IRA Officially Disarms

[AngelofHarlem01]

AP Reports*

BELFAST, Northern Ireland - International weapons inspectors have supervised the full disarmament of the outlawed Irish Republican Army, a long-sought goal of Northern Ireland's peace process, an aide said Sunday.

The IRA permitted two independent witnesses, including a Methodist minister and a Roman Catholic priest close to Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams, to view the secret disarmament work conducted by officials from Canada, Finland and the United States, the aide said on condition of anonymity.

Article

 

[LJT]

It won't change much here

No photographic evidence so i doubt the unionists will accept this

Ugh i should never read the comments people make on the news stories....they just rile me up...

 

[VertigoGal]

yeah, seems like a political stunt to me. but it can't be a bad thing, can it?

what comments are you talking about LJT?

 

[Jamila]

Here's a very interesting article from the BBC:


IRA arms story about to unfold
By Brian Rowan

BBC Northern Ireland security editor


We are expecting the decommissioning men to emerge soon to tell us of the secret work they have been involved in over the past few weeks.

The men on this latest Irish mission are General John de Chastelain, Andrew Sens and Tauno Nieminen - the commissioners of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.
Their job has been to put the IRA's weapons "beyond use", and confirmation that this has now happened is likely to come within a few days - possibly at the beginning of next week.


This is the follow-up to the IRA statement of July when it ordered an end to its armed campaign and said it would complete the decommissioning process.


There won't be the photographs demanded by Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party last year, and there is nothing to suggest that the DUP-nominated church witness - the Reverend David McGaughey - will be involved.


But when de Chastelain and his colleagues come to tell the story of decommissioning next week, it will be different from anything we have heard before. It has to be.


This time it has to be "definitive", one source told the BBC News website.

The general has to be able "to account for all the weapons that he knows about," he added.


What he means is that this time the IICD has to be able to say that the job is done - that they have put beyond use all the weapons the IRA has hidden in its arms dumps.



The commissioners are working with security estimates of the scale of the IRA's arsenal - much of it Libyan-supplied, including the potent explosive Semtex.

So, within days, we are expecting a detailed IICD account of what has happened over the past few weeks and, this time, there will be additional commentary from two churchmen - one a Protestant, the other a Catholic - who have been asked to witness the process.


These are the new watching eyes, and what they have to say will be an important part of convincing a listening and watching public that the threat of the IRA's gun has now gone.


Some believe the DUP is positioning itself to "reject" whatever is said on decommissioning, and there is a belief that the party will use the fact there are no photographs and that their witness was not chosen, to dismiss what is said and done.

The deputy leader of the DUP, Peter Robinson, puts it differently.

"I absolutely cannot understand their (the IRA's) logic," he said. "This is the sort of thing you can't do twice. If it doesn't convince us, there will be long delays (in terms of re-building the political process).

"The key is, it's got to be convincing if it's going to build confidence in the unionist community. And it's obvious their priority is international opinion rather than unionist confidence."

One source dismissed the fact that the Reverend McGaughey has not been involved saying: "It doesn't really matter (so long as) it's somebody who has mainstream unionist approval."

The IRA has not commented publicly on the witnesses, and while there has been much speculation, there is no confirmation yet of who they are.

We will know soon and, as the story of decommissioning plays out over the next few days, there will be statements also from the Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams and the IRA itself.

This could be the last time that "P O'Neill" speaks in this IRA campaign.

The focus will switch soon to the business of loyalist decommissioning.

It has been their guns that have been loudest recently, and not one weapon has been decommissioned by the main organisations - the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association.

This is the next phase of work for the IICD but, within days, the story of the end of IRA decommissioning will have been told.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4279256.stm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two points of interest for me in this report:

1) SinnFein is planning a MPH (MakePartitionHistory) rally in Dublin

(an interesting play on words of the MakePovertyHistory organization founded by fellow Dubliner Bob Geldof)

2) truly the next phase of this struggle should be the decommissioning of loyalist forces - especially after the loyalist violence we've seen over the last month

When all is said and done - may peace, tolerance and goodwill
come to all of northern Ireland soon!

 

[LJT]

yeah, seems like a political stunt to me. but it can't be a bad thing, can it?

what comments are you talking about LJT?

Ahh no i am saying the IRA has disarmed just the Unionists won't accept it...tis all they will rattle on etc the reason why the IRA doesn't want pictures shown of their disarmanent is a pride thing...if the unionist parties get their hands on the images they would rub it into everyones faces...would be a humiliating thing for the IRA.

Ahh the comments are on the news article on Yahoo, you go to the discuss link at the bottom....just a lot of racism towards the Irish...just getting me umm a bit pissed off...

 

[LJT]

Two points of interest for me in this report:

1) SinnFein is planning a MPH (MakePartitionHistory) rally in Dublin

(an interesting play on words of the MakePovertyHistory organization founded by fellow Dubliner Bob Geldof)

2) truly the next phase of this struggle should be the decommissioning of loyalist forces - especially after the loyalist violence we've seen over the last month

When all is said and done - may peace, tolerance and goodwill
come to all of northern Ireland soon!

Thanks for wishing us the best and all

Umm loyalists have generally been far more active than the IRA in the past 8-10 yeas...loyalists should have been focused on years and years ago...

 

[VertigoGal]

Oh I see what you mean...so basically it would be devastating for certain (loyalist) parties if the IRA went away? That makes sense. There are tons of politicians here that will go on and on about specific issues (often non-issues), to avoid having to deal with minor details like the economy,etc. Seems to work well.

Well good luck and all like Jamila said of course.

btw, I am a political satire junkie, and I found a site called purederry.com a few nights ago that might amuse you (or not, but you don't seem too easily offended by humor).

 

[LJT]

Thanks for the site VG tis good stuff

I am just happy i only have another week of being in Belfast.

 

[VertigoGal]

you're going to uni!

(look what this place is doing to me, the other day I called it uni instead of college and my friend looked at me like I was crazy. )

 

[LJT]

hehe well you still have a bit to wait for uni yourself

oooh Crumbs is on the radio

 

[VertigoGal]

I know.

Have you downloaded the version of Crumbs from Minneapolis?

 

[LJT]

yep its rockin'

haha just noticed this on the site you sent me to VG

BBC bosses have moved to ban rock superstars ,The Kaiser Chiefs, from the Ulster airwaves this week. The bands anthemic "I Predict A Riot" has been removed from Radio Ulster and Radio Foyle playlists after the Grand Cyclops of The Orange Order "condoned" them on numerous occasions at a press conference in front of the worlds media.

 

[VertigoGal]

from an older one:

The Harry Potter books have underlying messages which "subtly seduce" children claimed head of the Catholic Church, Pope Emperor Palpatine XVI this week. The pope, a well known supporter of the ancient practice of “religion”, much prefers the assured practice of blatantly programming children from birth.

 

[Teta040]

"Pope Emperor Palpatine"?

LOL...

 

[babyman]

i have the fear the truth is not being said completely...................
i don't believe they've really disarmed................

 

[LJT]

Well the weapons they received were in cases above the security forces estimates and all others fell within those estimates....

Lets make it clear nobody knows how many weapons the IRA had, the IRA don't know how many weapons they have....you can never know if they have given up everything they have had....it is just impossible

What we need to know is whether thay have decommissioned the threat to kill...and all the recent statements have basically said that.

Now there is no way of ever knowing whether elements of the IRA will remain active, the lower levels may carry out their own activities....but i believe the top guys, the council want this to be over...

But as far as decommissioning goes...they have i think...they have decommissioned all their known weapons in my opinion...i have faith in de Chastelain...they need to focus on the loyalists now...they have let them go on to long without any political pressure put on them

 

[VertigoGal]

What we need to know is whether thay have decommissioned the threat to kill...and all the recent statements have basically said that.

I agree with this. I don't know what it's like over there (I suppose it's illegal to own guns?), but I know here it's not too hard to buy some rifles. I can imagine they could get more guns in a second if they wanted to, you can't prevent that. You can't card someone everytime they pick up some fertilizer at the store. But it seems like they're saying they have no intention of using any violent means, which is kind.

About the loyalist gangs, why do they deserve the distinction of being "loyalists"? Attacking police and each other hardly has anything to do with any cause, and from what I understand it's got a lot more to do with drugs. Why not just call them drug mobs, etc? I know I'm being naive, but it just seems like they don't even deserve to be treated as a symptom of the troubles or whatever, just a drug gang.

by the way, did you guys ever find out what the IRA are planning to do with the $50,000,000 they robbed...

 

[LJT]

hehe it depends...it may not have been a proper IRA operation that bank robbery...i think it was more an element of the IRA that knew the IRA would be decommissioning so they went for a big pay deal...or it could have been the IRA council setting up their retirement fund The top guys are used to a certain lifestyle....

No one knows really...the Northern Bank retracted all its notes in circulation and issued new ones so the ones that were stolen would be worthless...but i am assuming the people who stole it managed to do something with it

 

[LJT]

About the loyalist gangs, why do they deserve the distinction of being "loyalists"? Attacking police and each other hardly has anything to do with any cause, and from what I understand it's got a lot more to do with drugs. Why not just call them drug mobs, etc? I know I'm being naive, but it just seems like they don't even deserve to be treated as a symptom of the troubles or whatever, just a drug gang.

On your other points...the loyalists are armed to the teeth with 'legal' weapons and many others. As you said nothing is going to stop any element of any porganisation going out getting some fertiliser and lemon juice and hey presto we have bombs, grenades what ever...the IRA were famed for being able to make anything into a bomb...rocket launchers out of pipes, and bombs out biscuit packaging Its just something you can't really decommission on either side...if someone wants to kill they will.

Loyalists are confused...they are losing their natural enemy they were happier when the IRA was active...as now they don't have a purpose to exist but they want to keep their drug running and all that...they are not just drug gangs though...UVF a loyalist group was formed in 1912, that is far older than what we call the IRA now...loyalists are still engaged in forcing Catholics from their homes in places like Ahoghill, they are still sectarian....

Also i would like to say...just because the IRA has decommissioned it doesnt mean the end of Republicanism vs Loyalism...Republicanism has had many different forms in the past such as the Irish Republican Brotherhood, The Fenians etc the name changes every now and then, the cause stays the same.

I hate to say this you know the cause has always umm resonated with me...it is what i want and i can't blame these guys in the 1800s or early 1900s, trying to free their country from British rule..i am nationalist i want a free united Ireland...but times have achanged and the violence gets you nowhere in this modern world and i don't support violent means to get a united Ireland.

 

[VertigoGal]

Yeah there's nothing wrong with sympathizing with the cause, even if you don't agree with the tactics. I probably would too...it seems like these days, especially post-9/11 with all the "war on terror" talk, it would be more beneficial to use political means as it is.

I actually have a question...I understand this movement started as a civil rights movement similar to the one in the southern US in the 60s, but for a number of reasons took a more violent turn. I'm assuming that a lot of the rights Catholics were deprived of are now in place, so one could just assume that it's the IRA campaign that achieved that. Do you think thats true, ie could a completely nonviolent campaign have achieved the same results, and if not when do think the IRA should've ended their campaign (if you think it should've been earlier than it was)? I hope that question makes sense...

by the way, I looked at the list of the decomissioned weapons on the bbc, and I didn't see "1 bad Harrison Ford movie" anywhere in sight.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Hm, hard to compare but if you think of India and Gandhi, he didn't use any violent means and despite India overcame the colnial power. Same with America, King reached way more for the Africans than Malcolm X.

But I can't really say if it is comparable to Northern Ireland.
I think in the end the violent campaign didn't reach anything a nonviolent campaign would'nt have reached.
The Republic and Nothern Ireland aren't united, and the inequality between Catholics and Protestants still exists.
As far as I know there are still more Catholics unemployed than Protestants, and still the higher positions in companies are filled with Protestants, and so on.
But correct me if I'm wrong, LJT.

 

[VertigoGal]

right, well the same could be said for African-Americans in the US as compared to white Americans. you can't immediately reverse cultural things like that. I guess I was just talking about basic civil rights such as fair elections and equal opportunity, etc. Things that are more immediate, whereas a United Ireland seems like more of an emotional issue.

 

[yolland]

I guess I was just talking about basic civil rights such as fair elections and equal opportunity, etc. Things that are more immediate, whereas a United Ireland seems like more of an emotional issue.

No more of an emotional issue than "basic civil rights," IMO. It's not for me to argue whether a united Ireland is ultimately necessary for full realization of "Catholic" rights, but many certainly would argue that.

Hm, hard to compare but if you think of India and Gandhi, he didn't use any violent means and despite India overcame the colnial power. Same with America, King reached way more for the Africans than Malcolm X.

Wasn't the Civil War, which militarily forced the Confederacy to free its slaves and recognize the supremacy of Washington, a necessary pretext for the success of the civil rights movement? Even in King's day, the support of the National Guard was necessary to achieve integration of schools, etc. in the South.

Also, while I a great admirer of Gandhi, I would have to disagree that his Quit India movement was the main reason behind the end of the Raj. A more decisive factor was that Britain was already militarily, financially, and politically overextended far beyond what it could afford, and WWII was the proverbial last straw. One need only look at the (continuing) bloody quagmire opened up in Kashmir by Britain's appallingly abrupt and sloppy withdrawal to see how little Gandhi's (or anyone else's) preferences were consulted in the matter.

**This is not a criticism BTW, I realize you yourself found these analogies problematic.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Yes, that's right.

Good points, maybe I overestimated those movements a bit. But at least you could see a violent movement isn't more effective than a non-violent movement.
But you are right, there were more reasons for Britain to leave India, and more reasons why King was successful.

Hm, it's every time hard to compare the historical efforts of two countries, groups or people.

I hope the Real IRA remains quiet and officials in Great Britain and the world and other powerful men and women now will force the loyalists to give up their weapons.

 

[LJT]

Yeah there's nothing wrong with sympathizing with the cause, even if you don't agree with the tactics. I probably would too...it seems like these days, especially post-9/11 with all the "war on terror" talk, it would be more beneficial to use political means as it is.

I actually have a question...I understand this movement started as a civil rights movement similar to the one in the southern US in the 60s, but for a number of reasons took a more violent turn. I'm assuming that a lot of the rights Catholics were deprived of are now in place, so one could just assume that it's the IRA campaign that achieved that. Do you think thats true, ie could a completely nonviolent campaign have achieved the same results, and if not when do think the IRA should've ended their campaign (if you think it should've been earlier than it was)? I hope that question makes sense...

As i think Financeguy said a while back...it is more nationalistic than civil rights...all this is not in relation to one just the one century...Irish people have been fighting for their right to freedom and an Ireland under the control of its own people for at least 700 years...it just so happens that the majority of people who consider themselves as Irish are Catholic, which is because before Henry VIII in England we were a completely Catholic country...it was during the plantations where Irish land was taken to provide for Protestant settlers that the root of the problems really began...

The violence i suppose of the modern Republican campaign i guess did get the British speaking to Sinn Fein...i still actually remember a time when they didn't allow Gerry Adams to speak on TV they had some actor dub over his voice.....it kinda gave a more immediate need for the british to actually talk to Republicans...really i am unsure...the violence certainly made the need to talk to Republicans more immediate as i said but earlier in the century we almost got Home Rule through political means...

The violence i just think was inevitable...the Catholic situation in NI was bad and someone had to do something about that...it turned out that it was a paramilitary organisation.....it was Loyalists that started the Troubles as we know it...attacking civil rights marches in Derry and burning Catholics out of their homes in Belfast...the RUC the police force at the time had a heavily Loyalist bias, they were not doing anything to stop it, so naturally the people turned to the IRA as such for protection...nobody else was going to do it, but after the first few incidents in the very early troubles in the 1960s i think the IRA had fulfilled what the people wanted it to do....

The IRA's cause was for a unified Ireland...it was never going to achieve that..so therefore it had no real way of ending unless there was a united Ireland...though now it seems to want to achieve that by political means....

The modern world requires a more political resolution due to a change in attitudes and ideas...i think the IRAs campaign was just 30 years too late to really achieve anything...a violent campaign in Western society achieves very little..

so in summary:

the idea of a free ireland was not limited to the 20th century.

irish catholic discrimination had been going on for centuries

IRA campaign was ineffective other than making the need for talks more immediate (not particularly sure)


I hope that answers your questions sorry i am just back from a night out...i will probably try to clarify what i said tomorrow...

 

[VertigoGal]

No more of an emotional issue than "basic civil rights," IMO.

I don't know...Maybe I am underestimating the extent of people's nationalist feelings, but I don't know how many (in this case) Cathilocs would be willing to risk their lives and families in NI today for a United Ireland. Would it really change daily life of standard of living in a very drastic way? (I don't necessarily know that answer to that question...) It seems logical that when a group of people are being blatantly oppressed (not their ancestors), there is likely to be more urgent support for a movement, particularly when it's a violent one. Obviously there is no United Ireland today, yet most of the violence and *support* for violent means has died down. That doesn't necessarily mean that people care any less about the idea, but whoever said terrorism is an act of desperation was pretty accurate, in my opinion.

The modern world requires a more political resolution due to a change in attitudes and ideas...i think the IRAs campaign was just 30 years too late to really achieve anything...a violent campaign in Western society achieves very little.

yeah, I agree. I remember the guy that got murdered in a bar earlier this year even made it onto the news in the US. (although maybe that's just because it coincided nicely with st. paddy's day....we like our stereotypes.) anyway, if one murder gets that much attention, you know you've gotten to the point where a large-scale campaign using violence would be futile and counterproductive.

okay I'm not feeling very articulate tonight, it took me about half an hour to respond. Hopefully the first paragraph made sense.

 

[yolland]

Maybe I am underestimating the extent of people's nationalist feelings, but I don't know how many (in this case) Cathilocs would be willing to risk their lives and families in NI today for a United Ireland. Would it really change daily life of standard of living in a very drastic way? (I don't necessarily know that answer to that question...) It seems logical that when a group of people are being blatantly oppressed (not their ancestors), there is likely to be more urgent support for a movement, particularly when it's a violent one. Obviously there is no United Ireland today, yet most of the violence and *support* for violent means has died down.

I don't disagree with anything here, so perhaps I misunderstood the intent of your NI/US civil rights analogy. What I took you to be implying was, roughly, that bread-and-butter civil rights grievances are always best redressed through peaceful means, and gain popular credibility as incentives to violence only when they get mixed up with pie-in the-sky causes like "United Ireland." (Hmmm, must be time for my midnight snack...)

I am skeptical that the two can be separated that cleanly, which is why I put my response in the context of objecting to the notion that MLK and Gandhi's successes were examples of "pure" nonviolence. MLK's "Promised Land" and Gandhi's "Swaraj" were never fully realized, either...yet they provided a necessary theoretical compass for their followers, and enough things were changed that we count their campaigns as successes today. I am NOT suggesting that Gerry Adams is the moral equal of those great men...just that whether or not he/SF/IRA couldn't just as easily have achieved whatever they have through years of peaceful protest is probably a misguided question. JMO.

 

[LJT]

In the 60s their had to be some sort of violent response from the nationalist catholic community, the security forces were against them, loyalists were attacking them and they were oppressed...

...so yes it was born out of desperation, that people turned to the IRA...you know from where i am living, i could take you to a number of IRA men's houses, and associated businesses....

The IRA really before the 60s focused on the security forces...as in British army, and the police...because they were seen as occupational forces...umm that is something i have trouble disagreeing with in my own head, it just seems to me the same thing as the way the US used the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan...

The idea of the IRA in my head is not always purely that they were terrorists...i can understand them at the start trying to remove British control...and i can see how people may have believed they had no other choice but to fight for their freedom...

...but they became just a mob in the end, killing who they wanted ie the civilian attacks in England... I am confused over my feelings on them at times you know..and i hate to say i have sympathetic feelings for an organisation that has killed so many

 

[Vincent Vega]

Yes, I understand. An organization killing civilans or shooting somebody in the knee as an act of law enforcment isn't an organisation you say: "Yes, that's great, the fought for us!" You'll clearly have mixed feelings with such an organisation.
But during the trouble nobody could really claim to have everything done right.


With Gandhi and MLK, they didn't totally achieve what they wanted, but you'll never get that. You'll ever have to make compromises. It was an aching compromise to split the country into India and Pakistan, and the conflict with the Kashmir region was very sad, too, but at least Gandhi was a man who understood that a too radical point has to fail.
Yes, the British had more reasons to leave India, but I think without Gandhi the death rate would be a very high one.

 

[VertigoGal]

yolland sorry I didn't clarify myself very well, I think we're both saying the same thing.

LJT I can understand what you mean. It's complicated because there's no problem in sympathizing with the cause and even the reasons for resorting to violence. It seems like when it comes to violence even the most noble cause can't stay noble for very long...I guess that's what it does to people, I don't know.