Good point David.

There was also a failed fire-bomb attack in Cookstown last nioght. Wonder who could have been behind that? The BBC news report does not speculate, and I dare say the story will have died by tomorrow.

The law does not distinguish for the purposes of prosecution between the dissident versions of the IRA such as cira and rira and the organisation popularly known as the Provisional IRA which is on ceasefire.

I assume the charges relate to one of the dissident groups. If that is so it has no political implications.

Say it ain't so! Jeez, who would have thought it, eh? All those words, all those chuckles and all those arms (apparently) put 'beyond use'. It's dumbfounding.

Henry94, are we talking about the Provisional IRA, The Continuity IRA, the Real IRA or the I Can't Believe It's Not The IRA?

David, it's hard for me to make more than the general comment, but why are any terrorist/violent dissident individuals or groups still tolerated in the new non-terrorist, unified NI?

I thought all weapons were turned over and disagreements were put aside?

The news is that you don't have these sorts of problems anymore. The terrorists were satisfied and absorbed into government and the people are happy. You have unity in all political matters and the small differences are being worked out under the rule of law.

Guess y'all forgot to inform a few IRA people that the war is over.

<sarc>

Daphene

There are small groups of people on both sides who do not accept the Agreement.

Because on the Republican side the dissidents claim the name IRA it can be confusing.

But the vast majority of republicans support the peace.

When Ian Paisley came to Cobh a few weeks ago there were protests by some of the dissients. Here is the response of Martin McGuiness of Sinn Fein.

"What really struck me about his trip to Cork was, I am told, that several dozen Republican Sinn Fein protestors protested against his visit, and when that happened, I sat back and just thought to myself who is doing more to end division on this island? Ian Paisley or the so-called Republican Sinn Fein protestors?

"And I said give me Ian Paisley anytime."

Daphne -

... why are any terrorist/violent dissident individuals or groups still tolerated in the new non-terrorist, unified NI?

It's because those psychopathic mass murderers are now in government, handed sovereign law-making powers in the NI part of the United Kingdom by the surrender of the last few British governments and Unionist politicians there.

I thought all weapons were turned over ...

No. Not a single round or ounce of semtex has been handed over. Apparently they've been 'put beyond use', but no proof has ever been produced.

Now I'm sure that Henry94 is a decent enough fella, but with respect to him, he's delusional. There are no such 'dissident' organisations as the Real IRA or Continuity IRA. They do not exist. There's no need to reinvent the wheel so I'll just paste below here the words (May 2006) of the British conservative journalist and writer Peter Hitchens, who understands what's going on more than most:

Spain's police say they have arrested some alleged members of the 'Real IRA'. I am amazed at the way people swallow the fiction that there is such an organisation. This non-existent outfit is the creation of propaganda and gullibility. The Irish Republican movement is notorious for its merciless internal wars, starting with the great Irish Civil War of the early 1920s in which Michael Collins was killed by his own side for supposedly betraying the cause by making a deal with Britain.

More recently, the 'Irish National Liberation Army', or INLA, was slaughtered when it tried to set up in rivalry to the Provisionals. So why is it that the 'Real IRA' and its twin brother 'the 'Continuity IRA' have been left untouched, although they are supposedly defying the IRA high command on its most crucial policy?

Any real opposition to the Provisional leadership would have been butchered without hesitation. These are not nice people. Yet the IRA has neither killed the perpetrators of the Omagh bomb, nor allowed its supporters to help the police find them. And the only 'Real IRA' supporter to have died at the hands of fellow Republicans was actually killed because of a Belfast gangland dispute over the proceeds of cigarette smuggling, a strong clue to the true nature of these people.

It works - or rather, doesn't work - the other way, too. Why have they not attacked the IRA leadership, which made the deal with Britain, which they supposedly regard as a betrayal of all they stand for? Funny, isn't it, that they condemn the actions of their own leaders by killing Irish civilians or blowing up the BBC?

The 'Real IRA' and the 'Continuity IRA' are obviously what spooks call 'deniable operations'. If and when the IRA is unhappy with the speed and extent of Britain's surrender to it, IRA cells can let off bombs or commit murders to remind us of what we signed (and they didn't) in the 1998 Belfast agreement. It's their way of saying 'get on with it'. And we have to pretend that these little reminders have nothing at all to do with the IRA, because if we admitted that then we would have to admit the truth - that we got nothing out of the deal at all, and they got everything.

So a far better name for this fantasy guerrilla group is the "I can't believe it's not the IRA".

Daphne,

Pete is right - there is no evidence that says one bullet or one ounce of explosives were handed over. This is all one MASSIVE con job, relying on avarice and greed, ambition and delusion to fuel it.

Pete

Peter Hitchens is wrong in every respect. He simply hasn't done his homework.

It is nonsense to suggest the INLA was slaughtered by the provos. Four of the hunger strikers were INLA members. The IRA didn't wipe them out. In fact they still exist but have themselves a long history on internal feuding which is well known and well documented.

The IRA did force one of their off-shoots (IPLO) to stand down but that was before the ceasefire. Any attack on the dissidents would have been used to keep Sinn Fein out of government after the ceasefire.

The best way to handle the dissidents is to make sure they have no support and to get policing right so that the PSNI can deal with them.

Henry94 -

That's thin, unconvincing and doesn't address much at all.

Without wishing the recreate Life of Brian here, the IPLO was a breakaway from the INLA and concerned with little more than gangsterism and the supply of drugs. The IPLO was slaughtered by the IRA, who promptly moved in and took control of previously IPLO business.

Any attack on the dissidents would have been used to keep Sinn Fein out of government after the ceasefire.

You're stuck in a mindset which prevents you from understanding. There are no dissident IRA groups. The IRA doesn't wipe them out because they're the IRA. When the process of surrender to psychopathic mass murderers stalls, when the flow of power and influence to the IRA stalls, when the slow takeover of NI stalls, they'll reappear as a reminder.

Daphne -

Just a little context. The IRA, being psychopathic mass murderers, terrorists and gangsters, murdered thousands of people over 30 years, mainly civilians and security personnal. They then said they'll be good. In return for nothing more than this, hundreds of convicted terrorists (including murderers) were released from prison and the IRA allowed to sit in government in NI. The genuinelly heroic Royal Ulster Constabulary was disbanded and the Army withdrawn from many areas. Very many other concessions have been made to the terrorists.

Martin McGuinness, for many years a member of the IRA's governing Army Council and a man with much blood on his hands, is now Deputy First Minister.

The IRA still exists as before. It has not surrendered a single weapon, round or ounce of semtex. The IRA's terrorist infrastructure still stands. All that has changed is that the IRA is in government and has won huge concessions.

For a reason well beyond my understanding, some people think this is a great leap forward.

Some aspects of the Northern Irish conflict are open to interpretation. Others are a matter of fact.
In this, Henry is 100% right and hitchens is talking absolute nonsense.

The INLA was not slaughtered by the provisionals as Hitchens claims. This is just absolutely wrong. The fact this is one of the fist thing he states and is completely untrue gives us a clue as to his credibility. The INLA were generally allied to the Provos.

Again, contrary to what Hitchens claims, there was some fighting between Real IRA and Provisionals - in fact the latter killed the former's Belfast Commander - Joseph O'Connor. This was used as ammunition by Unionists at the time to try to justify excluding Sinn Fein from government (understandably).

That being so, any further killings of the Real IRA would have also been used to exclude SF from government. Given that the dissidents have been well-infiltrated by the security forces and have failed to pull off a "successful" operation since Omagh what would be the point?

The command structures of the Real IRA are well known. A number of senior members were indicted in the civil action against Omagh, and large numbers of more junior members have been arrested. None of them have held dual membership with the Provos. Strangely none of the people who are closer to the situation than Hitchens (or, with respect, Pete Moore) and who hate the provos - like the Irish independent, Gardai, PSNI Special Branch etc are claiming what Hitchens is claiming above.
As well as that the political branches of the Reals and Continuity (who split from the Provos over twenty years ago FFS) also stand against SF in election, and are constantly slagging them off as traitors etc.

Finally, Michael Collins. You have to wonder about the strength of someone's argument if they hard to talk about a situation over eighty years ago, with essentially different organisations and fifferent personalities. It was also in the middle of a bona fide civil war with hundreds of casualties. Completely different political currents to the early twentieth century/.

The disidents are useful fools that serve the purpose of reminding Governments that the Republican Movement could switch back to mass slaughter, torture and brutality at anytime if they do not get what they want.

Someone should write a frankly worded book about this!

>>In this, Henry is 100% right and hitchens is talking absolute nonsense.<<

Daphne, you can take my word for it that Andy (i.e. also Henry) is completely right here. Both Hitchens and Pete Moore either haven't got a clue what they're talking about or are deliberately telling lies (although both are also possible).

It's hard to give an outsider an understanding of this aspect of the conflict, but generally it can be said that the IRA (meaning the Provisional IRA - the one you hear most about) was a grass-roots organisation. Its volunteers were drawn from working class Catholic areas of NI and were - like most working class youth - not particularly politically minded. They joined generally because of family ties or because of what they saw happening in their districts. It was vey much a - ill-advised - gut reaction.

There were of course also many highly politicised left-wing Republican activists, often rather impetuous, if not to say fanatic, individuals. These tended to form fringe republican groupings. It's difficult for people outside republican NI to understand, but the IRA was - despite its radical actions - actually seen as in many ways a conservative force in the Catholic ghettos of NI.

The fringe groups included the Official IRA, and a few other loony organisations like the INLA, which was in constant war with the Officials.

When the IRA moved down the political path and ultimately declared its ceasefire, other large chunks broke off as they saw this as a betrayal - these are now referred to as "dissident republicans" or the Real IRA etc.

The IRA then destroyed the vast majority of its weapons (the only difference to the "surrender" of weapons, which Pete would obviously so dearly see, is one of pride and grandstanding. Effectively it's exactly the same). If the IRA had then moved against the RealIRA (but why should it?), you can be sure Pete and his "British conservative journalist" would be among the first to jump on this as evidence that the IRA was not living up to its ceasefire etc.

The IRA and the Reals despise each other, and are never done calling each other traitors, and tools of the British establishment etc. Their policies and strategies are completely different.

>>In return for nothing more than this, hundreds of convicted terrorists (including murderers) were released from prison and the IRA allowed to sit in government in NI.<<

This notion raises its silly head regularly here. It was not the Good Friday Agreement that put the IRA in government but the electorate of Northern Ireland.
It had been British policy every since 1972 - maintained by every government, including Thatcher's - that any future government of NI must be based on power sharing between representatives of the Unionist and Nationalist communities. As it happened, when Unionists were finally ready to accept this policy in the 1990's, Sinn Fein had become the largest party on the Nationalists side - and thus had to be included in government - for various reasons, most of which have a lot to do with the policies and lies spouted by people like "British covservative journalist".

Noel,

Regarding IRA disarmanent, Can you advise what was decommissioned, when this happened, where, to what modality. I am at a loss to find this information and look forward to your inventory so that I can feel reassured. ;-)

Noel Cunningham -

It was not the Good Friday Agreement that put the IRA in government ...

Which isn't what I stated, so you can burn that straw man. I said that the IRA was allowed to sit in government in NI, and it does. To answer your next question: no, Sinn Fein/IRA terrorists and their apologists should never have been allowed to stand for election.

I look forward to a full disclosure in response to David's request.

Noel and Henry ALL the IRA/SF are terrorist scum and you lovingly give them aid as you support people who have and will blow up woman and children.

blood is also on your hands for that support

Pete

To answer your next question: no, Sinn Fein/IRA terrorists and their apologists should never have been allowed to stand for election.

I find it hard to understand how people who claim to oppose IRA violence demand policy options which if followed would have seen violence continue to this day.

It is even more disturbing when such blood-thirsty opinions are based on a complete lack of basic knowledge about the conflict.

Do you not ever wonder why the vast majority of the people of Ireland in every part of the country in every community support the peace process? From North Antrim to West Kerry and from Derry to Wexford the consensus is for peace and the Agreement.

I think we are entitled to be left to get on with it. I hope you opinions on other subjects (you too GM/T) are based on a more informed understanding.

Regarding IRA guns the two governments based on the intelligence assessments of their own experts believe the IRA is disarmed.

>>Which isn't what I stated, <<

Yes, you did. You said the IRA's undertaking to cease violence was a sufficient condition for it entering government. This is historically false, and if anything goes way beyond what I quoted you as saying.

>>I look forward to a full disclosure in response to David's request.<<

LOL. I don't debate with red herrings. David knows as well as I do that there is no inventory of the arms the IRA destroyed. That doesn't mean they weren't destroyed. The IRA wasn't obliged to provide such information and so naturally enough it didn't.

>>you support people who have and will blow up woman and children.<<

Troll, you are the one here who continually supports people who blow up women and children, not I. To extend your melodramatic metaphor - you bathe in the blood of innocents.

Noel,

That would be a no then to my question. Forget about red herrings the only thing that is fishy is the ludicrous claim by the peace processors that the IRA destroyed their weapons inventory and that we take this on trust. LOL.

David

It may be unsatisfactory to you that the weapons were destroyed in private. But it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to your political stance on the agreement if the weapons had been publicly handed over to the Irish government in front of the worlds media.

You would have said that there was no way of knowing if they had handed over all the weapons. And there would not be.

You would have said there was nothing to stop them getting new weapons. And that would also be true.

I remember the huge deal it was that the IRA would say the war was over. Until they said it.

We have already established that you would still oppose the Agreement even if every nationalist voted SDLP. So we have to move on without you and Jim Alister and Ruairi O'Bradaigh.

None of you have anything worthwhile to say to the majority who are willing to make this deal work.

But I will say this for the unionist dissidents. They are using democratic methods. The republican dissidents are not and they deserve nothing but contempt and opposition for that. I for one would not hesitate for a second before telling the police anything I knew about them.

Henry,

What evidence have you for saying "the weapons were destroyed in private"? Do you know what was "destroyed", how they were "destroyed", where they were "destroyed" and precisely what "was destroyed"? Or do we take it on faith?

Noel Cunningham -

Stop making things up. I said: ... hundreds of convicted terrorists (including murderers) were released from prison and the IRA allowed to sit in government in NI.

If you're going to disagree at least have the grace to do so honestly.

David

The Independent commission set up by the governments to oversee the process were happy as were the independent witnesses. The governments and all the political parties were satisfied and the voters supported that.

That's good enough for me. We don't know how many weapons the IRA had so I no visual evidence could assure us that they were all accounted for. But I know that weapons could only be a problem for them given the road they were on and I believe that they destroyed the entirety of their war-waging capacity.

Because it made sense for them to do so.

Henry,

When the fox assures the chickens to place their faith in it, I am not convinced. As for those "Independent" witnesses, I believe the IRA selected them.

David

What kind of decommissioning scheme would have convinced you?

Even if you had been selected as one of the witnesses yourself how could you have known there were no other weapons? Or no intention to buy more?

Isn't it fair to say that there is nothing the IRA could have done on decommissioning that would have been enough for you?