Sinn Fein? They have gone away, you know.

[Look-Up!]

I've heard it all now. The old IRA won!!!!!

The hero's of the rebellion, of independence, betrayed their brothers and sisters in the north. They never got a united Ireland, they got a f**k you jack I'm ok sort of deal and tucked tail. Left the people in the north hanging and then proclaim the war is over, what's the problem, can u all not just get along.

They would rather lay the blame for all the troubles in the north on republicans, IRA, SF than to face reality and address their own shame.

[RedHand88]

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

Since when was a 26 county state what the old IRA wanted? Listen to the crap you say for once!!

[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

Since when was a 26 county state what the old IRA wanted? Listen to the crap you say for once!!

The IRA wanted an Irish state

The Treaty debates and the Civil War were not about the border

They were about the oath of allegiance, the dominion status within the British Empire, the fact that the new state would not (yet) be a Republic

The reality is the dispute over which jurisdiction the six counties is in is and never has been much different to any other territorial dispute in history

There is no inherent state of nature in which the island of Ireland is one political unit

There is no inherent state of nature in which any piece of land anywhere belongs to any political entity or state

[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.

[sid waddell]

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.

This reminds me of one those posts you see on Twitter which come from bot accounts with 8 digit numbers, the ones that get filtered down to the very bottom of long threads of replies

[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.

This reminds me of one those posts you see on Twitter which come from bot accounts with 8 digit numbers, the ones that get filtered down to the very bottom of long threads of replies

Just what I'd expect of a Trumpian supporter.

Your split personality is rearing its head again.

Off to the American politics thread to berate Trump, then over to other threads to morph into him.

Bizarre.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

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

[Snapchap]

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?

[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.

[Angelo]

FG commemorating terrorists today I see.

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

[Angelo]

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

[Franko]

A lot more waffle but he still hasn't condemned the actions of the old IRA I see...

We wait with baited breath

It's hilarious how Northern Catholics who are living with an irreconcilable sense of cognitive dissonance over the PIRA campaign always reach for the whataboutery

They can't debate on the PIRA campaign, they refuse to debate

The old IRA did plenty of horrible things, but they had an actual clear strategy to win, and win they did

That's a key part of the morality of waging a war

The PIRA had no strategy other than nihilism

They lost, they lost pretty much right away, but they still carried on for three decades

Say what you want about the old IRA but their war produced a society which at least had the chance to move forward within a short time

The PIRA, like UNITA in Angola, produced a society which was set back decades

We've even shoehorned in Angola here... but still no condemnation...

Some time shortly, he's bound to say it

[Orior]

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.

[sid waddell]

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

[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