Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[RedHand88]

The hypocrisy of people like Sid Waddell is laughable.
Old IRA = Good
New IRA = Bad

This is despite the old IRA killing FOUR times as many policemen and disappearing far more civilians in 3 years than the new IRA did in 30!!!

It just doesn't make sense to laud one as heroes and the other as terrorists. Either they both are or none are.

[Angelo]

The Old IRA fought for a 26 county free state with an elite Catholic ruling class, a dysfunctional health service, a homeless crisis and huge wealth inequality and injustice, zero hour contracts and mass political corruption.

Sid is very Trumpian in his ideals.

You think? What's your evidence?

I am old enough to have spoken with an old IRA man and that was certainly not his objective.

I'm applying Sid logic who reckons the Old IRA won.

[6th sam]

The hypocrisy of people like Sid Waddell is laughable.
Old IRA = Good
New IRA = Bad

This is despite the old IRA killing FOUR times as many policemen and disappearing far more civilians in 3 years than the new IRA did in 30!!!

It just doesn't make sense to laud one as heroes and the other as terrorists. Either they both are or none are.

Sid appears to have a very narrow view, and his lack of understanding/ antagonism directed at northern nationalists, isn't rational no matter how articulate he is. That said there are several differences between the old IRA and PIRA. It's interesting to see how we are still failing to support our victims in the North. Despite old wounds in the South people got on with it, had to accept their differences as they concentrated on putting food on the table. Perhaps the fact it was a shorter war , most people were United rather than divided by religion, and there wasn't excessive culture of commemoration, but erstwhile enemies moved on whilst respecting those before them . In the North it has proved harder to move on. Polarisation, commemoration culture, longer drawn out war, and relatively less poverty than ROI post 1921, could all be factors. One of the biggest issues for me is that northern "nationalists" remain marginalised and would gain most from a United ireland but we remain divided ourselves and we are not doing enough to envisage a New ireland never mind promoting it.

[Angelo]

The IRA was infiltrated at every level right to the very top. We never managed to turn one Brit.
We achieved civil rights, not on the back of IRA violence however, we owe more to john Hume probably for that.
SF became SDLP other than sticking to abstentionism.
We still dont have a UI and maybe only stand a better chance ironically on the back of Brexit - SF were always anti-EU up to 3 years ago

Spin masters are good within SF, i will give them that.

Why would you need to turn any Brits when you're Infiltrated at every level up to the top from the 70s onwards and still able to blow up the city of London.

That was a good operation but to say we blew up the city of London is a stretch, my point on the Brits is that they never embarrassed themselves by switching sides

How would that work?

The Brits were able to infiltrate hoods to join the Provos or they were able to threathen with prison sentences or through other state branches.

The Provos on the other hand were an outlawed paramilitary organisation for an oppressed minority community. Tell me how getting Brits to switch sides would work?

Showed your colours there boy

I note you haven't addressed the question.

You are basically admitting that the structure and leadership of IRA was so poor that they could not even keep hoods never mind MI5 out, anyhow I'm sure many of the families who suffered the death of their family members as part of thia dirty war will be glad you are classing them as hoods. Yes and as you said we were outmuscled intellectually and in every other way which left us with very little chance to turn the tables

How would I know whether they did or not? I never said that and I wouldn't know. We do know that British intelligence recruited hoods to join the IRA and were able to turn high ranking members like Scappaticci.

And you still haven't answered my question.

Oh yes I did, you just can't understand the answer

You didn't and can't. You got found out on a preposterous point.

[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?

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

And I have already explained you are talking complete shite, yet again. Talk about west brit revisionism, you are bringing it to a whole other scale.

[Rossfan]

The Civil War was all about the fact that the new State wasn't going to be a Republic.
"We will live under no other Law" as Liam Lynch said.
Both sides knew they wouldn't have the North in either a Republic or a Dominion but the Pro Treatyites believed a Boundary Commission would give them large wipes if the 6 Cos.
"Northern Ireland" was already set up by the Brits.

[Angelo]

No comments from the Free Staters about FG eulogising a cold blooded killer like Richard Mulcahy on their official Twitter account yesterday?

Didn't think so, hypocrites from the cradle to the grave.

[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

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

And I have already explained you are talking complete shite, yet again. Talk about west brit revisionism, you are bringing it to a whole other scale.

Knowing people involved in the Anglo-Irish war, they didn't give any impression that it was a victory , rather , "unfinished business" , based on a combination of partition and the oath , in that order. Several decades later my family in ROI viewed the treaty as a "sell out" and had no grá for Michael Collins. The impression I got from them was of the futility of war and therefore they did not support future campaigns. The treaty remains our biggest embarrassment as a country. The British having starved us of investment,development and even food for years, breaking all rules of engagement in a campaign of murder and pillage , then duped the freestaters into accepting an impoverished and under developed 26 counties whilst they secured a sectarian foothold in the island, where the bulk of the GDP was. It took ROI almost a century recovering from that, ignoring corruption in the midst of ongoing conflict and death , whilst showing little or no empathy for their marginalised fellow countrymen still living under British rule. Outstanding wordsmith and spin doctor that Sid is, I'm sure he'll continue to claim the treaty as a victory, but in reality he won't even convince himself on this one. I respect elements of what ROI has achieved , particularly on the back of the EC but the treaty had proved a disaster not a victory.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

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

And I have already explained you are talking complete shite, yet again. Talk about west brit revisionism, you are bringing it to a whole other scale.

Knowing people involved in the Anglo-Irish war, they didn't give any impression that it was a victory , rather , "unfinished business" , based on a combination of partition and the oath , in that order. Several decades later my family in ROI viewed the treaty as a "sell out" and had no grá for Michael Collins. The impression I got from them was of the futility of war and therefore they did not support future campaigns. The treaty remains our biggest embarrassment as a country. The British having starved us of investment,development and even food for years, breaking all rules of engagement in a campaign of murder and pillage , then duped the freestaters into accepting an impoverished and under developed 26 counties whilst they secured a sectarian foothold in the island, where the bulk of the GDP was. It took ROI almost a century recovering from that, ignoring corruption in the midst of ongoing conflict and death , whilst showing little or no empathy for their marginalised fellow countrymen still living under British rule. Outstanding wordsmith and spin doctor that Sid is, I'm sure he'll continue to claim the treaty as a victory, but in reality he won't even convince himself on this one. I respect elements of what ROI has achieved , particularly on the back of the EC but the treaty had proved a disaster not a victory.

Agreed ROI has made massive strides and deserves respect in many ways, but their view of the North would not be amongst their greatest characteristics. As for Michael Collins I could never understand how some republicans up here eulogised him.

[Harold Disgracey]

My great-uncles were anti-treaty IRA in the border area, they despised DeValera and always kept a portrait of Collins in the house, I don't know whether or not this had anything to do with Collins covertly arming the IRA in the north and border areas. I also had relatives involved in the PIRA campaign, they all believed they were fighting for the same idea, a 32 county republic.

[Franko]

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

Your Germany/Iraq analogy is nonsensical.  That you would think it is plausible only demonstrates how desperately you are grasping for something which would vindicate your duplicity on this issue.

Now, as no condemnation seems to be forthcoming, YOUR OWN LOGIC dictates that you must support the disappearance of civilians by the old IRA.

You've got yourself into a fine mess here.

[sid waddell]

Your Germany/Iraq analogy is nonsensical. 

But how?

Your logic is: some really terrible stuff went on during the War Of Independence, therefore there can be no difference at all between the War of Independence and the 28 year PIRA campaign

Some really terrible stuff went on during World War II on the Allied side, therefore there can be no difference at all between World War II and the war in Iraq - or Vietnam, Afghanistan etc.

It's literally the exact same logic

It's a total destruction of critical thinking

And it's also a carte blanche for dissos right now

[sid waddell]

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.

There was

India had Amritsar

South Africa had Sharpeville

The US had Tulsa

And many more

Your lesson from Bloody Sunday was that the slaughter of innocents in Derry therefore justified the slaughter of more innocents

How were Claudy and Bloody Friday the appropriate response to Bloody Sunday?

[sid waddell]

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.

A 32 county Republic was totally unachievable through war because the majority of the people in the northeastern part of the island were against it

It would have required a sectarian slaughter on an unimaginable scale, including numerous Srebrenica style events

That could not be morally justifiable, and practical terms it was impossible anyway - the British Empire was a much more powerful foe than the Bosnian Muslims

Therefore you take the victory available to you

Territorial disputes rarely if ever result in one party getting all of what they want

There's no comparison between the Treaty and the GFA - the old IRA gained most of what they wanted in the Treaty, the PIRA gained little of value in the GFA

In reality, the anti-Treaty side were like the DUP after the GFA - they didn't didn't participate in negotiations and chose to believe they had lost, even though in reality they had actually won

The logic that says there is an inherent state of nature where the island of Ireland is one political unit is the same logic that led Hitler into invading Czechosolvakia

[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

And I have already explained you are talking complete shite, yet again. Talk about west brit revisionism, you are bringing it to a whole other scale.

You haven't explained

You've written statements of your opinion , which is ahistorical and simply wrong

Your view of history is straight from the Neil Jordan Michael Collins film