IRA

[FidelCastro]

Do any of you support the old IRA or any of it's splinter cells?

[ReD_ReBeL]

i support the cause but not the actualy groups. I dont support groups that kill innocent men woman and children to further there cause. As Che Guevara once said "Terrorism is for cowards", they say they warn people in the shops that they have placed a bomb in the building. But if they didn't want to kill anyone , why don't they not just bomb it at night, when the shop is closed?

[barista.marxista]

Similarly to RedRebel, I support the IRA's fight for a united, socialist Irish republic. I also support armed insurrection against the British state and ruling class. But the IRA has become isolated from the mass base of Northern Irish people which it needs to support it. Thus many of their acts are terroristic. I support the IRA in its fight, then, but not all of its methods.

[FidelCastro]

i agree with you both. The fact is though, it is only the splinter groups who are the terrorists. The original group formed in the early 20th century were just a millitary of sorts. Think of them as the confederates without confederate ideas. Michael Collins was truly a great man.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:48 PM
But if they didn't want to kill anyone , why don't they not just bomb it at night, when the shop is closed?
Because that would greatly weaken the impact of the bombings :rolleyes:

You'd understand if you'd ever seen an entire town shut down due to a bomb scare.

[Connolly]

dl

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:31 PM
Michael Collins was truly a great man.
Collins was a good soldier, but he was a conservative catholic and his politics reflected that.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 15 2006, 08:16 PM
Its a degenerated LeninistNaziCatholic* reactionary group, dieing as we speak.
Leninist Nazis? Where are you from, the US Deep South?

[FidelCastro]

I agree and I don't like what he said about catholics because they're are very liberal catholics even liberal priests. I know the pope is a nazi but his views don't reflect all of those involved in the religon

[Janus]

Yes, I support the PIRA because it was fighting for an independent Irish Republic. I also admired them because they were the only group that could protect the Catholic community from the Loyalists. However, the new splinter groups have not been able to make as much of an impact due to their small numbers. Therefore, they seem somewhat unimportant right now.

[WUOrevolt]

I support the cause of the IRA, but not the targeting of innocent british civilians in their bombings.

[Janus]

The IRA had to bring the war into England in order to gain greater attention for their movement. Some of the sites were warned in advance before they were bombed while other bombings were done at night.

[Cullmac]

I have mixed views, i see the IRA as a just cause yet the fact is that the only reason that the UK still has northern Ireland is because the majority of Ulster wish to remain British, although that was when partition occurred. The problem isn't with Britain, northern Ireland is facing numerous internal problems and is politically divided.
Also i feel that the IRA's terrorist tactics accomplish nothing other then building up the British governments resolve to not give into terrorists.

[Connolly]

dl

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 16 2006, 03:52 AM
The IRA had to bring the war into England in order to gain greater attention for their movement. Some of the sites were warned in advance before they were bombed while other bombings were done at night.
Didn't they plant bombs in buses as well?

[Janus]

The IRA never regularly attacked civilian buses though they did target military buses. However, there was one incident on February 18, 1996 when the bomb of an IRA operative accidentally detonated while he was transporting it. Other groups such as the CIRA have tried to use buses as bomb transportation vehicles in their attacks against security and military forces. However, I don't think any of the IRA groups have bombed a bus carrying passengers like what occured in London in July of 2005.

[More Fire for the People]

The RedBanner, tell me are you British or Irish?

[Regicidal Insomniac]

The IRA lost all legitimacy a long time ago. Northern Ireland is not an occupied territory; it is an independ nation within the United Kingdom, and remains so due to the wishes of the majority of the population. If that should sway (it's certaintly not a huge majority), then the people can choose to vote for republicans and change the situation peacefully. Meanwhile, if one believes in self-determination they must accept the will of the majority in NI. Armed men - republican or unionist - have absolutely no place threatening civilians anywhere.

As far as buses are concerned, I know a few IRA attacks have been centred on buses and bus stations resulting in civilian casualties. On Bloody Friday a landmine was detonated on the road to Nutts Corner, west of Belfast, just as a bus full of schoolchildren was passing (luckily the driver swerved and there were no fatalaties). On the same day a car bomb exploded outside of the Ulsterbus depot on Oxford St killing four civilians.

[Janus]

I mean the IRA are reactionary. They sway from side to side with political trends - like Sinn Fein - there is no actual political ideology - rather, they sway!!!!
Their ideology would be republicanism. Yes, the PIRA rejected Marxism while the Official IRA took it up but that doesn't make the PIRA reactionary.

[el-che]

Originally posted by Regicidal [email protected] 16 2006, 01:18 AM
The IRA lost all legitimacy a long time ago. Northern Ireland is not an occupied territory; it is an independ nation within the United Kingdom, and remains so due to the wishes of the majority of the population. If that should sway (it's certaintly not a huge majority), then the people can choose to vote for republicans and change the situation peacefully. Meanwhile, if one believes in self-determination they must accept the will of the majority in NI. Armed men - republican or unionist - have absolutely no place threatening civilians anywhere.

As far as buses are concerned, I know a few IRA attacks have been centred on buses and bus stations resulting in civilian casualties. On Bloody Friday a landmine was detonated on the road to Nutts Corner, west of Belfast, just as a bus full of schoolchildren was passing (luckily the driver swerved and there were no fatalaties). On the same day a car bomb exploded outside of the Ulsterbus depot on Oxford St killing four civilians.
Northern Ireland as you call it, or the occupied six, cannot be said to be an independant nation - The British drew a fictional border through the heart of Ulster, so as to leave the areas with the highest percentage of Catholics in Eire, in turn to ensure a permanent Protestant/ Unionist majority in the six occupied counties. This wasn't even 90 years ago, so ;ets stop pretending that the made up and fictional majority of Ulster wants to be part of the UK. Its a pathetic lie which ignores ALL the facts

To call a nation stolen thanks to British imperialism "independant" is laughable.

Tiocfaidh ar la, our day will come..

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 16 2006, 12:58 AM
Complete reactionary bullshit. Possibly, the most reactionary major political party in Ireland due to their unique position in Irish politics.
Are your serious? More reactionary than the Blue shirts, than the PDs, than Ian Paisley and his religious fundamentalist bigots?




You are entitled to your views - but a political organisation which "flirts" with Marxism and embraces religion is not being true to itself, and isnt being true to its followership.
Sinn Féin do not 'embrace religion'. Obviously most of their membership would come from a catholic background, considering that the movement was basically formed to oppose the institutional discrimination against catholics in the occupied North, but the movement itself is secular and anti-sectarian.



You cant be progressive and religious at the same time, nor can you be nationalist and avoid reactionary decisions.
Fistly, again, they're not religious. Secondly, how would that make them reactionary? Have you ever heard of liberation theology?



You cant be for the workers, and at the same time accept private funding.
What private funding would that be?

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by el-[email protected] 16 2006, 06:15 PM
Northern Ireland as you call it, or the occupied six, cannot be said to be an independant nation - The British drew a fictional border through the heart of Ulster, so as to leave the areas with the highest percentage of Catholics in Eire, in turn to ensure a permanent Protestant/ Unionist majority in the six occupied counties. This wasn't even 90 years ago, so ;ets stop pretending that the made up and fictional majority of Ulster wants to be part of the UK. Its a pathetic lie which ignores ALL the facts

To call a nation stolen thanks to British imperialism "independant" is laughable.

Tiocfaidh ar la, our day will come..
One of my favourite quotations on the matter is one by Louis Paul-Dubois:

"To seperate Ulster or a part of Ulster from Ireland is to divide the indivisable-to mutilate a living body... To refuse autonomy to Ireland because Ulster does not want it is a strange abuse of the theory of the right of minorties and a clear violation of the constitutional principle of majority rule."

[gilhyle]

This is a very strange thread. Most of it looks like it was written ten years ago.

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:52 PM
I have mixed views, i see the IRA as a just cause yet the fact is that the only reason that the UK still has northern Ireland is because the majority of Ulster wish to remain British, although that was when partition occurred. The problem isn't with Britain, northern Ireland is facing numerous internal problems and is politically divided.
Also i feel that the IRA's terrorist tactics accomplish nothing other then building up the British governments resolve to not give into terrorists.
Since you're so incapable of seeing this issue from anything but an English perspective, let me frame it for you. Say the situation was reversed. Say Ireland had invaded your country, colonized it, appointed your governors, dispossed all Protestants of land and then charged them to farm what they formerly owned, stripped you of your voting rights, and continuously discriminated British Protestants when they applied for jobs.

Say you fought a protracted war for liberation, and when it was through, the Irish gave you your free state. However, the Irish government still retained the right to appoint a governor general who retained more executive authority than your prime minister, kept control of many of your major ports, and refused to turn over control at all of Mersyside, Lancashire, Cheshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, and Shropshire (incidentally retaining direct control over a huge portion of your nation's industrial output). Eventually, however, your republic is recognized.

Throw in a bunch of anti-Protestant violence and discriminatory laws in the above mentioned counties. Then have some Irishman or someone of Irish descent (like myself) saying, "Well, the majority of the people there are Catholic and wish to remain part of Ireland. That's the bottom line."

You'd say the same thing I'm about to say to you. Your people fucking stole that land and had no right to it in the first place. Anyone there who opposes re-unification can be repatriated and like it.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 07:13 AM
Your people fucking stole that land and had no right to it in the first place. Anyone there who opposes re-unification can be repatriated and like it.
The exact words that needed to be said.Long Live the Republic of Ireland! :D

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 15 2006, 11:58 PM
I mean the IRA are reactionary. They sway from side to side with political trends - like Sinn Fein - there is no actual political ideology - rather, they sway!!!!
"Reactionary" is one of those words thrown around so much that it loses all meaning.

I'd agree with the definition Marx used it in the Communist Manifesto - it applies to those who don't want to preserve the existing order but actually want to turn back history.

Clearly SF has some conservative tendencies. But it is in no way that I can see 'reactionary'. Wanting Ireland to finally be out of the grip of England does not turn back history nor is this really 'nationalist'. It's the fake nationalism of the orange bigots that has to be resisted and the artificial border the Brits placed through Ireland that has to be destroyed.

I don't support SF for a second. I support the Irish Republican Socialist Party, who despite it's flaws is the only group that is trying to advance the politics of Connolly and are simeltaneously willing to give their lives for the cause of socialism and national liberation.

So I actually agree with some of your criticisms, that SF is too opportunistic, etc. But when people call the IRA and SF reactionary I find it almost lol funny. It's just a lazy way to attack people that is not really trying to understand the actual situation.

[Connolly]

dl

[gilhyle]

The irish language is a myth, invented in the 19th century by standardising the various dialects of gaelic which happened to occur on the island of Ireland (gaelic being a group of dialects with a common root spread throughout the island of Ireland and Scotland, supposedly associated with another partial myth - the celts)

When Marxists talk to themselves, sympathy for the imperialised, even solidarity, should not turn into belief in the mythologies of nationalism.

[The Grey Blur]

Sinn Fein have very strong links within catholic organisations in Northern Ireland.
Yes they do and no they don't.

The Catholic Church repeatedly condemned the IRA, leading eventually to even the PIRA, the most "Catholic" of IRA groups, to declare itself secular.

On the other hand, many grassroots priests (Father Des Wilson springs to mind) have helped their communities and the Republican struggle in many ways.

As much as I despise the Catholic Church, whether in the Vatican or Ireland, I acnnot proscribe to your narrow belief that all priests are inherently evil or reactionary, I'm sorry.


I have read an annual financial artical for Sinn Fein, year 2002. Which quite clearly points to financial support from private companies.
1) No offence meant, but evidence like that really does require sources

2) Sinn Féin are a populist socialist party, not averse to private funds

3) Sinn Féin are victimized and attacked from all sides, North and South, they are happy to have allies

4) Businessmen and women who grew up in working-class Nationalist areas during the Troubles are now becoming more successful in business in the North (due in part to Sinn Féin's political role in opening up opportunities for Nationalists) and this has led to much more financial support for Sinn Féin

5) But I would still hazard a guess that the majority of Sinn Féin's funds come from donations from members

And a question - If other electoral Political Parties are gonna get funds ( a hell of a lot more than Sinn Féin) from private business, why shouldn't the Shinners? How are they supposed to compete? Is there a Socialist way to get funds?


I dont give a shit what country I belong too, Britain or the Republic - it is the system for which I am placed - the capitalist system, under the ruling class that counts.
You destroy their false border, you destroy their false propaganda - the Working-Class of a United Ireland will be stronger and more united; just look at the amount of Socialist Groups in Ireland today - SWP, ISP, Sinn Féin, Worker's Party, The Labour Party (cough cough) and various Communist and Anarchist groups.

Guess what issue divides them all? Partition


he irish language is a myth, invented in the 19th century by standardising the various dialects of gaelic which happened to occur on the island of Ireland (gaelic being a group of dialects with a common root spread throughout the island of Ireland and Scotland, supposedly associated with another partial myth - the celts)

:lol: What is it I speak every day in school? Labharaim Gaeilge go líofa, cén fadhb a bhfuil agat le sin? I speak Irish fluently, I know its roots, it is no more a myth than the English or Spanish languages are.

BTW - Isn't this thread supposed to be about the IRA?

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 18 2006, 04:52 PM

[QUOTE]Wanting Ireland to finally be out of the grip of England does not turn back history nor is this really 'nationalist'. It's the fake nationalism of the orange bigots that has to be resisted and the artificial border the Brits placed through Ireland that has to be destroyed.

I dont give a shit what country I belong too, Britain or the Republic - it is the system for which I am placed - the capitalist system, under the ruling class that counts.

What difference would it make giving the North to the ruling Fianna Fail or the Fiana Gail governments?

Our struggle is not one of national borders - (we leave that to the ruling class), Our struggle is one against the ruling class themselves - wherever they may be, Ireland or Britain.

Mobilizing the workers against an imperial capitalist power is useless, when, we are within a capitalist nation ourselves.

What is this artificial border?........All borders are artificial to the modern working class. We are one class, not a "race", not a "nation". Ireland is nothing - its a meaningless label which seperates and divides the workers.

As for Irish culture and language - which is often an arguement as to what defines "Irishness" - watch capitalism do a job on it. We will be calling ourselves European soon. :lol:
The issue isn't about nationality. (nor is it about "race" - I wonder where you got that idea?) Irish Republicanism has always been about transcending tribal identification by uniting Protestants and Catholics. And today, as the IRSP has said recently, there will need to be efforts towards making a multi-cultural Ireland to include recent immigrants as well.

The issue as I said isn't about what country you reside in as it is resisting the empire. If you don't get rid of colonial states like the six, you end up with situations like this: (link)PSNI accused of abduction (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=45254). That doesn't happen under most 'democratic' states. I could easily lists scores of abuses and atrocities that have gone unchecked in the six counties, of the like that wouldn't occur in the UK, US or most of Europe.

Your basic opinion of simply ignoring colonialism and the nasty details implicit in the occupation is a dead end street a chara. To paraphrase Marx, the working class unionists who oppress Irish workers cannot liberate themselves until this oppression is overturned. I know it's the approach of many on the Irish Left not to 'rock the boat' about partition, but this approach is ahistorical and essentially resigns the oppressed to their fate. It's much the same as the american left who largely ignored civil rights, or made vague promises about how much better things will be after the revolution, etc, while completely ignoring any tasks of the moment.

I for one won't excuse or try to justify any oppression. All oppression, from sectarianism, colonialism, gender, GBLT and class oppression must be resisted.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 09:59 PM
The irish language is a myth, invented in the 19th century by standardising the various dialects of gaelic which happened to occur on the island of Ireland (gaelic being a group of dialects with a common root spread throughout the island of Ireland and Scotland, supposedly associated with another partial myth - the celts)

When Marxists talk to themselves, sympathy for the imperialised, even solidarity, should not turn into belief in the mythologies of nationalism.
The claim that the Celts did not exist as we now think of them is certainly a debate repeated widely. There was a good article about this debate published in World Socialist Web Site: British Museum exhibit provokes controversy over Celtic history (http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/celt-o20.shtml).

However your exact claim is one I've never encountered before. Tell me, how did these historians 'invent' hundreds upon hundreds of years of evoltuion in grammar and case endings that are documented? :lol: Like most conspiracy theories, it's rubbish. All languages eventually embrace standardisation. Or upward mobility and increases in communication reduce the barries of dialects. In the case of Ireland, the English colonisation split Irish speaking communities into seperate geographical areas as a result of state policy of destroying the language.

The irony in your claim about historians is that actually the study of Celtic scholarship and linguistics was created largely by Germans and Englishmen, and never designed to stoke the flames of national movements. They assumed in the ninteenth century that the Celtic languages were about to disappear and wanted to document them essentially.

[gilhyle]

YOu conflate my two points, but I'll survive somehow.

There is no great complexity in the invention of Irish, it involves only an inflection of the mind, like the concept of 'Chinese' as all one language or of French and Italian as separate languages (rather than dialects).

In this case, the mental trick simply involves saying that all gaelic dialects on the Island of Ireland are dialects of a language we shall call 'Irish', while those in Scotland are not. Linguistically, there is a wider gap between Ulster 'Irish' (sometimes called 'Donegal Irish' in the Free State) and Waterford 'Irish' than between Ulster 'Irish' and adjacent dialects of Scots gaelic.

The IRA deserved support when they fought to expel imperialism from Ireland; they ceased to deserve support when they adopted the programme of allying Irish nationalism with imperialism through the peace process. At that point, they changed sides (and explaining to FARC how to build car bombs and home made mortors doesn't change that !)

[The Grey Blur]

In this case, the mental trick simply involves saying that all gaelic dialects on the Island of Ireland are dialects of a language we shall call 'Irish', while those in Scotland are not. Linguistically, there is a wider gap between Ulster 'Irish' (sometimes called 'Donegal Irish' in the Free State) and Waterford 'Irish' than between Ulster 'Irish' and adjacent dialects of Scots gaelic.
What on earth are you talking about? Scots Gaelic is recognized by Gaeilge speakers as another branch of the Gaelic/Gaeilge language although it has some major differences from Irish Gaelic.

The different dialects of Irish Gaeilge on the other hand, have only minor differences.


they ceased to deserve support
In your eyes, do not presume so heavily


programme of allying Irish nationalism with imperialism through the peace process
The majority of people in the North support the Peace Process, go explain to them why you think the bombings and shootings (no matter how justifiable) should continue.


At that point, they changed sides
Despite the fact they still espouse moderate Socialist ideals...that's not changing sides, that's sliding sideways slightly. (Try saying that with a mouth full of cream crackers kids!)

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 08:46 PM
Linguistically, there is a wider gap between Ulster 'Irish' (sometimes called 'Donegal Irish' in the Free State) and Waterford 'Irish' than between Ulster 'Irish' and adjacent dialects of Scots gaelic.


That's true, but due to the lack of contact between Ulster and Scotland and increased contact with the rest of the Ireland, this is likely to eventually change.


The IRA deserved support when they fought to expel imperialism from Ireland; they ceased to deserve support when they adopted the programme of allying Irish nationalism with imperialism through the peace process. At that point, they changed sides (and explaining to FARC how to build car bombs and home made mortors doesn't change that !)

I agree completely.