• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Analysis on those opposed to the current Sinn Féin strategy


Bob Dylan

New member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
1
Raymond McCartney MLA
Derry Sinn Féin


A number of years ago Martin McGuinness contended that the group which calls itself the Real IRA had nothing to offer strategically, tactically or politically in ending British rule in Ireland.

With each passing year and sporadic armed incident this analysis has grown in strength and therefore cannot be dismissed as the ritual politics of condemnation.

Indeed the rationale provided for the recent attack on Jim Doherty on Bishop Street, planting hoax bombs outside Martin Meehan's house and shooting up Liam Bradley's home can be viewed as products of that political and strategic bankruptcy.

For full post:

http://ograshinnfein.blogspot.com/2007/ ... ymond.html
 

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,702
A very good article. I suspect though that the eejits in RIRA/CIRA etc will choose to ignore it and/or ridicule it.

As I have just posted on another thread, 35 years of extreme violence did not remove the Brits from this island so another 35 years won't either.
 

Kerrygold

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
4,748
Aindriu said:
A very good article. I suspect though that the eejits in RIRA/CIRA etc will choose to ignore it and/or ridicule it.

As I have just posted on another thread, 35 years of extreme violence did not remove the Brits from this island so another 35 years won't either.
You could say 800 years of violence, but hey, who's counting.
 

JCSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,250
Website
skinflicks.blogspot.com
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, one might ask what did the Provos offer that the RIRA don't? And also, if one must be a militant republican, surely it is better to do so as part of an organisation that is not riddled with British MI5 spies?
 

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,702
Kerrygold said:
Aindriu said:
A very good article. I suspect though that the eejits in RIRA/CIRA etc will choose to ignore it and/or ridicule it.

As I have just posted on another thread, 35 years of extreme violence did not remove the Brits from this island so another 35 years won't either.
You could say 800 years of violence, but hey, who's counting.
True, but I was thinking more on the lines of 1969 onwards as being extremely violent.
 

scarface

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
24
Re: Analysis on those opposed to the current Sinn Féin strat

Bob Dylan said:
Raymond McCartney MLA
Derry Sinn Féin


A number of years ago Martin McGuinness contended that the group which calls itself the Real IRA had nothing to offer strategically, tactically or politically in ending British rule in Ireland.

With each passing year and sporadic armed incident this analysis has grown in strength and therefore cannot be dismissed as the ritual politics of condemnation.

Indeed the rationale provided for the recent attack on Jim Doherty on Bishop Street, planting hoax bombs outside Martin Meehan's house and shooting up Liam Bradley's home can be viewed as products of that political and strategic bankruptcy.

For full post:

http://ograshinnfein.blogspot.com/2007/ ... ymond.html
I see he is just borrowing some of the SDLP's old speeches now at least they were consistant it's amazing how money and power can change people
 

Kerrygold

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
4,748
Aindriu said:
Kerrygold said:
Aindriu said:
A very good article. I suspect though that the eejits in RIRA/CIRA etc will choose to ignore it and/or ridicule it.

As I have just posted on another thread, 35 years of extreme violence did not remove the Brits from this island so another 35 years won't either.
You could say 800 years of violence, but hey, who's counting.
True, but I was thinking more on the lines of 1969 onwards as being extremely violent.
Really, I would have thought there were far more violent periods in our history. Or is your view based on the fact that it is fresh in the memory?
 

scarface

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
24
Aindriu said:
Kerrygold said:
Aindriu said:
A very good article. I suspect though that the eejits in RIRA/CIRA etc will choose to ignore it and/or ridicule it.

As I have just posted on another thread, 35 years of extreme violence did not remove the Brits from this island so another 35 years won't either.
You could say 800 years of violence, but hey, who's counting.
True, but I was thinking more on the lines of 1969 onwards as being extremely violent.
and 1916-1923 was'nt violent??
 

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,702
Kerrygold & scarface, yes 1916 - 23 was violent but 1969 is relevant as being relatively recent. There aren't many people alive now that were in 1916 - 23. There are many people who remember the troubles of 69 on.
 

MartinP

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
91
Some parts of the piece are very tellling of the path on which the provos now find themselves. What was McCartney's mandate for, what he would now consider, the murder of those Brits he stiffed? He criticises others for claiming that the only mandate required is the British presence - an ideology he once subscribed to, and even in hindsight one he wouldn't concede to being wrong about (even though others who feel like that now are wrong in his eyes). Something the stoops considered him wrong about when he was a soldier. See a pattern forming? A little bit of consistency wouldn't go amiss.


Another part that I wish to draw attention to is a quote by Adams in the piece where he says "In the past I have defended the right of the IRA to engage in armed struggle. I did so because there was no alternative for those who would not bend the knee, or turn a blind eye to oppression, or for those who wanted a national republic. Now there is an alternative."
This is, by and large, a lie. The outcome which the provos have settled for was available to be pursued in the past. I suspect I'll get the usual rubbish about how Sunningdale excluded Republicans while the GFA does not. If you really think the GFA is some major departure from what was proposed 25 years earlier in relation to pursuing unification and independence then it says a lot about your selective memory, or laziness in not reading the proposals of Sunningdale or a simple willingness to be led like a sheep.
 

Halo

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
778
Aindriu said:
Kerrygold & scarface, yes 1916 - 23 was violent but 1969 is relevant as being relatively recent. There aren't many people alive now that were in 1916 - 23. There are many people who remember the troubles of 69 on.
Dont forget about the sabotage and bombing campaigns in England during the 40's, border campaign in the 50's and 60's etc.

Republicanism might be entering the twilight years for a while but we certainly havent gone.........
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
8
Raymond McCartney was a very young man when he was engaged in armed struggle. He had a long time in prison to develop his opinion and strategy. He speaks now with the benefit of both experience and hindsight. His experiences were similar to many other Republicans, now committed to peaceful methods, who would have been militarists when they essentially didn't know any better. We now have a new crop of teenage and twentysomething political 'experts' who have the benefit of neither experience nor maturity and will serve as willing pawns for those who should know better. There is nothing that can be realistically gained, in the present political situation, that is worth one more Irish life.
 

Roy Walsh

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
15
MartinP said:
Some parts of the piece are very tellling of the path on which the provos now find themselves. What was McCartney's mandate for, what he would now consider, the murder of those Brits he stiffed? He criticises others for claiming that the only mandate required is the British presence - an ideology he once subscribed to, and even in hindsight one he wouldn't concede to being wrong about (even though others who feel like that now are wrong in his eyes). Something the stoops considered him wrong about when he was a soldier. See a pattern forming? A little bit of consistency wouldn't go amiss.


Another part that I wish to draw attention to is a quote by Adams in the piece where he says "In the past I have defended the right of the IRA to engage in armed struggle. I did so because there was no alternative for those who would not bend the knee, or turn a blind eye to oppression, or for those who wanted a national republic. Now there is an alternative."
This is, by and large, a lie. The outcome which the provos have settled for was available to be pursued in the past. I suspect I'll get the usual rubbish about how Sunningdale excluded Republicans while the GFA does not. If you really think the GFA is some major departure from what was proposed 25 years earlier in relation to pursuing unification and independence then it says a lot about your selective memory, or laziness in not reading the proposals of Sunningdale or a simple willingness to be led like a sheep.
In many ways what you say is correct, however the situation on the ground now is significantly different, and better for the nationalists and working class unionists, the difficulty for RSF and their 'cutting edge(s)' is that political reunification is useless if we have 1,000,000 hostile armed unionists, the thing future generations need us to do now is reunite our nation or else we end up with the reversal of the troubles with na Garadí and PDF/RDF holding the line against these Unionists, do you want that?
 

Cork Rebel

New member
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
3
The whole rationale behind the current strategy taken by the party and the reasons why SF have now started a campaign of trying to criminalise Republicans who do not share their analysis can be found in the quote from Gerry Adams.

"That struggle can now be taken forward by other means. I say this with the authority of my office as President of Sinn Féin. In the past I have defended the right of the IRA to engage in armed struggle. I did so because there was no alternative for those who would not bend the knee, or turn a blind eye to oppression, or for those who wanted a national republic.Now there is an alternative.I have clearly set out my view of what that alternative is The way forward is by building political support for republican and democratic objectives across Ireland and by winning support for these goals internationally."

So at this moment in time SF does not defend the right of the Irish people to engage in armed struggle because, in the parties view, there is an alternative now available which all Republicians should embrace.

That strategy is failing in my opinion, the results of the recent elections are a testament to this. In 2005 when SF undertook this change in strategy the party were higher in the opinion polls than they are now. The party had more 26 County Elected Reps (some have left the party since). The party had more TD's than now.

The next local and European elections are critical to the credibility of the strategy undertaken by the party. If the party comes out of the local elections with less seats than they have now (which is possible if not probable at this time) and the party loses its European seat in Dublin (which it will now its a 3seater) then where does that leave the strategy?

If your not building political strength then the strategy is one doomed to failure. Where then for SF?

I dread the answer personally.
 
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
8
Cork Rebel,
While I agree for the most part with;

So at this moment in time SF does not defend the right of the Irish people to engage in armed struggle because, in the parties view, there is an alternative now available which all Republicians should embrace.
I have to disagree with your assertion that the strategy is failing. True Sinn Féin have suffered electoral setbacks since 2005, but these are confined to the 26 counties. They are operating there with several disadvantages; not least a rabidly hostile media who will never let the truth stand in the way of Sinn Féin bashing, smear and scare-mongering.
The public might, hopefully, cop themselves to the Fianna Fail fraud but who knows; the public are fickle. You went on to say:
The next local and European elections are critical to the credibility of the strategy undertaken by the party. If the party comes out of the local elections with less seats than they have now (which is possible if not probable at this time) and the party loses its European seat in Dublin (which it will now its a 3seater) then where does that leave the strategy?

If your not building political strength then the strategy is one doomed to failure. Where then for SF?

I dread the answer personally.
I think you are getting a wee bit carried away here; you might as well be worried about a Blueshirt coup d'etat if Fine Gael lose seats in the next general election. Sinn Féin are the second largest party in the area where the IRA were active and that is not about to change. Through time they should make breakthroughs in the south but there is much in-built impediment to their progress.
Should they not do as well in local elections, and that is very hard to predict as much of the time these are dependent on local issues and personalities, and even if they lost their southern MEP; seat I wouldn't be worried about any prospective statements from P O Neill.
Even if Republicans do not fare well at the polls, there is no justification or necessity for a continuation or resumption of armed militant activity.
 

merle haggard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
5,497
pheasent plucker said:
Raymond McCartney was a very young man when he was engaged in armed struggle. He had a long time in prison to develop his opinion and strategy. He speaks now with the benefit of both experience and hindsight. His experiences were similar to many other Republicans, now committed to peaceful methods, who would have been militarists when they essentially didn't know any better. We now have a new crop of teenage and twentysomething political 'experts' who have the benefit of neither experience nor maturity and will serve as willing pawns for those who should know better. There is nothing that can be realistically gained, in the present political situation, that is worth one more Irish life.
a politically degenerate response

We now have a new crop of teenage and twentysomething political 'experts' who have the benefit of neither experience nor maturity and will serve as willing pawns for those who should know better.

a read through this shite would bring it into perspective

His experiences were similar to many other Republicans, now committed to peaceful methods, who would have been militarists when they essentially didn't know any better.
idiots in other words ? They should have listened to Hume , Fitt, Currie etc after all ?

He speaks now with the benefit of both experience and hindsight

he speaks now as a member of a British parliament in Ireland in defence of the British state in Ireland , in defence of the Bitish armed forces in Ireland and as a leading member of a party which is to all intents and purposes funded by the British governemnt . To put it into perspective Sinn Fein recieves approximately £200,000 per annum from its very influential Freinds of Sinn Fein fundraising group in the USA . This money can only be spent in the 6 counties . It receives over £2 million per annum in grants and salaries from westminster , ten times the FOSF amount . This is before claiming expenses from stormont which are substantial . Its vocal supporters in the Andersonstwon news group also benefit to the tune of millions from British governemnt funding to promote the same defence of Ulsterisation , Normalisation and criminalisation and British policy in Ireland from a republican perspective . Hes a liar , a confusion monger and a hypocrite regardless of his past actions .
That he is advancing British policy and British counter insurgency objectives in Ireland while denouncing republican separatists as a gang of apolitical criminals , as Gerry Fitt and Maggie Thatcher denounced him and his fellow separatists in the past , is simply an indication of who pays his wages and who the sinn fein project is funded by and totally dependent upon . The British governemnt .
Hes disgraced himself . Hes a disgrace and no better than Gerry Fitt .
 

Sidewinder

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
442
JCSkinner said:
And also, if one must be a militant republican, surely it is better to do so as part of an organisation that is not riddled with British MI5 spies?
Which one would that be then? ;)

They all look riddled with agents from where I'm sitting. And of course, the Loyalists always were a clandestine arm of the British Army.

It begs the question, since the era of the Hunger Strikes, is there any organisation or party in the north that hasn't been run by the British?
 

Sidewinder

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
442
Aindriu said:
kerrygold said:
You could say 800 years of violence, but hey, who's counting.
True, but I was thinking more on the lines of 1969 onwards as being extremely violent.
Pah. The entire 17th century (Nine Years War, Plantation, Cromwellian War, Williamite War, well over a million dead in total), the late 18th century (Whiteboys and Defenders and General Lake's rape of Ulster and 1798 itself), the mid-19th century (organised genocide backed up by massive military force handwaved away as "famine") and the Tan War-Civil War were far more violent than the 69-97 period.
 

Seánod

Active member
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
208
Given the inevitable winding down of the insurrection over 30 years in the 6 counties, Republicanism has taken two routes, as it has done many times in the past. In this instance, the vast majority of republicans, as was the case in the past, have opted for a more political "slightly/increasingly constitutional" path. As in the past, they are convinced they have enough to act as a stepping stone to their ultimate goal.

Then there's the traditional republican path, which tends to get severely marginalised. This perspective, as in the past, will only regain ground in the context of some future crisis.

Then there's a huge number of republicans who can't live with the GFA on the one hand, but who realise that those representing traditional republicanism at the minute are really going nowhere either... so they just get on with their family lives.

While I have huge respect for Raymond McCartney, and while I think there is much sense in what he is saying, at the same time I can't get it out of my head how many times I heard the same things said about ourselves over and over, years ago. That thought would at least make me be less strident in some of my comments. But he is right about one thing though, amongst people on the ground the RIRA etc have a real credibility/support problem that the original IRA did not have.
 
Top