Easter Lily & Rising Commemorations

[Il Bomber Destro]

Just to be clear - Unionists had a mandate for putting in a discriminatory and oppressive regime - I believe that morally that was wrong as did all Northern nationalists. But you have to look at who and what policies that self same community voted to follow - non violent, Civil Rights protestors.

The Provisionals did not have that same large support within the Nationalist communities.

You have equated a mandate to legitimacy of actions. You have sought to excuse reprehensible acts of the IRA during the War of Independence  (airbrushed out of Free State history) as they had a mandate to do so.

It was a mandate of an oppressive sectarian regime that led to the troubles.

You can't hold mandates up as justification if you're going to be selective with them.

[easytiger95]

Once again you are conflating two different situations.

The War of independence had a mandate because it was backed by a massive popular vote in an election, and it was (and the clue is in the name) a war.

The regime that Ulster Unionism maintained after partition was a corrupt system, comparable to apartheid - it was always illegitimate in that it treated a large minority as second class citizens. but that is not the same as a wartime situation. The other big difference was in the reaction of the large majority of Northern nationalists, who voted in a huge majority for parties aligned to reform through non-violence - there was no majority mandate within the community for armed revolt. And at the time, that was relatively effective in bringing about the start of reform with Unionism.

They are hard facts, as attested to by voting numbers and SDLP policies. Can you give me anything bar anecdotal evidence for the large support that you say was there?

Just to be clear - Unionists had a mandate for putting in a discriminatory and oppressive regime - I believe that morally that was wrong as did all Northern nationalists. But you have to look at who and what policies that self same community voted to follow - non violent, Civil Rights protestors.

The Provisionals did not have that same large support within the Nationalist communities.

You have equated a mandate to legitimacy of actions. You have sought to excuse reprehensible acts of the IRA during the War of Independence  (airbrushed out of Free State history) as they had a mandate to do so.

It was a mandate of an oppressive sectarian regime that led to the troubles.

You can't hold mandates up as justification if you're going to be selective with them.

No, as you can see, I haven't. Nor have I sought to excuse any reprehensible act. What I have done is questioned your self proclaimed ability to be the arbiter of right and wrong of any given situation, and judge other people's responses to that situation, especially given that fact that the majority of your community, in the privacy of the ballot box, were voting for a different response.

[Rossfan]

The whole world is out of step except Bomber
I presume when the ideologically pure doctrinaire extreme "republicans" of Bomber's mindset take over they will have to  cleanse the 26 Cos. of all FF/FG/SF/Lab voters and others because we are all guilty it seems.
I also presume they don't take up their entitlement to Irish citizenship or passports as they are issued by a "quisling state with blood on its hands"

By the way what or where are " the shires of Roscommon"

[Il Bomber Destro]

However, and it is a big however, unlike ISIS and the Provisional IRA, the 1919 election gave the IRA the mandate from the people it needed, and there was huge popular support for the movement. The Provisionals did not have that popular support, certainly electorally. That is a huge difference.

You didn't?

[tiempo]

Someone asked for two things successive 26co governments should have done following their gutless betrayal of Irish men women and children in Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down.

a) Large scale lobbying of the American government and Irish-American diaspora to pressure Britain into ceding Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down. Political intervention.

b) Sent peacekeeping forces across the border to save lives in, you guessed it... Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down. Military intervention.

I tried to resist re-entering the debate as it's pointless but:

a) Yeah - USA had no interest in Irish affairs until Clinton. None. Shure Woodrow Wilson refused to acknowledge the 1918 election and the rights of the Irish people to declare independence. Official USA, after WWII, would always have the UK's side. There is no way any amount of lobbying would have changed that position. Actually, as a side note, the 'non-offcial' Irish America did get involved. Ever hear of NORAID.

b) Peacekeeping forces, as you call them, operate under UN Madate. UN would not get involved in offically internal UK affairs. The theory perhaps at the time was create an incident and get the UN involved but by the time the lads in the UN woke up at least 1,000 Irish troops would have been killed. I point you to this wiki piece. I know this article may have no status and may be the ramblings of a lunatic (it is wiki after all) but it's worth reading over a coffee. I don't think it's too over the top.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Armageddon

then there is the paper of record

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/operation-armageddon-would-have-been-doomsday-for-irish-aggressors-1.728983

Forget what interest the USA had in Irish affairs, lobbying is the process of bringing the situation to their attention, it has worked in spades for the Zionists and their bloodthirsty Islamophobic tendencies, the 26co government neglected to bring the genocide in Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down to international attention.

So the 26co army are fit to carry out peacekeeping duties across the world at the green light of NATO but let their own kin a few miles up the road suffer at the hands of a barbaric sectarian regime. How about assessing a situation for themselves and doing what is best for all the citizens of the country as per the proclamation, isn't that what the weekend events claimed has been achieved?

Successive 26co governments have been self-serving apologists and revisionists afraid to challenge the likes of Britain and NATO as they had it pretty cushty in the shires of Roscommon and the like.

I suppose there was that one time the British came to Love Ulster on the streets of Dublin and the lads roaded them, fine work, lying in wait, a great ambush that was, medals for gallantry all round.

Take it to the ICC.

ICC founded in 1998, what have the 26co government done in the last century to save the lives of Irish men women and children in Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down from a brutal sectarian regime and highlight the pogrom that occurred there?

[Il Bomber Destro]

Someone asked for two things successive 26co governments should have done following their gutless betrayal of Irish men women and children in Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down.

a) Large scale lobbying of the American government and Irish-American diaspora to pressure Britain into ceding Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down. Political intervention.

b) Sent peacekeeping forces across the border to save lives in, you guessed it... Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down. Military intervention.

I tried to resist re-entering the debate as it's pointless but:

a) Yeah - USA had no interest in Irish affairs until Clinton. None. Shure Woodrow Wilson refused to acknowledge the 1918 election and the rights of the Irish people to declare independence. Official USA, after WWII, would always have the UK's side. There is no way any amount of lobbying would have changed that position. Actually, as a side note, the 'non-offcial' Irish America did get involved. Ever hear of NORAID.

b) Peacekeeping forces, as you call them, operate under UN Madate. UN would not get involved in offically internal UK affairs. The theory perhaps at the time was create an incident and get the UN involved but by the time the lads in the UN woke up at least 1,000 Irish troops would have been killed. I point you to this wiki piece. I know this article may have no status and may be the ramblings of a lunatic (it is wiki after all) but it's worth reading over a coffee. I don't think it's too over the top.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Armageddon

then there is the paper of record

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/operation-armageddon-would-have-been-doomsday-for-irish-aggressors-1.728983

Forget what interest the USA had in Irish affairs, lobbying is the process of bringing the situation to their attention, it has worked in spades for the Zionists and their bloodthirsty Islamophobic tendencies, the 26co government neglected to bring the genocide in Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down to international attention.

So the 26co army are fit to carry out peacekeeping duties across the world at the green light of NATO but let their own kin a few miles up the road suffer at the hands of a barbaric sectarian regime. How about assessing a situation for themselves and doing what is best for all the citizens of the country as per the proclamation, isn't that what the weekend events claimed has been achieved?

Successive 26co governments have been self-serving apologists and revisionists afraid to challenge the likes of Britain and NATO as they had it pretty cushty in the shires of Roscommon and the like.

I suppose there was that one time the British came to Love Ulster on the streets of Dublin and the lads roaded them, fine work, lying in wait, a great ambush that was, medals for gallantry all round.

Take it to the ICC.

ICC founded in 1998, what have the 26co government done in the last century to save the lives of Irish men women and children in Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down from a brutal sectarian regime and highlight the pogrom that occurred there?

A question usually evaded and dealt with in excuses.

[easytiger95]

However, and it is a big however, unlike ISIS and the Provisional IRA, the 1919 election gave the IRA the mandate from the people it needed, and there was huge popular support for the movement. The Provisionals did not have that popular support, certainly electorally. That is a huge difference.

You didn't?

I'm not seeing the word legitimate there, am I missing it? My point is that revolutions usually work when they are the expressions of popular movements - 1916 failed because it was not, 1919-21 succeeded because it was, 1972 - 1995 failed because it was not. Electoral support for SF expanded exponentially after the ceasefires, not during the Troubles.

Same pattern world wide, Mao Tse Tung actually had a saying for it - "the people are the sea the revolution swims in"

[theskull1]

Taking the gang rape analogy. Can our southern brethren not understand that the victim spotted you walking past on the other side of the street. You know she seen you with the head down and do nothing. She's walked past you in the street ever since. Not easy for her. How do you feel?

Serious question: Did the war of independence create enough simmering resentment to make the plight of the north nationalists an afterthought by that stage?

Any reason why no one's answered these questions?

I get the argument about feeling powerless and having enough to worry about on your own doorstep, but surely the free state should have some sort of collective guilt about the way they left northern nationalist behind to continue to be treated as second class citizens? Genuinely, is that not a feeling thats held or is there some church like denial going on? BTW this the perspective from someone who is far from what would be called a hardliner on these subjects.

[johnneycool]

Just to be clear - Unionists had a mandate for putting in a discriminatory and oppressive regime - I believe that morally that was wrong as did all Northern nationalists. But you have to look at who and what policies that self same community voted to follow - non violent, Civil Rights protestors.

The Provisionals did not have that same large support within the Nationalist communities.

I'm not so sure about that TBH easytiger.

With the behaviour of the B specials/UDR/RUC/British army in their 'containment' and offensive actions against the Civil Rights movement they drove a very young nationalist population into the arms of the Provisional movement which was dormant in any real capacity for years up until that point.
This re-emergence of the Provisionals had to have had tacit approval from the communities they operated in or else they wouldn't have been as successful as they were. These lads were part and parcel of the communities they lived in, not outsider baddies jettisoned in, bullying the local populace.
Many voted SDLP, but then also supported the activities of the IRA within their areas purely because there was no other viable option to vote for.

[Il Bomber Destro]

However, and it is a big however, unlike ISIS and the Provisional IRA, the 1919 election gave the IRA the mandate from the people it needed, and there was huge popular support for the movement. The Provisionals did not have that popular support, certainly electorally. That is a huge difference.

You didn't?

I'm not seeing the word legitimate there, am I missing it? My point is that revolutions usually work when they are the expressions of popular movements - 1916 failed because it was not, 1919-21 succeeded because it was, 1972 - 1995 failed because it was not. Electoral support for SF expanded exponentially after the ceasefires, not during the Troubles.

Same pattern world wide, Mao Tse Tung actually had a saying for it - "the people are the sea the revolution swims in"

And maybe that was because the Republican Movement had little interest in constitutional politics after seeing the complete failure of them in the preceding 50 years. You seemed to be under the illusion that they were voting between constitutional politics and armed resistance. They weren't.

Irish immigrants only achieved social parity in Scotland in 1991. It was 1901 in the US. Do you think the outcome of the armed republican campaign hastened a more equitable and accommodating society for nationalists to live in? I think it certainly did. The Provisionals ultimately failed in their goal to end British rule in Ireland, just as the IRA in the War of Independence did the same

Your revisionism of the War of Independence succeeding and the armed republican struggle during the troubles failing is factually wrong. The Troubles only existed due to the gross failures of the War of Independence.

[armaghniac]

I'm not seeing the word legitimate there, am I missing it? My point is that revolutions usually work when they are the expressions of popular movements - 1916 failed because it was not, 1919-21 succeeded because it was, 1972 - 1995 failed because it was not. Electoral support for SF expanded exponentially after the ceasefires, not during the Troubles.

Same pattern world wide, Mao Tse Tung actually had a saying for it - "the people are the sea the revolution swims in"

Without fully agreeing with a lot posted here, the point being made surely is that the 1970-1994 was not so much a different revolution as the continuation of unfinished business in the earlier process where the bulk of the people who had supported the earlier process couldn't be bothered because they got their bit freed and who give a damn about anyone remaining.

[LeoMc]

Someone asked for two things successive 26co governments should have done following their gutless betrayal of Irish men women and children in Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down.

a) Large scale lobbying of the American government and Irish-American diaspora to pressure Britain into ceding Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down. Political intervention.

b) Sent peacekeeping forces across the border to save lives in, you guessed it... Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down. Military intervention.

I tried to resist re-entering the debate as it's pointless but:

a) Yeah - USA had no interest in Irish affairs until Clinton. None. Shure Woodrow Wilson refused to acknowledge the 1918 election and the rights of the Irish people to declare independence. Official USA, after WWII, would always have the UK's side. There is no way any amount of lobbying would have changed that position. Actually, as a side note, the 'non-offcial' Irish America did get involved. Ever hear of NORAID.

b) Peacekeeping forces, as you call them, operate under UN Madate. UN would not get involved in offically internal UK affairs. The theory perhaps at the time was create an incident and get the UN involved but by the time the lads in the UN woke up at least 1,000 Irish troops would have been killed. I point you to this wiki piece. I know this article may have no status and may be the ramblings of a lunatic (it is wiki after all) but it's worth reading over a coffee. I don't think it's too over the top.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Armageddon

then there is the paper of record

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/operation-armageddon-would-have-been-doomsday-for-irish-aggressors-1.728983

Forget what interest the USA had in Irish affairs, lobbying is the process of bringing the situation to their attention, it has worked in spades for the Zionists and their bloodthirsty Islamophobic tendencies, the 26co government neglected to bring the genocide in Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down to international attention.

So the 26co army are fit to carry out peacekeeping duties across the world at the green light of NATO but let their own kin a few miles up the road suffer at the hands of a barbaric sectarian regime. How about assessing a situation for themselves and doing what is best for all the citizens of the country as per the proclamation, isn't that what the weekend events claimed has been achieved?

Successive 26co governments have been self-serving apologists and revisionists afraid to challenge the likes of Britain and NATO as they had it pretty cushty in the shires of Roscommon and the like.

I suppose there was that one time the British came to Love Ulster on the streets of Dublin and the lads roaded them, fine work, lying in wait, a great ambush that was, medals for gallantry all round.

Take it to the ICC.

ICC founded in 1998, what have the 26co government done in the last century to save the lives of Irish men women and children in Tyrone, Derry, Armagh, Antrim, Fermanagh and Down from a brutal sectarian regime and highlight the pogrom that occurred there?

Pogrom: An organized massacre of a particular ethnic group

Can you tell me a bit about these organized massacres in Tyrone and Fermanagh?

[easytiger95]

However, and it is a big however, unlike ISIS and the Provisional IRA, the 1919 election gave the IRA the mandate from the people it needed, and there was huge popular support for the movement. The Provisionals did not have that popular support, certainly electorally. That is a huge difference.

You didn't?

I'm not seeing the word legitimate there, am I missing it? My point is that revolutions usually work when they are the expressions of popular movements - 1916 failed because it was not, 1919-21 succeeded because it was, 1972 - 1995 failed because it was not. Electoral support for SF expanded exponentially after the ceasefires, not during the Troubles.

Same pattern world wide, Mao Tse Tung actually had a saying for it - "the people are the sea the revolution swims in"

And maybe that was because the Republican Movement had little interest in constitutional politics after seeing the complete failure of them in the preceding 50 years. You seemed to be under the illusion that they were voting between constitutional politics and armed resistance. They weren't.

Irish immigrants only achieved social parity in Scotland in 1991. It was 1901 in the US. Do you think the outcome of the armed republican campaign hastened a more equitable and accommodating society for nationalists to live in? I think it certainly did. The Provisionals ultimately failed in their goal to end British rule in Ireland, just as the IRA in the War of Independence did the same

Your revisionism of the War of Independence succeeding and the armed republican struggle during the troubles failing is factually wrong. The Troubles only existed due to the gross failures of the War of Independence.

Ok Bomber - let's go through that point by point

And maybe that was because the Republican Movement had little interest in constitutional politics after seeing the complete failure of them in the preceding 50 years. You seemed to be under the illusion that they were voting between constitutional politics and armed resistance. They weren't.


Since you have the ability to divine the mind of all Northern Irish nationalists, perhaps you could tell me what they were voting for? Though I do agree that the Provisional movement was fundamentally unconstitutional, in that it had very little respect for the electoral process  -any electoral process. But you do know that people are allowed have a different view, even if they were nationalists? The "Republican" movement was not a monolith - there were huge splits and the Official IRA had always tried to have representatives in the electoral process, north and south, usually with little success. So there was a choice before year zero of the provisionals for northern nationalists, and they usually went with the constitutional choice. I'm not commenting on the morality of that, simply stating a fact.

Irish immigrants only achieved social parity in Scotland in 1991

Ya what now?


It was 1901 in the US


Could you tell us by what event you define this date?

Do you think the outcome of the armed republican campaign hastened a more equitable and accommodating society for nationalists to live in? I think it certainly did.

You know my feelings about counter factual arguments, but a cogent discussion could be had that the armed campaign actually considerably delayed social justice coming to NI, by derailing Civil Rights and prolonging a shooting war long past the point of having any hopes of actual military success. I believe that to be true, but again it is just my opinion.

The Provisionals ultimately failed in their goal to end British rule in Ireland, just as the IRA in the War of Independence did the same


The difference being that when the time had come to negotiate the settlement, the 1920s IRA had already a Dáil to put the negotiated treaty to, which constitutionally voted it through. They also took a lot shorter time to come to the conclusion that they needed a negotiated settlement, and they could claim in those negotiations that they had the vast majority of the people of Ireland behind the. So whilst there are valid comparisons to be made between the two situations, I think on balance the 1920s version achieved a lot more in a much shorter period of time. it depends on your definition of success and whether it is a zero sum game or not - which would neatly illustrate the political divide between us, I think.

Your revisionism of the War of Independence succeeding and the armed republican struggle during the troubles failing is factually wrong. The Troubles only existed due to the gross failures of the War of Independence.


I think that my view would be the traditional one, and your one would count as revisionist. The Troubles, as we term them, began in the late 60s - the Free State was formed in 1922. There were numerous campaigns between, but the border campaign of the mid 50s was the last real engagement. To state that the Troubles of the late 60s were a direct result of the War of Independence is to discount all the social history of the early to late 60s, which played into making the 6 as volatile as they were. Again, I find your view to be ahistorical and the misuse of history is the one common denominator in all the bloodshed of 20th century Ireland. You might want to check your own hands before blaming others.

[easytiger95]

I'm not seeing the word legitimate there, am I missing it? My point is that revolutions usually work when they are the expressions of popular movements - 1916 failed because it was not, 1919-21 succeeded because it was, 1972 - 1995 failed because it was not. Electoral support for SF expanded exponentially after the ceasefires, not during the Troubles.

Same pattern world wide, Mao Tse Tung actually had a saying for it - "the people are the sea the revolution swims in"

Without fully agreeing with a lot posted here, the point being made surely is that the 1970-1994 was not so much a different revolution as the continuation of unfinished business in the earlier process where the bulk of the people who had supported the earlier process couldn't be bothered because they got their bit freed and who give a damn about anyone remaining.

Wouldn't agree with a lot of that Armaghniac - especially the "give a damn" bit. Anyone who thinks that either officially or unofficially, the State and the people of the Republic of Ireland were, in anyway, happy or complicit in the persecution of Nationalists/Catholics in the North is fundamentally misreading the situation. There is a big difference between despair at an intractable situation and indifference to it.

[Il Bomber Destro]

However, and it is a big however, unlike ISIS and the Provisional IRA, the 1919 election gave the IRA the mandate from the people it needed, and there was huge popular support for the movement. The Provisionals did not have that popular support, certainly electorally. That is a huge difference.

You didn't?

I'm not seeing the word legitimate there, am I missing it? My point is that revolutions usually work when they are the expressions of popular movements - 1916 failed because it was not, 1919-21 succeeded because it was, 1972 - 1995 failed because it was not. Electoral support for SF expanded exponentially after the ceasefires, not during the Troubles.

Same pattern world wide, Mao Tse Tung actually had a saying for it - "the people are the sea the revolution swims in"

And maybe that was because the Republican Movement had little interest in constitutional politics after seeing the complete failure of them in the preceding 50 years. You seemed to be under the illusion that they were voting between constitutional politics and armed resistance. They weren't.

Irish immigrants only achieved social parity in Scotland in 1991. It was 1901 in the US. Do you think the outcome of the armed republican campaign hastened a more equitable and accommodating society for nationalists to live in? I think it certainly did. The Provisionals ultimately failed in their goal to end British rule in Ireland, just as the IRA in the War of Independence did the same

Your revisionism of the War of Independence succeeding and the armed republican struggle during the troubles failing is factually wrong. The Troubles only existed due to the gross failures of the War of Independence.

Ok Bomber - let's go through that point by point

And maybe that was because the Republican Movement had little interest in constitutional politics after seeing the complete failure of them in the preceding 50 years. You seemed to be under the illusion that they were voting between constitutional politics and armed resistance. They weren't.


Since you have the ability to divine the mind of all Northern Irish nationalists, perhaps you could tell me what they were voting for? Though I do agree that the Provisional movement was fundamentally unconstitutional, in that it had very little respect for the electoral process  -any electoral process. But you do know that people are allowed have a different view, even if they were nationalists? The "Republican" movement was not a monolith - there were huge splits and the Official IRA had always tried to have representatives in the electoral process, north and south, usually with little success. So there was a choice before year zero of the provisionals for northern nationalists, and they usually went with the constitutional choice. I'm not commenting on the morality of that, simply stating a fact.

Irish immigrants only achieved social parity in Scotland in 1991

Ya what now?


It was 1901 in the US


Could you tell us by what event you define this date?

Do you think the outcome of the armed republican campaign hastened a more equitable and accommodating society for nationalists to live in? I think it certainly did.

You know my feelings about counter factual arguments, but a cogent discussion could be had that the armed campaign actually considerably delayed social justice coming to NI, by derailing Civil Rights and prolonging a shooting war long past the point of having any hopes of actual military success. I believe that to be true, but again it is just my opinion.

The Provisionals ultimately failed in their goal to end British rule in Ireland, just as the IRA in the War of Independence did the same


The difference being that when the time had come to negotiate the settlement, the 1920s IRA had already a Dáil to put the negotiated treaty to, which constitutionally voted it through. They also took a lot shorter time to come to the conclusion that they needed a negotiated settlement, and they could claim in those negotiations that they had the vast majority of the people of Ireland behind the. So whilst there are valid comparisons to be made between the two situations, I think on balance the 1920s version achieved a lot more in a much shorter period of time. it depends on your definition of success and whether it is a zero sum game or not - which would neatly illustrate the political divide between us, I think.

Your revisionism of the War of Independence succeeding and the armed republican struggle during the troubles failing is factually wrong. The Troubles only existed due to the gross failures of the War of Independence.


I think that my view would be the traditional one, and your one would count as revisionist. The Troubles, as we term them, began in the late 60s - the Free State was formed in 1922. There were numerous campaigns between, but the border campaign of the mid 50s was the last real engagement. To state that the Troubles of the late 60s were a direct result of the War of Independence is to discount all the social history of the early to late 60s, which played into making the 6 as volatile as they were. Again, I find your view to be ahistorical and the misuse of history is the one common denominator in all the bloodshed of 20th century Ireland. You might want to check your own hands before blaming others.

You are insisting on shifting the goalposts.

The IRA in the War of Independence had an objective of removing British rule from Ireland.

They failed.

The Provos has the same aim.

They failed.

You somehow seem to be revising an outlook that The War of  Independence was a success. It may have got the 26 its freedom but it created a sectarian statelet which would inevitably lead to another bloody conflict

You paint the Provos campaign as a failure. It certainly hastened a more equal and accommodating society for nationalists to live in today. It seems to have delivered peace to the island, certainly for the time being.

The years quoted in regard social parity for Irish diaspora in Scotland and USA are from a study in which it investigated the time it took the Irish immigrants community to get equal status with the natives in regards to jobs, education etc. Scotland has had a similar sectarian undercurrent to the O6. If it took 150 years for the Irish immigrants to attain social parity in Scotland. How long do you think it would have taken to get from the state of affairs in 1969 to today without an armed uprising? Going by the comparison with a similar nation under a similar sectarian society, it would have taken a long, long time.

I find your assertion that nationalist rejected the Provisionals because they voted in elections as bizarre.  They weren't mutually binding. The Republican Movement at that time was all about the armed struggle, there was no real incentive to follow matters in constitutional politics for them. Those who voted were not rejecting armed uprising,  that was not the option on the ballot sheet so for you to suggest it was is ludicrous. It is a massive leap to draw that conclusion.

It boils down to you shifting the criteria when assessing the ared republican struggles during the troubles and the War of Independence and is typical of the Free State revisionism and double standards.