4 ms·

The level of general sympathy for one of those (and their level of success) is much higher than for the others Maybe because they were actively avoiding civili

The level of general sympathy for one of those (and their level of success) is much higher than for the others Maybe because they were actively avoiding civilian targets And even then mostly because a lot of people were supportive of their cause even if they were against their methods

walletdrainer 4mo ago
>And even then mostly because a lot of people were supportive of their cause even if they were against their methods But IRA didn't win because those people supported their cause, IRA won despite those people being against their methods. It was the force they used which directly led to the GFA, without the bombs and the killing the British would never have surrendered.
- erentz 4mo ago
  How can we know the IRA “won”? The country changed a hell of a lot over the course of the Troubles and by the time of the GFA in 1998 I don’t see how it is so clear that the reforms wouldn’t have also been achieved via other peaceful and democratic means.
  - walletdrainer 4mo ago
    > How can we know the IRA “won”? In signing the GFA, the UK effectively gave up on it's sovereignty over NI. That was never going to happen through "peaceful and democratic means"
    - erentz 4mo ago
      What makes it giving up sovereignty? I understand it creates the potential for separation in future but not yet. The devolution of Scotland and Wales happened peacefully a couple(?) of years later, and Scotland may also separate in future.
      - walletdrainer 4mo ago
        [dead]
        dang 4mo ago
        We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines badly. You can't post things like "No you fucking idiot" here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48432385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48432385), and that's just one example of many. (This is not about the current comment I'm replying to - this one just happens to be the most recent comment by the account, so I'm putting the information here.) It also looks like you've been using multiple accounts to comment in the same threads, which is abusive and not allowed.
        walletdrainer 4mo ago
        Calling someone a "fucking idiot" is far kinder than falsely accusing them of being a LLM poster, but I don't even see a flag on the comment which I was replying to. Do you just have a preference for better disguised insults? >It also looks like you've been using multiple accounts to comment in the same threads, which is abusive and not allowed. maybe don't build systems that only serve to encourage behaviour which you would seemingly prefer to discourage?
    - raverbashing 4mo ago
      The rabbit hole goes much deeper than simply "they gave up on sovereignty"
    - GJim 4mo ago
      Good god! It's difficult to make out if this is ignorance, a poor attempt at satire or simply trolling.
      - joxdosba 4mo ago
        Which part do you disagree with? The border is in the North Channel today, so the bit about sovereignty clearly holds up. Are you saying the GFA would have been reached through peaceful means?

walletdrainer 4mo ago

>And even then mostly because a lot of people were supportive of their cause even if they were against their methods But IRA didn't win because those people supported their cause, IRA won despite those people being against their methods. It was the force they used which directly led to the GFA, without the bombs and the killing the British would never have surrendered.

erentz 4mo ago
How can we know the IRA “won”? The country changed a hell of a lot over the course of the Troubles and by the time of the GFA in 1998 I don’t see how it is so clear that the reforms wouldn’t have also been achieved via other peaceful and democratic means.
- walletdrainer 4mo ago
  > How can we know the IRA “won”? In signing the GFA, the UK effectively gave up on it's sovereignty over NI. That was never going to happen through "peaceful and democratic means"
  - erentz 4mo ago
    What makes it giving up sovereignty? I understand it creates the potential for separation in future but not yet. The devolution of Scotland and Wales happened peacefully a couple(?) of years later, and Scotland may also separate in future.
    - walletdrainer 4mo ago
      [dead]
      - dang 4mo ago
        We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines badly. You can't post things like "No you fucking idiot" here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48432385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48432385), and that's just one example of many. (This is not about the current comment I'm replying to - this one just happens to be the most recent comment by the account, so I'm putting the information here.) It also looks like you've been using multiple accounts to comment in the same threads, which is abusive and not allowed.
        walletdrainer 4mo ago
        Calling someone a "fucking idiot" is far kinder than falsely accusing them of being a LLM poster, but I don't even see a flag on the comment which I was replying to. Do you just have a preference for better disguised insults? >It also looks like you've been using multiple accounts to comment in the same threads, which is abusive and not allowed. maybe don't build systems that only serve to encourage behaviour which you would seemingly prefer to discourage?
  - raverbashing 4mo ago
    The rabbit hole goes much deeper than simply "they gave up on sovereignty"
  - GJim 4mo ago
    Good god! It's difficult to make out if this is ignorance, a poor attempt at satire or simply trolling.
    - joxdosba 4mo ago
      Which part do you disagree with? The border is in the North Channel today, so the bit about sovereignty clearly holds up. Are you saying the GFA would have been reached through peaceful means?