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

mike65

Like when Gerry Adams got on the back of a pick up and said "they havn't gone away you know" in that tone.

FTA69

The Economist wrote: »

No it doesn't. "Radical Sinn Féin politics" and "increased vote in the 26 counties" does not compute. 78% of the seats in the last GE went to the two centre-right parties, 90% if you include Labour as a "non-radical" party. Four Indos, the six Green Party TDs and the two PDs then went to bed with a centrist government, leaving the grand total of five TDs that could be considered "radical". Five TDs = 3% of the seats. That means 97% are amenable to centrist politics. Ireland does not have a "radical" vote.

Sinn Féin's vote increased from 2% odd in the early 1990s to 12% in the space of ten years, in the capital city at one stage they had almost 20% of the vote. This surge in support came about as a result of the IRA ceasefire creating the space for the SF message to be heard, hard community work in working-class areas and an ethos and sentiment that appealed to working people. Now that they have abandoned that position in favour of fresh-faced, catch -all sh*te politics, the party base is becoming disillusioned and either staying at home or switching to Labour.

While Ireland's political culture is unique in the sense it is dominated by two centre-right parties, there has always been a leftist or progressive niche in the body politic. Such a space has historically been filled by the likes of Clann na Poblachta, Labour at times, Sinn Féin up until recently and perhaps even the Sticks during the mid 1980s.

jmayo

DoireNod wrote: »

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?

So what is your interpretation of the fact that SF, and Ms Ferris in particular, refuses to condemm the murder of peace officers of this state while they carried out their duty to protect the citizens of the state and their property ?

It doesn't matter fu** all if one knows the law and procedures of the state, and you bringing that up is a red herring.
I think everyone knows it is unlawful to kill someone or in your green haze do you think that is just a law for some people ?

It is always considered a worse crime when the victims are the upholders of the law i.e. the police and if you were to check it is the way in probably every country in the world.

Also it matters f**k all whether we agree with the current incumbent government. These were peace officers of the state and like the judiciary they are are their to offer citizens protection (and I am not talking about the kind offered by PIRA, CIRA, etc) and uphold the rule of law.

Thankfully we have a little thing called democracy in this state, where we can vote for our leaders and they don't tend to meet in safe houses behind closed doors.
We may not like the outcome of that democracy, but it is still a hell of a lot better than what SF and their guiding army council has often offered the people of this state and the bordering one.

The police force are a legitimate arm of the state and it doesn't matter what parties are in government.

DoireNod wrote: »

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

What the f**k has the goal of the 1916 leaers got to do with the murder of police officers of the Irish Republic ?
Are you saying that you do not recognise the legitimacy of the Irish Republic as currently consitituted, because it was not the goal of the 1916 leaders ?
If so, are you implying it is ok to murder the police force of this state ?

BTW I don't think that the sectarianism in the North or the catholic church controlled Republic were envisaged by Wolfe Tone so what is your point :rolleyes:
I would bet a lot of the heroes you laud would probably not have been too happy with your defintion of Irishness or an Irish state.

The more I see the comments posted here by SF supporters, the more it confirms the fact they should not be left anywhere near power, since they still do not in fact recognise this state and are probably bend on undermining it to suit their agenda of a grand dream of a united Ireland under their control.

FTA69

Regards Sinn Féin and its associations with the IRA; there can be no doubt that many people in Ireland have real reservations with that and as such wouldn't countenance voting for them. Republicans are often so firm in their belief of the justification of the IRA campaign that they can often underestimate that sentiment. However, at the same time it isn't as big a hang up for many others as some here would like to portray. According to (the overwhelmingly right wing) majority of posters on this forum 95% odd of people are seething at the sight of Gerry Adams, that isn't the case either. Up until recently Sinn Féin were actually growing from strength to strength and putting the sh*ts up most political parties, especially Fianna Fáil. Some of their most popular leaders and representatives were and are ex-IRA Volunteers. Their political demise is not as a result of their (ever decreasing) links with armed groups, rather the abandonment of core political philosophies which made them appealing in the first place.

jank

Sand wrote: »

Everything else you mention is just window dressing.

Sorry, but people shooting each other in the streets day and night up in the north isnt a daily occurence now. That is anything but window dressing. Sinn Fein has moved on but now feel a party without a audience down in the south.

DoireNod

jmayo wrote: »

So what is your interpretation of the fact that SF, and Ms Ferris in particular, refuses to condemm the murder of peace officers of this state while they carried out their duty to protect the citizens of the state and their property ?

Perhaps she should have condemned it, but I fail to see how whether she condemns (or refuses to condemn) such an action has much of a basis on Sinn Féin's proposed principles of government. People should judge a party on their goals and proposed paths to those goals and not on whether they condemn murder. It's a bit like asking her to condemn the killing of every Garda that has ever been killed. It's not really relevant to the party's policies on government and is simply a ploy to generate dislike for Sinn Féin among the Irish public.

I think everyone knows it is unlawful to kill someone or in your green haze do you think that is just a law for some people ?

Fair enough, but I believe that people should know what law is enforced in their country. It's a matter of perspective. Is it completely lawful for a state to kill someone then? If so, then the people who killed in the past with a motive of securing an independent Ireland, are simply unlawful killers? Taking a moral high-ground with the state, just because it's the state, doesn't make something right. Green haze? What's that supposed to mean?

What the f**k has the goal of the 1916 leaers got to do with the murder of police officers of the Irish Republic ?
Are you saying that you do not recognise the legitimacy of the Irish Republic as currently consitituted, because it was not the goal of the 1916 leaders ?
If so, are you implying it is ok to murder the police force of this state ?

I was commenting on your comment about Sinn Féin refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the Irish state. There was a reason for their refusal, but I think you'll find they've since adopted a pragmatic stance and are embracing a more open approach in both Northern and Southern governments. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't a mindless action of ignorance. You're probing for a personal response from me, but you're not getting one.

BTW I don't think that the sectarianism in the North or the catholic church controlled Republic were envisaged by Wolfe Tone so what is your point :rolleyes:
I would bet a lot of the heroes you laud would probably not have been too happy with your defintion of Irishness or an Irish state.

Of course it wasn't the envisaged ideal. What exactly is my definition of Irishness or an Irish state then, since you know me?

jmayo

DoireNod wrote: »

Perhaps she should have condemned it, but I fail to see how whether she condemns (or refuses to condemn) such an action has much of a basis on Sinn Féin's proposed principles of government. People should judge a party on their goals and proposed paths to those goals and not on whether they condemn murder. It's a bit like asking her to condemn the killing of every Garda that has ever been killed. It's not really relevant to the party's policies on government and is simply a ploy to generate dislike for Sinn Féin among the Irish public.

You don't need to go any further, you have just given your personal opinion.

You don't appear to see a reason why a SF public representative should condemm the murder of an Irish Republic police officer.
You see by not having a problem with her not condemmning such a crime and the individuals that carried out this crime, it is a reason why the vast majority of the electorate of the Irish Republic do not want SF in government.

It appears you/SF don't really have a problem with members of our law enforcement agencies being gunned down and then you wonder why you should be in government in charge of such agencies.

FFS what is so hard with saying "I condemm the act and the individuals who did it" ?

As long as you and others have this mindset you are not welcome in what you term the South.

DoireNod wrote: »

Fair enough, but I believe that people should know what law is enforced in their country. It's a matter of perspective. Is it completely lawful for a state to kill someone then? If so, then the people who killed in the past with a motive of securing an independent Ireland, are simply unlawful killers? Taking a moral high-ground with the state, just because it's the state, doesn't make something right. Green haze? What's that supposed to mean?

What law are you on about.
We are talking about the Republic of Ireland here not Northern Ireland or do you see it as another state that needs to be liberated from some repressive state killing regime ?

The law in question is murder or does that one not apply to SF/PIRA etc ?
The vast majority of people in "the South" (i.e. the Irish Republic) did not grow up in a state where the law enforcement agencies were seen as the evil enemy and should be gunned down.
We grow up in a state where we consider murder something that should be condemmed and not condoned or ignored.

DoireNod wrote: »

I was commenting on your comment about Sinn Féin refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the Irish state. There was a reason for their refusal, but I think you'll find they've since adopted a pragmatic stance and are embracing a more open approach in both Northern and Southern governments. I was simply pointing out that it wasn't a mindless action of ignorance. You're probing for a personal response from me, but you're not getting one.

Of course it wasn't the envisaged ideal. What exactly is my definition of Irishness or an Irish state then, since you know me?

By appearing to not have a problem with the killing of our law enforcement authorities you do show you have a problem with their legitimacy and thus the legitimacy of the state.

I like the way you drop in the phrase "adopted a pragmatic stance".
It makes me wonder if it is just a stance adopted in order to try to appeal to the masses and not really core principles.
It is one thing adopting a stance on some issue but adopting a stance on the very legitimacy of a state, it's authorites and very rule of law is quiet another matter.

I don't know what your definition of Irishness is or Irish state but the fact you appear to have issues with our law enforcement agancies and their rights to protection does point ot a worrying mindset.

DoireNod

jmayo wrote: »

It appears you/SF don't really have a problem with members of our law enforcement agencies being gunned down and then you wonder why you should be in government in charge of such agencies.

FFS what is so hard with saying "I condemm the act and the individuals who did it" ?

As long as you and others have this mindset you are not welcome in what you term the South.

Since when did myself and Sinn Féin become one and the same? I never said I didn't have a problem with law enforcement agencies being gunned down. I simply stated that I don't think Toiréasa Ferris' condemnation (or lack thereof) of such an issue should be the sole reason why people decide not to vote for her or Sinn Féin. So, based on my analysis of this situation, you think you have the right to say I'm not welcome in my own country? I'm an Irish citizen whether you like it or not and that would be the case even if I and most of my family wasn't from Donegal.

What law are you on about.
We are talking about the Republic of Ireland here not Northern Ireland or do you see it as another state that needs to be liberated from some repressive state killing regime ?

I never suggested that.

The law in question is murder or does that one not apply to SF/PIRA etc ?
The vast majority of people in "the South" (i.e. the Irish Republic) did not grow up in a state where the law enforcement agencies were seen as the evil enemy and should be gunned down.
We grow up in a state where we consider murder something that should be condemmed and not condoned or ignored.

I understand that and that is a big part of the reason people in the Republic generally don't have much of a clue about the North (correct me if I'm wrong). I merely suggested that what you term murder was all a matter of perspective. The PIRA and all other militant republican groups have a goal of ridding Ireland from British rule. People are now annually commemorated for doing the same thing. That being said, I don't think the murder of an officer was necessary or commendable. For the record, people in the North are largely the same as you. They believe that murder is something which should be condemned also. It's strange that you think people in the North would generally and readily advocate murder.

By appearing to not have a problem with the killing of our law enforcement authorities you do show you have a problem with their legitimacy and thus the legitimacy of the state.

To be honest, I'm not happy with the partition of Ireland, but I can accept that things in real life rarely meet the ideal. I didn't say that I had no problem with the killing of law enforcement authorities. You seem to be putting words in my mouth and drawing up your own conclusion.

I like the way you drop in the phrase "adopted a pragmatic stance".
It makes me wonder if it is just a stance adopted in order to try to appeal to the masses and not really core principles.
It is one thing adopting a stance on some issue but adopting a stance on the very legitimacy of a state, it's authorites and very rule of law is quiet another matter.

It's a phrase and a fairly used one too. By being pragmatic, it means they are willing to compromise. Surely that's a good thing? Or do you not understand that?

I don't know what your definition of Irishness is or Irish state but the fact you appear to have issues with our law enforcement agancies and their rights to protection does point ot a worrying mindset.

You're right you don't know my definition of Irishness or an Irish state, so don't assume you do. What issues do I appear to have with the Garda Síochána?

jmayo

DoireNod wrote: »

Since when did myself and Sinn Féin become one and the same? I never said I didn't have a problem with law enforcement agencies being gunned down. I simply stated that I don't think Toiréasa Ferris' condemnation (or lack thereof) of such an issue should be the sole reason why people decide not to vote for her or Sinn Féin. So, based on my analysis of this situation, you think you have the right to say I'm not welcome in my own country? I'm an Irish citizen whether you like it or not and that would be the case even if I and most of my family wasn't from Donegal.

I never suggested that.
I understand that and that is a big part of the reason people in the Republic generally don't have much of a clue about the North (correct me if I'm wrong). I merely suggested that what you term murder was all a matter of perspective. The PIRA and all other militant republican groups have a goal of ridding Ireland from British rule. People are now annually commemorated for doing the same thing. That being said, I don't think the murder of an officer was necessary or commendable. For the record, people in the North are largely the same as you. They believe that murder is something which should be condemned also. It's strange that you think people in the North would generally and readily advocate murder.

To be honest, I'm not happy with the partition of Ireland, but I can accept that things in real life rarely meet the ideal. I didn't say that I had no problem with the killing of law enforcement authorities. You seem to be putting words in my mouth and drawing up your own conclusion.

It's a phrase and a fairly used one too. By being pragmatic, it means they are willing to compromise. Surely that's a good thing? Or do you not understand that?
You're right you don't know my definition of Irishness or an Irish state, so don't assume you do. What issues do I appear to have with the Garda Síochána?

Doirenod, you are the one that brought hints about state tolerated killing into this not me or anyone else.
You also start alluding to fact that if we do not agree or fully agree with a government and asking if we should trust them ?

By saying "perhaps" she should have condemmed it, you are condoning her perceived ambivalence to the killing of members of An Gardai, because said killkings were carried out by members or former members of a paramilitary organisation to which her party are inextricably linked.

You then went onto state we should concentrate on her and her party's policies rather than whether she condemmed murder.
You then started wondering if she should condemm all murders of Gardai, again making light of this very recent case.
That is where we have the big difference.
What would your opinion be on politicans that refuse to condemm the child abuse cases ?
To me it very similar and if someone adopts such stances on these matters they definetly will not recvieve my vote, no matter what the **** their policies are on economics or EU membership, etc.

As regards welcome in your own country did I say you were not welcome ?
But let me state one opinion, I don't think people should be welcome if they are trying to subvert the rule of law and order by criminal and terrorist means.
And now before you get hot and bothered I am not alluding that you are doing either.
Also I said "you/SF", becasue you both have the same perceived stance on condemming this case, it doesn't necessarily mean you are the same or are speaking for them.
I have the same stance on this as McDowell, but that doesn't mean I would be a fan of his.
I know nothing about you, well apart from fact you come form a very nice county, and vice versa.

Anyway this discussion/argument is going around in circles and going nowhere slowly so I am out.

DoireNod

jmayo wrote: »

By saying "perhaps" she should have condemmed it, you are condoning her perceived ambivalence to the killing of members of An Gardai, because said killkings were carried out by members or former members of a paramilitary organisation to which her party are inextricably linked.

Just because Sinn Féin have historical links with the IRA doesn't mean they are the same thing. How do you conclude that my use of the word 'perhaps' equates to my condoning of what you term to be 'perceived ambivalence' toward murder?

You then went onto state we should concentrate on her and her party's policies rather than whether she condemmed murder.
You then started wondering if she should condemm all murders of Gardai, again making light of this very recent case.

I do think that the party's policies are the important thing when voting for a party, rather than obsessing over a topic which has nothing to do with the party. Sinn Féin didn't shoot Jerry McCabe.

What would your opinion be on politicans that refuse to condemm the child abuse cases ?
To me it very similar and if someone adopts such stances on these matters they definetly will not recvieve my vote, no matter what the **** their policies are on economics or EU membership, etc.

I see your point. To answer your question, I'd probably be outraged if a politician did not condemn the perpretrators in the child abuse cases. My point however, is that one politician should not dictate your views on a party and its policies on the whole. Politicians do not always speak for the party they are affiliated with. Your point is taken though.

As regards welcome in your own country did I say you were not welcome ?

Yes:

jmayo wrote: »

As long as you and others have this mindset you are not welcome in what you term the South.

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

Sinn Féin didn't shoot Jerry McCabe.

FF didn't abuse children either. But if they refused to condemn it, they'd be stupid (and scarily unethical), and get zero votes. You admitted this yourself:

DoireNod wrote: »

I see your point. To answer your question, I'd probably be outraged if a politician did not condemn the perpretrators in the child abuse cases.

DoireNod wrote: »

My point however, is that one politician should not dictate your views on a party and its policies on the whole. Politicians do not always speak for the party they are affiliated with.

No, but they usually do (and Ferris has been defended previously on boards by others who have said that she shouldn't be castigated because she's towing the party line). Which is it ?

And it's not just Ferris, considering that Gerry & Co were photographed visiting the murderers in prison.

Re you "not being wanted in your own country"; that comes back to what YOUR views and YOUR actions dictate. Everyone's welcome, unless their views are abhorrent to the majority. If anyone condones murder or crime, then they're obviously not welcome. That's not OUR fault, it's THEIR choice.

And it's up to you - and SF - to decide whether or not you want to be in that category.

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, but they usually do (and Ferris has been defended previously on boards by others who have said that she shouldn't be castigated because she's towing the party line). Which is it ?

I don't know. Ask Ferris?

Re you "not being wanted in your own country"; that comes back to what YOUR views and YOUR actions dictate. Everyone's welcome, unless their views are abhorrent to the majority. If anyone condones murder or crime, then they're obviously not welcome. That's not OUR fault, it's THEIR choice.

And it's up to you - and SF - to decide whether or not you want to be in that category.

jmayo made a claim that I wasn't welcome in my own country on the assumption he made about my 'mindset'. He doesn't know me or my views. I questioned, rightly, what right does he, or anyone, have to candidly disregard me as a citizen based on this wrong assumption? It is possible to have a discussion from an objective stance, but I accept your point.

Exile 1798

It’s very much amusing that posters who claim to speak for "most people" in Ireland are invariably Right Wingers, nominal Unionists and in the case of Sand a British Army fetishist.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61106895&postcount=36

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61112152&postcount=46

I personally tend to doubt that these people represent anything other then their own political views.

Liam Byrne

Exile 1798 wrote: »

It’s very much amusing that posters who claim to speak for "most people" in Ireland are invariably Right Wingers, nominal Unionists and in the case of Sand a British Army fetishist.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61106895&postcount=36

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61112152&postcount=46

I personally tend to doubt that these people represent anything other then their own political views.

Really ? Because I only post my views (and anything I'd post re "most people" would be in hope rather than knowing for definitely - as in "I'd hope that most people abhor murder).

One thing I can say for definite is that your post is insulting and bull****; I am not "right-wing", I am not a "nominal Unionist" (whatever the f**k that is). Your post is typical of the crap that's posted if anyone points out that some stances such as murder and crime are unacceptable - somehow, in some people's views, that makes them "less Irish".

Odd, that, because my view would be that ignoring the will of most people, breaking the agreed IRISH law, robbing money from IRISH people and murdering an Irishman doing his duty makes the perpetrator FAR less Irish.

Ironically, this view is probably backed up by the fact that even Toireasa has realised that "most people" don't vote for people who do - or support - the above.

So I guess we don't need to speak for "most people"; they spoke for themselves in the election.

FTA69

He does have a point though, people here are always pontificating about Sinn Féin suffering solely because of their connection to the IRA, usually accompanied by a load of whinging and anti-northern bias. As I said above, the IRA thing is indeed a hang-up for many, but it isn't the kiss of death that some people here make it out to be; and Toiréasa re: McCabe certainly isn't the reason they're floundering politically.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

He does have a point though, people here are always pontificating about Sinn Féin suffering solely because of their connection to the IRA, usually accompanied by a load of whinging and anti-northern bias.

Maybe that's your view, and yes, there are a few, but I honestly don't see it, and the fact that you used "pontificating" seems to imply a bias.

Personally, I never said "solely", because I wouldn't look at their other policies because none of them would make up for their stance on some things, including McCabe, but also including a few other hypocritical things relating to selective demands for justice.

And that's not whinging or an "anti-northern bias" (I'm not even sure how such a "bias" would apply to someone running for election in this country) - since FF started blindly supporting Bertie and stroking themselves, I couldn't give a crap WHAT policies they have either - despite it being hard to miss their ill-thought-out ones.

If a murderer or child-abuser ran for election, how many people do you think would vote for their policies, no matter how excellent ?

If someone refused to condemn the religious orders' abuse, do you not think they'd be out on their ear the next election ?

FTA69 wrote: »

As I said above, the IRA thing is indeed a hang-up for many, but it isn't the kiss of death that some people here make it out to be; and Toiréasa re: McCabe certainly isn't the reason they're floundering politically.

Like I said - maybe not "the" reason, but definitely one of them. And a big one.

And also like I said, if those things aren't acceptable to enough people (just as FF's antics aren't) - it's up to them to change or face the political wilderness.

Exile 1798

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Really ? Because I only post my views (and anything I'd post re "most people" would be in hope rather than knowing for definitely - as in "I'd hope that most people abhor murder).

One thing I can say for definite is that your post is insulting and bull****; I am not "right-wing", I am not a "nominal Unionist" (whatever the f**k that is). Your post is typical of the crap that's posted if anyone points out that some stances such as murder and crime are unacceptable - somehow, in some people's views, that makes them "less Irish".

If you feel insulted perhaps it's because you relish insult.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Odd, that, because my view would be that ignoring the will of most people, breaking the agreed IRISH law, robbing money from IRISH people and murdering an Irishman doing his duty makes the perpetrator FAR less Irish.

I don't share your logic. An Irish murderer or an Irish pedophile dosent become less Irish because they committed a terrible crime. Strange manner of thinking.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ironically, this view is probably backed up by the fact that even Toireasa has realised that "most people" don't vote for people who do - or support - the above.

So I guess we don't need to speak for "most people"; they spoke for themselves in the election.

The election wasnt a plebiscite on the death of Gerry McCabe.

Time Magazine

Exile 1798 wrote: »

I don't share your logic. An Irish murderer or an Irish pedophile dosent become less Irish because they committed a terrible crime. Strange manner of thinking.

You lads seem to think that Liam not supporting terrorism means he has a fetish for Britain.

Strange, that.

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by 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.

With respect Liam, you are looking for consistency from SF supporters and want them to condemn this, that and the other etc. but can then appear to state that because it’s a “different country” and so on, the standards you seemingly want for participation in government down here can stop about 3 miles north of Dundalk? You would appear to support the 2 state solution for Ireland (and I fully respect your right to hold this opinion) but I think many in the North find the Southern attitude to the Jerry McCabe business bizarre and actually even hypocritical.

When you voted yes to the GFA, surely you must have realized SF would end up in government in NI at some point without them having to condemn anything. Unionists and others, including many in the south of Ireland, believed and no doubt still believe that the RUC was the legitimate police force and so was defending the Northern state against all threats (just like the Gardai in the South). Surely you aren’t saying because it’s a “different country”, that they deserve something different?

By voting yes to the GFA you actually accepted a compromise. Just because something happened in “this country”, you find that you suddenly can’t compromise on an issue, because it’s “our” state and “our” police force etc that’s involved? Also the agreement wasn’t “imposed” on anybody. There was a referendum on it, so the North’s population could have rejected it if they had wished to do so.

Also, I fully accept your point that the GFA stopped the conflict in the North (well most of it anyway) and is obviously a great thing in itself.

Liam Byrne

Mayo Exile wrote: »

With respect Liam, you are looking for consistency from SF supporters and want them to condemn this, that and the other etc. but can then appear to state that because it’s a “different country” and so on, the standards you seemingly want for participation in government down here can stop about 3 miles north of Dundalk?

Ideally, I'd have neither "side" in Government in the North. So I'm 100% consistent, thanks.

They wanted a Government, I'd have voted for the middle ground parties, they didn't. Hardly for me to tell them.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

You would appear to support the 2 state solution for Ireland (and I fully respect your right to hold this opinion) but I think many in the North find the Southern attitude to the Jerry McCabe business bizarre and actually even hypocritical.

Where, exactly, did I say that I "supported" this ? It's a fact, and there's no indication as to whether or not I support it. I'll object like hell to anyone murdering or committing crimes and excusing themselves by citing "the cause", so I'm definitely against that.

Actually, I'm on record as saying that I'd ideally love to see the whole island a single country. So "appearances" (or the slant you've chosen to pick up) are wrong.

But it's not my call. It is as it is. And it's ironic that in order to stop the criminals and murderers we actually had to give up even the aspiration to change it. It's also ironic that those who went around murdering innocent people actually made saying the above a dirty word.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

When you voted yes to the GFA, surely you must have realized SF would end up in government in NI at some point without them having to condemn anything.

I hadn't a notion. Just like I haven't a notion whether Australia or China will have any particular parties in government. Like I said, I'd have preferred the North to choose differently, giving the fingers to those who supported violence as a means, but they didn't. It's their country/statelet or whatever, so it's their choice.

Likewise (and again I'm consistent here) America voted for warmongering Bush for far too long. I didn't want it, but it was their call. And I definitely didn't vote FF in the last election, but the majority did. I completely disagree with their vote, and believe FF shouldn't be in power, but that's what democracy is about.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Unionists and others, including many in the south of Ireland, believed and no doubt still believe that the RUC was the legitimate police force and so was defending the Northern state against all threats (just like the Gardai in the South). Surely you aren’t saying because it’s a “different country”, that they deserve something different?

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. For two reasons.

In the mindset of the terrorists, the RUC represented the enemy, and so could be viewed as "legitimate targets". The Unionists, etc, represented the "other" way of life up there.

Are you saying that the people who want to convince us to have a United Ireland view OUR way of life and OUR Gardai as "legitimate targets" ? That's a great way to convince us they're worth having around. :rolleyes:

And again, it's a different country. If an Iraqi shoots a U.S. soldier on their soil while engaged in combat, then fine by me. As SF/IRA have repeatedly said - there was a war on. But elsewhere ? Against a 100% non-enemy ? In the state they supposedly want to "join" ? What the f**k relevance or connection does that have ?

Mayo Exile wrote: »

By voting yes to the GFA you actually accepted a compromise. Just because something happened in “this country”, you find that you suddenly can’t compromise on an issue, because it’s “our” state and “our” police force etc that’s involved?

Absolutely. The compromise was that (a) we gave up the claim on the North (b) we released loads of criminals, and in return (c) they stopped the violence.

Your argument implies that if "someone who happened to be " a member of Hamas or the PLO came over here and robbed a bank and shot a guard, that that should be viewed as an acceptable "act of war" ?

Different country + non-enemy = COMPLETELY different rules.

As you said, the North had a choice. They opted to choose the extremists.

Doesn't mean we have to.

Exile 1798

Exile 1798 wrote: »

It’s very much amusing that posters who claim to speak for "most people" in Ireland are invariably Right Wingers, nominal Unionists and in the case of Sand a British Army fetishist.

It’s very much amusing that posters who claim to speak up for Shinners/terrorists are invariably pseudo republicans who sing maudlin ballads about men behind the wire from the safety of some pub stool and think that crying during 'Some Mother's Son' and buying an Easter lily makes them better Irish people...

No, I actually don't really hold that view, but I guess it's the only sensible response to your wacky theory that people who have different opinions to you are Unionists. Sure why didn't you show your contempt and use the phrase 'West Brits' altogether?

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by Liam Byrne: Where, exactly, did I say that I "supported" this ? It's a fact, and there's no indication as to whether or not I support it. I'll object like hell to anyone murdering or committing crimes and excusing themselves by citing "the cause", so I'm definitely against that.

Actually, I'm on record as saying that I'd ideally love to see the whole island a single country. So "appearances" (or the slant you've chosen to pick up) are wrong.

Apologies if I misinterpreted your beliefs. I wasn't aware of them so I took a bit of a guess. I didn't mean to impose a slant on them either. As to my own beliefs I've been voting SF since 1984 so feel free to interpret that as you wish.

As to what happened to Jerry McCabe, it was wrong and shouldn't have happened. Frankly thats as far as I think about the matter really.

However the rest of your argument appears to boil down to a defence of the the state as the ultimate entity and to the absolute rights of the majority contained within. It might seem to wrap your argument in an aura of invincibility, but in reality such theories are open to endless interpretation, such as what constitutes a majority etc.

The state which you fervently defend and attempt to fix boundaries to, is in itself a compromise. What right had we in 1921 to leave the state of the "United Kingdom of GB & Ireland", since we were a minority in that state, if I took a similarly inflexible approach?

I think the only thing I agree with you on is that the GFA stopped the conflict in the North, and that was pragmatism in action. Pragmatism and high standards don't often go hand in hand, but its the way in which the world works. (Realpolitik). The GFA is the Irish example of it.

Sand

It’s very much amusing that posters who claim to speak up for Shinners/terrorists are invariably pseudo republicans who sing maudlin ballads about men behind the wire from the safety of some pub stool and think that crying during 'Some Mother's Son' and buying an Easter lily makes them better Irish people...

Cheers Conor, I almost missed his bitter hatred if you had not quoted it.

It’s very much amusing that posters who claim to speak for "most people" in Ireland are invariably Right Wingers, nominal Unionists and in the case of Sand a British Army fetishist.

Your impotent fury...its like the perfect Sunday, you know? And then you stop off to buy some icecream? Thats what its like.

Liam Byrne

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Apologies if I misinterpreted your beliefs. I wasn't aware of them so I took a bit of a guess. I didn't mean to impose a slant on them either.

And therein lies problem #1. If anyone says "murder is wrong", some people assume that they're "West Brit", or pro-Unionist, or whatever.

That pisses normal people off no end.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

As to what happened to Jerry McCabe, it was wrong and shouldn't have happened. Frankly thats as far as I think about the matter really.

Fair enough, and thanks. And as I said earlier, if someone says the above, fair play - regardless of how they vote. SF don't seem to be able to condemn it, though, and that's why they'll never be acceptable to me.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

However the rest of your argument appears to boil down to a defence of the the state as the ultimate entity and to the absolute rights of the majority contained within.

Nope. Wrong again. I simply stated the fact that the state exists, and the fact that anyone running around robbing banks and shooting people is wrong.

And the stance on the McCabe case is VERY weird, because the official line from SF / IRA is that it wasn't sanctioned, so therefore they have nothing to do with it. So why not condemn it ? If "the Brits" did it, or a non-SF member did it, they'd probably have no problem.

Why defend the indefensible simply because it was "one of their own" ?

If an FF member murdered someone, you can be pretty sure that FF - for all their faults - would condemn it.

If a member of the public, unaffiliated to any organisation, had shot McCabe during a robbery, would Toireasa & SF condemn it ?

I can tell you that if a member of my family murdered someone, I'd condemn it and wouldn't talk to them again. Mind you, my family and everyone that I associate with don't run around with AK-47s, robbing and killing; but if they did they'd be history.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

The state which you fervently defend and attempt to fix boundaries to, is in itself a compromise.

And I accept that compromise. Just as I accept the compromise that led to the release of people who should have been left to rot in jail.

So I have no idea what your point is here. I accept the facts, which include the above 2 compromises and include the fact that people are not entitled to run around robbing and murdering others - that has nothing to do with any "state", it has to do with morals.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

I think the only thing I agree with you on is that the GFA stopped the conflict in the North, and that was pragmatism in action. Pragmatism and high standards don't often go hand in hand, but its the way in which the world works. (Realpolitik). The GFA is the Irish example of it.

Agreed. Which is why we had to stomach the above compromises. But aside from that, a crime is a crime, and just because the scum from both sides got let out doesn't change the fact that murder is morally wrong, and we don't accept that "down here".

If we'd all murdered people, or supported those who did, we'd be hypocritical to complain; and this is the case in the North. But - like I said - in this country we have a choice not to. The North opted out of that choice - that's their right - but there's nothing to say that we have to.

And before the sympathisers get on their high horse again, let me remind them that in addition to believing that condoning murder makes someone unfit for office, I also believe that corruption should, which is why I'm hoping FF will be kicked out.

But until they are, I have to put up with it.

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by Liam Byrne: I simply stated the fact that the state exists,

OK.

And I accept that compromise.

OK. But since the compromise (26 county state) was established via an armed campaign, then was:

the fact that anyone running around robbing banks and shooting people is wrong.

actually unavoidable in this case? So will you also accept the methods (shooting people, maybe the IRA robbed banks then as well) that created this state?

Here’s a piece from an article in the Sunday Business Post of 11 June 2006, published on the 10th anniversary of Jerry McCabe’s death. The full article is available here:

Link: http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/06/11/story14855.asp

The Irish state arose from a grim little war, in which the stock in trade of the IRA was the ruthless killing of Irish policemen. Nora Owen, of Kenny’s party, when minister for justice, kept a bust of her great uncle, arch police killer Michael Collins, on her desk.

That was then, of course, this is now.

But what is all this clamour telling us about how we value lost lives, north and south, and in one police force and in another? Were the unionist community and the relatives of slain RUC men simply to bite their lips when IRA killers were released under the Good Friday Agreement? To this day, no party in the Republic is yet prepared to dirty its hands by associating with cop-killing Provos, but in the North, Ian Paisley is admonished to put aside his long spoon and sup with those very devils.”

So I think it’s hypocritical for the Southern government and/or any individual living in that state to lecture anyone in the North on the mechanics of forming a government there considering how the 26 county state itself was formed. Whether it’s “another country” or not isn’t the key issue.

Liam Byrne

Mayo Exile wrote: »

So will you also accept the methods (shooting people, maybe the IRA robbed banks then as well) that created this state?

Remind me of the facts again, considering that I already conceded that - as abhorrent as I personally might find it - I could see why the RUC could be viewed as "legitimate targets".....i.e. that they were the police force in the [part of the] country that was being fought over.

Gerry McCabe was not.

Mayo Exile wrote: »

So I think it’s hypocritical for the Southern government and/or any individual living in that state to lecture anyone in the North on the mechanics of forming a government there considering how the 26 county state itself was formed.

I've never once lectured the North on forming a Government there; I've said that I can't understand why they chose the extremists, but I've repeatedly said that that was THEIR call, for THAT "statelet".

This discussion is about SF's performance IN THE SOUTH and the forming of a Government HERE, where there's no "war" and no "two sides" of militant extremists. If the IRA were trying to split the Republic and fighting against US, then I would disagree with their approach but I might manage some comprehension as to their stance of committing crimes against US, and OUR police force.

Exile 1798

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s very much amusing that posters who claim to speak up for Shinners/terrorists are invariably pseudo republicans who sing maudlin ballads about men behind the wire from the safety of some pub stool and think that crying during 'Some Mother's Son' and buying an Easter lily makes them better Irish people...

No, I actually don't really hold that view, but I guess it's the only sensible response to your wacky theory that people who have different opinions to you are Unionists. Sure why didn't you show your contempt and use the phrase 'West Brits' altogether?

Alright then let's nail this down.

Here we have Sand, a person who is a British army fetishist - being obsessed with the equipment, training and tactics of the British military. We are to believe that this person is just your average run of the mill Irish voter? Or a principled pacifist?

When such a person repeatedly brings up the case of Mr McCabe are we to believe that his concern in genuine, or is it more likely that this person is a visceral anti-Republican and is using a dead man as a political football?

Sand

Alright then let's nail this down.

Here we have Sand, a person who is a British army fetishist - being obsessed with the equipment, training and tactics of the British military. We are to believe that this person is just your average run of the mill Irish voter? Or a principled pacifist?

When such a person repeatedly brings up the case of Mr McCabe are we to believe that his concern in genuine, or is it more likely that this person is a visceral anti-Republican and is using a dead man as a political football?

Seeing as you seem to be personally obsessed with me I ought to point out, I dont believe I have ever claimed to be a principled pacifist.

Oh and if my having read a book on the disastrous British Army campaign in Iraq fills you with bitter rage...thats great. That makes it even better value for my money.

Liam Byrne

Exile 1798 wrote: »

Alright then let's nail this down.

Here we have Sand, a person who is a British army fetishist - being obsessed with the equipment, training and tactics of the British military. We are to believe that this person is just your average run of the mill Irish voter? Or a principled pacifist?

When such a person repeatedly brings up the case of Mr McCabe are we to believe that his concern in genuine, or is it more likely that this person is a visceral anti-Republican and is using a dead man as a political football?

I have to say that I am absolutely laughing my arse off at the idiocy of this post.

Let's assume for a second that you are correct about Sand [apologies Sand if this is not the case, but I'll get to that in a second]. His is hardly the only voice being raised in disgust.

So your "Here we have Sand" is misdirection and is inaccurate in the extreme. I don't know Sand, or his complete views, so I can't comment on that - he/she can do so themselves. HOWEVER, when you throw in "when such a person", you are trying to imply that no-one else has raised the issue.

I have, and I can 100% guarantee you that I'm not "British army fetishist ", I'm not "anti-Republican" (in the genuine, non-violent meaning of the word), and my concern IS genuine.

Now, back to Sand's views and your description of him. Considering your early crap, inaccurate and frankly pathetic generalisation which DID seem to include my views, I would place SERIOUS doubt on your ability to accurately interpret someone or their views - especially if they disagree with yours.

Forgive me if, having first-hand seen you put a complete slant on reasonable, concerned views in order to accuse me of being a "nominal Unionist", and then snidely suggest that I "relish insult" when I object to being inaccurately labelled, I then extrapolate from that that you're probably usually incorrect in your judge of character due to bias, and I therefore put absolutely zero relevance on how you choose to view people.

If I object to Sand's views, I'll pick up on that myself, and I'll speak my mind, but as for having you give him a reference and me believing that ? After seeing how badly you "read" me ? :rolleyes:

So on both counts I propose to all objective readers that your post was - at best - wildly speculative, incorrect and biased.

Therefore using the phrase "let's nail this down", when you are doing anything but, is a joke! :rolleyes:

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by Liam Byrne: Remind me of the facts again, considering that I already conceded that - as abhorrent as I personally might find it - I could see why the RUC could be viewed as "legitimate targets".....i.e. that they were the police force in the [part of the] country that was being fought over.

Gerry McCabe was not.

Not what I was referring to. The piece in the Sunday Business Post was about the shooting of policemen (RIC, not RUC) in the creation of THIS state (the South). This part of the country was also “fought over”.

I've never once lectured the North on forming a Government there;

No. I think you did.

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.

This looks like a lecture to me on what type of government and/or system of government one thinks is desirable, and who should be in it!

This discussion is about SF's performance IN THE SOUTH and the forming of a Government HERE, where there's no "war" and no "two sides" of militant extremists.

No. Sorry Liam, I think what I have said IS relevant to the discussion here. Whether you like or not, a lot of people (myself included) think it’s hypocritical to say that SF can be in government in the North but not in the South considering the history of how both states (North & South) emerged.

Sorry, I simply don't think the theory about "different states & rules" can be applied that easily here. I do agree with you that they are different states (I voted yes to the GFA myself, so I fully accept that we gave up the claim etc). But given the history here, I don't think it's that straightforward in the case of the island of Ireland.

If the IRA were trying to split the Republic and fighting against US, then I would disagree with their approach but I might manage some comprehension as to their stance of committing crimes against US, and OUR police force.

Yes. A good point.