Sinn Fein- Never forget

invinciblePRSTV

Monty Burnz wrote: »

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Wrong. By my count 3 parties in the current Dail would have either a policy platform or membership which (formerly) supported Republican paramilitary activity.

Of course that doesn't include FF/FG and their murky history.

3 parties stand over political murder? Which 3?

I wouldn't use such emotive, sunday independent-esque language myself but Labour, PSF & the ULA (via their SWP faction) would have members and/or policy positions who at one time or another supported Republican paramilitaries.

Monty Burnz

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

I wouldn't use such emotive, sunday independent-esque language myself but Labour, PSF & the ULA (via their SWP faction) would have members and/or policy positions who at one time or another supported Republican paramilitaries.

The question was which parties STAND over political murder. Not 'which parties at some point in history may have had people who had some involvement with republican paramilitaries' or whatever question you want to answer.

You may find the term 'political murder' very emotive, but if you have a better term for it I'd love to hear it. No amount of pseudo-intellectual waffle on your part will obscure the fact that there is a group of people in the Dáil who happily defend political (and sometimes apolitical) murder.

Crooked Jack

gaffer91 wrote: »

What the PIRA initially did, protecting catholic communities from loyalist mobs, was fine. What they did after the early years until the 90s was anything but.

What? move from defensive to offensive. Move from beating back the symptoms of the problem to attacking the root cause. As unpalatable as it was for everyone the fact is Ireland would be a much worse place now had it not been for the IRA. I dread to think what my life would be like now had 90 years of Stormont misrule, RUC brutality, loyalist pogroms, British approval and Free State apathy gone unchecked.

SF never did have much support though-when they did start fielding candidates for election they were consistently and resoundingly beaten by SDLP in the early years.

I never said anything about Sinn Fein. I said the IRA had at best popular support and at worst silent consent from the majority of nationalists. Sinn Fein elections are a different issue. This tired old line about Sinn Fein and the IRA being one and the same is an old unionist throwback, Christ if they can get past saying Sinn Fein/IRA surely you can.

Altnaveigh occurred after the war, in 1922, didn't it? Still despicable but it wasn't like those kind of massacres were occurring regularly from 1919-21 and people were still supporting the IRA. The 'campaign' in the 70s continued after and despite Kingsmill.

They didnt occur regularly during the PIRA campaign either (at least not at the hands of the PIRA) which is why it was met with such revulsion. It has also been mentioned several times before, so im sure you know well, that Kingsmill was not sanctioned by IRA GHQ.

The Old IRA were probably worse than than people think but still nowhere near as bad as the provos.

Cant find the exact breakdown of the figures at such short notice but broadly in the War of Independence 2000 people died in 2 and a half years. 1969 to 1998 3000 die over 30 years.

Sinn Fein and the IRA were two sides of the same coin. The likes of Gerry Adams, Ferris, McGuinness and Gerry Kelly up north were in the IRA. There is a lot of overlap. They are not separate entities.
The only reason they were in prison in the first place was because they murdered a garda, so don't try and make out like they were doing people a big favour by serving their sentence.

Again, no they were not. In fact there was at times a lot of animosity between the IRA and SF. They were both parts of the republican movement but neither was responsible for the other. It should also be remembered that SF were the main driving force behind the Peace Process and brought the IRA into it. Some cross over in membership but definitely separate entities.
In regards Garda McCabe's killers, they served more than their sentence as they were entitled to be released in 1998 under the GFA. Sinn Fein also immediately and unreservedly denounced the killing

Chucky the tree

Ellis Dee wrote: »

If personal insults are what you get off on, be my guest. And I wonder just how you would define class?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

How was it a personnel insult? I never said you lacked class, I said what you said lacked class. It did. It reads like "I'm not a racist but.." drivel tbh.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Unlike the incredibly classy Sinn Fein - Never Forget? It's like something you'd see spray painted on a wall up the Shankill.

I also felt that poster actually presented some interesting points that dont often get aired.

I have no idea what was interesting about it. "at least he could defend himself" Well then, that makes it alright obviously. :rolleyes:

invinciblePRSTV

Monty Burnz wrote: »

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

I wouldn't use such emotive, sunday independent-esque language myself but Labour, PSF & the ULA (via their SWP faction) would have members and/or policy positions who at one time or another supported Republican paramilitaries.

The question was which parties STAND over political murder. Not 'which parties at some point in history may have had people who had some involvement with republican paramilitaries' or whatever question you want to answer.

You may find the term 'political murder' very emotive, but if you have a better term for it I'd love to hear it. No amount of pseudo-intellectual waffle on your part will obscure the fact that there is a group of people in the Dáil who happily defend political (and sometimes apolitical) murder.

Sorry, I thought we were here for some informed debate and discussion, not barstool expert bollocksology.

My bad. Carry on spielling away.

Monty Burnz

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Sorry, I thought we were here for some informed debate and discussion, not barstool expert bollocksology.

My bad. Carry on spielling away.

Well that's one way of running from the question. Bravo sir!

Chuck Stone

Jesus will that man ever be left RIP by the anything-but-SF-brigade? Can you people name any other person who was killed in the troubles?

They way Jerry Mc Cabe's killing is hijacked for political capital by people with some faux sense of outrage is really shameful.

Monty Burnz

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They way Jerry Mc Cabe's killing is hijacked for political capital by people with some faux sense of outrage is really shameful.

I think the fact that you can't imagine that someone would be genuinely outraged by his murder and SF's support for his murderers speaks a lot more about you than it does about anyone else.

whitelines

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I don't think there was a single sectarian killing by the IRA from when the LVF started killing Catholics to when the INLA ended their reign. Don't know where you got that logic from.

Sorry, is that code for what did The IRA do in Omagh?

fasttalkerchat

whitelines wrote: »

Sorry, is that code for what did The IRA do in Omagh?

That was a splinter group opposed to Sinn Fein called the RealIRA.

charlemont

whitelines wrote: »

"You stop and we'll stop" - Loyalists said this for years and when PIRA finally did stop so did Loyalists. PIRA burnt their own communities and the laugh is those same communities vote for them.

They brought down Sunningdale so they didn't mean what they were saying.

charlemont

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That was a splinter group opposed to Sinn Fein called the RealIRA.

Or even British intelligence. It wouldn't surprise me if there was truth to the rumour.

fasttalkerchat

charlemont wrote: »

Or even British intelligence. It wouldn't surprise me if there was truth to the rumour.

To some extent probably. But that's a thread for another day.

Sunnyisland

As SF rise & rise in the country's political arena,You can expect much more scutinity and hyterical threads like this one here. Bit like the time when MMG decided to run in the presidential race, I don't mind the scrutiny but its the complete one sided view of some of the posters here re the troubles/war/terrorism etc that happened in the last 3/4 decades,

Never forget http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=dublin%20bombing%20commeration%202012&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGEQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dublinmonaghanbombings.org%2Fnews.html&ei=lxHFT6TYC5CLhQed0tiUCg&usg=AFQjCNGLofPrelekxsgl84wGKkqJz2oV1w

gaffer91

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Last killing attributed to the OIRA was mid 1980s afair.

They had a few killings after the ceasefire alright. To say they did as much damage as the provos is ludicrous however. This is a side issue anyway.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Says the fella who just wrote "what about Kingsmills?" on page 5

My understanding of whataboutery is ignoring a legitimate point raised by countering it with something the other 'side' did. In that instance, I was pre-empting the myth that shinners like to perpetuate that the IRA never deliberately targeted civilians. There are other examples of course- Enniskillen, Pub bombings and so on.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Again, no they were not. In fact there was at times a lot of animosity between the IRA and SF. They were both parts of the republican movement but neither was responsible for the other. It should also be remembered that SF were the main driving force behind the Peace Process and brought the IRA into it. Some cross over in membership but definitely separate entities.
In regards Garda McCabe's killers, they served more than their sentence as they were entitled to be released in 1998 under the GFA. Sinn Fein also immediately and unreservedly denounced the killing

What a load of nonsense. If you can't accept that SF and the IRA were separate wings of the same movement then there is no hope. SF rarely condemned the IRA's actions and served as a mouthpiece for the movement. How often was Gerry Adams carrying the coffin of dead IRA 'volunteers'? But I suppose you probably don't even think he was in the IRA.

SF were not the driving force for the peace process- People like John Hume and Fr. Alec Reid were. SF had to be treated with the kid gloves every step of the way in case they threw a tantrum and stormed out. The peace process as we know it would not have been necessary if it wasn't for SF and the IRA anyway.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think the fact that you can't imagine that someone would be genuinely outraged by his murder and SF's support for his murderers speaks a lot more about you than it does about anyone else.

Well said. As I can see it, most of the shinners responses have been as follows:
1. Get over Jerry McCabe.
2. Shur, FF and FG also came from a background of violence, in the 20s and 30s and shur weren't the old IRA practically the same thing as the provos.
3. The McCabe killers deserve a good pat on the back for not derailing the peace process.
4. SF and the IRA were completely separate (lol).
5. You're all west brits.
6. Anything would be better than the current shower (they wouldn't).

All of which are transparently nonsense.

gaffer91

realies wrote: »

As SF rise & rise in the country's political arena,You can expect much more scutinity and hyterical threads like this one here. Bit like the time when MMG decided to run in the presidential race, I don't mind the scrutiny but its the complete one sided view of some of the posters here re the troubles/war/terrorism etc that happened in the last 3/4 decades,

Never forget http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=dublin%20bombing%20commeration%202012&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGEQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dublinmonaghanbombings.org%2Fnews.html&ei=lxHFT6TYC5CLhQed0tiUCg&usg=AFQjCNGLofPrelekxsgl84wGKkqJz2oV1w

This is the whataboutery I'm talking about. What do the bombings have to do with voting for SF or not? Tell me, how many people involved in or who condone the Dublin/Monaghan bombings are running for election in the Republic of Ireland?

Chuck Stone

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think the fact that you can't imagine that someone would be genuinely outraged by his murder and SF's support for his murderers speaks a lot more about you than it does about anyone else.

I can imagine his family and other loved ones being outraged.

As for people on internet forums who continuously condemn SF/Republicans/Nationalists at any opportunity?

Well, tbh frank, no I can't imagine them being genuinely outraged. The very fact that they put the magnifying glass on one particular death of one of over 3000 is a clue to their motivations.

Sunnyisland

whitelines wrote: »

"You stop and we'll stop" - Loyalists said this for years and when PIRA finally did stop so did Loyalists. PIRA burnt their own communities and the laugh is those same communities vote for them.

OT. Its a fact that the UVF where killing catholics in 1966 years before PIRA was created.

whitelines wrote: »

Sorry, is that code for what did The IRA do in Omagh?

Once again for a loyalist/unionist supporter your grasp of what happened and who was responsible that day shows your clear lack of knowledge of who was doing what.

Crooked Jack

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I have no idea what was interesting about it. "at least he could defend himself" Well then, that makes it alright obviously. :rolleyes:

That was one point out of several the poster made and I was merely pointing out that it was interesting to hear some other points on it rather than the usual hsyterical screaming from some people who could give a shit about Jerry McCabe or his family but just like having a nice emotive stick to beat SF with.
In fact talking about class, as it seems to mean so much to you, there is nothing very classy about that at all. SF seem to be the only ones with any dignity on the matter. As soon as he was killed they condemned it outright and left his family to grieve unlike FF, FG, Lab etc..who like to drag his name up every time it looks like people might actually be beginning to listen to Sinn Fein's message

Crooked Jack

gaffer91 wrote: »

This is the whataboutery I'm talking about. What do the bombings have to do with voting for SF or not? Tell me, how many people involved in or who condone the Dublin/Monaghan bombings are running for election in the Republic of Ireland?

What did Kingsmill have to do with Jerry McCabe. My God Metallica were right when they sang "the empty can rattles the most." You have made several comments whinging about whataboutery but you were the first person to employ it

gaffer91

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I can imagine his family and other loved ones being outraged.

As for people on internet forums who continuously condemn SF/Republicans/Nationalists at any opportunity?

Well, tbh frank, no I can't imagine them being genuinely outraged. The very fact that they put the magnifying glass on one particular death of one of over 3000 is a clue to their motivations.

Would you rather we talked about Enniskillen, Birmingham, Kingsmill, Guildford, Canary Wharf, Shankhill etc. and all the other civilians killed?

People can relate to the Jerry McCabe one because it was in the Republic and it is beyond the pale for most murderers even to murder a Garda. The behaviour of leading SF members for the whole Fiasco was especially disgraceful, even for them- trying to get them off, visiting them in jail and then finally picking them up. No shame whatsoever.

Sunnyisland

gaffer91 wrote: »

This is the whataboutery I'm talking about. What do the bombings have to do with voting for SF or not? Tell me, how many people involved in or who condone the Dublin/Monaghan bombings are running for election in the Republic of Ireland?

Never forget you wrote why forget about the biggest loss of life in the whole sorry saga,Or do you like to pick and choose who to remember ?

Monty Burnz

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I can imagine his family and other loved ones being outraged.

So I can't be outraged by the Nazi holocaust unless I lost a family member? I can't be outraged by something that doesn't affect me directly? You've never been outraged by something the Israelis did to the Palestinians, or the US did to the Iraqis?

That type of lack of empathy is somewhere in the psychopathic spectrum.

Laminations

realies wrote: »

As SF rise & rise in the country's political arena,You can expect much more scutinity and hyterical threads like this one here. Bit like the time when MMG decided to run in the presidential race, I don't mind the scrutiny but its the complete one sided view of some of the posters here re the troubles/war/terrorism etc that happened in the last 3/4 decades,

Never forget http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=dublin%20bombing%20commeration%202012&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGEQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dublinmonaghanbombings.org%2Fnews.html&ei=lxHFT6TYC5CLhQed0tiUCg&usg=AFQjCNGLofPrelekxsgl84wGKkqJz2oV1w

There were obviously two sides. I wouldn't vote for either of them. Responding to the point that SF did xyz with 'well the Brits did abc' is total deflection.

PS the comments by Ellis Dee about Jerry McCabe are amongst the poorest in taste I've read on boards. It's quite simple for me - just like FF are toxic until they have purged the older members/supporters and ex-cabinet ministers from their ranks, SF are even more toxic so long as they retain members and TDs that make excuses for terrorist atrocities or collect Garda killers. Fresh faces like Mary Lou and Pearse Doherty while welcome (as they are not tainted by the parties past) are not the renewal necessary as they still commemorate Men like Russell and petition on behalf of bombers and murderers.

Clear your ranks and get some economics lessons and you'll become....pallatable. Currently your enjoying the support of a protest vote from those who are either disillusioned or ignorant.

gaffer91

Crooked Jack wrote: »

What did Kingsmill have to do with Jerry McCabe. My God Metallica were right when they sang "the empty can rattles the most." You have made several comments whinging about whataboutery but you were the first person to employ it

Read the initial post again. I was talking about the provos killing civilians. It was not whataboutery, that seems to be the sole preserve of Shinners in this thread.

realies wrote: »

Never forget you wrote why forget about the biggest loss of life in the whole sorry saga,Or do you like to pick and choose who to remember ?

I am not saying to forget what the loyalists did, I just fail to see what this has to do with voting for SF. It is completely and utterly irrelevant. I am not saying to vote for loyalists instead, nor am I saying that what they did was ok. I completely and utterly condemn it, as I do for the IRA atrocities. I wonder would you be so quick to condemn, let's say, Enniskillen?

gaffer91

Laminations wrote: »

There were obviously two sides. I wouldn't vote for either of them. Responding to the point that SF did xyz with 'well the Brits did abc' is total deflection.

All the shinners should take these words on board.

whitelines

What? move from defensive to offensive. Move from beating back the symptoms of the problem to attacking the root cause. As unpalatable as it was for everyone the fact is Ireland would be a much worse place now had it not been for the IRA. I dread to think what my life would be like now had 90 years of Stormont misrule, RUC brutality, loyalist pogroms, British approval and Free State apathy gone unchecked.

You're falling for that old mistake of assuming nothing would have changed without The IRA's murder campaign.

The best way to look at it is to consider what relevant changes have occurred in NI since the late sixties and which would have still occurred without Republican violence. Here's my take:

(i) Institutional power sharing with Nationalists including Sinn Fein:

It's inconceivable that this would have occurred without 'the troubles'. There would still be majority Unionist rule, perhaps with a PR instead of a FPTP electoral system. But there would now be a 45% Nationalist representation. Any split in Unionism could have been exploited.

(ii) North-South bodies:

There might have developed some links without The IRA, but nothing comparable with those established by The EU.

(iii) Policing:

Without PIRA intimidation far more Catholics would have joined a civilianised police, just as they do now.

The 'B' specials would have been wound up anyway.

(iv) Electoral gerrymandering:

It's likely this would have been corrected anyway.

(v) Employment equality:

It's likely this would have occurred anyway.

(vi) Cultural equality:

It's likely this would have occurred anyway.

(vii) Possibility of Irish unity:

Stronger now than pre-1969, but mainly due to demographics.

I never said anything about Sinn Fein. I said the IRA had at best popular support and at worst silent consent from the majority of nationalists.

Is that why Loyalists felt comfortable targeting the broader Nationalist community?

Sinn Fein elections are a different issue. This tired old line about Sinn Fein and the IRA being one and the same is an old unionist throwback, Christ if they can get past saying Sinn Fein/IRA surely you can.

Actually, I've seen Republican documents that detail 'army' control over SF branches - some time ago admittedly.

They didnt occur regularly during the PIRA campaign either (at least not at the hands of the PIRA) which is why it was met with such revulsion. It has also been mentioned several times before, so im sure you know well, that Kingsmill was not sanctioned by IRA GHQ.

How convenient. Presumably UVF GHQ had the same approach?

fasttalkerchat

gaffer91 wrote: »

All the shinners should take these words on board.

Everyone has skeletons so vote for no one? Really?

i8mancs

While this thread serves to remind people of SF's disgraceful past, the question I want to ask is- when you bear all this in mind how does anyone vote for SF, never mind 1 in 5 voters?[/QUOTE]



How does anyone vote for the educated muppets in FF,FG,Labour,Greens?

Sorry I forgot, nobody did vote for the Greens, did they I wonder why?

You go on about SF's disgraceful past, what about the past of FF,FG and their cronies + their allowances never mind their multiple pensions

I dont live back in the 1970's,80's,90's, the war is over, get over it

whitelines

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That was a splinter group opposed to Sinn Fein called the RealIRA.

Ye, I know. Just like The LVF had nothing to do with The CLMC that called The '94 ceasefire.

Crooked Jack

gaffer91 wrote: »

My understanding of whataboutery is ignoring a legitimate point raised by countering it with something the other 'side' did. In that instance, I was pre-empting the myth that shinners like to perpetuate that the IRA never deliberately targeted civilians. There are other examples of course- Enniskillen, Pub bombings and so on.

The IRA did not deliberately target civilians. Were civilians killed accidentally? Certainly. Does that make it OK? Absolutely not. Did members of the IRA on rare occasion act of their own accord outside the rules of the army? Yes. Does that make it OK? No. But to say that the IRA deliberately targeted civilians is wrong, disingenuous and shows a complete lack of understanding about the IRA. For example, why would they deliberately target civilians when they knew full well that such actions would have a negative affect on their aims and support.

What a load of nonsense. If you can't accept that SF and the IRA were separate wings of the same movement then there is no hope. SF rarely condemned the IRA's actions and served as a mouthpiece for the movement. How often was Gerry Adams carrying the coffin of dead IRA 'volunteers'? But I suppose you probably don't even think he was in the IRA.

If you cant accept that they weren't than there is no hope. Was there some crossover of membership? Certainly, but there were also IRA men in the GAA. Does that mean the GAA is one of the sides of this republican coin. There are whole books full of information about animosty and arguements between SF and the IRA, try Bandit Country, Provos, Voices from the Grave and A Secret History of the IRA for a start. Carrying someones coffin is a sign of respect, nobody is saying SF didnt respect the IRA but to say the two were the same or different sides of the same coin is wrong.

SF were not the driving force for the peace process- People like John Hume and Fr. Alec Reid were. SF had to be treated with the kid gloves every step of the way in case they threw a tantrum and stormed out. The peace process as we know it would not have been necessary if it wasn't for SF and the IRA anyway.

SF were indeed the driving force behind the peace process, as were the likes of Hume and Reid. But long before Hume plucked up the courage to speak to SF republicans were already holding talks with the brits and DUP to try and find a peaceful endgame. You are right about one thing, there would have been no need for a peace process without SF and the IRA. Nationalists would have just lay down and taken their kicking. The brits wouldve kept turning a blind eye, the free state may have made some feeble but ultimately empty protestations and the old Stormont train would have chugged on as usual over a subjugated population.


Well said. As I can see it, most of the shinners responses have been as follows:
1. Get over Jerry McCabe.
2. Shur, FF and FG also came from a background of violence, in the 20s and 30s and shur weren't the old IRA practically the same thing as the provos.
3. The McCabe killers deserve a good pat on the back for not derailing the peace process.
4. SF and the IRA were completely separate (lol).
5. You're all west brits.
6. Anything would be better than the current shower (they wouldn't).

All of which are transparently nonsense.

Wrong again. I think you'll find the response from most Shinners and other people who would like to let Jerry McCabe rest in peace has been

1 - It was wrong
2 - Stop dragging his name up to try and score political points

whitelines

charlemont wrote: »

They brought down Sunningdale so they didn't mean what they were saying.

PIRA opposed Sunningdale as well.

Nothing to do with both sides agreeing to abandon murder.

Crooked Jack

gaffer91 wrote: »

All the shinners should take these words on board.

so should you

fasttalkerchat

whitelines wrote: »

Ye, I know. Just like The LVF had nothing to do with The CLMC that called The '94 ceasefire.

The first post was that loyalists only attacked Catholics in response to PIRA attacks so the PIRA is partly responsible for sectarian attacks in the North. The worst sectarian attacks were carried out by the LVF who operated at a time that the PIRA were barely active and were not involved in or accused of any attacks on innocent protestants.

whitelines

charlemont wrote: »

Or even British intelligence. It wouldn't surprise me if there was truth to the rumour.

I heard it was the Eskimos, but my mate thinks it was the Maori.

LordSutch

Here is my real delima, if (God forbid) I ever started to consider voting for Sinn Fein (highly unlikely), I would have to ask the SF candidate on my doorstep "Well Gerry, where do you stand on the PIRA terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland/ROI/Britain and their attachment to Sinn Fein" . . . Now if by some miracle the SF candidate disowned the PIRA and their actions & aims, I might well consider their economic proposals, but somehow I suspect that the reply I would get would be somewhere along the lines of "The IRA fought a just and courageous war against the British Imperial war machine, casualties are part of any war, and we regret those killed while fighting British Tyranny but that's life. The the IRA are heroes to Republicans and I have no reservations whatsoever in supporting what they achieved up until 94' bla bla bla", vomit bucket please.

Now if the Shinners renounce what the PIRA did, then I might indeed take a look at them (just a little look), otherwise I would still be of the opinion that they are unfit to be considered for anything, other than promoting the sale of black berets and Rayband shades/ cool :cool:

charlemont

gaffer91 wrote: »

The peace process as we know it would not have been necessary if it wasn't for SF and the IRA anyway.

So you believe Irish people should be treated as second class citizens in the 6 counties ?

Are you Irish yourself ?

whitelines

realies wrote: »

OT. Its a fact that the UVF where killing catholics in 1966 years before PIRA was created.




Once again for a loyalist/unionist supporter your grasp of what happened and who was responsible that day shows your clear lack of knowledge of who was doing what.

And The IRA were killing people in the fifties before Spence got started.

You'll have to expand on that second bit - unless of course you think 'IRA' should be reserved for 'PI RA', in which case don't bother.

charlemont

LordSutch wrote: »

Here is my real delima, if (God forbid) I ever started to consider voting for Sinn Fein (highly unlikely), I would have to ask the SF candidate on my doorstep "Well Gerry, where do you stand on the PIRA terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland/ROI/Britain and their attachment to Sinn Fein" . . . Now if by some miracle the SF candidate disowned the PIRA and their actions & aims, I might well consider their economic proposals, but somehow I suspect that the reply I would get would be somewhere along the lines of "The IRA fought a just and courageous war against the British Imperial war machine, casualties are part of any war, and we regret those killed while fighting British Tyranny but that's life. The the IRA are heroes to Republicans and I have no reservations whatsoever in supporting what they achieved up until 94' bla bla bla", vomit bucket please.

Now if the Shinners renounce what the PIRA did, then I might indeed take a look at them (just a little look), otherwise I would still be of the opinion that they are unfit to be considered for anything, other than promoting the sale of black berets and Rayband shades/ cool :cool:

And what about your heroes doing their duty in Iraq Afghanistan then ?
We'll even add Dresden in for good measure....

charlemont

whitelines wrote: »

PIRA opposed Sunningdale as well.

Nothing to do with both sides agreeing to abandon murder.

No problem, I'll accept I'm wrong on that..

Crooked Jack

whitelines wrote: »

You're falling for that old mistake of assuming nothing would have changed without The IRA's murder campaign.

The best way to look at it is to consider what relevant changes have occurred in NI since the late sixties and which would have still occurred without Republican violence. Here's my take:

(i) Institutional power sharing with Nationalists including Sinn Fein:

It's inconceivable that this would have occurred without 'the troubles'. There would still be majority Unionist rule, perhaps with a PR instead of a FPTP electoral system. But there would now be a 45% Nationalist representation. Any split in Unionism could have been exploited.

(ii) North-South bodies:

There might have developed some links without The IRA, but nothing comparable with those established by The EU.

(iii) Policing:

Without PIRA intimidation far more Catholics would have joined a civilianised police, just as they do now.

The 'B' specials would have been wound up anyway.

(iv) Electoral gerrymandering:

It's likely this would have been corrected anyway.

(v) Employment equality:

It's likely this would have occurred anyway.

(vi) Cultural equality:

It's likely this would have occurred anyway.

(vii) Possibility of Irish unity:

Stronger now than pre-1969, but mainly due to demographics.

In regards to policing young nationalists feel they can join it now because it is no longer the armed wing of a corrupt Stormont regime. Nothing to do with IRA intimidation.
As for ending gerrymandering or any kind of equality I find it laughable that you think these would have come about on their own or through peaceful means. Stormont gave its answer to the civil rights movement when they beat people off the streets and the brits gave their answer when they shot its people dead in Derry.
It's also worth noting that even the "liberal" Terence O'Neill only began making real noises about any sort of basic level of equality after the IRA campaign had begun.

Is that why Loyalists felt comfortable targeting the broader Nationalist community?

No, loyalists did this because they were motivated by blind hatred and sectarianism and had little or no political aim beyond killing fenians ("yabba dabba do any taig will do" is about as coherent a political strategy as they ever developed.) Any book on the troubles will show you that while the IRA operated as an army and picked military and economic targets, Loyalist attacks were random, savage and often alcohol fueled.

Actually, I've seen Republican documents that detail 'army' control over SF branches - some time ago admittedly.

Really. care to direct me towards them?

How convenient. Presumably UVF GHQ had the same approach?

See above

Monty Burnz

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Wrong again. I think you'll find the response from most Shinners and other people who would like to let Jerry McCabe rest in peace has been

1 - It was wrong
2 - Stop dragging his name up to try and score political points

Which was wrong - his murder, or SF's support of his murderers up to and including lobbying for their early release, collecting them from prison and throwing a party to celebrate their release?

Einhard

NinjaK wrote: »

west brits in anti Sinn Fein shocker

SF supporter attacking those who don't share his ideology in "West Brit" idiotic comment.

Chuck Stone

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That type of lack of empathy is somewhere in the psychopathic spectrum.

And being genuinely outraged by the death of one person you've never met 16 years on would be evidence of an inability to move on and would probably be indicative of emotional dysfunction.

Einhard

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Jesus will that man ever be left RIP by the anything-but-SF-brigade? Can you people name any other person who was killed in the troubles?

They way Jerry Mc Cabe's killing is hijacked for political capital by people with some faux sense of outrage is really shameful.

As Monty said, it's pretty disgusting that you cannot grasp that some people are actually genuinely appalled by the murder of Gerry McCabe, and the actions of prominent SF members in relation to his killers.

Monty Burnz

NinjaK wrote: »

west brits in anti Sinn Fein shocker

Indeed - there's only one way to be really Irish, and Shinners know the way! Be like them, or be despised. Arbeit macht frei, etc.

golden lane

charlemont wrote: »

And what about your heroes doing their duty in Iraq Afghanistan then ?
We'll even add Dresden in for good measure....

why not add aushwitz and coventry.....and stir in 4 million pow's.

Einhard

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I can imagine his family and other loved ones being outraged.

As for people on internet forums who continuously condemn SF/Republicans/Nationalists at any opportunity?

Well, tbh frank, no I can't imagine them being genuinely outraged. The very fact that they put the magnifying glass on one particular death of one of over 3000 is a clue to their motivations.

I'm outraged not simply because of the murder of Gerry McCabe, and not simply because of the murder of innocent men, women, and children, but also because an organisation which was intimately involved with the group that carried out those murders now seeks to present a sanitised version of itself to the public, whilst incorporating at the highest echelons people who actively collaborated in the murder and torture of innocent people. For someone who raises the issues of Israeli actions in the Levant so often, it's nothing short of double standards for you to attack those of us who prefer not to sweep these murders under the table.

Crooked Jack

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Which was wrong - his murder, or SF's support of his murderers up to and including lobbying for their early release, collecting them from prison and throwing a party to celebrate their release?

His murder. And again I'd point out that SF condemned it as soon as it happened. Nor did they campaign for their early release, they called for everybody to live up to the commitments they made in the GFA and stop cherrypicking it.
Other bereaved families on all sides had to swallow the bitter pill of seeing prisoners be released, what was so different about the grief over Jerry McCabe that his killers should stay locked up forever. Allowing the free state government to pick which bits of the agreement they liked would have only given the nod to the brits and unionists to do the same.
As for this fascination with picking them up from prison, I really dont get what that's all about. So what? Should they have walked. should they have been tied to the back of a tractor and dragged across the country. Give over, it's a non-issue.

Monty Burnz

Chuck Stone wrote: »

And being genuinely outraged by the death of one person you've never met 16 years on would be evidence of an inability to move on and would probably be indicative of emotional dysfunction.

So I should only have been temporarily outraged, and then forget about it? How long should I have been outraged? A week? Two?

Laughable, just laughable. Presumably you will be posting about the injustice of how the British ended up controlling Northern Ireland in another thread soon, even though the events involved were centuries ago. Clearly fake outrage on your part, or an emotional dysfunction of epic proportions.