Monday, August 3, 2015

Tagged under: , ,

So, Was The IRA Defeated, Or Not?

Ed Moloney looks at recent claims by a former IRA chief of staff that the organisation he once led was undefeated. Ed Moloney blogs @ The Broken Elbow.        


IRA_undefeated
Add caption
For understandable reasons, Gerry Adams chose the 10th anniversary of the end of the IRA’s campaign against Britain – on July 28th, 2005 – to repeat a claim that the IRA was never defeated.

Adams was also responding, according to press reports, to recent remarks by British premier, David Cameron that, “British resolve saw off the IRA’s assaults on our way of life”, i.e that Britain defeated the IRA.

So, who is right?

In one sense, both men are right.

When a war ends with victory for one or other side, the event is usually marked by a formal surrender ceremony and the signing of a surrender document in which the defeated side concedes their military failure.

No such ceremony happened in 1994, 1997, 1998 or 2005. There is no piece of paper on which P O’Neill concedes with his or her signature the IRA’s defeat.

So, in that sense, Adams is correct.

But that doesn’t mean that Cameron is wrong either.

Defeat or victory at the end of a conflict is also measured in other ways.

For example, if one party to a conflict surrenders its weapons, that is, disarms itself at the insistence of its opponent while that opponent holds on to their weapons, then there is no doubt that the former lost and the latter won. IRA decommissioning happened at the insistence of the British and by agreeing to it signaled that it would no longer defy the British with force or arms. It may have taken a long time to happen but happen it did.

Then there is the question of war aims. The Provisional IRA set out to enforce the Irish people’s right to national self-determination, last expressed on an all-island basis in 1919 with a vote in favour of Sinn Fein, a party that advocated complete Irish independence. In other words the IRA’s war aim was to reverse and destroy the affront to this democratic principle inherent in the existence of Northern Ireland, an entity that came into being within two years of that vote in 1919.

In Unionist and British eyes, Northern Ireland existed and was a legitimate entity because the people of Northern Ireland had the right to consent, or not to consent to a united Ireland. The IRA disputed this right on the grounds that it offended the larger principle of national self-determination and through its war set out to overthrow this principle.

So, how did this pan out? Well not only did the IRA not succeed in overthrowing the principle of consent, its political leadership has accepted the principle and agreed to participate in political institutions based upon that principle and given its support to state institutions like the police force also created upon that basis.

It is rather as if the US and Europe ended up not only accepting the right of ISIS to exist but went on to embrace Islam as their state religion.

The other clue about how a war or conflict ended up can be seen in the treatment of the losing side’s leaders.

In May 2014, the PSNI arrested Gerry Adams and held him, like a common criminal suspect, in a holding centre for four days and questioned him repeatedly about his alleged part in a murder committed by the IRA during the course of its war against the British. It is clear that if they could have, the PSNI would have charged Mr Adams, put him on trial and see him sentenced to a jail term.

In the end, how one side treats the leader or leaders of the other side after a conflict has ended carries the real clue as to who won and who lost.

36 comments :

Ozzy said...

"In Unionist and British eyes, Northern Ireland existed and was a legitimate entity because the people of Northern Ireland had the right to consent, or not to consent to a united Ireland. The IRA disputed this right on the grounds that it offended the larger principle of national self-determination and through its war set out to overthrow this principle."
========================

What is left unsaid is the demographic changes that are been brought about since 1922..that makes this potentially the right time to undertake such a acceptance of the "consent" principle.

" Then there is the question of war aims. The Provisional IRA set out to enforce the Irish people’s right to national self-determination.."
==========================
Margaret Thathcer "...The Sick Counties of Ulcer as as British as Finchley"...
"...No talking to Terrorists"..blah blah blah... ( 1979-1990)

" .." Britain has no selfish strategic interest in Ireland..." [ Downing Street declaration 1994]
Of course the British haven't compromised at all (chortle)

British War aims were none other than to stop Gerry Adams by shoring up the SDLP.
And stopping the IRA.
BOTH Failed

In 1987..Thatcher banned the ITV Programme "Death on the Rock" about the SAS in Gibratar.
Many pple believe this was because of eye witness accounts of SAS Psychos shooting unarmed pple in the head.
IN fact the reason She banned it was because the Commander of Land Forces (UK)
stated that the Brits would NEVER defeat the PIRA. Which was contra to the Brits FAILED policies in Ireland.

Lots of people including the former British Colonel Tim Collins of Iraq war failure
State some form of UI is Inevitable.
if this is the case..than the SF strategy is none other than they want to take part in the DAIL...after this day comes.

Here's where you'll find that Tim Collins quote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11625848/The-truth-behind-the-Sinn-Fein-smiles.html

"..It is rather as if the US and Europe ended up not only accepting the right of ISIS to exist but went on to embrace Islam as their state religion..."
==========================
Hyperbole...See Downing Street declaration and Thatchers Finchley Speech.


Also, I believe history will show that Tony Blair will be the last Pro Union Taoiseach in ULSTER terms to serve in Downing Street.
cant see George Osborne or Boris Johnston as been pro Union..Nor is/will Corbin..Labours next leader(possibly).

"..The other clue about how a war or conflict ended up can be seen in the treatment of the losing side’s leaders..."
==========================================
They should DIG up Edward Heath and ask him a few questions ( Hint And not about the EU either)
And Michael Howard is helping police with their enquires about some deals in the City of London..don't you know.
And the Brits have Trident and a seat at the UN....So doubt they will be wondering about a knock at the door for the criminals from Number 10.
simply not done by Jove.
Maybe that's why they need to keep them.


Henry JoY said...

Some see defeat, some claim victory.
Others, they see the learnings.

diplockcourts said...

Some see outwitted, some see castrated.
Others, they see the patterns of Irish History.

Henry JoY said...

Exactly right 'diplocks'.

The mind is a pattern-matching device, especially so when in a heightened state of emotional arousal. When we're highly aroused the shadows take form and the mind mistakenly, for the most part, affords reality to that.

Many who have been traumatised by the conflict are still unable to exit their emotionally aroused states. They are blinded by emotion and unable to access more rational evaluation.

Its more useful, many believe, to accept bit-part progress rather than futilely hankering after the 'perfect'. Deep down most people, save the highly irrational, accept there's no perfect solution to many of our woes. Autistic binary black/white, good/bad, right/wrong, win/loose may have some relevance or merit in the courts but it will never provide a sustainable workable solution to our complex national situation.

Peter said...

The question is not IF the IRA were defeated but why? A "Long War" strategy clearly favoured the Brits allowing men to be trained, agents recruited and the well poisoned. More interesting is why they couldn't get the support of the wider community throughout the island. We all saw the sympathy garnered by the Hunger Strikes but this did not translate to solid support. The Stoops were top dogs until the ceasefire, and in the 26 support was non existant in areas. Dublin couldn't wait to drop articles 2 and 3 and today support for a UI is at best lukewarm. Did the IRA campaign actually entrench partition? Was it actually counter-productive? Seamus Mallon certainly thinks so. If the campaign had been called off in '74 and the CNR community united behind Hume, would we now be further down the UI road?

diplockcourts said...

Peter

"If the campaign had been called off in '74 and the CNR community united behind Hume, would we now be further down the UI road?"

You miss the point, in '74 the SF leadership wouldn't have been at the helm. If Gerry Adams was never in the IRA then what was his victory? The IRA fought an insurgency I would liken to moths drawn to a light bulb thinking it to be the bright silvery light of the moon. If the moth knew it was heading toward a bulb and not the moon well maybe then it can claim to have been successful. To what measure does Adams claim a victory?

HenryJ

Sometimes amputating your own arm or leg is the only survival mechanism to move on. But time is of the essence. If it is done quickly while you are still in good health then the body might recover but, where there is prolonged delay, the body was weakening all the while and amputation might be less successful. Perhaps a bit like Sunningdale for slow learners as Peter suggests.

Ozzy said...

Also, the brits are still denying they got beat in 1919-1921.
Any wonder they would deny it again?
Propaganda is all very useful..but when you start believing your own propaganda ..that is when the worrying should start.
For the Brits Iraq and Afghanastan spring to mind. as examples of hubris. Hubris born out of getting HIGH on your own supply.
A remarkable poor return on their "investment" in Ireland.
Nothing to be proud of.




DaithiD said...

God, if it wasnt, what would defeat look like?

Ozzy said...

Defeat would have looked like:
The prisoners not been let out.
Bans on people travelling to the precious "mauinland"
A broadcasting ban.
H blocks still open.
SDLP in power with the UUP.
Provisional SF become the new Ruairi O Bradaighs.
The NEW IRA would have more members.
The new IRA would have more members in Jail.
The New IRA would have bombs in London.
There would be army checkpoints/ helicopters
The Brits would declare the wee 6 as British as Finchley.
Instead of at least (temporarly) OFFICALLY realising it's contested terrority that it undoubtably is.
No downing street declaration.
No prospect of gaining power in Dublin..to deliver objectives for Northern Nationalists.
Jobs ( employment to be more accurate) for the Unionist bhoys.( UDR/ Peelers, Loafers in H & W and Shorts )
Prison for the Irish boys.
A new sports car factory in Dunmurray Part II ( to try and tempt nationalists from the New IRA )
And Harland and Wollfe been kept open..to keep loyalists sweet and have them loafing in a paint shop rather than the streets slinging drugs. All on the gubberments dime.ofc.
I could have saved myself some time and just said like the previous 40 years only on a smaller scale. But you get the picture.







DaithiD said...

Ozzy, ive said on here before,its arguable the prisoners release was as much in the interest of the British as Republicans at that stage, lest their jail cells become the modern equivalent of how Pearse described patriot graves. The downing street declaration predated the Official end of the Provisionals (ha quite literally!) too. Whilst there is no broadcasting ban as such, they will let you say something and just prosecute you now, freedom of speech has been hugely curtailed by ambiguous legislation.
There is too many to get through individually: basically, the British “concessions” were entirely strategic,and entirely on their own terms.

diplockcourts said...

Ozzy

Releasing prisoners has no significance over victory or defeat -German & Japanese prisoners were released after the WW2 and there is no Q about their defeat. In the IRA context prisoners were released on criminal license and not as PoWs. And there has been no amnesty. In addition, while in jail the IRA OC, PWilson, was a hard man against decommissioning (not one bullet for the release of a single prisoner)but on his release he softened to lead the campaign for SF on the decommissioning issue. Plus look at the savings the Brits made on costs of keeping so many locked up.

There is much said about how much money has been pumped into the peace process, which is true, but it is usually taken as stand alone and not held up against the true costs the Conflict was costing the Brits. Europe did not pay the Brits security costs during the Conflict but they have contributed massively to their new 'Peace Keeping' strategy.

There would be censorship if they thought it suited them -SFuk do not speak out of line -and even a wus like David Ford can slap them down. And SFroi do not intrude on SFuk's turf (not sure if that is just because the SFroi leader is the Green Baron who keeps them in check).

On the IRA front many IRA hardliners got well paid jobs that made them passive. And dissidents are just a dangerous joke who are doing more harm to their own cause than advancing it.

Up the People's Front of Judea! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

Peter said...

Diplock courts
I'm not missing the point, I am speaking hypothetically. There was no way the IRA were ever going to call off the campaign in '74 I am asking what would have happened if they had. Support for republicanism grew only after the peace process. Republican violence seems to have put off a UI by alienating the softer CNR community. So IF they had called it off in '74 where would we be today in terms of sovereignty?

diplockcourts said...

Peter

I was being rhetorical. If the '74 proposals were what was secured from the '94 ceasefire then the only difference is the CNR leadership (the implication is SF rejection in '74 was selfish motive to come out on top of the SDLP). Support for republicanism has always been around -FF did pretty well from it for generations. Sovereignty would probably still be the same -the loss of life and destruction to the lives of countless individuals and families would have been averted.

Henry JoY said...

'Diplocks'

Thanks for your link to the clip from the 'Life of Brian'.

Irish Republicanism like Christianity and most other ism's are closed systems of thought. Even the most benign 'closed thought systems' are inherently stifling ... the more toxic ones potentially evil.
That's the challenge with debate on here, so many are contributing from within a closed system. Even when one has exited, its still so easy to get sucked back in. Hence many of our exchanges have a repetitiveness and it all becomes like ground-hog day!

Humour and farce have a role to play in cracking these systems.

I wonder if the 1916 Societies picketed "Deathwish 16:The GPO" ?

Ozzy said...

Diplock and Daithi.
Some good points there from both of you. Re the freedom of speech.
The Thoicaigh Ar La case bears you out.
As for prisioners How were the volunteers of 1916 and 1921 treated by the Brits?????
Where they pardoned after 1916???
I don't know myself.

I agree also with Diplocks views vis a vis the New IRA.
I would only agree to violence if there was a chance of victory.
Any less is letting Irish people die and go to prison for nothing.
( I care little for any British "suffering" As far as I am concerned the IRA could have lasted 1,000 years and they still wouldn't even inflicit 0.00001% of what the Brits dealt to Irish.)

Just to explain myself further if I may.
The PIRA held the military initiative.
The Brits had the political initiative.
The Brits never completely seized the military initiative from the PIRA.
But the PIRa were never able to overturn the Brit policy.
But due to the fact that the Brits sat down with the IRA ( which they were loathe to do )
John Major said.." turn my stomach...." Until a mortar bomb landed in his rose bushes.
So, the Brits came to realise they had to talk.
The IRA didn't win...But they proved their point.
And that's the bottom line..They made their point and couldn't be ignored.

liam said...

What balder dash!!!!!!!!
Ireland is still under British rule-in fact in a sense all of the island for the so called 'free state'could not organize a referendum if it so desired about unity across the 32 counties.The brits are the boss!
The so called provos were defeated by the invader because they allowed those like Adams and McGuinness to become a part of the Collins mentality-a stepping stone towards a republic!
Can you imagine Pearse or Connolly helping Britain hold unto Ireland by participating in Stormont-a powerful means of British continual occupation of our island.
The provos were never the real IRA but definitely of the ilk who followed Collins in the last century.
Sincerely,
Liam Ó Comáin

DaithiD said...

John Major said.." turn my stomach...." Until a mortar bomb landed in his rose bushes.

Again,your timeline is a little off. They already were sitting down the IRA in a safe house in Derry (MMG and Oatley) (in the same house that Heggarty met his minders funnily enough).For me, the only thing that is unclear, is why the British tried to shaft MMG and Adams over decomminsioning, they knew it couldnt be agreed upfront, they knew what way they wanted to take the movement, and they knew they were the only two who who had the clout to do it, yet they nearly marginalised them. It doesnt fit my understanding of what happenened.
You make a decent case though Ozzy, a less obnoxious one than I have seen.

Henry JoY said...

Liam,

of course at one level you're right. That is if one views events through a prism of immutable dogma.
Its somewhat similar to arguing from a Catholic perspective that artificial contraception is wrong or sinful ... dogmatically correct but irrelevant in the lived real world lives of the majority of followers.
That fundamentalist Irish Republican dogmatism you advocate (and to which I once adhered to also) is much like crackpot catholics who still hanker after the Tridentine Roman Rite Mass and consider the loss of Latin, priests in civies, nuns in short skirts, and the introduction of 'folk Masses' as balderdash.

The changes brought about by GFA allows for the previously unrecognised right of Irish unification by the British ... subject to support of a majority of citizens in the occupied six counties.
This was not an insignificant advance. It allows possible fulfilment to that long held aspiration.
Its like as if what was previously a simple tenancy agreement, where the landlord held all the power and control, has now been re-written to include a buy-out option. The question now is can the tenants reach a consensus on that option and rise to the challenge. Can a majority be persuaded to take that on?

I doubt it ... its more likely that we'd all go back to the rhythm method!

diplockcourts said...

Ozzy

That is where all the confusion lies; to what parameters is an IRA victory or defeat measured? And from whose perspective. Certainly as far back as the late 1970's Brit military analysts were advising the Brit Gov that the IRA could not be beaten militarily but could be fought to a stalemate. The IRA view was mixed in that they could force the Brits to leave or maintain the stalemate. At the time of the cease-fire I heard some IRA men question its timing. In their view they were just starting to perfect its campaign over in England and the Brits knew it. If you recall the IRA had made a huge advance in its homemade bomb technology enabling them to detonate 1ton bombs in financial centers throughout England. Their modest view was that they could reasonably detonate, at minimum, one such bomb within a calender year. They could do so giving more than enough time to evacuate the area to minimize the chance of killing anyone. The argument goes that from the impact of the first few such bombs on the Brit economy and financial structures they could have secured far better terms than what would eventually be achieved in the GFA. That the Brits would have respected the peace process more because they would have personally felt and known the consequences to their own economy and infrastructure over in England. I suppose that too is open to differences of opinion but it is persuasive.

HenryJ

Yes there is all that but ultimately how do you reconcile the incompatible desire for a UI with the desire to be British? One of the strongest proposals is through economics; where it is in people's bread and butter interests over aspirational.

Henry JoY said...

'Diplocks'

I'll take a lead from that piece I linked to above "Deathwish 16:The GPO".

"It's a farce inspired by Karl Marx's line about history repeating itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."

We'd probably agree that what's going on in Stormont is a farce. Some might even say that some of our own discourse here on the Quill has a farcical element about it too.

Some situations are not immediately reconcilable. We need to face up to that. This is one of them. If there's going to be change its going to take time. AM has said that no one who fought for all-Ireland Republic will live to see it. I'd add that none of our children will either.

Economics can play a part, though many would suggest that element of Northern life is somewhat farcical too. Sixty per cent public service employment is just not going to be sustainable. Any hope of substantial and sustainable economic development seems long term and distant to me. Integrated education, the whole system through, seems a more achievable and a more fruitful intervention in the medium to long-term. Eventually, I believe, the deeply held fears, mistrusts and misunderstandings can and will be broken down.

Some of the work I do entails clarifying the difference between 'wants' and 'needs'. Aspirations fall under the 'wants' heading and as such will always be trumped by 'needs'. Peoples' needs in both States for physical security, economic security and emotional security (peace of mind) will always outweigh the loo-lah aspirations for the mystical and mythical Irish Republic.

As some wise guru once said, "growing old is mandatory whilst growing up remains optional" ... sadly it seems not everyone knows that.

DaithiD said...

You are a wiley old sort HJ, implicit in everything you say is the assumption that nothing more can be done to address partition, only our attitudes towards it, and that somehow this is progressive? Head progressively further in the sand perhaps (or somewhere less savoury!). Ill just say this, portable technology has only featured on one side so far. Its the genie the British are trying to keep in lamp. Lets all pray it stays there hey, for our modern idol the GFA’s sake? (Enough metaphors from me for the day)

PS just out of interest, how are integrated schools helping the yanks with their racism?

liam said...

Irish Republicanism

The concept of Irish Republicanism
Contains the objective of ‘peace’
And ‘justice’ at a national level.
In fact the flower of peace
Arises from the soil of justice.
For without justice peace is not real
And for Ireland authentic justice
Is the reality of the Irish people
Self- determining their own future.
Without interference from any other
Foreign country or entity.

A situation in which the Irish nation
Is governed by its own people
For their own people.
A reality which should be the norm
Throughout the world in relation
To all nations.

In this day and age imperialism and its
Anti-national reality should be dead
And buried based upon the death and
Destruction of its bloody history.
A death to be followed coupled with
The concept of authentic democracy:
That is government of the people
By the people and for the people.

Thus, no external country or a combination
Of countries nor, indeed, any section of an
Occupied country whose allegiance is to
An external country should have the power
To prevent the unity and the onward march
Of a nation.

Liam O Comáin

Henry JoY said...

Clever word play Dáithí.
Sean Bres could learn from your slippery ad hominems. ^_^

I thought I'd expressed my position on partition quite explicitly. I even included AM quotes on it. Are you of the opinion his head is in the sand (or somewhere less savoury) on this too?

And indeed the Unionists have had to move on partition also; they have had to, particularly so since the Scottish referendum, come to terms that their position is no longer carved in stone, no longer carved in stone forever and a day. In my opinion we need to be patient and attempt to understand and address their anxieties.

Dáithí when you hear Dr Big Mackers, a man who served eighteen years for the Republican cause, four of them the hardest of hard time recently acknowledge that Irish Republicanism could neither overthrow nor could it reform the Northern State, don't each and everyone of us have to ask ourselves some searching questions. Oughtn't each and everyone of us ask ourselves hard and searching questions about the whole republican project?
Doesn't one have to mine right down into it and look for inherent flaws?

Bottom line for me is sometimes you win ... others you learn.
The learning being for me, is (that) we can't force Unionists into a United Ireland against their will.

I may have gotten this wrong, forgive me if I have but I have the impression from some of your past posts that you espouse to be a man of faith. If that is indeed correct may I respectfully suggest an extra little prayer for you ... its only a short one.

"Oh Lord, make me teachable".

PS Neither of us can authoritatively state what inter-racial relations might be like if they didn't have integrated schooling in the States. I'd hazard a guess though that they'd most likely be even worse.

DaithiD said...

Thanks HJ,
the fact that I disagree with a man (AM *) who has been vindicated on every key observation with regards to Republicanism troubles me deeply, and for those partial to a bet, their money should be on him being correct rather than me. However, if we have learned anything from Anthony, its to not reduce analysis of an issue to a persons name (not that he pulls rank on anyone anyway). I can accept differences of opinion, but I dont accept one methodology is progressive and others not (obviously I need to be careful what I am typing, so if I am not clear bear that in mind).

With regards to the Unionists, I pay them little thought, since part of their identity is set antipodal to anything Irish or Catholic,so there is little point in the type of engagement parameterised by the GFA. But even if it gets to the position SF ostensibly agitate for, a democratic vote on unification, are you so sure:

...their position is no longer carved in stone, no longer carved in stone forever and a day...

Is it not more likely if there was a referedum endorsing Unification, the British would re-draw the border, giving up the green bits of S.Armagh ,Fermanagh and Tyrone to the South?
(* I appreciate your analysis on this too HJ)

Peter said...

Henry Joy
The faithful hate an apostate and you get your share of abuse and disrespect, yet you come back time and again to defend your position. Kudos to you, sir. Republicanism has been well and truely beaten. There will never be a 32 county socialist republic; there will never be a 32 county republic. If there is a UI, the wee 6 will be ruled from Stormont, the wee 6 will stay in the Commonwealth and the Garda will not police the wee 6 either. The republican inability to face reality is at times maddening and at times hilarious.

AM said...

DaithiD,

don't let your disagreement bother you in the slightest. Past experience/form is no guarantor of a correct current opinion. There are no gurus here and scepticism is a core value that we hopefully promote even if it might chaff when the scepticism is directed our way! Nobody likes a punch even if we are able to smile when taking one! But pugilistic or combative discussion is far from being intellectually harmful.

The comments above make this a discussion worth following.

DaithiD said...

AM, its like hatching matriphagous spiderlings, as our mother you have nurtured us thus far, but now we must eat you!

Henry JoY said...

Dáithí

There're so many ways I could respond or attempt to bring this conversation ... as a mathematician you understand complexity and the impact of variables better than I do, so I'll attempt to be as succinct and focused as I possibly can.

We hold different positions on all this ... indeed over the course of my life I have held varying positions on republican dogma/partition and all else it entails ... in 86 I prevaricated and then in my confusion tried to ride two horses for a while before finally rejecting a Provisional SF request to carry their electoral flag ... positions are positions.

I now do my best to find some over-arching principle before taking a position.

The genesis of all conflict, whether between individuals, communities or nation states is invariably an imposition of will. That, to my mind, is a fundamental principle of causation.

To resolve a conflict, the cycle of imposition and counter imposition must be brought to an end ... or otherwise subdue and render ineffective your opponent.
Those to my mind are fundamental principles of conflict resolution whether that's in the home, in work and business or between communities.

The process of how that's achieved is best left for another day, save to summarise that if such principles are not firstly understood, then principally accepted and agreed then no process is going to be viable.

Many people who call themselves republicans, or so it appears to me, are incapable of grasping such fundamental principles or are making the inappropriate choice.

I could go on and say much more but I'll hold for now and in the interest of clarity leave it at that.

AM said...

DaithiD,

as someone used to being eaten, the fangs just don't have the same bite anymore. We can grow accustomed to quite a lot - it is the human condition.

frankie said...

The first Nolan link is a "debate" between former Cptn Doug Beaty and Danny Morrison. Doug's opening salvo had Morrison running for cover...Doug's opening salvo ...FF the link to 53seconds until 1min 28-ish...

Who I thought was a great caller was "gabby" from Newry . FF 9min 34sec until 11mis 30secs... Then Danny Morrison argues for the "PUL perspective"....


Nolan Show


Gerry Adams says IRA was undefeated -

'The reality is that the IRA was never defeated and...it was Irish republicans, including the IRA leadership, which took bold steps to bolster the peace process...'. So says Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams in an article posted on their website yesterday.

10 years ago this week the IRA formally ended its armed campaign.
Gerry Adams was responding to David Cameron saying in a recent speech that British resolve "saw off the IRA's assaults on our way of life"


Controversy over a republican parade planned for Belfast city centre



North Belfast MLA Nelson McCausland and Eirigi spokesman Padraic MacCoitir
(deffo worth a listen)




The DUP have requested a meeting with the Chief Constable about republican parades, including a contentious parade due to take place on Sunday.

The Anti Internment parade starts in Ardoyne, goes into the city centre and then up the Falls. There was serious trouble at it two years ago when 56 police officers were injured.

A statement on the parade organiser's Facebook page says they will break a Parades Commission determination this year. It says the parade should be clear of Belfast city centre by 1.30 pm. But the organisers say the parade will start at their intended time of 2.30 pm.

Three loyalist counter protests have also been organised.

DaithiD said...

..as someone used to being eaten...

And yet so much of you remains... (Im a cheeky bastard i know)

Cue Bono said...

"With regards to the Unionists, I pay them little thought"

Neither did your predecessors and that played a huge part in the partition, and continued partition, of Ireland.

DaithiD said...

No Cue Bono, my predecessors paid them so much consideration it became a recipe for inertia with respect to the issue of partition.

Ozzy said...

Cue Bono.
Absolute wrong.
The unionists are defeatist people.
Who cannot stand to be in the minority. this is the reason for partition
Just like the apartheid Boers of South Africa.

frankie said...

IRA has up to a ton of Semtex and more than 200 AK47s hidden across Ireland, it is claimed

Details emerge amid claims more than 200 former IRA members no longer getting amnesty deal...

The IRA has up to one ton of high grade Semtex explosive stashed in hideouts across the island of Ireland, it can be revealed.

More than 200 AK47s and other viable guns including handguns and pistols, also remain in circulation despite decommissioning in 1998.

And 234 former active IRA members who say now believe they have been left high and dry by republicans they claimed assured them of an amnesty for their terror crimes.

The one-time IRA volunteers, all of them men, were expecting details of arrangements following out of the Stormont House Agreement which would allow them to ‘return to normality’ in Northern Ireland. Other republican terrorists including members of break-away groups were also to be included in the amnesty deal.

They say they were assured:

*Amnesties were being put in place to allow confessions and details of actions carried out for the IRA.

*Physical evidence of past actions would be destroyed ensuring it could not be used in court.

*An oral history would allow paramilitaries to reveal what drove them into action and who they acted for.**

But now they have been told the deal is off the table.

A republican source told Belfast Live: “The deal is off and our contacts have gone deadly silent so we’re left high and dry.

“People are stunned and very angry. There’s a sense of shock amongst us all that we were promised so much and none of it’s now on the table. We were assured everyone was ready to move on.

(**Wasn't that the whole idea behind Boston College project....)

The piece goes on to say...

"“The assurances meant we were finally able to look forward to a new life where we could live where we wanted, apply for jobs without fear of failing vetting, being identified for our past activities, be back with our families and stop looking over our shoulder.

“We were told that by mid September we’d have the details of the arrangements. I was expecting a letter. Others were expecting the same. Some just wanted the nod and no paperwork. Many have no records and they didn’t want the risk. A lot of trust was at stake here.

“But the September date was pushed to October while political negotiations continued - and now we’ve been told the whole thing is off...

“So the Shinners can say what they like, they can say the IRA has gone away. I’d challenge that. I’d challenge that to their face in public.

There’s younger groups forming now in the name of the IRA but it’s the old Provos who have the message. They see one-time comrades in £22,000 cars and fine houses, taking nice holidays and swanning about.

“Meanwhile they are stuck in a dead end job, or no job, scratching a living after making sacrifices for a united Ireland.


“When was the last time you heard any of Sinn Fein mention a united Ireland? They’ve sold out in the north and they’ve failed in the south. But for us, it’s not over.

“People are very upset with Sinn Fein, very upset. They are the subject of a lot of conversations at the moment.”

frankie said...

IRA: We HAVEN'T gone away and we're ready to return to the trenches

IRA footsoldiers could be forced to return to action if Sinn Fein fails to secure a safe future for them in the Stormont House Agreement, Belfast Live can reveal.

Former paramilitary bombers and snipers, “disillusioned and furious” with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, said yesterday the Sinn Fein leaders are risking a “return to the trenches” of the Troubles.

The veiled threat of renewed violence by the terror group, which former member Gerry Kelly MLA said on August 20 had gone away, would spell disaster for Northern Ireland.

The once-active Provos are reacting to the details of the Stormont House Agreement which they say goes back on promises made by their contacts within Sinn Fein.

One former republican commander who has around 100 terrorist operations under his belt, told Belfast Live: “We all feel we've been betrayed. They persuaded us to go along with the peace process and made promises. And none of those promises have been kept.

“Now the failure of the Stormont House Agreement is the last straw.

“I say this more in sorrow than anger, but either we move on or we will end up back into the trenches. And then there will be more bloodshed as the eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth mentality continues over the next generations.”