Hezbollah v the IRA (any differences?)

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hezbollah will be the reason for action against Syria because Syria's track record on war is very limited since the 60's. In conjunction with that, it is equally unlikely that they'd have "WMD's". The argument will be that they are a conduit to the Hezbollah and could pass these weapons from other sources to the Hezbollah.

I have a problem with this argument. Syria is not directly involved with terrorist acts. They are as involved as the US government is involved with terrorist acts of the IRA. Alot of money that supports the IRA comes from the northeast. And as much as I'm sure conservatives would love to do so, we should attack Boston as soon as we attack Syria.

Hezbollah and IRA are both groups of freedom fighters that have used murder as a tool of the trade. The IRA is responsible for hundreds of deaths. The Hezbollah is responsible for hundreds of deaths.

Both groups seem to be fighting for identity and freedom, to gain what was once theirs. Where do we draw the line between the IRA and Hezbollah?

[spl_cadet]

Well, Hezbollah is focused on the destruction of Israel, while the IRA has effectively disarmed and disbanded if I remember correctly. Furthermore, Hezbollah uses suicide bombings.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 04:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68721#post68721)
spl_cadet:

Well, Hezbollah is focused on the destruction of Israel, while the IRA has effectively disarmed and disbanded if I remember correctly. Furthermore, Hezbollah uses suicide bombings.

There's also the matter of the pattern of national behavior. The US arguably has a pattern of national behavoir that encourages peace and cooperation to counterbalance the naive/foolish/evil support of IRA terrorism.
Syria's pattern may well be more questionable than that of the US.

[Vorkosigan]

The IRA does not use suicide bombings because they have an even more disreputable tactic: they kidnap a man and his family, and then hold the family hostage while forcing the hapless man to drive a bombed vehicle into a facility. Another important difference is that Hezbollah has not yet degenerated into organized banditry like the IRA, as far as I have heard. Protection rackets, extortion and other money-grubbing tactics were one of the reasons support for the IRA soured over time. It's difficult to chose between the two, in my view.

Vorkosigan

[Solly]

My sentiments exactly, Vork. And since the US and Brits aren't about to invade or bomb Eire and Ulster to get rid of them, I am not sure of the soon to be produced justification for doing the same to Syria. The rhetoric is hotting up already, and they aren't out of Iraq yet.

Of course, Eire and Britain are "friendly" powers...

[GrayPilgrim]

The real issue is, has Syria given refuge to the Fleeing members of the Iraqi regieme. Besides there are better ways to fry this fish.

[Solly]

On a point of order, since we offered him that route, does it matter if he, or others have now taken it? No one is hunting down Idi Amin since he went to Saudi.

[GrayPilgrim]

Good point Solly.

I think that as long as he stays in a similar situation to Amin, i.e. all washed up that is fine, but the problem is if he is alive will he be content to be a washed up dictator or will he try a Napoleon. So we will see.

[Solly]

They reporters on the BBC have been saying the Saddam has consistantly misread international opinion. they think he is in hiding, and will come out in the future to cut a deal with the West. If he did that, I think his own people would probably tear him apart.
While justice would be best, the West did offer him the escape route, so as you say, if he lives in luxury in Syria or elsewhere, let him go. But do a Shimei on him: one step outside and you're toast.

[GrayPilgrim]

I agree. I watched a news special on PBS a few weeks ago. It told of how back in '91 when members of the Arab League tried to negotiate with SH the all left thinking he was crazy and that he really thought that he would win the first Gul War. I think his bravado borders on the dillusional similar to Hitler's towards the end when he was moving the imaginary armies to counter the real Soviet ones.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 04:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69008#post69008)
Solly:

My sentiments exactly, Vork. And since the US and Brits aren't about to invade or bomb Eire and Ulster to get rid of them, I am not sure of the soon to be produced justification for doing the same to Syria. The rhetoric is hotting up already, and they aren't out of Iraq yet.

Of course, Eire and Britain are "friendly" powers... But the key to the point isn't that the IRA is where they are, but where they get their funding, ie Boston, MA. This is the argument to watch for. Bush will say that supporting the terrorist group is equal to being the terrorist group. That will be the reasoning behind the attack. The same reasoning should then exist for the American population in Northeast US, primarily Eastern Massaschusetts, that supported the IRA.

[Solly]

But jimmy, that would be like Osama bombing Afghanistan wouldn't it? :teeth:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 08:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69317#post69317)
Solly:

But jimmy, that would be like Osama bombing Afghanistan wouldn't it? :teeth: Actually that may not be so far in left field as one would think. He wouldn't be bombing the Taliban. He'd be bombing the American Regime, well that is if we still were helping to develop Afghanistan. In fact, it would be the "logical" next target.

[Pilgrim]

Jimmy, good question. Way back when the "War on Terror" was declared I wondered how equitably our new Foreign policy of no tolerance would be administered and if that policy would be aimed at the IRA. In fact I wondered at the time if that announcement had anything to do with the "disarming" of the IRA.

But I think we know that the policy is not intended to go any further than the Mid East bounderies.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 07:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69306#post69306)
Jimmy Higgins:

But the key to the point isn't that the IRA is where they are, but where they get their funding, ie Boston, MA. This is the argument to watch for. Bush will say that supporting the terrorist group is equal to being the terrorist group. That will be the reasoning behind the attack. The same reasoning should then exist for the American population in Northeast US, primarily Eastern Massaschusetts, that supported the IRA.
Not just Boston. There are a lot of us in Missouri, too. The IRA recieved tens of thousands of dollars annually from Missouri-based channels.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 09:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69394#post69394)
Pilgrim:

Jimmy, good question. Way back when the "War on Terror" was declared I wondered how equitably our new Foreign policy of no tolerance would be administered and if that policy would be aimed at the IRA. In fact I wondered at the time if that announcement had anything to do with the "disarming" of the IRA.
Not really. At best, 9/11 might have sped the process, but the cease fires and plans for disarmament began in '97, as I recall, before the "War on Terror."

[Solly]

Eireann's right.
I think it speeded up when Gerry realised that unqualified support would not be forthcoming from the administration any more.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 03:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69394#post69394)
Pilgrim:

Jimmy, good question. Way back when the "War on Terror" was declared I wondered how equitably our new Foreign policy of no tolerance would be administered and if that policy would be aimed at the IRA. In fact I wondered at the time if that announcement had anything to do with the "disarming" of the IRA.

But I think we know that the policy is not intended to go any further than the Mid East bounderies.

Like, for instance, it would never be applied in non-Mid East places like Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Phillipines?
:huh:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69412#post69412)
Captain Ochre:
Like, for instance, it would never be applied in non-Mid East places like Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Phillipines?
:huh: Yeah. And Sri Lanka (The Bengals), Spain (ETA), Ireland (IRA), any numerous factions in Africa. Pretty much if they are caucasian, don't have oil, or are strategically obsolete we don't get involved.

[spl_cadet]

Maybe it's just me Jimmy, but it seems rather likely that we'll get to them in time, that we are simply going after the worst first, followed by the more minor groups that threaten us, followed by the others. There's a lot of terrorism out there and it's going to take more than a year and a half to get to all of them.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 10:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69438#post69438)
Jimmy Higgins:

And Sri Lanka (The Bengals)
The Bengals are in Sri Lanka? Wow, I guess Cincinnatti must have gotten tired of them!

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 07:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70157#post70157)
Eireann:
The Bengals are in Sri Lanka? Wow, I guess Cincinnatti must have gotten tired of them! Speak about Weapons of Mass Boredom!

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 12:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70163#post70163)
Jimmy Higgins:

Speak about Weapons of Mass Boredom!

Maybe you confused "Terrible" with "Terrorist".
Hmmm?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 11:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69450#post69450)
spl_cadet:
Maybe it's just me Jimmy, but it seems rather likely that we'll get to them in time, that we are simply going after the worst first, followed by the more minor groups that threaten us, followed by the others. There's a lot of terrorism out there and it's going to take more than a year and a half to get to all of them. I'm sorry, but I just have this feeling of that being either a delusional or completely naive idea. How many millions have perished in Africa in the past 10 years? Certainly many more than the Middle East.

[Pilgrim]

NO if he was talking terrible it would be The Tigers!

GO TIGERS!!!! and take the lions with you!

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 07:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70169#post70169)
Pilgrim:

NO if he was talking terrible it would be The Tigers!

GO TIGERS!!!! and take the lions with you! It gets worse, I believe the official name is the Bengal Tigers.

:blush:

[Socrates]

Couldn't it made a felony to give financial support to known terrorist organizations, including the IRA and Hezbollah?

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 12:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70187#post70187)
Socrates:

Couldn't it made a felony to give financial support to known terrorist organizations, including the IRA and Hebollah?

Nope. Gotta bomb 'em.
:wink:

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 04:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70167#post70167)
Jimmy Higgins:

I'm sorry, but I just have this feeling of that being either a delusional or completely naive idea. How many millions have perished in Africa in the past 10 years? Certainly many more than the Middle East.

Correct, but last I checked the Africans weren't developing WMDs. Thus Iraq was more of an immediate threat to the United States. Besides, wait ten years and everyone will be dead or dying of AIDS anyway.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Part of the problem with targeting the IRA is that there isn't much organization. The official IRA, the group that is recognized and backed by Sinn Fein, is relatively small in number. They are not the same intensely violent organization they were 30 years ago.

Unfortunately, the notoriety they earned back during the 70s and 80s (not all of which was truly theirs, some of it was IPLA/INLA) guaranteed instant headlines, so a number of dissident groups, fed up with the IRA's new diplomatic stance, decided to take matters into their own hands and continue, even upscale, the aggressions that the IRA were abandoning in large part. Because of the guaranteed headlines that the letters "IRA" bring, many of these groups actually use them as part of their name, but they actually have no ties to The IRA or Sinn Fein. For that reason, any concerted effort to target Sinn Fein or Gerry Adams would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on stemming the violence in NI, because Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams have no connection to most of those groups still engaging in the violence.

The IRA has been fairly committed to negotiations and the diplomatic process for the better part of the last decade or longer. There have been some reactionary incidents after one of the non-affiliated groups would do something radical (like Omagh and Warrenton -- Warrenton was unclaimed by any of the dissident groups, but it does not fit the policies of the IRA) and claim they were representing the IRA. In such cases, unfortunately, denial of complicity by the actual IRA tends to go unheard by the media (gotta get those headlines, you know!), and they find themselves being targeted by violent attacks as reprisals for acts they had no part in to begin with ... and they've reacted in kind. But for the most part, barring attacks against their own organization, they have been respectfully committed to the peace process. Bush knows this, Clinton knew it, and the input of Mary Robinson in favor of working with the IRA and Sinn Fein toward peace has a significant impact on how the international political scene deals with the IRA.

The IRA grew out of legitimate militias that opposed British occupation. For most of the 19th century they carried on a diplomatic war, despite unprovoked British attacks against their mostly unarmed numbers. Violent reprisals from the Irish didn't become the typical M.O. until the early 20th century when the Irish Republican Brotherhood emerged. The IRB carried out what could be called guerilla warfare against the British, but nothing that would really be called terrorism (in those early years, the terrorist acts were mostly the work of the British and their conscripted Black-and-Tans). In the mid-20th century, after the Republic of Ireland was born (due in large part to the IRB), the IRB disbanded under the promised pretense that Britain would also relinquish Northern Ireland. When the Brits didn't follow through on that, those IRB fellows who were not involved with the Republican government (IRB co-founder Eamon de Valera was the first President of the Republic of Ireland) split with Fianna Fail and formed the IRA, under Collins et al. This early incarnation of the modern IRA simply resumed the guerilla tactics that had been so effective in freeing the Republic from British rule, in hopes that it would continue to work in Northern Ireland. They were soldiers who simply weren't sponsored by a government and were highly respected by many of the citizens of NI.

The spread of violence really increased a lot during the mid-70s, when the Provos and INLA split from Sinn Fein and the IRA and began carrying out acts of such ferocity that they were condemned by the IRA. But reprisal from the British was non-discriminatory, it targeted all of them, but mostly the IRA with whom they were most familiar. The IRA responded in kind, earning much of their current notoriety. But during the 90s, the IRA mostly abandoned that sort of violence in favor of diplomacy.

That diplomacy has been a hard road, though, because of the activities of non-IRA groups like the Continuity IRA (CIRA), the Provos, INLA, and the Real IRA (RIRA), not to mention the Protestant loyalist terrorist groups like the UDA and UVF.

[GrayPilgrim]

Eir,

Could you reccomend a good book on the subject (Ireland/IRA...)that would be helpful for someone who don't know jack about the situation other than what I've gathered in the news and a few Western Civ classes?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70482#post70482)
GrayPilgrim:

Could you reccomend a good book on the subject that would be helpful for someone who don't know jack about the situation other than what I've gathered in the news and a few Western Civ classes?
Hmmm, I'll have to check around for some good titles. Much of what I know is because I was there, a member of the IRA from 1987-1993 (active in both the US and NI), and thus had an inside line on a lot of what was going on. I'll see if I can turn up something about some of the different groups, too.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 09:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70301#post70301)
spl_cadet:
Correct, but last I checked the Africans weren't developing WMDs. Thus Iraq was more of an immediate threat to the United States. Besides, wait ten years and everyone will be dead or dying of AIDS anyway. And as Arianna Huffington said, well if Iraq was such a threat, why did their best forces fold quicker than Lorain Bobbit Circumcision Clinics?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Eireann: This has less to do with the IRA and more to do with the supporters of the IRA. We aren't going to attack Hezbollah, we want to pressure and attack their main pipeline, Syria. IE, the parallel to bombing Boston.

[geochron]

I completely accept that British colonial history has its share (maybe more than its share) of atrocities. Here's some background on Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland is about 50-50 Protestant and Catholic, both of whose heritage is based on living there for hundreds of years. Neither wants to live in a state dominated by the other. Historically the Protestants have oppressed the Catholics.

Both sides have their share of misguided patriots and sinister thugs, both sets of 'freedom fighters' (mostly fighting for the freedom to oppress the opposing side) are now more interested in sustaining their drug dealing and protection rackets (essentially managing the crime in their neighbourhoods). When you hear about them shooting drug dealers the word missing is 'rival'. They shoot rival drug dealers.

Even in the middle of the so-called peace process, punishment beatings, murders and knee cappings continue with all the old enthusiasm - the IRA kidnap people and shoot their kneecaps off (the protestants like to use power tools).

Everybody in Northern Ireland gets to vote in elections, just like the rest of us. All have recourse to the law including the European convention on human rights. In fact both the UK and Eire are now part of the European Union and citizenship is effectively common. What is now the point of thus Irish Unity thing? Especially since prosperous Eire wants Northern Ireland about as much as they want a plague of boils.

If you happen to marry outside your sect - you risk one or other bunch of crazies bursting into your house and shooting you or your partner when they feel the need for a 'reprisal'.

The notion that the situation would have been resolved by British withdrawal and Irish unity is fantasy - the Eire government would then be left with Protestant lunatics leaving bombs in Dublin shopping centres. The situation will be resolved when the majority of the populations of both communities let go of their grievances and isolate the violent minorities. And when people from outside stop their well-intentioned support of one side or the other. Nobody can fix it but them.

We are at a crucial stage in Northern Irish history, where Sinn Fein have to commit to following only the democratic path if devolved rule is to be continued. Hear that ringing silence? Imagine the US response to a party that reserved the right to blow things up and shoot people if it didn't get its way?

For those who don't remember, the Warrington bomb was left in a garbage can outside MacDonalds on a Saturday morning - two children died. The Manchester bomb was a lorryload of explosive detonated in the middle of one of the busiest shopping centres in Britain on a Saturday morning (I heard it go off, as it happens). Sinn Fein do not repudiate these tactics - they won't say that this sort of thing is wrong. They certainly won't help track down the people responsible. If this had happened in the USA, there would be no mealy-mouthed romanticism about the people who support it. I've heard Gerry Adams equivocating about the terrorists far too often in my lifetime and I'm sick of it. Put up or shut up.

So what do we do if they don't disarm? What would the USA do if this was going on in Hawaii?

[Solly]

Today @ 02:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70811#post70811)
geochron:
Imagine the US response to a party that reserved the right to blow things up and shoot people if it didn't get its way?


To wit: the Oklahoma bombing.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 01:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70780#post70780)
Jimmy Higgins:

And as Arianna Huffington said, well if Iraq was such a threat, why did their best forces fold quicker than Lorain Bobbit Circumcision Clinics?

Is that a straw man lurking there? The US was never afraid a direct military action against us by the Iraqi military. The threat of Iraq's military was via its threat to its neighbors and by extension to our vital interests (including--in a major way, but not limited to--oil). The threat of Iraq's WMD was their potential use against neighbors to achieve a strategic advantage, and their potential use against the US or US interests (terrorism), or the sale of such to those who would do the same.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 05:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70780#post70780)
Jimmy Higgins:

And as Arianna Huffington said, well if Iraq was such a threat, why did their best forces fold quicker than Lorain Bobbit Circumcision Clinics?

Because the US forces are the best trained and equipped in the world and happen to know how to fight a war.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 08:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70811#post70811)
geochron:

When you hear about them shooting drug dealers the word missing is 'rival'. They shoot rival drug dealers.
Sinn Fein and the IRA officially oppose drug dealing and such rackets, mainly out of a sense of a debt owed to the old soldiers of "the cause" who would have denounced such things. The IRA, you must remember, are much more nostalgic than many of the newer dissident groups, and in an effort to distance themselves from the new radicals, they try to maintain a sense of "how the old heroes would have done it" as much as they can. While there are some IRA members who engage in drug dealing, they don't do it in their capacity as members or representatives of the IRA, they do it in their capacity as individuals. Their actions are no more a reflection on the IRA than those a police officer selling drugs reflect on his precinct or an army officer selling drugs reflecting on the military (and both are fairly common occurences).


Even in the middle of the so-called peace process, punishment beatings, murders and knee cappings continue with all the old enthusiasm - the IRA kidnap people and shoot their kneecaps off (the protestants like to use power tools).
"With all the old enthusiasm?" I don't really think so. When the initial cease-fire was declared in 1997, the IRA abided by it for several months, even to the point of curbing reprisal violence. It was only after numerous sniper attacks against IRA targets, and several deliberate deliberate provocations by the British and loyalists that the IRA finally had enough and picked their guns back up. There's only so much provocation you can take before you realize that your supposed "partners in peace" really aren't interested in peace. Then when the Brits see that their provocations finally earned a reaction, they start crying and pointing their fingers, saying, "See, they don't want peace!" Well, when the Brits and loyalists are undermining the peace process from day one with provocative attacks, what do you expect?


Everybody in Northern Ireland gets to vote in elections, just like the rest of us. All have recourse to the law including the European convention on human rights. In fact both the UK and Eire are now part of the European Union and citizenship is effectively common.
Much of which is a fairly recent development directly as the result of the work of Gerry Adams, Mary Robinson and Bill Clinton (interestingly enough). Clinton, being both Irish and very charismatic, went a long way toward garnering Protestant support for the Catholic plight (from both American and Irish protestants). And Mary Robinson, being a former President of the Republic of Ireland (I met her in person a few months ago when she visited UMSL; a wonderful person!), sent a powerful message when she showed her willingness to sit down and work with Sinn Fein. Until those developments, Catholics were not allowed to hold a seat in NI's parliament. Even now, the Catholic representation is nominal and disproportionate.


What is now the point of thus Irish Unity thing?
Irish Unity is only one of the possible outcomes that Sinn Fein advocates. They have expressed preference for that outcome but would be willing to accept any of these:

1) Unity with the Republic
2) Sovereignty and Self-rule
3) Union with Britain, but withdrawal of all but nominal British forces, with self-governance and proportionate parliament (a political tie to Britain in name only, such as what we see with Canada).


Especially since prosperous Eire wants Northern Ireland about as much as they want a plague of boils.
The primary goal is to sever the governance of England over Northern Ireland. At this point, what Eire wants is secondary, and that bridge will be crossed when they come to it. If Northern Ireland should ever win free of England, and Eire doesn't want it to join the Republic, then sovereignty is always an option.


If you happen to marry outside your sect - you risk one or other bunch of crazies bursting into your house and shooting you or your partner when they feel the need for a 'reprisal'.
That has little to do with the IRA or Sinn Fein and everything to do with the tensions between Catholics and Protestants that date to centuries before the IRA or Sinn Fein ever existed.


The notion that the situation would have been resolved by British withdrawal and Irish unity is fantasy - the Eire government would then be left with Protestant lunatics leaving bombs in Dublin shopping centres.
Not necessarily. This conjecture first assumes that British withdrawal will automatically mean annexation by Eire. It also presupposes that the Catholics will act with improper decorum to spite or incite the Protestants. It's possible they will, but it's also possible they won't.


The situation will be resolved when the majority of the populations of both communities let go of their grievances and isolate the violent minorities.
Agreed. Which is precisely what several members of the IRA, Sinn Fein and the British are working towards.


And when people from outside stop their well-intentioned support of one side or the other. Nobody can fix it but them.
Not necessarily true. As I said above, consider the progress that was made as the result of interventions by both Mary Robinson and Bill Clinton.


We are at a crucial stage in Northern Irish history, where Sinn Fein have to commit to following only the democratic path if devolved rule is to be continued.
I think both the IRA and Sinn Fein have done an admirable job of sticking to that path, with few altercations, even in the face of constant deliberate provocation from British and loyalist groups who oppose peace and in the face of radical anti-British groups like CIRA, RIRA, and the Provos who also undermine the efforts of the IRA and Sinn Fein.


Hear that ringing silence? Imagine the US response to a party that reserved the right to blow things up and shoot people if it didn't get its way?
That's not a very accurate picture of the IRA and Sinn Fein of today. In truth, they've shown a remarkable and stoic will to commit to peace, despite the obstacles I mentioned above.


For those who don't remember, the Warrington bomb was left in a garbage can outside MacDonalds on a Saturday morning - two children died.
There is very little evidence that the IRA had anything to do with the Warrington bombing. There are a number of policies in place within the official IRA. One of the most important of those policies is that any attack on non-military properties is to be preceeded by no fewer than three advance warnings, the last of which must preceed the attack by at least two hours. If there is a demonstrable likelihood that a target cannot be evacuated within two hours, that target is to be abandoned. The goal of the IRA is to send a message by taking a toll in property damage, not to take a toll in civilian lives.


The Manchester bomb was a lorryload of explosive detonated in the middle of one of the busiest shopping centres in Britain on a Saturday morning (I heard it go off, as it happens).
I know there was a bombing in Manchester, but I am not privy to any of the details surrounding that bombing, so I can't speak to whether or not the IRA was involved. Were there warning prior to the bombing, and did they fit the pattern I set out above? If not, it isn't likely the official IRA was involved.


Sinn Fein do not repudiate these tactics - they won't say that this sort of thing is wrong.
Actually, yes they do, quite often in fact. The problem is, as I've said before, the media chooses to discount their protests. Sinn Fein has publically denounced attacks against civilian targets that were intended to take human lives. The media tends to portray such denouncements as insincere, and many of you buy the media's slant. I'm a member of Sinn Fein, though, and a former IRA member. I know from personal experience and from personal contact with Sinn Fein that it isn't just lip service. They do truly oppose such tactics.


They certainly won't help track down the people responsible.
They do what they can. There have been incidents where the parties responsible were eventually identified, and response was directed against those parties (after the Omagh bombing, the IRA began a manhunt for members of the RIRA). But despite what limited efforts they can put toward tracking such parties down, you have to remember Sinn Fein is a political party, not a police force.


I've heard Gerry Adams equivocating about the terrorists far too often in my lifetime and I'm sick of it. Put up or shut up.
Why do you believe it's equivocation? He was, as I recall, actually nominated for a Peace Prize because of some of his efforts.


So what do we do if they don't disarm?
First you have to identify who "they" are. The actual IRA has already demonstrated their willingness to disarm as long as they aren't going to be targeted by increased violence for doing so (as they were in '97 and '98).

[geochron]

Hey, it's just like hearing Gerry Adams or Martin McGuiness themselves.

"I don't know the details... was there a warning? ... we were provoked by somebody being shot somewhere...let's remember bad things happen in Northern Ireland...." But no condemnation. I guess theology web must be part of the media that censor everything to make Sinn Fein supporters appear equivocal, right?

Now's your chance. A bomb was dertonated in a shopping centre - repudiate this action. A simple "it was an evil and criminal act" will do. Speak out. Convince me there is an honourable IRA.

Or do you think there are circumstances in which a truck load of explosives detonated in the biggest mall in St Louis on a Saturday morning could in certain circumstances be justified? Perhaps you could elucidate in a thought experiment. Tell me what would make you look at devastated central St Louis and think, "hmm, terrorist group X were right, we deserved it".

And then there's this great argument: "nasty things done by the IRA are done by the evil other IRA who are nothing to do with Sinn Fein and their IRA" - The Bill and Ted, evil other us-es approach to the troubles. Maybe Al Qaeda should try this trick - "you're thinking of the provisional Al Qaeda, we're the official Al Qaeda who happen to be fighting for the same thing but repudiate anything which looks to be a bad publicity move. Now, hands up American readers, let's hear how impressed you would be by this double talk.

The official IRA offers to disarm, but they're not the ones who do nasty things (you tell me). The evil IRA don't offer to disarm. Nobody offers to distinguish the members of the two organisations so that only the good guys get released from prison. Did Gerry Adams offer to tell us which evil IRA members we shouldn't be letting out of jail under the terms of the Good Friday agreement since they weren't anything to do with his organisation or Sinn Fein? Or is this a distinction that only works when it is used to distance him and the rest of Sinn Fein from terrorism?

Everyone in Northern Ireland has a vote. The Republicans can't win an election and so resort to violence. Equivalent Unionist scumbags resort to violence to try to maintain their power base.

As a Manchester resident, forgive me if I fail to see the romance of today's IRA.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 04:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74911#post74911)
geochron:

A bomb was dertonated in a shopping centre - repudiate this action. A simple "it was an evil and criminal act" will do. Speak out. Convince me there is an honourable IRA.
Sure it's evil. Such things always are, in the end, which is why I quit in the first place. Anytime there is a war going on, whether it is officially a "war" or not, evil things are going to happen. They happen on all sides, and the fact that they happen doesn't change whether or not the cause that is ultimately being fought for is honorable. And repudiation of that act is rather pointless. It is evil, fine, there you go. But the question is, "Who did it?" If a member of the IRA repudiates terrorist acts by other agencies, such as provos, CIRA, RIRA, Hezbollah, Israelis, Brits, UDA, UVF, whoever, you're just going to cry, "Hypocrite." What is it you really want?


Or do you think there are circumstances in which a truck load of explosives detonated in the biggest mall in St Louis on a Saturday morning could in certain circumstances be justified? Perhaps you could elucidate in a thought experiment. Tell me what would make you look at devastated central St Louis and think, "hmm, terrorist group X were right, we deserved it".
Again, the question isn't whether or not it was justified. The question is, who did it? My contention is that the IRA may have had nothing to do with the thing. Just because the media screams, "IRA" each time such a thing happens doesn't mean the IRA actually had a thing to do with it.


And then there's this great argument: "nasty things done by the IRA are done by the evil other IRA who are nothing to do with Sinn Fein and their IRA" - The Bill and Ted, evil other us-es approach to the troubles. Maybe Al Qaeda should try this trick - "you're thinking of the provisional Al Qaeda, we're the official Al Qaeda who happen to be fighting for the same thing but repudiate anything which looks to be a bad publicity move. Now, hands up American readers, let's hear how impressed you would be by this double talk.
Like it or not, they are different.


Everyone in Northern Ireland has a vote. The Republicans can't win an election and so resort to violence.
Until very recently, they wouldn't have been able to win an election, period! Catholics were barred by law from serving on the Northern Irish parliament.

[chiefgnome]

Sorry to drag a thread up from a fortnight ago - but a few factual corrections - the "Provos" are today the same thing as the IRA. The "Provos" - the Provisional IRA - split from the Official IRA in about 1970, but has since taken over it's role. The actual Official IRA (known as the Stickies, as opposed to the Provos) has withered and died, and the IRA we see today is actually the Provisional IRA. Since the Official IRA called a ceasefire in 1972, the Provisional IRA has been the main Republican paramilitary group, and is hence normally just called the IRA, but "Provos" remains a nickname.

The Official IRA has now disappeared, only remaining as the "Workers Party" (although even that is now non-sectarian)

Have a look at the glossary on the CAIN archive at the University of Ulster (easily the best source for information on the troubles) which includes entries on the different paramilitary groups. http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/glossary.htm

There was a smilar split in Sinn Fein - the Sinn Fein we see today grew out of the Provisional Sinn Fein that split off in 1970. (See this page on Sinn Fein's website http://sinnfein.ie/documents/intro.html

The stuff about Catholics being barred from the NI Parliament until recently is plain wrong. Until recently there wasn't a NI Parliament for them to be barred from!

To look at it piece by piece, Catholics have been able to sit in the House of Commons in Westminister for seats in Northern Ireland since 1829, as in the rest of the UK.

The Northern Ireland House of Commons sat until 1972 when it was prorogued. Prior to 1929 it was election by proportional representation, after that in single member FPTP seats. Catholics were allowed to vote and were allowed to stand for the Parliament. At most elections about 11 or 12 nationalists would win seats (out of 52).

The Northern Ireland Assembly sat between 1973 and 1974 - it was elected by proportional representation. Catholics were allowed to vote and stand (indeed the SDLP won 24 seats).

Finally, the new Northern Ireland assembly obviously allows Catholics to win seats and always has - Gerry Adams is in it and has been since it was established. In short - Catholics have been eligible to stand for every election there has been since the formation of Northern Ireland as a political entity.

Finally, the IRA not only did carry out the Warrington Bombing, it claimed responsibility for it. The IRA expressed "profound regret" over the deaths caused and denied the police's claims that their warnings had been inadequate.

[Ryokan]

It seems to me that, if I were Britain, I would just get rid of Northern Ireland, and let the IRA, the PIRA, the communist, Catholics, Protestants, etc. etc. etc. just blow each other up and be done with it.
However I can't say I approve of any revolutionary organization, just cause or no, warnings or no, specifically targeting civilian property.

[Ryokan]

Its such a confusing situation. I have no idea what is going on or who to believe.

[Socrates]

Geochron (post#40 ):Hey, it's just like hearing Gerry Adams or Martin McGuiness themselves.

"I don't know the details... was there a warning? ... we were provoked by somebody being shot somewhere...let's remember bad things happen in Northern Ireland...." But no condemnation. I guess theology web must be part of the media that censor everything to make Sinn Fein supporters appear equivocal, right?Not me. But then, I'm Australian, and I condemn this unequivocally.Now's your chance. A bomb was dertonated in a shopping centre - repudiate this action. A simple "it was an evil and criminal act" will do. I totally agree.Speak out. Convince me there is an honourable IRA.There isn't. They are terrorist thugs. Gerry Adams shouldn't be given the time of day, yet Wilhelm Klinton was best buddies with him.Or do you think there are circumstances in which a truck load of explosives detonated in the biggest mall in St Louis on a Saturday morning could in certain circumstances be justified? There are no justifying circumstances.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90879#post90879)
chiefgnome:

Sorry to drag a thread up from a fortnight ago - but a few factual corrections - the "Provos" are today the same thing as the IRA. The "Provos" - the Provisional IRA - split from the Official IRA in about 1970, but has since taken over it's role. The actual Official IRA (known as the Stickies, as opposed to the Provos) has withered and died, and the IRA we see today is actually the Provisional IRA. Since the Official IRA called a ceasefire in 1972, the Provisional IRA has been the main Republican paramilitary group, and is hence normally just called the IRA, but "Provos" remains a nickname.
Correct and incorrect. Your source has failed to follow a number of developments since 1972.


The Official IRA has now disappeared, only remaining as the "Workers Party" (although even that is now non-sectarian)

Have a look at the glossary on the CAIN archive at the University of Ulster (easily the best source for information on the troubles) which includes entries on the different paramilitary groups. http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/glossary.htm

There was a smilar split in Sinn Fein - the Sinn Fein we see today grew out of the Provisional Sinn Fein that split off in 1970. (See this page on Sinn Fein's website http://sinnfein.ie/documents/intro.html
Your information is correct at the most basic level, however your sources have made some incorrect assumptions based on that information. First, they incorrectly assume that the Official IRA completely died out or went underground. This is not the case. There were members of the IRA who basically supported a peaceful agenda but were still not in favor of wholly withdrawing from the situation entirely. That element of the Official IRA existed and operated apart from but parallel to the Provos, and has done so since the split. That element is now fairly sizable, and is in fact the favored IRA by the current incarnation of Sinn Fein. It continuously grew in size as Provo members grew older, more restrained and more jaded by the senseless violence, eventually jumping over the tracks to join the other faction. So today, as it has always been since the split, there is an Official IRA and a Provisional IRA, and they are not the same, although they have exchanged places in terms of favoritism in the eyes of Sinn Fein.

Secondly, your sources make the mistake of assuming that the split between Sinn Fein factions and the split between IRA factions were equal and thus the Provisional IRA and the Provisional Sinn Fein are equal. They are not. The IRA split because of differences over methodology. Sinn Fein split because some no longer felt the need for involvement, while others still wished to remain involved. The splits differed both in motive and in degree. Early on, because the Provos were the primary paramilitary outfit, following the split, they were really all that Sinn Fein had to work with on a large scale. The Officials were only a small handful, and Sinn Fein used them mostly as “sleepers,” and to police the actions of the Provos when they got out of hand, which was quite often. As the Officials grew in number over the years, though, Sinn Fein grew more and more to favor them over the Provos, so that by the end of the 80s, the Provos were mostly an outlaw organization in the eyes of Sinn Fein and were a common target, in fact, of Sinn Fein-directed retaliation, generally carried out by the Official IRA (which contrary to your source, is quite alive and well).

See the Provos and Sinn Fein differed on what they thought the agenda should be. The Provos take more of a terrorist approach, believing that the most effective measures are those which strike fear into the populace of the Crown, and thus by channels would strike fear into the Crown itself. Sinn Fein, however, much preferred that targets be restricted to military installations and personnel, and to businesses and developments which represented significant economic and political interests to the Crown. In other words, the Provos wanted to target the people who were loyal to the Crown, while Sinn Fein wanted to target the coffers of the Crown, striking economic rather than corporal blows, hence the strict policy about warnings. As well, Sinn Fein wanted a greater presence in the arena of political activism as opposed to physical activism, reflecting the ideology of their sister organization Fianna Fail. The Official IRA stood behind Sinn Fein on these matters, which is why they have abided by the Good Friday agreement (and the cease-fires that came before it). The Provos did not back Sinn Fein on these matters, which is why they have not abided by the Good Friday agreement and are now more or less outlaws in the eyes of Sinn Fein.


Finally, the IRA not only did carry out the Warrington Bombing, it claimed responsibility for it. The IRA expressed "profound regret" over the deaths caused and denied the police's claims that their warnings had been inadequate.
Do you have a source for this information? As I said before, I can't speak about Warrington, because I don't know much about it. I have found numerous sources where the IRA condemned and the act, but I have found nothing wherein they either repudiated the act, claimed involvement or addressed the question of bomb warnings. If you could provide such a source which demonstrates such claims and address came from official Sinn Fein sources (as opposed to some lame Joe who made an anonymous phone call, as happens quite often), I would appreciate it.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 06:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90879#post90879)
chiefgnome:

The Northern Ireland House of Commons sat until 1972 when it was prorogued. Prior to 1929 it was election by proportional representation, after that in single member FPTP seats. Catholics were allowed to vote and were allowed to stand for the Parliament. At most elections about 11 or 12 nationalists would win seats (out of 52).
Okay, I retract that they were barred from representation. What they were barred from was proportional representation, by the Local Government Act. Proportional representation, as anyone knows, is absolutely necessary for a representative group to maintain any kind of real and fair voice in their own governance. That they were allowed bare minimal representation in their own governance stood more as an insult than a concession.


The Northern Ireland Assembly sat between 1973 and 1974 - it was elected by proportional representation. Catholics were allowed to vote and stand (indeed the SDLP won 24 seats).
And why was it abolished after only one year?


Finally, the new Northern Ireland assembly obviously allows Catholics to win seats and always has - Gerry Adams is in it and has been since it was established. In short - Catholics have been eligible to stand for every election there has been since the formation of Northern Ireland as a political entity.
This in no way contradicts anything I said. What you neglected to mention was that this new Northern Ireland Assembly was only recently established in 1998.