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

Shabadu

The two cents that belong to me:

This post will be mostly OT, But I have to start by saying: Daithi=pwned.

I'm going to start by giving a definition of the word 'hypocrisy'.

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess.

This has been demonstrated by numerous (most?) figures in politics over the years. In contemporary Irish politics, it is my opinion that Gerry Adams is another handy definition for the word 'hypocrisy'. Sinn Fein have time and time again demonstrated their ability to talk and talk about their stance/policy on things but not back it up with action.

The crocodile tears when Adams realised the McCartney sisters weren't going to be subdued by intimidation. The call on the IRA to cease activity only when he realised public opinion was hugely against them. Sinn Fein's 'outrage' at drug dealers- who are violently ousted from communities by the IRA, only to be replaced by their own dealers ALLEGEDLY. If we believe public testimonials- I'll leave that call up to all of you to make individually seeing as I'm pretty sure nothing I can say will prove/convince anyone either way.

So let's examine this question: SF support for an illegal IRA war in NI Vs their protest at an illegal war in Iraq- Is it hypocrisy?

Imo,. yes- it is hypocrisy of the highest order. Let's compare the profile of the 'freedom fighters' in both wars. Both claim to be acting to unify their country under their own autonomy- both seem to feel that a huge civilian loss is an acceptable cost.

The 'Irish Republic Army' is hypocritical in even it's name. It is neither fighting on behalf of the Republic of Ireland, nor an Army. They are a rag-tag group of rabid fiends, fighting an imaginary war and profiteering away merrily.

How dare Sinn Fein criticise the occupation of Iraq, when their own military wing are occupying the hearts and minds of every person in their controlled areas that lives under the fear of constant and immediate danger?

How can they criticise another 'army' illegaly occupying a country when they aren't even a real army themselves, but a collective of immoral and unethical terrorists? The IRA is an illegal organisation, lest anyone forget.

Anyone that thinks that the IRA is fighting a romantic war to unify the 32 need to open their eyes and examine the damage and destruction they reign down on the people they are meant to be fighting for.

The hypocrisy of Sinn Fein criticising an illegal war when their military arm (let's call a spade a spade, shall we?) has been active since the year dot. *shakey fist*

What truly annoys me are the supporters- out to spit on Bush and his maniacal side that only sees the justice in his personal cause without looking at what is best for the world as a whole- and yet cheering Gerry on to the finishing line?

Sand

I dont think the situations are directly comparable, hence SF/IRA might be forgiven for treating them differently.

In fairness, the Iraq war was basically a coalition of states invading another state without the exspress permission of the UN security council. The involved parties were representive governments - except Iraq - with armies that were under the control of those governments, and enforced the Geneva convention. Thus it was a recognisable war, a war SF/IRA were at least nominally opposed to.

In the case of Northern Ireland, a terrorist campaign is not a war. If you blend the distinctions between terrorism and war, as SF/IRA constantly try to do to exscuse their terrorism, then you undermine the standards expected in an actual war. For it to be a war, SF/IRA would have to meet the standards of at least a guerilla army - they dont. They do not enforce the Geneva Convention, nor even pay lip service to it. Nothing, absolutely nothing is forbidden or punishable if it advances the cause in some way. That is the only standard to which SF/IRA adheres to. Hence, its not surprising that when they attempt to venture into the world of principles and ideals - opposing illegal wars for example - they end looking confused and chaotic.

Describing SF/IRAs actions as an illegal war gives them too much respect. It wasnt even an illegal war. It was terrorism pure and simple. Hence, I dont think its wholly hypocritical for SF/IRA to support terrorism whilst opposing illegal wars, as they are different situations. Its odd alright, but no more so than supporting punishment beatings whilst opposing police forces.

But I have to start by saying: Daithi=pwned

Yup, I've got to say, I'm not sure Ive seen as decisive an ownage in this board before. The moralised outrage over the accusations of party membership beforehand makes it all the more embarrassing for him. But as already noted, confusion over who exactly is a member of what when can be forgiven when dealing with SF/IRA as they like to keep it as murky and deniable as possible.

[ Daithí ]

Since you people don't seem to understand that membership of a political party is voluntary, I'll clear it up for you.

I was a member of Sinn Féin.
I left.
I dislike them now.
End of story.

Is it really that hard to comprehend? Christ.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

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.

i dont know enough about the situation on the ground in Iraq to say wether there is a workable alternative



without going into a major discussion OT on wether elections are fair or free and the sunni non participation
a can of worms has been opened up by the invasion and a catch 22 situation seems to exist in that the US probably wont leave while there are insurgents and the insurgents probably wont stop while there are americans in Iraq
of course wether the US would be in a hurry to leave if there was no insurgents I doubt it

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

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:

yes the british and americans should not have travelled to a foreign country and planted bombs


i would guess that in the eyes of the insurgents people joining the police force are collabarating with the occupying force

my guess would be that as long as the US is occupying and has troops in Iraq there will be people who use force to oppose them how much support they recieve from the Iraqi population would ddepend on what alternatives are available


btw the last resort to taking human life works both ways i dont believe for one second that the US or the UK only used force as a last resort and as such as the aggressor they are responsible for the situation

Shabadu

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

Since you people don't seem to understand that membership of a political party is voluntary, I'll clear it up for you.

I was a member of Sinn Féin.
I left.
I dislike them now.
End of story.

Is it really that hard to comprehend? Christ.

Hmm... I seem to have just gotten Deja Moo- in that i've heard this bullsh!t before.

A Dub in Glasgo

Where then?

Shabadu

Aw- good for you sticking up for him even though he's not a member of Sinn Fein anymore.

Let's answer the question you posed in the style of Daithi, shall we? Where did I say that I'd heard this before meant that I'd heard it from Daithi before?

Or are you curious as to where in my 'real-life' I've heard this from? It was actually from an American who despite the fact he has donated money to Sinn Fein and strongly and vociferously defends them, would round on anyone saying he was a supporter as 'he's not a party member'. I don't even know if non-nationals are allowed become party members, I just remember this as another facet of the shining diamond of hypocrisy that is Sinn Fein and their supporters.

Now, instead of playing little games trying to one-up each other with pithy quotes, why don't you adress some of the points I made in regard to the apparent hypocrisy displayed by the [strike]IRA High Council[/strike] Sinn Fein leadership?

A Dub in Glasgo

Shabadu wrote:

Aw- good for you sticking up for him even though he's not a member of Sinn Fein anymore.

You guessed all that from the question 'Where then?' - you are amazing.

Let's answer the question you posed in the style of Daithi, shall we? Where did I say that I'd heard this before meant that I'd heard it from Daithi before?

What are you on about?

Or are you curious as to where in my 'real-life' I've heard this from?

I assumed you had a case of deja vu on these forums. So it was outside the forums then?

It was actually from an American who despite the fact he has donated money to Sinn Fein and strongly and vociferously defends them, would round on anyone saying he was a supporter as 'he's not a party member'. I don't even know if non-nationals are allowed become party members, I just remember this as another facet of the shining diamond of hypocrisy that is Sinn Fein and their supporters.

And this is all you can manage to supplement your opinion that SF (and their supporters) are hypocrites!!!

Now, instead of playing little games trying to one-up each other with pithy quotes,

What games? The only oneupmanship I see is mycroft.

why don't you adress some of the points I made in regard to the apparent hypocrisy displayed by the [strike]IRA High Council[/strike] Sinn Fein leadership?

Apparant or real? SF alone or does this hypocrisy affect others?

Shabadu

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You guessed all that from the question 'Where then?' - you are amazing.

Don't be obtuse.

What are you on about?

Daithis rounding on mycroft because mycroft assumed he was a Sinn Fein supporter, when he obviously isn't any more, like you didn't know. I love this fake 'I don't get it, wha are you on aboot, are ya thick or wha?' stuff.

I assumed you had a case of deja vu on these forums. So it was outside the forums then?

Funny, Daithi's allowed launch on mycroft for assuming something, but I can't do the same to you?

In this case out side these forums. That said, I'm sure if we all trailed back through everyone's posts we could find a similar backtracking, possibly several.

And this is all you can manage to supplement your opinion that SF (and their supporters) are hypocrites!!!

Wow. This is a bit of a leap. Try to understand.

1) That was one example.

2) For a few more that I elicit, look a few posts up in the thread.

(Further down in your post you make reference to the fact that I made other examples of 'real or apparent?' hypocrisy. So it's not like even you thought it was the only example I gave)

What games? The only oneupmanship I see is mycroft.

I have something incredibly witty to put here but I think it would get me a banning, so I'll just shout it really hard at the screen.

Apparant or real? SF alone or does this hypocrisy affect others?

You sure you're not a politician in more than an amateur sense? Because this is a fab example of side-stepping.

A Dub in Glasgo

Shabadu wrote:

Don't be obtuse.

Sorry about that - usually happens when a poster assumes a lot from a 2 word question.

Daithis rounding on mycroft because mycroft assumed he was a Sinn Fein supporter, when he obviously isn't any more, like you didn't know. I love this fake 'I don't get it, wha are you on aboot, are ya thick or wha?' stuff.

My 'What are you on about?' to the original passage is still valid. More assumptions in your reply above.

Funny, Daithi's allowed launch on mycroft for assuming something, but I can't do the same to you?

In this case out side these forums. That said, I'm sure if we all trailed back through everyone's posts we could find a similar backtracking, possibly several.

I am sure you probably can as i have stated numerous times that hypocrisy is not confined to SF (or their supporters). I am sure I can trawl through my outside forums experiences and present examples of hypcrorisy like the leader of a country who objects to violence yet actively assists in the massacre of thousands of innocent people.

Wow. This is a bit of a leap. Try to understand.

see your first comment

1) That was one example.

An example that can be easily made up as well - obviously stating this is not an accusation that you made it up. I would not do such a thing.

2) For a few more that I elicit, look a few posts up in the thread.

(Further down in your post you make reference to the fact that I made other examples of 'real or apparent?' hypocrisy. So it's not like even you thought it was the only example I gave)

Seen them earlier in the thread although the discussion went from SF's opppostion to the Iraq war to SF's alleged support for the insurgency.

I have something incredibly witty to put here but I think it would get me a banning, so I'll just shout it really hard at the screen.

Go on - send it by PM then (assuming it is witty though!!)

You sure you're not a politician in more than an amateur sense? Because this is a fab example of side-stepping.

Definitely not a politician - are you? I am just an ordinary guy who sees hypocrisy from everyone and some with even more extreme examples of hypocrisy than the opinion presented by your good self. I have had discussions with the mods previously about the relevancy of other hypocrisy so I should just leave it there and say no more.

I have already stated categorically that SF are hypocritical when it comes to accepting/supporting violence from one source whilest condemning violence from another source.

mycroft

[ Daith&#237 wrote: »

Since you people don't seem to understand that membership of a political party is voluntary, I'll clear it up for you.

I was a member of Sinn Féin.
I left.
I dislike them now.
End of story.

Is it really that hard to comprehend? Christ.

Wow. Do you not think you might have clarified that before rounding on me over your membership status of SF? Five months ago you claimed membership, and in the interim have pretty much just toed the party line. Would that have killed you?

Frankly this is an astonishingly weak defence, considering both your rebuttals didn’t include a past tense reference to your status in the party;

"I am not a supporter or member of Sinn Fein"

'I just don't support Sinn Fein"

The inference of those statements is that you are implying at no previous time, have you been a member or supporter of Sinn Fein, because you failed to add a clarifying past tense clause, to those denials. Despite professing membership of said party less than five months ago.

It's only after I highlighted your mention of membership to you via pm (and hilariously you got all indignation over your status as a republican, which was priceless, and reminded me of the title of this book ), that you've finaly added the postscript, anymore. And I submit you'd have preferred this to remain a guilty lil secret (possibly flawed by you attempting to lambaste me over the status of your membership, but hey, evil genuis' do always make one fatal mistake), and not have mentioned this to anyone.

Don't worry about it certain posters, on this board, tend to be an open-minded forgiving bunch, about these kinds of confusions, over membership status of said party, and it's paramilitary wing. They'll accept any form of nonsense explanation you can offer. The rest of us are just a tad cynical and see you for what you really are.

Though if you feel like amusing me via pm (or on this thread) explain to us why you left the party, and why your politics really haven't shown an kind of evolution from the party line over these (what surely must have been trying) few months. I'm dying to know.

At the very least you owe me a full apology for the post that started all this, where you lambasted me over accusations about your membership status of said party, an assumption I made, because you said you were a member.

yes the british and americans should not have travelled to a foreign country and planted bombs


i would guess that in the eyes of the insurgents people joining the police force are collabarating with the occupying force

my guess would be that as long as the US is occupying and has troops in Iraq there will be people who use force to oppose them how much support they recieve from the Iraqi population would ddepend on what alternatives are available


btw the last resort to taking human life works both ways i dont believe for one second that the US or the UK only used force as a last resort and as such as the aggressor they are responsible for the situation

And again, wow. Vague much? Thats an awful lot of guess work.

"My guess", "I would guess" Don't you think you should do a little ground work and research before you start picking sides in a conflict?

Look at the politics see who's funding insurgents, what level of support they have among the local population, before throwing you're weight behind it.

Also your post implies a certain "two wrongs do make a right attitude"

Also you intentially misinterpretated what I said. Countries invade other countries, for larger geo political reasons. I'm refering to someone traveling from say kerry (where they're not oppressed) to belfast to join a bombing campaign. How is such a person engaged in violence as a last resort?

Rock Climber

Blub2k4 wrote:

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

5 days later...

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft wrote:

Also you intentially misinterpretated what I said. Countries invade other countries, for larger geo political reasons. I'm refering to someone traveling from say kerry (where they're not oppressed) to belfast to join a bombing campaign. How is such a person engaged in violence as a last resort?

If they believe in the cause they are fighting, do you think that is wrong? Is it always wrong? or is it just this particular example?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If they believe in the cause they are fighting, do you think that is wrong? Is it always wrong? or is it just this particular example?

In theory thats an interesting question, as there are people from the 26 counties who are in the British army and navy.
Indeed one even died fighting for Britain in Iraq.
It might be an even more interesting question to ponder whether there are more people born on the island of Ireland serving with British forces than there are Irish people in active service units of the IRA.

There are certainly a lot of Irish people currently in the Crown forces world wide and historically,even in WW2 over a 100,000 from the 26 counties fought in the British Army.
Should we draw any inferences on what Irish people as a whole think based on whether some of them have fought for British forces or in PIRA?

cdebru wrote:

btw the last resort to taking human life works both ways i dont believe for one second that the US or the UK only used force as a last resort and as such as the aggressor they are responsible for the situation

Would you be prepared to make the same statement about the Iraqi insurgents and if not why not? or the IRA for that matter

Given that your line of reasoning is that there is no hypocrisy only a coincidence of occupation in both cases.
What say you to the fact that one is an illegal invasion/occupation according to many international lawyers,BUT is there even one that would agree that ,the British Army illegally invaded Northern Ireland and occupied it ?

What would be the legal interpretation do you think of most if not all international lawyers on the IRA war in NI or Britain? Whatever way they might describe it,I'd say "legal" would be a term they would not use.

mycroft

Rock Climber wrote:

5 days later...

Whats that, old short strand definition of the IRA,

I

Ran

Away.

If they believe in the cause they are fighting, do you think that is wrong? Is it always wrong? or is it just this particular example?

Dub, cdebru is arguing that violence is necessary as a last resort, how is it necessary for a member of the dublin or any of the southern IRA bridages or volunteers who traveled up north. Couldn't they have tried, a stern letter writing campaign perhaps?

Someone who makes a conscious decision to join a conflict that does not directly affect them is not choosing violence as a last resort. Theres a far cry from picking up a gun to defend your home, to traveling hundreds of miles out of your way, to start a terrorist bombing campaign.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Would you be prepared to make the same statement about the Iraqi insurgents and if not why not? or the IRA for that matter

Given that your line of reasoning is that there is no hypocrisy only a coincidence of occupation in both cases.
What say you to the fact that one is an illegal invasion/occupation according to many international lawyers,BUT is there even one that would agree that ,the British Army illegally invaded Northern Ireland and occupied it ?

What would be the legal interpretation do you think of most if not all international lawyers on the IRA war in NI or Britain? Whatever way they might describe it,I'd say "legal" would be a term they would not use.

taking human life should be a last resort for anyone


IMO the foundation of the 6 county state was illegal and enforced under the threat of an immediate and terrible war against the will of the majority of the population of Ireland as expressed in 1918 and 1920

the six county state was built on and enforced discrimination and violence against the nationalist community and any attempt at attaining civil rights for the nationalist community were met with brutality

I accept that some people concluded that the use of force was the only way to achieve unity and as such the civil liberties that they were denied under the british sponsored sectarian regime

I also accept that a lot of that violence was counterproductive and that there is no need for armed struggle now

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

taking human life should be a last resort for anyone


IMO the foundation of the 6 county state was illegal and enforced under the threat of an immediate and terrible war against the will of the majority of the population of Ireland as expressed in 1918 and 1920

the six county state was built on and enforced discrimination and violence against the nationalist community and any attempt at attaining civil rights for the nationalist community were met with brutality

I accept that some people concluded that the use of force was the only way to achieve unity and as such the civil liberties that they were denied under the british sponsored sectarian regime

I also accept that a lot of that violence was counterproductive and that there is no need for armed struggle now

Yes, and this is all fascinating stuff.

However you are, again, avoiding my question.

Someone who makes a conscious decision to join a conflict that does not directly affect them is not choosing violence as a last resort. Theres a far cry from picking up a gun to defend your home, to traveling hundreds of miles out of your way, to start a terrorist bombing campaign.

So what do you think of foreigners crossing borders to engage in conflicts that don't directly affect them utilizing violence as a last resort? Do you condone their actions? Is it acceptable?

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Whats that, old short strand definition of the IRA,

I

Ran

Away.



Dub, cdebru is arguing that violence is necessary as a last resort, how is it necessary for a member of the dublin or any of the southern IRA bridages or volunteers who traveled up north. Couldn't they have tried, a stern letter writing campaign perhaps?

Someone who makes a conscious decision to join a conflict that does not directly affect them is not choosing violence as a last resort. Theres a far cry from picking up a gun to defend your home, to traveling hundreds of miles out of your way, to start a terrorist bombing campaign.

of course the counter opinion would be that someone who risks their life and liberty for their fellow country men and women even though they could just ignore the situation and stick their head in the sand and pretend it is not happening is perhaps braver than those that take up arms because they are directly affected

if you are a republican and believe in a 32 county Ireland then what is happening in belfast is just as important to you as what is happening in cork or dublin

the logic of your suggestion would be that if dublin was attacked tomorrow then people from galway or cork or kerry should just ignore it as they would not be directly affected

Mighty_Mouse

Someone who makes a conscious decision to join a conflict that does not directly affect them is not choosing violence as a last resort. Theres a far cry from picking up a gun to defend your home, to traveling hundreds of miles out of your way, to start a terrorist bombing campaign

depends on your definition of home and what affects you, doesnt it?

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

Yes, and this is all fascinating stuff.

However you are, again, avoiding my question.



So what do you think of foreigners crossing borders to engage in conflicts that don't directly affect them utilizing violence as a last resort? Do you condone their actions? Is it acceptable?

not avoiding anything i was answering earthman first


as i have said i dont believe anyone from the 26 counties is a foreigner in the 6 counties or vice versa

or do you mean in a wider context for example the US and britain entering Iraq

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft,

It is a nonsense argument anyway. Earthman raised the issue of foreigners in the British Army going off to far flung places fighting for Britain.

I take it you would also find the following repugnent?

The International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War including many Irishmen

The many British and 2nd generation Irish who fought for Irish Independence during the 1916 Rising

http://tomgriffin.typepad.com/the_green_ribbon/2005/03/secondgeneratio.html

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

And again, wow. Vague much? Thats an awful lot of guess work.

"My guess", "I would guess" Don't you think you should do a little ground work and research before you start picking sides in a conflict?

Look at the politics see who's funding insurgents, what level of support they have among the local population, before throwing you're weight behind it.

Also your post implies a certain "two wrongs do make a right attitude"

Also you intentially misinterpretated what I said. Countries invade other countries, for larger geo political reasons. I'm refering to someone traveling from say kerry (where they're not oppressed) to belfast to join a bombing campaign. How is such a person engaged in violence as a last resort?

i have not picked anyside

I accept the Iraqis right to engage in armed resistance to occupation if that it was they believe has to be done

I and I would believe you dont know enough about the situation on the ground in Iraq to determine if they have a workable alternative to armed resistance to end the occupation

So what is your point if people are killed for larger geo political reasons then that is ok even if it was not the last resort
but if an Irish person from outside the occupied area assists his fellow country men and women that is morally wrong. why ???

again the extension of your logic would be if any country is partly occupied the people outside the occupied area should just ignore it and pretend it is not happening a kind of vichy france solution

cdebru

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

mycroft,

It is a nonsense argument anyway. Earthman raised the issue of foreigners in the British Army going off to far flung places fighting for Britain.

I take it you would also find the following repugnent?

The International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War including many Irishmen

The many British and 2nd generation Irish who fought for Irish Independence during the 1916 Rising

http://tomgriffin.typepad.com/the_green_ribbon/2005/03/secondgeneratio.html

and of course the hunt for bin laden should be left to new york washington and pennsylvannia people from texas for example should just mind their own business they were not attacked

Shabadu

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Sorry about that - usually happens when a poster assumes a lot from a 2 word question

My 'What are you on about?' to the original passage is still valid. More assumptions in your reply above.

Ok.

I am sure you probably can as i have stated numerous times that hypocrisy is not confined to SF (or their supporters). I am sure I can trawl through my outside forums experiences and present examples of hypcrorisy like the leader of a country who objects to violence yet actively assists in the massacre of thousands of innocent people.

I also don't believe that hypocrisy is confined to members and supporters of Sinn Fein. For starters, I believe the word 'hypocrisy' predates the formation of Sinn Fein. I also mentioned in my first post that hypocrisy can be seen in possibly most Political figures.

However, the title of this thread is: SF support for an illegal IRA war in NI Vs their protest at an illegal war in Iraq-is it hypocrisy?

Therefore I have limited my accusations of hypocrisy to members/supporters of Sinn Fein. The notion of hypocrisy in politics as a whole is a valid and pertinent one, and I would be more than happy to point out several non-fenian related examples in a different thread.

An example that can be easily made up as well - obviously stating this is not an accusation that you made it up. I would not do such a thing.

Hearsay is not admissable as proof, thats true. However, it doesn't mean it's false information. It just means it remains in the realm of opinion and you can choose whether or not to believe it, much as people choose whether or not to believe Adams sits on the IRA High Council.

Seen them earlier in the thread although the discussion went from SF's opppostion to the Iraq war to SF's alleged support for the insurgency.

Whether or not the IRA/SF supports the insurgency, many paralells can be drawn between the IRA's actions, and those of not only the insurgents, but also the invaders.

Go on - send it by PM then (assuming it is witty though!!)

Nah- the chiddler had a rough night with teeth last night and it was more of a funny insult borne from a tired caffeine deprived brain. I don't really think of you that way so don't want to send you something cruel just for the hell of it.

Definitely not a politician - are you? I am just an ordinary guy who sees hypocrisy from everyone and some with even more extreme examples of hypocrisy than the opinion presented by your good self. I have had discussions with the mods previously about the relevancy of other hypocrisy so I should just leave it there and say no more.

I have already stated categorically that SF are hypocritical when it comes to accepting/supporting violence from one source whilest condemning violence from another source.

I can accept that you see hypocrisy in many places, and I see that you recognise the hypocrisy in SF's attitude twoards violence. But with respect, I would then ask where your stance in this thread is right now?

You come off strongly as someone who tries to pick holes in the arguements of people who don't support SF, while staying suspiciously quiet when a SF supporter may say something that you could also counter. If you believe SF are being hypocritical in this instance and don't support them, then why does this predjudice exist?

It would be nice if you could clarify how you feel about this particular hypocrisy in the present time. There is a difference between playing Devil's Advocate, and refusing to be tied down.

mycroft

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

mycroft,

It is a nonsense argument anyway. Earthman raised the issue of foreigners in the British Army going off to far-flung places fighting for Britain.

I take it you would also find the following repugnent?

The International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War including many Irishmen

The many British and 2nd generation Irish who fought for Irish Independence during the 1916 Rising

http://tomgriffin.typepad.com/the_green_ribbon/2005/03/secondgeneratio.html

Tut tut tut, Dub when did I was against it? Where on this thread. Don't put words I never said into my mouth. I'm just trying to sort out the funny little muddle that is cdebru's logic.

And Dub don't compare the brave men and women who fought with honour and integrity against the rise of fascism, to those murdering child cripplers, robbing, cheating, civilian targeting, terrorist thugs up north.

cdebru’s is saying he supports violence only as a last resort. and therefore I can't understand how he can offer any kind of support for the IRA's campaign over the last 30 years.

A campaign which has cause more civilian causalities than any other side in the north.

A campaign that has used violence aganist its own community to enforce order.

A campaign that has robbed, cheated, extorted and murdered to fund itself.

A campaign that has specifically targeted civilian and commercial infrastructure, that in no way is directly related to it's purposive objectives.

This is not a campaign of violence as a last resort, this is campaign by men of violence who see violence as an acceptable and viable tactic. I really don't think Dessie O'Hara every thought, "lets see what we can get done with a couple of protests and a letter writing campaign, and then maybe if that doesn't work lets start slicing dentist's fingers off". These are violent brutal people, and for many of them violence isn't the last resort it's the preferred course of action.

I accept the Iraqis right to engage in armed resistance to occupation if that it was they believe has to be done

Yes put again that’s not the point, what about non-Iraqi? Who come and join the resistance. Do you accept that they may not have the right to y'know blow up people who were born in Iraq?

I and I would believe you don’t know enough about the situation on the ground in Iraq to determine if they have a workable alternative to armed resistance to end the occupation

Mind boggles........

Let me get this straight your logic is "I'm not sure if the guy murdering civilians has thought this through, until people show me otherwise I'm going to support his right to do so. "

if an Irish person from outside the occupied area assists his fellow country men and women that is morally wrong. why ???

It's such a nice theory. It falls completely down when you look at the reality of the situation. I mean did the Irish person, ask the people in NI, if they wanted his support and assistance, in helping them out? By helping them out what he means is blowing up manchester city centre? As practical assistance goes what it lacks in demonstrable help it actually gives, is more than outweighed by all the trouble and hard work he put into it.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

I accept the Iraqis right to engage in armed resistance to occupation if that it was they believe has to be done

If thats an acceptance that any minority has the right to take up arms with majority disapproval,I'd have to strongly disagree with you.
They have no such "right" and doing so would be and is illegal.
Thats the fact of the situation regardless of individual opinions on the matter,yours or mine.

To be honest, by the way,I find your statement that "we don't know enough about Iraq on the ground" to be able to form a proper opinion on it as condesending and patronising and frankly it flies in the face of posters abilities to read the stories of journalists based there varying in hue from Robert Fisk all the way to those of a fox news disposition.

I accept that some people concluded that the use of force was the only way to achieve unity and as such the civil liberties that they were denied under the british sponsored sectarian regime

Those denials of civil liberties wouldnt have lasted long past the UK's entry into the E.E.C(Turkey is having to address human and civil rights issues prior to even talks on entry).The IRA's campaign though continued over 20 years after joining and was indicative of being much more than and far far beyond just a campaign for civil liberties and certainly doesn't stand up to the criteria you've laid out that violence should be a last resort.

the logic of your suggestion would be that if dublin was attacked tomorrow then people from galway or cork or kerry should just ignore it as they would not be directly affected

Well actually they would be directly affected,I'd imagine more people from Galway,Dublin, and Kerry commute to Dublin every weekend to work(not to mention students) than do to belfast.
Then theres the fact that Dublin is our seat of government,and the location of the head branch of much of our administration , both public and private.

That all said, we are debating the hypocrisy of two illegal wars here not two illegal occupations.
You have said, that in your opinion, and I quote:

IMO the foundation of the 6 county state was illegal and enforced under the threat of an immediate and terrible war against the will of the majority of the population of Ireland as expressed in 1918 and 1920

Have you any legal basis for that opinion of illegality at all? because otherwise, it has no standing whatsoever.

Thus we are at a situation (though we were there anyway) that theres no comparison at all between the legal occupation of NI by UK troops and an illegal occupation of Iraq by British troops, except with yourself personally and also separately in the minds of a small minority of people who are willing to support or give credence in their minds to the actions of the IRA.
Democracy in Ireland doesn't countenance the prevalence of such opinions and rightly so.
(If it did we might have a regular state of anarchy, with organisations such as the anti bin charge army blowing up county council offices...)

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

.

cdebru’s is saying he supports violence only as a last resort. and therefore I can't understand how he can offer any kind of support for the IRA's campaign over the last 30 years.

A campaign which has cause more civilian causalities than any other side in the north..

what about the ammount of civilians killed by the allies in ww2 a campaign you are exalting earlier do you withdraw your support for the campaign to defeat fascism because of civilian deaths caused by the allies

mycroft wrote:

.

A campaign that has used violence aganist its own community to enforce order. .

yes they should have set up IRA jails to deal with those problems

mycroft wrote:

.

A campaign that has robbed, cheated, extorted and murdered to fund itself..

yes why did they not just have a sponsored walk or something

mycroft wrote:

.

A campaign that has specifically targeted civilian and commercial infrastructure, that in no way is directly related to it's purposive objectives.
.

your complete lack of understanding of the IRA commercial campaign amazes me
BTW those brave men and women you exalt earlier for defeating fascism did not contain themselves to military targets
dresden anyone

mycroft wrote:

.

This is not a campaign of violence as a last resort, this is campaign by men of violence who see violence as an acceptable and viable tactic. I really don't think Dessie O'Hara every thought, "lets see what we can get done with a couple of protests and a letter writing campaign, and then maybe if that doesn't work lets start slicing dentist's fingers off". These are violent brutal people, and for many of them violence isn't the last resort it's the preferred course of action..

apart from the fact that o'hare was not in the IRA
I have already said that a lot of the violence was counter productive and did not further the cause it was meant to be in aid of
as to wether britains empire would ever have been ended by a letter writing campaign i doubt it

do you believe that instead of the dday landings they should have given the soldiers pens and paper and sent thousands of letters instead

mycroft wrote:

.

Yes put again that’s not the point, what about non-Iraqi? Who come and join the resistance. Do you accept that they may not have the right to y'know blow up people who were born in Iraq?.

what about the international brigades in spain

or indeed australias or canadas involvement in WW2 should the nazi invasion of france been left to the french to deal with

mycroft wrote:

.

Mind boggles........

Let me get this straight your logic is "I'm not sure if the guy murdering civilians has thought this through, until people show me otherwise I'm going to support his right to do so. ".

I dont support the murder of any civilians
I'm not in Iraq so im not going to preach to iraqis as to wether they should or should not use armed resistance to the occupation

I accept that they have a right to use armed force as the french resistance for example did

mycroft wrote:

.

It's such a nice theory. It falls completely down when you look at the reality of the situation. I mean did the Irish person, ask the people in NI, if they wanted his support and assistance, in helping them out? By helping them out what he means is blowing up manchester city centre? As practical assistance goes what it lacks in demonstrable help it actually gives, is more than outweighed by all the trouble and hard work he put into it.

yes he should obviously call to every house in the 6 counties and ask them if they think he should join the IRA

attacking commercial targets in the UK arguably increased the desire of the UK government to engage in the peace process when the IRA ended the first ceasefire they chose to do so in Britain

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

If thats an acceptance that any minority has the right to take up arms with majority disapproval,I'd have to strongly disagree with you.
They have no such "right" and doing so would be and is illegal.
Thats the fact of the situation regardless of individual opinions on the matter,yours or mine.

strongly disagree then

the invasion was illegal I find it absurd that people can gloss over the cause of the conflict an illegal invasion and occupation and brand the response to it as illegal

Earthman wrote:

To be honest, by the way,I find your statement that "we don't know enough about Iraq on the ground" to be able to form a proper opinion on it as condesending and patronising and frankly it flies in the face of posters abilities to read the stories of journalists based there varying in hue from Robert Fisk all the way to those of a fox news disposition.

given the ammount of censorship in Iraq I honestly doubt we are getting the full story no matter who we read

Earthman wrote:

Those denials of civil liberties wouldnt have lasted long past the UK's entry into the E.E.C(Turkey is having to address human and civil rights issues prior to even talks on entry).The IRA's campaign though continued over 20 years after joining and was indicative of being much more than and far far beyond just a campaign for civil liberties and certainly doesn't stand up to the criteria you've laid out that violence should be a last resort.

Of course the people demanding civil rights and who were beaten of the street and the people who suffered the loyalist pogroms should have known that britain would enter the EEC in about 3 or 4 years time
not to mention that the EU that turkey is having to adapt for is far different from the common market that the UK joined in 1972

Earthman wrote:

Well actually they would be directly affected,I'd imagine more people from Galway,Dublin, and Kerry commute to Dublin every weekend to work(not to mention students) than do to belfast.
Then theres the fact that Dublin is our seat of government,and the location of the head branch of much of our administration , both public and private.

silly arguement so because more people travel to dublin it is different so if it was leitrim or donegal we could just forget about it

Earthman wrote:

That all said, we are debating the hypocrisy of two illegal wars here not two illegal occupations.
You have said, that in your opinion, and I quote:
Have you any legal basis for that opinion of illegality at all? because otherwise, it has no standing whatsoever.

well I'm pretty confident that to threaten people with an immediate and terrible war if they dont agree to your suggestion would have legal implications
however i'am unwilling to pay for a barrister to check that at this juncture money is a bit tight

Earthman wrote:

Thus we are at a situation (though we were there anyway) that theres no comparison at all between the legal occupation of NI by UK troops and an illegal occupation of Iraq by British troops, except with yourself personally and also separately in the minds of a small minority of people who are willing to support or give credence in their minds to the actions of the IRA.
Democracy in Ireland doesn't countenance the prevalence of such opinions and rightly so.
(If it did we might have a regular state of anarchy, with organisations such as the anti bin charge army blowing up county council offices...)

except this state was founded on the actions of a small number of people engaging in military action against a "legal" occupation
I presume you find those events that led to the foudation of this state equally repugnant

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

what about the ammount of civilians killed by the allies in ww2 a campaign you are exalting earlier do you withdraw your support for the campaign to defeat fascism because of civilian deaths caused by the allies

Whats the title of the thread, oh yeah, SF and illegal iraq war, yourself and dub do like to drag it OT.

I can understand that the WW2 was a necessary action while at the same time, regret and condemn the behaviour of say bomber harris.

It's just justifying the IRA's campaign as a protection of innocent civilians in the north, while ignoring the fact that they've killed more innocent civilians than anyone else is a joke.

yes they should have set up IRA jails to deal with those problems

Alternatively they should just not go around kneecapping people.

yes why did they not just have a sponsored walk or something

Well you have a grand line in fundraising from the US. Doesn't change the matter at hand, an organisation which targets civilians, cripples children to instil control over a community, and robs and extorts money to fund these activities, is not an organisation that favours violence as a last resort. It's an organisation that sees violence and the most immediate and efficent route to success, and has no qualms about using violence to achieve it.

your complete lack of understanding of the IRA commercial campaign amazes me

No I'm aware of ideal behind it, it's just a far cry from taking up arms to protecting their countrymen up north.

BTW those brave men and women you exalt earlier for defeating fascism did not contain themselves to military targets
dresden anyone

I was talking specifical about the international bridages. Again don't take a point of mine and shift the goalposts.

apart from the fact that o'hare was not in the IRA
I have already said that a lot of the violence was counter productive and did not further the cause it was meant to be in aid of
as to wether britains empire would ever have been ended by a letter writing campaign i doubt it

Translation; convient get out clause to avoid having to deal with the realities of the republican campaign, you only support the nice terrorists. I'll say one thing about some of the more extremist republicans on this site, they've the courage to argue the realities, you give your arguments handy get out clauses to avoid dealing with the reality of your position and the people you're defending.

do you believe that instead of the dday landings they should have given the soldiers pens and paper and sent thousands of letters instead

No but theres a world of difference. between d-day and the republican campaign. I give you a clue, it has to you with you guys bombing a memorial service for d-day veterans, but wait don't tell me thats one of those "counter productive" terrorist acts. I'm almost curious to know what a "productive" terrorist act is.

And again the difference between d-day and a terrorist campaign, diplomacy had tried and failed to reach an agreement. Deciding to join a terrorist murder campaign, is not the act of a final resort to violence.

what about the international brigades in spain

or indeed australias or canadas involvement in WW2 should the nazi invasion of france been left to the french to deal with

I've already dealt with the above. Now why don't you try and address the point

mycroft wrote:

Yes put again that’s not the point, what about non-Iraqi? Who come and join the resistance. Do you accept that they may not have the right to y'know blow up people who were born in Iraq?.

Instead of the rebuttal of the day "what about WW2"

I dont support the murder of any civilians
I'm not in Iraq so im not going to preach to iraqis as to wether they should or should not use armed resistance to the occupation

You'll just happily unquestionable support it without quering the motives, ethics, politics, or country of birth of the person commiting the violence.

I accept that they have a right to use armed force as the french resistance for example did

What do you have the history channel on is this history day.

Lets just take a moment to compare the iraq resistance for a moment.

The french government in exile (thats a government, as in elected) urged frenchmen to form the resistance.

They targeted the foreign soldiers in their country.

The Iraqi insurgents have no mandate from the people.

They include foreigners.

They target Iraqi civilians.

Do you see the difference?

yes he should obviously call to every house in the 6 counties and ask them if they think he should join the IRA

general rule of thumb, I don't assume people want me to blow stuff up. It's not really a rule more a guideline, but it has served me well for most of my life.

Just assuming the people of NI want you to start killing maiming and torturing people for the sake of their freedom, does that seem like the actions of someone who feels that violence should only be used a last resort

attacking commercial targets in the UK arguably increased the desire of the UK government to engage in the peace process when the IRA ended the first ceasefire they chose to do so in Britain

The IRA were attacking civilian targets in the uk in the 70s. And it doesn't change the logic. Engaging in a campaign of terrorism aganist people who have never even been in NI never mind, oppressed the nationalist minority, is not the behaviour of people who favour violence only a last resort.