The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

Bowie wrote: »

They should be commended in my view. You seem disappointed.

I suppose many former IRA now in politics and accepted by the British government as such is a failure on their part? Seems silly to me.

I'm not disappointed just don't see why i need to sugar coat it for insecure republicans who don't want to be reminded they now work for the British.

a very cool kid wrote: »

So are you saying the IRA are no longer around? Gone completely?

They didn't disappear. Many are in Sinn Fein. You didn't know this?

jh79 wrote: »

I'm glad they surrendered / acquiesced (whichever you prefer). Doesn't change the fact that they did surrender / acquiesce.

They went from "Brits Out" to "Brits Out but only if the majority agree and it is amenable to the British".

They should be commended in my view. You seem disappointed.

I suppose many former IRA now in politics and accepted by the British government as such is a failure on their part? Seems silly to me.

jh79 wrote: »

To save answering multiple posters when i say surrender i mean it in the sense that they gave up not in any formal military context.

To answer your question, it's an army that surrendered their weapons but probably run SF. They gave up as an army. They lost the military part of their conflict.

They did exactly what they said they would do, 'end the military campaign and enter exclusively democratic politics to achieve their aims' - British withdrawal and Irish Unity.

Still a very live project IMO as everytime I open a newspaper or the internet somebody new is talking about a UI.

jh79 wrote: »

I suspect they control SF but it is only speculation on my part.

They are a strange bunch. Imagine if you could go back in time and tell the "volunteers" that the likes of Gerry Kelly would end up working for the British or as ye might say "the Crown". The Queens schilling beat the IRA in the end.

Can we not also say that of all political parties? Imagine telling James Craig that a Unionist would be holding the arm of an IRA man aloft as his equal, celebrating sharing power?
Imagine telling Michael Collins that FG would be inviting a belligerent Unionist with a penchant for demeaning Irish culture to address their Ard Fheis?

Strange bunches?

McMurphy wrote: »

I'd say it's no stranger than speculating an organisation is gone/surrendered, but simultaneously not gone at all if they're still controlling someone or something? How does that trick work night I ask?

To save answering multiple posters when i say surrender i mean it in the sense that they gave up not in any formal military context.

To answer your question, it's an army that surrendered their weapons but probably run SF. They gave up as an army. They lost the military part of their conflict.

McMurphy

jh79 wrote: »

I suspect they control SF but it is only speculation on my part.

They are a strange bunch. Imagine if you could go back in time and tell the "volunteers" that the likes of Gerry Kelly would end up working for the British or as ye might say "the Crown". The Queens schilling beat the IRA in the end.

I'd say it's no stranger than speculating an organisation is gone/surrendered, but simultaneously not gone at all if they're still controlling someone or something? How does that trick work night I ask?

McMurphy

a very cool kid wrote: »

So are you saying the IRA are no longer around? Gone completely?

Can you read the post I quoted and questioned please, it's not a hard exchange to follow tbh.

McMurphy wrote: »

The IRA surrendered and are gone?

But Leo and Jennifer and Josepha and co have been telling us for what seems like an eternity, that they're still here and are controlling the Shinners. .

You're straying from the script jh.

I suspect they control SF but it is only speculation on my part.

They are a strange bunch. Imagine if you could go back in time and tell the "volunteers" that the likes of Gerry Kelly would end up working for the British or as ye might say "the Crown". The Queens schilling beat the IRA in the end.

a very cool kid wrote: »

So are you saying the IRA are no longer around? Gone completely?

jh79 said that in the post he was replying to.

jh79 wrote: »

How did you come to the conclusion that it was a stalemate? The IRA are gone yet the British still have ultimate control over NI.

No, jh79, this is not how it works.
Can you point to another group anywhere who 'surrendered' while still fully armed?

Then you can ask new questions.

a very cool kid

McMurphy wrote: »

The IRA surrendered and are gone?

But Leo and Jennifer and Josepha and co have been telling us for what seems like an eternity, that they're still here and are controlling the Shinners. .

You're straying from the script jh.

So are you saying the IRA are no longer around? Gone completely?

McMurphy

jh79 wrote: »

How did you come to the conclusion that it was a stalemate? The IRA are gone yet the British still have ultimate control over NI.

The IRA surrendered and are gone?

But Leo and Jennifer and Josepha and co have been telling us for what seems like an eternity, that they're still here and are controlling the Shinners. .

You're straying from the script jh.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

While you are looking for another group who negotiated an agreement while fully armed, could you also look for another group going into battle who who said well, 'maybe if we get x that'll do for now'?

You will find very few in either category.

I am thankful that the IRA were mature enough to realise that a stalemate was reached and allowed themselves to be led by two politicians to an agreement.

How did you come to the conclusion that it was a stalemate? The IRA are gone yet the British still have ultimate control over NI.

jh79 wrote: »

I'm glad they surrendered / acquiesced (whichever you prefer). Doesn't change the fact that they did surrender / acquiesce.

They went from "Brits Out" to "Brits Out but only if the majority agree and it is amenable to the British".

While you are looking for another group who negotiated an agreement while fully armed, could you also look for another group going into battle who who said 'well, maybe if we get x that'll do for now'?

You will find very few in either category.

I am thankful that the IRA were mature enough to realise that a stalemate was reached and allowed themselves to be led by two politicians to an agreement.

Bowie wrote: »

I thought the IRA surrendered?

I support the IRA signing up to peace you don't seem to.

I'm glad they surrendered / acquiesced (whichever you prefer). Doesn't change the fact that they did surrender / acquiesce.

They went from "Brits Out" to "Brits Out but only if the majority agree and it is amenable to the British".

jh79 wrote: »

If people getting killed didn't bother me I'd be a SF voter and IRA supporter.

I thought the IRA surrendered?

I support the IRA signing up to peace you don't seem to.

jm08 wrote: »

Fair play to you admitting people getting killed didn't bother you. I think you would be fairly unusual if you were not affected by what happened in Warrington or the murder of the Quinn boys.

If people getting killed didn't bother me I'd be a SF voter and IRA supporter.

jm08

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, the GFA had no effect on me. Apart from the odd bomb scare in the local nightclub I was not touched by domestic terrorism. My vote for yes was so others wouldn't have to suffer at the hands of so called Republicans and Loyalists involved in terrorism and criminality.

Fair play to you admitting people getting killed didn't bother you. I think you would be fairly unusual if you were not affected by what happened in Warrington or the murder of the Quinn boys.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It clearly did have effect if you see it and what happened after it as a 'surrender'.

Why the need to taunt like that I don't know. But it is fairly pathetic stuff.

Not a taunt a fair reflection of what happened considering the aims of the IRA. Not my heroes so no need for me to sugar coat it.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'recent' surge? SF surged directly after the GFA after steadily growing support through the 80'-90's.

The people most affected massively rewarded them, choosing them to represent them. Simple as. They have gone on to build the biggest political party on this island.

Where have they promised free housing for all BTW?

The constitutional right to housing idea they stole from PBP.

The recent surge was in the Republic and if it was as steady and predictable as you suggest surely they would of ran the right number of candidates in the GE?

jh79 wrote: »

Francie, the GFA had no effect on me. Apart from the odd bomb scare in the local nightclub I was not touched by domestic terrorism. My vote for yes was so others wouldn't have to suffer at the hands of so called Republicans and Loyalists involved in terrorism and criminality.

It clearly did have effect if you see it and what happened after it as a 'surrender'.

Why the need to taunt like that I don't know. But it is fairly pathetic stuff.

jh79 wrote: »

You're deluded if you think the recent surge in SF's popularity has anything to do with NI and unification.

When SF fail to deliver on their populist policies they'll be out the door in no time.
Think about how long is needed to prepare for an UI and what will happen when they fail to deliver free houses for all, increased welfare and PS pay etc in a post COVID economy.

The status quo is our short to medium term future.

The 'recent' surge? SF surged directly after the GFA after steadily growing support through the 80'-90's.

The people most affected massively rewarded them, choosing them to represent them. Simple as. They have gone on to build the biggest political party on this island.

Where have they promised free housing for all BTW?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You may have gotten to live happily ever after had SF's support believed that too. Seems to me they massively rewarded the IRA and SF for what was achieved. So much so they are now the biggest political party on this island.

'Surrender' indeed!

Francie, the GFA had no effect on me. Apart from the odd bomb scare in the local nightclub I was not touched by domestic terrorism. My vote for yes was so others wouldn't have to suffer at the hands of so called Republicans and Loyalists involved in terrorism and criminality.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You may have gotten to live happily ever after had SF's support believed that too. Seems to me they massively rewarded the IRA and SF for what was achieved. So much so they are now the biggest political party on this island.

'Surrender' indeed!

You're deluded if you think the recent surge in SF's popularity has anything to do with NI and unification.

When SF fail to deliver on their populist policies they'll be out the door in no time.
Think about how long is needed to prepare for an UI and what will happen when they fail to deliver free houses for all, increased welfare and PS pay etc in a post COVID economy.

The status quo is our short to medium term future.

jh79 wrote: »

It was the best they could do i supose. The IRA's surrender while still leaving NI in full control of the British was a massive failure for them.

You may have gotten to live happily ever after had SF's support believed that too. Seems to me they massively rewarded the IRA and SF for what was achieved. So much so they are now the biggest political party on this island.

'Surrender' indeed!

jh79 wrote: »

It was the best they could do i supose. The IRA's surrender while still leaving NI in full control of the British was a massive failure for them.

So they are criminal for fighting and failures for signing up to peace? Is that why FG/Lab hired a dissident as a Senator? You'd rather the 'RA stuck to their guns?
Very poor FG-esque take on a peace.