Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 3

I have no problem with using "manslaughter". You'll have to find something else to look forward to.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

How strange, why do you object to the word "murder". Was the intent not to kill anyone? in which case why didn't they warn the authorities? Paul Weaver 21:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. You could develop it to include the thousands of children throughout Europe killed by bombs in the 40's. Unless you think it makes it easier on the parents if the bomb falls from a plane.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you could very well do, unless you belive that war is lawful

Paul Weaver 22:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * the notion that it could be developed to describe the deaths of children killed in wars is clearly ridiculous, civilians were not deliberately targeted, and bomber crews are members of bona-fide national armed forces james gibbon  20:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Change the wording of the sentence to "deaths of children"- it conveys the same information and is NPOV. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Whew! If there's one thing I've learnt about Ireland/Northern Ireland/the struggle/the war call it what you will, it's that pedantry rules! More than that, it (pedantry) seems to be used at every available opportunity in order to bring any progress to a halt. My point? First off, I admit to knowing nothing about the situation. I've no axe to grind. My views are that I guess I kind of think that all or Ireland should probably be all of Ireland and not divided into two. I also feel that planting a bomb in a pub and killing a score of people is, however you might like to cut it, murder. (I'm sure if I were to do the same thing, I'd be put on trial for murder and not manslaughter). Anyway.. my point. I think the article is OK. It doesn't show bias to anyone (like me) who is more or less ignorant of the whole thing. Neither paints the IRA in a better or worse light. And isn't that supposed to be the point of this talk? To decide if the article is bias or not? Well, I say not. --Marcus22 13:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

At the top of this discussion section is the sentence 'Involved in the killing of two children'. I would say that using 'killed', 'killing' or 'kill' would be a true NPOV. In some ways, using 'manslaughter' or 'murder' is.. unneccesary? Do you see my point? If you look at using 'kill' and its forms first, and THEN look at how manslaughter and murder work in the same sentence and context - I'd say that 'kill' is much less likely to introduce implications, slants or tone of writing unsuitable to an encyclopaedia. I'm just thinking of the following points:

1) We have a implication of accepting a judgement that some unmentioned judiciary body having already classified it as 'manslaughter' or 'murder', upon using these terms. Unfortunately the terms will always carry the judiciary implementation of meaning with them. Is it neccessary to add this layer of meaning, however unintentional? If not, I'd say that 'kill' is accurate enough.

2) I believe much of the discussion here essentially revolves around implied justificiation of the killings, against and for. I would say that the moment 'murder' or 'manslaughter' is used, to maintain accuracy we'd have to include who calls it murder and who calls it manslaughter. In other words, if we're not interested in including this level of detail, 'kill' is perfectly functional and accurate.

The problem is that some words will always carry emotion, will carry layers and tones. I'd say that in general Wikipedia should strive to help eliminate this layer of nonexplicit meaning by standardising some words. I'd say kill, killing and killed is one set of them; 'murder' and 'manslaughter' would, for accuracy of truth, always need the above information alongside. 155.69.4.223 08:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that "kill" is the only accurate, NPOV word. Murder is a value judgment.  Some people think abortion is murder, some don't.  Obviously the Provos did not recognize the British courts and considered themselves to be the true "state" army of Ireland fighting a justified (legal) war.  Obviously the British courts did not recognize PIRA as legitimate, as they tried and convicted those responsible of "murder," "manslaughter," etc.  That's why political status for prisoners was such a controversial issue, and why it was a demand in the blanket protest and hunger strikes.  This is probably what needs to be written in the article.  Not to explain that "group A thinks X, and group B thinks Y" would be POV, regardless of how crazy X or Y might be.  Yes, this means "alternate versions of reality," as below.  Otherwise we'll be left with an article that's nothing more than "those murdering bastards don't want to be called murdering bastards" which is accurate enough for some newspapers but not objective by intelligent standards.

I quote from above:


 * "The IRA is the military force of a country. It is the military force of Ireland. It was the military force of Ireland in the last nationwide election held, the second Dail. Thus in not only a national sense, but a democratic sense, they are the only legitimate army of Ireland. They are also the only army which has been engaged in trying to extricate foreign Anglo-Saxon armies from the soil of Ireland."

It needs to be clearer that this is the alternate version of reality in which Sinn Féin/IRA live. Imagine if a terrorist group in the UK called itself the "British Army"?

You don't get it, you can't brand anything 'crazy' or make it sound like people live in their own world, thats OPINION. There is NO way to prove with FACT that the IRA are not the army of what they consider Ireland, because there is no all Ireland government. The UK govt can say they are 'terrorists' the govt of the repub. of Ireland can call them 'terrorists' but based on what they consider Ireland, that means nothing. Imagine a country that is made up of two provinces, a and b they have some sort of a 2 level government a federal govt and two provincial govts, the federal govt says that some group is there official army, but then this federal govt goes on vacation for the summer, then the governments of a and b decide that the same group is not the army of their country, but they obviously cannot make that decision, its the same thing.

This latest statement should worry people, as one wonders what is in store if SF/IRA think they can acheive their aims entirely by the ballot (worrying enough that over 10% of voters in the Republic voted for them despite their not recognising the legitimacy of the Republic of Ireland anymore than the British rule in the North of the country).

zoney &#09827; talk 17:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

POV
Why does the introductory section not even mention the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" once? 18:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why does the introductory section of the British Army, who killed over a dozen unarmed civilians on Bloody Sunday, who have killed innumerable small young children in the six counties of north Ireland, not have the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" once? Ruy Lopez 18:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The British Army operates under the mandate of the democratically-elected government of the United Kingdom, which as you may know, includes Northern Ireland. It is not dedicated to causing terrorist atrocities and does not target civilians deliberately. Glad to help. james gibbon  20:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The IRA operates under the mandate of the democratically-elected government of Ireland, given at the last all-Ireland election. The British Army does not target civilians deliberately?  Tell that to the people in Amritsar. Ruy Lopez 15:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Really?.. 'all-Ireland' election?.. when was that?. I never got a pamplet through the door. Lets face reality here, the government of the Republic of Ireland, did not establish the Provisional Irish Republician Army, the PIRA does not take orders from the government of the Republic of Ireland, the PIRA does not organise or fight anything like an army.  The PIRA is nearly entirely composed of Citizans of Northern Ireland, who are in fact all British in nationality.  Confused about nationality?.. Look at your passport (the real one, not some hacked together fake).  Don't have one?.. Look at your Birth Certificate.  They are British terrorists, pretending to be Irish.
 * Whether or not they are or not a terrorist organisation is a POV. Many would say they are, many would say they aren't. Describing their activities (which many would label "terrorist") would be far more neutral than labelling them as terrorists. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  02:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It really isn't a POV to anyone except those who deny the validity of the very term "terrorist" in any context. They deliberately killed civilians - and have even expressed remorse for doing so. james gibbon  10:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * and so has every 'official' army of almost every government, yet most people wouldn't call many of these activities 'terrorism'

I regularly listen to RTE the Republic of Ireland radio service. I sorta think they never use the word terrorist organization to refer to the IRA - could a local confirm this for us - and at the same time the commentary on RTE firmly takes a negative tone to activities undertaken by the IRA.Kyle Andrew Brown 05:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Kyle, yes, your observation seems correct to me. Aside from a handful of guest columnists, RTE has almost never used the term 'terrorist' to refer to the IRA.  That said, they certainly have a negative view of the IRA.  For many years the preferred RTE term was 'subversive', a word which stresses the fact that the IRA did not view the (de facto) Irish state as a legitimate political entity. Ferg2k 07:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are loaded words. While it would be all right to say that the IRA has been accused of terrorism, or that it is an allegedly terrorist organization, the article does not suffer from this omission and I was not made uncomforable by the choice. The article factually and (more or less) accurately outlines their activities such as bombing, and I don't think any reasonable reader could come to a conclusion other than they engage in terrorist tactics. However, labelling an organization "terrorist" steps over the neutral POV line - it clearly takes sides unless some neutral arbiter (the U.N. for example) has so labelled them. FYI, my distant relatives have suffered property damage from IRA bombing activities (no fatalities), and one fought for the British Army, so I have no great affection for the IRA. --SteveHFish 03:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

PIRA is nearly entirely composed of Citizans of Northern Ireland << 497 ? Or am I missing something? WhiteC 05:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the article was thinking of a plurality, not a majority. The UDR was paramilitary police, not regular Army, so from a certain point of view you could count UDR deaths as a different category from regular British Army units. However, that's probably splitting hairs - UDR members, and members of the British Army, were volunteers who knowingly chose a career that could place them in harm's way. Unlike the 497 civilians who died through other means. 07:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * They're trying to do fuzzy math, this is as POV as possible, but they keep it there, as high up in the article as possible. Funny how the British Army page has no list of the number of its "victims" from Bloody Sunday, the Amritsar massacre or other British massacres of civilians (how about the Boston Massacre)? Ruy Lopez 15:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ruy and I have had some discussion of this at User_talk:Ruy_Lopez. Cormaggio 11:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really "funny". The two organisations are very different in character and purpose: the PIRA is, or hopefully was a criminal terrorist organisation, the other a branch of the legitimate armed forces of a sovereign nation state, so it's to be expected that articles on the two will differ somewhat in format. james gibbon  19:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Which the IRA claim to be, while thats might be a point to argue, its POV.
 * If the UDR and the 'other regiments' are being grouped together, as the brackets seem to indicate they are, then the total casualties should be combined, putting them at the top. Otherwise, they should be treated separately. The UDR were an infantry regiment of the British Army, but a part-time one. Should they be considered as part of the British Army? Supersheep 10:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is quite a difference in the UDR and British Army. Their members were drawn from the Unionist community and were highly sectarian. To many Catholics the UDR were simply the hated B Specials in another guise and so are regarded by many within the Nationalist population as little more than Loyalist units. Technically they are part of the Army but culturally and politically they have to be considered separately. GreatGodOm 13:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Activities
Ah the joys of trying to establish a neutral viewpoint. I would like to ask that the reference to Allied Carpets be reincluded under the section of Activities. It is quite definitive as a reference to the criminal activity that the PIRA / UDA /UVF /whatever etc. This is a classic example of overtly non political IRA activity. The repeated firebombing of this company was even immortalized in the Hole and the Wall Gang's radio show. I think it's more illustrative than the shergar operation which was a one off event. This shows the day to day protection racketeering activity. -kosumi


 * Is there a reference to the humongous bank robbery earlier was it this year where the bank officers were kidnapped and forced to open the vaults and millions of euros were stolen. The Government then declared the notes of the issuing "central bank" be cancelled and they had to be turned in for newly designed notes.  Not too few takers came in with the millions of stolen notes! There was tremendous specualation the IRA did the robbery.  Because of the dimensions of this robbery it's noteworthy here perhaps.Kyle Andrew Brown 18:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless anyone has any objections I will reintroduce this text in a week. - 3rd Aug - kosumi

Its mere suspicion.

Was actually part of a concerted effort

It has not been proven, but has certainly never been denied. The shops in question were in a PIRA protection racketeering bracket. I am happy to add a claimed to have to the text.


 * Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the IRA strenuously deny that they were behind the bank job? While I'm of the opinion that they were behind the operation, in the face of their denials and, more importantly, a lack of proof that the IRA were involved, I don't see how it can be included under activities.GreatGodOm 13:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't that why it says widely been blamed in the text? - kosumi


 * I've no problem with its inclusion in the wider text. I was merely commenting on the above suggestion that the bank raid be entered on the activities list. The robbery has certainly had an effect on the North's politics but until it is confirmed to have been carried out by the Provo's it cannot be called an IRA activity. GreatGodOm 23:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Loughgall
I have altered the word “unarmed” in “the ambush and killing of 8 unarmed PIRA activists at Loughall in 1987”. They were armed and about to attack an RUC station. It would be valid to ask why a surrender wasn’t demanded. But it is simply not true to say that they were ‘unarmed’. They were armed and intended to attack.--ClemMcGann 02:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Not only were they heavily armed, they were in the process of driving an armoured bulldozer loaded with explosives into the RUC station. Not exactly pacifist behaviour. I've never really understood the Provo's attitude on this one. On the one hand, they claimed political status as combatants in a war, but on the other hand, they demanded that the other side act like a police force in peacetime. You can't have it both ways. I don't recall the PIRA ever offering surrender terms to one of their assasination victims.


 * They've been doing the same thing for years, as have other terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. They                       just want to whine either way. Mad bombers and con men are not usually consistent. If they attack it's for "freedom" and part of a military action, if the police or army fights against them they cry about it for years (I guess they expect people to just ignore the law and make a special exception where murder, theft and is legal for them to commit). They flip-flop from being soldiers to civillians to whatever they decide in the next flight of fancy  or to support the gaining of funds. This applies to terrorist groups on *all* sides, as extremism has always provoked extremism over the years in a bloody and vicious cycle. It's a sad state of affairs manuipulated by a select few greedy and power-hungry individuals, reminicent of the personality cults that have cropped up over the years. After the recent tragedy in USA by terrorists, it's made things uncomfortable for these groups as more pressure is being brought to bear on international terrorist groups. If people are now willing to push for peace and turn away from the terror and criminal groups that have been leading them astray and head towards joining the rest of the western nations, it could forge a blessing from that sadness and the whole mess can be relageted to a sad chapter in history. (unsigned comment)

On another, less contentious point, I would like to see the "activites" section merged with the "operations" section. Maybe the present day stuff like the Northern bank, McCartney, etc could be put in a new section called "recent activities". Anyone agree? Jdorney 23:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Northern Bank isn't really proven, no arrests have been made or anything along those lines... in fact the investigation ground to a halt right after a few million of the stolen money was found at an RUC/PSNI club. As for McCartney, the provos have admitted their members did it (and expelled the members and offered to have them shot), but its not really an activity (of the PIRA as a whole), as horrible as it was, a group of PIRA members getting angry during an argument and committing a murder, really isn't an PIRA activity, just a horrible murder committed group of people.SCVirus 06:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has been convicted in a court of law for the Northern Bank robbery so its wrong in the eye of the law to lay blame offically.

I agree with Clem McGann comment above, The 8* men involved in Longhall were most definetly armed. * On a note though, wasnt one of the 8 people killed a civilian killed by a stray bullet? not sure about that someone with access to better material should check it. 195.7.34.195 12:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)K.B.

Still POV?
It seems to me that this article has achieved neutrality (or at least something resembling it). Are there any objections to removing the POV tag? GreatGodOm 09:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In the absence of either glaring POV or discussion to address any POV that might have existed, I've removed the POV tag. GreatGodOm 09:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

South Armagh brigade
Maybe it would be nice to add in information or a special section or whatever about the special role/place of (the) south armagh (brigade) in both the attacks and the IRA itself.

(I'm not at all a specialist, I know nothing of the IRA/Ireland, but I just read Toby Harnden's "Bandit Country - The IRA & South Armagh").

It'd be a good thing to start an article on the South Armagh Brigade (and any and all other PIRA brigades), and add a link here, but I think this article shouldn't be added to if its possible to create a new article..SCVirus 06:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Image
This article needed an image. The one I've used at the top of the page is a cropped image from commons - it's a strong image, but it's not really an "overview" image nor is it even technically a mural. If anyone can find a better one (I couldn't find many such images from Commons - see commons:Category:Murals in Northern Ireland), please feel free to replace it. Cormaggio @ 11:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Peter Mandelson
The Peter Mandelson comments seem out of place in the footnotes about them being a terrorist organization. Mandelson was not in office at the time he made them; he was speaking in a personal capacity. The actual quote was "I don't call them terrorists when they reach that stage [referring to the IRA/Sinn Fein being involved in "some sort of political or peace process"]. They are resisters. They are freedom fighters, or whatever.’’" -Jooler 23:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph
The fact that the organisation has been declared an illegal organisation in Ireland, the UK, the US and in many other states is too important a fact not to be stated in the opening paragraph. &#91;&#91;user_talk:Jtdirl]] 04:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Paramilitary vs. Terrorist
I find it interesting on pages for groups similiar to the IRA (namely the PLO) that they are considered disputed in nuetarlity. Yet the IRA seems to just be an agreed upon Terrorist group, despite the fact their activities are in the same vein as many Freedom Fighting groups attempting to establish their homeland. The difference between a paramilitary group and a terrorist group is simply based on PVO. Early Americans fighting the British should be termed terrorist, but they are not because of the results of the conflict. Not to mention the completely negative use of terrorist in the modern lexicon. It is wise to not label every group with guns as terrorist in this day in age. A better term in the opening paragraph would be to refer to the IRA as a paramilitary group who has been named terrorist in certain countries. As an encyclopedia it is the duty of this site to present truthful, objective material. With information on any paramilitary group we must be careful not to begin naming them terrorist, especially with the conotations that word carries now.
 * (Above comment from User:63.210.254.17)
 * That seems to be the way the article is phrased at present. --Ryano 15:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The connotations that the word terrorist carries now..? How is terrorism any different now to what it was.. however long ago that you are suggesting?

Terrorists terrorise. The Provisional IRA terrorise. Therefore the Provisional IRA are terrorISTs. There is no need to look into further definitions in order to attempt to justify the murderous nature of this organisation. As for Point Of View.. it very well might be that my Point Of View is that the Earth is flat. It wouldn't make me any more correct though. 86.10.126.215 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't try to make it that simply. The RUC terrorised, the British army terrorised, they are not regarded as terrorists, the definition is not simply a group that causes terror, and the Provos never really tried to terrorize, the majority of those they killed were British army/police not random secratarian killings designed to kill fear, that is hardly an earth is flat argument. SCVirus 05:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead on. Either all people and groups in Ireland who terrorise should be described as terrorist, or we should avoid the term. A uniform doesn't turn terror into something else.

Lapsed Pacifist 05:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

''':The RUC and the British Army may have 'terrorised' because of the relatively unique situation - but that does not make them terrorists. The dictionary defines terrorism as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

The world recognises democratic governments as legitimate. The world also differentiates between legitimate democratic governments and terrorist pressure groups such as the IRA and the UVF.

SCVirus, it is a nonsense to suggest that the Provisional IRA "never really tried to terrorize", as this was their stated goal, and certainly what they did since its inception.

"the majority of those they killed were British army/police not random secratarian killings designed to kill fear"

The majority of the IRA murders were indeed of security forces (both British and Irish): 1,011 between the years 1969 and 2001. They also murdered 516 civilians, 32 Loyalist terrorists and 140 Republican terrorists in the same period.

Attacking the security forces is also, by the way, a tactic of terrorists.'''

--Mal 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Noticed the Nelson Mandela article has a cute way of approaching this:

"'Although the apartheid regime and nations sympathetic to it considered him and the ANC to be terrorist, the armed struggle was an integral part of the overall campaign against apartheid'"


 * I suppose its a question of whether you think shooting people to end 'apartheid' in the case of Mandela or 'occupation of your country' in the case of the IRA, is ok or not. Since that part of the Mandela article remains, it means its no longer ok to describe Mandela as a terrorist (on wikipedia). Fluffy999 17:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I Ran Away
I don't think the "IRA=I ran away" jibe was a "silly edit". It seems to have been a common enough graffito, for example. Having said that, it probably belongs more properly to the Official Irish Republican Army article. --Mucky Duck 09:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It was a silly edit. The graffito "IRA=I ran away" appeared around 1968-69 in areas of Belfast. As such, it has nothing to do with an article relating to an organisation that emerged in very late 1969/early 1970 nor with the Official Irish Republican Army article. If the poster wishes to include it somewhere, I suggest he go to Irish Republican Army (1922-1969).--Damac 10:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not so silly. Even the Mitrokhin book specifically cites the IRA="I Ran Away" as a significant indicator of just how poorly the IRA was performing from the KGB's point of view, and why Andropov eventually gave approval for the KGB to supply arms to the IRA once he was sufficiently satisfied that adequate secrecy would be maintained so that KGB involvement would not be overtly evident.  Akulkis 14:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. It would fit quite comfortably into the discussion of the split in Official Irish Republican Army but might be better still where you suggest. It is certainly misplaced in here; but putting people down isn't very helpful. --Mucky Duck 13:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest you have a look at the type of vandalism has been indulging in on Wikipedia . His edits are disgraceful, POV to the core and motivated by a clear anti-catholic, anti-Irish bigotry. This fool should be banned and I'm going to initiate this process. --Damac 14:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

His edits were frequently in bad taste, politically offensive, provocative and bordering on rascism on occasions. I warned him explicitly on his page to stop. I discovered tonight that notwithstanding explicit last warning he has continued such edits. I have now banned him for 24 hours. If he does any more such edits please let me or another admin know and we will ban him again, next time for 48 hours, on a third time for one week. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

US government designation
As far as I can see, the US government still officially refers to the PIRA as a "terrorist group" but it is no longer on the list of "designated foreign terrorist organizations"  which it is illegal to raise funds for in the United States. So the US does classify the PIRA as a "terrorist organization", but it is completely legal for US citizens to raise funds for and support them. Go figure. Demiurge 10:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actucally the reports you are using from the state department are a bit oudated, 2003. The latest report, dated October 11, 2005, list only the Continuity Irish Republican Army, Real IRA as the only Foreign Terrorist Organization as desiginated United States goverment, dont get me wrong i was supprised as well even with the disarmerment, you can find that report here. As for MIPT, it says the same thing in the coll on the left under US Syaye Dept. FTO and gov designations, wich apparently it is only a "terrorist group" by the UK, note that the MIPT repport does not really mention its designation for countries outsied of the US, UK, Canada, AUS, and by the EU, does not mention the Statues in the Republic. So with all of that being said looks as if they are no longer desingated an FTO by the US. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that the PIRA is not on the US list of "designated foreign terrorist organizations" which is a legal designation making it illegal for US citizens to support any such organization. However, the PIRA is nevertheless described as a "terrorist group" in official publications by the US government (example from April 2005: ). Demiurge 21:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ok i udnerstand what your are saying now, i actucally went ahead and read the 2004 reoprt. Yeah it is strange in the way that they classify them, but based upon the language of the report and the legal provisions which designate what the stated goals are for the report, yes the US goverment still officialy desiginates the PIRA a "terrorist organization". --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f, which requires the Department of State to provide an annual report to Congress on terrorism, requires the report to include, inter alia, information on terrorist groups and umbrella groups under which any terrorist group falls, known to be responsible for the kidnapping or death of any US citizen during the preceding five years; groups known to be financed by state sponsors of terrorism about which Congress was notified during the past year in accordance with Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act; and any other known international terrorist group that the Secretary of State determined should be the subject of the report. The list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) below is followed by a list of other selected terrorist groups also deemed of relevance in the global war on terrorism." The PIRA, along with the INLA, LVF, RHD UDA/UFF, UVF are inclued in the second category. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

O'Callahan, Scapaticchi, Donaldson ... who's next?
The subuject of moles within both the IRA and Sinn Fein is one that may need discussion, especially seeing as the above are the only prominent ones that are know about. Fergananim 14:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Weaponry and Operations
A number of the recent changes made to this section had to be changed or deleted.

First, the Soviet Union never supplied arms to the IRA. The Provo's Soviet Block arms came from Lybia. Though apparently some were also puchased in Europe.

-- Bzzzt! Wrong. Yuri Andropov is named by Vasili Mitrokhin as personally giving the approval for the KGB to ship arms to the IRA. pp 377-378 in The Sword and the Shield: Vasilli Mitrokhin and the Mitrokhin Archive. Andropov insisted that adequate secrecy be demonstrated before the shipments be made; it took 2 1/2 years before Andropov was satisfied that the KGB would not be directly implicated. See the Mitrokhin talk page. Akulkis 14:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

They never obtained Uzi machine guns in any numbers.

If they were supplied by Irish American organised crime, this needs a source. I've never heard of it. Thier support base in the states was organisations like NORAID and their own operatives who were sent there to buy weapons.

The 1980's Lybian weaponry did NOT allow the provos to escalate their campaign. This is a very important point. They had a strategy to lauch a "Tet" style offensive with this weaponry that would hugely escalate the conflict, but this did not happen and was one of the main reasons for the peace process developing. A significant amount of this equipment was intercepted anyway by French and Irish authorities. Much of it, including the flame throwers and surface to air missiles were never or hardly ever used.


 * Note to above the "Tet" style offensive was cancelled due to the IRA's lack of a relaible counter to British Army helicopters. The SA-7 "Strela" missles procured from Lybia were made in the 1960's and were easily defeated by 80's era anti-heat seeking flares & shields mounted on BA Helo's. The PIRA did actually test fire several of the missiles at BA Helo's only to see them utterly fail to lock on to their targets 195.7.34.195 12:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC) K.B.

The IRA killed very few British soldiers from the mid 80s onwards in Northern Ireland. Don't take my word for it, look at the statistics. This is also a very important point. They could no longer exert political pressure in this way on the British government because many British soldiers were no longer being killed (unlike the 1970s). This is the reason why the bombing campaign in England was so important, because it did pressurise the British government. As an aside to this comment, the Brits never negotiated with the IRA, (except perhaps in the early 70s), only with Sinn Fein.

Re the killings of loyalists, it is disengenous to replace info about the Shankill bomb with a list of all the loyalists the provos killed over the years. The point here is that in the 1970s, when loyalists killed catholics, the IRA killed protestants in retaliation, eg Kingsmills in 1976. This resulted for a while in a kind of implicit ceasefire between the paramilitaries. However, in the late '80s when loyalists stepped up their killings again, Adams and co would not allow sectarian massacres because it undermined their political side. hence they tried to kill UDA leaders in Shankill in 1993, but instead killed 9 other people. Their relative inability to stop loyalist murders of nationalists is another important point to understand in in the last years of the troubles.

Jdorney 12:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph query
The paragraph:

The last known murder of a UDA member was that of Robert "Bobby" Dougan in 1998. Dougan had been suspected in the murder of several Catholic civillians, and was executed by an IRA death squad in retaliation. Many experts contend that this expert assassination campaign forced the UDA and UVF to declare a ceasefire in 1994.

Seems to infer that Mr Dougans death in 1998 was the catalyst to a ceasefire called four years prior to it? Is the date of his death incorrect - the paragraph does not appear to make sense in its current form.

Editing of this article on the IRA.
The editing done to this article was done using professional sources, which I will be happy to cite to the Wikipedia staff.

I have not intentionally deleted anything about the Shankill bombing, it may have been done by accident for which I apologize. My intent was to weed out many of the subjective statement made on this page about IRA effectivness Vs British effectivness. These statements are based more within personal bias rather then facts. I have used the opinions of recognized authorities and research sites about both the conflict in Northern Ireland, and the IRA in general.

The information about the assassination campaign against Loylaists groups, may not be popular to pro-Loyalist individuals or those bias towards their views, but it is a fact of history. Several online research sites such as the "Council On Foreign Relations", "RAND" Corp. and "Jane's Intelligence Online" have all had articles on this topic. I have tried hard to not interject a bias into these edits. I found alot of Anti-IRA bias in the article, whcih is fine, but they are opinions not facts. The facts in the article are documented and are the views of experts. I myself am niether a supoorter or detractor of the IRA. As a former US Marine, I am certainly not inclined to support any idiology that espouses terrorisim. I am merely reporting the facts about the IRA as they have been reported in other articles and books by authoritative experts.

It is important that all editors of this article do so from a historical factual standpoint and not a personal biased standpoint. I will be checking this article regularly to ensure my edits have not been taken off, these edits are documented and supported by facts, therefore they should remain.

PS. Please see my contribution to the article about the US Marine Corps "Force Reconnaissance" unit. This is an example of facts being presented free of bias, even though I served with this unit.

Subject of KGB and Stasi support for the IRA
The Edits regarding the support given to the IRA by both the KGB and East German Stasi, are revealed in the book "Sword and the Shield" by Christopher Andrewk, and in various online articles by experts on the subject.

Both the Stasi and KGB helped train and equip various terror organizations during the 1970's. Besides the IRA, they are belived to have given assisstance to the Red Army Faction, the ETA, and the Italian Red Brigades.


 * I can assure you, and I have looked into this in great detail and have consulted the holdings of the Gauck Behorde in Berlin, that the Stasi did not support the Provisional IRA. Claims otherwise can only be described as fantastical. There are only unsubstantiated rumours that a leading Provo visited East Berlin on a number of occasions. --Damac 23:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry User:Devin79, but the sources you have consulted are wrong about this. Neither the USSR, KGB, nor the Stasi ever supported the IRA. I would be very interested to hear any evidence to the contrary. In the meantime, I will be reverting your changes. The same is true of alleged links with the Russian mafia. Regarding a bias against the IRA, this is not the issue here. The the issue is establishing the correct facts.


 * Sorry, Jdorney, but Mitrokhin's KGB archive papers smuggled out of KGB headquarters indicate otherwise. Akulkis 14:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Re, the loyalist question, first of all, you are confusing two different eras. In the mid 1970s, the UVF and UDA started a murder campaign against Catholic civilians, the IRA responded by killing Protestant civilians. Eg the Kingsmill massacre of 1976, which was sanctioned by Brian Keenan, an army council member and was far from an isolated incident. This resulted in a kind of truce on bith sides. This period is already covered in the article.

The late 1980s represents a different era, when the loyalists again started killing large numbers of Catholics in response to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which they thought was the start of "sell out". Other factors included the covert assistance of some British intelligence operatives and the guns the loyalists got from South Africa. The IRA response of this era was different from the mid 1970s. Sinn Fein were now heavily involved in electoral politics and the Adams leadership was strongly against sectarian reprisals. While the IRA may have wanted to kill two loyalist paramilitaries for every Catholics killed, they could not achive this. For this reason they tried to kill the loyalist leadership, the Shankill bomb being the only the highest profile example. However, this could not be said to have forced a loyalist ceasefire, if only because the loyalists announced thier ceasefire several months after the Provos. Incidentally, they claimed and continue to claim that their campaign forced the IRA ceasefire. Republicans would dismiss this as they argue that they had already dcided to embark on an unarmed strategy.

With the greatest of respect, the specualtion of the American Council on Foreign Relations is not a good authority on this subject. I respectfully suggest that you read some of the more mainstream Irish based literature on this subject.

One final point, the IRA admit themselve that they found it increasingly difficult to kill British soldiers in the final years of the conflict. Far from there being an empshasis placed on killing the RUC or loyalists, the Provos would have preferred to cause British Army casualties as the propaganda effect was greater and did not carry the taint of sectarianism. Also I must stress, again, that the 1980s arms shipments DID NOT SIGNAL AN ESCALATION OF THE CONFLICT. The IRA's sources quoted by Ed Moloney in his book, the Secret History of the IRA, are quite explicit about this. There were plans for a "Tet Offensive" in 1987, whereby IRA men armed with heavy weaponry would take over and hold parts of NI, leading to a daramatic escalation of the fighting. This did not happen because the siezure of the Eksund ship carrying arms alerted the British. But if you don't believe me, look at the casualty figures from the conflict, they never topped 100 deaths a year after 1981. Hardly an escalation.

Jdorney 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Weaponry and operations section too long?
I propose splitting it. Guinnog 23:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add some detail on PIRA's development of weapons like the family of mortars. Guinnog 19:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

KGB and Stasi support for the IRA is factual and verifiable.
The subject of the IRA being trained and equipped by both the Stasi and KGB is a historical fact. Two books including "The Sword and the Shield" and "Stasi" The untolf stories of the East German Secret Police.

These are verifiable sources that can be checked by reading the books.

As for the Russian Mafia links, these are also factual and verifiable.

An article in the "Guardian" Newspaper and in the "Belfast Telegraph" both quoted British and Irish security sources as sayying that in 2002, the IRA used former KGB contacts (who were now in the Russian Mafia) to import 40 brand new AN-94 Russian assault rifles. "Jane's Intelligence" online also has written on the IRA/Russian Mob links.

Instead of just claiming these things to be false, one should do research as I have and stop deleting things just because you don't know about them, or disagree with them. I qoutoe sorces, whcih is the difference between me and the other people editing this article. I will continue to edit this article daily if I have to, in order to ensure that it is accurate and a service to Wikipedia, which I admire.

Well if it is an establsihed fact, then its unusual that it is included in none of the mainstream accounts written about the provos in recent years. If the Soviets wanted to fund an armed republican group in Ireland, then the Official IRA was surely a much better bet. In fact, there is evidence that their party the Workers Party did recive funding from Moscow. The Provos were extremely anti-communist in the 1970s, though less so later.

Re the two books you have mentioned, I'm not familiar with them but I'm prepared to come half way on this and check them out. I would be wary however if they also inclde the claim thath the Soviet block funded the Red Brigades and ETA, which would also be highly disputed. The Russian mafia sounds a lot like a rumour to me. In any case, the fact that the IRA bought guns off arms dealers who to be KGB, doesn't mean there are institutional links between the PIRA and either the KGB or the Russian mafia.

Re the Balkan connection, All the the reports I have heard have said that it was the Real IRA who sourced weapons in Croatia, not the provos.

Finally, re research, if you look at the sources section, you will see that I ahve done research and also cited my soruces.

One more point, what are "groups in the Southern Ireland"? The IRA in the early 1970s had its leadership based in the south, it had and has operational units in the Republic, are these what you are referring to? If not then who? There was a short lived plan discussed by the Irish government of the day to arm northern nationalists in self defence after the battle of the Bogside in 1969. This resulted in a scandal involving an Army officer and a minister Charles Haughey, but no guns were ever handed over to anyone, least of all the provos. Jdorney 14:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone asked about this on the Talk:Vasili Mitrokhin page if this is verifiable or not. Here is the evidence:

The Sword and the Shield: Vasilli Mitrokhin and the Mitrokhin Archive -- pp 377-378 deals with KGB/IRA relations: The IRA had been widely criticized by its supporters for failing to defend the Catholic community during the Belfast troubles of August 1969, when seven people had been killed, about 750 injured and 1,505 Catholic families had been forced out of their homes -- almost five times the number of dispossessed Protestant households. One Catholic prist reported that his parishioners were contemptuously calling the IRA, "I Ran Away." In his message to Moscow, O'Riordan said that during the "August crackdown" the IRA had failed to act as "armed defender" of the nationalist community because "its combat potential was weakened by the fact that it had previously concentrated its efforts on social protests and educational activity." He claimed that there was now a real possibility of civil war in Northern Ireland between the two communities, and of serious clashes between British troops and the Catholics. Hence the IRA's appeal for arms. In a report to the Central Committee, ANDROPOV insisted that, before going ahead with an arms shipment, it was essential to verify O'Riordan's ability "to guarantee the necessary conspiracy in shipping the weapons and preserve the secret of their source of supply." It was more than two and [a] half years before Andropov was sufficiently satisfied on both these points to go ahead with the arms shipment. Akulkis 14:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

British military admitted that the IRA continued to kill effectively up untill the second ceasefire.
The statement that "by the early 90's, the IRA found it extremely difficult to kill British soldiers" is an opinion not supported by facts. Books such as "Bandit Country" and "The Irish War", along with opinions made by former British intelligence officers, have claimed the exact opposite.

From 1990 to 1997, many soldiers and police were killed in Northern Ireland and in Britian. It is true that not as many died as did during the previous two decades, but the IRA and British experts contend this to be part of an IRA strategy not a lack of means or opportunity.

Also, the IRA has stated publicly that they vastly increased thier targeting of UDA/UVF personell in response to the incresed attacks on Catholic civillians by UDA/UVF members. The stated 2 to 1 goal in killing UDA/UVF members, may not have always been feasible, but it was a publicly stated goal. Also more then double the numbers of UDA/UVF/LVF were killed by the IRA (Or the INLA) then were IRA.Sinn Fein members killed by Loyalist groups. This statistical fact proves that this was a valid fact to put in the article.

The Edits I hacve written incorporate 80% or more of the priginal text, I would appreciate the same courtesy by others. I will continue to ensure that the article I have written remains the one posted on the Wikipedia site. If people want to add things that are factual, as opposed to opinions, they are more then welcome to do so. But to put pro-Loyalist remarks into the article to try and change historical fact is wrong, and un-professional.

First of all, I'm no loyalist. I'm a Catholic nationalist from Dublin. Second, the IRA certainly continued to kill British soldiers, but in no great numbers. A South Armagh IRA man quoted in Bandit Country says that in the early 1990s their aim was to kill one every six months and this was by far the most effective IRA unit. Certainly all assessments agree that they could have continued in this manner for the forseeable future. The point here is that not enough British soldiers were being killed to pressurise British public opinion. The commercial bombing campaign in England was much more effective.

Re the loyalist question, certainly it may have been their goal, but it did not stop the loyalists from murdering catholics, which they did in increasing numbers in the early 90s. If they loyalists were less effective at killing IRA men than civilians this is more of a reflection on them than the IRA. The point of the loyalist campaign to make the nationalist community so fearful that they would force the provos to call a ceasfire. The loyalists claim that this worked. The IRA deny its importance. Please take into account that the loyalists called their ceasefires after the provos, not before.

Re Bobby Dougan, he was killed in JAnuary 1998 during a spate of murders that followed the INLA killing of Billy Wright (terrorist). The UDA killed two catholics and in resonse the IRA killed Dougan. The loyalist then killed several more catholic civilians before being persuaded to stop. This does not belong in a paragraph on the early 1990s. Jdorney 14:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

CFR is a perfectly accurate source.
The "Council On Foreign Relations" (CFR.ORG) is a recognized, legitimate think-tank that studies international terrorisim for the United Staes Govt. to claim they are "Not Credible" is idiotic. They are as legitimate as any online newspaper or other source. They have studied Northern Ireland, and compliled a list of UDA/UVF killed by the IRA/INLA, and vice versa. These facts are good and will be included in the article.

I am not using an online newspaper or source. I am using the books I have added in the source section. My point was that the speculation of these people on what caused the loyalist ceasefire is not consistent with the facts. Jdorney 14:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Pakistanis
Unless you think they were targetted on the basis of their race, it is irrelevant to this article to call the civilian victims Pakistanis. Guinnog 07:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise
For now, I've re-instated some of the recent changes. See talk above for my disagreements with some of them. When I get more sources to hand I will re-edit this section.

For now though, a few important things must be changed.

Firstly, the sentence, "this modern weaponry enabled the IRA to escalte this campaign over thirty years of war". This misses the point that IRA activity varied hugely over the Troubles. In the early 1970s it was very intense. Then a lull and ceasefire in 1975, followed by a re-organisation and another burst. A fall off in the early 1980s durign the hunger strikes and Sinn Fein's political emergence, then a modest increase in the late 80s caused by the arms shipped from Lybia. The 1990s saw a fall off in activity in Northern Ireland but an increase in bombing activity in Britain. Secondly, the UDR. Calling it a "Protestant based militia involved in the killing of Catholics", is extrmely POV. Though some nationalists would indeed have seen it in that way. The UDR was an auxilliary part time division of the regualr British Army. Its role included manning patrols etc and certanly not the sanctioned killing of Catholics. It is true though that some UDR men were also loyalist paramilitaries and were involved in killing catholics, eg the Miami Showband kilings.

Jdorney 14:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Reearch done on alleged Soviet links
Re the above dispute over the PIRA's connection with the KGBand the Stasi, I have consulted the following books:


 * Eamon Mallie, Patrick Bishop, The Provisional IRA,
 * Martin Dillon, 25 Years of Terror - the IRA's War against the British,
 * Richard English, Armed Struggle - the IRA and Sinn Fein
 * Peter Taylor, Provos the IRA and Sinn Fein
 * Brendan O'Brien, The Long War
 * Ed Moloney, The Secret History of the IRA

These are the main, most up to date histories written on the provisionals by people with extensive contacts within the republican movement and the British and Irish Security Forces. None of them mentions a link to either the KGB or the Stasi. This therefore cannott be said to be an "established historical fact" as stated here, but rather the contention of a single KGB defector, published in the book the "Sword and the Shield". I will therefore be removing this claim from the main text to a footnote.

Regarding the IRA's sourcing of Arms, the books agree on the following information,
 * 1. After 1969, the Provos recieved a large ammount of stored IRA weaponry from previous IRA campaigns (though the Official IRA retained some of it). This was mainly WWII weapons, including Lee Enfields, American M1s, German Schmeisers, Thompsons, Bren Guns and webley revolvers. (Taylor p62). De Chastelain and the decommisioning body reported that this weaponry wwas still in IRA arms dumps in 2005.


 * 2.America By 1972, The Provisionals had large quantities of modern arms (especially Armalite rifles) procured in the USA. The IRA's main gun runner in the US was George Harrison, an IRA veteran, living in New York since 1938. He bought guns via a Corsican arms dealer named George de Meo, who ahd organised crime connections (English p116). All sources agree that Harrison was funded by NORAID - the IRA support group in America. Joe Cahill was the liason between NORAID and Harrison. In 1971, the RUC had already captured 700 modern weapons, 2 tonnes of explosive and 157,000 rounds, most of which was US made (English p116). Harrison spent an estimated $1million in the 1970s on over 2500 guns (Moloney p16). According to Brendan Hughes (IRA man, later prison commander in Long Kesh, the IRA smuggled the Aerican arms by sea from New York via Southhampton (Taylor p108). In addition, another IRA man Gerry McGeogh was sent ot the US in the late 1970s, he procured Armalite AR15s, Heckler and Koch Hk19s and other weapons, again, funded by Irish American republicans (Taylor p4). Harrison was arrested by the FBI in 1981. Megahey was arrested by the FBI in 1982 in a "sting" operation, while trying to buy Surface to Air Missiles (Moloney p16). The last major American arms shipment was intecepted by the Irish authorities in the Marita Ann ship off Kerry, allegedly after a tip off from IRA informer Sean O'Callaghan (English p117) (Moloney p16). No mention of the Irish American mob in any book, so this also will go to a footnote.


 * 3. Libya. The first Libyan arms donation to the PIRA occurred in 1976, via Joe Cahill's visits to Libya. Cahill was arrested on board the Claudia in 1973, off Waterford with a shipload of Libyan arms (English p117). This included 250 Russian made rifles (Kalashnikovs?), 240 other guns and anti tank mines and other exploseives. Its is estimated that three other similar shipments got through at this time (Taylor p156). Moloney reports that Gadaffi also donated $3-5 million at this time (Moloney p10). The second major Libyan contribution ot the IRA came in 1986-87. The Eksund, one of the four shipments and the onl one that was intercepted (by French customs), contained 120 tonnes of weapons, including heavy machine guns, 36 RPGs, 1000 detonaterrs, 20 SAMSs, Semtex and 1,000,0000 rounds of ammunition (O'Brien p142). An indication of what was aboard the other vessels can be got from subsequent Garda arms finds, which in 1988 included several hundred Kalashnikovs, including models from Romania, Yugoslavia and The USSR, Russian DSHK machine guns, NATO calibre M60 machine guns and semtex (O'Brien p143). Moloney claims that the Eksund shipment contained military mortars and 106 millimetre canons, a fact nver acknowledged by the Irish authorities (Moloney p22). It is also estimated that Gaddafi donated the equivilent of £2million with the 1980s shipments(O'Brien p143).

That appears to account for the PIRA's arsenal. If there was any KGB or Stasi assistance to the IRA, it must have been done through the Libyans. This is possible of course, but certainly not proven.


 * In The Sword and the Shield: Vasilli Mitrokhin and the Mitrokhin Archive, pp 377-378, Vasili Mitrokhin states that the KGB archives clearly indicate that Yuri Andropov personally approved KGB arms shipments to the IRA, but insisted that adequate security measures in the conspiracy be put into place such that the KGB would never be directly linked.  This took 2 1/2 years before Andropov was satisfied.  Akulkis 14:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Number of murders
The IRA are responsible for killing more civilians, more Roman Catholics, more Protestants and more children (16 and under) than any other organisation in the years included in the link CAIN statistics. To this end, I am editing the introductory paragraph to reflect this.. though I will leave out the reference to the number of children as this might be seen as 'political expediency'. --Mal 22:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of IRA killed according to Govt. is different then CAIN project
The numbers of people killed by the IRA, is somewhat in dispute. The CAIN Research Project came up with a number that has been quoted on this site, but it is a conservative estimate. The US State Dept. and British Govt. quote numbers that come from independent research institutes like RAND, Jane's Intelligence and the CFR.

According to these numbers (which includes killings in which the IRA is heavily suspected, and missing but presumed dead) the number is a at least 200 people higher. This is why in some press accounts the IRA is said to have killed roughly 1,700, and in others they are claimed to have killed slightly under 2,000.

These are the figures used by the British, Irish and to some extent American governments. This is why I used them, and if they are accurate enough for three governments, they should be pretty exact. ____________ Yes, buts that's a very big IF. You have quoted no exact source and have no breakdwon of the figures. I will not accept that these are British, Irish or US figures unless you present detailed evidence. The figure of 800 British soldiers killed is far higher than any I have ever seen. On the other hand, it correlates almost exactly with the total number of security forces personell (including RUC, UDR) killed, it seems very likely to me that you have seen this figure and presumed it was a figure for the British army only and then added on the RUC and UDR figures. I am putting the CAIN figures back and deleting the figures you have put until you give an exact source and breakdown of the figures.

I am getting extremely suspicious of your edits, given that you appear to have an agenda of praising the IRA's campaign and describing it as a war, which only republican sympathisers do. I notice that you have not altered the statistics for the civilians killed. On top of that, you have reverted whole sections of the article for reason and with no consultation. And sign you name when you contribute here please. Jdorney 12:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC) ___________ _

I consider CAIN to be the foremost source regarding research into the Troubles. If the figures are conservative, then all the better, in my humble opinion. Take for example the murder of Robert McCartney - that could easily be attributable to the IRA, but nothing has been proven conclusively. In Northern Ireland, we all 'know' that members of the IRA carried out the murder (and the attack on McCartney's friend at the same time), and subsequently cleaned the bar at a forensic level and organised street rioting to delay police investigation. But I am willing to accept that this particular murder, for example, has not been conclusively proven to have been the IRA - for the purposes of statistics. There are some hundreds of murders that CAIN notes have been carried out by "unspecified" Republican or Loyalist groups.

You make a good point about the governments having accepted different (in this case higher) figures. I'd like to know whether all three of the governments you refer to agree to the same figures though. Also, I would suggest that the USA's government, to a large extent, would get its figures from either the British or Irish governments who, in turn, would probably get their figures from the security forces. --Mal 02:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Strategy Section?
Why was the strategy section deleted? I'm re-inserting it now. Jdorney 12:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A Fine Article on A Terrible Conflict of Waste
My compliments to all those who have contributed to the creation of this article; you've done a good job.

What struck me most when reading it is that at the start of the conflict (1969) the UK still retained Northern Ireland, while the Republic of Ireland was still a 26-county state; and yet, despite all their military efforts (including at least two major regroupings) this was still the case when the PIRA made its declaration in 2005. What a terrible waste, and all for nothing. Fergananim 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

IRA victims list should accomodate multiple figures
I respect the CAIJN research project's numbers. I also respect the numbers of non-biased independent research groups like "Janes Intelligence" the "RAND" Corp. and The Council on Foreign Relations.

I purposely included both sets of numbers try and accomodate both sets of figures. I did agreat deal of work to check these sources, and I am not just pulling them out of the air. I will put them back in, and check to ensure they remain.

Not good enough. If you have detailed sourcesm then lets have a detailed source so that we can check its accuracy. If not, then there is no reason to take your word for it. Your continued insertion of propaganda lines like "a British funded militia known as the UDR" and referring to the RUC as, "the Protestant dominated Police force", make it impossible to treat your edits as impartial. THE Ulster Defence Regiment, let me repeat again, was not a "British funded militia", but a part time unit of the regular British army. Jdorney 12:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now searched the American State Department website, since this was given as a source for the number of British soldiers killed by the provos. Its information in the IRA is here http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2450.htm It contains fairly basic information some of it innacurate (eg the provos did not split form the official IRA until 1970 not 1969 as stated) It also contains no breakdown on the numbers killed by the IRA. So where are these sources of yours? Jdorney 15:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Loyalists have killed more civillians then the IRA.
The following statement in not accurate.

The Provisional IRA have killed more people than any other organisation since the Troubles began. In addition, they have killed more Roman Catholics, more Protestants, more civilians and more foreigners (those not from Northern Ireland) than any other organisation.

According to the Council On Foreign Relations, and "Jane's Intelligence online" The UDA and UVF have killed the most civillains of the Northern Ireland conflict.

The IRA killed 597 civillains. The UDA and UVF together killed 870 civillians. Therfore it is in fact the Loyalist paramilitary groups that have killed the most actual civillians, although the IRA has killed the most people overall. The majority of IRA kills have been non-civillain targets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.182.234 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, but counting the UDA and the UVF killings together isn't comparing like with like. The UDA and the UVF are not the same organization. Demiurge 10:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Russian Mafia KGB
In response to the claim that the IRA sourced arms from the Russian mafia via Serbia and Croatia, I searched the archive of the Guardian newspaper which was given as a source. What I found was that the Real IRA a different organisation has been accused of buying guns from these sources. I will therefore be removing this claim from the article. See here http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,468639,00.html for the relevant article. Jdorney 13:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

loyalist killings
In pursuit of the clami made here that the IRA killed over 90 loyalist paramilitaries, I searched the website of the American Council on Foreign Relations. Their page on the IRA is here http://www.cfr.org/publication/9240/irish_republican_army_uk_separatists.html

It contains only basic information on the conflict and no breakdown of the casualties. Unless another, more authoritiative source is provided, I will be removing this claim from the article. In addition, I will be removing the claim that 2many authors" think the IRA forced the loyalist ceasfires, unless such authors are named and cited in detail. Jdorney 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

IRA edits that are being changed by others are based on "Bias" not facts.
First off. The CFR and Jane's intelligence have done detalied studies of the IRA assassination campaign against the UDA and UVF. the number of "90" UDA and UVF dead is confirmed by both sources. the book "The Irish War" also quotes these numbers. I realize some pro-Loyalist people on this edit page would like to ignore the facts, but the facts are the facts. The difference between myself and the other editors here, is that I deal in verifiable facts as opposed to using "fake" facts which support my own poin to view. I will re-edit this page every day if I have to, becuase I can back up every edit with a verifiable source. The fact is that from 1974 to 1998, Janes and the CFR document 90 leading loyalists killed by the IRA. CAIN project is a "Generalized" accounting of the troubles, not a scientific break down, which is why it is not used by the official UK, Irish, and US governments.

Second, The IRA did not "scale back" operations in the 1980's. They did switch strategy and focus on a larger UK bombing campaign and a more targted approach to killing in Northern Ireland. This strategy accounts for the less killings during the 1980's, as opposed any major British success in penetrating the IRA. Even the British have stated publicly that they did not start having any real success against the IRA untill about 1993, and even then the success was only moderate. Most authors and historians agree that the IRA went on cesefire because they were given assurances by the British government, not because they were being defeated. The truth is (even according to the Brits) that by 1997 the IRA and British govt. were at a complete stalemate, with no one winning the war.

Third. The IRA/Russian Mfia connection has been written about in books such as "The Irish War" and "Bandit Country". The UK Gaurdian, Jane's online, and the CFR have also written about this connection and the "Balkan Weapons pipeline" that came about from it. This is solid and verifiable. Any disputes with this should be addressed to the above sources, as I am merely quoting them.
 * You are incorrect, the CAIN project provides a very detailed breakdown on its website . Secondly, please don't remove the information about the Jerry McCabe killing and the Northern Bank robbery without providing a good reason. Thirdly, the Guardian has an extensive web archive, it should be easy to provide links to the articles you mentioned. Demiurge 23:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My sources are verified, yours are not.
The CAIN research project may have a brweakdown, but it is not the only one. Jane's Intelligence online and the CFR are also easily searchable, and thuier numbers are far more accurate and detailed. I will be happy to provide Wikipedia satff with all research sources, but I am not going to give ever hack editor a detailed list. My sources have been made clear, and you are perfectly able to search these sites for yourself. I do not dispute the murder of Jerry McCabe, and I will not edit it out. I will however edit the rest on a continuous basis untill the PIRA article is accurate.
 * If you're arguing a point, it's up to you to provide full, detailed sources in accordance with the WP:CITE policy. If you refuse to provide them, you'll just get reverted back again by me or someone else. It's not up to us to search for the sources which you refuse to provide -- this is an encyclopedia, not an easter egg hunt. About the "hack editor" comment, please read the WP:NPA policy and refrain from personal attacks on other editors. Demiurge 00:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How can we know your sources are verified if you don't provide references? Just provide a proper reference and spare yourself the hassle of constantly reverting edits. --Ryano 00:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have already given sources and facts, you have not. I will continue to re=post on a regualr basis to undo your hack edits.
I have provided sources. I have quoted sources in the text of the page, and within this edit discussion board. I have read your edits and they are full of factual innacuracies, and you don't even provide sources. Every one of my edits has a source listed, you can very easily look them up, whcih you don't because you are a "Biased Editor" and you don't want to be proven wrong. I will continue to edit this article several times a day if need be, to ensure that those who read it are reading FACTS and not "made up crap" which is what you are posting. It is your job to provide sources for your facts, I have already done so
 * No you haven't, in fact you've specifically said you're "not going to give every hack editor a detailed list". Provide proper detailed references in accordance with Wikipedia policy or you will be reverted. Please also note the 3 revert rule policy, which limits each editor to 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. Demiurge 00:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

All the sources needed are provided, all you need to do is read the article...but I guess you can't read.
Once again you prove you are not even reading the article. Every edit is backed up with the source it came from. I am NOT going to provide you with any details, because you are merely a civillain editor and not a Wikipedia staff member. You have all the info you need within the PIRA text edits. If a actual Wikipedia staff member wants more specifics I will be happy to provide them

Look, you are obviously a Anti-IRA hack who is making things up to support your bias. I am neither pro not anti IRA. I have no bias, I merely report facts. I will be checking this page daily, and will continue to submit my PIRA entry because it is by far the most accurate and factually supported. We can do this several times a day if you wish, or you can accept the fact that mine is the superior version and just deal with it. It's up to you, but I will re-edit on a regular basis. Or we can agree to incorporate your fatcxs and mine into one article.

But the three areas. The number of Loyalists killed from 1974 to 1998

The number of IRA victims as broken down by both Janes Intelligence online and the CFR.

and the IRA/RussianMafia connection which has been documented in multiple books and newspaper sources.

These three things are verifiable and will remain.
 * Have you read WP:CITE? If not, then please go read it now and spare yourself and everybody else a lot of pointless hassle.  I'm assuming your making the edits in good faith, and that you just don't understand the citation policy.  At present, however, you are running the risk of getting yourself blocked simply because you have your own ideas about who gets to see your references.  --Ryano 00:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand the way Wikipedia works. There are no "Wikipedia staff" involved in the editing of this or any other article; Wikipedia is a volunteer project. If you refuse to provide sources, you will be reverted. If you continue to revert without providing sources, you will be blocked from editing under WP:3RR. If you come back under a different IP address, the article will be protected from your edits under WP:SEMI. You can cooperate with Wikipedia policies and have your changes incorporated in the article (assuming sources are cited, obviously), or you can choose the other way and have none of your changes in the article. Your choice. Demiurge 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous user has been blocked for 24 hours for breaching 3RR. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Re user 68.35.182.234
This user's edits have not been helpful to this article. Regarding some of the points he has raised.

1. He quite clearly does have an agenda. He uses language like calling the UDR a "British funded miltia", the loyalists "murder gangs", the IRA campaign "the war". Terms which are only used by republican sympathisers. If I had to guess, I would say that this user is one of the naive Irish Amreicans who did so much to fund the provos over the years. He has also inserted and tried to insert many very POV statements - eg. The IRA forced the loyalist ceasefire, which not even the IRA claim to be true. The user also shows his lack of knowledge on the conflict by claiming that, "the British had no succeses against the IRA up to 1997". This is far from true, as many republican sources will agree. In any case, by 1997, "the war" had effectively been over already for 3 years, as anyone close to the conflict will know.

2. Regarding his factual edits. This user has cited certain information as facts, but have provided neither page numbers or links to back them up. He has also removed information that does not suit his agenda. Far from being unsourced, I have gone to the trouble of giving detailed notes in the text about where my information has come from. His sources on the other hand, are mere assertions. On checking the American Council for Foreign Relations website and the US State Department (see above), I could find no casualty figures on the conflict whatsoever, let alone any that backed up what he has written here. I regard this as dishonest n the extreme. Regarding my alleged bias, I certainly don't support the PIRA, but I think editors will find that better informed Irish republican sympthisers, eg User:Lapsed Pacifist, have not had a problem with my edits here.

3. This user has also refused to discuss his edits here, or to take into account any of the arguements or information presented on this talk page. To me this shows that this user is not trying in good faith to imporve this article, but to push a political agenda.

Jdorney 17:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

there is nothing more sad then an administrator who bans people just because they have written a superior article.
Let me clear up a few things here. First off, I am not an "IRA supporter". I am a 36 year old proud former US Marine who served my country and I resent being called a "Terrorist Supporter". I have never given money to the IRA, I am Irish Catholic and I support Sinn Fein, but not the IRA. I personally do not believe the IRA are terrorists in the same veign as the UDA/UVF, Hezbollah or Al Qaida. The IRA is much more like the Iraqi Kurds, Northern Alliance, Jewish Irgun, French Resistence, and American Revolutionaries. I am also not a UDA/UVF terrorist apologist as Jdorney seems to be.


 * Just to stop you there: Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA are inextricably linked. Therefore, in practice, when you support Sinn Féin you also therefore support the IRA.  However, I do accept two points about that, given the current situation: One is that the Provisional IRA has stuck, more or less, to their ceasefire (although criminal activity continues).  The second is that I have known a few Sinn Féin supporters that have not supported an 'armed struggle' - the actions of the Provisional IRA.


 * On another point though, there has been no difference between the IRA and the UVF or the UDA. All groups incite rioting.  All groups have attempted to assassinate political figures.  All groups are involved in criminal activities such as robbery and protection racketeering (for example).  All groups intimidate and 'punish' people.  All groups have both specifically and 'accidentally' targetted and killed or injured civilians.--Mal 00:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I also resent being banned just because some wanna-be administrator is upset that my article contains more accuracies then his does. I have re-edited my article and placed all the proper Sources, page numbers, and Quotes. I have also added to the "Sources" index. I have never ment to purposely delete anyones work, if I did so it was by accident and I apologize. I spent weeks researching this article, and alot of it is based on an article I wrote on the IRA when I was stationed at Camp. Pendleton back in 2000, the rest of it is from newer sources and books.

I certainly don't mind other people adding to the article, but I don't think that my edits should be deleted, just because they don't "fit" with the bias of some editor's and administrators. I will be checking back often, and if my edits continue to be altered I will inform some senior administrators, some of whom are friends of mine. I have worked on many other Irish, and Military articles and never had any complaints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devin79 (talk • contribs)
 * (I presume you are the anon 68.35.182.234.) You weren't blocked because of the quality or otherwise of your edits, you were blocked because you violated the 3 revert rule. Demiurge 11:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're still blanking the section on the Jerry McCabe killing and inter-Republican feuds, and you haven't provided specific references as requested (I can't find a detailed breakdown of IRA killings anywhere on CFR.org). Also, please don't change British English spellings such "organisation" to American English (see Manual_of_Style_(national_varieties_of_English). I would welcome any contribution from your senior administrator friends; please feel free to ask them their opinion. Demiurge 11:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am extremely offended by the, to be honest, fairly stupid, allegation tht I am an apolgist for the loyalist paramiltaries. We ar not here to promote our points of view, but I consider the loyalists to be sectarian murderers and criminals. I don't see how it could be otherwise since they specialised in killing people like me. However, I also consider the PIRA to be terrorists who have murdered thuusands of innocent people for no appreciable gain. If you want to believe the provos are freedom fighters, well that's your perogative. But since you are an American, who has shown here a huge ignorance of the the conflict in my country, I do not take your point of view very seriously. So you wrote an essay, when you were in the AMERICAN armed forces. So what? Why does that make you an authority on the subject?

Now regarding the allegation that I have somehow contributed information that is baised towards the loyalists. Could you please point out where this is? What i have tried to estblish is the importance of loyalist killings in the late years of hte conflict. This is a very important in understanding the troubles. Maybe you don' want to do this however. The loyalist campaign against, I repeat, innocent catholics (like me) was important because it demoralised the nationalist community and undermined the credibility of the IRA as defenders of this community. Maybe neither you nor me like this fact but it is true.

Regarding the IRA's response, I believe what I written, that in the 70s the IRA killed Protestants in retaliation but in the 80s the IRA tried to target the loyalists leadership, is much more accuarate and detailed thatn what you have written. If, in your mind, stating the fact that the loyalists killed more innocent people, is biased towards them, then you have a very diseased mind. Regarding figures, you are wrong, the Lost Lives figures are the same as the CAIN ones. Put together, they far outweigh an assertion by Tony Geraghty. Normally, what I would do in these sitauations is to leave both sets of figures intact. However, in you case, I do not accept that you are acting in good faith or honestly. So I will be reverting your changes. Please call your "admin friends" and explain to them why you have cited non-existant sources and lied about it.

Thirdly, in reverting the article to the versions you prefer, you keep deleting inoformation that has been added since, apart completely from the stuff you don't agree with.

Jdorney 13:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Re the sources provided by Devin79
I have checked out the sources provided by Devin79 and found them to be incorrect.

Firstly

User:Devin79 has written the following, ''In Response to these attacks, the IRA began a systematic assassination campaign against leading members of the UDA and UVF. According to the books "Lost Lives", by David McKitterick, and "The Irish War" by Tony Geraghty, this campaign of targeted killing resulted in the deaths of at least 90 leading UDA, UVF, and LVF members, from roughly 1974 to 1998 (Geraghty p240). Many authors, (Including both Geraghty and McKitterick) have speculated that this assassination programme against Loyalist terror leaders helped convince the leadership of both the UDA and UVF, to call ceasefires in 1994. However the Loyalists called their ceasefire several months after the IRA ceasefire of that year and indeed argued that it was their murder campaign against Catholics in general that had forced the IRA ceasefire by placing intolerable pressure on the nationalist community. This view however, is disputed by the IRA (Geraghty p247)''.

Regarding the first claim, that Geraghty and Lost Lives claim that over 90 loyalists were killed by the IRA. This is not correct. Geraghty states in the The Irish War that 45 loyalists were killed by the IRA (p235). Lost Lives states that 28 loyalist paramilitaries were killed by the IRA (Lost Lives p1536). Also, Lost Lives is authored not only by David McKitrick, but also by Seamus Kelters, Brian Feeney, Chris Thornton, and David McVea.

Second, Geraghty does not ahve a discussion of the loyalist paramilitary ceasefire on page 247. On page 235, he cites the opinion of British MP Colin Mates that the loyalists forced the IRA ceasefire but then also argues that the IRA assasination of loyalists was also a factor in them calling a ceasefire. Lost Lives does not (as far as I could find) speculate at all about the motives of the paramilitary ceasefires.

''The Provisional IRA have killed more people than any other organisation since the Troubles began. According to the "Council On Foreign Relations" website, the IRA was responsible for the most deaths by far of any paramilitary organization in Ireland. The CFR also points out however, that the Loyalist terror groups have been responsible for the most "Civillian" deaths. Loyalist groups were responsible for 877 civillian deaths as oppossed to 597 civillians killed by the IRA. (Source. CFR.ORG, "Loyalist Paramilitary" FAQ, p2)''

The US Council on Foreign Relations website does not have a detailed beakdown of causalties from the Troubles. See link posted above

''According to the US State Dept. (Patterns Of Global Terrorisim, 1999), and "Janes Intelligence Online", the Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,897 people during the periods of 1968-2001 (US State Dept. "POGT",1999 p.67), (Jane's Intelligence "Analogy Of The Troubles", p6). This figure represents 52.4 percent of the total fatalities in the conflict, and includes not only those killed in Northern Ireland, but also within the UK, and other countries as well. Jane's Intelligence Online and the Council On Foreign Relations both give a further breakdown of the deaths attributed to the IRA (Jane's Intelligence "Analogy Of The Troubles", p7), (CFR.ORG "Provisional IRA" FAQ, p3. 597 Civilians, 800 British Army, 200 Members of the Ulster Defense Regiment (UDR), 90 Loyalist Paramilitary members (UDA,UVF,LVF), 210 Members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), 5 known members of the British Special Air Service (SAS). Accoring to the American Council of Foreign Relations, the IRA killed about 90 Loyalist paramilitaries (Geraghty, p240) (McKitterick, p490).''

I was unable to find the Jane's Intelligence online page on the internet, or their article "Analogy of the Troubles" cited here. Likewise, I am not in possession of the US Dept of State publication, "Patterns of Global Terrorism", and so cannot confirm or refute the accuracy of whether they contain this information or not.

However, the US Council for Foreign Relations website does not display a breakdown of casualty figures for the Troubles. Regarding the claims about Geraghty and McKitrick, see above. Geraghty cites 45 loyalists killed (p235). Lost Lives cites 28 (p1536). On page 490, Lost Lives does not have a breakdown of casualty figures, but describes the deaths of three British soldiers (Vernon Rose, John Charles Simpson and Richard Dunne), one civilian (Alan Horsely) and one IRA member (Gerard Fennell) in 1974. I find it deisturbing that Devin79 has apparently deliberately cited false figures in this case.

For the record, the casualty breakdown of PIRA victims in Lost Lives is as follows; Total number: 1,781 (p 1526) British Army 503 (p 1529) RUC 303 (p1530) UDR 206 (p1530) Loyalist paramilitaries 28 (p1536) republican paramilitaries incl own members but not incl hunger strikes/accidents 97 (p(p1531) Civilians 644 (p 1536)

Lost Lives states that 294 PIRA members died in the Troubles (p1531)

So we have two exhaustively researched, highly detailed and checkable breakdown of IRA victims (CAIN and Lost Lives0 which broadly agree, or we have Devin79's figures which, where checked have been found to be falsely cited. Jdorney 00:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You are one of the most pathetic administrators on this site.
This is just plain sad. I am a susbcriber to Jane's Intelligence online, and I found the article easily. (you need to be a subscriber to access it, but it is certainly not hard to find). If you tally up the total UDA/UVF/LVF killed in the book lost lives (from 1968-1998) it shows 90 Loyalists killed by the IRA and INLA during that time period. The book "The Irish War" also gives the number of 90, on the page I quoted, as does the Jane's intelligence report. That is THREE sources to the one source you quote. I am sick of having my hard work hacked up by some half-assed administrator who can't deal with the fact that his IRA article was full of innacuracies. I have contacted a friend of mine who is a senior administrator, you should be recieving an E-mail from him shortly. Unless you want your administrator privilages revoked, I suggest you either stop re-editing my article, or merge my facts with your own. I am pissed that I took the time to re-submit the article in the way you asked, and you are still throwing a hissy fit. You are one of the worst administrator's I have ever dealt with, you are the reason academics don't respect Wikipedia.

PS. I realize you are a Loyalist terrorist supporter, and therefore can't deal with the fact that the IRA killed a large number of UDA/UVF/LVF members...but those are the historical facts, grow up and deal with it.

I will re-post my article daily to ensure that people who want a relaible article, can have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devin79 (talk • contribs)


 * Your unsourced death figures aside, you're still blanking the sections about IRA organized crime activity and republican feuds, as well as using American English spelling ("organization") after being requested not to. You're also adding loads of redundant wikilinks. Your vague threats about "senior administrator friends" are plainly spurious, Wikipedia does not work like that. You would be well advised to stop trying to threaten and intimidate other editors. Demiurge 10:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you are arrogant and ill informed. You know nothing about the conflict in Northern Ireland. I would be more offended by the assertion that I was a loyalist supporter if it wasn’t just so stupid. The Troubles were not a game, which we are totting up scores for, but 30 years of people murdering their neighbours. All I’m trying to do is establish the correct information.

Re claims of bias, if editors look at what I’ve posted here, you will find that I have added information like the strength and popular support of the PIRA, their political strategy and their origins as defenders of the catholic community. All of which is relatively favourable information about them. I notice that Devin79 has not had a problem with these edits. Indeed to sane people, the information I have added on the refusal of the IRA in the 80s to deliberately target protestants in reprisal for loyalist killings would be seen as favourable as well.

Secondly, you are dishonest. I have looked up the sources you have cited. Tony Geraghty, The Irish War, gives a figure of 45 loyalists killed by the PIRA (page 235). I invite every editor to look it up.

So now you’re citing a figure of 90 loyalists killed by the IRA AND INLA. Not the same thing at all. Wht’s your next trick? Incidentally, Lost Lives gives a total figure of 126 loyalists killed in the Troubles (page 1529). I don’t have the breakdown of these figures to hand, except for the number they cite killed by the PIRA. But in any case, you have no real sources, I have three real ones. One Tony Geraghty’s figure of 45. Two Lost Lives figure of 28. Three, the CAIN project’s figure of 35. Genuine editors may like to debate on which of f these figures to accept. You, Devin79, are clearly not capable of having an intelligent debate.

It looks to me as if you haven’t even read Lost Lives or The Irish War.

I want to deal with one final point, then I’m going to ignore you. You claim you’ve been victimised because you’ve been adding better information to this article. You have not.

Lets look at what you’ve contributed:

1. The claim that the PIRA was funded and armed by the KGB and Stasi –since researched and refuted. Likewise nonsense you wrote about the Irish American mob and the Russian mafia funding the IRA.

2. The deletion of information about intra republican killings and IRA involvement in organised crime.

3. The section on Libyan arms, where you deleted the important material related IRA strategy in the 1980s. This section has had to be hugely expanded to stop you writing stuff like "the IRA escalated its campaign over 30 years of war". Do you understand the word escalate?

4. A claim that the killing of Bobby Dougan (UDA) in 1998 forced the loyalist ceasefires of 1994. A contradiction in terms. A fantasy that the IRA was killing two loyalist paramilitaries for every republican killed. Completely unsourced. Not cited in any of the books listed here.

5. Unsourced casualty figures and the deletion of genuine ones.

6. A load of POV language like calling the UDR "a British funded protestant militia that killed catholics".

7.Most seriously, actually lying about information contained in the sources you cite. To me, this is unforgivable.

Far from improving this article, you have been effectively vandalising it. If this guy is going to keep posting this stuff every day as he says, then he should be banned. A strong case could be made for banning him already for lying about sources in my opinion. If anyone doubts what I am saying about the sources he has cited, please look them up yourself and will find the same information as me. I have given detailed page numbers.

Jdorney 21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Correction
Yesterday, my figures from the book Lost Lives (2004 edition) were incorrect. I transcribed them from the book to paper and then later to here. In doing so I got some of the figures mixed up between totals and IRA responsabilities. Total number of British Army Killed is given as 503 (p1529), total killed by PIRA 456 (p1536)

These are the figures given by Lost Lives (page1536) for the people killed by the Provisional IRA In NI and elsewhere) are as follows:

644 civilians 456 British military, including British Army, RAF, Royal Navy, and Territorial Army 273 RUC include RUC reserve 182 UDR 163 Republicans – include own members 28 loyalist paramilitaries 23 prison officers 7 Gardai or Irish Army 5 British Police

A total of 1781 Jdorney 21:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Devin79
I see this editor is at it egain, adding innacurate information to this article and incorrectly citing sources. I'm sick and tired of trying to protect this article from him. I'm re-inserting the accurate information one lat time and then I'm not going to bother editing it any more. Other editors, if they want an accurate article here should look at which information is accurately sourced and which is not. Jdorney 12:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * JD, you state in one of your edits, "for the last time, this was the Real IRA in 96-97, look it up. Even if true, it should be in 1990s section". To be honest, you don't have to explain your corrections of this guy's annoyed re-edits.  I personally trust your information far and above anything Devin79 has to say.  Concensus is against him, and dare I say it: concensus is against him from Wiki editors that span the whole of the political spectrum.  He brings nothing new to the article, and only re-inserts information that has basically been either proven wrong or is ill-cited.


 * Keep up the good work. --Mal 13:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconding Mal, please don't get discouraged. Your hard work on this article is valued. I've dealt with problematic editors like Devin79 before myself, and I know how frustrating it can be. Demiurge 13:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say that JD's done a hell of a lot more work on this article than me, Demiurge! :) JD - keep chipping away mate! --Mal 16:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys. I've looked up and clarified the arms buying section on eastern europe and Florida. Re the casualty section, I don't know what to about this. For now I've re-instated the CAIN and Lost Lives figures and left the supposed US State depts figures alone as well. You would imagine that they came from somewhere, but they contradict all the extremely detailed figures compiled eslewhere that I've been able to find. The same goes for the loyalist figures. Devin79 is now claiming that this represents the figure for all loyalists killed by all republicans. Even if this is accurate, and it does not seem to be supported by CAIN, for instance, does it belong in this article. The point is that whenever I have been able to look up facts and figures this guy has provided, I've found them to be wrong. I hate to say it, but in a lot of cases he just seems to be making the stuff up off the top of his head.


 * I think most people, from whatever 'side' in Northern Ireland, tend to see CAIN as more or less THE authoritive source (as a collection of research, facts and statistics in one location). I assume the US State Dept. gets its statistics from other research and sources.  I've not actually read Lost Lives, so I can't comment on it.  Devin79 may be making up figures off the top of his head, or he may be severely misinterpreting them.  For example, one of his constant edits is to delete some of the information I have included regarding deaths caused by the PIRA, and instead to compare that ONE organisation with ALL the Loyalist organisations. --Mal 17:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Demiurge's revert
I'm not reverting this back because I believe that there was an element of POV in the addition by 86.131.177.146. But, having said that, much of the content of the edit was already sourced or can easily be cited. For example:


 * Smuggling (fuel and otherwise)
 * Murder (though the use of this word might be considered POV)
 * Armed robberies
 * Training of terrorists in other locations
 * Counterfeiting

Other additions, such as IRA methods being used in Iraq, are possibly disputed - although sources could be found I think.

However, most of these things are already described in he Categorisation section of the article:

"Due to its frequent use of bombs; its killing of hundreds of policemen, soldiers, UDA/UVF leaders and civilians, predominantly though not exclusively in Northern Ireland; its status as an illegal organisation; its role in racketeering, bank robberies, 'street justice' and the fact that the unionist majority in Northern Ireland wanted to continue living under British rule, it is internationally considered a terrorist group 4, although its supporters preferred the labels freedom fighter, guerrilla and volunteer." --Mal 17:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

New articles?
This article is now huge. Mainly my fault I know. Its now over twice as big as the recommended size. I propose that the "Weaponry and Operations" section be moved to its own article, eg History of the Provisional IRA Campaign 1969-1998 and the rest summarised here. Any takers? Jdorney 22:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Mitrokhin on KGB-IRA links
Someone asked about this on the Talk:Vasili Mitrokhin page if this is verifiable or not. Here is the evidence:

The Sword and the Shield: Vasilli Mitrokhin and the Mitrokhin Archive -- pp 377-378 deals with KGB/IRA relations: The IRA had been widely criticized by its supporters for failing to defend the Catholic community during the Belfast troubles of August 1969, when seven people had been killed, about 750 injured and 1,505 Catholic families had been forced out of their homes -- almost five times the number of dispossessed Protestant households. One Catholic prist reported that his parishioners were contemptuously calling the IRA, "I Ran Away." In his message to Moscow, O'Riordan said that during the "August crackdown" the IRA had failed to act as "armed defender" of the nationalist community because "its combat potential was weakened by the fact that it had previously concentrated its efforts on social protests and educational activity." He claimed that there was now a real possibility of civil war in Northern Ireland between the two communities, and of serious clashes between British troops and the Catholics. Hence the IRA's appeal for arms. In a report to the Central Committee, ANDROPOV insisted that, before going ahead with an arms shipment, it was essential to verify O'Riordan's ability "to guarantee the necessary conspiracy in shipping the weapons and preserve the secret of their source of supply." It was more than two and [a] half years before Andropov was sufficiently satisfied on both these points to go ahead with the arms shipment. Akulkis 14:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. The 1969 stuff is unremarkable and well known already. However, several questions remain.


 * One, which IRA are we talking about? The Official IRA was communist oriented and likely to ask for help from from Moscow. There were continuing rumour that the Workers Party (Ireland), its political wing was being funded from Russia. The Provos, on the other hand, werre fanatically anti-communist in the early 1970s.


 * Two, who is O'Riordan? Michael O' Riordan the long time head of the Communist Party of Ireland? If so, it is most unlikely he was representing the PIRA in 1970.


 * Three, where are the arms? The weapons recovered from the PIRA in the 1970s were either old guns from previous campaigns, American weapons, or Lybian-delivered weapons. So where were these shipments of Soviet made arms? Shouldn't the RUC have been recovering (or being on the recieving end of) Kalshnikovs and other Soviet block arms in large numbers?

I think we can include the claim in the article, which we already do, but this source of arms is not mentioned in any of the mainstream histories of the IRA, or any British security sources quoted in them that I can see. It therefore remains only an assertion by Mitrokhin, who had a motive for talking up Soviet danger to Britain. Jdorney 15:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, I finally got my hands on this book, published in this part of the world as the Mitrokhin Archive (Penguin, London 2000). It clearly identifies the O'Riordan as Michael the CPI leader. It identifies the IRA leaders in 1969 as Cathal Goulding and Seamus Costello and the IRA as the Official IRA (page 492-493). Page 501 of this edition, "the sympathies of the KGB were wholly with the Marxist Officials rather than the more nationalist Provisionals." It says they delivered some arms to the OIRA in 1972. I rest my case folks. Jdorney 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Should action be taken against Devin79?
This user Devin79 has persistantly vandalised this page with intensely POV edits and reverts. His latest effort was a couple of days ago (13th of March). I propose that something be done about this user, whether it be a permanent block or a long-term or short block or simply a stern warning. I do not know if Devin79's other edits have been particularly useful and helpful for Wikipedia, but it is certainly unhelpful as far as this article is concerned. I would ask editors interested in this article, and in the well-being of Wikipedia in general, to vote here on whether some kind of action should be taken or not. If there is strong enough consensus on the matter, I will create another vote to decide what action should be taken (though feel free to comment here). --Mal 00:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't want to see witch-hunts against anyone, but this guy should at least get a warning to stop messing this article up.

Jdorney 17:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm happy to 'witch-hunt' anyone that continually messes, or vandalises, pages. Particularly the many IPs 'members'. If they aren't being helpful then they're being a hinderance. But basically you appear to agree with my proposal that something should be done.. in your case, a warning. He's not ben back since though... maybe he's calmed down after a nice wee holiday! ;) --Mal 17:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He was back today, logged in as User:68.35.182.234, again reverting the page to his version and deleting all theo work that had been done on the article since. Feck tolerance, I'd like to see this guy dealt with now. Jdorney 11:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What's a 'terrorist' organization?
Just because the U.S. or British governments decide that something is a 'terrorist' organization, doesn't mean that they have that right. If anyone examines the 'terrorist' attacks of '9/11' in New York City and Washington, DC, they would have to assume that it suspiciously looks as though the U.S. government was behind the 'demolition' of the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center and Building Number 7 - which wasn't even hit by a plane. The U.S. has admitted that its CIA has been involved in assassinations and terrorist activities against civilians in Central and South American countries and other countries throughout the World over the years. It's also a well-known fact that the British government and many other major governments have also been involved in terrorist activities through their spy agencies and military activities.

As someone else has mentioned, the British government considered George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and all of the other U.S. Patriots and Freedom Fighters as 'Terrorists' who would have all been hung as traitors and terrorists if they had lost - in fact, they probably would have been "drawn and quartered" like the Irish Patriots who lost to them in 1798 if I'm not mistaken.

According to Gerry Adams, the PIRA always attempted to warn the public before detonating bombs, BUT they occasionally experienced accidental explosions which accidentally killed many of their own members as well as innocent civilians sometimes. Meanwhile, it's a well-known fact that the British and U.S. soldiers are sometimes targeting civilians right now in Iraq. Is that a form of 'terrorism' or not? Is it just in the eyes of the beholder? Don't forget that the victors are the ones who rewrite history to suit their own views. My understanding, which I admit could be wrong, is that if it wasn't for the IRA, the Republic of Ireland wouldn't exist today. It would still be under the thumb of the "German Queen Elizabeth" and still paying hard-earned taxes to support her - the wealthiest woman in the world. If that's true, than I certainly think that the Republic of Ireland should be more grateful to the people who risked their lives and limbs and lost their lives and limbs in their attempts to bring independence to at least part of the island of Ireland. Just my humble U.S. opinion for what it's worth. Bcsurvivor 03:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is indeed wrong. Here are a few responses to the points you raise.


 * Firstly terrorism is defined as anti-establishment action. The goal of terrorism is to terrorise, oddly enough. The grip that terrorism has on civilians of any given country, is often quite tight and this is particularly in evidence in Northern Ireland (and even in the Republic of Ireland and areas of England). The Provisional IRA specifically are a different kettle of fish as compared to the original IRA of the early 20th century. They have been more vicious and indiscriminate, and are involved in drug smuggling, smuggling of tobacco, fuel and livestock, protection racketeering, work for other international terrorist organisations, intimidation and vigilantism as well as a host of other crimes. (note that the other terrorist groups, including the UVF, the UDA, the 'Real' IRA, the Continuity IRA and all off-shoots are also involved in the same things).


 * It is not the same as government action. Governments are supported by electorial mandate - no matter whether they get it right or wrong, modern democracy is supposed to be the leveller, and governments are (theoretically at least) ultimately responsible to the electorate and act on their behalf.

(response): I would be very surprised if the "Shock and Awe" bombings of the US and British attacks on Iraq weren't much more terrorizing to the civilians of Iraq than any fear generated by any small group of IRA-type or UVF-type organizations in any part of Britain or Ireland. To arbitrarily call one group 'terrorists' but call the other "All's fair in War" is very unfair in my humble opinion. Bcsurvivor 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that would be pretty hard to measure: you don't live in Northern Ireland, so you don't know what it had been like throughout the 1970s and 1980s .. and even through to this day. The IRA are established within communities - in that sense it is intrinsic, and its presence is felt in a high number of places. Similarly, with the loyalist terrorist groups. In Iraq, it was a war. In Northern Ireland it was a clandestine effort. The comparisons you draw are not particularly accurate. And again, I draw your attention to the loyalist terrorists and to the other republican terrorists who operate and have operated in and from Northern Ireland. I have suggested that my personal opinion is that they should all be labelled as what they effectively are - terrorists. I have also noted here though, that I accept the current policy that these groups, from both 'sides', are labelled similarly.. and that label happens to be "paramilitaries". --Mal 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally define 'freedom fighters' as those who fight against dictatorships of non-democratic governments. It should be noted that Loyalist terrorist groups also define themselves as "freedom fighters" (notably the UFF: Ulster Freedom Fighters) - so who is right, and who is wrong?


 * A quick note on the events of 11/9: building number 7 collapsed due to the impacts on the WTC towers. Think about the mass of the planes that hit the buildings and the speed at which they were travelling - in excess of 500 mph. Your assurance that the planes were flown into the building by the US government is merely a conspiracy theory.

(response): Perhaps you and anyone else reading this should check out the following websites before coming to a final conclusion regarding what happened on September 11, 2001:

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" By Professor Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy

Reference:







I just found out about the following suspicious murder when I checked the above website - Scholars for 9/11 - to get the URL:

"Clemson University doctoral candidate and 9/11 activist Michael Zebuhr [was] shot in the head in the Uptown neighborhood of Minneapolis, Minnesota, on 18 March 2006.

"A car previously identified as leaving the scene was found destroyed by explosion on 4 April 2006." Bcsurvivor 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I am not interested enough at the minute to follow it up, but I may indeed get around to it. --Mal 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

(response:) Mal, I hope that you get around to it soon because it's the main reason that Britain as well as the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq - and may attack Iran soon. In fact, they may create another September 11, 2001-like attack to justify invading Iran and other countries. Bcsurvivor 22:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As for warnings given by the (Provisional) IRA - yes.. on many occassions they did indeed give warnings. Some of them were very late, others were mis-information (whether by accident or deliberate). But they didn't always give warning, and certainly never gave warnings of assassinations (of civilians or security force members or politicians and public personas). During specific periods of time, the IRA targetted specifically civilians and businessmen, in attempt to maximise publicity and to help wreck the economy of Northern Ireland. One has to wonder how they felt this was a Good Thing for the Irish people. I'd love to see a source for Gerry Adams' claim. Either way though, the statement is completely in error. If you replaced the word "always" with the word "often", then it would be more correct.

(response): The following is from an interview with Gerry Adams:

Question to Gerry Adams: "What is the difference between IRA terrorism and al-Qa'ida terrorism? And do you support the war on terror?"

Answer by Gerry Adams: "I don't think there's any similarity at all between al-Qa'ida and the IRA. In the first instance, I wouldn't describe the IRA as terrorists. The September 11 attacks were probably closer to Dresden or Hiroshima in that a lot of planning and resources were put into deliberately killing civilians in large numbers. The IRA's killing of civilians is equally wrong, but the IRA would argue that it did so by accident. That is no succour to the victims' families, but the IRA was one of the few guerrilla organisations that gave warnings."

Reference:

Bcsurvivor 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As leader of the IRA, Gerry Adams would obviously deny that the IRA are terrorists. But the fact remains that the IRA have consistantly acted as terrorists. By action and definition, the group is a terrorist organisation. If you want to cite references to back up an argument, it is probably not wise to cite the group or person directly - it doesn't hold much sway. You are best to cite a well-informed, unbiased 3rd party. --Mal 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

{response:) Actually, Mal, I took you literally and thought that when you stated: "I'd love to see a source for Gerry Adams' claim."  that you wanted proof that Gerry Adams had said that. Bcsurvivor 22:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the old cliché that "the victors write the history", you are discounting completely the propaganda, which I feel you have probably been subject to yourself, given your ignorance (with respect) with some facts. The Provisional IRA "accidentally" killed over 500 civilians and many of the security forces personell they murdered were off-duty or retired.

(response): I believe that much of what is taught as "history" is really propaganda. I know that I certainly have been exposed to an enormous amount of propaganda living in the U.S. with the biased media - that's why I try to investigate other news sources from around the World. Bcsurvivor 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Having lived in the USA, I can tell you that the media there doesn't report on the vast majority of events in NI, nor does it always get it right. In my experience, most Americans are totally mis-informed when it comes to Northern Ireland and the Troubles. Whilst many could tell you who Gerry Adams is, very few people could tell you who the last (and only), First Minister was. So I admire you for keeping abreast of other sources of news. --Mal 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You say that if it wasn't for the IRA, the Republic of Ireland wouldn't exist today. That is arguable of course. Certainly it appears that the IRA weren't very widely supported by us (in Ireland), until after the leaders of the 1916 Easter Rising were executed for treason.

(respone): That's certainly understandable considering how ruthlessly the Irish civilians and militia were punished whenever they attempted to rebel against England over the years. Bcsurvivor 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it? Is it also understandable to you that there was very little support amongst Irish civilians for the rebellion until after the executions? Does it surprise you how Irish citizens fought against those who tried to rebel against the English? --Mal 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your statement about the "German Queen Elizabeth" is wrong on many levels. Firstly, Elizabeth wasn't coronated until 1953 - after the Free State had separated from the UK. Secondly, while the Queen has indeed some German ancestry, the story doesn't stop there (although that particular angle is favoured in particularly republican publications). Elizabeth also apparently has Scottish ancestry, English ancestry and even Irish ancestry (shock! horror!). The true power of the UK lies with Parliament and the House of Lords - not with the monarchy, which has reduced itself to merely figurehead status this last many decades. While the Queen has, in theory, the power to dissolve parliament (and does so ceremonially when a new government takes office) and take complete control, this would most definately not be supported by the British people.

(respone): I meant that if the Republic of Ireland had never come into existence, the people living in that area of Ireland would still be paying hard-earned taxes to support the queen. I don't think that I'll ever understand why the people in Britain, Scotland, Wales, Canada, Australia, etc. are willing to pay hard-earned taxes to the wealthiest woman in the world whose ancestry was primarily German until her father married her mother, but since she married Prince Philip, my understanding is that her children have even less British blood in them. It's just beyond my comprehension. I can understand being forced to pay taxes to support her, but I cannot understand anyone doing it willinging. Bcsurvivor 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, no tax monies are sent to the Queen from Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia. The Queen is just a figurehead to those countries - even more so than she is in the UK.


 * You may not understand why, but you are from a country that doesn't have a monarchy. The monarchy is tradition in this country, and a respected one at that, by many of its citizens. Tourism is said to be heightened by the existance of the Royal Family (take note of the number of Asian tourists who photograph Royal places in London), and most of the Royals are quietly involved in charitable organisations. While all of this doesn't necessarily, on paper, make up for the amount the monarchy costs the country, it is certainly peanuts in comparison to the economy of the UK.


 * I wonder if you have left similar messages on articles regarding other countries, protesting (or noting your disbelief at) their monarchies... Denmark, Spain, Kuwait, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium.. or is it just the British monarchy you appear to find distasteful.


 * Your suggestion that the Queen's ancestry was primarily German until after her father married her mother is just laughable I'm afraid! How much German ancestry the Queen has, I have no idea, but I do not see that there is anything particularly wrong with it. Many monarchs (both of the UK and of other countries) in the past have not been natives of their particular domain, and I have pointed out to you that the Queen has ancient British ancestry which can be traced back for hundreds if not a couple of thousand years.


 * Ethnically African people settled in great numbers in England and throughout the UK - in the 1960s for example. Are they or their offspring less entitled to be British because of their ancestry?


 * Nobody is being forced to pay taxes to the Queen. It is simply a small part of the budget to which British workers pay. Of old, different noblemen would have paid a king or queen to help defned their realm. As the country became less feudal, so the organisation changed also. --Mal 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You suggest that the people of the Republic of Ireland should be grateful (to those who risked/lost life and limb) - but to whom? You obviously need to clarify in your own mind which IRA you are talking about. This article is about the Provisional IRA - an organisation which has killed more people during the Troubles than any other single organisation - it has taken their lives and their limbs.

(response): I'm saying that the original IRA also had to kill and wound people during the Revolution, or the Republic of Ireland would never have been created. My understanding is that most Irish people who have studied their own history, know how many of their own Irish people have been killed, wounded, tortured, raped, kidnapped, enslaved, etc. over the years by the English like Oliver Cromwell and those under the command of the English. The casualties that occurred in the 20th Century are nothing compared to the casualties suffered by the Irish over the years - including the "Potato Famine" which was really a Holocaust because enormous amounts of food were shipped out of Ireland under gunpoint while the Irish were starved. Bcsurvivor 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "My understanding is that most Irish people who have studied their own history, know how many of their own Irish people have been killed, wounded, tortured, raped, kidnapped, enslaved, etc. over the years by the English like Oliver Cromwell and those under the command of the English." You would? I'm not so sure. Over here, people are generally not very interested in that. Some diehard Republicans probably had it drummed into their heads though. However, as an Irish person who has studied my own history, I can't tell you how many of my ancestors have been killed, wounded.. etc etc.. by the English or by their fellow Irishmen, or Scots or Welsh or French or whoever.


 * Many people do remember those relatives who were killed by the English, by the Irish, by the Welsh and by the Scots in more recent times though. AND by (and I mention this because this is the particular organisation which we are discussing here) the Provisional IRA - those that were killed, wounded, tortured, kidnapped, 'disappeared' etc.


 * Yes we did "suffer casualties" thanks. The potatoe famines however, were badly-handled natural disasters.. or are you suggesting that those Evil English™ planted the fungus-ridden potatoes all over Ireland on purpose? Dictionary definitions of the word holocaust define it as Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire; A massive slaughter and A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames and also mention the mass murder of Jewish people during World War II. None of this applies to the Great Famine. It might interest you to know that the grain and meat exported from Ireland at the time was exported by Irish farmers, who called upon the militia and the army to protect their stock. Just because you read something of a particularly emotive stance, doesn't make it true you know. It is interesting to note that you take a very republican view on this: blaming the English for the potato famine and correlating that to the present-day Troubles, as if that reason alone, even if it happened as you suggested, was good enough reason to murder, torture, wound, rob and intimidate the people of Northern Ireland. It isn't. --Mal 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankfully though, they seem to have come to a realisation that killing people in order to achieve their political ideology, is wrong. --Mal 00:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(response): I agree, and, hopefully, they won't be blamed for the murder of Denis Donaldson. I suspect that a member of Ian Paisley's group may have done it to cast blame on the PIRA and prevent the peace talks from progressing. Bcsurvivor 16:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By the same token, if they are guilty of having murdered Donaldson, I hope those responsible are caught and punished (a sentiment I note that you fail to include in your comment).


 * As for your suspicion that a "member of Ian Paisley's group" may have done it.. well you do appear to have a fondness for those conspiracy theories. However, I'd like to know what "group" this is that you're referring to.


 * You can continue to believe in the propaganda that you have obviously suckered into, or you can read articles on the other extreme, as well as more moderate and balanced articles. Many are to be found throughout the internet and in bookshops. One such book, which is viewed by most people here (in Northern Ireland) as being particularly balanced is A History of Ulster (Blackstaff Press, Belfast, 1992), by Jonathan Bardon (ISBN 0-85640-476-4). There are also a few good books written by ex-members of the Provisional IRA which, while slanted, also appear to tell the truth, warts and all. I say this to you given that you have told me how you like to read up on events from other, international, sources. Good luck. --Mal 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We've moved most of the detail on what the PIRA got up to out of here onto Provisional IRA campaign 1969-1997. Have a read of that page and then see whether you think these are noble freedom fighters. Re the original Irish Republican Army, a different mass based organisation, they also did some very bad things, but I'll let you be the judge of whether they were terrorists or not. Political violence is a toxin in a society that slowly poisons it. true of all Ireland in the 1920s -look at the Irish Civil War and of Northern Irealdn today. Incidentally, Ian Paisley doesn't have an armed group, desite some abortive attempts to set one up on 1986 or so.

Jdorney 18:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You said it far more succinctly than me JD - apologies for ranting a bit there. This guy has difficulty in understanding how the British people can accept paying taxes to the Monarchy... but, conversely, I have trouble understanding his fascination and apparent 'love' for an organisation which does not affect him in the slightest. Had someone left messages similar to his regarding a loyalist group instead of the PIRA, my reaction would be the same. There is no place in Ireland for any of these groups - they are fascists and organised criminals and most 'normal' people here see them as that no matter what background they come from. --Mal 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

(response:) I read the article, JD and Mal, and it makes me think that it was even more a case of self-defense. It sounds like the "Troubles" were started against the Catholics in Northern Ireland, and the police forces were aligned against them rather than helping them - as happened in the U.S. regarding blacks throughout much of its history and as happens throughout much of the world. Who would have helped defend them if the PIRA and other IRA-like organizations hadn't come to their defense?

I don't think that I expressed a 'love' of the PIRA. I'm simply attempting to understand what occurred and what is continuing to occur - especially in light of the assassination of Denis Donaldson which I never learned from the U.S. media. It seems pretty obvious that if the PIRA was going to kill him in retaliation for his treason, they would have done it sooner and they would have done it to the others who were also exposed for their spy activity.

What I don't understand is why he was "outed" by the Northern Irish government that was supposedly benefiting from his spy activity for 20 years - especially if they thought he might be killed as a result? How do they expect to get any more spys with that type of mentality? It sounds like what the Bush administration did to one of their own covert CIA agents just to retaliate against her husband. It doesn't make any logical sense - let alone the fact that it hurts the reputation of the politicians and hurts the credibility of the government regarding other spys who might have been enlisted to help from throughout the world.

Personally, I think that the politicians in Britain are still using the old "divide and conquer" game against the working and middle class - which protects the ruling class from having the other classes unite against the people with the real power. It seems as though it's happening in Northern Ireland between the Protestants and Catholics - even though the 1798 Irish Rebellion was a combination of Presbyterian Protestants and Catholics united together. In the U.S. they use the ploy of "Republicans" against "Democrats" when otherwise there is almost no difference between the two groups. They thus manage to get working and middle class people to vote against their own economic interests just to enable their "team" to win. Bcsurvivor 12:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, there's a few points there. Firstly, the IRA did not start the Troubles, that's true. But they were the main reason why the violence continued for so long. Moreover, they were responsable for well over half the deaths in the conflict, 1,800 out of 3,500. This compares with about 350 killed bythe British state's forces.

Secondly; the point about self-defence is often raised by republicans as legitimating their campaign, but in fact it doesn't really stand up.


 * For one thing, the IRA killed more Catholics than any other single organisation during the Troubles - between killing informers, people accidentally killed in the crossfire and people killed by bombs on commercial targets. While there were question marks about the security force's conduct, in general after the early 70s, most of them did their job in prosecuting terrorists on both sides. It could well be argued in fact, that the British Army was the only thing standing between the Catholic community and an all out massacre by loyalists in the event of civil war. In any case, the IRA failed to stop loyalist killings of catholics throughout the troubles. The only thing they could do to stop them was to kill Protestants or loyalists in reprisal. Actions of mixed effectiveness at best. Historian Richard English argues in "Armed Struggle" that the IRA campaign was also the biggest single cause of provoking loyalist killings.


 * Re Donaldson, he wasn't outed by the authorities, he was outed by Sinn Fein when they found him out. Regarding who killed him, the rumour mill picked up by the likes of Ed Moloney suggests that it was IRA members disgruntled with the ceasefires and deccommissioning. Many of the IRA hardliners feel betrayed by the Adams peace strategy and it is speculated that they were also unhappy with "touts" like Scapattici and Donaldson being let live. The smart money is on someone from South Armagh or East tyrone being behind the killing.

Re "Divide and rule", well this has always been argued by repubicans and left wingers, but in fact, the British government would rather leave Northern Ireland altogether if it could at this stage. Apart from being a constant security headache, it is also a net drain on the UK public finances. The reason it can't leave Northern Ireland is because of th deep attachment of one part of the community to a British identity and the obstacle this places in the way of a united Ireland. In fact, the Irish government also acknowledges that at present it could not afford financially to incorporate NI into the Republic, quite apart from the political and security problems it would pose. Hence the need for an internal settlement. Jdorney 16:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bcsurvivor, I am not against the notion that the Official IRA had started terrorist action for, what they saw as, self-defensive reasons. And the Provisional IRA carried on the actions with a similar notion in mind. Obviously, I don't agree with it. But consider this: the UVF and the UDA both started similar actions for the very same notion - to protect the members of their own communities. Again - its not something I agree with.


 * The Troubles were not "started against the Catholics in Northern Ireland". The Truobles, in the modern era, started as the result of civil rights demonstrations which had been both victim of and cause of violent clashes. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement had initially enjoyed membership of many Protestants, until both it and the Peoples' Democracy were infiltrated by the IRA. You ask "who would have helped them [the Catholics] if it wasn't for the PIRA"? The fact is that the British Army was reinforced in Northern Ireland specifically to help protect the smaller Catholic enclaves that were surrounded by larger populations of Protestants. Catholic people used to bring out cups of tea and cake for soldiers shortly after they were first deployed. The PIRA put paid to that - they wanted to be the ones responsible for community protection, and were obviously ideologically opposed to British troops protecting Catholics and nationalists.


 * I don't think a comparison between the racial issue in the USA and the religio-political problems in Northern Ireland is a valid one - except to say that the NICRA was inspired by the Civil Rights Movement in the USA.


 * If you say that you don't have a 'love' of the PIRA, then I must respect that. But there are some key phrases which you have been using here which seem to me to be straight out of the pages of, for example, 'An Phoblacht', which would suggest that you have a certain admiration for them. This comes across to such an extent as almost hatred for the Evil™ British.


 * My personal opinion on the Donaldson murder is that it is probably unlikely that the PIRA would have shot themselves in the foot (pardon the expression) that way. They would have learned, surely, from the McCartney murder. While I don't think its impossible that the PIRA carried out the murder (you call it an assassination), I think its more likely that one of the so-called 'dissident' Republican groups carried it out.


 * I'm not aware of all the details, but I do know that the Northern Ireland government did not 'out' him. The Northern Ireland government has not been in existance since 1972. I do not know who 'outed' the man as a spy, but I do know that his location in Donegal was given away by a tabloid newspaper not long before his killing.


 * There's another of those nice Republican phrases they enjoy encorporating into their media spin: "divide and conquer". Regarding the division along religious lines, I would strongly suggest you read up more about the history. Both 'sides' share equal blame for polarising the community.. the community of Ireland as a whole.. along religious lines. The media is guilty of enhancing this division, because the politics and history of Northern Ireland is reasonably complex, and so it is easier to think of the problem in terms of a religious divide. While there is some truth to that, it is by no means the whole story. Don't get me wrong - it is interesting to read your analysis.. and class has played a part in it all. But I do think you need to be armed with more knowledge in order to analyse it more accurately. --Mal 07:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

McCartney killing
The U.S. Bush administration used this killing for their own political agenda. I really don't think that it belongs here because there is no indication that it was an authorized killing by the PIRA. It, in fact, was condemned by the PIRA, and if there is any information about it on this web page, that should be noted.

If a PIRA member had killed someone in an automobile accident like the U.S. First Lady Laura Bush killed a young boy, would anyone condemn the PIRA organization for the death? You cannot hold the organization responsible for everything that any of its members do when those members are not acting in their capacity as PIRA members.

Those McCartney family members and his fiancee were being used by the Bush adminstration, and most of the people in the U.S. knew it. Bcsurvivor 15:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what part of Bush's agenda was served by the McCartney issue, but in any case the US dimension is only marginal. It was a fairly significant issue here in Ireland and is relevant in the context of an article on the PIRA.  The issue was not so much that an IRA member or members may have carried out the killing, but that other IRA members were allegedly involved in "cleaning" the crime scene, destroying CCTV footage and intimidating witnesses.  The IRA released a statement in which they said they had offered to shoot those involved, which is another aspect which is relevant to an article on the post-ceasefire PIRA.


 * I don't think it's necessary to make too much of the issue, but there is no doubt that it has been one of the more significant issues surrounding the PIRA in the last two years and so should be included in the article. --Ryano 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and not only that, but its also highlights the issue of the IRA's behaviour towards its "own" community, now that the war is over. Besides, the McCartneys appealed to the Americans for help, not vice versa.

Jdorney 16:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bcsurvivor, let me tell you a little about the McCartney murder. As I understand it (and unfortunately the police have not managed to pin solid evidence on those involved as yet - so you may treat this as speculation), Robert had had some kind of disagreement with a commander (or some such high-ranking 'officer' within the Provisional IRA). The IRA man took a dislike to McCartney, and ordered him either killed or beaten. Henchmen - members of PIRA - set about their business quite efficiently. McCartney's friend attempted to help out and was hospitalised for his trouble. McCartney himself was gutted open - his internal organs spilled out from his body. His head was jumped on repeatedly so that one of his eyes apparently came out of its socket. The cleanup operation was particularly efficient - described as "forensic" by investigating officers, and a minor riot was organised by the PIRA to delay the arrival of the police at the scene so that this forensic cleanup could take place.


 * The McCartney family - traditionally Republican, and long-time supporters of Sinn Féin, were obviously outraged. I have no doubt that the McCartney sisters know exactly who carried out the murder and subsequent cover-up. Possibly one of the bravest families to have lived here during the course of the Troubles if you ask me: they made accusations against both the IRA and Sinn Féin - not something you used to be able to get away with. However, their high-profile in the media has probably afforded them quite a lot of protection against the IRA. The visit to Washington was very practical, and an appeal for help (though I'm not sure what the US government could do to help, other than offer wider publicity to help protect the family from reprisals). How George Bush and his fellow politicians may or may not have "used" the event has no relevence to this article. --Mal 07:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

(response:) You ask for references, Mal, but you don't give any to back up your statements. Where did you read about McCartney's injuries? That certainly doesn't sound like the PIRA's modus operandi. In fact, it sounds more like the Shankill Butchers. You can read excerpts from their wikipedia webpage:

"The murder of Tom Madden is seen as one of the most terrible examples of the Butchers' brutality. Tom was abducted, and then stripped naked. He was hanged upside down from the beam of a lock-up garage, and slowly skinned alive. He eventually died of slow strangulation.

"Francis Crossan was hit from behind with a wheel brace, and dragged into the taxi. Francis was then tortured and badly beaten. Francis was then dragged into an alley, and his throat cut almost through the spine by Murphy.

"Joseph Donegan was taken to Murphy's house, where he was tortured. He had his teeth pulled out with pliers by Murphy until only 3 were left. He was finally killed by Murphy."

Reference: []

It also sounds like Denis Donaldson's killing might have been done by the Force Research Unit

See the wikipedia webpages:

"Collusion with republican terrorists

"FRU also ran agents in republican paramilitary groups. Their main agent was the IRA member Freddie Scappaticci, codenamed "Stake Knife" or "Steakknife". It is alleged that Steakknife was directed to murder individuals targeted by FRU, and his handler within FRU was David Moyles.

"Steakknife was a member of the IRA's Internal Security Unit responsible for detecting and killing informers within the IRA. "Steakknife" was used by the FRU to influence the outcome of investigations of IRA members by the Internal Security Unit."

Reference: []

"Serious allegations have emerged to the effect that the British government allowed up to forty people to be killed to protect Steakknife's identity."

Reference: []

Just as the death of Denis Donaldson hurts the PIRA, the obvious and public and brutal death of McCartney hurts the PIRA. So it looks suspicious as to who really did it and why? Just as we know that the PIRA member and British spy - Freddie Scappaticci - was in charge of deciding who would be killed for treason in the PIRA, how do we know if another spy or spys within PIRA were instructed to brutally and publicly kill McCartney by their British handlers to make it look bad for the PIRA and thus prevent the peace process from continuing? I would think that if the PIRA was inflicting punishment upon one of its members, it wouldn't do it publicly.

Regarding Denis Donaldson, even the British Tony Blair immediately reminded everyone: "who benefited from Donaldson’s death"? See a reference regarding it which also helps to explain why the British government 'outed' one of their own 20-year spys:

"...Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern urging caution and asking who benefited from Donaldson’s death."

"Republicans clearly would have had most to lose by sanctioning the murder.

"Sinn Fein always believed that part of the reason for Donaldson’s ‘‘outing’’ last December was to influence the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) report, which was due out a few weeks later.

"Had Donaldson been killed or harmed that month, the IMC report on IRA activity would have been damning."

Reference: [] Bcsurvivor 22:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't ask for references mate - I pointed out to you that references from an obviously biased source aren't going to lend your viewpoint any credibility.


 * A couple of points about the Shankill Butchers. Firstly, I fail to see why you felt it necessary to cite examples of their well-documented brutality (and, in my humble opinion, sickness) in this discussion we are having concerning the Provisional IRA and the murder of Robert McCartney.


 * Secondly, are you so niave as to believe that one group is capable of this level of brutality, while another group isn't? I have lived a reasonably long time here, and I have heard many, many stories - some are documented as fact and some are word-of-mouth - but the stories I have heard all my life are from, and about, both 'sides'.


 * While I do not differentiate between the terrorists of the loyalist persuasion, and the terrorists of the republican persuasion, you do for some unknown reason. But let me tell you straight, her and now, that I have no love nor respect for any of them - no matter what they claim as their political ideology. On the other hand, it might appear to readers that you are engaging in political one-upmanship by pointing out how Evil™ one side can be, and still defending the other side.


 * As to sources regarding the brutal murder of Robert McCartney, I am sure that a description of injuries sustained to him are available somewhere on the internet, if you care to do a search. And here's one particularly well-used source in political discussion regarding Northern Ireland which opints to exactly what I had said:

The Blanket: Robert McCartney


 * And this, from another well-known website:

IRA statement on Slugger O'Toole


 * Even the usually-republican-sympathetic Gaurdian newspaper had the following to say in a report:

''It was a Sunday night. Robert McCartney, 33, a forklift driver, was having a drink with an old friend. A number of IRA men who had come from the Bloody Sunday commemorations in Derry were drinking at the bar.''

''According to the McCartney family, a senior IRA man accused Mr McCartney of making a rude gesture to his wife. He denied this, but his friend, Brendan Devine, offered to buy the women and her friends a drink to apologise.''

This wasn't enough for the senior republican, who asked McCartney: "Do you know who I am?"

''McCartney, who also worked part-time as a bouncer to save for his wedding, was described locally as a diplomat, a diffuser of rows. He knew exactly who the man was, but did not apologise, saying he hadn't done anything wrong. A row ensued. A bottle was smashed, and used to slash Brendan Devine's throat.''

''McCartney and Devine stumbled out of the pub. Devine told his friend to run but he wouldn't leave him. At this point, a friend of Mr McCartney's called his mobile. He heard smashing glass, Devine shouting "I never touched anyone" and a woman begging the attackers to stop.''

''The family believe around 15 people followed the two men out of the pub. McCartney and Devine were beaten with plastic and iron sewer rods and slashed from their neck to their navel with knives, said to have been taken from the pub kitchen.''

''McCartney was kicked and his head stamped on. Some witnesses have said a gun was produced. McCartney lost an eye in the beating.''

The family said the perpetrators left the men for dead, went back to the pub, locked the door, conducted a forensic clean-up operation in which evidence and CCTV footage were removed.

"They closed the doors and said: 'Nobody saw anything; this is IRA business'," says Paula McCartney.

''No ambulance was called. The men were picked up by a police patrol. Devine survived. McCartney died in hospital.''

''One month on, of 70 witnesses in the pub, none has come forward with a full account of what they saw. Most tell the family they were in the toilet at the crucial moment. So many people have said they were in the small toilet at the time, the cubicle is now known as "the Tardis".''


 * Also, another random hit from a Google search turned up this (effectively a blog) from an American website:

Dara Purvis:Criminals who would police the streets


 * As for your claim of "how do we know if another spy or spys within PIRA were instructed to brutally and publicly kill McCartney by their British handlers to make it look bad for the PIRA and thus prevent the peace process from continuing?", I would suggest that before entering a debate - especially with someone who is actually from Northern Ireland, you might want to better research the subject. I point you to the IRA's official statement regarding the matter which was reproduced on the Slugger website I linked for you above.


 * Likewise, regarding Donaldson, while a theory that the FRU might have carried out the murder has been posited, I don't see that they had anything to gain from it either. I believe the people asserting that theory are probably exercising in damage limition for the Republican Movement. You put forth the question "Who had what to gain?".. but equally, I say to you: Who has what to gain by attempting a smokescreen of propaganda. Who is most likely to blame the Evil™ British? I'm not saying that the theory is impossible in reality, nor do I discount a possibility even that loyalists might have carried out the murder. It is not clear yet and, as with so many murders and incidents during the Troubles, we may never find out. The McCartney case, in contrast, is cut and dried however - all that remains is for those responsible to be turned in and for justice to be served. --Mal 18:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the comment that you made that indicated that you would like a reference regarding what Gerry Adams said about the PIRA giving warnings before bombings.

I mentioned it because the Shankill Butchers modus operandi is much, much closer to what happened to McCartney than the typical m.o. of the PIRA - which is to shoot a hooded person in the back of the head and dump their body in a remote country lane - not to kill them in public in front of numerous and potentially hostile witnesses. I also brought up the link to Freddie Scappaticci because that indicated that the British/Northern Irish government in the past had directed at least one of their spys within the PIRA to kill PIRA members who were deemed traitors (and who may not have been traitors considering that Scappaticci was a traitor himself). The people who were killed may have discovered his undercover identity or may have been killed for some other reason. Perhaps whoever killed McCartney was also an undercover spy like Denis Donaldson and Freddie Scappaticci and brutally and publicly attacked McCartney in order to discredit the PIRA. Just because whoever killed McCartney was a high-level PIRA member, doesn't mean that he wasn't a spy. Both Donaldson and Scappaticci were high-level PIRA members, too. It's also possible that whoever killed McCartney were sadistic psychopaths like the Shankill Butchers.

I'm not defending one side and condemning the other. As I've previously stated, I believe that both sides are being used by the people in power to play 'divide and conquer.' I believe that they should be fighting together politically for the economic benefit of everyone - not giving in to the trumped up differences between themselves. It only benefits the people in power and hurts the working and middle classes of all religions as well as atheists and agnostics.

What does: "... a friend of Mr McCartney's called his mobile." mean? Does that mean he called someone on his cell phone? If so, than why didn't that friend call for an ambulance?

I read the whole article, and I don't understand why the family acts like they don't know who did it. From the article it appears as though the PIRA told them exactly who did it. Why didn't the family tell the police? Also, why wouldn't Devine's testimony be adequate for the police to arrest the men? He survived, right? Is he capable of testifying? Also, what about the other 2 men who appeared to be friends of McCartney and Devine and who were outside with them? Why don't they testify?

If the police had given the family an elaborate description of their investigation and named names and elaborate details and asked the family if they wanted to prosecute and ask for the death sentence, would it be considered outrageous? What appears outrageous is that the police haven't arrested anyone when they obviously have a lot of evidence from the family through the efforts of the PIRA. Have the police not arrested anyone because the persons responsible were spys for the police?

The McCartney case is not "cut and dried" as I indicated above. Just as Freddie Scap and Denis Donaldson were having people killed in order to follow orders from their British controls and to protect their own identities from being exposed, whoever killed McCartney might very well have also been spys. This isn't idle speculation. This is what has already been proven to have occurred in the past. If it was previously done, it's possible that it might have been done again in McCartney's case for whatever reason. Considering that Donaldson and Scap were "outed" by their British handlers, it sounds as though anything can happen. A similar situation has been exposed in New York City where long-term and honored law enforcement agents were discovered to also be working for the mafia and were involved in the actual 'pay for hire' killing of people for the mafia. Again, you haven't explained why the PIRA would have diverted so dramatically from their modus operandi by publicly killing someone as happened with McCartney. It doesn't make any sense - especially because they were so anxious for the peace process to continue.

I previously responded before reading Dara Purvis' blog which indicated that a couple of men were arrested. I think it's a shame that Dara wrote about it without reading what the PIRA had stated that they had done regarding discussing the issues with McCartney's family members in front of impartial witnesses. If what the PIRA stated is true, than they weren't protecting any of the perpetrators. Bcsurvivor 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I hope you don't mind that I reformatted your responses - it makes it easier in this particular forum to respond to a single posting, as the fomatting looks messy here otherwise.


 * Yes - I would have liked to have seen a reference about what you claim Adams had said, purely out of personal interest.


 * You mention the Shankill Butchers because the event is similar to their modus operandi, and yet I have suggested to you that the IRA are quite capable of torturing in the same manner.. as in fact is evidenced by the murder of Robert McCartney.


 * There are, I'm sure, quite a number of organisations with similar modus operandii that you could have chosen. But you specifically chose that of the Shankill Butchers.


 * I don't think I said that the high-level IRA member killed McCartney, and nor do any of the links I provided. What they do say is that he directed the murder.


 * Your suppositions about McCartney being a spy and the conspiracy theory you have drawn up is the only time I have ever heard this theory. The IRA issued a statement about it. You, on the other hand, might just as well have suggested that it was aliens, or that the Devil made him do it. There have been no suggestions or allegations made that McCartney was a spy - this is from your mind, and your mind only.


 * As for the possibility that whoever killed McCartney were sadistic psychopaths.. well I would very much agree that there is something very wrong with those who carried out the murder.


 * "I'm not defending one side and condemning the other. As I've previously stated, I believe that both sides are being used by the people in power to play 'divide and conquer.'" Used by whom? If your answer is "the British" or "the British government", then you are indeed defending one side and condemning the other.


 * Further to this, you have brought up the case of the long-defunct group of people known as the Shankill Butchers, in order to demonstrate the brutality of one side, and contrasted it with what you believe to be the modus operandi of the other. That is also defending one side while condemning the other. Key phrases throughout your discussion with me also point to this attitude.


 * You say that you "believe that they should be fighting together politically for the economic benefit of everyone". But perhaps you're not aware of the fact that the PIRA had attempted systematically to destroy the economy of Northern Ireland and make it unviable - including the targetting during the 1980s of Protestant businesses and businessmen, and of government installations (including non-military ones). I obviously don't condone it, but I can understand the logic of making Northern Ireland unattractive to prospective national and foreign investors. In what way was that "fighting together politically for the economic benefit of everyone"?


 * Further to that, the United Kingdom has one of the largest economies of the world. While the Republic of Ireland's economy is growing at a speedy rate, it cannot hope to compare with the vast resources of the UK. Adding a further 1.7 million people to the Republic, and an area of land that includes virtually no natural resources is most definately not going to help that economic growth. Meanwhile the British government already contributes to the people of Northern Ireland to the tune of some one fifth of its economic output.


 * Re: McCartney's mobile phone. It means that a friend phoned Robert McCartney's cell phone. I do not know why they didn't call an ambulance, as I'm not aware of the nature of that phone call, what the conversation included (other than some of what the caller allegedly heard), or whether McCartney had even answered it (vocally).


 * You say that you can't understand why the family acts like they don't know who did it. But I can assure you, from having seen them on local TV interviews, that they are in doubt doubt as to who did it. You ask why the family hadn't told the police. I believe they told the police everything they possibly could have known or suspected.


 * As for Devine's testimony - I'm actually not sure about that. Its a good question. The other two men (I'm not sure that they were men by the way) didn't testify either. Again I'm not sure. What I can tell you is that roughly 70 people in the bar that night have been interviewed, and not one of them saw a thing. If you knew the inside of the bar, as many local Belfast people do, you will note that it would be almost impossible for every single person in such a large group to have seen absolutely nothing (note the comment from the piece in the Gaurdian regarding the Tardis). What does that suggest to you?


 * You ask if it would be outrageous to ask the family to ask for the death sentence. However, the death sentence is no longer law in the UK, so I guess it would be considered outrageous.


 * You make it clear that you do not understand the event even slightly, when you make statements such as "What appears outrageous is that the police haven't arrested anyone when they obviously have a lot of evidence from the family through the efforts of the PIRA. Have the police not arrested anyone because the persons responsible were spys for the police?"


 * Not for the first time, I suggest you read up about the event and familiarise yourself with it before putting ridiculous suggestions down on this discussion page. McCartney's family understand how the police have been frustrated. You, on the other hand, do not. I'll reiterate for you:

=
=========

(answer:) I don't have time right now, but I had to respond to this. I suggested that one or more of the people involved might have been paid spys of the police because of the spys who were "outed" by the police - including the one who was recently murdered. As a result, I don't think that it's that absurd to suggest that this might also have been a possibility. I would agree that it sounds ridiculous IF it hadn't already occurred and was proven to have occurred by the admission of at least one spy (now dead due to murder). Bcsurvivor 23:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By the same logic, the Provisional IRA may well have been responsible for the attacks on the WTC, and the Freemasons may have been responsible for the Jack the Ripper murders. But let's stick to the facts. --Mal 02:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

=
=========


 * The murder took place and the victims were left for dead. The bar was sealed and cleaned forensically. A mini-riot was organised in the streets leading to the bar in order to delay the arrival of the police at the scene. Eye-witnesses were very obviously intimidated by the IRA into saying nothing.


 * You suggest that it was all the fault of the Evil™ Brits, or that the victims were merely Brits, so I assume you think that's ok.. all's fair in love and war, right? The only thing getting in the way of your suggestions are the facts.. but don't let that stop you, by all means.


 * "The McCartney case is not "cut and dried" as I indicated above." I'm afraid it is, as I indicated above.


 * You really should get over this "modus operandi of the IRA" rubbish. Read up on some of their torture sessions. Your suggestions are just that by the way: idle speculation. You speculate that McCartney was a spy for the Brits. This has not even been an issue during the investigation. You speculate that because it has happened before, this might have been what happened this time.. despite a statement from the IRA, and various reports at your disposal which you consistantly appear to ignore. You speculate that the IRA were "so anxious for the peace process to continue".. yet you appear to have no knowledge of those members of the IRA who are resistant to it.. and of those who have broken away to the other, so-called dissident, republican terrorist groups as a result of this resistance. You ask this question "why? - it doesn't make any sense!" But mate - a whole heap of stuff that has happened throughout the Troubles has been pretty much senseless. You make the assumption that this event does not follow the modus operandi of the IRA but, to borrow from what you have said: This is what has already been proven to have occurred in the past. If it was previously done, it's possible that it might have been done again in McCartney's case for whatever reason. You act as if the IRA can Do No Wrong and that they are an Honourable and Just organisation. Let me tell you that this is far from the truth. They, and their counterparts, the loyalist groups, are regarded as the low-life scum of Northern Ireland, and their recorded history proves this: they feel it is right and "justified" to take the life of others, to demand protection money from businessmen and individuals; to intimidate and cajole people into membership (after which they pay weeky sums of money); they act as vigilantes and believe they are above the law; they are heavily involved in smuggling - including drugs; they organise riots and attacks. They are, in effect, Northern Ireland's mafia families - make no mistake about it.


 * You say that if what is said in the IRA statement is true, then they weren't protecting the perpetrators. How can you convince yourself this is the case, when all the evidence points to the exact opposite? The forensic cleanup.. the organised riot.. the intimidation of witnesses.. the fact that neither Sinn Féin nor the IRA have offered the police any help in handing over the names of those involved. They have offered to murder those responsible of course. I'll leave it up to you to make a judgement call on that particular idea. However, given that you seem to be having a hard time grasping certain facts, I will highlight to you the fact that offering to kill those responsible indicates, to me at least, that they are most definately aware of who they were. --Mal 05:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted some adminisrator friends about the abuse and unprofessionalisim of "Will".
I am not sure why administrator "will" is sending me messages. I am using edits for the PIRA that are completely verifiable, and my sources are quoted within the text of the article. It is important for authors and administartors on Wikipedia to realize that there actually are professionals who know these subjects much better then themselves, and that it is VERY possible for Administrators to be wrong with thier fascts and fact checking. Administrators who immediately revert changes, just becuase they are too lazy or arrogant to do a little reasearch, are one of the reasons Wikipedia is not being taken as seriously as it should. Administrator "Will" should at least TRY and be a professional and not destory the hard research and knoweledge of others because of his own sad insecurities and bias.

I am in no way damaging this article, I am merely trying to correct the many factual errors that other authors have littered this page with. I have a few administrator friends who I will be contacting about the highly unprofessional behavior of "Will", and if I were him I would get my act together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devin79 (talk • contribs)


 * The only arrogant and lazy editor here is you.

Jdorney 18:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Devin none of your edits, as far as I can tell, are in any way fruitful. To the contrary, they are biased towards the IRA. The tone of your edits hails the group as heros. That may be true for a very small number of people throughout the world, but it is not the job of Wikipedia to exhalt any particular groups.


 * Let me take one of the first of your edits that I came across as an example:

However according to "Jane's Intelligence" and the "Council On Foreign Relations:, the Loyalist terror groups have killed the most "civillains". The IRA killed an estimated 497 civillians during the troubles as opposed to an estimated 860 killed by Loyalist terror groups. (CFR.ORG, Loyalist Terrorist FAQ,p2)


 * I am pretty sure I have pointed out to you in the past that this information is unbalanced: your figures compare the Provisional IRA, a single organisation, with that of multiple other groups. It is also obvious that you are attempting to paint both the Loyalist groups and the British military as both comparitively ineffective on the one hand, and comparitively more ruthless on the other.


 * Consensus seems to be that you are in error with your edits. Now, personally, I make no secret of being unionist. But others who are obviously not unionist appear to agree that your edits (to this article anyway) are full of POV. As a unionist, I could probably find many, many negative things to say about the IRA. But I don't - I leave it to the likes of Jdorney, who has shown me by his edits that he has clearly attempted to create a non-POV article. --Mal 16:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Devin79 yet again.
As usual I've had to spend loads of time removing Devin79's latest pov changes. Because my browser can't support the whole article I've had to remove it section by section. For anyone who wants to know why these changes are being made, read the rest of this talk page. The sooner someone bans this user the better in my opinion. How much lower can you get than making up non-existent sources and then putting them in an article to back up your own pov? And apart from anything else, he also reverts loads of other spelling and formatting changes. Jdorney 01:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)