[raverbashing]

The level of general sympathy for one of those (and their level of success) is much higher than for the others

Maybe because they were actively avoiding civilian targets

And even then mostly because a lot of people were supportive of their cause even if they were against their methods

[walletdrainer]

>And even then mostly because a lot of people were supportive of their cause even if they were against their methods

But IRA didn't win because those people supported their cause, IRA won despite those people being against their methods.

It was the force they used which directly led to the GFA, without the bombs and the killing the British would never have surrendered.

[erentz]

How can we know the IRA “won”? The country changed a hell of a lot over the course of the Troubles and by the time of the GFA in 1998 I don’t see how it is so clear that the reforms wouldn’t have also been achieved via other peaceful and democratic means.

[walletdrainer]

> How can we know the IRA “won”?

In signing the GFA, the UK effectively gave up on it's sovereignty over NI. That was never going to happen through "peaceful and democratic means"

[erentz]

What makes it giving up sovereignty? I understand it creates the potential for separation in future but not yet. The devolution of Scotland and Wales happened peacefully a couple(?) of years later, and Scotland may also separate in future.

[raverbashing]

The rabbit hole goes much deeper than simply "they gave up on sovereignty"