Apparently, over the past months, the IRA has been secretly rearming itself.
April 21, 2002 7:51 AM Subscribe
Apparently, over the past months, the IRA has been secretly rearming itself. and many of the arms seem to be coming from the U.S.. Post 9/11, peace seemed to be coming to Ireland, but now it appears that just like in the Middle East we're back to business as usual. I believe in a united Ireland, myself, but I don't want a return to the barbarism of the past 30-odd years. The U.S. has pledged neutrality in Ireland, but I honestly dont know if that's the best course. I was honestly hoping that the Emerald Isle would set an example for the other conflicted nations but it seems it's not to be.
many of the arms seem to be coming from the U.S.
my understanding is that this has been a long-running problem--Irish "relief" organizations raise money in the U.S. and use it to buy weapons for the IRA and other paramilitary groups.
posted by boltman at 9:52 AM on April 21, 2002
my understanding is that this has been a long-running problem--Irish "relief" organizations raise money in the U.S. and use it to buy weapons for the IRA and other paramilitary groups.
posted by boltman at 9:52 AM on April 21, 2002
i was just thinking it might have to do with rising unemployment rates in n.ireland [display all] especially in the 18-24 cohort.
not to tie it in with israel-palestine, but with terrorism in general, businessweek had some really good articles on the economic consequences of the situation there.
not that economics represents the root cause of terrorism, but i think a good case could be made that economic policy might have more to do with lessening conflict than military policy. certainly i think it would have a more lasting effect. like i think most people would agree that war isn't good for business, investment or trade (unless you happen to be an arms dealer :) like it's sad to see people squander their future over hatred for one another. i mean is squabbling over every single perceived incremental relative advantage necessary or is it just petty? human nature, hooray!
posted by kliuless at 10:00 AM on April 21, 2002
not to tie it in with israel-palestine, but with terrorism in general, businessweek had some really good articles on the economic consequences of the situation there.
- Israel: The Economic Cost of War
- In Palestine, an Economy Left in Ruins
- A Talk with Israel's Finance Minister
not that economics represents the root cause of terrorism, but i think a good case could be made that economic policy might have more to do with lessening conflict than military policy. certainly i think it would have a more lasting effect. like i think most people would agree that war isn't good for business, investment or trade (unless you happen to be an arms dealer :) like it's sad to see people squander their future over hatred for one another. i mean is squabbling over every single perceived incremental relative advantage necessary or is it just petty? human nature, hooray!
posted by kliuless at 10:00 AM on April 21, 2002
Florida again! If Florida supports terrorism then Florida is a terrorist state. Let's bomb 'em.
posted by homunculus at 10:19 AM on April 21, 2002
posted by homunculus at 10:19 AM on April 21, 2002
Can we do it during winter, when all the Quebecois tacky-tourists are vacationing down there? They're terrorists against good taste.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:25 AM on April 21, 2002
posted by five fresh fish at 10:25 AM on April 21, 2002
boltman- that's exactly right. My father grew up in an overwhelmingly Irish neighboorhood in New York and he said that about once every couple of months, someone would come around to solicit for the IRA. He said that if it was a cute girl collecting, he'd donate.
But Irish-Americans often sentimentalize the conflict back on the auld sod, and this makes them easy pickings to get funds from. However I may feel about what the British have done in Ireland, after 9/11, I can no longer consider blowing up pubs "freedom-fighting."
The cease fire may not have broken yet, but these developments are not encouraging. I'm just stunned at how quickly in Ireland, Israel and elsewhere, it's all returned to the same BS so quickly.
posted by jonmc at 11:00 AM on April 21, 2002
But Irish-Americans often sentimentalize the conflict back on the auld sod, and this makes them easy pickings to get funds from. However I may feel about what the British have done in Ireland, after 9/11, I can no longer consider blowing up pubs "freedom-fighting."
The cease fire may not have broken yet, but these developments are not encouraging. I'm just stunned at how quickly in Ireland, Israel and elsewhere, it's all returned to the same BS so quickly.
posted by jonmc at 11:00 AM on April 21, 2002
Does anybody think that 9/11 will have some kind of concrete negative effect on IRA fundraising in the USA? Either our government's attitude towards it (see Clinton's warm welcome to Gerry Adams early first term) or the sixth generation Irish-Americans "supporting the cause"?
Here's hoping.
posted by TiggleTaggleTiger at 11:23 AM on April 21, 2002
Here's hoping.
posted by TiggleTaggleTiger at 11:23 AM on April 21, 2002
I am Irish-American (despite the corrupted Russian nick), and I do not and never have supported terrorism by the IRA as a tool for Irish independence.
posted by Samizdata at 12:09 PM on April 21, 2002
posted by Samizdata at 12:09 PM on April 21, 2002
Here's my solution to these separatist battles. Let each side arm itself to the max, and then let both sides go all out at each other until one side wins. Instead of dragging these fights out over 30, 40 or 50 years, this will get the dispute settled almost overnight. Then, everyone can get back to business.
posted by mikegre at 12:32 PM on April 21, 2002
posted by mikegre at 12:32 PM on April 21, 2002
However I may feel about what the British have done in Ireland, after 9/11, I can no longer consider blowing up pubs "freedom-fighting."
You mean you did consider it freedom fighting before 9/11? Is 9/11 the sole basis on how you (or other Irish Americans) judge terrorism? Since when has blowing or shooting up a pub been "freedom fighting"?
Does anybody think that 9/11 will have some kind of concrete negative effect on IRA fundraising in the USA?
Already has, as far as I know - Bush has declared any terrorist organisation operating here to be illegal in the US, and fundraising is forbidden. Anyone doing it now is committing a federal offence.
posted by tomcosgrave at 1:14 PM on April 21, 2002
You mean you did consider it freedom fighting before 9/11? Is 9/11 the sole basis on how you (or other Irish Americans) judge terrorism? Since when has blowing or shooting up a pub been "freedom fighting"?
Does anybody think that 9/11 will have some kind of concrete negative effect on IRA fundraising in the USA?
Already has, as far as I know - Bush has declared any terrorist organisation operating here to be illegal in the US, and fundraising is forbidden. Anyone doing it now is committing a federal offence.
posted by tomcosgrave at 1:14 PM on April 21, 2002
Sinn Fein are nothing like as popular amongst US government circles as they once were. IRA training of Colombian Marxist rebels in how to blow things up lost them a little bit of credibility.
posted by vbfg at 1:31 PM on April 21, 2002
posted by vbfg at 1:31 PM on April 21, 2002
You mean you did consider it freedom fighting before 9/11?
No, but I found I could rationalize it(and like I said sentimentalize it) probably due to the fact that it wasn't in my backyard. The reason 9/11 is important here is that it was in my backyard. Over those weeks following it, I suppose I got a taste of the apprehension and fear that the citizens of Northern Ireland have been living with for years.
And yes there's plenty of blame to go around in this case, the IRA, the UDA, the British Government and the Irish Government all are at fault to some degree.And it is similar to the situation in the Middle East in that it's a conflict between two nations with centuries-old grudges, who are so dug in on their positions that they can't seem to be rational anymore.
posted by jonmc at 2:21 PM on April 21, 2002
No, but I found I could rationalize it(and like I said sentimentalize it) probably due to the fact that it wasn't in my backyard. The reason 9/11 is important here is that it was in my backyard. Over those weeks following it, I suppose I got a taste of the apprehension and fear that the citizens of Northern Ireland have been living with for years.
And yes there's plenty of blame to go around in this case, the IRA, the UDA, the British Government and the Irish Government all are at fault to some degree.And it is similar to the situation in the Middle East in that it's a conflict between two nations with centuries-old grudges, who are so dug in on their positions that they can't seem to be rational anymore.
posted by jonmc at 2:21 PM on April 21, 2002
The disappearance of the 1980s Irish-American mafia -- Reagan in the GOP, and Tip O'Neill in Congress, among others -- is probably more important in the long run.
The AN-94 is a highly prized, modern rifle that's less than 10 years old and is now becoming the standard for the Russian army. It's a standard infantry assault rifle intended to replace the venerable Kalashnikov. The article is wrong to call it a sniper rifle. 1800 rounds per minute in automatic mode is possible, but it uses 5.45mm cartridges, which aren't going to pierce much armor.
People are also misinformed about the importance of rate of fire. If you're going to fire 1800rpm you need a hell of a lot of ammunition, a way to carry it, or a very secure location to shoot from. This is generally used for what movie-goers will recognize as cover fire. In normal infantry mode it's more like a Kalashnikov or M-16, that is, fired single-shot at a chosen target. The movies rarely get that right; after watching The Thin Red Line, which did, a friend and I had a discussion where he said he didn't know they didn't have machine guns in World War II. Of course they did, but the semi-automatic is still the weapon of choice for the majority of infantry. For real firepower you want something like the SAW Squad Automatic Weapon, which is a totable tripod or bipod weapon carried by a squad leader. Someone more knowledgeable than I could explain whether the AN-94 is superior to the M249.
There is also a new sniper rifle from Russia called the SV-98, an evolutionary design from the legendary Dragunov. But there's little in common with the AN-94.
Bottom line? The IRA may have bought some guns, and they were pretty high-quality guns. But calling it a "super rifle" is mere hysteria.
posted by dhartung at 2:44 PM on April 21, 2002
The AN-94 is a highly prized, modern rifle that's less than 10 years old and is now becoming the standard for the Russian army. It's a standard infantry assault rifle intended to replace the venerable Kalashnikov. The article is wrong to call it a sniper rifle. 1800 rounds per minute in automatic mode is possible, but it uses 5.45mm cartridges, which aren't going to pierce much armor.
People are also misinformed about the importance of rate of fire. If you're going to fire 1800rpm you need a hell of a lot of ammunition, a way to carry it, or a very secure location to shoot from. This is generally used for what movie-goers will recognize as cover fire. In normal infantry mode it's more like a Kalashnikov or M-16, that is, fired single-shot at a chosen target. The movies rarely get that right; after watching The Thin Red Line, which did, a friend and I had a discussion where he said he didn't know they didn't have machine guns in World War II. Of course they did, but the semi-automatic is still the weapon of choice for the majority of infantry. For real firepower you want something like the SAW Squad Automatic Weapon, which is a totable tripod or bipod weapon carried by a squad leader. Someone more knowledgeable than I could explain whether the AN-94 is superior to the M249.
There is also a new sniper rifle from Russia called the SV-98, an evolutionary design from the legendary Dragunov. But there's little in common with the AN-94.
Bottom line? The IRA may have bought some guns, and they were pretty high-quality guns. But calling it a "super rifle" is mere hysteria.
posted by dhartung at 2:44 PM on April 21, 2002
No, but I found I could rationalize it(and like I said sentimentalize it) probably due to the fact that it wasn't in my backyard.
Exactly *how* the can you rationalise the act of blowing up people having a few beers, anywhere in the world, backyard or not? Jesus H. Christ.....I have to say you have a fairly twisted sense of how to rationalise right and wrong.
posted by tomcosgrave at 3:13 PM on April 21, 2002
Exactly *how* the can you rationalise the act of blowing up people having a few beers, anywhere in the world, backyard or not? Jesus H. Christ.....I have to say you have a fairly twisted sense of how to rationalise right and wrong.
posted by tomcosgrave at 3:13 PM on April 21, 2002
The IRA, as noted, usually got their weapons and funding from U.S.. Israel got it from U.S....where does weaponry and money come from for Palestinians? They have moved from stones to mortars and are now moving troward military level explosives. And, as usual, the arms dealers always win no matter who losses.
posted by Postroad at 3:20 PM on April 21, 2002
posted by Postroad at 3:20 PM on April 21, 2002
Postroad: The IRA, as noted, usually got their weapons and funding from U.S.. Israel got it from U.S....where does weaponry and money come from for Palestinians? They have moved from stones to mortars and are now moving troward military level explosives. And, as usual, the arms dealers always win no matter who losses.
A substantial number of the guns in Palestinian hands were provided by the Israelis themselves. They gave the former Palestinian Authority 15,000 Kalishnikov rifles as part of the Oslo agreement. They were leftovers from IDF upgrades and intended for police use.
posted by srboisvert at 4:19 PM on April 21, 2002
A substantial number of the guns in Palestinian hands were provided by the Israelis themselves. They gave the former Palestinian Authority 15,000 Kalishnikov rifles as part of the Oslo agreement. They were leftovers from IDF upgrades and intended for police use.
posted by srboisvert at 4:19 PM on April 21, 2002
Exactly *how* the can you rationalise the act of blowing up people having a few beers, anywhere in the world, backyard or not? Jesus H. Christ.....I have to say you have a fairly twisted sense of how to rationalise right and wrong.
tomcosgrave- that's what 9/11 brought home to me is what I was trying to get across, when you're young and naive you can believe a lot of crap when it's wrapped in sentimental, patriotic terms...especially when it's far away. As I got older and learned more about the Irish situation, I believed it less and less-9/11 was merely the final nail in the coffin to any delusions that the IRA(or the UDA or any other tribal terrorist group) are anything but a bunch of thugs, however just their cause.
So, we're on the same side here...truce, okay?
posted by jonmc at 4:21 PM on April 21, 2002
tomcosgrave- that's what 9/11 brought home to me is what I was trying to get across, when you're young and naive you can believe a lot of crap when it's wrapped in sentimental, patriotic terms...especially when it's far away. As I got older and learned more about the Irish situation, I believed it less and less-9/11 was merely the final nail in the coffin to any delusions that the IRA(or the UDA or any other tribal terrorist group) are anything but a bunch of thugs, however just their cause.
So, we're on the same side here...truce, okay?
posted by jonmc at 4:21 PM on April 21, 2002
So, we're on the same side here...truce, okay?
Okay okay....nuff said.
posted by tomcosgrave at 2:30 AM on April 22, 2002
Okay okay....nuff said.
posted by tomcosgrave at 2:30 AM on April 22, 2002
« Older Spoonerist Pornography | Two sworn enemies Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Apparently, Loyalist terror groups have no plans to decommission their weapons, despite the IRA doing so, which might mean re-arming is taking place. Why is there no pressure on them in the media, I wonder? Why don't the Telegraph comment on that? The fact of the matter remains (and I really hate defending them) that the IRA are only terrorist organisation in the North to have made significant moves on decommissioning their weapons...not once, but twice.
Also, while I do not have a link, the IRA made a statement in the past 24 hours saying that their ceasefire is not under threat....still, you can't really trust them.
And I think that N.Ireland is an example - an agreement was set in place, despite a few hiccups it's working, terrorists have decommissioned their weapons...yeah I think others could learn from the situation.
posted by tomcosgrave at 8:31 AM on April 21, 2002