The IRA, dissidents and drugs- so who's telling the truth?

maryishere · 14-01-2017 11:56AM

Full Marx wrote: »

Even dedicated provo critics like Ed Moloney don't think the provos were involved in drugs.

Was he really much of a "dedicated critic" when he relied on their co-operation to write a book on them? I wonder what he thought of the Columbia 3, for example. These 3 fellows fled from Colombia, where they were sentenced to prison terms of seventeen years for training FARC rebels. Farc had nothing to do with drugs, of course.

FrancieBrady · 14-01-2017 11:57AM

LordSutch wrote: »

The one thing I can remember being told 're the IRA and drug's was that if they caught any young fellas with/or selling drugs, they used to shoot them in the back of the knees (to blow off their knee caps), or just shoot them in the thighs & cripple them for life!

I guess the IRA had their own massive drugs trade too, which made them twisted murderous lying hypocrites of the highest order.

Ah you 'guess'. Excellent.

Like any army anywhere they would have had their share of recruits with selfish interests.
There is no evidence to suggest that there was systematic drug dealing sanctioned by the IRA. If there is I have yet to see it.

FTA69 · 14-01-2017 11:57AM

LordSutch wrote: »

The one thing I can remember being told 're the IRA and drug's was that if they caught any young fellas with/or selling drugs, they used to shoot them in the back of the knees (to blow off their knee caps), or just shoot them in the thighs & cripple them for life!

I guess the IRA had their own massive drugs trade too, which made them twisted murderous lying hypocrites of the highest order.

More hyperbolic nonsense. If the IRA were running massive drug empires then how come none of them were ever caught at it once? In thirty years; and out of thousands of jail sentences?

Jesus they got caught doing everything else they did. To be honest Sutch, you don't know what you're on about like.

smurgen · 14-01-2017 11:58AM

LordSutch wrote: »

The one thing I can remember being told 're the IRA and drug's was that if they caught any young fellas with/or selling drugs, they used to shoot them in the back of the knees (to blow off their knee caps), or just shoot them in the thighs & cripple them for life!

I guess the IRA had their own massive drugs trade too, which made them twisted murderous lying hypocrites of the highest order.

Not to excuse them but i would say they used money to finance activities. For.example the taliban in Afghanistan fought the U.S tirelessly for control of the opium fields.it was worth around 3 billion a year to them.at the end of the day they still has equipement to buy and men to pay.

FrancieBrady · 14-01-2017 12:03PM

smurgen wrote: »

Not to excuse them but i would say they used money to finance activities. For.example the taliban in Afghanistan fought the U.S tirelessly for control of the opium fields.it was worth around 3 billion a year to them.at the end of the day they still has equipement to buy and men to pay.

The faux shock horror that a revolutionary group would rob banks etc to finance a campaign is hilarious at times. It is as if some just turn a blind eye to the fact it has been that way all over the world from the dawn of banks themselves.

It is as if they expected them to apply for a grant to over throw, or hold bazaars and raffles to raise funds.

:D

They must be running out of 'exposures' if they are falling back on this old drug dealing chestnut ahead of elections.

LordSutch · 14-01-2017 12:06PM

FTA69 wrote: »

More hyperbolic nonsense. If the IRA were running massive drug empires then how come none of them were ever caught at it once? In thirty years; and out of thousands of jail sentences?

... and how come Gerry Adams was never caught in the IRA? :rolleyes:

Honestly, you Provo supporters must think we're very dim. The PIRA were masters at armed robberies. Post offices, Bank jobs, extorsion, high value art theft, Kidnappings with a price tag, even high value race horses were in their sights! so why not make a bit of dough to fund the purchase of arms from Lybia, or fertiliser from the garden centre?

Diesel laundering was also a speciality of the PIRA > will you IRA friendly guys deny that too?

FrancieBrady · 14-01-2017 12:08PM

^^^ That was quick Lord Sutch

:D

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The faux shock horror that a revolutionary group would rob banks etc to finance a campaign is hilarious at times. It is as if some just turn a blind eye to the fact it has been that way all over the world from the dawn of banks themselves.

It is as if they expected them to apply for a grant to over throw, or hold bazaars and raffles to raise funds. :D

They must be running out of 'exposures' if they are falling back on this old drug dealing chestnut ahead of elections.

maryishere · 14-01-2017 12:08PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like any army anywhere they would have had their share of recruits with selfish interests.

army? The PIRA was not an army, more like a terrorist organisation, albeit a very well organised one. The dictionary definition of army is:

1. the military forces of a nation, exclusive of the navy and in some countries the air force.
2.
(in large military land forces) a unit consisting typically of two or more corps and a headquarters.

The PIRA was not the military force of a nation, nor had it a known headquarters.

LordSutch · 14-01-2017 12:09PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

^^^ That was quick Lord Sutch :D

I'm still eating my cornflakes

FrancieBrady · 14-01-2017 12:10PM

LordSutch wrote: »

... and how come Gerry Adams was never caught in the IRA? :rolleyes:

Honestly, you Provo supporters must think we're very dim. The PIRA were masters at armed robberies. Post offices, Bank jobs, extorsion, high value art theft, Kidnappings with a price tag, even high value race hoses were in their sights! so why not make a bit of dough to fund the purchase of arms from Lybia, or fertiliser from the garden centre?

Diesel laundering was also a speciality of the PIRA > will you IRA friendly guys deny that too?

They didn't have access to nice neat Fuel Schemes Lord |Sutch or Nama like cash pots.

Oh to be respectable.

Full Marx · 14-01-2017 12:12PM

Surprised no one has anything to say about Jim Mansfield

smurgen · 14-01-2017 12:12PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The faux shock horror that a revolutionary group would rob banks etc to finance a campaign is hilarious at times. It is as if some just turn a blind eye to the fact it has been that way all over the world from the dawn of banks themselves.

It is as if they expected them to apply for a grant to over throw, or hold bazaars and raffles to raise funds. :D

They must be running out of 'exposures' if they are falling back on this old drug dealing chestnut ahead of elections.

Sure the C.I.A drug smuggled for decades to finance operations in south and central america and they received about 18 billion of the 53 billion allocated to the U.S intelligence agencies in 2016.seems like covert operations are expensive.

FrancieBrady · 14-01-2017 12:16PM

smurgen wrote: »

Sure the C.I.A drug smuggled for decades to finance operations in south and central america and they received about 18 billion of the 53 billion allocated to the U.S intelligence agencies in 2016.seems like covert operations are expensive.

If the last 20 years has shown us anything, it is that the 'respectable' classes or those with their hands on world banking wheels or government wheels have an ambivalent attitude to where the funds come from.

FTA69 · 14-01-2017 12:25PM

LordSutch wrote: »

... and how come Gerry Adams was never caught in the IRA? :rolleyes:

Honestly, you Provo supporters must think we're very dim. The PIRA were masters at armed robberies. Post offices, Bank jobs, extorsion, high value art theft, Kidnappings with a price tag, even high value race horses were in their sights! so why not make a bit of dough to fund the purchase of arms from Lybia, or fertiliser from the garden centre?

Diesel laundering was also a speciality of the PIRA > will you IRA friendly guys deny that too?

Couple of points:
1) Adams was never convicted of anything; he probably was a member having said that.
2) Libya didn't sell arms to the IRA, they donated cash and guns as they were having a pop at the Brits for allowing the Americans to use the UK to bomb Libya.
3) Yes the IRA did rob banks and smuggle across the border and lots of other stuff. They weren't involved in drugs however.

Funnily enough they got caught kidnapping and got caught smuggling and got caught robbing banks but somehow avoided getting caught once while supposedly running massive drugs operations?

Go on away. There's plenty of valid criticisms you could make of the IRA without having to invent stuff.

smurgen · 14-01-2017 12:36PM

Maybe they're just trying to get the british troops addicted. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11733680/Battalions-worth-of-soldiers-sacked-for-drug-taking-every-year.html

FrancieBrady · 14-01-2017 12:41PM

smurgen wrote: »

Maybe they're just trying to get the british troops addicted. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11733680/Battalions-worth-of-soldiers-sacked-for-drug-taking-every-year.html

Imagine a pilot, in charge of some of the most sophisticated and advanced weaponry on the planet, high on some of that stuff!

A Little Pony · 14-01-2017 01:36PM

maryishere wrote: »

Full Marx wrote: »

Even dedicated provo critics like Ed Moloney don't think the provos were involved in drugs.

Was he really much of a "dedicated critic" when he relied on their co-operation to write a book on them? I wonder what he thought of the Columbia 3, for example. These 3 fellows fled from Colombia, where they were sentenced to prison terms of seventeen years for training FARC rebels. Farc had nothing to do with drugs, of course.

Anyone who thinks they weren't is either an idiot or is just defending IRA terrorism.

FrancieBrady · 14-01-2017 01:45PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

Anyone who thinks they weren't is either an idiot or is just defending IRA terrorism.

The British legitimised the IRA campaign.
The British never negotiate with 'terrorists', they negotiated with the IRA.
Time to get over it ALP.

Now have you any actual evidence that the IRA were involved in drug running? (other than a rogue element here or there, which the British Army seems to be having a problem with too

)

A Little Pony · 14-01-2017 02:00PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Anyone who thinks they weren't is either an idiot or is just defending IRA terrorism.

The British legitimised the IRA campaign.
The British never negotiate with 'terrorists', they negotiated with the IRA.
Time to get over it ALP.

Now have you any actual evidence that the IRA were involved in drug running? (other than a rogue element here or there, which the British Army seems to be having a problem with too )

You have just said they did themselves, right here. As for legitimizing them, I don't think Irish people had much like for them. They basically surrendered as told by an IRA member on a documentary by Peter Taylor in recent years.

FrancieBrady · 14-01-2017 02:07PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

You have just said they did themselves, right here. As for legitimizing them, I don't think Irish people had much like for them. They basically surrendered as told by an IRA member on a documentary by Peter Taylor in recent years.

Are rogue elements in the British Army evidence that the Army are doing something? That means the British Army are drug dealers and users. You do know what a 'logical conclusion' is?

Here's another one, if you lay down your arms and capitulate your demands, you have surrendered.
If you refuse to lay down your arms until a deal you accept has been arrived at and implemented, you can be deemed to have won, there is no 'logic' to the idea that a group holding arms has 'surrendered'.

A Little Pony · 14-01-2017 02:26PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

You have just said they did themselves, right here. As for legitimizing them, I don't think Irish people had much like for them. They basically surrendered as told by an IRA member on a documentary by Peter Taylor in recent years.

Are rogue elements in the British Army evidence that the Army are doing something? That means the British Army are drug dealers and users. You do know what a 'logical conclusion' is?

Here's another one, if you lay down your arms and capitulate your demands, you have surrendered.
If you refuse to lay down your arms until a deal you accept has been arrived at and implemented, you can be deemed to have won, there is no 'logic' to the idea that a group holding arms has 'surrendered'.

The IRA had nothing left to give. They had been riddled with informers, Loyalists had been murdering with mass attacks, putting pressure on Nationalism and Gerry Adams wanted a peace deal for a number of years. It was a good thing the GFA came about because Loyalist terrorists had been just about to up the 'game' as they say.

FrancieBrady · 14-01-2017 02:36PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

The IRA had nothing left to give. They had been riddled with informers, Loyalists had been murdering with mass attacks, putting pressure on Nationalism and Gerry Adams wanted a peace deal for a number of years. It was a good thing the GFA came about because Loyalist terrorists had been just about to up the 'game' as they say.

Let's deal with the realities of what actually happened not a loyalist fanboy fantasy.

The IRA refused to disarm until an agreement was reached = FACT

The British and Irish government and the Unionists accepted these terms and negotiated and implemented the Agreement. THEN the IRA decommissioned = FACT.

mynamejeff · 14-01-2017 05:23PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Let's deal with the realities of what actually happened not a loyalist fanboy fantasy.

The IRA refused to disarm until an agreement was reached = FACT

The British and Irish government and the Unionists accepted these terms and negotiated and implemented the Agreement. THEN the IRA decommissioned = FACT.

I though we were not dealing with fantasy ?

Plenty of the IRA weapons ended up in dissident and criminal hands and are still being used to murder and maim .

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/13/belfast-couple-shot-in-legs-while-protecting-son-paramilitaries

KyussBeeshop · 14-01-2017 05:57PM

I don't think the IRA are involved in dealing drugs, but I definitely think they're involved in extorting drug money from actual dealers, and shooting those who don't comply - i.e. basically playing a two-faced game of profiting from drugs, while claiming to be anti-drugs (to take out the competition...).

However...I apply this more to the 'dissident' IRA groups, the Old and Provisional IRA probably weren't like this - but...then again, the dissidents are at least partly made up of disaffected PIRA folk.

Obviously the PIRA (and splinter groups of course) has always been a very secretive organization, heavily involved in lots of illegal activities for raising funding, with tons of shady/dodgy characters of all sorts - it would be piss easy for some of them to have covertly setup extortion rackets, targeting not just drug dealers, but legitimate businesses as well (emphasis on this in particular...), so I totally wouldn't rule it out - such secretive/dodgy groups should never be trusted on their word, and do not deserve that trust, as obviously it is not possible for them to offer any level of transparency/accountability.

I get the impression that the IRA (whether dormant PIRA folks or dissidents) still maintain and nurture strength/influence at a small-scale/community level in the South (not just up North), and that any dormant PIRA folk are probably very reserved these days, in what they use this influence for - and I think this is probably politically valuable to them (SF...) at a community level.

I've got nothing to base that on though, it's just the impression I have of them. I don't know what to think about that really.

FrancieBrady · 14-01-2017 06:18PM

mynamejeff wrote: »

I though we were not dealing with fantasy ?

Plenty of the IRA weapons ended up in dissident and criminal hands and are still being used to murder and maim .

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/13/belfast-couple-shot-in-legs-while-protecting-son-paramilitaries

Now we have the the law of illogical jumping to conclusions introduced.

Plenty of service weapons have been used in crime in NI. Can that be used to infer anything?

We knew some weapons had been stolen from arms dumps. What does that tell you?
I mean, do you have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that the most likely people responsible for that would be those who would became what we call 'dissidents'?

timthumbni · 14-01-2017 08:08PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Let's deal with the realities of what actually happened not a loyalist fanboy fantasy.

The IRA refused to disarm until an agreement was reached = FACT

The British and Irish government and the Unionists accepted these terms and negotiated and implemented the Agreement. THEN the IRA decommissioned = FACT.

Of course you are correct. The IRA won and achieved their goal and for that reason we are now living in a so called "united" Ireland and will live happily ever after.......... oh wait..... maybe not.

In all seriousness the Ira may have failed miserably but at least they were able to line the pockets of the selected few with their many, many criminal enterprises. Those holiday homes in Donegal don't pay for themselves ya know.....

FrancieBrady · 14-01-2017 08:26PM

timthumbni wrote: »

Of course you are correct. The IRA won and achieved their goal and for that reason we are now living in a so called "united" Ireland and will live happily ever after.......... oh wait..... maybe not.

A UI was inevitable the day the GFA was signed. Even Jim Molyneaux realised it, when he said 'it was the worst thing that ever happened us' (Unionists)
You now have an Irish taoiseach talking about it's inevitability and practicality.
Keep the head in the sand as long as you can.

In all seriousness the Ira may have failed miserably but at least they were able to line the pockets of the selected few with their many, many criminal enterprises. Those holiday homes in Donegal don't pay for themselves ya know.....

Arlene would concur, no doubt and her predecessor Robinson. They always had the 'respectable' way of lining pockets.

timthumbni · 14-01-2017 08:35PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A UI was inevitable the day the GFA was signed.
You now have an Irish taoiseach talking about it's inevitability and practicality.
Keep the head in the sand as long as you can.

.

Well 2016 has came and gone and still no sign of a UI. Gerry seems to have hit a bum note on that one. It seems even a fair number of so called nationalist voters don't want a UI looking at the poll last year, let alone the rest.

Re the Irish Taoiseach most here in NI couldn't even tell you his name. And that's on both unionist and nationalist sides in my experience. He just doesn't register that much to be honest.

FrancieBrady · 14-01-2017 08:37PM

timthumbni wrote: »

Well 2016 has came and gone and still no sign of a UI. Gerry seems to have hit a bum note on that one. It seems even a fair number of so called nationalist voters don't want a UI looking at the poll last year, let alone the rest.

Re the Irish Taoiseach most here in NI couldn't even tell you his name. And that's on both unionist and nationalist sides in my experience. He just doesn't register that much to be honest.

That is because your heads are in the sand.

A Little Pony · 14-01-2017 08:41PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The IRA had nothing left to give. They had been riddled with informers, Loyalists had been murdering with mass attacks, putting pressure on Nationalism and Gerry Adams wanted a peace deal for a number of years. It was a good thing the GFA came about because Loyalist terrorists had been just about to up the 'game' as they say.

Let's deal with the realities of what actually happened not a loyalist fanboy fantasy.

The IRA refused to disarm until an agreement was reached = FACT

The British and Irish government and the Unionists accepted these terms and negotiated and implemented the Agreement. THEN the IRA decommissioned = FACT.

The IRA called a ceasefire in 1994, then the Loyalists did it a few months later. Why you seem to be in denial of historical record that the IRA had become less effective, had been riddled with informers and Sinn Fein had been looking to stop the terrorism for a number of years before they eventually did.

The IRA wasn't ever going to bomb Protestants into some socialist Republic, a lot of lost lives and as Gerard Hodgins says, for absolutely nothing. What started out as a revolutionary movement in his eyes to overthrow the state is now governing a British state. So much for not surrendering.

The IRA, dissidents and drugs- so who's telling the truth?

Comments