Have Sinn Féin truly reformed?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

yomchi

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Infact Dave, it was as bad if not worse. Collins used all of these tactics in the earlier campaign. People were bound shot and dumped for not supporting the campaign, young people shot without explanation if they suspected treachery. Irish men were savagly treated if found to aid the British Army in anyway. The IRB before him carried out a bombing campaign in England where many innocent people perished.

Voipjunkie

Trotter wrote:

..


I think some people need to read their history and realise that the SF and IRA of the early 1900's are not the same as the SF and IRA that we in the 21st century now know. They are in my view incomparable.

I honestly think you should read the history of the conflict from 1916-1922 because it was every bit as brutal.
We have a tendency to view violence of the past as being somehow less violent even to the extent that the border campaign of 56-62 is looked on differently to the 69-93 era one has to wonder if in 30 or 40 years time or less that people will look back on the most recent episode with the same rose tinted glasses that they look at Micheal Collins, Dan Breen ,Ernie O'Malley and Liam Lynch through.

yomchi

Voipjunkie wrote:

I honestly think you should read the history of the conflict from 1916-1922 because it was every bit as brutal.
We have a tendency to view violence of the past as being somehow less violent even to the extent that the border campaign of 56-62 is looked on differently to the 69-93 era one has to wonder if in 30 or 40 years time or less that people will look back on the most recent episode with the same rose tinted glasses that they look at Micheal Collins, Dan Breen ,Ernie O'Malley and Liam Lynch through.

Very true, and the people you mention would have killed you where you sat if you were on the wrong side of the fence.
People need to wake up and see that there is no difference between then and the campaign up to 97. The only change was Thatchers criminalisation policy stuck and was reinforced by several southern governments. Hence why the stigma of criminality still, for some, remains a reasonable response to the latter campaign, when in fact every single campaign from 1798 up was bloody and brutal.

yomchi

Trotter wrote:

I'll turn that around on you.. (seen as its been happening to me since I first posted)...

You have no problem with violence in Ireland pre 1922, so therefore, you are supportive of the IRA's actions?

I think some people need to read their history and realise that the SF and IRA of the early 1900's are not the same as the SF and IRA that we in the 21st century now know. They are in my view incomparable.

Also.. Michael Collins isnt looking for my vote as was stated above.

I actually think some people here wont be happy until those who are criticising SF actually kneel down and pledge allegiance to Gerry Adams.

I don't expect anyone to change their politcal outlook on the basis of an argument about past actions my friend. So what you actually think is incorrect of course.
To answer your question, of course I have no problems with the actions of the IRA pre 1922, or infact post 1922. Do you know how brutally the new state forces acted towards their own post 1922??

I am a Republican, I make no apologies for that. I did support the campaign throughout the 90's, I was only young during the 80's and had no real concept of it. I first joined a Republican party in 1993. That said, of course I felt the same anger when the IRA made a BALLS of certain operations where innocent people died. I will not stand over any of these mess ups and defend them, in some cases it was down to bad planning, and unfortunately people died as a result. On the other end it was down to bad handling on behalf of the security forces. War is war.
But do not be fooled, the same brutality existed during the time of Collins and co. Collins is known as one of th most ruthless Republican leaders ever. So what makes a killing glorious and what makes one abhorrent when carried out for the same purpose...time? Hardly.

Voipjunkie

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It is interesting that if you do a search on proxy bombs the main theory is that they were used by the doves ( or british agents) within the IRA to discredit the "armed struggle" it is interesting in that it is a measure of how complicated the dirty tricks war is that no matter who did what there seems to be a myriad of possible explanations behind it. That said I remember speaking to a republican at the time and he could see little wrong with the proxy bomb tactic however it was only used about 4 times before being dropped.
On the issue of reprisals the 1919-1922 period had a lot of reprisal killings on both sides a brief scan through literature of the period would show that.

Trotter

Jon wrote:

So what makes a killing glorious and what makes one abhorrent when carried out for the same purpose...time? Hardly.

At what point did I say I agreed with the killings in Ireland at ANY point?
Violence and disgraceful acts are abhorrent to me regardless of whether they happen in 1900 or 1990, in Ireland or Rwanda.

All violent acts do not rest easily with me. You seem to think I am now some sort of apologist for Michael Collins? I havent said that at all.

I object to my own views on violence being tangled up and thrown back at me.

My original point stands. The advertisement of violent tshirts on a peaceful party's website is wrong. Just as wrong as a tshirt showing Collins raising a rifle on FG's website would be. The difference is FG havent to my knowledge advertised such militarism.

On your comment about me needing to read my history; I have read about the troubles in Ireland extensively and just because I didnt go into detail about the Irish conflict pre 1922 does not mean I am short of knowledge on it.

It means that I didnt divert the discussion away from what I originally requested opinions on... i.e. the suitability of selling IRA tshirts on the Sinn Fein website.

I am actually learning a lot about SF and republicanism from this thread. It seems that criticism of Sinn Fein is wrong. Criticism of the IRA's actions leads to a selective history lesson, and a questioning of one's own beliefs on the necessity of violence.

Violence is to be abhorred, regardless of who believes that it is necessary. Glorifying past violent acts is equally wrong, and I will criticise the sources of this regardless of where it comes from, not just SF.

I think this thread has taught me that being critical of Sinn Fein on boards in any way is an invitation for twisted argument and attack on ones own personal ideals.

You are either with us or against us is the message here.

Based on what I saw on the website, I cannot be with you.

On that note, Im bowing out of this discussion. Ive made my point and I dont want to have any more of my opinions twisted and handed back to me.

Slán.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Money Shot

Trotter wrote:

I am actually learning a lot about SF and republicanism from this thread. It seems that criticism of Sinn Fein is wrong. Criticism of the IRA's actions leads to a selective history lesson, and a questioning of one's own beliefs on the necessity of violence.

Totally agree with you on this point.

One thing that does stand out to me is that Ireland being United again is far more important to these guys than any number of innocent lives being lost. And we are told that the pople who committed these 'crimes' have an 'honorable' past. Osama Bin Laden seems to believe he can kill who ever he wants as it is the name of some 'holy war'.
Take a look at your family, and imagine how you would feel if one of them was blown to pieces because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, then imagine some clown trying to convince you that it's fine because there is a higher purpose - the grail like united ireland. Imagine then someone trying to convince you that the person who made the bomb, planted it, detonated it were honorable because of it.

You can selectively use my quotes and twist them sentence by sentence all you want, but this is how I feel. This thread is closed as far as i'm concerned - to continue would be futile.

Victor Meldrew

Jon wrote:

I read many people have a problem with the political war waged by the IRA since 1969. Thats your perogative!
It strikes me however that no body here would have the tiniest of problems with the war Michael Collins and the IRA of that time waged? Am I correct?

Actually I have issues with 1916 (Not that you are surprised at that ), and with the civil war that followed . Partition was, with the benifit of hindsight, a mistake, but it was a democratic mistake, the civil war was a case of "to hell with democracy" on Dev's side and the resultant divisions are felt at every election since.

guinnessdrinker

it seems to me people are going out of their way to be offended.

I tend to agree with FTA69 on this one.

Trotter, if you really were looking for information on Sinn Fein's policies, do you really think you should have went all the way into their shop to find them?

Its fairly obvious, or at least I thought, that a political parties polices will not be posted in an online shop!!!

yomchi

Money Shot wrote:

Totally agree with you on this point.

One thing that does stand out to me is that Ireland being United again is far more important to these guys than any number of innocent lives being lost. And we are told that the pople who committed these 'crimes' have an 'honorable' past. Osama Bin Laden seems to believe he can kill who ever he wants as it is the name of some 'holy war'.
Take a look at your family, and imagine how you would feel if one of them was blown to pieces because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, then imagine some clown trying to convince you that it's fine because there is a higher purpose - the grail like united ireland. Imagine then someone trying to convince you that the person who made the bomb, planted it, detonated it were honorable because of it.

You can selectively use my quotes and twist them sentence by sentence all you want, but this is how I feel. This thread is closed as far as i'm concerned - to continue would be futile.

My Family have been affected by the war, both directly and indirectly. I have been battered and stoned by the RUC. Please don't assume. I see the way you use Thatcherite language in your response, clearly debating any further with you is indeed futile.

Originally Posted by Trotter
I am actually learning a lot about SF and republicanism from this thread. It seems that criticism of Sinn Fein is wrong, On that note, Im bowing out of this discussion. Ive made my point and I dont want to have any more of my opinions twisted and handed back to me.

I think people need to stop throwing their toys out of the pram. Criticism of Sinn Fein is fine, I criticise too when needed. The problem I see is that alot of the 'criticism' levelled in this forum is factually inaccurate. Prime example being the earlier thread about what has SF got to offer. That thread was rife with criticism that was factually in-correct. Then when it was debated and the facts put forward, toys were flying everywhere - "I'm not discussing it anymore, its obvious we can't criticise SF, etc etc. It is quite ridiculuous.

Up to now we were debating the difference if any about armed actions post and pre 1922 which is relevant to some degree about SF truly reformed. No need to fly off the handle its only debate and criticise freely if you will, but if you are levelling criticism, level it from a subjective point of view and not the media's opinion of it - ie, facts are needed for political debate.

Criticism of the IRA's actions leads to a selective history lesson

Again, you misunderstand. History is not selective, it is fact. The debate about post and pre 1922 can be found in any complete history manual. I already stated that soe actions on behalf of the IRA do indeed come in for criticism.

Hoops1888

Here we go again.

Look let me explain something.

For year's the DUP have said "we will not go into Sinn Fein and why should we if the republic parties dont want them why should we go into goverment with them".

Now you see the DUP are in goverment so what reason is there for the south parties not to go into goverment. It might not happen this time around but you can bet your ass it will happen.

I mean will all of ye think about this for a minute. For years we had a horrible war with alot of peoplke supporting the IRA also alot of people supporting the UDA biggest group in the north. So what did the IRA give up their guns for?? So they can work for a united Ireland by peaceful means. The gun's are gone and have been silent even longer would pople rather we were back like years ago?

You can talk about your 2% parties fact is Sinn Fein is growing every year. I can asure you deals will be done

brianthebard

Jon wrote:

I don't expect anyone to change their politcal outlook on the basis of an argument about past actions my friend. So what you actually think is incorrect of course.
To answer your question, of course I have no problems with the actions of the IRA pre 1922, or infact post 1922. Do you know how brutally the new state forces acted towards their own post 1922??

I am a Republican, I make no apologies for that. I did support the campaign throughout the 90's, I was only young during the 80's and had no real concept of it. I first joined a Republican party in 1993. That said, of course I felt the same anger when the IRA made a BALLS of certain operations where innocent people died. I will not stand over any of these mess ups and defend them, in some cases it was down to bad planning, and unfortunately people died as a result. On the other end it was down to bad handling on behalf of the security forces. War is war.

This is probably one of the biggest issues for me and for a lot of people with SF supporters and the party itself-imo you either support the IRA and all that it did and does or you don't support them at all. I don't believe there is any middle ground, where you can say well done to the hunger strikers for instance but turn round and say Omagh was wrong. Its either all or nothing for me.

But do not be fooled, the same brutality existed during the time of Collins and co. Collins is known as one of the most ruthless Republican leaders ever. So what makes a killing glorious and what makes one abhorrent when carried out for the same purpose...time? Hardly.

If you look at the 1966 commemoration of 1916, there was still strong widespread support for physical force in the north. What changed that, time?

Liam Byrne

Zambia232 wrote:

This sounds like Ireland under British rule

Maybe you read that the complete opposite to the way I meant it ?

What I meant was that everyone would be entitled to their beliefs, customs, etc, with no racism or bias against religion, background, etc; UNTIL someone broke the law......THEN it wouldn't matter WHAT they were (and they certainly wouldn't be allowed to use their beliefs or background as an excuse) - they'd be locked up (along the line of a certain Government's promises years ago about "zero tolerance" :rolleyes: )

Anyone know where I can find a link to that interview what was it on ?

Didn't take it from any interview; to me it makes perfect sense - you respect the law, the law respects you. Break it and you will have to live with the consequences.

Back on topic, brianthebard seems to sum it up properly - if we highlight a particular negative aspect of SF, we are wrong, yet we are constantly criticised for not highlighting the progress they've made. If SF don't want to have to deal with the negative aspects, there's an easy way to deal with that - get rid of them! If they want credit for the positives, they should expect criticism for the negatives, while they still exist.

On the other end it was down to bad handling on behalf of the security forces. War is war.

Hell, yeah - Gerry McCabe's death was so obviously the fault of those damn British security forces :rolleyes: And if only those damn British security forces had gotten into the middle of Omagh quicker, there would have been no deaths, right ? :rolleyes:

Hoops wrote:

So what did the IRA give up their guns for?? So they can work for a united Ireland by peaceful means. The gun's are gone and have been silent even longer would pople rather we were back like years ago?

That's an interesting question, and deeper than it looks. The IRA should never have had guns or bombs - particularly for use against innocent people - and while no-one wants to go backwards, should we cheer them for giving up what they should never have had/used ?

If a local drug dealer/criminal stops dealing/crime sprees, do we immediately cheer him on and vote for him in the very next election ? Or do we just say "fine - normality resumed", and vote for the people who never engaged in that sort of stuff, who had proven that (a) they were always fairly law-abiding and (b) their experience and politics were already well-known ?

And the worry I have is the gloss over the "work for" in the "work for a united Ireland"; they can work for it all they like (and if it's achieved I hope it will be for all the right reasons) but they'd better not be like the kids referenced in other threads who throw out their toys (or in the IRA's case, bring back in their toys) when they don't get their own way.

yomchi

This is probably one of the biggest issues for me and for a lot of people with SF supporters and the party itself-imo you either support the IRA and all that it did and does or you don't support them at all. I don't believe there is any middle ground, where you can say well done to the hunger strikers for instance but turn round and say Omagh was wrong. Its either all or nothing for me

Holy moley.. my arguement vindicated already?! The IRA did not carry out the Omagh atrocity, a splinter group did :rolleyes: .
As for the rest, if its all or nothing for you - thats your perogative.

If you look at the 1966 commemoration of 1916, there was still strong widespread support for physical force in the north. What changed that, time?

What changed what? If there was still support for physical force in 1966 - well then nothing changed. So whats your point?

yomchi

to me it makes perfect sense - you respect the law, the law respects you.

Have you ever heard of Robert Hamill? Rosemary Nelson? Pat Finucane? Eddie Fullerton? to name but only a few.

brianthebard

Jon wrote:

Holy moley.. my arguement vindicated already?! The IRA did not carry out the Omagh atrocity, a splinter group did :rolleyes: .
As for the rest, if its all or nothing for you - thats your perogative.

Splinter groups, lolz. Ok let me give you an IRA example. 4 March 1972, bombing of the Abercorn resturant. No warning. 2 dead and 136 injured. Justified? Or was this one of the events you didn't support?

What changed what? If there was still support for physical force in 1966 - well then nothing changed. So whats your point?

I was trying to show you that time did actually change things for people.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Gobán Saor

Trotter wrote:

My original point stands. The advertisement of violent tshirts on a peaceful party's website is wrong. Just as wrong as a tshirt showing Collins raising a rifle on FG's website would be. The difference is FG havent to my knowledge advertised such militarism.

Violence is to be abhorred, regardless of who believes that it is necessary. Glorifying past violent acts is equally wrong, and I will criticise the sources of this regardless of where it comes from, not just SF.

I will make five simple points. Numbers 1,2 and 4 are obviously verifiable facts. Number 3 is a straightforward conclusion based on 1 and 2. Number 5 is a simple enough conclusion based on 3 and 4.

1. Collins engaged in acts of extreme violence.
2. Collins is commemorated every year by Fine Gael.
3. This surely equals Fine Gael glorifying past violent acts.
4. Fine Gael are looking for our votes in this election.

5. This makes FG not that different from Sinn Fein, really, in terms of attitude to past political violence?

Zambia

Liam Byrne wrote:

Maybe you read that the complete opposite to the way I meant it ?

Didn't take it from any interview; to me it makes perfect sense - you respect the law, the law respects you.

In essence I was only joking mate , Plus I meant the Eddie Hobbs Interview with SF

yomchi

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Hi Dave, good question. And to be honest one that will stem back over decades of Republica history, but I'll give you my honest opinion on it.

Firstly, to be honest I don't take issues with anyone about their beliefs. I'll just put mine forward for the sake of the debate.

About Omagh, it was an atrocity. In 30 years previous there had been no single loss of life that matched that disaster. It was carried out by quite obvious inept individuals - it was also blamed on the group called RIRA although I believe it has come to light that the other group CIRA had a part in it.
Why do I not support it? very simple. In 1998 the Republica movment had entered into its Peace strategy pretty full on. It was a common belief in Republican circles that the armed campaign had run its course and it was now prime time for the Peace initiative which Adams had been planning with others several years previous to come into fruition. A small band of individuals felt differently and broke away and ended up killing 29 people in Omagh. From another point of view, for Republicans legitimacy is very important. The present day IRA for many were the legitimate continuation of the IRA from early 1900's, their legitimacy was carried through by the continuation of the IRA's constitution. Therefore any group that has split or left to form their own gang bears no legitimacy to historical movement that came to the fore in 1916.
Apart from all that, the majority of the Republican movement were in favour of the peace stratgey and any armed actions including Omagh played right into the hands of the DUP/UUP at the time, not tomention the British Govt. It went completely against the national strategic objectives, which of course needed to stay on course.
But most of all. 29 innocent people were killed at a time when there was hope for peace and the IRA and the British were on a cessation of military operations - things were looking positive, more positive than anytime before for the people of the north east. Probably the main reason for abhorring this incident.

Trotter

Gob&#225 wrote: »

I will make five simple points. Numbers 1,2 and 4 are obviously verifiable facts. Number 3 is a straightforward conclusion based on 1 and 2. Number 5 is a simple enough conclusion based on 3 and 4.

1. Collins engaged in acts of extreme violence.
2. Collins is commemorated every year by Fine Gael.
3. This surely equals Fine Gael glorifying past violent acts.
4. Fine Gael are looking for our votes in this election.

5. This makes FG not that different from Sinn Fein, really, in terms of attitude to past political violence?

Im not sure what you want me to say? I've said that I've decided to leave this debate as I've learned what I felt I wanted to learn.

Do you want me to just agree with you? I believe there is a major gulf between FG and SF. That is my opinion and Im entitled to it as much as you are entitled to yours.

yomchi

Splinter groups, lolz. Ok let me give you an IRA example. 4 March 1972, bombing of the Abercorn resturant. No warning. 2 dead and 136 injured

Level of force = Level of threat.

Seeing as though you're good on google, type in this date;

January 30th 1972, to put it into context, its approx one month before the Abercorn restuarant attack.

What significant event comes up in your result and how any people were killed without warning?

biko

brianthebard wrote:

This is probably one of the biggest issues for me and for a lot of people with SF supporters and the party itself-imo you either support the IRA and all that it did and does or you don't support them at all. I don't believe there is any middle ground, where you can say well done to the hunger strikers for instance but turn round and say Omagh was wrong. Its either all or nothing for me.

Well, it shouldn't be. Strange as it may seem there are various republican parties/factions. The biggest party being SF but you also have RSF IRSP etc. Kinda like (and I know I'm gonna get stick for this) FG, FF etc.
The Omagh bombing was not done by SF, nor IRA. It was done by a breakaway faction from the IRA. You can be pro SF and anti Omagh.

brianthebard

An eye for an eye Jon? (I don't need to google btw I've been cramming all this stuff the last few days.) Did the Abercorn bomb make up for bloody sunday? did it make the situation better?

Its the stipulations that get me, the terms and conditions at the end of a contract.

Voipjunkie

Jon wrote:

Hi Dave, good question. And to be honest one that will stem back over decades of Republica history, but I'll give you my honest opinion on it.

Firstly, to be honest I don't take issues with anyone about their beliefs. I'll just put mine forward for the sake of the debate.

About Omagh, it was an atrocity. In 30 years previous there had been no single loss of life that matched that disaster. It was carried out by quite obvious inept individuals - it was also blamed on the group called RIRA although I believe it has come to light that the other group CIRA had a part in it.
Why do I not support it? very simple. In 1998 the Republica movment had entered into its Peace strategy pretty full on. It was a common belief in Republican circles that the armed campaign had run its course and it was now prime time for the Peace initiative which Adams had been planning with others several years previous to come into fruition. A small band of individuals felt differently and broke away and ended up killing 29 people in Omagh. From another point of view, for Republicans legitimacy is very important. The present day IRA for many were the legitimate continuation of the IRA from early 1900's, their legitimacy was carried through by the continuation of the IRA's constitution. Therefore any group that has split or left to form their own gang bears no legitimacy to historical movement that came to the fore in 1916.
Apart from all that, the majority of the Republican movement were in favour of the peace stratgey and any armed actions including Omagh played right into the hands of the DUP/UUP at the time, not tomention the British Govt. It went completely against the national strategic objectives, which of course needed to stay on course.
But most of all. 29 innocent people were killed at a time when there was hope for peace and the IRA and the British were on a cessation of military operations - things were looking positive, more positive than anytime before for the people of the north east. Probably the main reason for abhorring this incident.

What about the pro treaty side were they not the majority of the republican movement at that time
were FF not the majority of the republican movement at that time
were the Officials not in the majority when O'Bradaigh walked out.

Majority has little to do with it it has always been about those who stood by the republican principles and those who did not.
So which side of republican principles are SF on now
They have accepted stormont
the unionist veto
Partition
legitimised the britains roll in Ireland
they are supporting the crown forces
They have recognised the free state parliament

All of these things were the reason for splits before and the reason why SF claimed the mantle of republicanism was because it stood by the republic founded in 1916 and endorsed in 1918 and again in 1921 not because they were a majority.

Victor Meldrew

Jon wrote:

About Omagh,
Why do I not support it? very simple. In 1998 the Republica movment had entered into its Peace strategy pretty full on. It was a common belief in Republican circles that the armed campaign had run its course and it was now prime time for the Peace initiative which Adams had been planning with others several years previous to come into fruition. A small band of individuals felt differently and broke away and ended up killing 29 people in Omagh.

A lot of people had figured out that violence was pointless in 73 hence sunningdale etc... a lot of needless suffering happened between then and the Good friday agreement. were their deaths worth the concessions won ?

Jon wrote:

for Republicans legitimacy is very important. The present day IRA for many were the legitimate continuation of the IRA from early 1900's, their legitimacy was carried through by the continuation of the IRA's constitution. Therefore any group that has split or left to form their own gang bears no legitimacy to historical movement that came to the fore in 1916.

this assumes that unelected groups staging an uprising have legitamacy. I've never accepted the legitimacy of 1916 or the civil war.

yomchi

brianthebard wrote:

An eye for an eye Jon? (I don't need to google btw I've been cramming all this stuff the last few days.) Did the Abercorn bomb make up for bloody sunday? did it make the situation better?

Its the stipulations that get me, the terms and conditions at the end of a contract.

It was 1972, things had just kicked off. Things were nasty, I put the attack into context as you just laid it out as if it happened for nothing.

What about the pro treaty side were they not the majority of the republican movement at that time
were FF not the majority of the republican movement at that time
were the Officials not in the majority when O'Bradaigh walked out.

Majority has little to do with it it has always been about those who stood by the republican principles and those who did not.
So which side of republican principles are SF on now
They have accepted stormont
the unionist veto
Partition
legitimised the britains roll in Ireland
they are supporting the crown forces
They have recognised the free state parliament

All of these things were the reason for splits before and the reason why SF claimed the mantle of republicanism was because it stood by the republic founded in 1916 and endorsed in 1918 and again in 1921 not because they were a majority.

Of course ,you have valid points.

were FF not the majority of the republican movement at that time
were the Officials not in the majority when O'Bradaigh walked out

I don't get you here though. FF when elected to power systematically tried to close down the Republicans, which included jailing and killing many. As for the 'Officials' I'm not sure what relevance that has to O'Bradaigh. Maybe you could clarify.

Majority has little to do with it it has always been about those who stood by the republican principles and those who did not.
So which side of republican principles are SF on now
They have accepted stormont
the unionist veto
Partition
legitimised the britains roll in Ireland
they are supporting the crown forces
They have recognised the free state parliament

These are regular arguments put forward by people who have not been involved in party debate. However a revolutionary must use what ever means necessary to achieve their goals. They have accepted Stormont - surely you are not referencing the Stormont of the 1970's???
The UNionist Veto is all but gone, British Parliament has passed legislation ensuring that the assembly can no longer by suspended. What will the unionist do now with their veto? walk out?
Partition? How exactly?
They are supporting the crown forces?? Very selective language there chara. You mean they are in a position to hold the croen forces to account, not support every move they make.
They partook in the Dublin parliament, as a means to building political strength. The current position of RSF highlights how important a move for SF that was in 86. For reference, RSF polled lower than the Christian Solidarity Party at the last dip.

So what alternative would you produce to furthering the objectives?

yomchi

this assumes that unelected groups staging an uprising have legitamacy. I've never accepted the legitimacy of 1916 or the civil war.

The Irish state accepts the legitimacy of the rising. What are your reasons for not? You don'thave to answer - just curious.

There is o legitimacy of the civil war it was an event of great saddness but historical fact.