The Good Old Days? 1916-1923

[Conuil]

As there's always a difference made on Politics.ie, regards IRA actions; 1916-1923. Compared to IRA actions; 1969-1994.......

Could I ask those Posters who attempt to portray the actions of 1916-1923, what the actual difference was :

I mean; the shooting and bombing of countless RIC Members/British Soldiers, as well as, the attacks upon commercial property etc.

How was the above so different; as both the RIC & RUC men bled the sam blood; Likewise British Soldiers....

Methinks; if UR against killing period, okay but to endorse the killing of people in one IRA Campaign and not the other; is to say the least questionable.....

[Pidge]

It's a fair question, alright. I'd tentatively point to the mandate in 1918. I do agree, however, that it's hypocritical for people to say that 1916 was heroism, while the PIRA's actions were terrorism.

[the hatchetman]

As there's always a difference made on Politics.ie, regards IRA actions; 1916-1923. Compared to IRA actions; 1969-1994.......

Could I ask those Posters who attempt to portray the actions of 1916-1923, what the actual difference was :

I mean; the shooting and bombing of countless RIC Members/British Soldiers, as well as, the attacks upon commercial property etc.

How was the above so different; as both the RIC & RUC men bled the sam blood; Likewise British Soldiers....

Methinks; if UR against killing period, okay but to endorse the killing of people in one IRA Campaign and not the other; is to say the least questionable.....

THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE 1916-1923 IRA WERE MORE VICIOUS AND RUTHLEESS AND WHO PURPOSELY KILLED MORE INNOCENT CIVILLIANS THAN THEIR SUCCESSORS. Free staters through delusional ignorance cant admit this even though it is a fact. The argument of legitimacy through the will of the people is just as delusional.

QUOTE cathal brugha- 'if it had been left to the irish people there would've not been a shot fired'

[FutureTaoiseach]

The key difference is the questioning of targeting civilians - the men/women of 1916-23 in the South did not do this. The PIRA/CIRA/OIRA/RIRA/INLA primarily targeted civilians. The second difference is - after 1918 - the question of a democratic mandate. The Old IRA had a mandate for its campaign because of the 1918 election. After partition, the electorate - in voting for pro-Treaty parties in the 20's - demonstrated that they believed the Treaty to be the best option available at the time. In 1932, the electorate voted for the scrapping of the Treaty by constitutional - non-violent - means. Hence the derisory SF vote since then.

[Ireland2007]

The key difference is the questioning of targeting civilians - the men/women of 1916-23 in the South did not do this. The PIRA/CIRA/OIRA/RIRA/INLA primarily targeted civilians.

How many civilians died as a result of IRA gun and bomb attacks in the period 1916-1923?

And if you honestly think the IRA wouldn't have used semtex had it been available to them in that period then you're deluded.

[Conuil]

It's a fair question, alright. I'd tentatively point to the mandate in 1918. I do agree, however, that it's hypocritical for people to say that 1916 was heroism, while the PIRA's actions were terrorism.

I agree with what U said comrade...

Fact is war is war, no matter what group of Irish Republicans or what armed Campaign it was......

[Sidewinder]

The key difference is the questioning of targeting civilians - the men/women of 1916-23 in the South did not do this. The PIRA/CIRA/OIRA/RIRA/INLA primarily targeted civilians.

Though a well-entrenched myth, this isn't actually true. If you use the CAIN crosstabulation tool and cross reference "Organisation Summary" by "Status Summary", we find that all Republican groups killed

Civilians: 738 (of which the Provos killed 498)
British Security : 1078
Republican Paramilitary: 185 (feuds, informers, blowing themselves up, that sort of thing)
Loyalist Paramilitary: 45
Southern Security: 10

The Loyalist record:
Civilians: 873
British Security : 14
Republican Paramilitary: 42
Loyalist Paramilitary: 91
Southern Security: 0

And finally, the sainted British:

Civilians: 190
British Security : 13
Republican Paramilitary: 145
Loyalist Paramilitary: 14
Southern Security: 0

[Conuil]

The key difference is the questioning of targeting civilians - the men/women of 1916-23 in the South did not do this. The PIRA/CIRA/OIRA/RIRA/INLA primarily targeted civilians. The second difference is - after 1918 - the question of a democratic mandate. The Old IRA had a mandate for its campaign because of the 1918 election. After partition, the electorate - in voting for pro-Treaty parties in the 20's - demonstrated that they believed the Treaty to be the best option available at the time. In 1932, the electorate voted for the scrapping of the Treaty by constitutional - non-violent - means. Hence the derisory SF vote since then.

The IRA, never primarily targeted civilians in any armed campaign - be it 1916-1923 or 1969-1994....

Where are facts/sources? Maybe the Garda Special Branch or The Independant?

Do U know exactly how many members of the Crown Forces as opposed to civilians were killed during 1916-1923 :

[anmajornarthainig]

There was a thread on this same topic before: The Good Old I.R.A. was the title of it.

[Conuil]

There was a thread on this same topic before: The Good Old I.R.A. was the title of it.

Agus Cad E?