Why is Sein Fein such a dirty word down south?

prinz

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

All in the past.

Tell that to the relatives of the dead, maimed and disappeared. Tell that to the people who were tortured, targeted, robbed, and intimidated.

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

Meanwhile in the present tense, the current Govt is ruining our economy, bailing out banks with taxpayers money, presiding over huge job loses, and plunging thousands of people into debt.

Meanwhile in the present tense, the current SF has no idea how to run an economy, robs the banks, can provide no jobs whatsoever, and has plunged thousands of people into a cycle of death.

Liam Byrne

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

The party is a filthy insult to all those who cherish democracy and abhor violence.
You just have to ask the family of Garda McCabe to understand the type of scum you are dealing with here.

Reply :

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

All in the past

However, earlier we had this :

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

I'll just say the decision to create a border with an inbuilt unionist majority was an undemocratic one.

Seems like the "all in the past" line is VERY selective. :rolleyes:

Either the past is valid to bring up or it's not.

Stop trying to have it both ways.

Exile 1798

I don't know why the debate has wandered on. The issue was nailed in the very first response.

IIMII wrote: »

There is an element of protectionism to it. FF and Lab don't want a mainstream resurgent SF eating into their share of the electoral pie. FG is more complicated, as they still hold a civil way heritage but at the same token they also have Collins' fans that might also be tempted towards supporting a mainstream SF. The policy on the part of all parties is to keep SF on the margins.

You might ask how is it that that any FF minister or member could say they won't share government with SF - the two parties have traveled exactly the same road. If Adams is a terrorist then so was Dev. So it's purely party politics, Fianna Fáil see Sinn Féin as a threat because they see a newer, younger version of themselves.

Jason Mc

Yeah I do doubt that Gerry would have written so many blank cheques for the fat cats at the banks so this whole economic arguement is rather void.

I'm sort of guessing that half of the people that complain about the tactics in the north have grandparents who did pretty much the same thing and are proud that their countrymen fought to free ireland from british rule

Main thing is don't is the troubles didn't really affect them so so they do not care.

But god forbid if Israel attacks palestine. That's more important than dealing with issues on your own doorstep....


I'm very glad that things moved on up here and want to live in peace with our unionists neighbours. There is still quite some way for us to go up here for there to be complete equality but it is moving in the right direction

Can'tseeme

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Here we go again. How could I possibly look at it from the same pov as Jim Allister ? He's a unionist.

I was talking about the political speak of Jim Allister towards the IRA. The scaremongering, the guns issue, etc.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So they didn't blow up shopping centres, then ?


It's not just up to everyone else to change their attitudes; Sinn Fein's own attitudes will have to change too. Not least their usual stance of everyone else being wrong/corrupt/in collusion, while they excuse their own "side".

If they expect to be given the benefit of the doubt, they need to give it too.

Sinn Fein have consitently said that the IRA had did wrong but that ALL of it was wrong on ALL sides. The difference regarding collusion is the cover up and denial by the british state/unionism (for arming, passing of information on nationalists, and running loyalist muder gangs) that Sinn Fein (who were the only party unfortunately) have fought to uncover and expose.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

From what I've seen and heard they're only fighting against HALF of it. That's not a bias, it's the vibe they give off from their statements, and it needs to change.

Eh? The vibe your getting? Have you seriously looked at the problem of inequality in the north, which has vastly improved since my fathers time as a young man. Or the sectarian and racist problems unionist areas have that go unaddressed.

Sinn Fein will speak out against any sort of sectarianism or racism. Whether it's protestant, catholic, black, white, ethnic minority. You can check out their record on that.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And well done on that - credit where credit's due. Now if only they could be as open to weeding out the collusion and double-speak of their own interests.

You've lost me.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

When quizzed on it, they also seem to rely on pointing fingers in relation to what others are doing, rather than ensuring that they have the high moral ground. While they have no control over others, and can only hope to influence them gradually, they have full control over their own stances. And fixing those stances would make their influence less gradual, as they would increase their credibility and their fitness for office.

They have their own policies and aims like every other political party. If you don't support them, that's fair enough. But they are entitled to point out wrongs as they see them and argue their own case

Jason Mc

It's funny that they are associated with people from working class backgrounds or should I say "knackers" to please some of the more gifted on boards

I have a degree, have worked as a retails manager for over 5 years and am currently working as a computer programmer.

On my tea break I was talking about teh vote. There were 5 of us all with university educations and all of us said we are voting for DeBruin

Stabshauptmann

ionix5891 wrote: »

hahahahaha

let me fix that for you

If Sinn Fein were in power in the RoI there would have been no boom and plenty of squander

you forgetting they are the ones who didn't want us in EU...

.

If thats the edited version of the post to correct typos, Id hate to have seen the original.

In future, do yourself a favour and read posts 3 times before you reply.

kmick

prinz wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0528/1224247598666.html

And you wonder why people wouldn't vote for them? Same bullyboy tactics the Nazi party used to come to power.

Oh yeah I forgot in my original post to mention all the SF candidates appear to the casual observer to be liars. Their view on what constitutes the truth seems to be at odds with the truth itself in most cases. Dathi is at it in the article above. I can understand why you would want to disassociate yourself from people who murder other people over a petty squabble - what I can't understand is why you would associate yourself with them in the first place.

As an aside Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD??? WTF....the guy can barely talk.

Liam Byrne

Can'tseeme wrote: »

I was talking about the political speak of Jim Allister towards the IRA. The scaremongering, the guns issue, etc.

If neutrals agree with him on some of those points, then it's hardly scaremongering.

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Sinn Fein have consitently said that the IRA had did wrong but that ALL of it was wrong on ALL sides.

It's always fudged, in that it was "the Brits" fault for not acting on the warning, or it was an "unauthorised" operation, or that "something went wrong". The IRA never accepts full responsibility and Sinn Fein always toes that line.

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Eh? The vibe your getting? Have you seriously looked at the problem of inequality in the north, which has vastly improved since my fathers time as a young man. Or the sectarian and racist problems unionist areas have that go unaddressed.

Sinn Fein will speak out against any sort of sectarianism or racism. Whether it's protestant, catholic, black, white, ethnic minority. You can check out their record on that.

Explain to me again why they're looking for unionists to do their utmost re the killing at the weekend - to the point of having it on the Sinn Fein website - but haven't actively looked for justice and closure re Robert McCartney and Jerry McCabe - not mentioned on their website. Why even ask "the unionists" and make a political point-score ? Why not ask everyone ?

The fact is that I - and other neutrals - don't give a flying f**k whether those people were Protestant or Catholic; they were innocent and they were killed.

So the next time someone is murdered, I'd love to hear the news report not even mention "what" they were; they were a person. Period.

Can'tseeme wrote: »

You've lost me.

Q : "Is murder wrong ?"
A : "Depends on who did it"

Q : "Was there collusion, deliberate targetted action, or something underhand ?"
A : "If it was the Brits, definitely. If it was the IRA, it was unauthorised or an accident"

Can'tseeme wrote: »

They have their own policies and aims like every other political party. If you don't support them, that's fair enough. But they are entitled to point out wrongs as they see them and argue their own case

As are we. And without being accused of being "west brit" or unpatriotic or some such blinkered rubbish, which regularly happens here and elsewhere.

Sinn Fein's version of being Irish is not the only one. Some of us want an open, honest and responsible country that respects law and order and equality for everyone.

Stabshauptmann

To be honest, I was on a tour of the Dail this time last year (more or less) and a Sinn Fein TD was making a point, I think it was about the traffic corps being under resourced and the response from the minister was "ah be quiet, your a provo" or something equally lame to which the whole house applauded.

Fight them on the issues.

IIMII

Dirty-Old-Man wrote: »

You left out 'Northern' - I don't think they trust candidates from the Republic

I wouldn't agree with that - most SF candidates I have heard in the south are southern, with the exception of one former councillor.

Dirty-Old-Man wrote: »

the few that don't have two big heavy northern minders on their shoulders at all times.

Not my experience. If you look at the political activists for Sinn Féin that you run into, they are ordinary people. I'm not sure why they might need two big heavy northern minders in the first place?

Criticise SF where they deserve criticism (and there is plenty of grounds for criticism) but shape-throwing isn't one of them. I would go as far as saying that I think the party in the south is insecure in terms of political outlook (outside of the issue of a British withdrawal), and highly unlikely to be engaged in shape-throwing until it forms a clear definition of what it would like to achieve politically when the reality of southern governmental politics comes about (which it will, in the way our system works).

IIMII

Jason Mc wrote: »

Yeah I do doubt that Gerry would have written so many blank cheques for the fat cats at the banks so this whole economic arguement is rather void.

Gerry won't ever be in a position to write cheques down here unless he stands here and gets elected.

IIMII

kmick wrote: »

As an aside Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD??? WTF....the guy can barely talk.

He comes across as gruff but was fairly well educated, and definitely not from a knacker background. His father is well regarded in CnaG

Deedsie

Id vote for them. Fianna Fáil have done just as much wrong in my opinion.

Basically crippled the country. Toiréasa Ferris and Alan Kelly have my top two in Munster.

nkay1985

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I don't know why the debate has wandered on. The issue was nailed in the very first response.


You might ask how is it that that any FF minister or member could say they won't share government with SF - the two parties have traveled exactly the same road. If Adams is a terrorist then so was Dev. So it's purely party politics, Fianna Fáil see Sinn Féin as a threat because they see a newer, younger version of themselves.

Yep, you're exactly right. I looked at this thread, read the first post, decided what was said was correct and left. I can't believe this is still rumbling on!

Liam Byrne

Deedsie wrote: »

Id vote for them. Fianna Fáil have done just as much wrong in my opinion.

Do you think that one of those "wrong" things that FF have done is leave the religious orders that abused kids off too easily? Even though they, FF, didn't abuse kids themselves.....that they just didn't condemn it enough.

They should actively seek proper justice for those affected, and their families.

Deedsie wrote: »

Toiréasa Ferris and Alan Kelly have my top two in Munster.

One of the things that Toireasea Ferris and SF have done wrong is..... URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055577197"]link[/URL

Badboy1977

Essentially your view of SF depends on your view on the political violence 1969-1994. I understood why the violence started but never accepted that it had to continue for 25 years. What exactly did it achieve? Anyone with a grasp of Northern History will know that The Good FridayAgreement 1998 was almost an exact replica of the Sunningdale agreement in 1973? Yet SF/IRA rejected the Sunnigdale but accepted the GOOD FRIDAY agreement??

SF to me are fascist thugs.Yes,they are now fully legitimate but I would need about 2o more years of decontamination before I would vote for them.

Its possible that all the improvements that Northern Nationalists won from 1969 onwards would have been achieved without murdering thousands. THe IRA killed more catholics than the security forces-some protectors they were.

Tarzan007

Badboy1977 wrote: »

Essentially your view of SF depends on your view on the political violence 1969-1994. I understood why the violence started but never accepted that it had to continue for 25 years. What exactly did it achieve? Anyone with a grasp of Northern History will know that The Good FridayAgreement 1998 was almost an exact replica of the Sunningdale agreement in 1973? Yet SF/IRA rejected the Sunnigdale but accepted the GOOD FRIDAY agreement??

SF to me are fascist thugs.Yes,they are now fully legitimate but I would need about 2o more years of decontamination before I would vote for them.

Its possible that all the improvements that Northern Nationalists won from 1969 onwards would have been achieved without murdering thousands. THe IRA killed more catholics than the security forces-some protectors they were.

You are right about the IRA rejecting Sunningdale, but people also forget that the British govt who had signed up to it, then effectively rejected it by letting the rag tag elements of unionism, Paisley, the corner boys of the UDA etc hijack the north and then used this as an excuse to dump the Sunningdale.
However the British govt were more than willing to force the GFA through, and publicly let the unionists know, ( even though Paisley's first, predictable of course reaction was to utter "this means WAR " ), it was going through and that was that. Blair and co. did not want the huge bombings of the financial district - fact.
I'm not trying to upstage you on this - but apply realpolitik to the situation. Both SF ( who for all their denials were hand in glove with the IRA ) and the British govt both had practical reasons for it. The unionists had to accept - or as Blair stated, he would appoint representatives from Britain to run it until they came in from the cold.

Tarzan007

Deedsie wrote: »

Id vote for them. Fianna Fáil have done just as much wrong in my opinion.

Basically crippled the country. Toiréasa Ferris and Alan Kelly have my top two in Munster.

Admit it, your only voting for Toiréasa Ferris because you think she's a cutie

Scofflaw

prinz wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0528/1224247598666.html

And you wonder why people wouldn't vote for them? Same bullyboy tactics the Nazi party used to come to power.

OK, I've had quite enough of that.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Tarzan007 wrote: »

You are right about the IRA rejecting Sunningdale, but people also forget that the British govt who had signed up to it, then effectively rejected it by letting the rag tag elements of unionism, Paisley, the corner boys of the UDA etc hijack the north and then used this as an excuse to dump the Sunningdale.

Which came first ? If the IRA rejected it, what was the point in the British government sticking to it ?

Tarzan007

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Which came first ? If the IRA rejected it, what was the point in the British government sticking to it ?

Sunningdale was all about undermining support for the IRA promising reforms and implying a United Ireland was in the pipeline with the Council of Ireland. The IRA rejected it and so did their network of supporters. Seeing it as failing in it's task, the British govt allowed Paisley ( and the UUP including David Trimble ) and their his rag tag followers to hijack the north, and then use the excuse they were suspending it due to the possibility of great bloodshed etc.

Liam Byrne

Tarzan007 wrote: »

Sunningdale was all about undermining support for the IRA promising reforms and implying a United Ireland was in the pipeline with the Council of Ireland. The IRA rejected it and so did their network of supporters. Seeing it as failing in it's task, the British govt allowed Paisley ( and the UUP including David Trimble ) and their his rag tag followers to hijack the north, and then use the excuse they were suspending it due to the possibility of great bloodshed etc.

So basically my point is correct. I didn't know which came first, but now that I do, it makes perfect sense.

Why continue to implement an "agreement" and hold up your side of something that the other side has already decided to reject it ?

It would hardly be an "agreement" then, would it ?

And I guess we'll never know what would have happened if the IRA hadn't rejected it......or if the IRA and its supporters hadn't unilaterally decided that the opinion and hopes of the rest of the people in the North weren't relevant.

jimmycrackcorm

I can't quite fit the idea of SF in power and still looking for the release of the Garda McCabe killers. One does expect a coalition party to be on the same side as the law of the state.

Nodin

ionix5891 wrote: »

something on the news about police and soldiers being murdered recently?

ok ill shut up now, dont want some balaclava wearing due knocking on my door

The killings condemned by the people you're slagging off?

Can'tseeme

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If neutrals agree with him on some of those points, then it's hardly scaremongering.

Of course it's not. Because nationalist politics has hardly changed in the last 15 years.:rolleyes:

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's always fudged, in that it was "the Brits" fault for not acting on the warning, or it was an "unauthorised" operation, or that "something went wrong". The IRA never accepts full responsibility and Sinn Fein always toes that line.

Sinn Fein has openly said that the IRA caused alot of hurt during the conflict and things that were done were wrong.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Explain to me again why they're looking for unionists to do their utmost re the killing at the weekend - to the point of having it on the Sinn Fein website - but haven't actively looked for justice and closure re Robert McCartney and Jerry McCabe - not mentioned on their website. Why even ask "the unionists" and make a political point-score ? Why not ask everyone ?

The fact is that I - and other neutrals - don't give a flying f**k whether those people were Protestant or Catholic; they were innocent and they were killed.

We're over ten years since the GFA. This agreement is surposed to be the catalyst to change society in the north. To move away from sectarianism, to promote cross community involvement and for open dialogue to ease tensions. Unionism has not only dragged it's feet on this but at times re-ignited sectarian tensions. Which means we still have a serious problem of sectarianism within unionism, that has resulted in tragic events like the murder of Kevin McDaid, because he was a catholic. With regards to Robert McCartney, it has certainly done Sinn Fein no favours that incident, that's for sure. Those in the bar that night, that had Sinn Fein membership were expelled from the party and Sinn Fein asked those with information to go to the authorities. It couldn't have happened at a worse time either while Sinn Fein were still in the process of getting the necessary agreement on policing. A tragic muder over a row in a bar.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So the next time someone is murdered, I'd love to hear the news report not even mention "what" they were; they were a person. Period.

But you'll surely want to know why he was murdered, whether it was because he was gay or black or catholic, etc.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Q : "Is murder wrong ?"
A : "Depends on who did it"

Q : "Was there collusion, deliberate targetted action, or something underhand ?"
A : "If it was the Brits, definitely. If it was the IRA, it was unauthorised or an accident"

Well, the IRA has stood down lets hope this is all behind us. The IRA targetted people. We all know that. The British, that was saying they were only trying to uphold the law, were actually in the thick of a dirty war and were colluding with loyalist murder squads. Let them come clean and admit that. There will never be convictions of those security forces that were involved but it would be a decent step to help victims of state murder to have closure.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As are we. And without being accused of being "west brit" or unpatriotic or some such blinkered rubbish, which regularly happens here and elsewhere.

Sinn Fein's version of being Irish is not the only one. Some of us want an open, honest and responsible country that respects law and order and equality for everyone.

Sinn Fein's policy is for an Ireland of equals. ALL of us want that.

2-D Man

What the feck is "Sein Fein"??

Anyway, I think a lot of it has to do with SF's connections to the IRA and the media manipulation and spin that was placed on the conflict. The ridiculous made up stories which appear in the Sunday World etc.

You'd wonder why we don't hear much of the same about the Labour Party considering it is completely controlled by ex-members of the Workers Party (linked to the OIRA). Not to mention that their candidate in Dublin, Mr De Rossa, was interned due to IRA activities.

It's all down to the manipulation which occurs in the media, if SF can be portrayed as a "northie" party and a violent one at that, then they can be kept from growing in the south. FF in particular do not want SF growing because they feel they would be the main ones to lose out (in terms of their republican supporters). FG oppose them due to their pro-treaty status and also the fact that they have extremely large amounts of Protestant members in the border counties and places like Wicklow, Dublin and Cork. (even if SF itself has a surprisingly high number of Protestant members). The Labour party is made up of many members of Official Sinn Fein/The Workers Party who split on an ideological basis.

All in all the conflict is too recent and the succesful British and free-state spin and censorship which resulted in the the Republican Movement being portrayed as some kind of sectarian mob has stuck.

It is interesting to note however, that as you look at voters ages in reverse form (oldest to youngest) you will notice that SF and the Green Party are the only ones whose support increases as the voters get younger.

Perhaps a sign of things to come.

turgon

2-D Man wrote: »

FG oppose them due to their pro-treaty status

No, perhaps we all oppose them because they are firmly stuck in the past.

2-D Man

techdiver wrote: »

Because they surround themselves with scumbags especially in Dublin.

Like who?

Please back that up.

2-D Man

turgon wrote: »

No, perhaps we all oppose them is because they are firmly suck in the past.

No we don't all oppose them.

SF will get around 12% in the locals, a large vote no matter what way you look at it.

It's attitudes like yours that need to be changed.

SF are not stuck in the past, it's FG who are, they constantly bring up the IRA etc. The IRA have been on ceasefire for 15 years, maybe you should grow up an realise that SF are the fastest growing party in this country (north and south) and in a few years will be a force to be reckoned with.

Certain FGrs realise this, hence the reason they are looking into the option of a coalition