NationStates Jolt Archive

Full text of the IRA statement
Last updated: 28-07-05, 13:05

"The leadership of Óglaigh na hÉireann has formally ordered an end to the armed campaign. This will take effect from 4pm this afternoon. All IRA units have been ordered to dump arms.

All Volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means. Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever.

The IRA leadership has also authorised our representative to engage with the IICD [International Independent Commission on Decommisioning] to complete the process to verifiably put its arms beyond use in a way which will further enhance public confidence and to conclude this as quickly as possible.

We have invited two independent witnesses, from the Protestant and Catholic churches, to testify to this.

The Army Council took these decisions following an unprecedented internal discussion and consultation process with IRA units and Volunteers.

We appreciate the honest and forthright way in which the consultation process was carried out and the depth and content of the submissions.

We are proud of the comradely way in which this truly historic discussion was conducted.

The outcome of our consultations show very strong support among IRA Volunteers for the Sinn Féin peace strategy.

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

The overwhelming majority of people in Ireland fully support this process. They and friends of Irish unity throughout the world want to see the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

Notwithstanding these difficulties our decisions have been taken to advance our republican and democratic objectives, including our goal of a united Ireland. We believe there is now an alternative way to achieve this and to end British rule in our country.

It is the responsibility of all Volunteers to show leadership, determination and courage. We are very mindful of the sacrifices of our patriot dead, those who went to jail, Volunteers, their families and the wider republican base.

We reiterate our view that the armed struggle was entirely legitimate. We are conscious that many people suffered in the conflict. There is a compelling imperative on all sides to build a just and lasting peace. The issue of the defence of nationalist and republican communities has been raised with us.

There is a responsibility on society to ensure that there is no re-occurrence of the pogroms of 1969 and the early 1970s. There is also a universal responsibility to tackle sectarianism in all its forms.

The IRA is fully committed to the goals of Irish unity and independence and to building the Republic outlined in the 1916 Proclamation.

We call for maximum unity and effort by Irish republicans everywhere. We are confident that by working together Irish republicans can achieve our objectives.

Every Volunteer is aware of the import of the decisions we have taken and all Óglaigh are compelled to fully comply with these orders.

There is now an unprecedented opportunity to utilise the considerable energy and goodwill which there is for the peace process. This comprehensive series of unparalleled initiatives is our contribution to this and to the continued endeavours to bring about independence and unity for the people of Ireland."

An end to violence in the North, or just another meaningless statement?
Personally, I'm hopeful, but still keeping my fingers crossed... And of course there's the chance that the DUP will reject it out of hand.

I think i'll have to remain skeptical for now. They've promised things too many times and went back on the deal

A positive development.
However, it is not likely to end no-organised violence in Northern Ireland. The fights during marching season weren't organised by the IRA, so most likely they'll continue on.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if this decision wouldn't lead to some groups splitting off from the IRA and continue the "struggle"...

The Guardian's take:

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,1537901,00.html)

IRA orders end to armed campaign

Matthew Tempest and agencies
Thursday July 28, 2005

The IRA today said it will end its armed campaign and resume disarmament.
In a long-awaited statement released at lunchtime, the republican group did not say it would disband.

The order said members were to pursue peaceful means and not to "engage in any other activities whatsoever" - a reference to the low-level paramilitary activities which have angered not just unionists, but the London and Dublin governments.

With press conferences due later today in Dublin, Washington and London from Sinn Féin, the reaction from the unionists, and in particular the hardline Democratic Unionist leader, Rev Ian Paisley, will now be crucial to the future of the currently suspended power-sharing Stormont assembly.

The key passages of the lengthy statement read: " The leadership of [the IRA] has formally ordered an end to the armed campaign. This will take effect from 4pm this afternoon.

"All IRA units have been ordered to dump arms. All volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means.

"Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever. "

The IRA - on ceasefire for most of the time since 1994 - says it will resume the arms decommissioning process overseen by Catholic and Protestant religious leaders "in a way which will further enhance public confidence".

The long-expected IRA statement came after last night's controversial release of the IRA bomber Sean Kelly by the British government "on the expectation" of a move by the terrorist group. Earlier Sinn Féin's president, Gerry Adams, said the statement challenged republicans, nationalists, unionists and both governments.

The exact wording of the statement will be scrutinised in Dublin, Belfast and London.

Mr Adams' fellow Sinn Féin negotiator, Martin McGuinness, is in Washington, while the leader of the largest unionist party, Rev Ian Paisley of the Democratic Unionist party, is in London. Mr Adams called on IRA supporters to remain "united and steadfast".

He said: "The forthcoming IRA statement will challenge Irish republicans and nationalists.

"I appeal to everyone to carefully read what the army has to say and to remain united and steadfast.

"The IRA statement will also challenge others, especially the two governments and the unionists.

"The Dublin political establishment in particular will have a lot of soul-searching to do if those in political leadership are to meet the needs of the upcoming period."

Although the IRA has been on official ceasefire since 1994 - save for the 1996 Canary Wharf bombing - the unionists have long pushed for the complete destruction of its arms cache, and an official disbanding.

The devolved power-sharing assembly at Stormont has been suspended since 2002 over allegations of an IRA spy ring, while Sinn Féin has also been rocked by the murder of Belfast Catholic Robert McCartney and a £26m bank raid, both blamed on the IRA.

Following talks last year at Leeds Castle in Kent, an expected deal on further arms decommissioning was scuppered by a disagreement between the IRA and the DUP on photographic evidence of the act and independent witness monitoring.

Mr Paisley was this morning holding talks with the Northern Ireland secretary, Peter Hain, about the decision to free Kelly last night - a move which has outraged unionists.

Kelly benefited from early release under the Good Friday Agreement but was returned to prison last month on Mr Hain's orders for involvement in unspecified terrorist activity.

He originally received a life sentence for killing nine civilians in the bombing of a fish shop on Belfast's Shankill Road in 1993 in which his accomplice, Thomas Begley, also died.

The Northern Ireland Office last night explicitly linked the release to the anticipated IRA statement.

The NIO said: "We can confirm Sean Kelly was granted temporary release by the secretary of state on the expectation of the forthcoming IRA statement."

The DUP said: "It's a bad decision that does not reflect well on the secretary of state.

"But we will also be impressing on the minister our view that, whatever the IRA says in its statement, it's actions, not words, that matter. We hope that is the government's position as well."

Although the assembly remains in limbo, its most recent elections saw Sinn Féin and the hardline DUP emerge as the two largest parties representing the nationalist and unionist communities respectively, leading to the intriguing prospect of Mr Paisley and Mr Adams sharing power in Belfast under the terms of the Good Friday agreement if the body is resurrected.

Three replies? That all? I'm disappointed. This is a pretty monumental statement. When people learn about the Troubles in the history books, this is gonna be the moment they stop learning... Well, that is assuming things go smoothly.
Yes, I'm sceptical too, but hopeful. And there are rumours that decommissioning may occur inside a week... De Chastelaine remained in Ireland longer than expected...

Three replies? That all? I'm disappointed. This is a pretty monumental statement. When people learn about the Troubles in the history books, this is gonna be the moment they stop learning... Well, that is assuming things go smoothly.
Yes, I'm sceptical too, but hopeful. And there are rumours that decommissioning may occur inside a week... De Chastelaine remained in Ireland longer than expected...
There's already a thread that runs to several pages.

Damn. I always choose the wrong thread...

Grrr... why couldn't they have picked my one? I was first... <sob>

I think they are lieing.

Once they have everyone convinced that they are going peaceful and everything, they are going to go on a rampage again.

Yes. That is so true. After all, it has been eight years since their last terrorist operation. They have very successfully lulled everyone into a false sense of security...
</sarcasm>
I doubt the IRA would be able to go on the rampage, even if they wanted to. It's been so long since they carried out any operations, they probably have very few active members with the skills to sustain a campaign. Plus, with terrorism being viewed the way it is today, they would get hammered.

I was privileged enough to be on the Irish side of the border when the announcement was made. You know what the Republic's stance is?

"It's About Bloody Time"

(Direct quote from an Irish paper headline)

The question is this: Does Peaceful means include non-violent criminal activity? If the IRA promises to stop its drug racketing as well as its arms trading, then I'll be convinced they're turning over a new leaf.

Of course, I doubt the DUP will be having any of it, and the statement is correct in one aspect. This needs to be the moment for Blair and Ahern to step in and reorganise things, not to step back even further from a proceeding that both leaders have "failed to engage [in]".

Of course, I doubt the DUP will be having any of it, and the statement is correct in one aspect. This needs to be the moment for Blair and Ahern to step in and reorganise things, not to step back even further from a proceeding that both leaders have "failed to engage [in]".

The DUP are talking about a 2 year probationary period during which they wont share power with Sinn Fein but after that time (assuming decomissioning is proven to a level they accept) they will start the sharing and loving again :p

THe thought of the R.I.P. (sorry can't say his name, I'll get an ulcer) getting all "lovey" with Gerry Adams will keep me awake tonight - thank you for that image!
I could only think it'd work if you dressed R.I.P. up as a tree, we all know how fond Gerry is of those!

As regards the "end of the IRA" - pah! I'll believe it when I stop seeing the letters scratched on toilet doors and on the bags of "rebellious youth" TM. There's decades of "education for peace" ahead of us...

I was privileged enough to be on the Irish side of the border when the announcement was made. You know what the Republic's stance is?

"It's About Bloody Time"

(Direct quote from an Irish paper headline)

The question is this: Does Peaceful means include non-violent criminal activity? If the IRA promises to stop its drug racketing as well as its arms trading, then I'll be convinced they're turning over a new leaf.

Of course, I doubt the DUP will be having any of it, and the statement is correct in one aspect. This needs to be the moment for Blair and Ahern to step in and reorganise things, not to step back even further from a proceeding that both leaders have "failed to engage [in]".

Nah, that's just some people's stance. Specifically the right-wing tabloid press, and the Progressive Democrats (our own Republican party). The statement said they would abandon all other activity, which has to mean criminality - otherwise there's no point in this statement.

The I.R.A. = The Undefeated Army.

Yes, I am a complete supporter of the IRA in ALL things. The IRA should not disband until the Loyalist thugs do. Am I the only one who has noticed that evryone is demanding the IRA disarm but NO ONE is demanding the Unionists disarm? Hypocrites.

Undefeated army, my arse.

If they'd taken on the British Army in open warfare they'd have been utterly destroyed; rather, they were a bunch of gutless cowards more happy to bomb the civilian populace, or to fire a few shots off from the shadows at troops then give the gun to a kid to hide, knowing full well they were safe from being engaged due to the rules of engagement Brit forces were hamstrung by.

The I.R.A. = The Undefeated Army.

Yes, I am a complete supporter of the IRA in ALL things. The IRA should not disband until the Loyalist thugs do. Am I the only one who has noticed that evryone is demanding the IRA disarm but NO ONE is demanding the Unionists disarm? Hypocrites.
Not true - many of us want full disarming of all the bloodthirsty murderous bastards, no matter where their allegiance lies. "Complete supporter of the IRA in ALL things", eh? Christ on a bike.

The I.R.A. = The Undefeated Army.

Yes, I am a complete supporter of the IRA in ALL things. The IRA should not disband until the Loyalist thugs do. Am I the only one who has noticed that evryone is demanding the IRA disarm but NO ONE is demanding the Unionists disarm? Hypocrites.

Which country do you live in?

I seem to remember you posting that you are an American in which case you are as hypocritic as those you speak of in this post

Also, it looks like the army presence in Northern Ireland is to be cut in half from 10,000 to 5,000

The I.R.A. = The Undefeated Army.

Yes, I am a complete supporter of the IRA in ALL things. The IRA should not disband until the Loyalist thugs do. Am I the only one who has noticed that evryone is demanding the IRA disarm but NO ONE is demanding the Unionists disarm? Hypocrites.

Let's play Spot the American!

( EDIT: I apologise to the knowledgable US citizens out there but, let's face it, that kind of attitude to affairs in the North is rarely adopted outside of your country. )

People demanded the "Loyalists" disarm long before their official formation. You know why? Because the ones with weapons are Criminals. Making a statement to those "Unionists" to disarm is like asking Al-Qaeda to stop being nasty and blowing us up, pretty please. They are not affiliated with the political process save in name only, and everyone would like nothing more than to see them behind bars for the rest of their natural lives.

So let's get you over here. Let's see you tell the Irish Republic that their name should be smeared with the blood, drugs, dirty money and gunpowder plaguing the North for the sake of National Interests. Let's see you telling the families of the Omagh victims that their childrens' deaths were not only acceptable, but desirable.

Or, alternatively, let's see your false ideas of any degree of Irishness, justifiable slaughter, mindless destruction and self-serving criminality get the fuck out of my planet.

"Supporter in all things"... Honestly, education is a marvellous thing. Look into it some time.

And yes, I am willing to take that comment to the Rejected realms if needs be. Political Correctness be damned; anyone supporting murder can't get away with friendly responses.

Yes, I am a complete supporter of the IRA in ALL things.

So you are a complete supporter of killing three year olds?

Gaza Pullout--Do You Support It?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure if this has been done before or not, so I decided to do it. I was reading in the USA Today that in 3 weeks Israel begins the Gaza pullout out the 8,000 settlerers, and I was wondering what you people thought about it.

Personally I am extremely opposed to it. In my opinion people who go around kiling themselves and civilans do not deserve to have their own country, for if they are like this before they are a legit country with true economic trade and an established military, imagine just how terrible they will be once they have all these things. You give these people an inch they will take a mile. The militants will take over the military and start firing missles into Israel and WW3 will begin. Cheers people, its the beginning of the end of the world in my opinion.

I'll set up a poll now.

The emphasis here is mine

Interesting thing to say when you support the IRA

*a beautiful, beautiful rant*
Couldn't have put it better myself.

Question for The NAS Rebels: have you ever been to Ireland? If so have you ever been North of the border?

O well looks like we'll never know

An end to violence in the North, or just another meaningless statement?
Personally, I'm hopeful, but still keeping my fingers crossed... And of course there's the chance that the DUP will reject it out of hand.


This won't be an end to the violence in the North, there are more than more group of violent scum in the North. And that doesn't even include certain politicans. Punishment beatings are still happening and the IRA has to give the wareabouts of all the ppl they have killed over the years. At least its a start though.

Undefeated army, my arse.

If they'd taken on the British Army in open warfare they'd have been utterly destroyed; rather, they were a bunch of gutless cowards more happy to bomb the civilian populace, or to fire a few shots off from the shadows at troops then give the gun to a kid to hide, knowing full well they were safe from being engaged due to the rules of engagement Brit forces were hamstrung by.
Tis called guerrilla warfare... And, unlike EVERY other combatant in the North, the vast majority of those they killed were there enemies - British security and Loyalist terrorists. If attacking civilians makes the IRA cowards, then every other group up there, from the British Army to the UVF, are even more cowardly.
Yes, I believe that attacking civilians is wrong. But I also believe that, of all the groups in the North, they conducted themselves the best during the Troubles. Oh, and Mr NAS Rebels, go away. We don't want trolling here.

The I.R.A. = The Undefeated Army.

Yes, I am a complete supporter of the IRA in ALL things. The IRA should not disband until the Loyalist thugs do. Am I the only one who has noticed that evryone is demanding the IRA disarm but NO ONE is demanding the Unionists disarm? Hypocrites.

I thought that was in the good friday agreement. All paramilitary activity. But i agree with you in so far as Its a completely one sided affair. After the IRA do disarm maybe the media focus will turn to the others.

Undefeated army, my arse.

If they'd taken on the British Army in open warfare they'd have been utterly destroyed; rather, they were a bunch of gutless cowards more happy to bomb the civilian populace, or to fire a few shots off from the shadows at troops then give the gun to a kid to hide, knowing full well they were safe from being engaged due to the rules of engagement Brit forces were hamstrung by.
Actually, the IRA fought in the Irish Civil War of 1922-1923... and lost to the National Army of the Irish Free State.

Can I ask the two IRA supporters on the site why do they support the scum?
Sinn Fein's Ireland and the other Rebel person.

Actually, the IRA fought in the Irish Civil War of 1922-1923... and lost to the National Army of the Irish Free State.

The IRA of then is a lot different from the one at the moment. After the Anglo-Irish treaty only those against the treaty kept the name of the IRA. Those in favour of the treaty became members of the regular army of the Irish Free State

The IRA of then is a lot different from the one at the moment. After the Anglo-Irish treaty only those against the treaty kept the name of the IRA. Those in favour of the treaty became members of the regular army of the Irish Free State
The IRA of present day is a successor to the Anti-Treaty IRA of 1922, AFAIK.

The IRA of present day is a successor to the Anti-Treaty IRA of 1922, AFAIK.

Hence what I posted

Iam also a supporter if anyone was to have a go at me too for my beliefs. And yes iam from Ireland before anyone asks, and yes i do spend a lot of time up north. This happened before (1969) and just after the IRA ceased ativity Loyalist mobs attacked and burned down many Nationalists areas, not jus nationalist areas actually anywhere they could find a catholic. Thats why the Provisional IRA were set up, to protect and police these people. And iam totaly and 100% against the killing of civillians, who isnt, it happens in all wars. The Brittish army do it often enough, number of examples but the one that sticks out is Dresden during WW2, that was a pure murdering of a city full of civillians. And bloody Sunday. The army kill more civillians and no one says anything about it, how many civillians are the army killing now and have been killed in Iraq. Yet alot of you will still support them. Double standards in my opinion.

Iam also a supporter if anyone was to have a go at me too for my beliefs. And yes iam from Ireland before anyone asks, and yes i do spend a lot of time up north. This happened before (1969) and just after the IRA ceased ativity Loyalist mobs attacked and burned down many Nationalists areas, not jus nationalist areas actually anywhere they could find a catholic. Thats why the Provisional IRA were set up, to protect and police these people. And iam totaly and 100% against the killing of civillians, who isnt, it happens in all wars. The Brittish army do it often enough, number of examples but the one that sticks out is Dresden during WW2, that was a pure murdering of a city full of civillians. And bloody Sunday. The army kill more civillians and no one says anything about it, how many civillians are the army killing now and have been killed in Iraq. Yet alot of you will still support them. Double standards in my opinion.

They police by very harsh means then. Knee-cappings cant really be considered justice.

As for the British Army killing civilians fair enough but the British Army do not target them purposefully. Before you bring up Bloody Sunday as an example remember how many investigations have been done into this incident

Actually, the bombing of dresden was, a non nazi city made of wood. What else would they been doing

Good point but the fact that one side of a conflict has commited what some would consider war crimes does not lessen in any way the crimes commited by the other

They police by very harsh means then. Knee-cappings cant really be considered justice.

As for the British Army killing civilians fair enough but the British Army do not target them purposefully. Before you bring up Bloody Sunday as an example remember how many investigations have been done into this incident
Actually, the bombing of dresden was, a non nazi city made of wood. What else would they been doing

Good point but the fact that one side of a conflict has commited what some would consider war crimes does not lessen in any way the crimes commited by the other
True, i was just stating that its not just the IRA. And to condem the IRA for it and not to condem the Brittish for it is just pure hypocracy.

Can I ask the two IRA supporters on the site why do they support the scum?
Sinn Fein's Ireland and the other Rebel person.

I don't think Sinn Fein's Ireland was defending or supporting it really, but i do see the one sided argument. There has been a lot made of the decommishining process on the republican side, yet less publicly on the loyalist side. There is a wary element of triumphalism that goes with decommishining- the DUP in particular have ahabit of enjoying saying they 'defeated' Sinn Fein/IRA by 'making' them change course.

It IS about bloody time- but its is their actions not words that will be the testament. What fight have a few middle aged leaders, getting a bit heavier around the mid section, have any more?

Its the off shoots, the younger, more criminalised and aggressive elements i'd be worried about. Don't worry about the Loyalists- they're too busy killing each other.

They police by very harsh means then. Knee-cappings cant really be considered justice.

As for the British Army killing civilians fair enough but the British Army do not target them purposefully. Before you bring up Bloody Sunday as an example remember how many investigations have been done into this incident
The Provos were established to protect communities when they were being attacked. They've kind of migrated from that. And, as they don't have prisons, and in many areas were the police force (so much of NI is/was a no-go area for the police), knee-cappings and the like were how they kept the peace... Whether it's right is a totally different kettle of fish, and I think you can guess how I feel about that...
Mekonia, calling them scum is a little harsh. They were fighting for freedom and to protect their people - many did what they thought was right.

Mekonia, calling them scum is a little harsh. They were fighting for freedom and to protect their people - many did what they thought was right.

They fought for freedom at the expense of civillian lives some of whom were their own people. Just because they thought it was right does not make it so

They fought for freedom at the expense of civillian lives some of whom were their own people. Just because they thought it was right does not make it so
Thats fallout, i know its bad but it happens in every war.

Thats fallout, i know its bad but it happens in every war.

But the fact that they actively targeted civilians makes all the difference

But the fact that they actively targeted civilians makes all the difference
True but again, this has happened in all wars post Hiroshima/Nagasoki. Im not trying to justify it, im just saying. I dont think targetin civillians is right except in very extreme cases

True but again, this has happened in all wars post Hiroshima/Nagasoki. Im not trying to justify it, im just saying. I dont think targetin civillians is right except in very extreme cases

Such as?

I'd also say that they could have achieved the same result by bombings without intending to kill. By causing structural damage and paralysing transport, etc they would still have made the same impact.

Such as?
The A-Bombs in Japan, Dresden, Viatnam, Afghanastan. In fact most that i can think of are by America. But name a war since then and there will be cases of bombing civillians. Isreal are doing it now. Just because the IRA didnt have Jets and the likes doesnt make it any diffrent.

They did carry out attacks on buildings without people being killed, they are just not as highly publicised. Like Canary Warf, im not sure if sum people died in it but in cost London 200 million or so

The A-Bombs in Japan, Dresden, Viatnam, Afghanastan. In fact most that i can think of are by America. But name a war since then and there will be cases of bombing civillians. Isreal are doing it now. Just because the IRA didnt have Jets and the likes doesnt make it any diffrent.

Consider the case of the Omagh bombing though. On the day of the bombing UTV was given false warnings as to the location of the bomb and as a result the RUC evacuated civillians away from the named site and towards the actual site. This seems to be taking things a hell of a lot further than was actually necessary in the situation. Maybe it isnt much different than what happens in other wars but it is still a horrible act i agree

People died in Canary Wharf, one or two, if I remember correctly. And you do realise you are trying to justify terrorism by saying, "Well, everyone else did it worse!"? Not the best argument in the world...
And, ChuChullain, civilian casualties do not make a cause wrong.

I know Omagh was a disgrace, plus the fact the RUC had prior warning, but that was the "real" IRA, after the Good friday agreement they wer trying to prove a point, definatly doesnt justify it, but i dont think they intended to kill thoses people, still a disgrace, if you plant a bomb in a busy city you are going to kill people, no excuse. But it wasnt The Provisionals.

Consider the case of the Omagh bombing though. On the day of the bombing UTV was given false warnings as to the location of the bomb and as a result the RUC evacuated civillians away from the named site and towards the actual site. This seems to be taking things a hell of a lot further than was actually necessary in the situation. Maybe it isnt much different than what happens in other wars but it is still a horrible act i agree
There are two main streets in Omagh - Main Street and the main street where all the shops are... The warning wasn't clear enough, and the wrong street was evacuated - onto the bombed street. Also, that was carried out by the RIRA, who are an offshoot of the PIRA and totally separate.
EDIT: Spasticks beat me... damnit.

People died in Canary Wharf, one or two, if I remember correctly. And you do realise you are trying to justify terrorism by saying, "Well, everyone else did it worse!"? Not the best argument in the world...
And, ChuChullain, civilian casualties do not make a cause wrong.

Well in my opinion it was a war, not terrorism. So why would this war be cleaner then any other war. Still, im by no means saying i agree with killing civillians.

People died in Canary Wharf, one or two, if I remember correctly. And you do realise you are trying to justify terrorism by saying, "Well, everyone else did it worse!"? Not the best argument in the world...
And, ChuChullain, civilian casualties do not make a cause wrong.

I didnt mean to imply that I felt it was a wrong cause but the methods applied were wrong.

There are two main streets in Omagh - Main Street and the main street where all the shops are... The warning wasn't clear enough, and the wrong street was evacuated - onto the bombed street. Also, that was carried out by the RIRA, who are an offshoot of the PIRA and totally separate.
EDIT: Spasticks beat me... damnit.

Yeah forgot this thread was about the recent IRA statement so I was just speaking about all of those who use the name. I'll correct that in the future

Yeah forgot this thread was about the recent IRA statement so I was just speaking about all of those who use the name. I'll correct that in the future
thats grand. This thread is odd, you dont usually see people willing to except eachothers opinions here on NS, lol.

thats grand. This thread is odd, you dont usually see people willing to except eachothers opinions here on NS, lol.

We're just model posters i guess :D

Well in my opinion it was a war, not terrorism. So why would this war be cleaner then any other war. Still, im by no means saying i agree with killing civillians.
It may have been a war but it's still terrorism, when a country's army does it they call it "shock and awe" tactics.

We're just model posters i guess :D
A little bit of give and take, that's what debates need. Except with religious fundamentalists... :p

Well in my opinion it was a war, not terrorism. So why would this war be cleaner then any other war. Still, im by no means saying i agree with killing civillians.

it wasn't a war, a war between terrorists and the legimate government of a country yes in that sense but in the conventional sense between two countries, no

it wasn't a war, a war between terrorists and the legimate government of a country yes in that sense but in the conventional sense between two countries, no
Is a conflict between a terrorist group and a legitimate government a war? Some would say yes, some would say no. I say yes. Especially when the words terrorist and legitimate are debateable.

just out of curiosity when was the last provo Ira bomb?

There was a ceasefire in 1996, so I would say then... Manchester may have been, actually. I'm not entirely certain, however.

just out of curiosity when was the last provo Ira bomb?

i think the one outside the BBC offices about 6ish years ago...maybe longer. Either that or Canary Warf.

Anyone correct me on that? :confused:

There was a ceasefire in 1996, so I would say then... Manchester may have been, actually. I'm not entirely certain, however.

Yeah I think it was the Manchester bombing

Edit : Its confirmed here

http://terrorism.about.com/od/timeline/a/timeline90_2.htm

i think the one outside the BBC offices about 6ish years ago...maybe longer. Either that or Canary Warf.

Anyone correct me on that? :confused:
No, the BBC bomb was the RIRA (or possibly the CIRA, but probably not). The last one was Manchester! Damn I'm good...

Do you think the columbia's three return makes any differance to the IRA statment?

Nope. I have yet to see any evidence that the IRA have followed the statement, namely, any decommissioning. So, no difference.
Also, the only thing the Colombia Three have been convicted of doing wrong (by any decent standard of law and order, which does not include a politicised reversal of a court's decision against all evidence) other than travelling on false passports, so I don't see why it should.