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

mycroft

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

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.

Well thats taken for granted. I mean the stuff every government has had to turn a blind eye to in order to make the GFA argeement would nearly have Jesus going "I've heard of turning the other cheek but this is taking the bl*ody piss"

Our new pope was in the Hitler youth, invariably, for anything we're going to have to overlook the unsavoury past of some people or parties and look to the future. It's SF are asking us to overlook the unsavoury present of their private army.

Stabshauptmann

mycroft wrote:

Well thats taken for granted. I mean the stuff every government has had to turn a blind eye to in order to make the GFA argeement would nearly have Jesus going "I've heard of turning the other cheek but this is taking the bl*ody piss"

Our new pope was in the Hitler youth, invariably, for anything we're going to have to overlook the unsavoury past of some people or parties and look to the future. It's SF are asking us to overlook the unsavoury present of their private army.

The BBC and Channel 4 reports on the Popes past are slightly different to what you imply, but hey.Your attitude towards christianity is very interesting btw

Your right ofcourse in there being a difference between an unsavoury past and an unsavoury present butwhen the DUP calls for a generation to pass after IRA disbandment before they will talk to SF thats forgetting their all to recent past too quickly for me.

There has been an active process going on for decades to slowly wheen SF and the IRA off one another, its been subtle so as not to alarm grass roots but I believe from statements and conduct by Bertie that he acknowledges this process. The IRA is on course to dissappear though Im not going to try and convince anyone of this at 1am.

All Im really saying is that having a private army isnt unusual as you contend, they've all done it, and how much time should past before this becomes irrelevant is very much a matter of opinion.

We could also talk about who wears the pants in the republican family, does SF have a private army of does the IRA have a political wing or are they siblings rather than spouses. A quick read through republican ideology shows the IRA to be the boss and initially this was the case. But it looks to me like the IRA was the parent and SF are the child that has grown up, moved out but still visits and borrows money (I dont actually mean money but small favours if you follow the analogy).

Just some thoughts.

What is the unsavoury nature of the IRA at present anyway. They are no threat to anyones national security. They cant influence the political establishment to any great degree. They pose a threat to law and order in the form of punishment beatings and criminality. The former is declining while the latter increasing. What I see happening is the IRA being wound up as an army and the police services tackling the remnants who refuse to disband as "ordinary" criminals. Why you might arge that it makes no difference whether the IRA or a criminal robs a bank, to many ppl it does. Many ppl feel they owe the IRA, or to attack them makes you a tout or traitor. Ppl dont have as much sympathy for those they percieve as criminals.

Either way I dont believe the SF leadership is directing criminality, I think its very much tunered into a freefor all in Irelands gang land scene due to certain power vacumes and fueds and I dont belive the IRA in its present form can return to war. That being said I couldnt have seen the IRA of 1960 engaging in a 30 year war.

mycroft

mycroft wrote:

Oh Daithi, Daithi Daithi. I hate to destroy your demented egotism

Please, refrain from insulting other posters mycroft.
If I see something like that again,I will click the ban button.

Kaptain Redeye

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Violence is a very strong recurring theme in Irish politics. Most Irish parties have been linked in the past to a private army.

But does that give any in the present the right to a private army or a link to one ? I should think not.

Stabshauptmann

Earthman wrote:

But does that give any in the present the right to a private army or a link to one ? I should think not.

Im not saying they have a right to it just that those who find it unacceptable for SF to have an army overlook that most other parties in Ireland at this stage in their developement had an army. Does it give any in the [n]present[/b] the right. Try not to look at time in such a linear form but instead compare SFs timeline to that of other partys time lines and you might see them progressing in very similar ways.

If you and I were to race, but you started the race 10 mins before me and finished 10 mins before me, it would be rediculous for you to call me slow and yes, I would be perfectly entitled to finish the race even though you've finished.

What we can do, is see how we evlved past the need for private armies etc and help SF make the same changes. IMO these changes are happening at the moment, slowly but surely the gun is being taken out of Irish politics, if this isnt fast enough for you [generic] then I'd probably say you are a hypocrite (see the DUP example above)

mycroft

You're a liar.

Daith wrote:

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.

And from here

Daithi wrote:

I'm a member of Sinn Féin. I don't know who is an IRA member, and I honestly don't care. I'm in it for the politics, not the gun.

emphasis by me.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Im not saying they have a right to it just that those who find it unacceptable for SF to have an army overlook that most other parties in Ireland at this stage in their developement had an army. Does it give any in the present the right. Try not to look at time in such a linear form but instead compare SFs timeline to that of other partys time lines and you might see them progressing in very similar ways.

It's an interesting philosophical perpective on the situation, but justifying in any way the continued existance of the IRA as weird teenage rebellion phase all irish political parties went through is unfair to people like the family of Robert McCartney, and ignores the continued reality of the situation.

Besides a 30 odd year campaign of terrorist activity is far too long to be brushed aside by overly simplistic logic about the natural progress of democracy on this Isle.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

You're a liar.



And from here



emphasis by me.

.

just a suggestion mycroft
perhaps you could ask whether daithi has he left SF in the 5 months since he wrote that post
rather than jump in with an accusation first

it is quite possible that he is not lying

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

It's an interesting philosophical perpective on the situation, but justifying in any way the continued existance of the IRA as weird teenage rebellion phase all irish political parties went through is unfair to people like the family of Robert McCartney, and ignores the continued reality of the situation.

Besides a 30 odd year campaign of terrorist activity is far too long to be brushed aside by overly simplistic logic about the natural progress of democracy on this Isle.

i think that as long as the six counties are under british rule there will always be an IRA and people that support the use of armed struggle
no matter how successful the current peace process is in dismantling the PIRA

how active and how much support they have will be the measure of how successful the process is

sovtek

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

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

Every human walking the face of the earth is a hypocrite at some point.
What illegal war is the IRA involved in? Is that illegal in regards to legislation of the state or is it illegal in the context of international law?
From what I know (and I don't pretend to know all that much about the situation) the IRA are/were involved in an armed struggle against a foreign government that imposed systematic descrimination against a "minority" of the population.
The US and the UK invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to it whatsoever.
Sinn Fein opposed that invasion.
I don't see the hypocrasy either.

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

just a suggestion mycroft
perhaps you could ask whether daithi has he left SF in the 5 months since he wrote that post
rather than jump in with an accusation first

it is quite possible that he is not lying

Then he should have clarified that, before making the fact that he's not in Sinn Fein the cornerstone of his argument, he should have added the postscript anymore.

If he's going to try and blugen me to death with that one simple fact, it's beholden on him to fact check what he's previously said on this forum, and how it is contray to his current statements. They guy has 97 posts, if he can't keep track of the fact that he said he was in Sinn Fein a few months back, while now saying how dare someone suggest that he is in Sinn Fein, maybe he shouldn't post here.

The tone and attitude of his posts would imply that how dare I suggest or even think he was in Sinn Fein, and that my argument is based on pure speculation. It was sarcastic and crude.

If a poster clearly states his political affilation, and party that he is a member of, and then within the space of half a year, derides someone for thinking that he is a member of the same party, or supports same party in the manner Daithi did in this thread, while not bothering to clear up the confusion, well, they deserve everything they get.

Incidently this all echoes a recent previous thread vis a vie certain individuals involvement with a the same politcal party and their paramilitary wing, and proof of membership, and the onus on whom has to provide proof. It doesn't end well for people like Daithí.

Daith&#237 wrote:

you're talking to me, who is not a SF member/supporter - .

Daith&#237 wrote:

I am a member of Sinn Fein

those are two very empathic posts. One a strict denial, one a strict admitance. In the denial he is even refusing to admit to supporting a political party he claimed membership of a few months ago. And theres nothing in his posts in the interium that would suggest a road to Damacus like political conversion

I stand over my accusation. He's a liar.

sovtek

Lemming wrote:

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.

Speaking of apples and oranges....
I thought the topic of this thread was supposed hypocrisy of SF who oppose the Iraq War and support the IRA one.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Then he should have clarified that, before making the fact that he's not in Sinn Fein the cornerstone of his argument, he should have added the postscript anymore.

If he's going to try and blugen me to death with that one simple fact, it's beholden on him to fact check what he's previously said on this forum, and how it is contray to his current statements. They guy has 97 posts, if he can't keep track of the fact that he said he was in Sinn Fein a few months back, while now saying how dare someone suggest that he is in Sinn Fein, maybe he shouldn't post here.

The tone and attitude of his posts would imply that how dare I suggest or even think he was in Sinn Fein, and that my argument is based on pure speculation. It was sarcastic and crude.

If a poster clearly states his political affilation, and party that he is a member of, and then within the space of half a year, derides someone for thinking that he is a member of the same party, or supports same party in the manner Daithi did in this thread, while not bothering to clear up the confusion, well, they deserve everything they gets.

Incidently this all echoes a recent previous thread vis a vie certain individuals involvement with a the same politcal party and their paramilitary wing, and proof of membership, and the onus on whom has to provide proof. It doesn't end well for people like Daithí.





those are two very empathic posts. One a strict denial, one a strict admitance. In the denial he is even refusing to admit to supporting a political party he claimed membership of a few months ago. And theres nothing in his posts in the interium that would suggest a road to Damacus like political conversion

I stand over my accusation. He's a liar.

i agree that you have found daithi at the very least apparrently contradicting himself i just think that rather than heating things up pointing out this obvious contradiction would have been enough

let him explain himself if he can

cdebru

btw

i fail to see any contradiction in opposing the british occupation of the 6 counties and the invasion and occupation of Iraq

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

btw

i fail to see any contradiction in opposing the british occupation of the 6 counties and the invasion and occupation of Iraq

Other people have had the courtesy of showing their course work on how they come up with their conclusion, saying "you're wrong" doesn't really bring anything to the debate.

Lots of people have explained their logic and reasoning, the SF supporters have pretty much just said, "nope you're wrong"

earwicker

I think that SF supporters might say that they oppose both because they are both expressions of imperialistic designs.

I can also see clearly the political reasons why SF would want to have a photo-op with Bush (e.g., "Like him or hate him, he still represents the American people on the world stage, and Irish-America is important to SF," or You don't simply say "no" to America," etc.), but I did find it somewhat disappointing. "Hypocritical" in moral terms, perhaps, but "realistic" in geo-political terms.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Other people have had the courtesy of showing their course work on how they come up with their conclusion, saying "you're wrong" doesn't really bring anything to the debate.

Lots of people have explained their logic and reasoning, the SF supporters have pretty much just said, "nope you're wrong"

I honestly dont think it needs any explanation

opposing illegal foreign interference in your own country and in other countries like Iraq or anywhere else is not contradictory

what would be contradictory would be for adams to refer to columbia as the USAs backyard

AmenToThat

cdebru wrote:

btw

i fail to see any contradiction in opposing the british occupation of the 6 counties and the invasion and occupation of Iraq

Thats because there is none!

mycroft

AmenToThat wrote:

Thats because there is none!

Well I think bonkey started off the logic like this

bonkey wrote:

Well given that the "occupation" of Ireland by the British predates the discovery of the Americas by Western European nations, I assume you would then concede that the lack of SF condemning that particular occupation is hypocritical?

Indeed, they would appear to support the occupation of the US by Wstern-European emigrants, as they use the country as a base of moral and financial support, rather than exhorting the occupiers to flock off back to where they came from and give the country back to the people who owned it in the first place.

So maybe you're right, and there's no hypocracy in the Iraq / NI comparison because the're both occupations. Kinda highlights an even deeper hypocracy if thats the case, though....wouldn't you agree?

and

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.

Essentially if you follow his logic, you should also be be condemning the existance of the united states.

shltter

where the logic falls on its arse is that SF is not calling for unionists to leave Ireland and go to where ever their ancestors came from

what they want an end to is foreign government interference in Ireland

the USA is not occupied by a foreign army or run by a foreign government or on behalf of a foreign government

mycroft

shltter wrote:

where the logic falls on its arse is that SF is not calling for unionists to leave Ireland and go to where ever their ancestors came from

what they want an end to is foreign government interference in Ireland

the USA is not occupied by a foreign army or run by a foreign government or on behalf of a foreign government

I think theres a whole load of guys on reservations who might disagree. They're called native americans.

shltter

mycroft wrote:

I think theres a whole load of guys on reservations who might disagree. They're called native americans.

what is the name of the foreign government that is controlling the USA
what country does the army that is occupying the USA come from


what was done to the native americans was disgraceful

the position now is that they are all USA citizens wether their forefathers were from ireland italy or native american

no foreign power is in control of the USA not foreign army is occupying the USA

what SF wants removed from Ireland is the british government and its army not the people who are descendants of british settlers

mycroft

shltter wrote:

what is the name of the foreign government that is controlling the USA
what country does the army that is occupying the USA come from

Very simply the USA Canada and Mexico.

SF don't recognise the rights of britain in NI and most of the Iraqi insurgents
reject the authority of the interm goverment. So technically they should reject the imperialist forces occupying the US.

what was done to the native americans was disgraceful

the position now is that they are all USA citizens wether their forefathers were from ireland italy or native american
no foreign power is in control of the USA not foreign army is occupying the USA

So basically you're saying the imperalist oppression of the native americans rebellion was handled so effectively, and ruthlessly by the US government, it justifies what occured. So the US should oppress any resistance in Iraq more ruthlessly and the British in NI, and in 120 years time it'll be okay by you?

Stabshauptmann

mycroft wrote:

It's an interesting philosophical perpective on the situation, but justifying in any way the continued existance of the IRA as weird teenage rebellion phase all irish political parties went through is unfair to people like the family of Robert McCartney, and ignores the continued reality of the situation.

Ive talked about the continued "reality" of the situation as I percieve it, so I havent ignored it. Whats is your perspective?
You're implying Im trivialisng the existance of the IRA and as such being unfair to the familys of Robert McCartney. How so? Honestly, how so?

Comparing a war against discrimination and violent oppression to a fight the power fad is trivilising things. Thats being unfair to a great many people.

Besides a 30 odd year campaign of terrorist activity is far too long to be brushed aside by overly simplistic logic about the natural progress of democracy on this Isle.

Overly simplistic? Why is it overly simplistic. You dont see the comparison between Sf\FF and the IRA which was one side in a war which cost 4000 lives and SF and the PIRA which was one part in a war which cost 3000 lives?
You cant see any similarities between the civil war and the troubles?


Im not happy that you decided to "brush aside" half my post btw. It was the part that dealt with the widening gap between Sf and the IRA and a possible end in sight to the IRA.

Stabshauptmann

The causes of the troubles are by no means as old as the USA. The IRA didnt recive the support it did for ideologocal notions of reunification but rather because an oppressed minority saw no other way of ending official discrimination, disenfranchisement and state sponsored (or at the very least tolerated) violence.

monument

mycroft wrote:

Other people have had the courtesy of showing their course work on how they come up with their conclusion, saying "you're wrong" doesn't really bring anything to the debate.

Lots of people have explained their logic and reasoning, the SF supporters have pretty much just said, "nope you're wrong"

Is this really coming from someone who has in the past given the excuses ‘that’s a philosophical question’, and along the lines of ‘that’s my own business’?

The two sound all to like "nope you're wrong" to me.

I think my questions (you would not answer) were on what I viewed as your contradictions and hypocrisy on an issue, so would this be further hypocrisy on your part?

mycroft

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Ive talked about the continued "reality" of the situation as I percieve it, so I havent ignored it. Whats is your perspective?
You're implying Im trivialisng the existance of the IRA and as such being unfair to the familys of Robert McCartney. How so? Honestly, how so?

By suggesting that armed uprising is a natural anthropolgical phase of all irish political partys, and therefore that events such as mc cartney murder are just a side effect natural progression of all democracy on this isle.

Comparing a war against discrimination and violent oppression to a fight the power fad is trivilising things. Thats being unfair to a great many people.

Yeah, and the IRA are just the finest bunch of lads Finn Mc Cumhaill, fighting discrimination and oppression. You're eulogising thugs and murderers, for every Billy Mckee (who later quit SF) you've got an impressive rooster of psychopaths and thugs.

Overly simplistic? Why is it overly simplistic. You dont see the comparison between Sf\FF and the IRA which was one side in a war which cost 4000 lives and SF and the PIRA which was one part in a war which cost 3000 lives?
You cant see any similarities between the civil war and the troubles?

At the start maybe. But if you want to go through a list of some of the more impressive and brutal pieces of IRA behaviour over the past 20 years and ask yourself how the bombing of canery warf or cheltenham, is a war aganist discrimination and violent oppression.

Im not happy that you decided to "brush aside" half my post btw. It was the part that dealt with the widening gap between Sf and the IRA and a possible end in sight to the IRA.

You can live with it. I'm going to ask a mod to seperate these posts onto a seperate thread, because it's veering seriously OT, and I'd hate to see it locked before Daithí gives me his excuse...........

I'll respond to it then.

I'll say this, the this weening the republican movement from violence has been going on for 10 years (baring hiccups) I'm just like many others fed up with glacial pace of IRA decommisioning.

mycroft

monument wrote:

Is this really coming from someone who has in the past given the excuses ‘that’s a philosophical question’, and along the lines of ‘that’s my own business’?

The two sound all to like "nope you're wrong" to me.

I think my questions (you would not answer) were on what I viewed as your contradictions and hypocrisy on an issue, so would this be further hypocrisy on your part?

And the attempted dragging of the thread OT continues.

You posed me a question, an overly simplistic question considering the ramifications of the special criminal court and the concept of justice, which didn't really have a relevance to the realities and practicalities of what we were discussing. I wanted to know how you thought an alternative to the special criminal court would work, I was asking nuts and bolts and you responded with a philosophical question about greater and lesser evils, which didn't do justice, to the complexity of the issues, and to the fact that the court is an unfortunate necessary evil, and if the IRA would just y'know stop with the perversion of the course of justice, we could do away with it.

You want to discuss whether it’s okay to commit a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil, start a thread on humanities. You want to discuss politics, nuts and bolts, don't respond to a quantify query with a philosophical rebuttal.

The Political forum would be a very dull place if debate went;

Person A: "I believe "X""

Person B: "Nuh Huh you're wrong"

Person A: "Nuh Huh you're wrong"

And if no one discussed nuance and practicalities this wouldn't be the forum we know and are obsessive compulsively drawn to post on.

monument

"nope you're wrong"

If I’m going to simplify things, I might as well have a proper stab at it….

Case one: I call you a hypocrite because of your contradicting views on two issues, you say ‘nope you're wrong’/that’s a philosophical question’/‘that’s my own business’… and then I say that you are just avoiding answering my question because the answer would/could confirm you’re a hypocrite.

Case two: you call people hypocrites because of their contradicting views on two issues, they say ‘nope you're wrong’/that’s a philosophical question’/‘that’s my own business’… and then you say everyone always says "nope you're wrong" and avoid proper answers…

…which just seams a tad bit hypocritical no matter what way you want to dress it up.

Or shall you and others now be keeping the reasons people vote for SF on humanities? And maybe you’ll keep the reason why people are hypocritical because of their contradicting views on two issues to such a board? Or should we make an exception just for you? Would that be hypocritical?

mycroft

monument wrote:

…which just seams a tad bit hypocritical no matter what way you want to dress it up.

Or shall you and others now be keeping the reasons people vote for SF on humanities? And maybe you’ll keep the reason why people are hypocritical because of their contradicting views on two issues to such a board? Or should we make an exception just for you? Would that be hypocritical?

Okay monument why don't you tell me how you think anonymous jurys would work? What was your excuse; "you've already made up your mind theres no point discussing it further" (translation; I can't, all debate is about making a compelling argument, you knew you couldn't debate this on a pratical level and wanted to defend it as a philosophical principle.)

I've pointed out that the terms of your question were too limited for the terms of the debate, and to illustrate I asked how you thought anonymous jurors would work in practice, because, philosophical principles aside, if you can't ensure an uncompromised jury, trial by jury cannot work, so therefore the principle proposed by you is ultimately flawed. You're saying that justice isn't been served by SCB, but if secure anonymous jurors can't be ensured, justice cannot be provided. It's a fairly simplistic paradox, and you ignored this paradox when you presented your principle. But you nevertheless insisted I debate this principle despite that the fact that the principle is fundamentally flawed.

You can't compare your flawed argument, with cdebru's unwilliness to enter this debate to a level passing "Nuh Huh". Seeing as you were unwilling to debate the argument on the level I suggested (the pratical) and that the principle, you proposed I defend; is over simplistic and flawed when you confront the realities on the ground, and therefore I declined to debate it.

And monument? A mod agreed with me. Get a mod to agree with your pov on this thread, and I'll discuss this further. Otherwise I'll see this as a further attempt by republican sympathisers to drag this thread further OT, and ignore your post and just report it to the mods as an attempt at thread spoiling.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

You can't compare your flawed argument, with cdebru's unwilliness to enter this debate to a level passing "Nuh Huh". Seeing as you were unwilling to debate the argument on the level I suggested (the pratical) and that the principle you proposed I defend, is over simplistic and flawed, when you confront the realities on the ground, and therefore I declined to debate it.

.

i have given you the reason why i dont think there is any contradiction

opposing foreign invasion occupation of a sovereign state is completely in keeping with supporting the removal of the occupying forces from ireland


where is the contradiction

a contradiction would be if SF supported the US and britain in attacking and occupying Iraq or any other country whilst seeking the removal of occupying forces from ireland

the ridiculous arguement that IRA actions are "illegal" and the invasion of Iraq was illegal so to be consistent SF would have to support all illegal actions is such a simplistic and childlike arguement that it is hardly debatable
there is absolutely no logic in it

would SF also have to support drink driving or mugging old people as they are illegal as well