So /his/

>Religion

File: based david.jpg (14KB, 146x207px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 146x207px

>>499620

PUP - marxist loyalists for the win. also: david ervine was a sound bloke.

File: 1450936809974.jpg (46KB, 500x356px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x356px

>>499638
>Marxist loyalists
What a monstrosity

>>499626
>trilby.jpeg

>>499647

fuck off tory taig.

loyalism, despite the best efforts of the god botherers and the orange order, was always the force for modernism.

if the republicans had won, there would be no means by which modern ideas would be implemented the NI. the mainstream, god bothering unionists are trapped into accepting the union and modernism, despite the efforts to stop it. if the rep[ublic had taken all 32, there would be no prospect of abortion, or divorce, of the things we take for granted in the UK. except, maybe, licking the arse of the financial sector and a raft of corruption scandals and financial irregularities.

the UK are dragging NI into the modern era, not the occupied 26. middle class catholics recognize this, and that's why they will vote for parties like the SDLP who are happy enough to keep the union in place, because that ensure their survival. they are literally having their cake and eating it - indulging in nationalist rhetoric without any chance the nationalists will win anything.

>Based UDA slaughtered all those filthy taigs with absolutely no consequences

>>499638
>PUP - marxist loyalists for the win. also: david ervine was a sound bloke.
David Ervine was ok but the rest of the PUP are literally pants on head, dribbly mongoloid levels of retarded.

This was a really edgy answer.

>>499626
>implying religion has anything to do with the troubles

>>499716

they'd be rock solid labour voters if the PLP hadn't betrayed them, and the ILP hadn't been a bunch of nationalists, and the SDLP hadn't been middle class toffy nosed cunts.

they are - or were - the unionist left. it's a shame that right wing parties like sinn fein and the DUP garnered the votes of tribalists, because all the right ever does is shaft the poor.

File: p021wwj0.jpg (71KB, 976x549px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 976x549px

>>499620
>I support loyalism

File: sinn-fein-ard-fheis-10-630x422.jpg (41KB, 630x422px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 630x422px

>>499740
>right wing parties like sinn fein

Neither, both are nothing but an excuse for low-life scumbags to get away with killing people essentially

>>499620
I'm not a mick, why should I care.

File: Bvev_-ZIcAE_LkG.png (557KB, 529x820px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 529x820px

>>499828
It's one of the few black and white conflicts in the world, so you don't even need to care that much. The IRA did literally nothing wrong.

>>499906
>Lobbing grenades into cafés and shit based on nothing but presumptions of one Brit being there
>Good

File: images.jpg (7KB, 276x183px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 276x183px

>>499999
waste of good quints
check em

>>499999
CHECKED

File: Omagh_imminent.jpg (32KB, 425x405px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 425x405px

>>499906

>such edgy
>much anti establish
>very wow

>>499686
>if the republicans had won, there would be no means by which modern ideas would be implemented the NI.

I'll spot you abortion, for now. We've got divorce and even gay marriage. The idea of loyalism as some vanguard of modernity borders on delusion, mate.

>>499620

Why am I being asked to choose between two gangs of murdering scumbags? How do I pick?

>>499906
>The IRA did literally nothing wrong.
>Setting off bombs, and setting setting secondary bombs as booby traps for paramedics, then claiming that paramedics didn't care when they were being cautious
>Nothing wrong

Is this what "Irish" Americans actually believe?

>>500175
plastic paddies, not even once

File: p3912_-_3x4.25_-_irish_wings_eagle_small_1[1].jpg (30KB, 295x295px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 295x295px

>>499906

Neither, they're both as bad as each other.
>both sides choosing to killing civillians as a legitimate tactic rather than enemy combatants

File: 1440794007469.jpg (14KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x250px

>>499906
>Bloody Friday
>Omagh bombings
>Birmingham and Guildford pub bombings
>La Mon bombing
>Harrods bombing
>Remembrance Day bombing
>Teebane bombing
>Warrington bombing
All of these targeted civilians on purpose
If you really think the IRA (or the INLA, UVF, UDA etc) did nothing wrong you're no better than an ISIS supporter

>>499999
who was >>500000

>>499686
>here would be no prospect of abortion,
Unless the life of the mother is in danger, or the child is sure to die in the womb, that's a good thing
>or divorce
Which is legal in the Republic

And I notice you completely side step the rather huge fact the Republic is the first country in the world to bring in gay marriage by popular vote. And that's not something to be taken for granted; the Czech Republic also put it to a vote and the the no side won 2/3 to 1/3.

And don't think for a moment any of the loyalists would be ever be gagging for gay marriage; numerous heads of the DUP party have said publicly they're against it on religious grounds.

File: B3P1hrtCUAAxl6t.jpg (18KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x337px

>>500343
>If you really think the IRA (or the INLA, UVF, UDA etc) did nothing wrong you're no better than an ISIS supporter

File: pa-18928181-752x501.jpg (54KB, 752x501px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 752x501px

>>500055
>>500175
>>500221
>>500237
>>500343
Sorry m8s, I was just Gerryposting because I thought this was /int/. I apologise for shitposting and I don't actually support the ra

File: axis of evil.jpg (72KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 720x540px

Ulster loyalism is one of the few right-wing ideologies with mass support in the world remaining, and the only one in Western Europe. I like them for that.

File: IMAG0448.jpg (1MB, 3264x1824px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1824px

>>500791
If that is your own picture, know you have a friend in me. I like you.

File: paisley-smash-sinn-fein-Apr-1985.jpg (35KB, 620x409px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 620x409px

>the IRA

File: PAY-Ian-Paisley.jpg (42KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 615x409px

>and then he said Ireland should be united under a non-British flag

IRA did nothing wrong.

File: N Ireland News 10-1.jpg (20KB, 341x342px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 341x342px

>Alright lads, just reading the Sinn Fein manifesto

File: NWS_20130716_New_008_28271095_I2.jpg (30KB, 492x342px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 492x342px

>>500791
>>500813
>>500889
>>500901

>>500791
>Ulster loyalism is one of the few right-wing ideologies with mass support in the world remaining
Except that even protestants hate loyalists and have become embarassed of their own culture due to the antics of these clowns.

>>500921
Hero

>>500924
>Except that even protestants hate loyalists and have become embarassed of their own culture due to the antics of these clowns.
This, speaking to and watching these people and you'd understand this. They're all pants-on-head retarded with some of the stuff they come out with.

File: 1445807069599.jpg (107KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 400x400px

>>500761
this is a real abstract kind of shitposting

I'll tell you my opinion as a person from Northern Ireland who grew up during the troubles in the 80's. IRA were bad obviously. But the UDA are pure filth. They're religious fanatics and anything non British, protestant and white was and is an affront to them. The IRA on the other hand as bad as they were, were a lot more tolerant. I'm a protestant btw.

>>500343

>Warrington

Ah yes, the one where the IRA gave one of their much vaulted warnings.

For a completely different city.

>>500761
>I get to vote for based Gerry in the next election
great feel

>>499620
>Of those killed by British security forces:
187 (~51.5%) were civilians

>Of those killed by republican paramilitaries:
723 (~35%) were civilians

>Of those killed by loyalist paramilitaries:
877 (~85.4%) were civilians


The IRA were far from Saints but they were the least evil faction in that conflict.

>>503046
I completely Agree

File: 232309119_orig.jpg (235KB, 1478x420px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1478x420px

As a historian, even as a devout Protestant I can't support any sort of Loyalism or Unionism. I've never met a historically literate Loyalist and I think there's a reason for that. It's an ideology in constant opposition to historical truth.

File: ulster.jpg (440KB, 1894x953px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1894x953px

>>500924
Mainstream "cuckservatives" proving their respectability by denying association with extremists wings of right-wing political movements is a typical modern phenomenom. In the end, it always result in the complete destruction of the conservatism base because without the vigour of the "extremists" the cuckservatives cannot resist the left-wing assault.

If Protestants are abandoning loyalism as "embarassing", then they already lost. Ireland will be reunified within a couple decades.

>>503568
Leftism is in practice rule by intellectuals, therefore left-wing ideologies will always have the support of "smarter" people. That's why right-wing ideologies with mass support are always formed by "historically illiterate" people, from the Nazis believing that white people came from Ultima Thule to the Hindu nationalists who believe the "Out of India" theory of Indo-European migration.

That doesn't mean they are wrong, though, that just means they don't have the support of the intelligentsia. If you consider the kind of ideology that had the support of intellectuals across the last century, such as Maoism and dependency theory, they are much worse. I would rather be ruled by a "historical illiterate" loyalist plumber than by a very educated Irish nationalist academician.

This is why I have no respect for Ireland and the Irish. It's 2 tribes at each other's throats in the 21st fucking century in Western Europe. Nationalists and Loyalists are both scum in my eyes.

File: 1449360233711.jpg (358KB, 881x955px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 881x955px

>>503616
Loyalists in Northern Ireland have a very impressive track record of academic censorship. As a historian who wants to practice my profession freely and without interference, it isn't in my best interests to support them.

>>503630
>21st fucking century in Western Europe
I MEAN COME ON PEOPLE, IT'S THE CURRENT CENTURY

>>503639
They're both squabbling shit that should be ancient history. Fucking Orangemen extol a victory from 1693 which involved Dutch Catholic troops and being allied to Pope Alexander VIII. But of course these inbred retards don't read history.

And Nationalists still think that bombing and other shit is acceptable practice despite the Good Friday Agreement and actual reforms taking place.

Shit like this is why I wish there's a massive plague that kills off 99% of humanity so that the level-headed ones that survive can make a better world.

>>503658
>And Nationalists still think that bombing and other shit is acceptable practice despite the Good Friday Agreement and actual reforms taking place.
What nationalists think this?

>>503665
The Real IRA group

File: GermanyPerishFBCovers-copy-3.jpg (181KB, 600x455px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 600x455px

>>503630
If you don't think that there are tribes at your throat on the rest of Europe too, it's just because you haven't been paying attention.

>>503602
>Mainstream "cuckservatives" proving their respectability by denying association with extremists wings of right-wing political movements is a typical modern phenomenom. In the end, it always result in the complete destruction of the conservatism base because without the vigour of the "extremists" the cuckservatives cannot resist the left-wing assault.
The victim complex and interracial fetishism of the American right wing don't really apply to Ireland.

>If Protestants are abandoning loyalism as "embarassing", then they already lost. Ireland will be reunified within a couple decades.
Unionism =/= loyalism. Loyalism is a millstone around Unionism's neck, and now that they are throwing off that weight unionism is stronger than ever. You can't force people to be loyal by acting retarded, it was never going to work.

>>503681
>The Real IRA group
a mafia and not representative of literally any community, even the shittyest parts of West Belfast and South Armagh.

>>503630
ethnic tensions in Ireland are probably better than most Western countries. Go to Brussels, Paris or Missouri and tell me it's more peaceful than Belfast. That's without even mentioning the Republic where no-one gives a fuck about your background.

File: 719.jpg (39KB, 1305x315px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1305x315px

>>503568
>Caesar-Augusta, which means "The fortress of Zara"

>>500343

Do you actually think something like this completely invalidates the fact that the British government has absolutely no leg to stand on with its continued occupation of Northern Ireland?
Dailymail comments section might be more your speed.

>>499727
Of course it did

Until the 1960s, religion determined whether or not you were a second class citizen, and until the GFA in 1998 many businesses and schools refused entry to applicants based on their religion.

In fact in the runup to the referendum, many Unionist parties stated they would refuse to share power with Catholics. Not that they wouldn't share power with nationalist parties, that they wouldn't share power with Catholics.

>>500390
>>500000

>>504180
>Do you actually think something like this completely invalidates the fact that the British government has absolutely no leg to stand on with its continued occupation of Northern Ireland?

Do you mean apart from the ongoing support of a majority of NI's occupants?

>>504223
Catholic/Protestant was an ethnic identifier, relgion itself didn't matter. A "Catholic Atheist" would have as much chance as a devout Catholic at working for a bigoted employer.

>>504180

>the British government has absolutely no leg to stand on with its continued occupation of Northern Ireland?

yeah, fuck the tyrannical Brits lording it over the British population of northern Ireland

>>499620
UDA

>>504180
>Do you actually think something like this completely invalidates the fact that the British government has absolutely no leg to stand on with its continued occupation of Northern Ireland?

Apart from the fact that about three quarters want to stay in the UK? That it is legally completely sound? That it made complete sense at the time and still does? And that it avoided a second irish civil war?

File: Irish_UK_election_1918.png (84KB, 834x1034px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 834x1034px

>>504936
>>504907
>>504851

>>505194

>majority of northern irish constituencies are unionist

sorry, what's the point of you posting this image?

>>505211
that anon is a fag and I'm not him but the image is kind of relevant in a historical sense to show the gerrymandering of the border

>>505226
>the image is kind of relevant in a historical sense to show the gerrymandering of the border
>gerrymandering
In what sense?

>>503793
>The victim complex and interracial fetishism of the American right wing don't really apply to Ireland.
Where the fuck do you think the American Right Wing got it from?

Have you ever read the protestant telegraph?

It is literally interracial fetish porn.

>>505229
The province of Ulster had a catholic majority at the time of partition and the borders of NI were chosen to keep a protestant majority while also including the most economically productive Catholic areas. This left catholic majority areas on the "wrong side" of the border.

There is a shitload of politics behind the drawing of the border but that's the basics of it.

>>505211

The point is that Northen Ireland did not exist at this stage and it shows that the vast majority on the whole island, which was a complete entity at this time as is its natural state (being an island and all) were in favour of complete independence, the majorities wishes were ignored in favour of a tiny foreign minority and now we have faggots crying about terrorism.

>>505853
>now we have faggots crying about terrorism
le terrorism apologist seppo meme

>>505864

How is that apologising for terrorism? Pointing out how stupid it is to completely deny the wishes of the majority, use force to repress that majority and THEN cry about terrorism?

>>505888
>How is that apologising for terrorism?
I dunno, maybe by literally making excuses for terrorist acts?

I am not defending the acts of British government, this is not a black and white conflict where there are goodies and baddies, excusing terrorism carried out against civilian targets because "lol they r bad 2" is retarded.

>>499620

OOH

AAH

>>505909

So you are saying that if a people are being terrorised by a state that was imposed on them by force and excludes them from the political process they are wrong to fight back?

>>505931
Are you saying it is totes cool to grenade a few backpackers because a British serviceman had a pint at that pub last week?

>>505938

I think you are using total hypebole to obscure the actual course of events, since at least 75% of the people the IRA killed were members of the security forces. Also find it interesting you would invent this example when Loyalist terrorists like in the OP pic exclusively killed unarmed civilians because of their religion, not to mention the fact the British government had officially sanctioned death squads in operation who sometimes killed barristers who represented IRA suspects, among others.

>>505864
What's a seppo?

File: 1448924751736.jpg (136KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 500x375px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2zvWbrv-CY

File: 1447373933158.png (162KB, 528x539px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 528x539px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5PMmagpho8

>>505981
>>505977

This is some really bad country and western music

File: 1441384384135.jpg (29KB, 356x429px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 356x429px

>>505986
>really bad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0NHHiQNKBQ&list=PLohZWAz4_V0_D1B5ocYlrumjADirlpSLd

>>505962
Hyperbole for effect, not malicious other than to take the piss out of your one-eyed apologism. 63% were servicemen going by the oft quoted "about" 650 figure going around at the time of the IRA apology. Again, you are using the sins of the other side to excuse indiscriminate attacks harming civilians.

>>505974
American.

>>505994
Gotta agree with him m8, that music is absolute dogshit regardless of its political message.

File: mhm.jpg (35KB, 416x416px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 416x416px

>>506002
Whatever plebeian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ijl_xQ910w

>>505995

>I will construct an artifical moral highground to win the debate

>>506012
>plebeian
>likes generic countrypop

Do you listen to Dixie Chicks as well?

>>506012

even the mural is crap

>that 1980's casio keyboard backing track

>>506015
>I will meme because I can't actually deny being a terrorist apologist.

File: creeper.gif (2MB, 500x251px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x251px

>>506019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb2stN7kH28

>>506029

You are just throwing around buzzwords such as "terrorism"

>>506033
>listening to coalburners

File: Andrew Jackson.jpg (16KB, 236x290px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 236x290px

>>506027
>butthurt fenian detected

>>506035
If you really thought it was a buzzword why didn't you say so initially rather than waiting until you had no ammo left. Call it terrorism, call it "legitimate asymmetrical war tactics" or whatever weasel words you like, you are still making excuses for attacks perpetrated with little or no regard for civilians caught in an inevitable crossfire, just because the other mob was bad too.

File: srsly?.gif (3MB, 526x455px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 526x455px

>>506039
She works in the music industry, of course she has to do promotional work and perform with negros. Call me when is dating one.

>>506056

Bias much?

>>506056

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that if Hitler had won WW2 and invaded England and carried out his plans there, you are saying it would be completely wrong for British people to resist in any way, "just because the other mob was bad too"?

>>506061
Again, nothing I didn't say in my original post. If you thought that a view where both sides of a conflict are at fault is biased why not say sooner?

>>499626
>territory

>>506090
>le hitler meme
>"to resist in any way"
carelessly bombing civilians does not equate to a lack of any resistance

>>500343
The IRA always took pains to alert civilians to their operations, often forsaking the element of suprise to do so

File: 1451405143850.jpg (585KB, 1396x1066px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 1396x1066px

Come out ye Black & Tans!

File: 235928256_825f80ed57.jpg (122KB, 500x474px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 500x474px

UP THE RA

HUNS BEWARE

>WE WUZ TEUTONIC N ANGLO-SAXON N SHIT

t. loyalist

>WE WUZ KELTIC N KATHOLIK N SHIT

t. taig

you realize all the nigger tier rednecks descend mostly from you guys, right?

>>508621
Is that why they're the least cucked part of America?

>>508615
one is more correct than the other if you take away the rape babies and cromwell

File: tbh.jpg (2MB, 1543x936px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1543x936px

>>508615
Well meme'd.

File: Rebel chan.jpg (720KB, 2000x2500px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 2000x2500px

>>508628
This.

>>499686
But the Republic is more liberal and progressive/degenerate by every measure (except perhaps the availability of abortion)

>>508633
>Poorly made christ chan
fuck off

>>508633
So this christian chan I see here and there, is it legit or just a mockery due to how badly drawn she always is?

>ITT:

dylan storm roof

vs.

chris harper mercer

>>508654

it's legit

go to 8ch's /christian/ and bask in their autism

>>499686
t. Alberto Barbosa

>>508654
Someone decided to create themselves a waifu free of all the things that left them feeling embittered about women, who reflected their ideals without question and accommodates their sexual insecurities.

>>506047
Andrew Jackson was an Irishman

>>508684
That explains why he was so shit

>>508684
>Andrew Jackson was an Irishman
no he wasn't

>>504223
There were Protestant Nationalists and Catholic Unionists, mate.

>>504907
>>504851
>spot the Brits

>>505938
You do know British intelligence actively helped the Loyalists to deliberately plan the two largest bombings in the Republic against civilians, right?

>>499906
Oooh watch out, you've triggered quite a few Brits by saying that.

>>499620

unlike the UDA, a significant propertion of the IRA's senior members were probably in the pay of the UK government, which theoretically makes them civil servants.

>inb4 scapaticci was innocent, ya hine

do the west brits in the Ra get government pensions?

>>503046
This.

>>503046

>the least evil
>killed marginally less than the loyalists
>35% of 723 dead is 253 whereas 51.5% of 187 is 96 - there is no definition of what constitutes "civilian" (our wee jimmy dindu nuffin so he didn't)
>least evil

c'mon now

File: 1436977565207.png (210KB, 871x900px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 871x900px

>>508678
Thanks for your analysis of qt animes, Dr. Freud.

File: 51cbbf2e494baf1886890a128ba6c9de73fe9de1_full.jpg (13KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 184x184px

>>499906
How dare you anglophobe!!1! It's like another bombing campaign! Shut it down you filthy taig!

>>508825
>>least evil
yup.

>>508827
Thanks for proving yourself defensive enough to respond to a comment that had been otherwise ignored. I couldn't have made a better argument for my position myself.

File: 1443328014791.png (9KB, 239x292px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 239x292px

>>508881
I just like to post memes t.b.h.

Are you Jewish by chance?

>>508786
Once I went on a British Twitch stream and put an IRA song into the playlist. The butthurt when the song started playing was amazing.

>>508633
Christ chan is CATHOLIC!

>>508874

wait a second breh, your numbers are off...

Responsibility

Approximately 60% of the dead were killed by republicans, 30% by loyalists and 10% by British security forces.
Responsibility for killing[172]
Responsible party No.
Republican paramilitary groups 2058
Loyalist paramilitary groups 1026
British security forces 363
Persons unknown 79
Irish security forces 5
Total 3531

According to Malcolm Sutton's Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland:[173]

from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

but plenty of sources if you want to verify the numbers. the most interest statistic is this:

>Approximately 60% of the dead were killed by republicans, 30% by loyalists and 10% by British security forces.

>kills 60% of the victims of the troubles

>least evil

really?

File: 1446346022367.png (150KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 500x500px

>>508910
Not all Catholics are Roman.

>>508888
No, my ancestry is English. So I guess I'm the eternal Anglo.

But you know, nice way to reinforce your appearance of being defensive, by automatically resorting to /pol/tard insults.

>>508915
The majority of whom were security forces as has already been shown, and therefore legitimate targets in a guerrilla war.

File: teehee.png (249KB, 718x826px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 718x826px

>>508919
I doubt a true Englishman would abuse commas in the way you do.

>>508925

as are all combatants. but the original claim was

>we killed less and less civilians

which are demonstrably false. nice that you care enough to backpedal, friendo.

>>505981
I see you stole the Red Hand from the O'Neills.

>>508915
My numbers aren't off, they show the extent to which civilians were targetted, which is usually the basis for the "IRA are terrorists" meme.

The IRA obviously killed the most as they were more active and were fighting two enemies.

If you don't want to use a loaded term like "evil" we'll say that the IRA put the most effort into avoiding civilian casualties.

>>509063
>"IRA are terrorists" meme

But the IRA are terrorists.

>>508928
No abuse present. Both commas represent a distinct pause in the sentence structure.

File: 2016-01-02 17.36.22.jpg (3MB, 2839x1911px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2839x1911px

ira updara updara

>>509096
>a distinct pause in the sentence structure

Not him, but commas don't exist to reflect 'pauses in the sentence structure', which aren't actually a thing, grammatically.

Prescriptivist critique:
>No, my ancestry is English. So I guess I'm the eternal Anglo.

Vocative comma required after "So". You got it right in the first sentence, shocking lapse in the second.

>But you know, nice way to reinforce your appearance of being defensive, by automatically resorting to /pol/tard insults.

Again a vocative comma is required after "But". Commas don't merely exist to separate clauses, and not all clauses are created equal, so either a dash or a colon should follow "... you know", rather than a comma. I'd recommend the dash, particularly since the next clause break is of a similar nature - I'd recommend a colon after "... being defensive" (I mean, if you actually want to do the whole prescriptivist punctuation thing, then I'd recommend rephrasing so that it's not all packed into one sentence. But it's up to yourself).

>>509087
>

>>509063
you cannot argue that the latter and modern day IRA are not terrorists

>>508783
you can't fault them for doing their job

>>509203
>we need to stop these people killing civilians
>by deliberately targeting civilians
>"that'll show those terrorists the what for"

Brits murder civilians and then cry when they get their cities fucking evaporated.

>>509175
The Provisional IRA were not. The RIRA (who are the largest modern splinter group) most definitely are - they are little more than scum.

Had the Brits not shot a bunch a civilians in the back during Bloody Sunday, the Provos wouldn't have had thousands of members willing to fuck a pipe bomb through a window.

>>509226
A lot of British history, from the Mau Mau, to the Irish, to the American Revolution is essentially "HOW DARE YOU HIT ME BACK."

>>509226
>The Provisional IRA were not.

But they were. What definition of "terrorist" are you using?

>>509233
If they wanted to cause terror, they wouldn't have given warnings. Terror was a by-product of their campaign.

>>509242
>>509233
>What definition of "terrorist" are you using?

>>509233
Well, one of the better ones is "an organization that intentionally kills civilians to produce fear, and in doing so advance political ends."

MI5, the RUC, and the UVF were all more guilty of this than PIRA.

File: Hmmmm.png (27KB, 779x233px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 779x233px

>>509253

So, you're using your personal definition.

Is there a reason I should care? A reason I shouldn't just point to the numerous distinct but overlapping definitions of 'terrorism' widely accepted, which clearly indicate that the PIRA were indeed terrorists?

>>509286
>>509249
>In its broadest sense, terrorism is any act designed to cause terror.[1] In a narrower sense, terrorism can be understood to feature a political objective. The word terrorism is politically loaded and emotionally charged.[2]

>U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”[18]

>On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, 'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism

>>509353
>In its broadest sense, terrorism is any act designed to cause terror.[1] In a narrower sense, terrorism can be understood to feature a political objective.

Exactly. So, again, the PIRA were very clearly terrorists.

>>509175
>>509087
Sure, but any definition that marks them as terrorists also includes the Loyalists and Security Forces, so as an argument "muh terrorists" doesn't hold up.

In fairness nobody's used that one itt, so it's a bit of a strawman, but it's ridiculously common in real life.

>>509365
>designed to cause terror
They didn't do it solely to cause terror, they did it to target British infrastructure.

You can obfuscate as much as you want, but the Loyalists and the British military were just as much terrorists as the IRA were.


Hell, the US invasion of Iraq was more terrorist than the IRA (remember that whole "shock and awe" thing?).

>>509371
>Sure, but any definition that marks them as terrorists also includes the Loyalists and Security Forces

Certainly the Loyalists, and presumably at least certain factions of the security forces, sure. Why would you think I'd be inclined to dispute that?

>>509378
>They didn't do it solely to cause terror

But they did do it to cause terror. And hence, were terrorists.

This isn't difficult, nor is it controversial.

>>509388
>U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”[18]

They didn't deliberately target civilians, the civilians (and terror) was a by-product of their campaign.

Otherwise every military on the planet should be considered terrorists.

>>509406
R u retarded

>>509388
>Why would you think I'd be inclined to dispute that
I don't know if you're the same person I've been talking to.

Basically my point was that people use the excuse "but they're terrorists" to oppose the IRA, overlooking the fact that everyone in the Troubles was a "terrorist", usually out of ignorance. I know you didn't say that, and nobody in the thread did but my original post wasn't directed at anyone, I was just posting the percentage of civilians killed by different factions.

>>509409
When a military is used, it causes civilian casualties, and is underlined by political motivations.

If the IRA can be considered terrorists because civilians died as a by-product of their campaign, then so should every military.

>>509415
The IRA deliberately targeted civvies. Militaries go for other militaries.

>>509406
>They didn't deliberately target civilians

Yes, they did.

>omagh
>claudy
>warrington
>etc

Calling in a warning is a) not dispositive of "targeting civilians" and b) part of the process of "creating terror".

>>509406
>Otherwise every military on the planet should be considered terrorists.

The definition you're using specifies non-State actors or clandestine subsets of State actors. So, no, basically.

>>509413
>Basically my point was that people use the excuse "but they're terrorists" to oppose the IRA, overlooking the fact that everyone in the Troubles was a "terrorist", usually out of ignorance

The only reason this stands out is that the PIRA are the party attempting to effect change, and the other parties are attempting to maintain the status quo. And even then, it only becomes in some way hypocritical if you consider it impossible to want a united Ireland while also opposing the PIRA. That's not impossible, so this just isn't an issue.

Actual Norn Iron Unionist here, AMA.

And yes, before you Americucks ask, I eat newborn Catholic babies for breakfast and then bathe in their blood.

>>509429
>The only reason this stands out is that the PIRA are the party attempting to effect change, and the other parties are attempting to maintain the status quo.
That's not really a good description. Change was already being affected by the civil rights movement, and the troubles were began by Loyalists in reaction to this. While the Republicans' stated goals were radical their actions were initially restrained. This changed later in the conflict as it escalated.


>And even then, it only becomes in some way hypocritical if you consider it impossible to want a united Ireland while also opposing the PIRA. That's not impossible, so this just isn't an issue.
I know it's not impossible, I'm one of those people. I don't really see how this is relevant to the point I made though.

>>509522
>That's not really a good description.

It's broad brush-strokes, but essentially accurate. The civil rights movement in and of itself should be regarded as 'status quo' since the relevant change is ending or not ending Partition.

>>509425
>The IRA deliberately targeted civvies. Militaries go for other militaries.
The IRA targetted civilians less than the security forces percentage wise, that was the point of this argument.

>>509477
Why would you even want to be part of the UK?

>>509556
Better than being a part of Ireland!

>>509415

the brits weren't in the habit of shooting suspected informers or people it deemed worthy of death. i don't recall the brits taking part in any kneecappings. these were the bread and butter of organised gangs seeking to control the territories in which they operated. the IRA and INLA were just as involved as the UDF and UDA.

even the worst death caused by the british army, bloody sunday, was - at best - spur of the moment, caused by paranoid squaddies shooting a bunch of civilians. the raging homosexuals of the parachute regiment never went to derry to shoot people deliberately - unlike the various loyalist and republican outfits who deliberately set out to cause civilian deaths, either singly or en masse.

there is no equivalency between a terrorist organisation which is completely unaccountable to anyone but some shadowy "command structure" (i.e. thomas murphy or mad dog adair) and a military force which is accountable to the elected representatives of the state and which has to abide by the rules of that state.

>>509558
But you are part of Ireland

>>509558
Well, the tragedy of the loyalist cause is that the war ended with a peace that's almost identical to the one the IRA agreed to in 1975, and the Protestants rejected.

And NI is still part of the UK.

As it turns out, by allowing people to have things like homes and jobs and voting in elections, they stop bombing you.

>>509572
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9uHhLe6WE0

>>509543
>The civil rights movement in and of itself should be regarded as 'status quo' since the relevant change is ending or not ending Partition.
That was my point regarding civil rights, the first shots were fired by Loyalists attempting to stop civil rights, "affecting change" in that sense. People forget that the troubles weren't originally about a United Ireland.

This is kind of the root of my problem. The Loyalist aspect of the troubles is frequently overlooked (not by you) and the most common arguments used to demonise the nationalist side of the troubles are made in ignorance of and made redundant by the Loyalist's actions.

>>509598
>That was my point regarding civil rights, the first shots were fired by Loyalists attempting to stop civil rights, "affecting change" in that sense.

I said "effecting change", not "affecting change". Being a bit pedantic, but 'effecting' something is bringing it about, causing it to happen. 'Affecting' something is influencing it. By attempting to stymie the Civil Rights movement, the Loyalists were attempting to maintain the status quo - ie, to ensure that Catholics remained marginalised and underrepresented. Don't you think?

>>509558
That's not an answer

>>509587

He's just being a dick, the equivalent of you saying the Republic is part of the British Isles.

>>509551
Well that's a fucking awful argument then. The IRA used to throw bombs into pubs, as did the Loyalist extremists.
Both sides are fucking degenerates, and deserve to be hung

>>509565
>the brits weren't in the habit of shooting suspected informers or people it deemed worthy of death. i don't recall the brits taking part in any kneecappings.
Not kneecappings but they did do drive by shootings on catholic civilians, as well as colluding with Loyalist terror attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Reaction_Force. That's without even mentioning the more commonly known events like bloody sunday, or the non-fatal shit like internment without trial.

>these were the bread and butter of organised gangs seeking to control the territories in which they operated.
Territories had to be controlled as if they weren't an angry mob would come and burn down a row of houses. It wasn't just a turf war. The reason the IRA gained support is defending neighbourhoods, not bombings etc.

>which is accountable to the elected representatives of the state and which has to abide by the rules of that state.
The point is that the British state did not abide by it's own rules, and did not have any more scruples than the IRA did despite having vastly more money and the state monopoly on violence.

>>509619
The republic is part of the british isles and NI is part of Ireland.

>>509627
Well, the point of a military is to defend people.

PIRA saw themselves as defending the Catholics from a Protestant apartheid state, and from a British government that hid their sectarianism behind a thin veneer of law and order.

It's pointless what we think about it, because the point of an insurgent group is to be beholden to no one except for the civilian population that they draw support from. And the Irish Catholics saw them as a better path to political recognition than the British government, not unrightfully so.

Of course all war crimes are to be detested, but they're a part of war. If the British government, with the world's best system of jurisprudence, couldn't keep their soldiers from committing war crimes, how was a ragtag outfit of guerillas supposed to do it?

File: ulster.png (213KB, 320x401px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 320x401px

>>504851
the key word here being "occupants"
perhaps "occupiers" is more accurate

>>509706
Yawn

>>509712
I'm only memeing, not properly getting hung up on semantics lad

>>509613
>I said "effecting change", not "affecting change". Being a bit pedantic, but 'effecting' something is bringing it about, causing it to happen. 'Affecting' something is influencing it.
my bad.

>By attempting to stymie the Civil Rights movement, the Loyalists were attempting to maintain the status quo - ie, to ensure that Catholics remained marginalised and underrepresented. Don't you think?
I agree with what you're saying in general but in the context of this argument that's not what either of us said. You said yourself that the civil rights movement can be regarded as status quo.

The only reason I think the status quo is important in terms of justifying violence is in a kind of "they started it" way, and Loyalists threw the first stone in the troubles. In that sense they were the ones acting against the peaceful status quo

>>509693

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Both those facts are used by partisans to antagonise the other side.

>>509706
>the key word here being "occupants"

No, I think the key word is probably "majority".

>perhaps "occupiers" is more accurate

Not after several hundred years, no.

File: Blessing_of_the_Colours_by_John_Lavery.jpg (83KB, 599x800px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 599x800px

There seems to be an awful lot less nationalists here than in similar threads I've seen on /int/ and /b/ (don't go on /pol/ often enough to comment but I imagine it'd be majority unionist)

>>509729
The catholic community are the indigenous people of Ulster, they have every right to be butthurt about how their people were treated during those hundreds of years

>>509733
That picture is beautiful

>>509736
>they have every right to be butthurt about how their people were treated during those hundreds of years

Never said they didn't.

>>509733
>There seems to be an awful lot less nationalists here than in similar threads I've seen on /int/ and /b/ (don't go on /pol/ often enough to comment but I imagine it'd be majority unionist)
Don't go on /b/ but /pol/ is full Loyalist tier.

/int/ is a normie board so it's understandable there's less /pol/ shit there than here, also I think non-/pol/ /his/ people are quite sceptical so nationalists are probably here but less likely to defend the 'ra. That's how I am anyway, I'm nationalist but I don't go shilling for the IRA when they're brought up on /his/

All these /slashes/ are confusing as fuck

>>509733
>I imagine it'd be majority unionist

It's a fairly even split between the Americans posting at least. The norn iron hardline fags almost always orange posting, and the paddys are usually being generally reasonable.

It almost always devolves into someone pulling the famine card and then the britfags engaging in holocaust denial while posting cartoons and laughing at starving potato chilluns.

Makes me sympathize with the Catholics desu.

>>499620
Potatoes.