Free Staters and their hypocrisy on their violent, bloody past

[Snapchap]

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

You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiable actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.

You have repeatedly used the fact that the PIRA bombed Canary Wharf as a reason for calling them terrorists. You do know Michael Collins organised the bombing of Liverpool Docks? Do you condemn him for that? Was it a terrorist action?

[dublin7]

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

You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiabke actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.

You're consistent in defending the indefensible no doubt. That's not a typical PIRA attack stood out as a remarkable defence. I do look forward to finding out what is a typical IRA attack or will you just say look at what happened 100 years ago as usual?

[Snapchap]

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

You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiabke actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.

You're consistent in defending the indefensible no doubt. That's not a typical PIRA attack stood out as a remarkable defence. I do look forward to finding out what is a typical IRA attack or will you just say look at what happened 100 years ago as usual?

Are you suggesting that attacks on civilians made up the majority of PIRA attacks?

If you are suggesting that, then you are just plain wrong.

If you are not, then surely I'm factually correct in saying that they didn't typify IRA attacks.

So which is it?

You also missed my questions re Collins:
You have repeatedly used the fact that the PIRA bombed Canary Wharf as a reason for calling them terrorists. You do know Michael Collins organised the bombing of Liverpool Docks? Do you condemn him for that? Was it a terrorist action?

You also, STILL haven't outlined why it is OK to target civilians at a rate of around 35% in 1921, but not in 1969.

[trailer]

Can someone tell me which PIRA murders brought us to this point (a utopia) and which didn't? Because I am confused.

[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

You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiabke actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.

You're consistent in defending the indefensible no doubt. That's not a typical PIRA attack stood out as a remarkable defence. I do look forward to finding out what is a typical IRA attack or will you just say look at what happened 100 years ago as usual?

You really don't like it when your hypocrisy is highlighted do you? Your in knots!!

[dublin7]

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

You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiabke actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.

You're consistent in defending the indefensible no doubt. That's not a typical PIRA attack stood out as a remarkable defence. I do look forward to finding out what is a typical IRA attack or will you just say look at what happened 100 years ago as usual?

Are you suggesting that attacks on civilians made up the majority of PIRA attacks?

If you are suggesting that, then you are just plain wrong.

If you are not, then surely I'm factually correct in saying that they didn't typify IRA attacks.

So which is it?

You also missed my questions re Collins:
You have repeatedly used the fact that the PIRA bombed Canary Wharf as a reason for calling them terrorists. You do know Michael Collins organised the bombing of Liverpool Docks? Do you condemn him for that? Was it a terrorist action?

So what you're saying is Michael Collins 100 years ago set set the standard for terrorist acts. You've been very clear and consistent on that to be fair. You think they were worse than anything the PIRA did.

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.

When 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 towards a united Ireland.

The only partial success they could claim is 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

Still we have to be fair to PIRA. Not all of the terrorist acts were typical PIRA attacks. Us free staters just wouldn't understand as we don't live in the north

[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

You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiabke actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.

You're consistent in defending the indefensible no doubt. That's not a typical PIRA attack stood out as a remarkable defence. I do look forward to finding out what is a typical IRA attack or will you just say look at what happened 100 years ago as usual?

Are you suggesting that attacks on civilians made up the majority of PIRA attacks?

If you are suggesting that, then you are just plain wrong.

If you are not, then surely I'm factually correct in saying that they didn't typify IRA attacks.

So which is it?

You also missed my questions re Collins:
You have repeatedly used the fact that the PIRA bombed Canary Wharf as a reason for calling them terrorists. You do know Michael Collins organised the bombing of Liverpool Docks? Do you condemn him for that? Was it a terrorist action?

So what you're saying is Michael Collins 100 years ago set set the standard for terrorist acts. You've been very clear and consistent on that to be fair. You think they were worse than anything the PIRA did.

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.

[sid waddell]

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

[Snapchap]

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

You see, Dublin7, I'm entirely consistent in my view. Both the Old IRA campaign and the PIRA campaign involved a similar proportion of civilian deaths, (the Old IRA lilely a higher proportion). Neither campaign was a terrorist one but both contained unjustifiabke actions. Your problem is that you are not consistent. You can't explain why targeting civilians, at a similar rate, is enough to deem a campaign as a terrorist one in 1969, but not in 1921.

You're consistent in defending the indefensible no doubt. That's not a typical PIRA attack stood out as a remarkable defence. I do look forward to finding out what is a typical IRA attack or will you just say look at what happened 100 years ago as usual?

Are you suggesting that attacks on civilians made up the majority of PIRA attacks?

If you are suggesting that, then you are just plain wrong.

If you are not, then surely I'm factually correct in saying that they didn't typify IRA attacks.

So which is it?

You also missed my questions re Collins:
You have repeatedly used the fact that the PIRA bombed Canary Wharf as a reason for calling them terrorists. You do know Michael Collins organised the bombing of Liverpool Docks? Do you condemn him for that? Was it a terrorist action?

So what you're saying is Michael Collins 100 years ago set set the standard for terrorist acts. You've been very clear and consistent on that to be fair. You think they were worse than anything the PIRA did.

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

So the PIRA bombing the London docklands was "terrorism" but Michael Collins ordering the bombing of Liverpool docks was "taking the war to the british". You're like a parody of free statism!

And where did I say I hated the Old IRA? Didn't I already point out that my views are consistent? That I view both campaigns as legitimate and that both contained a similar proportion of unjustifiable actions?

You are the only trying to draw a distinction but yet again, you can't explain why targeting civilians was wrong in 1969 but fine in 1921. In fact, the only justification that you have offered is that "Collins drove the occupying force out of Ireland" (setting aside the small matter of Ireland having 32 counties and the fact that Collins didn't set out to achieve partition), so are you now arguing that its ok to kill the same (and likely a higher) proportion of civilians as the PIRA as long as you think the end result is a degree of success? Safe to assume that youd have no issue with the actions of the PIRA if the brits decided in 1998 to withdraw? Because if not,  how would that not make you a great big f**king hypocrite?

[trailer]

This is all part of SF revisionism. PIRA are the same as the old IRA. Vote these c***ts in at your peril.

[Angelo]

When republicans were busy putting their lives on the line for the betterment of their communities, Stoops were busy taking up Lordships for the betterment of themselves.

That is why only people like Trailer vote for them anymore.

[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

[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.

[sid waddell]

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

They knew when to stop for one - the Provos didn't

And this is a key component when making an argument for whether a campaign could be plausibly justified or not

[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.