Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[Snapchap]

I got stopped by the Brits coming out of Clones when Dublin played Derry in 2003, just over the border on the Cavan road, about a mile from the Diamond

Big guns hanging around their necks

By this rationale I could then justify a future 28 year bombing, shooting and maiming campaign from 2003 on

Seán Farmer and Colm McCartney were also stopped after a match once. Coming home from Croke Park en route to Derry, when they were pulled over, dragged out of their cars and shot dead. But sure stop the press. Sid was stopped by the British Army. Once. Five years after the peace process. And he also grew up learning about the conflict by listening to a state censored media, which by the state's own admission, was aimed at stifling republican perspectives/view/opinions/analsyis from being heard. He's clearly qualified to talk about what the conflict was actually like far, far more than any of us, or the Farmer/McCartney families 

[Angelo]

I think the real question is why did Sid support murdering civilians back in 1920?

Most of us have gone on record that murdering civilians is wrong but Sid is the only one who actually tried to legitimise it. Bizarre how someone who legitimises the murder of civilians actually tries to then take the moral high ground.

[tiempo]

Dont give up the day job Tiempo .
Can't see a majority in the 26 voting to "reunify" with the Angelos, Snapchaps and others of similar abusive mindsets.
Hard to see them convincing many of the 20% "others" in the 6 Cos either.
Marylou will have to tell a lot of her crew to stay at home and stay quiet for a year before any referendum.

Meanwhile

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40190259.html

Erstwhile, a dip into the bin of Sammy Wilson quotes

"The GAA is the sporting wing of the IRA"
"I don't care if [gays] are ratepayers. As far as I am concerned they are perverts"
"Taigs don't pay rates"
"They [Sinn Féin voters in the Oldpark area of Belfast] are sub-human animals"

But in the shires of Roscommon you denounce FF/FG entering government with SF, but in the 6co's you expect SF to enter power-sharing coalition with the DUP.

Sorry what was your point again?

What's the "shires of Roscommon"?
There are a lot of Shines down the South end.
Don't thinking any are involved in politics though.

As I already told you, a demilitrized zone for quislings.

Hertfordshire would suit you down to the ground.

As I suspected, you didn't have a point.

All the best.

[tiempo]

Dont give up the day job Tiempo .
Can't see a majority in the 26 voting to "reunify" with the Angelos, Snapchaps and others of similar abusive mindsets.
Hard to see them convincing many of the 20% "others" in the 6 Cos either.
Marylou will have to tell a lot of her crew to stay at home and stay quiet for a year before any referendum.

Meanwhile

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40190259.html

Erstwhile, a dip into the bin of Sammy Wilson quotes

"The GAA is the sporting wing of the IRA"
"I don't care if [gays] are ratepayers. As far as I am concerned they are perverts"
"Taigs don't pay rates"
"They [Sinn Féin voters in the Oldpark area of Belfast] are sub-human animals"

But in the shires of Roscommon you denounce FF/FG entering government with SF, but in the 6co's you expect SF to enter power-sharing coalition with the DUP.

Sorry what was your point again?

So Sammy Wilson talking shite is a justification for 28 years of murder?

The Sinn Feiners on this board talk the exact same sort of moronic, rabble rousing shite as Sammy Wilson does

Two sides of the same coin and they totally refuse to see it

Sunken costs

That wasn't so much an extrapolation as a quantum leap.

Two sides of the same coin, yes, oppressor and oppressed.

It's a funny old game you quislings play.

Sort of like a special powers act for trolls.

[Franko]

But murdering civilians was a central, integral component of the PIRA's campaign, that's just a fact

And therein lies the central lie upon which you base your entire hypocrisy. The overwhelmimg majority of PIRA operations were directed against British security force personnel/infrastructure and against commercial targets where no life was lost. The sort of small scale daily attacks that didn't make headlines in the Free State. It's already been pointed out here that the Old IRA actually killed a higher proportion of civilians. Just consider the absolute savagery with which the Old IRA pursued a campaign of disappearing victims (most of whom were innocent). Somewhere between 100 and 200 people. Numbers that absolutely dwarf the number disappeared by the Provos in a fraction of the time. So like I say, hypocritical bull. The savagery of the Old IRA campaign is excusable to you. It doesn't matter to you how many civilians they killed or disappeared. When presented with the reality of what they did, the best you can do is come out with "yeah but it was a shorter war". Gold medal standard mental gymnastics.

The other key lie in your waffle is that the PIRA campaign stopped being justified "some time in the seventies". But of course, it's very easy for a sanctimonious Free State p***k to believe such when he/she wasn't getting harrased and abused on the roadsides on literally a daily basis by the British State, well into the 90s. You never experienced the sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach when you saw the red torch of UDR patrol wagging your car to stop on a quiet road at night and not knowing if you would still be alive on the other side of it. To Free Staters, that is probably (to borrow a phrase) "just another northerner sob story" but to people like me it was the psycologically traumatic reality of going about daily life in this part of the world, well into the 1990's. No doubt your reality of living through the conflict was hearing what your Section 31 state censored media decided it was OK to tell you about; and now, years later, you are just unable to countenance the possibility that your notion of truth in relation to the conflict could be compromised having been informed about it by said censored media. Your argument also patently ignores the reality that were it not for the IRA campaign, the level of peace and equality we have today simply wouldn't exist and was not available to achieve "sometime in the seventies". It's often been said that the Brits had to be bombed to the negotiating table but that's not just something people say glibly. The fact is that the bombing of Canary Wharf literally only happened because the John Major government was refusing to take attempts at talks in any way seriously.John Major wasn't PM in the seventies.

This is true.

Derry won the All Ireland in 1993.  As thousands of supporters made their way home late on the Sunday night from Dublin, they happened upon a traffic jam in the middle of Cookstown.

A British Army checkpoint had backed the cars up the whole way along the (very long) main street.  This was targeted harassment on it's own but the kicker is that this traffic jam conveniently allowed mobs of drunken Loyalists to stone the supporter's cars, loaded with families - jubilant men, women and children.

The Army continued to stop the cars and left the people in the firing line.  They pretended not to notice the Loyalists.

Things like this cause things like Canary Wharf.

Reminder to Sid - this was 1993.

Edit:  You would not have heard mention of this on RTE that night.  Hypothetically, had Kerry supporters been stoned by angry Dublin fans at Newlands Cross, it would have been plastered all over your news.

I got stopped by the Brits coming out of Clones when Dublin played Derry in 2003, just over the border on the Cavan road, about a mile from the Diamond

Big guns hanging around their necks

By this rationale I could then justify a future 28 year bombing, shooting and maiming campaign from 2003 on

We can all play that game

Given the quoted passage here relates to something that happened in September 1993, it would appear to imply regret that the first ceasefire happened less than a year later

Because if its a justification for why the 28 year PIRA campaign happened, it's also a justification for continuing it

I presented the story as it showed (in one small way) why the IRA were still active into the nineties, when you reckoned there was no justification for their existence after "some point in the seventies".

I was in one of those cars with my aunt that night.  A more pacifist woman you could not meet.  She idolised John Hume.  Her response sticks in my mind because it was so unbelievably out of character for her - "Is it any wonder they shoot those bastards".

It's the same reason that BLM and Antifa movements in America exist.  It wasn't that these people just developed a sudden bloodlust (or a penchant for riotous behaviour in the case of BLM/Antifa).  It was a direct response to the circumstances of the time.  IMO this response was absolutely inevitable.

The rest of what you've said is so far into the realms of straw man stuff that it doesn't warrant replying to.  When this is the line you are forced to go down it only demonstrates the weakness of your argument.

[sid waddell]

But murdering civilians was a central, integral component of the PIRA's campaign, that's just a fact

And therein lies the central lie upon which you base your entire hypocrisy. The overwhelmimg majority of PIRA operations were directed against British security force personnel/infrastructure and against commercial targets where no life was lost. The sort of small scale daily attacks that didn't make headlines in the Free State. It's already been pointed out here that the Old IRA actually killed a higher proportion of civilians. Just consider the absolute savagery with which the Old IRA pursued a campaign of disappearing victims (most of whom were innocent). Somewhere between 100 and 200 people. Numbers that absolutely dwarf the number disappeared by the Provos in a fraction of the time. So like I say, hypocritical bull. The savagery of the Old IRA campaign is excusable to you. It doesn't matter to you how many civilians they killed or disappeared. When presented with the reality of what they did, the best you can do is come out with "yeah but it was a shorter war". Gold medal standard mental gymnastics.

The other key lie in your waffle is that the PIRA campaign stopped being justified "some time in the seventies". But of course, it's very easy for a sanctimonious Free State p***k to believe such when he/she wasn't getting harrased and abused on the roadsides on literally a daily basis by the British State, well into the 90s. You never experienced the sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach when you saw the red torch of UDR patrol wagging your car to stop on a quiet road at night and not knowing if you would still be alive on the other side of it. To Free Staters, that is probably (to borrow a phrase) "just another northerner sob story" but to people like me it was the psycologically traumatic reality of going about daily life in this part of the world, well into the 1990's. No doubt your reality of living through the conflict was hearing what your Section 31 state censored media decided it was OK to tell you about; and now, years later, you are just unable to countenance the possibility that your notion of truth in relation to the conflict could be compromised having been informed about it by said censored media. Your argument also patently ignores the reality that were it not for the IRA campaign, the level of peace and equality we have today simply wouldn't exist and was not available to achieve "sometime in the seventies". It's often been said that the Brits had to be bombed to the negotiating table but that's not just something people say glibly. The fact is that the bombing of Canary Wharf literally only happened because the John Major government was refusing to take attempts at talks in any way seriously.John Major wasn't PM in the seventies.

This is true.

Derry won the All Ireland in 1993.  As thousands of supporters made their way home late on the Sunday night from Dublin, they happened upon a traffic jam in the middle of Cookstown.

A British Army checkpoint had backed the cars up the whole way along the (very long) main street.  This was targeted harassment on it's own but the kicker is that this traffic jam conveniently allowed mobs of drunken Loyalists to stone the supporter's cars, loaded with families - jubilant men, women and children.

The Army continued to stop the cars and left the people in the firing line.  They pretended not to notice the Loyalists.

Things like this cause things like Canary Wharf.

Reminder to Sid - this was 1993.

Edit:  You would not have heard mention of this on RTE that night.  Hypothetically, had Kerry supporters been stoned by angry Dublin fans at Newlands Cross, it would have been plastered all over your news.

I got stopped by the Brits coming out of Clones when Dublin played Derry in 2003, just over the border on the Cavan road, about a mile from the Diamond

Big guns hanging around their necks

By this rationale I could then justify a future 28 year bombing, shooting and maiming campaign from 2003 on

We can all play that game

Given the quoted passage here relates to something that happened in September 1993, it would appear to imply regret that the first ceasefire happened less than a year later

Because if its a justification for why the 28 year PIRA campaign happened, it's also a justification for continuing it

I presented the story as it showed (in one small way) why the IRA were still active into the nineties, when you reckoned there was no justification for their existence after "some point in the seventies".

I was in one of those cars with my aunt that night.  A more pacifist woman you could not meet.  She idolised John Hume.  Her response sticks in my mind because it was so unbelievably out of character for her - "Is it any wonder they shoot those bastards".

It's the same reason that BLM and Antifa movements in America exist.  It wasn't that these people just developed a sudden bloodlust (or a penchant for riotous behaviour in the case of BLM/Antifa).  It was a direct response to the circumstances of the time.  IMO this response was absolutely inevitable.

The rest of what you've said is so far into the realms of straw man stuff that it doesn't warrant replying to.  When this is the line you are forced to go down it only demonstrates the weakness of your argument.

The response from 1969 on was inevitable

Of course it was inevitable

But that doesn't mean a campaign of murder which stretched all the way up to 1997 was right, does it?

You talk about straw men, yet you create straw men yourself

Unlike others on this board, my position is nuanced

I understand the reasons why the PIRA happened and why there was violence

I believe you can make a very plausible moral case for a proportionate armed resistance from 1969 to some point in the early 1970s, as a strategy it was deeply flawed but in moral terms the case was probably there, the moral case was to defend your community

There is currently a similar moral case for a proportionate armed resistance by black communities in America

But what you cannot do is make a plausible moral case for a sustained campaign of murder which continued all the way up to 1997

Nobody has ever done it, and nobody ever will

And if one attempts to, well, then they're making the moral case for the murder of Ronan Kerr, Lyra McKee and the attempted murder of Peadar Heffron - because these were the same exact same sort of things which were justified up to 1997

This campaign of violence devastated Northern Ireland, and ruined many lives outside Northern Ireland

And at the end of it, it produced nothing

Any advances came from peaceful means and NI could have been a hell of lot further down the road of a peaceful society than it is now without that campaign of murder

The story you tell of intimidation by the Brits in 1993, and of which there are probably millions of such small stories over the years, is presented as a rationalisation for continuing the PIRA's campaign up to 1994 and then 1997

Yet the first ceasefire happened less than a year later, in 1994

But if these sorts of stories are to be offered as a rationalisation for the campaign of murder up to 1994 and then 1997, you could offer up the same justifications for continuing the campaign of violence beyond 1997, you could attempt to rationalise why it should continue up to the present day, 2020

And these rationalisations or justifications would be wrong

It would have been better had it stopped in 1974 rather than 1994, or 1997

It would have been better had it stopped in 1972, or indeed 1969

As it was, we just got an extra quarter century of a mass murder spree - for nothing

[Snapchap]

It would have been better had it stopped in 1974 rather than 1994, or 1997

It would have been better had it stopped in 1972, or indeed 1969

As it was, we just got an extra quarter century of a mass murder spree - for nothing

There's you argument boiled right down. Are you seriously arguing that the north was as easy for nationalists to live in now than it was in 1972?

Or is it that you believe the end of the RUC, British soldiers off the street, religious equality, end of unionist misrule, were all achievable in 1972 by peaceful means?

If it's the former, you're more deluded that even I ive you credit for. If it's the latter, well, once again I'll challenge you to explain how all that could have been achieved peacefully so quickly without the use of armed force?

One last question, Sid. Do you condemn the Old IRA and their campaign, given that it resulted in a higher proportion of civilians than the PIRA campaign?

[sid waddell]

Dont give up the day job Tiempo .
Can't see a majority in the 26 voting to "reunify" with the Angelos, Snapchaps and others of similar abusive mindsets.
Hard to see them convincing many of the 20% "others" in the 6 Cos either.
Marylou will have to tell a lot of her crew to stay at home and stay quiet for a year before any referendum.

Meanwhile

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40190259.html

Erstwhile, a dip into the bin of Sammy Wilson quotes

"The GAA is the sporting wing of the IRA"
"I don't care if [gays] are ratepayers. As far as I am concerned they are perverts"
"Taigs don't pay rates"
"They [Sinn Féin voters in the Oldpark area of Belfast] are sub-human animals"

But in the shires of Roscommon you denounce FF/FG entering government with SF, but in the 6co's you expect SF to enter power-sharing coalition with the DUP.

Sorry what was your point again?

So Sammy Wilson talking shite is a justification for 28 years of murder?

The Sinn Feiners on this board talk the exact same sort of moronic, rabble rousing shite as Sammy Wilson does

Two sides of the same coin and they totally refuse to see it

Sunken costs

That wasn't so much an extrapolation as a quantum leap.

Two sides of the same coin, yes, oppressor and oppressed.

It's a funny old game you quislings play.

Sort of like a special powers act for trolls.

But apparently being murdered by the IRA does not count as oppression

The IRA became just as much an oppressor as those they said were oppressors

"Quislings" is another beauty of a ad hominem

Again SF supporters show they are unable to debate and are only capable of flinging insults around

Insults are not debate, they only show up the weakness of your position

SF are entitled to enter government if they get enough votes or can do a coalition deal - it's a democratic system

But I don't believe they are a fit party to be in government and the behaviour both of their TDs and of their supporters on this forum and elsewhere on the internet continually reinforces this case

[sid waddell]

It would have been better had it stopped in 1974 rather than 1994, or 1997

It would have been better had it stopped in 1972, or indeed 1969

As it was, we just got an extra quarter century of a mass murder spree - for nothing

There's you argument boiled right down. Are you seriously arguing that the north was as easy for nationalists to live in now than it was in 1972?

Or is it that you believe the end of the RUC, British soldiers off the street, religious equality, end of unionist misrule, were all achievable in 1972 by peaceful means?

If it's the former, you're more deluded that even I ive you credit for. If it's the latter, well, once again I'll challenge you to explain how all that could have been achieved peacefully so quickly without the use of armed force?

One last question, Sid. Do you condemn the Old IRA and their campaign, given that it resulted in a higher proportion of civilians than the PIRA campaign?

They were achievable, you do it by mass peaceful political mobilisation and a massive, sustained campaign of civil disobedience and protest, you do it by drawing attention to your cause internationally

The Anglo-Irish Agreement didn't happen by murdering people, it happened by peaceful negotiation

The end of the RUC didn't happen by murdering people, it happened by peaceful negotiation

A united Ireland did not happen by murdering people, it will happen by democratic vote

But the PIRA didn't fight for these things, they fought for "Brits out of Ireland" - something they never had a remote chance
of achieving - and they failed

I do not class the old IRA as heroes at all - and I would class the likes of Dan Breen as extreme far right psychopaths - however the old IRA had at least some democratic legitimacy, they had widespread support which the PIRA did not have, and they knew when to stop

But their campaign of violence too was at best morally questionable and they committed many appalling acts

The question you have to answer is if you support the current dissidents and if not, why not - because they do they exact same things the PIRA did, they have the exact same aims and the exact same methods

The deluded hypocrisy Sinn Feiners have as regards their views on the dissos is staggering

[Angelo]

By Sid's logic Mandela was a bloodthirsty psychopath because his terrorist grouping waged a 30 year violent campaign that cost hundreds of civilian lives.

[sid waddell]

By Sid's logic Mandela was a bloodthirsty psychopath because his terrorist grouping waged a 30 year violent campaign that cost hundreds of civilian lives.

But the ANC did not mount a sustained 28 year campaign of murder like the IRA, there were occasional isolated events

The ANC won by peaceful means, they had mass support, they continually mobilised mass peaceful resistance and continually drew international attention to their cause, and eventually apartheid collapsed because of its inherent absurdity

Also the apartheid system was a much more evil foe than that faced by Catholic civilians in Northern Ireland in 1968, awful as it was

[Angelo]

By Sid's logic Mandela was a bloodthirsty psychopath because his terrorist grouping waged a 30 year violent campaign that cost hundreds of civilian lives.

But the ANC did not mount a sustained 28 year campaign of murder like the IRA, there were occasional isolated events

The ANC won by peaceful means, they had mass support, they continually mobilised mass peaceful resistance and continually drew international attention to their cause, and eventually apartheid collapsed because of its inherent absurdity

Also the apartheid system was a much more evil foe than that faced by Catholic civilians in Northern Ireland in 1968, awful as it was

I'm just applying your logic and you're now performing mental gymnastics.

What is more is that the ANC and the Provos were very supportive of each other's campaigns .

You're going to have a tough job trying to have any semblance of credibility when you are contradicting yourself at every turn.

[tiempo]

It would have been better had it stopped in 1974 rather than 1994, or 1997

It would have been better had it stopped in 1972, or indeed 1969

As it was, we just got an extra quarter century of a mass murder spree - for nothing

There's you argument boiled right down. Are you seriously arguing that the north was as easy for nationalists to live in now than it was in 1972?

Or is it that you believe the end of the RUC, British soldiers off the street, religious equality, end of unionist misrule, were all achievable in 1972 by peaceful means?

If it's the former, you're more deluded that even I ive you credit for. If it's the latter, well, once again I'll challenge you to explain how all that could have been achieved peacefully so quickly without the use of armed force?

One last question, Sid. Do you condemn the Old IRA and their campaign, given that it resulted in a higher proportion of civilians than the PIRA campaign?

They were achievable, you do it by mass peaceful political mobilisation and a massive, sustained campaign of civil disobedience and protest, you do it by drawing attention to your cause internationally

The Anglo-Irish Agreement didn't happen by murdering people, it happened by peaceful negotiation

The end of the RUC didn't happen by murdering people, it happened by peaceful negotiation

A united Ireland did not happen by murdering people, it will happen by democratic vote

But the PIRA didn't fight for these things, they fought for "Brits out of Ireland" - something they never had a remote chance
of achieving - and they failed

I do not class the old IRA as heroes at all, however they had at least some democratic legitimacy, they had widespread support which the PIRA did not have, and they knew when to stop

The question you have to answer is if you support the current dissidents and if not, why not - because they do they exact same things the PIRA did, they have the exact same aims and the exact same methods

The deluded hypocrisy Sinn Feiners have as regards their views on the dissos is staggering

You're saying it was incumbent on the oppressed to mobalise peacefully in order to achieve a set of stated aims yet its clear the sectarian statelet had been systematically eradicating that population by force from its inception, and indeed before with the help of the British. So basically put yourself in the firing line as sitting ducks until what the Americans came to the rescue?

The only way to deliver peace and equality in any sort of sustained way prior to The Agreement relied on the Unionists and British rolling out equality in their administrative processes, and they refused to do that, had they listened to Terence O'Neill things might have been different, but the Unionists were set on having a brutish domineering anti-Catholic/Republican statelet, and well the Brits, it was basically shits and giggles for them, a territorial claim while the Empire crumbled, a testing ground for political gerrymandering and new forms of barbarism in an occupied land.

"It is frightfully hard to explain to Protestants that if you give Roman Catholics a good job and a good house they will live like Protestants because they will see neighbours with cars and television sets; they will refuse to have eighteen children. But if a Roman Catholic is jobless, and lives in the most ghastly hovel he will rear eighteen children on National Assistance. If you treat Roman Catholics with due consideration and kindness they will live like Protestants in spite of the authoritative nature of their Church"

[Snapchap]

They were achievable, you do it by mass peaceful political mobilisation and a massive, sustained campaign of civil disobedience and protest, you do it by drawing attention to your cause internationally

Remember what happened in Derry on Bloody Sunday? How many civil rights protesters had to die for you that day before you'd think maybe peaceful protest isn't enough here? 14 clearly wasn't enough.

And sure if civil disobedience was enough to drive the Brits out of the north, I assume you regard the Easter Rising and Tan Wars as morally repugnant too?

The Anglo-Irish Agreement didn't happen by murdering people, it happened by peaceful negotiation

It was also roundly rejected by the entirety of unionism. Was that the fault of the IRA too? Or should it have just pressed ahead regardless?  When I asked for how what we have today could have been achieved peacefully, I was hoping you would try to come back with something better than this nonsense. Did the Anglo Irish Agreement advocate the disbandment of the RUC btw? In one memorable incident, the RUC actually moved one of their landrovers out of the way to facilitate a violent loyalist protest entering the Stomont Estate). Did the agreement allow for demilitarization? No. In reality, one of the trade-off's for allowing southern civil servants to have an advisory role, was increased British militarization of the border counties.
[/quote]

The end of the RUC didn't happen by murdering people, it happened by peaceful negotiation

Just like the RIC could have? Explain how the RUC could have been disbanded, and at what point? The Anglo-Irish Agreement didn't countenance the idea. Neither did Sunngingdale. So you'll need something more convincing than "oh it just would have magically happened if nationalists agitated for it enough or if enough peaceful nationalist protesters got shot dead in the street"

But the PIRA didn't fight for these things, they fought for "Brits out of Ireland" - something they never had a remote chance
of achieving - and they failed

They also wound up their campaign when it became clear to both sides that neither could militarily succeed and when it became clear thatn the Brits were taking peace talks seriously. Remember what I told you about Canary Wharf?

I do not class the old IRA as heroes at all, however they had at least some democratic legitimacy, they had widespread support which the PIRA did not have, and they knew when to stop

I did not ask if you viewed them as heroes. I asked if you condemned them and their campaign. I also asked the same about the 1916 Volunteers. What democratic mandate did they have? And here we go again about how "they knew when to stop". They disappeared 100-200 (mostly innocent) people in that short campaign. The Provos disappeared 14 in theirs. So how can only the Provos campaign be morally indefensible?

The question you have to answer is if you support the current dissidents and if not, why not - because they do they exact same things the PIRA did, they have the exact same aims and the exact same methods
The deluded hypocrisy Sinn Feiners have as regards their views on the dissos is staggering

Once again displaying a mindblowing level of ignorance.The dissidents are active in an era where there is no British army on the streets, no RUC, equality for Catholics, and when we are in the midst of a lengthy and successful peace process. Is that the environment you believe the IRA operated in? If you think it is, then you're just stupid. If you realise that it's not the same environment/circumstances, then you are basing your whole argument on what you then know to be a lie.

[sid waddell]

Question for Sinn Feiners: did you support the Omagh bomb?

Do you consider it murder?

If you didn't support it, why not?

Because it's the exact same thing the PIRA did for decades

By 1998 the RUC still existed, the British Army was still in Northern Ireland

All that had changed by August 1998 from say, May 1997, was that the leadership of Sinn Fein had effectively surrendered and given up on violence

But there were still people out there who hadn't

So if you're to say that Claudy or Bloody Friday or Enniskillen or Warrington were justified, why not Omagh?

Because the cause was the exact same as any of those