IRA worship

[revol68]

can we stick to the assertion that the British Amry has never killed as many civilians as the IRA have, that made me laugh.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

I am sure you now very well that such things could not possibly happen these days without one hell of an outcry here in the UK!

Actually things haven't changed all that much, as Kaul's excellent book "Reporting the Raj" shows. There was a mixture of censorship of the press and demonisation of the Empire's opponents and a woeful lack of reporting of 'collateral damage' of the day. Much like what is happening in Iraq today. And as the experience of Fallujah shows today sometimes that mixture works and the bastards get away with it.

 

[FruitandNut]

can we stick to the assertion that the British Amry has never killed as many civilians as the IRA have, that made me laugh.

Probably because there were not as many, and they operated over a smaller patch and for a shorter period of time?

My grandfather was an old IRA man, he would not have had too much truck with some of the antics of the latter day provos. I can sing 'Off to Dublin in the Green' - I learned it from an old '78' on my grand dad's wind up gramophone! My father was in the British Army for 25yrs. - he never toured N. Ireland. I am a Catholic and believe in Irish unity, but only when the majority in the Northern province says so! It was Dublin that recognised the Six Counties as still being part of the UK, so it is reasonable to allow the citizens in that part of Ireland to determine which way they go. Hopefully they will at some time vote to join the South, but bombs and bullets will only do one thing in that respect - PUT OFF THAT DAY! Violence has been counter-productive. All it has done is entrench minds.

What happened in Fallujah was in the Yank zone, I think it may have been tackled differently by the Brits.

If I recall correctly, about 750 Brit. troops, mainly Black Watch, moved up to the 'Camp Dogwood' area near Baghdad to release a few thousand GIs for the main operation. After taking 3 fatalities they seemed to settle down well in the area. There were fewer civilians hurt, and they were more successful in counter insurgency work. Locals gave information and seemed genuinely concerned for the safety of the squaddies. They seemed to do a better 'hearts and minds' job. BUT NOW I THINK THAT EVEN THE BRITS ARE BEGINNING TO OUTSTAY ANY 'WELCOME'. The troops know it. They know that a lot of what is going on is turf and grudge wars, and 'referees' are just getting in the way!

 

[revol68]

well obviously, but you also have the fact that callous fuckwits the provo's might have been they didn't really have much expansive foreign policy eg invading oil rich countries and killing 100,000 in the process.

But the point wasn't were IRA volunteers any less blood thirsty than individual British soldiers but rather who in the grand scheme of things has killed more civilians.

 

[FruitandNut]

Unlike you it seems, I do not take a simplistic line in political analysis, it is far more complex than A+B = C.

What I do know for sure is that top western politicians have not fully taken on board the nature of Middle Eastern culture, society and religion. It took us hundreds of years and much internal and external strife to get some modicum of democracy, and 'we' expect it to happen relatively peacefully and in just a few years in Iraq - no chance! First of all Islam which controls their culture and perception needs to do a catch up job with the more moderate and progressive models of Isam in the west.

Yes, I am aware that the greasy grasping hands of the oil industry are also part of the main equation. Perhaps if there had been no oil in the Middle East we would have left Abdullah {tr. 'Slave of Allah'] to his camels, dates and the shifting sands.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

I am a Catholic and believe in Irish unity, but only when the majority in the Northern province says so!

And that's probably a fair summary FruitandNut of what most southern irish people feel about the north as well. Certainly what most of my family in Dublin would say. But I can't agree with it. I'm not in favour of a united ireland cause I'm a catholic or because i have a hankering after the 'fourth green field' of ulster or any such nationalist tosh. I'm in favour of it because the northern statelet is built on sectarianism and an abuse of democracy, even by the standards of 'normal' western capitalist democracies. No tinkering with the institutions can change that fact. Indeed all that is happening is that the divisions are being entrenched and institutionalised. Which is why I don't hold to the "we'll reform them to our way of thinking inevitably" approach.

Where you're right I think is saying that the provos strategy of armed resistance was never going to achieve the goal of a united ireland. And I'd agree that only by winning a majority in the six counties is that possible. As a socialist I'd argue the best and only way to do that is buy arguing for a Workers Republic that would actually have something to offer Protestant workers and as such is the only long term way to break the hold of Unionism/Loyalism. I don't think that's gonna happen tomorrow but dream or not it's a lot more realistic than people fooling themselves that the inclusion of DUP & SF politicians in a devolved government will do anything long term to sap the strength of sectarianism. It won't, it'll only serve to reinforce it.

 

[revol68]

Unlike you it seems, I do not take a simplistic line in political analysis, it is far more complex than A+B = C.

What I do know for sure is that top western politicians have not fully taken on board the nature of Middle Eastern culture, society and religion. It took us hundreds of years and much internal and external strife to get some modicum of democracy, and 'we' expect it to happen relatively peacefully and in just a few years in Iraq - no chance! First of all Islam which controls their culture and perception needs to do a catch up job with the more moderate and progressive models of Isam in the west.

Yes, I am aware that the greasy grasping hands of the oil industry are also part of the main equation. Perhaps if there had been no oil in the Middle East we would have left Abdullah {tr. 'Slave of Allah'] to his camels, dates and the shifting sands.

sorry did you just start that unbelievably reductionist racist post with the line,

Unlike you it seems, I do not take a simplistic line in political analysis, it is far more complex than A+B = C.

Yes, I am aware that the greasy grasping hands of the oil industry are also part of the main equation. Perhaps if there had been no oil in the Middle East we would have left Abdullah {tr. 'Slave of Allah'] to his camels, dates and the shifting sands.

First of all Islam which controls their culture and perception needs to do a catch up job with the more moderate and progressive models of Isam in the west.

fucking idiot!

 

[nino_savatte]

You are going back a few years there! I am 59, and it happened BEFORE my time, in fact my father was only about a month old when it happened (Apr. 1919). I am sure you now very well that such things could not possibly happen these days without one hell of an outcry here in the UK!

Yes, most regrettibly Brig. Gen. Dwyer's actions were not among the British Army's finest achievements.

There is no time limit placed on atrocities. Bigdavalad said the British Army never engaged in such atrocities, I merely put him straight on that point. As for the US military, any atrocities that they commit will get covered up; occasionally something will come to light and scapegoats will be selected to take the fall for those higher up...as in the case of Abu Ghraib.

However, we could look at Iraq/Mesopotamia and the involvement of the British in suppressing tribal revolts, which - as I am sure you already know - included the gassing and burning of entire villages and their inhabitants.

 

[N_igma]

Actually I have realised it, i just like to take the piss out of Bobby Sands cause it really pisses off all the pseudo leftie republicans.

Not a very mature thing though is it?

 

[N_igma]

What is a "legitimate army" anyway?

Well that's a debate all on it's own.

Basically an army recognised by the state that it presides under.

 

[Dilzybhoy]

... I don't think that's gonna happen tomorrow but dream or not it's a lot more realistic than people fooling themselves that the inclusion of DUP & SF politicians in a devolved government will do anything long term to sap the strength of sectarianism. It won't, it'll only serve to reinforce it.

Do you think excluding them would be better?



Genuine question btw.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

Do you think excluding them would be better?

Not at all mate. SF have as much right to be at the table as anyone else, more actually as republicans have gone the extra mile and then some. Which is all the more admirable given that for my money at least it was the other parties who were primarily responsible for the root causes of the conflict. And if I was arguing with a Tory or other Unionist here in England who said SF were criminals who need to cleanse themselves before being allowed near Stormont that den of bigotry and criminal conspiracy i'd laugh in their face.

But if I'm arguing with someone who wants to see the sectarian strucutres of the slum statelet removed and all the more so if i'm arguing with someone in favour of a united ireland i'd have to say that the entrenchment of sectarian division that has followed the gfa is not an advertisement for it. What the north needs is a new socialist politics that can tackle issues of repression and sectarianism but which also has something to offer protestant workers, something that SF never has been able to do.

 

[foggypane]

I'm following this thread with interest; there are some well informed (almost, dare I say, anoraky) people with closely argued and passionately held views.

But....


Could some of those who should be in the know, the pro Republicans especially, throw a little light on the original question for us?

With where the thread has got to, I'd be interested to hear how the IRAs 'hero' status is helping or hindering the current moves within republicanism towards non violent politics. What I mean by this is,
I made comments earlier in the thread to the effect (and I'm not trying to start it off again) that the IRA could never have 'won' militarily, and was not as effective as it's PR would have us believe. Given the ceasefire, are Republicans likely to be able to work with the fact of the IRA or the legend? - assuming that you accept there's a difference and we have no need to debate how big that difference is.
Time moving on as it does, there must be a crop of late teen/early 20s lads who would have been active volunteers had things not changed. Is there a big divide between them and the slightly older guys who must have a bit of glamour waftin about them to some people at least?
while the armed conflict is still recent enough that the people (on the IRA side) are still around, are they creating new legends about themselves, in the manner of all fighters and soldiers - or are they keepng quiet? If so, are the community they come from doing it for them?

I think there may be a sociology PhD thesis there - someone fairly robust to do the fieldwork ...

 

[Pickman's model]

in't there a big book about social sciences research in the six counties?

probably on page one it says "buy a flak jacket".

 

[cathal marcs]

in't there a big book about social sciences research in the six counties?

probably on page one it says "buy a flak jacket".

and a lovely Khaki suit

 

[Dilzybhoy]

and a lovely Khaki suit

And kinky boots?

 

[likesfish]

so basically SF are no more an answer than dup
and partys that don;t want to play the sectarian game don't get to play

 

[Dilzybhoy]

Not at all mate. SF have as much right to be at the table as anyone else, more actually as republicans have gone the extra mile and then some. [snip]
[snip/]
What the north needs is a new socialist politics that can tackle issues of repression and sectarianism but which also has something to offer protestant workers, something that SF never has been able to do.

I found these... Accommodating Diversity Pt 1 and Pt 2
Took me ages to find them. I'll digest them and get back to you.

 

[fanta]

so basically SF are no more an answer than dup
and partys that don;t want to play the sectarian game don't get to play

That, coupled with the fact that it rains all the time means the future is pretty grim.

 

[oi2002]

I found these... Accommodating Diversity Pt 1 and Pt 2
Took me ages to find them. I'll digest them and get back to you.

Interesting, its one of big unsaid things that a United Ireland would have to be a very different Ireland. Actually I thought this wasn't a bad idea:

# Treaty-making Powers - Technically at least, the individual German Lander and Swiss Cantons can negotiate and conclude their own individual treaties, as States, with foreign governments outside their Federation - provided of course such treaties do not infringe on the Federal Constitution or the sovereignty of the whole. Thus, in Ireland, a local area in say North Down may have certain formal treaty links with Great Britain in order to give a more concrete expression of the British identity of the locals, without the good residents of say, South Armagh being unduly troubled by such developments.

I doubt that a 100 Canton Ireland makes any sense though 32 is more than enough. The slightly larger Swiss have under 50 Cantons some tiny and generally think that far too many.

 

[N_igma]

so basically SF are no more an answer than dup
and partys that don;t want to play the sectarian game don't get to play

It isn't a sectarian issue. It's nationalism vs unionism, somewhere along the line religion got thrown into the issue.

I think it must be something to do with Ireland being a mainly Catholic country while the Uk is mainly Protestant one but why people seem to get wraped up in the issue beggers belief.

I think if the DUP actually bothered to get off their arses and talked then both of them could be very effective together. Decommisioning has happened, the DUP are the only one's not talking. Heck even the PUP are willing to talk to SF.

 

[bolshiebhoy]

It isn't a sectarian issue. It's nationalism vs unionism, somewhere along the line religion got thrown into the issue.

well it wasn't an accident, the unionists threw it in, the Orange Card and all that.

let's be honest the PUP will talk to anyone, they are the chav in the pub who everyone hopes doesn't come into the pisser at the same time as you.

 

[Karac]

Lets face facts-Ireland will be re-united in 10-15 years time if not sooner.
The socio/economic/political reasons why Norn Iron exists are long gone now.

 

[cathal marcs]

well it wasn't an accident, the unionists threw it in, the Orange Card and all that.

let's be honest the PUP will talk to anyone, they are the chav in the pub who everyone hopes doesn't come into the pisser at the same time as you.

Brilliant

 

[cathal marcs]

Lets face facts-Ireland will be re-united in 10-15 years time if not sooner.
The socio/economic/political reasons why Norn Iron exists are long gone now.

I doubt it sadly maybe more 30 ears at least. Gibralters still going strong.

 

[oi2002]

Lets face facts-Ireland will be re-united in 10-15 years time if not sooner.
The socio/economic/political reasons why Norn Iron exists are long gone now.

From an English perspective perhaps but the English really don't matter in this, that's someting they never seem to learn.

Just as London and Dublin have moved into the same American dominated cultural space I'd predict the two Irelands will slowly come closer together but you have to be a naive eigit to believe in 2016. I detect no enthusiasm at all in Eire's youth for a 32 county Ireland, most of them seem to be working in Europe and regard Belfast as a less scenic Baghdad. The greedy Freestate elite is none to keen on taking up the burden of a united Ireland and the Northern Prods, who'll be a majority until about 2050 aren't about to vote for it, PIRA have seen to that one for a generation or two. A united Ireland won't be the same country and it will probably be a better less up its own arse place but I won't live to see it.

 

[Dilzybhoy]

Interesting, its one of big unsaid things that a United Ireland would have to be a very different Ireland. Actually I thought this wasn't a bad idea:I doubt that a 100 Canton Ireland makes any sense though 32 is more than enough. The slightly larger Swiss have under 50 Cantons some tiny and generally think that far too many.

I liked this bit.

# Qualified Majority Voting - Rather than the GFA “concurrent consent” mechanism that enshrines sectarianism, the same end result could be achieved with a more flexible system. The undervaluation of “Other” votes in the GFA system is also to be avoided. In reality none of the GFAs elaborate system is necessary. A simple “Declaration of Concern”, signed by a significant number of representatives - say 20% - would be enough to bring about a qualified majority vote where a higher percentage - say 65% or 70% - is required to allow a measure to succeed. In the absence of a Declaration of Concern the simple 50%+1 rule would suffice.

In fact I think it's ideologically sound.
Practicalities is another matter however.

 

[likesfish]

oi probably about right although I would'nt call the UK a protestant country most people over here don't know what a protestant is and care less the only people in this country whoever asked me if I was a protestant were from the north.

 

[durruti02]

You don't think imperialism is relevant to a discussion of what position an occupied country denied self determination should take in a world war. Can't see how that works meself. And of course socialists as minor as V.I. Lenin, James Connolly and John Maclean did also have something of note to say about 'imperialism and the like'.

where did i ever say it was nowt to do with imperialism ??? what i did say is that anti imperialist struggles and nationalism do fuck all for w/c people .. at the end of the day ..

and yet again .. this thread is about IRA worship NOT about imperialism and not about wether ira were legitimate etc etc

 

[cemertyone]

How on earth is it offensive? Get over yourself lad.

He was a convicted criminal who didn't like being treated like a criminal so he smeared his shit round his cell, wore a sack and starved himself - do you want me to feel sorry for him?

A bit like Churchill then... when he was captured by the Boars...give his word that he would not try to escape ( like the English prisoner he was suppossed to be..and a so-called gentleman to boot) promtley broke his word to all and sundry and then ended up shooting civilans on the basis of lord kersoner`s reason..........and your saying what exactley????