The Sinn Féin Question

Lemming

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

Here's where things differ. I would consider the invasion (lets not dress it up) by Irish troops to be an example of attempting to defend a community however extreme the lengths required would have been. I will not go into the second-guessing of what might have been, but I can safely say that the IRA would not and do not have the discipline nor the resources to carry out such an extended, prolonged operation. Instead they chose to carry out acts of retaliation. As I said - revenge, not protection of human rights.

What happened to the catholic community leading up to (and indeed through) the troubles was disgusting and apartheid by another name, make no bones about it, but the formation of the IRA was not to defend these people but to carry out acts of revenge. Lets not get misty-eyed and romantic about why the IRA was formed or for what.

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.

Ian Paisely does not = "the unionist". The DUP does not = "the unionist". As I've mentioned iether above or in the other thread currently doing the rounds, the DUP's stance was posturing given that most parties who refuse to compromise are often on the outside of power. Those inside (like the DUP now) tend to find a nice way to convince themselves otherwise. The charge that the DUP do not want change is equally contributable to SF/IRA who have twisted and turned every which-way to avoid having to give anything thus far to the peace process besides haughty notions of "all inclusive dialogue" and empty rehetoric.

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

I never said it was ok. I simply pointed out a fact that stood against the point that you were trying to argue.

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.

You support SF, then you support the IRA since SF are the political wing of the IRA and there is no way of getting around this. Everytime you vote for SF you are giving a vote for the IRA since the two go hand in hand and there is no way of seperating your vote once it has been made. You have given approval to SF and given them more power, thus the IRA have gained more political power to wield at inter/national level.

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.

Who defended them exactly? The IRA? Nope, they just carried out revenge and intimidation.

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.

The rank hypocrasy in that quote is overpowering. Republicanism is all about inclusion. Then why is there such hatred towards unionists given that they make up part of the Irish flag?

It only serves to point out that the IRA are not a republican representitave and never have been. They are a religiously bigotted group representing one faith.

jman0

Lemming wrote:

It only serves to point out that the IRA are not a republican representitave and never have been. They are a religiously bigotted group representing one faith.

Are they now?
Educate yerself:
http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/04/02/billy-leonard-speaks/

jman,
To quote another poster when that was brought up, one swallow does not a summer make

jman0

Earthman wrote:

jman,
To quote another poster when that was brought up, one swallow does not a summer make

Since you are posting in defense of Lemming, maybe you'd be willing to prove that the IRA are "They are a religiously bigotted group representing one faith".
I've posted a link to the contrary....

jman0

jman0 wrote:

Since you are posting in defense of Lemming, maybe you'd be willing to prove that the IRA are "They are a religiously bigotted group representing one faith".
I've posted a link to the contrary....

I'm not posting in defense of anybody.
This is a public discussion board and what you post here will be challenged or questioned of clarified or whatever.
So how many swallows have SF then? and whens summer?
Doesnt look much like summer outside.

axer

Ok Lemming, let me ask you this.
You are living in an estate in west belfast in 1970. last week a friend of yours was nearly beaten to death simply because he was catholic (you know because of the abuse that was shouted at him). 2 days later another friend was beaten to a pulp simply because he was a catholic. Your father cannot get employment anywhere simply because he is a catholic and protestants own most of the businesses. yesterday your neighbours house was burned to a cinders. You know and everyone else knows what group of people did it. So what do you do? Do you go to the police (remember this is the RUC and you know that they are on the unionist's side). Tell me what would you do? Do you just try and ignore it?

ps i am going 2 germany tonight so will not be online until wednesday again, but please respond.

Victor

axer wrote:

You are living in an estate in west belfast in 1970.

By my calculations 1970 is (a) 35 years ago - half the population wasn't born then (b) off-topic.

Not getting back to the topic, should SF be whinging when other people give out about their (republican's) behavior?

If SF can stand the heat in the political kitchen ....

mycroft

axer wrote:

Ok Lemming, let me ask you this.
You are living in an estate in west belfast in 1970. last week a friend of yours was nearly beaten to death simply because he was catholic (you know because of the abuse that was shouted at him). 2 days later another friend was beaten to a pulp simply because he was a catholic. Your father cannot get employment anywhere simply because he is a catholic and protestants own most of the businesses.

Thanks for avoiding the thrust and facts of myself and lemmings post.

Consider this you're a 19yo living in the Ardoyne in 2004, You get into a bit of mischief, maybe cross the IRA leadership over a bit of slagging, you're dragged from your home , have your trouser legs pulled up and get a bullets in both your kneecaps. The people who you claim are defending you, have crippled you, they're answerable to no one and there's no court of appeal.

Justifying a thirty year terrorist campaign over the start of the troubles is just unfair unpratical and dishonest.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

Since you are posting in defense of Lemming, maybe you'd be willing to prove that the IRA are "They are a religiously bigotted group representing one faith".
I've posted a link to the contrary....

Jman0 - saoirse is a recognised provo rag. It has been for many, many, many years. You're posting nothing but propoganda.

Lets put it this way.

Teebane: Jan 17th 1992
Teebane crossroads between Cookstown and Omagh, County Tyrone.
IRA bombs a minibus carrying protestant contruction workers. 8 dead, 6 severely injured.

Claudy Day: 31st July 1972
Three bombs planted outside three prominent protestant businesses.
9 dead - two catholics, seven protestants including an 8 year old child. The first bomb went off and then everyone ran and was caught in the secondary and tertiary blasts.

La Mon House: 17th Feb 1978
Petrol bombing of a country hotel holding a conference by the Irish Collie club, predominantly protestant in make-up. Twelve dead. Countless others of 400 guests burnt, some badly.

Tullyvallen: 1st Sept. 1975
Tullyvallen orange hall - two IRA men entered and sprayed the hall with machine gun fire. 4 dead, one more later.

Bloody Friday: 21st July 1972
Twenty bombs with no warning detonated in the space of one hour in Belfast City. 9 dead, 130 wounded.

Shankill: 23rd Oct 1993
Shankill Fish Shop bombed - killing 9 protestants and the IRA bomber carrying the device.

Enniskillen: 8th Nov 1987
IRA bombing of a Remberance Day ('Poppy Day') parade.
11 dead, one a reserve RUC member, 63 injured - 9 seriously.
All of the dead were protestants civilians with the exception of the Reserve URC member - also protestant.

Kings Mill: 5th jan 1976
IRA stop a minibus driving back from a textile factory in Co.Armagh. They ask who on the bus is a catholic - which the bus driver turns out to be - and tell him to go before lining the rest of the workers up and excuting them.


These are but a few of the many attrocitied commited - all easily googled and verifiable. To be honest, your one propoganda link from a recognised IRA medium is hardly credible next to cold hard historical facts. Actions speak louder than words. I think those above references should make that abundantly clear.

axer

mycroft wrote:

Thanks for avoiding the thrust and facts of myself and lemmings post.

Consider this you're a 19yo living in the Ardoyne in 2004, You get into a bit of mischief, maybe cross the IRA leadership over a bit of slagging, you're dragged from your home , have your trouser legs pulled up and get a bullets in both your kneecaps. The people who you claim are defending you, have crippled you, they're answerable to no one and there's no court of appeal.

Im sorry, but did you miss my post where i said I believe the IRA's war is over a long time ago? mycroft - why dont you answer my question also. And dont answer it with a question please. Lemmings said that he does not believe that the IRA should have been formed to deal with the problem. I am simply making the point that there was NO other choice. I am simply asking - what should they have done if you do not agree with the IRA having formed?
Victor - this is relevant. People are claiming that the IRA should never have been formed. There was no alternative. Peaceful protests? well - we all know what happened there. Considering lemmings etc think the IRA and Sinn Fein are the one, this makes it very relevant.

mycroft wrote:

Justifying a thirty year terrorist campaign over the start of the troubles is just unfair unpratical and dishonest.

Thats a load of bull. Of course the start of the troubles is relevant while the troubles continued -> you seem to forget of such a thing as Loyalist paramility forces that were operating in the north? I suppose the UVF were only defending themselves from the IRA? And their members - shankhill butchers were just defending themselves too?

Lemming

axer wrote:

Im sorry, but did you miss my post where i said I believe the IRA's war is over a long time ago? mycroft - why dont you answer my question also. And dont answer it with a question please. Lemmings said that he does not believe that the IRA should have been formed to deal with the problem. I am simply making the point that there was NO other choice.

There are always choices to make if one looks hard enough or alters their prespective of a given problem. What happened to the catholic population was repugnant, but it does not justify what happened afterwards. It didn't stop a damn thing. The reason the burning-out of families and what-not "stopped" so to speak was because the international media got hold of footage and embarrassed the hell out of London to which point they stepped in and took control. It was at that point that an army presence was established.

NOT because of anything else.

I am simply asking - what should they have done if you do not agree with the IRA having formed?

Victor - this is relevant. People are claiming that the IRA should never have been formed. There was no alternative. Peaceful protests? well - we all know what happened there. Considering lemmings etc think the IRA and Sinn Fein are the one, this makes it very relevant.

Peaceful protest allows a far stronger bargaining chip when the worlds eyes are upon you than armed "struggle". Certainly much better than interning or "shoot to kill". Certainly much better than 30 years of raids, of living in fear of your own as much as theirs. Certainly better than being scared to go to work in case you're shot or blown up by some derranged nutcase who thinks he's fighting the good fight.

But of course, it's easy to sit here and pontificate and argue about what may or may not have been because none of us was there and thus thisis all very academic.

mycroft

axer wrote:

Im sorry, but did you miss my post where i said I believe the IRA's war is over a long time ago? mycroft - why dont you answer my question also. And dont answer it with a question please. Lemmings said that he does not believe that the IRA should have been formed to deal with the problem. I am simply making the point that there was NO other choice. I am simply asking - what should they have done if you do not agree with the IRA having formed?
Victor - this is relevant. People are claiming that the IRA should never have been formed. There was no alternative. Peaceful protests? well - we all know what happened there. Considering lemmings etc think the IRA and Sinn Fein are the one, this makes it very relevant.

Where did myself and lemming say that? And you've made fine speeches about IRA defence of communties, we've pointed out the tactics of the IRA have had little to do with defending communties since the early days of "the struggle". You are trying to misrepresent our position. While I may add avoiding answering several questions with a question, for example, refusing to answer myself and lemmings points and instead posing a rebutal with your hypothetical above. Which is funny cause you said

And dont answer it with a question please.

When by ignoring our points and posing a hypothetical thats exactly what you're doing

Don't suggest that either he or I are ducking the debate, when you so blatantly are doing just that.

Neither of us are objecting to the necessity of armed defense of these communties you seem to suggest that the atmosphere of early 70s NI justifies the entire IRA campaign, and I have to say your refusal to commit to the questions and rebuttals posed by both of us suggests that your are engaging in the very tactic you are accusing us of.

And again as for the IRA and SF being as one, I've presented logic that would suggest the same, and you've ignored it. Don't try to claim the moral high ground, you're getting alltitude sickness.

Thats a load of bull. Of course the start of the troubles is relevant while the troubles continued -> you seem to forget of such a thing as Loyalist paramility forces that were operating in the north? I suppose the UVF were only defending themselves from the IRA? And their members - shankhill butchers were just defending themselves too?

Ah but I'm not defending the shankill butchers am I? You're the one defending the IRA's campaign. You've painted a picture about the IRA defending homes, when that was just the very start of the IRA campaign, lemming and I have pointed out a plethora of campaigns by the IRA aganist civilian targets in the UK and NI and asked "how is that defending homes" and it is getting "oh so hilarious" when we've repeatadly posed this question to you, and you've repeatadly ducked it, and thrown counter points at us (and this is the rib tickler) demanding that we answer your question when you are fundamential avoiding ours about the continued (past the first years circa 1970) existance of the IRA and its campaign.

oscarBravo

axer wrote:

I am simply making the point that there was NO other choice.

Call me naive, but I refuse to believe there's ever no other choice than to murder innocent civilians.

axer wrote:

People are claiming that the IRA should never have been formed. There was no alternative. Peaceful protests? well - we all know what happened there.

Care to compare the death toll from peaceful protests in NI with the death toll from the IRA? It's hard to imagine that thirty years of peaceful protests could have possibly clocked up a comparable body count.

jman0

Lemming just because the interview with Billy Leonard is from a republican source doesn't make Billy Leonard less a protestant. He sits on the Coleraine Borough Council and you are free to contact him yourself.
http://www.colerainebc.gov.uk/show.php?id=290
How odd you must admit, that a religiously bigotted organisation (SF/IRA) would not only allow a protestant join their membership but also stand as a candidate!

No one is denying Republican atocities but if you are trying to claim that the IRA was targeting people soley on the basis of their religion then you'll have some convincing to do. For example it is well known that Loyalist leaders were in a meeting upstairs from that fish shop (Shankill 1993).
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1993.html (scroll down to 23 October 1993).
Besides, it seems a little ironic to claim the IRA target protestants while people on this board point out all the catholics they've killed.
That claim doesn't hold water.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

Lemming just because the interview with Billy Leonard is from a republican source doesn't make Billy Leonard less a protestant. He sits on the Coleraine Borough Council and you are free to contact him yourself.
http://www.colerainebc.gov.uk/show.php?id=290
How odd you must admit, that a religiously bigotted organisation (SF/IRA) would not only allow a protestant join their membership but also stand as a candidate!

I never said he was any less protestant. In fact I never laid any claims to his actions, rather the fact that the article is nothing more than spin-central for the provos. ONE person admitted. Countless deliberate targettings of protestant civilians. Which rings louder I wonder?

No one is denying Republican atocities but if you are trying to claim that the IRA was targeting people soley on the basis of their religion then you'll have some convincing to do. For example it is well known that Loyalist leaders were in a meeting upstairs from that fish shop (Shankill 1993).

Ummm ... yaaah :rolleyes:
Well done, ONE of those attrocities was intended for someone else. What about the rest of them? And in any case - they bombed a chip shop. Irregardless of who was upstairs what the f*ck do you think was honestly going to happen? Jesus h f*cking christ are you people that blinded by propoganda that you can't see through the bullsh*t?

Come on jman0. That still leaves enniskillen, teebane, the claudy day masascre, la mon house, tullyvallen, bloody friday & kings mill. What about it? Come on then ... excuse those away!

Besides, it seems a little ironic to claim the IRA target protestants while people on this board point out all the catholics they've killed.
That claim doesn't hold water.

That's not ironic. I'd suggest looking up a dictionary definition of the word. There is no irony in the cold hard fact that they willfilly and deliberately targetted protestant civilians. What is ironic is that they killed or brutalised more of the very people they claimed to be protecting throughout the course of the troubles. Ironic in a very dark way of course .....

SO!!!

Which of those "claims" doesn't hold water? The fact that they targeted civilians deliberately based on religion or the fact that they killed/maimed more of their own "people"?

cdebru

Lemming wrote:

SO!!!

Which of those "claims" doesn't hold water? The fact that they targeted civilians deliberately based on religion or the fact that they killed/maimed more of their own "people"?

both as we already went through in the other thread