Can SF transform into a leading party in next 5-10 years?

Ghandee

barney 20v wrote: »

Indeed... Waiting on highlights on motd ! Maybe occupy yourself by addressing the other posters points??
Local Co county councillors are bad enough .... We don't need former members of the "army council" to run our affairs .

It was your OP that I questioned?

That's your example?

Back to your football.

A shining example of someone who just blindly repeats what he's read somewhere else :rolleyes:

barney 20v

Ghandee wrote: »

That's your example?

Back to your football.

A shining example of someone who just blindly repeats what he's read somewhere else :rolleyes:

I don't recall reading that anywhere.....

Ghandee

barney 20v wrote: »

I don't recall reading that anywhere.....

Making a statement that you cannot back up, then give evasive/deflective/smart assed.answers when asked to clarify your statement makes you look foolish, despite what you may think.

I'll leave this thread now, I asked for an example which you refused/were unable to provide.

Good night.

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

SF would have to deal with the IMF/ECB here which will not defer cuts for a year etc.

@ Ghandee you failed to respond to this post?

Any reason why?

barney 20v

Ghandee wrote: »

Making a statement that you cannot back up, then give evasive/deflective/smart assed.answers when asked to clarify your statement makes you look foolish, despite what you may think.

I'll leave this thread now, I asked for an example which you refused/were unable to provide.

Good night.

I made a simple ,truthful statement.... If you perceive it as being smart assed its your perception.
Alas As indicated I was otherwise engaged and other posters addressed your questions but you decided to pursue me and ignore valid, pertinent points.

Happy Monday

The next leader issue is interesting.
Pearse Doherty but will the boys in 6 counties accept him.
If it someone from the 6 counties how did that play out in the South?

Annasopra

Stheno wrote: »

Their economic policies appeal to the majority who vote for them as they appear anti wealth/tax the rich etc at a minor glance.

Dig deeper and they are ruinous

In what are they ruinous?

oscarBravo

mango salsa wrote: »

In what are they ruinous?

My impression of them is that they are simplistic and not fully costed.

As an example, they talked about charging private healthcare providers the full economic cost of a bed in a public hospital, and produced a sum that this would save the exchequer. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the proposal itself for a moment, think about the knock-on effects: this will increase costs to health insurance companies, who will in turn raise premiums, which will in turn lead to a certain percentage of subscribers no longer being able to afford private health insurance, which leads to more patients and higher costs for the HSE.

Now, it's arguable that the net result will still be a gain to the exchequer, but it's almost certainly going to be fairly substantially less than the number they've included in their calculation.

Good loser

oscarBravo wrote: »

My impression of them is that they are simplistic and not fully costed.

As an example, they talked about charging private healthcare providers the full economic cost of a bed in a public hospital, and produced a sum that this would save the exchequer. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the proposal itself for a moment, think about the knock-on effects: this will increase costs to health insurance companies, who will in turn raise premiums, which will in turn lead to a certain percentage of subscribers no longer being able to afford private health insurance, which leads to more patients and higher costs for the HSE.

Now, it's arguable that the net result will still be a gain to the exchequer, but it's almost certainly going to be fairly substantially less than the number they've included in their calculation.

They're ultra simplistic and besides they're dishonest in argument.

They run rings around some of the flute interviewers we hve on the media here.

Next time they're on note how when THEIR policies are being examined in ANY detail they either repeat what they've already said or slide away to their oh-so-boring assaults on the Govt policies.

As an example their so-called opposition to the Croke Park Agreement has only one follow-up, namely, all salaries over 100K should be reduced to 100k. This is patently ridiculous as some people would lose 2k and more 100k; nobody would look for promotion; what about the legality of contracts; would they do nothing to those between 80k or 90k and 100k; why break at 100k?; many of those above 150k could retire on big pensions and be on the chance of getting another job; would it be done overnight or over twenty years; would it only be for new entrants.

It's a typical SF policy - hurting the few that would never vote for them anyway - populist and ill thought out and appealing to the ignorant masses.

golfball37

The true legacy of FF/FG/Lab's treason and inaction on behalf of the Irish people will be the advent of Sinn Fein.

I hope the big 3 are proud of themselves.

We need a new political party in Ireland but I'd take SF over the 3 main parties in a heartbeat personally.

djpbarry

Slideshowbob wrote: »

...people under 30 only know SF as peacemakers

You can't be serious?

OCorcrain

djpbarry wrote: »

You can't be serious?

Well it is true that young people are more open-minded and understanding when it comes to Sinn Féin, rather than dismissing them outright like some of the older generation who ironically are the ones who lived through most of the Troubles and should be the first people to understand the conditions people in the north were subjected to by the oppressive sectarian statelet which would inevitably lead to more militant and assertive politics as peaceful protest was only met with further oppression and brutality by the state.

A note, revolution does not solely apply to militant revolution reminiscent of the French Revolution but also reform, liberalisation and innovation.

To quote a famous statesman, John F Kennedy.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable".

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can see them making gains until they end up in coalition. It could be a while, though.

Their fate once that happens will be an interesting one. Their experience of politics in the Republic to date has been one of opposition, which is a relatively easy role to play; you just criticise pretty much everything the government does, and tell the electorate what they want to hear. Being in government is a lot harder, as they've found in Northern Ireland. As a junior coalition partner, they are likely to suffer the same fate as their predecessors the PDs and the Greens (and possibly, it remains to be seen, Labour) - taking the blame for having to make the difficult decisions that are part and parcel of running a country and that are so easy to criticise from the sidelines.

What genuinely surprised me was how weak Adams has proven in the Dail; both as speaker and party leader. It surprised me because I expected Stormont to have provided him with more than ample parliamentary experience - but that does not seem to have been the case.

A lot rests on younger Sinn Fein members like Mary Lou and Pierce Doherty - although perhaps too much is made of these individuals for no reason other than their lack of experience in balaclava politics. Whilst Doherty's figures simply don't add up (something one expects of most opposition economic spokesmen) the whole socialist aspect of the party (whilst, by definition, somewhat popular in nature) seems to fundamentally undermine their attempts to promote rational policies.

OCorcrain

RandomName2 wrote: »

What genuinely surprised me was how weak Adams has proven in the Dail; both as speaker and party leader. It surprised me because I expected Stormont to have provided him with more than ample parliamentary experience - but that does not seem to have been the case..

I would agree with you there, but it was not always the case. In the past he was a passionate, articulate and competent speaker and leader. But I guess that time he spent on the Dáil is probably having a negative effect on his abilities. There is not much room for intelligent debate in the Dáil as we all know, just heckling, it is a stupid system.

There is a clip from the Late Late Show in the 90s where the RTE tried to do a hatchet job on Gerry Adams and Sinn Féin and it backfired. I was impressed with how he handled himself along with many other people who had no affiliation with Sinn Féin.

I know the title is a bit stupid, just ignore the title and watch the debate/debacle.

fenderpick

gaffer91 wrote: »

What you list in the OP as advantages for SF are undoubtedly true, alas.

Couple of big problems I see for SF in the short to medium term:

1. A lot of people particularly the older voters will remember them from when they were the political wing of a terrorist organisation, with many of the current leadership also being ex-terrorists.

2. I think for young people coming up and becoming politically aware nowadays, the whole notion of a United Ireland is simply not particularly important to them (although I could be wrong about this).

3. I would say SF are transfer toxic still to a certain extent-although this seems to have improved for them in the last election, SF's seeming devotion to radical nationalism and crippling taxation of the middle and upper middle classes would be very unappealing to many voters.

4. SF politicians almost invariably look like clueless anti-intellectuals when they are debating anything which will come against them in an election campaign which is often when many voters make their final decision.

I have to say a nice bit of historic cherry picking going on here Dev and Michael were considered"terrorists" by the brits in face FF sprang from armed struggle......I,m a catholic from the North my partener is protestant and neather of us vote any more because ff fg lab all sf ou dup are all the same Greed....................but I have to say If I had to vote it would have to be SF they work at grass roots on an industrial wage

djpbarry

OCorcrain wrote: »

Well it is true that young people are more open-minded and understanding when it comes to Sinn Féin, rather than dismissing them outright like some of the older generation who ironically are the ones who lived through most of the Troubles...

Forget "the Troubles". It's only a few years ago that Sinn Fein were campaigning for the release of Jerry McCabe's murderers.

Zubeneschamali

OCorcrain wrote: »

the north were subjected to by the oppressive sectarian statelet which would inevitably lead to more militant and assertive politics as peaceful protest was only met with further oppression and brutality by the state.

I must have missed the bit where the Troubles ended in the overthrow of the British statelet by the freedom fighters of Sinn Fein.

Here I thought they gave up the futile violence and took jobs with the British government running that same statelet.

OCorcrain

djpbarry wrote: »

Forget "the Troubles". It's only a few years ago that Sinn Fein were campaigning for the release of Jerry McCabe's murderers.

I am a member of Sinn Féin, I condemn what happened and I can certaintly tell you I neither campaigned or support the release of Jerry McCabe's murderers, but you will judge me anyway on the basis of what a small group of individuals perpetrated?

If you think Sinn Féin supported this, you are dead wrong, certain nationalist paramilitaries would not co-operate on decommissioning and the disbandment of the relevant paramilitaries without the condition that McCabe's killers would be released. Thus Sinn Féin, the British Government along with Bertie Ahern, Fianna Fáil and the Irish government had to support their release on the basis of the restoration of the Northern Ireland power-sharing exectutive..

Funny, you never said anything about the Irish Government and the British Government who supported their release.

OCorcrain

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I must have missed the bit where the Troubles ended in the overthrow of the British statelet by the freedom fighters of Sinn Fein.

Here I thought they gave up the futile violence and took jobs with the British government running that same statelet.

So the same unionist statelet that discriminates against Catholics still exists yes?:rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali

OCorcrain wrote: »

So the same unionist statelet that discriminates against Catholics still exists yes?:rolleyes:

Hurray! Sinn Fein won, and Ireland is united!

djpbarry

OCorcrain wrote: »

I am a member of Sinn Féin, I condemn what happened and I can certaintly tell you I neither campaigned or support the release of Jerry McCabe's murderers, but you will judge me anyway on the basis of what a small group of individuals perpetrated?

No, I'm judging your party for actively campaigning for the release of said murderers.

OCorcrain wrote: »

If you think Sinn Féin supported this, you are dead wrong...

So when Martin Ferris greeted the murderers on their release from prison, what was that all about?

OCorcrain wrote: »

...certain nationalist paramilitaries would not co-operate on decommissioning and the disbandment of the relevant paramilitaries without the condition that McCabe's killers would be released.

Pull the other one – it’s got bells on.

OCorcrain wrote: »

Funny, you never said anything about the Irish Government and the British Government who supported their release.

Nonsense. The Irish government made it quite clear on more than one occasion that McCabe’s killers would not be released under the terms of the GFA.

Chips Lovell

I think it's an interesting question and my guess would be that they have a number of potential hurdles to overcome before getting into government or indeed leading a coalition.

1. Is there a glass ceiling to the Sinn Fein vote? We've seen them make considerable gains since the IRA surrendered their guns and SF themselves began recognising the Irish government and the current status quo in Northern Ireland. However, they undoubtedly divide opinions and you only have to look around at threads here to see that there is a constituency who would never vote for them due to their associations with terrorism and criminality. How big is that constituency? It's also worth asking how much it could shrink if the party takes measures to disassociate itself from its past. Divided opinions on them may also make them transfer unfriendly, as someone has already pointed out, which may also hamper further electoral gains.

2. If they ever do reach a scale where their in the equation for the formation of a government, are we going to see a situation where the other parties regard them as potentially toxic coalition partners and refuse to get into bed with them for fear of alienating their own voters. You see similar manoeuvrings going on elsewhere in Europe with other extremist type parties such as Vlaams Belang in Belgium.

3. And if that isn't an issue for them, then they have the prospect of having to deal with the realities of being in government. At the moment, they're the only party of any size in the Dail which is as yet untainted by government. By that I mean, they've never had to put their money where their mouth is and compromise on their rhetoric by turning it into actual workable policies that won't bankrupt the country. Will Sinn Fein appear quite so attractive if, like every other party, they find that they can't make the banking and debt crises magically disappear or have to make unpalatable budget cuts?

OCorcrain

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I'm judging your party for actively campaigning for the release of said murderers. So when Martin Ferris greeted the murderers on their release from prison, what was that all about?

So you judge the party because of what an individual did, but you ignore the facts that Sinn Féin have condemned it.

Pull the other one – it’s got bells on

That is genuine, whether you choose to dismiss it (even though it is fact) to suit your argument is your pregrogative.

Nonsense. The Irish government made it quite clear on more than one occasion that McCabe’s killers would not be released under the terms of the GFA.

Really? Because our Taoiseach and the British Government did.

djpbarry

OCorcrain wrote: »

So you judge the party because of what an individual did, but you ignore the facts that Sinn Féin have condemned it.

No, Martin McGuinness condemned it in his bid to be elected president. I'm glad he did, but it doesn't make it the official party line.

If Sinn Fein condemned the murder, then why did Martin Ferris greet two of the killers on their release from prison?

OCorcrain wrote: »

Really? Because our Taoiseach and the British Government did.

Where does it say that? And if both the British and Irish governments supported their early release, then why were they not released early? Why did two of them serve their full sentences?

Zubeneschamali

OCorcrain wrote: »

Really? Because our Taoiseach and the British Government did.

The linked article disagrees with you:

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said the releases were conditional on the IRA decommissioning and an end of paramilitarism. He said the issue was not covered by the Good Friday Agreement.

OCorcrain

djpbarry wrote: »

No, Martin McGuinness condemned it in his bid to be elected president. I'm glad he did, but it doesn't make it the official party line.If Sinn Fein condemned the murder, then why did Martin Ferris greet two of the killers on their release from prison?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Where does it say that?

Paragraphs 9-16 if I am not mistaken.

OCorcrain

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The linked article disagrees with you:

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern said the releases were conditional on the IRA decommissioning and an end of paramilitarism. He said the issue was not covered by the Good Friday Agreement.

Can you please point out where I said it was covered by the Good Friday Agreement?

If you are going to nitpick what I say at least do it properly.

golfball37

djpbarry wrote: »

Forget "the Troubles". It's only a few years ago that Sinn Fein were campaigning for the release of Jerry McCabe's murderers.

If you voted yes in the 98 referrendum you were advoacting the same so don't pull that stroke.

Unfortunately sacrifices had to be made to bring peace. I'm at ease with my conscience as I voted no in 98.

djpbarry

OCorcrain wrote: »

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Where is Sinn Fein’s official party condemnation of Jerry McCabe’s murder?

Why did Martin Ferris (TD) greet the killers on their release from prison?

OCorcrain wrote: »

Paragraphs 9-16 if I am not mistaken.

You are mistaken. Nowhere does it state that the Irish government supported the prisoners’ release. In fact, if we look at paragraph 17:

“On Monday, Irish Justice Minister Michael McDowell said: "While Provisional (IRA) paramilitarism is a reality there is no question of the government considering their release."”

That looks pretty cut and dry to me.

golfball37 wrote: »

If you voted yes in the 98 referrendum you were advoacting the same so don't pull that stroke.

Nope, sorry. Sinn Fein distanced themselves from the murder in its immediate aftermath. It was hence made clear to them during the GFA negotiations that Jerry McCabe’s killers would not be released under the GFA.

FTA69

OCorcrain wrote: »

I am a member of Sinn Féin, I condemn what happened and I can certaintly tell you I neither campaigned or support the release of Jerry McCabe's murderers, but you will judge me anyway on the basis of what a small group of individuals perpetrated?

If you think Sinn Féin supported this, you are dead wrong, certain nationalist paramilitaries would not co-operate on decommissioning and the disbandment of the relevant paramilitaries without the condition that McCabe's killers would be released.

Sorry mate but you're full of it. I joined Sinn Féin at the age of 14 in 2001 and the issue of the "Castlerea 5" (later 4) was a huge one within the Republican movement. Every year An Phoblacht carried appeals at Christmas time to send cards and books and letters of solidarity to political prisoners in Castlerea and Portlaoise. The cumann I was attached to wrote numerous letters to Michael McDowell calling for their release, I still have the responses from his secretary back in Ireland somewhere. Similarly at this time, the prisoners' group Coiste na n-Íarchaimí, had numerous fundraisers for the men and also undertook a "Free the POWs" campaign which involved leaflets and spray-painting of slogans etc.

The Castlerea prisoners in question were fully eligible for release under the GFA for the sole reason that that agreement specified release for all prisoners whose activities were committed before 1998. This would include those convicted of the manslaughter of Jerry McCabe in Adare, an incident which occurred in 1996 while the IRA were not on ceasefire. The sticking point in this however, was that it took the authorisation of the Minister for Justice to secure the release of political prisoners. Various ministers signed numerous writs to release those in Portlaoise although on this particular issue they refused to do so.

By the way, when they got out who do you think collected them? Martin Ferris himself.

If this is the nonsense revisionism that's ongoing in Sinn Féin at the moment I'm glad I left them.

FTA69

djpbarry wrote: »

Nope, sorry. Sinn Fein distanced themselves from the murder in its immediate aftermath. It was hence made clear to them during the GFA negotiations that Jerry McCabe’s killers would not be released under the GFA.

There is no disputing the fact the prisoners were covered under the agreement, only that it would take governmental authorisation for the releases to take place. Something McDowell (backed by Ahern et al) refused to do for a number of reasons.

OCorcrain

djpbarry wrote: »

“On Monday, Irish Justice Minister Michael McDowell said: "While Provisional (IRA) paramilitarism is a reality there is no question of the government considering their release."”

He contradicted what Bertie Ahern said, speaking of which you have ignored what the Taoiseach said in relation to the subject. Do you care to share your thoughts on his comments surrounding it?

OCorcrain

FTA69 wrote: »

Sorry mate but you're full of it. I joined Sinn Féin at the age of 14 in 2001 and the issue of the "Castlerea 5" (later 4) was a huge one within the Republican movement. Every year An Phoblacht carried appeals at Christmas time to send cards and books and letters of solidarity to political prisoners in Castlerea and Portlaoise. The cumann I was attached to wrote numerous letters to Michael McDowell calling for their release, I still have the responses from his secretary back in Ireland somewhere. Similarly at this time, the prisoners' group Coiste na n-Íarchaimí, had numerous fundraisers for the men and also undertook a "Free the POWs" campaign which involved leaflets and spray-painting of slogans etc.

The Castlerea prisoners in question were fully eligible for release under the GFA for the sole reason that that agreement specified release for all prisoners whose activities were committed before 1998. This would include those convicted of the manslaughter of Jerry McCabe in Adare, an incident which occurred in 1996 while the IRA were not on ceasefire. The sticking point in this however, was that it took the authorisation of the Minister for Justice to secure the release of political prisoners. Various ministers signed numerous writs to release those in Portlaoise although on this particular issue they refused to do so.

By the way, when they got out who do you think collected them? Martin Ferris himself.

If this is the nonsense revisionism that's ongoing in Sinn Féin at the moment I'm glad I left them.

If you support the killing of Gardaí, then I am also glad you left. Do share with me how you can justify the murder of McCabe.

enda1

This thread has swung wildly off topic. We almost got somewhere when we were discussing Sinn Féin's possibility to become a major political party, but have become bogged-down in their Nationalist Republican past. Unfortunately the one trick pony that is SF rears its ugly head again.

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

There is no disputing the fact the prisoners were covered under the agreement...

Well, no, they weren't. In the immediate aftermath of the murder, it was claimed that the killers acted without the authorisation of the IRA's army council.

Ergo, it was a considered as plain murder and nothing else and those involved would not be eligible for release under the GFA - this was all made explicitly clear to Sinn Fein during the GFA negotiations.

FTA69

I left Sinn Féin because they transformed from a left-wing party with revolutionary potential into an electoral organisation with no solid politics bar a vague commitment to buzzwords such as "equality", around which they've made more ideological jumps than a kangaroo.

And I notice you haven't addressed any of the points I've made regarding the Castlerea 5, namely the fact that Sinn Féin was (rightly) fully supportive of their release.

If you support the killing of Gardaí, then I am also glad you left.

Where did I say I support shooting Guards? I just said that all political prisoners encompassed under the GFA should have been released and that was Sinn Féin policy at the time. Similarly I'm not going to claim to be a Republican and then go around pontificating about "murderers" and the usual condemnatory nonsense you used to read in the Sindo.

OCorcrain

FTA69 wrote: »

Where did I say I support shooting Guards? I just said that all political prisoners encompassed under the GFA should have been released and that was Sinn Féin policy at the time.

How was the killing of Gardaí during a bank robbery political?

FTA69

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, no, they weren't. In the immediate aftermath of the murder, it was claimed that the killers acted without the authorisation of the IRA's army council.

Ergo, it was a considered as plain murder and nothing else and those involved would not be eligible for release under the GFA - this was all made explicitly clear to Sinn Fein during the GFA negotiations.

The IRA claimed those prisoners before the GFA was signed. Under the terms of the GFA those prisoners were eligible for release.

1. Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an
accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred
prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the
case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar offences
(referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners). Any such arrangements will
protect the rights of individual prisoners under national and international
law.
2. Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are
not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit
from the arrangements. The situation in this regard will be kept under
review.
3. Both Governments will complete a review process within a fixed time
frame and set prospective release dates for all qualifying prisoners. The
review process would provide for the advance of the release dates of
qualifying prisoners while allowing account to be taken of the seriousness
of the offences for which the person was convicted and the need to protect
the community. In addition, the intention would be that should the
circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody
two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at
that point.
4. The Governments will seek to enact the appropriate legislation to give
effect to these arrangements by the end of June 1998.

The scheduled offenses were committed before 1998, and the prisoners were affiliated to an organisation currently on ceasefire.

FTA69

OCorcrain wrote: »

How was the killing of Gardaí during a bank robbery political?

Because it was an IRA operation carried out to raise funds for the IRA. You do realise that the IRA used to rob banks don't you? There were plenty prisoners in Portlaoise who were involved in shoot-outs with the cops, most famously over the kidnapping of Tiede Herrema, who were also released.

FTA69

keithob wrote: »

I do think SF will be a leading party in 5 years.

However i do also think they will do exactly what labour have done and do what ever they have to do in order to get into goverment and then not implement there election manifesto.

They are shouting no to cuts down south and implementing them up north.

I do think they are losing grass roots support but disillusioned lab supporters are taking there liking.. in my opinion ;(

This post hits the nail on the head. Sinn Féin are entirely eager to go into coalition in the south, with the achievement of "state power" being viewed as a paramount importance. They have learned their lesson from 2004 over being too eager to jump into coalition with Fianna Fáil and have now realised a position where they can hope to grow in strength. However, when they reach that position of electoral strength they will have no qualms about going into coalition with Fianna Fáil. For the time being Labour are wedded to Fine Gael so that'll most likely be the only realistic option open to them.

djpbarry

OCorcrain wrote: »

He contradicted what Bertie Ahern said...

No, he did not.

Show me exactly where in that article it is stated that Bertie Ahern supported the release of Jerry McCabe’s killers.

enda1 wrote: »

This thread has swung wildly off topic. We almost got somewhere when we were discussing Sinn Féin's possibility to become a major political party, but have become bogged-down in their Nationalist Republican past. Unfortunately the one trick pony that is SF rears its ugly head again.

The question was asked as to whether SF can become a leading political party in Ireland. The answer to that question is no, not so long as the party refuses to sever ties with its past.

OCorcrain

FTA69 wrote: »

Because it was an IRA operation carried out to raise funds for the IRA. You do realise that the IRA used to rob banks don't you? There were plenty prisoners in Portlaoise who were involved in shoot-outs with the cops, most famously over the kidnapping of Tiede Herrema, who were also released.

I am sorry, you did not answer my question, what was political about killing a Garda? It was not the Gardaí who were killing, brutalizing or oppressing Catholics and nationalists in the north.

Supposing the McCabe killers instead burgled someone's home and killed one of them at the time, you would consider that political also? Because hey they were just trying to 'raise funds'.

Zubeneschamali

OCorcrain wrote: »

Can you please point out where I said it was covered by the Good Friday Agreement?

Right here:

OCorcrain wrote: »

Nonsense. The Irish government made it quite clear on more than one occasion that McCabe’s killers would not be released under the terms of the GFA.

Really? Because our Taoiseach and the British Government did.

FTA69

OCorcrain wrote: »

I am sorry, you did not answer my question what was political about killing a Garda, it was not the Gardaí killing, brutalizing or oppressing Catholics and nationalists in the north. \

Supposing the McCabe killers instead burgled someone's home and killed one of them at the time, you would consider that political also? Because hey they were just trying to 'raise funds'.

Eh I did answer your question. The IRA robbed banks in order to appropriate funds for the armed campaign. During one of these robberies, a guard was killed. Similar things happened during other operations in the south where guards or soldiers were shot. Guards were also shot during operations where they attempted to arrest Republicans etc, in other words it was a war and things happened. They were qualifying IRA prisoners under the GFA.

The only problem now is that you have egg on your face for trying to suggest Sinn Féin had nothing to do with them when in fact they were their loudest supporters and a Sinn Féin TD picked them up from prison.

You were wrong. Get over it.

OCorcrain

djpbarry wrote: »

Show me exactly where in that article it is stated that Bertie Ahern supported the release of Jerry McCabe’s killers.

Show more where he said he didn't and completely dismissed that possibility?

I can play this game also my friend, we can around and around all day.

Zubeneschamali

OCorcrain wrote: »

How was the killing of Gardaí during a bank robbery political?

Classic.

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

The IRA claimed those prisoners before the GFA was signed.

But they didn’t in the immediate aftermath of the murder, did they? Hence it was made abundantly clear during negotiations that the murderers would not be eligible for release.

FTA69 wrote: »

Because it was an IRA operation carried out to raise funds for the IRA.

Did Jerry McCabe carry large sums of cash while on duty?

OCorcrain

FTA69 wrote: »

Eh I did answer your question. The IRA robbed banks in order to appropriate funds for the armed campaign. During one of these robberies, a guard was killed. Similar things happened during other operations in the south where guards or soldiers were shot. Guards were also shot during operations where they attempted to arrest Republicans etc, in other words it was a war and things happened. They were qualifying IRA prisoners under the GFA.

And who was the war against, the British Forces or the Gardaí Síocháina?

Going back to 'fund-raising'.

Supposing the McCabe killers instead burgled someone's home and killed one of them at the time, you would consider that political also?

Answer this.

OCorcrain

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Right here:

Nope I still don't see anywhere where I explicitly said that.

RandomName2

FTA69 wrote: »

it was a war things happened

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a particular mindset in six small words.

A mindset as immoveable as a stone.

...but the fools! They left us our patriot dead!