Is the IRA of the WOI morally equivalent to the Provisional IRA of the Troubles?

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Recently rewatched that famous clip of Gerry Adams debating Tubridy on this in 2010.

https://youtu.be/wIlTtudovPM

Tubs asks him if he loses sleep over the actions of the IRA and if he has “blood on his hands” and Gerry responds “you might as well ask if your grandfather (who was in the old IRA) had blood on his hands.”

Gerry does this thing that appears to be the standard Sinn Fein philosophy on complete and total moral equivalence between the IRA that fought for and achieved independence in the WOI and the Provisional IRA (which I would regard as a terrorist entity) that committed atrocities during the Troubles. Is this correct?

Some scutter. Both were needed and did a good job. The ignorance of what went on up north for 30 years is a disgrace. Im not from there or that era but ive looked into it and the ira and the armalite were necessary.

Not now however.

kona wrote: »

Some scutter. Both were needed and did a good job. The ignorance of what went on up north for 30 years is a disgrace. Im not from there or that era but ive looked into it and the ira and the armalite were necessary.

Not now however.

Well I am from that era, and live on the border, and cannot concur with your assessment. Terrorists, criminals, extortion and racketeering were not what we needed. They did a good job of ruining lives and businesses while lining their own pockets.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

If they had simply said “look, our community is being oppressed up here and we’re going to defend ourselves with force until reforms alleviate this oppression.” That would have been fine and understandable.

But they went well beyond this by pursuing a political objective which was to have the north reunify with the south which they had no authority to pursue. They were disowned by the South and Dublin never adopted them in an official capacity. They bombed civilian targets as well as attempted assassinations on politicians. Was this necessary?

War is nasty business. I dont believe you would have gotte. The gfa if it wasnt for the actions of the ira...

Alot of people get mixed up witb the ira being criminals and what they used to stand for.

At no time during the IRA's campaign of violence from 1969 to 1995 or so did they have a mandate from NI's nationalist people. Sinn Féin, their political wing never won an electoral endosement during that time. The only party that had a mandate to speak for the Nationalists was the SDLP.
That should answer the question about legitimacy. The answer has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the IRA 1919-1921.
However since the question has been raised it has to be said in the first place that the 1916 rebellion had no legitimacy. It was the work of a minority of a minority. Whether you like it or not about 90% of the Volunteers followed Redmond. The Rising didn't even represent the remaining minority, as McNeill's countermanding order was frustrated by a minority of the remaining minority. 1916 was an attempted coup d'etat which ended in military failure and in the deaths of mainly civilian people. Furthermore it helped
to copperfasten partition.

The Doctrine of a Just War has deep roots in Western thinking. It goes back much further than the Catholic Church, back to ancient Egypt, India and China centuries before and the criteria laid down are remarkably uniform wherever the doctrine is adhered to. Accordingly for a war to be just:
1. The injustice and suffering inflicted must be of such a great and egregiously enormous nature that the propsed action can reasonably be expected to alleviate them.
2. It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war; war is only legitimate as a last resort.
3. The war must have a reasonable chance of success.
4. The war must have the support of a majority of the people on whose behalf it is waged. If the people oppose a war, then it is illegitimate.
5. It is necessary that the response be commensurate with the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.
Once war has begun, there remain moral limits to action. For example, one may not attack innocents or kill hostages.

Clearly 1916 does not meet the criteria.

Did the 1918 general election confer legitimacy on the IRA and its subsequent actions? Certainly Sinn Féin had an overwhelming victory in that election. Did they make it clear to the voters that an electoral victory would be followed by war? I don't think so. The dominant issue in that election was the issue of conscription which the British government was proposing to extend to Ireland. But you might argue that there was no doubt about Sinn Féin's claim to independence and that war was the logical conclusion to a refusal by Britain to grant independence, indeed that it was inevitable. Some people have alleged that the 1918 election was tainted by intimidation. It is difficult to quantify that. It may have been minimal. Labour candidates were bullied into giving SF a clear run. And the vast majority of people welcomed the respite of the Truce.
However, giving the benefit of whatever doubt there may be, one could say that 1919-1921 was justified.

But if you equate 1919-1921 to 1969-1995 then you would have to say that 1919-1921 has no legitimacy.