Were these guy's the most based terrorists in history?
>don't bomb innocents only infrastructure
>alert the officials anytime there's a bomb that might harm civilians
>have a code of honor
>all their wars were from an oppressed to an oppressor; stopped the war effort as soon as they were given independence
>held in high esteem by Paddies and Briton's decades after their self disbandment
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
the only problem is that they were TOO good at not being scumbags, so now people can obfuscate Islamic terrorism by comparing them to the IRA and going "terrorism isn't THAT bad"
Amerifat here
I don't know much about "The Troubles" but from what i understand many innocents were killed and the IRA fractured and fought each other as often as they fought the British/protestants.
Is this not true?
>a busy street full of shoppers, is infrastructure
They didn't fight protestants, they just fought the British in terms of goals, IRA dudes were protestant too. Biggest mistake is people think IRA's motives were religious. The UDA on the other hand thought they were on a crusade to end all crusades.
my bad
I thought they were all catholics.
Who were the UDA?
>when you're so oppressed your overlord unites your primitive tribes into a single bloc and gives you something other than straw huts to live in
The key word is "street".
didn't you retards boycott 3 referendums on northern ireland's status?
not to mention the fact that you retards split into a million groups, and the british had to build walls to stop you autists from bombing eachother.
Bogshitter here.
IRA of the Troubles were fags.
They rose up due to the fact that there WAS a justified cause and peaceful means were simply beaten down too harshly and too effectively.
Unfortunately about 3 milliseconds into the fight the inner workings of the IRA splintered into 18 quintillion different goals, with some wanting to protect catholics, others wanting ironclad grips over communities, some wanting to make money, some wanting to kill brits, some wanting to just kill protestants, and some just in it because they had nothing better to do.
The overall goal of the IRA became extremely muddled and they were infilitrated up the ass by the Brits.
Granted; the Northern Irish did fuck all to combat them; the RUC/UVF/etc were all absolute dogshit when it came to fighting the IRA but they were pretty good at indiscriminately killing fenian civilians. The British are the ones who fucked the IRA.
The best men of the IRA are unironically the ones who turned to peace; McGuinnes is honestly one of the best statesmen Northern Ireland has ever seen and the fact he went to see the Queen and all was neato.
tl;dr- the IRA were fags with a just cause that they wasted.
The bigger enemies of the innocent however were undeniably the Northern Irish Loyalists, who did little else in the troubles than run a terror campaign against people who quite literally dindu nuffin.
Before the questions roll in, the oddities of the stats can be explained as follows:
>IRA KILLED LOTS OF IRA???
Punishment killings mid-splinter as well as feuds-informers and whatnot were usually put down quite quickly.
>LOYALISTS KILLING LOYALISTS??
See above
>IRA KILLED THE MOST!!
The blue of the Republican bar represents "security forces" and thusly were seen by the IRA-and the British-as combatants. Obviously people were upset that they died, but it's not as reprehensible as civilian killings.
>HA, THE LOYALISTS+BRITISH KILLED MORE CIVILIANS SO THEY ARE THE BADDIES
While the combined work of the British+Loyalists did rack up a much higher civilian death count than the Republicans, the fact remains that the IRA were responsible for a massive amount of civilian death.
The lesson to take from the Troubles is that there were no good guys. Every single belligerent pulled some really fucking dirty tricks and fucked over innocent people where they absolutely didn't need to in some way or another.
The point of this stats isn't to prove the IRA weren't "that bad" but moreso to prove that British+Loyalists absolutely do not have a moral high ground to take, and Loyalists are-if you read the background to the conflict-arguably almost entirely to blame for things getting as bad as they did.
collateral faggot, and the IRA in all of its multifariousness still got less of that than the British army
fucking neck yourself free state babby
>there were no good guys
you're a meme
pic related
you
meant forobviously
Not really, that's why people call it a dirty war.
Sure, out of all the scummy sides there is one side who did the LEAST awful shit, but that doesn't make them "the good guys" by default.
The British Security Forces did some godawful shit to people do didn't deserve it.
The Loyalist Paramilitaries did awful shit almost exclusively to people who didn't deserve it.
The IRA fucked just about everyone in the ass at some point.
The only "good guys" were the guys who turned away from conflict entirely-I include Paisley in this despite Paisley being one of the reasons the conflict happened in the first place.
I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here.
The IRA were just crypto anglos
We need to return to the old ways
You've taken the most painfully, artificially neutral position on the subject, with all your hurr durr both sides were in the wrong but the loyalists were slightly more in the wrong bollocks wrapped at the end now with this post in anti-violence pacifism yarn.
The fact of the matter is that the IRA tried to avoid collateral civilian damage everywhere they could by sending in warnings beforehand, the only times this couldn't be avoided was in blind murders committed by people without the sanction of their respective groups generally forced to operate under false acronyms, like at Darkley or Kingsmill with the "SARAF" and "CRF".
But I absolutely would not call the IRA pretty bad dudes due to the fact that while they did call in before certain attacks there was an absolutely undeniable element of fear instilled in many republican communities by them due to the fact that they did essentially just devolve into terrorists.
If you are speaking in regards to the IRA who:
>Launched the campaign
>Targeted Security Forces and Loyalist Paramilitaries as a majority
>Took part in planning and execution of the maze escape
>Eventually turned to peace with the ceasefire to build a Northern Ireland for the Irish
Then sure. Literally the good-guys. Unfortunately they do not make up a majority of the IRA and to say that the IRA were not at one point an enemy of average civilians who changed the goal of "stop the british cucking the irish" into "lets just fucking kill a bunch of huns" then you're utterly blind to the conflict.
I am a fat dirty Éireboo but trying to say the IRA of the Troubles didn't devolve into a shitty gang of twisted fucknuts is retarded.
Troubles was a dirty war, the only good guys were the ones who turned to peace.
>IRA killed more republicans than loyalists
>Unionist militias killed more loyalists than republicans
Those were mostly punishment killings, and the IRA mostly targeted British Security Forces.
Unionist militias were pretty much a non-entity in the sense that they couldn't do fuck all to the IRA and did little other than create recruits FOR the IRA through their bumbling attacks on random catholic civilians.
At one point the British Security Forces colluded with the Unionist Paramilitaries over certain things but once Northern Irish Loyalists proved to be literally the least competent group of people on the planet, the British infiltrated and fucked the IRA on their own.
>absolutely undeniable element of fear instilled in many republican communities by them
Bollocks, the fear comes today from individual retards who are absolutely ADAMANT that "moi son wuz a gud boi he dint sell drugs dint need tae ní cheap him", support for the IRA decades ago during the height of the troubles and now today is strong.
>Unfortunately they do not make up a majority of the IRA
Ridiculous statement with no broofs
>and to say that the IRA were not at one point an enemy of average civilians
At which point, precisely?
>who changed the goal of "stop the british cucking the irish" into "lets just fucking kill a bunch of huns"
Absolutely and simply wrong, if that was the desired goal of the fucking majority norn iron would've been a far bigger bloodbath than it needed to be, there was no turning point where suddenly the call-ins for bombings stopped and changed their targets from infrastructure and generally trying to cause disruption to indiscriminate killing ISIS-style
>Troubles didn't devolve into a shitty gang of twisted fucknuts is retarded.
The various paras only today after the troubles have ended are gangs of faggots (except for the ones who kill drug dealers and DON'T sell their drugs after).
Not him (scotfag here) but it was my impression that moral issues aside the Troubles basically ended up just being a series of revenge attacks until the GFA happened then the actual faggots used IRA as a mantle to be criminal gangs.
Revenge attacks were common throughout the troubles and generally carried out by individuals with affiliation with but not the blessing of their respective paras for their actions, as far as I know at least. For specific targets like for example a group of British soldiers or RUC who were known to frequent a certain pub you also obviously couldn't call in a warning if you were going to bomb it which would've lead to collateral damage when you killed civilians. I'm not privy to the internal machinations of the Troubles IRA so I couldn't say with honesty what went through their minds at times like that.
Today they're mostly gangs though ye.
But still think you're wavering dangerously on the line of calling them "good guys" like OP.
I know it's extremely hard to fight the fight they were fighting where they were fighting it without collateral, but there really doesn't seem to be any records or data to suggest that collateral is all it was, while there seems to be countless data, people and witnesses that ascribe to the idea of "they bombed a bunch of innocent people when they really didn't need to."
Yeah, nailbombing the border in the 70's was very honourubu, love me sheamus-san~~
>doing my shopping, check out some pharmacy
>i hear an explosion, shrapnel rips into me, i die in immense pain
>oh wait no never mind it's all cool they sent a warning guys
>but there really doesn't seem to be any records or data to suggest that collateral is all it was
Well can you give me a few instances of a pub bombing carried out by the IRA with the target having ostensibly been RUC/British Army etc. or individuals known for assisting the latter, but only having killed civilians, that wasn't a premature explosion or something of that order?
>people and witnesses that ascribe to the idea of "they bombed a bunch of innocent people when they really didn't need to."
Well loyalist communities are hardly not going to say the people killed dindu nuffin when it fits their popular narrative of being victimization, they include British Army and RUC along with civilians as "innocents" anyway, because that's their perspective.
If the area hadn't been evacuated despite ample time given and an adequately accurate warning (unlike at Omagh) then I'd blame you for being a retard walking into an area with a bomb, faggot.
of being victims*
also meant 'innocents' rather than 'civilians' since technically collaborators are still civilians if they're not known combatants
They can be based when they reform and give ISIS a taste of their own medicine.
>If the area hadn't been evacuated despite ample time given and an adequately accurate warning (unlike at Omagh) then I'd blame you for being a retard walking into an area with a bomb, faggot.
Yeah, it's totally reasonable to completely give up the soverignty in order to appease some fuckwits, "collateral damage" was fucking murder, plain and simple.
>give up the sovereignty
>I'M the victim because I was too proud to not walk into an area with a deadly bomb in it because of my pride in my retarded hypothetical scenario
>Bollocks, the fear comes today from individual retards who are absolutely ADAMANT that "moi son wuz a gud boi he dint sell drugs dint need tae ní cheap him", support for the IRA decades ago during the height of the troubles and now today is strong.
Belfast Catholic here, this. Most of the people kneecapped did something to deserve it.
>letting terrorists dictate where you can and can't go
Ulster didn't want to be part of the free state, the IRA's actions were anger over a democratic vote.
>gerrymandered borders designed to ensure a unionist majority
>"democratic"
wew lad
It's hilarious that even after gerrmandering the borders you still couldn't create a stable state, just shows how much of a meme Ulster unionism is.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>Ulster Loyalists
>Mattering
Ah yes, a fine people.
Their culture is the commemoration of a dutch man's victory over irish soldiers loyal to an english crown.
Their identity is a watered down Scottish lowlands.
They are some of the least educated people in all of the UK, falling lower than Romanian travellers.
They are looked down upon by the English, the welsh, and even the Scots.
They are fiercely loyal to a country which would do away with them in a heartbeat if they could without fuss.
They have no identity. They have no real history. They have no true culture, no place in this world.
Northern Ireland is the afterbirth of a botched partition and the result of such undesirable and useless people being so densely populated that a statelet itself was born out of a need to cater to their autistic screeching.
Truly, there is no lower form of human to the Ulster Scot.
England tried to sell them once but the Republic said no.
Irish nationalism is not only very prevalent but literally enshrined and protected as an integral part of the state. They vote in a party which does not represent them literally just to limit the power of the increasingly popular Sinn Féin.
They do not know their own history, their entire existence is summed up by being anti-irish.
Despite it all, everyone except them sees them as just the shittier version of the Irish themselves.
So when the 12th rolls round again and they take out their drums to beat, remember that their only job is kissing paddy's feet.
How did they know Mountbatten had dandruff?
They found his head and shoulders on the beach.
The IRA's actions were in response to a campaign of brutal suppression of Irish-Catholic civilians north of the border.
Loyalists were shooting people and setting off bombs months before the IRA even began a campaign; the Troubles literally happened because Loyalists amped up the violence on native boggers by 5000%.
...
...
...
fuck off, mountbatten didnu nuffin
>the fact he went to see the Queen and all was neato
Fuck off
>we were only trying to blow up the street
>please disregard all the people we blew up doing so
nope, bunch of murdering twats.
not saying the UDA or any of the other factions werent also murdering twats but the closest you get to heroes in the troubles were the british squadies and that isnt that close.
the key word is 'shoppers, as in innocent civilians minding their own business.
its worth noting that ' british security forces' included the RUC and UDR both of which had been infiltrated by the loyalists, thus most of the 'british security forces' civilian total properly belongs to the loyalists as it was the policy of both the british government and UDR command to discharge any soldier found or reasonably suspected to be a member of any loyalist or republican terrorist group.
It really depends where you draw the line between the many different IRA factions, PIRA were cunts, INLA were pretty shitty, CIRA were fucked and RIRA were the worst. It's only the OIRA that comes out looking any good
Why are the welsh brown?
I thought they would be the most white.
Real talk the IRA were the good guys in the Troubles. They didn't even start their campaign before Loyalist paramilitaries attacked Catholic communities. The British government and NI Government either directly oppressed the Catholics or just let it happen. This along with British military and Ulster Unionists killing innocents instantly make the RA in the right.
Does anyone know the name of that massacre of when British Snipers killed around 12 innocents (Including a priest) and lied about being under attack by the IRA?
>>don't bomb innocents
Bloody Sunday?
No I found it. Funny enough both this and Bloody Sunday were committed by the same battalion. en.wikipedia.org
>twats
Is this a joke?
You're actually very stupid. The British were called in to protect catholics and protestants due to the war that was being faught amongst them. The IRA then turned their attention to the British. It was an ethnic relgious conflict throughout, with the Loyalists being Ulster Scot British and the Republicans being native Irish. Please do some research before spouting so much shit its actually embarrasing
>Ulster Scot
Literally a meme
What?
>The british were called in to protect both sides
Yes
Except the British immediately sided with the RUC and the Loyalist paras.
The IRA didn't "turn their attention" to the British, they just started biting back at the new force attacking them.
Reminder that the conflict was British Security Forces, RUC, Loyalist Paras vs the IRA.
It was a fight against the oppression of bogshits but don't act like the British were at any point literally anything other than the next in line to shit on the fenians from the day they arrived.
they killed many innocent people in their bombings
>HM Prison Maze (also known as Long Kesh) was a maximum security prison considered to be one of the most escape-proof prisons in Europe
>maximum security prison considered to be one of the most escape-proof prisons in Europe
>most escape-proof
t. communist
?
>Were these guy's the most based terrorists in history?
>the portadown massacre
best day of my life. kek
>Based
>Failed
>don't bomb innocents only infrastructure
>held in high esteem by Paddies and Briton's decades after their self disbandment
do you know how I know you don't live in England?
Thank goodness for loyalism