The Sinn Féin Question

ionapaul

jman0 wrote:

And the point is what?
Does it mean that democracy is worthless?

Merely that this 'democratic mandate' you speak of can be claimed by all manner of patently undemocratic groups! The Nazis and SF included.

Nuttzz

jman0 wrote:

Does it mean that democracy is worthless?

Is this the democracy you speak of? Post unification let the IRA "sort out" the loyalists. One law for us, one law for them....

jman0 wrote:

. Sure what are the Loyalist paramilitaries without British Intelligence collusion?
Nothing that the IRA couldn't sort out, that's what.
.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

Um, the IRA are already a proscribed organisation.

Yes. And since SF is the political wing of said organisation ......

axer

Sein fein has always gone to great lengths to try and make the peace process work. That is not an easy thing to do considering he has to try and sell it to the IRA.

The IRA are very sceptical of the british government and the RUC (PSNI). Everytime in the past that the IRA went on ceasefire the RUC began monitoring its members and arresting soon after. The RUC/British government have always been colluding with the UDA etc. Maybe I'm mistaken but did the british government not pass a law recently (or is in the process or failed whatever) restricting the amount of information that they have to give out about the dublin/monaghan bombings etc. so that it does not have to share the evidence.

You must remember that it was actually the bitching and baby crying of the loyalists/unionists up north that caused this whole mess in the first place. The home rule act would have passed was it not for the violence and intimidation of the unionists up north. Even the bristish army (in the curragh) were colluding with them at that stage and refused point blank to go up and stop it.

I certainly would not like the task of trying to convince the IRA to disband after all that and more. But Gerry Adams persists because he believes in the peace process. Yet you see Ian paisley, the great ian paisley, never comprimising 1 inch to try make the deal work when sein fein AND the IRA both have made huge comprimises.

The IRA agree to decommision its arms and agree to an independant witness as was requested. But no, Ian is not happy with that, that would mean progress, so he says he wants photos - photos in order to try and humilate the IRA and use for his own political benifit, not for proof or peace but for his own personal benifit.

I believe the war for the IRA is over, well over. I believe the peace process can work ONLY when the DUP start to comprimise.
Just my 2c.

/edit: the reason I think the sein fein are getting such a media bashing is because the Irish political parties are afraid of the fact that sein fein have gained so much ground recently as their support is growing rapidly. Just look at the childish comments Minister McDoogle flaunts in his speeches. Blaming sein fein for bank robberies - saying they have very clear evdience of involvment of high ranking members of sein fein in the robbery - to this day they still havent arrested any of them - why? because it is crap - and he is the minister for "justice"

jank

Yes. And since SF is the political wing of said organisation ......

an organisation they cant control anymore...

This will probably end up in another 12 page rant of why we need democratic principles implimented in Irish politics, lol the irony. Just look at the state of politics here in the republic

No one or party has a right to exclude another political party. This isnt Nazi germany but i belive some on here would love that.

AmenToThat

oscarBravo wrote:

Good to see that the republican commitment to non-violent means is as strong as ever.

Its nothing to do with me being a Republican its the fact that people would make certain assumptions about me because Im a 'Republican' because of the actions of certain 'republicans' these are the same kind of assumptions that are made against people because they are 'Travellers' or 'Nigerian' simply because they happen to be Nigerian or Travellers.
Its a bigoted viewpoint and yes as I said if someone were to make the comments to me that have been made to me on this board or in the media in the street then yes I will call them to accounts over it and I make no appologies for that view.

rubberduckey

It is driving me crazy that 'republicanism' has been hijacked as an exclusive term to describe Sinn Fein/IRA ideals and methods to achieve said ideals.

I as an Irish citizen and republican, believe that the only way towards a United Ireland is by peaceful democratic means. I absolutely abhor SF/IRA's cynical approach to democracy/murder/gangsterism.


I have no political affiliations to any party but this is an interesting discussing on Sinn fein/IRA's hijacking of 'Republicanism'

http://www.willieodea.ie/newsarts.asp?StoryID=320

Lemming

jank wrote:

an organisation they cant control anymore...

I would go so far as to say an organisation they've never controlled, rather it controlled them.

This will probably end up in another 12 page rant of why we need democratic principles implimented in Irish politics, lol the irony. Just look at the state of politics here in the republic

Indeed. Hey .... we may have democracy but the country is disgustingly corrupt! That said I don't think it's politics that's corrupt here in the republic but more that so many facets of society end up with political dabbling (hence the corruption of all involved). Still, (the considerably) lesser of two evils and what-not. I'd still rather have them all fired into the sun together though. Anyway, I digress!

No one or party has a right to exclude another political party. This isnt Nazi germany but i belive some on here would love that.

I will not deny anyone their right to speak in a democratic manner. That does however mean playing within the same rules that everyone else is obliged to play inside. If you aren't going to abide to democratic rules and operate in a democratic manner, then you have no business claiming to do so.

axer

rubberduckey wrote:

http://www.willieodea.ie/newsarts.asp?StoryID=320

another example of the irish government trying to demonise sein fein.

Lemming

axer wrote:

another example of the irish government trying to demonise sein fein.

I happen to think he's quite right. The IRA (and their PR bunnies SF) do not have a monopoly on the word "republican" or its variants. It would be quite accurate to note that the word has now become synonymous with their shenanigans, ergo they have managed to hijack it.

FF, FG, etc are all parties that represent the "republic". Are they any less republican? Do you need to have an armalite and a pound of c4 to be republican? No?

I think O'Dea (as much as I may think the guy is a bit of a blethering idiot most of the time) is spot on with that article's main thrust.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

I would go so far as to say an organisation they've never controlled, rather it controlled them.

in the past the military side of provisional republicanism was the dominant side however the opposite is the case now the IRA will cease to exist in the near future because the now dominant side of the provisional republican movement see the IRA as a millstone around their necks there is no point in having an armed group and not using them and paying a political penalty for having them

Lemming wrote:

I will not deny anyone their right to speak in a democratic manner. That does however mean playing within the same rules that everyone else is obliged to play inside. If you aren't going to abide to democratic rules and operate in a democratic manner, then you have no business claiming to do so.

the people decide who shall represent them not you or any other political party or groups of political parties
if the people no longer want to be represented by SF then they will stop voting for them
it seems to me that a couple of months ago the anti provisional republicans were on a high between the northern bank robbery and robert mccartneys murder they tought the end of the PSF was nigh the electorate in the 6 counties have show them that this is far from the case and they are now throwing a tantrum again.
it strikes me as odd that at a time when bertie has said that the debate is on within the PIRA about ending all the things that you protest about you are so afraid of the provisional republican movement that you would rather ban PSF than encourage this developement

jank

I would go so far as to say an organisation they've never controlled, rather it controlled them.

So whats the point then of the IRA having SF there as a puppet.

Do you think they are trying to fool everyone, overthrow our government here and install a south armerican style military dictatorship with the IRA calling the shots!

Come on a bit of realistic.

Maybe, just maybe SF are trying to take off the shackles of the IRA and BE the strong democratic force they have the portential to become. Imo its already happening. Its this possibilty that FF et all are so scared of because like it or not they are the rising stars in Irish Politics. And like it or not irish politics needs a radical shake up rather then the FF/PD vs everyone else coalition. That in the long run will be good for the contry and democarcy.

Look at the big picture.


Oh and im not a shinner,never voted for them, hate violence and all that, wish sinn fein would be more cooperative regarding the mccarthy situation.etc..... but i do realise the sensitivity of the matter that SF have to thread carefully. Il reserve my judgement until the next election. Id expect big strides to be taken on the north and with the issue of arms etc

Call me naive but im optimistic, rather then critise them day in day out here or in the media (ill mention no names ), ill let things play out and see what happens. The ball is in their court lets see what they do with it.

axer

Lemming wrote:

I happen to think he's quite right. The IRA (and their PR bunnies SF) do not have a monopoly on the word "republican" or its variants. It would be quite accurate to note that the word has now become synonymous with their shenanigans, ergo they have managed to hijack it.

FF, FG, etc are all parties that represent the "republic". Are they any less republican? Do you need to have an armalite and a pound of c4 to be republican? No?

I think O'Dea (as much as I may think the guy is a bit of a blethering idiot most of the time) is spot on with that article's main thrust.

Since when have sein fein highjacked the word "republicanism". If anyone has labeled them as THE republican movement - it is the media. I am not a member of sein fein but I am a republican. Republicanism is the idea that no man (sorry - person - got to be politcally correct here) should be ruled by a king or queen but by a government of elected representatives. It is a form of government in which there is an elected president rather than a king. I don't want a king or queen or anything to do with them. The north, if ruled by britian while it has a democraticis government is not a republic - it has no president. When sein feiners call themselves republican they are not highjacking the word, they are using it in the since of northern ireland where they do not want to have anything todo with the queen of england i.e. british rule. If willie o'dee is offended because he considers himself a republican, how come i dont hear him campaigning for a unified ireland?? He is talking ****e! I don't think he even knows what the word republicanism means - in relation to nothern ireland especially! get a dictionary willie!!!

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

in the past the military side of provisional republicanism was the dominant side however the opposite is the case now the IRA will cease to exist in the near future because the now dominant side of the provisional republican movement see the IRA as a millstone around their necks there is no point in having an armed group and not using them and paying a political penalty for having them

Then why the, I should hasten to add the phrase "extremely beligerent", position taken by SF & their puppet masters the IRA with regards decommissioning. They recognise that having an armed group is determental to their "cause" at this point in time and that any resumption of violence would most likely result in some very swift and altogether nasty retaliation by both governments. So what's the hold-up? They've gotten about as much mileage as they can possibly hope to achieve out of bartering the decommissioning chip and at this point are just p*ssing everyone else off.

the people decide who shall represent them not you or any other political party or groups of political parties

Ah, but they still have to act within the constitution (or equivalent) of the recognised sovreign state in which they are operational. Failure to do so gets something like what happened to the likes of the UDA way-back-when. The only reason that SF have not been blacklisted officially is that they've been thus far good enough at covering any clear tracks linking them and their masters, the IRA.

Suppose, for arguments sake, that a terrorist handbook linking SF with the IRA was found, what do you think would happen to SF overnight? They'd be ejected from every single government body they are in, all public media would be barred their access, and so on so forth, as befitting a named illegal organisation. Whether or not people voted for them. The law is the law and your vote cannot override the law, it can only work within it.

it seems to me that a couple of months ago the anti provisional republicans were on a high between the northern bank robbery and robert mccartneys murder they tought the end of the PSF was nigh the electorate in the 6 counties have show them that this is far from the case and they are now throwing a tantrum again.

I would suggest this has little to do with people genuinely believing in the IRA as opposed to the fact that the middle-ground (in both camps) have failed to inspire, hence the two extreme wing parties have moved centre stage.

So I wouldn't be out congratulating yourself quite yet in that regard.

it strikes me as odd that at a time when bertie has said that the debate is on within the PIRA about ending all the things that you protest about you are so afraid of the provisional republican movement that you would rather ban PSF than encourage this developement

I never said I would rather ban SF. I did say that I consider their stance to be a very weak one and one that has no business in democratic politics given their links to paramilitary/criminal operations.

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

Then why the, I should hasten to add the phrase "extremely beligerent", position taken by SF & their puppet masters the IRA with regards decommissioning. They recognise that having an armed group is determental to their "cause" at this point in time and that any resumption of violence would most likely result in some very swift and altogether nasty retaliation by both governments. So what's the hold-up? They've gotten about as much mileage as they can possibly hope to achieve out of bartering the decommissioning chip and at this point are just p*ssing everyone else off.

it is in the process of happening

the problem is that the reason for the IRAs existence has not gone away the IRA did not win arguably they did not really lose
if they had won then obviously there would no longer be a need for them to exist and getting rid of them would not be a problem
if they had been thoroughly beaten then getting them to go away would be alot easier
trying to convince them that they should go away when they have not achieved what they were sworn to achieve is obviously harder

Lemming wrote:

Ah, but they still have to act within the constitution (or equivalent) of the recognised sovreign state in which they are operational. Failure to do so gets something like what happened to the likes of the UDA way-back-when. The only reason that SF have not been blacklisted officially is that they've been thus far good enough at covering any clear tracks linking them and their masters, the IRA.

Suppose, for arguments sake, that a terrorist handbook linking SF with the IRA was found, what do you think would happen to SF overnight? They'd be ejected from every single government body they are in, all public media would be barred their access, and so on so forth, as befitting a named illegal organisation. Whether or not people voted for them. The law is the law and your vote cannot override the law, it can only work within it.

well one it has never happened so supposing supposing three men were frozen

Lemming wrote:

I would suggest this has little to do with people genuinely believing in the IRA as opposed to the fact that the middle-ground (in both camps) have failed to inspire, hence the two extreme wing parties have moved centre stage.

So I wouldn't be out congratulating yourself quite yet in that regard.

I am not congratulating myself for anything

BTW what has actually happened is that the extremes as you call them have moved into the middle ground
PSF stance could no longer be called extreme what is extreme about wanting to get the stormont assembly up and running or wanting the GFA implemented
the days of PSF being extreme are long gone what extreme policies did the 2 ministers they had in the last assembly carry out
they are about as extreme as the SDLP whose policies they have largely adopted

even the DUP aren't the extreme they were years ago I honestly cant see much difference between them and the UUP other than the free presbytarian influence in their social policies
They have even started to drop this silly nonesense of not being in the same studio as republicans as witnessed during the recent election coverage


it appears more like that everyone knows a deal has to be done and they are putting forward the people they think will do the best deal for their respective communities
the UUP are seen as a bit wishy washy on the unionist side and likewise the SDLP on the nationalist side

Lemming wrote:

I never said I would rather ban SF. I did say that I consider their stance to be a very weak one and one that has no business in democratic politics given their links to paramilitary/criminal operations.

Look the fact is that we dont live in a perfect society in a perfect society we would not have had 30 years of conflict
We can not expect the problems to go away overnight it is not realistic nor will the problems be gone away when the IRA goes away it may suprise some of you here but the IRA did not actually cause the problem in the north they are a symptom of the problem making the symptom go away will not solve the problem
and if the problem is not addressed we are doomed to have a return of the symptom sooner or later

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

I happen to think he's quite right. The IRA (and their PR bunnies SF) do not have a monopoly on the word "republican" or its variants. It would be quite accurate to note that the word has now become synonymous with their shenanigans, ergo they have managed to hijack it.

FF, FG, etc are all parties that represent the "republic". Are they any less republican? Do you need to have an armalite and a pound of c4 to be republican? No?

I think O'Dea (as much as I may think the guy is a bit of a blethering idiot most of the time) is spot on with that article's main thrust.

Republicanism is not an easily defined thing it means different things to different people

there are some who would argue that PSF no longer have the right to call themselves republican

Sand

Maybe some of these SF bashers feel it's ok for one political party to select whom their opponents will be...Like when Unionists pretend they have the right to form a government with the SDLP for instance, kind of like when [insert dictatorial country here] Party stands for election they get to select who runs on the other ticket, or appoint "opposition" ministers.
But this chicanery has no place in a democracy and is rightfully rejected by democrats.

Of all the SF/IRA apologists and supporters on this board I have the greatest respect for Jmano. Unlike most of the others he's not ashamed of provo idealogy, and isnt afraid of exspressing it. He doesnt try to pretend the provos are anything other than what they are. I respect that far more than hearing tripe about Adams appealing to the IRA, and a need for the IRA to stand down, and how SF and the IRA are distant cousins, twice removed.

Right now SF is on a winning course, while the IRA still exists and are apparently still active , SF is growing and winning votes.
Maybe we really are getting to the Armalite and Ballot box strategy.
It may be or will become debatable if some miltary action (by proxy?) could be tried to test the loyalty and tolerance of the electorate at some future point.

On the other hand, whilst I have to admit he can spell democracy, its clear from his stated views that thats about the extent of his knowledge on the subject.

Yet you see Ian paisley, the great ian paisley, never comprimising 1 inch to try make the deal work when sein fein AND the IRA both have made huge comprimises.

Such as? Have they disbanded? No. Have they decommissioned? No. Have they stopped recruiting? No. Have they stopped training? No. Have they stopped equipping themselves? No. Have they stopped punishment beatings? No. Have they stopped crinimal activity? No. Have they stopped killing people? No. Have they declared an end to violence? No.

What exactly are these huge compromises that they have made? I'm honestly asking here. Because I dont see any worth mentioning, and I'm just curious to see whats viewed as a massive compromise in provoland.

Do you think they are trying to fool everyone, overthrow our government here and install a south armerican style military dictatorship with the IRA calling the shots!

Come on a bit of realistic

.

Yeah, I cant name a single ultra violent ultra nationalist socialist "movement" whose political front went from 2.6% vote to running the country in 5 years, whilst its thuggish "army" terrorised the country. Yeah, thats a real toughie. Id imagine if such a movement existed it would be too coincidental that their leader would share Adams love of writing books about themselves and their views.

Call me naive but im optimistic, rather then critise them day in day out here or in the media (ill mention no names ), ill let things play out and see what happens. The ball is in their court lets see what they do with it.

Wow, SF/IRA have their work cut out getting your vote.

oscarBravo

AmenToThat wrote:

Its nothing to do with me being a Republican its the fact that people would make certain assumptions about me because Im a 'Republican' because of the actions of certain 'republicans' these are the same kind of assumptions that are made against people because they are 'Travellers' or 'Nigerian' simply because they happen to be Nigerian or Travellers.
Its a bigoted viewpoint and yes as I said if someone were to make the comments to me that have been made to me on this board or in the media in the street then yes I will call them to accounts over it and I make no appologies for that view.

That's the mindset I'm talking about. Fair enough, it's wrong to describe it as a republican mindset - it's an attitude displayed by violent extremists on all sides.

Here's a nutty idea: how about, instead of reacting with violence to someone else's opinion of (or assumptions about) you, you make an effort to set them straight? Failing that, just walk away?

I mean, it may be more viscerally satisfying in the short term to hurt someone because of their opinion, but do you honestly think either you or them would be better off as a result of a violent altercation?

Sand

Sand wrote:

On the other hand, whilst I have to admit he can spell democracy, its clear from his stated views that thats about the extent of his knowledge on the subject.

Sand you have been around long enough, to avoid being derisory, however subtle.
I take the view that whatever your intention, that the above point could easily have been made without the schoolmaster chiding.

Have a relaxing 2 week holiday from here.

jank

Yeah, I cant name a single ultra violent ultra nationalist socialist "movement" whose political front went from 2.6% vote to running the country in 5 years, whilst its thuggish "army" terrorised the country. Yeah, thats a real toughie. Id imagine if such a movement existed it would be too coincidental that their leader would share Adams love of writing books about themselves and their views.

What was the point of the "witty" remark. Seems to me you just like to hear yourself talk rather then try and argue the points i made. For example building up Jmano so you can take him down with another "witty" remark.

Wow, SF/IRA have their work cut out getting your vote.

You know I believe the term SF/IRA was started by pasiley himself, speaks volumes of the people who use it. Its like a fashion statement.

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

it is in the process of happening

the problem is that the reason for the IRAs existence has not gone away the IRA did not win arguably they did not really lose
if they had won then obviously there would no longer be a need for them to exist and getting rid of them would not be a problem
if they had been thoroughly beaten then getting them to go away would be alot easier
trying to convince them that they should go away when they have not achieved what they were sworn to achieve is obviously harder

There is a fallacy here in so far has had they "won" so to speak, they'd be even more difficult to get rid of. The conquering hero syndrome followed by some sort of consolidation of power. Those in power rarely relinquish it willingly. You are, however, correct in your assessment that getting them to disband now is equally difficult.

well one it has never happened so supposing supposing three men were frozen

Ah, but it *has* happened before. I point to the UDA once more. The only difference being that SF have had electoral successes. It has also happened to *ahem* "bonafide" politicians in the republic. Look at Lawlor - he was forced to go, despite having an electorale mandate. As I said, a vote can only function within the law. Your vote cannot transcend the law. It. Is. As. Simple. As. That. regardless of who has voted for whom and in what numbers.

BTW what has actually happened is that the extremes as you call them have moved into the middle ground

No. The extremes have moved to centre-stage, not the middle ground. They are both still quite extreme. Less so most certainly, but they are not middle-ground parties by any stretch of the imagination (unless you happen to be very, very inebriated )

PSF stance could no longer be called extreme what is extreme about wanting to get the stormont assembly up and running or wanting the GFA implemented
the days of PSF being extreme are long gone what extreme policies did the 2 ministers they had in the last assembly carry out
they are about as extreme as the SDLP whose policies they have largely adopted

As sand pointed out, they're still engaged in paramilitary and/or criminal activity, just not "officially". How this isn't extreme I don't know. Politically saying one thing and doing another tends to speak volumes in that regard also.

even the DUP aren't the extreme they were years ago I honestly cant see much difference between them and the UUP other than the free presbytarian influence in their social policies
They have even started to drop this silly nonesense of not being in the same studio as republicans as witnessed during the recent election coverage

Politics is a strange game. Those outside of power are always uncompromising, until they gain power. That "silly nonsense" was a charade anyway.

it appears more like that everyone knows a deal has to be done and they are putting forward the people they think will do the best deal for their respective communities
the UUP are seen as a bit wishy washy on the unionist side and likewise the SDLP on the nationalist side

Ironically, the two parties that held up the entire show are the ones in power now.

Look the fact is that we dont live in a perfect society in a perfect society we would not have had 30 years of conflict
We can not expect the problems to go away overnight it is not realistic nor will the problems be gone away when the IRA goes away it may suprise some of you here but the IRA did not actually cause the problem in the north they are a symptom of the problem making the symptom go away will not solve the problem
and if the problem is not addressed we are doomed to have a return of the symptom sooner or later

I would agree that the foundation of the IRA was not the cause and more symptom. However, it has been for a long time, a cause of the trouble that has blighted N.Ireland for years.

Victor

axer wrote:

Since when have sein fein highjacked the word "republicanism". If anyone has labeled them as THE republican movement - it is the media. I am not a member of sein fein but I am a republican. Republicanism is the idea that no man (sorry - person - got to be politcally correct here) should be ruled by a king or queen but by a government of elected representatives. It is a form of government in which there is an elected president rather than a king. I don't want a king or queen or anything to do with them. The north, if ruled by britian while it has a democraticis government is not a republic - it has no president. When sein feiners call themselves republican they are not highjacking the word, they are using it in the since of northern ireland where they do not want to have anything todo with the queen of england i.e. british rule. If willie o'dee is offended because he considers himself a republican, how come i dont hear him campaigning for a unified ireland?? He is talking ****e! I don't think he even knows what the word republicanism means - in relation to nothern ireland especially! get a dictionary willie!!!

Without wishing to drag my own thread (further) off topic, what if there was no Queen of England?

capistrano

aidan_walsh wrote:

Personally, while three has been a lot that goes against Sinn Fein, there has been a lot move movement on their behalf that there has been from the Unionists (who have only gone from a divisive split to right - but hey, at least they're finally unified!).

True, but SF had to move much more than the Unionists. They were operating largely outside normal democratic norms whereas the unionists were operating largely within norm democratic norms.

If you become very extreme that shouldn't mean that everyone else has to move even more in your direction for a fair compromise.

cdebru

Victor wrote:

Without wishing to drag my own thread (further) off topic, what if there was no Queen of England?

then we would all quiet happily live under british rule forever by gosh :rolleyes:

Lemming

cdebru wrote:

then we would all quiet happily live under british rule forever by gosh :rolleyes:

It's a valid question cdebru. IRA supporters in this thread have made great noise about "republicanism" and how the UK is not a republic. What if it was?

Interesting fuel for thought, although perhaps a little off-tangent.

axer

capistrano wrote:

True, but SF had to move much more than the Unionists. They were operating largely outside normal democratic norms whereas the unionists were operating largely within norm democratic norms.

If you become very extreme that shouldn't mean that everyone else has to move even more in your direction for a fair compromise.

Sein fein have not become more extreme. What they want is simple - a unified Ireland like the way it should be. I still laugh when I think that Britain think they have some right to go into other countries and just take as they please and then the planted british (unionists) think it was theirs in the first place and dont want to give it back. It is in fact the unionists who have become more extreme and refusing to co-operate.

Lemming wrote:

It's a valid question cdebru. IRA supporters in this thread have made great noise about "republicanism" and how the UK is not a republic. What if it was?

Interesting fuel for thought, although perhaps a little off-tangent.

I was merely explaning what republicanism is. To add to that its not just if britain was a republic or had no queen. Maybe if they were a republic over 100 years ago or before that they would have gave back ireland. The republic of ireland should consist of the whole of ireland. Not just parts of it.

And excuse me, I do not support the IRA, I would say that most republicans see that their time has gone. I dont believe anyone can disagree that they were needed in the 70's and partly in the 80's to protect the human rights of catholics in the north, but their war ended along time ago.

Lemming

axer wrote:

Sein fein have not become more extreme. What they want is simple - a unified Ireland like the way it should be. I still laugh when I think that Britain think they have some right to go into other countries and just take as they please and then the planted british (unionists) think it was theirs in the first place and dont want to give it back. It is in fact the unionists who have become more extreme and refusing to co-operate.

Nobody has said that the IRA have become more extreme. They were extreme to begin with. I find it equally laughable that they think that a bombing campaign is going to unify Ireland. Such a simplistic, child's view of the entire situation, failing to take into account demographics, attitudes both inside & outside of N.Ireland, political spheres of influence, etc, etc. Instead it thinks "kill a few people and the rest will become so afraid they'll do anything we ask". Well, there's been 35+ years of murder. I don't see anyone quaking in their boots and begging to hand over the six counties.

When Britian took control of Ireland, it was a different era. They weren't the only country with an empire in those days all those hundreds of years ago.

I would also add that the unionists have also not become more extreme. I will say however that they are very concerned about what would happen to them if the UK government should withdraw its power, and rightly so given the demonstrated single-bloody-mindedness of IRA supporters to date. Do I think they should act in an irrational manner, no. Just like I don't think the nationalist community should either. Bullsh*t swings both ways.

I was merely explaning what republicanism is. To add to that its not just if britain was a republic or had no queen. Maybe if they were a republic over 100 years ago or before that they would have gave back ireland. The republic of ireland should consist of the whole of ireland. Not just parts of it.

Well .... there are republics in existance today who have annexed land/space from other countries and refuse to hand it back after 50/60+ years. So what you are saying is pure conjecture. Nothing more.

And excuse me, I do not support the IRA, I would say that most republicans see that their time has gone. I dont believe anyone can disagree that they were needed in the 70's and partly in the 80's to protect the human rights of catholics in the north, but their war ended along time ago.

The manner in which you phrase your words would suggest otherwise Axer. You support the IRA (by proxy their political wing SF), and your support of their political wing is tacit support for them at (inter)national level.

Forgive me also for snorting with contempt at the notion that they protected human rights of catholics in the north. These would be the same people they carried out punishment beatings on, knee cappings, torture, tarring & feathering, not to mention "accidentally" murdering some of them. As an aside to that, exactly what did the IRA achieve other than to spread nothing but further misery to the populace of the six counties? They were formed out of revenge, not protection.

ETB

Having observed at great length and agony last year, that an all-inclusive/acceptable deal for the north was not going to happen, I think we may have turned the corner. Many elements within the negotiations had strung the talks along, but failed to reach a conclusion. The failure of the IRA to succumb to the DUP's demands pre-christmas was the last straw for the Irish & British Govs.
Cue the Northern Bank robbery. Like the Castlereagh & Stormont incidents before this, the media hysteria was fueled by an agenda. All 3 incidents can neither be proved nor disproved. The attempt to criminalise the IRA was then into overdrive. But beyond beggers beleif, the brutal murder of Robert McCartney occured. This imo was the turning point for the republican leadership. They have finally woken up to the fact that within their rank & file were mavericks/hardmen/scumbags , who probably dont even remember the troubles, except from armchairs or barstools. The McCartney episode has speeded up a debate internally which was long overdue. Sinn Fein had to get the monkey-of-its-back to se.

The landscape has now changed. The IRA will exit the stage very soon. Whatever or whoever is left behind thereafter, will be met with the full rigors of the law, north & south. Then the real business of inclusive dialoge will begin. Sinn Fein will then have a huge responsibility from their electorate to deliver!!
The real question hereafter, is what will the loyalist paramilitries do. Will they melt away into insignificance?

But Sinn Fein will step up to the mark, as I hope will the SDLP, DUP etc to end direct rule, which is crippling the north. There seems to be a well coreographed series of meetings in Dublin & London this week and this usually heralds an announcement of some sorts. Finally, the beginning to the end may be in sight. We can only hope. Look for the bigger picture.

axer

Lemming wrote:

Nobody has said that the IRA have become more extreme. They were extreme to begin with.

capistrano wrote:

If you become very extreme that shouldn't mean that everyone else has to move even more in your direction for a fair compromise.

Lemming wrote:

I find it equally laughable that they think that a bombing campaign is going to unify Ireland.

you must remember that that it was the unionists that first used violence to keep northern ireland from being part of the republic of ireland. So were the catholics up north supposed to just accept that they didnt deserve human rights. I cant remember which Irish taoiseach it was - jack lynch? that even considered sending the irish army into the north to defend the catholics as it had gotten that bad. On more than one occaison while the catholics were protesting for their human rights, the RUC would push them back down the street while the unionists burned the cathlics houses behind them. I suppose the catholics should have just went back to their burnt out houses and been happy they had some ash to live in?!

Lemming wrote:

When Britian took control of Ireland, it was a different era. They weren't the only country with an empire in those days all those hundreds of years ago.

So that makes it ok then? - what is it? squatters rights?

Lemming wrote:

I would also add that the unionists have also not become more extreme. I will say however that they are very concerned about what would happen to them if the UK government should withdraw its power, and rightly so given the demonstrated single-bloody-mindedness of IRA supporters to date.

Considering the unionist will not compromise one bit with sein fein in ANY area. Why does Ian paisley demand photos for decommisioning? - unless he thinks the independant observers are really part of the IRA, i would think it more likely that he knew that the IRA would not agree to it then - his party does not want change FULL STOP.

Lemming wrote:

Well .... there are republics in existance today who have annexed land/space from other countries and refuse to hand it back after 50/60+ years. So what you are saying is pure conjecture. Nothing more.

Again - does that make it ok? I suppose if its happening in other places then it must be ok?!

Lemming wrote:

The manner in which you phrase your words would suggest otherwise Axer. You support the IRA (by proxy their political wing SF), and your support of their political wing is tacit support for them at (inter)national level.

I support the ideas of Sein Fein. Just because i believe that britain should have returned northern Ireland to Ireland doesnt mean I support the IRA. There are too many members in the IRA for their own personal benifit and are not members for the right reasons, and that is why some are involved in crimes. Although I can understand that there are always people in organisations that do their own thing/carry out crimes without being ordered to do so -> take the US army and the british army for instance - abu garib (dont know how to spell it). BUT having said that - the IRA is not needed anymore and that is why sein fein are finally trying to wash their hands of them, which they should have done a long time ago.

Lemming wrote:

Forgive me also for snorting with contempt at the notion that they protected human rights of catholics in the north. These would be the same people they carried out punishment beatings on, knee cappings, torture, tarring & feathering, not to mention "accidentally" murdering some of them. As an aside to that, exactly what did the IRA achieve other than to spread nothing but further misery to the populace of the six counties? They were formed out of revenge, not protection.

I know two wrongs dont make a right but what were they supposed to do? who else was going to defend them? The irish army? No, they didnt. The british army? no, they were helping the unionists.
Republicism is also about inclusion - thats why the Irish flag is green (for ireland) white (for peace) and orange (for the protestants) but the unionists were never inclusive to the catholics. I know there were protestants that were attacked by republicans for just being protestant and vice-versa - that should never have happened but it was happening both sides of the fence and thats why it continued on.

mycroft

axer wrote:

you must remember that that it was the unionists that first used violence to keep northern ireland from being part of the republic of ireland. So were the catholics up north supposed to just accept that they didnt deserve human rights. I cant remember which Irish taoiseach it was - jack lynch? that even considered sending the irish army into the north to defend the catholics as it had gotten that bad. On more than one occaison while the catholics were protesting for their human rights, the RUC would push them back down the street while the unionists burned the cathlics houses behind them. I suppose the catholics should have just went back to their burnt out houses and been happy they had some ash to live in?!

You're refering to events that occured 30-40 years ago. While I agree there was a necessity for defense of catholic areas during the worst of the troubles, you're implying that this justifies, Omagh, Enniskillen, Canary Warf, Brighton, Guilford. Does it?

So that makes it ok then? - what is it? squatters rights?

Interesting logic, and we've had this one before. Be a dear and tell everyone in the US to hand soverenity back to the native americans. Because thats essentially what you are arguing.

Considering the unionist will not compromise one bit with sein fein in ANY area. Why does Ian paisley demand photos for decommisioning? - unless he thinks the independant observers are really part of the IRA, i would think it more likely that he knew that the IRA would not agree to it then - his party does not want change FULL STOP.

Probably. And the photo instance was a fine example of that. Though in hindsight, the IRA weren't just not going to disband while wearing sackcloth and ashes, because hey the lads were planning the Italian job in belfast.

I support the ideas of Sein Fein. Just because i believe that britain should have returned northern Ireland to Ireland doesnt mean I support the IRA.

If you support them, learn how they spelt it. And face a simple fact, Sinn Fein is the political wing of the IRA, you cannot support one, without supporting the other.

There are too many members in the IRA for their own personal benifit and are not members for the right reasons, and that is why some are involved in crimes. Although I can understand that there are always people in organisations that do their own thing/carry out crimes without being ordered to do so -> take the US army and the british army for instance - abu garib

Yes, and you're right. However we have tribunals and investigations and court marshalls over those. How many IRA men have been jailed or punished by their superior officers for murdering innocents? Where is the court of appeal for IRA justice? Wheres the evidence aganist Jean Mc Conville murdered for being a "dirty tout". And do you really think any army in the western world, would allow several of it's members to gut a man in broad daylight, then refuse to hand them over to the relevant authorities, stand and watch as members of the same army intimidated witnesses, and the only concession they make towards justice is to offer to the victims family to shoot the killers, without any trial?

As they say in belfast, 'would you ever cop yourself on'?

(dont know how to spell it). BUT having said that - the IRA is not needed anymore and that is why sein fein are finally trying to wash their hands of them, which they should have done a long time ago.

Really wheres you proof of that? Would you not consider this; Rank and file IRA men are in Sinn Fein, at a grassroots level. They'll be commited and dedicated because after all they'll kill for the cause. You're going to find distangling Sinn Fein and the IRA is going to be harder than simply hand washing.

I know two wrongs dont make a right but what were they supposed to do? who else was going to defend them? The irish army? No, they didnt. The british army? no, they were helping the unionists.

And again aside from the riots in the 60s and 70s the IRA haven't been defending communties they've been attacking them. And aside from one or two serious instances, the army haven't been helping the unionists for decades. Quit living in the past. The IRA's campaign had little to do with defending communties after the first few years. And lets look at the way they defended them, catholics have been on the recieving end of republican violence and have suffered worse at their hands than from other group. Punishment beatings and shootings of members of the community, another fine way to defend the community.

Republicism is also about inclusion - thats why the Irish flag is green (for ireland) white (for peace) and orange (for the protestants) but the unionists were never inclusive to the catholics. I know there were protestants that were attacked by republicans for just being protestant and vice-versa - that should never have happened but it was happening both sides of the fence and thats why it continued on.

Thanks for the history of our flag and the simplistic history of the troubles.