Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[sid waddell]

Sid taken to the underground again to stock up with delusional tinfoil hat stuff and continue to avoid answering any questions.

Lolz, this from the guy who hasn't answered a single question over the last umpteen pages and whose attitude to debate is that of a playground fight

Is there no beginning to your understanding?

[sid waddell]

FG commemorating terrorists today I see.

https://twitter.com/FineGael/status/1339223937499222016?s=19

Well at least we now know you think the PIRA were nothing more than terrorists, because you've been saying all along that the old IRA and the PIRA were the exact same

To add to your belief that there should not have been an independent Irish state in 1922

Some really bizarre beliefs for a self professed Irish Nationalist who says he believed in the PIRA campaign

[Itchy]

Sid's point about it becoming less justified after they couldn't win is redundant - neither the old IRA, nor PIRA nor the dissidents ever had any chance of winning in any conventional understanding of the word. .

But the old IRA did win

They achieved an independent Irish state

The PIRA lost

They did not achieve what they wanted

Can you point me towards any evidence of the Old IRA outlining that their objective was to partition Ireland?

It wasn't their objective

Their objective was an independent Irish state

And that they got

Why was there a civil war? Are you really that stupid?

[Look-Up!]

The total denial of the media and governments as to what was happening also fuelled the anger and sense of inequality. The dogs on the street knew British security forces were in collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries but to say this to most people from the Free State until only very recently they would laugh in your face. To say it to an English person they would have you committed. Media spin is a powerful thing.

Utter nonsense

People in the Republic long believed there was Loyalist/British collusion, especially as the single most devastating event of the entire Troubles took place in the Republic

Ah so the Dublin bombing was a hot topic now, not swept under the carpet. Sorry, my mistake.

Let me guess, the bastions of truth keeping people informed with accurate and free information in the relentless pursuit of justice. The BBC and RTE?

[sid waddell]

Sid's point about it becoming less justified after they couldn't win is redundant - neither the old IRA, nor PIRA nor the dissidents ever had any chance of winning in any conventional understanding of the word. .

But the old IRA did win

They achieved an independent Irish state

The PIRA lost

They did not achieve what they wanted

Can you point me towards any evidence of the Old IRA outlining that their objective was to partition Ireland?

It wasn't their objective

Their objective was an independent Irish state

And that they got

Why was there a civil war? Are you really that stupid?

I've already explained this

The Civil War was not caused by partition

It was a very peripheral issue at best - the key issue was the oath of allegiance

Like some people take their view of the JFK assassination form the Oliver Stone film which was complete nonsense, this is the "Michael Collins" film version of history

[sid waddell]

The total denial of the media and governments as to what was happening also fuelled the anger and sense of inequality. The dogs on the street knew British security forces were in collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries but to say this to most people from the Free State until only very recently they would laugh in your face. To say it to an English person they would have you committed. Media spin is a powerful thing.

Utter nonsense

People in the Republic long believed there was Loyalist/British collusion, especially as the single most devastating event of the entire Troubles took place in the Republic

Ah so the Dublin bombing was a hot topic now, not swept under the carpet. Sorry, my mistake.

Let me guess, the bastions of truth keeping people informed with accurate and free information in the relentless pursuit of justice. The BBC and RTE?

Your assertion is simply wrong

The Dublin government caved as regards pushing to find out the real truth of the bombings

But pretty much everybody down here believed there was British involvement from the get go

Open to correction but as far as I remember it was an ITV documentary in 1993 that contained the first real substantiation of this

The carping about BBC and RTE from Shinners is reminiscent of the Gembots

All yis are missing is an "RTE is the virus" avatar

BBC and RTE both had and have plenty of faults but yis sound like Celtic supporters going on about freemasons, yis sound nuts

[Chief]

Sid's point about it becoming less justified after they couldn't win is redundant - neither the old IRA, nor PIRA nor the dissidents ever had any chance of winning in any conventional understanding of the word. .

But the old IRA did win

They achieved an independent Irish state

The PIRA lost

They did not achieve what they wanted

Can you point me towards any evidence of the Old IRA outlining that their objective was to partition Ireland?

It wasn't their objective

Their objective was an independent Irish state

And that they got

No it wasn't. It was for an Irish Republic - in fact to be more precise they wanted recognition of the Irish republic declared in 1916, and run the Dail elected in 1917.

When the old IRA surrendered under the threat of "immediate and terrible war" what they got in return was a 26 county British Dominion in which parliamentarians had to swear allegiance to the British Crown.

"Home Rule for slow learners" if you paraphrase Seamus Mallon.  I don't say that to be disrespectful, at least half of the army of the Republic of first Dail broadly agreed with that conclusion.

The British Dominion then preserved this Dominion status by borrowing cannons from the British, and hiring ex-British servicemen to fight in the enduring civil war - committing unspeakable atrocities in the process (as did the other side).

The Republic was won (de jure) peacefully in 37. Declared (defacto) to in 49. Peacefully by diplomatic skill and opportunism.

The Old IRA had no chance of "winning" their war from the outset. That justification doesn't stack up Sid to support your argument.

A better example would have been Pearses surrender in 1916 where he explicitly done so to avoid more civilian casualties.

[sid waddell]

Sid's point about it becoming less justified after they couldn't win is redundant - neither the old IRA, nor PIRA nor the dissidents ever had any chance of winning in any conventional understanding of the word. .

But the old IRA did win

They achieved an independent Irish state

The PIRA lost

They did not achieve what they wanted

Can you point me towards any evidence of the Old IRA outlining that their objective was to partition Ireland?

It wasn't their objective

Their objective was an independent Irish state

And that they got

No it wasn't. It was for an Irish Republic - in fact to be more precise they wanted recognition of the Irish republic declared in 1916, and run the Dail elected in 1917.

When the old IRA surrendered under the threat of "immediate and terrible war" what they got in return was a 26 county British Dominion in which parliamentarians had to swear allegiance to the British Crown.

"Home Rule for slow learners" if you paraphrase Seamus Mallon.  I don't say that to be disrespectful, at least half of the army of the Republic of first Dail broadly agreed with that conclusion.

The British Dominion then preserved this Dominion status by borrowing cannons from the British, and hiring ex-British servicemen to fight in the enduring civil war - committing unspeakable atrocities in the process (as did the other side).

The Republic was won (de jure) peacefully in 37. Declared (defacto) to in 49. Peacefully by diplomatic skill and opportunism.

The Old IRA had no chance of "winning" their war from the outset. That justification doesn't stack up Sid to support your argument.

A better example would have been Pearses surrender in 1916 where he explicitly done so to avoid more civilian casualties.

Well it was for an Irish Republic but they got an Irish Republic before long - the freedom to achieve freedom

And what was there from 22/23 was effectively an independent Irish state

It was unquestionably a victory

[Chief]

Sid's point about it becoming less justified after they couldn't win is redundant - neither the old IRA, nor PIRA nor the dissidents ever had any chance of winning in any conventional understanding of the word. .

But the old IRA did win

They achieved an independent Irish state

The PIRA lost

They did not achieve what they wanted

Can you point me towards any evidence of the Old IRA outlining that their objective was to partition Ireland?

It wasn't their objective

Their objective was an independent Irish state

And that they got

No it wasn't. It was for an Irish Republic - in fact to be more precise they wanted recognition of the Irish republic declared in 1916, and run the Dail elected in 1917.

When the old IRA surrendered under the threat of "immediate and terrible war" what they got in return was a 26 county British Dominion in which parliamentarians had to swear allegiance to the British Crown.

"Home Rule for slow learners" if you paraphrase Seamus Mallon.  I don't say that to be disrespectful, at least half of the army of the Republic of first Dail broadly agreed with that conclusion.

The British Dominion then preserved this Dominion status by borrowing cannons from the British, and hiring ex-British servicemen to fight in the enduring civil war - committing unspeakable atrocities in the process (as did the other side).

The Republic was won (de jure) peacefully in 37. Declared (defacto) to in 49. Peacefully by diplomatic skill and opportunism.

The Old IRA had no chance of "winning" their war from the outset. That justification doesn't stack up Sid to support your argument.

A better example would have been Pearses surrender in 1916 where he explicitly done so to avoid more civilian casualties.

Well it was for an Irish Republic but they got an Irish Republic before long - the freedom to achieve freedom

And what was there from 22/23 was effectively an independent Irish state

It was unquestionably a victory

I don't think I would characterise it as a victory - more the "best defeat" that could be achieved.

Again - these men (aside from those who committed war crimes) were hero's. I mean them no disrespect - they deserve their exalted position in Irish history and long may that continue.

[sid waddell]

Sid's point about it becoming less justified after they couldn't win is redundant - neither the old IRA, nor PIRA nor the dissidents ever had any chance of winning in any conventional understanding of the word. .

But the old IRA did win

They achieved an independent Irish state

The PIRA lost

They did not achieve what they wanted

Can you point me towards any evidence of the Old IRA outlining that their objective was to partition Ireland?

It wasn't their objective

Their objective was an independent Irish state

And that they got

No it wasn't. It was for an Irish Republic - in fact to be more precise they wanted recognition of the Irish republic declared in 1916, and run the Dail elected in 1917.

When the old IRA surrendered under the threat of "immediate and terrible war" what they got in return was a 26 county British Dominion in which parliamentarians had to swear allegiance to the British Crown.

"Home Rule for slow learners" if you paraphrase Seamus Mallon.  I don't say that to be disrespectful, at least half of the army of the Republic of first Dail broadly agreed with that conclusion.

The British Dominion then preserved this Dominion status by borrowing cannons from the British, and hiring ex-British servicemen to fight in the enduring civil war - committing unspeakable atrocities in the process (as did the other side).

The Republic was won (de jure) peacefully in 37. Declared (defacto) to in 49. Peacefully by diplomatic skill and opportunism.

The Old IRA had no chance of "winning" their war from the outset. That justification doesn't stack up Sid to support your argument.

A better example would have been Pearses surrender in 1916 where he explicitly done so to avoid more civilian casualties.

Well it was for an Irish Republic but they got an Irish Republic before long - the freedom to achieve freedom

And what was there from 22/23 was effectively an independent Irish state

It was unquestionably a victory

I don't think I would characterise it as a victory - more the "best defeat" that could be achieved.

Again - these men (aside from those who committed war crimes) were hero's. I mean them no disrespect - they deserve their exalted position in Irish history and long may that continue.

It wasn't total victory which was never achievable but of course it was a victory - a sort of a Rolling Stones "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need"

Home Rule would have meant remaining part of the United Kingdom

The Treaty meant the Free State ceased to be part of the United Kingdom with only a few Is to be dotted and a Ts to be crossed to get a Republic

Compared to what was believed achievable even six or seven years earlier, it was a totally seismic change

[Snapchap]

If killing civilians is enough to make you condemn the PIRA campaign, surely you'll have no problem condemning the Old IRA campaign, given that they targetted a higher proportion of civilians?

Just a reminder, Sid, that you still haven't taken the opportunity to answer the above question.

Let's hear it.

I condemn civilian murder but the old IRA's overall campaign as a whole can be reasonably argued to be morally justifiable because there was a reasonably justifiable casus belli, the war was short - those waging it were mindful that the population was at breaking point by summer 1921 - it had the support of the people, and because it had a very good chance of winning - and it did win

The PIRA campaign was totally unjustified because it had zero chance of success, did not have the support of the people, and there were peaceful alternatives available - when you add these things together, it therefore could not have a justifiable casus belli

The two campaigns as a whole are morally not equivalent at all

These are the nuances you and Franko just don't get - youse have a totally simplistic, wrong understanding of what makes a just conflict as a whole - these are the sort of nuances which can be applied to all conflict worldwide

Your argument is like trying to justify the US invading Iraq because they invaded Germany in 1945, so therefore they are morally equivalent - they aren't

The actual moral similarity is between the PIRA campaign and the disso campaign which murdered Ronan Kerr and Lyra McKee

They have the exact same aims, they exact same methods, the exact same chance of success

Except that your argument isn't "nuanced". You've spent several days telling us that the PIRA campaign was immoral because you believe killing civilians was an integral part of it. The Old IRA killed a greater proportion of civilians but you seem to be fine with that because it was a short campaign. If you are driven by morality in your argument in terms of the targetting of civilians, then surely you wouldn't care how long a conflict lasted - any group that targetted civilians more routinely than the PIRA (whom you condemn on that barometer) did, can only be prime targets for your outright moral condemnation.

P.s. You use the utterly bizzare "justification" that the Old IRA "suceeded" in their campaign. Michael Collins famously said that the treaty didn't give Ireland freedom, (but rather the "freedom to achieve freedom"). So given that at no point before or during the Tan War did the Old IRA say they were fighting to achieve partition, and given that Collins didn't regard partition as freedom, can you not see why your suggestion that they suceeded in avhieving their aim for the war, has been so roundly ridiculed? I mean, if I'm wrong, it will no dount be easy for you simply post up a quote where the Old IRA said, before or during the war, that they were fighting to achieve a partitioned country. I await with interest.

[Snapchap]

P.s. I see you are again spouting the notion that there was a peaceful route available to nationalists in the north to achieve what were have today. You keep ignoring the whole Bloody Sunday thing. It's actually kinda relevant in any discussion about how Britain responded to peaceful nationalist protestors in the north of Ireland.

[6th sam]

Sid's point about it becoming less justified after they couldn't win is redundant - neither the old IRA, nor PIRA nor the dissidents ever had any chance of winning in any conventional understanding of the word. .

But the old IRA did win

They achieved an independent Irish state

The PIRA lost

They did not achieve what they wanted

Can you point me towards any evidence of the Old IRA outlining that their objective was to partition Ireland?

It wasn't their objective

Their objective was an independent Irish state

And that they got

No it wasn't. It was for an Irish Republic - in fact to be more precise they wanted recognition of the Irish republic declared in 1916, and run the Dail elected in 1917.

When the old IRA surrendered under the threat of "immediate and terrible war" what they got in return was a 26 county British Dominion in which parliamentarians had to swear allegiance to the British Crown.

"Home Rule for slow learners" if you paraphrase Seamus Mallon.  I don't say that to be disrespectful, at least half of the army of the Republic of first Dail broadly agreed with that conclusion.

The British Dominion then preserved this Dominion status by borrowing cannons from the British, and hiring ex-British servicemen to fight in the enduring civil war - committing unspeakable atrocities in the process (as did the other side).

The Republic was won (de jure) peacefully in 37. Declared (defacto) to in 49. Peacefully by diplomatic skill and opportunism.

The Old IRA had no chance of "winning" their war from the outset. That justification doesn't stack up Sid to support your argument.

A better example would have been Pearses surrender in 1916 where he explicitly done so to avoid more civilian casualties.

Well it was for an Irish Republic but they got an Irish Republic before long - the freedom to achieve freedom

And what was there from 22/23 was effectively an independent Irish state

It was unquestionably a victory

I don't think I would characterise it as a victory - more the "best defeat" that could be achieved.

Again - these men (aside from those who committed war crimes) were hero's. I mean them no disrespect - they deserve their exalted position in Irish history and long may that continue.

It wasn't total victory which was never achievable but of course it was a victory - a sort of a Rolling Stones "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need"

Home Rule would have meant remaining part of the United Kingdom

The Treaty meant the Free State ceased to be part of the United Kingdom with only a few Is to be dotted and a Ts to be crossed to get a Republic

Compared to what was believed achievable even six or seven years earlier, it was a totally seismic change

Even the most cursory analysis of the economy of the island in 1921 indicates that ireland was completely duped into declaring a partitioned "free state". Having shafted Ireland to such an extent that our population literally halved from the famine, the British came to the ingenious conclusion that they could offload the uncooperative Irish in the South, whilst retaining the industrial might of the North and protecting it with a privileged sectarian majority. Much like Some republicans claiming the GFA as a victory , the free staters claimed victory in 1921-whereas in reality they had been sold a pup. Only involvement in the EC , dubious government in the 80s,90s,00s and external Investment due to favourable tax environment, turned the economy around. As a fledgling "country" it wasn't easy , and abuse scandals, poor health service , influence of the Catholic Church and neglect of northern nationalists are examples  of how ROI has failed. However Ni has completely failed or at least run it's  course. Sectarian majority is now gone, the economy remains heavily subsidised, and English nationalists in power in Westminster will try to offload Ni , and the remaining unionist population which is a millstone round their neck. Offloading NI would be a legacy of which Boris would be proud.
A United ireland is now a "penalty kick". Uk would jump at it, but ironically the biggest barrier is northern nationalists who aren't working hard enough to persuade unionists and "freestaters" that it makes sense.

[armaghniac]

Even the most cursory analysis of the economy of the island in 1921 indicates that ireland was completely duped into declaring a partitioned "free state". Having shafted Ireland to such an extent that our population literally halved from the famine, the British came to the ingenious conclusion that they could offload the uncooperative Irish in the South, whilst retaining the industrial might of the North and protecting it with a privileged sectarian majority. Much like PIRA claiming the GFA as a victory , the free staters claimed victory in 1921-whereas in reality they had been sold a pup.

They had achieved an advance, although the British prevented justice from being achieved.

Only involvement in the EC , shady government in the 80s,90s,00s and external Investment due to favourable tax environment, turned the economy around. As a fledgling "country" it wasn't easy , and abuse scandals, poor health service , influence of the Catholic Church and neglect of northern nationalists are examples  of how ROI has failed.

The economy was as good as it had been under the British. In a democratic society people get the government they want and they wanted influence by the Catholic church.

A United ireland is now a "penalty kick". Uk would jump at it, but ironically the biggest barrier is northern nationalists who aren't working hard enough to persuade unionists and freestaters that it makes sense.

This is all too true sadly. There is a complete lack of leadership in 6 country nationalism.

[6th sam]

Even the most cursory analysis of the economy of the island in 1921 indicates that ireland was completely duped into declaring a partitioned "free state". Having shafted Ireland to such an extent that our population literally halved from the famine, the British came to the ingenious conclusion that they could offload the uncooperative Irish in the South, whilst retaining the industrial might of the North and protecting it with a privileged sectarian majority. Much like PIRA claiming the GFA as a victory , the free staters claimed victory in 1921-whereas in reality they had been sold a pup.

They had achieved an advance, although the British prevented justice from being achieved.

Only involvement in the EC , shady government in the 80s,90s,00s and external Investment due to favourable tax environment, turned the economy around. As a fledgling "country" it wasn't easy , and abuse scandals, poor health service , influence of the Catholic Church and neglect of northern nationalists are examples  of how ROI has failed.

The economy was as good as it had been under the British. In a democratic society people get the government they want and they wanted influence by the Catholic church.

A United ireland is now a "penalty kick". Uk would jump at it, but ironically the biggest barrier is northern nationalists who aren't working hard enough to persuade unionists and freestaters that it makes sense.

This is all too true sadly. There is a complete lack of leadership in 6 country nationalism.

Agree on those points , the economy was an absolute mess under British rule/neglect. Bad as things were for nationalists in the North in 1969, 1921 came on the back of shameful rule particularly in the post famine years , when the population halved. The population in the North was less affected, with rural "Catholic " areas on the poorest land most vulnerable. You can understand therefore why the population of the fledgling state were happy to tolerate or even promote the influence of the Catholic Church(whilst the negative influence and scandals surrounding the church are appalling, much of the influence of Catholicism was positive , including promotion of values  such as altruism , stoicism, community spirit.)