Guess the Sindo Headline

[Itchy]

The founding fathers of the Free State carried out atrocities far in excess of what the Provisionals would do decades later.

But the IRA killed an awful.lot of civilians and that usually has a bad look..

So did the Old IRA.

What is it about you free staters that doesn't allow ye to see the brazen hypocrisy.

The difference is the old IRA were led and manned by people from the South who drove the British out of the 26 counties,which led to the Republic and the modern European state it is today

They were winners


The provos were a collection of beardie Nordie rabble with guff about a socialist state,who were running to the British authorities at every opportunity to inform on each other.They also didn't achieve their aims of

Brits out of the North

NI is still in existence after all their attempts to overthrow it

They lost

There's the difference

To paraphrase, there was no difference in them other than one group wear beards and one group won and the other didn't. I can only presume then that in their actions they were the same?

[trueblue1234]

When you have jackasses like Cullinane singing 'Up the Ra' on the night he is re-elected, can you blame them? What message does that send out to the wider world? That 'official Ireland' is tolerant of terrorist-supporting politicians?

"Terrorist"? Were the Old IRA also "terrorists"?

The Provos were absolutely terrorists. As John Hume often said, many of the actions of the Provo terrorists were indefensible. 'Whatabouterry' doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make those acts of terror defensible.

1. I didn't ask if you if the PIRA were terrorists. I asked if the Old IRA were.
2. I didn't actually ask you anything. My question was in reply to Mouview.
3. Since you have decided to get involved, maybe you can tell us if you also believe the Old IRA were terrorists too? And drop the "whataboutery" guff. Thats a word cowards like to use to dodge having to explain away glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their opinions.
4. Are you saying the PIRA were terrorists just because they carried out some actions that were indefensible? Can you point me to an armed campaign by any group that you feel was justifiable, and which didn't involve actions within it that were indefensible?

Good man snapchap.

Just to recollect, this conversation was about whether SF get unfair treatment in the mainstream media, and it was suggested that part of this bad press is down to links that current SF members have with the Provos.

You decided to deflect with something that happened a 100 years ago. There are some similarities but many differences between the Old IRA and the Provos, none of which are relevant to this particular discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Provos terrorist campaign had always less than 5% support down south, often less than 2%.

We're not going to agree on this matter. If you do have any further questions on it, please refer to what John Hume said on it. That'll be my position, which will be different to yours.

There are differences in all armed campaigns. The fact is there are also distinct similarities between the Old IRA and PIRA campaigns. So your attempts to dodge the discussion with such meaningless nonsense as "it was 100 years ago" (besides, the Old IRA and PIRA were separated by 50 years, not 100) and your persistence with the "whataboutery" get out clause is just pathetic. If you regard the PIRA as terrorist, then explain why the Old IRA were not.

So you're deliberately and disingenuously missing the point. It's pathetic to think the Old IRA and the Provos were the same or very similar. You're not worthy of further discussion.

Just read about John Hume and why he thought the Old IRA was different to the Provos. In fact just read on both histories and it'll stare you right in the face. I'll leave you with the following from John Hume:

John Hume: The IRA has killed more than twice as many Catholics - the very people they claim to defend - as the British security forces have. ``Some defenders!'

The old IRA disappeared 4 times the number the Provisional IRA did.

[Angelo]

When you have jackasses like Cullinane singing 'Up the Ra' on the night he is re-elected, can you blame them? What message does that send out to the wider world? That 'official Ireland' is tolerant of terrorist-supporting politicians?

"Terrorist"? Were the Old IRA also "terrorists"?

The Provos were absolutely terrorists. As John Hume often said, many of the actions of the Provo terrorists were indefensible. 'Whatabouterry' doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make those acts of terror defensible.

1. I didn't ask if you if the PIRA were terrorists. I asked if the Old IRA were.
2. I didn't actually ask you anything. My question was in reply to Mouview.
3. Since you have decided to get involved, maybe you can tell us if you also believe the Old IRA were terrorists too? And drop the "whataboutery" guff. Thats a word cowards like to use to dodge having to explain away glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their opinions.
4. Are you saying the PIRA were terrorists just because they carried out some actions that were indefensible? Can you point me to an armed campaign by any group that you feel was justifiable, and which didn't involve actions within it that were indefensible?

Good man snapchap.

Just to recollect, this conversation was about whether SF get unfair treatment in the mainstream media, and it was suggested that part of this bad press is down to links that current SF members have with the Provos.

You decided to deflect with something that happened a 100 years ago. There are some similarities but many differences between the Old IRA and the Provos, none of which are relevant to this particular discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Provos terrorist campaign had always less than 5% support down south, often less than 2%.

We're not going to agree on this matter. If you do have any further questions on it, please refer to what John Hume said on it. That'll be my position, which will be different to yours.

There are differences in all armed campaigns. The fact is there are also distinct similarities between the Old IRA and PIRA campaigns. So your attempts to dodge the discussion with such meaningless nonsense as "it was 100 years ago" (besides, the Old IRA and PIRA were separated by 50 years, not 100) and your persistence with the "whataboutery" get out clause is just pathetic. If you regard the PIRA as terrorist, then explain why the Old IRA were not.

So you're deliberately and disingenuously missing the point. It's pathetic to think the Old IRA and the Provos were the same or very similar. You're not worthy of further discussion.

Just read about John Hume and why he thought the Old IRA was different to the Provos. In fact just read on both histories and it'll stare you right in the face. I'll leave you with the following from John Hume:

John Hume: The IRA has killed more than twice as many Catholics - the very people they claim to defend - as the British security forces have. ``Some defenders!'

The arrogant hypocrisy steaming off that post.

The Old IRA butchered 1500 of each other and another 500 citizens in its Civil War which only lasted a year!! I wouldn't expect someone as uneducated and ignorant as yourself to be in anyway informed on Irish history.

What did John Hume think of the Irish Civil War?
Are you proud of that?

[mouview]

When you have jackasses like Cullinane singing 'Up the Ra' on the night he is re-elected, can you blame them? What message does that send out to the wider world? That 'official Ireland' is tolerant of terrorist-supporting politicians?

"Terrorist"? Were the Old IRA also "terrorists"?

The Provos were absolutely terrorists. As John Hume often said, many of the actions of the Provo terrorists were indefensible. 'Whatabouterry' doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make those acts of terror defensible.

1. I didn't ask if you if the PIRA were terrorists. I asked if the Old IRA were.
2. I didn't actually ask you anything. My question was in reply to Mouview.
3. Since you have decided to get involved, maybe you can tell us if you also believe the Old IRA were terrorists too? And drop the "whataboutery" guff. Thats a word cowards like to use to dodge having to explain away glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their opinions.
4. Are you saying the PIRA were terrorists just because they carried out some actions that were indefensible? Can you point me to an armed campaign by any group that you feel was justifiable, and which didn't involve actions within it that were indefensible?

Good man snapchap.

Just to recollect, this conversation was about whether SF get unfair treatment in the mainstream media, and it was suggested that part of this bad press is down to links that current SF members have with the Provos.

You decided to deflect with something that happened a 100 years ago. There are some similarities but many differences between the Old IRA and the Provos, none of which are relevant to this particular discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Provos terrorist campaign had always less than 5% support down south, often less than 2%.

We're not going to agree on this matter. If you do have any further questions on it, please refer to what John Hume said on it. That'll be my position, which will be different to yours.

There are differences in all armed campaigns. The fact is there are also distinct similarities between the Old IRA and PIRA campaigns. So your attempts to dodge the discussion with such meaningless nonsense as "it was 100 years ago" (besides, the Old IRA and PIRA were separated by 50 years, not 100) and your persistence with the "whataboutery" get out clause is just pathetic. If you regard the PIRA as terrorist, then explain why the Old IRA were not.

So you're deliberately and disingenuously missing the point. It's pathetic to think the Old IRA and the Provos were the same or very similar. You're not worthy of further discussion.

Just read about John Hume and why he thought the Old IRA was different to the Provos. In fact just read on both histories and it'll stare you right in the face. I'll leave you with the following from John Hume:

John Hume: The IRA has killed more than twice as many Catholics - the very people they claim to defend - as the British security forces have. ``Some defenders!'

The arrogant hypocrisy steaming off that post.

The Old IRA butchered 1500 of each other and another 500 citizens in its Civil War which only lasted a year!! I wouldn't expect someone as uneducated and ignorant as yourself to be in anyway informed on Irish history.

What did John Hume think of the Irish Civil War?
Are you proud of that?

You've served a ban from here recently and will be facing another shortly if you don't tone down your comments. Debate the point, don't stray into insulting people you know nothing about.

[Angelo]

When you have jackasses like Cullinane singing 'Up the Ra' on the night he is re-elected, can you blame them? What message does that send out to the wider world? That 'official Ireland' is tolerant of terrorist-supporting politicians?

"Terrorist"? Were the Old IRA also "terrorists"?

The Provos were absolutely terrorists. As John Hume often said, many of the actions of the Provo terrorists were indefensible. 'Whatabouterry' doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make those acts of terror defensible.

1. I didn't ask if you if the PIRA were terrorists. I asked if the Old IRA were.
2. I didn't actually ask you anything. My question was in reply to Mouview.
3. Since you have decided to get involved, maybe you can tell us if you also believe the Old IRA were terrorists too? And drop the "whataboutery" guff. Thats a word cowards like to use to dodge having to explain away glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their opinions.
4. Are you saying the PIRA were terrorists just because they carried out some actions that were indefensible? Can you point me to an armed campaign by any group that you feel was justifiable, and which didn't involve actions within it that were indefensible?

Good man snapchap.

Just to recollect, this conversation was about whether SF get unfair treatment in the mainstream media, and it was suggested that part of this bad press is down to links that current SF members have with the Provos.

You decided to deflect with something that happened a 100 years ago. There are some similarities but many differences between the Old IRA and the Provos, none of which are relevant to this particular discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Provos terrorist campaign had always less than 5% support down south, often less than 2%.

We're not going to agree on this matter. If you do have any further questions on it, please refer to what John Hume said on it. That'll be my position, which will be different to yours.

There are differences in all armed campaigns. The fact is there are also distinct similarities between the Old IRA and PIRA campaigns. So your attempts to dodge the discussion with such meaningless nonsense as "it was 100 years ago" (besides, the Old IRA and PIRA were separated by 50 years, not 100) and your persistence with the "whataboutery" get out clause is just pathetic. If you regard the PIRA as terrorist, then explain why the Old IRA were not.

So you're deliberately and disingenuously missing the point. It's pathetic to think the Old IRA and the Provos were the same or very similar. You're not worthy of further discussion.

Just read about John Hume and why he thought the Old IRA was different to the Provos. In fact just read on both histories and it'll stare you right in the face. I'll leave you with the following from John Hume:

John Hume: The IRA has killed more than twice as many Catholics - the very people they claim to defend - as the British security forces have. ``Some defenders!'

The arrogant hypocrisy steaming off that post.

The Old IRA butchered 1500 of each other and another 500 citizens in its Civil War which only lasted a year!! I wouldn't expect someone as uneducated and ignorant as yourself to be in anyway informed on Irish history.

What did John Hume think of the Irish Civil War?
Are you proud of that?

You've served a ban from here recently and will be facing another shortly if you don't tone down your comments. Debate the point, don't stray into insulting people you know nothing about.

Trying to get me banned now because I've exposed your backward views and contradictions?

Hopefully the mod can see some sense and ban you.

[Snapchap]

The old IRA disappeared 4 times the number the Provisional IRA did.

Not true. They actually disappeared over 10 times the number of people that the PIRA did. The PIRA disappeared 14 people in a 30 year campaign. The Old IRA is estimated to have disappeared between 150-200 (mostly innocent) people in the space of two years. But apparently it's only the PIRA that were terrorists so that makes the Old IRA activities just fine and dandy.

[Snapchap]

The difference is the old IRA were led and manned by people from the South who drove the British out of the 26 counties,which led to the Republic and the modern European state it is today

They were winners


The provos were a collection of beardie Nordie rabble with guff about a socialist state,who were running to the British authorities at every opportunity to inform on each other.They also didn't achieve their aims of

Brits out of the North

NI is still in existence after all their attempts to overthrow it

They lost

There's the difference

There is it. The single most stupid post ever contributed to gaaboard. Congratulations.

[Snapchap]

When you have jackasses like Cullinane singing 'Up the Ra' on the night he is re-elected, can you blame them? What message does that send out to the wider world? That 'official Ireland' is tolerant of terrorist-supporting politicians?

"Terrorist"? Were the Old IRA also "terrorists"?

The Provos were absolutely terrorists. As John Hume often said, many of the actions of the Provo terrorists were indefensible. 'Whatabouterry' doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make those acts of terror defensible.

1. I didn't ask if you if the PIRA were terrorists. I asked if the Old IRA were.
2. I didn't actually ask you anything. My question was in reply to Mouview.
3. Since you have decided to get involved, maybe you can tell us if you also believe the Old IRA were terrorists too? And drop the "whataboutery" guff. Thats a word cowards like to use to dodge having to explain away glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their opinions.
4. Are you saying the PIRA were terrorists just because they carried out some actions that were indefensible? Can you point me to an armed campaign by any group that you feel was justifiable, and which didn't involve actions within it that were indefensible?

Good man snapchap.

Just to recollect, this conversation was about whether SF get unfair treatment in the mainstream media, and it was suggested that part of this bad press is down to links that current SF members have with the Provos.

You decided to deflect with something that happened a 100 years ago. There are some similarities but many differences between the Old IRA and the Provos, none of which are relevant to this particular discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Provos terrorist campaign had always less than 5% support down south, often less than 2%.

We're not going to agree on this matter. If you do have any further questions on it, please refer to what John Hume said on it. That'll be my position, which will be different to yours.

There are differences in all armed campaigns. The fact is there are also distinct similarities between the Old IRA and PIRA campaigns. So your attempts to dodge the discussion with such meaningless nonsense as "it was 100 years ago" (besides, the Old IRA and PIRA were separated by 50 years, not 100) and your persistence with the "whataboutery" get out clause is just pathetic. If you regard the PIRA as terrorist, then explain why the Old IRA were not.

So you're deliberately and disingenuously missing the point. It's pathetic to think the Old IRA and the Provos were the same or very similar. You're not worthy of further discussion.

Just read about John Hume and why he thought the Old IRA was different to the Provos. In fact just read on both histories and it'll stare you right in the face. I'll leave you with the following from John Hume:

John Hume: The IRA has killed more than twice as many Catholics - the very people they claim to defend - as the British security forces have. ``Some defenders!'

I didn't ask you what John Hume thinks. I aksed you to explain your view on why the Old IRA, which killed a higher proportion of civilians relative to combatants than the PIRA did, and which disappeared 10-15 times the number of people that the provos did (in around one tenth of the time), were not terrorists, but the PIRA were.

[seafoid]

When you have jackasses like Cullinane singing 'Up the Ra' on the night he is re-elected, can you blame them? What message does that send out to the wider world? That 'official Ireland' is tolerant of terrorist-supporting politicians?

"Terrorist"? Were the Old IRA also "terrorists"?

The Provos were absolutely terrorists. As John Hume often said, many of the actions of the Provo terrorists were indefensible. 'Whatabouterry' doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make those acts of terror defensible.

1. I didn't ask if you if the PIRA were terrorists. I asked if the Old IRA were.
2. I didn't actually ask you anything. My question was in reply to Mouview.
3. Since you have decided to get involved, maybe you can tell us if you also believe the Old IRA were terrorists too? And drop the "whataboutery" guff. Thats a word cowards like to use to dodge having to explain away glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their opinions.
4. Are you saying the PIRA were terrorists just because they carried out some actions that were indefensible? Can you point me to an armed campaign by any group that you feel was justifiable, and which didn't involve actions within it that were indefensible?

Good man snapchap.

Just to recollect, this conversation was about whether SF get unfair treatment in the mainstream media, and it was suggested that part of this bad press is down to links that current SF members have with the Provos.

You decided to deflect with something that happened a 100 years ago. There are some similarities but many differences between the Old IRA and the Provos, none of which are relevant to this particular discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Provos terrorist campaign had always less than 5% support down south, often less than 2%.

We're not going to agree on this matter. If you do have any further questions on it, please refer to what John Hume said on it. That'll be my position, which will be different to yours.

There are differences in all armed campaigns. The fact is there are also distinct similarities between the Old IRA and PIRA campaigns. So your attempts to dodge the discussion with such meaningless nonsense as "it was 100 years ago" (besides, the Old IRA and PIRA were separated by 50 years, not 100) and your persistence with the "whataboutery" get out clause is just pathetic. If you regard the PIRA as terrorist, then explain why the Old IRA were not.

So you're deliberately and disingenuously missing the point. It's pathetic to think the Old IRA and the Provos were the same or very similar. You're not worthy of further discussion.

Just read about John Hume and why he thought the Old IRA was different to the Provos. In fact just read on both histories and it'll stare you right in the face. I'll leave you with the following from John Hume:

John Hume: The IRA has killed more than twice as many Catholics - the very people they claim to defend - as the British security forces have. ``Some defenders!'

I didn't ask you what John Hume thinks. I aksed you to explain your view on why the Old IRA, which killed a higher proportion of civilians relative to combatants than the PIRA did, and which disappeared 10-15 times the number of people that the provos did (in around one tenth of the time), were not terrorists, but the PIRA were.

Have you got stats for the Old IRA and civilians?
The PIRA seemed to be very good at killing catholics.

[Angelo]

Some of the Free State revisionists should give this a read before they moralise and contradict themselves.

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

[Itchy]

When you have jackasses like Cullinane singing 'Up the Ra' on the night he is re-elected, can you blame them? What message does that send out to the wider world? That 'official Ireland' is tolerant of terrorist-supporting politicians?

"Terrorist"? Were the Old IRA also "terrorists"?

The Provos were absolutely terrorists. As John Hume often said, many of the actions of the Provo terrorists were indefensible. 'Whatabouterry' doesn't change that and certainly doesn't make those acts of terror defensible.

1. I didn't ask if you if the PIRA were terrorists. I asked if the Old IRA were.
2. I didn't actually ask you anything. My question was in reply to Mouview.
3. Since you have decided to get involved, maybe you can tell us if you also believe the Old IRA were terrorists too? And drop the "whataboutery" guff. Thats a word cowards like to use to dodge having to explain away glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their opinions.
4. Are you saying the PIRA were terrorists just because they carried out some actions that were indefensible? Can you point me to an armed campaign by any group that you feel was justifiable, and which didn't involve actions within it that were indefensible?

Good man snapchap.

Just to recollect, this conversation was about whether SF get unfair treatment in the mainstream media, and it was suggested that part of this bad press is down to links that current SF members have with the Provos.

You decided to deflect with something that happened a 100 years ago. There are some similarities but many differences between the Old IRA and the Provos, none of which are relevant to this particular discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Provos terrorist campaign had always less than 5% support down south, often less than 2%.

We're not going to agree on this matter. If you do have any further questions on it, please refer to what John Hume said on it. That'll be my position, which will be different to yours.

There are differences in all armed campaigns. The fact is there are also distinct similarities between the Old IRA and PIRA campaigns. So your attempts to dodge the discussion with such meaningless nonsense as "it was 100 years ago" (besides, the Old IRA and PIRA were separated by 50 years, not 100) and your persistence with the "whataboutery" get out clause is just pathetic. If you regard the PIRA as terrorist, then explain why the Old IRA were not.

So you're deliberately and disingenuously missing the point. It's pathetic to think the Old IRA and the Provos were the same or very similar. You're not worthy of further discussion.

Just read about John Hume and why he thought the Old IRA was different to the Provos. In fact just read on both histories and it'll stare you right in the face. I'll leave you with the following from John Hume:

John Hume: The IRA has killed more than twice as many Catholics - the very people they claim to defend - as the British security forces have. ``Some defenders!'

I didn't ask you what John Hume thinks. I aksed you to explain your view on why the Old IRA, which killed a higher proportion of civilians relative to combatants than the PIRA did, and which disappeared 10-15 times the number of people that the provos did (in around one tenth of the time), were not terrorists, but the PIRA were.

Have you got stats for the Old IRA and civilians?
The PIRA seemed to be very good at killing catholics.

A point to note, the PIRA were at war with the British - not with protestants or catholics. I am not sure what the relevance of teh catholic death toll is. Anyway this thread is getting way off the point now, its about what a rag the SINDO is so mayve we should revert to that.

[Angelo]

A point to note, the PIRA were at war with the British - not with protestants or catholics. I am not sure what the relevance of teh catholic death toll is. Anyway this thread is getting way off the point now, its about what a rag the SINDO is so mayve we should revert to that.

It is.

It's also obvious at which side of this debate brought in the PIRA to it. It's the likes of Hound and Mouview who inserted them there when they tried to justify media bias.

The when it was pointed out to them their support and justification of a organisation with a similar philosophy who killed and disappeared multiples of the number of civilians the PIRA did, they didn't think it worthwhile discussing.

It's faux outrage and faux moralising and it takes a nasty type of person to use victims to score points when the reality is they are happy to justify the same when they are aligned to that identity.

These type of people should be exposed at every opportunity.

Now that we have that established, let us return to the toxic publication that is the Indo.

[clonadmad]

The difference is the old IRA were led and manned by people from the South who drove the British out of the 26 counties,which led to the Republic and the modern European state it is today

They were winners


The provos were a collection of beardie Nordie rabble with guff about a socialist state,who were running to the British authorities at every opportunity to inform on each other.They also didn't achieve their aims of

Brits out of the North

NI is still in existence after all their attempts to overthrow it

They lost

There's the difference

There is it. The single most stupid post ever contributed to gaaboard. Congratulations.

Typical nordie victim whinging

If you lot had a bit more Dan Breen about ye and a little less Freddie Stakeknife

Yed have been a lot further on

The reality is that what push came to shove in the war of independence you had the 6 northern counties hiding under the bed,

when the likes of Tom Barry was outnumbered 60 to 1 in West Cork and still carrying the fight to the British

The Nordies couldn't even create enough trouble in so called nationalist areas like Derry city or South Armagh to tie down British troops, never mind come to the aid of their under pressure southern brigades

[Rossfan]

Could the PIRA supporters explain to me how the Irish kennel club and the Le Mons hotel were part of a "war with the British".
Or Gardai Hand, Clerkin, Quaid, McCabe, Sheehan.
Or Private Kelly
Or Senator Fox.
And what did continuing the War from 1974 to 1998 achieve?

[grounded]

The difference is the old IRA were led and manned by people from the South who drove the British out of the 26 counties,which led to the Republic and the modern European state it is today

They were winners


The provos were a collection of beardie Nordie rabble with guff about a socialist state,who were running to the British authorities at every opportunity to inform on each other.They also didn't achieve their aims of

Brits out of the North

NI is still in existence after all their attempts to overthrow it

They lost

There's the difference

There is it. The single most stupid post ever contributed to gaaboard. Congratulations.

Typical nordie victim whinging

If you lot had a bit more Dan Breen about ye and a little less Freddie Stakeknife

Yed have been a lot further on

The reality is that what push came to shove in the war of independence you had the 6 northern counties hiding under the bed,

when the likes of Tom Barry was outnumbered 60 to 1 in West Cork and still carrying the fight to the British

The Nordies couldn't even create enough trouble in so called nationalist areas like Derry city or South Armagh to tie down British troops, never mind come to the aid of their under pressure southern brigades

Is that you Eoghan?