Is it time for the IRA to disband?

rien_du_tout

OK, so basically I disagree with the notion that the IRA needs to disband before any more progress can be made in the GFA, or for others across the irish sea - the Belfast Agreement.
I feel David Trimble isnt so much of a leader as a subordinate to anti-agreement unionists within his party. Generally all the blame for the collapse of the institutions has landed with the IRA. or has it, a poll in the 26 counties soon after the reintroduction of direct rule showed a minority believed Sinn Féin or the IRA were mainly to blame. getting slightly off topic there ....ok....

I think at a time when loyalist paramilitaries are not on ceasefire and very obviously with the main proportion of violence coming from their side. Is that a time for an organisation which claims to want to protect nationalists to disband? Even if we disagree with that claim it must be seen as a massive demand. I've heard more calls on tv, radio and the national papers for the IRA to disband than 4 the loyalist paramilitaries to stop killing! It just seems a bit 1 sided and I understand why they'd want to keep the organisational structure although I'm totally for disbandment at the right time. That being after a process of decommissioning which is what was demanded of them so little a time ago and people never thought it would start. Give an inch they'll take a mile. How's that for a breakdown of trust.

sceptre

Ignoring my knee-jerk reaction of "they should have disbanded in 1922/23", it's time for them to disband now.

"But, but look, the Loyalist murderers aren't disbanding" isn't a good enough excuse to make the threat of violence from the Nationalist side acceptable.

They don't have a mandate. Even assuming they weren't talking out of their collective behinds for the past 80 years when they maintained that the general election result in 1918 was a mandate for three to four waves of violence over the next seventy years, the proportion of people that voted in support for the Good Friday Agreement knocks that argument on the head.

They're not wanted - they should go. Oddly ebnough, the demand from theBritish government isn't for the IRA to disband, just to decommission the arms. In other words, they're not asking them to stop being mates, just to stop killing people.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

hallelujajordan

I believe that the nationalist community in Northern Ireland have everything to gain from the disbandment of the IRA. It would allow Adams and co. to claim the moral highground . . . . . it would force Trimble to do what he has failed to do over the last few years and put Northern Ireland and the future of all its people ahead of the biggoted UUP and it would really stick it up Paisley and the gang and put them in a position where they would have to recognise the growing democratic mandate of SF . . .

Cork

I disagree with the notion that the IRA needs to disband before any more progress can be made in the GFA, or for others across the irish sea - the Belfast Agreement.

I think that the IRA needs to disband. They are serving no purpose. I think for the sake of the GFA that it would be an act of reconciliation.

Typedef

To be honest, Tony Blair asking for the IRA to disband under visable Unionist pressure to the same, completely negated any serious potential disbandment for at least a decade.

If the IRA were to disband under such circumstances hardline Republicans would view such a move as capitulation to a British edict, which obviously implys disbandment is about the last thing the IRA would ever do when a British Prime Minister calls for such disbandment in order to prop up a Unionist Leader, David Trimble who was and is in the process of being savaged by hard line Unionists within his own party.

Time for the IRA to disband? Realistically if it were to do so right this instant, there would be many splinter organisations who would soak up the real hard line Republicans, embittered at what would be regarded as capitulation to British pressure, and most likely ready and willing to wage another war to redress this precieved agrievement. No, disbandment under such circumstances would be counterproductive.

rien_du_tout

Cork, I know people feel they serve no purpose but their original purpose when they were kinda reinvented in the 60's was to protect nationalists. So if we think of it as a war its one side surrendering while the other is still fighting......and the PSNI are stuck in the middle got love 'em.... ..

I agree that they have to disband. But the question put to u was is it time now for them to disband. Being realistic and not just saying they should disband and turn themselves in and go to jail. I'm not saying u implied this but people I've met irl seem to just glance at the news and say, "ah ya sure a can't have a peace process with them around". I admit there is a nationalist problem with punishment attacks, etc........ but this seems to always be placed above whatever problem the unionists are giving the GFA.

I think the important thing to focus on now is getting them back to the decommissioning body, realising Trimble is in an awkward position in relation to his party and doesnt look like getting out of it, and getting loyalist paramilitaries on ceasefire (between themselves aswell!)

seán

bonkey

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
but their original purpose when they were kinda reinvented in the 60's was to protect nationalists.

Please take your propaganda elsewhere. The IRA's actions would never be considered "protective" in any civilised or law-abigins society. I dont care what they claim they were up to, or even what their supporters want us to believe they were up to. Their actions, in the 60s and since then, are blatantly at odds with your above claim.

I'm admittedly undecided as to whether or not the IRA should disband, disarm, or anything like that, but not for any support I have for them. I'm simply not convinced that it would aid the peace process in any way, and could possibly announce its death. Basically, I have as much faith in the Unionists being serious about the Peace Agreement as I have in the IRA swearing that they have permanently put violence behind them. I believe neither of them, quite honestly, and unfortunately believe that an uneasy stand-off is actually the best way forward.

People seem to think that a decade is long enough to forge a peace deal covering violence and bloodshed that has a history counted in centuries. I think these people need a dose of reality.

jc

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by bonkey
Please take your propaganda elsewhere. The IRA's actions would never be considered "protective" in any civilised or law-abigins society. I dont care what they claim they were up to, or even what their supporters want us to believe they were up to. Their actions, in the 60s and since then, are blatantly at odds with your above claim.

I'm taking my information from Tim Pat Coogan's "History of the IRA". If you feel it's propaganda take it up with him please. The first weapons brought in by the IRA were brought in to protect nationalist areas from loyalist death squads and the like. There was a massive surge in IRA recruitment after bloody sunday due to people being afraid after the murder that had gone on. I'm not saying that all there actions were "protective". I'm just saying that historically they have a link with that role,adn that they themselves may feel that.

seán

bonkey

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
I'm taking my information from Tim Pat Coogan's "History of the IRA". If you feel it's propaganda take it up with him please.

Why? He didnt bring it here. You did. You presented it as your belief, not as the words of someone else which you didnt necessarily agree with.

If someone came in here preaching about how Jesus saves and I told him to take his religious fervour somewhere else, would you accept the argument that its not his fervour but that of some bloke who lived 2,000 years ago?

To say that the IRA did this for "protectionism" is to ignore the question as to why the nationalists were being targetted by death squads etc. I sounds horribly like a slant on "its ok for us to kill their innocents, but when they target ours, we need protection from vigilantes because its wrong."

Dont get me wrong though....this has the potential to be an interesting topic, and I welcome the discussion on disbanding or disarmanent. I'll probably even have a stance which surprises most people who know me. However, I will not stand idly by and have anyone offering any form of justification for terrorism, because there is none.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
when they were kinda reinvented in the 60's was to protect nationalists.

I can just about accept this argument, although I am hesitant to do so. The problem arises from the early-mid 1970's when most nationalist demands had been met - why did they continue at that point - for more that 20 years. That is where they let nationalist down (and got a lot of them murdered).

I'm not looking for the IRA to say "We surrender." or "We are disbanding.", all I want to hear is them saying "We are walking away from violent republicanism." and the Chief Constable in his security assessment to say "Nothing (no activity) to report."

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by bonkey


To say that the IRA did this for "protectionism" is to ignore the question as to why the nationalists were being targetted by death squads etc

There has to be a reason why they were being targeted? I still would say that part of the reason and idealogy of the IRA was to protect nationalists. From what you said up there it sounds like you feel the death squads had reasons and that it was republicans who started it all off. I dont claim nationalists were always the downtroden group which they are sometimes portrayed as but I do feel that there was a need for protection of those areas from British army areas basically invading them and from death squads. There was a nice piece on the history of RTE on last night........ aparently they aired a piece 11minutes long of them talking to the last remaining couple on a street where all the houses/flats were burnt out.

Wrong doing was done by the british army in the north just as it was in the south - The burning of Cork city for example.

I will not stand idly by and have anyone offering any form of justification for terrorism, because there is none

So for me to try to justify any action of the IRA I would first have to try to make you remove the label of terrorists on them. I think anybody which partakes in violence of any kind is a terrorist, how else does some1 using violence expect to achieve their aims than through terror? Do you feel the IRA in 1919 were terrorists, and do u see how that labeling people as terrorists blinds people from thinking why they are taking such action.

On a side not, I think the news neglects the north a bit. I was sifting through the channels last nite cause I heard a bit about Trimble getting upset at that irish document was released and I couldnt find anything on the 10o'clock news(es)!

seán

Victor

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
There has to be a reason why they were being targeted?

Nationalists challenged the status quo, ever society will have a backlash against such a challenged, albeit in NI the backlash was wholly inappropriate.

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
I still would say that part of the reason and idealogy of the IRA was to protect nationalists.

And promote their own ideologies (which at one stage included Marxism), control the Catholic population and set up their own little mafia-style fiefdoms.

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
From what you said up there it sounds like you feel the death squads had reasons and that it was republicans who started it all off.

No, but it was they (and others) who resumed and continued it.

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
aparently they aired a piece 11minutes long of them talking to the last remaining couple on a street where all the houses/flats were burnt out.

A Catholic Street? A Protestant street? A mixed street? But you didn't see it so how can you comment? Get over it, it was years ago. I'm not saying you have to forget or even forgive (yet), but move on.

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
I think anybody which partakes in violence of any kind is a terrorist, how else does some1 using violence expect to achieve their aims than through terror?

While history has been a poor record (the Gulf War 1990-1991 and the invasion of France in 1940 may be examples, although bloody ones), the objective of war is for a quick decisive victory, not a long drawn stalemate where you try to win by depriving your opponent of victory. Humanity can get over a calamity, but not prolonged calamity.

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
Wrong doing was done by the british army in the north just as it was in the south - The burning of Cork city for example.

As someone from Cork, while perhaps we haven't forgiven, we have forgotten. And IIRC it was Black and Tans, not regular army units that burnt Cork.

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
On a side not[e], I think the news neglects the north a bit.

Then watch some UTV.

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
I was sifting through the channels last nite cause I heard a bit about Trimble getting upset at that irish document was released and I couldnt find anything on the 10o'clock news(es)!

Sometimes no news is good news, but your statement sounds awfully like "waa, waa, waa, were not being talked about."

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by daveirl
rien_du_tout:Aren't you being very hypocritical. You said this today How can you be against war and yet try to justify 30 years of IRA war?

I dont see how I'm being hypocritical by claiming that part of the IRA's idealogy was to protect nationalists and that attempts at that were done during their campaign. I'm not saying that violence is right, but protection is different to attack and terrorist bombings. I'm not against violence so much not to defend myself against attack, in practice I wouldnt anyway. I feel the IRA are misguided in thinking violence will ever bring about a united Ireland but I do share some of their ideology.........

victor : I thought the piece on the street in belfast was relevant due to the fact I was claiming that nationalists were using the IRA to protect themselves against attack. They showed enough of the piece to get an idea of the rubble and destruction.

but your statement sounds awfully like "waa, waa, waa, were not being talked about."

No it was more like "ahhhhhhh David Trimble's taken some reaction that'll get himself and the peace process in a very large hole (like when he quit as 1st minister and the alliance party had to switch to unionist to re-elect him) that'll take months to get out of and I dont know what's going on and I feel really thick!:)"

seán

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
So for me to try to justify any action of the IRA I would first have to try to make you remove the label of terrorists on them.

No, but when you do try and justtify or defend any action, it should be clear that you are dealing with the specific action and not the actions in general.

I think anybody which partakes in violence of any kind is a terrorist, how else does some1 using violence expect to achieve their aims than through terror? Do you feel the IRA in 1919 were terrorists, and do u see how that labeling people as terrorists blinds people from thinking why they are taking such action.

The issue of what does and does not constitute terrorism has been a long-running and contentious discussion across innumerable threads here before. I assume you havent read those, or the stances of any of the longer-standing members would be manifestly clear.

It should also be remembered that condemning the IRA does not in any manner shape or form lend legitimacy to the actions of the British forces in the North during the same period. This is where my basic disagreement lies. I do not believe that the best way to fight a corrupt regime is to stoop lower than them, and I cannot accept any glorification of any such action.

On a side not, I think the news neglects the north a bit.

Maybe because theres nothing new to report. Its all the same old same old which people are tired of hearing. News isnt really about informing the people - its ultimately about shifting copies or attracting viewers, and you'll never do that showing people the news they dont want to see.

jc

Originally posted by Victor
I can just about accept this argument, although I am hesitant to do so. The problem arises from the early-mid 1970's when most nationalist demands had been met - why did they continue at that point - for more that 20 years. That is where they let nationalist down (and got a lot of them murdered).

In a phrase, the reason it continued was probably a thinly veiled hatrid of each other.
Any nationalist in a hard line Republican area, like South Armagh will tell you that harassment by the former UDR and RUC was rife.
It would not be unusual for young Catholics, out for the night to be pulled in on the way home and given a good going over.
Check points where people you know, in the UDR would be pointing a gun in your face, for no good reason, and name calling, were common place
That bred resentment and was a fertile breeding ground for IRA recruitment, where the..." they are harrassing us so we'll blow them to bits" tautology applied.
That was the genesis of the tit for tat that went on for the next 20 years.
mm

Victor

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
victor : I thought the piece on the street in belfast was relevant due to the fact I was claiming that nationalists were using the IRA to protect themselves against attack. They showed enough of the piece to get an idea of the rubble and destruction.

But you didn't even see it yourself (you said "aparently they aired a piece") so how can you comment?

Originally posted by daveirl
How is blowing up Canary Wharf a defensive measure anyway?

It wasn't a defensive measure, it was an act of war (illegal under the Geneva Convention). The IRA were bringing the war to the economic base of the Tory party membership. This and other bombings in London did create an incentive for parts of the British establishment to resolve the situation, as opposed to just 'dealing' with it.

Originally posted by bonkey
Maybe because theres nothing new to report. Its all the same old same old which people are tired of hearing. News isnt really about informing the people - its ultimately about shifting copies or attracting viewers, and you'll never do that showing people the news they dont want to see.

Yes, I concur, how about giving us some new news, rien_du_tout? Talk to your "friends" and ask them to give us some (good) new news and we will listen.

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by daveirl
You were responing to the fact NATO defended the Kosovars. Why is defending them not OK but defending Catholics is OK??

How is blowing up Canary Wharf a defensive measure anyway?

I'm not fully informed on the war in the war there but there is a difference, wether you feels its much I dunno, but the IRA was joined by people trying to protect themselves and their communities. It was themselves they were defending but NATO was on outside force taking sides and that can be dangerous if you pick the wrong side.. Wether NATO were right or wrong I dont know but I presume generally people think they were right.

I totally agree that public bombings are an atrocity best done without. And I find the bombing of mainland britain hasnt achieved much throughout history. Although they nearly killed tatcher(sp?).

originally posted by Victor
Talk to your "friends" and ask them to give us some (good) new news and we will listen.

I'm not doing to go on debating wether I have the right to comment on something or not. I do however want to know what was ment by this last comment?

seán

bonkey

Originally posted by rien_du_tout
I do however want to know what was ment by this last comment?

I think you'll find that its somehow related to your sig, your professed support for republicanism, and your considered defence of the IRA.

Condemning violence and acts of terrorism is easy. However, it is belied somewhat by the defence of those comitting said acts.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Originally posted by daveirl
Yep there is a difference. There was a war in The Balkans, in Northern Ireland their are just a load of thugs killing/maiming/injuring people.

To a large extent, but on both sides of the divide, not just on one.
mm

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by bonkey
I think you'll find that its somehow related to your sig, your professed support for republicanism, and your considered defence of the IRA.

Condemning violence and acts of terrorism is easy. However, it is belied somewhat by the defence of those comitting said acts.

jc

My sig means our day will come if you want to know. I think it is a very emotive piece of irish that everybody seems to know and has a deep meaning.
Yes I am a republican, yes I do feel the british presence in the north is part of the problem and that they should go but I know that's going to happen. I understand consent in the north is needed though I would prefer if it wasnt due to this island being Ireland. Ireland has more history as 1 than as 26 and 6.
My considered defence of the IRA is a defence of the people who were strained and placed in a position were the IRA seemed the good route to take. My considered defence of the IRA is to make people foget the crap they've heard from the British government as half the time it's as biased as an phoblacht. I do not defend any acts of violence but try to keep balanced the arguement. People here challenged the idea that any part of the IRA exist at any stage in history defended nationalists in some way. So I say my bit and I'm accused of being a member, well f*ck it I better join up 2day if every1 is so quick to jump to conclusions.

I have never defended any acts of terrorism, but do you count mortar attacks on an army barracks as terrorism?? coz to me that sounds more military like.

seán

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by daveirl
Yep there is a difference. There was a war in The Balkans, in Northern Ireland their are just a load of thugs killing/maiming/injuring people.

I was stating there was a difference in who was defending not comparing the methods of war. Come on.....jez.... from what I know it was more of a genocide than a war and I presume there was killing/maiming/injuring going on over there aswell so yes, you've got me there - the difference between the 6 counties and the balkans was that "thugs" were doing the violence in the north and different thugs in uniform were using violence in the balkans - simply amazing.


seán

In fairness from my perspective, one would have to be living in the North to understand fully, the complex reasoning behind Republican Violence and that includes Mortar attacks.

Down here in the South from my understanding anyhow people are much more removed from the every day situation that is Northern Ireland and find for the most part, the acts of Violence carried out by para milataries totally abhorant.
Not everyone in NI supports violence, or did support it, but a significant minority did and would probably never be convinced otherwise due to bad personal experiences.
The scary thing being that those bad experiences were so widespread, and the nature of the violence over the years was such that people who supported it grew it.

Human nature is a dangerous thing, and what has developed up north is a whole them and us thing, not unlike two opposing teams. It's going to be a heck of a lenghth, generations even in my view before an end is seen to, the them and us thing.
Remember most of the Fathers on the Catholic side will have vivid memories of the discrimatory society that was NI,while those on the protestant side aren't going to forget years of bombs and shootings in a hurry.
Really we should be thankfull for what limited normality has came out of the GFA and should be doing our best to copperfasten it imho.
It seems obvious to me that hard line unionists would like a reversal and organisations like RIRA would like said unionists to deport themselves back to the Queen.
Now it's almost 2003 and these oposing attitudes have survived into modern society...
Just goes to show how important it is to continue to shore up the current agreement, imperfect solulution as it is.

And yes Rien, to most mortar bombing would be considered terrorist, it achieves Nothing only further poisoning of peoples minds and death and injury.
Far better in this day and age to resolve issues in the ballot box , the ground work for the future peace, friendship , forgive and forget and yes eventually a united Irish people first, country then with patience.

here ends Man's Christmas message for tonight God bless ye all and off to the pub I go, toasties await

mm

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by Man
And yes Rien, to most mortar bombing would be considered terrorist, it achieves Nothing only further poisoning of peoples minds and death and injury.
Far better in this day and age to resolve issues in the ballot box , the ground work for the future peace, friendship , forgive and forget and yes eventually a united Irish people first, country then with patience.

I agree with most of the stuff I've just erased from your quote:) ok, just so people dont get confused I'm not saying mortar attacks are right, but I'm trying to ask people where is the terrorist line drawn? I think that war & terrorism generally do what u said. But I would see a mortar attack more as a military attack...... maybe I'm wrong but there arent any civilians killed (in an ideal case) and although home- made the weapon is conventional enough. Do people have to be in uniform to make killing ok? Lots of violence achieves nothing but wouldnt be considered terrorism........

seán

enjoy the pints and toasties:)

Heres where I suspect we'll disagree, but as far as I'm concerned only countries can be at war.
Military instalations in NI are British and afaik the Republic is not at war with Britain.

The IRA or more laterly the RIRA and CIRA may claim to be at war, but on whose behalf?
RIRA and CIRA have no mandate, as if that "war" was put to a vote, Lord Sutch would get more votes even in the 26 counties.

And the political wing of the IRA , Sinn Féin's vote is steadily rising since the GFA, which is a mandate for them being in government in NI and for the GFA, not war.

In any civilised democratic country in 2003, mortar bombing by an organisation against any target is terrorism.

Now you might say that the 6 counties are a bastard state designed to flout democracy by always having a unionist majority...
But thats not going to last forever with current demographic trends there.
I know the recent population statistics put the Catholic population at 44% , but I suspect it's higher than that as no conventional statistical model can take account of why in particular NI catholics might refuse to answer any religous question on an official British questionaire.
As someone said on another forum here on a totally different subject "...better say nothing and keep your head down like a Larne Catholic.."
I reckon that well more than half the people in the 14% or so that didn't answer the Religion question were of that camp.

But the spectre will be raised in the future though of what to do with a dis affected loyalist minority??
mm

eugene

Why should the IRA disband? They are the only people who are showing serious discipline through the process to date. The pathetic Unionists are so desperate to find some straw to clutch at, to try and convince the world (or anyone who cares anyway) that they are blameless in the ridiculous state that we now find ourselves. The simple truth is, the Unionists still want their bigotted and sectarian little state that existed pre 1972. Trimble is the one and only problem here and that is because he caved in to the demands of those two non-entities, Burnside and Donaldson. Of course he was playing a game all along anyway, being the hypocrite that he is. I suspect that these creeps are all in for a big surprise from Blair one of these fine days. Don't forget anyone, the Troubles started to gain the ferocity and terror after Bloody Sunday. Bloody Sunday was created because those very same Unionists could not bear to see "Uppity Taigs" on the streets demanding equality so THEY banned the Civil Rights March! They are responsible for the creation of the modern IRA who, don't forget, were acting in a defensive role at the outset. They were a nessecary force to protect innocent Nationalists. So, why should they disband? Not because of Trimble's demands anyway, that's for sure. The Republican movement has all but won the struggle now, and the pathetic squealings from Unionists display that very well. So, I say, NO DISBANDMENT!!!! Let the bigots wallow in their misery for a while longer and we'll see what happens. Roll on the elections is what I say.

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by Man
Heres where I suspect we'll disagree, but as far as I'm concerned only countries can be at war.
Military instalations in NI are British and afaik the Republic is not at war with Britain.

As far as I know only countries (independant states) can declare war but I think more than just "countries" can declare war. We here made war against the British to establish the 2 states we have at the moment. Ireland was not a state (country) at that time and yet faught a war and won independence, the same can be said 4 alot of newly created countries. Civil wars aswell dont always end up in 2 seperate states yet they are considered "wars" I dont think your point stands up but I get what u mean in this context.

Now you might say that the 6 counties are a bastard state designed to flout democracy by always having a unionist majority...

Although slithy off topic....... I'd agree that the democratic nature of the north could be argued against. It was set up when the majority of this island didnt want partition. If based on ethnic origins it should have left out alot of what it got, or for long term re-unification should have been given a bit more than it got.

So this was about the likeness of marotar bombing to military actions. Hmmmm...... I think that it cant be seen on the same level as public bombings...... and lower again, public bombings without proper warnings....... but I'm thinking way in the past. Sinn Féin has a total mandate for peace, and according to much of the information I've read on the north , ceasefires make the IRA fall apart to a certain degree and make it harder to restart the war(terrorism)....but does anybody really think they are about to do that? And getting back to the original topic of the thread. Is there anyone out there willing to argue that the peace process cannot survive without ira disbandment?

seán

rien_du_tout

Originally posted by eugene
Roll on the elections is what I say.

I agree that trimble and unionists in general havent done enough to show that the GFA is working for unionists aswell, but I do think that IRA activities were being done when they shouldnt have been, but were taken way out of proportion and used to shut the assembly.

What I'm afraid is that there wont be assembly elections coz trimble says the IRA need to disband b4 he'll go back into power with sinn féin. I still find the whole belief that sinn féin and the IRA are one in the same annoying......... they obviously have crossover membership but so did IRA/fianna fáil back in the day. and official sinn féin are now part of the 3rd biggest party in the country....... people can move to democracy so lets not block their path....unless you're talking of different elections?? sinn féin could hopefully win a few extra seats on councils down here in the near future.....

seán