Then try to imagine how you would feel if someone asked your advice about a game involving flying aeroplanes into New York skyscrapers.
Also, alas, "the American side of things" involved providing the IRA with much of its funding (while Gaddafi's Libya provided some of its training). Mind you, the Americans aren't unique in this. For example, the Provisional IRA was founded by an Englishman, John Stephenson, who liked to call himself Sean mac Steofain because his parents were Irish. Sentimental Irishry has a lot to answer for.
Not exactly sure the 9/11 comparison is fair. And this kind of comment is what I mean. Who said anything about "gaming" a pub bombing? If you paint up an SS unit, do you intend to have them "gaming" a concentration camp? Gimme a break.
You think my blood doesn't get riled when I read about US soldiers being IED'd in Afghanistan?
To be honest, I find this kind of attitude pretty hypocritical, especially in a wargaming forum. If you do historical gaming (or in this case, let's call it "current events" gaming), you're going to tick off someone if you look too deep into things.
I'm not blind to the fact that there was a lot of funding to the terrorists (and I absolutely consider them terrorists) from Americans through organizations like NORAID. The most absurd version of this was all the "Irish" cops in NYC raising funds for guns that would then end up killing Irish cops in Belfast. Nuts. And you're dead right -- the "faith and b'gorah" view of the typical Irish American definitely fueled that nonsense.
Sure, it runs deep. But I find it funny on a forum like this that this conflict should be especially offensive. There are two young men from my neighborhood who went overseas and did not come back ... but I don't go on the forums and post comments to people playing Force on Force saying, "why would you want to game something like that?" Or, for that matter, criticize British figure manufacturers for creating lines of Taliban troops.
Let's get some perspective.