NEWS: IRA To Renounce Violence.

The Irish Republican Army has decided to give up its violent struggle for a 'United Ireland' and turn solely to political methods said an American businessman yesterday after being briefed on a statement expected from the guerrilla group later this week.



Excellent news!

If the IRA do agree to no more violence it will be another massive leap towards real peace in NI.

At least there is still some good news here when the rest of the world seems to be falling apart!

[edit on 27-7-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 27/7/2005 by MickeyDee]

[edit on 27-7-2005 by John bull 1]

Im very glad to hear this!

Excellent news!

Well, thats the end of republican terrorism

Isn't it a bit to late to renounce violence after they've killed lots of people?

Maybe they should bother to do something worthwhile - like telling us where they buried the bodies.

Also just because the I.R.A. does, doesn't mean the real I.R.A. et al will who did a lot more damage.

We can all hope then , that NORAID will stop sponsoring them and buying the guns and explosives now.

Never is to late for ending violence, they will have more productivity in the ways of political play.

Perhaps they are now educated and more willing to persue diplomatics avenues to solve their problems.

Or perhaps they are trying to distance themselves from any links to terrorist attacks going on in England.

Originally posted by Odium
Isn't it a bit to late to renounce violence after they've killed lots of people?

No.....they may have killed people for years but they are eventually turning over a new leaf, which is what NI needs to move forward!

Maybe they should bother to do something worthwhile - like telling us where they buried the bodies.

Eh????? What bodies? The IRA just blew people up and shot them didnt they? They then just left them to be found!

Also just because the I.R.A. does, doesn't mean the real I.R.A. et al will who did a lot more damage.

Although your statement about the Real IRA doing more damage is wrong, the rest i believe maybe correct!

There are alot more terrorists in NI than the IRA and we must hope they will stop the violence also!


Mic

Originally posted by Odium
Also just because the I.R.A. does, doesn't mean the real I.R.A. et al will who did a lot more damage.

Well, i dont know...

But the real IRA won't start back up i dont think.

What this illustrates is that terrorism has to be dealt with through solely political means.

The IRA's political wing, Sinn Fein, was allowed to be a part of the Northern Irish political scene. When we (British) stopped responding militarily there was a chance at ending the spiral of violence.

This is highly relevant to the problem with Islamic terrorists. We should heed the lessens of the IRA conflict. We should be supporting groups like Hamas who have political wings. Its the only way forward, as can clearly be seen with Sinn Fein and the IRA.

We have to negotiate some times, we cant get it all our own way. If we try and get it all our own way we'll continue to be attacked by terrorists.

As much as i'd love to believe the IRA/Sinn fein, i'm afraid i've got the feeling this is just a case of "more of the same" from the IRA, we've heard a hundred times over from the IRA about weapons decomissioning, and end to the knee capping, and punishment beatings etc........i think this latest statement is just another ploy by the IRA to divert attention from their actions. After the killing at the beginning of the year in a pub in Belfast the IRA have been permanently on the backfoot - they had to come out with a statement like this or fear losing credibility amongst their own supporters...

The IRA will never disband, they have to much to lose through the gangland culture they've built up and rely on.....they are a formidable criminal enterprise, the real hard men that control much of Northern Ireland have absolutely nothing to gain from a peace process - and everything to lose.

The only reason they participated in a peace process in the first place was to stop the SAS wiping them out totally - when the shoot-to-kill policy was taken directly to the IRA they were losing people quicker then they could recruit them. According to a leading Republican at the time - "if we had carried on fighting the British with a bombing campaign they would have carried on using the SAS to hunt us down - at that rate we would have been finished"

They went with the peace process as a way to stop themselves being wiped out altogether.

Like i say - i'd love to believe the IRA over this statement, their record on matters like this though leaves very very sceptical of the reality of the statement.

(i say IRA/sinn fein because as far as i'm concerned they are one and the same)

Originally posted by subz

This is highly relevant to the problem with Islamic terrorists. We should heed the lessens of the IRA conflict. We should be supporting groups like Hamas who have political wings. Its the only way forward, as can clearly be seen with Sinn Fein and the IRA.

We have to negotiate some times, we cant get it all our own way. If we try and get it all our own way we'll continue to be attacked by terrorists.

Subz,

Negotiate about *what* exactly?

There are groups with defined (perhaps) interests - such as possibly Hamas or other palestinian groups - but what about Al - Qaeda and the associated radical islamist groups only want one thing - and that isn't anything that Blair or Bush can give them or wants to give them.

www.stanford.edu...

That gives a brief look at some of the things they did.

Several of the bodies, from people they killed have never been found. I thnik 2002 was when a former member gave the location of one of the bodies, which turned out to be a hoax.

More links to news articles regarding this matter.....

Sky News
BBC News

Mic

Actually some may be right in the statement that they will never disband, but I will see a division between a more political inclined moderate groups from the always radical follwers.

It's just like Islam and the radical that still belong in the group but prefer violence to prove their point.

Then the struggle will beging when one side target the other one.

Originally posted by Odium
www.stanford.edu...

That gives a brief look at some of the things they did.

Several of the bodies, from people they killed have never been found. I thnik 2002 was when a former member gave the location of one of the bodies, which turned out to be a hoax.

I dont like what the IRA did but they did do it for a better reason than other terrorists, thats all I can say.

What they did?

The I.R.A. did not want us in Ireland.
Bin Laden et al do not want us in the Middle East.

That's what it boils down to.

Originally posted by Odium
What they did?

The I.R.A. did not want us in Ireland.

Bin Laden et al do not want us in the Middle East.

That's what it boils down to.

Then your very close minded, you see terrorists as the same?

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Odium
What they did?

The I.R.A. did not want us in Ireland.

Bin Laden et al do not want us in the Middle East.

That's what it boils down to.

Then your very close minded, you see terrorists as the same?

What do they want? What did they do it for? They primarily wanted the same thing.

What are the major differences between the two come on?

The way I see it is we have two options.

1) Fight terrorism as if its a conventional war (War on Terror) which we are currently doing.

OR

2) Encourage existing politcal wings of terrorist organisations such as Hamas and entice other groups to do the same. Be sincere in listening to their greivances and give them something to work towards.

Now im not naieve in believing that all terrorists will disarm and go into politics. But what I can see happening is that it will draw support away from these violent extremists if people can see the politico's acheiving results whilst the violent extremists are being arrested and locked up.

You can still forcibly deal with terrorists, just because you are allowing them a political voice does not mean you have to roll over and take the bombings. You can do both, which is something our Western governments are not doing when they say such rhetoric as "we will not give an inch" "you are either with us or you are against us" etc.

You have to understand why your enemies are your enemies before you even think about remedying the situation. You dont have to succumb to all their demands either.

Lets say, with Islamic extemists such as Hamas, that they are given a political voice in a newly created Palestinian state. There will still be those who are not satisfied and want the destruction of Israel, but there will also be those who will put their energy and time into the political process. It will fracture Hamas much the same way as did the IRA and the real IRA. Once it is fractured you heap support on the non-violent faction and come down hard with police forces on those who remain violent.

This sets up a situation of choice, you can choose to fight for your goals and actually have a chance of reaching them through the decidedly safer option of politics OR you can run the risk of being locked up or killed by police.

Currently Islamic terrorists have the options of put up with the status quo or fight. That is why you see so many young muslims gravitating towards violent extremists. They have no other choice.

Give them a choice and watch the amounts of terrorist recruits wane.

[edit on 27/7/05 by subz]

Well i'm not holding my breath for anything spectacular from McGuiness and Adams! Apart from the ceasefire.....which seems to be when it suits and does'nt include punishment beatings and all the rest of the violent activities.....all they've ever done is make promises without handing over a single bullet.

After reading this it once again reiterates what a joke the whole thing is......

www.sky.com...

Letting him out in anticipation of a statement! Lets hope they have something good to say eh otherwise thats another murdering ****** back out again!

Better shut up now before i go on a rantathon!

CX.

[edit on 27-7-2005 by CX]

Originally posted by Odium
What do they want? What did they do it for? They primarily wanted the same thing.

One wants land back, one wants to hurt the US.

What are the major differences between the two come on?

One doesnt use suicide bombers and another calls in a bomb threat before the bomb.