Sinn Fein

franco

fact, sinn fein are the provisional IRA, it has been undisputedly poven that many Sinn Fein politicians sat on the army council of sf.

For 30 years the IRA/SF maimed and murdered innocent men, women, and children in such horrific atrocities as Enniskillen,Teebane and Shanhill road. I call that terrorism. Ido not think that an organisation of this kind deserves the the adulation that many of our misguided young people now give it.I cannot accept that those who were prepared to murder yesterday can be legitimate politicians today. I do not believe they have changed. Sinn Fein refused to recognise one legitimate irish army. In the present day one Martin'robin hood'Ferris refuses to recognise one Irish police force. He has set up his own organisation of vigilantes in Kerry to administer their own form of 'justice'. the aforementioned Mr Ferris, when visiting young sinn fein in ucg some weeks ago that should the need arise in the future, sinn fein 'will not leave republican northenors unprotected'. read into that what you will.Despite professing themselvesas peaceful it is a fact that SF have maintainedthir links with the international terrorist ring, namely farc and eta. The recent discovery of the sinn fein 3 in Columbia bears undisputed testimony to this.
I for one dont think that it is right that such an organisation should be in receipt of the blind adultation from many of our brainwashed young people

b20uvkft6m5xwg

Ok Franco

I have absolutley zero affiliation w/ SF but...

I do respect the fact that Sinn Féin & the IRA are separate entities. Alright there is a crossover of membership, but they are separate orgs. (as proven by their formation and historical memorandum)

I do not condone any form or terrorism or self-policing polices, and I agree with you about some of the youth of the country blindly supporting the party(nothwithstanding they have no "real" Economic Policies), but...
It is untruthful to say they are the same entity:)

Hobbes

fact, sinn fein are the provisional IRA, it has been undisputedly poven that many Sinn Fein politicians sat on the army council of sf.

How about some linkage?

Did you happen to catch the discussion that was on BBC1 (I think) with Martin McGuiness, Trimble and others.

Martin was pratically having kittens when one of the people was quoting some book as fact that Martin McGuiness was the leader of the IRA and was responsible for killing people without showing any actual evidence.

He was screaming to know what the evidence was and wasn't given any answer.

Bit like you really.

Now I'm not saying your right or wrong, but it's pretty easy to make broad reaching statements without backing it up.

Sinn Fein refused to recognise one legitimate irish army.

Prehaps you should go read up on your old history. If only it was that simple.

Btw did you know that the English Army was sent into Northern Ireland because of the atrocities carried out by the prodestants (sp, sorry), not because of the IRA.

read into that what you will

Which is what your seeming to do.

Maybe your right, prehaps they should stand back and do nothing while kids as young as 4 years old are threatend by hooded men on thier way to school.

Boston

Originally posted by 80project
I do not condone any form or terrorism or self-policing polices

Hmm so faced with wide spread discrimination, and duplicity at the highest levels of goverment, what would your recourse be.

when your oppressed and told by the people in power your worthless and that your sub human, then how hard could it be to pull that triger, after all you dont even have a soul to loose. When all other routes are blocked then what can you do?

Typedef

Isn't it interesting how ostensibly the media has divorced the act of "terrorism" from the "socio-political intent" of "terrorism" to allude to William Gibson, but seems to have a contiguous fascination of doing this selectively and mostly in favour of the powers that be in said media's respective countries? How is it that when George Bush and his army of toy soldiers in the Northern Alliance murder, maim, kill and execute there is some kind of moral impetus or fortitude in a skewed kind of quasi pontif-like infallibility which vindicates, morally exemplafies and endows the act murder and usurpation of the "common" so-called principals of civilisation in the name of civilisation?

What kind of skewed two-tier logic is this?

In essence what I say is this, how can someone berate the actions of the IRA or UDA, while still support say a widening of the "war on terrorism" to include, Somalia, Indonesia, Iraq, Syria?

Do I have to spell out that one of the foundations of propaganda is to make people believe, ostensibly through brainwashing (techniques that appeal to emotions rather than intellect to placate and convince you rather than well reasoned and logical arguments being used to convince you), that the sceptre of moral fortitude is held by "our" side because "we" are right? Through the ages men have claimed that god is on their side and that their "enemies" will suffer the wrath of god through violence in his name(god's that is) or that section X of humanity are gods chosen few, and that these few matter more to God than said men's enemies and that is why it is OK to kill the enemy.

So if America has a "right of self defence" that extends to bombing (however accidentially it is claimed) of women and children in the third world, a right of self defence that would somehow also guarantee democracy and freedom, how is any other group similarly wrong in the act of self defence or bombing?

The men who insurrected against the English King in the USA and founded a state, were terrorists or founding fathers? Ask the Americans now and then, ask the English now and then.

So what has the Northern peace process been about if the Irish people can't say, all violence is wrong always and we cannot and will not support the taking of life for political gain?
I wouldn't expect George Bush the man who coursely sent 130 men to their death's as Governor of Texas, to understand what living through a war is like, what it is like to have American bombs rain down on you from a great height for the crime of being Palestinian, or the crime of being an Iraqi peasant.

If this conflict can serve as an example of anything surely it must serve as an example of how easily the American war machine could have removed Saddam Hussein from power but instead through an American orchestrated miasma of sanctions has brought about millions of Iraqi deaths, the dead and dying are not the feared Republican guard no, you can bet the farm the vuneralble, poor, old, children, women, homeless and so on will the the first and most numerous to die. In this carnage what is the priority of George Bush? Weapons inspections. So tell me. How does this guarantee freedom? If freedom == oil then maybe so, because more war on Iraq will only guarantee George Bush's oil interests are protected.

Sinn Fein have maintained their links with George Bush but, I don't hear alot of people berating them for that do you?

The reality of the situation is that thirty plus years ago only people who owned a house or owned a business could vote in the six counties. So as the six counties were indoctrinated as state in which the Unionists in the North might have an economically viable relm. The boundaries commission was a best a talking shop and the state that was created encompassed areas where the local population in favour of continued union was as low as 20-30%.

Brainwashing would imply that Sinn-Fein ever had any media exposure during the 80's, which they did not. While neo-nazis like Ian Paisley who is know as the "Grand Old Duke" by Loyalist Para-militaries was allowed spew his divisive religious fundamentalist message across the media, the so-called terrorists Sinn Fein were denied even the right of free speech.

I have to say I have diffuculty in berating Sinn Fein, who now are participants of the Northern Government for the alleged links of some Sinn Fein supporters to the IRA when the IRA is in the process of disarming and thus removing the infrastructure of war during a time when the supposed infallable Americans are clearly acting in demi-imperialist and most certainly aggressive manner, don't you?

Also I find it absurd that it was the British General Maxwell who originally affilated Sinn Fein with the then IRB. Griffith and Sinn Fein at the time were a Home Rule party, modelling themselves on the Austro-Hungarian model so the entire equation of Sin Fein and the IRA is merley an affilation of repression and state sponsored murder. Remember it was General Maxwell who had the rebels put to death.

DadaKopf

Sinn Féin is the political wing of the IRA, but not identical. There's no point in saying it's not. The PUP is the political wing of the UDA [correct me if I'm wrong]. What differs the two beyond the obvious distinction is that the latter openly admits that they speak for the UDA.

Viewing the situation credibly, it rationally breaks down thusly: the IRA found their bombing campaign was gaining ground and as much as, in the beginning, the UK politicians were willing to engage in dialogue with Gerry Adams etc., a political wing was required. Why? To legitimise the struggle by bringing it into the legitimate political arena. But, given the nationalists' position of being on the least-favoured side, the IRA needed to keep a strong public (and causal) distinction between the terrorist organisation and the political wing in order to keep dialogue channels open and to have a public face. Sinn Fein is a legitimate party, it does everything a party is expected to do - have cousellors, serve the constituents, run government and, most importantly, campaign for social and political justice.

Of course they're linked. They're not identical however, because many members of Sinn Fein are not IRA members. We'd be fooling ourselves if we said that SF is not the same as the IRA because it's neither not at all identical to the IRA nor identical. It's both. This ambivalence is what has made SF succeed as a legitimate political party - because it speaks for both sides!

Samson

[This has no relevance to this discussion, if you have a problem with someones spelling send them a PM and do not try to score browie points in a public forum-Gandalf]

Point taken about the spelling.

However, I was not trying to score brownie points at all, in fact the only reason I made the remarks I did was because I felt that was what Typedef was doing !

P.S. Don't give me sh|t about sending the discussion off track, as it seems to be on the way out.

DadaKopf

It's not cool to pick people up on their spelling, Samson! As for that first paragraph of Typedef's, I must parshly commend him on a well written piece of prose! It's honestly the most condensed rolling barrage of bitterness and political analysis I've seen on the boards for quite a long time! Those words! Yes, they were slightly laboured and over-wrought. I'd expect to see that language in a French student's political newspaper than a cool, calm yet insightful Boards.ie analysis of the 'northern question'. It doesn't sound like a first year politics rant to me.

Typedef: Your point is well taken. I understad your bitterness with regard to the cynical hypocrisy of the US and British governments (while not forgetting the Irish government and any others for that matter). However, people have to declare sides at some stage or other. It appears to me that most American people simply don't realise that their country was founded on popular insurrection, something which the politicians in the Capitol have conveniently forgotten. Ireland, too, is borne out of insurrection against England - and that we have in common with the US. One can't, in my opinion, be ignorant of the facts but we must decide on them. My main problem is ignorance, not choice.

In my opinion, the terrorist attitudes of the IRA in the 1960s were justified, given a rational analysis but their violent strategy is no longer warrented. In the same way, I support the efforts of Hamas in Palestine - however, I don't necessarily approve of their strategies. I also oppose the was in Afghanistan.

People cannot afford to interpret violence as always wrong and always right - it is a tool of diplomacy and like a surgeon's scalpel, it should always be used with precision and forethought. Its only intention should be for collective well-being - call me a utilitarian all you like. Doctors don't use their skills for power and I believe if a proper theory of war were to be developed within a more rational framework, perhaps with its own version of the hippocratic oath, war may actually become divorced from power. But war is always about power struggle.

Of course, the problem is pluralism. As you pointed out, the question always arises: "who is right?" Northern Ireland is a very clear example of establishing this; the statelet of Northern Ireland deprived one whole section of the community various rights and equalities which were classed as basic rights and necessities. Any community which is being systematically denied equal status and participation has a right to demand correct treatment. However, no one can by any means resort to violence at any instance. In NI, this was state practise, the Catholic community had no other recourse to change the system within democratic/state structures and a paramilitary filled the vacuum. In spite of the terror, sorrow and pain this war has caused, it was mostly a just war and hence a positive war. Only now does it seem that military strategy is redundant, thankfully, in favour of politics. Cue Sinn Féin.

On the other hand, the UK was entirely justified in retaliating against an internal insurrectionist force - states may be a "monopoly of force" but they're there to protect their citizens. However, in the post-propaganda phase of the Troubles, Britain's role in preventing peace and egalitarianism is shining through brighter than before.

This view isn't a condoning of violence, it's just an acceptance of its existence. In a sense, I understand the American state's attack on Afghanistan but the State's (bracketing the people) interests are politics and power based, not justice based. The sickness of the Stans isn't simply a result fo Western intervention, it's a result of different kind of political ideology which has come from within that area. To blame and bomb a pitiful country like Afghanistan for a crime they didn't commit is an outrage - justifying an assault on the Taliban is merely a convenient component of a strategy to arrest bin Laden and achieve US justice. But where was America last winter when the Afghani winter blew in? No, this isn't a war on terrorism as such. It's a war on anti-Americanism - fought on many fronts - and yet another attempt to expand US military hegemony. Yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before. Once again, this war is not about humanitarianism, it's about power and it's not about bringing egalitarianism to that region of the world, it's about making it safe for people like us, not the Afghanis. The sad thing is, the US can't go any other way - they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't.

As for your comment on media reporting and reportage - they need to sell papers so they sell to their audiences. It all comes down to one simple realisation: whatever really happens in the world, as far as humans are concerned, there are no real facts.

So when it comes to war, it's all just opinion of which there are billions. Our duty is to know all that we can and do the best we can.

I, too, have nothing better to do but I'm going to bed now.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by DadaKopf
As for that first paragraph of Typedef's, I must parshly commend him on a well written piece of prose!

lol

Samson

[As per the comments on your first post-Gandalf]

Boston

it may be pretentious but its a valid point, two sets of rules.

DadaKopf

Maybe there should be a board specifically for people who want to criticise other people's spelling. Let's face it, when people make posts, they hardly ever have reason to sub-edit their posts. Who should bother? Who cares? People who start slagging people off for their spelling usually have nothing constructive to argue about.

The thread is about Sinn Féin, not spelling or Typedef's flowery use of English. Let's keep it that way .

gandalf

Get back on-topic and forget Samsons comments. If anyone feels that another posters spelling is not up to standard bite your lip and do not post comments about it on this board. If you do feel strongly about it then send them a polite Private Message.

/Sarcasm on

Samson thanks for breaking up an interesting thread.

/Sarcasm off

Gandalf.

Typedef

What's going on?

Am I going to be asked to moderate the Nazi-Etymologist's board?

dahamsta

Btw did you know that the English Army was sent into Northern Ireland because of the atrocities carried out by the prodestants (sp, sorry), not because of the IRA.

Please don't equate protestants with loyalists or unionists, either political or terrorist. Unionists and Loyalists are for the most part protestant and religiously bigoted, but that doesn't mean that all protestants are Unionist or Loyalist, and it certainly doesn't mean that they're all bigoted. My mother is a protestant, and she would be, and regularly is, offended by that misapprehension.

adam

Boston

only something like 50% of protestants in the north practice their religion.

Baz_

Originally posted by «Bo§ton»
only something like 50% of protestants in the north practice their religion.

yeah good point..... wtf????

Thats a good point dahamsta, and I'm sure hobbes didn't mean offense by it, unfortunately that misapprehension is quite common, but I for one try to be as aware as possible to it, but when reading Hobbes post I didn't even spot it. You are just lucky I guess in that you have a way to remind you so vividly.

dahamsta

I'm sure hobbes didn't mean offense by it

I doubt he did, I just thought it was important to say.

You are just lucky I guess in that you have a way to remind you so vividly.

That's one way of looking at it I guess.

adam