Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Loughgall

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Still POV? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  South Armagh brigade 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Image 

message: 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)
thread_title: Peter Mandelson

message: 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. user_talk:Jtdirl 04:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: I Ran Away

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  US government designation 

message: 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)
thread_title: O'Callahan, Scapaticchi, Donaldson ... who's next?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weaponry and Operations 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, Jdorney, but Mitrokhin's KGB archive papers smuggled out of KGB headquarters indicate otherwise. Akulkis 14:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject of KGB and Stasi support for the IRA 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  KGB and Stasi support for the IRA is factual and verifiable. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  British military admitted that the IRA continued to kill effectively up untill the second ceasefire. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CFR is a perfectly accurate source. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pakistanis

message: 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)
thread_title:  Compromise 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reearch done on alleged Soviet links  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Number of murders 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Number of IRA killed according to Govt. is different then CAIN project 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: A Fine Article on A Terrible Conflict of Waste

message: 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)
thread_title:  IRA victims list should accomodate multiple figures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Loyalists have killed more civillians then the IRA. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Russian Mafia KGB 

message: 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)
thread_title:  loyalist killings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  IRA edits that are being changed by others are based on "Bias" not facts. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  My sources are verified, yours are not. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  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. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  All the sources needed are provided, all you need to do is read the article...but I guess you can't read. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re user  68.35.182.234  

message: 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)
thread_title:  there is nothing more sad then an administrator who bans people just because they have written a superior article. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re the sources provided by Devin79 

message: 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)
thread_title:  You are one of the most pathetic administrators on this site. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Correction

message: 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)
thread_title:  Demiurge's revert 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New articles? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mitrokhin on KGB-IRA links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Should action be taken against Devin79? 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ==========

message: ::: 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)
thread_title: ==========

message: 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)
thread_title:  Devin79 yet again.