Dissident republicans and Sinn Fein

Joey the lips

dlofnep wrote: »

The men who killed McCabe were not dissidents. You should probably educate yourself about the different groups to be honest. The real divide in Republicanism came in 1998, McCabe's killing was in 1996. The GFA is the divide within Republicanism that stpulates dissidents and non-dissidents, and while there have been divides on specific issues - like 1970 and 1986 - the the term dissident is typically only used to describe anti-GFA Republicans.

So you were incorrect with your original post. So just to clarify - SF does not work with dissident republicans, and their ideologies differ to much to work on anything. SF is embedded in the peace process and wants to work on a path of politics, while dissident republicans believe in armed resistance.

+1 Thank you.

walrusgumble

gurramok wrote: »

Proof?

McGuinness labelled the dissidents as traitors and the dissidents are thinking vice versa, no love lost there.

i noticed during the local / dail by election / european elections, some sinn fein posters eg mary lou mcdonald grafftied over with the words "sold out".

mitchell mcloughlin's and a couple of other sinn féin member's have had either their homes or constitutency offices attacked.

Liam Byrne

dlofnep wrote: »

The men who killed McCabe were not dissidents. You should probably educate yourself about the different groups to be honest.

Fair enough. I would've thought that a dissident was someone who refused to abide by the rules and decisions of an organisation, and acted off their own bat but obviously not.

As for educating myself......not up to me (apart from taking on board what you've said above). If SF want to clarify the distinction and only do things that are above board and acceptable, then it'll be clear enough in no time.

gurramok wrote: »

He did say Unionists and there are no Unionist political representation down 'South'

You're joking, right ? Firstly (a) there could be (god knows false accusations fly here often enough); secondly (b) when listing atrocities, the border is ignored - why bring it up now and (c) IF an organisation gets involved in dodgy crap abroad, why wouldn't it affect the Unionist view ? If FF started bombing America, would you see people still voting for them ?

dlofnep

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Fair enough. I would've thought that a dissident was someone who refused to abide by the rules and decisions of an organisation, and acted off their own bat but obviously not.

It's not, it's in reference to the GFA only. But I can see why you would think that.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As for educating myself......not up to me

To be honest, it is.. when you accuse members of SF for associating with dissidents.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

(apart from taking on board what you've said above). If SF want to clarify the distinction and only do things that are above board and acceptable, then it'll be clear enough in no time.

Well - The GFA was 11 years ago. It's quite clear that SF does not work with dissident Republicans, and hasn't done. Their ideologies differ way too much for them to agree on anything. SF supported the GFA, they opposed. SF, while understanding that policing in the north was heavily skewed in favour of Unionists - realised that the most productive thing was to engage with policing and change it from the inside. They didn't this knowing that they would lose some support for it, and they did. Members of SF have had their homes attacked since.

The distinction is there - But I think you're just not willing to even look at it. SF have embraced the peace process, and while there have been hiccups - the fact of the matter is SF supports the GFA and work within it for the betterment of Ireland, and the dissidents do not - while believing in armed resistance. This is the distinction.

gurramok

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You're joking, right ? Firstly (a) there could be (god knows false accusations fly here often enough); secondly (b) when listing atrocities, the border is ignored - why bring it up now and (c) IF an organisation gets involved in dodgy crap abroad, why wouldn't it affect the Unionist view ? If FF started bombing America, would you see people still voting for them ?

I don't think you are reading the OP post correctly.

A - there is none in the councils/Dail.
B & C - what are you on about and whats it to do with the topic?

The topic is about dissidents in NI, how hard is that to understand?

Have Unionists any excuse to pull out of power sharing with sinn fein because of the actions of dissident republicans?

You said

There's ABSOLUTELY no mention in the OP's post about "activity up north".

To repeat myself. Unionists are not in powersharing in ROI so it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the topic is about NI

FTA69

Joey the lips wrote: »

The stange thing is gerry adams has always welcomed them because afik he realises if pockets like this dont talk it will lead to problems.

He has in his arse. The Sinn Féin leadership are continually trying to undermine Republicans outside of their sphere of influence such to the point where you had Gerry Kelly lying through his teeth suggesting Éirigi organised the recent riots in Ardoyne.

Liam Byrne

gurramok wrote: »

The topic is about dissidents in NI, how hard is that to understand?

The topic is about how the actions of dissidents might give the Unionists a basis to reconsider.

They don't have to dissent in NI; if the dissidents went to visit Columbia or wherever, then the Unionists would have a case for asking what the F**K was going on.

gurramok wrote: »

B & C - what are you on about and whats it to do with the topic?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

(b) when listing atrocities, the border is ignored - why bring it up now

You made it clear that you'd refer to north of the border; however in other discussions you failed to distinguish between events on the two sides of the border; be consistent, please.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

(c) IF an organisation gets involved in dodgy crap abroad, why wouldn't it affect the Unionist view

Like I said, a group doesn't have to act within the confines of borders in order to impact on your opinion of it. Al Quaida disgusts most people, but they've only acted in the U.S. and in the U.K; would you go into/stay in Government with them ?

gurramok wrote: »

To repeat myself. Unionists are not in powersharing in ROI so it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the topic is about NI

So that'd give the dissidents a carte-blanche to do what they like south of the border, without impacting on people's opinion of them ? And ironically, a border that you previously refused to make distinctions based on ?

The topic is indeed about what the Unionists would DO north of the border because of dissident activities; but those activities don't have to be north of the border for Unionists - and neutrals - to have an opinion of them.

Fact is though, if SF completley stop blurring lines and excusing stuff, and engaging in whataboutery, then they can disown responsibility for the psychos. And to be fair - credit where credit's due - they've definitely improved in that regard.

But they have a way to go to emphasise that they have changed, and that includes getting some of their members to cop themselves on when it comes to their views of criminal activities.

dlofnep

Let's agree to disagree - no matter where in Ireland, they are not associating with dissident Republics.

Joey the lips

mega man wrote: »

If you have issues with republicanism take it up somewhere else. This is a a discussion of where republicanism is going as a whole.

Thanks for proving me right. Hopefully they will lock this thread as well. Why dont you just come out and lay your stall out. A least then we can have a decent discussion about why dissident republicians are behaving like fachists instead of being republician.

mega man

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not, it's in reference to the GFA only. But I can see why you would think that.



To be honest, it is.. when you accuse members of SF for associating with dissidents.



Well - The GFA was 11 years ago. It's quite clear that SF does not work with dissident Republicans, and hasn't done. Their ideologies differ way too much for them to agree on anything. SF supported the GFA, they opposed. SF, while understanding that policing in the north was heavily skewed in favour of Unionists - realised that the most productive thing was to engage with policing and change it from the inside. They didn't this knowing that they would lose some support for it, and they did. Members of SF have had their homes attacked since.

The distinction is there - But I think you're just not willing to even look at it. SF have embraced the peace process, and while there have been hiccups - the fact of the matter is SF supports the GFA and work within it for the betterment of Ireland, and the dissidents do not - while believing in armed resistance. This is the distinction.

So from this thread my understanding is this. Republicanism in Ireland has taken two forms.
Pro-Good Friday Agreement: Sinn Fein, Provisional IRA and Anti-Good Friday Agreement: RIRA, 32CSM, CIRA etc.
Yet both are trying to achieve the same goal yet through different methods?

dlofnep

mega man wrote: »

So from this thread my understanding is this. Republicanism in Ireland has taken two forms.
Pro-Good Friday Agreement: Sinn Fein, Provisional IRA and Anti-Good Friday Agreement: RIRA, 32CSM, CIRA etc.

Yup, that's about the extent of it. The dissidents have minor squabbles about certain issues amongst themselves.

It should be noted - that not all dissidents support armed resistance as a first protocol, they just don't agree with the text of the GFA, on specific issues like giving up territorial rights as a matter of default. So when you hear the term dissident, all it means is that they disagree with the text of the GFA.

I think dissident is a term used to try and jumble a lot of people together, who may have significant differences on certain issues.

mega man

dlofnep wrote: »

Yup, that's about the extent of it. The dissidents have minor squabbles about certain issues amongst themselves.

It should be noted - that not all dissidents support armed resistance as a first protocol, they just don't agree with the text of the GFA, on specific issues like giving up territorial rights as a matter of default. So when you hear the term dissident, all it means is that they disagree with the text of the GFA.

I think dissident is a term used to try and jumble a lot of people together, who may have significant differences on certain issues.

So as the peace rocess gathers
momentum, isn't there a chance that the armed struggle might gather momentum with a new generation?

dlofnep

mega man wrote: »

So as the peace rocess gathers
momentum, isn't there a chance that the armed struggle might gather momentum with a new generation?

It's hard to say - With the likes of the CIRA & RIRA, it's doubtful that they would have anywhere near the support that the PIRA had. I really don't know though. We saw the attacks on those 2 sappers, and that PSNI chap - so they are intent on attacking.

I would hope that more and more people continue to support the peace process. Unless British Troops attack civilians in Ireland, I think that we can work on unity and equality though a political framework. Obviously, not all Republicans will agree with me - but the vast majority of them do.

gurramok

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The topic is about how the actions of dissidents might give the Unionists a basis to reconsider.

They don't have to dissent in NI; if the dissidents went to visit Columbia or wherever, then the Unionists would have a case for asking what the F**K was going on.

You made it clear that you'd refer to north of the border; however in other discussions you failed to distinguish between events on the two sides of the border; be consistent, please.

Like I said, a group doesn't have to act within the confines of borders in order to impact on your opinion of it. Al Quaida disgusts most people, but they've only acted in the U.S. and in the U.K; would you go into/stay in Government with them ?

So that'd give the dissidents a carte-blanche to do what they like south of the border, without impacting on people's opinion of them ? And ironically, a border that you previously refused to make distinctions based on ?

The topic is indeed about what the Unionists would DO north of the border because of dissident activities; but those activities don't have to be north of the border for Unionists - and neutrals - to have an opinion of them.

Fact is though, if SF completley stop blurring lines and excusing stuff, and engaging in whataboutery, then they can disown responsibility for the psychos. And to be fair - credit where credit's due - they've definitely improved in that regard.

But they have a way to go to emphasise that they have changed, and that includes getting some of their members to cop themselves on when it comes to their views of criminal activities.

Why didn't you all say this in the first place instead of referring to dissidents as released Limerick prisoners?!;)

Talk about whataboutery!:D

The topic is about dissidents republican groups, not SF. You can bash SF in another thread if needs be. Yes, dissident activity abroad affects NI, it just hasn't happened yet in many years and the spotlight of their activities have been almost exclusively to NI.

rhyolite

mega man wrote: »

So as the peace rocess gathers
momentum, isn't there a chance that the armed struggle might gather momentum with a new generation?

unlikely. PIRA's campaign - or rather, the political environment within which it was able to generate support or 'blind-eyeness' - was a 'fortunate' mix of pure republican ideology and very large numbers of Nationalists being very unhappy at the way they were treated, and their views ignored by, the various governments involved.

the same pure Republican ideology exists today, yet there is very little support for it within the wider 'Nationalist' public - why?, simply because the catalyst (the treatment of those Nationalists by the state) has gone. the match is still there, but the fuel has gone. all they are left with is a stick that's a bit hot at one end. sure it can burn you, but its not going to set your house on fire.

Liam Byrne

gurramok wrote: »

Why didn't you all say this in the first place instead of referring to dissidents as released Limerick prisoners?!;)

Talk about whataboutery!:D

It's not "whataboutery", and it has been cleared up already.

Not everyone knows what groups "dissident" referred to, y'know :rolleyes:

And when there's people breaking so-called "rules" and doing their own thing regardless of "policy" or whatever, then it's natural to assume that they are at least in some way "dissident".

But like I said, that's been clarified above.

ChocolateSauce

mega man wrote: »

but does each of there causes not benefit one another.

There are many causes I believe in, but no matter what they are I would never accept that they should be furthered by terrorism and murder, especially when a peaceful alternative is available.

FTA69

Joey the lips wrote: »

A least then we can have a decent discussion about why dissident republicians are behaving like fachists instead of being republician.

I don't support the likes of the Real IRA at all, but I find your statement that everyone outside the Sinn Féin bracket is a "fascist" to be ridiculous; especially considering what the Provos got up to over the last 25 years without any sort of mandate whatsoever.

thelastditch

FTA69 wrote: »

I don't support the likes of the Real IRA at all, but I find your statement that everyone outside the Sinn Féin bracket is a "fascist" to be ridiculous; especially considering what the Provos got up to over the last 25 years without any sort of mandate whatsoever.

Yes, it's ridiculous. PIRA had more support than violent 'dissidents' have (today), but their support was never overwhelming. I'd say (at a guess) that PIRA had passive/active support for their campaign (not for every action) amongst 50% of northern working class Catholics and amongst 10% of northern middle class Catholics (some of whom, such as certain lawyers and accountants, were very useful indeed). I'd not put support (passive/active) above 10% in The Republic. Obviously support for PIRA's war aims (a united Ireland - NOT civil rights issues) was higher, both North and South of the border. These figures would be peak support levels, probably occurring only in the seventies and to a lesser extent in the eighties.

SF/IRA were definitely a fascist movement in the sense that they used violence as a means to an end even when the ballot box existed north and south of the border. The way they imposed their will on the northern working class Catholic community also points to this. They also exhibited fascism (or Marxism?) in their approach to politics, in which the ends very much dictated the means - a constant use of half truths, distortions and downright lies. An attachment to 'street' politics and all that entails, as well as a disproportionate appeal to the young point to the same conclusion.

I am yet to be convinced that all of this has changed within SF.

Joey the lips

FTA69 wrote: »

I don't support the likes of the Real IRA at all, but I find your statement that everyone outside the Sinn Féin bracket is a "fascist" to be ridiculous; especially considering what the Provos got up to over the last 25 years without any sort of mandate whatsoever.

If you are going to quote me please quote me correctly! I never said that everyone outside sinn fein is fascist! In fact that is a faschist remark in itself. I could explain why if it helps. That is not correct! I said dissident republicians are fascist. It is widely accepted that dissidents are RIRA and CIRA. Why did I call them faschists becuase its clear that to them you either support the republician cause there way or your not republician.

If they truly allowed you the freedom to choose then they would be socialist!

I can refere you to many sites where it is clear they dont!

FTA69

SF/IRA were definitely a fascist movement in the sense that they used violence as a means to an end even when the ballot box existed north and south of the border.

Balls, the use of armed struggle as a tactic does not equate with fascism, it is a politically inanimate strategy which has been adopted by people coming from a wide variety of political perspectives, from the far left to the far right to the centrist nationalist types (e.g the IRA of the Tan War). The IRA was a national liberation organisation of a leftist hue, it most certainly wasn't "fascist" in any shape or form.

JTL,

I said dissident republicians are fascist. It is widely accepted that dissidents are RIRA and CIRA.

The SF leadership would have you believe that any Republican that doesn't support their "strategy" (or lack of) or the GFA for whatever reason is a "dissident"; whether that be peaceful political parties like Éirigi or clandestine armed groups like the Real IRA. The fact is that their stalwart criticism of armed struggle today as "treachorous" (in the words of McGuinness) is nothing shy of sheer and unadultered hypocrisy considering they themselves had no problem shooting and bombing without a mandate from anyone except themselves.

Joey the lips

FTA69 wrote: »

JTL,

The SF leadership would have you believe that any Republican that doesn't support their "strategy" (or lack of) or the GFA for whatever reason is a "dissident"; whether that be peaceful political parties like Éirigi or clandestine armed groups like the Real IRA. The fact is that their stalwart criticism of armed struggle today as "treachorous" (in the words of McGuinness) is nothing shy of sheer and unadultered hypocrisy considering they themselves had no problem shooting and bombing without a mandate from anyone except themselves.

Your not correct in fact all they ever done was be critical of those who did not support the will of the "Majority" in the good friday agreement. This is interesting though considering they themselves did not support it at the beginning so I tend to believe that the majority of people forced those who are socialist to change there opinion.

FTA69

Critical? The SF leadership has old outright lies, from insinuating the likes of the Real IRA left explosives outside Martin Meehan's house, to instigating bullsh*t petitions in Derry to Gerry Kelly lying through his teeth suggesting Éirigi organised the recent riots in Ardoyne. Similarly, Adams also hinted that Éirigi was responsible for Massareene in a recent interview despite knowing full well they weren't.

Likewise the only logic behind the Provisional campaign was that the occupation of Ireland was illegal and that it was justified to challenge it with force of arms. The way they bang on these days you'd swear they were the armed wing of the civil rights movement.

This is interesting though considering they themselves did not support it at the beginning so I tend to believe that the majority of people forced those who are socialist to change there opinion.

I don't get what you're saying here to be honest.

Liam Byrne

Joey the lips wrote: »

Your not correct in fact all they ever done was be critical of those who did not support the will of the "Majority" in the good friday agreement.

Why put "Majority" in quotes - the majority DID support it.

Joey the lips wrote: »

This is interesting though considering they themselves did not support it at the beginning so I tend to believe that the majority of people forced those who are socialist to change there opinion.

What does the GFA have to do with whether or not someone is socialist ?