SF support for an illegal IRA war in NI Vs their protest at an illegal war in Iraq-is it hypocrisy?

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

It's irrelevant here then Dub as we are discussing SF's stance and not anybody elses,unless the hypocrites you have in mind are here discussing the point like we are.

which is why I said this

I think it is very relevant unless you are only going to get true pacifits into this thread. Maybe a screening process is in order then we can see everyones stance on violence

1. Do you support violence as an answer to the NI problem? Yes/No (delete as appropriate)

2. Do you support violence as an answer to the Saddam/Iraq problem? Yes/No (delete as appropriate)

3. Do you support any violence as an answer to any problem? Yes/No (delete as appropriate)

Unless you answer consistantly Yes or consistantly No to those questions, you are a hyprocrite in some shape or form as you are using your judgement and value system to support or oppose one sort of violence and not the other. To me, that is very relevant to a thread like this.

Blub2k4

mycroft wrote:

Out of curiousity which war in Iraq, can you be aganist the invasion, and the insurections attacks on civilian targets?

This phrase is incoherent, can you try again?

bonkey

Blub2k4 wrote:

Is there a large insurgent population in the states fighting a war to have their rights recognised?

No, there's a small mostly-non-insurgent population who;ve mostly accepted that being outnumbered so significantly means that they've lost. Whatever "largeness" they ever had was wiped out by the invaders, and the insurgencies more or less stopped once the natives had insufficient force to do anything other than hasten their own demise as a people through acts which resulted in brutal retributive oppression.

If the native Irish had been slaughtered to a relative and comparable handful of people, rather than simply conquered, I somehow doubt that we'd have any insurgency these days either. There wouldn't be enough of us, and we'd probably be as much of an outnumbered underclass in our own country as the native Americans are in theirs.

I think you have constructed a strawman.

Really? You don't think the fact that the native population of the US was systematically destroyed, dishomed, and subdued more effectively then happened in Ireland has any relevancy to the fact that there's no lasting insurgency?

What you're basically saying is that as long as you wipe out and/or subdue

Interestingly, one follow-on from that particular chestnut of wisdom you've offered is that a significant reason that the occupation of Ireland by the English is problematic is that they didn't kill enough of us off and subdue us sifficiently while conquering the nation.

And from that, one can conclude that your particular line of reasoning, coupled with your Republican support should say that the reason the so-called continued occupation of Ireland isn't acceptable is because we - the Irish people - haven't been oppressed and slaughtered in sufficient quantites to silence us. Because had we been, then - just like the Western Europen conquest of the Americas - there wouldn't be a problem with the English being in Ireland.

SO exactly how many times do I have to write that I do not think it is hypocritical?

I'd imagine until you can offer an explanation as to why its not hypocritical which others see as rational, reasoned and consistent, or until you choose to stop trying.

I'd imagine its something like support for the IRA. Their supporters can say all they like that they think there is nothing wrong in such acts of terrorism, but they're convincing pretty much no-one.

jc

mycroft

Blub2k4 wrote:

This phrase is incoherent, can you try again?

It's grammatical correct.

But for courtesy’s sake;

Are you allowed, using your rules to, being opposed to both the invasion, and the insurrectionist’s indiscriminate attacks on civilian, and Iraqi targets?

It's the oversimplistic approach you take, "that we and those like us are the good guys", and anyone can't view the situation in any other terms than the ones you allow us to.

You still haven't addressed the point I raised however. How could SF be opposed to the war in Iraqi yet scurry up to Hillisborough for a photo op with Bush?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

which is why I said this

I think it is very relevant unless you are only going to get true pacifits into this thread.

Dub the question arose out of a discussion by certain posters on the other thread regarding the question.
Unless you can show, that those posters who brought it up are also hypocritical in their stance on Iraq it's highly irrelevant as is the hypocritical stance of any other poster on Boards dot ie.
They(the unknowns that you say are hypocritical) are not questioning SF's hypocrisy here and thus they are an irrelevancy to the question or the discussion to the question as is every other hypocrite since the dawn of time unless they are in here questioning someone elses hypocrisy.

mycroft

Is it me or has the word hypocrisy been used so often in this thread that it's lost all meaning?




Blub2k4 v bonkey? Blub, take this friendly hint, you've left the shallow end of the pool, and you're still wearing those floaty arm thingys. You may not want to try to start an argument using logic with this guy, Irish1 is still licking his wounds.

Blub2k4

bonkey wrote:

No, there's a small mostly-non-insurgent population who;ve mostly accepted that being outnumbered so significantly means that they've lost. Whatever "largeness" they ever had was wiped out by the invaders, and the insurgencies more or less stopped once the natives had insufficient force to do anything other than hasten their own demise as a people through acts which resulted in brutal retributive oppression.

This is called "facts on the ground".

Bonkey wrote:

If the native Irish had been slaughtered to a relative and comparable handful of people, rather than simply conquered, I somehow doubt that we'd have any insurgency these days either. There wouldn't be enough of us, and we'd probably be as much of an outnumbered underclass in our own country as the native Americans are in theirs.

Yes your logic holds up to this point.

Bonkey wrote:

Really? You don't think the fact that the native population of the US was systematically destroyed, dishomed, and subdued more effectively then happened in Ireland has any relevancy to the fact that there's no lasting insurgency?

Of course this has a relevancy, where did I say it didn't, if the answer is in your mind, which it must be, then that is your problem.

Bonkey wrote:

What you're basically saying is that as long as you wipe out and/or subdue

Wow you read all that into it? You're extrapolating beyond my statement there Bonkey much as you might be respected for being able to put forward an argument.

Bonkey wrote:

Interestingly, one follow-on from that particular chestnut of wisdom you've offered is that a significant reason that the occupation of Ireland by the English is problematic is that they didn't kill enough of us off and subdue us sifficiently while conquering the nation.

You mean the "chestnut" you again created from thin air?

Bonkey wrote:

And from that, one can conclude that your particular line of reasoning, coupled with your Republican support should say that the reason the so-called continued occupation of Ireland isn't acceptable is because we - the Irish people - haven't been oppressed and slaughtered in sufficient quantites to silence us. Because had we been, then - just like the Western Europen conquest of the Americas - there wouldn't be a problem with the English being in Ireland.

No, there would be not sufficient numbers protesting to register on the public radar. There you go trying to put me in a box. Do you always construct dodgy frameworks within to argue your points , it's no wonder people think you're good at this?

Bonkey wrote:

I'd imagine until you can offer an explanation as to why its not hypocritical which others see as rational, reasoned and consistent, or until you choose to stop trying.

I have offered an explanation, a few times in fact, if you are from a different point of view then so be it.

Bonkey wrote:

I'd imagine its something like support for the IRA. Their supporters can say all they like that they think there is nothing wrong in such acts of terrorism, but they're convincing pretty much no-one.

jc

Well you have proven yourself to have a fertile imagination that's for sure.

My own personal view is that the "occupation" of the USA is wrong and the reason for their bloody present is their "very" bloody past.
This viewpoint becomes nigh on ridiculous with the realities on the ground however.

oscarBravo

Blub2k4 wrote:

Personally I have no problem with supporting the insurgency in Iraq

I'm sure all the Iraqi civilians that have been killed and maimed by the insurgents would be delighted to hear it.

Blub2k4

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm sure all the Iraqi civilians that have been killed and maimed by the insurgents would be delighted to hear it.

While forgetting the reason that the insurgency exists is that their civilians were being killed and maimed by the illegal war? Who exactly is the hypocrite?
The attack on Iraq came first, it is a war.
I dont accept that there are civilians working in Iraq, only tools of the occupancy, they are all legitimate targets. ( this point obviously refers to foreigners, the first response refers to Iraqis.)

oscarBravo

Blub2k4 wrote:

While forgetting the reason that the insurgency exists is that their civilians were being killed and maimed by the illegal war?

On what planet, exactly, do you think it matters whether you're killed and maimed by a foreign soldier or a domestic psychopath?

Blub2k4 wrote:

Who exactly is the hypocrite?

I don't think they're exactly thin on the ground.

Blub2k4 wrote:

The attack on Iraq came first, it is a war.

Again, I'm sure that's a deeply comforting thought for all the innocent Iraqis being killed and maimed.

Blub2k4 wrote:

I dont accept that there are civilians working in Iraq, only tools of the occupancy, they are all legitimate targets. ( this point obviously refers to foreigners, the first response refers to Iraqis.)

I only mentioned Iraqis. The straw men are out in force today.

Blub2k4

mycroft wrote:

Are you allowed, using your rules to, being opposed to both the invasion, and the insurrectionist’s indiscriminate attacks on civilian, and Iraqi targets?

It must be me, but your sentence construction hurts my eyes.
In any case I'll answer what I think is your question.
I am against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I believe in the right of ANY oppressed people to rise up and fight the oppressor. Indiscriminate attacks happen on both sides, it's called the reality of war, and in essence I abhor violence, but there is a point where you must fight for your rights.

Mycroft wrote:

It's the oversimplistic approach you take, "that we and those like us are the good guys", and anyone can't view the situation in any other terms than the ones you allow us to.

Free speech, I dont control peoples opinions here.

mycroft wrote:

You still haven't addressed the point I raised however. How could SF be opposed to the war in Iraqi yet scurry up to Hillisborough for a photo op with Bush?

It's called politics, unfortunately you need Bush and people like them on your side rather than against you, no matter how much you dislike them, priniciples must sometimes take a second place to political reality as painful as this may seem.

Drummer

I agree - i feel that only for the IRA has conncections with other Guerilla Armies/Terroists, around the world, that we would have been legit targets. That and possibly because we have been in the same downtrodden boat as the Iraqis/Muslims. In addition, would it be worth their while targetting a piddly little nation like ours, other than maybe destroying Shannon and other strategic bases.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Ah... I never said this thread. I said this board (boards.ie).




Anybody who disagrees with the war in NI and yet agrees with the war in Iraq is a hypocrite. A non-hypocrite would oppose both wars or support both wars. The Irish government are hypocrites and they are actively helping with the logistics of one war and the facilities could easily have been called legitimate targets if Iraq wanted to strike in the Republic.

Blub2k4

oscarBravo wrote:

On what planet, exactly, do you think it matters whether you're killed and maimed by a foreign soldier or a domestic psychopath? I don't think they're exactly thin on the ground. Again, I'm sure that's a deeply comforting thought for all the innocent Iraqis being killed and maimed. I only mentioned Iraqis. The straw men are out in force today.

Hey, if it were up to me we'd all live on a commune hugging one another and there'd be no war. :P
Let me know when human nature has changed enough to allow this dream, until then we live on this planet.

What would your solution be to war?

Re: Iraqis being killed, who started it exactly and in the face of such wrongs what do you suggest they do?

<edit> I did go back and edit to acknowledge my last points relative irrelavancy, therby hopefully stopping the claim of a strawman, but work away.

me wrote:

( this point obviously refers to foreigners, the first response refers to Iraqis.)

Kingsize

the problem really is that The IRA( & many other organisations like them) consider themseves , freedom fighters which is exactly what Bush thinks he is too ( operation iraqi freedom killed as many civilians if not more than the Ira's "resistance" movement)
If we all agree that insurgency is illegal presumably then, jewish resistance in germany in the late 30's 40's to the nazi (elected) government was rightfully crushed by Hitler who was only acting to protect Germany's best interests.???

Blub2k4

Blub2k4 wrote:

I am against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I believe in the right of ANY oppressed people to rise up and fight the oppressor.

Yes I can see where your stance is.
But what of SF,why do they oppose one illegal war and support another?
You've not yet addressed the hypocrisy of that.

Blub2k4

Earthman wrote:

Yes I can see where your stance is.
But what of SF,why do they oppose one illegal war and support another?
You've not yet addressed the hypocrisy of that.

OK, the point is that you are defining what I see in the North as bein an "illegal war" whereas I would define it as a legitimate insurgency.
On this point we differ and as a result we must agree to disagree.

<edit>ooops I must assume that SF take a similar view, with them being a lot more hardline than I would be, I cant answer for SF only surmise why I think it is not hypocritical.

Lemming

Blub2k4 wrote:

Wow pathetic really.
Al-Qaeida are operating among the insurgents, recently.
I support the Iraqi peoples right to defend their country against an illegal occupation, the fact that Al-Qaeida are part of that insurgency is a secondary issue, their reasons are possibly misguided but the underlying principle of defending Iraq is correct in my opinion.
I do not support Al-qaeida, to be honest I have difficulty even taking the name "al qaeida" seriously and is on a par with attempting to label me as something that fits a neat box that you have that does not really exist.
I have lived in Saudi Arabia and dont have a problem with arabs.

My point was that issuing a blanket "yes I would support the insurgency" whilst sitting n'thousand miles away is a bit disengenious, since my question to you was to point out that the situation is a little less black or white than you're making it out to be and that to try and equate the situation in Iraq with N.ireland is taking the piss to put it mildly.

Blub2k4

Lemming wrote:

My point was that issuing a blanket "yes I would support the insurgency" whilst sitting n'thousand miles away is a bit disengenious, since my question to you was to point out that the situation is a little less black or white than you're making it out to be and that to try and equate the situation in Iraq with N.ireland is taking the piss to put it mildly.

The foreign militants (let's not use Al-qaeida unless you're reading from a homeland security pamphlet) are there to defend their Islamic brothers as they see it, this is nobel in it's own way. The reality is that the Wahhabi concept of the "Shaheen" leads to methods which are pretty repugnant, but effective in fighting an occupier. At least they have a morally thought out standpoint that extends beyond "kick their ass, take their gas".

oscarBravo

Blub2k4 wrote:

Hey, if it were up to me we'd all live on a commune hugging one another and there'd be no war. :P
Let me know when human nature has changed enough to allow this dream, until then we live on this planet.

So, as long as someone else is killing innocent civilians, it's ok to kill innocent civilians? Not on my planet.

Blub2k4 wrote:

What would your solution be to war?

I don't have a simple solution, but I don't see what killing innocent civilians achieves.

Blub2k4 wrote:

Re: Iraqis being killed, who started it exactly

"He started it" is logic that most of us grow out of in primary school.

Blub2k4 wrote:

...and in the face of such wrongs what do you suggest they do?

I don't have a simple solution, but I don't see what killing innocent civilians achieves.

Blub2k4 wrote:

<edit> I did go back and edit to acknowledge my last points relative irrelavancy, therby hopefully stopping the claim of a strawman, but work away.

It was a straw man. The fact that you acknowledged it to be such doesn't change that fact.

oscarBravo

Blub2k4 wrote:

The foreign militants... are there to defend their Islamic brothers as they see it, this is nobel in it's own way.

I fail to see the nobility in killing innocent civilians.

Blub2k4 wrote:

The reality is that the Wahhabi concept of the "Shaheen" leads to methods which are pretty repugnant, but effective in fighting an occupier.

Again, I'm sure that's deeply comforting to any Iraqi mother who's had her child blown up.

Blub2k4 wrote:

At least they have a morally thought out standpoint that extends beyond "kick their ass, take their gas".

Morally thought out? They have a strange concept of morality.

A Dub in Glasgo

Kingsize wrote:

( operation iraqi freedom killed as many civilians if not more than the Ira's "resistance" movement)

More like 10-30 times more and in a much shorter timeframe

Blub2k4

Blub2k4 wrote:

<edit>ooops I must assume that SF take a similar view, with them being a lot more hardline than I would be, I cant answer for SF only surmise why I think it is not hypocritical.

The problem there straight away is that many republicans including on this board would have described the IRA activity in the North as a war and have argued the point on that several times here.
The IRA would regard themselves as an Army that was at war.
SF supported that War.
You are distancing yourself from that argument which only deals with any hypocrisy that might attach to yourself.
It doesnt deal at all with the issue at the heart of the thread.
Thats your perogative.

Lemming

Blub2k4 wrote:

The foreign militants (let's not use Al-qaeida unless you're reading from a homeland security pamphlet) are there to defend their Islamic brothers as they see it, this is nobel in it's own way. The reality is that the Wahhabi concept of the "Shaheen" leads to methods which are pretty repugnant, but effective in fighting an occupier. At least they have a morally thought out standpoint that extends beyond "kick their ass, take their gas".

So ...... exactly where is the Wahhabi concept of the Shaheen in N.Ireland again? I seem to have missed that part ....

Like I said with regards Iraq & N.Ireland, at least try to compare apples with apples and not oranges because that's all that's being done.

bonkey

Blub2k4 wrote:

Of course this has a relevancy, where did I say it didn't,

Are you no longer suggesting that it is the lack of large-scale, violence insurgency in the US which means its not an occupation which needs to be opposed or condemned?

Such a stance - which you have taken twice already - ignores why there are the numbers there are. It fails to distinguish between a people who've accepted and embraced the incumbent cultures, and a peolpe which have been effectively destroyed by them.

Killing everyone who raises their voice to object reduces the number of insurgents thus meeting your criteria to make something cease to be a problem according to your offered reasoning.

You're extrapolating beyond my statement there Bonkey

Yes. I am indeed. Thats exactly what I'm doing. Its even what I'm trying to do. The implications of an argument are every bit as important as the directly applicability of it.

I'm attempting to highlight how the extrapolation of your reasoning leads to some rather unpleasant conclusions and/or contradictions. I'm not sure how simply pointing out that this is what I'm doing is somehow supposed to counter the points I am making by using this approach.

No, there would be not sufficient numbers protesting to register on the public radar.

If the number of people opposing something is the issue, then wiping out a people is - in the absence of other criteria - a valid means of making occupation acceptable.

If it is not the issue, then every single point you're making about the lack of insurgency in the US making it a different situation is automatically invalid because its not just about the number of people complaining, and therefore you've offered no valid reason why Sinn Fein isn't hypocritical by not condemning the US.

You can't have it both ways.

There you go trying to put me in a box. Do you always construct dodgy frameworks within to argue your points ,

The box is nothing more than the arguments you yourself have offered. If you find that too limiting, perhaps you should consider the source.

The framework, similarly, is nothing but the logical implications of your arguments. If its dodgy, then either show where my logic is flawed, or we should conclude that its dodgy because its based on (your) dodgy arguments.

My own personal view is that the "occupation" of the USA is wrong and the reason for their bloody present is their "very" bloody past.

So you've now said (no putting words in anyone's mouth this time) that you consider the occupation of the USA is wrong, but there's nothing hypocritical in Sinn Fein accepting and benefiting from that occupation whilst objecting to other occupations (which you also presumably see as wrong)???

Or am I once again indulging in flights of fancy, making stuff up, putting you in a box and making a dodgy argument by daring to take two statements you've made on the same topic and havnig the cheek to show how they wuold seem to undermine or contradict each other?

This viewpoint becomes nigh on ridiculous with the realities on the ground however.

One can say the same about anyone who considers people who's families have lived on an island for several hundred years to be some sort of "occupier" who have no right to be there.

jc

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

More like 10-30 times more and in a much shorter timeframe

Well you would have to factor in the population of Iraq also : 22 million versus 1.5 million

A Dub in Glasgo

Earthman wrote:

Well you would have to factor in the population of Iraq also : 22 million versus 1.5 million

What about Britain where some of the really bad atrocities (against civilians) occured?

56 million v 22 million

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What about Britain where some of the really bad atrocities (against civilians) occured?

56 million v 22 million

Thats quite correct, theres no comparison at all really though between the distructive power of a large countries army or coalition of armies and an underground one.

Villain

mycroft wrote:

Irish1 is still licking his wounds.

LOL you obviously don't know me too well. :rolleyes:

mycroft

Blub2k4 wrote:

It must be me, but your sentence construction hurts my eyes.
In any case I'll answer what I think is your question.
I am against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I believe in the right of ANY oppressed people to rise up and fight the oppressor. Indiscriminate attacks happen on both sides, it's called the reality of war, and in essence I abhor violence, but there is a point where you must fight for your rights.

And a point where you need to shove aside those fine morals and ethics, and abhorance of the war, and pose with nice warmonger for photos.

Free speech, I dont control peoples opinions here.

No but you're trying to control the terms of the debate. if you oppose X and then you must be a hyprocrit for not supporting Y.

It's called politics, unfortunately you need Bush and people like them on your side rather than against you, no matter how much you dislike them, priniciples must sometimes take a second place to political reality as painful as this may seem.

Thats the gem that love. You're admiting that occasionaly the situation isn't a simply black or white one, when it suits you.

irish1 wrote:

LOL you obviously don't know me too well.

Sorry I forgot that living in a permanent state of denial is a defining characteristic of many SF supporters :rolleyes:

Blub2k4

Ok I have at least three people debating this against me now, and Bonkeys points will be hardest to rebutt as he does have a way with logic but unfortunately using his reasoning you could actually argue black is white and I will have to lay out his argument here to rebutt it correctly which will take time.
I may not post again today on this as I have to get some work done.

p.s. I'm not running away Mycroft