In less than one hour, the IRA paramilitary movement will put down its arms and begin to work "peacefully".A statement from the republicans said it would halt armed struggles.The long-awaited pledge instructed all IRA members to "assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means".

The British Prime Minister hailed the announcement as "a step of unparalleled magnitude in the history of Northern Ireland".

Tony Blair went on: "This may be the day when finally after all the false dawns and dashed hope, peace replaces war, politics replaces terror on the island of Ireland."

The IRA leadership said it will invite one witness each from the Protestant and Catholic churches to witness the disarmament.

As well as an end to violence, IRA volunteers were told not to "engage in any other activities whatsoever".

This was seen as a command not to spread into other criminal acts; the IRA was blamed for the Northern Bank robbery in Belfast last December in which more than £26m was stolen.

There was no apology from the IRA for some 30 years of violence. Instead, the statement said: "We reiterate our view that the armed struggle was entirely legitimate."

Nor was there any promise to disband, with the statement reaffirming its commitment to a unified Ireland.

There were strong words for the British and Irish governments and unionists.

The statement said: "There is widespread concern about the failure of the two governments and the unionists to fully engage in the peace process. This has created real difficulties."

It brings about a day many people thought would never arrive. The Northern Ireland Troubles have killed around 3,500 people, with more than half of those put down to the IRA.

A spokesman for the Democratic Unionist Party said it would judge the IRA based on the movement's actions in the coming months and years.

Shadow Northern Ireland secretary David Lidington said: "The words are cause for some cautious optimism and hope, but we need to see a dismantling of the paramilitary structure."

Wow, this topic took a long time to get here!

This is brilliant news. When Neighbours was on I saw an anouncement that a special news report was on BBC 2, and I thought "oh no, not more bombs", so I flicked over and was very relieved to see that it was some good news.

Pity there isn't any apology for any of the disgraceful violenece although i didn't exopect it.

I think it was the only way that the IRA could go now Al-Queda are on board. IRA will no longer get any support as they will be seen in the same light as islamic extremists (and rightly so)

I think the I R A had to realise they would not get a united Ireland by use of the bomb and bullett,now we have the climate for a more lasting change to take place,lets hope those in power grasp it with both hands.
The people have had to suffer enough under both extreems,IRA and Unionist its time to move on and give peace a chance.

We are talking about the Provisional IRA. There are dissident Republican and Loyalist groups who have, by no means, abandoned the idea of 'physical force' politics. Please delay any premature celebrations. We have had steps of 'unparalleled magnitude' before in relation to Northern Ireland. Generations are still being brought up, on the Loyalist side, to despise everything Irish, and on the Republican side to blame 'the Bratash' [sic] for every ill that has ever befallen Irish people.

They have finally realised that no-one in the republic gives a toss about a united ireland. Hoorah.

There has long been little enthusiasm for a so-called 'United Ireland' amongst the southern Irish majority. Indeed, the Eire government have officially renounced all territorial claims to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the loyalty of the Protestant population is not reciprocated, and Ulstermen from the Shankhill are invariably seen as Irish, and as nothing else, by the majority of Englishmen outside of certain districts of Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester. Ask the average English taxpayer how he feels about funding Ulster. Invariably the answer will be negative. Occasionally, exasperated British politicians like Mayhew [Major's government] 'let the cat out of the bag' and splutter that we have 'no strategic interest in' Ulster, and really would love to 'let go'.

The reality is, we cannot 'give away' sovereign British territory, and the policy is one of containment. Keep most of the violence on the other side of the water. We cannot afford near-civil war in Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester by pulling out troops and handing over to some 'United Irish' government [whose day will never come]. That is the attitude of successive British governments to this insoluble fiasco.

im still waiting for the loyalists to give up their violence and crime too tbh

theyve done enough killing and had fingers in enough criminal pies during the troubles too.

they were always going on about ira this ira that but never said oh and we'll do this too ...........works both ways?

anyway good news on one sides better than no news :)

The loyalists were/are an extremely nasty bunch, closer to the bnp in their political outlook than anything else GB has to offer, and a -lot- more sectarian in their choice of victim than the provos. Any catholic was a fair target, while the ira targetted people regardless of denomination if they were judged an obstacle to their political agenda. Now I suppose the IRA and the UVF, Red hand etc will fight it out for control of organised crime in Ulster.

Originally posted by melthebell
im still waiting for the loyalists to give up their violence and crime too tbh

theyve done enough killing and had fingers in enough criminal pies during the troubles too.

they were always going on about ira this ira that but never said oh and we'll do this too ...........works both ways?

anyway good news on one sides better than no news :)

The loyalist paramilitaries (with the exception of the UVF, which was virtually dormant anyway at the time) largely originated as a reaction to the IRA campaigns after 1968. Loyalist paramilitarism was by and large a reactive force, although like the IRA, the loyalist paramilitaries became self-perpetuating through involvement in criminal activities. The loyalists said repeatedly that they would halt their campaigns if the IRA did also (whereas until today a similar complete cessation from the IRA side remained contingent upon a British military withdrawal from Northern Ireland). I have always thought that the loyalist paramilitaries played a key role in forcing the IRA to the conference table, because the latter realised that there was no effective way of defending the communities they purported to protect from attack.

Eh...?

i believe the British army became involved in northern ireland in the first place because of protestant militia and paramilitaries such as the b-specials attacking catholic communities. That was in 1969.
The IRA itself had become dormant by that stage as civil rights movements took over. 1969 caused a split.

Originally posted by skny
The loyalists were/are an extremely nasty bunch, closer to the bnp in their political outlook than anything else GB has to offer, and a -lot- more sectarian in their choice of victim than the provos. Any catholic was a fair target, while the ira targetted people regardless of denomination if they were judged an obstacle to their political agenda. Now I suppose the IRA and the UVF, Red hand etc will fight it out for control of organised crime in Ulster.

As i have said in a previous post, the loyalist paramilitaries were largely a reactive force. The IRA's misguided determination to bomb and shoot the loyalists into a united Ireland provoked this reaction. For years after 1968 (when the IRA military campaign began) the loyalist community was largely quiet, putting their faith in the security forces to crush the IRA. When it became clear that this would not happen, and following a series of horrific atrocities by the IRA, the loyalists decided to launch military campaigns of their own. This was also motivated by the realisation that violence got results (in terms of the concessions to the IRA offered by British governments at the time). As for them being a nasty bunch, yes some of them undoubtedly were, but no nastier than the IRA, which was feted by Hollywood celebrities and funded by Irish Americans for years.

Originally posted by skny
Eh...?

i believe the British army became involved in northern ireland in the first place because of protestant militia and paramilitaries such as the b-specials attacking catholic communities. That was in 1969.
The IRA itself had become dormant by that stage as civil rights movements took over. 1969 caused a split.

Believe Republican myths if you want. There was indeed communal violence at this time, with remnants of both loyalist and republican military groups active, although on a very small scale compared to what was to follow. It was the IRA's decision to launch a military campaign for a united Ireland on the back of the civil rights movement which led to over three decades of bloodshed. This was why they started murdering British troops, sent there as a peace keeping force between two hostile communities.

Where are you getting this information? The provisional IRA was founded in 1970. Can you post some evidence of atrocities commited by the IRA before this date?

"Believe Republican myths if you want" What myths?

Originally posted by LordChaverly
This was why they started murdering British troops, sent there as a peace keeping force between two hostile communities.

Sent, incidentally, to protect the catholics from the protestants.

Originally posted by skny
Where are you getting this information? The provisional IRA was founded in 1970. Can you post some evidence of atrocities commited by the IRA before this date?

You are probably right about this particular date, in that there was a split between the Official and Provisional IRA. There was indeed some violence by the IRA prior to this date (during the communal violence of the late 1960s) but it was on a much smaller and less organised scale than what came later (although of course there had been previous IRA military campaigns in the 1930s, 40s and 50s, which is why the B Specials were formed in the first place). But the key point about who is largely responsible for over three decades of violence remains valid. It was I repeat the IRA's decision to launch a vicious miltary campaign to force the Brits out of Ireland which was the principal cause of the bloodshed and of the loyalist response. They had no interest in civil rights as such or indeed in a peaceful settlement which excluded their goal of a united ireland. You should remember that when the Provos launched their campaign it was especially vicious - for example, bombing cafes and bars without warning (this continued for several years).

Apologies for the long post...

By the mid-1930s the IRA had lost most of its residual support and membership. In addition, de Valera’s government responded to continued violence by the IRA with more special legislation, and hundreds of suspected IRA members and sympathizers were interned (imprisoned without trial), and several were sentenced to death during the late 1930s and early 1940s. Over the next 25 years, the power and influence of the IRA steadily declined. Though terrorist incidents infrequently occurred in the 1950s, by the early 1960s the IRA had lost most of its active membership, and it finally renounced violence in 1962, although it still undertook terrorist acts on occasion.


In the late 1960s, communal violence erupted in Northern Ireland, which was still under British rule. The violence followed a campaign for civil rights for the Roman Catholic minority, many of whom favored uniting Northern Ireland with Ireland. During 1969, the IRA failed to react in any significant way when Protestants loyal to Britain and the police force of Northern Ireland attacked the Roman Catholic community. Furthermore, a split developed within the IRA during the second half of 1969. The more socialist, politically minded IRA headquarters staff in Dublin did not wish to become involved in a sectarian bloodbath in the north. However, the northern frontline command of the IRA felt it imperative to defend the Catholic communities in Northern Ireland by any means necessary. With arms and money flooding into the north and a new generation of willing IRA volunteers to receive them, the northern command of the IRA was strong enough to break away from the socialist wing of the movement in January 1970.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575144_2/Irish_Republican_Army.html

The Ira would have had little or no support if the RUC and associated protestant paramilitary organisations had not cracked down on the cilvil rights movement with disproportionate force. I'm no IRA apologist, ( mostly little sociopathic thugs with delusions of grandeur i'll wager) but it appeared political solutions at the time were being hampered -to put it mldly- by the protestant minority ruling class. Catholics were very definitely second-class citizens at the time.

After reading the posts disputing the history of the IRA, etc., maybe some forummers should declare a ceasefire?

The announcement of the IRA is most welcome. Well done to Tony Blair, who has doggedly stuck to his agenda to bring peace to Northern Ireland.

Now, lets see the decommissioning of weapons begin.

skny,
You choose to discuss the Official IRA from the 1930s [rather conveniently], when it had 'lost most of its residual support and membership'. You omit to account for the murderous campaign of what is known in common parlance as 'ethnic cleansing' against southern protestants [largely of the Anglican Church of Ireland faith, and English in terms of ethnic descent] during the 1920s. The Official IRA, Marxist in inspiration, drove thousands of protestants out of Ireland. Amongst them was Susan Needham, my Great Grandmother, who descended from a Derbyshire family of the Elizabethan plantations. This ethnic minority once made up nearly 40% of the southern Irish population. Now, they are barely 2%. Ireland's loss is England's gain.

Lord Chaverly,
Perhaps overall we might consider the loyalist paramilitaries to be a 'reactive force' [some might say that I am biased as I too am protestant], but to be fair we have to remember the horrific 'romperings' administered by the so-called 'Shankhill Butchers' gang, led by Lenny Murphy. These appalling murders involved the deliberate targetting of catholic victims [all without paramilitary connections, to my knowledge] for the purpose of torturing them to death. The gang were so out of control that it is rumoured UDA and Provo forces colluded in order to stop them.

Red Robbo,
Your loyalty to our Lord Protector, Tony Blair is terribly touching. However, your posting gives the impression that he alone has 'brought peace to Northern Ireland'. I would hang fire before making any such claims, especially in regard to Northern Ireland. Secondly, you forget the hard work put in by John Major and others before him.

Originally posted by timo
Red Robbo,
Your loyalty to our Lord Protector, Tony Blair is terribly touching. However, your posting gives the impression that he alone has 'brought peace to Northern Ireland'. I would hang fire before making any such claims, especially in regard to Northern Ireland. Secondly, you forget the hard work put in by John Major and others before him.

I do not overlook the work of John Major, or Mo Mowlem, or others, But they have come and gone. Tony Blair has been with us since 1997, and has consistently addressed the issue of violence in Ulster, leading to the Good Friday agreement. He justly deserves recognition for his ceaseless efforts to achieve peace. The IRA statement ending their arms campaign is exceedingly welcome. Let's hope, in the words of Gerry Adams tonight, that this is indeed a time for peace, and not war.

Originally posted by skny
Apologies for the long post...

The Ira would have had little or no support if the RUC and associated protestant paramilitary organisations had not cracked down on the cilvil rights movement with disproportionate force. I'm no IRA apologist, ( mostly little sociopathic thugs with delusions of grandeur i'll wager) but it appeared political solutions at the time were being hampered -to put it mldly- by the protestant minority ruling class. Catholics were very definitely second-class citizens at the time.

I don't deny this. But the reason the authorities cracked down in my view was not to deny Catholics civil rights for the sake of it, but because of a long standing fear that the real motive behind the civil rights movement was the goal of a united Ireland, by those who did not accept the legitimacy of British rule in Northern Ireland (their mindset was no doubt influenced by the IRA campaigns in every previous decade since the formation of the Irish Free State). The protestants therefore saw themselves as a beleaguered minority (within the island of Ireland) and reacted accordingly (and not always wisely). The vast majority of protestants were of course not members of the 'ruling class'. They lived in the same kind of houses, and were no better off in most cases, than their Catholic counterparts. As for the protestant paramilitaries, as I said earlier, with the exception of the UVF, these (e.g. the UDA, the UFF and the Red Hand) developed after, and as a reaction to, the provisional IRA campaign.

" You choose to discuss the Official IRA from the 1930s"[rather conveniently],

That text is verbatim from the link I mentioned, so complain to encarta if you wish. You can disregard it, however I felt some brief background to the formation of the provos might be useful, without slipping back to War of Independence/civil war chronological territory.

I personally see describing the loyalists (not the shankill butchers, who were unrepresentative serial killers) as a purely "reactive force" does them undeserved credit. The UVF was formed not a reaction to the iRA, but as a reaction to catholics lobbying for civil rights. They also...unlike the IRA...made no vague concessions to "legitimate targets", and almost all their victims had no links to nationalists whatsoever. Laying all the moral blame for The Troubles at the IRA's door is incorrect. Thankfully (and hopefully) though, with latest developments, we are debating history, rather than discussing current events.

Red Robbo,
Glad to see that you acknowledge Major's considerable contribution. As for Mo Mowlem's patronising attempt to 'civilise the Ulster male', comment would be superfluous. The IRA statement amuses rather than convinces. We have had 'complete cessations' [whatever they are] before, and still the racketeering, the knee-capping and the intimidation continued unabated. Don't expect peace for long, because you won't get it.

"....but because of a long standing fear that the real motive behind the civil rights movement was the goal of a united Ireland, by those who did not accept the legitimacy of British rule in Northern Ireland (their mindset was no doubt influenced by the IRA campaigns in every previous decade since the formation of the Irish Free State)"

The IRA campaigns previously had been mostly aimed at the government in Dublin, which cracked down on them pretty damn hard.

Originally posted by skny
" You choose to discuss the Official IRA from the 1930s"[rather conveniently],

That text is verbatim from the link I mentioned, so complain to encarta if you wish. You can disregard it, however I felt some brief background to the formation of the provos might be useful, without slipping back to War of Independence/civil war chronological territory.

I personally see describing the loyalists (not the shankill butchers, who were unrepresentative serial killers) as a purely "reactive force" does them undeserved credit. The UVF was formed not a reaction to the iRA, but as a reaction to catholics lobbying for civil rights. They also...unlike the IRA...made no vague concessions to "legitimate targets", and almost all their victims had no links to nationalists whatsoever. Laying all the moral blame for The Troubles at the IRA's door is incorrect. Thankfully (and hopefully) though, with latest developments, we are debating history, rather than discussing current events.

The UVF, headed at the time by Gusty Spence, was formed as a result of a fear that Republicans would seek to undermine the Northern Irish state by force - fears which were subsequently proven to be well-founded. It was a very small organisation until after the commencement of the IRA campaigns, after which it expanded rapidly. Protestant paramilitarism was indeed largely a reactive force: the nature of the reaction in no way invalidates this central fact. I do lay the moral blame for the troubles largely at the IRA's door. There was no justification whatsoever for their military campaign to achieve a united Ireland by force, against the wishes of the majority in Northern ireland. Incidentally, since when have pubs, bars, restaurants and shopping centres been 'legitimate targets'?

Originally posted by skny
"....but because of a long standing fear that the real motive behind the civil rights movement was the goal of a united Ireland, by those who did not accept the legitimacy of British rule in Northern Ireland (their mindset was no doubt influenced by the IRA campaigns in every previous decade since the formation of the Irish Free State)"

The IRA campaigns previously had been mostly aimed at the government in Dublin, which cracked down on them pretty damn hard.

This is incorrect. There had been IRA terrorist campaigns waged both in England in the 1930s and 1940s and in Northern Ireland up to the 1950s (you mention in a previous post that several IRA members had been sentenced to death. This was not for trivial reasons. It was for murder).

Lord C,
I agree with you that the Provisional IRA are 'largely to blame' for the troubles. However, it is important to remember that Adams and company do not view the so-called 'troubles' in quite the same way as you and I. Adams, like many republicans, refers to 'a thousand years of English interference in Irish affairs'. One assumes he is harking back to the Cambro-Norman invasion of Strongbow and his followers. It is important to bear this in mind, because it illustrates the massive sense of grievance and injustice in the republican mindset. The republican movement will never settle for anything less than complete British withdrawal from the island of Ireland in all forms. They exist to achieve that very objective, with no half measures. Far from 'coming to their senses', the ancient irremediable ethnic grudges burn fiercely in their collective breast. Any ceasefires, fancy speeches etc are purely diversional tactics.

Even if the present generation of republicans achieve consensus on non-violent tactics, who is to say that the following generation will not be swayed by the Green Book, songs about 'the rattle of the Thompson gun', and stirring tales of Tom Barry against the Black and Tans? It is in the blood...

"This is incorrect. There had been IRA terrorist campaigns waged both in England in the 1930s and 1940s and in Northern Ireland up to the 1950s ." Quotes and sources please. Were there extensive English casualties involvd in these "campaigns"? I'll back up all my "allegations" with third party support. You need to start doing the same. De Valera's government was far more aggressive (and succesful) in stamping down on the IRA than any subsequent british government.

"Incidentally, since when have pubs, bars, restaurants and shopping centres been 'legitimate targets'?" Note my allusion to "vague concessions". Apart from the undisputable killing of many totally innocent civilians, the majority of IRA targets -were- security forces/RUC, british soldiers, politicians and "informers". The UVF did not operate under the same restrictions.

As an interesting statistical point, republicans were responsible for less than half the fatalities of "the troubles", which would suggest the "its all their fault" blame spreading and daily mail-eque fingerpointing of both Lord C and timo are off the mark.

PS As an aside...

"Even if the present generation of republicans achieve consensus on non-violent tactics, who is to say that the following generation will not be swayed by the Green Book, songs about 'the rattle of the Thompson gun', and stirring tales of Tom Barry against the Black and Tans? It is in the blood..."

From an outside perpective, when marching season starts and we see the orangemen get their sashes out, it would seem that an unrealistic grip on a "romantic" past is not the exclusive domain of nationalists. I can see why Unionists do this...its to mask the bitterness of unrequited love. In the same way that the irish in the south stoped caring about nationalists and the north long ago, its the same with people in britain and their union-jack waving "brethren" in NI.

Originally posted by skny
...That text is verbatim from the link I mentioned, so complain to encarta if you wish. You can disregard it, however I felt some brief background to the formation of the provos might be useful...
OK, here's my complaint against encarta:
Originally posted by skny
...by the early 1960s the IRA had lost most of its active membership, and it finally renounced violence in 1962, although it still undertook terrorist acts on occasion...
"Renounced violence in '62", but "still undertook acts of terrorism"...

...hmmm, there's a precedent for yesterdays announcement, and not a good one I think you'll have to admit.
Originally posted by skny
...Furthermore, a split developed within the IRA during the second half of 1969. The more socialist, politically minded IRA headquarters staff in Dublin did not wish to become involved in a sectarian bloodbath in the north. However, the northern frontline command of the IRA felt it imperative to defend the Catholic communities in Northern Ireland by any means necessary. With arms and money flooding into the north and a new generation of willing IRA volunteers to receive them, the northern command of the IRA was strong enough to break away from the socialist wing of the movement in January 1970.

If the IRA had lost most of its active members by the early '60s (as stated above), how was it big enough to still have a "headquarters staff in Dublin" and a "northern frontline command" in '69...

...and how indeed did this depleted organisation feel "strong enough to break away from the socialist wing of the movement in January 1970".

Sorry, but I feel that the article quoted is at best ill researched, and at worst deliberately biased, either way its reliability is questionable.

Did an American write it by any chance?

Originally posted by skny
"This is incorrect. There had been IRA terrorist campaigns waged both in England in the 1930s and 1940s and in Northern Ireland up to the 1950s ." Quotes and sources please. Were there extensive English casualties involvd in these "campaigns"? I'll back up all my "allegations" with third party support. You need to start doing the same. De Valera's government was far more aggressive (and succesful) in stamping down on the IRA than any subsequent british government.

"Incidentally, since when have pubs, bars, restaurants and shopping centres been 'legitimate targets'?" Note my allusion to "vague concessions". Apart from the undisputable killing of many totally innocent civilians, the majority of IRA targets -were- security forces/RUC, british soldiers, politicians and "informers". The UVF did not operate under the same restrictions.

As an interesting statistical point, republicans were responsible for less than half the fatalities of "the troubles", which would suggest the "its all their fault" blame spreading and daily mail-eque fingerpointing of both Lord C and timo are off the mark.

PS As an aside...

"Even if the present generation of republicans achieve consensus on non-violent tactics, who is to say that the following generation will not be swayed by the Green Book, songs about 'the rattle of the Thompson gun', and stirring tales of Tom Barry against the Black and Tans? It is in the blood..."

From an outside perpective, when marching season starts and we see the orangemen get their sashes out, it would seem that an unrealistic grip on a "romantic" past is not the exclusive domain of nationalists. I can see why Unionists do this...its to mask the bitterness of unrequited love. In the same way that the irish in the south stoped caring about nationalists and the north long ago, its the same with people in britain and their union-jack waving "brethren" in NI.

On the first point, the IRA did indeed launch a bombing campaign in England at the end of the 1930s (why don't you do a google search - it might enhance your obviously patchy and one sided knowledge base regarding 'the troubles'). The campaign was not very successful and some of the perpetrators were caught and received condign punishment. You also seem to be unaware of the Border campaign launched by the IRA against Northern Ireland in the late 1950s. Again, this was not successful, but what it did was to buttress the siege mentality within the loyalist community at the time and also widened the rift between it and the Catholic community.

As for IRA 'legitimate targets', your point would be laughable were it not so offensive to the memory of the thousands of people killed or maimed for life by the IRA. Moreover, every time they shot a British soldier or member of the RUC or blew up a supposedly 'legitimate target' they fuelled the resentment and hatred within the loyalist community. Indeed, as I have said previously, this campaign acted as a recruiting sergeant for the loyalist paramilitaries.

Its interesting that you mention statistics regarding responsibility for fatalities. However, you do not mention any. Instead you make the false claim that republicans were responsible for less than half of the fatalities. As the source below shows, between 1968 and 1994, 'in relation to perpetration of killings, Republican paramilitaries account for almost 59 per cent of all deaths, Loyalist paramilitaries for almost 28 per cent, the British Army for 9 per cent, the RUC for almost 2 per cent and other groups each for less than 1 per cent. Republican paramilitaries have killed 74 per cent of all Protestants killed, over 25 per cent of all Catholics, and almost 96 per cent of those who were classified as "Non Northern Ireland." See the source if you don't believe me.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/cts/abstract.htm


Not only was the IRA directly responsible for the majority of deaths during the troubles, but the vast majority of the other fatalities and casualties were the indirect result of the decision of the IRA to launch a campaign of violence in order to achieve a united Ireland. As I have previously said, with the exception of the UVF, the main loyalist paramilitary organisations were formed after the IRA campaign started and were primarily a reaction to it.

I wonder if the timing is significant, coming in the week of the funeral of Ted Heath?

Interesting site that...


http://cain.ulst.ac.uk

some more stats from it...

IRA Killings...

Total British Forces Killed...1,013
Alleged Informers...63
Loyalist Paramilitary Personnel...35
Unionist / Loyalist Politicians...2
Civilians in NI...259
Sectarian killings of Protestant civilians...134
Civilians in Britain...46

Loyalist Killings

Alleged Informers...16
Republican Paramilitary Personnel...42
Nationalist / Republican Politicians...31
British Forces...14
Sectarian Killings of Catholic civilians...713
Civilians in Southern ireland...44


Can you can spot a moral high group for "reactive" loyalist paramilitaries here? I'm specifically looking at the "Sectarian Killings of Catholic civilians" stat. Im attempting to look at this fairly objectively.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/book/

I'm interested in the parallels between this statement and the current 'War on Terrror':

Do you think this will show the current suicide bombers that talking works better than terrorism?

Have the IRA ever used suicide bombers?

This point isn't to anyone in particular, but...

...why argue about which bunch of terrorists killed 51% and which killed 49%, is it relevant?

Which ever way you look at it these "people" are criminal thugs, with scant regard for human life, let alone politics or moral justice, and they should be condemned by all right thinking people no matter which side of the political divide your loyalties lay on.

I hope at least we can agree on that.

:)

skny

Although the figures are interesting they need to be treated with a great deal of caution.

For example my Dad's cousin was murdered by the IRA ...... he was a traffic warden in Armagh and is counted as a member of the British Forces. I would have thought that most reasonable people would have viewed the many killings of civil servants and off duty police and UDR as sectarian.

Similarly while in no way condoning the actions of the murdering scum of the UDA/LVF etc. the numbers attributed to them include sigificant numbers of members of SinnFein/IRA and IRSP/INLA who have been counted as sectarian killings.

I think it best just say that many innocent people on both sides were murdered for political ends that have come to nothing.

Originally posted by alchresearch


Have the IRA ever used suicide bombers?

Not intentionally.:)

I did hear once though that one IRA suicide bomber had 10 successful missions under his belt.:suspect:

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Which ever way you look at it these "people" are criminal thugs, with scant regard for human life, let alone politics or moral justice, and they should be condemned by all right thinking people no matter which side of the political divide your loyalties lay on.

I like the way they dealt with petty criminals and car thieves though.

Good points GHS.

skny

As for the supposedly non-sectarian nature of the IRA murder campaigns, look the following.

'Republican paramilitaries have killed 74 per cent of all Protestants killed, over 25 per cent of all Catholics, and almost 96 per cent of those who were classified as "Non Northern Ireland." Loyalist paramilitaries killed 19 per cent of all Protestants killed, almost 50 per cent of all Catholics and just 2 per cent of the "Non Northern Ireland " category' (from the same source).

Moreover, would it make their campaign any more legitimate if they murdered people regardless of their faith or ethnicity? I notice you are no longer peddling the completely false argument that republicans were responsible 'for less than half of the fatalities of the troubles ' .

The loyalist paramilitary violence was indeed largely reactive and would never have happened on any thing like the scale it did had not the IRA launched its military campaign for a united Ireland. The latter was an act of monumental folly and moral irresponsibility. Moreover, it also probably put back any realistic prospect of a united Ireland for decades, by creating a huge legacy of bitterness and mistrust (look at the news from Northern ireland on any day of the week - the two communities are if anything farther apart now than they were in the late 1960s

alchresearch,

No, the IRA did not use suicide bombers. Their idea of a military operation was to plant bombs or shoot soldiers, RUC men and others in the back and then run away. They called themselves an 'army', but the only time they wore uniforms was when they were swaggering around on marches or at IRA funerals. When they were caught, many were sent to the Maze prison, where they lived lives of (for prisoners) relative luxury, beyond the wildest dreams of 'ordinary' inmates in other prisons. As for the hunger strikers, they expected the British government to give in to their demands before they would die. Mrs. Thatcher was made of sterner stuff and they abandoned this strategy.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
No, the IRA did not use suicide bombers. Their idea of a military operation was to plant bombs or shoot soldiers, RUC men and others in the back and then run away. They called themselves an 'army', but the only time they wore uniforms was when they were swaggering around on marches or at IRA funerals. As for the hunger strikers, they expected the British government to give in to their demands before they would die. Mrs. Thatcher was made of sterner stuff and they abandoned this strategy.

I've just been reading a book about a IRA member who was angry at the 'soft' targets he was forced (by his superiors) to go for - shopping streets full of mothers with prams & pushchairs and such.

"I notice you are no longer peddling the completely false argument that republicans were responsible 'for less than half of the fatalities of the troubles ' .

Just for you lord chav...

"According to the CAIN research project at the University of Ulster, the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,706 people during the Troubles. This figure represents 48.4 percent of the total loss of life in the conflict."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army


"But it is too late for all those widows. Nobody knows how many the IRA created, but the figure runs into the hundreds. The organisation killed 1,700 of the 3,700 people who died in the Troubles..."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article302276.ece

Will again later

Originally posted by skny
"I notice you are no longer peddling the completely false argument that republicans were responsible 'for less than half of the fatalities of the troubles ' .

Just for you lord chav...

"According to the CAIN research project at the University of Ulster, the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,706 people during the Troubles. This figure represents 48.4 percent of the total loss of life in the conflict."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army


"But it is too late for all those widows. Nobody knows how many the IRA created, but the figure runs into the hundreds. The organisation killed 1,700 of the 3,700 people who died in the Troubles..."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article302276.ece

Will again later

Why not consult the CAIN project directly instead of quoting from secondary sources? You appear to have forgotten also that your original post on this issue refers to republican killings, which would include for example the INLA, just as loyalist killings in the CAIN figures includes those for all loyalist paramilitary groups.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/violence/cts/abstract.htm

To repeat 'In relation to perpetration of killings, Republican paramilitaries account for almost 59 per cent of all deaths, Loyalist paramilitaries for almost 28 per cent, the British Army for 9 per cent, the RUC for almost 2 per cent and other groups each for less than 1 per cent'.

Originally posted by alchresearch
I'm interested in the parallels between this statement and the current 'War on Terrror':

Do you think this will show the current suicide bombers that talking works better than terrorism?

Have the IRA ever used suicide bombers?

No. It was contemplated though. Apparently Gerry Adams offered IRA recruits the prospect of paradise, with 72 comely riverdancers serving the bombers endless pints of Guinness. It never caught on though - the prospect of hell - i.e. having to listen to endless repeats of Daniel O'Donnell songs interspersed with sermons from Ian Paisley proved to much.

Ultimately, the question of who is ultimately responsible for the bulk of the troubles depends upon which side one is on. I might agree with Lord C's view that the Provisional IRA bear the most blame. However, this reflects my belief that the protestant majority have the democratic right to remain British citizens. Plus, in my case, I harbour resentment [previously mentioned] that my Great Grandmother's family, Dublin protestants of English stock, were terrorised out of Ireland by the IRA.

However, Republicans believe just as strongly that the British have no right whatsoever to govern Northern Ireland. They see their history as one of continual English/British interference in Irish affairs. In their eyes, all is colonialism, from Strongbow and his knights, to the Elizabethan plantation of Munster, the later plantation of Ulster and ultimately the situation today. In our eyes, the Loyalist violence was, in Lord C's words, 'reactive'. Thousands of Irish view the IRA violence as 'reactive' too, and the 'terrorist' organisation as a legitimate army engaged in armed struggle for the cause of Irish freedom against an imposed, colonialadministration.

Personally, I think there is a limit to history, to looking back at the past. My view is that , never mind the injustices and atrocities on both sides, the majority of the Northern Irish population wish to remain British and their right must be respected. However, I am not so foolish as to think that this state of play will continue indefinately. Eventually, nature, in the form of the greater Catholic birth rate will intervene, so to speak. What will happen when the majority do NOT wish to remain under British rule? We will have a new generation of Adamses and McGuinnesses, prepared to reinforce their nationalist sentiments and hatred of 'the Bratash' with dynamite.

Good points, as usual Timo. The irony is that as both the UK and Eire are members of the EU and have been since 1973, a transfer of sovereignty from London to Dublin will make very little difference to the lives of ordinary people in the North. . I have never had an objection to a united Ireland, achieved through peaceful means. My argument has always been that the IRA had no right whatsoever to pursue this aim through violence. The nationalist struggle is hardly worth thousands of lives - not even the bones of a single person North or South. I doubt too whether we have seen the back of physical force republicanism. But hopefully the history of the last thirty off years will be a useful corrective to anyone attracted to it.

Lord C,
My feelings exactly. You are so right about the role of the EU. Increasingly, the nation states of Europe are subject to international regimes like the EU, and the transnational corporations [as Umberto Eco predicted in the 80s] are almost like the new state!

I too have no objection to a 'united' Ireland achieved by democratic means. The brassed off taxpayer in me often forgets about the sacrifices made by the Ulster Division on the Somme, and reflects that we are paying the benefits of those who would 'come brave and boldly o' to murder us as we sleep in our English beds.

I find your point about the nationalist struggle not being 'worth the bones of a single person' rather moving. Looking at the photographic portrait of my protestant Great Grandmother as a beautiful, young Dublin woman, I reflect how 'Ireland's great cause' has uprooted, shattered and wrecked the lives of countless people on both sides. Susan's story is known only within my family, but it is a poignant one. Like so many others, it will never be told. Nevertheless, it is a reminder of the far-reaching pain caused by this essentially ethnic conflict.

How history is forgotten. The IRA have not been fighting for 30 years. Does no one recall the Easter Rising in 1916. This fight started way back when. Although I do not agree with the violence the IRA brought to others, I do agree that Ireland, the whole of Ireland, should belong to the Irish. Why split it? We preach that we are a civilised nation yet irish men and women were tortured and imprisoned wrongly yet sympathy goes to the new terriorists of today, such as the London bombers and the iraq terriosts in Iraq. Are they subjected to prison sentences just for owning a pair of marigolds! (the Guildford Four related). We british are not innocent in The Troubles with the IRA. Neither party innocent. We have to take blame as well as the IRA. They tortured and killed innocent people but so did the British Army.