How was the IRA perceived outside of the UK in different parts of the world?

How was the IRA perceived outside of the UK in different parts of the world?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Pwld86XndSY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Showband_killings
cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/deaths.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Casualties
wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

They are actually well regarded by many Americans.

People love to use them as proof that Islam is not particularly partial to terrorism by citing them as an example of christian terrorism

and yet they never did suicide bombings...

*Irish-Americans

yea, a lot sent/funds arms cause they saw them as republican freedom fighters against a British occupation

I don't see ISIS calling in bomb threats before their attack. Not to say the IRA is innocent, there's still attacks in Northern Ireland.

Is it surprising that people use a false analogy to justify their views?

We praise them, we wish they annex Northern Ireland, the loyalists are the ultimate cucks who suck the cock of the Albion.

t. fenian scoundrel

IRA = nationalists using a nominal religious identity as a tribal identifier; after a few mistakes, they realized that casualties can be expensive in terms of PR, and move instead to economic threats and damaging the perception of control. Their dispute is about land.
Islamic terrorism = Muslims in line with the Quran and respected Tafsirs, obeying the commandment of Allah to "strike terror into the heart of the infidels." Their dispute is about controlling what others believe.

Calling in a bomb threat is the most disingenuous, slimy move possible. You're essentially trying to keep the moral high ground while acting like a violent criminal.
If you want to toss bombs around then sack up and accept the moral consequences.

>wanting to minimize civilian casualties is disingenuous

freedom fighters

The Canadian government was generally pro-British. There was some sympathy for the IRA from some Quebec separatists. Some people in Canada donated to them. Stan Rogers wrote a song about it.

youtube.com/watch?v=Pwld86XndSY

Once again, here we go. The ONLY acceptable view of the Troubles is:

>Unionists were bored with the current government for not being dickish enough to the Irish catholics, despite the government still being pretty dickish toward the irish catholics
>Unionists plant bombs and blame the IRA to get there preferred flavour of Unionists into power
>Ian Paisley stirs the sectarian pot to the point where it can be considered "extremely stirred" and forms groups which essentially exist to entrench Ulster Protestant Unionism even more and isolate irish catholics
>Loyalists shoot some civilians
>Peaceful demonstrations for Irish Civil Rights are violently beaten down
>Student protests against the treatment of these demonstrators stage a march to stand up against this
>The students are violently beaten down
>Some old faggot gets beaten to death by the RUC, this is considered the first "death" or the troubles
>The IRA fucking finally decide to start a campaign
>For about 8 milliseconds they fight for freedom, justice for irish catholics and for an end to the biased, oppressive loyalist government
>After that they devolve into petty gangs that terrorize communities, no better than the loyalists
>Several years of revenge-attacks masked as a "war"
>Pretty hype Maze escape bolsters IRA recruitment
>IRA get infilitrated up the ass when the British start actually giving a fuck
>Several Loyalist and Nationalist atrocities later, the GFA happens and everyone agrees that the whole thing was fucking humiliating
>Years later, loyalists say they are innocent
>Years later, nationalists say the IRA were good guys
>Years later, people still don't realise that there were no "good guys" of the troubles and that pretty much every combatant side committed atrocities which stripped them of the right to a moral high ground

Irish rebel songs are okay though.

If they wanted to minimize civilian casualties they wouldn't be setting off bombs you tit
It was wholly a propaganda move

That doesn't make sense.
"We want to raid the Taliban, but civilians might get hurt, so we're not going to carry out any military operations whatsoever."

Even the diaspora proddies getting in on the muh heritage shite. Cringe.

Shopping centres and pubs aren't exactly the Taliban though, are they?

They're what the IRA designated as economic targets, so yes.

Is there any other conflict that invites so many plastics to offer their meaningless opinions as this one? Why does anyone outside of Ireland give a shit or act like it's their business?
The closest I can think of is Israel--Palestine, or I guess the Syrian Civil War and the Turkish situation that draw a few leftist LARPers

So they deliberately targeted civilians and their property?
Sounds like terrorism to me

Irish here, it feels kinda weird and surreal that we had so much violence so recently in what seems now like such a boring, sleepy island.

>So they deliberately targeted civilians and their property?
No, just their property. Have you not been paying attention at all?

>Sounds like terrorism to me
"Terrorism" is a liberal buzzword to describe any non-state violence that liberals disagree with. British internment, harassment and torture were militarised forms of terror, so they fit the bill of "terrorists" pretty well too.

The IRA were not terrorists

It's also wrong that they called in warning about the bombs. The IRA called the police to say they were about to do a bombing, and gave a codeword. They didn't warn anyone, they just called to say the bomb about to go off is an IRA bomb, and we'll call you afterwards with this codeword and our demands.

The IRA killed plenty of civvies including children. When this happened, they would whitewash it with the excuse that they weren't intending to target them. The whitewashing is so bad that even though hundreds were killed in attacks including an assassination attempt on the head of state, people still have this image of a 'clean' IRA that let off a few pipe bombs in an empty warehouse. It's a complete and total myth.

yeah, totally freedom fighters.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre

>"strike terror into the heart of the infidels."
Hmmm makes me think
>b-but it's not there
They were in a time of war. They were referring to the opposition as one huge clutter to simplify it.

>"Terrorism" is a liberal buzzword to describe any non-state violence that liberals disagree with.
>Liberals
Jesus, for someone lecturing about buzzwords, you're also using some yourself.

I'm pretty sure any government thinks of non-state violence aimed at a political goal as terrorism. Be they communist, democratic, fascist, Islamic, whatever.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Showband_killings

I'm sure there's also some sort of explanation for Mohamad raping a 9 year old, right?

And the most suicide bombings are carried out historically speaking by Tamil Tigers, a secularist group with most of its members coming from hindu families. The history of terrorism is more colorful than the last fifteen years would have one believe.

How is this relevant?
>N-NO THE UVF ALSO COMMITTED SOME ATTACKS
Do a Bobby Sands

>The IRA killed plenty of civvies including children. When this happened, they would whitewash it with the excuse that they weren't intending to target them. The whitewashing is so bad that even though hundreds were killed in attacks including an assassination attempt on the head of state, people still have this image of a 'clean' IRA that let off a few pipe bombs in an empty warehouse. It's a complete and total myth.
Why is this myth so popular so then? It's not the first time I've heard they called to report a bombing or that they weren't as nice as they liked to seem, but I generally tend to think of the IRA's as cunts fighting against a cruel, imperialistic power.

>killing the head of state makes you a mean, evil terrorist
Liberal moralising at its finest right here.

Notice how it was carried out by a small splinter group without the backing of IRA commanders.

"Liberal" isn't a buzzword - it's an actually-existing ideology.
>I'm pretty sure any government thinks of non-state violence aimed at a political goal as terrorism
States label non-state violence that they don't like as "terrorism". The US and UK never called the Northern Alliance, the Contras or Blaise Compaoré "terrorists", because they wanted them to win. But Gandhi, Mandela and the IRA are "terrorists". This is because liberalism sees violence as only being legitimate when carried out by the state and its allies.

Yes.
Aisha was well past 9. Arab's start counting the age of a woman after she reached puberty so she would have been 16-18ish.

So catholic life isn't as valuable as Protestants?

Fuck you buddy

It's irrelevant completely. just because the UVF committed some crimes doesn't excuse the IRA. They were terrorists

>just their property

If they wanted to destroy property they would have done it in the middle of the night when everything was close and there was noone around to get hurt. But they didn't

Pic very related.
There were no good guys.

>MUH IRA KILLED THE MOST
A majority of those killed were British security forces, the group the IRA were fighting against. Hardly a moral atrocity for a combatant to die in a war.

>BUT MUH LOYALISTS DINDU NUFFIN
They killed almost exclusively civilians.

>MUH BRITS WERE GOOD GUYS
The british didn't make that big of an impact, death-toll wise.
They just came in and separated the two like two bickering toddlers, once they got bored of helping the UVF.

tl;dr-there are no good guys, but implying loyalists are any better than nationalists is denial, desu

Because a lot of Americans are Irish or Irish descent

Because there's a big chunk of Americans who think they're literally Irish and so need to blindly and loudly support anything that's painted green.

Oh look, you posted this graph that has no source at all again.
Congratulations!
>tl;dr-there are no good guys, but implying loyalists are any better than nationalists is denial, desu
The ones who didn't want to overthrow the government supported by the majority of the population are quite clearly the good guys

The song is about telling Loyalists and Republicans to fuck off and new worlders alone user...

In before someone uses this chart as proof of how evil the British are because their handful of victims were proportionally more civilians

When the IRA get killed, they say they were just civilians.
When they got captured, all of a sudden they were soldiers and demanded to be treated like soldiers.

cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/deaths.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Casualties

wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/troubles/troubles_stats.html

Sift through all that yourself to confirm the graph which really isn't contested by anyone other than people here who refuse to believe it.

>supported by a majority of the population

A majority of nationalists won't commend the IRA for what they did, but only for who they killed. Things were not okay for the Irish Catholics who had been stuck north of the border, who were actually very numerous.

If you want to bring in some statistics and sources that suggest that the loyalist paramilitaries were for some reason not as bad as the nationalist ones-bearing in mind that security forces being killed in a fight isn't really a moral issue all things considered-you're very welcome to.

The British Army worked in tandem with the RUC and the UVF, while the IRA acted alone until they splintered into 18 quintillion shitty sub-groups.

That would have been more obvious, and caused less disruption.
If they'd wanted to kill civilians they could have had done so easily with a bunch of "accidental" misfires, or blaming killings on deniable ops. Yet as it stands, things like the Guildford bombing and Kingsmill Massacre were the exception.

It's true though.

The Sutton Report did a very good job of distinguishing between "activists" and genuine civilians. If you're killed in a firefight with squaddies then no one's marking your death as a "civilian".

So now they wanted to cause disruption? Earlier they just wanted to do economic damage to property.

I have no idea why the myth is so popular. There are probably a confluence of reasons. One is that most people simply have no idea about things like the Warrington bombings or the Birmingham bombs, maybe one or two will know about Harrod's or Omagh. The more tragic events were generally muted and kept within local papers or a day or two's worth of headlines, and some were barely reported on at all, probably in part to avoid alarming the British public. This is still actually the tendency in Northern Ireland, where there has been a lot of violence from both sides post-GFA that no one knows about because it's only in very local papers. Another is that the image of a 'clean' conflict is very appealing, which was something the IRA themselves recognised giving rise to the "warning call" policy to begin with. The reality recedes into the distant past but the few distinguishing points people remember -- phone calls, rebels, Army, freedom fighters -- remain. At some point you can't expect the average person to hold all the facts together forever.

Are you dense or do genuinely just not know anything about the IRA? Why the hell do you think they bombed trains and tube stations with no passengers?

It's not a myth, and the fact that you're equating Omagh and Birmingham is very telling.

Stan Rogers died in 1983 so that is not a case of "getting in on the muh heritage shite". Having said that you likely do not understand the history of US immigration at all.

Ethnic enclave used to be very common in the US and Canada. Some of them were very big covering multiple counties.The colonies never really took in the identity change that happened as a result of the act of Union. The idea of "Britishness" only made it over here in the mid-1960 and then only slowly. A side effect of that was a narrow definition of who could be in the 'in group'. In the US protestant Irish were called Scot-Irish. In some areas they were accepted, in other areas not so much.

Yes, it is a myth. There was no 'clean' IRA. It makes no difference how much you quibble about this or that group or incident. The sheer number of them alone could fill a phonebook. And the people who were killed certainly don't care in the least what their killers' intentions were.

>The British Army worked in tandem with the RUC and the UVF, while the IRA acted alone until they splintered into 18 quintillion shitty sub-groups.
The British Army was defending the country. They had every right to work with paras. On the other hand, the IRA were actively trying to destroy the country and the British population

Naturally they had every right to defend and shoot every IRA faggot they saw in the head, but the issue arises when people come to understand that the higher ups then aided in attacks which had little to no strategic value-the UVF were not involved in a campaign against the IRA, they had a campaign against Irish catholics.

The Loyalists were shooting and bombing people in NI before the IRA even began their armed campaign.

No shit they fight each other.

My point is that saying Loyalists are literally any better than Nationalists when it comes to people who took up arms is retarded, the only "good guys" are the people who from the get-go were against violence, many of whom were Unionists involved in the civil rights marches-the beating down of which being one of the key sparks that lit the fire of the Troubles.

Nobody is saying that the British were wrong to fight the IRA, that's fucking retarded.

People are saying it was wrong of them to use the UVF/RUC's civilian hunting ways to strike at NI.

>it's hard to fight terrorism

Except the British managed to infiltrate the IRA to the highest level with relative ease, but not before they'd already supported groups directly responsible for the deaths of people who quite literally dindu a fucking thing.

Loyalist paras were arguably more morally bankrupt than the IRA, seeing as they had no agenda other than the removal of Irish Catholics in general.

ITT:

>Retarded Éireboos try and justify the IRA chimping out
>Retarded angloboos try to justify loyalists chimping out even harder
>Retards in general try to convince themselves that the Troubles was anything other than a messy clusterfuck of a conflict and that the GFA did little other than put NI as a state on chemotherapy, betraying the Unionists by entrenching and protecting nationalists forever

As useless as GFA was there is literally nothing the government could've done to prevent the demographic defeat of the unionists. Now or fifty years from now, it would've happened eventually. There was no win scenario from the unionist perspective.

It makes me kind of sad to see people being staunchly unionist knowing that they're a doomed people.

It doesn't matter if the majority becomes Catholic. most Catholics do not want Irish unification in the short term.

What do you base that on?

If you're from NI, surely you can see the government timebomb (no pun intended) waiting to go off?

The "vote DUP to keep SF out" thing isn't going to last much longer, and seeing as so many people supported the "I am a unionist but I will give votes to nationalist parties for the sake of a better executive!" idea, things are going to heat up.

I didn't mean Catholics are going to outbreed loyalists-which they are anyway, but-I meant that people who are protective of the Union are going to be outbred by people who want rid of it or don't care much either way.

>I am a unionist but I will give votes to nationalist parties for the sake of a better executive!
Anyone who actually votes like this is an idiot. Really fine job they've been doing south of the border.

>seeing as so many people supported the "I am a unionist but I will give votes to nationalist parties for the sake of a better executive
Nobody thinks like this
The head of the UUP said he was going to vote for a Nationalist and this directly led to the UUP losing half their seats

It's because of the growing liberal-learning attitudes which are spawned because of the DUP arguably being "unrepresentative."

NI voted, for example, a majority in favour of stayin gin the EU, a majority in favour of gay marriage, and the DUP oppose both somewhat staunchly.

Abuse of the petition of concern was also a reason people grew to hate them.
There has also been so many scandals and public controversies that the DUP have somehow managed to become more detested than Sinn Fein, a party who quite literally used to be terrorists.

Long story short, even the most hardline unionists are starting to say "I hate the DUP, but I'll hold my nose and vote for them to keep Sinn Fein out!"

Meanwhile, others are lending votes to SF and SDLP because they'd rather see them make up more of the government than the DUP.

Once the critical point hits and that DUP monopoly shatters-which is coming within the next few elections-the votes will be scattered and SF will likely make some ridiculous gains.

The cycle is usually
>DUP act like retards and treat the electorate like shit
>SF/SDLP make gains
>"Oh shit, gotta stop the fenians"
>DUP popularity surge
>DUP act like retards and treat the electorate like shit
>Rinse and repeat

The hardliners are dying off and being replaced by more centrist or nationalist-leaning people.

>"I hate the DUP, but I'll hold my nose and vote for them to keep Sinn Fein out!"
Absolutely fucking nobody is doing this.
And yes, I live in northern ireland.
You are making shit up for (You)s I suspect

Literally go to any of the better known loyalist pages (although I think wullie frazer's one went down) and scroll down roughly just after we figured out another election is coming.

Comments are full of 3 things:

>We lost the election so we should have no more elections and be ruled by westminister
>All Unionist parties should unite into just one unionist party
>We have to vote DUP to keep out SF even if we don't like them

Meanwhile poor old TUV doesn't get any love at all.

Their sniper cell tactics were operator as fuck
t. /k/

terrorists naturally

the contemporary one of course,

the older version were simply rebels that couldn't accept the way in which the wheels of history had turned, killing their own countrymen for not

They're just a weird complex case as arguably their cause was justified, but the way they fought for it was unpractical and unjustified.
The state they fought against also had paramilitaries fighting for it, which it worked with but then later condemned.

It's a weird case.

True

>tfw no right wing Irish nationalist party in NI

I can't believe you carried this autism over there as well. So much for the land of civil and religious lkberty

Terrorists that booby trap wounded so the ambulance staff gets blown up too.

Please explain. Sounds interesting.

He never said that.
Why do you try to put words in his mouth, this is why we can't have a nice discussion around here.

trust a taig to spurn den haag

Read it from this book that probably puts me in a watchlist.
tl;dr from memory (read the book a few years ago)
>Intel cell picks 5 targets and puts them in sealed envelopes, then disbands
>head of sniper cell picks one envelope, rest are destroyed so Intel cell won't be able to inform police which target will be hit
>sniper cell activated, first time they ever meet
>one is a driver, one is a shooter, 2 scouts, one does "cleanup"
>scouts go to crucial spots, possibly working with kids to act as lookouts
>if scouts give the okay, mission is a go, otherwise everybody disbands and the cell never meets again
>shot taken from inside padded minivan, vehicle leaves
>shooter starts cleaning himself, then scours the guns barrel before dropping it off into a specific storm drain
>he is then dropped off, driver takes minivan to chop shop
>shooter showers with specific chemicals to remove powder residue and then lays low
>cleaner picks up gun from storm drain, breaks it down and melts it in blast furnace
>cell never meets again, members can be contacted later to make new cells

They also had a pair that shot a Barrett .50 from the back of an armored hatchback once the Brits started staying in their bulletproof security booths.

Leave the slurs and the sectarianism out of this man, we want a nice discussion like this fella wants

>this autism

It had a very real purpose: to hoard means of income, influence, and status. Accepting new sub groups into the 'in group' was a means of broaden a social coalition. At lest number of 19th century american politicians are on record as saying as such.

Having said that it was a very dick move.

> So much for the land of civil and religious lkberty

That grew up of propaganda that was first aimed at liberal elemental's of UK's parliament then changed for rising money overseas for the revolutionary war. The founding fathers may of believed in it but most of the american population did not. Heck about 70 to 80 percent of us did not support either side of the war effort. Believing in the of america as a land of liberty among the general population is something that happened much later on.

Holy fuck that's impressive.

not American but I heard they used to have collection box in some american bars for fun raising, like how messed up is that, its like if the UK had money boxes for Al Qeada- americans who kick off but because the IRA only killed brits they didn tcare

blackpigeon did a video proving that point was fallacious

>American and Iraqi intelligence analysts said that al-Baghdadi has a doctorate for Islamic studies in Quranic studies
>Veeky Forums user knows more about Islamic theology than him

well you know, a lot of those irish ran over here back in the day

many political organisations that were banned by the british found harbor here

as long as they kept their noses clean

Judging from the comment sections of IRA videos Balkanshits seem to love them especially Serbs.

militant psychos flocktogether

Probably the same thing where the British mocked Napolean for being 5'5 when those were french inches and not British ones.

The counting of ones age throughout hisotry and between cultures differs. Even today for instance the Koreans age is actually one more because they start from the year you were born year one i.e. you are one year from birth and go from there.

There is also issues with historiocity and misinterpretations/translations that memetically get passed down whether with the best of (or worst) intentions. It's funny how so many historically illiterate people take the fist 'fact' they hear and go with it without any studying around it simply because 1) it allows them to insult X historical event/person and 2) it gives them propaganda material.

>Why is this myth so popular so then?

People are stupid and accept the version that fits their own preconceived biases.

It's 'alternative facts' before it was even a thing.

Damn these Paddies are thorough

Depends on who you ask, typically they are seen as nationalist revolutionaries here in latin america. Kind of like palestinians. UK, US and Israel are generally seen as imperialistic and their foes as allies.

Why are you making this assumption when there was and is nothing uncommon about marrying children that young in that region of the world?

Why so eagerly defend the religion that murders innocents on a daily basis?

200% this.

Not on purpose anyway

>IRA:Was in the midst of a land dispute with Britain on their land. Did a few attacks on Britain(and nowhere else)
>Muslim terrorism: Worldwide operation with militants all over the globe. Can cause more casualties in one attack than the IRA did ever. ISIS in particular controls a significant portion of two sovereign countries, and used to be extremely powerful.

trust a catholic to defy the Hague?

tf nigger, I'm none of those.

As terrorists just like they are

Not an argument
Counter the points without strawmanning.

I don't see Islamic scholars in malaysia, morocco or california teaching the exact same thing he does, especially since the rest of the muslim nations managed to rename isis to simply "daesh militants". He's just a puppet leader for those angry dispossessed Iraqi generals.

Ireland has no major resources worth fighting over, they're in the far corners of the world after all.

Right, gonna hunt for a copy now.

Not to downplay the tragedy of civilians killed, but it really wasn't that violent compared to lots of other places in the world even at its' height.