Why do so many on the Left support the IRA?

My point was that you cannot accuse me or others who support the struggle in Ireland of being terrorist sympathisers when the Army that you seem to adore has been responsible for hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of civilian deaths. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

The Provisional IRA were not terrorists. For ****'s sake. They killed ONE civilian, a photographer who ignored the evac warnings to get a better shot.

The IRA helped the catholic areas of Belfast fend off attacks from loyalist thugs and police. This excludes the modern IRA I assume? They're complete terrorists.

I support the cause, yes.

Bloody Sunday?

I fail to see how almost the killing of 30 unarmed peaceful protestors were a mistake. Maybe the first one, or two or three can be considered a 'mistake'.

That was decades ago. The last time the IRA killed an innocent was in April last year.

Oh right, that was decades ago, totally justifies it.

They were deemed terrorists because they are/were terrorists.

They were soldiers in a war of independence.

I wouldn't. I would rather start our own internal revolution.

EDIT: And T_C, ill reply to you later.

Why do people always do this? The only relevant example theres there are Bloody Sunday and the Ballymurphy incident. But let's look at these emperically. Two, singular incidents in an ongoing campaign. Two incidents where there was wrongdoing, but do you know what makes them so shocking? So apart from the norm? Well, it's exactly that. These were two exceptional incidents, tragedies, where events conspired so that a few in the British Army, which numbers over 100,000 men, so perhaps a dozen or two, acted rashly, and fired. This shows us what now? It shows us that their actions were not State sanctioned, their actions were not part of an ongoing strategy, they were out of the ordinary and not ordered. Surely this is evidence as much as anything else against the British forces being terrorist.

You know what though? If Britain was being ruled by a genocidal dictator or regressive theocratic regime, I'd welcome the bombs. If I was stripped of my civil liberties, had no Human Rights and lived in fear of the State, I'd welcome those 'invaders'. If my country was harbouring, training and funding groups that kill thousands of innocents delibertley in bombings in the name of religion. I's take up arms to help the 'invaders'.

The answer to the OP's question is that these "smash the fash" type groups instinctively support anyone they consider to be a victim/underdog. They could be homophobic, mysogynistic, violent, religious nutjobs but if their human rights are being infringed the looney left will automatically set up a support group and be down in London protesting before you can say Equalities Commission.

Don't search for the logic as there isn't any.

The nationalists generally have closer links to working class political movements than the unionists so that's probably the reason why, along with anti-imperialist sentiment. Also don't chat **** about how the IRA are a terrorist group responsible for the deaths of countless innocents when it was essentially a civil war rather than a one-sided terrorist campaign, both sides were responsible for terrorist activity rather than the IRA bombing pubs while the UDA handed out flowers to old women and ran cafés. Lives were needlessly lost as a result of actions from both sides.

Tbh I'd still call the IRA a terrorist group, just like I'd call the UDA the same. Both groups are responsible for the deaths of countless innocents. It was a set of competing terrorist campaigns, less than a civil war, because from the mid-seventies it was less about any sort of "cause" and more about gangsterism, organised crime, megalomania and a callous disregard for human life and the rights of others.

They were soldiers in a war of independence.

Sorry, I missed the point where freedom fighters had it within their remit to abduct, murder and secretly bury the bodies of innocent people who were not involved in the conflict. I missed the point where it was ok for soldiers to torture, maim and ruthlessly brutalise members of the public in whose interests they were supposedly working. Apologies for my ignorance of the point when those things became ok

There were atrocities on both sides, but the actions of one group does not justify the actions of another.

While Glencoe was carried out by Scots (to this day, "never trust a Campbell" still exists) it was organized, ordained and paid for by the English.




So you would have supported the IRA had you been Irish?