It seems that Unionists are trying to deny that a war was ever waged by the Brit military against the freedom fighters of the Irish Republican Army.
If it was not so serious this would be laughable!
Unionists are vexed at the prospect of the British Government being asked to officially declare the conflict with the IRA a war. Certainly republicans have no doubt that it was a war!!
When in the course of history did Whitehall ever put tens of thousands of troops into the field with the back up of the SAS and MI5, conferring special powers and emergency legislation when it wasn't a war?
Attempts by the Brits to deny a war, via the introduction of their criminalisation policy in 1976, were bravely defeated by republicans who were rightfully granted Prisoner of War status. Why would you grant POW status if there wasn't a war?
Furthermore during the Army's war effort against Crown forces weren't there truces and ceasefires called? Is this not indicative that both sides fought a war?
Is the use of proxy agents in a dirty war not indicative of a counter insurgency tactic of divide and conquer symptomatic of war?
Have internal Brit memos not already conceded that the Army were incapable of being defeated by the Brits? Surely this all points to a war and not some minor tribal bother?
Furthermore, the very same people expressing outrage at the very notion of a declaration of war are the same people who have persistently called for the IRA to declare that the war is over? Such a position is surely untenable? You can not argue on one hand for a party to a war to declare their war has ceased, yet argue on the other hand that a war never even existed.
Surely if reconciliation is to be achieved and victims are to obtain closure then the Brits must acknowledge the role they played in the conflict. Acceptance of war would be a logical step.