Why do the IRA need weapons

Xterminator

Can anyone tell me why the IRA feels it needs to maintain an arsenal of weapons and explosives, that can only have 1 purpose?

I would have thought the danger of renegade members using these caches for criminal/Real Ira purposes is reason enough to have them destroyed.

TwoShedsJackson

They're keeping them in case the peace process doesn't work and there is a resumption of 'hostilities'.

Imagine you were President of the USA and you sign a deal (with all other nations that have them) banning all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons from the face of the earth.

Wouldn't you keep a few back to defend yourself in case one of the others kept a few back? Thought so.

Bard

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
Can anyone tell me why the IRA feels it needs to maintain an arsenal of weapons and explosives, that can only have 1 purpose?
</font>

Without them, they'll essentially cease to exist as the IRA are and always have been about maiming and killing to achieve their (practically unattainable) goal... although they do appear to be acting a little more sensibly of late with ceasefires and the like, there's still a long way to go.

Decommissioning for them is practically the same as disbanding completely... which to a lot of them, I'm sure, is not a completely happy prospect.

It's a complicated can of worms...

---

Bard

---

First motorbike in the bible ???? ---- a Triumph --- 'Yea verily Moses struck down the ammmanites and all the land heard the roar of his triumph !!!'

Gladiator

its easy to dis arm with your man trible who will stand by his word, but what about that ian scum bag, hes said it more then once that even if the ira did dis arm he would never trust them enough to sit in goverment with them, what if he gets into power in the next elections and the north goes back to the way it was 30 years ago. what do you do then, ians crowd havent changed in 50 years, watching them on the news recently their still the same biggoted *******s them allways were. these are the men who would he people be killed and home burnt to walk down a street.

and i have to wonder why is it about ira dis arming, what about loyalist, we saw them all out with their guns afew weeks ago, they are the ones that a few month back will killing each other. when will they dis arm.

bugler

It's commonly thought that they would follow if the IRA decommissioned.Though how they'd fight their drug wars then I don't know. Aslong as there are orange marches, aslong as there are people like Paisley elected, the IRA will never decommission.In other words, the IRA will never decommission

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bugler

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by daveirl:
BTW, Gladitor nice demolition of the English language. A spell check and then capitalisation wouldn't go amiss
</font>

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by daveirl:Gerry Adams on the other hand has refused to condone a great number of atrocities</font>

A look at www.dictionary.com wouldn't go amiss :P

Seriously though.Paisley may never have killed anyone himself,but he has been responsible for some of the worst incitement to violence in N.I history.By his words alone, he stirs up resentment and hatred, and you can be sure, murder. He gives fire and brimstone speeches (one just before the three Quinn children were burned to death) and then you say his hands are unbloodied? Sorry matey, not in my humble view.If Paisley is a man of god, and as such gets into heaven, then I'll have two words for my maker if/when we meet, the second one will be 'off' :

Shinji

Quite. Paisley is as responsible for much of the violence in the North over the past 29 years as the men holding the guns are.

Gerry

As was mentioned in another thread recently, there is quite a possibility that if the IRA disarmed, and they won't IMHO, they would have no clout whatsoever, and unionism would be back in control, therefore leading to republican rearmament. So it should be quite obvious why the IRA are keeping their guns. A lot of people in this forum, not many of them many IRA sympathisers , have pointed out that decommissioning in this forced manner is quite unprecedented.

I'd agree with the last two posts with regard to Paisley. It is quite astonishing, that he has incited so much hatred, and still reckons he can head a church, however insignificant and laughable his church is. He recieved extensive schooling in fire and brimstone speeches in the states, I don't consider him very genuine, unlike some other northern politicians (from both sides) just misguided, and a rather pathetic figure.

Magwitch

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by daveirl:
As much as i hate Ian Paisley, he has never murdered nor condoned the murder of someone.</font>

I could not disagree more. At the launch of the UVF Paisley addressed the inaugeration rally with fighting words and donned a military beret. He has had other episodes aswell, so many in fact that hard core loyalists regard him as a traitor to his word.

But he has always been the consumate politian and can never be pinned down, although he was arrested for inciting hatred and violance in the 60's.

Why do the IRA not disarm? How often have we heard Unionist politicians utter the ominious phrase "we cannot be responsible for the consequnces" from which Loyalists mobs take their que and the politicians message to the streets. They have indeed done it so often that the UVF warned DUP and UUP politicians to stop threatening "bombs in dublin" in the name of unspecified organisations.

Unionist politicians have used and still use the get out clause of "vagueness" to use violence for their own ends. Aside from that Unionism has surrendered NOTHING to the process so far except the tacit and tempory agreement to work in government with nationalist. While nationalists have conceeded that there will..

a: Not be a united Ireland without consent north and south

b: Changed the republics articles 2 and 3

c: acknowledged publicly that violence will not resolve the problems of N. Ireland.

d: Entered into an open-ended cease fire.

The last point is most important. Nearly 90 percent of on-going sectarian attacks and punishment beatings are being carried out by Loyalists without universal (or any) condemnation by Unionism. Unionist instead blame Republicans for violance (less than 15% of whats going on). NONE of this sounds like an atmosphere for disarmament. I believe that the current lack of republican decommisioning is due to two things, a fear of leaving the nationalist population at the mercy of (currently re-arming) Loyalists and the risk of dividing their organisation further, hence loosing all coherance and ability to negioate an end to the violence.

Xterminator

The main reason been given here is the IRA keep their weapons in case they need to protect them selves from vicious Unionists.

But thats not the job of the IRA. They have no mandate to do so. Perhaps they could consider trying to build institutions which can do this for them, eg.
A new police force with equal represntation for all.
Independant bodies which can monitor discrimination in all walks of life.
I think its more important (and more effective) to build bridges than to hold fortresses.

Samson

The IRA do not need access to their offensive weapons, that is why they have opened up their bunkers to International Inspectors for verification of non-movement and non-usage of these weapons.
They are also dropping hints that they are prepared to completely and verifiably put these weapons beyond use by sealing the bunkers.
They are not prepared however, to make a gesture of surrender by handing over weapons (on their knees), and it sounds to me that surrender is what the Unionists seek.
And another point, someone made the comment that the IRA feel the need to hold onto their arms to give Sinn Fein clout in the current process, what about Sinn Fein's (large) mandate from the Nationalist people of the North, does that not count for anything ?


[This message has been edited by Samson (edited 04-07-2001).]

tHE vAGGABOND

The IRA's 'job' - above all others is to achieve a 32 county republic.

Why they keep arms I'd say is not to be seen to decommission on the terms of any unionist to be honest. There own people would go ape-**** if it could be spun the the unionist's won and the republican's lost

Also with the people still active on the republican and unionist front they want to be careful..

tHE vAGGABOND

oops

[This message has been edited by tHE vAGGABOND (edited 04-07-2001).]

Samson

An addendum to my last post:
All of the spotlight is being put onto the arms of the IRA.
What about the arms of the UVF, UFF, LVF et al ?
Very little mention is made of their arms by Unionism.

Gerry

This is the most intelligent debate I have seen on the north in a long time, with a refreshing lack of people getting on their high horses. Samson, your last point is very valid and doesn't get debated much. The unionists, and the two governments have arrived at the view that the IRA must move first on decommissioning, the hardline unionists trying to give the impression that the loyalist paramilitaries would at least match any IRA movement on arms. This might be true, but since they know the IRA won't hand guns over, its merely a way of stalling the whole thing, and everyone seems to have forgotten about loyalist guns.

On your earlier point, I think the fact that sinn féin have such a huge mandate in the north now, means that the IRA are far less likely to go back to violence. It doesn't mean the IRA are going to hand over their guns though. As already mentioned, most violence is now perpetrated by loyalists, and a lot of that is infighting.

Xterminator, I think sinn féin are all for building institutions, however unionists aren't exactly helping, are they? They illegaly exclude sinn féin, and the British government stands by and does nothing. I can see sinn féins vote rising further, and enough people eventually getting ****ed off to do something about it. Some large scale peaceful protests would go down nicely. yes I know that sounds like asking for trouble, but if sinn féin could manage to keep a lid on republican violence, and stage peaceful protests, it would only make the unionist position look more ridiculous. The IRA and sinn féin are capable of it, if they want to.

Gladiator

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gerry:
but if sinn féin could manage to keep a lid on republican violence, and stage peaceful protests, it would only make the unionist position look more ridiculous. The IRA and sinn féin are capable of it, if they want to.</font>

*Me thinks of bloody sunday* i dont think this is a good idea as loyalist are more then willing to use their weapons in force

bugler

I don't think that any peaceful protests would come under attack from paramilitaries. I'm not saying the days of violence are over, but such a move would result in outright anarchy for a substantial amount of time.Besides, the large amount of paramilitaries are well aware that their actions can have all too serious consequences for their own communities. A gun attack on marching nationalists on one day can lead to a bombing on the Shankill Road the next.

bugler

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Xterminator:
The main reason been given here is the IRA keep their weapons in case they need to protect them selves from vicious Unionists.
</font>

I don't think that's the point being made. Whoever made the point about having weapons as clout(I think it was Gerry) was right, the threat of violence is a powerful bargaining tool, like it or not.It's the same in world affairs, it's the same in local affairs.If the IRA did not have weapons, then they would leave themselves open to the oft-used 'Orange card' or 'Unionist Veto', whereby the Unionists merely pull out of negotiations or proposed reforming measures and the status quo continues.This has been reduced in effectiveness somewhat due to the part implementation of the GF Agreement, but much is left to be done.This can't be done without Unionist willingness or co-operation, which in turn seems unlikely as they are so set on decommissioning. It's one of many vicious circles.

Shinji

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">There own people would go ape-**** if it could be spun the the unionist's won and the republican's lost</font>

Joe raises a very valid point - the possibility that IRA decommissioning would actually open up the north to much more violence and civil unrest as Unionists crowed about a victory...

androphobic

As your man said in whatever you call the film that was on rte last night - "Your gun is only a weapon, it takes a hard heart to murder someone." (or something)

Obviously it doesn't help that the paramilitary groups have arms but I think that the fact remains that as long as there are people in Northern Ireland who are willing to pull the trigger, there will never be a resolution. The IRA etc can have all the arms dumps in the world but without their volunteers they are nothing.

Samson, you are totally right. What about the other paramilitary groups?

---

A dissident loyalist group - the Red Hand Defenders - has said it killed 19-year-old Catholic Ciarán Cummings in Antrim this morning.

A spokeswoman for Ulster Television told ireland.com it received a phone call from the group this afternoon and that it had passed the information to the RUC.

The spokeswoman could not confirm reports that the group killed the man because of the recent election of two Sinn Féin councillors in the area.

In 1999 the Red Hand Defenders - which is seen as a cover name for the UDA/LVF coalition - claimed responsibility for the killing of Portadown solicitor Ms Rosemary Nelson.

---

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Samson:
An addendum to my last post:
All of the spotlight is being put onto the arms of the IRA.
What about the arms of the UVF, UFF, LVF et al ?
Very little mention is made of their arms by Unionism.</font>

The IRA is by far the largest paremilitary organisation in the North of Ireland. They have the largest arsenal and most sophisticated weaponry of any knopwn illegal group in the North. They also happen to be republican.

The Unionist paramilitary oprganisations have always been portrayed as "reactive" - they go out and commit atrocities in response to Republican atrocities. While this may no longer be true, it was for quite some time...especially up to the point of the Peace Accords.

Basically put, the other groups are nowhere near as large a perceived threat. Or, if you prefer, as large a target. Also, many of the Unionist groups have said "we wont hand over a single weapon until the IRA disarm. Then we will follow their lead".

Yes....the good old "I will if you will, only you go first" argument. My kid sister had that one mastered when she was 5.

As to the original question - why do the IRA still need guns? I think the idea put forward previously that it is partly to do with not being seen to hand the Unionists a victory to crow about is partly it. But, even when you strip away all the niceties, there is a simple, dark reason why they cannot hand over weapons.

Sooner or later, even without a return to violence, the political situation in the North will degrade to the point wher it will be clear it has failed, and cannot be resurrected. I do not believe that either side will give in to the other sufficicently from their current standpoints.

Following this through, logically, it sooner or later becomes a situation where the Unionists will walk away from the process entirely because (as they will claim) the Republicans wont decomission, despite the Unionists having given up so much.

New discussions will ensue, but I cant see the Unionists agreeing there to back down either, given that the anti-agreement people are gaining support.

Sooner or later, if the political situation fails utterly, then the government of NI will HAVE to be disbanded, and Westminster will take over again.

If such a situation arises, it is perfectly logical to expectf the IRA to turn around and say that they have given peace a chance for X years, and that the Unionists have categorically shown they are not interested in a peaceful solution based on compromise.

At this point, expect those sealed bunkers to be unsealed.

jc

p.s. To the poster(s) who claimed the Unionists have given up nothing....they have given up being ruled from Westminster. They do not want an independant government any more than they want an Irish one. This is not an insignificant concession. Unfortunately, it is one they can nullify simply by sinking the political process in NI.

tHE vAGGABOND

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">A dissident loyalist group - the Red Hand Defenders - has said it killed 19-year-old Catholic Ciarán Cummings in Antrim this morning
</font>

Trimble said on the radio this morning that it was actually republicans who did this under the cover of Loyalists {insert groan here}

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by androphobic:
As your man said in whatever you call the film that was on rte last night - "Your gun is only a weapon, it takes a hard heart to murder someone." (or something)</font>

It was Full Metal Jacket.