Sinn Fein- Never forget

gaffer91 wrote: »

What the PIRA initially did, protecting catholic communities from loyalist mobs, was fine. What they did after the early years until the 90s was anything but.

What? move from defensive to offensive. Move from beating back the symptoms of the problem to attacking the root cause. As unpalatable as it was for everyone the fact is Ireland would be a much worse place now had it not been for the IRA. I dread to think what my life would be like now had 90 years of Stormont misrule, RUC brutality, loyalist pogroms, British approval and Free State apathy gone unchecked.

SF never did have much support though-when they did start fielding candidates for election they were consistently and resoundingly beaten by SDLP in the early years.

I never said anything about Sinn Fein. I said the IRA had at best popular support and at worst silent consent from the majority of nationalists. Sinn Fein elections are a different issue. This tired old line about Sinn Fein and the IRA being one and the same is an old unionist throwback, Christ if they can get past saying Sinn Fein/IRA surely you can.

Altnaveigh occurred after the war, in 1922, didn't it? Still despicable but it wasn't like those kind of massacres were occurring regularly from 1919-21 and people were still supporting the IRA. The 'campaign' in the 70s continued after and despite Kingsmill.

They didnt occur regularly during the PIRA campaign either (at least not at the hands of the PIRA) which is why it was met with such revulsion. It has also been mentioned several times before, so im sure you know well, that Kingsmill was not sanctioned by IRA GHQ.

The Old IRA were probably worse than than people think but still nowhere near as bad as the provos.

Cant find the exact breakdown of the figures at such short notice but broadly in the War of Independence 2000 people died in 2 and a half years. 1969 to 1998 3000 die over 30 years.

Sinn Fein and the IRA were two sides of the same coin. The likes of Gerry Adams, Ferris, McGuinness and Gerry Kelly up north were in the IRA. There is a lot of overlap. They are not separate entities.
The only reason they were in prison in the first place was because they murdered a garda, so don't try and make out like they were doing people a big favour by serving their sentence.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I have no idea what was interesting about it. "at least he could defend himself" Well then, that makes it alright obviously. :rolleyes:

gaffer91 wrote: »

My understanding of whataboutery is ignoring a legitimate point raised by countering it with something the other 'side' did. In that instance, I was pre-empting the myth that shinners like to perpetuate that the IRA never deliberately targeted civilians. There are other examples of course- Enniskillen, Pub bombings and so on.

The IRA did not deliberately target civilians. Were civilians killed accidentally? Certainly. Does that make it OK? Absolutely not. Did members of the IRA on rare occasion act of their own accord outside the rules of the army? Yes. Does that make it OK? No. But to say that the IRA deliberately targeted civilians is wrong, disingenuous and shows a complete lack of understanding about the IRA. For example, why would they deliberately target civilians when they knew full well that such actions would have a negative affect on their aims and support.

What a load of nonsense. If you can't accept that SF and the IRA were separate wings of the same movement then there is no hope. SF rarely condemned the IRA's actions and served as a mouthpiece for the movement. How often was Gerry Adams carrying the coffin of dead IRA 'volunteers'? But I suppose you probably don't even think he was in the IRA.

If you cant accept that they weren't than there is no hope. Was there some crossover of membership? Certainly, but there were also IRA men in the GAA. Does that mean the GAA is one of the sides of this republican coin. There are whole books full of information about animosty and arguements between SF and the IRA, try Bandit Country, Provos, Voices from the Grave and A Secret History of the IRA for a start. Carrying someones coffin is a sign of respect, nobody is saying SF didnt respect the IRA but to say the two were the same or different sides of the same coin is wrong.

SF were not the driving force for the peace process- People like John Hume and Fr. Alec Reid were. SF had to be treated with the kid gloves every step of the way in case they threw a tantrum and stormed out. The peace process as we know it would not have been necessary if it wasn't for SF and the IRA anyway.

SF were indeed the driving force behind the peace process, as were the likes of Hume and Reid. But long before Hume plucked up the courage to speak to SF republicans were already holding talks with the brits and DUP to try and find a peaceful endgame. You are right about one thing, there would have been no need for a peace process without SF and the IRA. Nationalists would have just lay down and taken their kicking. The brits wouldve kept turning a blind eye, the free state may have made some feeble but ultimately empty protestations and the old Stormont train would have chugged on as usual over a subjugated population.


Well said. As I can see it, most of the shinners responses have been as follows:
1. Get over Jerry McCabe.
2. Shur, FF and FG also came from a background of violence, in the 20s and 30s and shur weren't the old IRA practically the same thing as the provos.
3. The McCabe killers deserve a good pat on the back for not derailing the peace process.
4. SF and the IRA were completely separate (lol).
5. You're all west brits.
6. Anything would be better than the current shower (they wouldn't).

All of which are transparently nonsense.

gaffer91 wrote: »

All the shinners should take these words on board.

whitelines wrote: »

You're falling for that old mistake of assuming nothing would have changed without The IRA's murder campaign.

The best way to look at it is to consider what relevant changes have occurred in NI since the late sixties and which would have still occurred without Republican violence. Here's my take:

(i) Institutional power sharing with Nationalists including Sinn Fein:

It's inconceivable that this would have occurred without 'the troubles'. There would still be majority Unionist rule, perhaps with a PR instead of a FPTP electoral system. But there would now be a 45% Nationalist representation. Any split in Unionism could have been exploited.

(ii) North-South bodies:

There might have developed some links without The IRA, but nothing comparable with those established by The EU.

(iii) Policing:

Without PIRA intimidation far more Catholics would have joined a civilianised police, just as they do now.

The 'B' specials would have been wound up anyway.

(iv) Electoral gerrymandering:

It's likely this would have been corrected anyway.

(v) Employment equality:

It's likely this would have occurred anyway.

(vi) Cultural equality:

It's likely this would have occurred anyway.

(vii) Possibility of Irish unity:

Stronger now than pre-1969, but mainly due to demographics.

In regards to policing young nationalists feel they can join it now because it is no longer the armed wing of a corrupt Stormont regime. Nothing to do with IRA intimidation.
As for ending gerrymandering or any kind of equality I find it laughable that you think these would have come about on their own or through peaceful means. Stormont gave its answer to the civil rights movement when they beat people off the streets and the brits gave their answer when they shot its people dead in Derry.
It's also worth noting that even the "liberal" Terence O'Neill only began making real noises about any sort of basic level of equality after the IRA campaign had begun.

Is that why Loyalists felt comfortable targeting the broader Nationalist community?

No, loyalists did this because they were motivated by blind hatred and sectarianism and had little or no political aim beyond killing fenians ("yabba dabba do any taig will do" is about as coherent a political strategy as they ever developed.) Any book on the troubles will show you that while the IRA operated as an army and picked military and economic targets, Loyalist attacks were random, savage and often alcohol fueled.

Actually, I've seen Republican documents that detail 'army' control over SF branches - some time ago admittedly.

Really. care to direct me towards them?

How convenient. Presumably UVF GHQ had the same approach?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Which was wrong - his murder, or SF's support of his murderers up to and including lobbying for their early release, collecting them from prison and throwing a party to celebrate their release?