Irish Republicans kill two occupying soldiers in attack on base

[Zurdito]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7930837.stm

The UK government called it "barbaric". Communists should be clear in our response: barbaric is your occupation of the 6 counties, barbaric is what this same army does in Afghanistan and Iraq. No to any persecution of the republicans or Irish community, full support to the resistance, for a unified Ireland.






Two die in 'barbaric' Army attack


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45545000/jpg/_45545801_antrimshooting226.jpg It is believed that there were two long bursts of gunfire during the incident


Two soldiers have been shot dead during a gun attack at an Army base in County Antrim, the Ministry of Defence says.
A spokesman said "four other personnel" were also injured. Earlier reports suggested they were all male.
It is believed that the victims were taking delivery of pizzas at Massereene army base in Antrim, 16 miles north of Belfast, when the gunmen struck.
Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward condemned the shootings as "an act of criminal barbarism".
Mr Woodward added: "My thoughts are with the families of those killed and injured in this murderous attack.
"The contrast between those who serve the community and those who would destroy it could not be clearer. The people who did this will be pursued and they will never stop the political process in Northern Ireland."
The MoD said in a statement that next of kin had been informed and further information would be released in due course.
The attack was being investigated by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the statement added.
'Loud bangs'
The soldiers are the first to be murdered in Northern Ireland since Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick was killed by an IRA sniper in 1997.
All four injured men have been taken to Antrim Area Hospital, about a mile away from the scene.
The condition of some were said to be serious. It is believed that there were two long busts of gunfire during the incident.



A major security operation is under way and the area surrounding the barracks, which is home to 38 Engineering Regiment, has been sealed off.
Eyewitness reports have suggested that the attackers approached the barracks in a pizza delivery van, and the victims walked into the ambush believing a fast food delivery was arriving.
One witness who lives near the base told the BBC how he looked to the sky after hearing what he thought were fireworks.
He added: "Then I heard a lot of loud bangs again, only it was a lot more than there was initially - maybe between 10 and 20.
"Then the siren at the Army barracks went off. Then all you heard was the police sirens and ambulances and there was at least six ambulances.
"There was definitely six of the ambulances and God knows how many police cars - they just came out of the police station one after the other." http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif For the last 10 years, people believed things like this happened in foreign countries... Unfortunately it has returned to our doorstep http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif


Ian Paisley Junior
Democratic Unionist Party

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/inline_dashed_line.gif

Antrim shooting: Political reaction (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7930878.stm)


In a statement, Downing Street said everything possible would be done to ensure those responsible would be brought to justice.
"This is a terrible incident that we utterly condemn and the prime minister's thoughts, first and foremost, are with the families of those killed and with those seriously injured in this attack," it continued.
Northern Ireland's First Minister and Democratic Unionist Party leader Peter Robinson offered his sympathies to the families of the victims, and said he would postpone a scheduled trip to the United States. Mr Robinson said the attack was "terrible reminder of the events of the past".

Rev Dr William McCrea at Massereene Barracks


He added: "These murders were a futile act by those who command no public support and have no prospect of success in their campaign. It will not succeed."
Ian Paisley Jnr, a DUP member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Policing Board, said the shooting could prove to be a defining moment in Northern Ireland's history.
He said: "For the last 10 years, people believed things like this happened in foreign countries, places like Basra. Unfortunately it has returned to our doorstep."
The leader of the nationalist SDLP, Mark Durkan, condemned the "murderous" attacks.
"Those who committed it are steeped in the mindset and means of past violence," he added.
"They need to understand this is not an attack on British army but the Irish people who have voted for and value above all else peaceful politics and democratic accommodation." David Ford, the leader of the Alliance Party, said it was "inconceivable" that the attack could have been carried out by anyone other than dissident republicans.



"The important thing is that we must not see politics and the peace settlement that we have, fragile though it is, destabilised by this kind of action," he added.
No-one has so far claimed responsibility.
The attack comes shortly after Sir Hugh Orde, the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, requested the Special Reconnaissance Regiment's help to gather intelligence on dissident republicans.
Mr Robinson said the Massereene attack vindicated his decision, which had been criticised by Sinn Fein. In 2008, dissident republicans attempted to kill PSNI officers during separate incidents in Derry City and Dungannon, Co Tyrone. Security forces defused a 300lb (136kg) bomb in Castlewellan, Co Down, close to a barracks in February 2009.

[Mindtoaster]

Merge articles please mods

[Hessian Peel]

While I think armed struggle is the wrong strategy at present such actions do help to lift the veil on British imperialism, if only briefly, and render the normalisation agenda a lame duck.

[Hessian Peel]

"They need to understand this is not an attack on British army but the Irish people who have voted for and value above all else peaceful politics and democratic accommodation."

That's a good little native. :laugh:

[Reuben]

Im going to stick my neck out hear and say that 32 county repubnlicanism should not be seen as the only solution acceptable to socialists. Our starting point has to be that Northern Ireland contains two legitimate national communities. Norther Irish protestants are not simply an apendage of British imperialism. Meanwhile, NI today is very different to the place it was in the 60s and 70s Trying to establish solution which considers the feelings fears and aspirations of both communities is arguably most likely to engender a future in which politics cetnres on the kinds of issues that socialists really want to be fighting on.

[Hessian Peel]

Our starting point has to be that Northern Ireland contains two legitimate national communities.

It doesn't.

[Bitter Ashes]

As legitimate as Palestine, North Vietnam and North Korea... all of which you guys appear to have sympathies with.

[Hessian Peel]

As legitimate as Palestine, North Vietnam and North Korea... all of which you guys appear to have sympathies with.

North Vietnam no longer exists. The national identity of the DPRK is Korean not 'Northern Korean' and Palestinians are not comparable to Ulster Unionists, but Israeli settlers certainly are.

[Madvillainy]

It doesn't.

What sectarian nonsense is this?

[Hessian Peel]

What sectarian nonsense is this?

What's sectarian about what I said?

[Bitter Ashes]

North Vietnam no longer exists. The national identity of the DPRK is Korean not 'Northern Korean' and Palestinians are not comparable to Ulster Unionists, but Israeli settlers certainly are.
First of all, that's a really pedantic response about Vietnam and DPRK. They still got thier independance and had to fight for it and keep it.
As for Palestine, what you say doesnt apply because the Israeli settlers were the minority there. I suppose the only difference was that the IRA didnt need the excuse of bieng rocketted from across the border in order to start bombing out schools and markets.

[skki]

It's threads like this that really make me feel like deleting my account here.
A bunch of 15 year old middle-class armchair warriors with no respect for any democratic processes. Just a commitment to "lol imperialism revolution"

[Hessian Peel]

It's threads like this that really make me feel like deleting my account here.
A bunch of 15 year old middle-class armchair warriors with no respect for any democratic processes. Just a commitment to "lol imperialism revolution"

Whatever you say love.

[Hessian Peel]

First of all, that's a really pedantic response about Vietnam and DPRK. They still got thier independance and had to fight for it and keep it.
As for Palestine, what you say doesnt apply because the Israeli settlers were the minority there. I suppose the only difference was that the IRA didnt need the excuse of bieng rocketted from across the border in order to start bombing out schools and markets.

Ulster Unionists are also in the minority.

Come back to me when you actually know what you're talking about .

[MikeSC]

I have mates in the army. They're not political- they just do the job they get paid to do, because they had no other job prospects, and got as-good-as recruited very young (cadets and all that... turn kids into obedient killers/killees before they've even decided who they are and what they want.)

Fuck the army, sure. Destroy stocks, and symbols, and weaponry. Soldiers are the victims as much as the oppressors though, I think.

[Bitter Ashes]

Ulster Unionists are also in the minority.

Come back to me when you actually know what you're talking about .
If the Unionists are in the minority in Northern Ireland, why is there no evidence of this whatsoever?

[Pogue]

This thread is made of fail.

[Hessian Peel]

If the Unionists are in the minority in Northern Ireland, why is there no evidence of this whatsoever?

In IRELAND.

[Bitter Ashes]

Ireland is a landmass, not a country

[Coggeh]

It doesn't.
Aye , it does.

[Hessian Peel]

This thread is made of fail.


IWW =


http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/3316/vaderfail.jpg

[Sean]

Ireland is a landmass, not a country
Scaeme, I've noticed you have a big interest in Northern Ireland, could I ask what your background or connection to northern ireland is, if any?

[Hessian Peel]

Aye , it does.

No it doesn't.

[Reuben]

North Vietnam no longer exists. The national identity of the DPRK is Korean not 'Northern Korean' and Palestinians are not comparable to Ulster Unionists, but Israeli settlers certainly are.

Well this really is the crux of the matter. I am imagining that in referring to Israeli settlers you are not simply referring to those in the west bank. If not this raises a whole number of questions about what we make of the actually existing hebrew speaking nation in the middle east. Yes there werre some who wen over out of a deliberate project of colonisation. There many who went as refugees from Europe or the arab world. But the great mase would have been born there. It is easy - but fundamentally idiotic - to simply dismiss an entire national community as an illegitimate settler colony - whose identity and apirations are not worthy of consideration - on such a basis. It is even more absurd in relation to the far messier - historically elongated - history of Ireland and ulster.

[robbo203]

Here we go again´- more bleedin nationalist claptrap from so called socialists. Who cares a stuff about a united ireland and what the friggin hell has it got to do with communism anyway. Its a pathetic joke. A bourgeois wet dream for romantic reactionaries. Stuff Ireland, Stuff the UK. Down with the nation state and nationalist ideology in all its guises. For Communism!

[Coggeh]

Ireland is a landmass, not a country
How so ?

Ireland is a country .

Anyway I don't support the IRA but you need to get your head screwed on , these british imperialist apologetics from you is quite odd .

You don't need to support the IRA to know their a reaction of British Imperialism in the first place .

[Coggeh]

Here we go again´- more bleedin nationalist claptrap from so called socialists. Who cares a stuff about a united ireland and what the friggin hell has it got to do with communism anyway. Its a pathetic joke. A bourgeois wet dream for romantic reactionaries. Stuff Ireland, Stuff the UK. Down with the nation state and nationalist ideology in all its guises. For Communism!
Its anti-imperialism not really nationalism . And most socialists don't support either side but they want to see British imperialist removed all the same.

[Bitter Ashes]

Scaeme, I've noticed you have a big interest in Northern Ireland, could I ask what your background or connection to northern ireland is, if any?
*sighs*
If it's relevant, then, I'm ex British Army and I was growing up near Manchester and Warrington when the IRA were attacking English civilians in the 90's. I also despise the whole thing where a small violent group are trying to dictate to a democraticly established majority. That's about it, really.
I'm sure that by saying all this I might as well just put my hands up and accept that everyone's going to believe my opinion is now completly worthless.

[Pogue]

IWW =




http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/3316/vaderfail.jpg


lol wut, u so cleber

[Hessian Peel]

*sighs*
If it's relevant, then, I'm ex British Army and I was growing up near Manchester and Warrington when the IRA were attacking English civilians in the 90's. I also despise the whole thing where a small violent group are trying to dictate to a democraticly established majority. That's about it, really.
I'm sure that by saying all this I might as well just put my hands up and accept that everyone's going to believe my opinion is now completly worthless.

Ah.

[Coggeh]

Ah.
Ah.Indeed.




lol

[Bitter Ashes]

How so ?

Ireland is a country .

Anyway I don't support the IRA but you need to get your head screwed on , these british imperialist apologetics from you is quite odd .

You don't need to support the IRA to know their a reaction of British Imperialism in the first place .
I can understand the IRA existing while Ireland was still one country and the majority were bieng oppressed. What bugs me is that the situation has changed. The British are not dictating to the Unionist majority in the Republic and the majority in Northern Ireland support bieng part of the UK. So, there isnt a problem there, but the IRA deciede that they want to make an issue of it.
I really do consider there to be two different countries on the island of Ireland. They both have thier own parliments and borders. Would it have made a difference if Northern Ireland had declared total independance from both the UK and the Republic? There would still be the IRA trying to force Northern Ireland to join the Republic against its will.

[Coggeh]

No it doesn't.
Yes it does . We have to understand what constitutes a nation . Its clear their are two cultures in the north , with for the most part a separate religion , identity and sometimes even language .

[Hessian Peel]

Yes it does . We have to understand what constitutes a nation . Its clear their are two cultures in the north , with for the most part a separate religion , identity and sometimes even language .

I hope you mean English and Irish and not Ulster Scots.

It's not our problem if people in Antrim can't speak English properly.

[Sean]

*sighs*
If it's relevant, then, I'm ex British Army and I was growing up near Manchester and Warrington when the IRA were attacking English civilians in the 90's. I also despise the whole thing where a small violent group are trying to dictate to a democraticly established majority. That's about it, really.
I'm sure that by saying all this I might as well just put my hands up and accept that everyone's going to believe my opinion is now completly worthless.
No, I just assumed either that, or a relative was, to be honest. Its normally the only Yorkshire connection with Northern Ireland:). I don't think your opinion is invalid, but I'm generally suspicious of such opinions and professions as they are generally more on the imperialist side of the fence.

[Coggeh]

I can understand the IRA existing while Ireland was still one country and the majority were bieng oppressed. What bugs me is that the situation has changed. The British are not dictating to the Unionist majority in the Republic and the majority in Northern Ireland support bieng part of the UK. So, there isnt a problem there, but the IRA deciede that they want to make an issue of it.
I really do consider there to be two different countries on the island of Ireland. They both have thier own parliments and borders. Would it have made a difference if Northern Ireland had declared total independance from both the UK and the Republic? There would still be the IRA trying to force Northern Ireland to join the Republic against its will.
Yeah their is two nations , but theirs no such thing as the Republic of Ireland, its just Ireland .

[Coggeh]

I hope you mean English and Irish and not Ulster Scots.

It's not our problem if people in Antrim can't speak English properly.
I mean British and Irish . As in many in the north have a culture of the Irish language and what not .

[Hessian Peel]

Yeah their is two nations , but theirs no such thing as the Republic of Ireland, its just Ireland .

There is only one nation with numerous cultural influences. To bestow nationhood upon Ulster Unionism is to give political legitimacy to British imperialism and the bulwark that defends its interests in Ireland. An all-Ireland Republic is the only vehicle through which we can construct a socialist society on this island.

[Bitter Ashes]

So, you'd stick all those sectarians into an extended Republic of Ireland? I think that might upset quite a few people. Dont worry though, I'm sure that when they get radicalised and start attacking Irish targets, Revleft will yell about evil Irish Imperialism.

[Sean]

This thread needs more outsiders, otherwise its just going to be ye olde, fuck the brits, fuck the paddys with some padding and politer phrasing.

[Coggeh]

There is only one nation with numerous cultural influences. To bestow nationhood upon Ulster Unionism is to give political legitimacy to British imperialism and the bulwark that defends its interests in Ireland. An all-Ireland Republic is the only vehicle through which we can construct a socialist society on this island.
No i'm just saying , the name of the southern part is IRELAND not the republic or ireland . I've no idea who that football team is playing for ... tbh :lol:

[Sean]

Yeah, I've got cried at before here for saying I come from northern ireland. technically its the north east of ireland.

[Coggeh]

Yeah, I've got cried at before here for saying I come from northern ireland. technically its the north east of ireland.
No their is Ireland , and northern Ireland ...

Do people get it now ? :blink:... this is stupid ... what were we fighting about again ?

[Bitter Ashes]

No their is Ireland , and northern Ireland ...

Do people get it now ? :blink:... this is stupid ... what were we fighting about again ?
I think I understand what you've been saying now :)

[Hessian Peel]

So, you'd stick all those sectarians into an extended Republic of Ireland? I think that might upset quite a few people.

No there'll be special camps for them.

[Bitter Ashes]

No there'll be special camps for them.
:blink:

[Coggeh]

:blink:
I think he's joking .

The struggle of the IRA is counter productive ,their is no mass movement , their alienating workers and they have attacked in the past on the basis of sectarian lines .

With that out of the way , we can't be sympathetic to the cause and effects of British Imperialism in Ireland either . But do the British army even want to be in Ireland ? its my opinion that they would be long gone had the IRA not have been idiots .

While the UVF were off attacking catholic people unions were setting up defence organisations , organisations like militant were teaching people how to make petrol bombs to defend themselves and get organised .. Where were the IRA ? bombing civilian targets .

I never condoned their violence once but you have to understand that British Imperialism has as much(if not far far more) a hand in this than the IRA do .

[Andropov]

It boggles the mind where "Socialists" justify partitioning and imperial foot soldiers of the empire.
The partitioning of Ireland is merely reducing Ireland to a sectarian head count, the GFA copper fastens this.
I love how some on here preach about Democracy etc, you want to know about Democracy?
Do you know that Unionists have a Veto over an all Ireland state no matter what their majority or indeed minority is within Northern Ireland the sectarian statelet thanks to the GFA.
Imperialists use the Democracy card if and when they choose.
Connolly, Lenin, Costello they all recognised that the source of Sectarianism in Ireland is British Imperialism and until you remove British Imperialism so Sectarianism will remain as it has been a friend to Imperialism.
Stirring up Sectarian hatred to divide the working class and play into the hands of Imperialist interests.
The old Empire motto of divide and conquer.

As for those two tramps who died, brilliant.
If there not killing babys in Afghanistan their torturing Iraqi's.
Using the old "its just their job" mantra, dont make me laugh.
They are imperialist foot soldiers who willingly signed up to an imperialist army, they knew what they were doing.

[Yazman]

As legitimate as Palestine, North Vietnam and North Korea... all of which you guys appear to have sympathies with.

Somebody please tell me Scaeme did not just say that. HOLY SHIT. I can't believe you just said that.

You just lumped in over 13,000 people on Revleft together, claiming that we all have the same viewpoint on these very divisive topics.

Seriously this comes off as both ignorant and condescending, you haven't figured out by now that the term "revolutionary left" describes multiple movements with their own stances on different issues? I would argue that only a tiny minority of us actually support North Korea. It is especially mind boggling that you would describe our community which includes thousands of anarchists as being generally supportive of the bureaucratic dictatorship that is the DPRK.

As far as "North Vietnam" it doesn't even exist, and most people involved in activism opposed the US intervention there, even the pro-capitalists. Not only this but Vietnam is very much like China nowadays and has never been a 'rallying point' for Marxists, even though some of the more Deng-friendly ones may support it. Anarchists certainly do not support it either.

Do you ACTUALLY dispute the legitimacy of Palestine? Seriously? What the hell are you even doing at Revleft? I don't think anybody from any political standpoint could show that Palestine is illegitimate. Israel, sure, because that nation was essentially founded on the principle of "we are god's chosen people, and god says this land should be ours!"

[Bitter Ashes]

As for those two tramps who died, brilliant.
If there not killing babys in Afghanistan their torturing Iraqi's.
Using the old "its just their job" mantra, dont make me laugh.
They are imperialist foot soldiers who willingly signed up to an imperialist army, they knew what they were doing.
I think you'll find the baby killing is firmly a Taliban tactic and the torturing? Are you reffering to those faked photos that the Daily Mirror published?
As for the "it's just thier job" and "knowing what they're doing" etc. I know what the 38th Engineer regiment were doing on the 31st of January this year. They were disarming this bomb (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/huge-car-bomb-near-school-could-have-caused-an-atrocity-like-omagh-14176774.html).
Funny how you talk about baby killers, when the guys you're supporting are targetting primary schools!

[Bitter Ashes]

Somebody please tell me Scaeme did not just say that. HOLY SHIT. I can't believe you just said that.

You just lumped in over 13,000 people on Revleft together, claiming that we all have the same viewpoint on these very divisive topics.

Seriously this comes off as both ignorant and condescending, you haven't figured out by now that the term "revolutionary left" describes multiple movements with their own stances on different issues? I would argue that only a tiny minority of us actually support North Korea. It is especially mind boggling that you would describe our community which includes thousands of anarchists as being generally supportive of the bureaucratic dictatorship that is the DPRK.

As far as "North Vietnam" it doesn't even exist, and most people involved in activism opposed the US intervention there, even the pro-capitalists. Not only this but Vietnam is very much like China nowadays and has never been a 'rallying point' for Marxists, even though some of the more Deng-friendly ones may support it. Anarchists certainly do not support it either.

Do you ACTUALLY dispute the legitimacy of Palestine? Seriously? What the hell are you even doing at Revleft? I don't think anybody from any political standpoint could show that Palestine is illegitimate. Israel, sure, because that nation was essentially founded on the principle of "we are god's chosen people, and god says this land should be ours!"
I stand corrected on the DPRK then.
As the the Palestine thing you've missed what I was getting at. Palestine is a legitimate state, just like Northern Ireland.

[Pogue]

I stand corrected on the DPRK then.
As the the Palestine thing you've missed what I was getting at. Palestine is a legitimate state, just like Northern Ireland.

How can a state be legitimate if it was created through invasion and violence?

[Madvillainy]

I think you'll find the baby killing is firmly a Taliban tactic and the torturing? Are you reffering to those faked photos that the Daily Mirror published?

Funny how you talk about baby killers, when the guys you're supporting are targetting primary schools!

:blink: This is sad, I don't support republicanism nor national liberation, but you've done nothing in this thread but vigorously defend the British Army.

British troops were not sent into the North in 1969 in order to keep the peace but to stabilise in the interests of the British ruling class what they thought could have became a revolutionary situation. In addition they were used also to break the back of any mass peaceful reform movement through actions like Bloody Sunday in 1972.

How are you a communist again?

[Andropov]

I think you'll find the baby killing is firmly a Taliban tactic and the torturing? Are you reffering to those faked photos that the Daily Mirror published?
As for the "it's just thier job" and "knowing what they're doing" etc. I know what the 38th Engineer regiment were doing on the 31st of January this year. They were disarming this bomb (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/huge-car-bomb-near-school-could-have-caused-an-atrocity-like-omagh-14176774.html).
Funny how you talk about baby killers, when the guys you're supporting are targetting primary schools!

I dont support the Cokes or Contos or who ever carried out this attack just to clarify.
I think its the wrong tactics but morally correct.
The British Army are tramps, plain and simple.
Dont bother defending your army occupying countrys, dont even bother.
As I said before I dont support these groups but I can categorically tell you that they do not target Primary Schools, thats just bollacks.
In fact it was your own fine army that would conduct foot patrols in Belfast and Derry at the same time School children were coming out of school, nothing like a bit of child human shields right?

[Dr Mindbender]

I think you'll find the baby killing is firmly a Taliban tactic and the torturing? Are you reffering to those faked photos that the Daily Mirror published?
As for the "it's just thier job" and "knowing what they're doing" etc. I know what the 38th Engineer regiment were doing on the 31st of January this year. They were disarming this bomb (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/huge-car-bomb-near-school-could-have-caused-an-atrocity-like-omagh-14176774.html).
Funny how you talk about baby killers, when the guys you're supporting are targetting primary schools!

eh, if youre talking about the IRA i think you'll find red revolutionary is an IRSM supporter which is an entirely different entity. So much so, one of the reasons the INLA was set up was to protect IRSP members from IRA attacks.

Just to reiterate what other people have said, nobody including the irish socialist republicans in this thread are condoning the actions of these dissidents but at the same time they're acknowledging the actions of the british govt have had a greater hand in sustaining the conflict than any other factor. Before you criticise my comments, i was raised in a protestant area of belfast so i know exactly what i'm talking about and will vouch for everything that RR says.

also, while we're on the issue of northern ireland being a 'democratic entity' if my history serves me right i don't ever recall the irish populace as a whole being given a say over partition in the first place. So to say NI is democratic is blatant hypocrisy when it wasnt even concieved through democratic means .

[Hessian Peel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67IM1YrMrU

[Invader Zim]

As for those two tramps who died, brilliant.
If there not killing babys in Afghanistan their torturing Iraqi's.

An interesting stereotype. Perhaps we should apply the same logic to the IRSP and call all its members gangsters?


eh, if youre talking about the IRA i think you'll find red revolutionary is an IRSM supporter which is an entirely different entity. So much so, one of the reasons the INLA was set up was to protect IRSP members from IRA attacks.

Indeed, the factionalism among Irish Republican groups is a joke. Literally:

gb_qHP7VaZE


British troops were not sent into the North in 1969 in order to keep the peace but to stabilise in the interests of the British ruling class what they thought could have became a revolutionary situation.

Actually, British troops were sent into the North, not to prevent a revolution by republicans, but to protect Catholics from Loyalist paramilitaries. One of the troubles more tragic ironies really.

[Dr Mindbender]

An interesting stereotype. Perhaps we should apply the same logic to the IRSP and call all its members gangsters?


that logic wouldnt be analogous.

the irsm isnt an imperialist army defending beourgioise interests.

[skki]

How can a state be legitimate if it was created through invasion and violence?
This is hilarious. Practically every state is created through invasion and violence. Why do you think the middle eastern countries have such straight borders? Because they were chopped up and partitioned by invading forces. As was all of the Americas shaped by the Europeans colonialists. All of Africa as well. Scotland is essentially just the part of Britain that the Romans didn't invade.

[Dr Mindbender]

This is hilarious. Practically every state is created through invasion and violence. Why do you think the middle eastern countries have such straight borders? Because they were chopped up and partitioned by invading forces. As was all of the Americas shaped by the Europeans colonialists. All of Africa as well. Scotland is essentially just the part of Britain that the Romans didn't invade.

...so you're saying imperialism is ok in other words?

[Hessian Peel]

Indeed, the factionalism among Irish Republican groups is a joke.

Perhaps these days, but the historical differences between the ORM, the PRM and the IRSM were no laughing matter and were directly linked to the war against the British state and how it was being executed. Reactionary elements within the ORM and the PRM also wanted to contain the revolutionary potential of the IRSP, probably with state assistance and direction both North & South of the border.


Actually, British troops were sent into the North, not to prevent a revolution by republicans, but to protect Catholics from Loyalist paramilitaries.Jaysus.

[Andropov]

An interesting stereotype. Perhaps we should apply the same logic to the IRSP and call all its members gangsters?

Not a stereotype, a reality of imperialism.

[Andropov]

Actually, British troops were sent into the North, not to prevent a revolution by republicans, but to protect Catholics from Loyalist paramilitaries. One of the troubles more tragic ironies really.

What history books do you read?

[Sean]

Jaysus.
No, that was the excuse, catholics greeted them with cups of tea and such.

[Invader Zim]

that logic wouldnt be analogous.

the irsm isnt an imperialist army defending beourgioise interests.

On the contrary, the logic perfectly analogous; if British soldiers are going to be stereotyped by the actions of some of their number, then so can any other group.



Jaysus.

Is that doubt I detect?


What history books do you read?

Obviously better ones than you.

[Madvillainy]

Actually, British troops were sent into the North, not to prevent a revolution by republicans, but to protect Catholics from Loyalist paramilitaries. One of the troubles more tragic ironies really.

Do you actually believe that? They were sent here to provide a breathing space for the northern security forces and to crush any mass radical movements, don't believe everything your t.v tells you.

[Hessian Peel]

No, that was the excuse, catholics greeted them with cups of tea and such.

Indeed.

[Andropov]

On the contrary, the logic perfectly analogous; if British soldiers are going to be stereotyped by the actions of some of their number, then so can any other group.

Maybe so, but do you think their invading and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is deplorable?

[Andropov]

Obviously better ones than you.

Ohh aye didnt you see the Nationalists in Derry breaking down the barricades and welcoming Brit troops into free Derry?
Or Nationlists giving Brit troops daisey chains and kisses as they walk through Ardoyne.
Seriously, dont swallow all the Brit Imperialist propaganda your fed.

[Invader Zim]

Do you actually believe that? They were sent here to provide a breathing space for the northern security forces and to crush any mass radical movements, don't believe everything your t.v tells you.


It isn't a case of 'belief', Oliver; rather it is a case of well documented and recorded fact. The British forces arrived in NI in earnest after the August riots in Belfast, where Loyalist thugs terrorised Catholics and forced over a thousand to flee their homes. As Taig has noted, their arrival was met not with the hostility of later days, but with relief. Obviously that changed when their lack of respect (or perhaps a better description would be 'contempt') for NI's Catholics, and ubiquitous violence became apparent.


Seriously, dont swallow all the Brit Imperialist propaganda your fed.You're the one who seems to smacking his lips after a tastey morsal of bullshit.

[Intifadah]

Normalisation fail

The people I feel for are the pizza delivery men who were injured.

[Sean]

Normalisation fail

The people I feel for are the pizza delivery men who were injured.
You mean pizza delivery people who were targeted, if you listen to the press releases.

[Andropov]

It isn't a case of 'belief', Oliver; rather it is a case of well documented and recorded fact. The British forces arrived in NI in earnest after the August riots in Belfast, where Loyalist thugs terrorised Catholics and forced over a thousand to flee their homes. As Taig has noted, their arrival was met not with the hostility of later days, but with relief. Obviously that changed when their lack of respect (or perhaps a better description would be 'contempt') for NI's Catholics, and ubiquitous violence became apparent.
If memory serves me correct it was the Provos who defended Ardoyne from Loyalist pogroms, not the Brit Soldiers?


You're the one who seems to smacking his lips after a tastey morsal of bullshit.
Ohh aye, you do know better than the people and their familys who actually lived through this era.

[Invader Zim]

Ohh aye, you do know better than the people and their familys who actually lived through this era.As bemusing as your posturing as our resident 'know-it-all' is, I think it is time to end these shenanigans and what better way to do it (after your glowing recommendation of history through memory) than to quote an oral history of the events?

"on 14 August, the British army moved on to the streets of Derry and Belfast, thus momentarily quelling the violence. The Catholic people welcomed them, as Ann O'Neill recalls: 'When the army first came in people were plying them with buns and cakes and being very friendly.'"

R. Munck, 'The Making of the Troubles in Northern Ireland', Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr., 1992), p. 226.

And why, you may ask, were catholics acting in such a way? Well, as I said earlier, it was because part of the British troops mandate was to put a stop to what you, perhap rather unfittingly, describe as anti-catholic 'pogroms'.

[Reuben]

LOL> Whhile I don't agree with Zim entirely, 'You-don't-know-cos-you-wont-there' type appeals to the primacy of first and experience are indeed the lowest form of argument.

[Cumannach]

A few people in NI believed the official line, 'the noble Brits are here to defend us' =/= The Brits were there to defend them.

[Invader Zim]

A few people in NI believed the official line, 'the noble Brits are here to defend us' =/= The Brits were there to defend them.

That is because that is what the troops were there for. The fact that, once there, they were in position to act as reactionary agents of imperialism in the face of growing republican activism is neither here nor there.

But this is beside the point, if you want to argue that the initial reason British troops were posted in NI was not because of the well established reason outlines, but as part of some sinister conspiricy then please provide the evidence. I'm sure that revelation would be an instant best seller.

[Pogue]

That is because that is what the troops were there for. The fact that, once there, they were in position to act as reactionary agents of imperialism in the face of growing republican activism is neither here nor there.

But this is beside the point, if you want to argue that the initial reason British troops were posted in NI was not because of the well established reason outlines, but as part of some sinister conspiricy then please provide the evidence. I'm sure that revelation would be an instant best seller.

Not conspiracy, just imperialism and the protection of the interests of the British ruling class.

[Hessian Peel]

That is because that is what the troops were there for. The fact that, once there, they were in position to act as reactionary agents of imperialism in the face of growing republican activism is neither here nor there.

But this is beside the point, if you want to argue that the initial reason British troops were posted in NI was not because of the well established reason outlines, but as part of some sinister conspiricy then please provide the evidence. I'm sure that revelation would be an instant best seller.

It's not a conspiracy theory to suggest that a political entity like the British state would seek to defend itself through the use of force when it is threatened. The reason for deploying British troops in Ireland in '69 was clearly to contain a situation that was rapidly spiralling out of control. The defence of certain nationalist communities against loyalist pogroms that did take place was simply a by-product of this and not the result of the heartfelt sympathy the British government held for the besieged nationalist people.

[Reuben]

Zim, the situation facing Catholics in Northern Ireland was not simply an act of god, nor was it simply the consequence of amateur protestant sectarianism. Rather it arose out of conditions created by the British state - of which the British army were apart. The ability of the RUC to police Northern Ireland in a manner which did great violence to the catholic community - even prior to the movement of troops there - depended ultimately upon their physical backing by British military force.

[Enragé]

Soldiers are the victims as much as the oppressed though, I think.

(quote fixed, if you didnt mean that then explain how oppressors are victims)

They are, but they are also the ones who execute the occupation in practice, and as such they are legitimate targets of resistance groups (as opposed to civilian targets).

[YKTMX]

I think we obviously have to be critical of the pious "condemnations" of the politicians in Britain and the North of Ireland. These people, including Adams, don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to condemnation of random acts of violence. Also, we have a duty to support the cause of a United Ireland and for an end to the occupation and partition of that land.

However, Adams is right to the extent that these people genuinely do not have a strategy for bringing about an Irish Republic. Then again, of course, neither does he. Individual acts of terrorism are not going to unite Ireland. The solution has always been, and always will be, the unity of the working class in the North and the sweeping away of the partitionist creeps in the Dail.

[Zurdito]

It's threads like this that really make me feel like deleting my account here.

Feel free!

As for the less ridiculous objections raised than the "democratic process" one (democratic process with British miltiary bases on your land, hmmm): no I don't think individualistic terrorism will free Ireland from British imperialism, but this doesn't strip communists of their responsibility to defend the right of an oppressed nation to resist the murderous yoke of British imperialism however they see fit, while arguing for a pro-working class and internationalist approach based on the mass movement.

[YKTMX]

Feel free!

As for the less ridiculous objections raised than the "democratic process" one (democratic process with British miltiary bases on your land, hmmm): no I don't think individualistic terrorism will free Ireland from British imperialism, but this doesn't strip communists of their responsibility to defend the right of an oppressed nation to resist the murderous yoke of British imperialism however they see fit, while arguing for a pro-working class and internationalist approach based on the mass movement.

I agree with this in principle, but it doesn't actually help us analyse the situation in this context. Armed struggle has been shown to be ineffective in this context. The Irish have been struggling for centuries, using both armed and "political" methods, and haven't been able to throw the British out, even when the rest of the Empire was crumbling.

Actions like this, in that context, just seem like acts of desperation and despair, not self-confident acts of "defence". Do these people really think the people of Northern Ireland want to restart the civil war on the same old lines? It won't happen. Let's be honest - if the IRA was to restart their armed campaign, it would likely be aimed AGAINST these people, not the British. Adams and McGuinness are totally bought off - if they were British Intelligence agents, they probably wouldn't act any differently than they do now.

It almost seems nostalgic, this action. It's a little bit...pathetic?

[Invader Zim]

The reason for deploying British troops in Ireland in '69 was clearly to contain a situation that was rapidly spiralling out of control. The defence of certain nationalist communities against loyalist pogroms that did take place was simply a by-product of this and not the result of the heartfelt sympathy the British government held for the besieged nationalist people.
If you are so sure, then doubtless you will be able to find documentary proof; if not, I'm going to stick with established history rather than dubious theories that, while compelling enough, are not supported by the sources.

[Hessian Peel]

I agree with this in principle, but it doesn't actually help us analyse the situation in this context. Armed struggle has been shown to be ineffective in this context. The Irish have been struggling for centuries, using both armed and "political" methods", and haven't been able to throw the British out, even when the rest of the Empire was crumbling.

Actions like this, in that context, just seem like acts of desperation and despair, not self-confident acts of "defence". Do these people really think the people of Northern Ireland want to restart the civil war on the same old lines? It won't happen. Let's be honest - if the IRA was to restart their armed campaign, it would likely be aimed AGAINST these people, not the British. Adams and McGuinness are totally bought off - if they were British Intelligence agents, they probably wouldn't act any differently than they do now.

It almost seems nostalgic, this action. It's a little bit...pathetic?

While I obviously can't speak for the people who are believed to be behind last night's attack I don't think they (RIRA, CIRA and others) believe that they are engaged in the same kind of armed struggle fought by the PIRA and the INLA for 3 or so decades. One would have to be completely delusional to think the same conditions exist now as existed then. I would imagine the reasoning behind such actions is that they could bring about such conditions by exposing the process of normalisation and the British agenda in general.

I personally disagree with this strategy as the Republican movement is currently in no position to fight the British state in any meaningful way. It will probably take a generation to rebuild a support base for Republican politics. There'll be plenty of fighting to do when the time comes.

[Cumannach]

If you are so sure, then doubtless you will be able to find documentary proof; if not, I'm going to stick with established history rather than dubious theories that, while compelling enough, are not supported by the sources.

:laugh:

The 'established history'! The British Empire was a civilizing force in world history right?:lol:

Man, what is it with you and the British Army?

[YKTMX]

While I obviously can't speak for the people who are believed to be behind last night's attack I don't think they (RIRA, CIRA and others) believe that they are engaged in the same kind of armed struggle fought by the PIRA and the INLA for 3 or so decades. One would have to be completely delusional to think the same conditions exist now as existed then. I would imagine the reasoning behind such actions is that they could bring about such conditions by exposing the process of normalisation and the British agenda in general.

I personally disagree with this strategy as the Republican movement is currently in no position to fight the British state in any meaningful way. It will probably take a generation to rebuild a support base for Republican politics. There'll be plenty of fighting to do when the time comes.

Well, either they think they are involved in the same fight or they think that they can use these tactics to bring about a situation in which that old fight is restarted (or at least its basic structures replicated). The 70's and 80's proved, conclusively, to anyone who was paying attention, that it's a fight that neither side can win. As such, it's irrational to engage in it or try and restart it.

But let's say your analysis is correct and that they are merely trying to interrupt the "normalisation" agenda of the partitionists. Surely they realise that actions like this do nothing of the sort? All it does is bring the only meaningful political force in the Republican communities in the North, Sinn Fein, closer to the British and the forces of Ulster Unionism. And it even allows them to look "justified" in doing so.

Do they think that weeks of Adams and McGuinness waffling on about "condemnation" and "violence" is going to do anything to win the nationalist communities to a more radical form of politics?

The Guardian article says that the splinter groups have been recruiting refugees from the PIRA recently. That's the best explanation I can see for this. People who are pissed off at the Sinn Fein/Ian Paisley consensus and express their anger in acts of completely pointless violence.

These people have no serious analysis.

[Zurdito]

The Irish have been struggling for centuries, using both armed and "political" methods, and haven't been able to throw the British out


:blink:

[YKTMX]

:blink:

Is that supposed to denote something meaningful?

[Invader Zim]

:laugh:

The 'established history'! The British Empire was a civilizing force in world history right?:lol:

Man, what is it with you and the British Army?


The 'established history'! Indeed, or rather the concensus of the existing historiography.


The British Empire was a civilizing force in world history rightWhere did I say that? You seem to be having enough trouble addressing what I do say, so I would advise you cease inventing positions and attributing them to me: you will only confuse yourself further.


Man, what is it with you and the British Army?
Camo makes me hard.

[Hessian Peel]

Well, either they think they are involved in the same fight or they think that they can use these tactics to bring about a situation in which that old fight is restarted (or at least its basic structures replicated). The 70's and 80's proved, conclusively, to anyone who was paying attention, that it's a fight that neither side can win. As such, it's irrational to engage in it or try and restart it.

But let's say your analysis is correct and that they are merely trying to interrupt the "normalisation" agenda of the partitionists. Surely they realise that actions like this do nothing of the sort? All it does is bring the only meaningful political force in the Republican communities in the North, Sinn Fein, closer to the British and the forces of Ulster Unionism. And it even allows them to look "justified" in doing so.

Do they think that weeks of Adams and McGuinness waffling on about "condemnation" and "violence" is going to do anything to win the nationalist communities to a more radical form of politics?

The Guardian article says that the splinter groups have been recruiting refugees from the PIRA recently. That's the best explanation I can see for this. People who are pissed off at the Sinn Fein/Ian Paisley consensus and express their anger in acts of completely pointless violence.

These people have no serious analysis.

Again I can't speak for these people but one doesn't just attack a British military base with automatic weapons, facing life imprisonment or death, because one is pissed off at the SF leadership or whatever. It was clearly well planned and if there has been an influx of Provo refugees then that could signal an increased capacity for these groups to carry out successful attacks and I wouldn't write it off as just another desperate act by a 'disgruntled splinter group'.

[Hessian Peel]

RTE News claims the 'Real' IRA have claimed responsibility:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0308/massereene.html

[Dóchas]

only a few people know those codewords so it must have been them :(

[Zurdito]

Is that supposed to denote something meaningful?

what other reaction to:


The Irish have been struggling for centuries, using both armed and "political" methods, and haven't been able to throw the British out


could there be but: :blink:?

[Cumannach]

...

"The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class."

'Established History' is pro-capitalist imperialist apologetics. How did you find your way onto a leftist forum if it's only the 'established' consensus which sways you?

You just seem to pop up everywhere to defend the British Army, in Dresden, in the Falklands, in Northern Ireland etc. The British Army are imperialist scum. Sure, sympathy for the soldiers families, but engage in criminal imperialist adventures and you risk paying the price.

[StalinFanboy]

It's threads like this that really make me feel like deleting my account here.
A bunch of 15 year old middle-class armchair warriors with no respect for any democratic processes. Just a commitment to "lol imperialism revolution"
Cool story bro.


I really can't take people seriously when they say things like "A bunch of 15 year old middle-class..." Perhaps when you can come up with a decent argument against what these guys did, then you can post it?


Although, this is kinda funny coming from an anarchist... LOL REFORM!

[coda]

<<<Here we go again´- more bleedin nationalist claptrap from so called socialists. Who cares a stuff about a united ireland and what the friggin hell has it got to do with communism anyway. Its a pathetic joke. A bourgeois wet dream for romantic reactionaries. Stuff Ireland, Stuff the UK. Down with the nation state and nationalist ideology in all its guises. For Communism!>>>

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/12.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/12.htm)
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/race/lenin_ireland.htm (http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/race/lenin_ireland.htm)

Lenin supported small nationalist Irish rebellions:

"To imagine that social revolution is conceivable without revolts by small nations in the colonies and in Europe, without revolutionary outbursts by a section of the petty bourgeoisie WITHOUT ALL ITS PREJUDICES [italics in original], without a movement of the politically non-conscious proletarian and semi-proletarian masses against oppression by the landowners, the church, and the monarchy, against national oppression, etc.--to imagine all this is to REPUDIATE SOCIAL REVOLUTION. So one army lines up in one place and says, "We are for socialism", and another, somewhere else and says, "We are for imperialism", and that will be a social revolution! Only those who hold such a ridiculously pedantic view would vilify the Irish rebellion by calling it a "putsch".


Trotsky:
"The experiment of an Irish national rebellion, in which Casement [a nationalist leader, LP] represented, with undoubted personal courage, the outworn hopes and methods of the past, is over and done with. But the historical role of the Irish proletariat is only beginning."


Castro and Che supported the IRA's guerilla warfare.

and then there is James Connelly, participant in the Easter rising...

all this would point to a consistent communist party line.

[skki]

...so you're saying imperialism is ok in other words?
facepalm

[skki]

Alright. Let's put this in simpler terms. The Northern Irish are periodically given a vote on whether or not they want to stay in the union. They have consistently voted yes. So what right do you dipshits have to drag them kicking and screaming to a Republic they clearly don't want to join?

Bonus points if you can answer without whining about something totally irrelevant that happened back in the 70's.

[PRC-UTE]

Ireland is a landmass, not a country

up till some of her majesty's bureaucrats in London re-drew some lines on the map of Ireland (after carefully selecting which areas to leave out to ensure a unionist majority) everyone including the Brits and Unionists regarded Ireland as one political unit.

[Zurdito]

Alright. Let's put this in simpler terms. The Northern Irish are periodically given a vote on whether or not they want to stay in the union. They have consistently voted yes. So what right do you dipshits have to drag them kicking and screaming to a Republic they clearly don't want to join?

Bonus points if you can answer without whining about something totally irrelevant that happened back in the 70's.

"Northern Irish" is not a nation though, is it? Irish is a nation, one which overwhelmingly favours united independence from Britain, and one broken up and divided by British imperialism and colonisation. A process which has then been used as a self-justifying pretext for keeping hold of part of the country, subjecting the Catholic minority to a system of apartheid, and letting the Irish nation as a whole (whether in the north or south) "know its place" - i.e. under British domination.

Presumably you support the right of Santa Cruz to cede from Bolivia too, using your own logic. Or how about "Israel's right to exist".:rolleyes:

[PRC-UTE]

As legitimate as Palestine, North Vietnam and North Korea... all of which you guys appear to have sympathies with.

These countries are/were illegally partitioned by the imperialists, as Ireland was. There was huge sympathy among republicans for the Vietnamese to expel the imperialists and reunite their country.

in other words, it doesn't help you to mention those examples

[Dr Mindbender]

Alright. Let's put this in simpler terms. The Northern Irish are periodically given a vote on whether or not they want to stay in the union. They have consistently voted yes. So what right do you dipshits have to drag them kicking and screaming to a Republic they clearly don't want to join?

Bonus points if you can answer without whining about something totally irrelevant that happened back in the 70's.


The point is moot. The orange statelet was created by seperating the communities by the british govt in order to ensure the so called 'democratic' process appeared to operate in their favour.

I suggest you look up the term 'gerrymandering'.

Secondly, your point is completely ignorant of the internal political situation within Northern Ireland (especially that of working class areas). Support for the republican movement has been and is still met by violence from loyalist death squads. You cant operate a democratic process in a climate of fear and intimidation.

[Zurdito]

Support for the republican movement has been and is still met by violence from loyalist death squads. You cant operate a democratic process in a climate of fear and intimidation.

Not to mention the Protestant dominated police, and British army.

[PRC-UTE]

Im going to stick my neck out hear and say that 32 county repubnlicanism should not be seen as the only solution acceptable to socialists. Our starting point has to be that Northern Ireland contains two legitimate national communities. Norther Irish protestants are not simply an apendage of British imperialism. Meanwhile, NI today is very different to the place it was in the 60s and 70s Trying to establish solution which considers the feelings fears and aspirations of both communities is arguably most likely to engender a future in which politics cetnres on the kinds of issues that socialists really want to be fighting on.

Not only is this fairly utopian and abstract, it's reactionary. There is no justifiable grounds for socialists to argue that sectarianism and racism should become the permanent social/political pillars of Irish society, north or south. The entire problem with the six county state is that its built on sectarian headcounts.

what concerns the Unionists primarily is maintaining their sectarian privilages over the Catholic/nationalist population. consider that when you are going on about their 'fears and aspirations'. you can claim the PUL popluation are more than an apegdage of imperialism if you want to (and I would like to see that change in their identity come about) but the fact is they don't want self-determination as you seem to be arguing- they want the reverse in fact.

our task is to win over both nationalists and unionists to a program of universal emancipation, not become apologists for another colonial statelet.

[skki]

"Northern Irish" is not a nation though, is it? Irish is a nation, one which overwhelmingly favours united independence from Britain, and one broken up and divided by British imperialism and colonisation. A process which has then been used as a self-justifying pretext for keeping hold of part of the country, subjecting the Catholic minority to a system of apartheid, and letting the Irish nation as a whole (whether in the north or south) "know its place" - i.e. under British domination.

Presumably you support the right of Santa Cruz to cede from Bolivia too, using your own logic. Or how about "Israel's right to exist".:rolleyes:
No. The borders of practically every country have been created by Imperialism in some form. Ireland isn't special. So even though people in California, New Mexico etc wish to remain part of the US, shouldn't they just be forced back to Mexico anyway? Shouldnt Persia be forcefully reformed as well? And whilst we're at it, what do Scotland and Wales think they're doing with their own parliaments? Before Roman imperialism it was just "Britannia". What rights do Austria and Hungary have to exist independent of one another etc etc etc. Borders change and new countries are formed, all over the world, all the time.

And I think Israel does have a "right" to exist. I don't think they have a right to destroy Palestinian homes, and generally oppress the ethnic population. We wont disagree that the forceful creation of Israel and the divide of Ireland were the result of enourmous wrongdoings. But they have been done now. Israel exists, as does Northern Ireland. In the same way that any other state exists. And we have to find a way to work with that. We can't just revert everything back to the way it was 100 years ago, regardless of the opinions of the affected populances.

And I would support Santa Cruz seceeding is that's what the residents want. It's called free will.

By your logic, if the Scottish vote to have independece from Britain. the British should be able to pull them back in.

[PRC-UTE]

An interesting stereotype. Perhaps we should apply the same logic to the IRSP and call all its members gangsters?



Indeed, the factionalism among Irish Republican groups is a joke. Literally:

gb_qHP7VaZE

actually there's been more republican unity in the past few years. the IRSP, RNU and 32CSM are working together through the Republican Forum for Unity. We hope eirigi will eventually participate. if you stop indulging in stereotypes you might learn something ;)



Actually, British troops were sent into the North, not to prevent a revolution by republicans, but to protect Catholics from Loyalist paramilitaries. One of the troubles more tragic ironies really.

haha, you actually believe that?

the Brits came to the six counties to prop up the unionist regime and protect their colonial presence. if your bourgeois line on the Troubles was correct, than the Brits would not have focused on smashing the Civil Rights Movement at all.

[PRC-UTE]

This is hilarious. Practically every state is created through invasion and violence. Why do you think the middle eastern countries have such straight borders? Because they were chopped up and partitioned by invading forces. As was all of the Americas shaped by the Europeans colonialists. All of Africa as well.

Surely you're well aware that most Leftists would have sympathy with the movements in Africa and Latin America that want to restore self determination to those people and liberate them from exploitation and poverty (even if we dont approve of the particular groups carrying out those struggles). Or are you just taking the piss?



Scotland is essentially just the part of Britain that the Romans didn't invade.

leaving aside that there's more to Scotland's origins than that, we're not so concerned with the particular origins of any state or nation but how they are ruled now. as well as accomplishing the tasks that will help build working class unity. I think it's obvious that getting rid of an undemocratic sectarian state is an essential step.

[Cumannach]

Borders change and new countries are formed, all over the world, all the time.



Well if state borders are all just the result of happenstance and chance and are endlessly chopped up and changed, why not make the six counties part of Ireland? They're on the same island, it would seem like common sense. It would make as much sense to make Yorkshire a part of the Republic of Munster as to bundle six Irish counties into a state with Britain.

[Pogue]

Well if state borders are all just the result of happenstance and chance and are endlessly chopped up and changed, why not make the six counties part of Ireland? They're on the same island, it would seem like common sense. It would make as much sense to make Yorkshire a part of the Republic of Munster as to bundle six Irish counties into a state with Britain.

Thats good bit of logic there, I like it.

[skki]

Well if state borders are all just the result of happenstance and chance and are endlessly chopped up and changed, why not make the six counties part of Ireland? They're on the same island, it would seem like common sense. It would make as much sense to make Yorkshire a part of the Republic of Munster as to bundle six Irish counties into a state with Britain.
I couldn't care less about the geographical location. If people have to be governed, they should be able to choose who governs them.

And why not indeed.

[Wanted Man]

So I guess that makes the practice of gerrymandering (because that's what it is) fine then. Especially when it's done at the gunpoint of one of the most powerful imperialist armies in the world.

[skki]

So I guess that makes the practice of gerrymandering (because that's what it is) fine then. Especially when it's done at the gunpoint of one of the most powerful imperialist armies in the world.
There hasn't been a gunpoint for decades. The army don't even patrol the streets in Northern Ireland anymore.

Your argument would have been fine in the 70's. Get with the times or shut up.

[skki]

Interesting bit of info just came up. Turns out these glorious republican freedom fighters also slaughtered a couple of pizza delivery men.

When was the last time the British armed forces in Northern Ireland killed as much as 2 innocent civilians on purpose? Long time ago eh?

[Zurdito]

No. The borders of practically every country have been created by Imperialism in some form. Ireland isn't special. So even though people in California, New Mexico etc wish to remain part of the US, shouldn't they just be forced back to Mexico anyway? Shouldnt Persia be forcefully reformed as well?And whilst we're at it, what do Scotland and Wales think they're doing with their own parliaments? Before Roman imperialism it was just "Britannia". What rights do Austria and Hungary have to exist independent of one another etc etc etc. Borders change and new countries are formed, all over the world, all the time.

...

We can't just revert everything back to the way it was 100 years ago, regardless of the opinions of the affected populances.


The point being that the affected populaces, the oppressed nations of Palestine and Ireland to use your examples, are fighting to free their lands from settler-led occupations. Either you are on the side of the real and existing struggles of oppressed nations for liberation or you console yourself with ridiculous abstract analogies about "Brittannia" and New Mexico, where last time I checked there is not an oppressed nation fighting for liberation.

In fact there is long over a century of argument within the communist movement about the issue of nations, if you had read any of it you wouldn't make ridiculous analogies like comparing Austria to Northern Ireland.



And I would support Santa Cruz seceeding is that's what the residents want. It's called free will.

I don't give a fuck about "free will". Imagine if Britain fell to a popular front government (as Bolivia's government is), and, say, Hertfordshire, one of the most wealthy and conservative parts of the country, declared it wanted autonomy and even independence, so that its inhabitants wouldn't have to share their wealth with less wealthy parts of the country. Imagine the inhabitants of Hertfordshire went around hounding anyone who supported the popular front. Imagine the whole of European and US imperialism and the dominant sectors of the British bourgeoisie were urging on the Hertfordshire seperatists as a means to teach a lesson to anyone trying to bring in mild reforms which may limit their interests.

You would support the "free will" of the good people of Hertfordshire?

Now replace "Britain" with "Bolivia" and "Hertfordshire" with "Santa Cruz", and you have the story.

If you support the Santa Cruz seperatists then you are on the other side of the class struggle, so don't come with ultra left crap about "anarcho communism" as some kind of cover for thoroughly bourgeois ideas like "free will", i.e. the will to keep your priveliges and retreat from any obligation to society.

[YKTMX]

Again I can't speak for these people but one doesn't just attack a British military base with automatic weapons, facing life imprisonment or death, because one is pissed off at the SF leadership or whatever. It was clearly well planned and if there has been an influx of Provo refugees then that could signal an increased capacity for these groups to carry out successful attacks and I wouldn't write it off as just another desperate act by a 'disgruntled splinter group'.

Successful in achieving what end? I have no doubt the RIRA will consider this attack, and the coverage it achieves, a "success". But it can only be considered successful if one thinks killing British soldiers in Northern Ireland is an end-in-itself. If they do, then I think they are grossly mistaken.

If they think it isn't an end-in-itself, then they must think it merely serves some greater purpose, the "truth" of which will be revealed in time. In which case, I think they will be proven to be mistaken.

------------------------------------------------------------

As for Zurdito: Although you can't explain yourself, you seem to be objecting to my claim that the Irish have struggled against British domination for centuries.

I don't see how this claim is controversial or warrants ":blink:".

But I'm sure you know what the hell you're on about, so I'll leave it at that.

(I have an inkling you might be thinking that Irish armed struggle began in the 1970's, but I know no comrade here is that stupid, so I'll dismiss it).

[Zurdito]

There hasn't been a gunpoint for decades. The army don't even patrol the streets in Northern Ireland anymore.

Your argument would have been fine in the 70's. Get with the times or shut up.

1.) He was talking about the act of partition, in 1921.
2.) Are you seriosuly arguing that the presence of the British state, one of the most militarily adavnced in the world, just off the coast of Ireland, and its troops within NI, have to influence on maintaining Ireland in a state of partition and the artificial majority in the north?

In which case, thanks for the :lol:.

[PRC-UTE]

Interesting bit of info just came up. Turns out these glorious republican freedom fighters also slaughtered a couple of pizza delivery men.

Which should obviously be condemned.

And all the more reason for the British occupiers to go or dismantle.



When was the last time the British armed forces in Northern Ireland killed as much as 2 innocent civilians on purpose? Long time ago eh?

well they usually preferred to do it through the loyalists. was convenient for portraying the conflict as a local dispute.

[Magdalen]

It's threads like this that really make me feel like deleting my account here.
A bunch of 15 year old middle-class armchair warriors with no respect for any democratic processes. Just a commitment to "lol imperialism revolution


A 15 year old middle-class armchair warrior like yourself, perhaps? At least some of the others here have a commitment to anti-imperialism and revolution, something you are severely lacking in. You wouldn't last five minutes on the ground in an oppressed country. Please, by all means, delete your account, or at the very least ask to be restricted. I doubt anyone will be sad to see the back of you.


Actually, British troops were sent into the North, not to prevent a revolution by republicans, but to protect Catholics from Loyalist paramilitaries. One of the troubles more tragic ironies really.

The bizarre line, which attempts to recognise some sort of progressive side of imperialism, is eerily similar to that taken by Socialist Worker in 1969. At the time, the then IS claimed that 'British troops will provide a short but vital breathing space' and that 'to say the immediate enemy in Ulster is British troops is incorrect'. Those who hold this line should remember that the first use of British troops in August 1969 was to support loyalist supremacy in maintaining the siege of Free Derry, at the behest of James Chichester-Clark, the head of the Orange government, before the Belfast pogrom was even underway.

[Zurdito]

As for Zurdito: Although you can't explain yourself, you seem to be objecting to my claim that the Irish have struggled against British domination for centuries.

I don't see how this claim is controversial or warrants ":blink:".

But I'm sure you know what the hell you're on about, so I'll leave it at that.

(I have an inkling you might be thinking that Irish armed struggle began in the 1970's, but I know no comrade here is that stupid, so I'll dismiss it).


Jesus H Christ.

I can explain myself but it is a little embarrassing to state widely known facts, especially on an internet forum.

My :blink: in response to your claim that:


The Irish have been struggling for centuries, using both armed and "political" methods, and haven't been able to throw the British out


can be explained simply by you looking at a map, noting that there is a little peice of land off the coast of Britain called "The Republic of Ireland", and asking yourself how it came into existence.

And yes, I am embarrassed to have just explained that.:confused:

[skki]

Too tired to do any more responding today. Until tomorrow, let us amuse ourselves with this little tidbit.



I don't give a fuck about "free will".

[YKTMX]

Jesus H Christ.

I can explain myself but it is a little embarrassing to state widely known facts, especially on an internet forum.

My :blink: in response to your claim that:


can be explained simply by you looking at a map, noting that there is a little peice of land off the coast of Britain called "The Republic of Ireland", and asking yourself how it came into existence.

And yes, I am embarrassed to have just explained that.:confused:

Haha, that's it? That's it?

I make a proposition: Irish armed struggle has failed to remove the British presence in Ireland.

You say: that's not true, they brought about the Republic of Ireland.

Do you know what a non-sequitur is, comrade?

All my initial statement claims is that there is still a British presence in Ireland, despite Irish struggle. Pointing out the existence of the Irish Republic doesn't relate, logically, to this initial statement. Unless you think "Ulster" is somehow not part of Ireland, which I know you don't.

Honest to God, people do insist on making themselves look foolish, don't they.

[Invader Zim]

"The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class."

'Established History' is pro-capitalist imperialist apologetics. How did you find your way onto a leftist forum if it's only the 'established' consensus which sways you?

You just seem to pop up everywhere to defend the British Army, in Dresden, in the Falklands, in Northern Ireland etc. The British Army are imperialist scum. Sure, sympathy for the soldiers families, but engage in criminal imperialist adventures and you risk paying the price.



'Established History' is pro-capitalist imperialist apologetics.

You are obviously ignorant of even basic historiographical traditions of the last half century, which has actually been dominated by leftwing historians such as E. P. Thompson, Christopher Hill, Maurice Dobb, Eric Hobsbawm, etc. In other words, established history is not necessarily establishment history.

So B for revolutionary sounding rhetoric, but as far as actual content goes: fail.


How did you find your way onto a leftist forum if it's only the 'established' consensus which sways you?

As shown above, established history does not equate establishment history.



You just seem to pop up everywhere to defend the British Army in Dresden, in the Falklands, in Northern Ireland etc.

Firstly the British Army had fuck all to do with the the Dresden bombing; that would be the air force, and at no point did I defend the bombing. So that is a lie you just told. As far as the Falkland issue goes, again, I have never 'supported' the British militaries involvement. So that is another lie. And please, if you think this thread shows I support the British army, quote me. If not, as I said before "You seem to be having enough trouble addressing what I do say, so I would advise you cease inventing positions and attributing them to me: you will only confuse yourself further."


Sure, sympathy for the soldiers families, but engage in criminal imperialist adventures and you risk paying the price.

Where did I say otherwise? To repeat myself (again): -

"You seem to be having enough trouble addressing what I do say, so I would advise you cease inventing positions and attributing them to me: you will only confuse yourself further."

[Zurdito]

Haha, that's it? That's it?

I make a proposition: Irish armed struggle has failed to remove the British presence in Ireland.

You say: that's not true, they brought about the Republic of Ireland.

Do you know what a non-sequitur is, comrade?

All my initial statement claims is that there is still a British presence in Ireland, despite Irish struggle. Pointing out the existence of the Irish Republic doesn't relate, logically, to this initial statement. Unless you think "Ulster" is somehow not part of Ireland, which I know you don't.

Honest to God, people do insist on making themselves look foolish, don't they.

:rolleyes: I think the fact that armed and ideological struggle managed to create an Irish Republic is a pretty good reputation of the point you were trying to make. Go tell the 4.5 million people south of the border it was futile.

[Zurdito]

Too tired to do any more responding today. Until tomorrow, let us amuse ourselves with this little tidbit.


Who is the "us" exactly?

Now I think that "we", i.e. everyone on the forum but you, can genuinely amuse ourselves with the following:



And I would support Santa Cruz seceeding is that's what the residents want. It's called free will.


Next stop, independence for Hertfordshire!

[YKTMX]

:rolleyes: I think the fact that armed and ideological struggle managed to create an Irish Republic is a pretty good reputation of the point you were trying to make. Go tell the 4.5 million people south of the border it was futile.

Why don't you stick to "refuting" the points I do make, rather than the points you think I was "trying" to make. Armed struggle has failed to end the British presence in Ireland. That is a sad fact. Why don't we just leave it at that, because this is a wee bit ridiculous?

[Zurdito]

[quote]Why don't you stick to "refuting" the points I do make, rather than the points you think I was "trying" to make. Armed struggle has failed to end the British presence in Ireland.

That is not a point, it is a truism. A point is an argument.

So which argument are you trying to make? That it armed struggle has been futile in the history of the Irish nation's struggle against British imperialism? Because I think the existence of a formally independent republic of 4.5 million Irish, refutes that fact.


Why don't we just leave it at that, because this is a wee bit ridiculous?

I don't think anything I have said has been ridiculous, to be honest.

[YKTMX]

[quote=YKTMX;1379810]

That is not a point, it is a truism. A point is an argument.

So which argument are you trying to make? That it armed struggle has been futile in the history of the Irish nation's struggle against British imperialism? Because I think the existence of a formally independent republic of 4.5 million Irish, refutes that fact.



I don't think anything I have said has been ridiculous, to be honest.

I didn't say "futile", though. I don't think it has been "futile". I said that it has been ineffective in its stated goal (a United Ireland). The "point" was that we should abandon ineffective tactics. Now, to be clear, the tactics of Adams and McGuinness are worse, and just as ineffective. But a simple return to tactics that we know cannot work is completely reactionary and hopeless.

[manic expression]

You are obviously ignorant of even basic historiographical traditions of the last half century, which has actually been dominated by leftwing historians such as E. P. Thompson, Christopher Hill, Maurice Dobb, Eric Hobsbawm, etc. In other words, established history is not necessarily establishment history.

Marxian historians are prominent and influential, but there is far more to it than that. In areas which are crucial to the ruling class, you can be quite sure that reactionary and anti-socialist views will be pervasive. The fact that Robert Conquest is still seen as a valid source by many eastern european "scholars" is enough to prove this. Even when "Marxian" analyses are employed, it's done in an almost eccentric manner. Abu-Lughod is a good example of this: economic factors are considered, but factors they remain.

Also, academics routinely reduce (read: distort) Marxism to the most simplistic parameters, making it easier to reject and deride. From personal experience, I've talked to "Marxist academics" who enthusiastically support Barack Obama and engage in the most putrid sorts of identity politics. Likewise, I can't even keep count of the times a professor has, after blatantly misrepresenting Marxism, made some smirking insult against it.

Lastly, the history of Marxism in academia, at least in the US, isn't too encouraging. Any pro-Soviet or pro-communist voice was banished from academia during the late 40's and 50's, and by the 70's, "radical" ideologies, which were also anti-socialist, came to dominate the academic left.

So in conclusion, I agree that Marxism does have an influence on academia (and history in particular), but it's clear that that influence is marginalized and weakened in many ways. I admit that the US is most likely more hostile to socialism than elsewhere, but the point still stands.

On edit: Let me say that in most cases, I find that the Marxist perspective is usually introduced by a historian when s/he makes conclusions or presents possible answers on the "why" of history. This could be fair enough, I suppose, but these historians will usually reject the Marxist view, ultimately opting for another. The real issue here is that the Marxist perspective is, typically enough, usually watered-down and trivialized to the point of meaninglessness, allowing the academic to feel justified in taking a more "nuanced" position. For example, a history of the crusades would present the "Marxist view" to see the crusades as proto-imperialism, which is just a cheap stereotype of what the academic thinks a Marxist would say. Further, in cases in which socialism is analyzed (the USSR, etc.), the issue is often focused upon liberal assumptions of "freedom", "liberty" and the like, disallowing any serious materialist analysis. Again, there are exceptions, but I find these patterns to be quite widespread.

[Vanguard1917]

A return to armed struggle is not on the agenda. That period in Irish history is over, along with the mass anti-imperialist movements and the international circumstances that gave rise to it. Like Bernadette McAliskey said, 'The war is over and the good guys lost.' But i don't see how the fact that the IRA lost the war shows in itself that the armed struggle is 'ineffective'. If workers in a factory lose a strike, does that in itself mean that striking is ineffective? The IRA lost the war because of a complex combination of a number of international and domestic factors.

[Zurdito]

I didn't say "futile", though. I don't think it has been "futile". I said that it has been ineffective in its stated goal (a United Ireland). The "point" was that we should abandon ineffective tactics. Now, to be clear, the tactics of Adams and McGuinness are worse, and just as ineffective. But a simple return to tactics that we know cannot work is completely reactionary and hopeless.

Futile, ineffective, I think for the sake of this argument it's the same: you were saying that in centuries of oppression of Ireland by Britian, armed struggle has proved "ineffective" at getting the British out. But yet armed struggle forced the British out of the great majority of the island and gave formal poltiical independence to 4.5 million Irish. So I stand by my :blink: in response to the claim that armed struggle by the Irish against the British has been ineffective. Sorry if you see that as petty and ridiculous, I don't, I simply strongly disagree with you and think your position is quite amazing.

Also let me add that nowhere did I say I support terrorist actions, jsut that communists must defend the right of oppressed nations to resist however they see fit by opposing any actions against them by the oppressor state, while arguing for them to take on a working class and internationalist strategy.

[Yazman]

I stand corrected on the DPRK then.

Good, glad to know you've come around :)


As the the Palestine thing you've missed what I was getting at. Palestine is a legitimate state, just like Northern Ireland.

Well, I don't particularly know enough about the situation with Ireland in order to make an accurate judgment. Although it doesn't seem to me that Northern Ireland's situation is similar to that of Palestine; the people of Palestine have struggled to establish their own legitimacy in the face of an occupying force which really bears no legitimacy outside of theocratic drivel. From what I know the idea of a unified Ireland is a good one that I would support, although I don't know enough to really say what I support either way. It would be good to have more people shed light on this subject.

[Invader Zim]

The bizarre line, which attempts to recognise some sort of progressive side of imperialism, is eerily similar to that taken by Socialist Worker in 1969. At the time, the then IS claimed that 'British troops will provide a short but vital breathing space' and that 'to say the immediate enemy in Ulster is British troops is incorrect'. Those who hold this line should remember that the first use of British troops in August 1969 was to support loyalist supremacy in maintaining the siege of Free Derry, at the behest of James Chichester-Clark, the head of the Orange government, before the Belfast pogrom was even underway.

It isn't a 'bizarre' line at all; the people, according to you the socialist worker, and the scholarly literature from the period made the exact same observation: -

"Heightened tensions and Ultra [Unionists] attacks on civil rights marchers and minority neighborhoods brought major systemic (British) intervention in August 1969,"

Paul F. Power, 'Civil Protest in Northern Ireland' Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1972), p. 224.

And historians have drawn the same conclusions: -

"In August 1969, however, the sustained and vicious rioting which had occured [...] destroyed Westminister's convention of non-intervention in Northern Ireland affairs"

J. Brian Garrett, 'Ten Years of British Troops in Northern Ireland', International Security, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Winter, 1979-1980), p. 85.

Similar conclusions wre draw in Ronald Weitzer, 'Policing a Divided Society: Obstacles to Normalization in Northern Ireland', Social Problems, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Oct., 1985). Robert W. White and Terry Falkenberg, suggest that the British military was sent to Ireland, to quell violence from both sides. White, Falkenberg, 'Repression and the Liberal State: The Case of Northern Ireland, 1969-1972', The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), p. 344.

The fact of the matter is, whatever role the British forces took post arrival doesn't alter the fact that prior to August 1969 the British government had a policy of ignoring Northern Ireland, and that the spur for sending British troops to Northern Ireland was the spate of anti-Catholic violence, which came as a reaction to the civil rights movement. The catholic population knew it, and treated the arriving troops with gifts and gratitude; the Socialist Worker, as you have shown, knew it; and neutral academics from out side of both Britain and Ireland knew it.

As for the fact that the British troops also acted as peace keepers, which was their initial mandate, in the face of Republican violence, that hardly contradicts the point.


The fact that Robert Conquest is still seen as a valid source by many eastern european "scholars" is enough to prove this.

Right-wing historians aren't necessarily bad historians. People still take Conquest seriously because his opponents are just as bias, and just as liable to dismiss certain types of evidence as he is. J. Arch Getty, whom the Stalini... sorry 'Anti-revisionists' ... love, is utterly dismissive of any kind of evidence that appears outside of the archives. Put blunty, he takes the view that if it wasn't written down at the time it didn't happen. It doesn't make for a compelling case, when you have numerous eye witnesses all saying in memoirs, and interviews that 'x' did indeed happen. While I'm not saying Conquest's work is smashing stuff, I actually disagree with his conclusions, he isn't a David Irving.

[YKTMX]

Also let me add that nowhere did I say I support terrorist actions, jsut that communists must defend the right of oppressed nations to resist however they see fit by opposing any actions against them by the oppressor state, while arguing for them to take on a working class and internationalist strategy.

I fail to see how, on any level, the actions of, at most, 150 dissident Republicans can be equated with the "rights of a nation" to self-defence. These people don't represent the Irish nation, north or south. The people of Ireland have "representatives" - they don't want to be represented by disgruntled gunmen with misty eyes about the "good old days" of knee-capping and internment.

[Zurdito]

I fail to see how, on any level, the actions of, at most, 150 dissident Republicans can be equated with the "rights of a nation" to self-defence.

Yes it's obvious you "fail to see" it. That's not my problem though, you obviously have the time and resources, so go read some Lenin or Trotsky on the matter if you want to know the standard communist position on oppressed nations and resistance movements (with or without majority support). I am not saying this as an insult, but 100% serious: it would be a much better use of your time than looking for the answer here.

[BOZG]

According to the RIRA statement, apparently the pizza delivery men were collaborating with British imperialism by servicing British soldiers. What fucking fantasy land are they living in?

[YKTMX]

Yes it's obvious you "fail to see" it. That's not my problem though, you obviously have the time and resources, so go read some Lenin or Trotsky on the matter if you want to know the standard communist position on oppressed nations and resistance movements (with or without majority support). I am not saying this as an insult, but 100% serious: it would be a much better use of your time than looking for the answer here.

The arguments of Lenin and Trotsky on the right of nations to self-determine and the communist position on movements demanding that right don't apply in this case. You have failed to show how it does - apart from repeating like its some kind of mantra that such a right exists.

I do not need you to convince me that this right exists. I accepted that it exists in my very first post.

What I am disputing is that these groups, who have no support amongst the Irish people and have no prospect for success, are excercising that right. It's completely unreal and fantastical to describe these groups, whose membership is not about 150 and probably less tha that, as representing, on any level, the "Irish" nation. If you want to show how, despite their miniscule numbers and non-existent chances of success, they represent "Ireland", then be my guess.

The fact that rather than dealing with this point you have resorted to pathetic attempts to patronize me tells me that you either a) can't answer this point, or b) can't understand it.

[FreeFocus]

I support the right of oppressed nations and oppressed people to resist.

And if that's true, BOZG, they are insane. The people were delivering pizza for fuck's sake.

[Zurdito]

[quote]What I am disputing is that these groups, who have no support amongst the Irish people and have no prospect for success, are excercising that right.

Then you still don't understand the issue, simple.


The fact that rather than dealing with this point you have resorted to pathetic attempts to patronize me tells me that you either a) can't answer this point, or b) can't understand it

I haven't patronised anyone. If you aren't getting anything form the discussion, leave it, I am not obliged to answer every silly objection you can think up.



My advice to you stands, because for all your protestations that you get the argument, I think that, just like the one on armed struggle which you gave up trying to defend, you simply don't get this one either - because if you did you wouldn't keep repeating the line you are.

I don't think trying to explain, to you, in my own words, or digging up quotes, over this particular medium, is worth my time in this particular case.

I think the best thing you can do to find out the refutation of your position is to read Lenin or Trotsky on the matter. It is in an honest peice of advice and not attempt to "win" any "battle". It is up to you to take the advice or not, it isn't my problem if you don't.

[YKTMX]

"If you aren't getting anything form the discussion, leave it, I am not obliged to answer every silly objection you can think up.


That's fine, although as I remember it, we were initially discussing this because you disputed my claim that armed action had failed to remove the British presence from Ireland (a gold-plated, empirical fact).

I have read Lenin and Trotsky. I know their opinions on this subject and I agree with them. If you take a look, you'll see I have a long history of defending national liberation and anti-imperialism on this board, sometimes in the face of criticism.

But, for the reasons I've stated over and over again, they are peripheral in this context. This group can have no serious claim to speak for the Irish nation and doesn't have the ability to defend it or to liberate it. That is also a fact.

You obviously lack the tools to analyse the situation beyond repeating mantras that I've already said I accept. Just to be clear though: repeating Lenin is not Leninism. If you understood the first thing about Leninism, and it tooks its tenets seriously, you would understand that Leninism is the practical application of principles to concrete historical circumstances.

You've completely failed to do this in this case.

[Killfacer]

According to the RIRA statement, apparently the pizza delivery men were collaborating with British imperialism by servicing British soldiers. What fucking fantasy land are they living in?

I heard that. So now a polish immigrant working for pizza hut is a collaborator with the British army. Oh dear. Some justification for shooting someone.

[manic expression]

Right-wing historians aren't necessarily bad historians. People still take Conquest seriously because his opponents are just as bias, and just as liable to dismiss certain types of evidence as he is. J. Arch Getty, whom the Stalini... sorry 'Anti-revisionists' ... love, is utterly dismissive of any kind of evidence that appears outside of the archives. Put blunty, he takes the view that if it wasn't written down at the time it didn't happen. It doesn't make for a compelling case, when you have numerous eye witnesses all saying in memoirs, and interviews that 'x' did indeed happen. While I'm not saying Conquest's work is smashing stuff, I actually disagree with his conclusions, he isn't a David Irving.

Conquest didn't just have a bias, he oftentimes relied primarily on memoirs and works of fiction to form his view of many historical events. Memoirs aren't themselves bad, but using them to formulate the basis of a historical argument is just absurd, especially when that argument often directly contradicts what's in the archives. Further, his conclusions, based on a lot of suspect scholarship, are widely accepted. I've had a professor openly admit that most of Conquest's work is outdated, and soon after promptly parrot everything he had to say about the Soviet Union. This is ignoring the fact that someone like Alan Dershowitz makes Conquest look like a regular Pliny the Elder, and not surprisingly, both find acceptance in academia.

I'm not trying to equate you with Conquest at all, I'm just saying Conquest's continued acceptance in academia shows very strong and stubborn anti-socialist tendencies, tendencies which far overshadow (and condemn) the influence of Marxism. In addition, I find academic "Marxism" to be watered-down, token, misrepresented and, well, academic, and the underlying problems with this is explained in my last post.

On Conquest's opponents, I think everyone has a bias, and there's no getting around that. At the same time, we can at least have an honest and forthcoming discussion about what happened and what it means, which is what academia pats itself on the back for doing. The problem is this doesn't happen, and most Soviet historians instead retain a hatred for the Soviet Union. This isn't an environment of learning and knowledge, it's an agenda, and that's the real issue.

On Getty, I think his work is so important because it was the first time a historian actually deviated from accepted Cold War mythology with some success. His work isn't perfect, and I doubt any work on something like the purges COULD be perfect, but he undermined a lot of (incredibly false) assumptions about Stalin and the USSR which were untouchable for decades, and that is why he is cited by defenders of the Soviet Union.

[Cumannach]

It isn't a 'bizarre' line at all; the people, according to you the socialist worker, and the scholarly literature from the period made the exact same observation: -


It's not a bizarre line for say, a bourgeois liberal.



"Heightened tensions and Ultra [Unionists] attacks on civil rights marchers and minority neighborhoods brought major systemic (British) intervention in August 1969,"

Paul F. Power, 'Civil Protest in Northern Ireland' Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1972), p. 224.

And historians have drawn the same conclusions: -

"In August 1969, however, the sustained and vicious rioting which had occured [...] destroyed Westminister's convention of non-intervention in Northern Ireland affairs"

J. Brian Garrett, 'Ten Years of British Troops in Northern Ireland', International Security, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Winter, 1979-1980), p. 85.

Similar conclusions wre draw in Ronald Weitzer, 'Policing a Divided Society: Obstacles to Normalization in Northern Ireland', Social Problems, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Oct., 1985). Robert W. White and Terry Falkenberg, suggest that the British military was sent to Ireland, to quell violence from both sides. White, Falkenberg, 'Repression and the Liberal State: The Case of Northern Ireland, 1969-1972', The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), p. 344.


Wow, what an impressive array of objective established scholarship. I'm convinced.




Right-wing historians aren't necessarily bad historians. People still take Conquest seriously because his opponents are just as bias, and just as liable to dismiss certain types of evidence as he is. J. Arch Getty, whom the Stalini... sorry 'Anti-revisionists' ... love, is utterly dismissive of any kind of evidence that appears outside of the archives. Put blunty, he takes the view that if it wasn't written down at the time it didn't happen. It doesn't make for a compelling case, when you have numerous eye witnesses all saying in memoirs, and interviews that 'x' did indeed happen. While I'm not saying Conquest's work is smashing stuff, I actually disagree with his conclusions, he isn't a David Irving.

Some of the things you come out with make more sense now.

[StalinFanboy]

No. The borders of practically every country have been created by Imperialism in some form. Ireland isn't special. So even though people in California, New Mexico etc wish to remain part of the US, shouldn't they just be forced back to Mexico anyway? Shouldnt Persia be forcefully reformed as well? And whilst we're at it, what do Scotland and Wales think they're doing with their own parliaments? Before Roman imperialism it was just "Britannia". What rights do Austria and Hungary have to exist independent of one another etc etc etc. Borders change and new countries are formed, all over the world, all the time.

And I think Israel does have a "right" to exist. I don't think they have a right to destroy Palestinian homes, and generally oppress the ethnic population. We wont disagree that the forceful creation of Israel and the divide of Ireland were the result of enourmous wrongdoings. But they have been done now. Israel exists, as does Northern Ireland. In the same way that any other state exists. And we have to find a way to work with that. We can't just revert everything back to the way it was 100 years ago, regardless of the opinions of the affected populances.

And I would support Santa Cruz seceeding is that's what the residents want. It's called free will.

By your logic, if the Scottish vote to have independece from Britain. the British should be able to pull them back in.
Are you sure you're an anarchist?

[Redmau5]

Interesting bit of info just came up. Turns out these glorious republican freedom fighters also slaughtered a couple of pizza delivery men.

The pizza delivery men weren't "slaughtered", they were injured.

[Invader Zim]

Conquest didn't just have a bias, he oftentimes relied primarily on memoirs and works of fiction to form his view of many historical events.

The bulk of the Conquest was writing was in a period before the opening of the Soviet Archives. Criticising him for writing a history, based on memnory, when that was the only source available is somewhat harsh. He now claims, I suspect wrongly, that the archival evidence now available to him proves his old arguments correct.


Memoirs aren't themselves bad, but using them to formulate the basis of a historical argument is just absurd, especially when that argument often directly contradicts what's in the archives.I don't think that is necessarily fair. Archival material is regularly incomplete, misleading, or plain wrong. The example of the numbers in the Soviet Penal System during the Great Purges is a case and point.


Further, his conclusions, based on a lot of suspect scholarship, are widely accepted.That is because, as stated, there is little better available.


I've had a professor openly admit that most of Conquest's work is outdated, and soon after promptly parrot everything he had to say about the Soviet Union.And your professor is, without doubt, absolutely correct. The bulk of Conquest's work is out of date, and was rendered so with the opening of the Soviet Archives. However your professor is not wrong to employ Conquest in lectures and seminars. He puts forward a view typical (if a little extreme) of one side of the historiographical coin, and would be negligent not to outline it.

The fact is that neither Getty, Conquest, Wheatcroft or any of the others who debate the number of Soviet victims are going to have the last word; there isn't enough uncompromised or complete evidence to point to put the issue to rest.


This is ignoring the fact that someone like Alan Dershowitz makes Conquest look like a regular Pliny the Elder, and not surprisingly, both find acceptance in academia.Alan Dershowitz, if it is the same person I am thinking of, is a lawyer (O.J. trial, right?) not a historian. While doubtless accepted by the scholars of law, I can't imagine him pulling much weight as an academic historian except in the esoteric field of legal history.


I'm just saying Conquest's continued acceptance in academia shows very strong and stubborn anti-socialist tendencies, tendencies which far overshadow (and condemn) the influence of Marxism.I disagree. People like Conquest have their followers, to be sure. However the bulk of the historical profession, especially in the UK is made up of leftwingers of various degrees. In my view, which is of course just my own, these neo-conservative historians are few and far between.


The problem is this doesn't happen, and most Soviet historians instead retain a hatred for the Soviet Union.I don't think that is true knowing a few, sure that might be the case in Stanford, but there is more to academica than Conquest. And simply because his views are accepted, if disagreed with, does not mean that historians 'hate' the Soviet Union.


His work isn't perfect, and I doubt any work on something like the purges COULD be perfect, but he undermined a lot of (incredibly false) assumptions about Stalin and the USSR which were untouchable for decades, and that is why he is cited by defenders of the Soviet Union.His work certainly isn't perfect. As stated, like Conquest, he dismissed evidence that doesn't lend itself to his conclusions. In the begninning of the Origins of the Great Purges Getty basically, with a few words to sweeten what is a very sour attack, says that history, especially of the USSR, that doesn't primarily employ archival material is worthless. To quote Getty, employing memory as a historical source results in “Grand analytical generalisations” which are derived from “secondhand [sic] bits of overheard corridor gossip.” Furthermore, Getty has described such study as “history-by-anecdote” and described such sources as “rumour”. That all appears on page five if you are interested.

As I am interested in history from below, providing the "multitudes" ignored in the archives with a voice, I have to say I'm not a fan of this 'Eltionian' nonsense.


It's not a bizarre line for say, a bourgeois liberal.

Ah yes, the fine tactic of attacking an opponent's character rather than their points, coupled with an attempt at cutting sarcasm; and my, you even used a long word! I'm impressed, really. Reading your posts, I assumed you hadn't quite reached these great heights of intellectual maturity, and were still striking your opponents down with the time honoured internet come back, "No, your mum! Roflz lol.!!!1!"


Wow, what an impressive array of objective established scholarship. I'm convinced.If you disagree I await, with great anticipation, your addition to the historiography which blows us all away.

[Hessian Peel]

According to the RIRA statement, apparently the pizza delivery men were collaborating with British imperialism by servicing British soldiers.

I'm quite surprised by the stupidity of the authors of the statement to include such a remark and I condemn the shooting of the two delivery men, but people shouldn't be 'servicing' any British military or police installation in Ireland. Hopefully this blunder acts as a deterrent against such activities down the line.


What fucking fantasy land are they living in?

Occupied Ireland.

[PRC-UTE]

here's other members of the RIR showing support for the Orange Order http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/photo-galleries/article13909724.ece?ino=59

[PRC-UTE]

That's fine, although as I remember it, we were initially discussing this because you disputed my claim that armed action had failed to remove the British presence from Ireland (a gold-plated, empirical fact).

I have read Lenin and Trotsky. I know their opinions on this subject and I agree with them. If you take a look, you'll see I have a long history of defending national liberation and anti-imperialism on this board, sometimes in the face of criticism.

But, for the reasons I've stated over and over again, they are peripheral in this context. This group can have no serious claim to speak for the Irish nation and doesn't have the ability to defend it or to liberate it. That is also a fact.

I don't see any evidence that the RIRA or any other "dissident" group are arguing this, however.

their strategy is to destabilise Stormont and the St Andrews Agreement, and pull dissatisfied elements that haven't yet left the provos or have yet to join a republican grouping. with the British military tied down the most it has been in decades and an economic crisis, there's definitely some logic to it.

[manic expression]

The bulk of the Conquest was writing was in a period before the opening of the Soviet Archives. Criticising him for writing a history, based on memnory, when that was the only source available is somewhat harsh. He now claims, I suspect wrongly, that the archival evidence now available to him proves his old arguments correct.

That's exactly the point, though. His unwillingness to actually look at new evidence and reassess his conclusions just further demonstrates that he has an axe to grind. If he was a genuine scholar, wouldn't he be more than eager to analyze the archives and review his earlier claims?


I don't think that is necessarily fair. Archival material is regularly incomplete, misleading, or plain wrong. The example of the numbers in the Soviet Penal System during the Great Purges is a case and point.

It's the historian's job to fill those holes, and admit when s/he cannot. However, my point was that the archives did contradict a lot of Conquest's arguments (such as the number of executions, etc.); I also concede that there may never be a comprehensive history of the events of that period due to how tumultuous they were. However, people can still be honest about it, and Conquest and his supporters aren't.


That is because, as stated, there is little better available.

That doesn't excuse Conquest for stretching suspect evidence to absurd lengths. And that surely doesn't excuse his stubborn insistence that he was always right after better evidence has been available for some time.


And your professor is, without doubt, absolutely correct. The bulk of Conquest's work is out of date, and was rendered so with the opening of the Soviet Archives. However your professor is not wrong to employ Conquest in lectures and seminars. He puts forward a view typical (if a little extreme) of one side of the historiographical coin, and would be negligent not to outline it.

I should have been more specific. My professor did not simply outline this view, she treated it as though it were true, which is quite another thing. Conquest's deepest conclusions, I feel, are promoted with far more enthusiasm than his opponents' counterarguments, which have been historically suppressed in American academia anyway.


The fact is that neither Getty, Conquest, Wheatcroft or any of the others who debate the number of Soviet victims are going to have the last word; there isn't enough uncompromised or complete evidence to point to put the issue to rest.

I can agree on that.


Alan Dershowitz, if it is the same person I am thinking of, is a lawyer (O.J. trial, right?) not a historian. While doubtless accepted by the scholars of law, I can't imagine him pulling much weight as an academic historian except in the esoteric field of legal history.

He was involved in the OJ Trial, but he's a law professor at Harvard who's written quite a bit about Israel. Essentially, he's a slavish apologist for Zionism. I mentioned him because he is actually accepted in many circles, even though he's a documented liar. In fact, for many, Norman Finkelstein's critiques of Dershowitz put into question the state of Harvard's academic standards. I wasn't trying to say he was a historian, however, I was talking about academia at large.


I disagree. People like Conquest have their followers, to be sure. However the bulk of the historical profession, especially in the UK is made up of leftwingers of various degrees. In my view, which is of course just my own, these neo-conservative historians are few and far between.

However, the Soviet Union is still roundly denounced throughout academia, whether or not a rabid right-winger is doing it or not. The tendencies to condemn the USSR and other socialist states far outweighs the tendencies to defend them. Like I said, I feel that the environment of scholarship on the USSR is not about learning or knowledge, it's about an agenda, and that's the real problem.


I don't think that is true knowing a few, sure that might be the case in Stanford, but there is more to academica than Conquest. And simply because his views are accepted, if disagreed with, does not mean that historians 'hate' the Soviet Union.

That might have been too strong and subjective a word, but I think the point can still be made that the voices arrayed against the Soviet Union usually overpower those who defend it in academia. Again, much of this may come back to the fact that American schools threw every vaguely socialist academic out of their campuses as fast as they could and kept them out for decades.


His work certainly isn't perfect. As stated, like Conquest, he dismissed evidence that doesn't lend itself to his conclusions. In the begninning of the Origins of the Great Purges Getty basically, with a few words to sweeten what is a very sour attack, says that history, especially of the USSR, that doesn't primarily employ archival material is worthless. To quote Getty, employing memory as a historical source results in “Grand analytical generalisations” which are derived from “secondhand [sic] bits of overheard corridor gossip.” Furthermore, Getty has described such study as “history-by-anecdote” and described such sources as “rumour”. That all appears on page five if you are interested.

I think he hit the nail right on the head with that one. If the present discourse on Cuba has taught us anything, there is plenty of disinformation about socialism, and rumor and gossip are regularly converted to unquestionable truth.


As I am interested in history from below, providing the "multitudes" ignored in the archives with a voice, I have to say I'm not a fan of this 'Eltionian' nonsense.

Well, I think the archives are probably more reliable than you give them credit. For instance, bureaucrats did have to know the general number of inmates at a gulag installation, because they had to calculate how many guards they needed to station there, how much barbed wire was needed, whether or not they could take in more prisoners, etc. Further, if you read the memoirs of many Soviet citizens, a great many of them were very proud of their nation's achievements by 1940 and willing to fight (and die) for it. Once more, too many academics are too quick to ignore this, and instead focus on the memoirs which paint the picture they have already agreed with.

[Seven Stars]

Got another one today!

It's great to see all these revolutionaries supporting imperialism in Ireland, and condemning those who struck a blow against that imperialism. While they may be misguided their bravery and determination must be commended.

[Zurdito]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7933990.stm

yep, a cop this time.

[Zurdito]

That's fine, although as I remember it, we were initially discussing this because you disputed my claim that armed action had failed to remove the British presence from Ireland (a gold-plated, empirical fact).

I think we already had this conversation. If there was any point being made in that post at all, then it could only have been that armed struggle by the Irish against the British has been historically ineffective, which is a ridiculous position. It did get the British out of the mahority of Ireland,and create a republic, for 4.5 million people. That is not ineffective

If you can't see to the heart of the matter here, which is the argument over whether armed struggle by the Irish against Britain has historically been effective, then there is little more that can be said.



I have read Lenin and Trotsky. I know their opinions on this subject and I agree with them. If you take a look, you'll see I have a long history of defending national liberation and anti-imperialism on this board, sometimes in the face of criticism.


yes, I know, and I respect the fact that you are an activist ont he issue IRL. that doesn't mean you necessarilly have a revolutionary position ont he issue though


But, for the reasons I've stated over and over again, they are peripheral in this context. This group can have no serious claim to speak for the Irish nation and doesn't have the ability to defend it or to liberate it.

I know this is your argument, it is the same one you have kept repeating: but the fact that these are the bases of your reasoning is exactly what proves that you don't hold a Leninist position on nationalities.
I will go back on what I said earlier, because I have more time and energy right now. I will dig up a quote for you (emphasis mine):

Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination:


The bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general democratic content that is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we unconditionally support, At the same time we strictly distinguish it from the tendency towards national exclusiveness; we fight against the tendency of the Polish bourgeois to oppress the Jews, etc., etc.

This is “unpractical” from the standpoint of the bourgeois and the philistine, but it is the only policy in the national question that is practical, based on principles, and really promotes democracy, liberty and proletarian unity.

The recognition of the right to secession for all; the appraisal of each concrete question of secession from the point of view of removing all inequality, all privileges, and all exclusiveness.

Let us consider the position of an oppressor nation. Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot. The interests of the freedom of the Great-Russian population[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch04.htm#fwV20P413F01) require a struggle against such oppression. The long, centuries-old history of the suppression of the movements of the oppressed nations, and the systematic propaganda in favour of such suppression coming from the “upper” classes have created enormous obstacles to the cause of freedom of the Great-Russian people itself, in the form of prejudices, etc.

The Great-Russian Black Hundreds deliberately foster these prejudices and encourage them. The Great-Russian bourgeoisie tolerates or condones them. The Great-Russian proletariat cannot achieve its own aims or clear the road to its freedom without systematically countering these prejudices


Notice the word unconditional, this means regardless of strength, tactics, efficiency or popularity. Notice that the reason for this is not out of any illusions at all in the borugeois leadership, but simply to uphold the principle of internationalism, without which the working class has nothing.

And no YKTMX, internationalism does not mean ceding to opinion polls in foreign coutnries or saying "they elected x government, all we can do is fight for our government to respect that".

It means fighting for revolutionary unity with the proletariat of all other countries, which includes upholding the progressive struggle against imperialism of the oppressed nations even when only a minority supports it. Our task as communists is to convince the workers of oppressed nations of the need to take the leadership of the fight against imperialism and conduct it on revolutionary grounds, not simply to "respect the right of the oppressed to resist", (as long as they are supported by a minority and are strong enough to win of course, eh YKTMX!).

It means understanding that until all national "inequallity, priveliges and exclusiveness" have been liquidated, then there is no "proletarian unity". This means that if the majority of Irish renoucne the struggle to abolish these British priveliges over their country, then that is reactionary, and we as communists argue against that, for there can be no reovlutionary movement in Ireland which does not take up armed struggle against British imperialism.

This means, of course, defending any resistance movements from repression from the oppressor nation and unconditionally supporting them against it, even when we disagree with its leadership and tactics, due to the inherently progressive content of their struggle.

[Devrim]

I think that this quote from the Sunday Tribune shows the utter contempt that these sort of nationalist groups have for the working class:

The caller [claiming the attack on behalf of the 'Real IRA'] said he made no apologies for targeting British soldiers while they continued to occupy Ireland and also said he made no apologies for targeting the pizza delivery men who, he said, were collaborating with the British by servicing them


One of the pizza men was named locally as Anthony Watson, 19. He is in a serious condition in hospital. His colleague, a 32-year-old Polish national, is said to be critically injured.


Devrim

[Andropov]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7933990.stm

yep, a cop this time.

Looks like it was the Contos this time.
Im not sure they have claimed responsibility yet but in the Lurgan/North Armagh area there is a high presence of CIRA operating there.

[Hessian Peel]

Looks like it was the Contos this time.
Im not sure they have claimed responsibility yet but in the Lurgan/North Armagh area there is a high presence of CIRA operating there.

Their 'North Armagh Battalion' has claimed the attack.

[Hessian Peel]

Clearly both the RIRA and the CIRA have got their act together and I commend them for their bravery in engaging the crown forces, even though I believe this course of action is a dead end at this time.

[YKTMX]

that doesn't mean you necessarilly have a revolutionary position ont he issue though


The thing is though, I don't know how much more "revolutionary" my position could be without including things in it that I know to be false. I've said I support the "right" of Irish Republicans to kill as many occupying soldiers and state officials as they like. The only problem for me is that these actions, committed by these small groups, have no prospect of leading to Irish freedom. Furthermore, it's demonstrable that these groups want to restart the civil war in direct contradiction to the wishes of the oppressed nation they seek to represent.


And no YKTMX, internationalism does not mean ceding to opinion polls in foreign coutnries or saying "they elected x government, all we can do is fight for our government to respect that".


It is not about respecting elected governments. But it's utterly ridiculous, I think, to say that you support the right of nation's to self-determine on one hand, and then say on the other hand that what the empirical members of that nation think is immaterial to your position. That hardly seems "democratic" in its content.


then that is reactionary, and we as communists argue against that, for there can be no reovlutionary movement in Ireland which does not take up armed struggle against British imperialism.


This is silly. Armed struggle is a tactic, not an end-in-itself. Irish freedom might be won without armed struggle. And armed struggle might, in fact, may the prospect more distant. I think these actions will certainly improve the position of the partitionists on both sides.

These attacks might be "objectively progressive", but they will have completely reactionary consequences and they will reduce the chances of Irish freedom in the medium term. I recognise the right of these people who take these actions, but I'm clear that they represent no one in Ireland and have no strategy to achieve any of the legitimate national goals of Ireland. In that sense, their actions are epitomes of the worst type of voluntarist elitism.

[Durruti02]

what are you on about, british imperialism?? .. lol .. the world is the midst if a globalised capitalist collapse with workers starting to react and you/ people are using concepts that became meaningless decades ago .. incredible .. there is a general strike soon in ireland ( and there should be in the uk or are we all reactionary??) and these attacks start .. nationalsim ( it is NOT republicanisn) always parasites on workers struggle for freedom in ireland .. this time i would not be suporised if it is all sponsered by MI5/6


While I think armed struggle is the wrong strategy at present such actions do help to lift the veil on British imperialism, if only briefly, and render the normalisation agenda a lame duck.

[BOZG]

I'm quite surprised by the stupidity of the authors of the statement to include such a remark and I condemn the shooting of the two delivery men, but people shouldn't be 'servicing' any British military or police installation in Ireland. Hopefully this blunder acts as a deterrent against such activities down the line.



Occupied Ireland.

Will you ever cop on to yourself? There was absolutely no way 2 people probably working on minimum wage could ever be seen as collaborating with British imperialism for delivering pizzas. All it shows is the fantasy land that RIRA are living in, built on that ridiculous position that some of the Republiucans on here have, that British imperialism still has colonial interests in Northern Ireland and still genuinely wishes to maintain the North as part of the empire.

[Andropov]

what are you on about, british imperialism?? .. lol .. the world is the midst if a globalised capitalist collapse with workers starting to react and you/ people are using concepts that became meaningless decades ago .. incredible .. Tell that to the people of Ireland who have 5000 soldiers on their footstep to ensure they toe the British Imeprialist line.
Or even the people of Iraq or Afghanistan, yes what a meaningless concept.


there is a general strike soon in ireland ( and there should be in the uk or are we all reactionary??) and these attacks start
As I stated before in a previous thread the cokes and contos have been ratcheting up their campaign for over a year now, long before the economic downturn hit Ireland.


.. nationalsim ( it is NOT republicanisn) always parasites on workers struggle for freedom in ireland .. this time i would not be suporised if it is all sponsered by MI5/6
National Liberation must be achieved in Ireland before the workers can ever be emancipated.
Connolly, Lenin and Costello all recognised this.

[Durruti02]

and this is a nationalist logic that will work against the development of a GB and Ireland wide workers movement .. just at the moment we have a planned general strike in the south .. it is simply criminal ( and i mean that from the pov of the workers movement not the state )



their strategy is to destabilise Stormont and the St Andrews Agreement, and pull dissatisfied elements that haven't yet left the provos or have yet to join a republican grouping. with the British military tied down the most it has been in decades and an economic crisis, there's definitely some logic to it.

[Andropov]

and this is a nationalist logic that will work against the development of a GB and Ireland wide workers movement .. just at the moment we have a planned general strike in the south .. it is simply criminal ( and i mean that from the pov of the workers movement not the state )

How can you have United Workers when there is statelet that has institutionalised Sectarianism?

[Durruti02]

Tell that to the people of Ireland who have 5000 soldiers on their footstep to ensure they toe the British Imeprialist line.
1)Or even the people of Iraq or Afghanistan, yes what a meaningless concept.


2)As I stated before in a previous thread the cokes and contos have been ratcheting up their campaign for over a year now, long before the economic downturn hit Ireland.


3)National Liberation must be achieved in Ireland before the workers can ever be emancipated.
Connolly, Lenin and Costello all recognised this.

1) the UK are in afghanistan with the US to defend the flowof oil for capital ... the days of an emoire are long gone .. we ahve a globalised economic system that is not nation based .. thatcher ( the capitalist revolutionary ) destroyed british imperialism in afvour of global capital

2) those groups are undoubtedly state sponsered

3) qouting mantras and shibbolths is meaningless especially when they are a century old .. so, what EVERY nation must be free before we can have workers struggles?? lol what the welsh? the scottish? the manx? the cornish? the ulster nation? ( as some see it!) then in scotland do we need a national struggle of the norse agaionst the celts? the lalands against teh highlands?? .. ridiculous .. these nations you speak of were bourgois concepts to enable capital to expoit and divide the working class .. they offer us little .. and there is NO revolution in one country .. .. tbh most welsh inclduing me are more interested in their own class and global workers freedom than welsh nationalism ..

[Durruti02]

How can you have United Workers when there is statelet that has institutionalised Sectarianism? it is hard .. but worse, how can you have a united workers movement when you accept and celebrate bourgois concepts of nationhood that were created to divide workers?

[BOZG]

If you can't see to the heart of the matter here, which is the argument over whether armed struggle by the Irish against Britain has historically been effective, then there is little more that can be said.

It means fighting for revolutionary unity with the proletariat of all other countries, which includes upholding the progressive struggle against imperialism of the oppressed nations even when only a minority supports it. Our task as communists is to convince the workers of oppressed nations of the need to take the leadership of the fight against imperialism and conduct it on revolutionary grounds, not simply to "respect the right of the oppressed to resist", (as long as they are supported by a minority and are strong enough to win of course, eh YKTMX!).

It means understanding that until all national "inequallity, priveliges and exclusiveness" have been liquidated, then there is no "proletarian unity". This means that if the majority of Irish renoucne the struggle to abolish these British priveliges over their country, then that is reactionary, and we as communists argue against that, for there can be no reovlutionary movement in Ireland which does not take up armed struggle against British imperialism.

This means, of course, defending any resistance movements from repression from the oppressor nation and unconditionally supporting them against it, even when we disagree with its leadership and tactics, due to the inherently progressive content of their struggle.

Your whole logic on the role of armed struggle in Irish history can be simplified to armed struggle took place, British imperialism physically left the south and Ireland won "independence", therefore A caused B which resulted in C. It's an extreme simplification which completely ignores a whole host of other factors and conditions. To this day, the south has never been able to develop an independent bourgeoisie or independent industry. It remains an economic semi-colony based largely on British and increasingly US capitalism. British imperialism was able to remove itself from the south because it was possible to continue exploiting the Irish economy without maintaining a physical presence, because the releative non-existance of industry on the South. On the otherhand, the industrialisation of the North was significant to the interests of British imperialism and it felt that it was necessary to maintain direct control and as a result of the its policies of playing the sectarian card, the forced entrace of the Protestant majority into a "catholic" republic would have created the possibility of further civil war which wasn't in the interests of British imperialism. The armed struggle was merely a factor in deciding whether it was better in the long term to physically colonise or to economically colonise Ireland.

Your points about the struggles against imperialism are based on the antiquated logic that British imperialism still has direct interests in physically remaining in the North. The reality is that the de-industrialisation of the North and the massive cost of subsidising the North each year has meant that British imperialism would like to remove itself from the North but it has been unable to because of the quagmire it has created by propping up Unionist rule. It would be far more economical for British imperialism to dump the cost of subvention onto the southern economy, particularly as it would no longer result in a loss of prestige and that economic and trading ties would remain dependent on British capitalism.

[BOZG]

How can you have United Workers when there is statelet that has institutionalised Sectarianism?

How can you Unite workers when you fail to take into account the real fears that Protestant workers have about a united capitalist Ireland and their place in it? There have been numerous strike waves that've brought Catholic and Protestant workers into struggle in a united fashion, something which was to disdain of all the sectarian parties. It's something that has far more success in unifying workers than a campaign of individual terrorism has.

[Andropov]

1) the UK are in afghanistan with the US to defend the flowof oil for capital ... the days of an emoire are long gone .. we ahve a globalised economic system that is not nation based .. thatcher ( the capitalist revolutionary ) destroyed british imperialism in afvour of global capital
It is still Imperialism if you analyse its core concepts.
It is the rule of a foreign power for economic wealth.


2) those groups are undoubtedly state sponsered
That is pure assumption.
You have no way of knowing that.



3) qouting mantras and shibbolths is meaningless especially when they are a century old .. so, what EVERY nation must be free before we can have workers struggles?? lol what the welsh? the scottish? the manx? the cornish? the ulster nation? ( as some see it!) then in scotland do we need a national struggle of the norse agaionst the celts? the lalands against teh highlands?? .. ridiculous .. these nations you speak of were bourgois concepts to enable capital to expoit and divide the working class .. they offer us little .. and there is NO revolution in one country .. .. tbh most welsh inclduing me are more interested in their own class and global workers freedom than welsh nationalism ..

Dismissing Marxist analysis for purely being a Century old is meanigless comrade.
If a nation is free from Imperialist strangleholds then a true mobilisation of the working class can occur.
I dont know what the situation is like in Scotland or Wales so I cannot comment.
As for the "Ulster nation" you mention, there is no such thing it is a fallacy.
Before partition Unionists on this Island called themselves Irish even the firebrand Carson, so dont buy into the propaganda.

But Nationalism can be a potent ally of the Working Class struggle when it is harnessed by progressive forces to combat imperialism.

[Andropov]

How can you Unite workers when you fail to take into account the real fears that Protestant workers have about a united capitalist Ireland and their place in it? There have been numerous strike waves that've brought Catholic and Protestant workers into struggle in a united fashion, something which was to disdain of all the sectarian parties. It's something that has far more success in unifying workers than a campaign of individual terrorism has.

Absolutley, I completely concur.
But what I was making referance to was the support of some Socialists here for the GFA.
I have actually stated that I disagree with these attacks tactically.
But morally they are completely justified.

[Andropov]

it is hard .. but worse, how can you have a united workers movement when you accept and celebrate bourgois concepts of nationhood that were created to divide workers?

You can accept the existance of National cultures and still have an internationally united working class.

[Hessian Peel]

Will you ever cop on to yourself? There was absolutely no way 2 people probably working on minimum wage could ever be seen as collaborating with British imperialism for delivering pizzas.

What has their level of income got to do with it? I already said I condemn the shooting of the two delivery men but people should not have any contact with the occupation forces in Ireland, I believe the RIRA even released a statement a while back warning people that it was dangerous to approach British military bases and police barracks.


All it shows is the fantasy land that RIRA are living in, built on that ridiculous position that some of the Republiucans on here have, that British imperialism still has colonial interests in Northern Ireland and still genuinely wishes to maintain the North as part of the empire.

So why don't they withdraw then?

[Hessian Peel]

You can accept the existance of National cultures and still have an internationally united working class.

Don't bother comrade, the concept of one being nationalist and internationalist simultaneously does not compute in the minds of ultra-leftist whinge bags. As RR has already stated there can be no socialism without national liberation.

[manic expression]

You can accept the existance of National cultures and still have an internationally united working class.

Exactly. It is foolish to think that the bourgeois conception of the nation is the only possible national identity. National liberation doesn't divide workers, it unites them: murals in Belfast depict solidarity between Irish and Arab. If that's not unity, I'm not sure what is.

Imperialism is the greatest threat to the working class of many countries, and for that it must be confronted and defeated. Only then will revolution actually be possible. I'm not sure why so many people here are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge this plain reality.

[Hessian Peel]

Exactly. It is foolish to think that the bourgeois conception of the nation is the only possible national identity. National liberation doesn't divide workers, it unites them: murals in Belfast depict solidarity between Irish and Arab. If that's not unity, I'm not sure what is.

Imperialism is the greatest threat to the working class of many countries, and for that it must be confronted and defeated. Only then will revolution actually be possible. I'm not sure why so many people here are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge this plain reality.

Well said comrade.

[Zurdito]

The thing is though, I don't know how much more "revolutionary" my position could be without including things in it that I know to be false. I've said I support the "right" of Irish Republicans to kill as many occupying soldiers and state officials as they like. The only problem for me is that these actions, committed by these small groups, have no prospect of leading to Irish freedom. Furthermore, it's demonstrable that these groups want to restart the civil war in direct contradiction to the wishes of the oppressed nation they seek to represent.

I don't udnerstand what you are arguing then, because I did not argue in favour of their tactics at any point, inf act I disagreed with them many times.




It is not about respecting elected governments. But it's utterly ridiculous, I think, to say that you support the right of nation's to self-determine on one hand, and then say on the other hand that what the empirical members of that nation think is immaterial to your position. That hardly seems "democratic" in its content.


I didn't say it was immaterial. Obviously, we use it as our starting point.





This is silly. Armed struggle is a tactic, not an end-in-itself. Irish freedom might be won without armed struggle. And armed struggle might, in fact, may the prospect more distant. I think these actions will certainly improve the position of the partitionists on both sides.

These attacks might be "objectively progressive", but they will have completely reactionary consequences and they will reduce the chances of Irish freedom in the medium term. I recognise the right of these people who take these actions, but I'm clear that they represent no one in Ireland and have no strategy to achieve any of the legitimate national goals of Ireland. In that sense, their actions are epitomes of the worst type of voluntarist elitism


Yes, I agree that the tactics represent voluntarist elitism.

I don't agree that a revolution in Ireland could avoid invasion from Britain, so therefore I stand by the argument that any revolutionary struggle in Ireland will mean armed struggle against British imperialism, and likewise that the armed struggle of Irish nationalists against British imeprialism represents a progressive demand that a revolutionary movement in Ireland can and must build on, and that the Irish working class needs to take the leadership of the struggle to get Britain out the 6 counties, and British imperialism out of Ireland as a whole. If the Irish working class cannot take up the leadership of that progressive demand it won't lead a revolution.

[Zurdito]

Your whole logic on the role of armed struggle in Irish history can be simplified to armed struggle took place, British imperialism physically left the south and Ireland won "independence", therefore A caused B which resulted in C.

I don't think "my whole logic" can be reduced to that. Maybe you should quote the statement I was refuting, in order to see the limits of the point I was trying to make.



To this day, the south has never been able to develop an independent bourgeoisie or independent industry. It remains an economic semi-colony based largely on British and increasingly US capitalism.


Yes I agree, which is all the more reason why the Irisih working class needs to take up the leadership of oppositiont o British imperialism, which as you have jsut shown, cannot be defeated outside of a revolution, which presumably we both agree on which is why we call ourselves trotskyists.




Your points about the struggles against imperialism are based on the antiquated logic that British imperialism still has direct interests in physically remaining in the North. The reality is that the de-industrialisation of the North and the massive cost of subsidising the North each year has meant that British imperialism would like to remove itself from the North but it has been unable to because of the quagmire it has created by propping up Unionist rule. It would be far more economical for British imperialism to dump the cost of subvention onto the southern economy, particularly as it would no longer result in a loss of prestige and that economic and trading ties would remain dependent on British capitalism.
__________________


Of course British imperialism "would like to" get out fo the North, it would also like to get out of the Malvinas (or did once), Iraq and Afghanistan too. But the point is that imperialism, being an irrational system, gets itself into crisis, and the workers and oppressed nations pay the price. Not that every single action it takes benefits itself in direct economci terms - because imperialism is not just an economic system, but a political and military one also.

The point is that the decadent behemoth of British imperialism is forced to maintain economocally irrational outposts in places like Northern Ireland and the Malvinas, because its previous rounds of expansionism created political nightmares it cannot just walk away from, because this would harm its interests even more than staying.

Communists answer to this is to say that the oppressed nations should not have to continue to tolerate the presence of british imeprialism, ina ll or any of its manifestations, on their lands, and therefore we see the progressive content when groups rise up to fight this imeprialism, whether or not we support the leadership or the tactics. We do this because our aim is to unite the working class vanguard of the oppressed and oprpessor nations, to take up a programme which comprises freedom for the latter, and which can take leadership fo that progressive struggle, something we cannot do if we refuse to defend from the oppressor nation those who struggle for their freedom today.

[Bilbo Baggins]

Indeed, Zionists and Protestants appear to be very close friends-especially within Israel's main benefactor, the U.S.

There is a history of Christian Zionism article to be found on Theocracywatch.com that does well to back-up my claim- but I cannot post the link(yet-why???).

Zionism and Protestantism seem to share one very evil trait- a perverse desire to dominate, colonize and create apartheid-type situations with those they dominate.

[Boy Named Crow]

If the Irish working class cannot take up the leadership of that progressive demand it won't lead a revolution.

Here is the key comment for me. It sums up my opinion perfectly.

If the people of Northern Ireland wanted a revolution or independence from Britain then I would support whatever movement represented those people.

However, these most recent attacks alone - they appear lead by a small minority group that doesn't fully represent the people.

Ofcourse I could be wrong - but I sense I'm not.

[Hessian Peel]

Indeed, Zionists and Protestants appear to be very close friends-especially within Israel's main benefactor, the U.S.

There is a history of Christian Zionism article to be found on Theocracywatch.com that does well to back-up my claim- but I cannot post the link(yet-why???).

Zionism and Protestantism seem to share one very evil trait- a perverse desire to dominate, colonize and create apartheid-type situations with those they dominate.

Israeli flags are flown in many Loyalist estates throughout the North:


http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/6449/loyalistflags1.jpg

UVF and Israeli flags

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/474/udaisraeliflag.jpg

Israeli, 'Northern Ireland' and Union Jack flags

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5748/loyalistflags.jpg

Israeli and Loyalist flags

[Zurdito]

If the people of Northern Ireland wanted a revolution or independence from Britain then I would support whatever movement represented those people.

Firstly, why the people of "Northern Ireland", and not Ireland as a whole? Why hsould the people of Ireland as a whole, which is one nationality, have to put up with the partition of their country by Britain jsut because an artificially created minority in the North may want it?

Secondly, do you only believe in supporting demands people have already raised, or in arguing for your positions to people who ar enot yet convinced? Because if you only support existing demands, then you may as well just reconcile yourself to capitalism, because most workers right now do not support a revolution.

[Invader Zim]

You can accept the existance of National cultures and still have an internationally united working class.

I have no idea what you mean by 'national culture'. The scope of a culture is not defined by either social constructions such as nationhood or contained within arbitrarily assigned geopolitical borders.

[Bilbo Baggins]

Nice pics, Hessian Peel!:thumbup1:

No better evidence of Protestant/Zionist collaboration than that-bloody twats!

[Hessian Peel]

Nice pics, Hessian Peel!:thumbup1:

No better evidence of Protestant/Zionist collaboration than that-bloody twats!

It has nothing to do with the fact that they're Protestant, at least not in the religious sense.

The tramps that put up flags like that wouldn't be at church in a month of Sundays.

[Bilbo Baggins]

It has nothing to do with the fact that they're Protestant, at least not in the religious sense.

The tramps that put up flags like that wouldn't be at church in a month of Sundays.

Well, Orangemen certainly like to consider themselves as Protestant.

Like Marx said: "Opiate of the masses"-religion=another warrentless addiction.

[Hessian Peel]

Well, Orangemen certainly like to consider themselves as Protestant.

'British' supremacist fascists more like.

[Sam_b]

destroyed british imperialism in afvour of global capital


:laugh:

Do you know anything about imperialism?

[cheisgreat]

I haven't been on here in ages. But I thought it would be interesting to come on here and read some wise opinions.

Firstly I think the situation(s) have been totally blown out of proportion. It's like just because you are in the army or a member of a police force, this means your life is 100 more important than an ordinary civilian. (Though I realise it makes great propaganda).

Also in re: solidiers, I hate that all of a sudden the press try to stir up even more sympathy for them, because they were going to Iraq the next day? Well that kind of put things into perspective to me.

I haven't completely decided my stance, although I feel I can 100% understand why (disident) Republicans would want to murder the PSNI Catholic member and the two soldiers but at the same time I think why stoop to these levels? The PSNI murder took place only a couple of miles where I live back home, now I find myself in England. In my tutorials all the talk has been about the IRA (even if is completely irrelevant) which puts me in an awkward position. I'm sure they'd love to hear my 'radical' perspective. But listening to their views is interesting because it is such an outside perspective based on what they read in The Sun, Daily Mail, The Times etc. It made me feel, you definitely have to be somewhere to know what is truly going on.

Anway if you have got some spare time and want a bit of a laugh read the Daily Mail article on their website and the hilarious comments made at the end.

[Cumannach]

Your whole logic on the role of armed struggle in Irish history can be simplified to armed struggle took place, British imperialism physically left the south and Ireland won "independence", therefore A caused B which resulted in C. It's an extreme simplification which completely ignores a whole host of other factors and conditions.

Extreme simplification or concise summary depending on the context and purpose. An armed struggle did indeed force the British Army to leave the 26 counties. This is a prerequisite not only to creating a native Irish bourgeois state in the 26 counties, but an Irish socialist state in the 26 counties (or more), unless you think the British Army and State were likely to adopt socialism and institute it in Ireland.



To this day, the south has never been able to develop an independent bourgeoisie or independent industry. It remains an economic semi-colony based largely on British and increasingly US capitalism. British imperialism was able to remove itself from the south because it was possible to continue exploiting the Irish economy without maintaining a physical presence, because the releative non-existance of industry on the South. On the otherhand, the industrialisation of the North was significant to the interests of British imperialism and it felt that it was necessary to maintain direct control and as a result of the its policies of playing the sectarian card, the forced entrace of the Protestant majority into a "catholic" republic would have created the possibility of further civil war which wasn't in the interests of British imperialism. The armed struggle was merely a factor in deciding whether it was better in the long term to physically colonise or to economically colonise Ireland.

That doesn't mean there was any other way to go about trying to end British Imperialism. And Britain does not have the control over the Irish Republic that it does over North East Ulster. To be honest, you're over emphasizing the case. In 2007, Irish exports to the UK were about a 1/6 of the total, and British imports into Ireland were about a a 1/3, compared to 4/9 of Irish exports going to the rest of Europe and about 1/3 of Irish imports coming from the rest of Europe. This doesn't take into account the ownership of capital in Ireland, but it gives a rough idea, enough to show that Ireland is not at all in the situation it was before the establishment of the freestate.


Your points about the struggles against imperialism are based on the antiquated logic that British imperialism still has direct interests in physically remaining in the North. The reality is that the de-industrialisation of the North and the massive cost of subsidising the North each year has meant that British imperialism would like to remove itself from the North but it has been unable to because of the quagmire it has created by propping up Unionist rule. It would be far more economical for British imperialism to dump the cost of subvention onto the southern economy, particularly as it would no longer result in a loss of prestige and that economic and trading ties would remain dependent on British capitalism.

Economical for British Imperialism? It's the British people that pay for British Imperialism, the British Bourgeoisie that enjoys the benefits. If the British Bourgeoisie wanted out of NI it would happen tomorrow.

[Andropov]

I have no idea what you mean by 'national culture'. The scope of a culture is not defined by either social constructions such as nationhood or contained within arbitrarily assigned geopolitical borders.

Absolutley, just like how the irish national identity cannot be eradicated with a sectarian partitioning of the country.

[BOZG]

What has their level of income got to do with it? I already said I condemn the shooting of the two delivery men but people should not have any contact with the occupation forces in Ireland, I believe the RIRA even released a statement a while back warning people that it was dangerous to approach British military bases and police barracks.



So why don't they withdraw then?

Because they're low paid two workers, who'd probably be sacked on the spot if they refused and who, outside of the fantasy world of the RIRA, are not fundamentally aiding and abetting British imperialism. Crazily enough, British soldiers will still eat, even if every pizza shop in the country closed down. As for RIRA's statement, why should they listen to the statements of a sectarian, bigoted paramilitary group who'd welcome the re-emergence of widespread sectarian conflict?

Because withdrawal would create an even more unstable situation for British imperialism and any forced assimiliation into a united capitalist Ireland would be physically resisted and create the basis for all-out civil war. This is not in the interests of British imperialism and they are forced to remain a presence in the North as a result. A campaign of individual terrorism or of "anti-imperialist struggle" will not change that and will only further serve to increase sectarian polarisation.

[brigadista]

Because they're low paid two workers, who'd probably be sacked on the spot if they refused and who, outside of the fantasy world of the RIRA, are not fundamentally aiding and abetting British imperialism. Crazily enough, British soldiers will still eat, even if every pizza shop in the country closed down. As for RIRA's statement, why should they listen to the statements of a sectarian, bigoted paramilitary group who'd welcome the re-emergence of widespread sectarian conflict?

Because withdrawal would create an even more unstable situation for British imperialism and any forced assimiliation into a united capitalist Ireland would be physically resisted and create the basis for all-out civil war. This is not in the interests of British imperialism and they are forced to remain a presence in the North as a result. A campaign of individual terrorism or of "anti-imperialist struggle" will not change that and will only further serve to increase sectarian polarisation.


would you apply the same reasoning to Iraq and Afghanistan?

[brigadista]

if not why not?

[Redmau5]

if not why not?

Because large parts of the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq don't identify themselves as British.

[Hessian Peel]

As for RIRA's statement, why should they listen to the statements of a sectarian, bigoted paramilitary group who'd welcome the re-emergence of widespread sectarian conflict?

I have never once read a statement from the Cokes that mentioned a "return to widespread sectarian conflict" as one of their objectives. Who exactly are they bigoted against?


Because withdrawal would create an even more unstable situation for British imperialism

So it's not in their interest to withdraw then....


A campaign of individual terrorism or of "anti-imperialist struggle" will not change that and will only further serve to increase sectarian polarisation.

I agree.

[Invader Zim]

Absolutley, just like how the irish national identity cannot be eradicated with a sectarian partitioning of the country.

And you seek to simply re-draw the same line you just agreed was a worthless social construct, and surely as a socialist you agree that the ultimate goal is to eradicate divisive social constructs?

[black magick hustla]

Don't bother comrade, the concept of one being nationalist and internationalist simultaneously does not compute in the minds of ultra-leftist whinge bags. As RR has already stated there can be no socialism without national liberation.

It does not matter how noble is it to you or anyone entrenched in bourgeois ideology to support sectarian murder gangs. but the issue of "internationalism" stands historically, and etimologically, diametrically opposite to nationalism. Whether we internationalists are "ultraleft whinge bags" or not does not disprove the fact that you nationalists just do a bunch of stupid rhetorical claptrap in order to solve that little cognitive dissonance of yours.

[Hessian Peel]

It does not matter how noble is it to you or anyone entrenched in bourgeois ideology to support sectarian murder gangs. but the issue of "internationalism" stands historically, and etimologically, diametrically opposite to nationalism. Whether we internationalists are "ultraleft whinge bags" or not does not disprove the fact that you nationalists just do a bunch of stupid rhetorical claptrap in order to solve that little cognitive dissonance of yours.

ICC lead us! :lol:

[PeaderO'Donnell]

There many who went as refugees from Europe or the arab world. But the great mase would have been born there. It is easy - but fundamentally idiotic - to simply dismiss an entire national community as an illegitimate settler colony - whose identity and apirations are not worthy of consideration - on such a basis. It is even more absurd in relation to the far messier - historically elongated - history of Ireland and ulster.

What you just wrote could also have been said about "French Algeria" which happily no longer exists. Also Ulster is a province in Ireland with NINE counties...Three of which are in the Free State. There is no Ireland and Ulster...Ulster is a part of Ireland...Witness that the Anglican "Church of Ireland" and the rugby team cover the whole Island.

Are you aware that 25 per cent of the "Nationalist"/"Roman Catholic"/"Croppy" population were burnt out of their houses in 1969? Are you aware that double the amount of people were killed in the occupied six counties during the period of the civil war in the south (and pray tell what was the causes of that war?) mainly due to Orange fascist terror? Are you aware that your death squads armed and controlled by your state only managed to kill three or so IRA volunteers and deliberately targeted the civilian "Nationalist" population? Why was that I wonder? And than you turn around and start lecturing us????

Ah yes the English are so civilized, so gentlemanly.....

It is very depressing to live in a country with a large gun permanently to its head pointed by Westminister conialism. Some though are still prepared to strike back and not live in fear still after all these years of failure and betrayal....That said armed struggle now would be counter productive and doomed to be yet another failure.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Because large parts of the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq don't identify themselves as British.

Large parts of the Algerian population also identified themselves as French.

What does "British" mean anyway?

The Welsh are very different from the Scots and the Cornish and all are radically different from the English....And the English working class is ethnically and culturally different from its ruling class (the first being Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Celtic while the latter being Norman with a sprinkling of jews).

"British" identity as such is an invention of 19 th century jingoistic music halls and thats why with the decline of the British Empire we have seen a rebirth of a particurly "English" sense of identity.

[black magick hustla]

ICC lead us! :lol:

i am not in the icc gotdammit. anyway, i am glad you did not respond to my argument. you first start by calling nationalists internationalists, and then sooner or later you are going to start calling bourgies proles because us "ultralefts" are too narrow minded and undialectical to unite the opposites! :lol:

[Charles Xavier]

i am not in the icc gotdammit. anyway, i am glad you did not respond to my argument. you first start by calling nationalists internationalists, and then sooner or later you are going to start calling bourgies proles because us "ultralefts" are too narrow minded and undialectical to unite the opposites! :lol:


I'm sorry capt Puritan,

But what Ireland, the African colonies, India, China, etc etc, faced was Colonial oppression. We are not for national liberation? Yes we are. We believe oppressed people have the right to self-determination, we don't always agree that all oppressed nations should be seperated but we agree that all nations have the right to. Why do we not view things in extremes? because we ask where are the class forces are in dictating such a slogan, we ask is a democratic federation possible, where nations can be equal partners? If not then we do advocate seperation, we sometimes do advocate joining in bourgeiosie struggles. Because the world is not black or white. Things are much more complex. If some of the bourgeioisie are advocating getting out of free trade agreements we don't take a neutral position on free trade. We sometimes will agree with certain parts of the bourgeioisie on specific issues. It doesn't mean we are there to aid the bourgeioisie rather our interest is the interest of the working class. On national liberation and anti-imperialism we take the same stand. Of course the Iranian bourgeioisie do not want to have the American bourgeioisie dictate to them, we don't want the American bourgeioisie oppressing other nations, at the same time we also don't support the Iranian bourgeioisie dispite agreeing with them on that point.

And sometimes what was right 50 years ago is no longer right, its the dialectic in practise its change.

The Coup d'etat in 1992 in Venezuela was a correct line, however we did not advocate a coup d'etat in 1998. The situation changed.

[Andropov]

And you seek to simply re-draw the same line you just agreed was a worthless social construct, and surely as a socialist you agree that the ultimate goal is to eradicate divisive social constructs?

No I dont seek to simply "redraw the same line", I seek to remove a line that was impsoed by Imeprialism to create a mini-sectarian statlet that will have enough reactionary sentiment to remain loyal to the imperialist mother nation.

As a socialist I believe in the liberation of the working class and part of that struggle is to remove the grasp of imperialism that still remains in Ireland. Until that is removed the working class will not be liberated.

[Zurdito]

regarding the pizza boys collaborating with imeprialism - how muchb evidence is there that the RIRA actually said this and it is not British state lies?

After all the reporting on this from the bourgoeis media in Britian from what I can gather online has been beyond parody - not one mention of the fact for example, that the British state sent the SAS into NI two or so days before the attacks.

[Pogue]

Could a national liberation advocate please explain their views in a PM to me? It seems like a futile and hopelessly out-dated position which contradicts socialism and has been proven wrong many a time.

[Charles Xavier]

Could a national liberation advocate please explain their views in a PM to me? It seems like a futile and hopelessly out-dated position which contradicts socialism and has been proven wrong many a time.


Explain how it contradict socialism?

[StalinFanboy]

Explain how it contradict socialism?
It being an internationalist idea. Nationalist groups are sort of the opposite of that...

[Charles Xavier]

It being an internationalist idea. Nationalist groups are sort of the opposite of that...


Explain without using slogans.

What is internationalism what is nationalism how do they contradict and what part do they play in national liberation?

[Cumannach]

It's pretty simple. If you want to liberate your nation from capitalism you have to liberate it from whoever is enforcing capitalism on it, wherever they come from. If the end result is throwing out foreign enforcers of capitalism only to have capitalism maintained by native enforcers, then one obstacle has been removed, which had to be removed. Once you liberate your nation from the native enforcers, there is then no one else to fill that breach and capitalism is done for. Sure, if you have enough momentum the first time round then the national liberation from foreign capitalists can immediately meld into the national liberation from all capitalists. But material conditions dictate this possibility.

[StalinFanboy]

Explain without using slogans.

What is internationalism what is nationalism how do they contradict and what part do they play in national liberation?
How did I use slogans?


Internationalism is the idea of the poor and working people of each country belonging to the "international working class" rather than to their respective countries, and in turn putting their allegiance to this class above that of allegiance to a state. Nationalism is holding ones allegiance to their country/nation/state above that of their class. National liberation movements do not seek to strengthen the international working class, but to set up another bourgeois state/nation/country.

[Charles Xavier]

How did I use slogans?


Internationalism is the idea of the poor and working people of each country belonging to the "international working class" rather than to their respective countries, and in turn putting their allegiance to this class above that of allegiance to a state. Nationalism is holding ones allegiance to their country/nation/state above that of their class. National liberation movements do not seek to strengthen the international working class, but to set up another bourgeois state/nation/country.


How does Internationalism and National Liberation contradict? So those bastard colonial people should just be shot down until socialism is around?

How does colonial oppressed people demanding their rights and liberating themselves from their semi-colonial/colonial status reactionary? How does it not link up with the international struggle?

[StalinFanboy]

How does Internationalism and National Liberation contradict. So those bastard colonial people should just be shot down until socialism is around?
I've already explained how it contradicts. You can ask that question again if you like though.

[Charles Xavier]

I've already explained how it contradicts. You can ask that question again if you like though.


No you just said National Liberation is about setting up a bourgeioisie state. Lets not forget that the Cuban Revolution was a national liberation struggle. So was the Boxer Rebellion in China, and the Chinese war against Japan and the French Resistance during ww2, and the partisan groups in eastern europe were as well. The struggle of the palestinians and the South Africans against apartheid. People should just live with what they got?

[StalinFanboy]

No you just said National Liberation is about setting up a bourgeioisie state. Lets not forget that the Cuban Revolution was a national liberation struggle.
I explained how nationalism contradicts internationalism, and nationalism is at the heart of every National Liberation movement.

I don't care about Cuba.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

How does colonial oppressed people demanding their rights and liberating themselves from their semi-colonial/colonial status reactionary? How does it not link up with the international struggle?


Seeing as you are not Irish how does your support for us being allowed to decide our own destiny without a gun being held to our head consitute support for nationalism?

I think we should say that they are anti-imperialist rather than pro-nationalist?

And Westminster imperialism is the main enemny of the Irish working class...How does your support for the struggle aganist that imply support for Irish capitalism? It doesnt.

[Charles Xavier]

Seeing as you are not Irish how does your support for us being allowed to decide our own destiny without a gun being held to our head consitute support for nationalism?

I think we should say that they are anti-imperialist rather than pro-nationalist?

And Westminster imperialism is the main enemny of the Irish working class...How does your support for the struggle aganist that imply support for Irish capitalism? It doesnt.


Exactly. A nation being able to decide its own destiny does not automatically mean they are conforming with petty-nationalist interests. Sometimes a national liberation struggle is the essence of an international struggle. The people of Ireland have a right to their nation being undivided. They don't even allow an all-ireland referendum on the issue.

The nations of africa, throwing off European oppression doesn't was an immensely progressive step forward.

When an Imperialist power comes to your nation and says, Subsidize our companies, give us your wealth and resources for token payments, you cannot do this or that. Are we then as communists telling the oppressed people, live with it, do not struggle against this, only struggle for socialism. People of Iraq, live under occupation, people of palestine, live without rights be killed on a regular basis, struggling against this is nationalism?

Internationalism will be to fight our own government against the attacks on oppressed people and supporting their right to resist. Not telling our nation, don't invade and telling the other nation don't resist?

Is that even logical? Being against an invasion of a nation by your own but at the same time against the people who fight the invasion?

[Reuben]

PeaderO'Donnell: And the English working class is ethnically and culturally different from its ruling class (the first being Anglo-Saxon, Viking and Celtic while the latter being Norman with a sprinkling of jews).

Seriously, where on earth do you get this anachronistic loonacy from! The idea of a Norman Yoke - that the native people of England people had been enslaved by a ruling class descended from the Normans was old radical trope back in the 18th century. If the mythology of an english people and an alien, norman ruling caste had any validity back then it certainly doesnt after 200 years of industrial capitalism. Honestly, i would have thought this idiocy had died out by now. And do you honestly believe there is no Jewish working class?

Are you aware that your death squads (my emphasis) armed and controlled by your state only managed to kill three or so IRA volunteers and deliberately targeted the civilian "Nationalist" population? Why was that I wonder? And than you turn around and start lecturing us????

What pointless line of argument. Describing them as 'my' and implying that I share responsibily on account of being a Briton is idiotic.

And than you turn around and start lecturing us????

Dude, im not sure you get how a political forum works. People come an express opinions on different topics. People's right express an opinion about their issue is not contingent upon their nationality.

All nationalities are to some extent social constructions, and people who imagine they can easily draw hard and fast distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate national identities are naive. As I mentioned in another thread, there are a great mass of people in Northern Ireland who consider themselves 'British'. And this group included a slim majority of of people who profess to have no religion (indicating that it is not simply a sectarian/religious identity). Of course I do not want ulster to be governed as it traditionally has been in the past. Iwas simply suggesting in my initial post that it is reasonable to explore political arrangements reflect the existence of two distinct national communities.

[Cumannach]

Just because an embedded minority imagines itself to be 'British' doesn't mean it can dictate to the majority which part of their country will be annexed by a foreign power. There are hundreds of thousands of, not only people who imagine themselves to be 'Irish' but people who were actually born in Ireland living in Britain. Can they all converge on some shire or some district of London until they represent 51% percent of the population and break off from the UK to become a province of the Irish Republic?

[bcbm]

The nations of africa, throwing off European oppression doesn't was an immensely progressive step forward.

Except they didn't get rid of Europeans or Americans and, in fact, opened up their countries for a new strategy of colonialism that requires less work from the oppressors and does more damage to the oppressed. Not to say imperialism was better or should've been maintained, but we should try to learn from the failures of these struggles instead of mindlessly repeating them.

In regards to this act specifically, its very clearly an act not wanted by the Irish people in the North and certainly not the workers there. Just a bunch of morons playing with guns because they can't figure out how to build a proper movement.

[Invader Zim]

No I dont seek to simply "redraw the same line", I seek to remove a line that was impsoed by Imeprialism to create a mini-sectarian statlet that will have enough reactionary sentiment to remain loyal to the imperialist mother nation.


No I dont seek to simply "redraw the same line",

That is precisely what you wish to do, extend one irrelevent border which unnecessarily divides humanity and retract another.

Despite what you may believe, empowering one element of the bourgeoisie at the expense of another isn't remotely necessary to establish socialism.

[Redmau5]

Large parts of the Algerian population also identified themselves as French.

My point is that the British occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan aren't comparable to Northern Ireland, because neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are part of the UK.

[manic expression]

That is precisely what you wish to do, extend one irrelevent border which unnecessarily divides humanity and retract another.

The border is not irrelevant. Not by a long shot. Borders matter by any reasoning. If they didn't, what's the big deal about that whole Sudetenland thing?

More importantly, the establishment of an Irish state which encompasses all of Ireland is surely in the interests of the working class. Until the northern counties are free from British rule, working class mobilization will always be hampered by imperialist interference. Right now, the Irish workers in the southern counties are campaigning strongly against capitalism, and it would be naive to think they could do the same in the same way if they were still under British authority.


Despite what you may believe, empowering one element of the bourgeoisie at the expense of another isn't remotely necessary to establish socialism.It's necessary to struggle against imperialism. That is why the Irish liberation struggle is in the interests of the working class. By the way, it's interesting that you, after talking of unnecessary divisions, would have Irish socialists wall themselves off from every feasible ally.


My point is that the British occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan aren't comparable to Northern Ireland, because neither Iraq nor Afghanistan are part of the UK.

The French occupation of Algeria, though, is quite similar, because Algeria was considered French domain, just as northern Ireland is now considered British domain.

[black magick hustla]

I'm sorry capt Puritan,

But what Ireland, the African colonies, India, China, etc etc, faced was Colonial oppression. We are not for national liberation? Yes we are. We believe oppressed people have the right to self-determination, we don't always agree that all oppressed nations should be seperated but we agree that all nations have the right to. Why do we not view things in extremes? because we ask where are the class forces are in dictating such a slogan, we ask is a democratic federation possible, where nations can be equal partners? If not then we do advocate seperation, we sometimes do advocate joining in bourgeiosie struggles. Because the world is not black or white. Things are much more complex. If some of the bourgeioisie are advocating getting out of free trade agreements we don't take a neutral position on free trade. We sometimes will agree with certain parts of the bourgeioisie on specific issues. It doesn't mean we are there to aid the bourgeioisie rather our interest is the interest of the working class. On national liberation and anti-imperialism we take the same stand. Of course the Iranian bourgeioisie do not want to have the American bourgeioisie dictate to them, we don't want the American bourgeioisie oppressing other nations, at the same time we also don't support the Iranian bourgeioisie dispite agreeing with them on that point.

And sometimes what was right 50 years ago is no longer right, its the dialectic in practise its change.

The Coup d'etat in 1992 in Venezuela was a correct line, however we did not advocate a coup d'etat in 1998. The situation changed.

There is not much to argue about here. The real important issue is this though. "opressed people" is a very nebulous concept and the whole issue of "the people" has always been a rhetorical toy of the populist wing of the bourgeosie to rally normal folks behind them. You criticize me for sloganeering, but on the contrary, I take pride on the clarity of my positions. On the contrary, you just say stuff like "things are more complex" or calls of the "people", without going on specifics and at the end of the day you just support what "feels right" and exchange political sobriety for emotionalism. You cannot see beyond the dumb 19th century slogans of democracy and national self determination because this issues are ossified, like christianity, in the minds of the mayority of people, including yourself.

[PRC-UTE]

That is precisely what you wish to do, extend one irrelevent border which unnecessarily divides humanity and retract another.

Despite what you may believe, empowering one element of the bourgeoisie at the expense of another isn't remotely necessary to establish socialism.

there's no bourgeoisie that wants to remove the border in Ireland. the overwhelming majority of Irish workers do, however.

[PRC-UTE]

The French occupation of Algeria, though, is quite similar, because Algeria was considered French domain, just as northern Ireland is now considered British domain.

and like the peids-noir in Algeria, the Loyalits have done the most to keep the conflict going.

[bcbm]

The border is not irrelevant. Not by a long shot. Borders matter by any reasoning. If they didn't, what's the big deal about that whole Sudetenland thing?

Borders matter to the bourgeoisie as a means of control. How successful have they been at propping up an artificial difference between workers in the North and getting them to kill each other for it after all?


More importantly, the establishment of an Irish state which encompasses all of Ireland is surely in the interests of the working class. Until the northern counties are free from British rule, working class mobilization will always be hampered by imperialist interference. Right now, the Irish workers in the southern counties are campaigning strongly against capitalism, and it would be naive to think they could do the same in the same way if they were still under British authority.

Its only naive to think so if you believe that nationality is more important than class and workers are incapable of recognizing their common interests. Crying on about where a border is drawn and shooting people up probably doesn't help bring them any closer together. All capitalists will interfere in the struggle of our class, imperialist or domestic, but its only as a class that we can overcome them.


It's necessary to struggle against imperialism. That is why the Irish liberation struggle is in the interests of the working class. By the way, it's interesting that you, after talking of unnecessary divisions, would have Irish socialists wall themselves off from every feasible ally.

Imperialism can't be combated from a class base?

[Devrim]

I think that the question that really needs to be asked is how on earth these types of actions offer anyway forward for the working class.

The threat made by these type of actions is very clear. The worst possibility is the return to sectarian war in Northern Ireland. Actions like this are designed to increase sectarian tensions. That much is obvious.

What is not obvious at all is how these actions are supposed to move forward working class struggle. Many of the Republicans on here believe that class unity is impossible in Northern Ireland until the Orange state has been destroyed. I don't, but I do recognise that it is something that will be much more difficult to achieve than in some other places. The worst thing about these sort of actions is that every para military bullet, from either side, is yet another nail in the coffin of any attempt to build any sort of class unity.

The worst thing about it is is that even many of the republicans on here have admitted that this offers no way forward at all, but they cling on to repeating mantras about 'people's right to defend themselves', or some other such nonsense.

The important question for socialists is what effect actions like this have on the struggle for class unity. If we think that they help to build it, of course we should support them. At least though we should be prepared to explain why.

If on the other hand we think that these type of actions actively work against attempts to build class unity then we should condemn them.

So the question is there; How do the defenders of these sort of actions think that shooting two soldiers, a policeman and a couple of pizza delivery men will help to build class unity?

Devrim

[PeaderO'Donnell]

Seriously, where on earth do you get this anachronistic loonacy from! The idea of a Norman Yoke - that the native people of England people had been enslaved by a ruling class descended from the Normans was old radical trope back in the 18th century. If the mythology of an english people and an alien, norman ruling caste had any validity back then it certainly doesnt after 200 years of industrial capitalism. Honestly, i would have thought this idiocy had died out by now. And do you honestly believe there is no Jewish working class?



Of course there is a jewish working class. Most jews are probably working class. However the fact remains that the ethnic background of the English ruling class has remained pretty much the same since the Papal crusade of 1066...Most Normans arent working class.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

The important question for socialists is what effect actions like this have on the struggle for class unity. If we think that they help to build it, of course we should support them. At least though we should be prepared to explain why.

If on the other hand we think that these type of actions actively work against attempts to build class unity then we should condemn them.


Devrim

While as I definitely do not want to live in Cuba or Bellarus and believe that a "socialism" that puts power into the hands of an intellectual technocratic elite instead of the actual mass of people is as bad or nearly as bad as what we have here the simplistic attitude of Left Communists I find very disturbing. I grew up in a Labour voting household in Dublin and know that the type of talk you are using plays straight into the hands of Irish Capital...

I cant post links here because I havent enough posts but please google J.Saki and Settlers- the myth of a white proletariat.

[Devrim]

I grew up in a Labour voting household in Dublin and know that the type of talk you are using plays straight into the hands of Irish Capital...

Funny that because I would have thought that what the bourgeoisie wants to do at the moment is to divide the working class as much as possible in advance of the struggles that the deepening of the crisis will almost certainly cause.

I don't see how calling for class unity 'plays straight into the hands of Irish capital'.


I cant post links here because I havent enough posts but please google J.Saki and Settlers- the myth of a white proletariat.

I think that I will leave that sort of quasi-Maoist nonsense to anti-working class sociologists thanks.

I would also notice that you didn't even attempt to answer the question; How do the defenders of these sort of actions think that shooting two soldiers, a policeman and a couple of pizza delivery men will help to build class unity?

Devrim

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I don't see how calling for class unity 'plays straight into the hands of Irish capital'.


Because in the context of Ireland it translates as stopping the fight aganist Westminster imperialism which is the main enemny of the working class here (Capital in the south hasnt been interested in national liberation for a LONG time...) and instead focusing on narrow economnic issues (lets face it for most Irish people global socialism would mean a cut in their standards of living....the issue is power...if people want to be materially better off they should probably vote for Fianna Fail...).

You forget that the Loyalists have a real material interest in supporting their "own" ruling class....Please read what J. Saki has to say about the IWW. I believe she is anarchist rather than Maoist.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

I would also notice that you didn't even attempt to answer the question; How do the defenders of these sort of actions think that shooting two soldiers, a policeman and a couple of pizza delivery men will help to build class unity?

Devrim

I think I already said that those actions are counterproductive....but the loyalists as a class should be smashed and not united with.

[Djehuti]

Don't believe Sinn Fein's propaganda that this atrocity is simply the work of racketeering thugs - the danger is real
Daily Mail 11 March 2009 By Eamonn Mccann

The most significant political effect of the Real IRA attack at Antrim on Saturday may be that it has bounced the Sinn Fein leadership into urging its supporters to inform on other Republicans.
This marks another shift by Sinn Fein towards full acceptance of the legitimacy of the Northern State. It leaves the RIRA, perhaps, better placed than ever before to occupy the space vacated.
The RIRA may be tiny (perhaps 200 members) and with marginal support even in alienated, Catholic working-class areas. But the gunning down of Cengiz Azimkar and Mark Quinsey at the gates of Massereene Barracks will have confirmed Chief Constable Hugh Orde’s assessment that they pose a military threat which has to be taken seriously.
The ruthlessness, professionalism and daring of the attack itself also supported Orde’s estimation - while starkly contradicting the previous insistence of Sinn Fein that the RIRA and others were no more than a criminal rabble.
Sinn Fein had sold its acceptance of the PSNI*two years ago to rank and file Republicans by assuring them that control of policing would now be in the hands of an Irish - albeit, initially, a Northern Irish - Policing Board in which Sinn Fein itself would have a powerful voice.
The new policing structures were part of an arrangement which would lead on to a united Ireland. Far from the policing deal signalling an end to struggle for an all-Ireland Republic, it was an element in a peaceful strategy for ending partition.
The SF leadership had for months been involved in a propaganda blitz designed to strip the dissidents of any claim to Republican legitimacy.
In January, Adams put his considerable moral authority behind calls for cooperation with the PSNI in hunting the dissidents down. Commenting on an 'increase in criminal actions by a number of organised criminal gangs who claim to be Republican organisations', he declared that, 'their actions are not about furthering the Republican goals', but were 'creating a fear of criminality' in Catholic communities.
At the beginning of last month, 'senior Republican figures' - in fact, leading Belfast members of the former Provisional IRA - briefed journalists that the dissidents were enemies of the Catholic community whom it was the duty of the community to help the PSNI root out. 'This is a straightforward criminal matter,' declared one senior figure.
Security correspondent Brian Rowan wrote in the Belfast Telegraph: 'The senior Republican sources said they wanted to ‘lift the lid’ on the groups (who) were accused of a range of criminal activities including extortion, robberies and involvement in punishment shootings over personal disputes.
‘ “You have groupings using republican clothes to carry out criminality,” one of the senior sources said. "We are looking to de-mystify it, so we can address it as criminality." Another source said: "We are trying to create a context in which cooperation (with the PSNI) improves and increases” ‘.
Rowan commented at the time that 'the community is being told from the very top of the Republican movement that it is okay to talk to the police about this - that it is okay to provide information. The message is that this is not touting, or informing or any betrayal of republicanism.'
Supporters of the RIRA will be confident that this message will seem less plausible in the areas where they hope to build support following the Antrim attack.
The RIRA won’t be fazed, either, by the fact their backing is likely limited at the moment to a few thousand stalwarts across the North. They will believe that their credentials for inheriting the Republican mantle discarded, as they see it, by SF have been greatly enhanced.
Irish Republicans have never regarded popular support as an essential condition for waging armed struggle, anyway. This, despite recent energetic revisionism, was the view of the Provisional IRA throughout its armed campaign.
The Provos may have had much more support for most of that period than the RIRA has now. But this was never a necessary factor.
Armed Republicans have always taken their mandate not from the constituency in whose name the struggle has been waged but from history.
They see themselves as defending the Republic proclaimed by Patrick Pearse on the steps of the GPO in Dublin at Easter 1916 - the Republic viewed not as an aspiration to be aimed at but as an actually-existing-entity to be defended in arms.
In this perspective, both Irish States are fraudulent usurpers. Legitimate authority rests solely with those who have stood by the Republic.
This idea of the IRA struggle as source and embodiment of political legitimacy may seem patently ridiculous.
But it has been this conception of its role and historical significance that has sustained the IRA in its various manifestations through lean years when it could find little sustenance in the material world around it, and which provided moral sanction for armed struggle.
No struggle for power-sharing and cross-border bodies could justify the pain, endured as well as inflicted, of the armed struggle.
Only the shining reality of the Republic could reflect light on the violence in such a way as to invest it with due grandeur, rendering even the killing of passers-by or pizza delivery workers tolerable, just.
Only a small minority of Republican supporters over the past 35 years ever swallowed this version of history whole.
The working-class anger that gave rise to the emergence of the Provos as a major player in the 1970s did not represent a new flowering of Republican ideas, a long-repressed tradition suddenly gushing forth again through the cracks caused by the seismic impact of the 1960s civil rights movement.
It would be truer to say that the tiny Republican movement of the time, embodied in Belfast in a few families, including the Adamses, provided an organisational framework, a channel for expression and a readiness to fight that matched the sudden mood of the Catholic masses and offered a ready-made ideology to lend their travails an historical resonance at a time when their communities were under siege by loyalist mobs, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army.
Adams and his associates have gradually, surreptitiously, denying at every stage that they were embarked on any such enterprise, sloughed off this Republican tradition and bargained the war conducted in its name for advancement for themselves and their community in the here-and-now.
But the core idea which they espoused was elevated in the course of their struggle, and, as Saturday night's killings illustrate, it hasn’t gone away.
*
*
This attack will be a recruiting call in the Bogside
By Ed Moloney*Daily Mail, 11 March 2009

This is not a good time for Sinn Fein to face competition from a resurgent Real IRA, not a good time to have to defend British security forces from dissident republican attacks.
The party has had a rough two years - its aging leadership have been accused of neglecting the wellbeing of its supporters in places like West Belfast and of kowtowing to the DUP at Stormont, while the strategy that promised to sweep Sinn Fein into power on both sides of the Border is in tatters. An aura of decline surrounds the party.
Now it faces a Real IRA which with one brutal attack in Antrim has confounded its image as an incompetent, corrupt and thoroughly inflitrated group to emerge as an organisation which can seemingly rival the Provisional IRA in deadly efficiency.
On top of that, the worst economic recession in living memory threatens to swell the ranks of such dissident groups with the unemployed youth of West Belfast and the Bogside.
Ever since the Omagh bombing and the trial of Real IRA founder, Michael McKevitt, the dissident republican groups have suffered from a major image problem in the eyes of Northern Nationalists.
Convicted on the word of a high level FBI/MI5 plant, McKevitt’s fate confirmed the widespread view in republican cicrcles that the Real IRA was probably so well infiltrated by the British and Irish security forces, not to mention the Provos themselves, that only a fool would take the risk of joining up.
That image was enhanced by a whole series of Real IRA attacks that were frustrated or sabotaged, such as in the case of bombs that failed to detonate. Shrewd republican observers saw this as evidence that the security authorities had agents working at high and sensitive levels within the group.
The Real IRA was also widely accused of corruption, of involvement in drug dealing, counterfeiting and smuggling.
The allegations roiled the group so badly that many, like McKevitt himself, quit in disgust. Meanwhile recruiting standards set by the Real IRA leadership, especially in Belfast, were set so low in order to survive that it was soon full of many recruits who would never have been allowed into the Provisionals.
Now all that has seemingly changed. The striking feature of the attack in Massereene, as former IRA prisoner Anthony McIntyre put it, was that it showed 'a steely determination on the part of the attackers that most people thought they were incapable of.'
Ever since Omagh, and especially since signalling support for the PSNI, Sinn Fein have been eager to characterise the Real IRA and other dissidents as ‘criminals’, a stance that makes it easier to urge their supporters to inform on them.
But ‘criminals’ are not supposed to take on the British Army. And how does Sinn Fein legitimise informing on such people when they carried out an operation that, until a few years ago, the Provisional IRA itself, not to mention Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, would have been proud of?
All this would matter much less if the power sharing government up at Stormont had gone much better for Sinn Fein that it has, and if the strategy behind it was prospering.
But it has all been bad news for the party since its disappointing result in the Republic’s 2007 general election, one that ended Sinn Fein's hopes of ever getting into a Dublin government.
That left only the Northern deal to show for the peace process strategy and Sinn Fein’s desperate need to keep it alive significantly weakened its bargaining leverage with the DUP.
In the months since the Southern poll, the DUP has humiliated Sinn Fein on a range of issues, from the scrapping of plans for a hunger strike museum at the old Maze prison through to the date and arrangements for devolving security powers to the power sharing government.
On the ground, the power sharing deal has done little to improve the lives of people in places like West Belfast, which for years had loyally voted for Sinn Fein and its leader, Gerry Adams.
If anything conditions have* worsened. With the IRA no longer able to police the area, and the PSNI reluctant to do so, crime is rampant. Unemployment is as high as ever and the economic boom that came in the wake of the peace settlement has passed the area by.
A British government report last November showed that a boy born in West Belfast can expect to live six years less than one from the more affleunt south of the city.
Grassroots disillusionment found expression a year ago in a now infamous column in the local, usually pro-Sinn Fein newspaper Andersonstown News which berated Gerry Adams for his dismal record.
'When he asks for and gets our votes,' wrote Squinter, 'he accepts a host of very onerous responsibilities, and the most basic of those responsibilities is to make his constituency a good place for decent people to live and for parents to bring up their families. In that he has failed terribly.'
Add to all this a recession that each day look more like a depression and the Real IRA could be excused for thinking that perhaps its day has come.

Ed Moloney is author of A Secret History of the IRA.
*
*
Anarchy lurked just below the surface
In Northern Ireland we grabbed at peace, and tried to forget our violent history. We should not have been so complacent
Fionola Meredith guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 March 2009

The sound of a bomb going off was not an uncommon one, growing up in Northern Ireland. And I've never forgotten that muffled, mighty, death-dealing boom, the feeling of nameless dread it gave me in the pit of my stomach. When I heard that two young soldiers had been murdered by dissident republicans in Antrim on Saturday night, I experienced that familiar internal lurch. And together with thousands of others, I muttered the same familiar, hopeless prayer – Oh God, please not again.
Here in Northern Ireland we have grabbed at peace like there's no tomorrow, flinging up fancy bars and glossy shopping centres with more haste than taste, so great was our thirst for normality after the dark years of the conflict. We've been overcompensating wildly, talking ourselves up no end, and all the while we've been colluding in the same comforting fiction: that Northern Ireland has undergone a radical and complete transformation, morphing almost instantaneously from shambling, war-torn and intrinsically sectarian pariah state to "world class" destination. We've been discussing how we deal with the historical legacy of the Troubles, as though the few short intervening years of shaky peace had made the past safe to handle, stripped it of its capacity to harm us. And we've been worrying about normal things, like the economic downturn or the advent of water taxes or the future of post-primary education.
In short, we've been behaving like Northern Ireland is a normal place. It isn't. The Antrim shooting has forcibly reminded us of that. There have been warning signs - a rash of failed attacks, the police in flak jackets again, a bomb scare in Belfast's posh new shopping centre, Victoria Square. (Stuck in the resulting traffic jam, I had to explain to the kids what a bomb scare actually is. Depressing in itself.)
Of course, the new Northern Ireland isn't going to dematerialise overnight because of the events in Antrim, bleak and bloody as they are. But the fear is there again, among the vast majority of ordinary people who were onlookers to the Troubles, the people who just kept their heads down, trudged on and hoped that it would all somehow, sometime end. That old sense of helplessness is back.
We're scared too because we know how events have the capacity to snowball wildly out of control in Northern Ireland. We're reminded of the fragility of the devolved administration at Stormont, haunted by the late Conor Cruise O'Brien's warning that while the North might see episodes of non-violence as each generation of its warring leaders ages, a political system defined by religion can never achieve lasting peace.
The Antrim shootings are odours from the abyss. They are a reminder that we cannot afford to be complacent, because chaos and anarchy are not put "beyond use" in a storybook past. They are lurking just under the surface, volatile in the here and now.
*

Northern Ireland killings: How former IRA members now helping police
It was a shock to hear Gerry Kelly, a former Adjutant General of the IRA, calling on republicans to give information to the police about the shooting of two British soldiers.
Liam Clarke DAILY TELEGRAPH 11 March 2009
*
Kelly is the sort of republican hero that ballads are written about. As an IRA veteran he ticks all the boxes. He bombed the Old Bailey in 1973, endured a 207 day hunger strike during which he was repeatedly force fed and he led the mass break out from the Maze in 1983.
His laconic account of how he shot a prison officer in the face during the break is a popular "turn" in republican social clubs. Punters like to chuckle over the true story of how he asked Dutch police to forward a container full of arms and explosives to the IRA before he was extradited from Amsterdam.
"It is quite extraordinary to hear Gerry calling for information to be given to the police about republican attacks on the crown forces. There were people shot for a lot less than that" said Richard O'Rawe, a former IRA prisoner who acted as a Sinn Fein spokesman during the Provisional IRA's campaign.
Kelly is now a junior minister at Stormont and his language was later echoed by Martin McGuinness, Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister. This week he stood shoulder to shoulder with Sir Hugh Orde, the PSNI Chief Constable, Shaun Woodward, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and Peter Robinson, the First Minister and leader of the DUP. He not only extended his sympathy to the families for dead soldiers but pledged unequivocal support to the investigation into their murders.
This has already been compared to the day in 1922 when Michael Collins borrowed heavy artillery from the British forces in order to bombard his former IRA comrades making their last stand in Dublin's Four Courts.
This volte face is an overwhelmingly positive development which bodes well for the stability of the political institutions in Northern Ireland. Later this week, McGuinness may attend the funeral of a PSNI officer murdered by republicans. If the republican leadership delivers on its commitment to assist the police, then unionists will soon feel confident enough to deliver on the devolution of policing powers.
However, there are dangers. When it calls for information to be fed to the police and for the British army to be left unmolested, Sinn Fein is vacating political ground which the dissidents will attempt to fill with bodies.
The number of die hards trained and willing to take up arms is somewhere between 60 and 80 with two or three times that number prepared to play back up roles, like hiding weapons.
Republicans work on the old Russian revolutionary maxim “the worse the better”; they count on a feeling of grievance and repression to act as their recruiting sergeant. The Provisional IRA built the support it needed to sustain its campaign through unpopular security force actions such as the Bloody Sunday and mass internment.
Now the dissidents will, as Sinn Fein and the PSNI have both pointed out, hope to to bring troops back on the streets. They hope for a heavy handed military response to shatter the contented normality which, as they see it, is sapping the will of nationalists to resist British rule. The police have a thin to walk as they attempt to provide effective security against a determined terrorist threat and handing their enemies a propaganda advantage.
Rival leaderships compete and conspire for the allegiance of this rump of murderous fanatics. There are at least two Real IRAs; there is a Continuity IRA (CIRA) from which Oglaigh na hEireann (Irish for IRA), split away from in 2006. Other micro groups cluster around family or smuggling networks along the border.
These gangs now have access to military explosives and automatic weapons. Only an extensive covert intelligence effort has curbed their appetite for murder. 60 per cent of MI5's electronic surveillance operations are targeted at them, along with 15 per cent of its manpower. The Gardai in the Republic also devote huge resources to infiltrating dissident terrorist networks.
The Massereene attack shows that RIRA in Antrim has regrouped after its alleged former leader was accused of being an informer and fled the country. A murder squad has now been established which, since it was not caught, has not yet been fully compromised. The fact that it is composed of ruthless and efficient gunmen, unafraid to get out of a car in front of an army base and shoot soldiers, will attract recruits.
On Monday evening CIRA staked its claim to leadership by shooting a policeman. Unless they can be disrupted by timely intelligence there will be further moves in this deadly game. If there is a winner, the dissidents will be able to form a single command structure to launch a more ambitious campaign, with attacks eventually being launched in Britain and on politicians.
It is now in Sinn Fein's interest as much as anyone else's to make sure that never happens.

[Bitter Ashes]

So, if I'm understanding right, the ultimate goal is to put the 6 counties in the Republic of Ireland and have them policed and goverened by Dublin instead of Westminister?
So, instead of the police enforcing British law, they will be enforcing Irish Law. Instead of paying taxes to Westminister, they pay them to Dublin. Those who fail to pay taxes to Dublin, or adhere to the new laws (and they are new to these individuals) will be sent to an Irish court to be fined, jailed, or put into forced labour. You'll probably end up with some Unioist dissidents, who will need to be hunted down after they attack some Republican police officers or soldiers.
So what exactly is the benefit here for the people of the six counties and how does this seperate the Republic of Ireland from the British of centuries ago? Isnt it just repeating the mistakes of the past instead of learning from them? More to the point of course is how any of this benefits a socialist revolution.

[Sam_b]

Could a national liberation advocate please explain their views in a PM to me? It seems like a futile and hopelessly out-dated position which contradicts socialism and has been proven wrong many a time.

Thats funny, seeing as you struggled to 'prove it wrong' in the Hamas thread.

[PeaderO'Donnell]

So, if I'm understanding right, the ultimate goal is to put the 6 counties in the Republic of Ireland and have them policed and goverened by Dublin instead of Westminister?
More to the point of course is how any of this benefits a socialist revolution.


Have you read Marx and Engels on Ireland?

And no that is not the goal....You really dont know much about Irish Republicanism do you?

[manic expression]

Borders matter to the bourgeoisie as a means of control. How successful have they been at propping up an artificial difference between workers in the North and getting them to kill each other for it after all?

If borders matter to the bourgeoisie, they matter to the workers, one way or the other. At any rate, it's not an artificial difference: British occupation is neither artificial nor harmless. Again, if borders don't matter, who cares about the Sudetenland? Who cares about the partition of India/the entire middle east?

Class struggle takes a national character. Borders matter.


Its only naive to think so if you believe that nationality is more important than class and workers are incapable of recognizing their common interests.I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.


Crying on about where a border is drawn and shooting people up probably doesn't help bring them any closer together. All capitalists will interfere in the struggle of our class, imperialist or domestic, but its only as a class that we can overcome them.Yes, it would bring the Irish workers "closer together", because they'd be in the same country for once. Secondly, the sectarian nonsense that's been perpetrated by the pro-British right-wing would be minimized, thus allowing the workers more room to organize and unite.


Imperialism can't be combated from a class base?Who do you think is fighting the British occupation?

[Invader Zim]

Have you read Marx and Engels on Ireland?

And no that is not the goal....You really dont know much about Irish Republicanism do you?

Normally I would be reticent to use resort to a 150 year old document when discussing contemprary disputes, its relevence is obviously going to be limited, but if you insist on upon fetishising the words of long dead men: -

"'Workers have no nation of their own. We cannot take from them what they do not have."

- The Communist Manifesto

[Redmau5]

More to the point of course is how any of this benefits a socialist revolution.

Well you support the continued existence of Northern Ireland in order to appease loyalists, so I'm not sure why you're even interested in socialist revolution.

[Andropov]

That is precisely what you wish to do, extend one irrelevent border which unnecessarily divides humanity and retract another.

Despite what you may believe, empowering one element of the bourgeoisie at the expense of another isn't remotely necessary to establish socialism.

Yet again you miss the point.
Its not redrawing the border it is removing the remanents of imperialism.

Despite what you may believe I have no interest in empowering a different bourgeoisie.
I just recognise that until Imperialism is removed from our country the class struggle will never succeed, simple as that.

[Devrim]

but the loyalists as a class should be smashed and not united with.

I think that this really shows the confusion that is coming through here. The loyalists are not in anyway a class.

Socialism can not be built without the involvement of the vast majority of the working class, and that includes loyalists.

Devrim

[Hessian Peel]

Who do you think is fighting the British occupation?

Oh didn't you know? Your average Republican activist is minted. Must be all the drug-dealing. :D

[Marxist]

Definetly...:D

[Invader Zim]

Yet again you miss the point.
Its not redrawing the border it is removing the remanents of imperialism.

Despite what you may believe I have no interest in empowering a different bourgeoisie.
I just recognise that until Imperialism is removed from our country the class struggle will never succeed, simple as that.


Its not redrawing the border it is removing the remanents of imperialism.You are obviously confused, re-drawing the geo-political map will not, in any way, stop Britain applying its imperialistic influence upon Northern Ireland; and you are naive if you think otherwise. While Northern Ireland will cease being in the empire proper, it will join the 'informal empire'.


Despite what you may believe I have no interest in empowering a different bourgeoisie.Your 'interests' are irrelevent, the fact is that power will transfer from the British rulers in Westminister to home grown rulers; Irish workers will remain exploited.


I just recognise that until Imperialism is removed from our country the class struggle will never succeed, simple as that.How is replacing one boss with another a necessary part of class struggle?

[TC]

North Vietnam no longer exists. The national identity of the DPRK is Korean not 'Northern Korean' and Palestinians are not comparable to Ulster Unionists, but Israeli settlers certainly are.

A distinction needs to be made between populations that are largely colonial settlers in the current generation, where increased settlement for colonial purposes is a live contemporary issue and where the native population remains displaced...and those populations who are decandents historically of colonial settlers for imperialism but are not part of active settlment efforts and whose settlement and resulting displacement is no longer part of the living memory of the contemporary inhabitants, but rather their ancestors.

The former scenario describes the Israeli settlers and more recently the US backed Kurds in parts of Iraq; the later, the Ulster Scots, the Yankees, the Anglo-Australians.

[PRC-UTE]

I think that the question that really needs to be asked is how on earth these types of actions offer anyway forward for the working class.

The threat made by these type of actions is very clear. The worst possibility is the return to sectarian war in Northern Ireland. Actions like this are designed to increase sectarian tensions. That much is obvious.

What is not obvious at all is how these actions are supposed to move forward working class struggle. Many of the Republicans on here believe that class unity is impossible in Northern Ireland until the Orange state has been destroyed. I don't, but I do recognise that it is something that will be much more difficult to achieve than in some other places. The worst thing about these sort of actions is that every para military bullet, from either side, is yet another nail in the coffin of any attempt to build any sort of class unity.

The worst thing about it is is that even many of the republicans on here have admitted that this offers no way forward at all, but they cling on to repeating mantras about 'people's right to defend themselves', or some other such nonsense.

The important question for socialists is what effect actions like this have on the struggle for class unity. If we think that they help to build it, of course we should support them. At least though we should be prepared to explain why.

If on the other hand we think that these type of actions actively work against attempts to build class unity then we should condemn them.

So the question is there; How do the defenders of these sort of actions think that shooting two soldiers, a policeman and a couple of pizza delivery men will help to build class unity?

Devrim

I can't wrap my head around you saying that republicans defending themselves is "nonsense", whatever that means.

that aside, you're underlying point is valid. it is clear that the RIRA is not thinking one bit about class unity, or even the interests of the working class at all- these actions showed complete contempt for two working class boys.

IRSP members have been in touch with contacts in the Protestant working class areas to assure them that we had nothing to do with this. it seems that Orde has spread a rumour that the INLA was involved.

[Devrim]

I can't wrap my head around you saying that republicans defending themselves is "nonsense", whatever that means.

It is not people defending themselves that I say is nonsense, it is leftists harping on about bourgeois rights. That said these people weren't actually defending themselves, were they?


that aside, you're underlying point is valid. it is clear that the RIRA is not thinking one bit about class unity, or even the interests of the working class at all- these actions showed complete contempt for two working class boys.

So are you condemning these actions as anti-working class then?

Devrim

[Hessian Peel]

I can't wrap my head around you saying that republicans defending themselves is "nonsense", whatever that means.

that aside, you're underlying point is valid. it is clear that the RIRA is not thinking one bit about class unity, or even the interests of the working class at all- these actions showed complete contempt for two working class boys.

IRSP members have been in touch with contacts in the Protestant working class areas to assure them that we had nothing to do with this. it seems that Orde has spread a rumour that the INLA was involved.

Attempts at uniting both communities usually translates as pandering to loyalism. The national liberation struggle will always alienate loyalists, and there would be something seriously wrong if it didn't. The only force progressing the interests of the working class is radical Republicanism; there can be no 'unionist representatives' of so-called 'Protestant workers'. I realise I'm preaching to the converted here comrade, but there's a tendency in my view for some left Republicans to lean towards the slippery slope of the Sticks, and jaysus is that a slippery slope.

[black magick hustla]

how noble..................fighting for his irish roots, the gaelic language...catholicism.

. Atleast PRC's viewpoint makes sense, yours is just outright national chauvinism.

[Cumannach]

No it's national chauvinism to tell people they have to be British whether they like it or not.