Is Toireasa Ferris correct about SFs place in the "26 counties"?

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

For starters, I know there is a small difference between life in colonised Ireland under British rule and life in Adare in 1996. I know there is a difference between the conflict between Ireland and Britain in the War of Independance, and the conflict in the bar the night Robert McCartney was savagely assaulted.

You arer are purposely conflating the two issues. Firstly - The comparison to be made, is nationalists living in the north under British rule, and nationalists living in early 1900's Ireland under British rule. What you are attempting to do, is to somehow compare and contrast Robert McCartney's murder (which it was a cold blooded murder), to the war against British controlled Ireland.

Robert McCartney's murder was not an IRA operation, nor was it a SF operation. Just like - there may have been many incidents in early 1900's Ireland by men under the guide of Michael Collins who attack civilians. But once again, it would not have been at the order of Michael Collins. What you are attempting to do is to try and label all SF activists as people who will randomly attack civilians for the craic of it. This is simply not true, and I won't have it.

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

What you are attempting to do is to try and label all SF activists as people who will randomly attack civilians for the craic of it. This is simply not true, and I won't have it.

No-one's trying to do that at all. But it is up to SF to make that distinction stronger by condemning those random attacks. If you "won't have it", then SF should say they "won't have it" either!

Basically, Toireasa asked 2 questions:

1) Why don’t more people vote for us?

Because you don't represent their views on certain things, including the murder of Gerry McCabe

2) What must we do to win people’s support?

Condemn stuff like the above, and stop getting your photographs taken with criminals.

Also, stop screaming "conspiracy and cover-up" in relation to objectionable things the Brits did, while glossing over or excusing the reverse.

And finally - AFTER you've done the above - start listening to people and representing them in real terms, not in relation to what YOU want, but what THEY want. And create policies from THOSE. A protest / single-issue party cannot get into power in a [proper] democracy.

"This debate needs to take place now. It’s more than four weeks since the election and we, the activists, are waiting. The party is suffering an identity crisis – what are we trying to achieve in the 26 and what do we stand for besides a united Ireland?

dlofnep

dlofnep wrote: »

What you are attempting to do is to try and label all SF activists as people who will randomly attack civilians for the craic of it. This is simply not true, and I won't have it.

I guess when people like Martin Ferris were on the IRA Army Council its hard to pretend there is much of a distinction. One could say that the Church shouldn't pay for any abuse cases because technically it was not an operation directed or sanctioned by them. But once you breed a culture of contempt for human life, and indeed those who would have most contempt rise quickest through the ranks (like Toireasa's father) it's hard to just turn it off like a tap...

dlofnep

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No-one's trying to do that at all. But it is up to SF to make that distinction stronger by condemning those random attacks. If you "won't have it", then SF should say they "won't have it" either!

Basically, Toireasa asked 2 questions:

1) Why don’t more people vote for us?

Because you don't represent their views on certain things, including the murder of Gerry McCabe

2) What must we do to win people’s support?

Condemn stuff like the above, and stop getting your photographs taken with criminals.

Also, stop screaming "conspiracy and cover-up" in relation to objectionable things the Brits did, while glossing over or excusing the reverse.

And finally - AFTER you've done the above - start listening to people and representing them in real terms, not in relation to what YOU want, but what THEY want. And create policies from THOSE. A protest / single-issue party cannot get into power in a [proper] democracy.

"This debate needs to take place now. It’s more than four weeks since the election and we, the activists, are waiting. The party is suffering an identity crisis – what are we trying to achieve in the 26 and what do we stand for besides a united Ireland?

Point taken.

Time Magazine

Fair play for taking (but not necessarily agree with) points rather than resorting to party political broadcasts, penfold.

jmayo

Samildánach wrote: »

...
In fact, I would nearly go as far as quoting Tim Pat Coogan (historian and expert on the whole matter, I would advise you read his work) by calling Adams a "peacemaker".

If your going to be so blatantly biased and fueled to demeane them (not that there is anything wrong with opposing their ability as a party), at least review the actual evidence.

You do know the term "peacemaker" was also given to the Colt .45 widely used in the old West ?

http://www.amazon.com/Colt-45-Peacemaker-blued-finish/dp/B0002S9PCY

dlofnep wrote: »

...
As for Jerry McCabe? So what? What has Toiréasa got to do with it? Why should she condemn the killers? She wasn't involved with it and was a kid when it happened. SF as a party did not organise it. It has little bearing on Toiréasa's political views. It's just another example of attempting to use something, that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question - to try and taint them.

You sir have once again confirmed why I never have voted for SF and why I never will as long as they see nothing wrong with killing a member of our police force carrying out his duty.

It has everything to do with why most people in this country look at SF not through the rose tinted glasses you obviously wear, but with cycnism, distrust and often revulsion.

Why is so hard to say that "I condemn the killing of Gerry McCabe" rather than the mealy mouthed crap she uttered ?
It is highlt insulting both to the family of Garda McCabe but alos to the law abiding citizens of this state. And when I say this state I mean the one you and others want ot integrate with another state.

dlofnep wrote: »

There is no onus on her to condemn it. Absolutely none whatsoever. If she was involved, or her family was involved, or SF was involved - then maybe.. But none of the above are true.

If your biggest gripe with Toiréasa is the fact that she doesn't feel an onus to condemn something she, nor her party had anything to do with - then I'd say she's doing well.

So unless you are directly involved in something you should never condemm it ?
What utter horse***e.

dlofnep wrote: »

I just Sinn Féin on moving on, by their work on the ground - and not Toiréasa Ferris' condemnation or lack of of the killing of Jerry McCabe.

Sinn Féin has engaged in a peace process, put pressure on the PIRA to disarm (which they have), have worked on cross-community projects to ease nationalist/unionist tensions and worked on behalf of worker rights for years.

If your only basis for SF not moving on is on Ms. Ferris and Jerry McCabe, then that's your loss. Not mine. You seem to be the one stuck in 1970, not me. If you can't admit that SF as a party has moved on, then you're too far entrenched in your opinion for it to matter.

No it is your loss, because as long as you, your party and it's high ranking members see nothing wrong with refusing to condone the cowardly murder of a police officer of this state, then the vast majority of the people of this country want nothing to do with you.
Of course I am awaiting the comeback that they were only found guilty of manslaughter :rolleyes:

It is you that is stuck in 1970 and the murder took place in 1996 not in 1921 or some other era.
It always amazes me how SF supporters are telling us to forget the past and move on, only in the very next sentence to jump back to Cromwell or 1916 :rolleyes:

dlofnep

The Economist wrote: »

Fair play for taking (but not necessarily agree with) points rather than resorting to party political broadcasts, penfold.

I've, if to be honest - taken a defensive approach as expected. It's not intentional but happens when things are not put in context.

If you were to ask me personally if she should condemn it, I would say yes. My understanding is that the gardaí involved did not fire any bullets, and therefore - it did not merit an attack on them. I have heard elsewhere that this was not the case - which is why some activists may have been a little less eager to condemn it. I think this may be the pressing issue with them. It's not for me. As an individual, I think otheriwise.

I just took issue with the fact that it was suggested that SF have not progressed as a party - Because the evidence suggests that they have indeed. SF has a troublesome past, but it has that because it took a stance on the troubles while other parties took a more passive stance. Not everything is squeeky clean as a result of it. There have been some bad moments, and I wouldn't defend them. There have also IMO been warranted moments, with attacks against the British forces who were attacking and oppressing the nationalist population (who felt absolutely and utterly cast away by the 26 counties, and alone).

To in a more honest reflection of things - Has SF work to do? Yes, absolutely. But has there been great progress? Yes, absolutely. I think we should all be more honest in this reflection.

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

My understanding is that the gardaí involved did not fire any bullets, and therefore - it did not merit an attack on them.

WTF ? The Gardai were doing their job, and some scumbags shot them. Whether or not the Gardai shot at the criminals has no bearing WHATSOEVER.

And in all fairness, dlofnep, if that's the mindset of the apologists (siding with criminals implying that if the Gardai shot at them that an attack is "merited") then they're so out of touch with reality that they're beyond redemption.

Even the robbery itself was "unmerited". It was a criminal act.

Yes, someone might shoot back when shot at (particularly if they're a scumbag armed criminal with no regard for people's rights or for human life - you'd nearly expect them to) but no sane member of the public would attempt to say that was "merited".

Ideally, of course, they shouldn't be committing a crime at all, but if you do something and a Garda tells you stop, or shoots at you, you put down your weapons and surrender. It's called a "fair cop".

Running around with AK-47s = unmerited
Robbery = unmerited
Shooting a guard = unmerited

"merited", my arse! :rolleyes:

dlofnep

I didn't say it was merited. You've taken my words out of context. I stated that they weren't fired upon, and thus - no shots were merited. If shots had of been fired - then it wouldn't have been classified as murder.

Time Magazine

dlofnep wrote: »

If shots had of been fired - then it wouldn't have been classified as murder.

You were doing so well

Yes, it would have been murder. Cold-blooded murder. If anything, it's worse than your "typical" murder. The Gardaí are not Crown forces; they're the police force of the democratically-elected government of this country. Taking the life of a Garda is not just removing his or her life, it's a blow to the defenders of the State. There's a reason why murdering one of them carried the death sentence until very recently.

You may not agree with any of the above. If you don't, I don't really care how far SF have come, you still have a long f*cking road ahead.

dlofnep

If someone is fired upon and returns fire, by law it's considered murder? I'm not trying to justify attacks on the Gardaí btw - I was speaking from a law standpoint.

DoireNod

The Economist wrote: »

The Gardaí are Crown forces...

Ah, Freudian slip? Is that a correct term? Or is it supposed to be Police Force?

Time Magazine

DoireNod wrote: »

Ah, Freudian slip? Is that a correct term? Or is it supposed to be Police Force?

Edited, thanks.

dlofnep wrote: »

If someone is fired upon and returns fire, by law it's considered murder?

I certainly hope so.

And I think so. Section 3 of Criminal Justice Act states "This section applies to ... murder of a member of the Garda Síochána acting in the course of his duty." (Minimum 40 year sentence.) There's a debate to be had about whether it would count as murder, but the "acting in the course of duty" bit indicates that it probably would be?

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

If someone is fired upon and returns fire, by law it's considered murder?

If you shoot someone with the aim of unlawfully killing them, that's pretty much murder.

There's very little justification that I can think of for lawfully killing an on-duty police officer.

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

I didn't say it was merited. You've taken my words out of context. I stated that they weren't fired upon, and thus - no shots were merited.

I didn't take anything out of context; you said that "no shots were merited because they weren't fired upon" - correct ?

The corollary of your quoted opinion is that if they had been fired upon, then shots would have been merited.

No out-of-context; just the direct implication of what you said. Feel free to correct that if I've missed something or gotten it wrong (because I've no intention of misquoting you) but the above seems completely logical based directly on what you said.

And that is what I disagreed with. My view is "no shots were merited". PERIOD. No "because", no caveat. No shots were merited.

dlofnep wrote: »

If shots had of been fired - then it wouldn't have been classified as murder.

Irrelevant to what was said. Gardai are entitled to fire on any armed person committing a crime, and can do so with merit - protecting us citizens and our property on our behalf; criminals are not entitled or merited to carry guns, let alone fire on anyone, Garda or otherwise, regardless of whether or not they [the criminals] are being shot at.

jmayo

dlofnep wrote: »

I've, if to be honest - taken a defensive approach as expected. It's not intentional but happens when things are not put in context.

If you were to ask me personally if she should condemn it, I would say yes. My understanding is that the gardaí involved did not fire any bullets, and therefore - it did not merit an attack on them. I have heard elsewhere that this was not the case - which is why some activists may have been a little less eager to condemn it. I think this may be the pressing issue with them. It's not for me. As an individual, I think otheriwise.

If I recall correctly Garda McCabe was shot in his seat in the car, hardly diving around firing shots ?
Actaully by all accounts he wasn't given any chance.

Can you please tell me if the Gardai were carrying military grade assualt rifles as similar to the ones carried by the criminals or should that be ex freedom fighters ?

In your mind do Gardai deserve to be shot at by cimrinals if they have opened fire on the criminals, because the criminals are carrying high power military weapons and are endangering the safety of the public whilst carrying out a crime ?

dlofnep wrote: »

I didn't say it was merited. You've taken my words out of context. I stated that they weren't fired upon, and thus - no shots were merited. If shots had of been fired - then it wouldn't have been classified as murder.

You said the Gardai did not fire any bullets and thus did not merit an attack.
So if they had fired at these heavily armed individuals, then they would merit being attacked and even possibly killed would be the flipside of that argument ?

So do you believe the gardai have a right to protect themselves and the general public or are they fair game once they open fire ?

Just wondering how the rules of enagement work. :rolleyes:

mike65

As an aside has anyone typed Sinn Fein into google and noted the header info that is displayed?

Home | Sinn Féin
Irish republican party seeking to end British rule in Northern Ireland. Led by Gerry Adams. Considered to be the political arm of the IRA.
www.sinnfein.ie/ - Cached - Similar

Until they have the line of thought that can see such words could be an issue they are going to have problems "down south".

MikeC101

dlofnep wrote: »

If someone is fired upon and returns fire, by law it's considered murder? I'm not trying to justify attacks on the Gardaí btw - I was speaking from a law standpoint.

What would you like the Gardaí to do in the event of an armed criminal pointing a gun at them?

Personally I would consider the shooting of a Garda to be an attack on the State by proxy, and thus in addition to murder, treason.

To be honest, while I wouldn't consider SF to be exactly a paragon of moral integrity, the reaction to the murder of Garda McCabe has shocked me - I cannot believe people are attempting to defend it. Perhaps I'm naive, but I would assume any member of a political party in the South would condemn the killing of a member of the Gardaí.

If not, how the hell can they be considered fit to be involved in government in the country? A SF minister for justice?

I think it's a big mistake by SF too. They should have disowned the criminals straight away, and condemned the act. It would surely have made them more legitimate in the eyes of the public.

Why didn't / don't they? To me, it seems there's still too much influence from people who see the gun as a viable option in politics.

I honestly don't know why they wouldn't - but until they do, they don't warrant consideration from me when it comes to voting preferences.

Like a lot of posters have previously said - until SF and it's supporters are willing to condemn acts such as this - and not shrug their shoulders, roll their eyes and act like it's not a big deal, they have no place in the "26 counties".

I will add, I'm impressed Ms. Ferris went ahead and spoke out about SF and their position in the 26 counties, perhaps it points to a more forward looking younger generation.

dlofnep

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I didn't take anything out of context; you said that "no shots were merited because they weren't fired upon" - correct ?

That is correct.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The corollary of your quoted opinion is that if they had been fired upon, then shots would have been merited.

I don't feel it would have been merited - Those involved would have felt it was merited.

In any case, the Gardaí didn't shoot. The point I was trying to illustrate, which you've entirely failed to miss - was that the Gardaí did not deserve to be shot at. I wasn't trying to justify an attack.

jmayo

MikeC101 wrote: »

I will add, I'm impressed Ms. Ferris went ahead and spoke out about SF and their position in the 26 counties, perhaps it points to a more forward looking younger generation.

I am not impressed by her because her mealy mouthed answer when asked to condemm the killing of a member of our police force, whilst on duty, displays her total lack of respect for the authority of the state, it's rule of law and thus it's citizens.
Afterall this is a political movement that until a number of years ago refused to recognise the legitimacy of this state.
Maybe behind the scenes and the smiley media savy faces of the new bunch of SF party representatives this old believe is still held true ?

Liam Byrne

Apart from the unintended irony in your "failed to miss" phrasing, I do accept that you said that you did not condone the attack or think Gardai should be shot at.

But your phrase was that it wasn't merited "because....."

dlofnep wrote:

My understanding is that the gardaí involved did not fire any bullets, and therefore - it did not merit an attack on them.

Forgive me, but despite what you've since posted, the above has absolutely no separation of your opinion and that of the criminals & apologists.

If you meant to imply, but simply didn't clarify / state that separation, then please accept my apologies.

HOWEVER [even accepting that the mindset does not include you] anyone [else] who thinks that a "because....." or a "therefore...." is applicable is not a decent member of society in my book.

And anyone representing that view is not going to get my vote.

So - as stated above - it's not US that needs to change. It's THEM.

DoireNod

jmayo wrote: »

I am not impressed by her because her mealy mouthed answer when asked to condemm the killing of a member of our police force, whilst on duty, displays her total lack of respect for the authority of the state, it's rule of law and thus it's citizens.

That is, of course, your interpretation. I wonder how many citizens actually know (never-mind agree with) the law and procedures of state government? What is your opinion of those governing the state at present? Are they a credible authority to confide in?

Afterall this is a political movement that until a number of years ago refused to recognise the legitimacy of this state.

Have you read Irish history in its entirety? The result of partition in Ireland was not the goal of the heroes of 1916.

dlofnep

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Apart from the unintended irony in your "failed to miss" phrasing, I do accept that you said that you did not condone the attack or think Gardai should be shot at.

But your phrase was that it wasn't merited "because....."



Forgive me, but despite what you've since posted, the above has absolutely no separation of your opinion and that of the criminals & apologists.

If you meant to imply, but simply didn't clarify / state that separation, then please accept my apologies.

HOWEVER [even accepting that the mindset does not include you] anyone [else] who thinks that a "because....." or a "therefore...." is applicable is not a decent member of society in my book.

And anyone representing that view is not going to get my vote.

That's fair enough, and I was speaking in context of the men there. Not my own personal views.

MikeC101

jmayo wrote: »

I am not impressed by her because her mealy mouthed answer when asked to condemm the killing of a member of our police force, whilst on duty, displays her total lack of respect for the authority of the state, it's rule of law and thus it's citizens.

I would certainly agree with this.

However it's possibly she may be wondering if she had condemned the killing, how many extra votes would she have gotten for the MEP seat?

Eventually I'm sure, SF representatives are going to have to realise they must leave behind the image of the former gunmen pulling the strings behind the scenes if they really want to make an impact on politics in the south, and that they should be able to condemn outright disgraceful crimes such as the murder of Det. McCabe without resorting the kind of crap she spouted on the Late Late.

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

That's fair enough, and I was speaking in context of the men there. Not my own personal views.

Fair enough. Personally, though I don't put any validity whatsover in the opinion of the so-called "men" who were there.

The moment they picked up loaded guns, tried to rob people's money and shot a Garda, their opinions and rights became irrelevant to me.

conchubhar1

turgon wrote: »

Ye see, Im not specifically anti-Sinn Fein. Im just anti-terrorism, surprisingly enough. And Sinn Fein sympathize with terrorists.

when?

i love comments that have no basis in reality and have no facts to back them up

Liam Byrne

conchubhar1 wrote: »

when?

i love comments that have no basis in reality and have no facts to back them up

Dunno if you're stirring, but siding with scum who shoot Gardai, visiting them in jail, and refusing to condemn their murders comes under "sympathising" in my book.

Bare facts and GRIM reality, there, beyond doubt.

Mayo Exile

Just wondering, do the posters on here who don’t think SF should be in government in the South because they didn’t condemn the killing of Jerry McCabe, vote yes to the Good Friday Agreement which eventually allowed SF into government in the North without them having to condemn the shooting of hundreds of policemen up there by the IRA?

Liam Byrne

That's been discussed before. Different country, different rules, different requirements.

In the north, the voters ignored the moderates and voted for the extremists, and so the "power-sharing" had to be imposed. Once side could hardly complain about the other being "in power", because they were as bad themselves.

Instead of the ideal of locking up all of the scumbags from both sides, we were given a vote that was designed to stop any more senseless murders, and we (grudgingly) took it. We mightn't like SF being in power (not that it's much of our business) and we mightn't like trained criminals walking free, from either side, but it was required to stop the idiotic, sectarian mayhem and senseless murder of innocents.

Down here, in this country, we have no "sides"; we have a democracy, where psychotic, blatantly criminal* and violent tendencies are frowned upon and make people unfit for office.

* Hopefully, down the line, stroke pulling, corruption and other dodgy deals will also imply an immediate disqualification, but for all their many, many faults at least no-one in FF runs into a jail to be photographed with someone who murdered a Garda.

conchubhar1

conchubhar1 wrote: »

when?

When the likes of Martin Ferris ran guns to support terrorists?

When the same representative discourages people from 'squealing' about the murder of Gerry McCabe?

When the same representative sat (or sits) on the Army Council of the IRA?

You know, all that terrorism stuff that terrorists do?