To the people who say the troubles was not a war

This is the kind of argument you got in the 80s, about the validity of the IRA and the comparison with the War of Independence.

The big difference is legitimacy. The old IRA were entirely legitimate, the support for independence from the UK was overwhelming and was reflected in the support for Sinn Féin in the 1918 general election.

The Provos never had anything like the support SF had. There was anger at the State and a certain understanding of how it started, but relatively little support.

SF probably wouldn't want to admit it, but the fact the Troubles went on so long has delayed reunification. If it happens within ten years it'll be troublesome almost exclusively because of the residual bitterness left by that campaign.

I know.

Collateral damage is a terrible phrase, but it's as justifiable for most of the IRA civilian victims as for civilians killed in Iraq. The IRA usually sought to attack what it considered military or economic targets. I abhor that they did so, but it was their approach. The Irish People's Liberation Organisation and various loyalist groups targeted people by their religion solely, and deliberately sought to kill civilians. That's why I feel the Muslim extremist comparison is more suited to them. But the Provos were still despicable.

I never said GB caused blight, they most likely were a contributing factor. Ireland did not have a food shortage, far from it, so hardly a famine. GB did escort the food out of Ireland and a million (approx) died. At the time we were British citizens, but obviously not as important as our English friends and Westminster. It's obviously a tender subject, so look at what GB did in India/Pakistan, again 1 million dead and 15million displaced, a GB folly.

The empire was in charge and under their watch if you weren't English it didn't look good for you, certainly not in Ireland. Genocide clear and simple, it was planned, a decision was made, ship the food to the main land and let the Irish die.

From an international perspective, Britain has owned the 6 counties for how many centuries now? Compare this with how long they have claimed ownership over the Falkland Islands by comparison.

Practically nobody is putting international pressure on them to give back those islands to Argentina. And they can theoretically go in as hard and heavy as they wish to protect their sovereignty. The fact they planted 1,000's of loyal Brits on the islands is a moot point, as they did this everywhere they conquered. The Argies would quite happily do the same if they ever managed to get them back. So the right to self-determination argument is a bit hollow really.

In terms of land and sovereignty disputes, it's very much a case of what you have you hold. Possession is 9 tenths of the law. Whether we like it or not, the fact that Britain has had a presence on our island for such a very long time would be viewed internationally as proof of ownership to a large degree.

You've said yourself, that much of the IRA were coming from the south. Britain and the US invaded Afghanistan because they were harboring terrorists within their borders. Who stopped them?

I stand by my point. I think the Brits could have come in far more heavy handed against us at many points throughout our history. And that's not taking away or trying to diminish any of the bad things they did do. But we were somewhat lucky to be conquered and occupied by the Brits rather than some of the far worse regimes that have existed around the world throughout human history.

Even if you look at the war of independence. At no point did the Brits commit the scale of forces that they were actually fully capable of. Even with heavy losses from WW1, Britain still had one of the largest standing armies in europe. Some of the best trained, with excellent equipment. If they wanted to, they could have easily crushed us with overwhelming military power in that war.

But instead, they had a maximum of roughly 50,000 forces here at the height of that conflict. Less than half of these were fully professional British army forces. The rest were a rag-tag assortment of disorganized and unprofessional groups like the RIC, black & tans, Auxiliaries etc.

If you think other large nations or regimes in history, would have taken the same hands off approach to quell an uprising or independence movement, you're seriously mistaken. (or just ignorant to world history)

Even in modern times, if Ukraine tried the same approach as Ireland over Crimea, there's not a hope in hell that the Russians would send in a bunch of dad's army unprofessional drunks like the black and tans to sort it out. They would go in hard and heavy with massive military strength to flatten them.

And Britain's approach back then was not a mistake either, it was an intentional strategy. They had very little desire to hold onto our island. We were lucky in that regard. Very lucky when viewed in the wider context of global history.

I don't like that we were conquered and occupied by a foreign power for hundreds of years, just like you. And I am very proud that we gained our independence, just like most Irish people. But, I think too many people have a blinkered and ill-informed view of our history with the British. There's a lot of crap that gets passed off as historical fact when it comes to our conflicts with the old enemy. It sets off my bullsh!t detector, and I cannot help reacting to it sometimes. 

The IRA gets a lot of fully deserved criticism.

Bit it shouldn’t be forgotten that the British side was quite despicable too. Here’s a case of its agents murdering Catholic children in 1994.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/12/01/news/family-of-murdered-teenager-to-sue-psni-mod-and-secretary-of-state-2523257/?fbclid=IwAR3zVPamF2ZECPetQS1THX_VLdBJRqnwlpztlh8NWr4Nw9te_DXwXUrzNZw

Again, strong criticism of the IRA is fully justified, but is important not to just leave it at that. Loyalists/UK agents deliberately killing children at play on the basis of their religious background is unforgivable. IMO it’s not that disimilar to Islamic extremism.

I don't understand your need to indulge in whataboutery, in this instance; I haven't really seen anyone on boards (or IRL) saying that either the Brits of the loyalist paramilitaries were a great bunch of lads. Whereas people say that in relation to the PIRA and their atrocities all the time.

"fully supporting IRA activities"

Perhaps you should check the ESRI report on the poll Harry. The relevant table on Attitudes to IRA activities shows:

"Slightly supportive" 12.6%

"Moderately supportive" 5.3%

"Strongly supportive" 2.8%

These add up to 20.7%, presumably the 21% you claim were fully supportive of IRA activities.

https://www.esri.ie/system/files/media/file-uploads/2012-07/GRS97.pdf

In 1979 local elections Provisional SF got 1.6% of the vote overall and about 5% in areas they contested.