Car bombing in Derry [Archive]

View Full Version : Car bombing in Derry

Antifa94

5th October 2010, 02:07

Car bomb explodes near Derry shopping centre

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49368000/gif/_49368615_uk_nireland_londonderry_1010.gif
A bomb planted inside a car has exploded outside a retail complex in Derry, causing substantial damage to nearby shops, police have said.
A warning was received about an hour before the device exploded, and dozens of homes and shops near to the DaVinci centre on Culmore Road were evacuated.
A cordon was put in place around the suspect Vauxhall Corsa. There are no reports of any injuries.
Police are warning of disruption in the area during Tuesday morning.

5th October 2010, 02:09

Anyone claiming the attack?

Rusty Shackleford

5th October 2010, 02:10

i bet this is tied to the attack on the dems in Modesto, CA.

this was all in the coming insurrection.

i should seriously do research for glenn beck.

Antifa94

5th October 2010, 02:21

i bet this is tied to the attack on the dems in Modesto, CA.

this was all in the coming insurrection.

i should seriously do research for glenn beck.
bahahahahH!

it's probably the PIRA....they were planning on attacking the Tory conference, why did they choose this?

Black_Flag

5th October 2010, 02:29

From what i hear theres at least two more suspected bombs/threats around the town and a more houses have now been evacuated. Most of the damage was done to a bank i think.

scarletghoul

5th October 2010, 02:45

*Derry

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

5th October 2010, 03:10

I bet it was Al-Quieda in the UK. Inshalla.

Wanted Man

5th October 2010, 09:54

*Derry

Beat me to it.

fionntan

5th October 2010, 12:14

The bank was the target and is destroyed going by the news. The RIRA said last week in an interview that bankers and banks would be targetted..:thumbup1:

Ned Kelly

5th October 2010, 12:23

The bank was the target and is destroyed going by the news. The RIRA said last week in an interview that bankers and banks would be targetted..:thumbup1:

As a person living in occupied Ireland, where do you stand on the Real IRA?

Ned Kelly

5th October 2010, 12:24

bahahahahH!

it's probably the PIRA....they were planning on attacking the Tory conference, why did they choose this?

The Provos disarmed in 2005 didn't they?

fionntan

5th October 2010, 12:28

As a person living in occupied Ireland, where do you stand on the Real IRA?
:thumbup1::thumbup1:

Ned Kelly

5th October 2010, 12:34

Sorry to go on with the questions but........
are the provos definitely gone forever?

thÃ¤lmann

5th October 2010, 13:29

the target was the ulster bank i ve read somewhere, media try that it looks like the shopping area should be destroyed.

Bitter Ashes

5th October 2010, 15:11

Believe it or not, but there's been no reporting of this in England that I've seen so far. Thanks for posting it.
If it was RIRA then hold your breath while I type this, but sounds like they picked a good target!

Mindtoaster

5th October 2010, 17:11

Real IRA has claimed responsibility

http://www.u.tv/News/Car-bomb-explodes-in-Derry/13e24c1c-eabd-4fdf-b296-361aa9b22e52

he Real IRA said it left the bomb close to the Ulster Bank on the Culmore Road.

5th October 2010, 19:02

*Derry

Beat me to it.

I don't follow?

Wanted Man

5th October 2010, 19:05

The thread title used to say "Londonderry".

5th October 2010, 19:08

The thread title used to say "Londonderry".

Yeah, I know. As far as I'm aware the place is called Londonderry. So, why the edit? Is this some childish attempt by the anti-imperialists (who don't even live there) at we're-gonna-defy-imperialist-occupation-by-calling-places-slightly-differently? Because if so, I need a bag to puke in :rolleyes:

scarletghoul

5th October 2010, 19:13

Yeah, I know. As far as I'm aware the place is called Londonderry. So, why the edit? Is this some childish attempt at we're-gonna-defy-imperialist-occupation-by-calling-places-slightly-differently? Because if so, I need a bag to puke in :rolleyes:
Er, pretty much everyone calls it Derry. I've only ever heard it called Londonderry by the BBC. This isn't a case of making a new name to sound anti-imperialist, its a case of using the generally recognised real name.

Think of "Londonderry" as a reactionary british equivalent to "AmeriKKKa", except far less imaginative and probably less used.

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

5th October 2010, 19:14

I shit on the vanguards of this planet.

Especially ones that advocate "state" and "socialism" without detecting the slightest that they are doing it wrong.

How will the working class of Ireland, north or south, benefit, from having these type of people, who blow up chippies on the shankill, or who bomb Eneskillen, or kneecap wee lads for drinking and selling weed?

Does the RIRA support workers, direct control of factories and agriculture?

Does it support a womans right to abortion, does it want to abolish the state, and replace the police with autonomous civil Guards and Militias?

Does it reject authoritarian leadership and opportunist nationalism?

If so, Its got my support, though i rather doubt it.

When one of these fake revolutionaries plants the next Bomb and unleashes another atrocity like Omagh, all these fans of random acts of bombing with no mass support will realise that

YOUR DOING IT WRONG!

scarletghoul

5th October 2010, 19:19

I shit on the vanguards of this planet.

Especially ones that advocate "state" and "socialism" without detecting the slightest that they are doing it wrong.

How will the working class of Ireland, north or south, benefit, from having these type of people, who blow up chippies on the shankill, or who bomb Eneskillen, or kneecap wee lads for drinking and selling weed?

Does the RIRA support workers, direct control of factories and agriculture?

Does it support a womans right to abortion, does it want to abolish the state, and replace the police with autonomous civil Guards and Militias?

Does it reject authoritarian leadership and opportunist nationalism?

If so, Its got my support, though i rather doubt it.Have fun not supporting any movement that has ever existed. Really, do you expect absolutely perfect organisations and movements to arise randomly ??

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

5th October 2010, 19:30

Well after about 4 decades, 3000 dead, induced poverty and violence, what did the last IRA (PIRA that time) campaign produce?

It ended with Gerry Adams and Martin Mcguinness becoming career politicians, becoming part of stormont, and a still sectarian society.

Now, if i try and build a shelf one way, for four decades, and it does not work, i have to think to myself

Maybe this is nopt the way to go.

Only a mass movement will free the Irish Proletariat, all these imbeciles are doing is giving the PSNI more funding from the Capitalists/imperialists.

Grassroots, organising, radicalising the workforce, and battling sectarian divides is what is needed.

The IRA are a defeated force, now these splinters are trying to take on the British Army head on... with what

A few switch wires and dum dum rounds?

This will just lead to the deaths of workers, and apathy in the nationalist community.

5th October 2010, 19:38

I shit on the vanguards of this planet.
I don't think you know what "vanguard" means. The working class vanguard is the most advanced, politically aware and active layer of the class, they are the leaders on the ground that matter in every fight of the class.

Especially ones that advocate "state" and "socialism" without detecting the slightest that they are doing it wrong.

How will the working class of Ireland, north or south, benefit, from having these type of people, who blow up chippies on the shankill, or who bomb Eneskillen, or kneecap wee lads for drinking and selling weed?

Does the RIRA support workers, direct control of factories and agriculture?

Does it support a womans right to abortion, does it want to abolish the state, and replace the police with autonomous civil Guards and Militias?

Does it reject authoritarian leadership and opportunist nationalism?

If so, Its got my support, though i rather doubt it.

When one of these fake revolutionaries plants the next Bomb and unleashes another atrocity like Omagh, all these fans of random acts of bombing with no mass support will realise that

YOUR DOING IT WRONG!

I agree with you that terrorism isn't an answer. I think most communists share that view in fact. Trotsky wrote a little piece on it in 1911 (http://www.marxists.de/theory/whatis/terror2.htm) and I still think it accurately puts a Marxist position on the matter.

RedAnarchist

5th October 2010, 19:38

I changed the title because Londonderry is not the real name of the city - it's basically the same thing as naming certain cities Londondelhi, Londonwashington, Londonauckland or Londonjohannesburg, or even Madridbuenosaires, Lisbonriodejaneiro, Parisalgiers, Rometripoli or Moscowhelsinki.

5th October 2010, 19:41

Er, pretty much everyone calls it Derry. I've only ever heard it called Londonderry by the BBC. This isn't a case of making a new name to sound anti-imperialist, its a case of using the generally recognised real name.
That is fair enough then.

I changed the title because Londonderry is not the real name of the city - it's basically the same thing as Londondelhi, Londonwashington, Londonauckland or Londonjohannesburg, or even Madridbuenosaires, Lisbonriodejaneiro, Parisalgiers, Rometripoli or Moscowhelsinki.

I'm not aware of cases in which any of these cities were called like that.

RedAnarchist

5th October 2010, 19:48

I'm not aware of cases in which any of these cities were called like that.

I know, but it's what happened with Derry - an invading country placed it's own capital's name as a prefix to it's name.

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

5th October 2010, 19:50

I know what a vanguard should be, but in reality, what do vanguards become, what is their role?

Well in Ireland, their role is to throw dynamite at imperialism and go, shit it did not work.... try it again.

Its like when SF took seats, basically condoning parlimentary politics and legitimising British colonialism in Ireland.

Unlike some ultra leftists, I as an anti authoritarian support National Liberation and armed movements against police, but only if their class character is genuine, and is not some form of rabbid nationalism.

When we compromise with reactionaries who are also fighting colonialism and neo colonialism, what do we get, We get IRAN

Where Islamists took over, and communists were killed.

Compromising is ok to an extent, but when you compromise on things such as workers control of society and the means of production, or social democratic isolated paramilitaries in Ireland, Or Islamic Statists in Palestine or even supporting marxists who are transphobic or sexist in posture, its reactionary

Tifosi

5th October 2010, 19:57

Er, pretty much everyone calls it Derry. I've only ever heard it called Londonderry by the BBC. This isn't a case of making a new name to sound anti-imperialist, its a case of using the generally recognised real name.

Think of "Londonderry" as a reactionary british equivalent to "AmeriKKKa", except far less imaginative and probably less used.

I may be wrong but Derry was around long before Londonderry, which was set up during the Plantation on the other side of the River Foyle. So really they are two different places that both expaned.

5th October 2010, 20:01

I know what a vanguard should be, but in reality, what do vanguards become, what is their role?
They become trained in class struggle and grow to less advanced layers that also radicalise? They lead the whole working class?

Really, vanguard isn't equal to party.

Well in Ireland, their role is to throw dynamite at imperialism and go, shit it did not work.... try it again.
Secret terrorist groups generally stand outside the working class vanguard, as they place themselves outside the class movement.

Unlike some ultra leftists, I as an anti authoritarian support National Liberation and armed movements against police, but only if their class character is genuine, and is not some form of rabbid nationalism.
"National liberation" is a form of nationalism, so I'm confused here. Are you for or against? Also, how do you view the task of world unification in concrete? Would you oppose a federal republic of the "British" (including Eire) isles in which the working class rules?

scarletghoul

5th October 2010, 20:02

I know what a vanguard should be, but in reality, what do vanguards become, what is their role?

What, how you can you support Mass Line and not a vanguard ?? That doesn't make sense to me

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

5th October 2010, 20:12

Organised groups of woirking class people, advocating tactics such as the mass line to engage mnore workers in revolutionary politics is an anarchist mass line

Like using the peoples hate of the politicians and bankers in order to get workers on their side is envoking the mass line, but rejecting reactionary views and points, like anti immigrant views etc

Like if the people of a council estate have ideas and demands, like more facilities, it could be used to involve the workers of thatarea, and set out some basic points, that most of the community will agree with, thus allying the workers with the group

IndependentCitizen

5th October 2010, 21:32

I bet it was Al-Quieda in the UK. Inshalla.
Definitely those crazy Buddhist extremists.

Some dumb comments have came out in response to the attack.

Mayor of Derry:'....I don't see the point in attacking a commercial centre'
Martin Mcguiness:'These dissidents have no interest in the good friday agreement'

Wanted Man

5th October 2010, 21:45

Martin Mcguiness:'These dissidents have no interest in the good friday agreement'

Shit, they've been rumbled!

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

5th October 2010, 21:54

Shit, they've been rumbled!

LMAO

I just immagined Mcguinness in taggarts accent going

Theres been a murderr :)

Magdalen

5th October 2010, 22:01

Yeah, I know. As far as I'm aware the place is called Londonderry. So, why the edit? Is this some childish attempt by the anti-imperialists (who don't even live there) at we're-gonna-defy-imperialist-occupation-by-calling-places-slightly-differently? Because if so, I need a bag to puke in :rolleyes:

Coming from an organisation whose partners in Britain supported Labour's decision to deploy troops in the Six Counties and did nothing during the Hunger Strike, I thought that perhaps you might prefer to remain invisible when the Irish struggle is being discussed.

For your information - the name Derry (from the Irish Doire, meaning 'oak wood' - the Irish version of the city's name has never used 'Londain') was mentioned in records as early as 1121, and a colonial settlement was even chartered under that name by James VI & I in 1604. Only after a new walled city (to keep the native Irish out) was built in 1613, was the name Londonderry adopted, apparently in gratitude for money supplied by London merchants to build the walls. Even then, 'London' quickly fell out of fashion in spoken use - only being revived by Loyalists in the 60s in response to the Civil Rights Movement. In 1984, the SDLP-led administration on the Council abolished the official use of 'Londonderry' for the city, although the British state refuses to accept this.

Wanted Man

5th October 2010, 22:22

Coming from an organisation whose partners in Britain supported Labour's decision to deploy troops in the Six Counties and did nothing during the Hunger Strike, I thought that perhaps you might prefer to remain invisible when the Irish struggle is being discussed.

For real?

Magdalen

5th October 2010, 22:34

For real?

'A slaugher would have followed in comparison with which the blood-letting in Belfast would have paled into insignificance if the Labour Government had not intervened with British troops' Militant, September 1969 (as cited in David Reed's sadly out-of-print Ireland: the key to the British revolution)

Socialist Worker followed a similar school of thought - saying that 'To say the immediate enemy in Ulster is British troops is incorrect', dropping any mention of Ireland from its 'Where We Stand' column (to date, this has never been restored).

My mention of the Militant's actions during the Hunger Strike is based on what I've been told by folk who were active in the Irish solidarity struggle at the time, although I'm sure you could dig up some references from their newspaper to illustrate it.

gorillafuck

5th October 2010, 22:41

Why on Earth has this become a discussion on vanguards? Seriously....

How is the Real IRA different from the Provisional IRA? I'm not so up to date on my IRA's. Is the RIRA socialist?

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

6th October 2010, 00:01

'A slaugher would have followed in comparison with which the blood-letting in Belfast would have paled into insignificance if the Labour Government had not intervened with British troops' Militant, September 1969 (as cited in David Reed's sadly out-of-print Ireland: the key to the British revolution)

Socialist Worker followed a similar school of thought - saying that 'To say the immediate enemy in Ulster is British troops is incorrect', dropping any mention of Ireland from its 'Where We Stand' column (to date, this has never been restored).

My mention of the Militant's actions during the Hunger Strike is based on what I've been told by folk who were active in the Irish solidarity struggle at the time, although I'm sure you could dig up some references from their newspaper to illustrate it.

To be fair Brendan Hughes says he was relieved to see british troops enter Northern Ireland, he was a PIRA high up and a hunger striker

STRAWMEN ARE EASILY DESTROYED! :)

Antifa94

6th October 2010, 01:13

I apologize, I didn't mean to use an imperialist name for the city...
anyway, here is video!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11479594
scroll down for CCTV footage.
FAP FAP FAP

Mindtoaster

6th October 2010, 02:14

How is the Real IRA different from the Provisional IRA? I'm not so up to date on my IRA's. Is the RIRA socialist?

While the PIRA called itself socialist, the RIRA is a bit more explicitly so from what I can tell

In an attempt to tap into the intense hostility towards the banks on both sides of the Irish border they branded bankers as "criminals" and said: "We have a track record of attacking high-profile economic targets and financial institutions such as the City of London. The role of bankers and the institutions they serve in financing Britain's colonial and capitalist system has not gone unnoticed.

"Let's not forget that the bankers are the next-door neighbours of the politicians. Most people can see the picture: the bankers grease the politicians' palms, the politicians bail out the bankers with public funds, the bankers pay themselves fat bonuses and loan the money back to the public with interest. It's essentially a crime spree that benefits a social elite at the expense of many millions of victims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/14/real-ira-targets-banks-bankers

Ned Kelly

6th October 2010, 08:42

All incarnations/splinters of the IRA have shared essentially the ideology of the current Sinn Fein, so have a look at what they want. This is bar the 'Official IRA' who were self-proclaimed Marxists, as were the Irish National Liberation Army

IndependentCitizen

6th October 2010, 09:32

I expressed support for the attack on Facebook, and some idiot said "Wait, you support the IRA, and hate the BNP?"

Oh how I raged.

GreenCommunism

6th October 2010, 09:34

the bnp supports the ira?

IndependentCitizen

6th October 2010, 09:37

the bnp supports the ira?

I think he thought so, or he got the fact mixed up. BNP had links to Combat 18, who had links to UVF.... maybe he got mixed up, who knows.

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

6th October 2010, 11:33

If the BNP did get in power, the Nationalist community would be massacred, just check out the BNP website, and look at what it says about Northern Ireland.

It seems to say, Ulster was a fine British place FOREVER, but about 40 years ago, these Irish guys turned up with guns.... What a bunch of pricks the BNP are.

6th October 2010, 11:55

All these IRAs are fucking confusing. IRA, anti-treaty IRA, PIRA, official IRA, RIRA, CIRA. Am I the only one who has this problem?

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

6th October 2010, 12:06

RIRA - Really Idiotic Reactionary Arseholes
PIRA - Peoples International Revolution Abandoned

its fun

now for the brits

SAS - Silly Ass Sausages :)

Ned Kelly

6th October 2010, 12:20

RIRA - Really Idiotic Reactionary Arseholes
PIRA - Peoples International Revolution Abandoned

its fun

now for the brits

SAS - Silly Ass Sausages :)

They aren't international revolutionaries, sure, but they were fighting a campaign of liberation from British imperialism, sure, the Catholic-centrism isn't ideal. Hell, they aren't perfect but it's a noble cause.

MagÃ³n

6th October 2010, 12:29

I say let them have Ireland! (the Irish, not the English.) It's just gonna be another State to knock over. Or maybe not, and I'll just leave them alone, and let them doing their own in house fighting like the Middle East does? I dunno, but I'm pretty sure that's what I'll do.

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

6th October 2010, 12:30

Its not Noble, its futile, and if something is clearly futile, to keep doing it at the cost of lives, like at omagh, is reactionary.

In the 80s and 90s, the IRA were fundraising in America, and NORAID gave out leaflets, saying that the PIRA, and SF, upheld the rights of the unborn, and denounced abortion.

Sorry but if you support these groups, you might as well abandon all of what marx said, and just fly the stars and stripes.

IndependentCitizen

6th October 2010, 14:42

All these IRAs are fucking confusing. IRA, anti-treaty IRA, PIRA, official IRA, RIRA, CIRA. Am I the only one who has this problem?
Same, I think it's the lack of imagination. Can't come up with a decent name, so they slap something in front of IRA.

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

6th October 2010, 14:47

Because they want to be able to claim the heritage of the easter rising and the old IRA of the 1920s.

Rather pathetic really, as the only member of the rising i like, Connolly, would have been disgusted with the plastic socialists in our midsts.

Magdalen

6th October 2010, 15:58

To be fair Brendan Hughes says he was relieved to see british troops enter Northern Ireland, he was a PIRA high up and a hunger striker

Source?

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

6th October 2010, 16:08

LeninBalls

6th October 2010, 16:12

All these IRAs are fucking confusing. IRA, anti-treaty IRA, PIRA, official IRA, RIRA, CIRA. Am I the only one who has this problem?

It's easy really.

IRA=1920s IRA
PIRA=60s Split of the IRA
OIRA=See above
RIRA=Split of PIRA
CIRA=Split of PIRA

dajsh4u

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

6th October 2010, 16:23

Fighting for irish soveregnity is as bad as fighting for American soveregnity or French Soveregnity.

Workers should be fighting for the mum who is raising a kid on minimum wage and cant pay the rent

They should be fighting for the black family in the south, who are plauged by racism and and injustice

They should be fighting patriachy and the universal oppression of women.

They should be fighting for the working class, for their right to collectively own and run the means of production.

But to fight for something as abstract and meaningless as a rag of a certain colour or design, which represents a state, which will be just as oppressive and brutal as the Bloody union jack, well that is just as useless as fighting fire with fire.

LeninBalls

6th October 2010, 17:08

Fighting for irish soveregnity is as bad as fighting for American soveregnity or French Soveregnity.

Workers should be fighting for the mum who is raising a kid on minimum wage and cant pay the rent

They should be fighting for the black family in the south, who are plauged by racism and and injustice

They should be fighting patriachy and the universal oppression of women.

They should be fighting for the working class, for their right to collectively own and run the means of production.

but they shouldnt be fighting for irish proletarians who are discriminated by foreign imperialism ok cool

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

6th October 2010, 17:16

The Imperialists spend more money on Northern Ireland than they do on the north of england in funding and housing etc.

British imperialism in Ireland is not the same context as the Old colonialism, where labour and resources were taken and used to benefit the ruling class of the imperialist nation.

The truth is, NI is a settler state, and until the workers there are united, there will never be a united Ireland.

So why keep on using useless tactics?

Jolly Red Giant

6th October 2010, 17:20

I changed the title because Londonderry is not the real name of the city
The (UK) legal name is Londonderry - the city council are officially called Derry city council. There has been a consistant and ongoing dispute over the name for a long time that is pretty well summarised here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derry/Londonderry_name_dispute

Being from the South, I call it Derry

And, RedAnarchist, the real name is Doire - Derry is an anglicised version of the original Irish name and as such is just as much a 'reactionary british equivalent' as Londonderry'.

All these IRAs are fucking confusing. IRA, anti-treaty IRA, PIRA, official IRA, RIRA, CIRA. Am I the only one who has this problem?
And you have missed out on a couple as well.

scarletghoul

6th October 2010, 18:06

Derry is an anglicised version of the original Irish name and as such is just as much a 'reactionary british equivalent' as Londonderry'.
Er,, theres a bit of a difference between anglicising a name and adding "London" onto it...

Jolly Red Giant

6th October 2010, 18:52

Er,, theres a bit of a difference between anglicising a name and adding "London" onto it...
Not actually - the name 'London' was added in 1613 as recognition of the support of the trade guilds of London who gave donations to the city and who established trade houses for the training of apprentices in the city.

At the start of the Troubles, Derry was the common name used by all sections of the community, and had been for nearly 200 years. The split in the use of the name along sectarian lines came with rising sectarian tensions in the early 1970's.

Magdalen

6th October 2010, 19:58

Its on youtube, in two different videos, One is a republican video, where people like decklin aurthurs and hughes are interviewed, another is the Book, IRA Provos and sein fein by peter taylor, wich was also made into a documentary on youtube.

Infact, the entire nationalist movement was glad to see troops on the street, aswell as the nationalist community, who used to bring soldiers cups of tea.

One IRA guy said on a documentary, the IRA were even treated as equal defenders of the nationalist community by the troops, who used to let the IRA commanders give new provo recruits lessons in TE they had available at the time(technical equipment is guns etc, i think it was a japanese submachine gun they used in the documentary)

There is also a video showing British soldiers saluting an IRA funeral, in early years.

The British troops were there to prop up stormont, but that does not change the fact, nationalist ghettos, really needed protection, from loyalist pogroms.

The motivation of the British state was not to 'bring peace', and I've never heard either of the stories you describe from a reputable source, as opposed to some sensationalist YouTube documentary.

The deployment of British troops in Derry after the Battle of the Bogside led Jim Callaghan to reflect that 'The troops immediate orders were to relieve the exhuasted police and prevent riots breaking out in the centre of Londonderry.' No mention whatsoever of protecting the nationalist population from RUC brutality - Britain's problem with the RUC was not its violence towards nationalists, but its inability to keep down popular revolt. The Derry Citizens' Defence Association refused to allow any troops into the Bogside from the very beginning.

Perhaps it can be argued that certain segments of the nationalist community were at first unsure how to respond to the new factor of direct British military involvement, but as Sean Mac Stiofain (IRA Chief of Staff 1969-72) later noted, 'nationalists would quickly realise that a colonial power does not send its army to hurry up social reforms.' Britain needed to prevent the outbreak of open civil war in the Six Counties, as this would impair both its own stability and that of the Twenty-Six Counties.

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

6th October 2010, 20:04

khad

6th October 2010, 20:55

All these IRAs are fucking confusing. IRA, anti-treaty IRA, PIRA, official IRA, RIRA, CIRA. Am I the only one who has this problem?
There are only 3 relevant organizations today, the RIRA, CIRA, and the ÓnaÉ (a group staffed largely with disaffected provos, I am told)

Trying to be snarky by listing organizations that are defunct is cute but does little more than reveal ignorance. Want to have a discussion on Northern Ireland? Want to speak intelligently and not sound like a mouth breathing idiot? You can start by reading and maybe, you know, learning something.

They were sent to prop up the state, however many nationalists were glad to see them arrive, as the nationalist ghetto areas were bveing over run.
You're full of shit. In many places the dealers live across from the police station--because the British imperialist state uses these criminal elements to inform on and destroy nationalist communities.

Devrim

6th October 2010, 21:12

They were sent to prop up the state, however many nationalists were glad to see them arrive, as the nationalist ghetto areas were bveing over run.

You're full of shit. In many places the dealers live across from the police station--because the British imperialist state uses these criminal elements to inform on and destroy nationalist communities.

It is actually true. Many nationalists* were glad to see the troops arrive. This didn't last for long, but at the time it was true.

When he talks about 'nationalist ghetto areas were being over run', he is referring to by 'protestant' mobs trying to burn people out, not drug dealers.

Devrim

*If we define nationalists as it is usually used in the media as members of the 'Catholic' community were glad to see the troops arrive.

MLDA also said this which I am not so sure about
:

NO ONE SAID THE BRITISH ARMY WERE THE GOOD GUYS, BUT MANY NATIONALISTS AND ira MEN, WERE glad to see the troops on the street.

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

6th October 2010, 21:23

In 69, the OIRA refused to defend catholic nationalist communities, because they said to do so was sectarian.

So some members of the IRA, collected some guns, and defended nationalist areas, such as a church, where around 14 nationalists helf of a mobof protestant loyalists with 22 rifles.

Peter taylor in the documentary asks brendan hughes, an PIRA commander,and anti good friday agreement republican

"Were you relieved to see troops on the streets of NI"

He says something like, we were not pleased, but relieved, because the group of men who defended the nationalist areas (were OIRA men who later became PIRA) were using antiquated rifles, and hard hardly any munitions etc, and were being broken by loyalist mobs.

Remeber the biggest mass migration in europe since ww2 was in NI, where republicans/cath0olics were burnt out of their homes on bombay street and rathcool etc etc

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

7th October 2010, 03:51

Why on Earth has this become a discussion on vanguards? Seriously....

How is the Real IRA different from the Provisional IRA? I'm not so up to date on my IRA's. Is the RIRA socialist?

I belive the PIRA put its weapons out of reach, while the RIRA is still comitted to reuniting Ireland by force, I assume it's as socalist as all the IRA groups are/were.

But don't quote me on it.

7th October 2010, 05:49

There are only 3 relevant organizations today, the RIRA, CIRA, and the ÓnaÉ (a group staffed largely with disaffected provos, I am told)

Trying to be snarky by listing organizations that are defunct is cute but does little more than reveal ignorance. Want to have a discussion on Northern Ireland? Want to speak intelligently and not sound like a mouth breathing idiot? You can start by reading and maybe, you know, learning something.
Ignorant? I was simply confused.

Martin Blank

7th October 2010, 17:52

Want to speak intelligently and not sound like a mouth breathing idiot?

Got a request about this, khad. You might be making a salient point to the discussion, but there's no need for resorting to namecalling and flamebait. Sorry, comrade, but consider this a verbal warning.

Palingenisis

7th October 2010, 19:49

In 69, the OIRA refused to defend catholic nationalist communities, because they said to do so was sectarian.

No they didnt refuse....Vols Patrica Mc Kay, Joe Mc Cann and Gerard Mc Caughley were not killed by Imperialist forces for picking flowers...Infact up to their ceasefire in 1972 they killed more than the Provies and were bigger than them to in terms of membership and support...Revisionism both from the Officals who went onto to become the Workers Party and the Provies has written the OIRA out of the early history of the troubles. The most revolutionary element of the Offical Republican movement went on to form the IRSP and the INLA...But sadly its leadership was picked off one by one by various Imperialist elements leaving to be degenerate during the 80s.

Palingenisis

7th October 2010, 19:54

It is actually true. Many nationalists* were glad to see the troops arrive. This didn't last for long, but at the time it was true.

But Dev there are "nationalists" which basically translates as "Cafalicks" and than there are Republicans. People have to remember that the RCC was always an enemy of Irish national self-determination for its own geo-political reasons. Wasnt it a Bishop of somewhere or other who called for the squaddies to be sent in first?

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

7th October 2010, 20:04

someone read that book on the sticks :lol:

Palingenisis

7th October 2010, 20:09

MLDA also said this which I am not so sure about
:

Sean Mc Stiofan in a famous-ish interview said that he welcomed the Troops as it was the first overt manifestation of British Imperialism in Ireland since the 20s.

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

7th October 2010, 20:17

Palingenisis

7th October 2010, 20:46

No actually, Brendan Hughes says he was glad british troops were put on the streets, because he said resistance to loyalist mobs was crumbling and as we all know, if the troops were not deployed, there would have been alot of ethnic cleansing of nationalists by loyalists.

Long before the troubles errupted Peader O'Donnell the great Irish Communist, hero of the national libetration wars of the 20s and novelist said that "we dont have a IRA brigade in Belfast, we have a gang of armed Catholics"....Brendan Hughes as much as I respect him was part of Billy Mc Kee's brigade in Belfast who was finally forced to step down because of his sectarianism and violence to non-Provies in general around 78 (not before he had driven the Sticks into capitulationist economism and hardened the sectarian divisions in that city for years to come). Brendan Hughes was not Irish Republicanism in it's entirity by a long way (though he got more and more progressive as he got older).

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

7th October 2010, 20:58

Palingenisis

7th October 2010, 21:01

I belive the PIRA put its weapons out of reach, while the RIRA is still comitted to reuniting Ireland by force, I assume it's as socalist as all the IRA groups are/were.

But don't quote me on it.

The Provies originally put forward a distributist model though they might have labeled it "Democratic Socialist"....They also had an anti-revisionist turn in the mid-80s of which Gerry Adams praising socialist Albania at the 86 or 87 ard fheis (Irish for party conference)...The problemn with the Provies was that they tried to be all things to all men and at the same time keep strict discipline among their ranks.

Red Panther

7th October 2010, 21:29

Palingenisis

7th October 2010, 21:32

thats irrelevant, the point is, people were glad the troops were deployed.

thats not supporting imperialism, its being honest, and they soon realised, they were there to enforce the status quo, but they were still relieved when they were first deployed.

Listen to this....It gives the Republican-Socialist response to the Squaddies being sent in....Listen carefully...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-j5G3SaEqQ

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

7th October 2010, 21:56

Whatever itsays, the majority of nationalists in the north were glad to see troops there, then after they realised why they were there they changed their opinion.

But they were glad the troops arrived, in the majority, thats why women made the soldiers tea and kids played football with em.

Palingenisis

7th October 2010, 21:58

But they were glad the troops arrived, in the majority, thats why women made the soldiers tea and kids played football with em.

So why werent the soldiers welcomed in Free Derry?

RedTrackWorker

8th October 2010, 09:41

'A slaugher would have followed in comparison with which the blood-letting in Belfast would have paled into insignificance if the Labour Government had not intervened with British troops' Militant, September 1969 (as cited in David Reed's sadly out-of-print Ireland: the key to the British revolution)

Socialist Worker followed a similar school of thought - saying that 'To say the immediate enemy in Ulster is British troops is incorrect', dropping any mention of Ireland from its 'Where We Stand' column (to date, this has never been restored).

My mention of the Militant's actions during the Hunger Strike is based on what I've been told by folk who were active in the Irish solidarity struggle at the time, although I'm sure you could dig up some references from their newspaper to illustrate it.

They're still up to the same political method, see:
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/letters/ghettos080610.html
and
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/letters/bloodysunday62310.html

fionntan

8th October 2010, 16:45

I just said that, rereadmy post you idiot.

They were sent to prop up the state, however many nationalists were glad to see them arrive, as the nationalist ghetto areas were bveing over run.

And its not a sensationalist documentary, brendan hughes, and mcstaifan are it it, he had a stroke, so in the video, he talks kinda wierd.

NO ONE SAID THE BRITISH ARMY WERE THE GOOD GUYS, BUT MANY NATIONALISTS AND ira MEN, WERE glad to see the troops on the street.

Really were do you pull this shit from NO member of the IRA ever welcomed a british mercinary on to the streets of Ireland. A few propaganda pictures were taken of a woman/Brit given a cup of tea to the murdering ocupiers. And all of a sudden its fact that we welcomed them:rolleyes:. If that was the case then the Irish welcome that is renowend world wide isnt worth to much as we sent enough of them home in body bags and are still doing.

The Grey Blur

8th October 2010, 17:57

Yes, nationalists welcomed the British troops originally. Even in Derry Palingenesis. At that point in time the republican movement was very weak. The most organised left political current were the young civil rights groups - people like Eamonn McCann and Bernadette McAliskey. They attempted to warn the people of the dangers of the British army being deployed, that they were there to defend the status quo, but McCann recounts that noone took their warnings seriously, they simply viewed the British troops as a welcome relief from the overt sectarianism and brutality of the Stormont state and its armed wing (the RUC and B Specials). While the barricades in Free Derry did not immediately come down they did eventually within a short period. McCann's 'War and an Irish Town' gives a good account of this period.

The Grey Blur

8th October 2010, 18:16

In 69, the OIRA refused to defend catholic nationalist communities, because they said to do so was sectarian.

So some members of the IRA, collected some guns, and defended nationalist areas, such as a church, where around 14 nationalists helf of a mobof protestant loyalists with 22 rifles.
This is wrong, and a Provo revisionist line. The OIRA didn't "refuse to defend nationalist areas" - they did their best with the lack of weapons available to them. There was an article in the local paper in West Belfast recently written by OIRA veterans who gave the account of how their attempted defense was carried out. It would be interesting if I could find it online and post it here. The ultimate hypocrisy of this Provo revisionism is that plenty of those who went on to found the Provos had entirely dropped out of the republican movement by '69, turned off by the OIRA/OSF's approach to the national question, which was to make it inseperable from calls for social justice. These people weren't keen on any political activity (housing campaigns, civil rights etc) except for the gun and bomb variety.

The Grey Blur

8th October 2010, 18:22

I think its good that the IRA are targeting banks now! They even warned people beforehand. It's better than targeting civilian targets. The bailout was nonsense and now we have to pay for it so the IRA are just showing the government that people won't take believe their lies.
This attack is pointless, nothing was gained except a further alienation of the RIRA from the vast majority of working people in NI who reject a return to the armed campaigns of old. Blowing up a bank does not damage capital, the efforts of the organised working class do.

IndependentCitizen

8th October 2010, 20:14

I think its good that the IRA are targeting banks now! They even warned people beforehand. It's better than targeting civilian targets. The bailout was nonsense and now we have to pay for it so the IRA are just showing the government that people won't take believe their lies.
Absolutely, apart from Omagh bombing, I think they've been incredibly brilliant in their attacks. I think it's honourable to warn ahead to try and minimise civilian casaulties, and increase terror on the occupiers, and of course, damaging banking buildings.

Palingenisis

8th October 2010, 21:11

This attack is pointless, nothing was gained except a further alienation of the RIRA from the vast majority of working people in NI who reject a return to the armed campaigns of old. Blowing up a bank does not damage capital, the efforts of the organised working class do.

Personally I dont think national liberation is possible outside of a 32 county wide social revolution and I also think that a lot of northern republicans realize that throwing themselves into another unwinable "Long war" isnt worth it. However I dont think that the RIRA are planning a return to the old "Long war"...Rather they are using occasional actions to slash at the mirage of "normalization" (and it is a mirage...so called "peace walls" have doubled since the GFA)....Which is fair enough as long as they dont label pizza boys as coming anywhere close to the same league as General Petain for delievering pizzas to Brit bases...

They might not have wide spread support but they do have widespread sympathy...

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Shock-as-dissident-support-revealed.6567211.jp

If the Newsletter says 14 per cent I would imagine given that people in the north would be carefull about how they answer a survey like that it would be a LOT higher...

Magdalen

8th October 2010, 22:24

They're still up to the same political method, see:
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/letters/ghettos080610.html
and
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/letters/bloodysunday62310.html

Thanks for those, particularly the first one - which illustrates quite well that forty years later, nothing has changed. Even by the low standards of the British Left, the Militant/Socialist Party have always had an awful position on Ireland.

Accusing nationalist youth of provoking 'further misery and sectarian tension', and going on to defend the right of the Orange Order to parade their supremacy through nationalist communities is appalling, although with his organisation's record it is to be expected - do any of the CWI members here have the nerve to defend Ciaran Mulholland's comments?

As I'm re-reading some old books on Ireland just now, one thing that keeps striking me is the similarity between the language used towards Irish Republicans by the British Left in the 1970s and 80s, and that used by Adams, McGuinness and their ilk today. Gerry Adams uses hackneyed old phrases about 'attacks on the peace process' and 'anti-social and criminal elements', just as the Morning Star once told us about 'acts of barbarism'. The British state is seldom mentioned.

Crux

8th October 2010, 22:39

Thanks for those, particularly the first one - which illustrates quite well that forty years later, nothing has changed. Even by the low standards of the British Left, the Militant/Socialist Party have always had an awful position on Ireland.

Accusing nationalist youth of provoking 'further misery and sectarian tension', and going on to defend the right of the Orange Order to parade their supremacy through nationalist communities is appalling, although with his organisation's record it is to be expected - do any of the CWI members here have the nerve to defend Ciaran Mulholland's comments?

As I'm re-reading some old books on Ireland just now, one thing that keeps striking me is the similarity between the language used towards Irish Republicans by the British Left in the 1970s and 80s, and that used by Adams, McGuinness and their ilk today. Gerry Adams uses hackneyed old phrases about 'attacks on the peace process' and 'anti-social and criminal elements', just as the Morning Star once told us about 'acts of barbarism'. The British state is seldom mentioned.
I certainly defend Ciaran's article, a friendly suggestion would be for you to actually read it rather than base yourself on quotations of an LRP sympathiser: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4416

Saorsa

8th October 2010, 22:50

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PSNI-set-to-launch-dissident.6570981.jp

Palingenisis

8th October 2010, 22:55

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PSNI-set-to-launch-dissident.6570981.jp

Increasingly these operations arent aimed at actual "physical force" Republicans but against any Republican who opposes the GFA....Particularly young people involved in Eirigi, RNU, IRSP, etc are being intimidated. The old more or less fascist face of the six county statelet is more and more showing itself.

Jolly Red Giant

8th October 2010, 23:02

They're still up to the same political method,
It really is quite frustrating when left republicans consciously attempt to misquote CWI statements and position in an effort to do nothing else except throw mud.

'A slaugher would have followed in comparison with which the blood-letting in Belfast would have paled into insignificance if the Labour Government had not intervened with British troops' Militant, September 1969 (as cited in David Reed's sadly out-of-print Ireland: the key to the British revolution)
This clearly is an attempt to suggest that the Militant supported the arrival of the troops on the grounds that a 'slaughter' would have taken place without their arrival.

The article the quote is taken from is entitled "Northern Ireland: For a United Workers Defence Force" and starts by outlining four demands -

· Withdraw British Troops
· Disband B Specials and police thugs
· For jobs, schools, homes, take over monopolies
· Catholic and Protestant workers fight for a United Socialist Ireland

I will now quote the section of the article in full -

The need of the British ruling class to come to terms with the demands of the Civil Rights Movement was determined by this factor, naked cash calculation. To have stood out against the minimum democratic demands would have meant continued armed clashes resulting in the burning down of factories, the consequent drying up of foreign investment and the collapse of the economy - which would have impelled sections of the Protestant working class into action as well. But always the Unionist hierarchy have conceded too little and too late and given almost a free reign to their armed detachments.

In answer to this the Bogside fought with fury against the thuggery of the police. Under heavy siege for over 50 hours they held of the police attacks. This was despite the use of lethal and heavy CS gas taken, it is believed, from army stocks. As we the Derry Labour Party pointed out in our Barricade Bulletin…'The maximum amount of gas which is issued to any British police force at any one time if 80 canisters. These canisters (the ones used by the British police) contain 30 grammes. The cans used here in Derry contained 51 grammes each.' As a result of the hundreds of tear gas canisters used by the RUC, at a rate of 3 a minute, numerous babies, small children and old people are suffering from diarrhoea and other ill effects. After 50 hours, with the police unable to penetrate the Bogside unassisted, and with the wind changing so as to make the tear gas a double edged weapon, the police had to retreat.

It was at this stage that they mobilised the B Specials, the Paisleyites in uniform, hated by the Catholic population. They were laden with .303 rifles, sub-machine guns and automatic weapons. A slaughter would have followed in comparison with which the bloodletting in Belfast would have paled into insignificance, if the Labour Government had not intervened with British troops. But it would be fatal to think that they troops were solely to defend the Catholic population from attack by the Paisleyites and B Specials. The calculation of the ruling class against was fear of the political upheavals, destruction of property and 'dangerous' political vacuum which would have been created if Civil War had followed. Sections of the workers would have learned in action very quickly, as many Bogside workers have, to put class action first. Thus even faced with sectarian attack, the Derry Labour Party has increasingly found an eager response to the idea of appealing to the Protestant workers…As absolutely necessary as it has been to defend the area against police and Paisleyite attack an opportunity has existed for appealing to Protestant workers.

The call made for the entry of British troops will turn to vinegar in the mouths of the some of the Civil Rights leaders. The troops have been sent to impose a solution in the interest of British and Ulster Big Business. A cursory examination of their role in Aden, and their projected role in Rhodesia, is an indication of this. Wilson, in answer to the demand for use of troops against the Rhodesia Front Government, pointedly warned that an occasion might arise when troops would have to be sent, when an armed African uprising threatened private property there.

The article can be read in full here -

http://www.oocities.com/socialistparty/Archive/1969Troops.htm#ixzz11nz1BfPG

Only someone who was consciously attempting to take a sectarian swipe at the CWI would take the quote used so completely out of context as to make it useless in describing the CWI position on the troops in 1969.

My mention of the Militant's actions during the Hunger Strike is based on what I've been told by folk who were active in the Irish solidarity struggle at the time, although I'm sure you could dig up some references from their newspaper to illustrate it.
Pray tell - what 'actions' of Militant are you talking about?

As regards the references - I can easily direct you to statements from the CWI on the H-Blocks.

Now directly in relation to the H-blocks - the Blanket protest revolved around the 'Five Demands' put forward by the prisioners as follows:

The right not to wear a prison uniform;
The right not to do prison work;
The right of free association with other prisoners, and to organise educational and recreational pursuits;
The right to one visit, one letter and one parcel per week;
Full restoration of remission lost through the protest.

The following are the demands put forward by the CWI in May 1979 for a resolution of the H-Block Protest -

· For an end to torture and brutalisation, whether in Castlereagh, H-Block, Walton Jail or any other jail in Britain or in Ireland, and for the closure of all RUC interrogation centres.
· For the repeal of the Emergency Provisions Act, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the Repayment of Debt Act and for the disbandment of the non-jury Diplock Courts.
· For the right of all prisoners to wear their own clothes, receive visits and food parcels freely and to have free access to full recreational and educational facilities.
· For the right of all prisoners to elect representatives to negotiate on their behalf.
· For the review by the Labour Movement of all sentences of those convicted of offences arising out of the present troubles.

I would suggest that the demands put forward by the CWI went significantly further than those put forward by the prisoners in the H-Blocks.

Furthermore, the CWI placed the blame for the crisis in the H-Blocks on Thatcher and the Tories. In July 1981 a CWI statement stated the following:

As we go to press the H-Block hunger strike remains unresolved. The deaths of two more prisoners and the collapse of the peace initiative of the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace have underlined the brutal intransigent stand of the Tories...

The first responsibility for the deaths in the H-Blocks rests with the Tory government. In the past, Thatcher has defended her refusal to grant basic concessions by stating that the prisoners will accept only political status, nothing more, nothing less. This lie has been formally nailed. The prisoners themselves, in a statement before the death of Joe McDonnell, quite explicitly dropped the call for political status as a precondition for the ending of their protest. They said ‘It is wrong for the British government to say we are looking for differential treatment form other prisoners. We would warmly welcome the introduction of the 5 demands for all prisoners’ (this echoed a previous statement from the CWI which called for the demands to be conceded for all prisoners, not just those in the H-Blocks)

The silence of the Labour movement in Ireland on this issue must end. It is a scandal that the last public statement made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on H-Block was issued in December 1980, during the last hunger strike. No less disgraceful has been the position of certain of the parliamentary leaders of the British Labour Party who have backed Thatcher’s every move. Labour’s rank and file must see to it that bi-partisanship on H-Blocks is ended. All it means is that Labour is seen to share in the responsibility for the deaths of prisoners.

http://www.lrp-cofi.org/letters/ghettos080610.html
and
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/letters/bloodysunday62310.html
And I am going to bother refuting two anti-CWI sectarian rants than have been refuted on numerous occasions before - :rolleyes:

Accusing nationalist youth of provoking 'further misery and sectarian tension',
And guess what - you are at it again. Ciaran Mulholland did not accuse 'nationalist youth' - he accused republican dissidents - The dissidents are playing a thoroughly reactionary role.

If you intend making political points against the CWI, at least have the decency to make valid points rather than misquote to suit your own sectarian purposes.

The Grey Blur

9th October 2010, 01:41

good post from JRG.

palingenesis: i wouldn't get into 'fascist' hyperbole but you make a valid point in that these actions are giving the psni the excuse to harass any and all non-gfa supporting republicans.

on your preceding post:

Personally I dont think national liberation is possible outside of a 32 county wide social revolution and I also think that a lot of northern republicans realize that throwing themselves into another unwinable "Long war" isnt worth it. However I dont think that the RIRA are planning a return to the old "Long war"...Rather they are using occasional actions to slash at the mirage of "normalization" (and it is a mirage...so called "peace walls" have doubled since the GFA)....Which is fair enough as long as they dont label pizza boys as coming anywhere close to the same league as General Petain for delievering pizzas to Brit bases...

They might not have wide spread support but they do have widespread sympathy...

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Sho...led.6567211.jp (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Shock-as-dissident-support-revealed.6567211.jp)

If the Newsletter says 14 per cent I would imagine given that people in the north would be carefull about how they answer a survey like that it would be a LOT higher...
you're right in that the illusion of 'normalisation' in the north is just that. though i sincerely doubt whether it's the rira's conscious desire to make that point - their resurrection is in itself a symptom of this malaise in the north and the fact that the gfa has not changed the socio-economic reality for working class nationalists. within this context, 'sympathy' with their actions is understandable, but i don't think it's "fair enough"- these tactics are flawed and can't achieve the end goal of national liberation and socialism which is supposedly their stated aim.

Palingenisis

9th October 2010, 01:54

good post from JRG.

palingenesis: i wouldn't get into 'fascist' hyperbole but you make a valid point in that these actions are giving the psni the excuse to harass any and all non-gfa supporting republicans.

.

The Irish Workers Party (not to be confused with sticks later on) along with the Communist Party of Northern Ireland (they became one Party in 1970 or there abouts) characterized the Stormount regime as fascist and they were far from hysterical ultra-leftists. The mandatory coalition aswell as the corporatist nature of the economy along with the heavy handed attitude to any dissent suggests fascism even if its not exactly that. My memories of visting the north as a little girl certainly suggest fascism. Maybe these actions are in response to PSNI harassment as opposed to the other way around?

Palingenisis

9th October 2010, 02:04

you're right in that the illusion of 'normalisation' in the north is just that. though i sincerely doubt whether it's the rira's conscious desire to make that point - their resurrection is in itself a symptom of this malaise in the north and the fact that the gfa has not changed the socio-economic reality for working class nationalists. within this context, 'sympathy' with their actions is understandable, but i don't think it's "fair enough"- these tactics are flawed and can't achieve the end goal of national liberation and socialism which is supposedly their stated aim.

Some 32s are socialist...Some arent. Though I have no way of knowing what the army is thinking I presume its the same situation. Personally I feel sending people to their death sooner or later or at the very least to rot in prison for years (who remembers Sean Mc Caughey who died on hunger strike in the 1940s?) isnt wise....But the fact remains that as a tactic there is some thought behind it. Will it deliever national liberation and socialism...Absolutely not....But for the moment we seem very far from both of those things.

While the occupation remains physical force Republicanism will too and as such it will remain a warning to the UK state that it cant rule Ireland on its own terms. However much it may seem to you and me to be drenched in middle class romanticism.

Palingenisis

9th October 2010, 02:07

The Grey Blur

9th October 2010, 02:15

i agree totally, the very existence of physical-force republican groups is down to the nature of the north as an artificial imperialist-guaranteed statelet. but that doesn't mean we abandon the fight for national liberation and socialism to these groups, especially if we can offer a more accurate analysis and much more effective tactics.

you make a fair point, in a technical marxist sense the old orange state could have been referred to as fascist. it certainly isn't now, and sf/sdlp are as complicit in the repression of dissident republicans today as the unionist parties. it's a two way street as regards political repression in the north and dissident reprisals, but my point was that they are handing the state an excuse (as this new psni measure demonstrates) to harass all republican groups including the left who reject these attacks.

The six counties has the lowest level of wages in the UK...Many working class Unionists live in appalling conditions...A very big question is whether working class unity is possible in the six counties outside of flash in the pan economic struggles. __________________
yes of course, the unionist working class are in the same boat, i was just aiming to explaining the resurgence of RIRA in materialist terms...when you are thrown on the social scrapheap at 11 years old when you fail your grammar school entry exams then the romance of the gun has a strong pull. i accept that working class unity in the north can sometimes seem like a depressingly impossible pipe dream but the fact is the idea that another armed campaign or that sf-style neo-liberal compromise will bring about a united ireland or equally deluded. who can solve the national question? only the working class.

Palingenisis

9th October 2010, 02:27

you make a fair point, in a technical marxist sense the old orange state could have been referred to as fascist. it certainly isn't now, and sf/sdlp are as complicit in the repression of dissident republicans today as the unionist parties. it's a two way street as regards political repression in the north and dissident reprisals, but my point was that they are handing the state an excuse (as this new psni measure demonstrates) to harass all republican groups including the left who reject these attacks.

The Shinners I know talk about making the best of a bad lot or idolize Gerry Adams as if he was God. The stoops were always the mouth piece of the Bishops...The Shinner elite have done very well out of the "Peace Process"...

Why do most people vote for PSF? They vote for them because they are better at getting stuff for "their" community than the stoops...The same way a large part of the Unionist working class vote DUP....Its a recipe for disaster...If only the Shinners would stop being a sectarian party and try at least to become one of the working class as a whole but they wont do that because they are interested in power and wealth by any means necessary..

The Grey Blur

9th October 2010, 02:35

it's true that various sf activists have emerged from the troubles a lot better off than others (including my own family) and that this generates resentment in a community which has seen little or no reward for its sacrifices.

i wouldn't slip into these personalised attacks though, as ruddy has said it's the ultimate hallmark of republican immaturity in political discussion, instead i think it's necessary for the republican left to dissect the unofficial SF ideology which is to court US direct investment (and EU money to a lesser extent) in the hopes of an economic revival. this is well-intentioned on their part but the fact is that we as socialists have to point out that privatising services, relying on venture capital etc is not the way to rebuild a war-torn society, that in a culture of global capitalist crisis that capital is not forthcoming anyway, and to outline serious socialist demands and link these with a class appeal to unionist workers. in effect, we need to reclaim the legacy and the ideas of connolly.

RedTrackWorker

9th October 2010, 05:56

At the Labor Notes conference in Detroit this year was the first time I had some chance to debate in person with CWI comrades. I was not impressed and the two posters here continue that fine tradition.
In response to the two letters I posted:
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/letters/ghettos080610.html
and
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/letters/bloodysunday62310.html

They muster the following stirring defenses:
1.
I certainly defend Ciaran's article, a friendly suggestion would be for you to actually read it rather than base yourself on quotations of an LRP sympathiser: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4416

2. a.
It really is quite frustrating when left republicans consciously attempt to misquote CWI statements and position in an effort to do nothing else except throw mud. (Said in response to my post)
b.
And I am going to bother refuting two anti-CWI sectarian rants than have been refuted on numerous occasions before (referring to the two letters)

Both CWI posters refer to misquotes, one directly and the other indirectly. One helpfully links to the article--funny, the words from the LRP leaflet are all there!
Was the context twisted? Anyone call look and see for themselves, but I don't see how.
The letter's first quote is:

The rioting was indefensible and only leads to further misery and increased sectarian tension.
Their website (http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/4416):

THE RIOTING was indefensible and only leads to further misery and increased sectarian tension. It impacted most on local communities. The dissidents are playing a thoroughly reactionary role and are seeking to pull the North back to worse conflict and despair. Their role in orchestrating riots has led to increased sectarian attacks in local communities.

I've heard this before. There were various precursors to the class explosions that took place in 1968 and immediately after. Some of the most important were the Black working-class urban rebellions across the U.S.
The Spartacist League spit on those rebellions in words very similar to what the CWI says above (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/pamphlets/debate2003_iii.html), note the speaker is from the LRP, repeating what the SL wrote:

When the ghetto riots take place, Robertson, the leader of the Spartacist League says, they’re burning down their own drugstores so the Jews will come back and start them. And then you defend this in your newspaper by saying, Sy Landy couldn’t care less [that] they don’t have drugstores. [Workers Vanguard, October 20, 1978.]

Sy Landy needed the drug store, he lived in Detroit. And he cared a great deal because his neighbors were so proud of the riots that they took [part] in, because they won them jobs in the auto industry they could never get before. You don’t give a damn about that. Do you care about that? No, you don’t care about that. It was a demonstration on the basis of class solidarity and class explosion. If you care about the masses of the world, you should enthuse with the riots

If you don't feel that way about the Black urban rebellions or these Catholic ghetto rebellions....I really don't know what to say to you. And if your only defense is to say it's a "misquote" or "rant" when your own link provides worse quotes than the letter, then you're the one flinging sectarian mud and hoping it sticks.

I have (as others in this thread) put forward a political position, an argument, and one on a very important question that gets to the heart of what it means to be a revolutionary in the imperialist epoch, and the CWI's response is what? Slander (saying we're misquoting, which given the internet, should be extremely simple to prove) and evasion. We're talking about trying to overthrow the capitalist system and they're playing with words. I think it's a disgrace to the workers' movement and to the martyrs who have gone before us.

Crux

9th October 2010, 06:10

Jolly Red Giant

9th October 2010, 09:33

RedTrack -

Let's be clear about what you did - you took a post from Magdalen, a post who directly misquoted the position of the CWI on the entry of British troops to the North in 1969 and had some unsubstantiated implied accusation about the CWI's attitude to the H-Block hunger strikes, to take a swipe at the CWI.

You then linked to two letters, to some unknown individual named 'C' who apparently is from Dublin, who wrote two short letters to a small and pretty obscure Trotskyist group in the US, that were sectarian rants at two left groups in Ireland, and you demand a response.

Here is the response -
On letter no.1 - 'C' has absolutely no idea what he/she is talking about in relation to the North and in particular does not remotely comprehend the position of the CWI in the North and on the situation in the North. In particular 'C' is writing to format and ignoring the role and strategy of the dissident republican organisations in Catholic areas, a role that potentially could have very serious consequences for the working class, Catholic and Protestant, in the North. When 'C' does have something concrete to say in terms of analysis and understanding, I will happily respond.

In terms of No.2 - There is absolutely no reference at all to the CWI in the letter on the Saville report. As a result why should the CWI members on this forum need to respond?

Both CWI posters refer to misquotes, one directly and the other indirectly. One helpfully links to the article--funny, the words from the LRP leaflet are all there!
Was the context twisted? Anyone call look and see for themselves, but I don't see how.
I will ask one specific question in relation to letter no.1 -

revolutionaries must also advance positions that can enhance working class unity.
Pray tell me - how supporting dissident republicans in whipping up sectarian divisions will 'enhance working class unity' ?

The letter of full of hyperbole.

and one on a very important question that gets to the heart of what it means to be a revolutionary in the imperialist epoch, and the CWI's response is what? Slander (saying we're misquoting, which given the internet, should be extremely simple to prove) and evasion.
You took the quote from Magdalen at face value making absolutely no attempt to verify it's autenticity and then use it to take a further swipe at the CWI. That is the basis of a sectarian ultra-left approach. If you want to be taken seriously make a concrete statement based on evidence - not on your desire to simple try and kick lumps out of people from across the Atlantic.

fionntan

10th October 2010, 12:56

Where do you get of saying Republicans wip up sectarian devisions. If any thing we promote the oposite.

Jolly Red Giant

10th October 2010, 15:21

Where do you get of saying Republicans wip up sectarian devisions. If any thing we promote the oposite.
A dog with a mallet up his rear end running around North Belfast would be aware that republicans dissidents are whipping up sectarian rioting among Catholic youth in an effort to outflank SF (it is exactly the same strategy SF used in the 1970's to outflank the SDLP). And when the dissidents take to the streets in a peaceful protest they still adopt a sectarian approach as with their 'housing for nationalists' protest in Belfast in late 2008. Sinn Fein itself sits in an institution based on sectarianism and promotes sectarianism through its actions in Stormont.

fionntan

10th October 2010, 15:35

Housing for Nationalists ??? I spoke at the march it was NBSRA ... We invited all groups from all persuations. As you well know but is handy for you to use this "dissendent" nonsence..

fionntan

10th October 2010, 15:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z-2JAsW4NA

Palingenisis

10th October 2010, 16:04

A dog with a mallet up his rear end running around North Belfast would be aware that republicans dissidents are whipping up sectarian rioting among Catholic youth in an effort to outflank SF (it is exactly the same strategy SF used in the 1970's to outflank the SDLP). .

Come on. Resisting an Orange Order march going through your area (and anyone who knows the north knows the purpose of these marches is to intimidate) is not in and of itself sectarian....But than again the SP told members not to attend a protest in Cork about some issue to do with policing in the six counties because it was "sectarian"....The SP also condemned the heroic and victorious efforts of the Dublin working class to stop a love the UDR march organized by someone with heavy links to Loyalist paramilitaries marching past the GPO on O'Connell street (which is a sacred spot to Republicans and Irish people in general)....Just like Unionists you throw the word sectarian around so much that it becomes meaningless.

The Grey Blur

10th October 2010, 17:11

A dog with a mallet up his rear end running around North Belfast would be aware that republicans dissidents are whipping up sectarian rioting among Catholic youth in an effort to outflank SF (it is exactly the same strategy SF used in the 1970's to outflank the SDLP). And when the dissidents take to the streets in a peaceful protest they still adopt a sectarian approach as with their 'housing for nationalists' protest in Belfast in late 2008. Sinn Fein itself sits in an institution based on sectarianism and promotes sectarianism through its actions in Stormont.
the reality is that nationalists are still substantially worse off in terms of employment and housing than unionists in north. i'm well aware this is only a marginal difference and that historically this discrepancy has been a tactic to buy off the loyalist working class...but how do you think socialists should address the question? just ignore it? i agree that the language of that north belfast march wasn't perfect...repeating the errors of the old civil rights movement on a much smaller scale.

i also agree with palengenisis that blocking an orange march is anything but a sectarian act. i don't think riots are any solution but they were a reaction to provocation, the role of 'dissidents' has been over-stated.

Palingenisis

10th October 2010, 17:44

Housing for Nationalists ??? I spoke at the march it was NBSRA ... We invited all groups from all persuations. As you well know but is handy for you to use this "dissendent" nonsence..

The Socialist Party will attack Republicans no matter what they do (their mindless aggro attitude to Irish Republicanism comes from them being immersed in British Labourism for so long)....That said the impression does exist within the Unionist working class (and Im talking about Alliance and UUP supporters, not the out and out bigots...the fact that the UUP has a "social democratic" wing even though they are hand in glove with Tories just shows how weird politics in Ireland can be) that Republicans are only concerned about "their" community. Republicans in the six counties should really think about how they can change this impression.

Palingenisis

10th October 2010, 17:48

I saw nothing of value in those letters to comment on.

"On the day of the parade protesters gathered at a major intersection on the parade route through Ardoyne, linked arms and sat down, wearing t-shirts declaring their aim of “Peaceful Protest” and holding signs declaring themselves “Residents, Not Dissidents.”"
But pray tell, if you think the riots were the best way forward, do you also denounce the Greater Ardoyne Residents Collective?

They were holding up that sign because the capitalist media and the Provies were saying that the people opposing this march were shipped in from outside the area by the "dissidents". Martin Og Meehan who would count as a "dissident" (he is in the Republican Network for Unity) is involved in the leadership of the Greater Ardoyne Residents Collective.

Red Panther

10th October 2010, 20:48

RedTrackWorker

10th October 2010, 22:38

But pray tell, if you think the riots were the best way forward, do you also denounce the Greater Ardoyne Residents Collective?

Majakovskij sees nothing of value to comment on in the letters. This quote proves it is because he has not actually paid attention to them.
http://www.lrp-cofi.org/letters/ghettos080610.html

It is certainly regrettable that the youths’ lack of organization and leadership beyond some (alleged) orchestration by “dissident Republicans” meant that their struggle could not take more organized, powerful and politically targeted forms
So, while on the one hand, Majakovskij implicitly accuses the LRP letter of being untrustworthy, and then when asked for evidence, just evades the issue like a coward, on the other hand, M. then imputes to a position to the LRP letter that it explicitly contradicts. All this evades the political issue: Are such riots a class issue, a workers' issue? Lenin and the Bolsheviks, learning from WW1, rightly made the motto of the Third International "Workers and Oppressed of All Countries, Unite!" rather than "Workers of All Countries, Unite!" If you read what Lenin said about Easter 1916, I have little doubt what he would say about this LRP letter. The Black urban rebellions of the 1960's were a key component of a reviving international class struggle and its creation of a revolutionary vanguard, and the CWI comrades' method spits on that.

In the main, Jolly Red Giant's reply shows the same kind of attitude: duck and cover. He makes claims about our sectarianism while then claiming the letter shows "no idea" about what is going on without a single bit of evidence. Sadly, despite all of our technical advances, paper will still take anything written on it--or typed in this case.

You took the quote from Magdalen at face value making absolutely no attempt to verify it's autenticity and then use it to take a further swipe at the CWI. That is the basis of a sectarian ultra-left approach. If you want to be taken seriously make a concrete statement based on evidence - not on your desire to simple try and kick lumps out of people from across the Atlantic.

First, an unimportant side point, how is it ultra-left? Aren't you just throwing words around now?
Second, how did I "use" it? The H-block thing I made a note to myself to follow-up on, I didn't take it at face value. I quoted the whole post, that didn't mean I agreed with the whole post! As for the quote on troops, it is authentic, you posted the article yourself.
Third, you like M. run from your claim that the LRP letter misquotes the CWI. Who is the sectarian here?

Pray tell me - how supporting dissident republicans in whipping up sectarian divisions will 'enhance working class unity' ?

Because the fight for the most oppressed sections of the working class is the only strategy for liberating the whole working class. A rebellion of an oppressed peoples is not "whipping up sectarian divisions." The Black urban rebellions of the 60's and the more recent LA rebellion and Cincinnati rebellion, among many others, were not "whipping up racist divisions." They were unorganized and limited but important expressions of class solidarity and class action. The Deacons for Defense in Louisiana, a group of Black people--mostly workers--armed for their self-defense, was not a "sectarian/racist division" but an important step forward in the class struggle. Do you say the Black liberation movement was a "sectarian/racist" movement? If not, what is the difference? (Obviously there are extremely important differences between the Black liberation movement of the U.S. and the Catholic situation in Ireland, but what is the difference that means one is supportable and the other is not?)

Dr Mindbender

10th October 2010, 22:44

Er, pretty much everyone calls it Derry. I've only ever heard it called Londonderry by the BBC. This isn't a case of making a new name to sound anti-imperialist, its a case of using the generally recognised real name.

.

Actually 'Londonderry' is used by unionist circles in the north, and they are VERY aggressive in their defense of this naming.

Using the word 'Derry' in front of a unionist is a sure fire way to get them wound up. I've experienced this myself. Its the sort of same effect when you try to tell them they are Irish.

Palingenisis

10th October 2010, 23:41

Actually 'Londonderry' is used by unionist circles in the north, and they are VERY aggressive in their defense of this naming.

Using the word 'Derry' in front of a unionist is a sure fire way to get them wound up. I've experienced this myself. Its the sort of same effect when you try to tell them they are Irish.

I have had though Unionist Alliance voters (and even one UUP voter) from north explode on me for refering to them as Ulster Scots (I thought I was being polite :blushing:) instead of "Irish"....

Mindtoaster

11th October 2010, 02:49

and when the dissidents take to the streets in a peaceful protest they still adopt a sectarian approach as with their 'housing for nationalists' protest in Belfast in late 2008.

I don't see the problem with this. Housing discrimination against nationalists in the six counties is and has historically been a major issue

Saorsa

11th October 2010, 03:56

republicans dissidents are whipping up sectarian rioting among Catholic youth in an effort to outflank SF (it is exactly the same strategy SF used in the 1970's to outflank the SDLP).

The CWI is different around the world. The Australian section does excellent work imho, and it's the only one I've had any IRL interaction with. But...

Jolly Red Giant's post here is perhaps the best one I've seen yet for revealing the reformist, economistic, veiled pro-British nature of the CWI in Britain.

It takes a special kind of fake communist to refer to oppressed nationalist youth rebelling against police brutality and loyalist bigotry as a 'sectarian riot'. This mentality would have condemned the violence of black rebellions in the US as racist.

Truly disgusting. The CWI should be ashamed to have people like JRG within its ranks... but then again, perhaps they are the rule rather than the exception.

And when the dissidents take to the streets in a peaceful protest they still adopt a sectarian approach as with their 'housing for nationalists' protest in Belfast in late 2008.

Wow, how terrible. They demanded housing for the oppressed group which doesn't get it because of sectarian discrimination? How dare they!

The Grey Blur

11th October 2010, 04:11

it's do with the language and approach though. the marchers should have called for housing for workers, whether catholic or protestant. bernadette mcaliskey said that she felt the error the old civil rights groups made was in not making specifically pro-working class demands - demands for useful public works programs to provide thousands of jobs, etc. in effect if you restrict yourself to demands such as "jobs/housing for nationalists" without tying it to a class position you are implying "less jobs/housing for protestants" (her words). the call for civil rights and an end to discrimination should be tied to a class approach as costello would have appreciated:
The pro-British capitalist class who control the economy of the North know very well that, when the people reject those who foster sectarianism, their next step will be to demand a just share of the wealth which they create. These are the real reasons why one section of the community are led to believe that it is in their interest to discriminate against another section. Never are they told that the standard of living which they enjoy, at the expense of their victimized neighbors, is theirs by right - rather are they tricked into believing that these natural rights are a reward for their support of the regime - it's the role of republicans to do that telling. protestant workers have been given a pot to piss in in terms of some marginal material benefits and instead of realising this as theirs by right they are constantly kept in a state of insecurity by their own ruling class and sectarian agents.

furthermore to what extent is this modern discrepancy (in terms of jobs and housing) between catholic and protestant workers a determined anti-nationalist discrimination in an era in which sinn féin is in government? while obviously the issue should be tackled rather than avoided, i think it should be viewed as the legacy of historical anti-nationalist discrimination rather than a determined policy on behalf of the current stormont regime.

The Grey Blur

11th October 2010, 04:28

Action like this can gain support AND can bring about change. The RAF in western Germany used to blow buildings up, rob banks and even kidnapped and assassinated people, yet they still had the support of 7 million Germans. If the IRA continue like this (warning before attacks, targeting banks etc.) maybe in the future Northern Ireland can be freed.
the RAF failed as has every other urban guerilla group, i repeat my point that blowing up a bank does not harm capital, especially as it is more likely to take the form of numbers on a screen than gold bars in a safe deposit today. these militarists are massively alienated from the vast majority of workers in NI and in a democratic working-class tradition (you know, the thing the left is supposed to stand in) i would respect that...only mass action of the working class can bring about change not a small group of gunmen. you can't draw a line between the "good" bombs (ones with warnings) and "bad" bombs and it's one of the most frustratingly childish elements of ultra-left/insurrectionary thought that you can. someday one of your "good" bombs might kill a bank worker like the hooligans did in greece, it's entirely arbritary. when i was 16 i equated revolutionary politics with blowing things up too, don't worry you'll grow out of it.

Jolly Red Giant

11th October 2010, 13:18

Housing for Nationalists ??? I spoke at the march it was NBSRA ... We invited all groups from all persuations. As you well know but is handy for you to use this "dissendent" nonsence..
The only speaker from a political background who spoke about the housing issue from anything approaching a class perspective was the IRSP speaker. The only other speaker to address the issue was a community worker.

To quote Liam Wiggins from the youtube video - 'the people suffering due to this crisis are from the Nationalist, Catholic tradition... the number of Catholics on that list is out of control...100% of those in dire need in North Belfast are nationalist...I am not saying that there aren't any Protestants stroke loyalists on the waiting list, but they are not in dire need, they are not among the thousands of people who need houses today...you show me a loyalist area and I will show you vacant houses, hundreds of them...the people suffering from this crisis are exclusively Catholic stroke nationalist'.

The video also fails to show the RSF banner that said 'Housing for Nationalists'

The entire video sends a message out - Protestants are doing okay and Catholcis are being discriminated against. Protestants don't have a problem, Catholics do. The speech by Wiggins was nothing more than a sectarian rant, we need to look after Catholics and to hell with Protestants.

Come on. Resisting an Orange Order march going through your area
I am not going to get into this stuff again - but for clarification - the march was going along a main arterial route - not through a housing estate. Of course residents have a right to protest, but marchers also have a right to march. The OO are a sectarian bigoted organisation but they are not fascists.

It takes a special kind of fake communist to refer to oppressed nationalist youth rebelling against police brutality and loyalist bigotry as a 'sectarian riot'.
I will repeat this again - The criticism was not against the youth of North Belfast, but against republican dissidents who consciously stoked up sectarian rioting.

Saorsa

11th October 2010, 13:59

Of course residents have a right to protest, but marchers also have a right to march. The OO are a sectarian bigoted organisation but they are not fascists.

Wow. Just... wow.

I suppose if the KKK are marching and the black community are calling for the march to be stopped, we should denounce the black people's sectarian bigotry and defend the abstract 'right' of the KKK to have its march?

Now this is a complex issue. I don't support calling on the capitalist state to pass laws that restrict the ability of fascist groups to organise, because the same laws can be used against us. I don't support the police repressing far-right organisations.

However, to defend the 'right' of a group like the Orange Order to march, a group that is essentially the 6 counties equivalent of the KKK... that's just weird.

I will repeat this again - The criticism was not against the youth of North Belfast, but against republican dissidents who consciously stoked up sectarian rioting.

I will repeat it again - it is disgusting that a self-proclaimed Marxist would refer to the rebellion of oppressed working class youth as 'sectarian rioting'.

Jolly Red Giant

11th October 2010, 18:01

I suppose if the KKK are marching and the black community are calling for the march to be stopped, we should denounce the black people's sectarian bigotry and defend the abstract 'right' of the KKK to have its march?

Now this is a complex issue. I don't support calling on the capitalist state to pass laws that restrict the ability of fascist groups to organise, because the same laws can be used against us. I don't support the police repressing far-right organisations.

However, to defend the 'right' of a group like the Orange Order to march, a group that is essentially the 6 counties equivalent of the KKK... that's just weird.
The analogy is off the wall to put it mildly. The OO are not the equivalent of the KKK. The issue has nothing to do with marching through Catholic communties. Unionists are not the only ones who engage in triumphalist parades.

To suggest that one community or another 'owns' a main roadway that people of all religions have travelled for decades (in some cases centuries) is the essence of sectarianism.

Would you suggest that reactionary bigoted residents should have the right to block a workers protest march, protesting against sectarianism, from marching down a main arterial roadway to the city centre? There is a fine line between revolutionary republicanism and reactionary nationalism when it comes to issues like parades.

The primary reason why there are so many contentious Orange parades is that the population growth among Catholics is outstripping that of Protestants and as a result there has been a major shifting of ground (in terms of housing) over the past four decades. Areas that used to comprise almost exclusively of Portestants, now are mixed or even all Catholic. This is not to say that Catholic communities should be subjected to Orange parades going through housing estates, but on main arteries to town/city centres the right of the Orange Order to march should be acepted, while both sides are called on to negotiate an appropriate resolution to any difficulties.

Every socialist should defend the fundemental right to assembly and to protest (except for fascists) even if it requires defending the rights of a reactionary bigoted sectarian organsiation like the Orange Order or the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Sectarian organisations will not be defeated by opposing them on a sectarian basis, but by opposing them on a class basis. Certainly residents have a right to protest and again socialists should defend that right, but the objective should be to reduce sectarian tensions through negotiation, rather than stoke the flames of sectarianism.

I will repeat it again - it is disgusting that a self-proclaimed Marxist would refer to the rebellion of oppressed working class youth as 'sectarian rioting'.
If you are suggesting that the youth who engaged in the Ardoyne last July were engaged in a conscious political act of opposition to Imperialism from a socialist perspective? If you are you are living in cloud cuckoo land. If you are not then you need to reassess your uncritical support for such activity.

I will quote briefly from Ciaran Mulholland's article -
While some of the rioters on this occasion were very young, the majority were clearly in their late teens and early twenties. Throughout the Troubles, riots were always dominated by the young, often the very young...When Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness cut their teeth on the streets in the early 1970s, they were in their early twenties and those under their command were often teenagers. Now Sinn Fein joins in the near-hysterical calls for social services to intervene - presumably to remove children from their families if they become involved in street confrontations - and suggests that “anti-social elements” be put out of areas where they are “not welcome”.

The use of modern technology to bring rioters to the frontline should come as no surprise to anyone given the way such technology has invaded all areas of life. The idea that the rioting is “recreational” does have an element of truth to it - alienated young people in this environment can be drawn towards scenes of conflict. There is also some truth in the assertion that the rioting was in the main carried out by “anti-social elements”. The most down-trodden in society, with least to lose, will often be in the front line when trouble explodes.

There is a great deal of truth in the claim the rioters were organised and encouraged by various dissident groups. It is absolutely clear that the dissidents of various hues are seeking to increase tension and conflict around contentious Orange marches. The Greater Ardoyne Residents Collective was established in an attempt to outflank the Sinn Fein dominated Crumlin Road and Ardoyne Residents Association and has been partially successful in this. The dissidents are establishing a growing presence on the ground in some areas that were previously dominated by the Provisionals. In Ardoyne, the Provos were able to intervene to defuse the situation after several days but on the Twelfth, there was little they could do. Nonetheless, it was significant that several hundred local residents turned out to protest against those rioting which included many who did not live in the area themselves.

The article makes it clear that 1. the attitude of SF should be criticised, 2. the participation of youth is a reflection of the alienation of youth particularly in the most deprived Catholic communities, 3. there was an element of anti-social behaviour involved 4. dissident republicans consciously stoked the violence on a sectarian basis, and 5. hundreds of local residents protested in opposition to the rioting. The CWI did not and does not criticise the actions of the youth involved - we recognise that youth alienation is a product of capitalism and that youth often react in such fashion. However, the CWI does condemn the activities of dissident republicans in stoking the violence in a sectarian fashion for their own political ends (and in no way attempting to assist the youth involved in the rioting to organise in a constructive fashion to fight for jobs, decent wages, education etc.)

Now let me ask you a further question - given your uncritical support for this 'rebellion of oppressed youth' - do you condemn those hundreds of local residents who came out onto the streets to protest against those rioting?

Dissident republcians have been repeatedly attempting to stoke the fires of sectarianism in order to try and outflank SF in Catholic areas. Their efforts should be opposed by all socialists - if they succeed they will drag the North into a reactionary sectarian conflict.

Now, I have no problem in defending any position adopted by the CWI - but the method of distorting the position of the CWI in order to engage in sectarian slagging is unacceptable.

Devrim

13th October 2010, 11:15

An interesting piece of new in connection to this copied from Libcom, the original source isn't mentioned there:

Members of Derry Trades Union Council have appealed to local people to attend a rally in Guildhall Square on Friday 15th October, to send a clear message to dissident republicans that "bombing will achieve nothing."
Liam Gallagher said DTU want everyone to gather at Guildhall Square at 1 p.m.
“We cannot afford to sit back and wait for another bombing incident, everyone who has the interest in moving this city forward must send a clear message to the dissident republican groups that we do not want another campaign of bombing and violence which will achieve nothing,” he said.
"It is important that we stand together and send a clear message that we want this campaign stopped in this city.”

Devrim

Palingenisis

14th October 2010, 15:28

An interesting piece of new in connection to this copied from Libcom, the original source isn't mentioned there:
Devrim

The Trade Unions in the six counties represent (at least when they arent actually representing the bosses) the Unionist labour aristocracy.

Soldier of life

14th October 2010, 15:59

Really were do you pull this shit from NO member of the IRA ever welcomed a british mercinary on to the streets of Ireland. A few propaganda pictures were taken of a woman/Brit given a cup of tea to the murdering ocupiers. And all of a sudden its fact that we welcomed them:rolleyes:. If that was the case then the Irish welcome that is renowend world wide isnt worth to much as we sent enough of them home in body bags and are still doing.

Strange thing about it is, although any republican would obviously not welcome British soldiers on Irish streets, the RIRA actually do want them back.

Here is a quote from the RIRA:

With more attacks on the RUC/PSNI we believe we can reach the stage where British soldiers are brought back onto the streets to bolster the cops. This will shatter the facade that the British presence has gone and normality reigns.

While the 'logic' behind this can be plainly seen, to suggest the RIRA are socialist is bizarre and I think it is ridiculous for the RIRA to try and 'wake people up' to the occupation by trying to force the British into using more repressive and draconian measures to combat armed republicanism, and thus landing normal working class people in this repression also. What kind of liberation movement actually wants to see more imperialist soldiers on their country's streets and tormenting people?

And in general none of the IRA's have proven themselves to be socialist. The provisionals certainly weren't and the RIRA are a provo-breakaway group, who for all intents and purposes, seem to bring absolutely nothing new to the table viz. their armed campaign. The term 'socialist' is often bandied about within republicanism loosely, mainly due to a lack of education whereby many republicans seem to believe it is some sort of value system while having little idea of what it entails on a tangible basis. The only socialist republican groups I see at the moment are the IRSP and éirigi.

Jolly Red Giant

14th October 2010, 19:09

While the 'logic' behind this can be plainly seen, to suggest the RIRA are socialist is bizarre and I think it is ridiculous for the RIRA to try and 'wake people up' to the occupation by trying to force the British into using more repressive and draconian measures to combat armed republicanism, and thus landing normal working class people in this repression also. What kind of liberation movement actually wants to see more imperialist soldiers on their country's streets and tormenting people?

Interesting quote - one I hadn't seen before - and the point you make about it is valid.

Palingenisis

15th October 2010, 02:53

Yeah lets all blame phantom dissos and not the PSNI/RUC for placing a community under marshall law to allow sectarian bands with images of Loyalist killers through it.

Palingenisis

15th October 2010, 18:03

An interesting piece of new in connection to this copied from Libcom, the original source isn't mentioned there:

Devrim

The media reported only 200 people showed up for that little stunt....So half that.

Palingenisis

15th October 2010, 18:08

The analogy is off the wall to put it mildly. The OO are not the equivalent of the KKK. The issue has nothing to do with marching through Catholic communties. Unionists are not the only ones who engage in triumphalist parades.

.

But these bands are linked to Loyalist death squads as we both know (or at least should know) which is one of the main reasons they were being so much opposed. And they are comparable with the KKK.

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

16th October 2010, 14:00

Pallegenisis, me and you should totally start our own splinter group.

The Pan Celtic Thundercats Liberation Organisation

let me know what you think.

Saorsa

16th October 2010, 14:11

Why are you not banned yet, troll?

AnarchoMassLineDemarchist

16th October 2010, 14:18

fuck off you anti worker pro anyone who waves a red to burgendy flag imbecile.

You are an IRL troll, the marching with stalin banner variety.

Buy the party paper!
Feed the trolls

Buy our Manifesto
Feed the trolls

Dont talk to anarchists and councilists and real communists about trolling you hemeroid dog porn inferno