Free Staters and their hypocrisy on their violent, bloody past

[trueblue1234]

I note I've had no responses or comments on the sectarian murder of Senator Fox.

You're very fond of picking out individual incidents in transparent attempts to imply that such incidents were typical of a majority of IRA attacks. Are you seriously that naive as to think people can't see through such a dishonest and downright stupid tactic? Instances of the Old IRA targeting civilians were at least as high in proportion as was the case for the Old IRA. Will you condemn their campaign?

I'll take that as a "No Comment" then apart from "But the old IRA....." and making false accusations.
Must be hard to face up to such a naked sectarian act so I can understand you and the other Provo fans here wanting to avoid comment.

Why don't you just face up to your shameless tactic. Attacks like that on Senator Fox didn't typify the PIRA campaign so why are you trying to imply that it did if not to be dishonest? Donyou believe the Old IRA campaign a terrorist one shot the 15 year old daughter of an RIC man? Wasnt that just typical of them!

The only way we can determine that is by going through every action carried out by the PIRA during the Troubles

Has anybody got a full list?

We could go through them one by one to see what sort of pattern was there

Would keep us all going until the end of the pandemic at least

You'd need another list for what happened 100 years ago as well. They seem to think they're the real terrorists and not the version that came along in the 70s

It's a view that simply doesn't make sense, certain posters here know they're losing the argument so the modus operandi has now become to paint as negative a picture of the old IRA as possible in order to paint a reputation of the Provisionals as the good guys - a bizarre strategy

In that, the pro-Provo posters have resorted to the Eoghan Harris/Peter Hart version of history

I'm not here to say the old IRA were very nice people incidentally, far from it

But it's almost got to the stage where you'd suspect some of these pro-Provo posters would reject joining with the South in a united Ireland because they've gone so far down the rabbit hole of singling out the old IRA on this thread for deflection purposes

The people who set out on this thread to justify the Provo's modus operandi of killing civilians have trained their e-guns on the old IRA as a coping mechanism, their verdict - the old IRA were the real evil and must be repudiated

Maybe that logic would also mean the current dissos have a more noble cause than the 1920s IRA

Holy feck. The posts are there from Snapchat saying that he viewed both in the same light. It's the likes of you, Rossfan and Dublin7 who are getting their knickers in a twist about that. You'd prefer to focus on the Provos rather than accept the old IRA were no different.

In some ways they weren't different but in other ways they were very, very different

On that we can Agree.

[sid waddell]

Michael Collins took the war to an occupying force in Ireland and forced them out of Ireland. His actions were almost exclusively in Ireland. It's no wonder you despise Michael Collins and what he and his followers did 100 years ago . They succeeded while the 70s version failed miserably.

Wheb the  PIRA realised their attempts to force the British army out of NI were a dismal failure they so decided to take the war to the ordinary joe public in England and once again achieved nothing that towards a united Ireland.

The only partial success they could claimid the amount of money the UK government has had to pump into NI to support it given the state the republican/unionist terrorists left it in

Expect they didn't.

And we're back to the fantasy version of history which says Collins should have decided to wage war against Northern Unionists in order to get a 32 county state

A state that incidentally would still have been rejected by the anti-Treatyites because it would have necessitated an oath - this is in the fantasy scenario where Collins could have led a force that won such a war - the reality is the IRA would have been routed had they tried to get the North through force

This is the same fantasy version of history which says the dissos should continue to wage war now - there is no 32 county Republic, and that is justification enough to wage perpetual war

One of the few things this fantasy version of history does get right is that the Provos lost - because they did not achieve a united Ireland - the Provos themselves subscribed to this fantasy version of history

It is fantasy unfortunately, as it's all theoretical. We'll never know, as they agreed to sell out and divide the island. The rest as they say is history. But let's not claim dividing the country was a victory as you say, they didn't achieve a united ireland.

It would never have been achieved

It wasn't near being achieved in the 1970s and 1980s with far more ruthless tactics, so how could it have been achieved in the 1920s

The logical upshot of the words "sell out" that is that you believe the rest of Ireland had a moral duty to remain part of the UK until some point where the fantasy of a 32 county Irish Republic could have been achieved in one fell swoop

Was never going to happen

If you believe Collins sold out, you automatically believe SF and the PIRA sold out, because now they're administering British rule themselves

The only people who wouldn't have "sold out" are those who wanted perpetual war, ie. McKevitt etc., who did Omagh

[trueblue1234]

Michael Collins took the war to an occupying force in Ireland and forced them out of Ireland. His actions were almost exclusively in Ireland. It's no wonder you despise Michael Collins and what he and his followers did 100 years ago . They succeeded while the 70s version failed miserably.

Wheb the  PIRA realised their attempts to force the British army out of NI were a dismal failure they so decided to take the war to the ordinary joe public in England and once again achieved nothing that towards a united Ireland.

The only partial success they could claimid the amount of money the UK government has had to pump into NI to support it given the state the republican/unionist terrorists left it in

Expect they didn't.

And we're back to the fantasy version of history which says Collins should have decided to wage war against Northern Unionists in order to get a 32 county state

A state that incidentally would still have been rejected by the anti-Treatyites because it would have necessitated an oath - this is in the fantasy scenario where Collins could have led a force that won such a war - the reality is the IRA would have been routed had they tried to get the North through force

This is the same fantasy version of history which says the dissos should continue to wage war now - there is no 32 county Republic, and that is justification enough to wage perpetual war

One of the few things this fantasy version of history does get right is that the Provos lost - because they did not achieve a united Ireland - the Provos themselves subscribed to this fantasy version of history

It is fantasy unfortunately, as it's all theoretical. We'll never know, as they agreed to sell out and divide the island. The rest as they say is history. But let's not claim dividing the country was a victory as you say, they didn't achieve a united ireland.

It would never have been achieved

It wasn't near being achieved in the 1970s and 1980s with far more ruthless tactics, so how could it have been achieved in the 1920s

The logical upshot of the words "sell out" that is that you believe the rest of Ireland had a moral duty to remain part of the UK until some point where the fantasy of a 32 county Irish Republic could have been achieved in one fell swoop

Was never going to happen

If you believe Collins sold out, you automatically believe SF and the PIRA sold out, because now they're administering British rule themselves

The only people who wouldn't have "sold out" are those who wanted perpetual war, ie. McKevitt etc., who did Omagh

Well they were looking a 32 county Ireland. They didn't get that. Maybe sell out is the wrong word, but they didn't get what they wanted either. And it caused quite a backlash. Hard to spin that as a complete victory.

[sid waddell]

I wonder did Collins and the other negotiators ever think of looking a 20 or 22 county state

You would have tipped the balance in a 10 or 12 county NI before long, I guess the Unionists were too cute for that

But I wonder do present day Unionists now regret their predecessors didn't make more use of the boundary commission to ensure a bigger majority

It would obviously have a meant a smaller NI state

[Rossfan]

https://politics.ie/threads/40-years-on-the-murder-of-senator-billy-fox.222859/

[Snapchap]

https://politics.ie/threads/40-years-on-the-murder-of-senator-billy-fox.222859/

Sure we can all play that game, Ross:
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/carlow-1921-the-ira-shoot-a-pharmacist-who-wouldn-t-close-his-shop-1.4036174

What point are you trying to make with your link and what relevance does posting this link have to the thread title?

We know the Old IRA targetted at least the same proportion, and likely a higher proportion, of civilians compared to the PIRA. So unless you are also going to post up, without comment, another link to a story about the Old IRA targetting an innocent civilian, then maybe all you're going to suceed in doing is validating the accusation made in the title of the thread.

[smelmoth]

This has been a great win for the forum republicans.

This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler

The fact that you have been shown up to be an ignorant hypocrite who tried to diversify away from the subject of the thread has been noted by all contributors.

Ignorant of what facts?
Hypocritical on which points?

The thread is about free state hypocrisy on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past.

Can you sum your comments on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past on this thread.

If you look back at your contributions, we will see you have instead tried to spam with posts unrelated to the thread. Now why would you do that?

Listen wee man you must by now have realised the fatal flaw in the construction of this thread. Some people in the south might think that the old IRA were a good thing. Others might think them a bad thing. It's only hypocrisy if they apply a double standard. If the people of the south are applying a double standard it must be to some other conflict. You know what the other conflict is. I know what it is. But you just don't want to talk about what the other conflict is.

As for the old IRA I have went further than any other poster. I have set out a 3 stage test to apply to each of their actions. Do you want to catalogue the actions or a highlights reel?

"Wee man"

Can you post something that stays on the topic of the thread and not the incoherent, rambling mess you have put above.

People of low IQ like yourself really should cut out the condescending terms, it's not a good look.

Champion, I have very much stuck to the thread and in fact am probably the poster that has stayed most on topic.

I am the poster that that has highlighted that its perfectly reasonable for people to feel differently about not only different campaigns but different acts within the same campaign.

I am the poster that has set out their test of how to judge individual acts.

Has any other poster done this? Have you? Could I have been more helpful?

[Angelo]

This has been a great win for the forum republicans.

This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler

The fact that you have been shown up to be an ignorant hypocrite who tried to diversify away from the subject of the thread has been noted by all contributors.

Ignorant of what facts?
Hypocritical on which points?

The thread is about free state hypocrisy on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past.

Can you sum your comments on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past on this thread.

If you look back at your contributions, we will see you have instead tried to spam with posts unrelated to the thread. Now why would you do that?

Listen wee man you must by now have realised the fatal flaw in the construction of this thread. Some people in the south might think that the old IRA were a good thing. Others might think them a bad thing. It's only hypocrisy if they apply a double standard. If the people of the south are applying a double standard it must be to some other conflict. You know what the other conflict is. I know what it is. But you just don't want to talk about what the other conflict is.

As for the old IRA I have went further than any other poster. I have set out a 3 stage test to apply to each of their actions. Do you want to catalogue the actions or a highlights reel?

"Wee man"

Can you post something that stays on the topic of the thread and not the incoherent, rambling mess you have put above.

People of low IQ like yourself really should cut out the condescending terms, it's not a good look.

Champion, I have very much stuck to the thread and in fact am probably the poster that has stayed most on topic.

I am the poster that that has highlighted that its perfectly reasonable for people to feel differently about not only different campaigns but different acts within the same campaign.

I am the poster that has set out their test of how to judge individual acts.

Has any other poster done this? Have you? Could I have been more helpful?

Where are your posts about the bloody abd violent past of the Old IRA?

[smelmoth]

it was you who said that you that campaign was legitimate but that you were not happy about the deaths. Its not me who is trying to separate the two. Its you

And? Are you suggesting that someone who feels they had no choice but to take up arms to effect change, must enjoy killing? Is that what you are trying to say?

No. I have never said that. You keep bringing it up as i had said. But I haven't. Illuminating. No end up doing "an Angelo"

You stated that it isn't possible to separate the notions of taking part in an armed conflict and being happy about killing. Patent nonsense.

This is what I mean about faux argument. I didn't say "happy". I said that you cannot separate a campaign of violence and the deaths the violence causes. Its simple cause and effect. Literally. If you don't shoot someone they are not going to die from you having shot them.

Does that mean that those who engaged in it did so because they just wanted an excuse to kill people?

I did not say that and my reason for not saying that is because there will not be a single motivation that covers all combatants or even all combatants on one side. I don't think anyone would disagree that some of the willing participants in the troubles were just wrong'uns who would have ended up in trouble whenever and wherever they where born. That applies to all sides.
Taking a life and meaning to take a life is a pretty big rubicon to cross. If you really want to set out a case that a given individual did not want to take life but did so out of real (actually real not some twisted/imagined self justification) then set it out and I will read it and respond.

Why do you only apply that to the Troubles then? The Old IRA targeted and killed the same and likely a higher proportion of civilians than the PIRA. Safe to assume there were just some bad apples in the basket there too? You say that there is no single motivation, yet you refute my suggestion that it's possible to engage in conflict but not be happy at having to do so, and happy at having to feel you have have no choice but to kill. You are the one arguing that if you engage in armed conflict, you must automatically be happy about killing others. That is utter tripe.
I would argue that just like Francis Hughes, Michael Collins didn't want to be involved in war and involved in killing, but did so because he believe the ends justified the means. Are you suggesting I'm wrong? That Collins just wanted the thrill of killing and hid behind a "twisted/imagined self justification"?

Show me the quote where I have only applied this to the troubles? I am accusing you of making things up and having faux arguments. Demonstrate your credibility by producing the quote or quotes that your argument is based upon.

See the bit I put in bold. You limited your question to those taking part in The Troubles, in a thread not specifically about the Troubles, but about the founding of the free state.

I was asked a question about the troubles and I answered the question in the context of the troubles. You object to that? At point in that statement did I say that the point exclusively applied to the troubles so again I ask you where did i say this ONLY applied to the Troubles and didn't apply to any other conflict? Stick to quotes and facts. Stay away from fantasy. ?

A belief that the end justifies the means does't justify it. If someone burgles your house to fund their drug habit I am sure that they would feel that the end (getting their fix) justified the means (pilfering your stuff). So that is ok then?

A loyalist who feels that his community is under attack kidnaps and murders a catholic feels he is justified. Is that ok then? Should we have a commemoration for that individual then?

A belief that the end justifies the means is not a justification its a self-justification. Don't fall for it.

That's why I sad Collins did what he did "because he believed the ends justified the means. What was that you were saying about faux arguments? Do you believe the Old IRA campaign was justified?

2 points. Firstly I have already provided you with examples that a belief that the end justifies the means is not valid. Secondly I have given the test that I would apply to the Old Ira (just as I would apply it to PIRA, today's dissos, UDA etc, etc). I have invited you to apply that test to any act. I can do no more.

An overwhelming majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not take up arms.

And? The overwhelming majority of people didn't join the Old IRA either. I know countless people who weren't members of the IRA but who supported them and provided safe houses and shelter etc.

Ok. You win. Add the number of people who provided safe houses to the number of direct combatants and STILL an overwhelming majority of people suffering oppression didn't engage in an armed struggle.

Of course the overwhelming majority didn't engage in it. Where did I claim otherwise? Faux arguments? What I did do was address the ridiculousness of your argument. So what the majority didn't join the PIRA. A majority didn't join the Old IRA either.

Another faux argument. I haven't claimed that you said an overwhelming majority engaged in the armed campaign. The faux aspect of your posts is that you think you have an answer and pretend that I am making the opposing point so that you can use your point.

Your original point was that the armed conflict was inevitable. My response is that is not true. My evidence is that an overwhelming majority of nationalists experiencing the oppression manifestly did not think it inevitable that they take up arms. Fact. You cannot re-write that. There was no inevitability. 

A vast majority of northern catholics/nationslists experiencing the same oppression did not support those that did take up arms.

Any stats to back up your "vast majority" claim?

Election results during the armed struggle when and where SF ran candidates.

That old absolute chestnut. I already addressed this just a few posts ago. For the majority of the conflict, SF barely functioned and people who dared put their heads above the parapet to join SF, be seen working for the party, or to run as a candidate, set themselves up as targets for state assassination. Does that sound like a party competing in a fair and level playing field? I don't think even you would be as ignorant enough to say yes. Combine that with the fact that many nationalists did not engage for years with electoral politics in the north and you get the picture. So to suggest that SF' electoral performance was an accurate gauge of support for the armed struggle is utterly daft. My own family was fairly typical of many nationalist areas for many years of the conflict - we supported the right to armed struggle but did not engage with electoral politics for many years.

Plain nonsense. How do you explain people rejecting the SF candidate where they stood?
Was the threat of violence (against) unique to SF?
Does republicanism come to this particular argument with clean hands?

Why so if it was inevitable/there was no other choice? Its simply wrong to say there was no other choice or that the only other choice that catholics/nationslists faced was to sit and do nothing. The majority did not take up arms and their chances of progressing their lot could have been made a lot easier if the armed campaign was not going on around them suppressing life chances and fueling suspicions of community of another.

Of course, it's very easy for someone sitting in the comfort of the south, who to quote Waterford Whispers today "at the last count, lost no relatives", so sit in judgement at how the nationalist community in the north reacted. Particularly when we see how their grandparents reacted to much less provocation in 1921. But like every sanctimonious southerner, when asked what alternative would have brought us to here we are today without armed struggle, there's never an answer. So maybe you can furnish me with one. Peaceful protest? Many sacrifice ourselves in a few more Bloody Sundays?

Again another faux argument.

How so? I asked you to furnish me with a guide to how we could have gotten to where we are now without armed conflict. Bearing in mind that the peaceful route was tried and the state reacted to that at Burntollet and in Derry with ruthless brutality.

The Faux argument is the whole thing about me living in the south or being from the south or both. The extent to which your premise is wrong is 100%. Its a faux argument.
In getting to where we are today the single biggest obstacle was removing the armed actors. If they hadn't been there we would have got there quickly.

The single biggest thing that held us back was the "othering" of our neighbours. Nothing fed that suspicion of your neighbour like the armed conflict.

The pressure on unionism to accept powersharing was external to NI and to large extent external to UK and Ireland. Those players had no interest in investing in us and supporting us whilst the violence was ongoing.

Within the trouble there is a litany of atrocities that there was not and could not be any justification for. There was no upside to these. How do you account for these? Is it a case that if there is oppression then an armed response is automatically ok and we just have to accept that there will be atrocities along the way.

Has there been an armed conflict in history, anywhere, by any group, where this has not also been the case? The same happened, to a proportionally greater extent, in the Tan War. Do you accept that it was a legitimate campaign by the Old IRA, despite the utter savagery in involved and the high proportion of old IRA atrocities that there can be no justification for?

Your first argument is frankly bollocks. A contention (that I don't dispute) that innocent casualties are inevitable does not excuse them away. If I drive at 80 mph, in the wrong direction and across both lanes of a motorway there will be inevitably be casualties. Hardly an excuse or a rationale though is it?

Your second argument is more interesting. The test that I would apply would be did the acts of the old IRA have popular support (I would say democratic support if there had of been elections), where they assured of achieving their outcome and was there any workable alternative. Happy to consider any act that you think meets all 3.

How is it bollocks ffs. My point, clearly, was that the inevitability of civilian victims does not automatically mean a conflict is unjustified. You were the one who implies otherwise by asking how I could "account for" atrocities where civilians lost their lives.
And as for the questions regarding the Old IRA, I have stated my view on that conflict a thousand times here. Perhaps you could tell me if YOU think it was justified?

In an earlier response to BCB I set out why this argument is bollocks. The Tony Blair example should be enough for you.

You have to forge a link between the oppression, the resolution of the oppression and the violent act. Can you draw a link between all the acts that you consider legitimate and how it did or even could address some act of oppression?

I already did. Read up on Canary Wharf, for instance. The above line from you just equates to the claim, again, that the IRA campaign achieved nothing and that what we have today could have been achieved without it. But, again, you offer no step-by-step guide to exactly how. Was there an alternative to conflict in 1921? If not, then how on earth could a nationalist population, living under a more oppressive regime, have had an alternative option. If you think that conflict in the six counties was not an inevitability, then you are far more detached from the reality of what life was like here than even I was giving you credit for.

So that is Canary Wharf chaulked off. Whats up next? Presumably you are going to justify every act?

Seriously. For a man that likes to accuse me of engaging in faux arguments, you've just produced quite a list of them yourself. This one takes the biscuit. I've lost count of the number of times that I've state on this board that the PIRA, just like the Old IRA, carried out acts that were unjustified. Similarly, I've lost count of the number of times clowns like you still attempt to accuse me of trying to justify every action. It's not inconsistent to support an armed campaign and to believe that certain actions that took place in it were unjustifiable. Most people would support the allied fight in WW2. Does that mean they "presumably jutify" the carpet bombing of Dresden? Cop yourself on.

You see I didn't accuse of you trying to justify every act.

You continually fail to follow the thread of an argument and make up your own argument.

To break it down for you you cannot use Canary Wharf to justify the the armed campaign. What was the rest of it -target practice for slow learners?

[smelmoth]

So in other words, SF only gained traction as a political party post-GFA and that their military campaign prior to this achieved nothing for them. I guess they were too afraid to run as representatives at the height of the Troubles.

Would you have stood for a party knowing that you were setting yourself up as a target for a state sponsored assassination? SF members and workers were targeted for their membership. Does that sound like a party that was competing for votes in a fair and level electoral playing field to you?

Another belter.

SF were busy harrassing people outside polling stations trying to stop them voting.

And did republicanism have some sort of embargo on not targeting the lives of political candidates or was it only wrong when other people did it?

So nationalists in the six counties were disengaged form political/electoral involvement because SF? You really don't know the first f**king thing about what it was like to live through conflict, do you.

And this specific argument has nothing to do with the legitimacy or otherwise of targeting political party candidates. The issue is specifically that you wanted to use the electoral performance of SF as a barometer to test nationalist support for the republican movement, even though SF were barely organised as a party and people associated with it set themselves up as assassination targets - so to think that this is a suitable way to gauge nationalist support for republican movement is just plain stupid. My own family, throughout the conflict, supported the PIRA campaign as legitimate. We never engaged in electoral politics until the latter years. That was just the norm for so many. Your problem is that you live in the south and just don't understand why. The problem is that you don't realise the extend to which you don't understand.

You do get it that I lived through the troubles in the north.

Stop making these things up.

I find it hard to believe, given some of the pure nonsense you've been posting here. My guess is you're with from the south, or from the north and grew up in peace times. Either way, I don't believe for one minute you lived through a day of conflict.

I think you have single handedly destroyed your own argument that "belief" is the basis of any argument.

Belief isn't enough. You have to know. That is true of a discussion board. Its true of life and its most definitely true if you are taking a human life.

[smelmoth]

This has been a great win for the forum republicans.

This thread is a bit like those cabaret clubs in Berlin that did so very much to stop the rise of Hitler

The fact that you have been shown up to be an ignorant hypocrite who tried to diversify away from the subject of the thread has been noted by all contributors.

Ignorant of what facts?
Hypocritical on which points?

The thread is about free state hypocrisy on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past.

Can you sum your comments on the Old IRA and their violent and bloody past on this thread.

If you look back at your contributions, we will see you have instead tried to spam with posts unrelated to the thread. Now why would you do that?

Listen wee man you must by now have realised the fatal flaw in the construction of this thread. Some people in the south might think that the old IRA were a good thing. Others might think them a bad thing. It's only hypocrisy if they apply a double standard. If the people of the south are applying a double standard it must be to some other conflict. You know what the other conflict is. I know what it is. But you just don't want to talk about what the other conflict is.

As for the old IRA I have went further than any other poster. I have set out a 3 stage test to apply to each of their actions. Do you want to catalogue the actions or a highlights reel?

"Wee man"

Can you post something that stays on the topic of the thread and not the incoherent, rambling mess you have put above.

People of low IQ like yourself really should cut out the condescending terms, it's not a good look.

Champion, I have very much stuck to the thread and in fact am probably the poster that has stayed most on topic.

I am the poster that that has highlighted that its perfectly reasonable for people to feel differently about not only different campaigns but different acts within the same campaign.

I am the poster that has set out their test of how to judge individual acts.

Has any other poster done this? Have you? Could I have been more helpful?

Where are your posts about the bloody abd violent past of the Old IRA?

Which ones?

[Snapchap]

I really cannot be bothered with all this quoting nonsense. Particularly when your counter arguments are gems like "I didn't accuse of you trying to justify every act" when if you went back up a few lines in quotes to your previous comment, you said:

So that is Canary Wharf chaulked off. Whats up next? Presumably you are going to justify every act?

So what was that you were saying about faux arguments?

So how about cut the waffle and answer straight:

If you believe the PIRA campaign was a terrorist one, then was the Old IRA campaign also a terrorist one?

[Farrandeelin]

Only Angelo could start a thread with over 340 replies in about 4 days. (Well maybe not only Angelo but kudos to him for managing to do it.)

[smelmoth]

I really cannot be bothered with all this quoting nonsense. Particularly when your counter arguments are gems like "I didn't accuse of you trying to justify every act" when if you went back up a few lines in quotes to your previous comment, you said:

So that is Canary Wharf chaulked off. Whats up next? Presumably you are going to justify every act?

So what was that you were saying about faux arguments?

So how about cut the waffle and answer straight:

If you believe the PIRA campaign was a terrorist one, then was the Old IRA campaign also a terrorist one?

Don't fall into the Angelo trap. As much as I fundamentally disagree with you, you have at least engaged in the debate up to this point.

Angelo on the other hand appears to be a Loyalist agent trying to bring republicanism down from within.

But more importantly I would ask you to read my post again. I have given you response to the points you have raised. I appreciate the posts are long and so each has to fill in the gaps but you can't just fill them in with wild assumptions in your favour.

On the point of justifying every act. I never said you had. I have now explained twice what I (clearly) meant. Not much more I can do.

On the old IRA you seem to under the misapprehension that I have justified them. I haven't. I have set the rules that I would judge them by. I have invited you to put any act to that test. Which you haven't done.

[Rossfan]

https://politics.ie/threads/40-years-on-the-murder-of-senator-billy-fox.222859/

Sure we can all play that game, Ross:
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/carlow-1921-the-ira-shoot-a-pharmacist-who-wouldn-t-close-his-shop-1.4036174

What point are you trying to make with your link and what relevance does posting this link have to the thread title?

A number of pages back I pointed out that by taking their war to the 26 Counties the Provos alienated a lot of support/sympathy they might have had.
I listed some of their actions in this war on the 26 Co State  including the sectarian murder of an elected* representative.
The silence from the Provo supporters on that act was notable (with one exception...."But the 1921 IRA...).

The Fox murder was the last straw for my dad and he says a lot of others who had been sympathisers were the same.
Making war on and denying the legitimacy of a State which had been legitimised by 98% of its population were not very wise
moves.

* only the Senate I know.