IRA worship

[cathal marcs]

To the thread starter. The IRA was formed as a Marxist organisation, it's predecessors the IRB were even slightly more Marxist. However, due to political and social rammifications in the late 60's, the IRA had to change it's position.

They did have some Marxists Connolly and Pearse accepted socialism as the natural way of life for the Irish people although he certainly wasn't a Marxist more a dreamer tbh. Furthermore figures as Liam Mellows(executed by freestate forces), Peadar O Donnell and Frank Ryan in the 30s tried to make the IRA a more potent social force with the Saor Eire(not to be confused with a latter group of the same name) programme and Republican Congress. Also the stickies turn to the left under Goulding in the 60s. To say the IRA are Marxist though is a bit of an exageration.

 

[Pickman's model]

They did have some Marxists Connolly and Pearse accepted socialism as the natural way of life for the Irish people although he certainly wasn't a Marxist more a dreamer tbh. Furthermore figures as Liam Mellows(executed by freestate forces), Peadar O Donnell and Frank Ryan in the 30s tried to make the IRA a more potent social force with the Saor Eire(not to be confused with a latter group of the same name) programme and Republican Congress. Also the stickies turn to the left under Goulding in the 60s. To say the IRA are Marxist though is a bit of an exageration.

perhaps we'll hear from him upon his return from revisiting the history books.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

They did have some Marxists Connolly and Pearse accepted socialism as the natural way of life for the Irish people although he certainly wasn't a Marxist more a dreamer tbh. Furthermore figures as Liam Mellows(executed by freestate forces), Peadar O Donnell and Frank Ryan in the 30s tried to make the IRA a more potent social force with the Saor Eire(not to be confused with a latter group of the same name) programme and Republican Congress. Also the stickies turn to the left under Goulding in the 60s. To say the IRA are Marxist though is a bit of an exageration.

Connolly wasn't in the IRB and was dead before the IRA was founded. Pearse was in the IRB but was by no stretch of the imagination a Marxist. Mellows was in the IRA but wasn't a Marxist, rather a republican struggling towards socialist ideas. Ryan again never described himself as a Marxist as far as I'm aware, although he was a socialist. I'm not sure about O'Donnell on that score, but both in any case found themselves leaving the IRA because of their socialist views. Goulding and the Sticks I'll give you but only because I don't have the energy to explain why Stalinism has nothing to do with Marxism.

It's not an "exaggeration" to describe the IRB or IRA as Marxist, it is as Pickman's Model implied, just flat out wrong.

 

[Pickman's model]

Connolly wasn't in the IRB and was dead before the IRA was founded. Pearse was in the IRB but was by no stretch of the imagination a Marxist. Mellows was in the IRA but wasn't a Marxist, rather a republican struggling towards socialist ideas. Ryan again never described himself as a Marxist as far as I'm aware. I'm not sure about O'Donnell on that score, but both in any case found themselves leaving the IRA because of their socialist views. Goulding and the Sticks I'll give you but only because I don't have the energy to explain why Stalinism has nothing to do with Marxism.

er...

the first appearance (and therefore founding) of the ira was in the 1860s.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

What? There's no organisational continuity between any of the twentieth century IRAs and any group of that name in the 1860s. I would be interested in hearing about whatever group you are thinking of though.

 

[gilhyle]

Look, if they were so keen to zap that mad old bint why not get a sniper rifle or something? Why kill x numbers of barmen, cleaners, perfectly harmless minor MPs and so on? Jesus, is this not obvious to you?

If you and I are in a pub and fall out, (which could happen), and come to blows, and you pop me one in the gob, I'll try the same on you.

Chucking glasses indiscriminately in your general direction, heedless of the screams of the maimed casual drinkers to either side, is hardly appropriate.

And there, in one clumsy analogy, is why the IRA are cunts.


.... I like your good leg. Which one is it?

Can't follow this...they weren't trying to kill her ???? ... if that is so, they are truely awesome explosives experts. The precision was just incredible: "blow up her bathroom, lads, but not the bedroom - and make sure she isn't in the bathroom when it goes" .......and while you are at it, is 'cunt' a technical term ?

 

[cathal marcs]

Connolly wasn't in the IRB and was dead before the IRA was founded. Pearse was in the IRB but was by no stretch of the imagination a Marxist. Mellows was in the IRA but wasn't a Marxist, rather a republican struggling towards socialist ideas. Ryan again never described himself as a Marxist as far as I'm aware, although he was a socialist. I'm not sure about O'Donnell on that score, but both in any case found themselves leaving the IRA because of their socialist views. Goulding and the Sticks I'll give you but only because I don't have the energy to explain why Stalinism has nothing to do with Marxism.

It's not an "exaggeration" to describe the IRB or IRA as Marxist, it is as Pickman's Model implied, just flat out wrong.

Depends you could claim the IRA were founded in 1914 some wouldsay 1916 ask any RSFer I have a friend who claims CIRA were formed in 1916 although using their logic you could claim 1798

I never said Pearse was a Marxist I said he 'accepted socialism as the natural way of life for the Irish people although he certainly wasn't a Marxist more a dreamer tbh'

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Depends you could claim the IRA were founded in 1914

Doesn't matter to the point. Even if you backdate the IRA to the foundation of the Irish Volunteers, Connolly wasn't a member.

 

[Pickman's model]

What? There's no organisational continuity between any of the twentieth century IRAs and any group of that name in the 1860s. I would be interested in hearing about whatever group you are thinking of though.

you know!

the bit in 1867 when the fenians invaded canada!

first use of the name 'irish republican army'.

interestingly, the ira have always used the gaelick 'oglaigh na heireann' = irish volunteers. so i'd say that the ira trace their roots back to the pre-ww i volunteer organisation. although i expect the first use of the term 'ira' in an irish context was during the tan war.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's not an "exaggeration" to describe the IRB or IRA as Marxist, it is as Pickman's Model implied, just flat out wrong.

i never implied anything of the sort.

although the stickies were marxist, which should be fucking evident. and strands of the provies are marxist - though those strands' influence have been waning. the last few times i've seen mcguinness speak, the word 'socialism' has been as conspicuous as it is in the ruc (gg) manifesto.

 

[cathal marcs]

Doesn't matter to the point. Even if you backdate the IRA to the foundation of the Irish Volunteers, Connolly wasn't a member.

The ICA, IRB and IV all merged though, and anti-revisionist republicans still claim hold to be the true heirs to the 1916 republic and the further Second Dail as signed by Tom Maguire that the CIRA army council are the government of the republic. Its all mythology and conspiratorial tactics if your going to be such a pedantic about terminology I could equally use RSFspeak to be a pedant back although we both know its ridiculous. I should have specified the broader 'republican movement'

 

[Nigel Irritable]

i never implied anything of the sort.

Yeah you did - you implied that they weren't Marxists.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The ICA, IRB and IV all merged though

As far as I'm aware, the Irish Citizen Army never merged with the IRB or the Irish Volunteers. It was still a seperate organisation years later.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yeah you did - you implied that they weren't Marxists.

missed out a couple of key words when reading your post.

 

[cathal marcs]

As far as I'm aware, the Irish Citizen Army never merged with the IRB or the Irish Volunteers. It was still a seperate organisation years later.

They were a seperate organisation later but they merged for when the republic was declared also Connolly was on the IRB war councill. Jesus are you in RSF Nige? i always thought you were a trotskyist.

 

[Pickman's model]

Jesus are you in RSF Nige? i always thought you were a trotskyist.

so did i - and i thought he was one of the better informed trots too.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

They were a seperate organisation later but they merged for when the republic was declared also Connolly was on the IRB war councill.

Hang on a second. I'm aware that Connolly was coopted onto the IRB committee which planned the rising, but still as far as I am aware he never actually joined the IRB - which was a secret society. I'm increasingly baffled by your insistence that the ICA, IRB and IV merged - when exactly did this take place, what did they merge into and how come all three continued to have a seperate existence in later years?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

In fact I'm sure that the ICA never merged with the IV or IRB or IRA and still existed as a seperate organisation for at least a couple of decades after 1916.

And no I'm not a member or supporter of RSF!

 

[cathal marcs]

Hang on a second. I'm aware that Connolly was coopted onto the IRB committee which planned the rising, but still as far as I am aware he never actually joined the IRB - which was a secret society. I'm increasingly baffled by your insistence that the ICA, IRB and IV merged - when exactly did this take place, what did they merge into and how come all three continued to have a seperate existence in later years?

They merged for 'joint' action in the 1916 rising. They still existed as seperate organisations as the ICA still had a role during the Civil War and the attack on the four courts.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

They merged for 'joint' action in the 1916 rising. They still existed as seperate organisations as the ICA still had a role during the Civil War and the attack on the four courts.

That's what I mean - taking joint action doesn't mean the organisations merged.

 

[cathal marcs]

And no I'm not a member or supporter of RSF!

with your pedant nit picking over semantics you sound like one never mind misreading of what I am saying(the pearse bit). I know you are not a member of those upholders of hermenutical relics I was only joking about the IRA being formed in 1914 or 1916 or 1986 shit I mean 1798. As we all know the CIRA were former provos that walked out in 1986 but try telling RSF folk that they claim depending on who you ask the were formed in 1916 although some will say 1914. I would love to hear the internal debate of their Ard Fheis
And with Connolly being on theIRB war/supreme/military council(whatever you wanna call it seen as you are so concerned about semantics) its all like Gerry Adams wasn't in the IRA he was only in the Army Council he never went though an initiation ceremony.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

with your pedant nit picking over semantics you sound like one never mind misreading of what I am saying(the pearse bit).

Except that I'm insisting on accuracy for the sake of accuracy, rather than a particular version to suit a semi-religious belief system. Pedantry, yes, theology, no.

And actually I do think it's important to remember that Connolly wasn't in the IRB - he was invited onto that committee because he was leading a different organisation, with a different background and a different set of politics. It's more like some British General sitting in US Army HQ during a joint invasion of some far off land rather than the Adams analogy you use.

 

[Andy the Don]

There has always been an English presence in Ireland over the past 800 years. Usually situated around the Pale area (around Dublin) What you must be on about are the Protestant settlers, they were no military and I have no problem with them.

The Elizabethan Protestant settlers "ethical cleansed" in the true sense of the word the native Catholic Irish. It was because they had settled the most productive (agriculturally) parts of Ireland that the native Catholic Irish rebelled against them & Cromwell had his excuse to intervene with his murderous anti Catholic excesses.

 

[redsquirrel]

I would have thought this simple proposition:


It is wrong to kill people other than in immediate defence, or when they are your declared mortal enemy'

... was fairly robust, but it seems U75 has enough bloodthirsty fascists to keep me patiently saying it over and over.

Which is something completely different from what you said before.

The IRA could never militarily 'win', and they knew it. Therefore all their killing was gratuitous. (Or 'murder', as we say in English).

Which if taken to it's logical conclusion means that you should only use military means when you know you can win. Something which is both incredibly stupid and writes off huge numbers of brave people who did fight when they couldn't win (I and just make it clear for I'm not talking about the IRA but the general case).

Anyway, redsquirrel, you imply that the IRA could somehow have 'won' militarily.

No I don't. I don't even remotely imply that. I suggest you actually read my post this time.

 

[foggypane]

Which is something completely different from what you said before.Which if taken to it's logical conclusion means that you should only use military means when you know you can win. Something which is both incredibly stupid and writes off huge numbers of brave people who did fight when they couldn't win (I and just make it clear for I'm not talking about the IRA but the general case).
No I don't. I don't even remotely imply that. I suggest you actually read my post this time.

i was clarifying my earlier thoughts.

i just cant see how anyone can defend piontless terrorist bombs.


ok squirrel, so you admit that the ira could never have won by military means. how, knowing that killing a passer-by will accomplish nothing, is it ok to do it anyway? doesn't that qualify as an empty gesture, or self gratification?

sorry abt poor typing, i have a baby in my arns and can only use 1 hand.

 

[foggypane]

Yes and I'm sure you'll agree Cromwell and the English ilk that have ravaged Ireland for 800 years are also murdering cunts. Yes?

Supporters of the killers are cunts aswell? Weird logic, care to elaborate?

Oh and I live in Northern Ireland, I know rightly what it's all about and you my dear haven't got a clue.

yep i agree with your cromwell bit, despite your whacky and idiosyncratic historical sources. as said so often on this thread, it's the ira we are discussing - the loonies on the other side get their own threads.

weird logic? duh? how so? if sme guy told you peter sutcliffe was a good lad and did the right thing, you would class that guy as a real sick bastard, no?

and, darling, living over there doesn't give you unique moral insight. i'm not talking about the intricate rights and wrongs of the last millenium on the lovely isle, i'm talking about the rights and wrongs of blowing up disinterested bystanders as part of a deluded political campaign that never really raised itself above the level of a bomb, gun, power and status-geeks hobby.

of course, you know better sweetums, 'cos one of those heroes lives down the street.

are you out of your teens?

 

[redsquirrel]

i was clarifying my earlier thoughts.

i just cant see how anyone can defend piontless terrorist bombs.


ok squirrel, so you admit that the ira could never have won by military means. how, knowing that killing a passer-by will accomplish nothing, is it ok to do it anyway? doesn't that qualify as an empty gesture, or self gratification?

sorry abt poor typing, i have a baby in my arns and can only use 1 hand.

Again that's not what you originally said. I'm not taking issue with your analysis of the IRA I'm taking issue with your logic

The IRA could never militarily 'win', and they knew it. Therefore all their killing was gratuitous. (Or 'murder', as we say in English).

which doesn't single out passerbys from anyone else. But instead jugdes the validity of a groups actions on whether they know they could win militarily.

 

[foggypane]

Ok, let me be clear.

1. I despise all terrorists

2. I don't believe in killing humans except in immediate defence of self or innocents, or when the victim is your declared mortal enemy

3. 'collateral damage' should be avoided whenever possible. Not used as a blase excuse for lazy, cowardly or incompetent military action.

4. Getting back to the thread head, a lot of people seem to confuse the noble aim of the IRA (united eire, I assume), with the squalid reality of murder, extortion and brutality. They also don't realise or don't believe that the IRA are/were - post 1969 - militarily insignificant.

 

[revol68]

Ok, let me be clear.

1. I despise all terrorists

2. I don't believe in killing humans except in immediate defence of self or innocents, or when the victim is your declared mortal enemy

3. 'collateral damage' should be avoided whenever possible. Not used as a blase excuse for lazy, cowardly or incompetent military action.

4. Getting back to the thread head, a lot of people seem to confuse the noble aim of the IRA (united eire, I assume), with the squalid reality of murder, extortion and brutality. They also don't realise or don't believe that the IRA are/were - post 1969 - militarily insignificant.

whats so fucking noble about uniting Ireland? I couldn't give to fucks about it either way.

 

[foggypane]

..... nor me mate really, but it's sort of aspirational and a nice idea isn't it? If you read about Cyprus being peacfully reunited you'd go 'aaahhh, great, bless' and feel a bit of a warm glow.


I have a sneaky feeling it stirs higher passions in some, though.