Sinn Fein- Never forget

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

No, venomous snobbery. A Victorian like disdain for the 'great unwashed'. Its not pretty. You aren't the only one who does it, nor will you be the last, but it still doesn't speak well of your attitude.

I have no disdain or fear of any 'class' nor do I refer to people as the great unwashed. My criticised was levied at SF for preying on the impressionable, the disillusioned, the angry and courting their votes with lies and false hopes. They are populist sh1te talkers with the economic literacy of a sponge. Your attitude of supporting Garda killers and a campaign which failed to recognise this state makes you look like a smashing lad.

How do you know they haven't? You do realise that trials involve evidence, proof etc. A saying that B is upto C counts for fuck all unless backed up.

It is a simple question. Should ex-PIRA members inform on members of splinter terrorist groups. I can easily say yes. Can you?

So having failed in your attempts over the armed struggle in the north, and not having made much gains in your use of mccabe as a club, you've turned to tactic 3, which is to misrepresent what I've stated. Nice.

Failed in my attempts over the armed struggle in the north? Is that sentence missing some verbs? It's your summation that I've failed on those accounts. To be honest trying to convince a terrorist sympathiser that the sky really was blue and it wasn't just the Brits lying would likely result in failure too.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

That's a different benchmark though. I'd say many would say Loyalists deliberately targeted civilians so 85% makes sense.

35% when the IRA supposedly didn't target civilians?

Hmmmmmmmmmm, doesn't make sense logically.

It's better than the overall average by some margin. I'd suggest that some research is required.

Chuck Stone

Laminations wrote: »

Point is that posters claim the Brits targeted civilians but IRA didnt. 35% hit rate when you aren't targeting them makes you incompetent or indiscriminate. I was never claiming Brits and loyalists were not indiscriminate, I was saying the IRA were too.

The BA, and in particular loyalists, were far more indiscriminate - I know that sticks in the craw for people who try to claim the security forces were just doing their job but there you go.

People with more personal and emotional involvement in something are usually more biased.

Well spotted. They also have more experience of the reality of life in the actual situation. Quantitative data can only take someone so far in their understanding - you're dismissing qualitative data. I suggest that you be a little more pragmatic and listen to those who lived through the troubles so you can gain a better understanding.

Punishment beatings weren't carried out to enforce the law, they were carried out to instilled fear and enforce the republican ideology.

There was a policing vacuum. The RUC was not considered a legitimate civilian police service. The IRA were often approached by people in the community to resolve issues with criminals in local communities and they could hardly build prisons. Don't be so naive.

I've used my brain, it says your anedote is as worthwhile as one from junder.

Junder didn't give an anecdote he asked a hypothetical question.

So the bullet point of your neat little presentation is that vigilante justice is good?

No. Justice is an ideal - the goal of civilised people. It was lack of justice that gave impetus to physical force nationalism.

Other parties (especially FF) manipulated the electorate and told them they could give them xyz. SF are now that populist party, misinforming people, promising no pain, easy solutions and beer mat economics.

Political party in populism shocker.

You are trying to fool people and you'll fool a lot of fools.

I'm trying to fool people?

The experiences of people in the north are valid but overly simplistic - fundamental attribution error.

Applying your pop-psychology to the experiences of people in the north does not make it true. It is a fundamental error to ignore the qualitative data. It was the people who had experience of these issues that settled the conflict in the end - not far away number crunchers and 'section 31 tossers' (to borrow a phrase) who've had their opinions fed to them by the establishment media.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

I suppose you're above the use or advocation of physical force?

Nope. I just would be less quick to celebrate murderers of civilians.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

It's better than the overall average by some margin. I'd suggest that some research is required.

I'd suggest it isn't. 35% civilian deaths when supposedly not targeting civilians is either incompetent or indiscriminate (in other words while not directly targeting them you really didn't care if they got hurt). But got and conduct your research and let's know the conclusions.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

I have no disdain or fear of any 'class' nor do I refer to people as the great unwashed. My criticised was levied at SF for preying on the impressionable, the disillusioned, the angry and courting their votes with lies and false hopes. They are populist sh1te talkers with the economic literacy of a sponge..

Thats not how you were putting it earlier, was it? And you'd still be now if I hadn't pulled you up on it.

Laminations wrote: »

Your attitude of supporting Garda killers and a campaign which failed to recognise this state makes you look like a smashing lad...

At some stage we really have to discuss what "subjectivity and objectivity" mean, and what kind of language they produce.

Laminations wrote: »

It is a simple question. Should ex-PIRA members inform on members of splinter terrorist groups. I can easily say yes. Can you?...

Of course they should. McGuinness and Adams have encouraged this.

Laminations wrote: »

Failed in my attempts over the armed struggle in the north? Is that sentence missing some verbs? It's your summation that I've failed on those accounts. .........

It is indeed. You haven't elaborated on your own attitude to the use of violence, I note.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

I'd suggest it isn't. 35% civilian deaths when supposedly not targeting civilians is either incompetent or indiscriminate (in other words while not directly targeting them you really didn't care if they got hurt). But got and conduct your research and let's know the conclusions.

I wasn't suggesting that it was me that needed to do the research..........

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

It's better than the overall average by some margin. I'd suggest that some research is required.

Indeed, would be interesting to see what the definition of civilian was. Still, as the facts were presented it doesn't say much for the IRA and British Army!

Fenian Army

I think the thread may be nearing the "circling around the drain" stage at this point.

Chuck Stone

K-9 wrote: »

That's a different benchmark though. I'd say many would say Loyalists deliberately targeted civilians so 85% makes sense.

35% when the IRA supposedly didn't target civilians?

Civilians die in all conflicts. I'm talking about proportion. I'm not making the claim that the IRA never targeted civilians but I don't think the killing of civilians, unlike loyalist paramilitaries, was their raison d'être - if it was then a far greater proportion of their killings would have been civilian.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, would be interesting to see what the definition of civilian was. Still, as the facts were presented it doesn't say much for the IRA and British Army!

Relatively precise....make of it what ye will....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio

Nodin

Fenian Army wrote: »

I think the thread may be nearing the "circling around the drain" stage at this point.

.....that would be an improvement from where it started.

Laminations

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The BA, and in particular loyalists, were far more indiscriminate - I know that sticks in the craw for people who try to claim the security forces were just doing their job but there you go.

There's only so many times this can be said. I'm not supporting what the Brits did. Yes they were 'more' indiscriminate. That's irrelevant as there are no loyalist or Brit parties looking for our votes in the republic.

Well spotted. They also have more experience of the reality of life in the actual situation. Quantitative data can only take someone so far in their understanding - you're dismissing qualitative data. I suggest that you be a little more pragmatic and listen to those who lived through the troubles so you can gain a better understanding.

Reality of life? Subjective reality. Junders reality seems very different from yours. I've listened, to both sides. I'd vote for supporters of neither.

There was a policing vacuum. The RUC was not considered a legitimate civilian police service. The IRA were often approached by people in the community to resolve issues with criminals in local communities and they could hardly build prisons. Don't be so naive.

And to resolve the issues in the RUC Catholic members were targeted and killed - justifiably according to Nodin.

Junder didn't give an anecdote he asked a hypothetical question.

I'm sure junder has many anecdotes as he lived at the sharp end of republican violence.

No. Justice is an ideal - the goal of civilised people. It was lack of justice that gave impetus to physical force nationalism.

So justice is created by creating injustice for others, until they notice you. I disagree.

Political party in populism shocker.

SF top the league at the minute, and their populist nonsense is particularly dangerous.

Applying your pop-psychology to the experiences of people in the north does not make it true. It is a fundamental error to ignore the qualitative data. It was the people who had experience of these issues that settled the conflict in the end - not far away number crunchers and 'section 31 tossers' (to borrow a phrase) who've had their opinions fed to them by the establishment media.

The conflict might be settled but that isn't the issue. SF still has unsavoury members amongst its ranks. Same as FF, until they purge the old guard and condemn the perpetrators and not just the acts then they are tainted. You can't bring up qualitative experiences when Shinners ignore the experiences of unionists with statements like 'Brits out'. It is their feckin country, recognised by the people of Ireland and the GFA.

golden lane

the targeting of civilians is wrong, no matter who does it. i can't believe that people here are trying to justifie it......

they are not doing the sinn fein party much good, most people will be horrified..

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that it was me that needed to do the research..........

Well you can start it off. Even tell us what kind of research needs to be done to suggest that a 35% civilian death rate isn't targeting civilians.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Well you can start it off. Even tell us what kind of research needs to be done to suggest that a 35% civilian death rate isn't targeting civilians.

I left a link back there.

Chuck Stone

Laminations wrote: »

The conflict might be settled but that isn't the issue. SF still has unsavoury members amongst its ranks. Same as FF, until they purge the old guard and condemn the perpetrators and not just the acts then they are tainted.

Welcome to the nature of conflict resolution and peace settlements on planet Earth. Enjoy your stay.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

................
And to resolve the issues in the RUC Catholic members were targeted and killed - justifiably according to Nodin.

.......

You'd agree with targeted violence if it agreed with your aims or views yourself, as would almost all here, so I'm not sure what the relevance of that is.

Laminations

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Welcome to the nature of conflict resolution and peace settlements on planet Earth. Enjoy your stay.

So you're saying that SF cannot purge its old republican guard because if they do the conflict will start back up? Is that a threat?

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

You'd agree with targeted violence if it agreed with your aims or views yourself, as would almost all here, so I'm not sure what the relevance of that is.

I wouldn't force my aims on the population, especially if the majority of which didn't support me, with violent means

But terrorism floats some people's boat

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

I wouldn't force my aims on the population, especially if the majority of which didn't support me, with violent means
..............

...another oversimplification of the NI conflict.

I just find it odd that for somebody who talks about violence against civillians, you seem rather more bloodthirsty than anyone from either side whose posted on this thread. I viewed violence as regretable, but nessecary. You seem to look forward to it....

I'm also hoping some Eirigi skulls get caved in after they inevitably become violent.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72268408&postcount=83
It makes me question the sincerity of your arguments.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

...another oversimplification of the NI conflict.

I just find it odd that for somebody who talks about violence against civillians, you seem rather more bloodthirsty than anyone from either side whose posted on this thread. I viewed violence as regretable, but nessecary. You seem to look forward to it....


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72268408&postcount=83
It makes me question the sincerity of your arguments.

Lol. You lose the argument when you go thread mining. And there is a difference in approving of strong armed tactics from the official police force of the state against 'subversive' idiots and you 'regresting' but wanting us all to forget the violence of a self-elected illegal army against the people's of Ireland and Britain.

Chuck Stone

Laminations wrote: »

So you're saying that SF cannot purge its old republican guard because if they do the conflict will start back up? Is that a threat?

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Lol. You lose the argument when you go thread mining. And they is a difference in approving of strong armed tactics from the official police gorse of the state against 'subversive' idiots and you 'regresting' but wanting us all to forget the violence of a self-elected illegal army against the people's of Ireland and Britain.

"approving"? Salivating at the prospect of it, if anything.

I've never asked anyone to "forget" anything, as I felt the armed struggle was justified. I'd rather have people understand why it occured, if not approve.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

Relatively precise....make of it what ye will....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio

So the Army had a ratio of 1:1, similar to the Mexican Revolution, the IRA a bit less?

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

So the Army had a ratio of 1:1, similar to the Mexican Revolution, the IRA a bit less?

So it appears. All violence is to be avoided, as its inevitable that the innocent suffer, even with the best will in the world.

Chuck Stone

Laminations wrote: »

And there is a difference in approving of strong armed tactics from the official police force of the state against 'subversive' idiots

There is? So state violence = good. 'Subversive' violence = bad. Good versus evil. God versus the Devil.

How sophisticated.

Laminations

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There is? So state violence = good. 'Subversive' violence = bad. Good versus evil. God versus the Devil.

How sophisticated.

How sophisticated your powers of deduction must be to conclude my views on state violence from one comment about a Garda response to specific Eirigi disorder, and to summarise the complexity of my position so succinctly!! Are you a wizard?

Laminations

K-9 wrote: »

So the Army had a ratio of 1:1, similar to the Mexican Revolution, the IRA a bit less?

I'm not sure how relevant stats are from conventional warfare. This was neither conventional nor a war.

whitelines

If the security forces had shot dead all Republican prisoners (15 000?) would it have improved their ratios?

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

"approving"? Salivating at the prospect of it, if anything.

I've never asked anyone to "forget" anything, as I felt the armed struggle was justified. I'd rather have people understand why it occured, if not approve.

You want people to approve of the murder of British soldiers, RUC men ( catholic included), informants, judges, gardai, civilians, children, babies, the planting of bombs in public locations, the beating and torture of people for loyaly, information or to send a message?? What was the approval rating for the IRA and SF during the troubles? Do you think your apologetics and revisionism will change that in the next generation??

You might be right, keep targeting the young, disillusioned, ignorant, angry and impressionable and you could get approval up. Like someone early on said - people have short memories.

Chuck Stone

Laminations wrote: »

Are you a wizard?

No. I'm afraid I don't share your penchant for fantasy. I don't see the world in terms of a good-v-evil dichotomy.

nuac

Laminations wrote: »

get.this.straight.

It is not simply the death of Jerry McCabe.
It is the fact it was a supposedly unsanctioned operation
It is the fact that the operation targeted Irish business
It is the fact it can not easily be linked to the paramilitary struggle in the north
It is the fact that SF pushed for the killers to be included in the GFA
It is the fact that a SF TD collected them and chauffeured them off to celebrate their release.

Well said.

nuac

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Civilians die in all conflicts. I'm talking about proportion. I'm not making the claim that the IRA never targeted civilians but I don't think the killing of civilians, unlike loyalist paramilitaries, was their raison d'être - if it was then a far greater proportion of their killings would have been civilian.

How about the murders of male protestants farming near the border?

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

You want people to approve of the murder of British soldiers, RUC men ( catholic included), informants, judges, gardai, civilians, children, babies, the planting of bombs in public locations, the beating and torture of people for loyaly, information or to send a message??

You know full well what I mean, yet once more trot out the most hysterical possible reading of it. Whch is amusing, given your earlier profession of "subjectivity and objectivity".

nua domhan

gaffer91 wrote: »

SDLP were the largest nationalist party until the early 21st century. SF only starting building a head of steam from the mid 90s when they started moving away from the murders and violence.

nua domhan wrote: »

NEVER FORGET

I'm still waiting on Gaffer91 to respond to this. In his OP he slates SF for being affiliated with those who murdered Garda McCabe, then he states that they have been moving away from the murders and violence.......

It is incredible to me that he claims anyone voting for Sinn Fein makes him sick to his stomach given their history yet purports to defend democracy, but when that doesn't suit his view Laminations chirps in with how SF have been brainwashing the poverty stricken lower classes who cannot think for themselves. The americans have a system when they don't agree with a particular democratically elected party getting too powerful, it's called regime change.

People know the history of SF, they know about atrocities committed by the IRA and they know the work that's went into the peace process and the changes that have happened. If they want to vote for them that's up to them, it's a sad state of affairs when the only trick FF and FG and Labour have up their sleeve is to throw up past mistakes that the SF leadership have condemned.

gaffer91

nua domhan wrote: »

I'm still waiting on Gaffer91 to respond to this. In his OP he slates SF for being affiliated with those who murdered Garda McCabe, then he states that they have been moving away from the murders and violence.......

Apologies, I thought you were only joking. I don't really see the point you are trying to make. Everyone knows SF have moved away from the armalite and ballot box to a (generally) exclusively ballot box strategy.

However this does by no mean absolve them from condoning then, and often condoning now, the murders and violence during the Troubles or for many of their members taking an active role.

nua domhan

The point i was making was that on one hand you are sickened that anyone would vote for sinn fein, though on the other you admit that they have moved away from violence.

Can you point me to the part when Sinn Fein said they condone the murder of garda McCabe? or indeed any murder?

Villain

Ye should just sticky a "bash Sinn Fein thread" because no matter what happens when it comes to Sinn Fein the same crap is spouted here time and time again.

If you go back into the history of EVERY political party here you will find things that would make you think you should never vote for them.

If you only ever look back you can never move forward. As for the topic of the thread, this topic has been discussed over and over here and for several years.

Move on, Sinn Fein are a Democratic party, and in "Recent" times look like Angels compared to FF and the Greens.

stomprockin

The hatred towards Sinn Fein on Boards is unreal! Every few days you see threads like this. There obviously going something good with growing popularity etc..

JustinDee

Oh boo-hoo, Shinners. Playing the victim is just as feeble and ineffective as the lame duck excuses for what this lot have been party to.

Villain

JustinDee wrote: »

Oh boo-hoo, Shinners. Playing the victim is just as feeble and ineffective as the lame duck excuses for what this lot have been party to.

You see again thats an issue that happens here time and time again, anyone that dare speaks anything other than hate towards Sinn Fein is automatically branded a Shinner. To be honest the inability of people to actually Discuss and Debate rather than just label and abuse says a lot about their argument!

JustinDee

Villain wrote: »

You see again thats an issue that happens here time and time again, anyone that dare speaks anything other than hate towards Sinn Fein is automatically branded a Shinner. To be honest the inability of people to actually Discuss and Debate rather than just label and abuse says a lot about their argument!

And again? Seriously...

You will find that most who voice disapproval at the Shinners and Shinners' cohorts/alliances/fronts have already explained why in these allegedly repetitive/empty threads that irk you so much.

Monty Burnz

stomprockin wrote: »

The hatred towards Sinn Fein on Boards is unreal! Every few days you see threads like this. There obviously going something good with growing popularity etc..

And the number of SF cheerleaders is quite remarkable too. I guess this could reflect the age profile of posters - if, like me, you rememeber things like the Enniskillen bombing, the Warrington bombing where the IRA murdered two small children, the proxy bombs where they kidnapped innocent men's families and threatened to murder them unless the men carried out a suicide truck bombing...that sort of stuff stays with you. I guess if you are 20, you can more easily distance yourself from it, but this stuff was going on when I was in my teens.

I suppose it's the similar to the way there are neo-Nazi movements gaining strength around Europe, and you wonder who could be so stupid as to believe in that evil and failed ideology; but then the people that do choose very carefully the version of history they subscribe to (a version where the Holocaust never really happened, and the Nazi's actions were justified by the times etc. etc.), and they weren't around to see where their ideology actually leads.

People do indeed have short memories.

Nodin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And the number of SF cheerleaders is quite remarkable too. I guess this could reflect the age profile of posters - if, like me, you rememeber things like the Enniskillen bombing, the Warrington bombing where the IRA murdered two small children, the proxy bombs where they kidnapped innocent men's families and threatened to murder them unless the men carried out a suicide truck bombing...that sort of stuff stays with you. I guess if you are 20, you can more easily distance yourself from it, but this stuff was going on when I was in my teens..

Some of us are in our 40's.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I suppose it's the similar to the way there are neo-Nazi movements gaining strength around Europe, and you wonder who could be so stupid as to believe in that evil and failed ideology; but then the people that do choose very carefully the version of history they subscribe to (a version where the Holocaust never really happened, and the Nazi's actions were justified by the times etc. etc.), and they weren't around to see where their ideology actually leads.

People do indeed have short memories.

Dear o dear.

Villain

JustinDee wrote: »

And again? Seriously...

You will find that most who voice disapproval at the Shinners and Shinners' cohorts/alliances/fronts have already explained why in these allegedly repetitive/empty threads that irk you so much.

Really? because most of time when you actually call people on such sweeping remarks they slowly back track and say that maybe not all people who have a different view are shinners?

Villain

Monty Burnz wrote: »

People do indeed have short memories.

They really do! I mean did you see there are actually Fianna Fail TD's in the Dail still! I mean come on.................

JustinDee

Villain wrote: »

Really? . . .

Yes, really.
I don't care what you are. Any old duffer can pigeon-hole.
An apologist for the Shinners shouldn't balk or be surprised at umbrage taken whenever the cheerleaders for that lot go all weak-at-the-knees (no pun intended there in reference to kneecapping) on the subject for their chosen political entity.
The moral relativism you keep blurting concerning other parties excuses not one jot of any issue people might have with the Shinners.

Villain

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes, really.
I don't care what you are. Any old duffer can pigeon-hole.
An apologist for the Shinners shouldn't balk or be surprised at umbrage taken whenever the cheerleaders for that lot go all weak-at-the-knees (no pun intended there in reference to kneecapping) on the subject for their chosen political entity.
The moral relativism you keep blurting concerning other parties excuses not one jot of any issue people might have with the Shinners.

An apologist? Is that what I am now? You really just want to label me don't you?

I'm not excusing anything but again you are making assumptions, I know only too well the history of Sinn Fein, however I also think if people only ever look back they can never move forward.

JustinDee

Villain wrote: »

An apologist? Is that what I am now? You really just want to label me don't you?

I'm not excusing anything but again you are making assumptions, I know only too well the history of Sinn Fein, however I also think if people only ever look back they can never move forward.

I told you I didn't give a stuff what you were.
If you're just looking for an exasperating last word argument, I'd suggest you try someone else.