Willy O'Dea's reply to Sinn Féin criticism

David-[RLD]- · 06-08-2004 11:28am

Rock Climber wrote:

What war?
Countries and their people declare war not terrorists.
Can you show me the mandate for this 30 years of so called "war"
SF's vote only started rising to a respectable level after the ceasefires and you know what would happen to it if the IRA went back to bombing and shooting-yes there would be a free fall especially in the 26 counties.

Well to be honest, there are socialists out there who I'd have a lot of respect for and who don't have the baggage of being able to use throw away comments like " They haven't gone away you know " - yes and you know who said that!
Joe Higgins-yes he'll get my vote for socialism for quite some time to come untill the spectre of IRA un democratic killing and shooting is a dim and thankfully distant memory.

Well they can be accused of hypocrisy as equality isn't exclusive to one area of life or one sections well being.
Venerating those that killed people whose wives,family and friends are still around for example doesn't mix with the notion of equality.
It contradicts it totally.
I do understand Sinn Féins position and yours though, it would be impossible for them to abandon the very people that they have persuaded to go down the democratic as opposed to the violence route.
But you must also expect that a lot of people will take a considerable amount of time to forget their deeds during that 30 years and an equal amount of time to trust that the IRA wont go back to what they have shown they know best ie violence.

Britain threatened to declare war on Ireland if the Anglo-Irish Treaty was not signed by us. Do you think they would have done it? No? I don't. Know why? Because there was nothing to declare war on, in their eyes anyway. We didn't have an army. And I also think that their war would have failed, as it would be an entire nation (Ireland) fighting a section of a foreign army, with the IRA on our side, and the genius of Michael Collins at the helm. Little did they realise (and thankfully they didn't) that wars do not have to be fought by "legitimate" armies. Many wars are fought by the people. Republican and loyalist paramilitaries are engaged on a war, but it is a war of the people, not of armies. Of course, a certain foreign army gets involved a lot, and I wish they'd plainly just get the f**k out of Ireland, because who actually wants them, except the loyalists? But, ironically, the loyalists aren't wanted by the English. So, nobody wants loyalists. Hmm...

I'm just waffling, but my main point is that wars can be fought between any groups.

Cork · 06-08-2004 9:45pm

David-[RLD]- wrote:

Little did they realise (and thankfully they didn't) that wars do not have to be fought by "legitimate" armies. Many wars are fought by the people. Republican and loyalist paramilitaries are engaged on a war, but it is a war of the people, not of armies. .

What mandate had the IRA to continue its "war" for 30 years?

Sinn Feins few percent at elections?

What has the planting of bombs in trash cans to do with legitimate" armies?

But, after much needless carnage, the IRAs days are thankfully numbered.

The Unionist and nationalist people will have to learn to co- exist. SF will have to support NI institutions.

But, this is not a climbdown by the IRA but a victory for common sense. It is only a pity that that such carnage took place.

A wanten waste of human life. It only created hurt and pain.

John Humes analysis has always been correct.

But the conflict in NI still should act as a lesson for conflicts around the world. Tit for Tat violence is a vicious circle.

David-[RLD]- · 06-08-2004 10:14pm

Dictionary.com defines "war" as:

1.1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

2.1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

The parts highlighted in bold apply to all Republican paramilitaries.

1.1. The IRA are, and I will accept this, in modern times, not the "legitimate" army of the Irish state. But they do not need to be "legitimate" to wage war. They are a party in this war, as are the British the second party.
2. The period of this war waged by Republicans.
3. The techniques used: guerrilla tactics. And don't say that these tactics are "thug" tactics or crap like that. It is the best form of combat in urban areas.

2.2. The campaign to combat and put an end to British rule in Ireland.

So can you dispute what I have just posted?
All of those bold parts apply to Republican paramilitaries. Now, I am NOT condoning said war. I do, however, support the goal of a free Ireland, obviously. I just thought that you, Cork, needed someone to define 'war' for you.

Now I must be off to bed. Getting up at 6am to return from Wicklow is not good for you.

[edit]The IRAs days may be numbered. They may not be. Who knows? All I know is that the IRA are undefeatable militarily.[/edit]

Cork · 06-08-2004 10:28pm

[/QUOTE] All I know is that the IRA are undefeatable militarily.[/edit][/QUOTE]
So what?

The policy of the Armalite and the ballot box was a disaster. The GFA reads like an SDLP policy document.

SF/IRA now support the consent principle and SF sat in a NI assembly.

The so called war was a disgrace. It did nothing but further division.

I am not getting into a discussion about the IRA being " undefeatable militarily".

I would remind you that the IRA killed a member of the Gardai down the road from me. Who were they actually fighting aganist?

What army engages in fuel rackets?

Probably at war agaist the Irish Revenue Commissioners as well?

ionapaul · 07-08-2004 12:07am

David-[RLD]- wrote:

3. The techniques used: guerrilla tactics. And don't say that these tactics are "thug" tactics or crap like that. It is the best form of combat in urban areas.

2.2. The campaign to combat and put an end to British rule in Ireland.

Didn't the IRA murder two English children in Warrington? And that's guerrilla tactics? Truly, the best form of combat in urban areas!

I believe in your dictionary the IRA tactics will more closely relate to 'terrorism', rather than 'guerrilla tactics'. But of course one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Cork · 07-08-2004 12:22am

ionapaul wrote:

Didn't the IRA murder two English children in Warrington? And that's guerrilla tactics? Truly, the best form of combat in urban areas!

I believe in your dictionary the IRA tactics will more closely relate to 'terrorism', rather than 'guerrilla tactics'. But of course one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

If an aemy was on "ceasefire", surely activity such as activity around Dublin port and punishment beatings would stop?

Planting bombs in trash cans said much about the IRA.

Even disrupting rail services berween Dublin and Belfast. Who were the IRA actually at "war" with?

But in fairness to SF - SF/IRA now lend support to the 6 counties remainining part of the UK as long as the majority in NI wish that to be the case.

David-[RLD]- · 07-08-2004 10:35am

ionapaul wrote:

Didn't the IRA murder two English children in Warrington? And that's guerrilla tactics? Truly, the best form of combat in urban areas!

I believe in your dictionary the IRA tactics will more closely relate to 'terrorism', rather than 'guerrilla tactics'. But of course one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Sure didn't Loyalists murder far over two Irish children, in total 31 Irish people, along with a French woman and an Italian man in 1974? Two of the children weren't even born yet. Oh, wait, that was with help from the "legitimate" British army. So, Loyalists and the British army have committed atrocities as bad as and worse than Republicans.

The IRA use the tactics of Michael Collins, who invented modern guerrilla tactics. He was ruthless, like the modern day IRA. If he wanted someone killed, they were killed, like the modern day IRA. They get all of their influence from him, the man who delivered the Free State. The very man who spawned the IRA is a national hero, if not saviour. He invented guerrilla tactics because he knew the IRA could never win through face-to-face combat. It is an ingenious form of fighting and yes, it gives you an infinite advantage in urban areas.

The IRA ARE undefeatable militarily. In all these years the Brits have still been unable to get rid of them. Seriously, what does that say for the Brits, who apparently have one of the best armies in the world. They can't even squash a band of a few hundred paramilitaries. The only way, in my opinion, to ever stop "terrorists" is through a diplomatic solution, because they cannot be defeated through arms.

David-[RLD]- · 07-08-2004 10:41am

Cork wrote:

"All I know is that the IRA are undefeatable militarily."
So what?

The policy of the Armalite and the ballot box was a disaster. The GFA reads like an SDLP policy document.

SF/IRA now support the consent principle and SF sat in a NI assembly.

The so called war was a disgrace. It did nothing but further division.

I am not getting into a discussion about the IRA being " undefeatable militarily".

I would remind you that the IRA killed a member of the Gardai down the road from me. Who were they actually fighting aganist?

Lol, what do you mean "so what"? I was just stating a fact. Please remember that Sinn Féin and the Irish Republican Army, though linked, are two different organisations. What the IRA do is most likely out of Sinn Féin's hands.

The war is the original War of Independence which never actually ended, because Ireland is not independent. It is still occupied by the English.

How am I supposed to know? Would you like to go and ask an IRA sniper that question? Stupid, asking me such a question. I'm not in the IRA, so how am I meant to know why that Gardaí was killed? I'm not a divine deity who knows all in existence, you know. :rolleyes:

Cork · 07-08-2004 11:02am

David-[RLD]- wrote:

Sure didn't Loyalists murder far over two Irish children, in total 31 Irish people, along with a French woman and an Italian man in 1974? Two of the children weren't even born yet. Oh, wait, that was with help from the "legitimate" British army. .

This was my point. Tit for tat violence achieved nothing. Unionists and Nationalists will now have to sit down together and work together. The IRA will have to disappear (about time) and SF will have to work the institutions that exist in a partitioned Ireland.

There will be no change in the ststus of NI untill the people up there decide otherwise. We were never going to see a British withdrawl because of IRA carnage.

ionapaul · 07-08-2004 12:24pm

David-[RLD]- wrote:

Sure didn't Loyalists murder far over two Irish children, in total 31 Irish people, along with a French woman and an Italian man in 1974? Two of the children weren't even born yet. Oh, wait, that was with help from the "legitimate" British army. So, Loyalists and the British army have committed atrocities as bad as and worse than Republicans.

If you are suggesting that the Loyalist terrorists and a section of the British Army who colluded with them are as savage, ruthless, evil and frankly sub-human as the IRA are...I whole heartedly agree with you. I don't think anyone else here will argue on that point. Most people would hope that if the fighting were to continue, they would at least limit the murder to other murderers, and leave the vast majority of innocent men, women and children on these islands out of their 'stuggle'.

I have to admit I don't give a toss what Collins did (I would if he were still around doing it now), he is not my or Ireland's saviour - did you lift that line from a primary school history book?

You are probably right that the IRA are undefeatable, as long as they retain a tiny degree of popular support and can raise money via criminal rackets. I don't think that is anything to be proud of.

Cork · 07-08-2004 12:37pm

ionapaul wrote:

You are probably right that the IRA are undefeatable, as long as they retain a tiny degree of popular support and can raise money via criminal rackets. I don't think that is anything to be proud of.

I think that bank robberies, racketeering and punishment beatings were absolutely criminal.

Fuel rackets cost the Irish exchequer dearly.

I cannot understand how defrauding the state could be seen as patriotic?

The IRA were ememies of this state.

But, the IRA will longer be in existance. This message is already been sold to the hard liners.

Pity it was not 35 years sooner.

Cork · 07-08-2004 2:56pm

Sand wrote:

Irish people and Catholics in particular are in far more danger from the IRA than from loyalist deathsquads. Of the 1800 or so people the IRA have murdered, 1400 were Irish. No organisation, including the UVF, the British Army or the UFF has killed more Catholics than the IRA.

http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

Nope, 4 members of the IRA army council are SF political leaders. So SF has a majority of the votes on the IRa council, controlling it, or the IRA runs SF - whichever way you look at it, one is the subsidiary of the other and given SFs history its most likely SF is taking the orders from the Army Council.

Sand, fair play to you for putting the SF/IRA links into prosprctive. The mere existance of the IRA existance was futile.

But at least Adams publicly accepted that the IRA may need to be removed as part of a sustainable peace process. It has taken him a long time to come to this realisation.

I believe Adams is preparing the gound work to rid this country of the menace of the IRA and all their rackets.

It is a pity, he did not take this view 35 years ago.

K12 · 11-08-2004 12:35pm

Just another point of interest might be the fact that Sinn Fein are Democratic Socialists, so all this Nazi talk is sheer nonsense and is embarrassing to have to address it even...

for some definitions refer to :-http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Democratic_socialism

Cork · 13-08-2004 11:47pm

K12 wrote:

Just another point of interest might be the fact that Sinn Fein are Democratic Socialists, so all this Nazi talk is sheer nonsense and is embarrassing to have to address it even...

for some definitions refer to :-http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Democratic_socialism

But getting away from definitions and on a pure point of information,

Where would SF differ from Labour with regards to socialisim?

Mighty_Mouse · 16-08-2004 9:44am

I'd given up on this thread. It had strayed all over the place with arguments been dropped and questions ignored or restarted 50 posts after being disproved!(nazi/BNP = Sinn Fein accusation)

Just a couple of comments. I find it ironic that anti-republicans repeatedly state that "tit for tat" voilence achives nothing yet repeatedly state isolated incidents of "tit" without wanting to hear "tat"!!
ie.
Anti-republican: IRA killed two kids at warrington
Republican: Terrible but there was a war, British army killed a, b, c
Anti-republican: There wasnt a war and tit for tat voilence achieved nothing!!
Republican:Even if that is your view the current situation still needs to be addressed
Anti-republican: everyone needs to get along!
Republican: but they don't which is why a democracy needs to be established
Anti-republican: how can you let sinn fein into a democracy when they are murderers!
Republican: Sinn Fein are not murderers.(the IRA were). Its not a democracy without them
Anti-republican:Tit for tat voilence achieved nothing!Sinn Fein murdered innocent people at enniskillen.
etc
etc

Sand, fair play to you for putting the SF/IRA links into prosprctive.

Wow! Cork you'd nearly think you can't think for yourself sometimes!

Fuel rackets cost the Irish exchequer dearly.

Cork you repeat this so often you should just put it in your signiture! Tell us a little about the IRA's fuel rackets in 2004 will ya? I honestly don't know anything in terms of how much, how often, what the racket consists of, how big the scheme is. I don't even know if it exists in any significant manner since the cease-fire.
Can you help me out?

I have to admit I don't give a toss what Collins did (I would if he were still around doing it now), he is not my or Ireland's saviour - did you lift that line from a primary school history book?

For all your condescension you could do with a primary school knowledge of Irish history if you argue Collins didn't contribute to Irish freedom.

Villain · 16-08-2004 9:53am

Ya and someone has been taking points off my reputation for posts in here, same people arguing the same points and same people defending them. It's very borring.

ionapaul · 16-08-2004 11:41am

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

For all your condescension you could do with a primary school knowledge of Irish history if you argue Collins didn't contribute to Irish freedom.

He contributed to Ireland's independance struggle, without a doubt. To my (and Irish citizens') personal freedom though...? As long as I have personal freedom, I don't care what army is in the Curragh, who is the head of state, or whether Ireland is a republic, federation, province, or kingdom. Therefore, I do not see Collins as a saviour.

Irish history as thought in primary school is merely the patriotic version any nation-state wishes its citizens to have to help forge a national identity. Its 'great men' and easy answers are not particularly objective.

Villain · 16-08-2004 12:44pm

ionapaul wrote:

He contributed to Ireland's independance struggle, without a doubt. To my (and Irish citizens') personal freedom though...?

You might not be have an Irish passport if it wasn't for Collins. You can try and twist it anyway you like Collins helped Ireland get its freedom.

ionapaul · 16-08-2004 1:46pm

I don't deny that Collins helped the cause of Irish independance! I just query accepting without question the view that his actions (or Irish independance) helped me, you, or anyone alive today. In fact, economically Ireland suffered in comparison to the UK in the aftermath of independance (up to recently) so is a passport worth a lowered quality of life? I don't care what passport I have (Irish, British, Japanese, whatever!), as long as I have a good quality of life and the personal freedom I seek.

Villain · 16-08-2004 2:24pm

ionapaul wrote:

I don't care what passport I have (Irish, British, Japanese, whatever!), as long as I have a good quality of life and the personal freedom I seek.

Fair enough, but I know I would rather have an Irish passport anyday.

Mighty_Mouse · 16-08-2004 2:52pm

But without the right to participate in a democracy, vote a government which represents your opinion, decide on the laws you wish to live by, the taxes you wish to pay etc .... how can a preson have personal freedom.

Personal freedom is the motivation behind any struggle for national freedom. ie a nation struggling for personal freedom.

Consider Northern Ireland. The fact that the catholics of Northern were treated like second class citizens is what motivates them to achieve personal freedom through equal representation in a democratic government.

Rock Climber · 16-08-2004 3:52pm

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Anti-republican: everyone needs to get along!
Republican: but they don't which is why a democracy needs to be established

Groundbreaking news there.
Theres no democracy in NI apparently...

Consider Northern Ireland. The fact that the catholics of Northern were treated like second class citizens is what motivates them to achieve personal freedom through equal representation in a democratic government.

They're not now though are they? Indeed I don't think the discrimination would have lasted long after the UK joined the EEC, it would have been a peacefull end to the discrimination if it was left to Brussells to sort it out.

And on a related point, how many protestant T.D's are there in the Dáil?
Trevor Sergeant is the only one I can think of-it's not enough I demand equality through a change in the law here-to be fair there should be at least 3 or 4!! - Ireland of equals!!

Personal freedom is the motivation behind any struggle for national freedom. ie a nation struggling for personal freedom.

But but , back in the time you are talking about a woman couldn't vote untill she was 30! and if her husband died before she had kids, she could be thrown out of house and home by his family.
Things have moved on since then, everybodies rights are the same as is everybodies vote, in the here and now-2004

Sinn Fein are not murderers.(the IRA were). Its not a democracy without them

Well at least we agree on one thing, the IRA are murderers and to ignore sinn Féins vote would be undemocratic.
It's important though to note Sinn Féin's vote started it's meteoric rise after the peace process which speaks volumes for what people generally thought of what the IRA were doing prior to that.
I'll agree with some others here that at least, the chances of a return to that mahem are slim and none as Sinn Féin know such a return by the IRA would decimate their vote especially in the 26 counties and they don't want that, no doubt.

Mighty_Mouse · 16-08-2004 5:55pm

Groundbreaking news there.
Theres no democracy in NI apparently...QUOTE] How is there a democracy without a government?

They're not now though are they?

Really? Surely you mean not as much/to same degree?

And on a related point, how many protestant T.D's are there in the Dáil?

As many as domocratically elected. Why do you ask? Surely you know that religion is as much an issue in Southern politics.

But but , back in the time you are talking about a woman couldn't vote untill she was 30!

your point?

Things have moved on since then, everybodies rights are the same as is everybodies vote, in the here and now-2004

:eek: Um! Mork, is that you? What planet are you from Rockclimber?!Im sure people in Rwanda (10 years ago), Darfur, North Korea, Congo disagree with you! Or maybe for a closer to home point of reference we should ask the travelling community about equality in the Ireland of here and now 2004?

It's important though to note Sinn Féin's vote started it's meteoric rise after the peace process which speaks volumes for what people generally thought of what the IRA were doing prior to that

Is it? Me thinks you've borrowed someone else's concept there again but surely it would also have to do with the fact that Sinn Fein switched focus to the political process also. Surely the existance of the IRA would mean absolutely no success for Sinn Feins on the above theory? Personally I think its to do with the fact that they actually started campaigning politically as much as anything.

I'll agree with some others here that at least, the chances of a return to that mahem are slim and none as Sinn Féin know such a return by the IRA would decimate their vote especially in the 26 counties and they don't want that, no doubt

But your missing the point. Do you honestly think the only reason the IRA are out of action is due to votes?

ionapaul · 16-08-2004 7:40pm

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Surely the existance of the IRA would mean absolutely no success for Sinn Feins on the above theory?

Some people would vote for Sinn Fein no matter if the IRA murdered an entire orphanage of little loyalist children with chainsaws and bragged about it afterwards! Many people don't care about 'the other', be they asylum seekers, Protestants, Brits, Jews, immigrants, or travellers - lets not pretend that all people are equally enlightened, sophisticated, or even as decent as the majority may be. Likewise many people would continue to vote for Fianna Fail even if a secret document was leaked showing the party's acceptance of bribery and cronyism - 'my father voted for them, and that's good enough for me'!!!!

ecksor · 16-08-2004 7:48pm

The people you mention hardly account for the rise in support for them. People who change their mind are the people that account for the rise in support, surely?

Rock Climber · 16-08-2004 8:40pm

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

As many as domocratically elected. Why do you ask? Surely you know that religion is as much an issue in Southern politics. your point?

My point is, we could change the law to have them with a number of TD's in direct proportion to their nationwide number-a new national constituency for instance to elect td's especially for protestants so their views/ethics can be specifically represented in the Dáil.
It would be no different to the D'haunt system that puts SF into an NI government out of proportion to their percentage of the vote.
It would be more equality dealt down in a similar style-like I said equality!!

Um! Mork, is that you? What planet are you from Rockclimber?!Im sure people in Rwanda (10 years ago), Darfur, North Korea, Congo disagree with you!

As you well know,I was talking about people having the same rights and their vote meaning as much as the next persons here in Ireland-your point therefore is irrelevant to this thread.

Or maybe for a closer to home point of reference we should ask the travelling community about equality in the Ireland of here and now 2004?

Are they treated any different in the south than the North?
They are(wrongly) a victim of peoples attitudes more so than anything else,a united Ireland wouldn't change that-so your point there is also irrelevant.

Surely the existance of the IRA would mean absolutely no success for Sinn Feins on the above theory? Personally I think its to do with the fact that they actually started campaigning politically as much as anything.

Actually,the IRA's existence wouldn't effect most catholics votes in the North,it's only if they started fighting again...
And that would hurt the vote in the south more so than the north most probably.
When you say it has to do with campaigning politically, do you really think that SF Td's would be getting elected in the South , if the IRA were still bombing and shooting?

Do you honestly think the only reason the IRA are out of action is due to votes?

Yes I do. I believe that a majority of their commanders are so involved with or sympathetic to Sinn Féin that they have decided to give this attempt to get some all Ireland political power a go.
Furthermore I actually believe that the election of SF td's(5 of them isn't there or 7 or something ) has been a good thing in at least one sense, in that it has solidified those in Sinn Féin and the IRA in their thinking that to go back to the guns would be a bad move that would halt their progression politically.

It would obviously do some irrepairable damage to SF's reputation given the links that exist.

ionapaul · 16-08-2004 10:11pm

ecksor wrote:

The people you mention hardly account for the rise in support for them. People who change their mind are the people that account for the rise in support, surely?

Yes, I meant some people (their core supporters) wouldn't change their minds no matter what. The other section of their support (half of their present numbers maybe?) might move quickly away if the IRA restarted their violent struggle.

ecksor · 16-08-2004 10:28pm

Well, if you make statements about what people generally think or thought then it seems odd to claim that half of their support comes from people who don't think like that (which seems contradictory) and then claim that the other half might act in a certain way if they restarted their campaign.

Of course, you might say that what people generally think has little or nothing to do with people who vote for sinn fein in the grand scheme of things, but in that case measuring the sinn fein vote doesn't seem like a good way of measuring what people generally think.

Mighty_Mouse · 17-08-2004 10:08am

It would be more equality dealt down in a similar style-like I said equality!!

You comparing the protestant situation in the South to the catholic situation in the North!!! :eek: Hmmm! Is that even possible on any level?
You stated:

Things have moved on since then, everybodies rights are the same as is everybodies vote, in the here and now-2004

I replied:

Im sure people in Rwanda (10 years ago), Darfur, North Korea, Congo disagree with you! Or maybe for a closer to home point of reference we should ask the travelling community about equality in the Ireland of here and now 2004?

Irrelevant, and off topic I know!! My apologies! :rolleyes:
Note in the context of the anti-republican argument that: "things are different now than 1916"!!

They are(wrongly) a victim of peoples attitudes more so than anything else,a united Ireland wouldn't change that-so your point there is also irrelevant.

Are we still talking about equality here?

do you really think that SF Td's would be getting elected in the South , if the IRA were still bombing and shooting?

I honestly don't know.

Some people would vote for Sinn Fein no matter if the IRA murdered an entire orphanage of little loyalist children with chainsaws and bragged about it afterwards!

Are you saying its people who don't care about the marginalised in society, "the other" that are voting for Sinn Fein? I would think its the opposite.

ionapaul · 17-08-2004 10:51am

ecksor wrote:

Well, if you make statements about what people generally think or thought then it seems odd to claim that half of their support comes from people who don't think like that (which seems contradictory) and then claim that the other half might act in a certain way if they restarted their campaign.

Of course, you might say that what people generally think has little or nothing to do with people who vote for sinn fein in the grand scheme of things, but in that case measuring the sinn fein vote doesn't seem like a good way of measuring what people generally think.

Woah...am I on drugs!

Sorry, you really lost me in this post. What I meant (sorry if I wasn't clear) is merely that Sinn Fein's core support would/will vote for them no matter what, and the increase from this core support they have gained in recent years probably (though how can anyone know for certain) are people who were ill-at-ease with the violent struggle, ignore any current links between Sinn Fein, the IRA, or continuing violence, and might (again, who knows) withdraw their recent support if the IRA restarted their struggle.

Sorry if I made it seem as though there was a link between what people in general think and any related effect on Sinn Fein voters - that is definitely not what I meant to indicate! What I meant to say was that the core (long-term) supporters of Sinn Fein are unlike the majority of Irish voters who have repudiated violence, while the more recent supporters may well see themselves are being alligned with the majority on this.

Willy O'Dea's reply to Sinn Féin criticism

Comments