This event is not unusual. If Ireland is “hosting” this event then it has “hosted” such events before, and the UK has “hosted” far more of them, and continues to do so on a regular basis. The US also “hosts” them fairly regularly, and they are occasionally “hosted” by other countries.
I think Pjen’s concept of “host” is so broad as to be useless. Given that his original post was not intended as a troll - and I am happy to take his word for that - the language he used was unfortunate.
The basic question is a fair one. Is their any distinction between the terrorism of the IRA and the terrorism of Al-Quaeda? Well, terrorism is terrorism and is unacceptable. The IRA and Al-Qaeda have different goals, and I suppose one might have different views as to the desirability of their goals, but however desirable the goals might be, they do not justify terrorism. In that sense there is no difference.
There is a difference in that the IRA has committed itself to a ceasefire, and to decommissioning of arms. One might question the genuineness or completeness of their commitment - and many people do - but there is no doubt that it is progress in the right direction. That creates a clear distinction between the IRA and Al-Qaeda.
It is also important to recognise that those who we regard as terrorists do not, for the most part, regard themselves as terrorists. We would like them to pursue their goals by non-terrorist means. Steps which they take in this direction should be encouraged, not punished for not being great enough. Put simply, if we demand not only that the IRA refrain from violence but also that they denounce their own deceased members as terrorists, unworthy of commemoration or honour, we make it more difficult for the IRA to follow the path of politics rather than violence. We may regard the history of the Irish Republican movement as having involved terrorism, but any attempt to reach an accomodation which requires that they should take the same view is doomed to failure. How is that a good thing?