[Article] IRA still training recruits, says IMC

toiletduck

cdebru wrote:

look at who is on the commision

A guy from the CIA
A guy from the London Met police
A guy from the Department of Justice in Dublin
and the former leader of the Alliance party for God sake the only thing independent about them is their name

That list looks okay to me.
who would need to be on it for the commission to be independent?

jman0

toiletduck wrote:

That list looks okay to me.
who would need to be on it for the commission to be independent?

It doesn't matter who they are.
The IMC is not part of the Good Friday Agreement period.
It's a waste of time and has the appearance of a proganda ruse.
You are entitled to believe every word they say.
Others are entitiled to rubbish whatever they say.

axer

mycroft wrote:

And apparently the IRA didn't have the slightest interest in decommisioning, seeing as they were planning another robbery while peace talks stalled.

Have you proof of this?

mycroft wrote:

On a recent thread (which btw you claimed you'd return to round about now, but haven't) you claimed to think the IRA outlived their purpose, now you're claiming they have the right to continue to recruit and arm.

Whats the point of continuing the other thread when this is basically the same topic. Yes I believe the IRA should have disbanded a long time ago. They are on a ceasefire now but that does not mean that their organisation has disbanded. I have not contradicted myself as you have suggested, all I've said is that by recruiting and stocking arms they have not broken their ceasefire.

mycroft wrote:

You've just said above, that the IRA were on about to decommission and now you're saying less than a breath later, they weren't about to disband. Which is which?

Disbanding and decommissioning are two different things. The IRA could decommission its weapons but still be an organisation.

mycroft wrote:

And I'm sorry call me nuts any terrorist group thats gearing up, buying guns and recruiting isn't on ceasefire. Its a ceasefire, not a time out, you don't use a ceasefire as a chance to tool up and train recruits. It goes aganist the principle of a ceasefire.

No it doesnt. A ceasefire is an agreement to stop aggressive actions.

mycroft wrote:

We'll take this on three fronts;

One you've got the security services who apparently rule british thought making recommendations to the IMC, who then make the "pretence" of recommendations. So basically you're saying the decommisioning process is a farce. Which makes a mockery of your first point on this reply.

How? All i'm saying is that a TOTALLY independant witness is not ok for the DUP but they have no problems with a biased "independant" IMC.

mycroft wrote:

Two. Wheres your proof of this assertion?

Three. What would you rather happen? The IMC develop it's own totally undemocractic security service? And spying system? From scratch? Um how?

cdebru answers

mycroft wrote:

Wheres the proof of the above? Furthermore you've mocked the IMC's impartiality earlier in this thread and now you're supporting their accusations and assertions?

It shows the contradictions that the IMC have in their report. That does not need to be proven - read it.

mycroft wrote:

And what about IRA bull?

I'm fascinated by someone who claims not to support the IRA or their current campaign but then feels like supporting it at the drop of a hat.

I am not supporting them I'm pointing out the obvious. I don't actually support sinn fein either - I have never voted for them or never been a member - but I believe they are getting unfounded criticism while the unionists are getting little or none. And I think that reports like these are a waste of time. What are they trying to achieve? They only try to cause agro which delays any chances of a successful peace process.

Does anyone know how to quickly quote parts of other peoples replies? It takes forever quoting and unquoting.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

It doesn't matter who they are.
The IMC is not part of the Good Friday Agreement period.
It's a waste of time and has the appearance of a proganda ruse.

Really? You seem to be forgetting the whole point of assuading the fears of those who have NOT felt the need to bombing and maiming for the last 30+ years. You seem to be forgetting the whole point of trying to provide some confidence in the paramilitary groups' ceasefires and to keep them honest for want of a better term to use.

"Waste of time" eh? So trying to convince people that you're not really going to blow them up at the first sign of not getting yoru way is a waste of time? Trying to convince people that yuo have political credibility enough to stand in the big-leagues as opposed to skulking in the gutter with semtex is a waste of time?

Yet again, admittance to chuckie-land seems to require the mandatory use of "blinkers" and 24/7 wearing of headphones espousing 'ra-head propoganda.

Ad finitum ad nauseum.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

The IMC is not part of the Good Friday Agreement period.

Could you tell me if it needs to be as its purpose seems to be to inform the policers of the GFA(the British and Irish governments) whether the parties involved in the GFA are adhering to its principals.
You may as well say the Gardaí have nothing to do with the GFA...but they do as they provide information to the government on what known republicans are up to.

cdebru wrote:

A guy from the CIA
A guy from the London Met police
A guy from the Department of Justice in Dublin

Cdebru, whats your problem with those guys, given that, (1)the Peace process was given a lot of help from the CIA's political masters.(2)The London met police dont have a sectarian record iirc and (3) a guy from the Dublin dept of justice, is well quite frankly a guy from the Dublin dept of justice who presumably has the confidence of the Dáil as regards his bona fidé's and ergo of the people of Ireland.

Lemming

axer wrote:

Yes I believe the IRA should have disbanded a long time ago. They are on a ceasefire now but that does not mean that their organisation has disbanded. I have not contradicted myself as you have suggested, all I've said is that by recruiting and stocking arms they have not broken their ceasefire.

By recruiting and stocking arms, violation? no.
By actively engaging in "other" paramilitary activities, yes. And they've been at it ever since they went on "cease-fire". But this is an aside point to what mycroft was saying.

An organisation that is actively recruiting and rearming is hardly the signs of one that is a step away from decomissioning now is it? :rolleyes:

Quite the opposite in fact. Hypocritically so. And no amount of posturing or spouting rhetoric can disguise that simple little home-truth. As mentioned before, it wasn't the DUP's insistance on a photo that stopped decommisioning. That was merely the convenient excuse.

Disbanding and decommissioning are two different things. The IRA could decommission its weapons but still be an organisation.

No it doesnt. A ceasefire is an agreement to stop aggressive actions.

As opposed to a passive action?

A ceasefire is the cessation of military activity. Textbook definition. I can't see "aggressive" in there anywhere. The IRA are still engaged in military activity beyond recruitment, training and rearming.

How? All i'm saying is that a TOTALLY independant witness is not ok for the DUP but they have no problems with a biased "independant" IMC.

So who was this "totally" independant witness then? Better than an intelligence officer from a country with which SF/IRA enjoyed a love-affair up until recently? Bette than an intelligence officer frmo a country whom is not interested in SF/IRA one way or the other?

I am not supporting them I'm pointing out the obvious. I don't actually support sinn fein either - I have never voted for them or never been a member - but I believe they are getting unfounded criticism while the unionists are getting little or none. And I think that reports like these are a waste of time. What are they trying to achieve? They only try to cause agro which delays any chances of a successful peace process.

Once again the ... "but what about the other side" argument gets trotted out. There is a really good f*cking reason why SF/IRA are getting such a hard time by comparison to everyone else. It's because they're the ones with members in government office.

Villain

Lemming wrote:

It's because they're the ones with members in government office.

Care to back that claim up??

i.e. that SF/IRA have members in government, I know of Sinn Fein members in office but can't say I know of any IRA members in Government

Mighty_Mouse

So, why is it actively recruiting and training?

Is it? Even if they are; the IRA still exists. If it didn't recruit and train it wouldn't.

You are asking why the IRA exists.. IMO the IRA hasn't gotten to a stage of non-existance yet.

It's a matter of time. It's not possible to jump from terrorist army to non-existance without the necessary steps being taken in between.

The main obstacle at the moment is the lack of establised routes for republicans to pursue goals democratically.

It's been 10 years without voilence, several historic movements by republicans and we are nowhere near a fully supported democracy in the north.

Lemming

irish1 wrote:

Care to back that claim up??

i.e. that SF/IRA have members in government, I know of Sinn Fein members in office but can't say I know of any IRA members in Government

wtf ........ you are taking the p*ss here right irish1? That statement is laughable. You should be a standup comedian with a line like that.

But to addrses your statement, SF speak on "behalf" of the IRA, ergo they represent the IRA, ergo they represent IRA interests, ergo the IRA have, at the very least, people capable of dealing within government.

This is a very (deliberately) simplified take on the matter, since we all know that SF are the political wing of the IRA.

bonkey

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

It's a matter of time. It's not possible to jump from terrorist army to non-existance without the necessary steps being taken in between.

Yes indeed. One of those necessary steps being the cessation of recruitment, which apparently isn't happening, which means that - at present - the time it will take is technically infinite.

The main obstacle at the moment is the lack of establised routes for republicans to pursue goals democratically.

YOU appear to habe left out part of that sentence. Surely you should have said something more like:

"The main obstacle for Sinn Fein and the IRA is the lack of establised routes for republicans to pursue goals democratically because they refuse to cooperate in dealing with the main obstacles that the other involved parties see.

It's been 10 years without voilence,

Really? I'm sure Gerry McCabes family will be delighted to know he died a non-violent death.

several historic movements by republicans

Several? Which several? Starting decomissioning only to stop again? The frequent appeals to the IRA to stick by what they agreed to as a precondition for all of this (i.e. the ceasefire)? Or just the ceasefire itself?

and we are nowhere near a fully supported democracy in the north.

We're nowhere near a republican movement completely and unequivacably comitted to finding a peaceful and democratic solution either, so I hardly think you've got the moral high ground.

O is it once more a case of "Gve us all that we want, and then we'll negotiate in good faith"

jc

Lemming

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

The main obstacle at the moment is the lack of establised routes for republicans to pursue goals democratically.

Being bitterly flippant, I could point out that a democractic route has always existed, it was simply (and appears to still be) beyond the intelligence to grasp for most republican paramilitary supporters, ie Stop. What. You're. Doing. It. Isn't. Working.

But, flippancy aside, "established" routes, as you put it, exist and have existed for a few years now. It is not to others fault that SF/IRA have failed to walk those routes in prefernece for standing on the edge wailing and bleating and casting innuendos.

It's been 10 years without voilence, several historic movements by republicans and we are nowhere near a fully supported democracy in the north.

I'm sorry. What "several" historic movements would these be? Care to name them?

Hydroquinone

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

It's been 10 years without voilence, several historic movements by republicans and we are nowhere near a fully supported democracy in the north.

What are you talking about? The Omagh bomb was in 1998.
Terrorists of any stripe planting a bomb to kill civillians sounds pretty violent to me.

axer

Lemming wrote:

By recruiting and stocking arms, violation? no.
By actively engaging in "other" paramilitary activities, yes. And they've been at it ever since they went on "cease-fire". But this is an aside point to what mycroft was saying.

cease-fire or cease·fire
n.
1. An order to stop firing.
2. Suspension of active hostilities; a truce.

Lemming wrote:

An organisation that is actively recruiting and rearming is hardly the signs of one that is a step away from decomissioning now is it? :rolleyes:

Until the IRA disband they are organisation and continue to actively run that organisation until they disband so why should effect the possibility of decommissioning?

Lemming wrote:

Quite the opposite in fact. Hypocritically so. And no amount of posturing or spouting rhetoric can disguise that simple little home-truth. As mentioned before, it wasn't the DUP's insistance on a photo that stopped decommisioning. That was merely the convenient excuse.

Really? Why did the DUP want this photo? I guess maybe just to hang it up on their walls?

Lemming wrote:

As opposed to a passive action?

A ceasefire is the cessation of military activity. Textbook definition. I can't see "aggressive" in there anywhere. The IRA are still engaged in military activity beyond recruitment, training and rearming.

see above

Lemming wrote:

So who was this "totally" independant witness then? Better than an intelligence officer from a country with which SF/IRA enjoyed a love-affair up until recently? Bette than an intelligence officer frmo a country whom is not interested in SF/IRA one way or the other?

What is wrong with the canadian General John de Chastelain?

jman0

Lemming:

"A ceasefire is a temporary stoppage of a war, or any armed conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceasefire

Also:

"Politically-motivated attacks on Sinn Fein by rival parties and
the establishment media have rained down in recent days.

Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams said his party's role as
messengers for the IRA had been abused by the British and Irish
governments.

"The electoral mandate of the Sinn Fein party has been ignored.
We remain wedded to our peace strategy," he said.

Earlier this week, he stated that his party will no longer
interpret IRA statements for the the governments, allowing the
IRA to speak for itself."

my italics
http://www.friends-of-sinnfein.de/Originalbeitr%E4ge/Obeitrag1116.htm

Lemming

axer wrote:

cease-fire or cease·fire
n.
1. An order to stop firing.
2. Suspension of active hostilities; a truce.

And yet again you've completely failed to grasp the concept of what a ceasefire entails. Look at point number 2 of your quote. Then look at the IRA's activity in the last 10 years, including the likes of punishment beatings, robberies, "disappearings", and well ..... it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Until the IRA disband they are organisation and continue to actively run that organisation until they disband so why should effect the possibility of decommissioning?

Ummmm ..... mmmmkay .....

Lets see now. The argued stance is that the IRA were only moments from a "noble", "generous", "courageous" act of decommissioning if only it weren't for those snooping, pesky DUP kids.

At what point did I suggest that the IRA were about to disband axer? Re-read what I said. ALlow me to refresh your short memory

lemming wrote:

An organisation that is actively recruiting and rearming is hardly the signs of one that is a step away from decomissioning now is it?

Now ... exactly where was the bit about disbanding in that? Nowhere?? OKayyy, we're in agreement. We're making progress....

Really? Why did the DUP want this photo? I guess maybe just to hand up on their walls?

I don't know. Why don't you ask them? The same could be asked of why the IRA didn't want to give them a photo of what would have been proof of their "generous" and "courageous" act?

See ... that point flips both ways.

see above

And once again I'm going to say that you have missed the point of what a ceasefire is. Giving me a definition of it is lovely and all, but do you understand what it implies to make it work?

What is wrong with the canadian General John de Chastelain?

Nothing. I never said there was.

Could ye tell me what the purpose of the training is for?
Flower arranging?

How could a group be interested in a peace process or democracy when they are training for war? A war that no one wants bar a tiny number of extremists.

I get the feeling that some are deluded enough to ignore that such activities are regarded by the vast majority of people as "prisonable" deeds.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

Lemming:

"A ceasefire is a temporary stoppage of a war, or any armed conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceasefire

Nice to see you can use google. And Wiki's .. I'm impressed!

Now, answer me this - what would "aggressive actions" entail?

Also:

"Politically-motivated attacks on Sinn Fein by rival parties and
the establishment media have rained down in recent days.

Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams said his party's role as
messengers for the IRA had been abused by the British and Irish
governments.

Booo-f*cking-hoo. They've been shown up to be hypocritical charlatans. Stall, lie, spout rhetoric, stall, lie, make excuse for heinous act, stall, lie, coverup, impede, stall, etc. I weep for them,. I really do. As I've pointed out, they've been singled out and attacked because THEY are in government, unlike the rest of the paramilitary scum and their political mouth-pieces.

What? Gerry doesn't like it when he's in the spotlight of full political credibility scrinty? Tough. He wanted it, he gets it.

"The electoral mandate of the Sinn Fein party has been ignored.
We remain wedded to our peace strategy," he said.

You'll excuse me whilst I snort with jaded, tired, cynical derision.

Earlier this week, he stated that his party will no longer
interpret IRA statements for the the governments, allowing the
IRA to speak for itself."

Well isn't that good of him. More bluster. More smokescreen to try and give the impression that they are seperate entities. They are the one and the same. The irony of that statement is that in saying that, SF are violating their electoral mandate.

jman0

Lemming wrote:

And yet again you've completely failed to grasp the concept of what a ceasefire entails. Look at point number 2 of your quote. Then look at the IRA's activity in the last 10 years, including the likes of punishment beatings, robberies, "disappearings", and well ..... it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Punishment beatings and robberies (what disappearings?) are not attacks against british occupation forces. Therefore they are not inconsistant with a ceasefire.
Everyone wants punishment beatings to be a thing of the past, however without an acceptable police force, expect this tradition to continue. But they, like robberies are all crimes under law. There is nothing preventing the RUC making arrests and seeking prosecutions. Maybe you should direct some of your frustration with these events toward them. AFter all, you believe that they are the ones in charge of law and order in NI.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

Punishment beatings and robberies (what disappearings?) are not attacks against british occupation forces. Therefore they are not inconsistant with a ceasefire.
Everyone wants punishment beatings to be a thing of the past, however without an acceptable police force, expect this tradition to continue. But they, like robberies are all crimes under law. There is nothing preventing the RUC making arrests and seeking prosecutions. Maybe you should direct some of your frustration with these events toward them. AFter all, you believe that they are the ones in charge of law and order in NI.

Erm ...... "punishment" beatings and robberies are STILL aggressive operations being carried out by the IRA, among other paramilitary groups. The ceasefire mentions nothing about "limited only to British forces", nor that the ceasefire only pertains to certain "aggressive operations".

:rolleyes:

jman0

Lemming wrote:

Erm ...... "punishment" beatings and robberies are STILL aggressive operations being carried out by the IRA, among other paramilitary groups. The ceasefire mentions nothing about "limited only to British forces", nor that the ceasefire only pertains to certain "aggressive operations".

:rolleyes:

Robberies, i don't believe you, nor believe the IRA are carrying them out.
ARe you willing apply your same "ceasefire" definition to HMG's forces?

axer

Lemming wrote:

Erm ...... "punishment" beatings and robberies are STILL aggressive operations being carried out by the IRA, among other paramilitary groups. The ceasefire mentions nothing about "limited only to British forces", nor that the ceasefire only pertains to certain "aggressive operations".

:rolleyes:

The IRA's war is against the britsh government. Even if you read this "independant" reports' stats it can be seen that the UDA, UVF and LVF have committed 7 murders while the PIRA have committed none in the last 2 years. You will argue about the robert maccartney murder - this report that you deem to be "independant" says that they do not believe that the order was sanctioned by the IRA but merely by a grassroot officer.

mycroft

axer wrote:

Have you proof of this?

I have nifty little statements from senior politicans. Theres also the two previous raids last year on cash n carrys in 2004.

Whats the point of continuing the other thread when this is basically the same topic. Yes I believe the IRA should have disbanded a long time ago. They are on a ceasefire now but that does not mean that their organisation has disbanded. I have not contradicted myself as you have suggested, all I've said is that by recruiting and stocking arms they have not broken their ceasefire.

Snort....... At the very least they're breaking the spirit of a ceasefire, if they're recruiting and arming then they're recruiting and arming for a purpose.

Disbanding and decommissioning are two different things. The IRA could decommission its weapons but still be an organisation.

No it doesnt. A ceasefire is an agreement to stop aggressive actions.

And punishment shootings and robberies aren't agressive actions?

DUP but they have no problems with a biased "independant" IMC.

cdebru answers

Laugh lets look at cdebru's answer

cdebru wrote:

A guy from the CIA
A guy from the London Met police
A guy from the Department of Justice in Dublin
and the former leader of the Alliance party for God sake the only thing independent about them is their name

they take their information from the PSNI MI5/6 British military intelligence and the Gardai hardly shocking that they come out with the reports they do

The first thing and this is always the special part of an IRA apologist is they don't offer an alternative, who could the IMC consist of, and where exactly could they gather evidence from?

Secondly as a list goes, the IMC has to report back to the parties involved in the peace process and that to me seems like a fair enought list. Who should be on it if not them? Earthman listed off fair reasons for each member.

It shows the contradictions that the IMC have in their report. That does not need to be proven - read it.

Handy debating tip don't wave me in the direction of the report and go, "meh you read it" You dismissed the reports credibility and then used the report to justify claims that the IRA and SF leadership aren't the same. You don't get to impunge the credibility of a source and then use the same it back up an assertion. At least try not to do it in the same post.

I am not supporting them I'm pointing out the obvious. I don't actually support sinn fein either - I have never voted for them or never been a member - but I believe they are getting unfounded criticism while the unionists are getting little or none. And I think that reports like these are a waste of time. What are they trying to achieve? They only try to cause agro which delays any chances of a successful peace process.

Seriously guys we've got to come up with some Sinn Fein support related godwin's law

Now I'm not a supporter of SF/IRA, but...... :rolleyes:

Again call me nuts I think a terrorist army, recruiting, arming, engage in paramilitary beatings, protecting it's members who've commited murder, and robbing, is a pretty good way to delay the peace process.

axer

Lemming wrote:

Ummmm ..... mmmmkay .....

Lets see now. The argued stance is that the IRA were only moments from a "noble", "generous", "courageous" act of decommissioning if only it weren't for those snooping, pesky DUP kids.

The PIRA have performed numerous acts of decommissioning which were not good enough for those "pesky DUP kids".

Lemming wrote:

At what point did I suggest that the IRA were about to disband axer? Re-read what I said. ALlow me to refresh your short memory



Now ... exactly where was the bit about disbanding in that? Nowhere?? OKayyy, we're in agreement. We're making progress....

Ok - then we are in agreement then - that the acts of training, recruitment and arming does not break the ceasefire as the PIRA have not agreed to disband.

Lemming wrote:

I don't know. Why don't you ask them? The same could be asked of why the IRA didn't want to give them a photo of what would have been proof of their "generous" and "courageous" act?

See ... that point flips both ways.

Well I get the impression that you seem to think that there was no problem with the DUP asking for photos. The IRA would not agree because it would be used as propoganda by the DUP and used to try and humiliate the PIRA.

Lemming wrote:

And once again I'm going to say that you have missed the point of what a ceasefire is. Giving me a definition of it is lovely and all, but do you understand what it implies to make it work?

Yes I do. Those actions of training, recruitment and arming do not break the ceasefire.

Lemming wrote:

So who was this "totally" independant witness then? Better than an intelligence officer from a country with which SF/IRA enjoyed a love-affair up until recently? Bette than an intelligence officer frmo a country whom is not interested in SF/IRA one way or the other?

Lemming wrote:

Nothing. I never said there was.

You seem to imply that General John de Chastelain was not totally independant witness.

axer

axer wrote:

Yes I do. Those actions of training, recruitment and arming do not break the ceasefire.

As a matter of interest, based on your apparent approval of this, do you think I should get together with sparks(the mod of the shooting forum here) and advertise training in some random field with unlicenced weaponery? or is it only the IRA that are above the law in this regard?

And again I've asked this already, what is the purpose of this training?

axer

mycroft wrote:

I have nifty little statements from senior politicans. Theres also the two previous raids last year on cash n carrys in 2004.

WTF...I have nifty little statements from senior politicans????.And I suppose members of the IRA have been proven to be involved in those raids and have been subsequently brought to court and sentenced?

mycroft wrote:

Snort....... At the very least they're breaking the spirit of a ceasefire, if they're recruiting and arming then they're recruiting and arming for a purpose.

What does "snort" mean? I havent been posting on boards long. Ok, So you are suspicious of their motives for recruiting and arming - thats fair enough - but it is what the organisation does to survive. It does not break the ceasefire and they can still decommission.

mycroft wrote:

And punishment shootings and robberies aren't agressive actions?

Not against the british establishment.

mycroft wrote:

The first thing and this is always the special part of an IRA apologist is they don't offer an alternative, who could the IMC consist of, and where exactly could they gather evidence from?

Secondly as a list goes, the IMC has to report back to the parties involved in the peace process and that to me seems like a fair enought list. Who should be on it if not them? Earthman listed off fair reasons for each member.

I am not saying I know of people who would be unbiased but I do know that each of the members have reason to be biased against the IRA or Sinn Fein.

mycroft wrote:

Handy debating tip don't wave me in the direction of the report and go, "meh you read it" You dismissed the reports credibility and then used the report to justify claims that the IRA and SF leadership aren't the same. You don't get to impunge the credibility of a source and then use the same it back up an assertion. At least try not to do it in the same post.

I show you the contradictions of the report - I see you dont have a problem with the report thus I will show you on the report why the report is not credible. Whats your problem with that?

mycroft wrote:

Seriously guys we've got to come up with some Sinn Fein support related godwin's law

Now I'm not a supporter of SF/IRA, but...... :rolleyes:

Again call me nuts I think a terrorist army, recruiting, arming, engage in paramilitary beatings, protecting it's members who've commited murder, and robbing, is a pretty good way to delay the peace process.

What the **** are you on about with godwins law?? As had been said on the other thread - I do not have to be a supporter of Sinn Fein or the IRA to be a republican. I can see, from a republican point of view, that the report is bull****.

axer

Earthman wrote:

As a matter of interest, based on your apparent approval of this, do you think I should get together with sparks(the mod of the shooting forum here) and advertise training in some random field with unlicenced weaponery? or is it only the IRA that are above the law in this regard?

And again I've asked this already, what is the purpose of this training?

Where did I say that I approve of the training?? I think you should read again. How would I know what the purpose of the training is. I am not a member of the IRA but I do know that it does not break the ceasefire to train its members.

axer

axer wrote:

Where did I say that I approve of the training??

would you like to clarify what your position is?

How would I know what the purpose of the training is. I am not a member of the IRA but I do know that it does not break the ceasefire to train its members.

I asked what the training was for, if you forgive the pun, it was a loaded question.
What would the IRA be training its members for exactly? I've already stated that its probably not flower arranging,and I think you and I both know what type of training the IMC had in mind when they stated that training was going on.

So I repeat the question, what possible purpose would this training serve,other than to train members in activities to subvert the rule of law?

axer

Earthman wrote:

would you like to clarify what your position is?
What do you mean? My position as to the IRA or my position as to sinn fein? or both?

Earthman wrote:

I asked what the training was for, if you forgive the pun, it was a loaded question.
What would the IRA be training its members for exactly? I've already stated that its probably not flower arranging,and I think you and I both know what type of training the IMC had in mind when they stated that training was going on.

So I repeat the question, what possible purpose would this training serve,other than to train members in activities to subvert the rule of law?

If you know the answer then why are you asking me?? Of course they would be giving weapons training...considering thats what the organisation uses. Whether the training is for a specific purpose or general training I could not tell you. Why is it such a surprise that they are training their members?? What good are their members if they do not know how to use a weapon? I am not condoning them but i really cant see why people are so surprised to hear that the PIRA are recruiting and training their members.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

So I repeat the question, what possible purpose would this training serve,other than to train members in activities to subvert the rule of law?

Well Earthman, i don't think the IMC detail what sort of training they believe is being done.
Maybe it was in firearms, maybe explosives training, maybe it was anti-interrogation. The article doesn't specify. So i suppose idle minds will fill the void.
But regardless: an army is like a machine, and if the machine is not well oiled and serviced, it does not perform well, or maybe not perform at all.
So I would hazard a guess and say that an army must remain in motion, must gain new recruits and train them, otherwise it doesn't function.
Discipline in these affairs is a good thing, and i believe we can all agree on. Wouldn't want to see rogue elements of the IRA doing their own thing now would we?

Perhaps the IRA have learnt the lessons of history: ie Burning of the Falls, Battle of the Bogside; and are determined not to let their guard down.

mycroft

axer wrote:

WTF...I have nifty little statements from senior politicans????.And I suppose members of the IRA have been proven to be involved in those raids and have been subsequently brought to court and sentenced?

We've actually been down this road on this board many times before. What you know and what you can prove are very different things. Serious statements from justice ministers and senior police officals have stated they know the IRA commited the robbery. In a similar vein we know the Real IRA commited the Omagh bombing. Putting together a airtight case takes time, and resoucres.

What does "snort" mean? I havent been posting on boards long. Ok, So you are suspicious of their motives for recruiting and arming - thats fair enough - but it is what the organisation does to survive. It does not break the ceasefire and they can still decommission.

snort=mocking.

Okay 1; survive how? Secondly seeing as the decommisioning process is about putting weapons beyond use, trashing a bunch of weapons while trying to smuggle in another set of "clean" weapons makes a mockery of a commitment to decomission.

Not against the british establishment.

So the IRA can be on ceasefire, murder a Gardai, commit punishment beatings and robberies and still be on ceasefire?

I am not saying I know of people who would be unbiased but I do know that each of the members have reason to be biased against the IRA or Sinn Fein.

Okay why does the CIA officer, the London Met officer, and the representive of the Irish Justice ministry have reasons? And what are they?

I show you the contradictions of the report - I see you dont have a problem with the report thus I will show you on the report why the report is not credible. Whats your problem with that?

:rolleyes:

Because you can't rip apart the credibility of a report and then in the same breath use it to defend another assertion. If you don't find it credible don't use it to support your claims.

What the **** are you on about with godwins law?? As had been said on the other thread - I do not have to be a supporter of Sinn Fein or the IRA to be a republican. I can see, from a republican point of view, that the report is bull****.

No but it does allow you a little bit of moral flexibility and wriggle room when faced with the less papable aspects of the republican history, you can say "I support repubilicanism just not that specific act. Tell me, who do you support? the INLA? the IRSP? What group in the republican movement echos your point of view?

Well Earthman, i don't think the IMC detail what sort of training they believe is being done.
Maybe it was in firearms, maybe explosives training, maybe it was anti-interrogation. The article doesn't specify. So i suppose idle minds will fill the void.

I do so love that anti-interrogation euphemism. The school of the americas used to teach "anti interrogation" techniques to Pinochets boys (If "you're" interrogated like this, "you'll" eventually talk)

And you're right idle minds will fill the void, I would be very curious to know what the IRA are training people in and why they feel the need.

Discipline in these affairs is a good thing, and i believe we can all agree on. Wouldn't want to see rogue elements of the IRA doing their own thing now would we?

Yeah we've been seeing plenty of how the IRA discipline has been like a well oiled machine in the McCartney murder. Face they're a bunch of barely controlled psychotic rabble with too much power.

Perhaps the IRA have learnt the lessons of history: ie Burning of the Falls, Battle of the Bogside; and are determined not to let their guard down.

I just do so love this. Six months ago we were just there, just on the brink we were told, the lads were about to make an historic move to finally put the past behind them and disband, if the DUP hadn't thrown it all away.

Now the people who were saying the above then, are looking at us in disbelief and telling us, "Sure of course the lads have to keep up the training, keep a hand it as were, sure look at the discipline problems we'd have if we didn't"