Real IRA claims that 'The War Is Back On'

Rossibaby

djpbarry wrote: »

Che Guevara most definitely was, yes. As for Nelson Mandela, he actually admitted the ANC violated human rights.

so is he a terrorist??

LordSutch

Questions for you Rossibaby .............

"Are the Provisional IRA Terrorists" ? "are the Real IRA Terrorists" ? "are the INLA Terrorists" ? "are the Continuity IRA Terrorists" ?

And if not ~ Why Not ?

Zombrex

duggie-89 wrote: »

DO you?????????

I certainly do. A terrorist is a person or group that use terrorism as a military tactic. That has absolutely nothing to do with how justified you feel their cause is or isn't. Claiming the IRA aren't terrorist is like claiming they aren't bombers, using the logic that even though they blew things up with bombs that doesn't actually make them bombers because they had a really good reason to blow those things up. Which is nonsense. You are a bomber if you blow things up with bombs. Why you blow those things up is irrelevant to that fact. Likewise with terrorism.

Zombrex

Riddle101 wrote: »

Where were they looking? proberly at the RUC turning a blind eye and Loyalist attacks on Catholics. Or maybe the unemployment level oc Catholics because jobs were mostly given to Protestants.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. :rolleyes:

Riddle101 wrote: »

Yeah two men who were both killed for their protests. even they tried peaceful democratic means and they still came short of the barrel

Are you saying the IRA cared enough to kill for their cause but not to die for it? That would certainly explain their actions, as it is far easier to kill for a cause than to die for one.

Riddle101 wrote: »

Maybe because it's the only way people will listen.

No one listened to the IRA. As soon as they started terrorism, as soon as they started killing innocent people, they were instantly black listed by ever sympathetic group out there. And it took years the civil rights movement to recover and for people to start listening to them again.

Riddle101 wrote: »

You look at WW2 and where they not done with violence, do you think they could have settled Hitler invading Euorpe through peaceful means, i think they did and they saw that it had no affect on him what so ever.

Oh I'm sorry, was Hitler invading Northern Ireland ... I must have missed that :rolleyes:

The IRA would never and could never have made the British Army to do anything through physical force. The only way to make the British change anything was through either convincing them through non-violent resistance that the cause of the Catholics was just, or by terrorising them through terrorism to give the IRA what they wanted. The IRA took the second option and prolonged a civil rights movement for decades, simply because of the fact terrorism hardly ever actually works. People don't like being threaten. People don't like being dictated to by others willing to kill them. The history of Ireland is testimony to that fact, God knows why the IRA though they good do to the Unionists and the British what the British had failed to do to the Irish in 800 years, ie convince them to do what they wanted through threat of violence and murder.

Zombrex

Riddle101 wrote: »

Maybe but that wasn't my point. You seem to think that peaceful means can stop killing but these two tried it and they were both killed.

It is actually you missing the point.

Neither peaceful protest or violent protest can stop killing. The IRA didn't stop the killing of Catholics, they simply gave the Loyalists an excuse to kill even more Catholics.

What peaceful protest does that violent protest doesn't, is convince the general population that your cause is worthy. Civil Rights movements are ultimately about PR. You can either convince the population that your cause is just, or you can terrorize the population into giving you what you want. Of course what the latter does is simply act as confirmation that your group shouldn't have had the rights you seek in the first place.

In all civil rights movement the people seeking their rights lack the ability to get them without help from those who oppress them in the first place. It is a battle for hearts and minds. And as I said above people don't like being threatened. The IRA threatened the British in the aims of getting what they wanted. And the British resisted, as all people do, even at terrible cost. They lost the battle to actually convince the British that Catholic civil rights were justified in the first place, and as such prolonged the oppression of Catholics for decades.

Fratton Fred

Wicknight wrote: »

It is a battle for hearts and minds. And as I said above people don't like being threatened. The IRA threatened the British in the aims of getting what they wanted. And the British resisted, as all people do, even at terrible cost. They lost the battle to actually convince the British that Catholic civil rights were justified in the first place, and as such prolonged the oppression of Catholics for decades.

It also stole the headlines. When the people of Britain should have been reading about human rights violations, all they got was another bombing or another dead 18 year old soldier. The British media could then just portray the nationalist movement as scum and people looked no further.

Like it or not, pressure to resolve the issues in northern Ireland needed to come from England, because that is where the bulk of westminster votes come from. Win over the people of England and the politicians will soon do try and use it to grab votes. What happened was the people refused to give in to terrorism which, I believe, prolonged the troubles.

Liam Byrne

a popular view in nazi germany was that jews were sub-human. and because of apolitical view you call someone sub human??? ok if i was to say to you i was an IRA member, does that make me sub-human???

There's a MASSIVE difference....if someone viewed the Jews as sub-human for no reason, then it's wrong; if someone viewed them as sub-human because they supported killing innocent peolpe, then they'd probably be right.

And again, therein lies the problem; no-one should have issues with "who" someone is, or "what" they believe or support, as long as they don't target innocent people.

It's like having equal rights; as soon as you choose to impose on someone else's rights for no good reason, then you should lose yours.

And don't claim that "good reason" is "the cause" :rolleyes: or because it the people involved felt victimised; if they were, it was by the UK Government, and any action should have been directed towards them; NOT the innocent people that were maimed and murdered along the way..

As for "trying to give warnings" :rolleyes: isn't it ironic that they planned well enough to create the bombs, transport them, plant them and detonate them, covering all the problems that all that might entail, but their plans didn't cover making damn sure that no-one died by checking the phone boxes beforehand ? Give me a break !

Liam Byrne

was first a point in your argument that the majoirty of the Northern Ireland statelet wish to remain unified, and you show this with a study of 1200 people done by a UK backed agency??
'Can you provide evidence that they do first'

Do a Google search for "Good Friday Agreement". The majority have spoken.

And before you go on and on about how that's not acceptable, let me remind you that that is what democracy and freedom are all about, regardless of our own individual preferences. The majority spoke last summer and re-elected Bertie and FF and the PDs, which disgusted me, but I can either live with it or move country (which I was contemplating doing if SF were elected).

Nearly all of the time a warning was given, the place was evacuated and the device exploded without causing casualties.

So remind me, who warned Jerry McCabe that he was going to be murdered ?

Riddle101

No one listened to the IRA. As soon as they started terrorism, as soon as they started killing innocent people, they were instantly black listed by ever sympathetic group out there. And it took years the civil rights movement to recover and for people to start listening to them again.

No one listened to the IRA? It was the IRA he gain the publicity in N. Ireland. If they hadn't of taken up their campaings then the British Government would have still turned a blind eye to the Catholic or Nationalist majority.

Oh I'm sorry, was Hitler invading Northern Ireland ... I must have missed that :rolleyes:

Given the chance i'd say Hitler would have invaded Ireland once he won the war so that claim dosen't really make it any less different for N. Ireland.

The IRA would never and could never have made the British Army to do anything through physical force. The only way to make the British change anything was through either convincing them through non-violent resistance that the cause of the Catholics was just, or by terrorising them through terrorism to give the IRA what they wanted. The IRA took the second option and prolonged a civil rights movement for decades, simply because of the fact terrorism hardly ever actually works. People don't like being threaten. People don't like being dictated to by others willing to kill them. The history of Ireland is testimony to that fact, God knows why the IRA though they good do to the Unionists and the British what the British had failed to do to the Irish in 800 years, ie convince them to do what they wanted through threat of violence and murder.

Terrorism unfortunately is a military tactic whether you want to believe it or not so the fact that the British Government can judge the IRA for their action is completely hypocritical

It wasn't me!

What nationalist majority? I wasn't aware one existed.

Liam Byrne

dav32cs wrote: »

What justifiable reason can you give for stabbing, raping, or burning my house???
Do you actually think thorugh on your arguments?A little reasoning would help instead of taking a mile on peoples words.

Actually, yes, I do think things through with a lot of reasoning. Let's see.....I'm completely against almost everything you've posted so far; is that enough "justification" ???

Y'see, that's the problem....you can't possibly see what justification I might have for doing anything that I mentioned, and I can't possibly see what justification ANYONE would have for killing innocent people.

And for the record, there's a further difference, because (for once) you're right; there is no justification - even though I completely disagree with you and I reckon the world would be better off without IRA supporters - because unlike the IRA & Co, I don't go around bombing or burning or injuring people who don't agree with me.

You seem to have missed the point that I made on why this first line mindset IS the mindset of a lot of people unfortunatly

That is completely irrelevant. If a group of people in America still reckoned that it was OK to treat black people as slaves, does that make it acceptable ? Why they might think that [maybe because their parents had black slaves ?] doesn't make it acceptable.

...or are you trying to make this suit yourself??

Kettle, pot.

Rossibaby

ArthurF wrote: »

Questions for you Rossibaby .............

"Are the Provisional IRA Terrorists" ? "are the Real IRA Terrorists" ? "are the INLA Terrorists" ? "are the Continuity IRA Terrorists" ?

And if not ~ Why Not ?

no not in my opinion.but one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. first of all britain invaded our country,persecuted our country and they did that through arms.ireland didn't have the ability to engage in full scale warfare so guerilla warfare was the only option.

anyways the british governemnt has alot to answer for.in the days when you were a traitor to britain if you spoke to gerry adams...yet thatcher sought secret talks and didnt want to admit to these talks which would have proven what hypocritical fascists that government was:mad:the british government should have sat the ira down and listened,instead of branding them terrorists.the terrorists are the country who invaded us,killed innocent people all in the name of imperialism.

what would you have republicans do during the troubles...just give up and admit ireland will never be united??britain,israel,america - these are your terrorists...you reap what you sow and these countries facing ''terrorism'' is a reaction to their own doings

what about the british occupation denying irish people in the 6 civil rights..what about internment,they are your terrorists.it's ireland,our country and we have a right to defend it from invading forces

i dont agree with the killing of civilians of course not,but how come when the ira did it it was disgusting,but when the brits did it they are not terrorists?

LordSutch

Are the IRA/ Real IRA/ INLA/ Continuity IRA Terrorists?

Rossibaby wrote: »

no not in my opinion. but one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. i dont agree with the killing of civilians of course not, but how come when the ira did it it was disgusting, but when the brits did it they are not terrorists?

You seem like a confused person to me.

Zombrex

Riddle101 wrote: »

No one listened to the IRA? It was the IRA he gain the publicity in N. Ireland.

The civil rights movement had publicity in Britain, Ireland and around the world, and had gained sympathy in England (until the IRA of course).

The IRA certain "gained publicity," but for all the wrong reasons, and that certainly doesn't mean anyone was listening to them. As a general rule no one listens to terrorism, lest it be seen to encourage more terrorism. And because people don't like being threatened with death if they don't do what you want.

Riddle101 wrote: »

If they hadn't of taken up their campaings then the British Government would have still turned a blind eye to the Catholic or Nationalist majority.

Not they wouldn't, because the British Government is ultimately answerable to the British people, and in England sympathy had been gained for the Catholic civil rights movement. This is exactly how civil rights movements in the USA and India and other places gained their rights. Of course sympathy vanished once the IRA started killing people, and it took decades for the issue to eventually get back to the unfair way Catholics in N.I were treated by the local governments and the RUC.

Riddle101 wrote: »

Terrorism unfortunately is a military tactic whether you want to believe it or not

I seem to remember saying about 20 times already that terrorism is a military tactic, so I have no idea why you feel you need to tell me this.

The fact of the matter is that it is a very very ineffective military tactic, one that almost never works. It is also highly immoral.

Riddle101 wrote: »

so the fact that the British Government can judge the IRA for their action is completely hypocritical

"Judge the IRA"?

What are you talking about

Terrorism only works if the people you are terrorizing give in and give you what you want in return for you stop threatening random violence against them. The reason terrorism as a tactic hardly ever works because people tend to not give in when threatened. The Irish certainly didn't. People resist. The British resisted the IRA. They would have always resisted the IRA. It was never going to work.

Zombrex

Rossibaby wrote: »

ireland didn't have the ability to engage in full scale warfare so guerilla warfare was the only option.

And if the IRA were not terrorists and didn't use terrorism how exactly where they going to make the British leave? :rolleyes:

Rossibaby wrote: »

anyways the british governemnt has alot to answer for.

Why does the "But miss all the other boys were doing it" excuse always come up on these threads.

This thread is about the IRA. The IRA have a lot to answer for. Lets discuss that shall we.

Rossibaby wrote: »

the british government should have sat the ira down and listened,instead of branding them terrorists.

The IRA were trying to kill them. The IRA tried on a number of occasions (some successful) to murder the British government and the British Royal Family (the official heads of states). Would you sit down with someone who wanted and was trying, to kill you?

People don't respond well to threats.

That is a simply part of human nature. If you threaten that you will kill someone, or kill their family or co-workers or just other members of their group, unless you do what you are told, well people don't like that, for some strange reason.

Rossibaby wrote: »

the terrorists are the country who invaded us,killed innocent people all in the name of imperialism.

So it is ok to kill innocent people so long as it isn't in the name of imperialism :rolleyes:

Rossibaby wrote: »

what would you have republicans do during the troubles...just give up and admit ireland will never be united??

What the Republicans should have done during the troubles was demonstrate through non-violent protest, to the English that they should have their civil rights. They should have put the English in the position where it would be impossible for any moral person to argue against the Catholics having civil rights. They should have taken the high ground so only the Unionists and the Government were left looking immoral and evil.

Instead what the IRA did was tell them if you don't give us what we want we will kill you or your fellow country men.

Rossibaby wrote: »

what about the british occupation denying irish people in the 6 civil rights..what about internment,they are your terrorists.it's ireland,our country and we have a right to defend it from invading forces

And ...? So it was ok then for the IRA to kill children?

Why is it wrong for the British to kill children but ok for the IRA to kill children?

Terrorism is not determined by the side you are on. It doesn't suddenly become moral just because you do it :rolleyes:

Rossibaby wrote: »

i dont agree with the killing of civilians of course not ,but how come when the ira did it it was disgusting,but when the brits did it they are not terrorists?

First of all terrorism is a specific military tactic. While the British Army probably used terrorism as a military tactic occasionally, most of the time they didn't, not for any moral reason but simply because its a pretty ineffective tactic that is slow and most of the time doesn't work. Large armies don't need to use terrorism, they have the tanks and bombs and guns to bring about change through direct force.

You seem to be using "terrorism" as a catch all for "immoral military action" ... which is a bit silly because there are plenty of immoral military actions that have nothing to do with terrorism, such as cluster bombing, or the dropping of mines in civilian areas, or in the case of Ireland, invasions, military executions without trials etc etc.

So if you replace "terrorism" with simply "immoral miiltary action" (which is what I assume you actually mean) they only person saying it is only disgusting when the IRA do it t is you Rossibaby, because you are saying that if the IRA do it then it isn't "terrorism".

If the IRA are not acting immorally then the British aren't acting immorally either. You can't have it both ways, you can't say the British are monsters because they kill civilians but the IRA aren't when they kill civilians. That is nonsense.

duggie-89

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who has he insulted?

Me

It wasn't me!

By saying members of the IRA are sub-human scum? Would that be a confession to membership of a proscribed organisation?

oscarBravo

duggie-89 wrote: »

Me

Are you a member of the Irish Republican Army?

BostonFenian

This topic confuses me. Are people here really saying they can't understand how a reasonable person would view England's presence in Ireland itself as an act of aggression?

If someone came to your farm, and took a fifth of it away from you, would you be unjustified in being miffed?

Or better yet, if they took that portion of your farm, planted a bunch of people on it, selected only six of the nine counties they really wanted so they could gerrymander a majority, and then accused you of being somehow undemocratic for wanting it back.

Odd..

With regards to the original topic, it's clear that violence has no place in the process, at this point.

It wasn't me!

As of 1920 the north was given the authority to govern itself as an entity within the commonwealth. It's up to the people of northern Ireland, effectively a nation unto themselves, much like, say, Australia, to choose to secede from the union. Hitherto, they have not exercised that right, so why should the IRA have the right to murder and terrorise in an effort to bully them into doing so? By all means, campaign to form a new country, one that has never existed in the history of mankind as a whole and independent state, but do so peacefully, and don't attempt to coerce the smaller of the countries into accepting rule from a parliament the majority of them don't want to be ruled from as of now. That's just micro-imperialism.

oscarBravo

BostonFenian wrote: »

If someone came to your farm, and took a fifth of it away from you, would you be unjustified in being miffed?

If someone's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather had taken a fifth of my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's farm, I wouldn't feel justified in murdering children in an attempt to reclaim that part of my farm, no.

BostonFenian wrote: »

With regards to the original topic, it's clear that violence has no place in the process, at this point.

Violence has no place in the process at this point, nor has it ever had a place in it, nor will it ever have a place. Violence is the first refuge of the Neanderthal who hasn't the intelligence to pursue a non-violent approach.

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

As of 1920 the north was given the authority to govern itself as an entity within the commonwealth. It's up to the people of northern Ireland, effectively a nation unto themselves, much like, say, Australia, to choose to secede from the union. Hitherto, they have not exercised that right, so why should the IRA have the right to murder and terrorise in an effort to bully them into doing so? By all means, campaign to form a new country, one that has never existed in the history of mankind as a whole and independent state, but do so peacefully, and don't attempt to coerce the smaller of the countries into accepting rule from a parliament the majority of them don't want to be ruled from as of now. That's just micro-imperialism.

Ireland was as much of a united country as most of the european states where at the time of, say the Norman invasion. Are you going to argue that Greece was not a country at say, the time of the Persian war? Because of the long history of violence, Ireland was essentially denied the opportunity to develop properly.

This insistence that Ireland was never a united country seems to miss the whole point.

BostonFenian

oscarBravo wrote: »

If someone's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather had taken a fifth of my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's farm, I wouldn't feel justified in murdering children in an attempt to reclaim that part of my farm, no. Violence has no place in the process at this point, nor has it ever had a place in it, nor will it ever have a place. Violence is the first refuge of the Neanderthal who hasn't the intelligence to pursue a non-violent approach.

You're essentially saying We stole this fair and square, and even though you've been consistently trying to get it back, and even though we used all sorts of barbaric methods to take and maintain it, the statute of limitations has run out, and you'd have to be a raving lunatic to want it back?

Why should a group of people ever stop trying to regain a piece of themselves that was taken, just because a long time has passed? With the exception of the language in the GFA, the claim that Ulster is part of Ireland was consistently maintained since it was planted.

It wasn't me!

BostonFenian wrote: »

Ireland was as much of a united country as most of the european states where at the time of, say the Norman invasion.

That is to say, not at all.

Are you going to argue that Greece was not a country at say, the time of the Persian war? Because of the long history of violence, Ireland was essentially denied the opportunity to develop properly.

I don't think so. I think Ireland's current state is as a result of 1916. With the Home Rule Bill on the books, in law, waiting to be enacted, people jumped the gun and went batshít, discrediting the whole peaceful process, antagonising the Ulster Unionists and resulting in the partition of the island in 1920, as well as the scrapping of the legislation that formed the obvious stepping stone to complete independence for the whole country.

This insistence that Ireland was never a united country seems to miss the whole point.

It missed the chance to be a united country because the Volunteers decided to take a cheap and ineffective shot on the government, without a mandate from the people, and the subsequent Collins-led IRA campaign just got the hackles of the British government up.

What was wrong with the Home Rule Bill? Did we have to throw the toys out of the pram because we might be waiting a few extra years to see complete independence? Bear in mind we were in no way completely independent as of 1922 either. So what was the damn point in stirring up a perfectly good process?

Riddle101

Wichknight i really don't get what you are on about, for some reason you seem to be talking in random circles. No offence.

But first you claim the IRA terrorists and you speak of how it is a bad thing which is ok because terrorism is a bad thing, but then when someone talks about the British or the US as being terrorists you claim it's a military tactic, and then you say something like the British Government has nothing to do with this topic even though it's making a point of why the IRA are terrorist scum but the British are simply not branded as anything. I ask you, do you believe the British Government as being a terrorist scum or not? That's all i'm asking

By the way. You speak a lot about peaceful means but unfortunately the world works a lot differently. I'd like nothing more then seeing peace but we have to look around us, violence is part of politics and as long as people believe in their cause violence will alway over shadow politics. Whether it be USA fighting terrorism, IRA fighting occupation or Dictators trying to stay in power.

It wasn't me!

BostonFenian wrote: »

you'd have to be a raving lunatic to want it back?

With modern Ireland's economic power, our government really would have to be barking mad to want to have to spray money at the north just to keep it from devolving into some cess pit.

BostonFenian

Riddle101 wrote: »

Wichknight i really don't get what you are on about, for some reason you seem to be talking in random circles. No offence.

But first you claim the IRA terrorists and you speak of how it is a bad thing which is ok because terrorism is a bad thing, but then when someone talks about the British or the US as being terrorists you claim it's a military tactic, and then you say something like the British Government has nothing to do with this topic even though it's making a point of why the IRA are terrorist scum but the British are simply not branded as anything. I ask you, do you believe the British Government as being a terrorist scum or not? That's all i'm asking

By the way. You speak a lot about peaceful means but unfortunately the world works a lot differently. I'd like nothing more then seeing peace but we have to look around us, violence is part of politics and as long as people believe in their cause violence will alway over shadow politics. Whether it be USA fighting terrorism, IRA fighting occupation or Dictators trying to stay in power.

Hear, hear.

Terrorism is not an adequitely defined term, despite some posters' opinions. Terrorism certainly was manifested by say the tans.. If indiscriminate killing of civilians to achieve a political end is terrorism, could one not argue that Shock and Awe prelude to the American Iraq war is not terrorism?

Perhaps the famine could be considered a form of terrorism, . It does seem it was used as a tool, since the food was actually abundant.

Regardless, even if you can't call it terrorism, can you honestly say that war crimes are substantially different in moral flavor?

It wasn't me!

Riddle101 wrote: »

Wichknight i really don't get what you are on about, for some reason you seem to be talking in random circles. No offence.

But first you claim the IRA terrorists and you speak of how it is a bad thing which is ok because terrorism is a bad thing, but then when someone talks about the British or the US as being terrorists you claim it's a military tactic, and then you say something like the British Government has nothing to do with this topic even though it's making a point of why the IRA are terrorist scum but the British are simply not branded as anything. I ask you, do you believe the British Government as being a terrorist scum or not? That's all i'm asking

By the way. You speak a lot about peaceful means but unfortunately the world works a lot differently. I'd like nothing more then seeing peace but we have to look around us, violence is part of politics and as long as people believe in their cause violence will alway over shadow politics. Whether it be USA fighting terrorism, IRA fighting occupation or Dictators trying to stay in power.

Terrorism is a military tactic, but no, the British army don't use it, because they don't need to. Sheer force of numbers and military might do the job nicely for them.

Violence does not overshadow politics, to say otherwise is to throw society into the stone age, and is a bloody childish opinion. Can't get what you want from someone? Shoot them. That fair enough? Can't get the IRA to sit down and shut up? Kill them all, on sight, but that wouldn't be fair, would it? You'd want due process, in some kind of societal structure, for your IRA thugs. When the IRA start prosecuting those they attack, individually, then perhaps they'll have some moral clout (not bloody likely, but hey, it's a start). Until then, frankly, I'd love to see the SAS take anyone convicted of IRA membership, or UVF involvement, or any other scummy, murdering terrorist sect, and hang them. Wouldn't even waste the cost of the rounds to shoot them.

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

With modern Ireland's economic power, our government really would have to be barking mad to want to have to spray money at the north just to keep it from devolving into some cess pit.

Not everything is about money. There are Irish there who were left in the cold because of partition. My great grandfather had to flee Cavan because he couldn't stomach the notion of stopping the fight while cousins of his were left to the tender mercies of a British NI. He was essentially given 30 days to get out, and fled to NY with his 7 month pregnant wife.

BostonFenian

It wasn't me! wrote: »

That is to say, not at all.



I don't think so. I think Ireland's current state is as a result of 1916. With the Home Rule Bill on the books, in law, waiting to be enacted, people jumped the gun and went batshít, discrediting the whole peaceful process, antagonising the Ulster Unionists and resulting in the partition of the island in 1920, as well as the scrapping of the legislation that formed the obvious stepping stone to complete independence for the whole country.



It missed the chance to be a united country because the Volunteers decided to take a cheap and ineffective shot on the government, without a mandate from the people, and the subsequent Collins-led IRA campaign just got the hackles of the British government up.

What was wrong with the Home Rule Bill? Did we have to throw the toys out of the pram because we might be waiting a few extra years to see complete independence? Bear in mind we were in no way completely independent as of 1922 either. So what was the damn point in stirring up a perfectly good process?

I think reasonable people can disagree about the strategies followed in that era. Collins certainly intended to take what he could get and push for more later. It's too bad that he was killed, because I'm sure he wouldn't have let the North go without a fight.

It's too bad that by the time Dev came around to it that so much damage had already been done.

RTE has a great special on what if Collins had survived the civil war, and I think it's excellent.

It's too bad that Dev couldn't, or didn't want to see Collins' strategy.

It's ironic that (in my opinion) Ireland would probably have everythign it wanted, if it had been as devious in its dealings with the Brits as they were towards the Irish.

I really wish there could be a redo on the Limerick treaty.. wonder how things would be now.