President condemns brutal old IRA execution of elderly woman

wandererz

Perhaps while he's at it Varadkar should come out and apologise for the atrocity of the Indians forcing out the millions of Muslims into Pakistan,kicking them out of their homes etc.

Just saying OP...

is_that_so

McGaggs wrote: »

She wasn't elderly, she was 60 years old.

For 1920 she was, life expectancy was in the mid fifties for women.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

We will just ignore the fact that the information this woman passed onto the British occupation forces resulted in the deaths of five Irishmen?

Maybe she should have kept quiet?

Steyr 556

Steyr 556 wrote: »

We will just ignore the fact that the information this woman passed onto the British occupation forces resulted in the deaths of five Irishmen?

Maybe she should have kept quiet?

British occupation forces. You make it sound like the British had only invaded Ireland a few years ago, and that Irish people had a strong independent sense of self...

A large part of the Irish population were well conditioned and accepting of British control of Ireland. There had been intermarriage, with generations of people with mixed blood, often having been educated or had worked/lived in England. Just as there had been many English/British people who had behaved well while living or serving their time in Ireland. In spite of the desire by some to paint British control of Ireland as being some kind of Hell... it wasn't. Except for some.

She was a loyalist with connections to the British. Perhaps she saw the future of Ireland being better off under the British, than with the IRA who she despised... and to be fair, the IRA and subsequent Irish governments didn't always do such a good job of running the country. Not everyone wanted Ireland to be independent...

Any analysis of the war of independence would show the vast majority of atrocities committed by the anti Independence side. It’s not like cities were burned by the old IRA.

There’s a strange kind of Irish man, like the op, who is effectively a unionist tribalist, not unlike the bauld Eoghan Harris.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

British occupation forces. You make it sound like the British had only invaded Ireland a few years ago, and that Irish people had a strong independent sense of self...

A large part of the Irish population were well conditioned and accepting of British control of Ireland. There had been intermarriage, with generations of people with mixed blood, often having been educated or had worked/lived in England. Just as there had been many English/British people who had behaved well while living or serving their time in Ireland. In spite of the desire by some to paint British control of Ireland as being some kind of Hell... it wasn't. Except for some.

She was a loyalist with connections to the British. Perhaps she saw the future of Ireland being better off under the British, than with the IRA who she despised... and to be fair, the IRA and subsequent Irish governments didn't always do such a good job of running the country. Not everyone wanted Ireland to be independent...

There were loyalists in British America too, they weren’t fetishised 100 years later. I wonder if the US president should apologise for any atrocity committed by the pro independence side in the US war of independence. Or have they moved on.

Duckworth_Luas

It's almost as if maryishere has set up a new account, despite being the most banned rereg in After Hours history.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

There were loyalists in British America too, they weren’t fetishised 100 years later. I wonder if the US president should apologise for any atrocity from the pro independence side in the US war of independence. Or have they moved on.

I don't the US has moved on, at all, from their own Civil war, nor even their War of Independence. There's plenty of recognition for the abuses committed by both sides (of each war)..

However, I don't think there's the same romanticism about the North/South, the way there is with the IRA in Ireland. Oh, sure, there's some with the seeking to excuse slavery, but there's still plenty of acknowledgement for the excesses done in war. With the old IRB/IRA/Volunteers, though, people tend to dismiss what they did, instead seeking to focus on the British as if that excuses what happened.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't the US has moved on, at all, from their own Civil war, nor even their War of Independence. There's plenty of recognition for the abuses committed by both sides (of each war)..

I didn’t mention the civil war.

However, I don't think there's the same romanticism about the North/South, the way there is with the IRA in Ireland. Oh, sure, there's some with the seeking to excuse slavery, but there's still plenty of acknowledgement for the excesses done in war. With the old IRB/IRA/Volunteers, though, people tend to dismiss what they did, instead seeking to focus on the British as if that excuses what happened.

Why are you talking about the civil war? This seems like a clear attempt to move goalposts or to equate the Irish south with the American south.

Now do the American war of independence. Has any American president apologised for atrocities during the American war of independence by the pro independence side. There were some of course. Most, though, were committed by the British.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

She was a loyalist with connections to the British. Perhaps she saw the future of Ireland being better off under the British, than with the IRA who she despised... and to be fair, the IRA and subsequent Irish governments didn't always do such a good job of running the country. Not everyone wanted Ireland to be independent...

Good for her, she chose to take a side in the war rather than stay on the sidelines and the other side shot her. The other side being the army of the democratically elected government returned in a landslide victory.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Deleted User wrote: »

British occupation forces. You make it sound like the British had only invaded Ireland a few years ago, and that Irish people had a strong independent sense of self...

A large part of the Irish population were well conditioned and accepting of British control of Ireland. There had been intermarriage, with generations of people with mixed blood, often having been educated or had worked/lived in England. Just as there had been many English/British people who had behaved well while living or serving their time in Ireland. In spite of the desire by some to paint British control of Ireland as being some kind of Hell... it wasn't. Except for some.

She was a loyalist with connections to the British. Perhaps she saw the future of Ireland being better off under the British, than with the IRA who she despised... and to be fair, the IRA and subsequent Irish governments didn't always do such a good job of running the country. Not everyone wanted Ireland to be independent...

They absolutely were occupation forces. Do you think the Manchester regiment were native to Ireland? The British establishment always garrisoned a military force in Ireland far in excess of the presence needed to ward off foreign invasion - because it was to prevent rebellion and revolution by an oppressed people.

Yeah British rule in Ireland was alright. Apart from the English conquest of Ireland, vicious reprisals by Cromwell, the plantations, penal laws and Catholic discrimination, the famine, partition.

And btw, Lindsay was taken hostage to swap with the IRA prisoners that the Manchesters captured. It was the British who refused the swap and decided to execute those 5 men. They didn't really give a **** if Lindsay was a loyalist in the end, did they?

skallywag

guy2231 wrote: »

The old IRA only managed to kill 250 British soldiers, the Provisional IRA managed to kill more than that amount just in the north of Ireland from 72-74

Well to be fair to the 'old IRA' (which is a moniker which I find just daft, they were the IRA, just like the 'provos' are the IRA, no difference) they did not have access to the type of weaponry which their latter-day compatriots did.

If they had the same access to weapons I am very confident they would have killed many more.

skallywag

skallywag wrote: »

Well to be fair to the 'old IRA' (which is a moniker which I find just daft, they were the IRA, just like the 'provos' are the IRA, no difference) they did not have access to the type of weaponry which their latter-day compatriots did.

If they had the same access to weapons I am very confident they would have killed many more.

The old IRA were, of course, a totally different force with a totally different background and justification to the pira.

giles lynchwood

Any respect i had for Micheal d is now gone he should stick to being a semi mute figurehead or rolling around drunk on flor de cana 20 year old rum fighting outside the Shannon bar in Managua while he was minster for art's.

skallywag

fvp4 wrote: »

The old IRA were, of course, a totally different force with a totally different background and justification to the pira.

I assume you are being sarcastic.

I really find it bizarre when folk try to justify actions that happened 100 year ago by sticking an 'old' in front of the IRA. I have heard my own parents and grandparents do the same. The 'old' IRA shot lads coming out of mass, or in their beds beside their partners, etc. If the 'old' IRA had the material and knowhow to make heavy duty explosive devices then you can be damn sure they would have used them to kill as many of their enemies as possible.

I would imagine that OP has no interest in discussion on this topic in any case.

guy2231

skallywag wrote: »

Well to be fair to the 'old IRA' (which is a moniker which I find just daft, they were the IRA, just like the 'provos' are the IRA, no difference) they did not have access to the type of weaponry which their latter-day compatriots did.

If they had the same access to weapons I am very confident they would have killed many more.

Obviously not it was 50 years earliers the British did not have access to the type of weapons their latter day counter parts had either.

The provisonal IRA seemed at least more brave than the old IRA, I remember watching a documentary of Brendan Hughes in the early days of the troubles (OC of the Belfast Brigade) where soldiers were saying of he was running around with a handgun on his own shooting it out with elite army units.

skallywag

guy2231 wrote: »

The provisonal IRA seemed at least more brave than the old IRA, I remember watching a documentary of Brendan Hughes in the early days of the troubles (OC of the Belfast Brigade) where soldiers were saying of he was running around with a handgun on his own shooting it out with elite army units.

Yes, that happened quite a lot, you are completely correct. The IRA would regularly send out one man hit brigades, armed with nothing but a handgun, to strike the fear of God into the Paras, the Scot's Guards and the SAS. In fact they were so terrified of these legendary Lone Ranger gun slingers that they hid in their barracks and would not venture out unless being ferried about via a Lynx or a Chinook.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

I didn’t mention the civil war.

There were loyalists present in all of America's early wars, from Independence, Civil war, the subsequent war with Britain, and the Mexican war.

Why are you talking about the civil war? This seems like a clear attempt to move goalposts or to equate the Irish south with the American south.

Actually, I was trying the understand the point you wanted to make. Perhaps I didn't.

Now do the American war of independence. Has any American president apologised for atrocities during the American war of independence by the pro independence side. There were some of course. Most, though, were committed by the British.

I have no idea if one has or hasn't. I don't pay that much attention to American politics.. do you really know that one hasn't?

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

Good for her, she chose to take a side in the war rather than stay on the sidelines and the other side shot her. The other side being the army of the democratically elected government returned in a landslide victory.

Yup. They did.

Steyr 556 wrote: »

They absolutely were occupation forces.

I didn't say that they weren't occupation forces. I snipped the rest because you decided to go on a rant as opposed to dealing with what I wrote.

And btw, Lindsay was taken hostage to swap with the IRA prisoners that the Manchesters captured. It was the British who refused the swap and decided to execute those 5 men. They didn't really give a **** if Lindsay was a loyalist in the end, did they?

Nope, they didn't... but then I never claimed that they did. I said that she was a loyalist.

You seem to think i'm seeking to excuse the British. I'm not. Not even slightly. Nothing I've written even approaches such a thing. I have simply written about her, and the fact that for many Irish people they weren't enthusiastic about the IRA or independence from Britain.

skallywag

skallywag wrote: »

I assume you are being sarcastic.

I really find it bizarre when folk try to justify actions that happened 100 year ago by sticking an 'old' in front of the IRA. I have heard my own parents and grandparents do the same. The 'old' IRA shot lads coming out of mass, or in their beds beside their partners, etc. If the 'old' IRA had the material and knowhow to make heavy duty explosive devices then you can be damn sure they would have used them to kill as many of their enemies as possible.

I would imagine that OP has no interest in discussion on this topic in any case.

The old Ira was legitimised by the fact that they had the majority behind them.

The other side clearly committed the vast majority of atrocities. Burning cities to the ground, machine gunning down spectators at a match, the burning of homes, meeting halls and farms. From wiki:

Some buildings were also attacked with gunfire and grenades, and businesses were looted. Reprisals on property "were often accompanied by beatings and killings". Many villages suffered mass reprisals, including the Sack of Balbriggan (20 September), Kilkee (26 September), Trim (27 September), Tubbercurry (30 September) and Granard (31 October).[33][34] Following the Rineen ambush (22 September) in which six RIC men were killed, police burned many houses in the surrounding villages of Milltown Malbay, Lahinch and Ennistymon, and killed five civilians.[35] In early November, Black and Tans "besieged" Tralee in revenge for the IRA abduction and killing of two local RIC men. They closed all the businesses in the town, let no food in for a week and shot dead three local civilians

All war crimes.

Concentrating on the atrocities of the old IRA is like concentrating on the atrocities of the French resistance or the American rebels. The other side were far worse.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There were loyalists present in all of America's early wars, from Independence, Civil war, the subsequent war with Britain, and the Mexican war.

But I was talking about the US war of independence

Actually, I was trying the understand the point you wanted to make. Perhaps I didn't.

My point was simple. The British army and anti independence forces committed most of the atrocities in the Irish and American wars of independence.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

All war crimes.

Concentrating on the atrocities of the old IRA is like concentrating on the atrocities of the French resistance or the American rebels. The other side were far worse.

It's not concentrating. It's giving acknowledgement that committing the lesser amount of crimes does not absolve them of those acts.

It's not a competition to see who was worse. We all know that the British were far worse. However, the IRA did kill civilians directly, and engage in tactics that placed civilians in jeopardy. Intentionally.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

But I was talking about the US war of independence

Ok. No problem. I misunderstood.

My point was simple. The British army and anti independence forces committed most of the atrocities in the Irish and American wars of independence.

And I agree. They did.

votecounts

guy2231 wrote: »

I don't expect you to feel guilty I expect you to feel shame.

Why? Family fought for what they believed in.

guy2231

skallywag wrote: »

Yes, that happened quite a lot, you are completely correct. The IRA would regularly send out one man hit brigades, armed with nothing but a handgun, to strike the fear of God into the Paras, the Scot's Guards and the SAS. In fact they were so terrified of these legendary Lone Ranger gun slingers that they hid in their barracks and would not venture out unless being ferried about via a Lynx or a Chinook.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U-88yKoKhUY&has_verified=1

Skip to 22.35

Immortal Starlight

In the village I grew up in the Black and Tans were an appalling lot of animals. One of the things they were known for was breaking into an elderly couples home and forcing the old couple to watch while the Black and Tans repeatedly raped their only daughter on the kitchen table. This happened many times and to lots of different families too. Another was shooting anyone they chose dead on sight. Any excuse was given such as someone being outside after curfew.
My grandfather was a member of the IRA along with his friends. I don’t want to live my life as anyone’s subject. I want to live as a free citizen of Ireland. I am very proud of my grandfather that he and others like him had the courage to stand up and enable me to do so.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not concentrating. It's giving acknowledgement that committing the lesser amount of crimes does not absolve them of those acts.

It's not a competition to see who was worse. We all know that the British were far worse. However, the IRA did kill civilians directly, and engage in tactics that placed civilians in jeopardy. Intentionally.

Sure, all resistance movements commit atrocities. I still doubt if the French are going to apologise for the atrocities of the French resistance, or a US president apologise for the atrocities of the rebels in the war of Independence ( which is to repeat the point I made before that you didn't understand). The other side(s) were worse.

Ireland has a strange population of right wingers, and they are mostly right wingers, who have basically transferred their nationalism to Ulster Unionism. Eoghan Harris, O'Hanlon, RDE, Conor Cruise O'Brien in later life are examples, but it runs through society. Claiming to be anti nationalists, they are nationalists for a different cause.

Orwell talked about this in Notes On Nationalism. He pointed out that communists were basically tribal nationalists for the Soviet Union, even though they claimed to despise English nationalism. The Soviet Union could do no wrong, every invasion was legit, every alliance to be welcomed, even with Nazi Germany.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

Not even slightly. Nothing I've written even approaches such a thing. I have simply written about her, and the fact that for many Irish people they weren't enthusiastic about the IRA or independence from Britain.

The IRA didn't shoot her for a lack of enthusiasm towards the Republic though, did they?

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

The IRA didn't shoot her for a lack of enthusiasm towards the Republic though, did they?

She was a loyalist who believed in the British Empire. Just as Irish people chose to join the Volunteers or the IRA, she chose to make a stand for something she believed in.

Frankly, I admire her. She held true to her convictions. She sought to prevent the killing of British soldiers. She didn't take up weapons to kill Irish people. She informed on an ambush.

"Mrs Lindsay tumbled backward into the pit. Clarke slumped forward. The IRA officers untied him and pitched him into the grave on top of her … I told her she was going to die. She never blinked an eye. I will say this for her bravery, she was excellent.’

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Got herself, her driver and 5 others killed.

Played an absolute blinder, well done to her.

fvp4

fvp4 wrote: »

Sure, all resistance movements commit atrocities. I still doubt if the French are going to apologise for the atrocities of the French resistance, or a US president apologise for the atrocities of the rebels in the war of Independence ( which is to repeat the point I made before that you didn't understand). The other side(s) were worse.

You're belaboring that same point. The other side was worse. Yes, they were. As I said though, it doesn't mean we have to ignore the atrocities of the IRA. It doesn't mean that we're focusing on the IRA and ignoring what the British did.

It's simply the recognition that the IRA didn't have clean hands.

guy2231

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're belaboring that same point. The other side was worse. Yes, they were. As I said though, it doesn't mean we have to ignore the atrocities of the IRA. It doesn't mean that we're focusing on the IRA and ignoring what the British did.

It's simply the recognition that the IRA didn't have clean hands.

Anytime anyone shows support for the provos you get the usual stuff "well how do you justify the killing of innocent civilians" or "what about the disappeared" while at the same time these same people look at the old IRA as these marvel superheroes that could do no wrong even though they killed far more innocent civilians in respective of time period and disappeared far more in a 3 year campaign than the provos did in 30 years.

I don't know wether or not to put it down to plain old hypocricy I think it has more to do with ignorance and lack of knowledge.

guy2231

guy2231 wrote: »

Anytime anyone shows support for the provos you get the usual stuff "well how do you justify the killing of innocent civilians" or "what about the disappeared" while at the same time these same people look at the old IRA as these marvel superheroes that could do no wrong even though they killed far more innocent civilians in respective of time period and disappeared far more in a 3 year campaign than the provos did in 30 years.

I don't know wether or not to put it down to plain old hypocricy I think it has more to do with ignorance and lack of knowledge.

Meh. Nope. I disagree with you entirely... and that's not due to lack of knowledge or ignorance.

Honestly I can't see why anyone would seek to show support for the provos and how they've behaved over the decades. Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of statements that the British were worse... but as you can see from my previous posts, I don't find that to be a great excuse.

Danzy

He had no business condemning it. Collaborators are often shot, especially when their treachery costs lives.

She made her bed when she sent others to their death.

guy2231

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Meh. Nope. I disagree with you entirely... and that's not due to lack of knowledge or ignorance.

Honestly I can't see why anyone would seek to show support for the provos and how they've behaved over the decades. Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of statements that the British were worse... but as you can see from my previous posts, I don't find that to be a great excuse.

Can you elaborate more as to why?

guy2231

guy2231 wrote: »

Can you elaborate more as to why?

I would say it's obvious enough. That crap is wrong regardless of the justifications. Doesn't matter who is doing it. It's just wrong.

Peppa Cig

It was war.

Civil war.

Civil war 100 years ago.

Snitches get stitches. Everyone knows these rules in a civil war.

End of.

Move on and bitch about something in recent decades.

happyoutscan

This is a stupid thread.

guy2231

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would say it's obvious enough. That crap is wrong regardless of the justifications. Doesn't matter who is doing it. It's just wrong.

"obvious enough" the same old rubbish nothing obvious at all apart from the bad side of the provos are shoved down our throats while the bad side of the old IRA are brushed under the carpet.

guy2231

guy2231 wrote: »

"obvious enough" the same old rubbish nothing obvious at all apart from the bad side of the provos are shoved down our throats while the bad side of the old IRA are brushed under the carpet.

I have little interest in listing a wide range of reasons only for it to be dismissed... just as you have just done to my limited response.

Because that's what happens with those who support this nonsense. They hold true to their justifications, and discard anything that doesn't match their views. The other side was worse... and that excuses everything our side has done. That's it in a nutshell... and nothing I say will change your opinion.

paulaa

McGaggs wrote: »

She wasn't elderly, she was 60 years old.

Female life expectancy in the early1900s was 54.1years. This woman was elderly for that time

Donald Trump

skallywag wrote: »

I assume you are being sarcastic.

I really find it bizarre when folk try to justify actions that happened 100 year ago by sticking an 'old' in front of the IRA. I have heard my own parents and grandparents do the same. The 'old' IRA shot lads coming out of mass, or in their beds beside their partners, etc. If the 'old' IRA had the material and knowhow to make heavy duty explosive devices then you can be damn sure they would have used them to kill as many of their enemies as possible.

I would imagine that OP has no interest in discussion on this topic in any case.

That's a load of crap. Sorry to be so blunt. Just because an organisation puts "IRA" in it's name does not mean it is the same as any other organisation which does.


Sure if that was the case, then your man Alan Ryan who was shot dead in Dublin for throwing his weight around against drugs gangs and extortion was the same as Tom Barry spending months on the move around the mountains of West Cork, fighting an occupying force who were terrorising the natives


Load a bollix

Donald Trump

OP. You forgot to mention any call to the British government to issue apologies for executing 5 of the 8 Irish men captured.

Danzy

The so called old IRA killed an a lot more civilians than the IRA in the long war as a % of dead, no comparison.

The list of those who died from provisionsl actions is about 70% security or State.

That's exceptionally high for conflicts of any kind.

The IRA in the black and tan era didn't have the equipment, training, luxury of carefully selecting targets maybe.

guy2231

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's a load of crap. Sorry to be so blunt. Just because an organisation puts "IRA" in it's name does not mean it is the same as any other organisation which does.


Sure if that was the case, then your man Alan Ryan who was shot dead in Dublin for throwing his weight around against drugs gangs and extortion was the same as Tom Barry spending months on the move around the mountains of West Cork, fighting an occupying force who were terrorising the natives


Load a bollix

I see you trying to pull a sly one and instead compare the old IRA to the real IRA, there were only actually two IRAs that were actual guerilla armies.

You compare Alan Ryan to Tom Barry rather than compare him with someone like Francis Hughes who took part in dozens of attacks on the army and police, who also spent a life on the move sleeping rough for years.

He was caught by the SAS in a field, he shot it out with them killed one of them and wounded another, he escaped and was then captured later on when reinforcements were called they then found him seriously wounded hiding in a bush, he was then tortured then sent to prison where he died on hunger strike.

Or Brendan Hughes who in the early days of the troubles when the IRA had hardly any weapons would run riot around Belfast on his own with nothing but a handgun shooting out with elite army units.

So let me understand you would consider these men terrorist scum and consider Tom Barry a hero?

guy2231

Donald Trump wrote: »

That's a load of crap. Sorry to be so blunt. Just because an organisation puts "IRA" in it's name does not mean it is the same as any other organisation which does.


Sure if that was the case, then your man Alan Ryan who was shot dead in Dublin for throwing his weight around against drugs gangs and extortion was the same as Tom Barry spending months on the move around the mountains of West Cork, fighting an occupying force who were terrorising the natives


Load a bollix

Accidental post

guy2231

Danzy wrote: »

The so called old IRA killed an a lot more civilians than the IRA in the long war as a % of dead, no comparison.

The list of those who died from provisionsl actions is about 70% security or State.

That's exceptionally high for conflicts of any kind.

The IRA in the black and tan era didn't have the equipment, training, luxury of carefully selecting targets maybe.

People like to remain in their bubble and think back on the war of independence as some sort of superhero movie.

guy2231

guy2231 wrote: »

People like to remain in their bubble and think back on the war of independence as some sort of superhero movie.

The war of independence, like all wars of independence against imperialism, had atrocities on both sides. The resistance against Nazi Germany in France has a lot of civilian casualties too, and reprisal killings, and killings of informers.

Clearly though there was one side in the right, and one in the wrong. And the wrong side committed most of the atrocities.

Donald Trump

guy2231 wrote: »

I see you trying to pull a sly one and instead compare the old IRA to the real IRA, there were only actually two IRAs that were actual guerilla armies.

You compare Alan Ryan to Tom Barry rather than compare him with someone like Francis Hughes who took part in dozens of attacks on the army and police, who also spent a life on the move sleeping rough for years.

He was caught by the SAS in a field, he shot it out with them killed one of them and wounded another, he escaped and was then captured later on when reinforcements were called they then found him seriously wounded hiding in a bush, he was then tortured then sent to prison where he died on hunger strike.

Or Brendan Hughes who in the early days of the troubles when the IRA had hardly any weapons would run riot around Belfast on his own with nothing but a handgun shooting out with elite army units.

So let me understand you would consider these men terrorist scum and consider Tom Barry a hero?

Based on your descriptions above, they don't fit the bill of terrorist. Attacking elite army units with a handgun is either fighting some sort of cause or is an original actual Facebook-Full-Time-Mad-Bastard.


Who were they terrorising? One of the best equipped, and largest, militaries in the world?

guy2231

guy2231 wrote: »

Whataboutery again, anytime anyone brings up IRA atrocities there is always whataboutery.

I don’t think you understand the term. In fact you are engaging in Whataboutery yourself by ignoring the far greater atrocities of imperialism, the burning of cities, the sacking and looting of towns, the mass destruction of housing, the starvation blockades, by pointing out the considerably fewer atrocities of the old Ira. This is basically tribalism. Your side, the pro British side (of your transferred nationalism), can do no wrong.

Luckily the Eoghan Harris generation is dying out and this attitude with it.