Donagh,
I would think that it is reasonable to argue that any active member of the IRA could be sectarian. I would say that for every n'th degree you take it away: supporting, sympathising the argument waters down.
In the case of Sands I would say the nature of the Balmorrall attacks are a big black mark. Economic targets is too shaky an argument for me.
I would also question your assertion about Sands being vocal against attacks on the outside. In the excerpts of comms you posted here previously there was a comm about how he read the newspaper about an operation and it lightened his heart to know that people were continuing the fight. I don't know what the operation was or how sectarian it was. Was he selective in what he was opposed to?
As for unionists, I think large swathes of unionists are at best naieve, possible ignorant of or at worst sectarian when it comes to the security forces, in particular the UDR.
/Jim.
I would think that it is reasonable to argue that any active member of the IRA could be sectarian. I would say that for every n'th degree you take it away: supporting, sympathising the argument waters down.
In the case of Sands I would say the nature of the Balmorrall attacks are a big black mark. Economic targets is too shaky an argument for me.
I would also question your assertion about Sands being vocal against attacks on the outside. In the excerpts of comms you posted here previously there was a comm about how he read the newspaper about an operation and it lightened his heart to know that people were continuing the fight. I don't know what the operation was or how sectarian it was. Was he selective in what he was opposed to?
As for unionists, I think large swathes of unionists are at best naieve, possible ignorant of or at worst sectarian when it comes to the security forces, in particular the UDR.
/Jim.