[QUOTE=“Fitzy, post: 1004135, member: 236”]No.
Reynolds was not a facilitator, he was an instigator. He had to bring that cunt Major along with him, Major who was beholden to Unionism. Reynolds had to instigate this while dodging Dick Spring and Dessie Malley who would have been aghast if they knew the full extent of the communication with the provos. Blair, Ahern, Clinton, everyone, came in after this.
I’m a republican sympathetic to the republican cause, but some of the shite being spouted on this thread is beyond stupid.[/QUOTE]
Reynolds didn’t instigate anything. Some politicians have a link with insurgents and can bring about peace, or at least make things more peaceful. Mandela had that link with hardliners in the ANC who wanted to eradicate whites like Mugabe did later in Zimbabwe. Mandela was largely responsible for pacifying the black population of South Africa. In this country Daniel O’Connell got a lot of guys to give up their guns and live peacefully because he was respected by men of the gun and he could link with them. Reynolds might have had a lot of good qualities but can you seriously suggest that the IRA would have taken what he said seriously? By 1990 the IRA, or at least a large part of the IRA, was fatigued by two decades of conflict with no appreciable gain. The mood throughout the island was changed at this stage as well and as one previous poster said, ‘there was no appetite for it anymore.’ That’s the critical factor. In no way was it possible for a southern FF politician to persuade a war hungry republican group to give up the gun; they persuaded themselves without any help from him. He was a facilitator. By your logic all the British and Irish politicians throughout the 1970s were blockheads who didn’t have the wisdom of Reynolds. He was simply the right man in the right place at the right time, all that was required was that he didn’t fuck it up.
Do you think a British Prime Minister would be able to persuade British-born Islamists to forget about Jihad/ISIS/Islamic State? Of course not. Is it conceivable that a British Prime Minister would be able to take part in peace talks with British Islamists who have decided themselves to seek a peaceful settlement? Yes, but there is a critical difference with the latter scenario.
[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 1004139, member: 2272”]It seems to be accepted that the IRA was infiltrated with informers and agents up to the highest levels. Scappaticci, McShane were agents and were directing deaths of other so called informers. Led to Loughall, Gibraltar disasters for the IRA. Beginning of electronic surveillance in 90s must have impacted too. IRA probably could have continued with certain level of activity but chances of detection were much increased.
There was a line too after Enniskillen and IRA couldn’t go ahead with no warning bombs. No appetite remained. Al along there were moves towards peace and Reynolds managed to bring people with him and start a process. You need all participants to do that so saying one person is responsible isn’t true but he did play an important part in it and saw it as important enough to devote the time and energy to it at a time when a lot of people in the South saw NI as a lost cause that would never be fixed and not worth bothering with.[/QUOTE]
if the IRA were riddled with informers, why did all the spectaculurs happen(canary wharf,Baltic exchange,Heathrow,Number 10) in the 90’s when discussions about peace were going on?
[QUOTE=“Fitzy, post: 1004138, member: 236”]A case in point, this has to be one of the more stupid posts i’ve read on this site. The IRA ceasefire was on the cards from the early 80’s when Adams told Alec Reid they were ready to lay down their guns? Were you alive in 1987? What fucking discussions with Haughey? What are you talking about? Bertie reached out to the Unionists? So Albert talking to Gusty Spence wasn’t significant was it?
All it took was for Albert to not fuck it up.
For fucks sake.[/QUOTE]
Are you simple?
It is very rare for any sort of organisation at war to suddenly announce a complete end to its military operations as the IRA did in 1994. It takes years to turn around an organisation with such inbred devotion to the military solution, during which time military operations are common. Many people think that the peace process begun with Albert Reynolds from 1992 to 1994 but it didn’t. It begun long before that. In fact, people such as Ed Maloney state that Haughey was talking to Adams long before John Hume was in the much publicised meetings at the end of the 1980s. By the time Albert got to power, Adams was nearly ready to call a truce.
As for Gusty Spence, he had experienced a transformation long before Albert Reynolds spoke to him. There are stories of hardened loyalists being turned around by him having been in prison with him back in the last 70s and 80s. And once the IRA announced a ceasefire the loyalists had to do the same as they would have had no support otherwise.
Bertie Ahern having a part in getting hardline Unionists to accept power sharing with Sinn Fein is a much greater achievement.
[QUOTE=“TheUlteriorMotive, post: 1004139, member: 2272”]It seems to be accepted that the IRA was infiltrated with informers and agents up to the highest levels. Scappaticci, McShane were agents and were directing deaths of other so called informers. Led to Loughall, Gibraltar disasters for the IRA. Beginning of electronic surveillance in 90s must have impacted too. IRA probably could have continued with certain level of activity but chances of detection were much increased.
There was a line too after Enniskillen and IRA couldn’t go ahead with no warning bombs. No appetite remained. [/QUOTE]
The IRA were ready to talk, this is different than surrendering. The IRA could not be defeated but they realised they could not win the hearts and minds for reunification. The brit securacrats did not want peace and wanted to humiliate the IRA, the brit government had no interest in talking but rather pander to the unionists. Stalemate.
The IRA changed tactic and went for spectaculars that would hit the brits financially. Baltic exchange and Bishopsgate bomb in 92 and 93 got the brits to the table not anything else.
Canary Wharf bomb and the Manchester bomb got them back to the table after Major and Bruton nearly ballsed things up.
The RA werent worried about electronic surveillance in early 90’s, sure Ed O’Brien had the brits in an absolute twist when he was planting bombs in London until the bomb he was carrying went off prematurely in Aldwych in 1996. The IRA knew it was this threat in London that made the brits focus on Ireland.
No appetite for a resumption of war remained after George Mitchell and Clinton cemented negotiations and 9/11 made everything permanent. It was never ever going to start up after that. There would be no support for bombs in London or anywhere from Irish America after that. Decommissioning happened but it didn’t matter, they may have well but the guns in the thatch.
Martin McGuinness specifically mentioned Reynolds along with Clinton, Adams and Hume. They were the architects of the peace process. I think Id take his word on the matter.
[QUOTE=“Ebeneezer Goode, post: 1004193, member: 1785”]sure Ed O’Brien had the brits in an absolute twist when he was planting bombs in London until the bomb he was carrying went off prematurely in Aldwych in 1996.
.[/QUOTE]
the bomb dfidnt go off prematurely, it went off exactly as timed. the dumb lunk had used a 12 hour alarm clock as a timer
[QUOTE=“Ebeneezer Goode, post: 1004193, member: 1785”]The IRA were ready to talk, this is different than surrendering. The IRA could not be defeated but they realised they could not win the hearts and minds for reunification. The brit securacrats did not want peace and wanted to humiliate the IRA, the brit government had no interest in talking but rather pander to the unionists. Stalemate.
The IRA changed tactic and went for spectaculars that would hit the brits financially. Baltic exchange and Bishopsgate bomb in 92 and 93 got the brits to the table not anything else.
Canary Wharf bomb and the Manchester bomb got them back to the table after Major and Bruton nearly ballsed things up.
The RA werent worried about electronic surveillance in early 90’s, sure Ed O’Brien had the brits in an absolute twist when he was planting bombs in London until the bomb he was carrying went off prematurely in Aldwych in 1996. The IRA knew it was this threat in London that made the brits focus on Ireland.
No appetite for a resumption of war remained after George Mitchell and Clinton cemented negotiations and 9/11 made everything permanent. It was never ever going to start up after that. There would be no support for bombs in London or anywhere from Irish America after that. Decommissioning happened but it didn’t matter, they may have well but the guns in the thatch.
Martin McGuinness specifically mentioned Reynolds along with Clinton, Adams and Hume. They were the architects of the peace process. I think Id take his word on the matter.[/QUOTE]
Fair summary.
Snippets from MI5 agents over the years suggest certain attacks (Baltic exchange was one mentioned specifically) were allowed to happen
The mortar attack on Heathrow - no mortars exploded and planes landed for 30 minutes after attack
downing street attack - British military explicitly praised the skill of mounting such an attack
[QUOTE=“farmerinthecity, post: 1004176, member: 24”]ArtIn fact, people such as Ed Maloney state that Haughey was talking to Adams long before John Hume was in the much publicised meetings at the end of the 1980s. By the time Albert got to power, Adams was nearly ready to call a truce.
.[/QUOTE]
events like Loughgall are always a sign peace is on the way…the real hardliners get taken out …
When Bertie and Cowen eventually pop it they’ll be credited for their roles in the North too, no doubt. Probably even Bruton also. About 6 Taoisigh will be praised for the peace process, ridiculous but there you go.
[QUOTE=“Fitzy, post: 1004135, member: 236”]No.
Reynolds was not a facilitator, he was an instigator. He had to bring that cunt Major along with him, Major who was beholden to Unionism…[/QUOTE]
Remember that too. The cunts in Rte went on strike - Gay Byrne and Co picketed the Dail in their sheepskin coats looking for more money. The Government caved and the post office workers went out next and the Government left them swinging in the wind, until they starved them back to work.
Albert was a key player on the sleaziest political team ever assembled. Haughey, Burke , Ahern, Lawlor et al. Was he ever embroiled in any scandals or were there any rumours about him?