What's Happened to Sinn Fein!!!

K-9

FTA69 wrote:

Well SF can say whatever they want; however it is worth mentioning that the IRA accept responsibility for the disaster that was Enniskillen, sin é. The Brits on the other hand are still obstructing inquiries which would show that they were either responsible for or had a hand in a bombing against the civilians of a neighbouring state.

Of course SF/IRA would never obstruct a police investigation or inquiry?

Jackie laughlin

The British Army repressing the civil rights movement!!! This is becoming more bizarre by the minute. The British army were deployed to protect Catholics and we've been over this ground many times. The protestant state of N.I. systematically alienated Catholics and was allowed to do so by the British. The civil rights movement set out to challenge that peacefully and like the "parent" movement in the US, they were often attacked by bigots in and out of uniform. No one is going to defend the government of N.I. However, the violence unleashed by patriots was for their own satisfaction. It was not a revolt caused by dreadful oppression.

The acceptance of responsibility by SF/IRA for most of their atrocities is not a virtue. They saw it as a boast.

I've never managed to figure out why James Connolly sacrificed the Citizen Army in support of the insane uprising in 1916. It would make sense if there was a chance of winning but clearly that wasn't going to happen.

1916 plus the war of independence delivered what was essentially Home Rule but they manged also to win partition. The modern SF/IRA brought down Stormont, murdered hundreds of people in pursuit of a united Ireland and settled for the restoration of Stormont but this time there's no opposition because sectarianism is now institutionalised.

Liam Byrne

Seanies32 wrote:

Of course SF/IRA would never obstruct a police investigation or inquiry?

Guess it depends on the definition of "obstruct", Seanie......does it mean actually get in the way of, or to know something that would help the police but not let on.......must ring the McCabes and McCartneys and find out.....

Mind you, admitting that they fall under the accepted definition of "obstructing" an investigation into a crime would also require admitting the accepted definition of the word "crime", which is something they've regularly failed to do.

sovtek

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The British Army repressing the civil rights movement!!! This is becoming more bizarre by the minute.

Pardon my ignorance Irish history but didn't the British Army gun down members of said movement?

FTA69

Jackie,

The British Army repressing the civil rights movement!!! This is becoming more bizarre by the minute. The British army were deployed to protect Catholics and we've been over this ground many times.

The British Army were deployed "in aid of the civil power" (the official phrase) ie the Stromont government. They were sent in to shore up the RUC who were getting hammered on the streets, when Brian Faulkner introduced internment it was the British Army which carried it out, likewise with the Falls Road Curfew. There were no lofty illusions about protecting Catholics, up until Direct Rule the Brits were under the control of the Stormont government.

However, the violence unleashed by patriots was for their own satisfaction. It was not a revolt caused by dreadful oppression.

Possibly, but it was that oppression that allowed the IRA to gain support and momentum.

I've never managed to figure out why James Connolly sacrificed the Citizen Army in support of the insane uprising in 1916. It would make sense if there was a chance of winning but clearly that wasn't going to happen.

The Rising was planned with a view to winning, it was MacNeill's countermand and the seizing of Casement's rifles which scuppered its success. It wasn't as if they sat down at the start discussing the glories of dying in vain. They weren't stupid.

OB,

Does that make him less of a nutter?

James Connolly was one of the most inspirational individuals ever produced by this country, he was not a nutter. I made the above point because Jackie seems to respect him, despite him taking part in the 1916 Rising.

How many of them voted for the 1916 rising?

None, some (mainly FF types) would say that it was approved retrospectively, a bullsh*t argument if there ever was one. In my opinion all Irish people have a right to resist oppression in Ireland (within reason) and as such in my view the Rising was legitimate.

which led to a full-fledged war of independence (which was, to all intents and purposes, a civil war),

Eh, no it wasn't. To follow on such logic you would have to say that the Middle East conflict is civil war because the Israelis use Arabs as soldiers in some areas.

which was settled by a treaty which was all but identical to the Home Rule project the tiny minority of the small minority took issue with in the first place.

Which is why Republicans took issue with the Treaty at the time.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote:

The Rising was planned with a view to winning, it was MacNeill's countermand and the seizing of Casement's rifles which scuppered its success. It wasn't as if they sat down at the start discussing the glories of dying in vain. They weren't stupid.

I accept that they weren't stupid - there's a big, big difference between stupid and crazy - but I wouldn't go along with the rest of your point. Pearse was known to wax lyrical about the cleansing and purifying power of large-scale bloodshed - he approved of the outbreak of the Great War, ffs.

The rising never had a hope in hell of success, and they knew it.

FTA69 wrote:

James Connolly was one of the most inspirational individuals ever produced by this country, he was not a nutter.

You say that like they're mutually exclusive.

FTA69 wrote:

None, some (mainly FF types) would say that it was approved retrospectively, a bullsh*t argument if there ever was one.

That's quite possibly the first time we've ever agreed about anything.

FTA69 wrote:

In my opinion all Irish people have a right to resist oppression in Ireland (within reason) and as such in my view the Rising was legitimate.

I guess we'll never see eye to eye on where the line of reason is drawn. As always seems to be the case in the history of Irish nationalism, the innocent civilians came out worst of the rising, but hey: bloodshed is cleansing, right?

FTA69 wrote:

Eh, no it wasn't. To follow on such logic you would have to say that the Middle East conflict is civil war because the Israelis use Arabs as soldiers in some areas.

I'm not getting into the parallel. The bulk of the forces targetted during the war of independence were either RIC or Irish regiments, until the Tans came along. Even then, the RIC took the brunt. When a group of insurgents is murdering their own police forces, it's hard to distinguish it from a civil war.

FTA69 wrote:

Which is why Republicans took issue with the Treaty at the time.

Fair enough, but it doesn't dilute my point. What was acheived by massive bloodshed and economic ruin over several years would almost certainly have happened anyway.

Bit like the current Northern Ireland situation, really. But as long as there are a minority with a hardon for bloodshed, I guess it's inevitable.

FTA69

Pearse was known to wax lyrical about the cleansing and purifying power of large-scale bloodshed - he approved of the outbreak of the Great War, ffs.

He later recanted much of his thoughts on the issue of bloodshed, it is also worth remembering that Connolly was as much an architect of the Rising and its ethos (epitomised in the Proclamation), and he was a pragmatic Marxist, not a romantic nationalist.

The rising never had a hope in hell of success, and they knew it.

Neither did any other rising in Irish history after the Nine Years War, it doesn't mean they were any less justified. My point to you is that the rebels planned the Rising with a view to winning, not failing gloriously; external circumstances prevented them from achieving their full potential.

You say that like they're mutually exclusive.

Connolly was not a nutter.

I guess we'll never see eye to eye on where the line of reason is drawn

Fair enough, as I said earlier I believe it to be the right of all Irish people to resist occupation by any means necessary, I hold that to be a right. That doesn't mean that armed means are always a good idea.

but hey: bloodshed is cleansing, right?

Please refrain from insinuating the opinions of a young Pádraig Pearse are the same as my own.

Jackie laughlin

I'm not going to go over yet again the nationalist welcome for the initial deployment of British troops and the subsequent choreographed bloodshed.

If I became convinced that very many of the 1916 crowd thought they had any chance of winning, they would appear insane as well as evil to me. I realise that crazy DeValera was worried about respect for his new uniform and that he had read some military manuals in preparation but military incompetence on the scale adopted is just too fantastic. They knew it was futile.

Who exactly are "the Irish people" who have a right to resist? Does "all" imply that any one person or small group has this right regardless of the views of other Irish people? What does "resist" mean? I've no problem with argument or demonstartion or campaigning for election but the word used was "resist"!

FTA69

I'm not going to go over yet again the nationalist welcome for the initial deployment of British troops

Of course the likes of Gerry Fitt were overjoyed with their arrival, but in the nationalist ghettos people adopted a wait-and-see approach. They only got tea in a few areas. Besides, you are dodging my point, will you acknowledge the fact that troops were sent in to "aid the civil power" ie the Stormont government, and they were used to execute the dictats of that power?

and the subsequent choreographed bloodshed.

Nonsense, the IRA were doing f*ck all when the Brits raided the Falls Road and killed seven people, and you can be sure their honeymoon was well over after their carry on there, which included ransacking homes house by house as well as beatings and the smashing of property.

They knew it was futile.

Sure why did they bother importing 20,000 rifles if they thought it would be futile? Every Irish Rising since the Nine Year War had little hope of success, we were always outgunned. Does that make them morally wrong?

they would appear insane as well as evil to me.

So in your opinion James Connolly was an "evil" man? And of course I note you say nothing like that about the people who shot him strapped to a chair.

Does "all" imply that any one person or small group has this right regardless of the views of other Irish people? What does "resist" mean? I've no problem with argument or demonstartion or campaigning for election but the word used was "resist"!

Considering we are speaking in generalities there is no real specific answer. An example I would give; for instance if someone fires a shot at a British soldier in Ireland I wouldn't have any moral qualms with that, but as I said, it often isn't a good idea.

Jackie laughlin

I've no problem with the words to "aid the civil power". I would imagine a similar phrase is used frequently to cover the deployment of troops outside of wartime. So, we're back to the question of how many cups of tea were offered? Next the hoary old story of how the film was staged will be wheeled out. Let's revise all the uncomfortable truths and fuel the myth making industry.

I have nothing good to say about British army brutality in Northern Ireland. They often descended to the level of SF/IRA and other paramilitaries.

20,000 rifles to engage in pitched battles in the middle of a city! Enough said.

Standing up or sitting down the executions were morally disgraceful, brutish and stupid.

As I said before, I have tried and failed to figure out why Connolly sacrificed the Citizen Army. I think he took part in an evil, horror and I'll have to concede that he was therefore evil or terribly deluded.

You offer "no real specific answer", and you want to accuse me of evasion!

You would have "no moral qualms" with the murder of a British soldier as long as he or she was in Ireland!!!

mwnger

You won't believe what they're saying now!

Read it here

A Dub in Glasgo

You guys must struggle to get hits on that website, pimping on boards!

Jackie laughlin

Joking about Adams isn't funny. It's sick. Every history I've read of "the troubles" says that he was a commander in the IRA. He should be thoroughly investigated and if those histories are accurate, he should find himself in the dock for crimes against humanity.

FTA69

I've no problem with the words to "aid the civil power".

Right, so you do acknowledge that they were there to shore up Stormont and not to "protect Catholics"?

Next the hoary old story of how the film was staged will be wheeled out.

I'm not denyting they got tea, rather that there wasn't a massive welcome and within 6 months people working-class nationalists hated them.

You would have "no moral qualms" with the murder of a British soldier as long as he or she was in Ireland!!!

As much as you'd like to believe I'm a violent fanatic who hates every Brit jackie, I have to point out that that isn't the case. I live in North London, the pub I go to has many ex and serving members of the British Army. Uniformed soldiers even marched past my house during a carnival, do I have a problem with them? Not at all. This is their country and they have a right to do what ever they want. However when they come to my country in the name of British imperialism, shoot my people, stop them on the roads, beat them in their barracks, torture them in their jails then I have a problem. Besides, the war is long over so nobody will be shooting anyone so the point is largely academic.

He should be thoroughly investigated and if those histories are accurate, he should find himself in the dock for crimes against humanity.

Ah don't be so melodramatic will ya. I don't like Adams, and I don't like the road he has put Irish Republicanism on either. However, the fact remains that it was him who ended the IRA campaign and initiated a process which ended the conflict. You mightn't like his past actions, but thats conflict resolution for you.

Jackie laughlin

The protection of Catholics was what was needed to prevent the regime from falling apart.

I don't believe that you are a violent fanatic but you do argue in support of murderers.

I'm not being melodramatic. Far from it. I saw again recently the footage from Bosnia in which Serb soldiers murdered a group of Bosnians. They will face the courts along with their leaders. Adams and co. should go the same route.

A Dub in Glasgo

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The protection of Catholics was what was needed to prevent the regime from falling apart.

Rather than the protection of civilians from state terrorism?

I don't believe that you are a violent fanatic but you do argue in support of murderers.

The majority of people will support murderers [in the right circumstances for them]

I'm not being melodramatic. Far from it. I saw again recently the footage from Bosnia in which Serb soldiers murdered a group of Bosnians. They will face the courts along with their leaders. Adams and co. should go the same route.

You are always melodramatic - can you provide evidence that Adams should go the same route?......... thought not!

Jackie laughlin

That's the point. British soldiers were deployed to protect catholic civilians from unionist mobs aided by sectarian police.

I'm quite sure that in certain circumstances I would take up arms. The difficulty is that there has been no reason to take up arms on this island.

The "achievement" of the nationalist murderers of the 20th century has been death and partition.

I don't have that proof. What I'm saying is that I don't know of a history of "the troubles" which does not place Adams in a commanding position in the IRA. These assertions need to be thoroughly investigated and if the historians are telling the truth, then The Hague might be the place for Adams along with acknowledged monsters.

Accusations of melodrama don't bother me; it's just tiresome labelling.

FTA69

That's the point. British soldiers were deployed to protect catholic civilians from unionist mobs aided by sectarian police.

So now you are saying that they were there to actually oppose the RUC? This gets more gas by the minute, they were there to shore up the RUC who were bate out of Derry and Belfast.

then The Hague might be the place for Adams along with acknowledged monsters.

Sure then shouldn't Charles Windsor be up there too as he is nominal comander of the Paras who committed Bloody Sunday? Maybe we should dig up Charlie Haughey and strap him to the dock because he armed Republicans in 1969? How about Generals Tuzo and Kitson? Or Thatcher, under whose reign the Brits actually armed and directed the UVF and UDA? If you had your way there'd be at least 100,000 people in jail as a result of the biggest "criminal conspiracy" Europe has ever seen. The reality is jackie, is that the war fought here was a political conflict which was a manifestation of a conflict that has been going on here for centuries. Such conflicts are not ended by banging people in jail, ie South Africa etc.

Voipjunkie

oscarBravo wrote:

The bulk of the forces targetted during the war of independence were either RIC or Irish regiments, until the Tans came along. Even then, the RIC took the brunt. When a group of insurgents is murdering their own police forces, it's hard to distinguish it from a civil war.

The RIC were not there "own" Police force they were established and operated on behalf of the British Government and the Irish regiments were regiments in a British army the Nationality of the people is irrelevant the issue is that they were crown forces who happened to be Irish. This was common in all British colonies the British could not police and defend their colonies with just British people there simply was not enough of them so they used locals who were willing to do the job for them.
Once those people take those positions then they are as a legitimate a target as someone born in Liverpool or London if you are involved in an armed campaign against occupying forces. That is true whether it is Egypt India Palestine Iraq or Ireland.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I don't have that proof. What I'm saying is that I don't know of a history of "the troubles" which does not place Adams in a commanding position in the IRA. These assertions need to be thoroughly investigated and if the historians are telling the truth, then The Hague might be the place for Adams along with acknowledged monsters.

Accusations of melodrama don't bother me; it's just tiresome labelling.

No problem send Adams to the Hague as long as he is joined there by Thatcher,Major, Blair ,Bush etc etc

Jackie laughlin

Any bloodthirsty xenophobe against whom a case can be made can go to the Hague. I happen to be talking about Adams here.

What went on in this country is frequently described as a centuries-old conflict. Apart from the fact that nationalism as currently understood is modern, what has gone on here is outbreaks of tribal bloodletting perpetrated by psychopaths fed on myths. Their defenders sound more like Balkan apologists for ethnic cleansing than any other comparison.

To get back to the embarrassing fact that Catholics were saved by the deployment of the British Army, if the RUC had been an effective police force, capable of and universally willing to protect catholics from loyalist mobs, the army would not have been necessary.

FTA69

Any bloodthirsty xenophobe

Adams isn't a xenophobe. The dictionary defines a xenophobe as

"A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples."

Adams is always around the world, from the Basque Country to Sri Lanka. I've had many a personal experience with Adams, he is not a racist. He might be an arsehole, but he isn't a racist. Being against the British presence in Ireland does not equate with racism. To be honest jackie you simply have a nonsensical preconception of Republicans, the violent, Chetnik-style loonies you are on about exist only in your head.

what has gone on here is outbreaks of tribal bloodletting perpetrated by psychopaths fed on myths.

So you genuinely believe that the conflict here has absolutely nothing to do with British imperialism? Don't get me wrong, as a socialist I believe that the likes of the Catholic Church and the strong farmer class f*cked this place up as much the Brits. But as James Connolly believed, the two struggles are intertwined. To put the whole conflict down to mad paddies killing each other over religion is lazy at best.

Their defenders sound more like Balkan apologists for ethnic cleansing

I could put that in my CV. And you say you aren't melodramatic? :cool:

To get back to the embarrassing fact that Catholics were saved by the deployment of the British Army

Bloody Sunday? Oh right, that was probably organised by the IRA on a mission to kill all Protestants...

the army would not have been necessary.

For the third time, the Brits were deployed to aid the RUC, not oppose them.

Jackie laughlin

Adams and company and their predecessors have a thirst for Irish blood when it is protestant and British. They seem to be saying these days that their thirst has been slaked.

There is no way to eliminate the British presence from Ireland.

I was reared on pseudo-republican myths but like most Irish people I found pride in my real culture and rejected hatred and pointless murder. A minority did not and should be tried and shamed.

The intermingling long predates British imperialism and Irish nationalism. Marx once looked to Ireland to provide the revolutionary spark when he realised the English working classes had an interest in foreign exploitation. He was wrong, he realised it and he began to focus his thinking on the German working class. To analyse the problem as imperialism only would be as simplistic as to see it as a dispute between mad paddies.

Bloody Sunday was a terrible crime perpetrated by the British army who earlier had been deployed to save catholics from loyalist mobs when the RUC were either unwilling, unable or both to do so. The truth is often complicated and tends to destroy myths.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Adams and company and their predecessors have a thirst for Irish blood when it is protestant and British. They seem to be saying these days that their thirst has been slaked.

There is no way to eliminate the British presence from Ireland.

I was reared on pseudo-republican myths but like most Irish people I found pride in my real culture and rejected hatred and pointless murder. A minority did not and should be tried and shamed.

The intermingling long predates British imperialism and Irish nationalism. Marx once looked to Ireland to provide the revolutionary spark when he realised the English working classes had an interest in foreign exploitation. He was wrong, he realised it and he began to focus his thinking on the German working class. To analyse the problem as imperialism only would be as simplistic as to see it as a dispute between mad paddies.

Bloody Sunday was a terrible crime perpetrated by the British army who earlier had been deployed to save catholics from loyalist mobs when the RUC were either unwilling, unable or both to do so. The truth is often complicated and tends to destroy myths.

You are confusing two things here
British presense is "only" ever referring to british military and British Governmental control.
It does not and has never meant the removal from Ireland of anyone born in Britain or of british descent the two things are completely different and I am sure you are well aware of it.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Any bloodthirsty xenophobe against whom a case can be made can go to the Hague. I happen to be talking about Adams here.

What went on in this country is frequently described as a centuries-old conflict. Apart from the fact that nationalism as currently understood is modern, what has gone on here is outbreaks of tribal bloodletting perpetrated by psychopaths fed on myths. Their defenders sound more like Balkan apologists for ethnic cleansing than any other comparison.

To get back to the embarrassing fact that Catholics were saved by the deployment of the British Army, if the RUC had been an effective police force, capable of and universally willing to protect catholics from loyalist mobs, the army would not have been necessary.

Your argument is shot down by yourself here
Nationalism is modern yet the conflict in Ireland predates nationalism by some hundreds of years hence the cause of the conflict in Ireland is not nationalism and never has been. The cause has remained the same the political ideology of those opposing it has been different from monarchists through to republicans from capitalists through to communists.
The cause of the conflict is British military and political interference in Ireland.

Voipjunkie

Voipjunkie wrote:

The cause of the conflict is British military and political interference in Ireland.

Thats very debateable,you could as easily say the cause of the conflict is certain peoples dislike of British military and political "interference" in Ireland because not everybody would have described it as such.
In fact at times through history it wouldn't have been regarded as an "interference" by a majority on the island at all.
That military for many island wide would have been "their" military given how many from the "south" as well as the North fought in wars (and still do to a much smaller /tiny extent) in that military.

Now this thread has gone far,far away from it's original subject so I'm closing it as it's been well discussed.
If ye want to go into the theory of NI/GB/ROI politics-head over to the theory sub board.