I don't think he has a point. The IRA during early 20th century is different to the one during the troubles. There are many reasons for this; but nobody ever seems to explain it, even the media just take it for granted that they are different without really explaining it.
The IRA of the early 20th century did not:
1) Bomb indiscriminately with vague warnings or none at all. Even De Valera cracked down on the IRA when they began a bombing campain in the late 1930s.
2) Target Protestants because of their religion
3) Engage in punishment beatings or kneecapping. Michael Collins specifically opposed this
4) Engage in Proxy bombings
All of these and more occurred during the troubles under direct orders from the IRA army council which included Adams, McGuinness and Ferris, and some actions were carried out directly by them.
If you are prepared to forgive them for that then fine, but I wish people would stop using the early 20th century IRA to compare. I've often seen Gerry Adams compare himself to Michael Collins and his comrades, and nobody seems willing to challenge him on it or tell him the difference.
As OP, it would be helpful to this thread if you documented your reasons
yeah so we gave up the claim over the osc's and accepted it as british territory and that britian had sovereignty over the northern part of our island. if britain is sovereign in the osc how can it be part of the irish nation??
thats why republicans reject britains sovereignty in ireland and claim the whole 32 c's as the irish nation.
Perhaps you should read the rest of my post?
I did...my question stands.
He will get my vote because as of yet, he is the best man for the job and will do it well.
The only other worthy candidate is Micheal D Higgins. Even then, McGuiness would probably represent the country better than Higgins anyway.
As for the rest, all celebrity dross.
No the Constitution recognises that the irish nation is actually a seperate entity from the actual physical land of ireland and that a part of that land mass is effectively under British rule for the moment and will be until a united Ireland is brought about peacefully by the consent of a majority of people in both jurisdictions.
Article 3.2 allows for institutions with executive powers and functions that are shared between the two jurisdictions to be establised.
Aerricle two, as amended, allows everybody born on the island of Ireland the entitlement to be part of the irish nation.
Is this the same Michael Collins who ordered members of his squad to execute two Catholic girls because they were romantically involved with two British soldiers? You, like many Irish people, seem happy to gloss over the nasty aspects of the old IRA in order to try and differentiate them from the Provos.
Before we disappear down a constitutional rabbit hole can people please remember both OP and the main topic at hand please. I'm not sure that longwinded discussions on the correct terms for various places are really OT tbh.
britain is sovereign in the osc's, thats fact. it wasnt the peace process that allowed lizzie to visit a while back, she refused until we accpeted her sovereignty in the osc's, dropping, eh amending, 2&3 allowed for her visit.
the provos and psf people are pretty apt at doing that now. "the good old ira v's bad new ira" is as old as the struggle it self.
She is jsut like a vintiloquists dummy and goes where she is told and says what she is told to say.
Yes so what ?
insults?? when the truth hurts attack the player not the ball eh?