- #1
- 2,750
- 7
The IRA today formally ordered an end to its armed campaign. From now on, it will pursue peaceful action only.
Is it for real this time?
Is it for real this time?
Yes like they've been doing since announcing their ceasefire some years back. Oops, but they haven't. Darn another good theory ruined by boring fact.MaxS said:An end to the IRA, maybe, but I believe there will be members of the IRA who will perpetuate the killing under new banners.
Yes like they've been doing since announcing their ceasefire some years back. Oops, but they haven't. Darn another good theory ruined by boring fact.
Art said:Yes like they've been doing since announcing their ceasefire some years back. Oops, but they haven't. Darn another good theory ruined by boring fact.
brewnog said:The IRA today formally ordered an end to its armed campaign. From now on, it will pursue peaceful action only.
vanesch said:They lost the edge, maybe. No suicide bombers and so. Doesn't impress people much anymore these days.
The Belfast pub murder was not an IRA hit. There was a fight in a rather rough pub following an ongoing argument between the victim (Robert McCartney) and his friend and a group of other men (who happened to be members of the IRA) over a beating McCartney had given a teenager whilst working as a 'doorman' at another pub. On the night, the row escalated over comments made to McCartneys 'girlfriend' who was with him at the time. (His fiancee and their two kids were at home.) A drink fuelled fight broke out which spilled into the street and finished with McCartney being stabbed.Anttech said:well the new IRA isn't active in terrorist activities but don't forget about the belfast PUB murder! Actually this seems to have been the turning point, that we are now seeing that Sein Fein are washing there hands of the New IRA
http://www.google.be/search?hs=1RZ&...S:official&q=IRA+pub+murder&btnG=Search&meta=
I agree. I find N. Ireland a very uncomfortable place to visit whichever group's areas I happen to pass through. There is something very intimidating about passing through towns and villages where they all have either union jacks or tri-colour flags painted on the approaches to signify their allegience and the barrels of machine guns tracking your progress from security forces guard posts.Anttech said:I know ART, I am not contesting you...
Secteranism is so bred into the culture of Scotland and Ireland that it will never die... But I don't think we will ever see the Bomb attacks of old from the provos
I wasn't referring to you MaxS I was referring to the first sentence of my own comment in a self deprecating joke.MaxS said:(I don't know what you mean when you say another good theory was ruined - the fact you gave doesn't pertain to the current situation and when was the last time you ruined a good theory of mine whether by fact or otherwise?)
Very encouraging news indeed! I wish them success!brewnog said:The IRA today formally ordered an end to its armed campaign. From now on, it will pursue peaceful action only.
Is it for real this time?
Yeah!Astronuc said:Very encouraging news indeed! I wish them success!
Violence is not the way to settle grievances.
brewnog said:The IRA never used suicide bombers.
Art said:I wasn't referring to you MaxS I was referring to the first sentence of my own comment in a self deprecating joke.
My question for the Brits and others knowledgeable about the IRA history is: What do you attribute the reduction in IRA hostilities, too? I recall there were frequent bombings, and that they subsided. Was it bcause you "took the fight to the terrorists" or something else or a combination?
don't be so hard on yourself.MaxS said:LOL I'm such an idiot.
The main catalyst for peace was the change in gov't in the UK. The conservatives got kicked out and labour were elected. For many years under Thatcher and to a lesser extent under Major the conservatives who are historically closely tied to the unionist parties in N.Ire looked for a definitive military victory over the IRA. This was impossible to achieve for essentially the same reasons Bush cannot defeat the insurgents in Iraq militarily.pattylou said:hey there you Brits --
I never followed the IRA stuff (Sorry about that. I was young and a typical American teenager blah blah blah.). But I have been following public opinion in the US, and the UK, for the Al Quaeda stuff. Americans want to ram stuff down Al Qaeda's throat, Uk'ers not so much.
My question for the Brits and others knowledgeable about the IRA history is: What do you attribute the reduction in IRA hostilities, too? I recall there were frequent bombings, and that they subsided. Was it bcause you "took the fight to the terrorists" or something else or a combination?
Thanks,
Patty
vanesch said:Yeah, that's what I mean. If you want to make a name as a terrorist organisation today, you need suicide bombers, otherwise you're not taken seriously anymore. It's a way to show that you care about what you're doing :-)
One particularly nasty trick the IRA did one time, was having found an informer amongst their ranks they took his family hostage, filled a car with explosives and told the guy if he didn't drive the car into the middle of an army checkpoint all of his family would be killed. They were kind enough to give him a few seconds to leap out of the car and run before detonating the bomb but this was still a sort of 'suicide bomber by proxy' tactic.The Smoking Man said:When you care enough to send the very best ... Suicide bombers.
Ooops sorry, wrong thread.
The 'old IRA' were called terrorists at the time for waging a guerilla war against the British. The IRA never disbanded but simply became much quieter resurfacing again in the late 60's following the attacks on catholic civil rights marchers by the 'legitimate' protestant paramilitary force the 'B' Specials who drove through catholic areas firing machine guns into the houses to intimidate the residents into giving up their quest for equality.Anttech said:The old IRA were actually true freedom fighters, who fought for independance of Ireland from England around the turn of the 20th century. The paramiltitary units that were formed post "Anglo-Irish Treaty" are what we all call the IRA ...
THE Provisional IRA has agreed to destroy its deadly arsenal by the end of September.
Anttech said:well the new IRA isn't active in terrorist activities but don't forget about the belfast PUB murder!
Anttech said:wow... Wonder what the next step will be, a unite Ireland?
The ecconmic situation in the Republic is soo good the (Unionists and Loyalsts) people in the North might actually want to join Eire
Diplomacy can be effective in ending armed campaigns, but it is not always guaranteed. It requires a willingness from all parties involved to engage in peaceful negotiations and compromise. Additionally, the success of diplomacy depends on the specific context and circumstances of the armed campaign.
Diplomacy focuses on using peaceful means to resolve conflicts and reach agreements between opposing parties. It involves communication, negotiation, and compromise. Military intervention, on the other hand, involves the use of force to defeat an enemy or protect a country's interests. While both can be used to end armed campaigns, diplomacy is generally seen as a more peaceful and sustainable approach.
There have been several successful examples of diplomacy in ending armed campaigns. One notable example is the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, which brought an end to the decades-long conflict in Northern Ireland. Another example is the Camp David Accords in 1978, which helped to establish peace between Israel and Egypt. These successes demonstrate the potential of diplomacy in resolving armed conflicts.
One major challenge of using diplomacy to end armed campaigns is the lack of trust and communication between opposing parties. This can make it difficult to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. Additionally, some parties may be unwilling to engage in peaceful negotiations and may continue to resort to violence. There may also be external factors, such as the involvement of other countries or non-state actors, that complicate the diplomatic process.
While diplomacy is often seen as the preferred approach, there are other alternatives to ending armed campaigns. These include military intervention, economic sanctions, and international mediation. However, each of these alternatives has its own set of challenges and may not always be effective in achieving long-term peace and stability.