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

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

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.

a bit ironic that you complain about dragging people of topic after you went off on a tangent about the native americans

btw I would support the aims of the AIM

[font=trebuchet ms,verdana,helvetica,arial]

1. Restoration of treaty making (ended by Congress in 1871).
2. Establishment of a treaty commission to make new treaties (with sovereign Native Nations).
3. Indian leaders to address Congress.
4. Review of treaty commitments and violations.
5. Unratified treaties to go before the Senate.
6. All Indians to be governed by treaty relations.
7. Relief for Native Nations for treaty rights violations.
8. Recognition of the right of Indians to interpret treaties.
9. Joint Congressional Committee to be formed on reconstruction of Indian relations.
10. Restoration of 110 million acres of land taken away from Native Nations by the United States.
11. Restoration of terminated rights.
12. Repeal of state jurisdiction on Native Nations.
13. Federal protection for offenses against Indians.
14. Abolishment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
15. Creation of a new office of Federal Indian Relations.
16. New office to remedy breakdown in the constitutionally prescribed relationships between the United States and Native Nations.
17. Native Nations to be immune to commerce regulation, taxes, trade restrictions of states.
18. Indian religious freedom and cultural integrity protected.
19. Establishment of national Indian voting with local options; free national Indian organizations from governmental controls
20. Reclaim and affirm health, housing, employment, economic development, and education for all Indian people.

[/font]

the AIM does not call for the repatriation of the settlers descendants and destruction of the USA so why should irish republicans

oscarBravo

cdebru wrote:

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

There are no occupying forces in Ireland.

monument

mycroft wrote:

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.

Get a mod to aggree with me or else! :rolleyes:

Looking above, cdebru has replied with an argument and not just "Nuh Huh" – even if it is one which you or I can’t agree with or see as deeply flawed. But I think the realistic case could be that you see everything that any republican or ‘republican sympathiser’ says as “blah, blah, blah”.

AmenToThat

oscarBravo wrote:

There are no occupying forces in Ireland.

Yes there are.

foxybrowne

The IRA are technically fighting a war against an occuppying foreign power.
Iraq is being occupied by a foreign power (or two).

United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.

1.Great Britian and 2.Northern Irelan.

British Army, not UK army is in Northern Ireland, a seperate state to Great Britian. Northern Ireland has no army.

cdebru

oscarBravo wrote:

There are no occupying forces in Ireland.

have they left
is this breaking news

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

There are no occupying forces in Ireland.

You should be able to do better than a rather bland statement which can easily be rebutted with the next rather bland statement of

'Oh Yes there are'

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You should be able to do better than a rather bland statement which can easily be rebutted with the next rather bland statement of

'Oh Yes there are'

I don't see why I need to. There are no occupying forces in "Ireland", aka the Republic of Ireland. There are no occupying forces in Northern Ireland, as it is internationally recognised as being part of the UK.

These are facts. I know that they are inconvenient facts for a tiny handful of people who depend on their delusional myth of foreign occupation for self-justification, but they are facts nonetheless.

mycroft

monument wrote:

Get a mod to aggree with me or else! :rolleyes:

Get a mod to agree with the terms of the debate, that you're to drag this OT with. Abide by their rules. I'm really quite surprised a mod has such an immature attitude to the responsibilites and role of moderators.

Oh and the above looks like a handy side step to the main thrust of my argument.

Looking above, cdebru has replied with an argument and not just "Nuh Huh" – even if it is one which you or I can’t agree with or see as deeply flawed. But I think the realistic case could be that you see everything that any republican or ‘republican sympathiser’ says as “blah, blah, blah”.

Yes he has now. However lacking the ability to travel backwards or forwards in time, I was refering to his orginal post which I summerised as "nuh huh". It's a bit difficult to argue with someone's post before they've written it :rolleyes:

a bit ironic that you complain about dragging people of topic after you went off on a tangent about the native americans

actually you'll notice I was quoting bonkey. If you think someone is dragging this OT you should talk to him.

PS can you link where you got that from?

---

also the logical extention of bonkey's debate is;

Originally Posted by 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

I think the final part is most relevant

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.

cdebru

sorry mycroft got what from

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

sorry mycroft got what from

the AIM principles.

cdebru

BTW

I have no problem in accepting that SF are hypocritical on many issues

the adams statement on columbia being the USAs back yard as i have already mentioned
meeting bush and criticising others for doing like wise

and plenty more

however I dont see any contradiction in opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq

cdebru

http://www.aimovement.org/ggc/history.html

sceptre

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

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.

That would be the completely off-topic part? You might have missed my previous comments (they were made prior to your post) so just for your benefit, take it to a different thread please. There are plenty of recent threads discussing whether SF have a private army or not and whether that's awful or wonderful and so on ad circulam. Your views might actually give one of those threads some extra readability.

I can see where you're going (I hope) with your line of thought but it'll just result in another thread discussing whether SF have a private army or not and whether that's good or not... and we could do without that here as it belongs in its own thread/discussion/country as it does tend to take everything else over.

Also for anyone else, unless you are the United Nations you're wasting everyone's time telling me or anyone else what country legally owns the dodgier parts of Belfast. Unless you've got some actual legal decisions (I do so like reading those) to throw into the new thread that would surely ensue. Bandwidth is precious and you might want it closer to the end of the month.

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

BTW

I have no problem in accepting that SF are hypocritical on many issues


however I dont see any contradiction in opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq

While at the same scampering up to Bush in hillisborough for a photo op.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

While at the same scampering up to Bush in hillisborough for a photo op.

as i said mycroft i have no problem in accepting they are hypocritical in their dealings with bush and the US in general



however actually opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq i would not see as hypocritical

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

as i said mycroft i have no problem in accepting they are hypocritical in their dealings with bush and the US in general



however actually opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq i would not see as hypocritical

Okay so your logic is;

Insurgent attacking US army post, okay.

Insurgent attacking mosque, or Iraqi police recruits, not okay.

IRA killing squadie from birmingham, okay.

IRA murdering RUC man 8th generation from Antrim, not okay.

Stabshauptmann

mycroft wrote:

By suggesting that armed uprising is a natural anthropological 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.

And that is unfair how? It was unfair that he was killed but I don’t see how discussing the origin of the IRA is unfair to his memory. If I were to maintain that the IRA *is* something its not I'd be unfair. But I’m not. I’ve no illusions as to what those claiming to be the IRA are atm and I’ve posted many times on how best to tackle and defeat them.

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.

By bringing Finn Mc Cumhaill into this you are deliberately avoiding the reality of what life in NI was like and trying to pain the troubles as a “stick it to the man” fantastical ideological game played by thugs and psychopaths.
So was there no discrimination? Were nationalists represented by a fair voting system? Was there no state sponsored/ tolerated violence?
What were the troubles all about then; why did it start?

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.

I’m always amazed at the way the Anglo Irish war or the Irish Civil war is treated by Irish ppl. In both cases there were massacres, rapings, burning of civilian property, intimidation, torture etc etc

In a shorter period of time the civil war caused more destruction and death than the troubles.

I cant think of a single war off hand that was fought in a “civilized manner” in the 20th century. War isn’t civilized. But if you want to discuss how the war was fought; compared to other wars of the era there were fewer civilian deaths and casualties proportionate to the size of the conflict.

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 decommissioning.

Ah yes, I’ve seen Scepters post and if he wants to split my posts from this thread grand.

Sceptre
Why I believe this to be On Topic.
The existence of the IRA, its origin and reason d'etre etc are all relevant to whether or not, or to what extent, it was an illegal war.

Whether or not SF is currently connected to the IRA or to what degree is relevant IMO because it shows (if they are separating /have separated) that SF knows war and violence can’t bring about lasting solutions. There condemnation of the war in Iraq could be based on lessons they've learned in NI. It’s not hypocritical to learn from ones mistakes if you state clearly you've made said mistake. It is hypocritical to simply attack someone for making a mistake while ignoring the fact that you've made such mistake.

While I’m on the topic. IF Bush had said, "America and Saddam were allies in the past because he was the lesser of two evils, this was a mistake and we have a duty to rectify this mistake and injustice to the Iraqi ppl; then I would have been in favour of the war". But he didn’t. Instead some rhetoric was spouted and pictures of foreign dignitaries shaking hands with Saddam were shown non stop on all the TV networks.
What I liked about Clinton is that he at least made the effort to lie to us, to make us think he had some nobler cause. Bush has so little respect for ppls intelligence that he doesn’t even bother lying.
While I’m on the topic.

Imo there are few comparisons to be drawn between the war in Iraq and the Troubles. The troubles started as an uprising against injustice, Iraq was invaded for no obvious reason. Had it been an attempt to end the suffering of the Iraqi ppl then SF might be in a hypocritical position but when we look at the reasons the Iraqi ppl were suffering, the methods of attack and the conduct of the occupying force we can see that ending suffering is very very far from the top of America's list.

Is SF hypocritical in general? Yes. Adams is the most two faced liar on the planet. He's a peacemaker to the peacemakers, a soldier to the soldiers and an ambiguous, deceitful, opportunist to everyone.

SF spouts socialist ideals but is deep in bed with big business in America

sovtek

mycroft wrote:

While at the same scampering up to Bush in hillisborough for a photo op.

Possibly that is....but then Bush (like it or not) is the leader of the country that has supported Sinn Fein and arbitrated somewhat between it's enemy.
But then:

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

monument

mycroft wrote:

Get a mod to agree with the terms of the debate, that you're to drag this OT with. Abide by their rules. I'm really quite surprised a mod has such an immature attitude to the responsibilites and role of moderators.[/b]

If you have a problem with my conduct on this thread I advise you to report it to the mods. If any of them have a problem, or if I have broken any rules, I'll back down and apologies.

Honestly, my aim was not to bring this thread off topic, but rather to confront someone I saw as an apparent hypocrite who was confronting other apparent hypocrites on near-identical moral grounds.

So next time, don’t bother threatening me saying you will contact them, just do it.

mycroft

monument wrote:

If you have a problem with my conduct on this thread I advise you to report it to the mods. If any of them have a problem, or if I have broken any rules, I'll back down and apologies.

Honestly, my aim was not to bring this thread off topic, but rather to confront someone I someone I saw as an apparent hypocrite who was confronting other apparent hypocrites on near-identical moral grounds.

So next time, don’t bother threatening me saying you will contact them, just do it.

So why didn't you answer my response instead of going

"na na na na na squealer squealer na na na na na na".

Possibly that is....but then Bush (like it or not) is the leader of the country that has supported Sinn Fein and arbitrated somewhat between it's enemy.

possibily but the general response from Sinn Fein to the rest of the anti war movement, when they called on Sinn Fein to boycott the meeting was generally along the response of "ssshhhh the grown ups are trying to talk"

You forget about the timing of Hillisborough meeting was literally the verge of war, and Sinn Fein were there for window dressing a pre war summit, to look like peace talks.

sovtek

mycroft wrote:

possibily but the general response from Sinn Fein to the rest of the anti war movement, when they called on Sinn Fein to boycott the meeting was generally along the response of "ssshhhh the grown ups are trying to talk"

You forget about the timing of Hillisborough meeting was literally the verge of war, and Sinn Fein were there for window dressing a pre war summit, to look like peace talks.

I honestly don't remember much about the meeting or what Sinn Fein did or didn't do at the time, and from what you say it does sound hypocritical.
Do you still contend that opposing the invasion of Iraq is contradictory to their support of the IRA?

mycroft

sovtek wrote:

I honestly don't remember much about the meeting or what Sinn Fein did or didn't do at the time, and from what you say it does sound hypocritical.
Do you still contend that opposing the invasion of Iraq is contradictory to their support of the IRA?

Actually my major issue with SF and the Iraq war has been the hillsborough meeting, they can march up and down O'Connell street, and make fine speeches, but at the end of day when they had a chance to make an internationally visible sign of their opposition they folded.

As to the insurgents, and the opposition to an invading occupying force, I'm just curious to know do people like cdebru consider it acceptable to use force aganist occupying forces (British army in NI, and US in Iraq) but is it also acceptable to use force aganist natives (RUC and Iraqi police recruits).

Also whether it's acceptable for IRA men born in the south or abroad to engage in struggle when they themselves aren't under oppressive occupying foreign forces.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

As to the insurgents, and the opposition to an invading occupying force, I'm just curious to know do people like cdebru consider it acceptable to use force aganist occupying forces (British army in NI, and US in Iraq) but is it also acceptable to use force aganist natives (RUC and Iraqi police recruits).

Also whether it's acceptable for IRA men born in the south or abroad to engage in struggle when they themselves aren't under oppressive occupying foreign forces.

yes

yes

and yes

in the context of no alternative in my opinion taking human life should be the last resort

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

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

Ok just to clear this up from my point of view.
There is no contradiction in opposing the occupation of Iraq,whilst opposing British rule in Northern Ireland.

There most definitely is hypocrisy in opposing one illegal war and supporting another.

As regards Monument Vs Mycroft in this thread-get a room guys if you want to get stuck into one another(perhaps TC would moderate that room :rolleyes:) but remain on topic here from this point out-thank you.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

yes

yes

and yes

in the context of no alternative in my opinion taking human life should be the last resort

For the record Could you clarify whether in your opinion, there is no workable alternative to the insurgency in Iraq that would negate the need for acting on the yes,yes,yes, that you've just subscribed to.
It is for a different thread, but I don't get a clear view from your post and am interested in the clarification.

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

in the context of no alternative in my opinion taking human life should be the last resort

The obvious alternative is not traveling to a foreign country and planting bombs. You've suggested violence as a last resort, how is the last resort of someone who consciously chooses to target people wanting to join a police force. I mean I'm moderately certain there are a few other alternatives that could be explored before plowing the car filled with explosives into the recruitment station. :rolleyes:

mycroft

On know this OT, but it is actually too funny to leave in my PM, I PM'd daithí to suggest he may want to look at this thread cause he had been exposed as a liar

Daith&#237 wrote:

Proven liar?
Ah, here we go again! Yes!

How did I lie? Did I say I wasn't a Republican?

Quote me saying that I'm not a Republican. Go on.

Failure. Pure and utter failure, I am afraid.

I am a Republican. I just don't support Sinn Féin.

There's a difference, you know. Wake up, yeah?

Ahhh, the joys of simple people.

Well. I'm laughing. :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

Off topic and Private Mail

Are you more interested in oneupmanship or the exchange of opinions and ideas? Just curious

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Off topic and Private Mail

Are you more interested in oneupmanship or the exchange of opinions and ideas? Just curious

His tone makes it funny. Also it directly responses to the entire rebuttal point of daithí which was that on this thread he's claimed he's not a member of SF, this became the entire body of a response to a post to me; while on a he's claimed membership of said party on a different thread. And now refutes membership and support to said party.

He made it On topic by making the entire body of his rebuttal solely on the state of his membership of Sinn Fein, and now via pm denies membership of a party he has previously claimed membership of, then yes I feel it is relevant, because he made it relevant.

Furthermore We've had nearly a half dozen thread debating the membership of people like Gerry Adams, Martin Mc Guinness, and Danny Morrison vis a vie statements they've made about membership of this very politcal party, and it's paramilitary wing and the dubious way that they've blurred the lines between membership and what can and can't be proven; for their benefit. So it is topical to the (justified) cynical attitude many of us have to republican arguments re membership status of said groups and individuals.

Put simply he made the state of his membership of this party part of this thread. If he's going to ignore this thread, and continue these lies via pm, than I feel I should point this out to the politics forum.

If a user is lying about their politcal affilations, and changes what they say about what party they support or have membership of, debate is impossible. I think everyone on both sides of the debate should agree on me on this. People who lie about their politics, when it suits them, cheapen debate here, and should be exposed and ignored by the rest of us.