Why do NI nationalist/catholic voters support SF?

A Dub in Glasgo

capistrano wrote:

I agree. I really just trying to get a look inside the heads of people who vote SF despite believing that they are closely linked to the IRA and all that that entails.

Essentially they're putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

The lunatics were running the place for decades before it all kicked off as the latest troubles.

Your best bet if you want to 'get into the heads' of the SF voters in NI is to actually go there and speak to them. I would advise, however, that you lose the hint of condescension that is displayed here.

capistrano

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I would advise, however, that you lose the hint of condescension that is displayed here.

Or I might get Padre Pio-ed?

A Dub in Glasgo

capistrano wrote:

Or I might get Padre Pio-ed?

Nope

If you want people to talk to you, it helps if you are not patronising towards them. If they do not talk to you, you cannot succeed in what you set out to do.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Blub2k4

AmenToThat wrote:

I do and am thankful for it. Your assuming that I view the IRA as something to be ashamed of. In this thinking you couldnt be more wrong. Indeed they committed many horrible acts during the last thirty years and no death is something to rejoice in but Im afraid the nature of war dictates that people die, many of them innocents unfortunately and the actions of the IRA have been no worse than any of the other combatents in this sad conflict. War is war. I do now however believe the climate is right for the IRA to now dispand and hope this happens.
As for Adams being at the helm of the IRA here is a man who wants to move away from violence and has done his best to bring the majority of the IRA volunteers with him, I think when passions have cooled history will on the whole view him in a good light.
Having him as the guiding force of military Republicanism is something we all should be thankful for as there are many within Republicanism who to this day dont agree with the ceasefire and wish to continue the fight for a 32 county Irish Republic militarily.



I believe that a unit in Belfast carried out the robbery but this does not equate to the 'whole IRA' in the same way that irregularities within the Donegal gardai should not be used to brand all the gardai.



Thats precisely what Im telling you, and you again have just proved the point by attempting to use these two axamples to brand all Republicans.
As I said I see through this spin as do the majority of the nationalist population in the six counties it would seem.



As do I and it doesnt bother me. I wish the IRA would disband and I believe that an end to criminal activity is being sought. If I didnt believe that SF are actively trying to tactle criminality by some of its members I wouldnt vote for them. Simple as that



I think thats a very ignorant statement to make as I have met many northern nationalists whom I would say have values and morals far above many of those in the Republic who have suckled at the breasts of the Celtic tiger and now believe that the world revolves around them and them alone.

Excellent post, you should post on this subject more often. Careful if you do though, your opinion will eventually be taken to be that of P O'Neill after a while and then people will start looking for veiled threats in statements of fact.

capistrano wrote:

Or I might get Padre Pio-ed?

:rolleyes:

AmenToThat

AmenToThat wrote:

War is war.

Do you accept that the very vast majority of the Irish people never gave their permission for this war to be carried out in their name and had a dim view of the IRA's actions?

PH01

Has anyone mentioned money?
SF has far more money than the SDLP. They are therefore able to support a bigger organisation with full time staff (I wouldn't be surprised if SF has 10 times more full time staff than the SDLP).
When you have a big organisation like this you're in a far better position to support an electorate.

Now where SF get their funds is anybodys guess

capistrano

ziggy67 wrote:

Capistrano, do you believe people who vote Sinn Fein to be imbeciles?

No, only an imbecile himself would think they are all imbeciles.

What I think is that they probably have a very different moral outlook than me. They are clearly able to support folks who cause physical and mental harm to people as well as breaking lots of other laws. I don't care what good they do in communities, the bad far outweighs the good.

While, I'm not a unionist, I think David Trimble was close to the mark when he said that "these folks ain't house trained yet" (or something like that).

A Dub in Glasgo

capistrano wrote:

What I think is that they probably have a very different moral outlook than me. They are clearly able to support folks who cause physical and mental harm to people as well as breaking lots of other laws. I don't care what good they do in communities, the bad far outweighs the good.

There are hundreds of sitting MPs in this the UK election who will get plenty of votes and those voters are clearly able to support folk who cause physical and mental harm. Imagine that!

While, I'm not a unionist, I think David Trimble was close to the mark when he said that "these folks ain't house trained yet" (or something like that).

And patronising is even closer to describing that viewpoint.

earwicker

They are clearly able to support folks who cause physical and mental harm to people as well as breaking lots of other laws.

So, are you a pacifist?

monument

Does anyone know the number of families both north and south looking ‘for justice’ in cases that do not have or never had proper inquires? Would a lot of these cases be where state involvement is alleged?

I'm just confused as to how people can vote for parities which have been in government since these people have been looking for justice only to be stonewalled by such parities.


In a different approach - as it stands, one has to think…

A) Mr Blair/the British Army/intelligence agencies believe massive violence is ok to free people or sections of people in undemocratic states and to keep their people safe and/or…

They are killing people and lying for other reasons

So, in each case or both cases, (my) logic can only conclude they have double standards and/or they often lye about things for their own self interest.

capistrano wrote:

While, I'm not a unionist, I think David Trimble was close to the mark when he said that "these folks ain't house trained yet" (or something like that).

How jolly, we should bulldoze their houses! These Irish savages etc etc etc…. :rolleyes:

How sad, and your first post actually sounded genuine.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

There are hundreds of sitting MPs in this the UK election who will get plenty of votes and those voters are clearly able to support folk who cause physical and mental harm. Imagine that!

And if anyone wants something closer to home, there's Shannon Airport and our government's support for the US military.

capistrano

earwicker wrote:

So, are you a pacifist?

No. Sometimes you have to fight: like against Hitler, or to intervene to stop a genocide. That kind of stuff. What Nationalists sufferred in NI in no way justified a physical force response. And to call it a war is a way to justifying the unjustifiable. It was not a war. The only people who refer to it as a war are the paramilitaries.

Rock Climber

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

There are hundreds of sitting MPs in this the UK election who will get plenty of votes and those voters are clearly able to support folk who cause physical and mental harm. Imagine that!

yeah and there are many Sinn Féin supporters who can protest an illegal war in Iraq , yet support and glorify an illegal IRA war in Northern Ireland...

Imagine that!

earwicker

It was not a war.

You'll find that such clear distinctions are not easy to maintain. Are you certain that the British regiments, generals, all the soldiers and their units did not see themselves as being at war?

monument

capistrano wrote:

What Nationalists sufferred in NI in no way justified a physical force response.

What did they suffer?

capistrano

monument wrote:

What did they suffer?

Discrimination in terms of housing, local franchaise, public sector jobs - that sort of thing. The same kind of discrimination that black people sufferred in the USA, but they sought redress is mostly peaceful ways.

capistrano

earwicker wrote:

You'll find that such clear distinctions are not easy to maintain. Are you certain that the British regiments, generals, all the soldiers and their units did not see themselves as being at war?

It's just that I don't regard it as a war. I'd go along with guerrilla war.

A Dub in Glasgo

capistrano wrote:

Discrimination in terms of housing, local franchaise, public sector jobs - that sort of thing. The same kind of discrimination that black people sufferred in the USA, but they sought redress is mostly peaceful ways.

Yep, peaceful protest was met by ........... from the state. Fill in the blank.


Hint: The word peace does not enter it.

A Dub in Glasgo

capistrano wrote:

It's just that I don't regard it as a war. I'd go along with guerrilla war.

That will be the same guerrilla war that created the Republic of Ireland?

earwicker

It's just that I don't regard it as a war. I'd go along with guerrilla war.

So, it was a "war" but at the same time it wasn't a "war." Okay...

Your line of argument hasn't exactly been consistent so far, has it?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

That will be the same guerrilla war that created the Republic of Ireland?

Personally I'd be uneasy about comparisons being made between what was acceptable or supported in the early 1900's and what would be acceptable in the 1980's 90's or today.
Thats because there are a myriad of things that were acceptable and supported in the early 20th century that would outrage most of us if they were to be practiced or supported today.

So I'm guess I'm saying from my point of view, no the two wars are not compatable,they couldn't be.

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Personally I'd be uneasy about comparisons being made between what was acceptable or supported in the early 1900's and what would be acceptable in the 1980's 90's or today.
Thats because there are a myriad of things that were acceptable and supported in the early 20th century that would outrage most of us if they were to be practiced or supported today.

So I'm guess I'm saying from my point of view, no the two wars are not compatable,they couldn't be.

To an extent I would agree but let us not hide from the fact that the Republic was born out of violence and not by peaceful means. All the political parties in the Republic have some lineage to a gang of people who supported and used violence. Some people would regard that fact as shameful.

Blackjack

I rarely post in threads like this as they generally descend into a slagging match, irrational arguments and people refusing to see either side of an argument.

However, my belief as to the reason that anyone votes for SF is because they believe that SF will represent them/ sort out their problems better than the alternatives. This may or may not end up being justified, however I did once speak to a guy in a rather "Rough" part of the Dublin who regularly voted SF. His reason was that there was a load of skangers hanging around on corners in his area, generally being a pain in the arse. The local Cops could not or would not do anything, so the local SF councillor offered to do so, and amazingly the problem went away.

You'll find in a lot of cases in the Republic that SF encourage people in the marginalised areas (that would not otherwise vote) to vote for them in the same manner as above, when the regular party politicians would not go near the areas. Proof of this can be seen if you pass through Jobstown and Rathmines during Election time, and see which area has the most posters for the various politicians.

As regards what the nationalists in NI suffered in order to warrant an armed response, that really is a matter of opinion. Regardless of what you think on the matter, it was very hard to get them to try the democratic process given that events at the time, examples as follows:
A) during the Pogroms on Catholic Areas of Belfast in the late sixties (Bombay street) where the RUC assisted with attacks on the Civilian population, the only protection people had was formed by the almost extinct IRA. It was as a result of such pogroms that the British army was brought into NI in the first instance. These events were probably the very beginning of the "Troubles".
Burntollet (sp?) and Derry (Bloody Sunday) - Marches for equal rights (generally supported by the SDLP) where the marchers were attacked by, effectively the state at the time. Bloody Sunday was probably the greatest Recruitment drive the IRA ever had.
C) Gerrymandering was rife in Derry (and quite possibly in other parts) to ensure that the representation of certain sections of society was not proportional to the population.

As the people affected were not being fairly represented in the Democratic process, and their attempts to highlight their plight in a Democratic manner were under attack, they clearly saw that the only way to get their point accross was to fight back in a violent manner. They probably felt this was justified given what they were putting up with.

Now there were, are and will probably continue to be blame apportioned to both sides for events before and after those highlighted above, but if you have to ask why people vote the way they do in NI, then read a History book. Preferrably one that does not have a bias to one side or the other.

Unfortunately the SDLP have not really increased their support in the recent past and it certainly looks like they will lose some seats, and they'll probably lose them to SF. It's quite likely that if you were living in NI and were Catholic or Nationalist (or even both!) and you lived in an area where it looked like the option was SF or the DUP, chance are you'd vote SF.

I haven't lived in NI, and don't ever intend to, but that's what I imagine to be the case. I can't ever envisage myself living in an area or particularly raising a family in a region that has as many social problems as NI does.

My 2 cents.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

All the political parties in the Republic have some lineage to a gang of people who supported and used violence.

True.
I've always maintained though that in this age of instant media, the problem for Sinn Féin is that,the violence of the PIRA campaign went into every living room in the land,people aren't forgetting about what they saw too easily as a result, these would be people that are in the here and now and who factor their disapproval of such things into their voting pattern

Some people would regard that fact as shameful.

Well to be honest with you ,I recently heard a lady, an un ashamed FF supporter shout down an FG representative on SouthEast Radio with the question "where were your people during the war of independence...? - they were under the bed like all the other blueshirts!!"

So like strange views still exist

capistrano

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

That will be the same guerrilla war that created the Republic of Ireland?

Don't get me started on that. I think we would have gotten our independence pretty soon anyway. Remember that in 1914 a act was passed to give home rule to the full 32 counties - but WWI intervened. Who know what would have happenned if we hadn't rebelled during that time.

[ Daithí ]

capistrano wrote:

What Nationalists sufferred in NI in no way justified a physical force response. And to call it a war is a way to justifying the unjustifiable. It was not a war. The only people who refer to it as a war are the paramilitaries.

How do you know exactly what Nationalists and CATHOLICS (yes, that's right, it was sectarian as well. Shock horror. :eek:) suffered in the North? Do you know people from there? Have you lived in Belfast? Have you spent more than a day there?

What they suffered perfectly justified a physical force response. You do sound a bit pacifist to me.

This is the second time I've had to do this... sigh:

The Dictionary-Type Yolk wrote:

War: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

The Dictionary-Type Yolk wrote:

Guerrilla: A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

It was a war, whether you like it or not.

[ Daithí ]

capistrano wrote:

Don't get me started on that. I think we would have gotten our independence pretty soon anyway. Remember that in 1914 a act was passed to give home rule to the full 32 counties - but WWI intervened. Who know what would have happenned if we hadn't rebelled during that time.

Shag all. The UVF would have gone ballistic.

capistrano

Earthman wrote:

I recently heard a lady, an un ashamed FF supporter shout down an FG representative on SouthEast Radio with the question "where were your people during the war of independence...? - they were under the bed like all the other blueshirts!!"

lol - Has she not head of Michael Collins?

monument

capistrano wrote:

Don't get me started on that. I think we would have gotten our independence pretty soon anyway. Remember that in 1914 a act was passed to give home rule to the full 32 counties - but WWI intervened. Who know what would have happenned if we hadn't rebelled during that time.

Yea, who knows what kind of full-mockery of a government that the British would/could have baked up (apposed to the half-mockery of the original Free State).

capistrano

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

Do you know people from there? Have you lived in Belfast? Have you spent more than a day there?

I have family links with Derry and friends in Belfast.

Also, your dictionary definition of war refers to "prolonged open conflict" - I'm not sure how "open" then conflct was. We didn't exactly have armies facing each other. Any, I don't want to get caught up on semantics - it's a bit of a gray area and open to subjective interpretation.