Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

The name

"PIRA", pronounced "pye-ra" is an abbreviation used mostly by the British Army in Ulster. In reality it is not even used as an abbreviation but "pye-ra" is British Army-talk for the Provisionals.

Jimmerc

When Jimmerc says that the PIRA is an abbreviation used mostly by the British in Ulster' he should get his facts right. The Provisional IRA is called the PIRA by the

• Irish government in documents;
• by nationalist leaders north and south;
• by the Northern-Irish unionists;
• by the British government;
• by much of the media

In other words, Jimmerc is speaking pure cobblers. And who, by the way, are the 'British in Ulster'? The protestant community? The British government? Or just anyone who doesn't agree with the PIRA and Sinn Féin? And by the way, Ulster is a geographic unit. It is not a state. The state's name is Northern Ireland. The state in which Sinn Féin sits in government (or will do again when the PIRA FINALLY gets around to fully decomissioning, which under the Belfast Agreement it is supposed to have FINISHED 2 years ago.

As to the 'When has the IRA ever targeted civilians, it was always legitimate targets ( there have been SOME exceptions, though)' line, I presume that someone is being ironic or sarcastic there. Or does someone actually think that the children murdered in Warrington, the woman watching a Remembrance Day wreath-laying in Enniskillen, the people sitting in a restaurant who were burned to death by IRA bombs, the young community policeman having a pint in a gay pub, an elderly former Speaker of the Northern Ireland parliament and his son (both butchered) and scores of members of Án Garda Siochána like Frank Hand and Gerry McCabe were legitimate targets? Damn all people in Ireland think that. In fact most people have no time for the PIRA and it makes their skin crawl that they (and their murdering twins in the UDA/UFF etc) are out of prison. But we are stomaching it because it is part of the Belfast Agreement and we all live in hope that they have learned their lesson. Which is why, at its recent 'highpoint' in the Republic of Ireland's general election, managed to win a massive FIVE seats out of 166. Wooopee! Some breakthrough. Only seventy-eight seats to go and you might actually form a government, lads! And at the rate of gaining five seats an election, that's 14 elections. Yeah, Sinn Féin finally winning government in the Republic of Ireland in or around 2070.

In other words, don't kid yourself that the PIRA ran a 'legitimate war', had 'legitimate' that the PIRA 'spoke' for the 'oppressed people of Ireland' or that Sinn Féin 'represents' Ireland. Padraig Pearse never advocated murdering children, women honouring war dead, members of Ireland's police-force, a gay policeman having a pint, or burning people to death in restaurants. And he would be ashamed that some people claim his authority for brutally slaughtering people they way the PIRA did for years. (And the way dumb americans were foolish enough to give these guys money and support.)

But at least Sinn Féin today has real leaders of substance who are trying to solve, not create, divisions, people like Adams, McGuinness and Alex Maskey, the deeply impressive Lord Mayor of Belfast.

JTD 03:39 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC) (A REAL republican whose grand-uncle fought for the REAL republic in the REAL Irish War of Independence.)

Mainland

Removed 'Mainland Great Britain'. As Great Britain is an island, it does not have a mainland, just . . . em . . . Great Britain. What people using this geographically ludicrous term is the bit of the United Kingdom that isn't Northern Ireland. And that is . . . well. . . Great Britain! The actual full name of the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland isn't part of Great Britain, it is part of the UK., which is Northern Ireland + Great Britain. So there isn't a 'mainland Great Britain'. (If they said the mainland of the United Kingdom, that would mean Great Britain.) But there ain't no 'mainland Great Britain'. (Yes I know some people use the term, but Wiki as an encyclopedia has to use the correct term, not replicate their mistake!) JTD 03:52 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Point of fact "Mainland Great Britain" is correct in a different context, if refering to it as distinct from any of the smaller islands that are politically part of Great Britain and do not have any autonomomy. Examples are the numerous Scottish Islands, Angelsey, The Isle of Wight and Scilly Isles, where the inhabitants refer to the island of Great Britain as the mainland Dainamo March 22, 2004

Notable events

Re: listing of "notable events" in the history of the PIRA: this list excludes the postman who was killed by the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland (1996?), the murder of Garda Jerry McCabe (June 1996) in Adare, Co Limerick, the arrest and conviction of the "Columbia Three" for allegedly training FARC guerrillas (2001-2004), and the robbery of UK£26M from the Northern Bank, Belfast in December 2004. While they denied responsibility for all these events at the time, they admitted to the first two when known PIRA activists were positively identified or convicted for these crimes; we still await their admission of responsibility for the 2004 robbery (as at Jan 22, 2005; PW, Rep Of Ire)

Reverts

I reverted the last three edits because they were pitched rather non-neutrally. We're not here to present one side's view or the other's, but it seemed clear to me that the entries were presenting only one side, that of the PIRA or their supporters, and not a neutral one. See NPOV for more information. It's important that we write dispassionately about subjects, and not give them the benefit of the doubt, only present facts that support them, or extend facts like when and where a bomb went off and that the PIRA claimed it went off early ... all the way to "instead exploded" implying there is no doubt of veracity. Likewise, we don't know the "the British" framed them (and are perhaps not even sure they were framed, depending on your POV). I can't claim to be perfect at it writing dispassionately, but I have to call this one non-NPOV. ;-) Daniel Quinlan 11:58, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Notable events 2

The entry has a listing of "notable events" in the history of the PIRA. All of them are negative, starting with "1972...bombs killed" to "1996...bomb...injured". I added one positive event, the fact that the people of Fermanagh-South Tyrone elected a prisoner who was openly in the PIRA their MP while he was on hunger strike for POW recognition. The enemies of the PIRA always claim that they do not have the support of the community, and this contradicted that, it pretty much takes the line of the British establishment and turns it on it's head. I see that this was removed. Sorry, but it was definitely a notable event in the history of the PIRA - the fact that one of it's members was elected MP. I put it back in.

I see some of my wording has been changed for a more NPOV. Some of these changes are fine. However, I described the person who was attempting an attack on a UDA office over a fish and chip shop as a volunteer, and this was changed to bomber. This does not seem neutral to me, it is like not calling British soldiers soldiers or RUC policemen policemen and instead calling them all "shooters" if they shoot a gun. If you feel something I said regarding Bobby Sands election is NPOV, you can edit it, but trying to throw the event down the memory hole is not NPOV.

Plus, the whole scope of events seems tilted. The original Shankill Road bombing fails to note that there was a UDA office over the fish-and-chip shop and that the volunteer was killed along with the others when the bomb went off prematurely. This omission makes it seem like the PIRA planted a time-bomb in a fish-and-chip shop in order to kill a bunch of civilians. -- Lancemurdoch 21:03, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, volunteer is blatently POV and terminology exclusively used by the PIRA and its defenders. It is loaded terminology and cannot be used here. The person in question went to plant a bomb. That makes him a bomber. It is elementary english.

Secondly, your account of the election of Sands is a good spin but selective in its facts. That constituency had a history of electing independent nationalists. The unionist vote was split. The SDLP controversially did not put up a candidate. Sands' election, like that of Eoin Carron later, was not the great PIRA electoral triumph you suggest but a product of electoral polarisation produced by Thatcher's handline stance on the hunger strikes, the complex nature of Fermanagh and South Tyrone electoral politics and also the belief in many quarters that voting for a hunger striker might make Thatcher moderate her policy stance and so save lives. To claim it as an electoral mandate for the PIRA is fact-twisting spin worthy of Alaistair Campbell.

Thirdly, you make it sound that the PIRA was only out to kill UDA men and did not target non-combatents. Killing of anyone was generally deemed by Irish people to be wrong, even if they were in the UDA. And to suggest that the PIRA did not target non-combatents is a blatent lie. It murdered men, women and children, blew people's heads off in the street, burnt to death people in restaurants, murdered Jean McConville and buried her body on a beach and then lied about it as they lied about so much else, robbed banks, kidnapped supermarket tycoons, blew up diplomats, threatened to kidnap government ministers, etc. If the Shankill Road bombing was not aimed at innocent men, women and children it was unusual for an organisation that killed anyone anywhere to suit their own ends. FearÉIREANN 23:09, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The PIRA obviously had little or no regard for the innocent people in the fish shop.This can be seen by the way the didnt check the wire properly,they decided to kill the UDA members when they knew there would be customers in the shop and how Gerry Adams carried the coffin of the bomber.And of course they targeted civilians.The Kingsmill massacre,Bloody Friday,Guildford Pub Bombings,Birmingham Pub Bombing,La Mon restuarant bombings,Remeberance Day Bombingand the Warrington Bombing are all exmaples of cowardly attacks by the PIRA in which there were no political or military targets.Only civilian targets. Dermo69

Terrorism

PIRA operations: guerrilla campaign or terrorism? Here's what dictionary.com has to say about each:

guerrilla: A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

terrorism: 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.

Now I think you could say both definitions apply to PIRA, but in my personal opinion "terrorist" seems much more descriptive of PIRA than "guerrilla", particularly as their targets were so often civilians. [CK]

Regardless of what dictionary.com may say the correct definition of terrorism is a controversial subject. It is also a matter of dispute as to whether or not the Provo's are terrorists, so using the word terrorist in this context is not NPOV. Iota 01:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does that mean that we can't refer to Al Qaida as a terrorist group? [CK]

To quote our Duffy from above " It [the Provisional IRA] murdered men, women and children, blew people's heads off in the street, burnt to death people in restaurants, murdered Jean McConville and buried her body on a beach and then lied about it as they lied about so much else, robbed banks, kidnapped supermarket tycoons, blew up diplomats, threatened to kidnap government ministers, etc." This is terrosism whatever you defintion. This is not a question of NPOV Mintguy (T) 11:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The point is that a significant minority disagree with the characterisation of PIRA as terrorist so like it or not this is a matter of opinion rather than of fact. It may seem that any definition of terrorism must include the PIRA but with a nebulous word like this there are all kinds of definitions in use, and believe it or not there are a great many who dont think that even deliberately targeting civilians is enough to make a group terrorist.

Ultimately it is best to let people read the article and make up their own minds. I dont think anyone reading the information in this article can be left in any doubt as to exactly what kind of organisation the PIRA is. Iota 20:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You cannot rewrite history in the name of NPOV. Who is this significant minority? Iit certainly doesn't include the government of the Republic of Ireland or the government of the United States or any other signifcant body. Mintguy (T) 20:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is worth noting that at no stage in modern late 20th century to early 21st century history have the people of Ireland endorsed the IRA or its political wing Sinn Fein (which incidentially has just joined the former communists in a voting block in the European Parliament). At its modern highpoint Sinn Fein still is a political minnow in the south and in the North it is now the largest nationalist party but not overwhelmingly dominant. Furthermore, there was a national outcry when it was suggested that the IRA men who killed Irish policemen Garda Gerry McCabe should be released under the Belfast Agreement. Terrorist was one of the milder descriptions given to the organisation. FearÉIREANN 20:36, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Iota, to clarify: assuming that a significant minority of Arabs don't consider them to be terrorists, is it your position that Al Qaeda should not be referred to as a terrorist group in Wikipedia? [CK]

The crafting of a very selective imagery of violence, the notion of ‘real’ republicans when historical reality is that these people were legitimised after the fact, blindness to the tautology of a bomber bombing, minimisation of the bombshell that sees a known IRA man elected to the UK parliament, use of the essentially irrelevant notion that killing is wrong, the false comparison of an organisation that gives advance warnings with Al Qaida, seeking a significant minority in significant bodies, the strange concept of ‘now the largest nationalist party but not overwhelmingly dominant’. All in all it is pretty clear who is suffering point of view issues here. A leaked MI5 briefing tells us that the British intelligence services believe the IRA fought a just war, yet I hesitate to work this into the article because of the pervasive atmosphere of thin lipped orthodoxy among interested Wikipedians. 195.92.168.168 10:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<CK> Just FYI, Al Qaida has been known to give advance warning too.</CK>

• statements of intent are not advance warnings in the sense being discussed here 195.92.168.168 02:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've just read the entry on the PIRA, and believe it to be very well written and edited. I feel one thing is sorely missing, however.

The PIRA seems to have been isolated from its context in the article, leaving an impression that I don't think is accurate. Yes, the PIRA was terrorising communities. Nobody in their right mind would deny that. However, as in all conflicts, power (often through language) plays a critical and often hidden role. The state was, without doubt in my mind, terrorissing the minority community in Northern Ireland. This terrorism was 'legitimate' and never called terrorism. One only has to look at how the state's police and armed forces reacted to civil rights marches and the daily intimidation visited on individuals at checkpoints or on the street to realise how nasty the situation was.

Terror breeds terror IMO. Conflicts are rarely equal, as it was with this one. A state will usually always find it easier to legitimise its terrorism (easy to do if the task is given to secret services or couched in terms like anti-terrorism) than for an organisation like the PIRA which does not have the same resources or following.

Context is key here, not to justifying, but to a better explanation. We can only aim to be 'neutral' in an article like this, but we must always admit that ours is one of many POV, and NONE is objective: an objective account of the PIRA is impossible.

<ck>I'm fine with that approach, so long as Al Qaida is extended the same courtesy.</ck>

• I really don't see the logic behind your linking of neutrality in this article with neutrality in another article 195.92.168.168 02:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • I, on the other hand, fully understand the logic. If we interpret NPOV to mean that we don't call the actions PIRA terrorist, and if we apply this interpretation consistent across the encyclopedia, then it would not be right to call AQ terrorists. As it happens, I disagree with that interpretation of NPOV. Pcb21| Pete 13:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • • Such unthinking 'one size fits all' consistency is hardly the expression of NPOV 195.92.168.168 00:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's actually more like "one label suits two" and the label is apt in these two cases. Pcb21| Pete 06:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

.. the false comparison of an organisation that gives advance warnings with Al Qaida .. - There was no advance warning of the Brighton bomb. There was no warning of the bombing of the Baltic Exchange. Ian Gow received no advance warning that a bomb was put under his car. Nor did Earl Mountbatten of Burma and there was no warning of many other bombings and murders. Frequently the warnings given by the provisionals were wrong, or so vague as to be next to useless, or given without enough time for action to be taken, or so close to the time of detonation that police trying to clear the area ended up being victims. Mintguy (T) 07:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The attacks you refer to were directed against the British government (Brighton, Gow), wider British establishment (Mountbatten) or were the subject of warnings (Baltic Exchange, one photographer killed after entering area after warning given). Just look at the recent events in London to see what 30 years of true no-warning bombing of civilians would have looked like 195.92.168.173 20:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The article refers in a matter-of-fact manner to 'unionist terrorists'. I feel that it should be consistent, so will change this to 'Unionist paramilitaries' or similar. jamesgibbon 19:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

feel free, after all the British government and media have been using this less emotive 'paramilitary' to refer to loyalists while reserving the more emotive 'terrorist' to refer to republicans for as long as I can remember 195.92.168.173 20:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)