Talk:South Armagh Sniper (1990–1997)

February 2008 posts

The article seems to have a number of thinly veiled attempts at portraying the Provisional IRA sniping teams as ineffective (e.g., comments on the number of misses between 1990 and 1992) and cowardly (e.g., the comment about firing from under 300 metres despite the weapon having a range of 1000m). I realize that the Republican campaign is still a very emotive issue, but this doesn't seem a neutral point of view to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.15.170 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, ALL the data are based, point by point, on Toby Harnden's Bandit Country, so the statistics and facts are well documented according to Wikipedia guidelines. The misses reflect no PoV against the IRA; in any case, they suggest inexperience in the use of long range rifles (the volunteers were more familiar with Armalites or AK-47) and a bit of bad luck (one soldier had his helmet piercing by a .50 round and survived). I can't post it to the narrative because Wikipedia rules against original research. In the case of the shooting range, you seem to be somewhat confused; contrary to your claim, what Harnden want to say is that the IRA guys took much more risk than an usual sniper by firing from a shorter distance. If you like, I can quote a British official (cited by Harnden) making an explicit statement against the charges of "cowardly" made by some politicians on the sniper teams in South Armagh. Frankly, the template is utterly unjustified. DagosNavy 2:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry, you're absolutely right that I got confused on the cowardice point. As you say, firing from 300m rather than 1000m is not evidence of cowardice. It could be taken as implying ineffectiveness though. I think the point about firing from behind plate armour in case of return fire was what I meant to mention regarding implications of cowardice.

Still, just because the points are taken from a published book by Harnden, that seems to me not to guarantee a NPOV. I don't know Harnden's book, but it is clearly possible for published authors to be far from neutral in their discussion of an issue. Are you sure that the article comes across in the neutral way you seem to have intended? I didn't mean to make you angry with the original accusation, and if you tell me you have no particular dog in the IRA/UK conflict then I believe you. But I too have no ideological commitment here, and I was just calling it as I saw it. There really looked to me to be a subtext in the article that implied a strongly pro-British / anti-Provo point of view. The suggested quote from a British official might be a useful way to counteract this, certainly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.15.170 (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Firing from behind cover is just common sense, not cowardice. Like wearing body armour, it doesn't mean you're a coward, it means you don't want a small piece of metal to pass through your body at several thousand feet per second. The firing range was probably dictated more by the environment than anything else (speculation on my part). I think any bias in the article is not really the fault of the editors working on it, it's because out of 20-odd references, about 75% of them come from Harnden's book. The article just needs a few more citations from a wider range of sources. Geoff B (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sniper at work

Would this article not be improved by inclusion of a photo (or even a png if you have no free photos) of the iconic roadsign? Sarah777 (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sarah. Pic already added by John. Thanks to him.DagosNavy 4:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade

(deindent). In that case, I'll give you an incomplete list now, in addition to what was stated at the top of the merge discussion. Information is taken from this version IIRC.

1. "During the 1980s, the IRA relied mostly on weaponry smuggled from Libya" - not supported by the source as that only details that weaponry was smuggled from Libya, the IRA were still getting arms from various sources, the Libyan shipments were very, very useful but if they hadn't happened the arms would have come from elsewhere. The Libyan shipments are generally seen as enough to keep the IRA armed indefinitely, so much that they didn't really need to smuggle anything after that except for "special orders".

I don't see the problem here. The article says "relied mostly" not "relied exclusively". 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Who says they "relied mostly"? All the source says is that weaponry was imported from Libya, it doesn't support the commentary which is unsourced.One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment. There are plenty of other sources available for it. I've added two. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say either of those support it either. For example the Guardian says "The IRA's arms dumps were mostly built up in the 80s thanks to shipments - totalling more than 150 tonnes - from Libya", and the NYT says "It smuggled most of the weaponry into Ireland from Libya in the 1980's". There's no dispute about the IRA importing a substantial amount of arms from Libya in the 80s, however it's the reliance that's slightly dubious. I forget which source it's in (I've just checked a couple of books out of the dozens I've got, but can't find the quote I need), but the Libyan shipments are generally seen as being sufficient for the IRA to continue its campaign indefinitely, which is borne out by the very limited arms importation that actually occurred after that. I suppose a "kids in a candy store" analogy is best. The IRA had weaponry before and could have easily carried on a campaign with it and occasional arms importation, but due to the Libya shipments they were like kids in a candy store when it came to weaponry. After the Libya shipments there were only sporadic importations from anywhere generally special orders, some detonators (the total of which far outnumbered the amount of detonators imported from Libya) and suchlike from America, less than half a dozen sniper rifles. If you actually look at IRA attacks post-Libya shipments, it's arguable exactly how much of the stuff imported (aside from Semtex and detonators) was ever actually used. Gun attacks died down in frequency from the 70s onwards, and the focus seemed to be more on attacks with political impact, which were generally the huge fertiliser bombs or home made mortars. My objection to the "relied on" is it sounds too much like the IRA would have shut up shop without them, when even post-decomissioning it's acknowledged that two men can build a bomb in a shed in South Armagh that would be far more deadly than 100 AK47s. And as below, I'm struggling to see the relevance. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's of slight relevance but perhaps something should be said as background. Rough text idea: "Although the IRA had vast amounts of arms from Libya, the sniping campaign used a Barrett etc". Under this scheme, the first paragraph of "The rifles" becomes a single sentence pre-amble. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

2. "The shipments from America, once the main source of arms for the Republicans through the gun running operations of George Harrison, were halted by the FBI in 1981." - that was one operation, there were still others going on. Or did I just imagine Gerry McGeough admitting to buying weapons from anywhere and everywhere, amongst other shipments?

Could briefly you clarify your objection here please. Are you objecting to "were halted"? If so, what brief alternative wording would you recommend? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I objected to that wording as it's completely misleading, especially as it was followed by "However, the early 1990s saw some small-scale activity". The shipments from America weren't halted. George Harrison's shipments were, but that was one of a number of smuggling operations that were ongoing, and shipments continued throughout the 80s. They didn't stop from 1981 to the early 1990s as was said. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? Tweak it or remove it? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been tweaked since, but I'm at a loss to see what overall relevance it has. There's an article on Provisional IRA arms importation after all. The IRA imported weapons from many different countries, I don't see a connection between the importation of the sniper rifles and the Harrison (or later) operations. We don't need a "history of IRA arms importation from America" in the article, in fact I removed it from my re-write. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, a passing reference as background would be helpful. Especially if it had a link to the Provisional IRA arms importation article. Suggested text? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ONIH about the analogy of "kids in a candy store" regarding the Libyan shipment. Nevertheless, I dispute his claim that the "Provos" "could have easily carried on a campaign with it and occasional arms importation...". Tony Geraghty (p.183) asserts that: "Whatever the reason, the Libyan supplies marked a turning point in the Irish War. Towards the late 1970s, Irish Republican violence had been falling sharply. In 1979, the body count in the Province was thirteen, the lowest ever." The latter is probably a typo; there were near 40 deaths only counting security forces that year, but still the downward path is obvious. He concluded: "A cornucopia of weapons from Libya -so lavish that they could not all be employed- empowered the physical force tradition with massive political credibility as well as military clout." Harnden (p. 243) says that after the Libyan connection: "In the vast majority of IRA operations since the Libyan shipments, at least one volunteer has carried an AK-47." Thus, there was a huge change of fire power within the IRA. Think only of the unlimited use of semtex since 1988, for example.

My point is that the arms affair is useful to put things in context. We should show to the reader in a brief narrative the following: 1) The "historical" source of weapons for the IRA was USA; 2) That source was compromised by the mid-80s, and the organisation look then for an alternative (Libya) and 3) Despite this situation, why one of the main weapons employed against the British in NI in the last stages of the conflict was a rifle made-in-USA.--Darius (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your alleged point isn't backed up by any evidence. While the Libyan shipments were happening the IRA were still attempting to import arms from America. From 1984 to 1990 there were 11 seperate successful and unsuccessful arms importation operations from America, one of which was operational over a ten year period. And that's ignoring the fact that the Libyan arms (and cash) were a gift! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

3. "One of the IRA volunteers captured, Michael Caraher, a Sinn Fein and IRA member" - Michael Caraher wasn't a SF member, his brother Fergal who was killed in 1990 was. I can only imagine what would have happened if a SF member had been arrested under those circumstances at that stage of the peace process!

Fixed, I see. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

4. "Another six rounds achieved nothing, albeit two of them struck the patrol boat HMS Cygnet, at Carlingford lough, with no casualties" - the source actually says the shots missed, although how you can miss a patrol boat with a sniper riple is anyone's guess?! Either way, Harnden simply says they missed, he doesn't say they actually struck the boat.

Fixed, I see. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

5. "Sixteen operations were carried out from the rear of a van" - the source actually says "estate car, van or jeep", not just "van".

Fixed, I see. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

6. "According to Harnden, there were two different teams" - source says nothing of the sort. Hardnen quotes a BA source saying there were two teams, then he himself says there may have been two teams. So put it this way, Harnden has interviewed the guy, and even he's not sufficiently convinced to say there were two teams, only that there may have been. So how it can be stated as fact in the article that there were two is beyond me....

I'll check this myself when Harnden arrives. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Harnden's exact words (page 400) are "There was more than one weapon and probably two snipers - Caraher operating to the west of Slieve Gullion and another volunteer to the east". So as above, even Harnden seems to take the assessment from the BA source he interviewed with a pinch of salt and isn't prepared to state there definitely were two snipers, instead going for "probably". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So wording of "According to Harnden, the IRA claimed there were two different teams" would fix it. Yes? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

My rewrite reads "Contrary to the first British army assessment, or the speculations of the press, there may have been more than one sniper. According to Harnden and a British soldier, there may have been two different teams". Now while the BA source says there were two that doesn't make it fact, especially when Harnden (who interviewed him) isn't willing to state it as fact. It's tricky to know whether the BA source is speculating using his informed opinion or not, but I think we're better off deferring to Harnden who actually interviewed him. If his comments had appeared in a different source entirely that might change things, but I think that's the best solution? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's rather good. Why not whack it in with sources? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Harnden is quite assertive in other paragraphs of the chapter Sniper's Promise about the existence of the Drumintee unit. See notes # 19 and # 27 in the current article. The first describes the tactics of this specific unit: "The Drumintee sniper team tended to use up to 20 volunteers in a dicking screen." (page 404). The second cite mentions the aftermath of the murder of the postal worker: "Donegan, believed to have been a member of the Drumintee sniper team, and McComish, later to defect to the Real IRA, were both jailed (for the crime)." (page 411).--Darius (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he isn't. Simply because there was more than one team doesn't mean there was more than one sniper. You can't ignore that a source contradicts himself and just put in the part you like. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well!!!!. At least you have finally acknowledged that there was more than one team involved!. I see progress there, man.--Darius (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

7. "About 180 British soldiers, RUC and prison staff members were killed in this way from 1971 to 1991. Some 70 paramilitary militants and civilians were also killed by sharpshooters in the same period" - seems to be based on a search of the Sutton index for the word "sniper", you'll forgive me for thinking that's not particularly accurate especially as if the word "sniper" doesn't appear in the text it won't appear on the search.

I agree this needs sorting out and clearer sourcing. I suppose the idea is to distinguish between IRA snipers and BA sharpshooters. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tables produced by searching CAIN website "Database of deaths" are present as valid sources in the main article about The Troubles since the edit of 5 October 2004 without being challenged, so I'am of the opinion that the tags should be removed. ONIH got it right, the table was produced by hiting "sniper" at the search entry.--Darius (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing the relibability of a source with an unreliable method of using it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

8. "The ceasefire put in place by the IRA on August 31, 1994, gave an opportunity to the British to collect intelligence about the modus operandi of the snipers" - nope, it gave them a chance to get intelligence in SA in general, not about the MO of the snipers who (shockingly!) weren't sniping at the time!

This one seems fixed. Do say if you're not happy about it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

9. "The tabloid press of that time nicknamed the sniper Goldfinger or Terminator" - funny how the source says the locals called him that, and the tabloids took the name from them!

Bit tangled that. Copy-edited it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

10. "The campaign is viewed as the most efficient overall IRA operation in Northern Ireland for this period." - supported by a dubious reference titled "IRA Sniper kills nine in one area", which was allegedly published in 1994, before the sniper had killed nine!

This section is messy. We need a clear explanation of ceasefire periods somewhere. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives secondary sources priority over primary sources. You can find Horgan quote online (here). The wrong date for the primary source seems to be a typo. Remember, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.--Darius (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

11. "During one of these, at Forkhill, on 17 March 1993, a civilian, pretending to be running away suspiciously, lured a Royal Scots soldier to a grassy area along a road, where the serviceman was shot and killed." - I even wrote exactly what the source said above, and the new amended version is still wrong! There's nothing about a civilian pretending to be running away suspiciously, there's only a soldier responding to a report of a man running. Nothing about pretending, nothing about suspicious, nothing about luring....

Deleted this sentence altogether. I agree that it seems to be conjecture. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well in case you didn't find it in the original discussion, this is exactly what Harnden says - "...when his [Dickson] patrol commander reported on the radio that a person had been seen running near Church Road. Dickson jumped over the back wall of the disused Protestant churchyard and out through the gates onto Church Road, telling Private Lindsay McWhir to keep his eyes open for anyone acting suspiciously. McWhir heard a shot ring out and saw Dickson lying on the grass verge". The article originally read "During one of these, at Forkhill, on 17 March 1993, a bogus gunman, pretending to be running away from a patrol, lured a Royal Scots soldier to an open field, were the serviceman was shot to death", and yet despite me pointing out exactly what the source said it still ended up with unsupported material. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I did find it, thanks :) I removed it because re-writing it to fit Harnden precisely made it irrelevant. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Harnden quote is not complete. He continues: "I (McWhir) asked him if he could feel anything and he said he couldn't feel his legs, he said in a statement afterwards. I found a bullet hole and then he fell unconscious. The person seen runing had lured Dickson to his death." I wrote "lured" in bolds because there was a claim that Harnden don't mention that the soldier was lured by the running man. The cite is relevant because it shows the modus operandi of the sniper teams; a man in a supporting role can provide a target for the shooter. Peter Taylor, (Behind the mask, The IRA and Sinn Fein, page 132), during an interview with top Republican Brendan Hughes, depicts how the Provisionals snipers in the first 70s chose their targets: "An army foot patrol's routine would be carefully monitored to see if it betrayed a pattern. Army vehicles would be watched to see how much they varied their routes. Hoax warnings would be given to lure soldiers into a trap." The bolds speak for themselves.--Darius (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYN!!!! As for the rest, it's speculative nonsense. So if a soldier is shot by a sniper when responding to a report of someone running, it's the fault of the person who is running? Where's the corroborating evidence? Harnden doesn't even make an argument as to why. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you ommit the word "lured" in Harnden's quote? Was the man running doing his jogging routine, or he was part of the plot?. What d'you think?.--Darius (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ommit (sic) anything, I copied my original post from the other talk page. Why do you make things up that sources don't say and add them to articles? That's the real issue here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

12. "The soldiers were forced to wear a new type of body armour, too heavy for a long march and much too expensive" - "forced" is inherently POV to begin with. And it's not even a case of it being too heavy for a "long march", the source says it wasn't worn on patrol at all, it was only used by soldiers at static checkpoints and even they could only wear it for two hours at a time.

Copy-edited and fixed, I think. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy about the sentence before it now, as the second sentence is being used to justify it when it doesn't in any way, shape or form. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

13. (Added by me) I also fixed the mole / informer stuff, I think. If you dislike the new text, please edit according. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

More to follow. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please continue discussion of content of this article here. Thank you, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not having the same discussion on two pages. The discussions are inextricably linked. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The two issues are separate. Please keep detailed discussion of the South Armagh sniper content here. This way it can be acted on by editors working on this article. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk

They aren't seperate, they are inextricably linked. There's nothing to discuss, either information matches a source or it doesn't. When someone says it doesn't match a source, what's to discuss? Nothing, go and fix it! Or better still, get it right in the first place.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have specific criticisms about content matching sources, the only sensible place to discuss is on the talk page of the article concerned. Best is for you to identify the specific statements which you feel need changing to better reflect the source. I'm sure that this is easily fixable. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that American sources of arms to the IRA is important to note especially since the CIA may have been involved. Ostensibly this may have been done for Cold War purposes, to keep the Soviet Union from supporting the IRA, but with the Provos replacing the Marxist OIRA, was the USA really trying to pretend that they were anti-communism? This matter needs to be explored, not squashed. Ramhorbronc (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

POV section

Harnden's opinions after interviewing a few soldiers are being presented as fact, while ignoring the official report into Operation Banner (which certainly isn't biased against the IRA) says "Most of the effectiveness of sniping is psychological, but there is no concrete evidence of ‘sniping’ reducing the effectiveness of Army operations in South Armagh". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You are free to include it in the section as a counter-balance.--Darius (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A counter-balance?! It's not a counter-balance, it proves the entire section is utter nonsense. Read the OB report in full, it shows how wrong Harnden and co are. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Harnden is not a reliable source for you, then.--Darius (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the OB report in full? If so, what does it say? If not, come back when you have. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Harnden is more reliable than Paddy Hayes...--Darius (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not intrested in what you "think," I'm only intrested in what is Verifiable. Please read WP:OR, and then make sure your references reflect what you place in articles. --Domer48 (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) ONIH's quote comes from par. 530. To be candid, it is a slightly bizarre conclusion for the report writers to reach given that in the preceding paragraph (529), the report says:

"The attacks affected security force operations and had an impact on morale among some troops and police officers serving in South Armagh ... For a period, overt patrols only operated under top cover from at least two helicopters. This fixed security forces to some extent, and placed a greater burden on the usage of helicopter hours. "For relatively few successful engagements, these IRA sniper attacks proved for a period to be an effective response to the success of the Army’s border watchtowers and its electronic counter-measures."

So, I suppose the statement about not "reducing the effectiveness of Army operations" is literally true but was only achieved at the expense of cranking up the resources provided and reducing the scope of patrols. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Very new to wikipedia, no idea if I'm parsing this correctly. But, from a military perspective, "cranking up the resources provided and reducing the scope of" an operation inherently refuses the effectiveness. No idea how to sign this statement with my name or IP (not logged on). Just delete this if it's wrong. All for posterity anyway; the post I'm responding to is 6 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.129.228 (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Text removed

Since the editor who added the text unsupported by references refuses to allow the {{failed verification}} tags to remain, I have removed the text in its entirety. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

I never suggested that was a major problem, however I consider it to be a good illustrative example which is the reason I brought it up, and it was already fixed by that point anyway. If the source says "estate car, van or jeep", why put van in the first place? "I don't honestly think that it's improving an article by removing a chunk of sourced text" - perhaps because the text isn't sourced? Putting a reference next to something doesn't make the text necessarily sourced does it? I've got Taylor, I've got Harnden, I've got many, many other books including Taylor's other books from the Provos/Loyalists/Brits trilogy the latter of which deals with the IRA's post-1996 tactics in more detail, and none of them source the text that's in the article, it's all conjecture. Even ignoring the synthesis, we'll take Harnden for example, a quote of "After the Docklands bomb brought the ceasefire to an end, there were remarkably few IRA attacks in South Armagh" is being used to source "Indeed, the period after the ceasefire shows a decline of IRA activity in South Armagh". The post-ceasefire period doesn't show a decline, as for example in 1993 the sniping team killed seven members of the security forces. In 1994 (ceasefire came into place at the end of August 1994) the only people killed by the IRA in South Armagh were a suspected informer killed in April, a soldier killed by a bomb in May, and a post office worker shot during a robbery in November. Therefore while the 1996-1997 activity was low for South Armagh standards, to say it had declined post-ceasefire ignores the fact that during the eight months in the run-up to the ceasefire they were hardly active. And under some circumstances I could have reworded it, but rewording isn't appropriate on this occasion. Harnden doesn't state why the IRA activity was so low, so why draw that conclusion in the article based on what Taylor purportedly said (but didn't actually) about Northern Ireland in general? What Taylor says in Brits is most relevant - "The IRA knew it was vital not to alienate Sinn Fein's growing political support that was the launch pad for the next phase of 'the struggle'.....'New' Sinn Fein voters would probably accept IRA attacks on military installations in the North and economic targets in Great Britain but would not be supportive of operations that resulted in civilian deaths". The IRA's activity in South Armagh itself was overwhelmingly directed at the security forces themselves or their bases, so the idea that the IRA's post-ceasefire "rules of engagement" (for want of a better term) somehow restricted the sniping campaign is dubious, and not directly or even undirectly supported by any source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Could DagosNavy respond to this in detail please ? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Excerpt from my talk page:

I've introduced some changes in the Caraher team arrested section of the article. I re-shaped the potential OR statements (synthesis of two different sources), by replacing Taylor for two cites from Harnden. I also added quotes (without removing the tags) about the smuggling of the rifles. I hope it will be the start of some kind of compromise about this hard-debated issue. Re-shaping of narrative text to match note # 32 (37 by 29 March) of the current version also done.--Darius (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

I propose that we do a switch and place the Sniper at Work sign in the infobox. What do other editors think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Gestur (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)