What was the rationale or motivation behind the IRA’s practice of sending warnings for impending bomb attacks?
My guess is because their version of “terror” did not include killing many people, since that would lead to too great of a crackdown in addition to losing their support amongst their grass roots, (which would not happen in the Middle East, sadly.) They wanted to inspire fear and remind people they were always there more than kill a lot of people.
Because to them, they were an army, not terrorists.
Because terrorism is about causing terror, not actual casualties. Killing people makes others angry; making them feel they might be killed makes them frightened. Although sometimes they gave warnings that herded people towards other bombs, as in Omagh.
From what I’ve read, it appears that giving warnings was their general practice, unless the Army had done something that was ‘objectionable’ in their eyes. It seems that one of the things that led to their being ‘decommissioned’ was the fall-off in grass roots support, and as was mentioned above, this isn’t so likely to happen in the Middle East.
If the British had driven tanks into Belfast housing estates and flattened them, in retaliation for IRA bombings, would we have probably ended up with the same problem the Israelis and Palestinians have got now?
The 1987 Enniskillen Remembrance Day bombing was a significant event. It was a disastrous misjudgement by the IRA, with both the scale and also the callous nature of the attack losing them support and turning sympathisers against them. Later campaigns shifted the use of large-scale bombing to aim for an economic rather than human toll both in Northern Ireland and in mainland Britain, warnings being a part of this, while the targeted killing of specific individuals and of soldiers and police within the north continued.
If you say, “Hey, this is the IRA [in an known IRA manner], soon a bomb will explode in London”, the guys saying, “Hey, the bomb that exploded a few minutes ago in London was us Bakunin Lives anarchists and now we want that case of beer” could be ruled out, which is in the interest of the IRA. (This is assuming a bomb did explode in London, otherwise both groups would appear kinda sheepish, especially the psychics in the anarchists wing who obviously make calls like this on chance.)
Back in the day, plenty of false alarms did occur from coded warnings as well as from other threats or suspicions. And when I say ‘false’ alarm, that includes any occasions in which genuine plans on the part of the IRA failed (such as not getting the bomb in place on time), or in which a device was intercepted and/or failed, and was quietly recovered for intelligence.
Yes, and eventually the IRA wouldn’t even need to plant bombs, because having already proven their intent, and knowing the authorities had to take them seriously, they could create panic and economic disruption with just a mere phone call.
There are still lots of bomb hoaxes in NI.
The second link is interesting, in that it suggests the arrangements are still in place for coded warnings to be used. I wonder how long it’s been since one has actually been given?
Edit: it also shows up some spectacular incompetency in setting up cordons and policing the area.
Well there was one in 2005 anyway. Maybe more since.
I’m sure I must be allowed to hijack my own thread, so can I just ask if I am right in believing that the IRA trained with, or sometimes taught their counterparts in the Middle East, and how their religious differences were overcome if so?
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Thanks. That kind of case is just fascinating to me. It’s like somebody’s trying to recreate a pub-bombing scare or Manchester-bomb spectacular, all on one night, with (I guess) one detonator. Importantly, it shows that it’s only a few ignorant people doing it. More importantly, it’s relatively minor local news, which is obviously a very good thing.
To properly reply, Libya provided support, weapons, training and cash to the IRA and other dissident groups in Europe. It was realpolitik plain and simple.
The Palestinian struggle and those of independence groups in Europe, eg. ETA in the Basque Country are and were supported by Irish republicans partly out of their leftwing philosophical underpinnings and also that those other struggles lend legitimacy to the Irish one. Foreign leftwing struggles and nationalist struggles are used in alot of murals in Republican parts of Belfast and Derry.
For example:
http://www.ballofdirt.com/media/16800/272038/1401234.html
The second link has a Palestinian flag and “Our day will come.” in Irish and Arablic on it.
Surely such murals now are now not being used to show any ideological connection, but just to try to draw (or to maintain) a connection to a completely unrelated situation elsewhere?
I don’t quite get ya there GorillaMan.
There were and are ideological connections. The Palestinian flag flies in Nationalist/Republican areas and sometimes you even see the Israeli flag in Unionist/Loyalist areas.
That the flags have been adopted as symbols of identity doesn’t actually demonstrate any particular leaning towards their cause. The Israeli flags are perhaps reductio ad absurdum, purely in response to supposed support/alliance/whatever with Palenstinians. (FWIW the first I heard of Israeli flags was a comment on Radio 4 some years ago, observing that they’d been obtained in response to nationalists taunting over supposed relations with Palestinians, which might have coloured my views but might also have been accurate at the time.)
Well I think there is, publicly at least, support for leftwing causes and freedom struggles internationally. The Palestinian cause is a popular one down south too. It might just be PR but it is somewhat sound ideologically to support a group of people whose land is occupied by what they see as an alien, more powerful group. The Israeli flag thing is a bit silly considering some loyalists in the North would have better bedfellows in the likes of Combat 18 and other neo-nazi organisations.