The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

hatrickpatrick

@Blanch out of interest, is there any conflict in history in which you are happy to differentiate between the deaths of hostile combatants and innocent civilians? Does your insistence in equating the two extend to, for example, members of Al Quaeda or Isis killed in Iraq by coalition forces when the war was ongoing? How about members of Hamas killed by the IDF? Members of the Luftwaffe killed by Allied forces? Members of the confederate army killed by the union army?

Would you, for example, regard it as equally abhorrent and immoral when an innocent office worker in his or her workplace was killed in the 9/11 attacks, and when Al-Zarqawi was killed by American forces in Iraq? Do you regard both of these killings as equally morally reprehensible, or is one more immoral than the other? Would you justify either?

McMurphy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

@Blanch out of interest, is there any conflict in history in which you are happy to differentiate between the deaths of hostile combatants and innocent civilians? Does your insistence in equating the two extend to, for example, members of Al Quaeda or Isis killed in Iraq by coalition forces when the war was ongoing? How about members of Hamas killed by the IDF? Members of the Luftwaffe killed by Allied forces? Members of the confederate army killed by the union army?

Would you, for example, regard it as equally abhorrent and immoral when an innocent office worker in his or her workplace was killed in the 9/11 attacks, and when Al-Zarqawi was killed by American forces in Iraq? Do you regard both of these killings as equally morally reprehensible, or is one more immoral than the other? Would you justify either?

He's cool with Maira Cahill's membership of the same dissident group responsible for Omagh because (and I swear this is true):

Cahill was "only a member for 6 months".

And:

She "was a confused young girl who joined the dissidents because of Sinn Fein"

That's the truth you're getting from me, honest to god.

RandomViewer

McMurphy wrote: »

He's cool with Maira Cahill's membership of the same dissident group responsible for Omagh because (and I swear this is true):

Cahill was "only a member for 6 months".

And:

She "was a confused young girl who joined the dissidents because of Sinn Fein"

That's the truth you're getting from me, honest to god.

Half expect him to start claiming Billy Wright was a British Hero, suppose he did hold hands with Willie McCrea( Willie likes holding things) and FG do love their DUPers

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats the difference mulcahy has some pretty serious war-crime and reprisal accusations about him?

As I see it, FG and company got their slice of pie and like the Irish they left to fend for themselves on the other side of the border, they couldn't give two ****s if there are any similarities. Their 'struggle' (Kampf) is the only legitimate one, especially seeing as recognising the plight of the Irish up north might put the IRA and in association SF, in a better light.
In short what they did to get what they have is okay, what others do isn't, especially if it means FG might lose votes.

Bishop of hope

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Everything the British side did during the Troubles was wrong, because the very cause they were fighting for was itself wrong.

Many things the IRA did were also wrong, because their actions were wrong. But any British actions, whether those actions themselves were right or wrong in isolation, were ultimately wrong anyway, because the entire reason for the conflict's existence was based upon the British acting abhorrently to begin with.

There is only one action the British could have taken in response to The Troubles which would have been morally acceptable, and that would have been allowing civil rights marchers to march unimpeded, followed by granting their requests to be treated as equal citizens.

Instead, their actions served to shore up one side of the conflict's supremacy and dominance over the other. Regardless of any other factors, regardless of history, regardless of context, regardless of literally anything else, this makes them the villains. End of story.

Fighting to maintain one's power to oppress another who rejects the imposition of that oppression makes one a pr!ck. It's as simple as that. It is impossible to justify. There is no such thing as justified oppression. There is no such thing as justified discrimination. It is never morally acceptable to deny somebody a vote, or a job, or an allocation of a public resource, based on which demographic that individual belongs to.

The second you take up arms to defend your power to treat people like that, you are automatically the villain in the story. Period.

No argument as such with that.
Just wondering if you think that makes everything the IRA or any nationalist organisation (including SF because the were prepared to justify it all politically) right or justifiable?

hatrickpatrick

Bishop of hope wrote: »

No argument as such with that.
Just wondering if you think that makes everything the IRA or any nationalist organisation (including SF because the were prepared to justify it all politically) right or justifiable?

No. Absolutely, unequivocally, unquestionably not. Many, many things the IRA did were unspeakably evil. As soon as they began killing random Protestants in tit for tat reprisals, or bombing random civilian venues in England, they crossed the line and that's where my support for them ends - no ifs, no buts, it was wrong and unacceptable.

Indeed, I still view the killing of Mountbatten as unacceptable because at the very least civilians were recklessly endangered and, more likely, the IRA knew they would kill civilians in that attack and didn't care. F*ck that. There's no justifying that. Collateral damage as a concept has never been something I've been ok with in any context, and certainly not when it's so recklessly invoked.

The argument between myself and Blanch started over Stanley's justifying of the Warrenpoint attack, which was a successful military-only attack, and my agreement thereof. If the IRA had stuck to attacks targeting only the RUC, the British Army and Loyalist paramilitaries, I wouldn't have a single condemnation for them. As it happens, unfortunately, they strayed from that purpose and crossed the line into full-on villains.

I'm merely arguing that not one single action by the British side can be justified, because the conflict could have ended within weeks if they had allowed civil rights marches to take place and changed the law to ban the kind of discrimination those marches were protesting against. Blanch and others can claim that the IRA didn't care about civil rights and they may be right when it comes to a hardcore minority, but the IRA enjoyed its biggest recruitment drives in the immediate aftermath of incidents such as Duke Street 1969 and Bloody Sunday 1972. The vast majority of the people who supported the IRA, at least initially, were focused on protecting the nationalist population from Crown Forces and hurting those same Crown Forces in an attempt to force them away from brutalising civilians.

Bishop of hope

That's fair enough for me hp.

mattser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No. Absolutely, unequivocally, unquestionably not. Many, many things the IRA did were unspeakably evil. As soon as they began killing random Protestants in tit for tat reprisals, or bombing random civilian venues in England, they crossed the line and that's where my support for them ends - no ifs, no buts, it was wrong and unacceptable.

Indeed, I still view the killing of Mountbatten as unacceptable because at the very least civilians were recklessly endangered and, more likely, the IRA knew they would kill civilians in that attack and didn't care. F*ck that. There's no justifying that. Collateral damage as a concept has never been something I've been ok with in any context, and certainly not when it's so recklessly invoked.

The argument between myself and Blanch started over Stanley's justifying of the Warrenpoint attack, which was a successful military-only attack, and my agreement thereof. If the IRA had stuck to attacks targeting only the RUC, the British Army and Loyalist paramilitaries, I wouldn't have a single condemnation for them. As it happens, unfortunately, they strayed from that purpose and crossed the line into full-on villains.

I'm merely arguing that not one single action by the British side can be justified, because the conflict could have ended within weeks if they had allowed civil rights marches to take place and changed the law to ban the kind of discrimination those marches were protesting against. Blanch and others can claim that the IRA didn't care about civil rights and they may be right when it comes to a hardcore minority, but the IRA enjoyed its biggest recruitment drives in the immediate aftermath of incidents such as Duke Street 1969 and Bloody Sunday 1972. The vast majority of the people who supported the IRA, at least initially, were focused on protecting the nationalist population from Crown Forces and hurting those same Crown Forces in an attempt to force them away from brutalising civilians.

Gardai and Defence Forces down here were also fair game when it suited.

McMurphy

mattser wrote: »

Gardai and Defence Forces down here were also fair game when it suited.

And, if others are to be believed had no problems colluding with them either (when it suited)

See how that goes mattser?

Bishop of hope

In the context of his post hatpatrick didnt say he supported any actions against civilians anywhere or security forces this side of the border.
That wasn't his point and he was clear he thought the IRA went too far very often, but he understands their struggle and the reasons for much of it.
Surely there had to be sympathy for the nationalist Catholic community in NI.
The regime that ruled them were in tolerably oppressive and backed by an uncaring and violent British army.
In that and most of his post i agree with him.

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

In the context of his post hatpatrick didnt say he supported any actions against civilians anywhere or security forces this side of the border.
That wasn't his point and he was clear he thought the IRA went too far very often, but he understands their struggle and the reasons for much of it.
Surely there had to be sympathy for the nationalist Catholic community in NI.
The regime that ruled them were in tolerably oppressive and backed by an uncaring and violent British army.
In that and most of his post i agree with him.

I think it was largely missed in Mary Lou McDonald's supposedly 'carcrash' interview with Claire Byrne when she said the 'car bombs were wrong'.

I never supported the IRA , particularly their campaign of terror which meant civilians were hurt and killed. I for one welcomed that acknowledgement and think it represents part of the same journey that was taken after the violence of our own birth as an independent nation.

The sad fact is that all went too far, and for too long. Conflict resolution requires that is admitted to. It really would be wonderful if the British government could lead the way on this. Given what we know already of their involvement as a player, it wouldn't be that big a step.

jimmycrackcorm

Bishop of hope wrote: »

In the context of his post hatpatrick didnt say he supported any actions against civilians anywhere or security forces this side of the border.
That wasn't his point and he was clear he thought the IRA went too far very often, but he understands their struggle and the reasons for much of it.
Surely there had to be sympathy for the nationalist Catholic community in NI.
The regime that ruled them were intolerably oppressive and backed by an uncaring and violent British army.
In that and most of his post, I agree with him.

The problem with the IRA argument is that I don't believe that the campaign of violence was necessary. I'm not the only one either seeing as SF now pursue the peaceful option. A united Ireland could never be achieved through violence and is likely now to happen through simple demographics and democratic transition.

Arguing that the IRA campaign was necessary is like arguing that the SNP should have undertaken a bombing campaign for an independent Scotland.

blanch152

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The problem with the IRA argument is that I don't believe that the campaign of violence was necessary. I'm not the only one either seeing as SF now pursue the peaceful option. A united Ireland could never be achieved through violence and is likely now to happen through simple demographics and democratic transition.

Arguing that the IRA campaign was necessary is like arguing that the SNP should have undertaken a bombing campaign for an independent Scotland.

Pretty much nothing to add to this.

There are an awful lot of people who weren't there at the time who hold views like hatrickpatrick and have no understanding of how ordinary Irish people felt about the PIRA.

It is not without significance that Sinn Fein's support is so much stronger among young people who have no idea of the type of thing that they supported in the 1970s and 1980s or have some green-tinted romantic vision of the good fight being fought. It was nothing like that.

blanch152

McMurphy wrote: »

He's cool with Maira Cahill's membership of the same dissident group responsible for Omagh because (and I swear this is true):

Cahill was "only a member for 6 months".

And:

She "was a confused young girl who joined the dissidents because of Sinn Fein"

That's the truth you're getting from me, honest to god.

Disingenous and selective interpretation of my posts on Mairia Cahill.

That is your posting style so it isn't unexpected.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Disingenous and selective interpretation of my posts on Mairia Cahill.

That is your posting style so it isn't unexpected.

Disingenuous?

For context like.

McMurphy wrote: »

Omagh was carried out by dissidents Brenner (I'm sure you know this already) - Maira Cahill's crew.

Enda and Joan embraced her with open arms lest we forget.

blanch152 wrote: »

Nauseating disingenuous nonsense.

Mairia Cahill has apologised for her six months with the dissidents as a vulnerable young woman recovering from horrific abuse by Sinn Fein and the PIRA.

Own your words blanch, own them.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The problem with the IRA argument is that I don't believe that the campaign of violence was necessary. I'm not the only one either seeing as SF now pursue the peaceful option. A united Ireland could never be achieved through violence and is likely now to happen through simple demographics and democratic transition.

Arguing that the IRA campaign was necessary is like arguing that the SNP should have undertaken a bombing campaign for an independent Scotland.

If as looks likely,the english will refuse a 2nd scottish independance poll.....will this not mean politics has failed and thus violence is only recourse left?



The IRA only come about to defend people,streets upon street of catholics were being burnt out,peaceful protests were being shot off the streets,only for the IRA nationlists had noone to stand up for them.....

they done plenty wrong,but fcuk me,this mindless critism of em,saying it was unnecessary is blinkered beyond belief......


how can you say to someone who was shot on bloody sunday,or families burnt out of likes of bombay street to lie down and turn the other cheek,people have right to stand up for emselves in their own country

James Brown

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The problem with the IRA argument is that I don't believe that the campaign of violence was necessary. I'm not the only one either seeing as SF now pursue the peaceful option. A united Ireland could never be achieved through violence and is likely now to happen through simple demographics and democratic transition.

Arguing that the IRA campaign was necessary is like arguing that the SNP should have undertaken a bombing campaign for an independent Scotland.

That's fair enough but you must recognise other people disagree and take it from there.
SF are supporting the GFA because the people in the north got to that stage in part due to fighting back against systemic oppression, thuggery and murder, (such instances are historical fact).

The Scottish people weren't divided, (in modern times anyway) with one side backed and supported in anything they did to the other side by a British Army.

Brendan Bendar

Looks like the ‘white shirts’ put NI in the serious position it finds itself in.

They are starting squeal now and trying to pass the blame.

RandomViewer

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The problem with the IRA argument is that I don't believe that the campaign of violence was necessary. I'm not the only one either seeing as SF now pursue the peaceful option. A united Ireland could never be achieved through violence and is likely now to happen through simple demographics and democratic transition.

Arguing that the IRA campaign was necessary is like arguing that the SNP should have undertaken a bombing campaign for an independent Scotland.

So you would have been happy with Balkan style ethnic cleansing in the North in 1969, FG tries to revise the troubles to excuse Loyalists of any wrongdoing

Bishop of hope

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The problem with the IRA argument is that I don't believe that the campaign of violence was necessary. I'm not the only one either seeing as SF now pursue the peaceful option. A united Ireland could never be achieved through violence and is likely now to happen through simple demographics and democratic transition.

Arguing that the IRA campaign was necessary is like arguing that the SNP should have undertaken a bombing campaign for an independent Scotland.

No its not and that's a disengenuous argument.
Were conditions in Scotland like Northern Ireland in 1969, no they weren't and I'm surprised you'd even make that argument tbh.
Catholics in the north had virtually no rights and were second class citizens, maybe very close to the South African idea of being citizens.

Bishop of hope

Bishop of hope wrote: »

No its not and that's a disengenuous argument.
Were conditions in Scotland like Northern Ireland in 1969, no they weren't and I'm surprised you'd even make that argument tbh.
Catholics in the north had virtually no rights and were second class citizens, maybe very close to the South African idea of being citizens.

Catholics and those of irish decent were treated v.poorly in scotland,particularly west scotland up until well into mid 80s??


Not to extent as the north,but they deffo had a fairly rough time,hence why likes of celtic prospered for so long on its irish ancestry.......sectarianism is still an ugly enough problem in some of smaller towns there

Fionn1952

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Catholics and those of irish decent were treated v.poorly in scotland,particularly west scotland up until well into mid 80s??


Not to extent as the north,but they deffo had a fairly rough time,hence why likes of celtic prospered for so long on its irish ancestry.......sectarianism is still an ugly enough problem in some of smaller towns there

Was is systemic, Blaaz?

The number of people on here preaching without the first half a bloody clue what things were actually like in the North is sickening. I'm not directing this at you specifically, but rather making a general point about some of the commentary on this thread.

It's easy to say what you would have done when you weren't there. It's also really easy to posture about how peaceful and zen-like you would've been when you and your family weren't getting battered off the street.

I'm certainly not going to defend some of the things the Provos did, but it's fierce easy to be sanctimonious and talk about how peaceful you'd be and how much you'd just trust in the British system to just eventually decide to give your family basic rights when you've never actually been in the situation.

I wonder how far Brendan, Blanch or the likes would have to be pushed before they would physically strike someone back? In my experience, most people have a line and there are very few genuine pacifists in the world.

I don't like that the situation allowed for the Provos to come about, I think there were certain actions of theirs that were completely indefensible, but there are also actions they committed that while I didn't support or agree with, I at least understand how someone could be driven to that point.

Bishop of hope

Sinn Féin is trying to distance itself from some of the terrible social media posts created around it. It is pretty obvious that on social media there is some terrible stuff put up about politicians and a lot of it is hate and near violent encouraging vitriol.
Some tds and party members are involved in this social media bashing, particularly about FG and its ministers imo.
Time to clean up the act they reckon. Trying to close down a Facebook secret group.
There is some fact it seems to the SF linked social media hate campaign.
Could it be some people on here are involved maybe?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-asked-facebook-to-remove-secret-party-supporter-group-1.4440850?mode=amp

Nitrogan

Sinn Fein have an 'unofficial' troll army?

Bishop of hope

Nitrogan wrote: »

Sinn Fein have an 'unofficial' troll army?

Who'd have thought it?

McMurphy

Nitrogan wrote: »

Sinn Fein have an 'unofficial' troll army?

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Who'd have thought it?

Not according to your own link.

“Sinn Féin does not operate any Facebook groups and Sinn Féin is not responsible for any of the content in this group or any other Facebook group.

“There is an onus on social media platforms such as Facebook to tackle this type of content, which is clearly unacceptable, and in violation of their own standards. We have contacted Facebook to make it clear that Sinn Féin has nothing to do with this group and that they should remove it,” a spokesman for the party said.

Just skip past that part did we?

Bishop of hope

McMurphy wrote: »

Not according to your own link.



Just skip past that part did we?

There's SF tds and party members in it and it's being portrayed as unofficial by SF, so where did I say different?

FrancieBrady

Bishop of hope wrote: »

There's SF tds and party members in it and it's being portrayed as unofficial by SF, so where did I say different?

I'm in about 10 - 15 groups on Facebook...am I responsible for the content? No:) Do I even read everything posted to them? No.

The Phantom FG Dirt Trawler earned another weeks wages I see.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm in about 10 - 15 groups on Facebook...am I responsible for the content? No:) Do I even read everything posted to them? No.

The Phantom FG Dirt Trawler earned another weeks wages I see.

Why are Sinn Fein taking this action if this is just the workings of some " FG dirt trawler"?

McMurphy

Bishop of hope wrote: »

There's SF tds and party members in it and it's being portrayed as unofficial by SF, so where did I say different?

If a shinner TD is a member of a local tennis club, do Sinn Fein then have "an unofficial tennis club"?

From reading your own link, the Shinners have requested social media platforms to remove any pages or groups using their name.

Quick question bish, if I set up a group called "FG supporters group" on Facebook this morning, and stuff it full of anti SF/FF comments from troll accounts, are FG responsible for that too?