Is there a differance between the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA?

tdv123

SoulandForm wrote: »

Uh Kingsmills? And you could argue the Shankhill fish shop (yes I know that it was used by the UDA), and you could also argue a good few other instances...Over all their campaign wasnt sectarian BUT its wasnt exactly immaculately not either.

Kingsmill was carried out by a group of independent republicans using the name 'Republican Action Force', it certainly wasn't sanctioned by the Army council.

I guess some of it might look sectarian because most of the security forces they killed were Protestants but that's only because there was hardly any Catholics working for the security forces. They certainly weren't attacked because of their religion.

As disgusting as some of their campaign was I'd find it very hard to call it a sectarian campaign unlike the UVF or UFF who seemed to be proud of being sectarian.

SoulandForm

tdv123 wrote: »

Kingsmill was carried out by a group of independent republicans using the name 'Republican Action Force', it certainly wasn't sanctioned by the Army council.

I guess some of it might look sectarian because most of the security forces they killed were Protestants but that's only because there was hardly any Catholics working for the security forces. They certainly weren't attacked because of their religion.

Just to be clear I dont buy into the argument about the killings of UDR or RUC as being sectarian.

The guns used at Kingsmill were PIRA guns- we know that now. The Provisionals should come clean about that war crime as hardly anyone outside of their movement buys the story.

Brendan Hughes in his autobiography is very honest about just how sectarian things got in Belfast in the mid-1970s. Why was Billy Mc Kay stood down by the PIRA?

Im not labeling the PIRA's campaign as a whole sectarian- however there was a sectarian element.

SoulandForm

tdv123 wrote: »

As disgusting as some of their campaign was I'd find it very hard to call it a sectarian campaign unlike the UVF or UFF who seemed to be proud of being sectarian.

Im not comparing the PIRA to the UVF or UDA. They were completely different to them in essence.

tdv123

SoulandForm wrote: »

Just to be clear I dont buy into the argument about the killings of UDR or RUC as being sectarian.

The guns used at Kingsmill were PIRA guns- we know that now. The Provisionals should come clean about that war crime as hardly anyone outside of their movement buys the story.

Brendan Hughes in his autobiography is very honest about just how sectarian things got in Belfast in the mid-1970s. Why was Billy Mc Kay stood down by the PIRA?

Im not labeling the PIRA's campaign as a whole sectarian- however there was a sectarian element.

Oh I know they were Provo's or ex-Provo's who carried it out alright but I meant the organization wasn't a sectarian one. One or two members who were in the ranks might have been but that couldn't class the whole organization as sectarian because of a few members who acted without permission.

For example the members of the British Army who carried out Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy & the Springhill massacre I'm guessing either had a thing against Catholics or Irish people but that couldn't make the British Army a racist or sectarian organization if you see what I mean.

tdv123

SoulandForm wrote: »

Im not comparing the PIRA to the UVF or UDA. They were completely different to them in essence.

I know I'm just using the Loyalists ones for a example of what an actual sectarian organization looked like.

goldie fish

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Ah, attack someone for being a 'sexual pervert" not a murderer, interesting thinking there

Like Gerry Adams brother? Though he is possibly both.

SoulandForm

tdv123 wrote: »

Oh I know they were Provo's or ex-Provo's who carried it out alright but I meant the organization wasn't a sectarian one. One or two members who were in the ranks might have been but that couldn't class the whole organization as sectarian because of a few members who acted without permission.

For example the members of the British Army who carried out Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy & the Springhill massacre I'm guessing either had a thing against Catholics or Irish people but that couldn't make the British Army a racist or sectarian organization if you see what I mean.

The British Army as an organization was fundamentally if not sectarian than racist (though are Ulster Catholics a different race to Ulster Protestants?) and the present British Prime Minister has more or less admitted that when he said that 70 per cent of the UDA/UFF's intelligence came from within state forces- of course they crap at killing actual Provos so the question has to be asked why was information kept being fed them if they werent using it? The answer could well be that terrorizing populations sympathetic to insurgents to break the insurgents will was a British policy in colonial wars (interestingly enough a lot of the first generation of the UVF were veterans of those wars).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/122560071/COUNTER-GANGS-A-history-of-undercover-military-units-in-Northern-Ireland-1971-1976

However while overall I wouldnt call the PIRA sectarian they came out of a very sectarian society and it would be foolish to believe that all their volunteers were idealistic miny Wolfe Tones. Particularly in the early years of the conflict they were very indiscriminate about who they recruited.

tdv123

SoulandForm wrote: »

The British Army as an organization was fundamentally if not sectarian than racist (though are Ulster Catholics a different race to Ulster Protestants?) and the present British Prime Minister has more or less admitted that when he said that 70 per cent of the UDA/UFF's intelligence came from within state forces- of course they crap at killing actual Provos so the question has to be asked why was information kept being fed them if they werent using it? The answer could well be that terrorizing populations sympathetic to insurgents to break the insurgents will was a British policy in colonial wars (interestingly enough a lot of the first generation of the UVF were veterans of those wars).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/122560071/COUNTER-GANGS-A-history-of-undercover-military-units-in-Northern-Ireland-1971-1976

However while overall I wouldnt call the PIRA sectarian they came out of a very sectarian society and it would be foolish to believe that all their volunteers were idealistic miny Wolfe Tones. Particularly in the early years of the conflict they were very indiscriminate about who they recruited.

Yeah there some good interesting points about the Brits. If it was there policy to terrorize the nationalist community to undermine support it didn't seem to work very well as the IRA attacks increased year by year from the late 80's until the 94 ceasefire. In all honesty the Provos gave them a good hiding on the battle fields.

That's true also people who joined the Provos were motivated by a very different set of circumstances then the men of 1916 or the 1920's who didn't live in a sectarian divided state unlike the Northerners.

Banjo String

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Well, birds of a feather and all that.

Callaghan was a man who killed on cold blood for the IRA,

Agreed.

Howard Juneau wrote: »

he was a hungerstriker & held up as a hero.

He was?
I presume you half arsedly researched the man you're holding up in such high esteem?

When/where/for what cause did he 'hungerstrike'

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Now, he's a traitor, a turncoat, a 'sexual pervert....

I would throw mentally unstable in there too possibly.

Howard Juneau wrote: »

I'm wondering, does the IRA attract that unstable mindset or is it being in the IRA that affects you so?

Wait. I'm in the IRA now too

you're certainly coming across as an unbiased, well researched poster Howard.

maccored

tdv123 wrote: »

That IRA had the backing of the majority of the people of island. Just because a organization uses the same name as another does not make them the same.

Thats new history that is. I suppose you'll be telling me the rising had vast public support too. I hate this rose tinted boll0cks about how the 'old' IRA were really nice and friendly and never hurt anyone, but the 'new' IRA are all nasty terrorists. Absolute fairytales. Its like Liam Lynch or Tom Barry never existed.

riffmongous

Godge wrote: »

That is fantasy stuff. NI is not going to become part of Ireland this century and certainly not because of anything either of those terrorist organisations do so my point about minor political differences being immaterial still stands.

That's a pretty simplistic viewpoint

Iwasfrozen

Godge wrote: »

That is fantasy stuff.

Godge wrote: »

NI is not going to become part of Ireland this century and certainly not because of anything either of those terrorist organisations do so my point about minor political differences being immaterial still stands.

So simplistic. So naive. I love it. You keep dreaming pal. Don't let anyone tell you it's not possible!

Elmer Blooker

SoulandForm wrote: »

Just to be clear I dont buy into the argument about the killings of UDR or RUC as being sectarian.

The guns used at Kingsmill were PIRA guns- we know that now. The Provisionals should come clean about that war crime as hardly anyone outside of their movement buys the story.

Apparently the Republican Action Force was just a cover for the Provisional IRA so yes, the Provos were behind Kingsmill. But the reality was the Provos were under pressure to protect the Catholic population (like in Belfast in 1969) in an area that was known as the "murder triangle" where UDA/UDR/RUC gangs were operating with impunity.
This is a very chilling read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenanne_gang

first doyle

Godge wrote: »

That is not a huge difference.

It would be more correct to say that they are both terrorist organisations who support killing and murder to oppress the vast majority view on this island and that any political differences are minor in the context of their illegitimate purpose.

Political mandates in Ireland pretty much went out the window once Britain gave the UVF terror group what they wanted against the wishes of the vast majority of Irish people.

Anybody in Ireland can have a political mandate once they have enough fire power to back it up. That's Britains remaining legacy in Ireland.

Fratton Fred

first doyle wrote: »

Anybody in Ireland can have a political mandate once they have enough fire power to back it up. That's Britains remaining legacy in Ireland.

That's just an excuse for terrorism tbh. It has nothing to do with British legacy, more an Unwillingness by certain political elements that the vast majority of people do not want them or their methods.

Manassas61

tdv123 wrote: »

Yes actually. It's just the shinners strategy to recognize it until the ultimate goal is met.

No one is interested. That is the reality of the situation. The majority of people don't care for a United Ireland.

tdv123

maccored wrote: »

Thats new history that is. I suppose you'll be telling me the rising had vast public support too. I hate this rose tinted boll0cks about how the 'old' IRA were really nice and friendly and never hurt anyone, but the 'new' IRA are all nasty terrorists. Absolute fairytales. Its like Liam Lynch or Tom Barry never existed.

Yep it's a load of bollox that's why nearly all the elected Irish MP's of the time were in it or something to do with it in some shape or form. I hear that Collins fella was fairly hated around Dublin, there would be mobs in there 1000's going around each night looking to burn him at the stake.

If you look my previous posts in here you'll see I was very fair to the new lads (imo) & did not think the old boyos were nice & friendly so stop reading things that are not there.

SoulandForm

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Apparently the Republican Action Force was just a cover for the Provisional IRA so yes, the Provos were behind Kingsmill. But the reality was the Provos were under pressure to protect the Catholic population (like in Belfast in 1969) in an area that was known as the "murder triangle" where UDA/UDR/RUC gangs were operating with impunity.
This is a very chilling read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenanne_gang

Wasnt the Glenanne gang UVF and linked to a particular UDR unit? An SDLP MP named the the key figures in Westminster I believe (they included if memory serves me correctly two of Willie Frazer's relatives) all of whom ended up dead. The massacre took place in 1976 when it was clear that there would be no British withdrawal in the short term. "Hitting back" indiscriminately in that manner was only going to increase support for the Loyalists and harden the fortress mentality.

maccored

tdv123 wrote: »

Yep it's a load of bollox

Good to see you agree.

If you look my previous posts in here you'll see I was very fair to the new lads (imo) & did not think the old boyos were nice & friendly so stop reading things that are not there.

You;d be surprised how many try to sell that line, in that they were nice and loverly in comparison. Still though, they were as loved and as supported as the provos ever were so the idea they were accepted better is an untruth.

SoulandForm

Banjo String wrote: »

Agreed.

I could be wrong here but has anybody from the Provisionals confirmed that he carried out any actual killings when he was the PIRA? A lot of his story doesnt make much sense- for instance if he was as leftist as he said he was why did he not stick with the Officials?

SoulandForm

tdv123 wrote: »

Yeah there some good interesting points about the Brits. If it was there policy to terrorize the nationalist community to undermine support it didn't seem to work very well as the IRA attacks increased year by year from the late 80's until the 94 ceasefire. In all honesty the Provos gave them a good hiding on the battle fields.

That's true also people who joined the Provos were motivated by a very different set of circumstances then the men of 1916 or the 1920's who didn't live in a sectarian divided state unlike the Northerners.

Up to a point-by the mid to late 1970s the Provisionals seemed to be on their way out. It was the UK governments viciousness in the prisons and the hunger strikes which arose it that put a lot of new wind into the sails of the armed campaign. Part of me believes that the UK government deliberately kept the troubles once they had the violence relatively contained in order to give themselves a theatre to study urban warfare in the context of the cold war.

tdv123

Manassas61 wrote: »

No one is interested. That is the reality of the situation. The majority of people don't care for a United Ireland.

Popularity for it ebbs & flows, once Celtic Tiger 2.0 hits the 26 counties they'll be cuing up the Fermanagh & Armagh borders to get in.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

No one is interested. That is the reality of the situation. The majority of people don't care for a United Ireland.

Than why do all the parties in south outside of the Socialist Party have as their stated policy the ending of partition? Im sure if people thought that a united Ireland could be achieved in a few years by violence than the CIRA and RIRA would have much greater support than they do.

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

Than why do all the parties in south outside of the Socialist Party have as their stated policy the ending of partition? Im sure if people thought that a united Ireland could be achieved in a few years by violence than the CIRA and RIRA would have much greater support than they do.

Its just something they are meant to say. Not that they really want it.

tdv123

maccored wrote: »

Good to see you agree.



You;d be surprised how many try to sell that line, in that they were nice and loverly in comparison. Still though, they were as loved and as supported as the provos ever were so the idea they were accepted better is an untruth.

When I say support I don't mean support for actually going around killing people. Support for the objectives, I don't think much people on the island cared much for a Socialist Republic in the 80's or 90's, whereas in the 20's if the polls are anything go by there was a lot of support for what they were trying achieve.

Obviously the Provisionals had very good support in there own communities or they wouldn't have been able to run a war for 30 years, but I don't think that's reflective of the whole island.

tdv123

SoulandForm wrote: »

Up to a point-by the mid to late 1970s the Provisionals seemed to be on their way out. It was the UK governments viciousness in the prisons and the hunger strikes which arose it that put a lot of new wind into the sails of the armed campaign. Part of me believes that the UK government deliberately kept the troubles once they had the violence relatively contained in order to give themselves a theatre to study urban warfare in the context of the cold war.

Oh I'd agree with that, the 75 ceasefire nearly destroyed them. The mid 80's to the ceasefire period was when they were at their most effective. Even with the setback of Loughgall they were destroying barracks left, right & center, downed 5 or 6 choppers & effectively made South Armagh a no-go area.

FTA69

tdv123 wrote: »

Oh I'd agree with that, the 75 ceasefire nearly destroyed them. The mid 80's to the ceasefire period was when they were at their most effective. Even with the setback of Loughgall they were destroying barracks left, right & center, downed 5 or 6 choppers & effectively made South Armagh a no-go area.

The IRA campaign had begun to stagnate by the late 1980s; while the organisation was more technologically capable they were unable to make enough gains to raise the intensity of the war to the level needed in order to make the British public call for withdrawal. They had a spike in activity after the Libyan weapons arrived but couldn't sustain this for longer than a year. The organisation was getting squeezed by a co-ordinated approach from the Brits that saw IRA activity largely being contained in many areas. They had an over-reliance on South Armagh which saw them entirely dependent on that area to launch operations in England. They were unable to down helicopters due to a lack of effective SAM equipment.

I don't know where you got the figure of "6 choppers downed", as far as I'm aware the only one they ever managed to shoot-down was a fluke shot from an automated mortar clipping a rising helicopter during an attack on a barracks. They may have forced the odd landing with heavy-machine guns but that isn't the same to be honest.

tdv123

FTA69 wrote: »

The IRA campaign had begun to stagnate by the late 1980s; while the organisation was more technologically capable they were unable to make enough gains to raise the intensity of the war to the level needed in order to make the British public call for withdrawal. They had a spike in activity after the Libyan weapons arrived but couldn't sustain this for longer than a year. The organisation was getting squeezed by a co-ordinated approach from the Brits that saw IRA activity largely being contained in many areas. They had an over-reliance on South Armagh which saw them entirely dependent on that area to launch operations in England. They were unable to down helicopters due to a lack of effective SAM equipment.

I don't know where you got the figure of "6 choppers downed", as far as I'm aware the only one they ever managed to shoot-down was a fluke shot from an automated mortar clipping a rising helicopter during an attack on a barracks. They may have forced the odd landing with heavy-machine guns but that isn't the same to be honest.

The Brits were tightening the net around them alright but provo attacks on security forces was increasing on a yearly basis from the late 80's until 94. Almost 300 attacks were carried out on security forces in 87, it was just under 400 in 1990 & 426 in 1992. So they could have kept up the campaign with pretty high intensity for atleast the foreseeable future had the ceasefire not been called.

Well British didn't really seem to care if it was mortars or gunfire that brought them down a lost chopper was a lost chopper to them. There's 3 that were forced down by the PIRA , there's reference to a second one being shot down in 94 making 4 in total & I can't find a link to it but I'm positive there was another downed by the East Tyrone brigade in 88.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_British_Army_Lynx_shootdown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_British_Army_Gazelle_shootdown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_British_Army_Gazelle_downing

FTA69

There's 3 that were forced down by the PIRA , there's reference to a second one being shot down in 94 making 4 in total & I can't find a link to it but I'm positive there was another downed by the East Tyrone brigade in 88.

Yeah, a few forced to make an emergency landing due to the DHsK machine guns they had. As I said above, the only time they properly managed to shoot one down was as a result of a fluke from a mortar shot.

The amount of British Army casualties they were inflicting was dropping steadily and to be honest, while they could have maintained some sort of an armed campaign indefinitely; it certainly wasn't going anywhere.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

Its just something they are meant to say. Not that they really want it.

Like how the British pretend the north is integral to the UK? The difference being that when the lads in the corridors of power in London get the chance to pull that thorn from their side they'll make it happen.

tdv123

FTA69 wrote: »

Yeah, a few forced to make an emergency landing due to the DHsK machine guns they had. As I said above, the only time they properly managed to shoot one down was as a result of a fluke from a mortar shot.

The amount of British Army casualties they were inflicting was dropping steadily and to be honest, while they could have maintained some sort of an armed campaign indefinitely; it certainly wasn't going anywhere.

Yes, but the point is they would have been blows to British moral & huge propaganda boosts for Republicans.

Right but the campaign was never going to go anywhere at any stage was it? It's not like they came close at any point in the 30 years to forcing the British to withdrawal from the North.

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Like how the British pretend the north is integral to the UK? The difference being that when the lads in the corridors of power in London get the chance to pull that thorn from their side they'll make it happen.

Northern Ireland is a Constitutional part of the United Kingdom. They have no choice but to subsidize it and are signed up to the Good Friday Agreement. The Union is at an all time record high in terms of support in Northern Ireland.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

Northern Ireland is a Constitutional part of the United Kingdom.

Nothing is set in stone. Whether you like it or not the north is alien to British people. I'd say the vast majority of ordinary British folk are bewildered by the antics of belligerent fleggers and bellicose Unionists.

The Union is at an all time record high in terms of support in Northern Ireland.

In the current climate people are content with the status quo. Don't mistake self-interest for some sort of emotional attachment to the concept of the UK on the part of Nationalists.

Manassas61

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Nothing is set in stone. Whether you like it or not the north is alien to British people. I'd say the vast majority of ordinary British folk are bewildered by the antics of belligerent fleggers and bellicose Unionists.



In the current climate people are content with the status quo. Don't mistake self-interest for some sort of emotional attachment to the concept of the UK on the part of Nationalists.

The Union will remain unless the people say otherwise. As it currently is and looks like it to be long into the future, there is nothing to say it will change. What people in the main land think is irrelevant.

Karl Stein

Manassas61 wrote: »

What people in the main land think is irrelevant.

How naive. He who pays the piper calls the tune. If there's one thing truly predictable about the future it's that it's impossible to predict.

main land

Continental Europe is the mainland for the majority of people on this island.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

The Union will remain unless the people say otherwise. As it currently is and looks like it to be long into the future, there is nothing to say it will change. What people in the main land think is irrelevant.

It really isnt at all (how could it be given they make up the bulk of the population under the UK state?????) but that comment in itself throws your Unionism into a pretty nasty light as it suggests that it comes from hatred of the rest of the Irish people rather any particular love for the English, Scots and Welsh.

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

It really isnt at all (how could it be given they make up the bulk of the population under the UK state?????) but that comment in itself throws your Unionism into a pretty nasty light as it suggests that it comes from hatred of the rest of the Irish people rather any particular love for the English, Scots and Welsh.

The English people would not get a vote if any referendum happens on a Untied Ireland. So what they think is irrelevant. My support is for Ulster, not England or Scotland or Wales.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

The English people would not get a vote if any referendum happens on a Untied Ireland. So what they think is irrelevant. My support is for Ulster, not England or Scotland or Wales.

You mean your support is for Protestant Ulster?

Manassas61

SoulandForm wrote: »

You mean your support is for Protestant Ulster?

No. For the majority of Ulster to stay within the Union, regardless of faith. I don't care for that.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

No. For the majority of Ulster to stay within the Union, regardless of faith. I don't care for that.

So you are for the Catholics who support the Union because they see more hope in the UK finally dealing with "Orange culture" than they do the Free State and indeed fear the Free State if unification comes allowing "Orange culture" to walk all over them? You are for those Catholics?

The majority of Ulster votes for anti-partition parties by the way.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

No. For the majority of Ulster to stay within the Union, regardless of faith. I don't care for that.

By Protestant in this case I mean the word as atheists like Junder use it to describe themselves, or the Protestant Coalition use it- nothing necessarily to do with theology but a lot to do with supporting Rangers and wearing funny hats.

tdv123

Manassas61 wrote: »

No. For the majority of Ulster to stay within the Union, regardless of faith. I don't care for that.

But the majority of counties in Ulster don't want to be in the Union.

jeffery lebowski

The idea being put forward here that the IRA campaigns of the past (or present) were non sectarian are laughable. The IRA has always seen Protestants as the enemy as they did not conform to their tunnel vision view of Irishness.

This led to the targetin of Protestants in the 1920's in west Cork and other places, The deliberate targeting of sons of Protestant farmers along the border during the troubles, Kingsmill Massacare and the Enniskillen Poppy Day bombing.

The modern day 'Republicans' are as closely related to Tone and Orr as a Dog is to a chair. This sectarian undercurrent to republicanism was creeping, but definiate and is the reason why the Presbyterian people of the North eventually decided to side with the Unionist argument and jettison their republican ideals.

Manassas61

tdv123 wrote: »

But the majority of counties in Ulster don't want to be in the Union.

I said majority of Ulster (ie counties) The Union has a majority support in Northern Ireland.

So you are for the Catholics who support the Union because they see more hope in the UK finally dealing with "Orange culture" than they do the Free State and indeed fear the Free State if unification comes allowing "Orange culture" to walk all over them? You are for those Catholics?

Catholic Unionists couldn't care less about the Orange Order. There is many parts of a society than just one culture you know.

claypigeon777

tdv123 wrote: »

But the majority of counties in Ulster don't want to be in the Union.

Truth be told the majority of the 26 counties do not want the six counties to be in the Republic.

The only solution is an independent Northern Ireland.

riffmongous

claypigeon777 wrote: »

Truth be told the majority of the 26 counties do not want the six counties to be in the Republic.

The only solution is an independent Northern Ireland.

Which is funny because that's probably the last thing anybody wants

The who

Manassas61 wrote: »

Both are terrorist groups, hate Protestants. That just about sums it up.

The IRA are not sectarian, yes they may have some sectarian fellas in it that are not true republicans and who don't even know what the tricolour means.Also the army are not terrorists, they are freedom fighters fighting against terrorists.The only terrorists in Ireland are wearing British uniforms.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

Catholic Unionists couldn't care less about the Orange Order. There is many parts of a society than just one culture you know.

Outside of a few wanting to be English Tories they do as the Orange Order was the main driving force behind discrimination against them, also its purpose today consists in rubbing salt in historical Roman Catholic wounds- for all its shrinkage in membership the OO still has massive influence over NI, you just have to look at how many MLAs are members.

SoulandForm

Manassas61 wrote: »

I said majority of Ulster (ie counties) The Union has a majority support in Northern Ireland.

Counting Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal Provisional Sinn Fein is clearly the largest party in Ulster.

Painted Pony

first doyle wrote: »

Political mandates in Ireland pretty much went out the window once Britain gave the UVF terror group what they wanted against the wishes of the vast majority of Irish people.

That of course presumes that the question of the Irish separation from the UK should have being rightfully addressed by the people of the island of Ireland as a whole. Certainly this is a widely held view, and not just by Irish nationalists, but I don’t think it is a particularly rational one.