Why do so many on the Left support the IRA?

ho ho ho ... what because i dont think the IRA are saints? youre an idiot.
mick hating? who the **** is mick?
awww i think i've touched a nerve, I'm a prick am I? grow up you stupid little boy of course im biggoted towards the IRA theyre TERRORISTS.

It completely negates the similarities! It means that the IRA didn't target civilians, they targeted infrastructure. They didn't want to kill English people. They weren't motivated by a burning desire to wipe out "the great Satan" or whatever. It means they respected their opponents as antagonists in a war, with rules, rather than blind rage and violence.

Scumbags get capped all the time in Ireland, it's nothing new.

In other word the Brit media has been guilty of lying and making things up about republicanism so sources to it hold no sway in debates.

How was it not proven that he was a dealer. He was clearly picked up on their radar, and delt with. It not uncommon. The communitys have gone to republicans to deal with dealers for years.

You think they're terrorists because how dare the Irish deserve an army to fight for their freedom. Bigoted. "Mick" is a derogatory term for Irish.

To be honest I still do not sympathise with that IRA. They were not representing the will of the majority of people, they brought strife to their land because of what they wanted, not what the people wanted. Independence has never recieved a democratic majority in NI. The IRA are a relic, and they should have stayed in the past.

I think you will find that almost everyone will want to distance the Dail, a legitimate government of the Republic, from any group derived from the IRA. The IRB in its beginning was the army associated with the Dail.

The IRA, PIRA and RIRA are very different groups due to if and when they became inactive. Members of the RIRA may have been previous members of the PIRA, but you can't say any acts they do now is due to the IRA or PIRA.

Sinn Féin was the political arm of the PIRA, which is one of the many reasons they distance themselves from any dissident republican action. If they were all part of one big IRA, then this would not be the case.

But the IRA did target civilians. They might have wanted to appear that they didn't which is why they called it in but they still did target civilians, hence why they placed bombs in areas where there was a high density of civilians.

You think they respected their opponent and didn't target citizens? that's cute.

Sorry but you're wrong, the point is legit and still stands.

They were motivated by their original cause but they also acted in the name of power and greed. Scum from start to finish.

If they cared about the public so much they wouldn't done what they did.

You think they're terrorists because how dare the Irish deserve an army to fight for their freedom. Bigoted. "Mick" is a derogatory term for Irish.

ho ho ho ... what because i dont think the IRA are saints? youre an idiot.
mick hating? who the **** is mick?
awww i think i've touched a nerve, I'm a prick am I? grow up you stupid little boy of course im biggoted towards the IRA theyre TERRORISTS.

They are terrorists, plain and simple.

It's funny that you would call anyone a stupid little boy when you have no idea about this whole topic.

One may argue that the Irish people exercised their democratic right when they showed their support for complete independence in the 1918 Irish General Election, with Sinn Fein winning 73 out a possilbe 105 seats.

The formation of the Northern Irish state could in no way be interpreted as the will of the democratic majority. It was, however, under the pretence of a "terrible and immediate war" that the terms stipulated in the Anglo-Irish treaty were to be accepted - such was the disregard for the will of the Irish people.

A treaty negotiated under the threat of war could in no way be accepted as an example of a fair and just democratic process.

go away already, obviously i do have an idea of the topic seeing as i've brought valid points to the table? unlike you who just sits there replying to other peoples conversations? get off your high horse you dolt

They targeted infrastructure! The whole point was a war of attrition, to wear down Britain by making it too expensive to keep up with them! Loyds went under because of the billions it had to spend to repair the damage caused by the bombings.

You haven't though, you have made it all up as you went along.

You haven't though, you have made it all up as you went along.

In your deluded opinion.

are you contending the IRA seriously thought they could outstrip the united kingdom in terms of damage inflicted and 'ability to keep up'? the ira was reliant on petty cash the uk had a highly developed economy in no possible way could a group of rag tag miscreants out perform the uk..
loyds, i assume you mean loyds of london? how can it 'go under' its not a company for a start and the damage done by any petty car bomb barely made a dent in their capitol ... and to top that off it never ever went bust.

They targeted infrastructure! The whole point was a war of attrition, to wear down Britain by making it too expensive to keep up with them! Loyds went under because of the billions it had to spend to repair the damage caused by the bombings. Any civilian casualties are collateral damage, which happens in a war, even a guerrilla one. This does not make them terrorists. They put bombs where they would deal the most damage to British infrastructure, not British people- why on earth would they call ahead and warn if they wanted to kill civilians? It would be counterproductive to give the British media bloody corpses to wave about, and they were left with images of broken buildings instead. How can you not see this? You're ignoring facts and logic, again out of what I must presume to be some kind of imperialist hangover.

They could and they did. After the Bishopsgate bombing, Lloyds almost went bankrupt under the strain of paying the billions of pounds of damage that the IRA had caused. Remember when they bombed the financial sector of london and froze everything completely? They didn't have to outperform the UK to beat them- they simply had to continue to exist. Such is the nature of guerrilla, and a war of attrition.

Keep up with your imperialist bigotry. You're not impressing anyone.