Talk:Irish Republican Army (1919–1922)/Archive 2

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 January 2004 and 25 July 2004, excluding debate on page revamp ongoing at time of archiving.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Irish Republican Army/Archive03. Thank you. Palmiro 14:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

terrorist organisation

Question: Is there a reason why the word 'terrorist' isn't used at all in this entire article?

---

(Sorry to cut in someone elses post, but wanted to keep it grouped together): I totally second that question! The IRA are a terrorist organisation.

I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of families out there who'd like to know when the IRA ceased being 'terrorists' and became 'paramilitary'.

par•a•mil•i•tar•y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-ml-tr) adj. Of, relating to, or being a group of civilians organized in a military fashion, especially to operate in place of or assist regular army troops.

ter•ror•ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n. 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.

I think it's time the word 'paramilitary' is removed and replaced with the word terrorist, as they're definately not assisting regular army troops and they have definately been using terror tactics to influence political objectives.

Jachin 5:29 26/05/2005 (AEST)

You can "sign" you articles with ~~~~ which will automatically put your userid and time stamp your talk page contribution

I am going to revert your changes because you are including the IRA who fought Anglo-Irish War. The definition you have given for terrorism is one of many. That particular one would include every rebellion in history as a terrorist organisation, which I do not think brings clarity to this or any other Wikipedia article Philip Baird Shearer 09:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

So, you would not object to the term being applied to the CIRA, PIRA etc? --194.125.111.194 12:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC

)

Once one enters the area of British Irish relations one enters a Alice through the Loogking glass world where things are much more complicated than they at first appear. The problem one has of applying terrorist to the PIRA and not the IRA; is what differentiates the IRA from the PRIA other than the passage of time and that the IRA won the Anglo-Irish War (although of course those who fought in the (anti-treaty) IRA during the Irish Civil War did not think that they had won)? Does Wikipedia follow the Irish Freestaters and say that those who fought in the IRA and accepted the treaty are not terrorists, but those who did not accept the treaty are terrorists? In which case we are making the assertion of terrorism based on political convenience and not moral grounds, because if one reads the debate which took place in the Dail on whether to accept the treaty or not, there is a lot of debate about the oath of allegiance to the crown as required by the treaty (which was unacceptable to those who wanted to fight on), and there is also the point made by Ulster republicans that their people were being sacrificed for an accommodation between Britain and the other three provences, although suprisingly (to me) this point was on the periphery of the debate. Philip Baird Shearer 13:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the IRA and similar organisations are usually termed "paramilitaries" by the media and academics here in Ireland and indeed in the UK. There may be a strict dictionary definition of "terrorism" that the IRA conforms to, but it's impossible to get around the fact that "terrorism" is seen as a POV term. This is largely because it is not applied across the board, for example state actors employing similar tactics would generally not be called terrorists, and neither would paramilitaries involved in successful or "popular" campaigns, e.g. the French Resistance.

I have no problem with the IRA being termed terrorists, as they clearly are. However, there is too much political baggage associated with the term for it to qualify as NPOV --Ryano 13:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I see absolutely no difference between the IRA, Al Qaida the Palestinian terrorists, Israeli terrorists, or any other group of terrorists. Whilst they are freedom fighters in their own eyes and terrorists to their enemies, all the people like myself standing on the sidelines generally agree that they ARE in fact terrorists as they're indescriminant with their attacks and are using fear and attacks on civillians to argue their case.

I'm guessing most of the people on this post would be part of that 'us and them' scenario, my mother is Irish and Catholic, my father was English and Anglican, I live in Australia and don't particularly give a rats arse either way. But I definately think it's folly and doing the Wikipedia project no justice by pulling punches and claiming that terrorists aren't terrorists.

This isn't about opinion, it's about fact. Whilst in the UK and Ireland they may refer to them as paramilitary, I'm sure that's simply political correctness gone mad. The second women and children (or if one follows the Geneva convention, 'civillians') get brought into a scrap between government and rebels, every dictionary would draw the line at deeming that terrorism, especially if colateral damage is inflicted specifically to hurt the opposition by making them feel unsafe (ergo, terror).

I'm positive the world hasn't forgotten that the most prominant killers of civillian men women and children to inflict terror on their enemy prior to the Septemper 11 attacks in the USA were the Irish Republican Army and it's countless spin off movements, although the media seem fixated on Al Qaeda as the only terrorist movement to exist anymore, it'd be wrong for history to be ruled by media sensationalism.

Jachin 13:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

But would you accept that there's a problem whereby not every group who uses terrorist tactics will get called "terrorists"? I'm certainly not coming at this from a "them and us" scenario - as I've said I fully agree that the IRA are terrorists, I just don't think the term can be said to be NPOV --Ryano 14:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The Geneva convetions do not apply to the last troubles. It was never recognised by the governments involved that it was an armed conflict. The rest of this missive is a ramble in the form of what if:

If it had been, then the paramilitaries would have been held as POWs not criminals if for example their offence was membership of the IRA. Even if it were to be claimed to be an armed conflict by a party to the troubles, there are also good legal arguments under international law that (before Protocol II (Article 13) for conflicts not of an international nature), that killing of enemy civilians in enemy held territory is not a war crime. There is the argument that Germans cities were bombed in World War II not just for the material damage done to the German war effort, but because the Allies wanted to make the German civilian population realise that wars had consequences for them as well as for the civilians in the countries they invaded, so the Allies of World War II thought that affecting enemy moral ("making them feel unsafe") was a valid war aim.

BTW Protocol II also mentions "Terrorism" but does not give a definition for what terrorism is: Article 4 "following acts against the persons referred to in paragraph I are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever: ..." clause d "Acts of terrorism;". But as the troubles were not an armed conflict it does not apply .

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

IMHO the IRA are (still are, until they go away) terrorists. But 'terrorist' is viewed by many people as POV, even those who agree that that is what they are. Paramilitary is a far better NPOV term to use. We should not judge any organisation through our use of words, but by outlining the evidence. It is better to use neutral language and list the evidence and allow the reader to decide, than tell them using a controversial word that will provoke edit wars and perhaps undermine the ability of the overall article to let the reader see the objective facts. Using terrorist in an encyclopedia is as a result unwise and potentially counter-productive. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 21:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Formatting

The use of nested bullet points in this article is untidy - anyone want to clean it up? More headings might (also) help. Ben Finn 18:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Munster

I have just replaced this new text:

The IRA was also involved in the destruction of many stately homes in Munster. These belonged to prominent Loyalists who were aiding the Crown forces, and were burnt to discourage the British policy of destroying the homes of Republicans, suspected and actual. As the mansions were worth a lot more than the cottages of the ordinary people, the British policy was discontinued. Both Dáil Éireann (the Irish Parliament) and Sinn Féin were proscribed by the British government.

With the original:

The IRA was also accused of excesses; in particular against the property of Loyalists in the Munster area. Both Dáil Éireann (the Irish Parliament) and Sinn Féin were proscribed by the British government.

Please provide a source for the new text before restoring it. Philip Baird Shearer 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You obviously don't know much about the topic if you see a problem with the paragraph. Among other places you'll find it in

1. David Fitzpatrick, Politics and Irish Life 1913-1921: Provincial Experiences of War and Revolution
2. Peter Hart, The IRA at War 1916-1923
3. F.S.L. Lyons, Ireland Since the Famine
4. John Rieder et al, Joseph Keene Chadwick: Interventions and Continuities in Irish and Gay Studies

It is not an issue of dispute among historians. The only problem was perhaps the way the paragraph was written but its basic facts are universally accepted as correct. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 22:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Higher up this page I posted "Tactics, Training, Organisation". I am very happy to see things like this added to the article, but they ought to be sourced. Philip Baird Shearer 08:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please source the paragraph in the article with the source(s) (and if books with page numbers) which you think best fits the paragraph. Philip Baird Shearer 10:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who's on for a major revamp?

I believe that the plethora of pages relating to Irish (militant) republicanism in all its strands and varients require a major cleanup and reorganisation. As it stands, there are a number of pages on the various IRAs, on the various Sinn Féins, and on other related topics such as IRA Army Council, IRA chiefs of staff, Fianna Éireann, 1916, war of independence etc etc. There is too much repetition and not enough "wikification". Not all articles are NPOV either. I'll post up an outline of what I propose here later but if you are interested in cleaning up this mess, please contact me. --Damac 7 July 2005 07:25 (UTC)

No double standards

It would be very hypocritical and double standard writing to call IRA a terror organization, but not to the PLO, which is responsible to the death of so many Israelies and wants to abolish the existance of all of the state of Israel. Let's continue the no_double-standards policy as a part of NPOV.

Neither should be called "terroris" organisations by Wikipedia unless it is referencing someone elses opinion with the source from which the opinion comes. Philip Baird Shearer 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The PLO is clearly labelled a terrorist organisation which has carried out terrorist acts against civillians in the PLO article. 211.31.9.5 21:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

international jurists

A source should be provided for the claim than some international jurists consider attacks on the United Kingdom legitimate armed resistance. or the sentence should be revised Philip Baird Shearer 18:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This issue has been raised in many other organisations discussion pages and has been the common method of expressing a more NPOV friendly address to organisations that the majority of people would label 'terrorist'. Jachin 19:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It appears Jachin has paraphrased and utilised the specifically NPOV structured address of 'terrorist acts' from the PLO article, which has recently gone through arbitration. I believe that as his modifications to this article stand it is valid, relevant and acceptably NPOV for the Wiki project without question. Since posting it two certain users have avidly cropped it to as minimal as possible, which are begining to illustrate a POV lean. I would recommend accepting the additional information, considering internationally the IRA -are- seen as a terrorist group and previously the 't-word' has been kept out of this article for NPOV purposes. The integration of the arbritrated plo method of touching on the 't-word' applies across the board, if this drags out further, it would be my recommendation that Jachin start a dispute resolution process and get the matter nipped in the bud. 211.31.9.5 21:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

What is the source for international jurists consider attacks on the United Kingdom [civilian] legitimate armed resistance.? It should either be sourced or removed. Philip Baird Shearer 07:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW 211.31.9.5 from your comment rv try reading the discussion page lapsed pacifist, he explained it there on the history page I do not think that it is explaind. But in response to your comments above: Where is the very similar paragraph in the PLO article discussed on the Talk:PLO page and where is the arbitration process for that paragraph on that page? As that is recognised as an international conflict by all parties, it is more than likely that some international jurists could consider attacks on the "Israeli military [as] legitimate", (and I look forward to seeing it with souces,) but that does not mean that any international jurists agree that attacks in the UK were legitimate. Philip Baird Shearer 08:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Protocols additional to the GCs

Protocol I does not apply to NI if either did, neither the UK or Irish Goverments would agree that either are relevent, it would be Protocol II which would apply. Philip Baird Shearer 18:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It is argued that under the International Law and Protocol 1 to the First Geneva Convention (which applies in "armed conflicts against alien occupation" and gives lawful combatant status to non-uniformed guerrillas who display their arms openly during military operations), the manner in which the IRA have often gone about their operations put them in breach of this protocol.

Above is the whole text which I have removed. I did not go throught it point by point, the first time I removed it, but as it has been restored, I will now.

1. It is argued weasel words. Who argues?
2. Protocol 1 to the First Geneva Convention Protocol I is not to the first GG it is to all 1949 GCs
3. GC1 does not cover belligerent military occupation, it covers "Condition[s] of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field".
4. What is the international legal source (or souce from a disinterested party) that NI is under belligerent military occupation?
5. As no source has bee provided that it is an international Belligerent military occupation ,if any protocol applied then it would be Protocol II not Protocol I, but as it is not an armed conflict the Geneva conventions do not apply.
6. The UK put provisions on Article 44 of Protocol I

   It is the understanding of the United Kingdom that:

   - the situation in the second sentence of paragraph 3 can only exist in occupied territory or in armed conflicts covered by paragraph 4 of Article 1;

   - 'deployment' in paragraph 3(b) means any movement towards a place from which an attack is to be launched.[1]

   As no souce had been provide that the conditions in Paragraph 4 Article 1 were met (armed conflict[s] and Alian occupation and right of self-determination), Article 44 is not applicable.

7. During the recent troubles the British had not ratified Protocol I and neither had the IRA so, even if anyone thought it was an international armed conflict, Protcol I did not apply.

All in all it is difficult to think of a paragraph in Wikipedia which could be more incorrect. Philip Baird Shearer 08:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Allegations of Terrorism

This secton was added by user:Jachin 17:35, 15 July 2005. It invites POV wars and is not realy constructive and not one word is sourced. For example in answere to the first paragraph one can paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies "They would say that wouldn't they" many of the parties mentioned have been attacked by the IRA and so they are hardly a disinterested group. That the IRA think they were fighting a legitimate war goes without saying.

I think that the whole section should be removed because it is full of non-NPOV and balancing the POV makes the article bloated without bringing clarity to the issue. Philip Baird Shearer 08:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I have just removed the section. Apart from all the other criticisms above this section

1. did not address which version of the IRA the "Allegations of Terrorism" were being made about.
2. The T word is not mentioned anywhere else in the article so this section was not written to balance allegations of the biased use of the T word in the article. Philip Baird Shearer 17:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)