The SF Conundrum

weepee

turgon wrote: »

The Treaty was 88 years ago, I would hazard a guess that 98% of the nationalist you talk about weren't around then to be abandoned. But I suppose their position depends on them clinging to the past as if it were the present.

Yeah, your more than likely correct. No point in allowing those northerners to keep dragging up the unification issue-that just holds the rest of us back from making a living in peace.

Red Sleeping Beauty

weepee wrote: »

What is it the Sinn Fein stands for then ?

I think they are running two agenda's.

One North.

One South.

Tho in the North, there is very little alternative to vote for, with an All Ireland agenda,
so they're pretty much secure on they're vote.

That's the thing, they're still more or less seen as a Northern Ireland party. They've established a base gaining votes in some disenchanted working class areas " down south". The local elections results seem to suggest their "southern" party's in trouble with their ideology up for grabs.

weepee

Alan Rouge wrote: »

That's the thing, they're still more or less seen as a Northern Ireland party. They've established a base gaining votes in some disenchanted working class areas " down south". The local elections results seem to suggest their "southern" party's in trouble with their ideology up for grabs.

Yeah, Id go along with that. In the world of 'real' politics, they were clearly out of they're depth, when up against FF and FG. Tho this is
understandable, as the big two have an 80 years jump on them. So
whether or not they're recent disappointments 'down south' are a set back or not is somewhat questionable.

SF should concentrate on local council gains, and do they're homework from the start line, then go for getting a couple of TDs into office.

Especially in such dire times, either that or come up with a master plan for pulling the nation away from financial ruin and go to the country.

djpbarry

weepee wrote: »

Yeah, Id go along with that. In the world of 'real' politics, they were clearly out of they're depth, when up against FF and FG. Tho this is understandable, as the big two have an 80 years jump on them.

How so?

Hagar

Does everyone who is not of a Republican / Nationalist leaning honestly believe that all Republican and Nationalists agree with the shooting of Gardaí? I've news for you they don't. Nobody pulled that trigger in my name. Why exactly the man was shot I don't know, nobody does. Most abhor the incident but it can't be undone.

There is a high probability that the IRA(pick a flavour) simply had to support the shooters in much the same way that the BA support those who fnck up while in uniform. The only difference is the the BA is aligned with those who run the justice system so their immunity is assured.

These men have served their time, their debt to society is paid. They could have been out 11 years ago under the GFA but they weren't for some reason I can't fathom. Now unless you all want to sentence them again for the same crime why don't you let them get on with their lives, nothing you can do to these men will bring Garda mcCabe back. We've seen justice done in the courts, is it justice you people want or vengence?

oscarBravo

Hagar wrote: »

Does everyone who is not of a Republican / Nationalist leaning honestly believe that all Republican and Nationalists agree with the shooting of Gardaí? I've news for you they don't. Nobody pulled that trigger in my name. Why exactly the man was shot I don't know, nobody does. Most abhor the incident but it can't be undone.

Maybe you've missed the point, Hagar, but the story is not the release of the killers from prison so much as the fact that an elected representative met them at the door.

Nobody pulled that trigger in your name - sure. Certainly not in mine. But it seems Martin Ferris feels it was pulled, to some extent, in his name.

These men have served their time, their debt to society is paid. They could have been out 11 years ago under the GFA but they weren't for some reason I can't fathom. Now unless you all want to sentence them again for the same crime why don't you let them get on with their lives, nothing you can do to these men will bring Garda mcCabe back. We've seen justice done in the courts, is it justice you people want or vengence?

It's a matter of some debate whether justice was done. Ten years in minimum security for cold-bloodedly machine-gunning a police officer in the back?

Vengeance would be nice, but I'd settle for justice.

djpbarry

Hagar wrote: »

Does everyone who is not of a Republican / Nationalist leaning honestly believe that all Republican and Nationalists agree with the shooting of Gardaí?

Of course not. But Sinn Féin appear to be condoning the crime.

Hagar wrote: »

There is a high probability that the IRA(pick a flavour) simply had to support the shooters in much the same way that the BA support those who fnck up while in uniform.

I think we can safely say that if a BA staff member shot a passenger, they would be condemned by their fellow BA employees for their actions.

Hagar wrote: »

They could have been out 11 years ago under the GFA but they weren't for some reason I can't fathom.

You see, it’s statements like this that make me question whether the Republican condemnation of Jerry McCabe’s murder is all that sincere.

Hagar

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe you've missed the point, Hagar, but the story is not the release of the killers from prison so much as the fact that an elected representative met them at the door.

Nobody pulled that trigger in your name - sure. Certainly not in mine. But it seems Martin Ferris feels it was pulled, to some extent, in his name. It's a matter of some debate whether justice was done. Ten years in minimum security for cold-bloodedly machine-gunning a police officer in the back?

Vengeance would be nice, but I'd settle for justice.

It was dumb IMHO to meet them coming out, but it must be said the convicted have paid the price society demanded of them so didn't they get justice as laid down by the law of the land? Or do you want more?

djpbarry wrote: »

Of course not. But Sinn Féin appear to be condoning the crime.

I don't think so, I think it's loyalty to volunteers who fought in the armed struggle.

djpbarry wrote: »

I think we can safely say that if a BA staff member shot a passenger, they would be condemned by their fellow BA employees for their actions.

Britisah Airways, could be worse, could have been Ryanair.:) But joking aside it was a valid point.

djpbarry wrote: »

You see, it’s statements like this that make me question whether the Republican condemnation of Jerry McCabe’s murder is all that sincere.

I'm making the point that a greater value seems to be placed on the life of a Garda than on the life of an RUC man. People who killed RUC men were freed under the GFA but not these men who killed a Garda. Can no one else see something odd with that?

weepee

djpbarry wrote: »

How so?

The electorate in the Republic is no different from the electorate in the North really.

They vote on tribal lines. I vote for xx, my father voted for xx, and so on.

With a few exceptions, this has allowed the two main parties to continuously govern since the formation of the state practically.

Sinn Fein on the other hand has not been involved in finance management on a national scale, and where out of they're depth during campaigning, that was clearly seen when Gerry Adams was on a discussion show [cant remember which one], and looked a bit lost,to be honest.

The big two however, fear a Sinn Fein election block developing, which would infringe into their overall vote, and eventually allow SF to achieve the balance of power.

There are set backs to this however.

SF need to come up with a sensible recovery plan, which they can sell to the people, and incidents like the release of the IRA prisoners during the week, which SF make no apologies for.

Ive never known why Garda McCabe was gunned down, and never will.
All right thinking people, Republican or other, condemned it.

Can'tseeme

turgon wrote: »

By voting for partition, I meant I would have voted Yes to the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921. As would have any pragmatist. The idealists voted No.

Therefore creating a sectarian state on this island. Which caused years of sectarianism, prejudice and discrimination. A Protestant ruling party with it's own Police force that caused years of misery and hardship on the nationalist and catholic population that drove on a bloody 30 year war from the end of the 1960's. Splitting Irish people in so many different ways, fighting among themselves like we are all doing now. Upsetting this island for generations from functioning to it's full potential.

The border has done wonders hasn't it.

turgon

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Therefore creating a sectarian state on this island.

Did it ever occur to you that if the Island was united there is every chance the exact same thing would have happened - except just the other way around? Before the war there were indiscriminate killings of protestants - would this have stopped just because of unification? Would the presence of the North have stopped Dev putting a special mention of the Catholic church in the constitution??

Perhaps if you applied your set of values equally across all situations you might come to a different conclusion. All I ask for is consistency, which appears to be extremely hard to come by amongst hard liners of any side in any conflict.

Liam Byrne

turgon wrote: »

Perhaps if you applied your set of values equally across all situations you might come to a different conclusion. All I ask for is consistency, which appears to be extremely hard to come by amongst hard liners of any side in any conflict.

I reckon you're wasting your time with that one, turgon......I've REPEATEDLY said that anyone who might do this would at least gain my respect and the right to be heard, even if I disagreed with their mindset and their logic.

But it seems to be ingrained; scream blue murder, collusion, victimisation and a need for justice when the "victim" is one of "their own" but shut up shop and trot out every excuse and caveat and historical reference possible when it's the "opposing side" (even if the "one of their own" has committed separate, unrelated crimes and atrocities).

At this stage I - like you - would accept just some basic consistency.

Ferris meeting McCabe's killers = "understandable"; "what's the fuss"; "political football", etc, "acting on his own beliefs"

Murder on Bloody Sunday : collusion, policy, and don't even SUGGEST that "acting on his own beliefs" might apply

Hell, I've even been told elsewhere on boards "the murder of a Garda on a whim" is less objectionable than capital punishment for a definite crime; and yet the same person would complain about shooting people on Bloody Sunday, or internment without trial on a whim. Forget the fact that the Garda was guilty of nothing and the shooter had no right to even own or run around with a gun. Kill when someone's proven guilty after a trial is worse than killing indiscriminately for your own agenda ???? Go figure!

In my view, they're ALL wrong; I'd complain about ALL of them - but that's because, like you, I can see when things are wrong regardless of who does them; maybe even "because of", as I'd be more shocked - and let down - if someone I knew or respected committed a crime than some stranger.

At this stage I'd be relatively happy if they even viewed NONE of them as wrong, as long as they treated like with like.

And as for what would be said if a DUP guy welcoming a former Loyalist terrorist who post-ceasefire turned to crime ? Well, just hazard a guess!

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ferris meeting McCabe's killers = "understandable"; "what's the fuss"; "political football", etc, "acting on his own beliefs"

Murder on Bloody Sunday : collusion, policy, and don't even SUGGEST that "acting on his own beliefs" might apply

Somehow I don't think Ferris' meeting of two men as they leave prison is the same as Bloody Sunday.

But maybe I'm just inconsistent. :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

Somehow I don't think Ferris' meeting of two men as they leave prison is the same as Bloody Sunday.

But maybe I'm just inconsistent. :rolleyes:

You know WELL that I was referring to the "acting on individual beliefs" aspect - I even said so. :rolleyes: TWICE.

If we're to believe Ferris was, then maybe we should believe that the shooter that day was.

Maybe both were. Maybe neither were. I don't know.

But I'd give kudos to anyone who recognised the POSSIBILITY that THAT ASPECT of both were EQUIVALENT.

Can'tseeme

turgon wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that if the Island was united there is every chance the exact same thing would have happened - except just the other way around? Before the war there were indiscriminate killings of protestants - would this have stopped just because of unification? Would the presence of the North have stopped Dev putting a special mention of the Catholic church in the constitution??

Perhaps if you applied your set of values equally across all situations you might come to a different conclusion. All I ask for is consistency, which appears to be extremely hard to come by amongst hard liners of any side in any conflict.

Completely disagree with that and I'm no hard liner. You simply cannot compare the Irish state to the Protestant state that were setup. Regarding intolerance and discrimination.

I've never said unification would have bring utopia and there has unfortunately been religious friction in Ireland. But I believe the Irish constitution forbids any discrimination on any grounds. It also upholds the rights of all the people of the republic. Douglas Hyde (church of ireland) 1st President of Ireland I'd remind you.

That special mention from Dev was as detrimental to Irish catholics as anyone else, if not more imo.

Irish republicanism is never about sectarianism. It's has always been about uniting orange and green, not dividing it.

Liam Byrne

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Irish republicanism is never about sectarianism. It's has always been about uniting orange and green, not dividing it.

Almost spewed out my coffee until I spotted the giveaway lowercase "r".

Irish "Republicanism", on the other hand, with its tactics and apologists and excuses and caveats and double-standards, has disgusted even people like myself who should - in theory - side slightly with it, so I can't even begin to imagine what it has done to people who would have been biased against it from day one!

Hagar

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Almost spewed out my coffee until I spotted the giveaway lowercase "r".

I'm so glad that didn't happen. You next post would have been "IRA triggers coffee explosion damaging innocent man's keyboard."

turgon

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Completely disagree with that and I'm no hard liner. You simply cannot compare the Irish state to the Protestant state that were setup.

Of course you cant. Because the Irish state never exercised control over such a sizable population of unionists that they would amount to a large grouping. The Troubles grew out of a civil rights movement. Who is saying that the Unionists would not have started some such movement were they to be under Irish authority?

Can'tseeme

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Almost spewed out my coffee until I spotted the giveaway lowercase "r".

Irish "Republicanism", on the other hand, with its tactics and apologists and excuses and caveats and double-standards, has disgusted even people like myself who should - in theory - side slightly with it, so I can't even begin to imagine what it has done to people who would have been biased against it from day one!

I seen Liam (many times) you are entirely against the Provisional Republican movement which is fair enough. I was talking about the boarder Republican ideology.

Hagar

turgon wrote: »

The Troubles grew out of a civil rights movement.

That must be the greatest understatement/hit-the-bar-but-didn't-go-in statement I've ever seen in this forum.

Q. What did the civil rights movement grow out of?
A. Sectarian oppression.

There would have been no Troubles had the minority not been treated like the negroes in apartheid S.Africa

turgon

Oppression -> Civil Right movement -> Militant movement.

No? Doesnt the electoral move from SDLP to Sinn Fein emphasize this?

But tbh Hager, Im not surprised that you wouldnt let me make a historical statement without it having some dig at the British.

Can'tseeme

turgon wrote: »

Of course you cant. Because the Irish state never exercised control over such a sizable population of unionists that they would amount to a large grouping. The Troubles grew out of a civil rights movement. Who is saying that the Unionists would not have started some such movement were they to be under Irish authority?

All hypothetical stuff here of course. But imo, I think we'd have had some sort of Unionist rebellion of sorts, given the guns the UVF had. How sucessful that would have been we'll never know. I think alot of the Protestant people would have settled down well in Ireland and would have been treated the same as people of other religions. As was the case in the 26 counties. There may have been some who moved to Britian as also.

Hypothetically speaking, I think we'd be in a better state than we're in now.

Hagar

Oppression -> Civil Right movement -> More Oppression -> Militant movement -> Murder on the streets of civil rights protestors -> All out insurgency against an oppressive regime.

I'm not surprised that you wouldn't let me make a inaccurate historical statement

FYP

turgon

Can'tseeme wrote: »

I think alot of the Protestant people would have settled down well in Ireland and would have been treated the same as people of other religions.

Why? The evidence points to a distinct discrimination against protestants by some Irish revolutionaries.

Hagar: So you are saying that the PIRA didnt grow out of the civil rights movement?

ardmacha

Who is saying that the Unionists would not have started some such movement were they to be under Irish authority?

What rights would they campaign for?

One man one vote? No problem there.

End to gerrymandering, There was a small bit of this, but as the Irish State continued to operate proportional representation it wasn't of importance.

Fair allocation of public housing Has there been discrimination against Protestants or people of British heritage in the allocation of public housing?

End to discrimination in jobs On balance there was more discrimination in favour of former unionists than against them. Mind you there was the librarian in Mayo in 1930, but one example is not persuasive.

Can'tseeme

turgon wrote: »

Why? The evidence points to a distinct discrimination against protestants by some Irish revolutionaries.

Hagar: So you are saying that the PIRA didnt grow out of the civil rights movement?

Come on Turgon...and some Irish revolutionaries were Protestant. The Irish Constitution certainly doesn't discriminate. Again, the first Irish President was a Protestant man. The Irish Republic has a pretty good record in the world when it comes to Human Rights.

turgon

ardmacha: Firstly your judging the hypothetical united Ireland as merely an expansion of the current one. However I said one couldn't because "the Irish [current] state never exercised control over such a sizable population of unionists that they would amount to a large grouping." In our Ireland one can ignore protestants because they are such a small minority. However a large group of them, some 100s of thousands, up North would have been a different matter.

Secondly, much of the strife is based on ideology and not reality. Many of the Irish Republicans are motivated not by any wrongs done unto them, but only by the ideal that Ireland should be united. The Loyalists would equally have been motivated by the ideal that Ireland shouldn't be united. So the probability that they would have committed atrocities like the Omagh Bombing here in the South is not as remote as you would like it to be.

Can'tseeme: See my first paragraph. Once again you assume that the Ideal United Ireland would have had the exact same policies towards protestants as the Free State. This is not an assumption one can make, in my opinion.

Hagar

turgon wrote: »

Hagar: So you are saying that the PIRA didnt grow out of the civil rights movement?

No they didn't. they grew out of the oppression that also generated the civil rights movement.
Nobody wanted to fight but when backed into a corner even the most timid of us will do it.
The PIRA were born out of man's most basic instinct, that of self preservation.

Can'tseeme

turgon wrote: »

ardmacha: Firstly your judging the hypothetical united Ireland as merely an expansion of the current one. However I said one couldn't because "the Irish [current] state never exercised control over such a sizable population of unionists that they would amount to a large grouping." In our Ireland one can ignore protestants because they are such a small minority. However a large group of them, some 100s of thousands, up North would have been a different matter.

Secondly, much of the strife is based on ideology and not reality. Many of the Irish Republicans are motivated not by any wrongs done unto them, but only by the ideal that Ireland should be united. The Loyalists would equally have been motivated by the ideal that Ireland shouldn't be united. So the probability that they would have committed atrocities like the Omagh Bombing here in the South is not as remote as you would like it to be.

Can'tseeme: See my first paragraph. Once again you assume that the Ideal United Ireland would have had the exact same policies towards protestants as the Free State. This is not an assumption one can make, in my opinion.

"Your Ireland" doesn't ignore Protestants. They're respected and represented. Why would the Irish state have policies that would work against Protestants in a Unified Ireland? If the Unionists had accepted a 32 county Ireland, they may well have had more to negotiate with to suit their needs and cultures.

Irish Republicans just don't see the divides in the country as natural or positive. They work against the country rather than for it. It has encouraged sectarianism not cured it.

oscarBravo

Can'tseeme wrote: »

If the Unionists had accepted a 32 county Ireland...

If the Republicans had accepted the monarchy...

Can you see the deep and fundamental flaw in your premise?