Which side committed worse war crimes during The Troubles?

Can someone sum up what this is about?

IRA blew people up trying to reunited Ireland despite most people in Ulster not wanting to.
Loyalists killed people in revenge attacks after IRA bombs and murders

Wrong
Catholics wanted civil rights, were denied them. Revived the IRA to protect their communities. The two communities escalate the violence

>the British security forces are shitty compared to the IRA for fighting back

if they were trying to reunite ireland, why did they blow up irish people?

>Catholics wanted civil rights, were denied them
Except for, you know, the part where they already legally were given the same rights as the rest of the UK but kept blowing up Protestants

Northern Irish Protestants aren't Irish, but they also killed Irish Catholics for being ''west brits''

Hmmm yes Catholics had the same rights as Protestants at the beginning of The Troubles. What am I thinking?
wtf i hate Catholics now

Legally they did, and at the start of the troubles they were given more rights, yet continued their bloodlust

How?

>graph shows IRA killed twice as many men as loyalists and British army put together
THEY WUZ THE GOOD BOYS!!!!1111
This is why flags need to be introduced to Veeky Forums, to stop sneaky seamus

>what is the RUC
>what is the Special Powers Act
Stop posting

>enforcing the law makes you the bad guys
>enforcing the law makes you the bad guys
wtf i love fenian death squads now!

This is bait

Just watch a Celtic v Rangers game

>WAHHH WAHHH A DISSENTING OPINION IN MY SAFESPACE, B-BAIT!!!
The STATE of you

No, but they did some very needless and abhorrent things too.
They had the IRA infiltrated up the ass while they still helped the UVF do some terrible shit.

>By the end the British couldn't even fly helicopters because of PIRA taking potshots at them
How did the British empire come so unstuck against a bunch of gainfully unemployed LARPers when they fucked Argentina in the arse a decade earlier?

Belfast is the vietnam of the west.

neither

>needless
K

>killing people in a war is bad
Wew

Black and Tan Status: BTFO

Deep State

Japs

The Hun trembles in his jackboots. Soon all Ireland will be free.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTjR8e40Lnw

NEVER

;^)

So if Northern Irish Protestants aren't "Irish" and are consequently an undesirable population, then why...

Is your stupidity dawning on you yet?

t. not that other guy but you're dumb as fuck for not having anticipated this correct line of attack

I really have no idea what you're getting at, the country is Northern Ireland (also called Ulster), not the republic or ireland. The majority of the country considers themselves to be Ulstermen or british, NOT irish.
The only reason the country isn't called Ulster is Catholics sperg out when we call it that

Thats a lot of projection.

But there are more Catholics than protestants there.

But there aren't
45% Catholic
48% Protestant
And during the 70s it was more like 60-40

60-40 protestants-catholics I mean

It's almost like one instance was a formal war between two uniformed armies and the other was a well equipped terrorist campaign.

>IRA killed more IRA than everyone else put together

What did they mean by this?

Like most guerilla/terrorist organisations, they have 47845 different splinter factions that all hate each other and spend as much time fighting amongst themselves as they do their enemy.

>Killing the enemy combatants in a war is bad

If you lump combatant deaths in with civilian deaths, you're a retard.

Eliminating combatant deaths, the British had the least violent impact, the IRA had the second least violent impact and the loyalists had unquestionably the most violent impact.

Still though, tit for tat. Neither side were "good".

The IRA splintered more than a door in a fucking wood chipper lad

Combatant deaths absolutely should be included, bastards killed plenty of good soldiers

Yes and arguably the allied soldiers in World War 2 killed plenty of good german soldiers but that isn't a moral outrage in the same way german soldiers bursting into a home and shooting up a family would be.

Nobody says it's "good" that they died, but there is nothing morally questionable about shooting the enemy soldier who's job it is to shoot you, you fucking retard.

The IRA were scumbags, but killing British soldiers isn't even part of the reason why.

>The IRA were scumbags, but killing British soldiers isn't even part of the reason why.
it is though, they had no good reason to do it
It's why the Germans invading Poland would be morally wrong even if they had never genocided civilians

Do you know a literal single thing about the Troubles?
The IRA didn't just pick up guns and start killing people, they didn't even have an armed campaign in Ulster for months after the Loyalists began their aggression.

After several civil rights demonstrations were violently beaten down by both civilians and off duty RUC Police officers, tensions were high and after Ian Paisley and his funclubs stirred the pot harder and some old faggot got beaten to death during a house raid, tensions reached a boiling point and the IRA FINALLY got involved.

British soldiers didn't even come into the equation until they showed up and started acting up; at first they were welcomed by both catholic and protestant civilians as peacekeepers, except they immediately sided with the RUC and UVF and amplified the shitty treatment of the fenian shitters.

THEN the IRA extended their campaign to the literal enemy soldiers who were occupying the country.

>they had no reason to kill those hostile soldiers

You are the sort of person that plays right into nationalist hands by being this retard and creating the sentiment that drives middle ground people away from pro-unionist views into Sinn Féins grubby hands.

Fact is if Britain had never colonised Ireland there would never have been any IRA. No sympathy for unionist scum.

Pretty sure I know more than you seeing as I've lived here for all my life and aren't a plastic paddy from boston

I've lived here all my life too and seeing as a list of every single event relevant in chronological order exists and is accessible through fucking google to anyone who even begins to research what caused the Troubles, I really thought you'd know better.

I am a staunch loyalist and have no qualms about that, but I wouldn't be surprised if you are the OP from pic related based on how fucking retarded you sound right now.

Killing enemy soldiers in a conflict is not a morally questionable issue. It is a fact of armed conflict. A shitty, awful, very saddening fact, but a fact all the same.

>I am a staunch loyalist
But you clearly aren't, so why pretend you are?
Oh, I know, you're using the ''as a black man'' shill tactic
Fenian

You can be a loyalist and condemn the british and UVF actions you blithering shitter.

I would just as quickly tell any retard who said killing the IRA was bad because they were """"""protecting"""""" people.

Once you take up arms in a conflict against another force, if you get your shit pushed in it is not something to get morally outraged by.
There were no "good guys" in the Troubles other than the non-combatants, the main figures of the peace process and I suppose any of the average british soldiers who didn't really partake in the abuse with the RUC and the UVF fellas.

All that being said, it was an armed conflict and people died. There is plenty to be morally outraged about on either side without saying "THE WORST BIT IS THEY KILLED EACH OTHER" you absolute mong.
Thank you for being one of the retards who makes unionism look like a stubborn uninformed joke and pushing retards to nationalist arms.

>killing british soldiers
>ever a bad thing

>The IRA splintered more than a door in a fucking wood chipper lad

hearty chuckle

You aren't a loyalist if you praise the IRA while criticising unionists you absolute bell piece
You can stop pretending not to be a fenian now, Seamus
Go and Bobby Sands yourself

I haven't praised the IRA at any point, I've said they were scumbags actually. My point is that what makes them scumbags isn't that they killed british soldiers.

I'd say it was more that they damaged the communities they said they wanted to protect, they changed their goals and "motives" 5 times a day, they dissolved their "campaign" into """"attacks on infrastructure"""" to cover up what was just a series of petty revenge attacks against loyalist forces before getting infiltrated up the ass by the British and turning to peace.

They were faggots, and they were scum. But the loyalist paramilitaries were no better and the idea of us taking the moral highground when there's documented evidence of Paisley and his chums being the main instigators of the violent outbreaks in the first place is retarded.

Being educated on the conflict that cucked our country up the ass and accepting that nobody came away clean handed is the only way to not just look like an angloboo orange hall dwelling gremlin, faggot.

>Include combatant deathcount as a basis for who the good guys were
>"If you kill your enemies, they win"

I love Paisley pepes

>Unionist in fighting once more

Votáil Sinn Féin!

It wasn't a proper war though. It was a home. A country of people trying to live their lives, and some of those people worked as policemen.
Being a uniformed soldier on the front lines shooting another uniformed soldier who is trying to kill you is a lot different from sneaking down to PC Plum's house in the middle of the night and rigging his car to explode when he gets into it the next morning.
PC Plum wasn't an enemy combatant. He wasn't trying to actively kill you (unless you were running around in a balaclava with explosives and guns trying to kill him, which is then a different thing entirely.)
The whole of the troubles was a clusterfuck of bad decisions, petty grievances and stubborn leaders repeatedly making the worst decisions for everyone involved. There were very few good guys, and very few justified deaths, and it all could have been avoided if the main aggressors got around the table like bloody adults and talked over their differences from the start instead of everyone falling out like 5 year olds.
It was a ruddy shambles, and I hope it never returns.

Unionist militias explicitly targeted civilians whereas the IRA did not.

>unionist arguing with crypto catholic is infighting
you quite clearly have though, paisley did nothing wrong
no surrender

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsmill_massacre

Yes, they did.
>everyone who disagrees with me is a fenian

Okay pal.

>setting off a bomb in the middle of a town isnt targeting civilians

Neither side were the /goodguys/ but the IRA were slightly less evil. Mainly because Catholics were discriminated against in the north. Like when the RA started up again it was mainly to protect themselves, not for a reunited Ireland as the South wasn't all that great around that time.
I not really well versed on this as some people here, my understanding is mostly from junior and leaving cert history and its too complex of an issue to just say one side is right and the other is wrong
Basically
is pretty much the best that can be said

Just an aside I remember hearing something about this back in JC but I cant remember all that much about the details so maybe some one here knows more. Basically it was due to some housing or rent crisis and both sides began to come together to protest to the government. Well they didnt like both sides working together so to cause tensions to rise again they only fixed the problem for the Protestants.
Idk if that made sense but maybe someone knows more about it

I am the poster you quoted, and be careful with "IRA were less evil."

It is very easy to fall into the trap of "the guys who were statistically the least evil cunts were actually good" when really the IRA did some abhorrent things and were by no means a protective force.

What began as a rising turned into a campaign for Ulster, and with mass-splinters and infighting they just became a gang.
The Troubles is a jumped up term given to a period of intense revenge-bombings and assassinations, as opposed to an all out war.

The point of that graph is less to make the IRA look "good" but more to remind Unionists that they can't claim a moral high ground over republicans based on what happened in the troubles.

Catholic Irishfag here, Sinn Fein the republic is pro islam, refugee, and pro mutant. the Loyalists are the good guys

I would echo the point on being very careful with the phrasing of the IRA being "less evil"
They did many evil things, and so did all the other paramilitaries, and even the security forces.
It may be better to say that the IRA were initially slightly justified in forming, as there were some genuine cases of discrimination against them by the unionist majority, but as soon as they began subverting the legal process and killing in the name of politics came onto the table every faction sank straight to the bottom of an evil abyss, and make no mistake, the IRA committed some exceptionally evil acts, and stood by them.

Republicans because they're literal traitors and that's all that mattersLove how you still post this despite being debunked multiple times
Republicans are dogs

>debunked

What? By whom? When?

>more buttblasted loyalist

How's that GFA working out for you? Sinn Féin are getting pretty popular considering that there are many people alive directly affected by the terrorism of their past. I wonder what'll happen when the hardliners start dying off!

Shoo shoo, Tommy.

In the threads when this has been posted before?
Actually British (English) who wants the republic to rejoin Great Britain but Great Britain to turn catholic again with the monarchy and the lords at late Victorian power levels, leave the eu then strengthen trade with the commonwealth ad partition Germany to get the throne back
Also hilarious how just like you were let off for all your murders this coalition is going on ahead

And what was it debunked with? Are there alternate statistics? Sources?
Or just someone saying
>posting the graph

Because I see that graph in almost every thread about the Troubles but have never seen any other data to actually contradict it, just people saying "lol that graph isn't accurate dummy"

>coalition
>a good thing for unionism

The only thing keeping the DUP going is that they had NI as a containment unit; they don't even align with Tory policy that well and now they have the entire spotlight of liberal media on them.

If you think a DUP-Tory coalition is good for Unionism then you're deluded, my guy. Retards voting for SF come from them being finally pushed over the edgy by retarded DUP policy isolating them, and now that SDLP are cucked it's not looking so hot.

I think they went into the sources and proved it was biased
Do you think I care about unionism, Protestant Irish had to migrate to Ulster and we already had the Pakistan India divide so it's not like they can't have an ethnostate themsevles

protracted

Those who want a free and independent state which preserves their nation are the ones who are right.

And they got it. But then kept killing for another 70 years.

>when you want your own ethnostate you go to war with your brothers during a world war but then 50 years later are one of the most progressive nations where somalian is more common than Irish, whilst English and polish are the other major languages

Labour, the party of the working class man
youtu.be/shjpU-9zMd0

>Loyalists kill themselves
wew

>The majority of the country considers themselves to be Ulstermen
This is just delusional

>or british
According to the 2011 census fewer than half do
Don't just spout lies on Veeky Forums

Simplified history
>Protestant Scots and English transplanted to pacify rebellious area. Catholic Irish kicked off their land. Natural tensions ensue.
>Fast forward to the 60's. Northern Irish state was created because of unionist fears of retribution and "popery" in 6 counties in Ulster. Big Irish minorities due to unfair boarder commission.
>A Protestant state, Catholics discriminated against in jobs, housing and basically all areas of life, elections gerrymandered so Catholics get no proper representation. Police force notorious for its anti-catholic nature. Civil rights movement ensues, Protestant establishment fears social progress and cracks down brutally on protesters.
>At this point UK proper had largely moved past old grievances, northern Ireland largely an embarrassment they would rather be without. Send in Army to peace-keep, welcomed by both sides, proceed to continue to oppress Catholics. PIRA proceed to wage a guerrila war with atrocities carried out by all parties involved, British government basically ignores all abuses carried out on its behalf.
>Sunningdale agreement, basically the good Friday agreement but 20 years earlier collapsed by mainly unionist opposition but also opposed by the Republican factions.
>Atrocities continue for 20 years until GFA finally signed.
Overall its pretty obvious that the Unionist side was the worse, but thats not to say that the republicans were saints or anything. Should have really ended 20 years prior, the famous quote being the GFA was "Sunningdale for slow learners. That's the basics that I have found anyway

>starts talking
>it's a man
wew

>Big Irish minorities due to unfair boarder commission.
This makes it sound like the commission was simply ignorant. Majority Protestant counties were included, as were the majority Catholic counties of Tyrone and Derry/Londonderry also. This was done to make the state large enough to be viable

>Sunningdale agreement, basically the good Friday agreement but 20 years earlier collapsed by mainly unionist opposition
This was largely due to the quite impressive Ulster Worker's Council strike. This was a near total shutdown of every industry in the country for two weeks. It had support from many, but its success lay in its enforcement by Loyalist paramilitaries, who set up numerous road blocks to stop commuters. This was possible due to the sheer numbers of members. The UDA, which was legal due to its slow development from community activist groups and neighbourhood watches, as well as conducting its terrorist acts under pseudonym, could claim 40,000 members at the time

It's not a lie though, it's true. Unless of course, there's another reason why over 60% of the country wants to remain in the UK, then I'd be pleased to hear it.
Go on then

>respect are culture

It is a lie, its simply false. The census data states that most people do not claim to be British, and I've never heard anyone claim to be an "Ulsterman" without doing a Paisleyesque "Never, never never!" immediately afterwards

I'm not denying that 40% of people in Northern Ireland consider themselves to be British, and I believe the other pro-union people wish to stay because they don't believe the Irish government could support the Northern Irish state

Again, you're lying or incompetent.
Which is it?

What would you like explained?

Are Irish anglos?

Well nothing from you as you clearly have an agenda to push and ignore inconvenient facts
Even pretending that today the majority are not unionists (which they are), in the 70s unionists made up an even larger proportion of the country

>Even pretending that today the majority are not unionists
I'm not claiming that. Most people in Northern Ireland wish to stay in the union
What are these facts and what is my agenda?

Genetically? No, and neither are English