Che-oppose or Pro IRA?

[ReD_ReBeL]

I was just thinking , Would Che be for or against the IRA? hmm im not sure he would most definately support the cause but some of there actions? i am not sure. What do the rest of you think?

[hamperleft]

yea, no doubt Che would probably behind most of their causes(some crazey factions excluded) some of there more violant, and somewhat pointless actions, he would mostlikley back away from, i'm not condeming all there actions though, it's alot better now that they are not murdering people left and right.

[ReD_ReBeL]

yea cool so what are the IRA doing these days? And was it all IRA factions thats put there arms down?

[Janus]

I'm pretty sure it was just the Provisional IRA that agreed to the disarmament. Other groups such as the True IRA that was responsible for the 1998 Omagh bombing still haven't laid down their arms.

I would like to believe that Che would have supported the IRA since it wanted to form an independent nation free from British influence. However, I don't think that Che would be very proud of the Provo's rejection of Marxism as opposed to the Official IRA.

[ReD_ReBeL]

yea, Comrade Qui, what is your opinion on the IRa's bombing strategies? i certainly do not like the bombings of civilian targets , shops etc

[Janus]

I don't see how the killing of civilians will help the IRA particularly since many of the civilian killings resulted in major public backlashes. However, I suppose that the IRA feels that it's justified because it will gain public attention and make the policy-makers such as the British believe that it isn't worth the trouble and withdraw. After all, the bombings particularly that attempted assasination of Margaret Thatcher did bring the British onto the negotiation table. War is hell, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. Either way, the murder of civilians wasn't really justified since it just brought on Loyalist and public backlash and did the IRA more harm than good.

[ReD_ReBeL]

is there any faction of IRA that does not target civilian places?

[Janus]

I'm not sure if the Official IRA targeted civilians or not during the early 20th century. But I know that after the Troubles began heating up again in 1969, none of the would-be factions ever expressly prevented any of its members from targeting civilians.

[hamperleft]

some of the main factions discuraged the practice, due mainly as you said to the public back lash, but the killings continued, at the time it may have been nessisary(not right) but nessisary for the killings to occure to gain attention, but now that they have attracted attention all of most of the globes attention, there is really no need for a continuation of violance.

[Guerrilla22]

I would think Che would have supported the IRA, due to the fact the IRA was fighting against the colonialist English government.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 21 2005, 03:24 AM
I'm pretty sure it was just the Provisional IRA that agreed to the disarmament. Other groups such as the True IRA that was responsible for the 1998 Omagh bombing still haven't laid down their arms.
The Real IRA bombed Omagh.

Its pointless asking what a dead man would do. That said all Marxists of note have supported Irish independence.

[Janus]

Comradeom, the Real IRA and the True IRA are the same organization, in case you didn't know.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 21 2005, 09:42 PM
Comradeom, the Real IRA and the True IRA are the same organization, in case you didn't know.
I have never heard anyone calling them the True IRA, only the Real IRA.

[ComradeOm]

That's because they're only ever called the Real IRA ;)

Each IRA group claims to be the only "true" one but none have taken it as their name.

[Seven Stars]

It was not IRA policy to target civilians, yes civilians were killed, it is a war and thats what happens. What the media calls the IRA now a days, the Provisional IRA, gave up in 1986 when they entered into constitutional politics. Those that remained true to Republican pinciples reorganized under the leadership of the Continuity Army Council (Continuity IRA). Years later the 'Real' IRA was formed, in 1997. I am not goin to say which is the 'true' IRA as that does us no good. Actions speak louder than words, and none of the current groups have shown us anythin worth wild. But the fight is not over, and will continue until the Workers Republic is established.

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

Che would have stood for Irish independence.

The IRA, and its splinter factions, I am not too sure.

Some of his work clashes with tactics used by the IRA.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Irish independence yes, the IRA, I hope not. Just as I support Iraqi independence, yet not Muslim extremists, the same applies in Ireland.

I think it is a mischaracterisation, at least of any Marxist who have lived in affected areas, to claim they support the IRA. I personally despise them and what they stand for, apart from the one issue of independence. Just because you think the Brits should fuck off does not mean that you have to actually "support" the IRA.

[The Grey Blur]

As ComradeOm said it is useless speculating what a dead man would have thought but a few things can be said;

1)Che would have been pro-Provisional IRA simply because they were anti-Imperialist, the same as any Socialist; you cannot call yourself a leftist and then deny a truly anti-Imperialist movement your support.

Like most European Socialist groups at the time of the major IRA campaign Che would most likely have taken the "critical support" route.

2) The Official IRA are not a group to be commended; they were of a majority blinded by a muddled ideology. Instead of protecting innocent Catholics from the pogroms they cowered away and made a poor attempt at class-based politics. They wanted to be seen as a legitimate political force but at the same time they were shooting squaddies dead in the Bogside.

The splinter group of the OIRA - the INLA/IRSP - were a truly Socialist Republican movement.


I personally despise them and what they stand for
Can I just ask why you despise an anti-Imperialist, left-leaning, guerilla army?

[Janus]

Each IRA group claims to be the only "true" one but none have taken it as their name.

Are you sure of that? I've usually heard the Real IRA refer to itself as the True IRA (notice that true is capitalized). Since real and true are synonyms in this context, it would make no difference whether they called themselves Real or True. Either way, they're politically insignificant at this moment. However, in order to please you, I will make sure to call them the Real IRA next time.


Instead of protecting innocent Catholics from the pogroms

None of the IRA factions ever actually protected Catholics. That would be impossible given their numbers. They simply retaliated for every Catholic killed by British or Loyalist forces, which led to further violence on the Catholic community.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2005, 05:35 PM
None of the IRA factions ever actually protected Catholics. That would be impossible given their numbers. They simply retaliated for every Catholic killed by British or Loyalist forces, which led to further violence on the Catholic community.
Then why were there no further pogroms after 1969?

That's right; because the Protestants knew there was every chance a spray of bullets would come in their direction.

[Janus]

The Protestants still killed Catholics after 1969; the violence escalated because of the PIRA. There were no actual pogroms directed against the Catholics. What exactly is your definition of a pogrom? Would you consider Bloody Sunday to be a pogrom?

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2005, 05:47 PM
I have never heard of pogroms in Ireland directed against Catholics. What exactly is your definition of a pogrom?
Pogrom - An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews.

A pogrom is what happened in August 1969; Protestants (led by members of the security forces), angered by what they saw as 'concessions' being made to Catholics, attacked and burned out Catholics all over Belfast.

"There is a responsibility on society to ensure that there is no re-occurrence of the pogroms of 1969 and the early 1970s" - PIRA Statement


The Protestants still killed Catholics after 1969
No, Loyalists parmilitaries went on 'hit-and-run' missions against Republicans and innocent Catholics. This was a far cry from the mass pogroms.


; the violence escalated because of the PIRA
Violence escalates in any war, the North was no different.

[Janus]

Catholics also kicked Protestants out of areas in which they were a minority as well. So it was a case of swapping homes, more or less. What you're describing is mainly rioting involving clashes between the different groups and it would be somewhat of an exaggeration to call it a pogrom. It simplifies the direction of the violence too much. But, I do agree with you, the police mainly took the side of the Protestants in these situations and that the Catholics suffered much worse than the Protestants.

[bulrog]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2005, 06:20 PM
What you're describing is mainly rioting involving clashes between the different groups and it would be somewhat of an exaggeration to call it a pogrom.
No it isn't.

the loyalist attacks on:

Bombay Street (Clonard) = Pogrom

Ardoyne = Pogrom

I consider leaving entire streets in flames to fit the bill.

[Janus]

Pogroms are one-sided but in this case, Catholics also committed some of the violent acts. However, if you consider the Protestant violence in itself a pogrom since they were backed by the police sometimes, I suppose you could. Pogroms are usually of much larger scale such as those directed against the Jews. When you use the word to describe acts of much smaller scale that are directed against a certain group, it loses its meaning much like the word genocide has. But I agree that in these modern times, the word pogrom can be applied to the acts that you're describing.

[The Grey Blur]

Catholics also kicked Protestants out of areas in which they were a minority as well.
No, Protestants basically fled; there were few cases of violence against Protestants and if there was it was understandable retaliation.


So it was a case of swapping homes, more or less.
Not quite: <_<

Pro-British violence culminated in a brutal attack on the Bogside on August 12 through the 14th, 1969, and an invasion of the nationalist areas of Belfast and other centers on August 13th - 15th. In the ensuing "pogrom", 500 houses were burned to the ground, 1,500 people forced from their homes, and nine people murdered


[b]What you&#39;re describing is mainly rioting involving clashes between the different groups and it would be somewhat of an exaggeration to call it a pogrom
No, they are referred to as pogroms by everyone, not just me; you are the only person I have ever heard dispute the use of the word &#39;pogrom&#39;. It is generally accepted by Irish people, Catholic and Protestant, as a description of what happened in 1969.


It simplifies the direction of the violence too much.
Number of Catholics killed: 9
Number of Protestants killed: 0

That&#39;s simplifying for you


But, I do agree with you, the police mainly took the side of the Protestants in these situations
The B-Specials & the RUC guided, marshalled and armed the Protestant gangs; 7 of the 9 Catholics killed were hit by B-Special bullets.


the Catholics suffered much worse than the Protestants.
There was and always will be a great fear in Nationalist areas regarding the pogroms of &#39;69. - It is the viewed as the greatest example of what Loyalists would have done to Catholics if it weren&#39;t for the Provisional IRA&#39;s existence.

Sadly, that&#39;s actually a pretty good analysis :rolleyes:

[Janus]

Obviously you have much greater knowledge of this subject area than me. :)


No, they are referred to as pogroms by everyone, not just me; you are the only person I have ever heard dispute the use of the word &#39;pogrom&#39;. It is generally accepted by Irish people, Catholic and Protestant, as a description of what happened in 1969.

Well, the author of Armed Struggle The History of the IRA doesn&#39;t really agree with the use of the word pogrom, and since I&#39;m not too knowledgable about this subject I just happened to voice his view. Since we live in different countries, I think that is a major factor in our different views of the trajedy that occured in August. I&#39;m sure that since you have more a direct experience of this event that I do, which has resulted in your perspective. You do live in Ireland right? Over here, I&#39;ve never of it refered to as a pogrom so I was somewhat curious when you refered to it as such.

Either way, Catholics still participated in some of the violence right. If that were the case, then you couldn&#39;t say that the violence was directed only against Catholics since a pogrom is a massive, violent act directed solely against another group. If that violence is reciprocated, then using the word pogrom isn&#39;t all that appropriate.

However, I see your point. It&#39;s just that I have never heard of this event being called a pogrom before. I have only heard of the pogroms directed against the Jews. When you used the word to describe an event of much smaller scale, I felt that this word had become too overused and lost its meaning much as the word genocide has.

I admit that Catholics suffered much worse than Protestants and that this event was a major factor in shaping the PIRA. I wasn&#39;t disputing the use of the word pogrom as much as I was questioning it. Can we both agree on this issue or will we just have to continue to get off the real topic of this thread?

[Martyr]

I don&#39;t know what he would say the IRA are catholic so I don&#39;t know

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2005, 07:22 PM
Can we both agree on this issue or will we just have to continue to get off the real topic of this thread?
Sure man :)


I don&#39;t know what he would say the IRA are catholic so I don&#39;t know
Agnostic is the best description I could give of the PIRA; they were a mixture of Catholics, Nationalists, Republicans, Atheists and Agnostics who&#39;s common cause was the liberation of the Irish people.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 04:03 AM
yea cool so what are the IRA doing these days? And was it all IRA factions thats put there arms down?
The Provisional IRA laid down arms. The organisation has essentially stood down since then.

The Continuity IRA and the Real IRA have not decomissioned and are not officially on ceasefire, however with the exception of the Omagh bombing and a rocket launcer attack on MI5 a few years ago neither organisation has been active.

The INLA has been on ceasefire since 1998 but has not decomissioned any weapons.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 04:29 AM
Those that remained true to Republican pinciples reorganized under the leadership of the Continuity Army Council (Continuity IRA). Years later the &#39;Real&#39; IRA was formed, in 1997. I am not goin to say which is the &#39;true&#39; IRA as that does us no good.
So, "Those that remained true to Republican pinciples" formed the CIRA but you&#39;re "not goin to say which is the &#39;true&#39; IRA as that does us no good"? Okay.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:26 PM
Irish independence yes, the IRA, I hope not. Just as I support Iraqi independence, yet not Muslim extremists, the same applies in Ireland.
The IRA are/were not religious extremists. I don&#39;t see how the analogy applies.



I personally despise them and what they stand for, apart from the one issue of independence.
What is it they stand for that you despise?

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2005, 06:35 PM
None of the IRA factions ever actually protected Catholics. That would be impossible given their numbers. They simply retaliated for every Catholic killed by British or Loyalist forces, which led to further violence on the Catholic community.
Initially the (P)IRA was able to defend catholic communities after the pogroms of 1969. They even went so far as to set up &#39;no-go areas&#39; such as Free Derry and parts of Belfast. At one point some commentators were referring to Ballymurphy as a Soviet.

As you say though, it would have been impossible to protect catholics, and this was seen to be true in the lates 80s, during the height of collusion between British state forces and loyalist death squads.

[Big Boss]

I think that the topic was lost along the way. What would Che think about the IRA? I think that he would support it and critize it. Che was strongly opposed of targeting civilians to justify a cause. He said that "terrorism is for cowards". I read in Anderson&#39;s biography of Che that when the Auntentico party in Cuba planted bombs in public places he called them "terrorists" and despised them for this and many other actions like it. But in the case of the IRA Che would really support the cause and not necesarily approve of the methods used. But again, he&#39;s dead so it is uncertain.

[Glasgow]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 23 2005, 03:37 AM
I think that he would support it and critize it. Che was strongly opposed of targeting civilians to justify a cause. He said that "terrorism is for cowards". I read in Anderson&#39;s biography of Che that when the Auntentico party in Cuba planted bombs in public places he called them "terrorists" and despised them for this and many other actions like it. But in the case of the IRA Che would really support the cause and not necesarily approve of the methods used.
I would have to say in my opinion this would be right. Atacking civilians is wrong and no good can come of it. I think the Officials would have had his support as they had strong marxis views and even tryed to cross the religus devide to unite workers. But as they were cought with there trousers down when the catholic comunity came under attack in 69 only having a few old arms from previous campains wich would have been old and out dated they were unable to put up a defence, yet there is harrowing storeys of men protecting the Catheral and other posts with extream bravery. They never lived down the critissisim of I R A " I ran away" and so the provisional were born and cival war within the republican camp. The Officials only holding on to small scatred areas. The fact that the Brittish Troops were welcomed in to Nationalist areas was always going to leave a bitter tast in the IRAs mouth so they reformed as not to let it happen again. This is how I understand it and no dout Rage Against the Machein will call me a ideat with no idea what I am talking about wich is probably true cos I am not well read up atol on the situation and have picked up what I have. I also know that pepole who idolised the provos then came in to contact with them were shocked by there cold bloodedness of these men so I would say che would have distanced him self from them yes.

[The Grey Blur]

The Officials were a Stalinist joke who actually did nothing to unite the classes.

The Provos didn&#39;t target civilians they targeted economic targets.

Civilian deaths ocurred in the Cuban Revolution as well; they occur in any war.

You can have a romanic ideal about revolution "Hata La Victoria Siempre&#33;"

You can have a realistic view about revolution "Blow the fuckers up"

:) - Thank you


cold bloodedness of these men so I would say che would have distanced him self from them yes.
Che himself was a cold blooded killer

[Big Boss]

Civilian deaths ocurred in the Cuban Revolution as well; they occur in any war.

That&#39;s true. Casualties occur in any war and it is a sad thing. But the difference is that in the Cuban Revolution civilians were not killed to "make the Revolution heard". Revolutions are done to help the people, not to harm them. This is why attacking civilians was never a policy during the Cuban Revolution. Why would you attack the people you have pleged to help?


You can have a romanic ideal about revolution "Hata La Victoria Siempre&#33;"

Revolutions are not romantic. They are a neccesity when nothing else works.


You can have a realistic view about revolution "Blow the fuckers up"

Just out of curiosity: Are you refering to the civilians or the enemy themselves? ;)

[The Grey Blur]

the difference is that in the Cuban Revolution civilians were not killed to "make the Revolution heard".
I don&#39;t think this analogy can be applied - the Cuban revolution was a true (capitalized &#39;r&#39;) Revolution, whereas the IRA were fighting a hit-and-miss, urban guerilla war to force the retraction of British Forces from Ireland; there was never going to be victory for the IRA in direct conflict in the manner Che & Castro used

An extension of this campaign was to bomb English city centres and certain economic targets to show the IRA would not be cowed by the brutality of the British Army in Ireland; whether this retaliation was justified/required or not was a source of conflict amongst those who supported the cause of Irish independence and (as this debate clearly shows) still is.


Revolutions are done to help the people, not to harm them.
Again, although I myself used the phrase "revolution" earlier in the thread I would not refer the IRA campaign as a &#39;revolution&#39;, for reasons listed above.

Perhaps "resistance" would be a better wording.


This is why attacking civilians was never a policy during the Cuban Revolution.
I can just re-iterate that you seem to have the wrong idea about the IRA&#39;s campaign of resistance (attributable to my incorrect use of the word &#39;revolution&#39; - sorry :blush: )


Why would you attack the people you have pleged to help?
The IRA&#39;s only &#39;pledge&#39; was to protect Catholic communities and resist the Imperialism of Britain in Ireland.


Revolutions are not romantic. They are a neccesity when nothing else works.
Yet many on this board seem to romantiscize the struggles of Che, et al, while critiscisng the IRA with inaccurate testimonials about targeting civilians.


Just out of curiosity: Are you refering to the civilians or the enemy themselves? ;)
*Free Derry voice* - The British Bastards&#33; (of course ;) )

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 24 2005, 02:31 AM
Revolutions are not romantic. They are a neccesity when nothing else works.
Revolutions mean progress. As such they are always to be desired.

[cormacobear]

I think Che supported the IRA he sure liked Ireland.

http://irelandsown.net/Che.html

[Iroquois Xavier]

Che would have supported them, after all he was of Irish descent as well as Argentinian. I dont think he would have supported the provos as they killed innocent civilians. The only real IRA is the original group in the Easter Rising of 1916. The provos were out for money and drugs and did not speak for the people. I believe that the British Government is to blame for all this conflict, they should have pulled out years ago. Ireland is the only country i know not free from the British after the Empire collapsed. The most recent gaining independence was Hong Kong in 1997 after a vote. The British never had a vote over Northern Ireland because they know they would have lost. I can see that one day Ireland will be free.

[cormacobear]

Hong Kong reverted back to Chinese territory in 1997 not because of a vote but because the British had leased that territory and that lease was up. And the falklands are still british controled i&#39;m sure there are a few more. But I agree I think he would have approved of them.

[cormacobear]

it&#39;s best not to count civillians killed, after 700 years of bloody occupation, and the market induced famine that killed 1/3 the population it&#39;s kind of one sided with regard to the numbers.

oops sorry for double posting, I guess I could have added this as an edit to my last post. :unsure:

I wish I could blame it on being new, but I can&#39;t so I guess i&#39;m just dumb. :rolleyes:

[Iroquois Xavier]

Well im new as well so join the club :D i didnt know the lease had run out cheers for the update. oh and by the way HAVE A NICE DAY :)

[The Grey Blur]

The provos were out for money
Continuity supporter: Those dirty provos with their massive holiday homes&#33; (read: weekend visits to the Gaeltacht) and luxurious loft extensions (read: clearing out the attic)&#33;


and drugs
:rolleyes:


and did not speak for the people
Indeed, how did those evil Provos manage to wage that thirty-year guerilla resistance without the support of the community?

[Iroquois Xavier]

Well for starters anyone can wage a 30 year war with the amount of many they made making dodgy deals&#33; How else do you think they amassed such a enormous arsenal? There may have been a few in the provos who actually wanted independence but the ones who agreed to the 98 ceasefire did so because they could not make enough money&#33; thats why the Real IRA was formed&#33; I too want independence for Ireland but the way the provos did it was not the best way. Murdering innocents is not a good way to get the British troops to fuck off home&#33; :angry: I hate the loyalist scum as well remember&#33; :) p.s. I agree that the provos did act as a protection for the people but their actions only incited the loyalists and gave them an excuse,not that the bastards needed one. :)

[praxis1966]

None of the IRA factions ever actually protected Catholics. That would be impossible given their numbers. They simply retaliated for every Catholic killed by British or Loyalist forces, which led to further violence on the Catholic community.

This is about the most ridiculous thing I&#39;ve ever heard. As early as the 1930s the IRA began patrolling the streets of the Six Counties, with great success in fact. Later, when members of the UVF and the like would enter Catholic neighborhoods, citizens would bang pots and pans, attracting the attention of the IRA. They would then use flashlights with red lenses to direct the patrols to the location of the UVF. The IRA would then fire on them when necessary. This brought loyalist aggression to a near halt.

[Janus]

I know that the IRA did patrol the streets but it would be impossible for them to always protect the Catholics. The fact that the Loyolists did kill Catholics shows that the IRA couldn&#39;t always protect the Catholic minority. Protecting the communities in the cities is one thing but protecting Catholics everywhere is another.