INLA - Undefeated Army?

[sid waddell]

His full descent into Angelo is now complete. You are all hypocrites, hypocrites I tell you and I am going to show up every last one of you. It's the same as Angelo on the corona virus thread. Topic irrelevant tbh.

Well I don't think the people who have made discussion on this forum a never ending search for hypocrisy and perceived impurity can complain when they get a bit thrown back at them

Returning the serve, as it used to be called

If some posters are going to paint themselves as 100% clear in their thinking, with no hypocrisy whatsoever, I think it's no harm to pierce the bubble of their delusion

This topic is a handy way of doing that

[trueblue1234]

His full descent into Angelo is now complete. You are all hypocrites, hypocrites I tell you and I am going to show up every last one of you. It's the same as Angelo on the corona virus thread. Topic irrelevant tbh.

To be fair I think they were a bit annoyed when Angelo of all posters showed them up on the old Ira v new ira threads. It's triggered a few of them.

[Milltown Row2]

Why do you care?

I think it's quite a fascinating double standard

The double standard doesn't really make sense to me

How can two groups do the exact same thing, and yet only one have a vocal cohort of defenders celebrating them

I think it's a great example of the power of marketing and propaganda

This coming from the king of double standards! I love the ra I hate the ra? Touch of madness

[sid waddell]

His full descent into Angelo is now complete. You are all hypocrites, hypocrites I tell you and I am going to show up every last one of you. It's the same as Angelo on the corona virus thread. Topic irrelevant tbh.

To be fair I think they were a bit annoyed when Angelo of all posters showed them up on the old Ira v new ira threads. It's triggered a few of them.

He didn't though, and the proof of that is in how the pro-Provo posters have resorted to nothing except furious name calling lately

The pro-Provo posters have clearly lost their argument

That's not to say the old IRA were very nice people - they weren't - and I don't think they're particularly worthy of celebration - but they were not mindless, they did not carry on for 27 years in a futile, mindless campaign, they had a plan to win, did win, and had much more regard for the lives of the general public who had to live through their campaign, a general public which largely supported them

These are the key factors in determining whether a campaign of violence can be plausibly justified, or not

They introduce nuance - whereas the defences of the PIRA we have had on this forum have been all about doing away with nuance and bringing everything back to crude reductionism

Crude reductionism being the tool of the defeated debater

So I think it's clear that the old IRA and the PIRA are very much not morally equivalent

Whereas the PIRA and the INLA are morally equivalent

[trueblue1234]

His full descent into Angelo is now complete. You are all hypocrites, hypocrites I tell you and I am going to show up every last one of you. It's the same as Angelo on the corona virus thread. Topic irrelevant tbh.

To be fair I think they were a bit annoyed when Angelo of all posters showed them up on the old Ira v new ira threads. It's triggered a few of them.

He didn't though, and the proof of that is in how the pro-Provo posters have resorted to nothing except furious name calling lately

The pro-Provo posters have clearly lost their argument

That's not to say the old IRA were very nice people - they weren't - and I don't think they're particularly worthy of celebration - but they were not mindless, they did not carry on for 27 years in a futile, mindless campaign, they had a plan to win, did win, and had much more regard for the lives of the general public who had to live through their campaign, a general public which largely supported them

So I think it's clear that the old IRA and the PIRA are very much not morally equivalent

Whereas the PIRA and the INLA are morally equivalent

I wonder who I was talking about when I said they were triggered. Maybe Angelo has his benefits.

[sid waddell]

His full descent into Angelo is now complete. You are all hypocrites, hypocrites I tell you and I am going to show up every last one of you. It's the same as Angelo on the corona virus thread. Topic irrelevant tbh.

To be fair I think they were a bit annoyed when Angelo of all posters showed them up on the old Ira v new ira threads. It's triggered a few of them.

He didn't though, and the proof of that is in how the pro-Provo posters have resorted to nothing except furious name calling lately

The pro-Provo posters have clearly lost their argument

That's not to say the old IRA were very nice people - they weren't - and I don't think they're particularly worthy of celebration - but they were not mindless, they did not carry on for 27 years in a futile, mindless campaign, they had a plan to win, did win, and had much more regard for the lives of the general public who had to live through their campaign, a general public which largely supported them

So I think it's clear that the old IRA and the PIRA are very much not morally equivalent

Whereas the PIRA and the INLA are morally equivalent

I wonder who I was talking about when I said they were triggered. Maybe Angelo has his benefits.

Caliing somebody "triggered" is not an argument

It's an escape hatch used by somebody who has no argument

It's what right-wing internet trolls do

[trueblue1234]

His full descent into Angelo is now complete. You are all hypocrites, hypocrites I tell you and I am going to show up every last one of you. It's the same as Angelo on the corona virus thread. Topic irrelevant tbh.

To be fair I think they were a bit annoyed when Angelo of all posters showed them up on the old Ira v new ira threads. It's triggered a few of them.

He didn't though, and the proof of that is in how the pro-Provo posters have resorted to nothing except furious name calling lately

The pro-Provo posters have clearly lost their argument

That's not to say the old IRA were very nice people - they weren't - and I don't think they're particularly worthy of celebration - but they were not mindless, they did not carry on for 27 years in a futile, mindless campaign, they had a plan to win, did win, and had much more regard for the lives of the general public who had to live through their campaign, a general public which largely supported them

So I think it's clear that the old IRA and the PIRA are very much not morally equivalent

Whereas the PIRA and the INLA are morally equivalent

I wonder who I was talking about when I said they were triggered. Maybe Angelo has his benefits.

Caliing somebody "triggered" is not an argument

It's an escape hatch used by somebody who has no argument

It's what right-wing internet trolls do

Don't worry. You don't need to be annoyed. His views are more or less in line with your own previous views. Another week or two and you'll prob flip back in line with him. An Angelo/ Sid alliance would be something to behold.

[sid waddell]

His full descent into Angelo is now complete. You are all hypocrites, hypocrites I tell you and I am going to show up every last one of you. It's the same as Angelo on the corona virus thread. Topic irrelevant tbh.

To be fair I think they were a bit annoyed when Angelo of all posters showed them up on the old Ira v new ira threads. It's triggered a few of them.

He didn't though, and the proof of that is in how the pro-Provo posters have resorted to nothing except furious name calling lately

The pro-Provo posters have clearly lost their argument

That's not to say the old IRA were very nice people - they weren't - and I don't think they're particularly worthy of celebration - but they were not mindless, they did not carry on for 27 years in a futile, mindless campaign, they had a plan to win, did win, and had much more regard for the lives of the general public who had to live through their campaign, a general public which largely supported them

So I think it's clear that the old IRA and the PIRA are very much not morally equivalent

Whereas the PIRA and the INLA are morally equivalent

I wonder who I was talking about when I said they were triggered. Maybe Angelo has his benefits.

Caliing somebody "triggered" is not an argument

It's an escape hatch used by somebody who has no argument

It's what right-wing internet trolls do

Don't worry. You don't need to be annoyed. His views are more or less in line with your own previous views. Another week or two and you'll prob flip back in line with him. An Angelo/ Sid alliance would be something to behold.

You're looking for an escape hatch again

Are you of the view that the PIRA were noble heroes and the INLA were scum?

Could you set out as you see it, why the PIRA were morally superior to the INLA?

[trueblue1234]

His full descent into Angelo is now complete. You are all hypocrites, hypocrites I tell you and I am going to show up every last one of you. It's the same as Angelo on the corona virus thread. Topic irrelevant tbh.

To be fair I think they were a bit annoyed when Angelo of all posters showed them up on the old Ira v new ira threads. It's triggered a few of them.

He didn't though, and the proof of that is in how the pro-Provo posters have resorted to nothing except furious name calling lately

The pro-Provo posters have clearly lost their argument

That's not to say the old IRA were very nice people - they weren't - and I don't think they're particularly worthy of celebration - but they were not mindless, they did not carry on for 27 years in a futile, mindless campaign, they had a plan to win, did win, and had much more regard for the lives of the general public who had to live through their campaign, a general public which largely supported them

So I think it's clear that the old IRA and the PIRA are very much not morally equivalent

Whereas the PIRA and the INLA are morally equivalent

I wonder who I was talking about when I said they were triggered. Maybe Angelo has his benefits.

Caliing somebody "triggered" is not an argument

It's an escape hatch used by somebody who has no argument

It's what right-wing internet trolls do

Don't worry. You don't need to be annoyed. His views are more or less in line with your own previous views. Another week or two and you'll prob flip back in line with him. An Angelo/ Sid alliance would be something to behold.

You're looking for an escape hatch again

Are you of the view that the PIRA were noble heroes and the INLA were scum?

Could you set out as you see it, why the PIRA were morally superior to the INLA?

You were unable to do that for the old Ira over the provos and it's really knocked you. How many pages of posts and Angelo was still running rings around ya.

[sid waddell]

His full descent into Angelo is now complete. You are all hypocrites, hypocrites I tell you and I am going to show up every last one of you. It's the same as Angelo on the corona virus thread. Topic irrelevant tbh.

To be fair I think they were a bit annoyed when Angelo of all posters showed them up on the old Ira v new ira threads. It's triggered a few of them.

He didn't though, and the proof of that is in how the pro-Provo posters have resorted to nothing except furious name calling lately

The pro-Provo posters have clearly lost their argument

That's not to say the old IRA were very nice people - they weren't - and I don't think they're particularly worthy of celebration - but they were not mindless, they did not carry on for 27 years in a futile, mindless campaign, they had a plan to win, did win, and had much more regard for the lives of the general public who had to live through their campaign, a general public which largely supported them

So I think it's clear that the old IRA and the PIRA are very much not morally equivalent

Whereas the PIRA and the INLA are morally equivalent

I wonder who I was talking about when I said they were triggered. Maybe Angelo has his benefits.

Caliing somebody "triggered" is not an argument

It's an escape hatch used by somebody who has no argument

It's what right-wing internet trolls do

Don't worry. You don't need to be annoyed. His views are more or less in line with your own previous views. Another week or two and you'll prob flip back in line with him. An Angelo/ Sid alliance would be something to behold.

You're looking for an escape hatch again

Are you of the view that the PIRA were noble heroes and the INLA were scum?

Could you set out as you see it, why the PIRA were morally superior to the INLA?

You were unable to do that for the old Ira over the provos and it's really knocked you. How many pages of posts and Angelo was still running rings around ya.

You're resorting to his lowest common denominator tactics now

It's quite sad to see that happen

You just left out "RAAAAAAAAAARRRRRR" from your post there

This is the sort of debating strategy children use!

Maybe it's in tribute to the children murdered by the PIRA?

[trueblue1234]

His full descent into Angelo is now complete. You are all hypocrites, hypocrites I tell you and I am going to show up every last one of you. It's the same as Angelo on the corona virus thread. Topic irrelevant tbh.

To be fair I think they were a bit annoyed when Angelo of all posters showed them up on the old Ira v new ira threads. It's triggered a few of them.

He didn't though, and the proof of that is in how the pro-Provo posters have resorted to nothing except furious name calling lately

The pro-Provo posters have clearly lost their argument

That's not to say the old IRA were very nice people - they weren't - and I don't think they're particularly worthy of celebration - but they were not mindless, they did not carry on for 27 years in a futile, mindless campaign, they had a plan to win, did win, and had much more regard for the lives of the general public who had to live through their campaign, a general public which largely supported them

So I think it's clear that the old IRA and the PIRA are very much not morally equivalent

Whereas the PIRA and the INLA are morally equivalent

I wonder who I was talking about when I said they were triggered. Maybe Angelo has his benefits.

Caliing somebody "triggered" is not an argument

It's an escape hatch used by somebody who has no argument

It's what right-wing internet trolls do

Don't worry. You don't need to be annoyed. His views are more or less in line with your own previous views. Another week or two and you'll prob flip back in line with him. An Angelo/ Sid alliance would be something to behold.

You're looking for an escape hatch again

Are you of the view that the PIRA were noble heroes and the INLA were scum?

Could you set out as you see it, why the PIRA were morally superior to the INLA?

You were unable to do that for the old Ira over the provos and it's really knocked you. How many pages of posts and Angelo was still running rings around ya.

You're resorting to his lowest common denominator tactics now

It's quite sad to see that happen

You just left out "RAAAAAAAAAARRRRRR" from your post there

This is sort of debating strategy children use!

Maybe it's in tribute to the children murdered by the PIRA?

And the innocent victims of the old Ira. Don't forget them too.

[sid waddell]

His full descent into Angelo is now complete. You are all hypocrites, hypocrites I tell you and I am going to show up every last one of you. It's the same as Angelo on the corona virus thread. Topic irrelevant tbh.

To be fair I think they were a bit annoyed when Angelo of all posters showed them up on the old Ira v new ira threads. It's triggered a few of them.

He didn't though, and the proof of that is in how the pro-Provo posters have resorted to nothing except furious name calling lately

The pro-Provo posters have clearly lost their argument

That's not to say the old IRA were very nice people - they weren't - and I don't think they're particularly worthy of celebration - but they were not mindless, they did not carry on for 27 years in a futile, mindless campaign, they had a plan to win, did win, and had much more regard for the lives of the general public who had to live through their campaign, a general public which largely supported them

So I think it's clear that the old IRA and the PIRA are very much not morally equivalent

Whereas the PIRA and the INLA are morally equivalent

I wonder who I was talking about when I said they were triggered. Maybe Angelo has his benefits.

Caliing somebody "triggered" is not an argument

It's an escape hatch used by somebody who has no argument

It's what right-wing internet trolls do

Don't worry. You don't need to be annoyed. His views are more or less in line with your own previous views. Another week or two and you'll prob flip back in line with him. An Angelo/ Sid alliance would be something to behold.

You're looking for an escape hatch again

Are you of the view that the PIRA were noble heroes and the INLA were scum?

Could you set out as you see it, why the PIRA were morally superior to the INLA?

You were unable to do that for the old Ira over the provos and it's really knocked you. How many pages of posts and Angelo was still running rings around ya.

You're resorting to his lowest common denominator tactics now

It's quite sad to see that happen

You just left out "RAAAAAAAAAARRRRRR" from your post there

This is sort of debating strategy children use!

Maybe it's in tribute to the children murdered by the PIRA?

And the innocent victims of the old Ira. Don't forget them too.

See again, you're resorting to crude reductionism

You're saying that all armed campaigns which killed any civilians, no matter the number, are exactly equivalent morally to each other

But that would be to say that the Khmer Rouge were equivalent to the ANC

Which would be a bit mental, wouldn't it

Your argument necessitates the absolute destruction of critical thinking - a bit like the Khmer Rouge actually!

The modus operandis of the PIRA and the INLA were the exact same however

And yet you refuse to compare them morally

Smacks of a poster who wants to hide the truth

[trueblue1234]

His full descent into Angelo is now complete. You are all hypocrites, hypocrites I tell you and I am going to show up every last one of you. It's the same as Angelo on the corona virus thread. Topic irrelevant tbh.

To be fair I think they were a bit annoyed when Angelo of all posters showed them up on the old Ira v new ira threads. It's triggered a few of them.

He didn't though, and the proof of that is in how the pro-Provo posters have resorted to nothing except furious name calling lately

The pro-Provo posters have clearly lost their argument

That's not to say the old IRA were very nice people - they weren't - and I don't think they're particularly worthy of celebration - but they were not mindless, they did not carry on for 27 years in a futile, mindless campaign, they had a plan to win, did win, and had much more regard for the lives of the general public who had to live through their campaign, a general public which largely supported them

So I think it's clear that the old IRA and the PIRA are very much not morally equivalent

Whereas the PIRA and the INLA are morally equivalent

I wonder who I was talking about when I said they were triggered. Maybe Angelo has his benefits.

Caliing somebody "triggered" is not an argument

It's an escape hatch used by somebody who has no argument

It's what right-wing internet trolls do

Don't worry. You don't need to be annoyed. His views are more or less in line with your own previous views. Another week or two and you'll prob flip back in line with him. An Angelo/ Sid alliance would be something to behold.

You're looking for an escape hatch again

Are you of the view that the PIRA were noble heroes and the INLA were scum?

Could you set out as you see it, why the PIRA were morally superior to the INLA?

You were unable to do that for the old Ira over the provos and it's really knocked you. How many pages of posts and Angelo was still running rings around ya.

You're resorting to his lowest common denominator tactics now

It's quite sad to see that happen

You just left out "RAAAAAAAAAARRRRRR" from your post there

This is sort of debating strategy children use!

Maybe it's in tribute to the children murdered by the PIRA?

And the innocent victims of the old Ira. Don't forget them too.

See again, you're resorting to crude reductionism

You're saying that all armed campaigns which killed any civilians, no matter the number, are exactly equivalent morally to each other

But that would be to say that the Khmer Rouge were equivalent to the ANC

Which would be a bit mental, wouldn't it

Your argument necessitates the absolute destruction of critical thinking - a bit like the Khmer Rouge actually!

The modus operandis of the PIRA and the INLA were the exact same however

And yet you refuse to compare them morally

Smacks of a poster who wants to hide the truth

No your right I agree there is innocent victims in all wars. Some targeted more innocents than others. And some disappeared many more than others as as well.

[sid waddell]

His full descent into Angelo is now complete. You are all hypocrites, hypocrites I tell you and I am going to show up every last one of you. It's the same as Angelo on the corona virus thread. Topic irrelevant tbh.

To be fair I think they were a bit annoyed when Angelo of all posters showed them up on the old Ira v new ira threads. It's triggered a few of them.

He didn't though, and the proof of that is in how the pro-Provo posters have resorted to nothing except furious name calling lately

The pro-Provo posters have clearly lost their argument

That's not to say the old IRA were very nice people - they weren't - and I don't think they're particularly worthy of celebration - but they were not mindless, they did not carry on for 27 years in a futile, mindless campaign, they had a plan to win, did win, and had much more regard for the lives of the general public who had to live through their campaign, a general public which largely supported them

So I think it's clear that the old IRA and the PIRA are very much not morally equivalent

Whereas the PIRA and the INLA are morally equivalent

I wonder who I was talking about when I said they were triggered. Maybe Angelo has his benefits.

Caliing somebody "triggered" is not an argument

It's an escape hatch used by somebody who has no argument

It's what right-wing internet trolls do

Don't worry. You don't need to be annoyed. His views are more or less in line with your own previous views. Another week or two and you'll prob flip back in line with him. An Angelo/ Sid alliance would be something to behold.

You're looking for an escape hatch again

Are you of the view that the PIRA were noble heroes and the INLA were scum?

Could you set out as you see it, why the PIRA were morally superior to the INLA?

You were unable to do that for the old Ira over the provos and it's really knocked you. How many pages of posts and Angelo was still running rings around ya.

You're resorting to his lowest common denominator tactics now

It's quite sad to see that happen

You just left out "RAAAAAAAAAARRRRRR" from your post there

This is sort of debating strategy children use!

Maybe it's in tribute to the children murdered by the PIRA?

And the innocent victims of the old Ira. Don't forget them too.

See again, you're resorting to crude reductionism

You're saying that all armed campaigns which killed any civilians, no matter the number, are exactly equivalent morally to each other

But that would be to say that the Khmer Rouge were equivalent to the ANC

Which would be a bit mental, wouldn't it

Your argument necessitates the absolute destruction of critical thinking - a bit like the Khmer Rouge actually!

The modus operandis of the PIRA and the INLA were the exact same however

And yet you refuse to compare them morally

Smacks of a poster who wants to hide the truth

No your right I agree there is innocent victims in all wars. Some targeted more innocents than others. And some disappeared many more than others as as well.

Yes and I think that's a crucial distinction as to why the PIRA could not be classed as a legitimate fighting force - because a key, primary modus operandi of theirs was the consistent targetting of totally unconnected civilians over the course of 27 years

They admit this themselves

As was the case with the INLA

I don't think this was the case at all in the War of Independence

[Milltown Row2]

So no innocent people died in the WOI? Righty O