. I can't believe this comes as a surprise to anybody.

I dont believe violence is or was ever justified. I hope that solves your confusion.

LuckyLloyd

El Stuntman wrote:

LL, you may be irritated but it is fact that SF/IRA closed ranks and would not give up the killers to the PSNI (although they did offer to shoot them themselves)

I don't know anything about the Rafferty killing but the McCartney one is a clear case of a SF/IRA coverup

Disagree Glyn. It was the IRA who made that appaling offer. Sinn Feinn have consistently denied the claims of the McCartney family that high ranking members of the party intimidated and discouraged people from bringing forward information. And at the start of this year Gerry Adams publicly confirmed that those with information should contact the PSNI.

Now, if you fail to accept that there is a division between the IRA and Sinn Feinn and that they operate as seperate organisations - fair enough. We will most likely have to agree to disagree so.

LuckyLloyd

DaveMcG wrote:

Well that's fair enough, but it's my opinion that an organisation can't convince its military wing to destroy all its weapons unless they let them maintain a significant amount of influence within the political side of things. It would require some serious skills of persuasion to have them destroy all their guns and leave everything to a party that many elements within the Republican movement consider to have sold out. I think it's a bit naive TBH to believe that the IRA don't continue to play a role with relation to SF.

It is well known fact that senior members of Sinn Feinn previously held important positions on the IRA military council. As such, I find it quite plausible that senior members of Sinn Feinn can excercise significant influence over those currently at the helm of the IRA. But I perceive a clear and practical difference between both organisations and have yet to see any conclusive evidence to the contrary.

opa01_2000

Fact is that a Sinn Fein councillor was present in the bar when the killing of Robert McCartney took place but SAW NOTHING !!! Wake up will you !!!

biko

DaveMcG wrote:

Well that's fair enough, but it's my opinion that an organisation can't convince its military wing to destroy all its weapons unless they let them maintain a significant amount of influence within the political side of things. It would require some serious skills of persuasion to have them destroy all their guns and leave everything to a party that many elements within the Republican movement consider to have sold out. I think it's a bit naive TBH to believe that the IRA don't continue to play a role with relation to SF.

This is likely true, for instance is the former commander of Derry in the party. Some other party members have served prison time for membership of the IRA.
These people have the connections and the smarts to help the process along. If SF did not offer them something most likely a decommission wouldn't have taken place.

LuckyLloyd

opa01_2000 wrote:

Fact is that a Sinn Fein councillor was present in the bar when the killing of Robert McCartney took place but SAW NOTHING !!! Wake up will you !!!

I am wide awake thanks. Ever been in a bar and missed some commotion? Not seen what went on and are reminded the next day by friends? Never? He wasn't stabbed to death in the bar you know.

csk

Rock Climber wrote:

Except for the fact that the brothers sisters and friends of the people killed in the North in the 80's and 90's by the IRA are still alive and those killers are applauded by SF for their "good work".
Thats the difference there and it's a serious one in this information age that we live in.
Practically all those IRA atrocities were beamed into the living rooms of people many of whom will be voting on the 24th.
They can put a tangable link between death distruction and the praise it got from SF.

By contrast,there arent too many of Liam Mellowes contemporaries around.

People will move on eventually but to expect it now or at the next election is a bit much.

Yes and there are also people alive that suffered at the hands of the British and Loyalists etc. The fact is though, that we now have a power a sharing Assembly up and running, the PIRA have gone away, loyalists are supposedly going away too. Now really, if the people of the north can handle all that, I don't see why you can't. And just to buffer myself from the inevitable reply of "it's a different country up there". No it's not. And even if it was(which it's not) we will be all the one country soon enough anyway.

It never ceases to amaze me how people that come out with this spiel, are the exact same people who would a only a few years ago have been telling us "to get over the past", "what ever wrongs the British did was in the past" etc etc.

By the by I find it strange, if not downright hypocritical, that you would dismiss the Taoiseach addressing a Liam Mellowes commemoration simply because no contemporaries are still alive.

Rock Climber

csk wrote:

Yes and there are also people alive that suffered at the hands of the British and Loyalists etc.

You can always spot the republican a mile off when you see a statement like that one.
FWIW,My point was in relation to the perception of SF here in the 26 counties.Loyalist political parties arent running in the 26 counties and neither are the UK parties that controlled the British forces.So your point is moot.

The fact is though, that we now have a power a sharing Assembly up and running, the PIRA have gone away, loyalists are supposedly going away too. Now really, if the people of the north can handle all that, I don't see why you can't. And just to buffer myself from the inevitable reply of "it's a different country up there". No it's not. And even if it was(which it's not) we will be all the one country soon enough anyway.

If the two were the same,then people would be voting en masse for SF down here too and they aren't.

By the by I find it strange, if not downright hypocritical, that you would dismiss the Taoiseach addressing a Liam Mellowes commemoration simply because no contemporaries are still alive.

I didn't dismiss it,I explained how different it was.
Relax the cacks and I'm sure your party will be driving the wind of change down here in a couple of elections time.
Mind you at the rate their policies are changing faced with the realisation that hard left socialism isn't a winner with the majority of the salary loving population,there mightn't be much change at all, they might be advocating a 10% corporation tax by then...

Gobán Saor

Trotter wrote:

I dont believe violence is or was ever justified. I hope that solves your confusion.

Actually it leaves me more confused than ever.
It could mean:
1. You're a pacifist and oppose all violence everywhere, always.
2. Or you're opposed to violence "for political ends"
3. Or you're opposed to violence for illegitimate political ends.
4. Or you're opposed to non-state violence
5. Or you're opposed to non-legitimate-state violence
6. Some combination/modication of the above.

Depending on you exactly what you mean, you could justify some, all or none of the following:
the IRA 1969 to ceasefire
the IRA 1919 - 1922
the 1916 rising
the ANC campaign against the apartheid South African state
the Palestinian intifada
the Warsaw ghetto uprising against the Nazis
the bombing of Dresden
the bombing of Tokyo
the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki
etc etc.

Big differences.......

Trotter

Im not being walked down a long road on this one. I dont need to justify or quantify to you how much violence is ok, if at all.

Regardless of how this thread pans out, I'm disgusted by those tshirts, which were easy to find when I looked for info on the SF party, out of a feeling that I should know about their policies.

Gobán Saor

Trotter wrote:

Im not being walked down a long road on this one. I dont need to justify or quantify to you how much violence is ok, if at all.

Regardless of how this thread pans out, I'm disgusted by those tshirts, which were easy to find when I looked for info on the SF party, out of a feeling that I should know about their policies.

Fair enough - it's just that I've found over the years that when people say they're opposed to violence in a north of Ireland context, what they often really mean is that they're opposed to Republican violence.

biko

That's because Republican violence gets much more airtime on the news. In Europe IRA headlines outnumber Loyalist headlines by 19 to 1 (my estimate) although death tolls are similar, that's another thread. No-one in Europe knows of UDA, LVF, UFF etc but everyone knows of the IRA.

And of course southerners are more affected by republican violence. Loyalists don't come down here to punish informers, or beat people up.

Gobán Saor

biko wrote:

That's because Republican violence gets much more airtime on the news. In Europe IRA headlines outnumber Loyalist headlines by 19 to 1 (my estimate) although death tolls are similar, that's another thread. No-one in Europe knows of UDA, LVF, UFF etc but everyone knows of the IRA.

You're probably right about the relative incidence of headlines throughout Europe. Could it be because the typical IRA action was an attack against the British Army or RUC and the typical loyalist action was the random shooting of a civilian on the basis of the "any Taig will do" policy?

biko wrote:

And of course southerners are more affected by republican violence. Loyalists don't come down here to punish informers, or beat people up.

Of course they came down here to plant bombs in Dublin and Monaghan that were almost certaimly constructed by their British army handlers.

brianthebard

Plenty of IRA attacks were on civilians, or at the very least no clear military target, right from the start of the troubles.

marco murphy

The discussion of Civilian targets has been discussed a thousand times.
The tee-shirts are to get money from the Americans. simple as.

brianthebard

Well that justifies it. :rolleyes:

Trotter

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Fair enough - it's just that I've found over the years that when people say they're opposed to violence in a north of Ireland context, what they often really mean is that they're opposed to Republican violence.

I understand that in any conflict, legitimate or otherwise, there is often wrongs committed on both sides.

What I dislike is the flaunting of "memorabilia" in this manner from any side of this unfortunate and devastating conflict.

No unionist is asking for my vote, so I havent been looking through unionist party websites.

The crux of the matter is, I expect SF to act in a way other than their website suggests if they wish to confirm their transition to peaceful politics. Its less about the t-shirts and more about the attitude that leaves them there.

ateam

A little unrelated, but a great quote from Eddie Hobbs tonight in the interview with the Sinn Fein leader of the Dail. He said it seems like Sinn Fein have written their manifesto in the back of a Hi Ace van lol

Gobán Saor

Trotter wrote:

I understand that in any conflict, legitimate or otherwise, there is often wrongs committed on both sides.

Agreed. But somehow only the IRA's wrongs are still used as a stick to beat them with.

Trotter wrote:

What I dislike is the flaunting of "memorabilia" in this manner from any side of this unfortunate and devastating conflict.

Selling memorabilia on their own web-site (mainly to the American market - I mean have you ever seen one of those t-shirts being worn in this country?) hardly constitutes flaunting in any meaningful sense. Have you ever seen a contentious 12th July parade? Really seen it, up close, not on television? Now there's flaunting for you. Popular merchandise includes baby's bibs in red, white and blue, with the caption Born to sh1t on the Garvaghy Road. Makes Sinn Fein look like paragons of moderation, IMHO.

Trotter

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Agreed. But somehow only the IRA's wrongs are still used as a stick to beat them with.
Selling memorabilia on their own web-site (mainly to the American market - I mean have you ever seen one of those t-shirts being worn in this country?) hardly constitutes flaunting in any meaningful sense. Have you ever seen a contentious 12th July parade? Really seen it, up close, not on television? Now there's flaunting for you. Popular merchandise includes baby's bibs in red, white and blue, with the caption Born to sh1t on the Garvaghy Road. Makes Sinn Fein look like paragons of moderation, IMHO.

But nobody selling those bibs wants me to vote for them. I believe that having that muck on the website hands people who are anti SF a stick to beat them with.

Dave!

ateam wrote:

A little unrelated, but a great quote from Eddie Hobbs tonight in the interview with the Sinn Fein leader of the Dail. He said it seems like Sinn Fein have written their manifesto in the back of a Hi Ace van lol

He also had a good one (probably stayed up all night thinking of it :rolleyes: ) when he was asking where he'd be getting the money to give to the nurses and anyone else who asks for a pay increase.... "Will you (a) raise income tax, (b) raise capital gains tax, (c) raise corporation tax, or are you gonna rob a bank, or wha? "

Liam Byrne

Trotter wrote:

But nobody selling those bibs wants me to vote for them. I believe that having that muck on the website hands people who are anti SF a stick to beat them with.

Bit of a chicken-and-egg statement there, Trotter......I mean, are there people who are anti-SF and go looking for sticks, or are there people who are open-minded who only become anti-SF because they find those sticks so easily ?

I'm currently somewhere in between those two, basically because of what I've heard from SF in relation to violence and criminality and "justification" of atrocities; you could, however, argue, that prior to hearing the attempted justification of the unjustifiable (killing innocent people and Gardai, etc, robbing banks, looking for the release and actively opposing the arrest of those members who do engage in this stuff, all discussed at length elsewhere on the boards) I'd have been wide open to hearing from a different, progressive and responsible SF.

I've heard numerous arguments that say that all of this was required in order to drag the more neanderthal members into diplomacy and politics, but to be honest, that doesn't wash with me - if there are people who have legitimate gripes and concerns, they should be open to getting involved, and if there are a minority who are of the mindset that bombing and killing and robbing innocent is the way they do things, they should be locked up and the key thrown away, regardless of what organisation they claim to be a part of.

A thug is a thug, a criminal is a criminal, regardless of whether he's a "republican" or a traveller or a politician or a particular nationality or an unaligned member of society. That's not racist/anti-SF/anti-traveller or any other bias, it's a reflection of a proper society; and here's society's rules: don't rob, don't maim, don't kill, and we'll consider you normal - seems relatively straightforward to me. And we have enough thugs of our own, thanks very much - anyone else wanting to become part of Ireland had better be capable of abiding by the laws of the land.

Fact is that SF haven't distanced themselves enough from those neanderthals' mindset to make them believeable - in fact, they continually do the opposite by attempting to excuse them or get them released or selling disgusting t-shirts or claiming that last week was a step toward a United Ireland.

Imagine if someone started selling t-shirts from their website that depicted the Twin Towers falling down and saying "wahoo, we did this!" Would the SF sympathisers and supporters think that was OK ?

As for the debate as to whether it's different "up there", well it must be; if it weren't, there'd be no reason for people to want to become part of the South. But we should only allow them if we're convinced that they won't engage in, or support those who engage in, criminality. Last time I looked, SF didn't seem to recognise our state or laws......odd that they'd want to join us at all, in that case.

Last week was a step towards peace, and any other steps will be decided by a majority in the North (which means that, as good Catholics, those couples in favour of a United Ireland should be at home in bed instead of blowing the place up - instant and effective voting majority in 18 years time)

On one level, I'd love to see the island of Ireland as a single country, but (a) not if it means abandoning my core beliefs that violence against innocent people is unjustifiable in any circumstances and (b) it's not my decision to make.

And in MY "united Ireland", it's the people who would be united and they would be supporting the law of the land; anyone who wasn't - regardless of their race, creed, colour or political beliefs - would be locked up.

Trotter

Liam Byrne wrote:

...or are there people who are open-minded who only become anti-SF because they find those sticks so easily ?

I think I'm closer to this side of things since I was curious about the "new reformed SF" in terms of economic policies. I wouldnt have voted for them anyway because of the lingering doubts about some of the things you mentioned.. (trying to get Garda McCabe's killers released is another one).

I agree fully with your take on the situation though.

In order to get ordinary people to vote for them, they'll have to change more than their external PR machine. It seems when you dig any way into the party, the old ideas and opinions are still there.

yomchi

I read many people have a problem with the political war waged by the IRA since 1969. Thats your perogative!
It strikes me however that no body here would have the tiniest of problems with the war Michael Collins and the IRA of that time waged? Am I correct?

brianthebard

Again as Trotter said no one's asking us to vote for Michael Collins.

Trotter

Jon wrote:

I read many people have a problem with the political war waged by the IRA since 1969. Thats your perogative!
It strikes me however that no body here would have the tiniest of problems with the war Michael Collins and the IRA of that time waged? Am I correct?

I'll turn that around on you.. (seen as its been happening to me since I first posted)...

You have no problem with violence in Ireland pre 1922, so therefore, you are supportive of the IRA's actions?

I think some people need to read their history and realise that the SF and IRA of the early 1900's are not the same as the SF and IRA that we in the 21st century now know. They are in my view incomparable.

Also.. Michael Collins isnt looking for my vote as was stated above.

I actually think some people here wont be happy until those who are criticising SF actually kneel down and pledge allegiance to Gerry Adams.

Money Shot

DaveMcG wrote:

He also had a good one (probably stayed up all night thinking of it :rolleyes: ) when he was asking where he'd be getting the money to give to the nurses and anyone else who asks for a pay increase.... "Will you (a) raise income tax, (b) raise capital gains tax, (c) raise corporation tax, or are you gonna rob a bank, or wha? "

I hate Hobbs with a passion, but he highlighted the sketchiness of Sinn Fein's economic policies. As he said to finish the show 'I'm sure the viewers found that very enlightening'

Zambia

Liam Byrne wrote:

And in MY "united Ireland", it's the people who would be united and they would be supporting the law of the land; anyone who wasn't - regardless of their race, creed, colour or political beliefs - would be locked up.

This sounds like Ireland under British rule

Anyone know where I can find a link to that interview what was it on ?