Will Sinn Féin ever confirm a direct link with the IRA?

horseflesh

Now that "the war is over" is it time for Sinn Féin to finally admit that they and the IRA are intrinsically linked?

It has always bothered me as extremely insulting to our intelligence that this charade has gone on for years.
I understand that for legal reasons (ie membership of the IRA being a crime) Sinn Féin couldn't be completely transparent. So if that's the only reason and if the IRA's recent statement leads to a genuine and permanent end to all IRA activities, is it time for SF to come clean?
If and when the IRA is decriminalised (in the Republic at least) will that be the time to do it?

I don't want this to be a Sinn Féin bashing thread and I'd hope some Sinn Féin members/supporters will post. Just please PLEASE don't repeat the mantra that there is no link, I for one don't want my intelligence insulted any further.

catholicireland

To answer your question - Will Sinn Féin ever confirm a direct link with the IRA? Im not saying that they do or not, I personally dont have any proof, but I very much doubt that they will.
And if your so sure that they do have a link, then why do you care so much that they go "public"?

Bard

Didn't leading members of Sinn Féin recently make public the fact that they have stepped down from membership of the IRA Army Council?

Would that not be confirmation enough that the party at least was directly linked with the IRA? Why would a public statement confirming such a link ever be necessary at all?

bounty

everyone knows they are, it is due to legal issues that they don't like to admit it

loads of sinn fein members have admited that they where in the ira (mcguinness at sunday enquiries), or have been proved to be in it (kelly in long kesh), in the past

if ira becomes a legal organisation, i can see adams admiting more

catholicireland

Didn't leading members of Sinn Féin recently make public the fact that they have stepped down from membership of the IRA Army Council?

Yes, thats correct. whats your point?

Would that not be confirmation enough that the party at least was directly linked with the IRA?

Yes, but it is still not a public confirmation. And what difference does it make if the party was linked with the IRA?

Why would a public statement confirming such a link ever be necessary at all?

Exactly, people like you dont need it, and most people have made their mind up already on the issue.

Bard

It makes no difference to me, "catholicireland". I was replying to the original poster, not you. I think you've confused me for someone who doesn't agree with you (which I do).

Sand

Its open knowledge that they are one and the same.

Of course provos deny it but theyre just going through the motions. An honest Provo will straight out admit the union. Remember Danny Morrison? The SFIRA PR guy who got caught in a house with a SFIRA "counter-intelligence" team and a tortured man and sentenced as a member of SFIRA? He admits to being an IRA man, and indeed his comrades in the audience at his recent play in that Provo propaganda festival they have up in Belfast probably recognised a lot of the in-jokes in his play, which fittingly was about a possible informant being tortured by SFIRA...

Of course, if they admit it now - which they wont, people who vote for them accept theyre voting for SFIRA, whereas admitting the union might scare off people concerned with stuff like rule of law and democratic norms and silly stuff like that - it will be with the disclaimer that they have no respresentation on the Army Council, that any link is in the past etc etc.

Martin McGuinness admitted he was an IRA man at the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Gerry Kelly is another IRA man. Adams is another. Their recently deceased Chairman whose name escapes me was a famous IRA man. Ferris is another IRA man, just recently off the Army Council. O Snodaighs electoral workers were IRA men. The man implicated as ordering McCartneys murder was an IRA commander whilst acting as a SF electoral worker. The list goes on and on.

You can only imagine the hilarity involved in the talks over the GFA with wee Gerry implying that he could negotiate a deal on behalf of the IRA whilst denying he even knew what IRA stood for....

horseflesh

It's probably the worst kept secret in history that they are linked.
But that wasn't my question.
It's whether senior Sinn Féin figures will ever admit to the link.
It would be a major gamble if they did, especially as they have obvious aspirations to be in government in the Republic. Such a "revelation" could scare potential voters. And yes I know said voters already really know they are connected, but sometimes people like to bury their heads in the sand.

Personally I think there will be some sort of admission at some stage, when is another question.

hill16

Sand are you are member of the DUP or maybe Fine Gael,just wondering.

catholicireland

Yeah, Sand your knowledge on the history of the IRA and all its dealings is immense!

Of course, if they admit it now - which they wont, people who vote for them accept theyre voting for SFIRA

Who cares, last time I checked the IRA gave up the fight.

flogen

Did members actually go public or was it just McDowell saying he believed members had stepped down from the council?

Sinn Fein will admit links with the IRA in about 10 years time, and it will be indirectly through Gerry Adams' second autobiography, which will be written by him after he is names 1st President of the United Ireland, or something fansical like that. In other words, it will be when no one cares anymore and they can't get arrested (statute of limitations and all that crap).

Also, the IRA haven't ended the war, they've just stopped their 'military campaign', their war is now going to be diplomatic, or so we are led to believe.

Villain

Sand wrote:

Its open knowledge that they are one and the same.

Of course provos deny it but theyre just going through the motions. An honest Provo will straight out admit the union. Remember Danny Morrison? The SFIRA PR guy who got caught in a house with a SFIRA "counter-intelligence" team and a tortured man and sentenced as a member of SFIRA? He admits to being an IRA man, and indeed his comrades in the audience at his recent play in that Provo propaganda festival they have up in Belfast probably recognised a lot of the in-jokes in his play, which fittingly was about a possible informant being tortured by SFIRA...

Of course, if they admit it now - which they wont, people who vote for them accept theyre voting for SFIRA, whereas admitting the union might scare off people concerned with stuff like rule of law and democratic norms and silly stuff like that - it will be with the disclaimer that they have no respresentation on the Army Council, that any link is in the past etc etc.

Martin McGuinness admitted he was an IRA man at the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Gerry Kelly is another IRA man. Adams is another. Their recently deceased Chairman whose name escapes me was a famous IRA man. Ferris is another IRA man, just recently off the Army Council. O Snodaighs electoral workers were IRA men. The man implicated as ordering McCartneys murder was an IRA commander whilst acting as a SF electoral worker. The list goes on and on.

You can only imagine the hilarity involved in the talks over the GFA with wee Gerry implying that he could negotiate a deal on behalf of the IRA whilst denying he even knew what IRA stood for....

Sand wrote:

1) if you claim something the onus is on you to prove it.

So lets be having yea, good lad.

hill16

hill16 wrote:

Sand are you are member of the DUP or maybe Fine Gael,just wondering.

What is the purpose of that question and what if anything has it to do with the topic?
Both those parties have significant democratic mandates and individually bigger mandates than SF.
So perhaps you could apply the same respect to their voters as you would to those of your own persuasion, whatever that may be.

catholicireland wrote:

Yeah, Sand your knowledge on the history of the IRA and all its dealings is immense!

Personal attacks are not allowed on this board,I would advise that you do not give me the impression that,that is what you are trying to do there as I will ban you if that is the case.

gurramok

Earthman wrote:

Both those parties have significant democratic mandates and individually bigger mandates than SF.

FG is bigger than SF by a long mile, but DUP bigger mandate than SF?
Is that within NI or the whole island as they are bigger than them on the island as a whole.
Just a thought !

FTA69

Both those parties have significant democratic mandates and individually bigger mandates than SF.

The DUP don't have a bigger mandate than Sinn Féin.

Now to answer the question, the two organisations do have a link but by no means does that mean the two organisations are completely the same. Both Sinn Féin and the IRA share the same analysis of the political situation and both aspire to the same goals, however, the difference between them is that they use completely different methods to achieve their aims. One is a political party, the other a guerilla army. There are of course people who are members of both but the vast majority of Sinn Féin members are not IRA Volunteers in any shape or form. When the Army decides something it works through its own channells and consults with its own members, Sinn Féin members are not included in that process. The two organisations have sometimes been odds over certain issues but on the whole the work of the two groups is harmonious.

Sand

So lets be having yea, good lad.

Out of curiousity, what point exactly are you in denial of? I mean, Ive supported it all before. Youve stated your belief in Gerrys word of honour trumps any evidence. Thats hardly an objective position. Hence why waste my time rehashing what Ive already proven to you? I mean, even on Wee Gerrys IRA membership you accepted he was an IRA man and you couldnt provide a shred of evidence to say hes left since...

FG is bigger than SF by a long mile, but DUP bigger mandate than SF?
Is that within NI or the whole island as they are bigger than them on the island as a whole.
Just a thought !

The Tories have a bigger mandate again.
Just a thought.

horseflesh

FTA69 wrote:

The DUP don't have a bigger mandate than Sinn Féin.

Now to answer the question, the two organisations do have a link but by no means does that mean the two organisations are completely the same. Both Sinn Féin and the IRA share the same analysis of the political situation and both aspire to the same goals, however, the difference between them is that they use completely different methods to achieve their aims. One is a political party, the other a guerilla army. There are of course people who are members of both but the vast majority of Sinn Féin members are not IRA Volunteers in any shape or form. When the Army decides something it works through its own channells and consults with its own members, Sinn Féin members are not included in that process. The two organisations have sometimes been odds over certain issues but on the whole the work of the two groups is harmonious.

Except......you didn't answer the question.
To be fair to you though at least you did admit there is a link, but I think it's a lot less tenuous than you make it out to be.
Do you think it would be fair to say that Sinn Féin is the political wing of the IRA?

FTA69

Do you think it would be fair to say that Sinn Féin is the political wing of the IRA?

No, because that would mean that Sinn Féin is simply a mouthpiece for the IRA which is most definitely not the case. Sinn Féin asserted itself as an organisation in its own right around the time of the Hunger Strikes, prior to that it was nearly limited to being an IRA support group. After 1981 it developed its own political strategies and began to campaign on issues independent of Army input. It was around here that the twin track approach was taken (Armalite in one hand...blah blah) and it is fair to say that the importance of the two organisations in the broader struggle was about equal, when the peace strategy evolved Sinn Féin's role took precedence.

So prior to 1981 it would be fair to say that the party was subject to the Army but after that it became a completely autonomous organisation in its own right.

rsynnott

flogen wrote:

Sinn Fein will admit links with the IRA in about 10 years time, and it will be indirectly through Gerry Adams' second autobiography, which will be written by him after he is names 1st President of the United Ireland, or something fansical like that. In other words, it will be when no one cares anymore and they can't get arrested (statute of limitations and all that crap).

Does the Statute of Limitations apply to consipracy to murder?

I would assume the reason they don't admit it (besides the risk of being arrested and charged with their crimes) is because of the damage it would do to their election prospects in the Republic; people are happy enough to vote for the party that can't decide if it's Marxist or capitalist when it gets out of bed in the morning, but if that party publicly ADMITS that it has a proud history of blowing up children, many will think twice. There are limits to denial.

horseflesh

FTA69 wrote:

No, because that would mean that Sinn Féin is simply a mouthpiece for the IRA which is most definitely not the case. Sinn Féin asserted itself as an organisation in its own right around the time of the Hunger Strikes, prior to that it was nearly limited to being an IRA support group. After 1981 it developed its own political strategies and began to campaign on issues independent of Army input. It was around here that the twin track approach was taken (Armalite in one hand...blah blah) and it is fair to say that the importance of the two organisations in the broader struggle was about equal, when the peace strategy evolved Sinn Féin's role took precedence.

So prior to 1981 it would be fair to say that the party was subject to the Army but after that it became a completely autonomous organisation in its own right.

You make some good points there.
I actually believe that the Hunger Strikes (and their failure) were THE defining moment in the Provos' development. Since then I think things have moved (slowly) to an inevitable "peaceful" solution.

FTA69

I actually believe that the Hunger Strikes (and their failure) were THE defining moment in the Provos' development.

Failure? That's a rather skewed analysis. It was their success that encouraged a political development. When Republicans had Bobby Sands elected as an MP (a success) it demonstrated to Republicans that elections could be fought and won and a whole new avenue of struggle was opened up for us. Likewise, it was the massive political support drawn through the Armagh/H-Block Committee that mobilised people. Many of the Committee branches transformed into Sinn Féin branches after the Strike thus providing us with new organisation all over Ireland. The fact two Hunger Strikers (Paddy Agnew and Kieran Doherty) were elected to Leinster House and were a decisive factor on what government took power also demonstrated the power of electoral politics. I'm bemused how you label the Strike a failure considering Republicans achieved everything they demanded in terms of political status.

mycroft

FTA69 wrote:

Failure? That's a rather skewed analysis. It was their success that encouraged a political development. When Republicans had Bobby Sands elected as an MP (a success) it demonstrated to Republicans that elections could be fought and won and a whole new avenue of struggle was opened up for us.

wow, thats inspiring, cae to justify enniskillen, warrenpoint and any other point.

So tell me if bobby sands success "demonstrated to Republicans that elections could be fought and won and a whole new avenue of struggle was opened up for us." what was the last twenty years of armed struggle? the republicans double checking if Sands was right?

horseflesh

FTA69 wrote:

Failure? That's a rather skewed analysis. It was their success that encouraged a political development. When Republicans had Bobby Sands elected as an MP (a success) it demonstrated to Republicans that elections could be fought and won and a whole new avenue of struggle was opened up for us. Likewise, it was the massive political support drawn through the Armagh/H-Block Committee that mobilised people. Many of the Committee branches transformed into Sinn Féin branches after the Strike thus providing us with new organisation all over Ireland. The fact two Hunger Strikers (Paddy Agnew and Kieran Doherty) were elected to Leinster House and were a decisive factor on what government took power also demonstrated the power of electoral politics. I'm bemused how you label the Strike a failure considering Republicans achieved everything they demanded in terms of political status.

I thought they DIDN'T achieve political status, that's the only reason I said "failure". Am I wrong???
In hindsight, they ended up being the Provos' big success story, like you say their consequences pretty much brought us where we are today.

hill16

After the hunger strike of 81 Republican prisoners were given back their politcal status which should have never been taken away.Just for curiosity seeing as some people on this board regard Bobby Sands as a criminal and a terrorist do they also believe Pearse,Ash,and Collins etc, were also terrorists and criminals for fighting British Rule in Ireland.

tomMK1

thatcher let the hunger stikers die, then let the prisoners have their demands. that was coldhearted.

FTA69

So tell me if bobby sands success "demonstrated to Republicans that elections could be fought and won and a whole new avenue of struggle was opened up for us." what was the last twenty years of armed struggle? the republicans double checking if Sands was right?

I said it opened up a new avenue of struggle, I never said it made the armed struggle obsolete in the eyes of Republicans. We decided to pursue our objectives through both armed and electoral means, it was the period after the first cessation which created the conditions which resulted in us concentrating on political methods. After Sand's election the system itself had not changed thus people saw no reason to give up armed struggle.

I thought they DIDN'T achieve political status, that's the only reason I said "failure". Am I wrong???

Yes you're wrong. The men won their five demands, eg the right to wear their own clothes, not to do prison work, free association etc.

horseflesh

Would you agree that the Hunger Strikes marked the beginning of the end of the Armed Struggle?
It's what I think anyway. "Republicans", ie. the political wing of the IRA, ie Sinn Fein, then saw that popular support was essential to their cause. It's a shame it took nearly 25 years for the Provos to finally come around to this line of thinking. But they have (hopefully) and, to state the obvious, that's a good thing.

rsynnott

horseflesh wrote:

Armed Struggle?

It gets capitals now? What next? Some sort of dreadful American film with a moral message?

flogen

rsynnott wrote:

Does the Statute of Limitations apply to consipracy to murder?

I would assume the reason they don't admit it (besides the risk of being arrested and charged with their crimes) is because of the damage it would do to their election prospects in the Republic; people are happy enough to vote for the party that can't decide if it's Marxist or capitalist when it gets out of bed in the morning, but if that party publicly ADMITS that it has a proud history of blowing up children, many will think twice. There are limits to denial.

I'm actually not sure, quite possibly not.

But yes, political gain is likely to be reason no. 1. Again, it will all come out in the future as part of some "SF member tells all" type media hype for a book or something. And it will be far away enough so people will start saying "ah sure that was ages ago", and (they hope) the common man will forget what the IRA "struggle" involved and just buy into their account of the whole thing.

"oh it was fierce awful, me and Ian Paisley fighting in the rain, if I lost, he'd get the Republic, all the women of the island as wives and eating Catholic babies would become law, if I won, mother Ireland would be free..."

rsynnott

flogen wrote:

"oh it was fierce awful, me and Ian Paisley fighting in the rain, if I lost, he'd get the Republic, all the women of the island as wives and eating Catholic babies would become law, if I won, mother Ireland would be free..."

ppft, that's great. You should send it to the http://langerland.com guys.

FTA69

horseflesh wrote:

Would you agree that the Hunger Strikes marked the beginning of the end of the Armed Struggle?

In all honesty, yes.

Mighty_Mouse

Do you know anything about the north at all? What kinda of statement would you like and how would it help you outside of your insulted intelligence of course?

Everyone knows they are linked but:
are they one and the same? - no
does sf control the Ira? - no

I dont understand what this thread is about other than for the anti-republicans to blast out their never ending positive contribution to discussions on the north.

horseflesh

Mighty_Mouse wrote:

Do you know anything about the north at all? What kinda of statement would you like and how would it help you outside of your insulted intelligence of course?

Everyone knows they are linked but:
are they one and the same? - no
does sf control the Ira? - no

I dont understand what this thread is about other than for the anti-republicans to blast out their never ending positive contribution to discussions on the north.

If you're asking me, as it's my thread;
I never said I wanted any sort of statement. All I asked was a general question about whether or not people think Sinn Féin WOULD admit to a direct link. That's all, nothing more, nothing less.
I even specifically asked that the thread wouldn't become a SF-bashing one.

No need to get so paranoid and defensive.

horseflesh

rsynnott wrote:

It gets capitals now?

Does it really matter?
As I said in my original post, I didn't want this to become a Sinn Féin bashing thread.
I could just as easily (and probaly normally would in fact) have typed something cynical like "Armed Struggle (sic)", but I didn't because I didn't want to be accused myself of "SF bashing".

catholicireland

To constantly focus on one side of the troubles is wrong and bias. We also need to remember that the IRA was born out of the oppression of a people. The people who effectively created this orgainsation by their oppression have some blame to be accountable for too.

catholicireland

catholicireland wrote:

To constantly focus on one side of the troubles is wrong and bias. We also need to remember that the IRA was born out of the oppression of a people. The people who effectively created this orgainsation by their oppression have some blame to be accountable for too.

Care to elaborate on that sweeping statement by perhaps explaining what bombing pubs,killing children and maiming literally 1000's throughout the 1980's and early 90's had to do with ending the oppression of a people?
Care to give us some evidence of the support this had?

Or going on your user name perhaps you'll find some compatability with catholicism with it?
What were the popes views on all this mahem?