IRA surrender to facilitate Iraq massacre?

by Semtex boy Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:29

Dead right. In fact the IRA should resume a campaign of bombing and murder in order to prove how anti-war they actually are.

by Sam 7 Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:59

During the first Gulf War, the PIRA mortar bombed Downing Street. It was a close thing, the Cabinet were showered with glass. The angle of the mortars was just a teensie bit out.

Lots of improvements since then. Some of the top engineers have left the PIRA.

I wonder what RIRA and CIRA will get up to?

by Slab Thu Feb 13, 2003 11:03

Funny how the Indymedia clique never seemed to get too worried about Irish terrorism. Funny how Mary Kelly never saw fit to smash up a Sinn Fein Office with a hammer, or Dubsky or the Imported CW thugs. I suppose these so called 'peace' protestors only pick one or two causes that suit them. Amazing that terrorism and killings in our very own country doesn't seem to concern them. They should have parked their caravan in the Square at Crossmaglen and condem the provo killers. Then we might start to respect them. No wonder most right thinking people don't have any time for them.

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Thu Feb 13, 2003 11:11 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

I came into work this morning tired and a wee bit hungover, bad mood etc. Not the brightest of starts but this is classic. I love the use of the word imperium and I have no idea what a comprador is but it sounds funny. There's some great alliteration in there with the laughs though.

All in all, as mad screeds go, it's an 8.

by pat c Thu Feb 13, 2003 11:23

Funny how people like slab never condemn State vioence. I wonder if he ever heard about the Bloody Sunday Tribunal? How many people joined the IRA because of those events?

by Killian Forde - Sinn Fein Thu Feb 13, 2003 12:32

And if an Iraqi opposition group started a guerilla war in Iraq, do they then become terrorists to be shunned, vilified, isolated and condemned?

I am against this war and all imperial forays but I am not a pacifist, why is it beyond some people to see that it is not a contradictory stance?

by Albo Thu Feb 13, 2003 13:03

I do condemn terrorists in the North, as well as US aggression against Iraq. (In fact I consider the the Northern terrorists to be worse than Al Qaeda, but that's another story)

However, supporters of the IRA could argue that they are patriotic freedom fighters, trying to restore Ireland to its rightful state of unity and independence from Britain. They don't see it as aggression against Britain, they believe that Northern Ireland should rightfully be part of Ireland.
On the other hand, they would say, America or Britain are invading Iraq, in a modernised version of imperialism. As in they are doing the same to Iraq as they did to Ireland years ago, and what the IRA are fighting against.
They believe that every nation has a right to its own independence, and not to be invaded by others, hence the name nationalists.

by Robby - RN Thu Feb 13, 2003 13:50 rob_s57 at hotmail dot com Dungannon

I thought it was the Saville enquiry, as people who call it the bloody sunday enquiry can be written off as biased and biggoted.

they are patriotic freedom fighters, trying to restore Ireland to its rightful state of unity and independence from Britain.
Really, the only ones preventing a united ireland are the republican terrorists you eeejit, each time they set of a bomb or shoot someone the views of unionists get even more entrenched.

by pat c Thu Feb 13, 2003 15:48

"I thought it was the Saville enquiry, as people who call it the bloody sunday enquiry can be written off as biased and biggoted."

So refferring to the massacre of 14 unarmed civillians as "Bloody Sunday"could be biased or biggotrd!

By who?

Nothing that comes from Bobby the Brit surprises me. This is the man who thinks loyalist opposition to children using the front gate at Holycross is the same as Republican opposition to the Orange Order marching down the Garvaghy Road.

Imagine it! Comparing 5 year old children to Orange Bigots! Robby is one sick and sad individual.

by Donaloc Thu Feb 13, 2003 18:33

Let me quote the original message and step through its illogic:

> Bush's poodle Blair is desperate to have the long drawn out surrender of the IRA completed by March 3.

The author offers nothing concrete to justify his assertion. As for the name-calling, nothing is added to the content by its addition.

> This surrender will allow him to withdraw a Parachute Battalion from S.Armagh where it will join the Parachute Brigade in the Iraq massacre.

If the Brits pull troops out of Ireland that is something to welcome as it represents the removal of their influence from our own politics. I don't see it as being around the corner but if so - we need to welcome it. If the Brits then decide to push those troops into their imperialist adventure in Iraq, then that needs to be opposed. Our primary concern is concrete action on our own doorsteps though.

> The Provos surrender will thus facilitate the imperial ambitions of the Anglo-American axis. The British withdrawal from S.Armagh will allow the Adams faction to claim that de-militarization is occurring and keep the grassroots in line while the final surrender of the IRA happens.

I live in Fermanagh, nothing will convince me of demilitarisation until I see it here as well: it will have to be generalised. Is the author suggesting that we oppose British military withdrawal from Nationalist areas now? Simply because their removal will help them elsewhere.

Who knows the Iraqi people might give them a little more than they are expecting. I understand that the Baath party is looking forward to an Iraqi 'Stalingrad' and the US is considering the use of tactical nuclear warheads. There were plans mooted several months ago of a 'corridor of steel' being imposed around Bagdad allowing non-combatants out before carpet bombing or the like - I suspect this is how the war might turn out.

> The Irish peace process, made in America, will therefore play a key role in helping the war effort of the Anglo-American imperium.

The origins of the Irish peace process was the Irish Republican failure to militarily defeat the Brits - but their equal failure to defeat Irish Republicans. The US was brought in later as a potential advocate of unity - don't forget that Britain is a US sub-imperialism. The other main factor was that the Soviet Union had fallen and we had to adjust to changed realities. All the time, we must think in terms of strategic management towards our ultimate goal.

> Ahern, the Gombeen/comprador leader of the South is a key facilator in this collaborationist project.

Your characterisation is sound. He is a comprador (i.e. representative of a neocolonial-national bourgeoisie). The Southern Govt has been involved in the creation of a united front for the achievement of national liberation. That's basic diamat strategy - isn't it?

> Any anti-Iraq war statements from Sinn Fein should be treated with contempt, because their duplicity and deceit allows the British military to increase their deadly violence against Iraq.

Your sectarianism knows no limits. If you had any strategic nous at all, you would know that if you're building a broad campaign on a particular issue, you involve anyone who wants to come on board (barring nazis or something completely counterproductive).

Its similar idiots who planted the party-popper in Enniskillen last Monday. Well, that was really well thought out! Did they never hear of 'political violence' - well, the emphasis is on political? My goodness, that's going to build support for their (totally misguided) analysis isn't it? Or do they think blowing down a wall will liberate our country and create a 32CDSR?

Is mise
Donaloc