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

Gilgamesh

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?

Heh????

mycroft

Gilgamesh wrote:

Heh????

The point is Blub is painting anyone as anti war as pro insurgents

Rock Climber

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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

56 million v 22 million

Oh if your going to do that we'll have to look at all conflicts the Brit Army were involved in during pIRA's 30 year war

So that would be 56 million v 22 million(Iraq) +26 million(Argentina) + 43 m (Bosnia)

That would be 56 million v 91 million over 30 years
How does that effect the figures

Immaterial anyway, it doesnt answer the question of Sinn Féins hypocrisy, supporting one illegal war and protesting another.

monument

mycroft wrote:

The point is Blub is painting anyone as anti war as pro insurgents

Which is obviously not the case.




A large percentage of SF voters would not vote for them if the IRA were still in the middle of a bombing campaign.

Even some apparently ‘hardcore’ IRA supports could never support the (sick) idea of targeting innocent people. In other words, they could never support the idea of planting bombs without also giving an appropriate warning.

For people, it usually comes down to the actions (whether the aim is causing destructing and interruption, or targeting innocent people) and the reasons of such from such legal/illegal military groups. Not whether it’s illegal or not, but whether it’s (in people's view) moral or not, or in some cases if the ends justifies the means.

[disclaimer: when the action is targeting innocent people I could *NEVER* agree that the ends justifies the means]

Anyway, this talk of hypocrisy, ‘supporting one illegal war and protesting another’, also applies flipped the other way to some of the most vocal SF and IRA bashers (here and in real life) who have no problem supporting the US war and/or their use of Shannon.

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

Oh if your going to do that we'll have to look at all conflicts the Brit Army were involved in during pIRA's 30 year war

So that would be 56 million v 22 million(Iraq) +26 million(Argentina) + 43 m (Bosnia)

That would be 56 million v 91 million over 30 years
How does that effect the figures

Context... I was talking about IRA actions in Britian (which was not included in the original population comparison by Earthman)

Immaterial anyway, it doesnt answer the question of Sinn Féins hypocrisy, supporting one illegal war and protesting another.

Yes it is immaterial. I have already stated that the vast majority of people in life (hence on this site) are hypocrites as they also selectively support and oppose violence from various sources depending on their politics and value systems. It should not come as a shock to people for anyone to state this. However, this line of opinion has been ruled off topic in this thread for some strange reason.

Eriugena

I cannot see the hypocrisy. The whole point of the IRA war was that they did not accept the Britsh presence in the North. If the British are usrupers and foreign invaders then they hardly have the right to make the laws, therefore how can it be an illegal war from the IRA perspective?

oscarBravo

monument wrote:

Even some apparently ‘hardcore’ IRA supports could never support the (sick) idea of targeting innocent people. In other words, they could never support the idea of planting bombs without also giving an appropriate warning.

For people, it usually comes down to the actions (whether the aim is causing destructing and interruption, or targeting innocent people) and the reasons of such from such legal/illegal military groups. Not whether it’s illegal or not, but whether it’s (in people's view) moral or not, or in some cases if the ends justifies the means.

[disclaimer: when the action is targeting innocent people I could *NEVER* agree that the ends justifies the means]

But but but... even when there's no physical injury or loss of life, terrorism is targetting innocent people. I mean, having your local Wellworths blown up on a regular basis isn't exactly good for a person's state of mind, is it?

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

But but but... even when there's no physical injury or loss of life, terrorism is targetting innocent people. I mean, having your local Wellworths blown up on a regular basis isn't exactly good for a person's state of mind, is it?

So what would you call dropping thousands of bombs onto a city?

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Yes it is immaterial. I have already stated that the vast majority of people in life (hence on this site) are hypocrites as they also selectively support and oppose violence from various sources depending on their politics and value systems. It should not come as a shock to people for anyone to state this. However, this line of opinion has been ruled off topic in this thread for some strange reason.

Ah yes the other people are hyprocrits why can't I be defense.

Instead of generalising about "other posters" why don't you track down specific posts by specific people.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

Ah yes the other people are hyprocrits why can't I be defense.

Nope, the realpolitik of life. You should know that by now.

Instead of generalising about "other posters" why don't you track down specific posts by specific people.

No need to, it is my considered view that the vast majority of people in life (and certainly in political life in the Republic and obviously on this site) support one sort of violence over another. I have met very few true pacifists in my lifetime. If your view and experience differs, then fair play to you.

It has been ruled off topic that most people (in my view) are hyprocrites when it comes to violence anyway. Let us just concentrate on the SF view of violence, everything runs more smoothly that way.

sceptre

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So what would you call dropping thousands of bombs onto a city?

Dresden? Effectively a campaign of terror in my view, regardless of it being part of an actual (read as "real" under what would generally be recognised to be so) war. We've all been here before about sixty years ago (which is why I've mentioned that rather thean Baghdad). Do the same thing to an Iraqi city in the same way for pretty much the same reason and the answer's pretty much the same.

I do so hope you're not trying to justify IRA activities in the north with city bombings from a plane (as opposed to from a crappy old van) though as I know you're rather past your early teens. I know I had a few comments here a few months ago about the practice of some of justifying something by comparing it to <other group X> and basically declaring it to be not so very bad really. Can't remember the thread and I'm not inclined to look for it but doubtless it was pointed and hilariously witty (erm...). Anyhoo, "but this other thing is like, you know, so much worse" is poor if you're thinking of strafing in that direction.

A Dub in Glasgo

sceptre wrote:

Dresden? Effectively a campaign of terror in my view, regardless of it being part of a declared actual (read as "real" under what would generally be recognised to be so) war.

I do so hope you're not trying to justify IRA activities in the north with Dresden though as I know you're rather past your early teens. I know I had a few comments here a few months ago about the practice of some of justifying something by comparing it to <other group X> and basically declaring it to be not so very bad really. Can't remember the thread and I'm not inclined to look for it but doubtless it was pointed and hilariously witty (erm...). Anyhoo, "but this other thing is like, you know, so much worse" is poor if you're thinking of strafing in that direction.

Not at all. I am purely interested in seeing how other apparant non 'men of violence' view things. As I have said earlier... hypocrisy is everywhere and to concentrate on this tiny % of people in this thread is a little too narrow for me.

sceptre

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

As I have said earlier... hypocrisy is everywhere and to concentrate on this tiny % of people in this thread is a little too narrow for me.

Aren't you sort of doing the same thing anyway? Running with "this may (or may not) be hypocritical but it's everywhere anyway (and like, this is so much worse and so much more prevelant, dude)"?

I'm not accusing you of it (though I am tending towards thinking that) but I do find it in a little strange that in a thread specifically set up to discuss SF's views on the campaign in the United Kingdom and SF's views on the campaign in Iraq that you reckon that people are being hypocritical for just talking about that. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you but that's the way it appears to this observer.

I fully realise btw that there have been a lot of SF threads recently, particularly since George Bush isn't discuss-worthy any more it seems. More threads than I'd like and more threads than I'd bother my ass to read, most discussing the same crapola and many going around in circles. Circles caused by both sides of the argument, neither of whom are generally prepared to admit that they're perpetuating the discussion because they're defending their manworthiness or something equally laughable. Nevertheless it's a lot of threads. SF could count themselves lucky - they haven't that much support in this sovereign state so it's interesting that they're still in the news and discussworthy at all and that unlike the Green party, most people can actually name their leader

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So what would you call dropping thousands of bombs onto a city?

I was asked once before for my opinion on the firebombing of Dresden. My answer then, as now, is: it was an unforgiveable act of mass murder.

Clear enough for you?

I know it's inconvenient for your sweeping generalisations, but I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq.

A Dub in Glasgo

sceptre wrote:

Aren't you sort of doing the same thing anyway? Running with "this may (or may not) be hypocritical but it's everywhere anyway (and like, this is so much worse and so much more prevelant, dude)"?

No, I accept that the majority of people are hyprocritical and I am not shocked mif a political party show that they may be. Just an observation of how this thread came into being.

I'm not accusing you of it (though I am tending towards thinking that) but I do find it in a little strange that in a thread specifically set up to discuss SF's views on the campaign in the United Kingdom and SF's views on the campaign in Iraq that you reckon that people are being hypocritical for just talking about that. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you but that's the way it appears to this observer.

I found it strange that someone could concentrate only on this small example of hypocrisy when there are plenty of other examples including the government of the Republic. I thought the argument should be widened in scope and I was told it was not relevant

I fully realise btw that there have been a lot of SF threads recently, particularly since George Bush isn't discuss-worthy any more it seems. More threads than I'd like and more threads than I'd bother my ass to read, most discussing the same crapola and many going around in circles. Circles caused by both sides of the argument, neither of whom are generally prepared to admit that they're perpetuating the discussion because they're defending their manworthiness or something equally laughable. Nevertheless it's a lot of threads. SF could count themselves lucky - they haven't that much support in this sovereign state so it's interesting that they're still in the news and discussworthy at all and that unlike the Green party, most people can actually name their leader

Which is one of the reasons (in my opinion) why this thread should be widened in scope. A very narrow field of view just looking at hypocrisy in SF.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

I was asked once before for my opinion on the firebombing of Dresden. My answer then, as now, is: it was an unforgiveable act of mass murder.

I was actually referring to Baghdad but hey that is OK

Clear enough for you?

What is?

I know it's inconvenient for your sweeping generalisations, but I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq.

Excellent... well done

sceptre

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I found it strange that someone could concentrate only on this small example of hypocrisy when there are plenty of other examples including the government of the Republic.

We do it all the time. If I started a thread in the morning about a small child dying of hunger somewhere I'd be disapointed if someone turned up and decided I was being hypocritical for ignoring the child starving on my doorstep. Obviously I should be concerned about the latter but I shouldn't have to drag it up every (or any) time I want to discuss the former.

I thought the argument should be widened in scope and I was told it was not relevant

Frankly I'd view it as a diversionary tactic. There's probably always room for one new (different) thread(s?) about FF's corruption, FG's lack of direction, Labour's willingness to bedhop, the PD's non-caring (and recent willingness to bedhop), the Greens' treehugging, the smaller ones' insignificance without dragging each issue into a thread about the other parties. Unless it's orginally a thread about the hypocrisy of all politicians. A rational person would view it as a diversionary tactic regardless and a poor one. Off-topic for the thread so any further discussion of this belongs in a new thread where it isn't a diversion or in a PM to me, though that's my simple view put simply. Monument's got bare scope widening above and I'd view that as on the right side of the line for letting the discussion breathe.

Which is one of the reasons (in my opinion) why this thread should be widened in scope. A very narrow field of view just looking at hypocrisy in SF.

Start a new thread if you like. Which can well be read as "take it outside" as it's outside the scope of the thread. Because it's a diversion coming from a SF supporter (like from any other party supporter). As it would be in a thread discussion specific issue Y about any other party - it's all "look over there too and don't be concentrating on this thing" (there may not be a motive but I don't really care - in other words, I'm not saying you're doing it consciously or even necessarily doing it (I've no evidence either way) but that's what a reasonable person would think. The new thread button is there at all times for specific discussions about specific things. Obviously politicians are masters of blowing in the wind (even though many of them do it so badly). The original poster appears to be concerned about this specific example of same so it just looks like thread spoiling.

I'd suggest any further discussion of this specific issue related to this specific thread be left to the usual suggested places.

Back on track (within reason) please folks.

A Dub in Glasgo

PM sent

Back on topic

SF are hypocritical because they support one form of violence and oppose another form of violence. They do this by using their judgement and value systems.... Surprised that a political party should both support one form of violence and oppose another form of violence? I'm not

Rock Climber

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

SF are hypocritical because they support one form of violence and oppose another form of violence. They do this by using their judgement and value systems.... Surprised that a political party should both support one form of violence and oppose another form of violence? I'm not

So Sinn Féin will féte pub bombers at their Árd fheis,people who must have known that they would be killing civilians and at the same time protest that the Brits would do the same in Iraq??

What sort of value system judgement is that.

I agree with you though,it's blatant hypocrisy.

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

So Sinn Féin will féte pub bombers at their Árd fheis,people who must have known that they would be killing civilians and at the same time protest that the Brits would do the same in Iraq??

Yes

What sort of value system judgement is that.

I presume they feel they were doing the right thing for their objectives

Rock Climber

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I presume they feel they were doing the right thing for their objectives

Which includes hypocrisy.

That was like pulling teeth,but at least you have accepted it, which is more than I can say for others swimming in the nile near Cairo somewhere.

You see this is yet another flaw I find in Sinn Féins fundamental logic,they dont think things through enough.
From what I can see, they opposed the illegal war in Iraq just to ride on the coat tails of a popular sentiment, rushed out statements and got caught in a web of hypocrisy before they knew what they were doing.
It's an issue, they would have been better off staying clear of, given their stance on the IRA.


The not thinking things through before jumping would concern me if I was a Sinn Féin supporter...which of course I'm not.

A Dub in Glasgo

Rock Climber wrote:

Which includes hypocrisy.

That was like pulling teeth,but at least you have accepted it, which is more than I can say for others swimming in the nile near Cairo somewhere.

Pulling teeth? I have not denied it was hypocrisy at all during this thread.

[ Daithí ]

mycroft wrote:

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 wasn't grammatically correct. Neither is your rephrase.

Does anyone else think that the English and Irish governments being opposed to the war in the North while simultaneously supporting the war in Iraq is hypocritical?

But of course, I forgot: they're State governments, they can't be hypocritical. :rolleyes:

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

However, this line of opinion has been ruled off topic in this thread for some strange reason.

The thread is to deal with the SF question arising out of the other thread.
Nobody on this thread was as far as I'm aware being hypocritical in their stance regarding the IRAQ war when posing this question.
Thus as Sceptre pointed out that and other efforts by SF supporters here to divert the topic,looks like sidestepping and filibustering.

As a moderator,if I see this type of carry on in a thread,I'll stamp it out, either by splitting the thread and moving the side question to another open thread or if it looks like blatant muppetry with thread spoiling a forthought,I'll send it straight to the recycle bin.
I wont care what party is being talked about and I won't tolerate it by any supporter of any party when some issue in relation to them is being spotlighted.

Pulling teeth? I have not denied it was hypocrisy at all during this thread.

Well given what I've said at the start of this post,I can understand where RC is coming from with the pulling teeth thing,though you Dub are far from the biggest offender in the filibuster stakes.

Which is one of the reasons (in my opinion) why this thread should be widened in scope. A very narrow field of view just looking at hypocrisy in SF.

Well as put to you earlier,go start another thread with the wider scope.
I split this thread off the other one, taking all the posts discussing the same topic, ie the hypocrisy or not of SF.

I titled it to describe exactly what the discussion was about.There was nothing there to suggest that the topic should be wider and furthermore at the time it seemed to be what the various people wanted to go off on a tangent discussing,thus resulting in me proactively splitting that topic off into its current new thread.

Thats moderation policy with me and as I say, if posters dont like the thread or think they should be discussing something else wider, then off ye go to a new thread.
It's ironic that the whole off topic discussion stemmed out of a comment you made in the other thread Dub

mycroft

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

It wasn't grammatically correct. Neither is your rephrase.

Wow SF support the grammar police, now all we need is SF to support the grammar police board.

:rolleyes:

Does anyone else think that the English and Irish governments being opposed to the war in the North while simultaneously supporting the war in Iraq is hypocritical?

But of course, I forgot: they're State governments, they can't be hypocritical. :rolleyes:

And we're allowed to object to our governments actions. Another SF member has justified your meeting Bush while opposing the war as not hyprocritical but politics.

See you're building yourselves up as a the opposition, the alternative, the breath of fresh air, but by behaving just like any other politician, you're just exposes yourselves as just another bunch of lying duplicitous two faced chancers like the rest of them*

*course most of the rest of them don't have a private paramilitary army, so you've still got that nifty schtick making you stand out of the pack

[ Daithí ]

Oh God, mycroft. I'm sorry. Really. Here, have a cup of tea. Being silly isn't so bad. You'll get over it.

Christ, I hate people who use political generalisations. Like you, actually.

mycroft wrote:

Wow SF support the grammar police, now all we need is SF to support the grammar police board.

SF support the grammar police? That's nice to know. What I don't get is: you quoted my post to say that. Why? Oh, I get it, you're implying that I'm either a SF supporter or member. Well, I'm not really either. I know: shock, gasp, heart-attack, etcetera.

I suppose you'll be renewing your DUP membership soon? Ah, see, I can copy you and you can't dispute it because it'd make you a hypocrite for whinging about me presuming you're a DUP member when you presume I'm a SF member.

Check and mate.

Oh wait, there's more...

mycroft wrote:

And we're allowed to object to our governments actions. Another SF member has justified your meeting Bush while opposing the war as not hyprocritical but politics.

See you're building yourselves up as a the opposition, the alternative, the breath of fresh air, but by behaving just like any other politician, you're just exposes yourselves as just another bunch of lying duplicitous two faced chancers like the rest of them*

*course most of the rest of them don't have a private paramilitary army, so you've still got that nifty schtick making you stand out of the pack

Another SF member? Okay. You're referring to one member. So, who's the original member who you imply to exist through the use of "another"? Perhaps I'd take you seriously if you weren't in love with presumption.

Your post makes no sense. Face it. It makes no sense because you're talking to me, who is not a SF member/supporter - this SF member who you're supposedly talking to doesn't exist.

*Mediocrity Detector goes ballistic and explodes.*

You can buy me a new one, mycroft.

mycroft

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

SF support the grammar police? That's nice to know. What I don't get is: you quoted my post to say that. Why? Oh, I get it, you're implying that I'm either a SF supporter or member. Well, I'm not really either. I know: shock, gasp, heart-attack, etcetera.

Oh Daithi, Daithi Daithi. I hate to destroy your demented egotism but i wasn't just refering to SF not specifical to you. I refer to another poster, Blub2k4, for example.

I suppose you'll be renewing your DUP membership soon? Ah, see, I can copy you and you can't dispute it because it'd make you a hypocrite for whinging about me presuming you're a DUP member when you presume I'm a SF member.

Check and mate.

Check? Yeah the waiter this informed you that the card is maxed out, will sir be paying by cash.

If you're coming here defending SF's position and then going "oh but I'm not a member of SF" you're going to be dealt with the same kind of logic tha whole SF aren't the IRA argument has endured. If I was defending the DUP's position on a certain issue it would be alright for you to raise other DUP policy as hyprocritical, and unjust of me "to go hey I'm not in the DUP, just this is their position." as an avoidance of the ramifications of your issue.

This is rapidly becoming the prefered argument of your ilk

"Now, I'm not a republican but...."

I've looked through the body of your posts, they show a clear pro republican, pro SF bias, and you've just added a handy "but I'm not in SF" postscript, to avoid dealing with some of less defendable arguments that your position has to confront. Its disengious debating.

Oh wait, there's more...

So basicaly I'm not with SF, all of your posts have been of a pro SF and republican POV, and through the miracle of transubation this means when you're calling on the implications of your pov, you just get to say "hey I'm not in SF" Christ plausible deniability is just what? canon law; with yis......

Another SF member? Okay. You're referring to one member. So, who's the original member who you imply to exist through the use of "another"? Perhaps I'd take you seriously if you weren't in love with presumption.

Your post makes no sense. Face it. It makes no sense because you're talking to me, who is not a SF member/supporter - this SF member who you're supposedly talking to doesn't exist.

*Mediocrity Detector goes ballistic and explodes.*

My Bad metaphor detector is also trashed, I'd call my insurance company but I'd hate to compromise my no claims bonus. Lets call em both a write off.

I was refering to the argument of another poster. i'm sorry your ego got in the way of you addressing the point and instead engaged in a monster sarcasm filobuster. I was talking to Blub, who does exist.

I'm just fascinated by posters who can espose a party line and a clear politcal ethos and then when challenged on the implications of this position go, "hey I'm not in SF"

God theres this weird parallel between this attitude and SF and IRA statements, I just can't seem to manage to join the dots.....

Stabshauptmann

mycroft wrote:

*course most of the rest of them don't have a private paramilitary army, so you've still got that nifty schtick making you stand out of the pack

Not anymore, but they had, if this is a thread about hypocrisy lets apply the same yard stick to everything.

Violence is a very strong recurring theme in Irish politics. Most Irish parties have been linked in the past to a private army. A pet hate of mine is when ppl say Those [insert third world nationality] are uncivilised or something to that effect because they have large families, marry young or are troubled with war or religious intolerance. I hate the Its the 21st century line. Western society may have moved on but those countries that started there journey after us are passing stations we stoped in too.

Likewise it may be unacceptable to you that in this day and age violence and politics are so closely linked somewhere but IMO this is hypocracy and short sightedness.

Stabshauptmann

ziggy67 wrote:

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

I see it as:

SF against Brits occupying NI Vs SF against Brits occupying Iraq.

I don't see that as hypocrisy and i say that as a Scot with no axe to grind either way.

Possibly not hypocrisy but over simplistic ideology.

The Brits arent occupying NI. nor where they here for 700 years while were at it