Irish Occupation Opressive?

[ReD_ReBeL]

So i hear people throwing the name 'opressive' around when i hear about the British occupation of Northern Ireland, But what exactly makes it opressive?
I'm Anti-Impearlist, i stand for independence for all countries but i want to know why exactly the British occupation of Northern ireland is Opressive.

[PRC-UTE]

Are you takin the piss? :huh:

Google: bloody sunday, orange order, pat finucane, plastic bullets, the sectarian attacks on catholics, interface areas, collusion, july 12 parades, uda, the gibraltar 3, combat18, love ulster, uvf, supergrass, aidan macannespie, the hunger strikes ... that's just off the top of my head!

Everyone is commenting on how sectarianism is worse as ever. It's a natural consquence of a sectarian state.

Just a day or so ago loyalists carried out an attack in west belfast, attempting to burn a family out of their home which fortunately failed. This kind of shit doesn't happen in the south. Attacks on catholic homes, gaa clubs and so on are somtimes too common to even cover in the media.

This site's full of documented cases of violence, murder and oppression: http://www.relativesforjustice.com/

[ReD_ReBeL]

fuck me i knew the oppression was pretty bad but i didn't know it went to that extent. u mentioned there was an attack 'a day or so ago', so the 'troubles' is still going on? i thought it was calmed down now.

[coda]

Yes. North Ireland must be free from British occupation.

There's nothing more to say

[Scars]

A question-

You talk about it being British oppression, however much of what you say is carried out by Protestant Irish- not British British (English, Welsh, Scots). So why do you think reunification is going to solve all these problems? All that will change is there'll be no British soldiers there, and an even more alienated and angry minority.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 03:14 AM
fuck me i knew the oppression was pretty bad but i didn't know it went to that extent. u mentioned there was an attack 'a day or so ago', so the 'troubles' is still going on? i thought it was calmed down now.
No, you're right, the war is definitely over.

There are many 'random' sectarian attacks happening, sometimes by mobs of loyalists. Around the Fountain in Derry there are also attacks by catholics against protestants which republicans have attempted to halt. However none of this is on the scale of the war, like shoot outs, bombings, etc.

What's happened now in the six counties is that politics have been effectively removed. The Brits and Americans have succeeded in making the conflict not one about imperialism but about competing ethnic traditions. Logically it's increased tensions.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 03:33 AM
A question-

You talk about it being British oppression, however much of what you say is carried out by Protestant Irish- not British British (English, Welsh, Scots). So why do you think reunification is going to solve all these problems? All that will change is there'll be no British soldiers there, and an even more alienated and angry minority.
The British strategy in Ireland is similar to the 'Vietnamisation' attempts by the USA. The Brits have attempted to remove themselves from the conflict and give the impression that they are nuetral and impartial peacekeepers.

In reality, they have worked very hard to create a more sectarian situation and have essentially manipulated the struggle for self-determination into the cul de sac of competiting ethnic traditions. that's what the good friday agreement/peace process is.

You're correct that most attacks are carried out by Protestants, not actual English people, who are largely indifferent to the whole thing, truth be told. However, it was the British ruling class who created the conflict to begin with by giving protestants privelages over their catholic/nationalist neighbours. They certainly have done nothing to reign in their Loyal subjects.

Though they seem to not be involved, the British armed loyalist death squads and coordinated their attacks on the nationalist community. There's a good book about it called A Very British Jihad.

Although it's certainly not easy, the only way forward is for the unionist protestant community to sit down and work things out with their catholic nationalist neighbours. There's some good work being carried out by IRSP activists to attempt this. Unification is the only thing that will solve the situation - there's no way around it. Until then the Unionists have no motivation to rethink their core politics of domination and irrational paranoia.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Ireland was forced to be part of the British Empire, Empire being the key word. The empire has since "collapsed" yet they still hold on to some provinces.Northern Ireland is one of them.If Britains rule in the North is not oppressive then hitler loved jews. :)

[Seven Stars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 06:23 AM
No, you're right, the war is definitely over.
The war is not over and will not be over until the British occupation is ended. While the latest phase in the war is over, it will take another generation of Republican struggle for our goals to be achieved.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Irish_Republican+Feb 2 2006, 01:02 AM--> (Irish_Republican @ Feb 2 2006, 01:02 AM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 06:23 AM
No, you're right, the war is definitely over.
The war is not over and will not be over until the British occupation is ended. While the latest phase in the war is over, it will take another generation of Republican struggle for our goals to be achieved. [/b]
Don't you just love pedantry?

[romanm]

Real communists support the national liberation and self-determination of all oppressed nations everywhere -- be it occupied Ireland or the captive nations in North America or whereever. If you don't support national liberation and self-determination of all oppressed nations, you're just another stupid poser, chauvinist, or maybe a Trot.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:28 PM
or maybe a Trot.
Eamonn McCann who grew up in the Bogside, supported the Provos, and set up the non-sectarian Socialist Worker's Party is a "Trot"

I guess a lot of IRSP members are Trotskyites as well

[romanm]

That may be true in Ireland -- which is why I said true communists support the national liberation and self determination of oppressed nations *everywhere*, not just in Ireland. Trots have historically opposed liberations movements, especially in North America. I can't comment on Irish Trots.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Rage Against The Machine+Feb 2 2006, 03:40 PM--> (Rage Against The Machine @ Feb 2 2006, 03:40 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 03:28 PM
or maybe a Trot.
Eamonn McCann who grew up in the Bogside, supported the Provos, and set up the non-sectarian Socialist Worker's Party is a "Trot"

I guess a lot of IRSP members are Trotskyites as well [/b]
There's some Trots in the IRSP, but McCann is the worst example for defending Trots I could ever think of. :lol:

I don't know that he's even a Trotskyist, he's more of an economistic type (what was that term, Conghaileach... Bernsteinsomething?).

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Irish_Republican+Feb 2 2006, 12:02 AM--> (Irish_Republican @ Feb 2 2006, 12:02 AM)
[email protected] 1 2006, 06:23 AM
No, you're right, the war is definitely over.
The war is not over and will not be over until the British occupation is ended. While the latest phase in the war is over, it will take another generation of Republican struggle for our goals to be achieved. [/b]
ffs, you know what I mean a chara. :D

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Conghaileach+Feb 2 2006, 02:47 PM--> (Conghaileach @ Feb 2 2006, 02:47 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:02 AM

[email protected] 1 2006, 06:23 AM
No, you're right, the war is definitely over.
The war is not over and will not be over until the British occupation is ended. While the latest phase in the war is over, it will take another generation of Republican struggle for our goals to be achieved.
Don't you just love pedantry? [/b]
:angry: How dare you speak bad of the peasantry! :lol:

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by OglachMcGlinchey+Feb 2 2006, 05:45 PM--> (OglachMcGlinchey @ Feb 2 2006, 05:45 PM)
Originally posted by Rage Against The [email protected] 2 2006, 03:40 PM

[email protected] 2 2006, 03:28 PM
or maybe a Trot.
Eamonn McCann who grew up in the Bogside, supported the Provos, and set up the non-sectarian Socialist Worker's Party is a "Trot"

I guess a lot of IRSP members are Trotskyites as well
There's some Trots in the IRSP, but McCann is the worst example for defending Trots I could ever think of. :lol:

I don't know that he's even a Trotskyist, he's more of an economistic type (what was that term, Conghaileach... Bernsteinsomething?). [/b]
:lol:

Okay well, I just like his writings to be honest with ya :blush:

War And An Irish Town (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0745307256/102-0374529-8161754?v=glance&n=283155)

I think all Socialists should read that book

[cormacobear]

carried out by Irish-Protestants.....

Most of the protestants in N.Ireland are the descendants of Scotts English and Welsh the british government relocated there. While most of those acts he mentioned were commited by Orangemen, they were done using weapons provided to them by British intelligence and sympathisers in the British occupational forces. Futhermore there has been numerous incidents of the british soldiers participating in the Protestant death squads.

The RUC's ranks have always been filled by Orangemen whove used the police force to keep the native Catholics down and on the defensive. LIke the RUC the Protestants with the support of the British government have sought to keep Catholics from acheiving good paying, safe, or influential jobs in the North. :(

and that's off the top of my head with a little research anyone can find deplorable incidents of opression. this only looking at the last 90 years of the 700+ year british occupation. the Fact that ireland was producing enough food to feed itself during the great famine, which the British absentee landlords continued to export, causing the starvation of 1/3 of the nations population and making refugees of another third, is a pretty good example of occupational oppression of the British government in Ireland.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Rage Against The Machine+Feb 2 2006, 09:07 PM--> (Rage Against The Machine @ Feb 2 2006, 09:07 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Rage Against The [email protected] 2 2006, 03:40 PM

[email protected] 2 2006, 03:28 PM
or maybe a Trot.
Eamonn McCann who grew up in the Bogside, supported the Provos, and set up the non-sectarian Socialist Worker's Party is a "Trot"

I guess a lot of IRSP members are Trotskyites as well
There's some Trots in the IRSP, but McCann is the worst example for defending Trots I could ever think of. :lol:

I don't know that he's even a Trotskyist, he's more of an economistic type (what was that term, Conghaileach... Bernsteinsomething?).
:lol:

Okay well, I just like his writings to be honest with ya :blush:

War And An Irish Town (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0745307256/102-0374529-8161754?v=glance&n=283155)

I think all Socialists should read that book [/b]
What do you like about it. I've read it myself, found it less than intriguing.

[Scars]

<<Most of the protestants in N.Ireland are the descendants of Scotts English and Welsh the british government relocated there.>>

This was done at latest around 350 years ago. They&#39;re Protestant Irish, Ireland is their home and that is why they&#39;re fighting- because they perceive that their home is going to be &#39;stolen&#39; by the Catholic Irish. This is crap, of course, but that&#39;s how they see it. If they didn&#39;t feel a deep connection to the North of Ireland would they fight tooth and nail for it? No, they&#39;d say fuck it and go back to England, or Wales or Scotland, or where ever their ancestors came from 300 years prior.

<<While most of those acts he mentioned were commited by Orangemen, they were done using weapons provided to them by British intelligence and sympathisers in the British occupational forces.>>

Yes, however the majority of them are indiginous movements supported by the British. They would exist with or without British presence and they would have just as many arms. The PIRA was better armed than all the Loyalist paramilitaries, so obviously they could get weapons etc if they tried. It was just easier and cheaper to get them from the British. As Pro-Catholic Irish people constantly say, the so-called &#39;trouble&#39;s are a CIVIL WAR. I agree with this, and because of this I understand that kicking out the Brits isn&#39;t going to do shit because all it means is that it&#39;s down to Loyalists/Protestants fighting Republicans/Catholics instead of it being L/P and British Vs R/C.

The nature of the conflict in Ireland is far more complex than just "KICK THE FUCKING BRITS OUT&#33;". There are over a million Protestants who have no intention to leave Ireland, nor should they be forced. Everyone has the right to live wherever they wish.

<<Futhermore there has been numerous incidents of the british soldiers participating in the Protestant death squads.>>

Yes, but lets not make the Catholics out to be fucking saints. No pun.

Now, I&#39;d like to say that I&#39;m largely Irish in background, about 50/50 Protestant (Armagh) and Catholic (Dublin) and I use to be a strong Irish nationalist and supporter of the IRA. Then I came to realise that things were a hell of a lot more complex than it is made out to be and that you can&#39;t punish someone because they happen to be the decendent of a dirt poor peasant who came to Ireland 700 years ago. Throwing the British out won&#39;t solve the problem, reunification won&#39;t solve the problem. What will solve the problem is abandonning petty nationalism and uniting against Capitalism and Imperialism- the true causes of this conflict.

[The Grey Blur]

What do you like about it. I&#39;ve read it myself, found it less than intriguing
It&#39;s a cool book with a few nice anecdotes and an excellent commentary on how Capitalism and the Orange Machine were intertwined

What do you not like about it?

[Iroquois Xavier]

The british in the north are trespassing on land they have no rights to. send em back home.

"NO TRESPASSING, VIOLATORS WILL BE SHOT. SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN&#33;" :D

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:38 AM
Yes, however the majority of them are indiginous movements supported by the British. They would exist with or without British presence and they would have just as many arms. The PIRA was better armed than all the Loyalist paramilitaries, so obviously they could get weapons etc if they tried. It was just easier and cheaper to get them from the British. As Pro-Catholic Irish people constantly say, the so-called &#39;trouble&#39;s are a CIVIL WAR. I agree with this, and because of this I understand that kicking out the Brits isn&#39;t going to do shit because all it means is that it&#39;s down to Loyalists/Protestants fighting Republicans/Catholics instead of it being L/P and British Vs R/C.
You have it the wrong way around here. The British are being supported by a reactionary element of the population. This is nothing new, or in any way unique to Ireland. Imperialists have done it all over the world. They foster(ed) a section who would see that their interests were tied with imperialism, and these people act in the interests of the occupier against their compatriots. Divide and rule, it&#39;s that simple.

However, simply getting the British out is not going to change much for the working class of Ireland, regardless of whatever faith they may or may not have. James Connolly put this clearly over one hundred years ago...

"If you remove the English army to-morrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain.

England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs." (Socialism and Nationalism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1897/01/socnat.htm))


"And, says the agricultural workers, after we have freed Ireland, what then? Oh, then you can go scraping around for the landlord’s rent or the money-lenders’ interest same as before. Whoop it up for liberty&#33;" (Let Us Free Ireland&#33; (http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1899/xx/freeirld.htm))

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:45 PM
I don&#39;t know that he&#39;s even a Trotskyist, he&#39;s more of an economistic type (what was that term, Conghaileach... Bernsteinsomething?).
Bernsteinian. A gas-and-water socialist.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by Rage Against The [email protected] 3 2006, 11:19 AM
It&#39;s a cool book with a few nice anecdotes and an excellent commentary on how Capitalism and the Orange Machine were intertwined

What do you not like about it?
I haven&#39;t read the book myself, but my problem with McCann is that he was a Socialist Republican in the 60s, but as soon as the &#39;Troubles&#39; started he apparently backed away from that position, though for a while cheered on the IRA from the sidelines. He is the chief ideologue of the SWP in the North and seems to have built something of a cult of personality around him in Derry. He&#39;s never been a real threat to the status quo.

[gilhyle]

McCann didnt set up the SWP, although he did join it early on, leave it for ten or so years and then rejoin it.

THe SWP is not a Trotskyist organisation. WHile its founder Cliff worked with the 4th International in his early days, he did break with it organisationally and methodologically. THe influence of Luxembourg and Bukharin on the SWP has always been very strong.

Im intrigued by the reference to Trotskyists oposing national liberation struggles in North America. I though, for examples, that the Barnesites supported all such struggles almost as a reflex.

Having got all that out of the way, I agree with the conclusions being expressed here, but lets recognise that the nature of imperialist exploitation of the North is tenuous; the place is a sort of alice-in-wonderland left over from an earlier period which doesnt make economic sense for imperialism.

[travisdandy2000]

Amazing&#33; When it comes to N. Ireland, everyone agrees on its liberation. When it come to Palestine there is a big argument. I guess Catholics deserve liberation more then Muslims? I 100% support the unification of Irealnd and I 100% support the liberation of Palesitne there is no difference. Unconditonal support for all national liberation struggles&#33;

[Scars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:53 AM
Amazing&#33; When it comes to N. Ireland, everyone agrees on its liberation. When it come to Palestine there is a big argument. I guess Catholics deserve liberation more then Muslims? I 100% support the unification of Irealnd and I 100% support the liberation of Palesitne there is no difference. Unconditonal support for all national liberation struggles&#33;
That&#39;s because the situations are similar, but different. The sort of mass displacement as see in Palestine last happened around 400 years ago in Ireland, the conflict in Ireland is part of the process of decolonisation. What is happening in Palestine is not.

And here about 99% of people agree (in principle) to a liberated Palestine. However people are too simplistic about things. You can&#39;t just throw out the Jews from Palestine, in the same way you can&#39;t just throw out the Protestants from Ireland. There has to be some sort of unity before they can move forward. Blinding nationalism is at the heart of these struggles.

As for unconditional support- I refuse to unconditionally support anything. To do so is to show ignorance and blindness. If will not support blatant reactionaries, even if they are &#39;liberating&#39; people. Their liberation boils down to imposing a different sort of tyranny carried out by a different group. That&#39;s not liberation, that&#39;s a restructuring of oppression and a redistribution of power.

[travisdandy2000]

;) Why exactly can you not just throw the Zionist out of Plaestine? "Isreal" is a new state it has only realy exsisted for one generation. There is still plenty of time to make wrongs right. You may argue that some of the oppnents of the "Isreal" are not 100% correct dialectal materialist. They may not be right on every point of their platform, but while you wait for the perfect party to take control of the struggle the imperialist consolidate their gains. Know who your enemy is&#33; We can&#39;t afford to wait for a group that meets all our ideals to lead Palestine while they are facing irreversible cultural extinction. Nelson Mandela is a liberal reformist, it doesn&#39;t mean that as long as he was the best chance for ending aparthied in South Africa I didn&#39;t support him unconditonaly. Hamas may be fuedal Islamist, but if they are the best chance for ending the Isreali aparthied state then I support them unto death. Revolutionaries must live in the real world, not the abstract. I know for a fact that Che supported the PFLP. I know for a fact that the DPRK sent troops to fight Isreal in their war of agression against Eygpt. Imperialism is the enemy, anyone against imperialism is a freind of the revolution, anyone against ANY national liberation struggle is a freind of imperialism. Read your Lenin, hell read your Bakunin.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:53 AM
Amazing&#33; When it comes to N. Ireland, everyone agrees on its liberation. When it come to Palestine there is a big argument. I guess Catholics deserve liberation more then Muslims? I 100% support the unification of Irealnd and I 100% support the liberation of Palesitne there is no difference. Unconditonal support for all national liberation struggles&#33;
Actually, it&#39;s usually the other way around on this board...

[romanm]

Yes -- it is interesting how people will support national liberation of one oppressed nation, but not for another. For example, look at how few white-nation "leftys" support the national liberation of the Black Nation in North America or Occupied Mexico/Aztlan, yet these same whites will support national liberation in some far off place.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:53 AM
Amazing&#33; When it comes to N. Ireland, everyone agrees on its liberation. When it come to Palestine there is a big argument. I guess Catholics deserve liberation more then Muslims? I 100% support the unification of Irealnd and I 100% support the liberation of Palesitne there is no difference. Unconditonal support for all national liberation struggles&#33;
This is the most support I&#39;ve ever seen for it. I think so far mostly Irish have weighed in. Wait a bit and there will be people lecturing us for how wrong we are for embracing &#39;nationalism&#39;, including the admins.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Scars+Feb 4 2006, 04:32 AM--> (Scars @ Feb 4 2006, 04:32 AM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 01:53 AM
Amazing&#33; When it comes to N. Ireland, everyone agrees on its liberation. When it come to Palestine there is a big argument. I guess Catholics deserve liberation more then Muslims? I 100% support the unification of Irealnd and I 100% support the liberation of Palesitne there is no difference. Unconditonal support for all national liberation struggles&#33;
That&#39;s because the situations are similar, but different. The sort of mass displacement as see in Palestine last happened around 400 years ago in Ireland, the conflict in Ireland is part of the process of decolonisation. What is happening in Palestine is not.

And here about 99% of people agree (in principle) to a liberated Palestine. However people are too simplistic about things. You can&#39;t just throw out the Jews from Palestine, in the same way you can&#39;t just throw out the Protestants from Ireland. There has to be some sort of unity before they can move forward. Blinding nationalism is at the heart of these struggles.

As for unconditional support- I refuse to unconditionally support anything. To do so is to show ignorance and blindness. If will not support blatant reactionaries, even if they are &#39;liberating&#39; people. Their liberation boils down to imposing a different sort of tyranny carried out by a different group. That&#39;s not liberation, that&#39;s a restructuring of oppression and a redistribution of power. [/b]
I would say the exact reverse.

I support the right of return in Palestine. If that means throwing some people out who colonised the land in the last 50 years who so happen to be Jewish, then so be it.

In the occupied six counties, the Protestants have just as much claim to the country as Catholics. The point of republicanism is to unite protestant, catholic and dissenter and break the connection with England. It was never a Balkans-like crusade to drive out a competing ethnic group.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:54 PM
Having got all that out of the way, I agree with the conclusions being expressed here, but lets recognise that the nature of imperialist exploitation of the North is tenuous; the place is a sort of alice-in-wonderland left over from an earlier period which doesnt make economic sense for imperialism.
That&#39;s well stated. You&#39;re correct, I think. It seems the British establishment is divded about the question in the o6c, as those with ties to the unionists, the far right, the security/intellegence community, etc are completely against any deal with the &#39;fenian scum&#39; but more pragmatic leaders like Blair would like to modernise the place to open it up to more international investment.

[Scars]

Jews have just as much right to live in Palestine as anyone else, to say the opposite is to be just as bad as the Zionists. They, on the other hand, do not have the right to treat people like cattle. There is enough room in Palestine for both Jews and Arabs to live together in peace and prosperity. Sadly both sides are bound up in petty reactionary nationalism, meaning that the war will never end until one side is either utterly crippled or wiped out and I don&#39;t think that that&#39;s a result anyone wants. As I&#39;ve said, the Jews and Arabs lived side by side happily in Palestine for thousands of years, the extremist Zionism (Zionism being bourgeois Jewish nationalism) in the form of the Hagganah, the Stern Gang etc that came to prominance after WWII is the cause of the problem.

Nationalism is the enemy, not the Jews. Anyone can live wherever they choose, to cay otherwise is to be a hypocrite.

As for Lenin, I have read much Lenin. His ideas have largely failed. The Russian revolution, the USSR, never gained popular support- it was always a minority urban government that ruled by force. The Socialist-Revolutionary party had far more support than the Bolsheviks ever did, the election showed that. They got nearly twice as many seats as the Bolsheviks did. The same goes for all of Eastern Europe, excluding Yugoslavia- mainly because Yugoslavia was willing to forge their own path and break with Moscow. I was originally a Leninist, however I have rejected much of this.

As for Bakunin, I&#39;ve never really bothered with him. Kroptokin appeals to me far more, as does the Russian Nihilist movement. Plus his anti-scemitism disgusts me.

Cooperation with bourgeoise parties? The bodies of over a million Indonesian comrades (in the purges of the mid 60s), thousands of Chinese (when forced to cooperate with the KMT by Stalin), the failure of the revolution in Spain due to being forced to &#39;moderate&#39; their revolutionary goals in order to cooperate with bourgeois parties and countless other examples of true revolutionary progress being stifled by bourgeois reformists has somewhat put me off the idea of being nice to the enemy.

I am sympathetic to some left wing Nationalist groups, for instance the PFLP, ETA, the INLA etc- however I will not hestiate to criticise them, nor will I give my &#39;unconditional support&#39; to them.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:34 PM
Jews have just as much right to live in Palestine as anyone else, to say the opposite is to be just as bad as the Zionists.
Nationalism is the enemy, not the Jews. Anyone can live wherever they choose, to cay otherwise is to be a hypocrite.

That&#39;s just an abstraction that&#39;s not dealing with the situation. The ideology of nationalism isn&#39;t the central issue.

No one that I would support is against Jews lving in Palestine. It&#39;s an issue about colonialism. The PLO has tried many times to appeal to left wing Jews for instance.



Sadly both sides are bound up in petty reactionary nationalism, meaning that the war will never end until one side is either utterly crippled or wiped out and I don&#39;t think that that&#39;s a result anyone wants.

That&#39;s not the issue here. There is a limited amount of land and both are fighting for it. A large number of the Zionists come from places like NY or London and think that having a green lawn is important. The Palestinians by contrast are just trying to survive.



I am sympathetic to some left wing Nationalist groups, for instance the PFLP, ETA, the INLA etc- however I will not hestiate to criticise them, nor will I give my &#39;unconditional support&#39; to them.

Fair enough. I wouldn&#39;t ask for more than that anyway.

[gilhyle]

There is an important distinction between &#39;unconditional&#39; support (i.e. I do not require you to follow a particular tactic or desist from a particular tactic before I will support your cause - my support is &#39;unconditional&#39;) and &#39;uncritical&#39; support (i.e. because I support your cause I will hide my criticisms of your tactics - my support is &#39;uncritical&#39;). Critical and unconditional support is a perfectly principled position - eventhough those you support in this way will often not welcome your support on this basis.

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 01:30 AM
So i hear people throwing the name &#39;opressive&#39; around when i hear about the British occupation of Northern Ireland, But what exactly makes it opressive?


- British occupation of Northern ireland is Opressive.
I tailored the quote just a wee bit, and now it is self evident. :)
Eire is not Britain.

Beir Bua agus Saoirse &#33;

[travisdandy2000]

Wow, Gihyle that is a good point, that&#39;s the first time that anyone who disagreed with me on Paleistine made an argument that made any sense. Point taken. I will take that into consideration in the furure.