Joe Cahill

by Devil Dog Thu Jan 01, 1970 00:00

Some sanity.....although I don't know if you'd appreciate that from the likes of me.....

by john Wed Jul 28, 2004 12:23

congratulations to Sinn Fein - the Cahill funeral was a piece of propaganda that would have had Stalin or Hitler gasping in admiration

by Anthony McIntyre Wed Jul 28, 2004 12:43

Joe Cahill – Provisional Republican Veteran

Once it’s an extended truce, then it’s detrimental to the Republican Movement. – Joe Cahill

Anthony McIntyre • 26 July 2004
Joe Cahill, who died at the weekend, was the Provisional IRA's second chief of staff. The organisation fielded nine such supremos throughout its 35-year existence and Cahill's incumbency proved to be the shortest but one. With his passing the first four Provisional IRA chiefs of staff are now dead, all from natural causes. Cahill lived longer than the others, succumbing at the age of 84. Although he is noted as saying that he was born in a united Ireland and hoped to die in one, had he lived to be 104 he would not have realised that ambition. His fellow leaders ensured that much by agreeing to the partition principle of consent.

Joe Cahill hailed from West Belfast. That one Westminster constituency alone provided the Provisional IRA with four of its chiefs of staff. The three Belfast Brigade delegates who attended the London talks at the Chelsea home of Paul Channon in July 1972 all went on to hold down the position as did two of the other three London negotiators. Dave O’Conaill alone of the six who made up the IRA talks team never assumed the top spot. Although Cahill, perhaps due to a brief spell of imprisonment in Dublin under the Offences Against The State Act and a subsequent hunger strike, was not at these talks, he twice met with Harold Wilson and Merlyn Rees of the British Labour Party in 1972 as part of an IRA delegation.

Of the five surviving former and current chiefs of staff, none will see 50 again. Consequently, if the organisation dissolves before appointing another ‘C/S’ none of those who commanded the Provisional IRA will live in the united Ireland they waged war to achieve. Testimony in itself to the utter failure of the campaign

Joe Cahill was described by Gerry Adams as ‘the father of this generation of republicans.' This is not a view shared by all those who were contemporaries of the former Crumlin Road Prison condemned cell prisoner. While it would be inaccurate to dismiss the role of Cahill in the formative years of the Provisional IRA including his work in helping to build the organisation up outside the Northern capital, authentic parentage in the eyes of many rests with Billy McKee, the first leader of the Provisional IRA in Belfast – who was succeeded by Cahill after his arrest in March 1971. McKee has stayed robustly loyal to the tenets upon which the Provisionals were founded. This adds a touch of the bizarre to the eulogy to Cahill proffered by Martin McGuinness:

When people look back on his role, they will come to the conclusion that Joe Cahill was rock solid and he will stand alongside the likes of Robert Emmet, Wolfe Tone, Padraig Pearse, Maire Drumm, Bobby Sands and Mairead Farrell.

Had Joe Cahill died in his 60s and not his 80s this account would have chimed more easily with the trajectory then covered by his republican odyssey. But by the time of his death that trajectory had veered sharply to the point where the politics Cahill embraced resembled nothing of the organisation he helped establish in 1969 and had everything in common with those in the Official IRA from which he broke. It is more straightforward to make the case that he stands alongside Cathal Goulding, Malachy McGurran and Liam McMillan, all whom gave a lifetime of service to their particular brand of republicanism including the peace process they kickstarted in May 1972. This lends a cruel irony to Cahill's role in the IRA split of 1969. The army he built, in sharp opposition to the latter three leaders of the Official IRA, came to embrace everything those ‘hated reformists’ stood for.

The role of Joe Cahill within Provisional republicanism resembled more that of continuity presenter than main anchorman. He provided the veneer of republican continuity that helped mask the ugly joints created by Gerry Adams’ reformist strategy and acceptance of an internal solution. His presence served to disguise what in essence were major strategic departures. A year ago Joe Cahill made the extraordinary comment that the IRA had won the war, leaving his colleagues looking awkward when subsequently pushed by media interviewers to state if the war was indeed won then why could they not say it was over.

Like many youngsters growing up in militarised Belfast streets my first memory of Joe Cahill dates back to August 1971 when he fronted an IRA press conference in Ballymurphy a couple of days after internment to announce that the IRA was intact. My mother’s acerbic intervention on seeing him thwarted any designs I might have had toward lionising him. Although he headed for Dublin once the conference was over, those who remained in Belfast under the command of the late Seamus Twomey proved Cahill’s assessment of the IRA correct. They prosecuted the war with a ferocity that would ultimately help force the British Government to ditch the Stormont parliament.

I last saw Joe Cahill two years ago at a funeral in Belfast. I greeted him but he ignored me. In that he was no different from others in the leadership coterie: willing to direct but never to answer to those fortunate enough to have survived with their lives from the debacle the leadership so ineptly oversaw, and who sought to ask those questions dead volunteers never had the chance to.

Joe Cahill lived a long life. I am glad that he did. His longevity helped compensate for the numerous years taken from him by British and Free State penal systems. So many others didn’t make it out of their teens. They are the real tragedies of the conflict.

by P.j. Wed Jul 28, 2004 13:24

John,
You obviously were not at the funeral. The man was buried with all the dignity he deserved. The thousands who turned up to pay tribute to him knew the kind of man he was.
Joe Cahill was a truly remarkable man, he gave so much to the republican struggle, gave more than many others could do in two life times. He was a solider, he was also a visionary, he could see that the armed struggle had served its purpose but had no real chance of removing the British from our country, in the words of the RIRA in Portlaoise their is a moral obligation for the leadership to abandon armed struggle if there is no prospect of it being successful, Joe was part of the leadership of the movement when the decision was taken to seek a knew way forward. Those who would say that the republican movement has sold out, does not remain committed to a 32 county socialist republic are wrong. Till he died Joe remained true to the principles of republicanism. He would settle for nothing less but a United Ireland, we must commit ourselves to his goals, approach the struggle with the same enthusiasm as he did, if we do the one thing we can be sure of is that our day will come.
Fuair siad bás ag obair ar son na saoirse.

by former provo supporter Wed Jul 28, 2004 14:33

I found Anthony's contribution, as with the rest of his writings, quite incredible. He objects to the 'reformism' of Adams, supported by Cahill. The implication is that the military struggle should have continued. Does it not enter his head that a strategy pursued for decades that has not achieved its goals never will????? The physical force tradition has been elevated by Anhony from a tactic to a principle - irrespective of circumstances, or more imporitantly the benefits obtained, it is to be pursued at all costs. This is religious zealotry for one particular course of action, and it has no place in a political campaign.

The fact is that any strategy designed to unite Ireland that makes no or little reference to its social content is posing a goal of no great value, and certainly not one that significant numbers of people have a sufficiently strong interest in obtaining. Beyond that, the precise tactics here only deepened sectarianism, and therefore made the declared goal even more remote. Anthony lambasts the principle of consent. What does he propose instead - a brutal civil war to impose a hated goal on a million people???? the bloodbath of Lebanon would be child's play in comparison. A decent society certainly would not be the outcome. And yet many of my Republican friends in teh 70s cheerfully roposed to me that a bloody civil war would 'clear the air' and bring about a united Ireland. They were living in cloud cuckoo land then, and Anthony's strategy today is no better.

Moreover still, when the IRA campaign was manifestly maintainted despite the express wishes of the Irish people North and south then it was doomed to double failure.

The real tragedy is not that peace broke out, negating decades of sacrificeand lost life - it is that those carifices and efforts were made on this basis in first place. People like Anthony make physical force their first rather than last resort. In that sense, they remain in a time warp, whereas Joe Cahill at least moved on.

I personally was on the fringes of the republican struggle in the early 70s - I wrote for its papers, and engaged in other publicity activities. And one or two other things besides. I managed to see that we were heading nowhere before I ended up dead or in jail. Many of my friends did not. I am delighted that the present generation has the opportunity to escape from so much wasted effort in pursuit of such limited objectives pursued by such manifestly inappropriate and useless means. Whatever the future holds will be imperfect. But it will be a lot less imperfect than 3000 dead and a country divided because of the wrong tactics, elevated by Anthonty into a principle divorced from time, space or circumstance.

by Curious Wed Jul 28, 2004 16:23

So the sticks were right then?

by Realist Wed Jul 28, 2004 17:02

Former Provo supporter it was the current SF leadership in the somersaults of the peace process that reduced armed struggle or the physical force tradition from a principle to a tactic, not the other way around. Let us be clear about our history, which is all that McIntyre is doing, not participating in the rearranging of it to suit current political ambitions.

by Vlad Wed Jul 28, 2004 17:33

Armed struggle is always only a tactic. How can anyone in their right minds elevate the use of force to a 'principle'. Think about it! However, 'Former Provo Supporter' is off the mark on his analysis of Cahill and the IRA. All legitimate avenues of peaceful political struggle were closed off to the nationalist community in the North from Partition up to the upsurge in IRA activity in the early '70s. This is something you seem to ignore 'Former Provo Supporter'. Nationalists were left with no alternative but to rejuvenate the IRA and defend their community. That struggle then progressed to the logical next step of aiming to expel British imperialism and defend Irish national rights. The objective conditions of the time inevitably produced political violence, just as a change in abjective conditions made it possible for republicans to pursue a ballot box strategy and just as further changes to objective conditions led to the Peace Process. Revolutionaries adapt thier tactics to suit objective conditions. This is what Cahill did. And No the Sticks clearly were not right because they failed to adapt to the objective conditions of Belfast 1969.

by brenners Wed Jul 28, 2004 17:37

Saying that armed struggle is a principle and not a tactic is a highly immoral position for any person to take. The use of armed struggle should be the last option and not the first. It should never be used when the chance of it being successful has passed. At all times in the history of the republican struggle the army council has had to take the decision that sending out Volunteers, or indeed killing combatants when their death will not further the cause, is wrong.
Those who knock Sinn Fein and the Army while contributing nothing to the struggle are irrelevant. Former republicans such as the Price Sisters and the likes of Mr McIntyre have contributed nothing to the struggle for years. Their strategy has gone nowhere. The contribution of the RIRA/CIRA was to blow up Omagh, get fat on smuggling and have their prisoners renounce the organisation and call for them to disband, they are a disgrace to the word republican. People like this will not lecture me. Their claim that they are continuing the struggle started in 1969 is a great disservice to the Volunteers that gave their lives. These immoral organisations give lie to what it means to be republican. While they continue to do nothing Sinn Fein will use the best strategy possible to move things forward.
A person dying is never a principle – it is hard decision taken when all else has failed.
SHAME ON YOU!

by Pat B. Wed Jul 28, 2004 17:54

Well done Vlad and Brenners. An overdue return to rationality and reason. The rest of you- get real!

by Devil Dog Wed Jul 28, 2004 18:12

"All legitimate avenues of peaceful political struggle were closed off to the nationalist community in the North from Partition up to the upsurge in IRA activity in the early '70s"

So was the IRA campaign justified from, say, 1973-1994? Sunningdale, SDLP & SF MP's being elected, Anglo-Irish agreement...the corrollorary, of course, being the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Irish people opposed the IRA campaign...is that fact relevant?

by Check yourselves boys Wed Jul 28, 2004 18:18

Former republicans such as the Price Sisters and the likes of Mr McIntyre?

You may disagree with them and they with you but to claim they are no longer republican is ridiculous. And when did voting Sinn Fein become the only form of 'contributing' to the struggle?

I daresay formerly active membership in the IRA, 250 odd days on hunger strike, force-fed, 8 years in prison, participation for years on the blanket and no-wash protest, 18 years in prison puts their 'contributions to the struggle' in the 'sacrificed their lives for the struggle' category and cheeky Johnny-cum-lately's who sat outside the movement at it's height such as Former Provo supporter or the other newly minted Shinners need to check themselves before they start mouthing off about what they obviously know too little of.

by L W Wed Jul 28, 2004 18:31

They seem to think that the hard labour of Mary Lou's few days as a member of Fianna Fail and Catriona Ruane's running of Feile an Phobail is where the real struggle is at.
The tactic of armed struggle that they engaged in, in the early 70's when it was their only tactic and thereby a principle they have now long since apologised for. So stop coming on here to defend it.
The Price's and the McIntyres and their like were the doers who ultimatley ended up paying for the holiday homes in Donegal while the 'nature of the struggle changed'. Sure that's what the sticks told their doers in the 70's

by Shinner Wed Jul 28, 2004 18:42

There actions, the fact that they are spokespeople for an organisation who the prisoners said where in it for the money means that they are not republicans, they may well of been in the past. Now they are just common criminals motivated by cash rather than the struggle, for them Republicanism is a get rich quick scheme.
What they are doing is immoral and is a stain on republicanism. Do they believe Bobby Sands would categorise them as republican? While they bring shame on that name. I doubt it very much.
I don’t care if you and the well off man from Louth continue to smuggle and grow rich, but please do not use the banner of republicanism while you do it.

by Keep checking Wed Jul 28, 2004 19:29

Shinner you are talking out of your hole. Mr McIntyre and Ms Price are not spokespersons for any organisations. Obviously you don't know much about the people you are maligning, that you can't tell one sister apart from the other and then don't even know what McIntyre's politics are. When you sort yourself out and start getting a handle on who is who then maybe someone will listen to you.

Attempting to associate any and all dissidents with the Real Mk 1 or 2 or the Continuity is an old and tired sleight of hand. Care to debate the actual points made by McIntyre or do you just want to continue to trot out falsehoods, malignment of character, misleading statements and straw man arguments? Usually that's only reserved for people who cannot defend their position.

Speaking of which it's not as if the Provos are in any position to lecture anyone on the evils of smuggling, especially to lecture or condemn people who are not involved in that sort of activity to begin with!

by Not fact, libel and felon setting Wed Jul 28, 2004 19:31

Felon setting used to be frowned upon. Is that now a 'tactic' for you shinners?

by former provo supporter Thu Jul 29, 2004 01:13

On the armed struggle tactic: we no longer live in the 1970s, but the early 2000s - no small point. Even in the 90s, a decision had to be made - was armed struggle likely to yield the objectives that the movement had set? Yes or no? Adams and co, including Cahill, reached the view that it wasn't and resorted to politics. In my opinion, they should have reached this view earlier, but then better late than never.

Personally, I don't accept (I used to, but not now) that resorting to a military struggle in the early 70s was sensible either. The brutal question is not a moral one but this: did it or did it not achieve its goals? It simply did not. a political tactic that costs lives and which fails to achieve its goals is a mistake. We do not die for the sake of it. The Provo struggle cut across the civil rights mass movement of 68/69, and some version of this might have been a better way forward. BUT - this is no longer the main point. It is that by the 90s only a cretin could have believed that continuing with the military struggle would achieve a united Ireland. People like McInhtyre, I repeat, are showing a chronic inability to learn from experience, and displaying a romantic infatuation with the physical force tradition which I would suggest we should all grow out of. There is such a thing as tenacity in struggle. But when you tenaciously maintain a mistake, or refuse to learn from its manifest failure, you have swapped tenacity for stupidity. How much longer should the campaign have gone on before people realised it was in a dead end?

It is time for a fresh beginning.

by Realist Thu Jul 29, 2004 11:11

All that is well and good but where did McIntyre demonstrate his support for physical force being used today?

You've a good argument let down by the fact you are putting words into someone's mouth they did not say and in fact are on record saying similar things regarding the use of physical force today.

When people who support Sinn Fein can start supporting their ideas and arguments and stop doing do by slandering, misrepresenting and maligning people who disagree with them, I will start to listen to them. Until then all I hear is the weakness of their position.

Know the facts and argue those, not smear campaigns and partyspeak.

by Vlad Thu Jul 29, 2004 11:21

Former Provo Supporter says: "The Provo struggle cut across the civil rights mass movement of 68/69, and some version of this might have been a better way forward." However the reality is that the Civil Rights Movement was shot off the streets by the British Army in Derry in January 1972. Before that it had been batoned off the streets by the B Specials and RUC- the armed representatives of an irreformable state. As usual, and just as in the early years of the century, it was the Orange element that re-introduced the gun into Irish politics- not republicans. Joe Cahill and others did what they saw fit to defend the nationalist community in the absence of any effective defence from the Irish government or its forces. The Provos drew a line in the sand and sent out the message that nationalists would not lie down and be slaughtered without defending themselves.

by Tom Barry Thu Jul 29, 2004 13:33

"Until then all I hear is the weakness of their position." Ha ha ha!!! Weak? Wot r u on about? Did you see the turnout at Joe's funeral? It was massive. Did you notice the growing support for Sinn Fein across the country?? The Provos were right in 1969 and they are right now!

by Curious Thu Jul 29, 2004 13:46

You are a muppet. The size of the crowd doesn't say anything about your political trajectory. Ever seen the size of the crowds that Paisley gets.
Adams has apologised for most of the early actions of the IRA - so you can't have it both ways. From 69 up to about the hunger strikes the only policy of the Provo's was to bomb the Brits out of Ireland. It didn't work and there were many voices who said it wouldn't work.

by Tom Barry Thu Jul 29, 2004 14:08

You are the muppet. The size of the vote and the size of the crowd does say something about the weakness or otherwise of their argument as perceived by the people. And you are totally wrong- Adams has NEVER apologised for any of the actions of the IRA - he never speaks for the IRA. I suppose you were one of the whingeing hurlers on the ditch opposing the armed struggle and maligining Northern nationalists during the 70s and 80s and who are now opposed to a peaceful republican poltical strategy. It is YOU who cannot have it both ways- Muppet supreme!

by Peter the Painter Thu Jul 29, 2004 14:15

L W says: "They seem to think that the hard labour of Mary Lou's few days as a member of Fianna Fail and Catriona Ruane's running of Feile an Phobail is where the real struggle is at." And what struggle do you support? That of the Omagh bombers or that of the two women you pathetically attempt to slag off? Only one IRA fought the Brits for 30 years- the same IRA that supports present day Sinn Fein!

by Realist Thu Jul 29, 2004 14:32

No, Former Provo Supporter is one of those "whingeing hurlers on the ditch opposing the armed struggle and maligining Northern nationalists during the 70s and 80s" only he has now seen the light and supports Sinn Fein while still maligning Northern Nationalists who took up arms during the 70s and 80s and question where SF is taking us today.

Adams won't even admit to being in the IRA, and he has apologised for IRA actions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/25480.stm (Enniskillen)
-------- "I hope there will be no more Enniskillen's and I am deeply sorry about what happened in Enniskillen," Mr Adams told the BBC.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=446405&issue_id=4594
(Shankill)
-------- Mr Adams replied: "I do apologise without any reservation whatsoever for what happened on the Shankhill Road. It is part of my constituency. I regretted it at that very time and I do so now and I want to see in this new dispensation all the hurt on the Shankhill, on the Falls and anywhere else become a part of a healing process."

The IRA has also apologised for its actions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2132113.stm (Bloody Friday)

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2003/10/24/story118661.html (Disappeared)


Listen, Tom, it's YOU who can't have it both ways. Learn your history before you sully the name of IRA volunteers.

What the size of the crowd (which was not that big, and certainly was nowhere near as big as predicted when it was claimed it would be the largest since Bobby Sands' funeral!) and the SF vote says is that the further away from Republicanism they travel, and the closer to constitutional nationalism they get, the more votes and people like yourself and the other Shinners here they will attract. In other words, no, you can't have it both ways, and you lot should stop using the IRA in such a cynical fashion to help prop up your political project.

More to write but it is getting busy here.

by Frank Ross Thu Jul 29, 2004 15:12

What a funny lot you shinners are! Slagging off the Reals about smuggling when the multimillionaire Slab is still Chief of Staff.
By the way McIntyre is one of the better critics of the RIRA/CIRA, he actually attacks them on their political views and their actions, he doesn’t need to slander, misrepresent and malign them like some people.

by Peter Piper Thu Jul 29, 2004 15:44

"Only one IRA fought the Brits for 30 years- the same IRA that supports present day Sinn Fein!"

The same one that was protecting the paras a couple of weeks ago.
Quel Change!

by Peter the Painter Thu Jul 29, 2004 15:52

"The same one that was protecting the paras a couple of weeks ago." Quel Change!"

You are talking through your hole! There was already a discussion on this site and others about the events in Ardoyne if that's what you are referring to. tThe alternative to responsible leadership by Belfast republicans on the day was sectarian warfare in Glenbryn and Ardoyne or another Bloody Sunday. But then what would you care? Even anthony Mcintyre wudn,t agree with irresponsible, bloated armchair revolutionaries like you.

by Tom Barry Thu Jul 29, 2004 15:56

'Realist', why do you pretend to support the IRA? Your are in clear opposition to everything they are trying to do. YOU stop using them. I am not. I support the IRA and their strategies and tactics which change from time to time to suit the situation Now go off and play toy soldiers you muppet! Up the IRA!

by Dan Breen Thu Jul 29, 2004 16:10

Hey Realist its also the IRA's political project. You don't support the IRA now and I doubt you EVER did. You have damn all ability to think strategically. The IRA doesn't seem to get your support in war or in peace so why don't you just belt up about them? You are just a poseur- all talk no action regarding armed struggle or do you support that pathetic version of armed struggle recently practised by RIRA & CIRA?. Cheerio you saddo! Up the Provos- in war or in peace!

by Pat B. Thu Jul 29, 2004 16:15

Realist do you support what happened in the Shankill bomb? This could be construed from your earlier post. Even the IRA themselves don't. You Dick!

by Billy McMillen Thu Jul 29, 2004 17:17

"The alternative to responsible leadership by Belfast republicans on the day was sectarian warfare in Glenbryn and Ardoyne or another Bloody Sunday."

I suppose it might have been a long time to wait for yis to catch on but I suppose 35 years isn't too long to wait.
Yis still have 11and a bit years to think up an excuse to your supporters, when they wake up on New Years day and realise that they don't live in a united Ireland.

by Peter the Painter Thu Jul 29, 2004 17:58

What the fuck are you rambling on about you incoherent gobshite? By your name and dissembling incoherence I know you- another drunken, washed up Stickie, a disappearing but bitter breed, some of which are to be found in grotty bars around Dublin or informing on republicans in Belfast. At leat the Provies never Ran Away. You were wrong in the 70s and your still wrong now. You are about as irrelevant as Christian Solidarity Party comrade.

by Pat B. Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:00

At least the Provos believe in and struggle for a United Ireland by whatever means. The Sticks don't even believe in it so fuck up!

by Ted Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:01

If only they had. A lot of innocent people would still be alive

by Peter the Painter Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:04

You mean a lot more would be dead- killed by the Brits and their surrogates in the loyalist death squads. And nationalists would still be second class citizens. Go away and shite Ted!

by P.j. Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:05

Yeah,
Living under an oppressive regime that denied them democracy, work, education. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

by Tom Barry Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:11

Exactly PJ. But they haven't gone away you know. I'd like to know who some of the jokers on this site slagging of G.Kelly think would have defended Ardoyne in the event of loyalist incursion or Brit rampage- the Legion of Mary? or maybe armed Trotskists from Dublin's middle-class suburbs?

by Fergal Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:12

Is this some kind of an altermative universe? A left-wing anti-war website where people get insulted for not supporting killing. If you boys want to argue over how tough you are for supporting violence and how other people are pussies for opposing it, well and good, but have a look at a few pro-Bush sites and see just how similar the rhetoric is. Left wing my arse

by Peter the Painter Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:20

Fergal, being left wing is not the same as being a pacifist. Ever heard of the Red Army? And being anti the Iraq war does not mean being anti-national liberation. Nobody-even my opponents are arguing over "how tough they are" Also "pussies" is a sexist term and not very left wing. Fergal YOU are in MY ARSE Left wing!!!!

by Pat B. Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:24

Is Fergal one of the middle class Trotskyists referred to earlier? certainly sounds like he is. I bet that comment touched a raw nerve with him. By the way Fergal how do you know the contributors are all "Boys" as yo call them? Just becsue people use male pseudonyms doesn't mean they're all fellahs you know!

by Fergal Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:25

I rather hope I'm not in your arse Peter, I can't imagine it's very comfortable.

A consistent preference for violence over politics, in spite of the wishes of the majority of people you claim to represent, coupled with a disregard for the effects of such violence is quite simply fascist.

Love the way you use capitals by the way, it makes your argument so much stronger. How about using multiple exclamation marks too, I always find that makes a post look reasonable.

by Bewildered Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:26

Talk about delusional. Pure nonsense. The Provo's were never the community or the people. SF only managed to move in the direction of being a majority voice in the nationalist community (and you betray your pure nationalist agenda here) after it started to engage in politics.
It is only in the past five years that it has become a majority voice in the nationalist community.
Take a chill pill and grow up, then maybe go read a bit of history.

by Peter the Painter Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:30

"A consistent preference for violence over politics, in spite of the wishes of the majority of people you claim to represent, coupled with a disregard for the effects of such violence is quite simply fascist."

Sorry Fergal but I don't claim to represent anyone but myself. And Please- enough of the homophobia!
You are clearly a pacifist so all violence is wrong in your book. fair enough but don't try to raise pacifism as the bar by which to judge the Left Wing credentials of others. By the way you seem incredibly naieve about the reasons republicans in the North used armed struggle. Go read some history Fergal.

by Realist Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:31

I see once confronted with facts instead of wishes and cold hard truth instead of political soundbites, the Shinners turn to playground abuse. Weak position to defend, indeed.

Dan, your erstwhile comrade Tom ignorantly declared that Adams has never apologised for IRA actions. Tom wrote, "And you are totally wrong- Adams has NEVER apologised for any of the actions of the IRA - he never speaks for the IRA."

Clearly that is not the case, as the quotes provided alongside links to their sources demonstrates.

Pat, I am at a loss how you can construe support for the Shankill bombing from my posting of Adams' apology for it in response to the ludicrious claim that Adams has never apologised for IRA actions. Of course, I have no comment on your contribution of "Dick!" to your misconstruction of my comments, as I think that speaks for itself.

Tom, son, I am not using the IRA. I am merely taking the time to correct you on the erroneous assumptions you hold about them and their leadership. If you are going to support them then you should know their history, which obviously you do not. Pay attention; there is much you can learn, even (or perhaps especially, as they are an object lesson in what happens to revolutionaries who put their trust, and lives, on the line for what they believe in) from the likes of McIntyre and Price. At least with them, even if you do not agree with them, you know you are getting the truth, unvaranished. Your great leader can't even admit he was in the IRA, let alone tell the truth about it.

Dan, amusing you assuming the name of an IRA man and then calling me a poseur when your ignorance (and that of your comrades) is exposed. What block were you on, son? Or should I be asking you what voting booth you manned in Dublin 4, that is more your speed of 'contributing to the struggle'? Argue the points at hand, don't make the mistake of making it personal because you will lose.

Peter, the IRA are going to be going away in the near future - whatever will you do without your hardman act? Support the IRA! Support them doing what? Driving around with loudspeakers at election time, shimmying up lampposts, smuggling cigarettes, shooting wee lads, one step closer to a United Ireland, oh we can all see it now. Glory, glory to the Provos, how sad.

Look lads, politics is good, but the lies are what makes it shite.

by Tom Barry Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:34

You go read some history pal. Nationalists in the North in the early 70s withdrew in huge numbers from the whole political system. the Provos were very popular in the nationalist areas. There were numerous Provo-led boycotts of elections and census collections etc. When their support was tested at the polls it remained consistently high and is now getting higher especially in the South

by Still bewildered Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:37

Nationalists might have withdrawn from the political process but they were in it for at least 20 years before they became a majority within the nationalist community.
It still doesn't make the IRA the community or the people.
But you probably only read history books written by Gerry and Danny.

by Fergal Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:37

As it happens I'm neither a pacifist or a trotskyist. And just because I took the piss out of your childish debating style doesn't make a homophobe either.
I wasn't talking about you claiming to represent anyone, I was talking about terrorists. Killing people on behalf of others, who don't actually support such killing is what the provos did, just as it's what Bush is doing.

by Realist Thu Jul 29, 2004 21:46

Regarding, Provo-led boycotts of census collections: Joanne Mathers.

1973 boycott of elections: dismal failure.

Support at polls, peaked at Bobby Sands, as long as the armed campaign was running the vote nose-dived. Even now their vote in the north is a shifting of SDLP votes rather than massive growth. The vote in the south is growing in direct proportion to the demise of the IRA.

by GreenPartyMike - Green Party USA Thu Jul 29, 2004 21:56

I have followed this debate with some interest. what I find very interesting is the comments from many who were never in the north. The phrase Trotskyite from a middle class Dublin suburb was especially funny and telling.

Now, speaking as an American who was actually in the north 69-84 I can tell you that the Provos were quite popular in large sections of catholic estates in the north. Various housing estates semed to be clumped into Provo or Stickie enclaves. Most of the estates were Provo. The 'Ra or Lads were never called Provies. In fact the only ones to use this term were Brit Military Intelligence and their right wing death squad allies such as UVF, UDA etc etc. as well as the other rag tag loyalists and hanger-on's. Keep this in mind when people post. another term used by them was PIRA.

As for the idea of being anti-war, let me give my opinion on that. I am both a dedicated Anti-War and Social Justice advocate. I have been impressed by the stand of Bernadette Devlin. She and people of her calibre are the ONLY ones with credibility to talk of a non violent solution to the conflict in the north. I have been a fan of Bernie for a long time. She was called St Bernie by my Ma. Bernadette went to the heart of the matter. She talked of the fucking CAUSE of the conflict. Unique idea. Unlike all those middle class trotskyites in Dublin, she was willing to actually stand up for those who were abandoned by most folks in the South. She did not "stand idly by" as Jack Lynch and all those "I'm all right Jack" folks in the South did and continue to do. During the hight of the troubles, how many folks from Dublin came and did non violent direct action or civil disobedience from the South? Here is the clue to the answer. Sweet Fuck All.

If you are a pacifist, fair enough. But then act like Martin Luther King or Ghandi. Put your ass on the line, not snipe at those fighting oppression and brutality. It has not hapened yet. Maybe at the next garvaghy rd protest? After all remember the quote "if you want peace, work for social justice" Perhaps you all can have a "Freedom Summer" trip, just as the Civil rights folks from the American orth did to the American south. Interesting juxtaposition is it not? 30+ years late but still not too late.

As for Joe Cahill his record is impeccable. As for the current leadership, I for one have many serious questions. Not the least being, to quote from my comments about Bernie that the cause of the conflict has still not been dealt with. Not just the British presense in the north but even the police and loyalist collusion, attacks against the nationalist community and even the political structure. Many wonder if there is going to be a new Stormont with a few "token taigs" to make it look better. Mind you, the SDLP Stoop Down Low Party and their history of collaboration and betrayal is not helping to give the Shinners a better bargaining position. Of course that could be why the SDLP are losing seats and Sinn Fein are gaining. But the basic premise remains. is this a glorified Storemont where the Brits and Loyalists have final veto?

just a thought from Amerikay. Oh and please ignore those American right wing fucks that troll here from time to time. They are annoying but just ignore them. They go away then.

by iosaf Thu Jul 29, 2004 22:28

you Sir passed your torch.

It is difficult to consider the history of Ireland these last 90 years and not consider the role in shaping that history played by Joe Cahill.
A history which saw too much war, too much conflict, too many wounds which only rest heal and so turn to peace. It is interesting to note how much has changed and not changed in the Irish character, Irish culture and Irish historical development in the lifetime. It is also a bit sad to note that only recently (since the death of Reagan) obituary notices published here on indymedia ireland have attracted comments which are self righteously provacative and prejudiced. Memento Mori - Remember you shall die.

sin é.

by SF Watcher Thu Jul 29, 2004 23:50

Given the high-profile nature of the media showing her carrying Joe Cahill's coffin, is Mary Lou setting herself up for a leadership challange when Adams eventually goes (and this may be sooner rather than later)

by former provo supporter Fri Jul 30, 2004 01:23

The anger and foul language on this thread is quite something - nothing at all to do with debating the issues or achieving clarity. Ignoring all that, here are some of what I think are the main points:

One writer offered this opinion: 'Joe Cahill and others did what they saw fit to defend the nationalist community in the absence of any effective defence from the Irish government or its forces. The Provos drew a line in the sand and sent out the message that nationalists would not lie down and be slaughtered without defending themselves.' I understand this. I understand why they reached this conclusion. I apreciate ths sectarianism, the oppression, the brutality of Paisley that created a mood and context where people felt that a military struggle was their only option.

Having said that, it was a mistake. Let us be clear. The objective of the Provos was a socialist united Ireland - the British out, and the loyalists in a united Irelanbd whether they wanted to be there or not. NONE of this happened, or ever looked like happening. Protecting Catholic areas was always a secondary objective (not always achieved either....), and completely subordinate to this broader political struggle. IT WAS NOT ACHIEVED. All that might have occurred, had the campaign managed to defy gravity and increase the level obtained in say 1972, would have been some Lebanese style civil war - and probably the further postponement of the political objectives set. Now, whatever spurred the campaign, whatever motivated the volunteers, however understandable their outrage and determination - a mistake is a mistake. The methods selected for struggle did not and could not achieve the objectives that it was designed to support. Why then not admit this today, so that we can learn from this and do better? The tragedy is immense - not only lost lives, but the injuries and the many great folks who spent so long behind bars. The Provos expected freedom in 1972, 73, 74 - remember? These were the slogans daubed on the walls, before it was realised that nothing like this was going to happen and a withdrawal was not on the cards.

In any event, this is surely NOT the main point today. There is no great need to rehearse the debates of 1971. I repeat what I think is the main point: can anyone seriously argue that military struggle today, in 2004, of the kind that failed in the 1970s, is any more likely to achieve anything?????? If not, let us move on from physical force Republicanism and do something else and more constructive with our time. If we are to kill, to die and to go to jail we had better have some better clue about whether it will work or not. A military campaign is not some romantic walk in the park, and some folks here seem unmindful of the moral responsibility that comes with their right to use force.

On which point: I have been castigated for allegedly putting words in McIntyre's mouth, by saying he seems in favour of resuming the military struggle. In truth, It is hard to know what Anthony wants, from this or any other of his writings. He criticises the Provos' abandonment of militarism. From this I infer that he thinks they should have kept fighting. If I am wrong, his critique is even more absurd, since he offers no alternative to the strategy that he now rejects.

It does not matter either, but by the way I am not a Sinn Fein supporter. Just someone who lived through all this, who was marginally involved as were many at one time, and who wants better things for people in Ireland than what I had when I was a young man growing up.

by historian Fri Jul 30, 2004 09:57

I am an SF supporter but there is merit in the criticisms made of the current strategy by MacIntyre and others. It is quite evident that the movement has moved a long way from it's original strategy and tactics - whatever about the overall objective. And yes there are comparisons - and they are more than superficial - between what the Officials did in the early 70s, Clann na Poblachta in the 40s and FF in the 20s.

However, as others have pointed out above, consistency in error is not a good thing. What is the choice facing republicans? Just keep on hammering away with no end in sight and massive losses along the way on every side? That might be morally and intellectually satisfying but it would have been a complete abdication of responsibility by the likes of Cahill and Adams had they decided to do that in the early 90s. And by the way, as someone who was active on the other side of the movement at that time, I am absolutely convinced that far from forcing an about turn on the movement - that the leadership was repsonding to the wishes of the vast majority of republicans - those who kept the war going and who would have been prepared to keep it going indefinitely but who were also asking where was it all going to end.

I beleive that the right decisions were taken in the 1990s. I am not so naive as to beleive that this will lead any quicker if ever to a 32 County Republic, but it is a hell of a lot better than where we were in 1991 or 1992.

by Impressed Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:05

You magic worker. Speaking to us from the year 2024. Some trick. Did Gerry manage to bamboozle the troops when they woke up in 2016 to find that Ireland was not united?

by Realist Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:00

Former Provo Supporter, you said: "[McIntyre] criticises the Provos' abandonment of militarism." This is untrue. He has actually criticised them for not going far enough. I have to wonder have you actually read any of McIntyre's writing or are you just going by what you have heard. From what you have written you do not appear to be poles apart. Only that McIntyre is much harsher on SF duplicity than you are but given his experience in the struggle that is more than understandable.

If you have quotes you can source regarding your statements about McIntyre, I would be very interested in reading them. For all I have read on his website shows the opposite of what you claim.

The odd thing is that this has turned into a debate on physical force over a man who was celebrated for both being 'unashamed' (said by the man who won't admit his own involvement) of his physical force history and also for having left it behind.

I don't think anyone apart from those who are in the R/CIRAs is of a mind that physical force is going to bring anyone anywhere today, and this is why it is important not to put words into people's mouths that they did not say. It takes away from the issues that are being argued, which is embodied in the life of Joe Cahill, who was used to sell the sea-change in the Provos. This is why he, or his eulogies, stir up such passion; not because the likes of Price and McIntyre wish to resume the war, but because of the way the end of the war has been sold.

Perhaps to some, especially those who were never involved in the struggle, this seems like too much crying over spilt milk, and maybe it is. But this does not make these questioners and dissenters into warmongers or losers or whatever the name of the day is being applied to them for seeking answers and accountability for the payback on their investments. That all they receive are blatant lies along with their character being maligned is as much as being spat upon. Certainly they would seem to deserve better.

So too those who desire not to repeat the same mistakes of history.

by Carmel Sat Jul 31, 2004 03:04

I agree Joe Cahill's funeral was well attended but I don't agree that this Republican funeral totally befitted a volunteer of Oglaigh na hEireann.

There was no volley of shots.
The shots fired by former comrades or current comrades over his Graveside or coffin would bestow the fullest IRA honour and dignity. This IRA honour was not afforded to Joe Cahill.

by curious Sun Aug 01, 2004 10:48

Joe Cahill did not die on active service. That is why he was not given a military funeral I assume.

by Devil Dog Sun Aug 01, 2004 18:20

A cop killer terrorist gets thousands, a murdered mother gets shunned...another proud moment for W. Belfast.

by Saoirse MacGarilt Sun Aug 01, 2004 19:35

Joe Cahill's funeral was attended by the president of the Gaelic League, Nollaig O Gadhra, and by the former Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, even though their Mercedes broke down and they had to get assistance from the PSNI. If Mr. Cahill was the terrorist people made him out to be these two responsible, respectable, conservative gentlemen would not have taken so much trouble to go to his funeral. And Mr. Reynolds in comments after the funeral confirmed that the Provisionals did win the war. Reynolds reiterated Cahill's phrase: ' we have won the war, now let us win the peace'. And Reynolds use of the 'we' means Fianna Fail and indeed Irish America too. And after the Provisional military victory now the task is to ensure that the peace is indeed won too. The struggle against the securocrats goes on...

by Cynic Sun Aug 01, 2004 19:37

It's well known he'd go to the opening of an envelope for a bit of self promotion.
Sure isn't he a good friend of the Rev. Moon.

by Another Cynic Sun Aug 01, 2004 20:09

Yes and (like Donald Rumpsfeld) he was also a good mate of Saddam Hussein .... until of course Saddam was exposed as a world class terrorist with whom decent people did not associate .....

by Charlie Brown Sun Aug 01, 2004 20:20

Saddam Hussein's best mates were the anti-war morons who marched their little boots out to try to keep Saddo in power.

We'll never forget that!! it will haunt you forever.

by Devil Dog Sun Aug 01, 2004 20:26

Which one would that be?

The one which sees NI still part of the UK, Britsh troops still in NI?

If Grizzly and Martin can get Republicans to swallow this particular line, then they should start selling snow to Eskimos, they'd make a fortune.

by Cynic Mon Aug 02, 2004 00:28

"Saddam Hussein's best mates were the anti-war morons who marched their little boots out to try to keep Saddo in power."

Ah Charlie (get your supply from the Colombian democratic brigade AUC) Saddam was America's man not the left's. After all he killed all the left in his own country. Don't mix us all up with the SWP's infantile interpretation of politics and history. Saddam was scum - the invasion of Iraq was led by scum.

by Devil Dog Mon Aug 02, 2004 00:35

That's right, I saw a lot of Iraqi M16's, Bradleys, M1A!'s over there...oh, wait - nope, make that T72's/BTR's/BMP's/AK's....along with some help from the morally superior French, including Osirik...

by Cynic Mon Aug 02, 2004 01:31

So you have a knowledge for armoury. Procurements are very political as was America's support for Saddam.

by G Murphy Tue Aug 10, 2004 00:10

30 years ago,catholics were being burned out of thier homes . The Brits sent people with guns into protect them. The people had to take up arms to protect themselves. (that is where you and I agree). This is where we differ, the provisional IRA was established to protect the nationalist areas of the provinces. That was the main abjective, the proof is in the way the nationalists welcomed the Brits in to the falls road in the seventy's and the provos even sat with the Brits and took lessons on the Brits weaponary. (that doesn't sound like a group of people who set out with the sole purpose of removing the Brits and then if there is any spare time they will protect thier own?)
This turned sour in the early seventy's after a loyalist was shot by a provo and feering a LOYALIST BACKLASH, the Brits established a curfew in the falls and surrounding area. The Brits searched the houses looking for a gun man and in doing so smashed the houses to bits to show that they wern't on the nationalist side. There was a need at that time for the provisional IRA to protect.
At Drumcree , the Brits allowed an orange march through the garvachy road because letting the march go ahead after banning it (again in fear of a loyalist backlash)showed that the Brits still didnt have control over the provinces and they resorted back into protecting the catholics by imposing a curfew and if any of them got in the way (woman and children?) then they knock them black and blue. The British government were told by Sinn fien/IRA that this cannot happen again and if it did then the peace process would cease and the IRA would go back to war. This is big boys rules and I believe if the Sinn fien/ IRA hadn't stepped in and drawn a line then Drumcree would have been an absolute nightmare.
The difference is now that after 30 years of war and terrible suffering (on bothe sides ) , is that 1 side now has a voice that is as loud as the other. BIG BOYS RULES
If it hadn't been for people like Joe Cahill , who has the respect of all republicans and used this to show that there will be a time when the threat of armed conflict won't be needed but until that day its vital we keep it.
The provo's have changed throughout the 30 years but still are vital to the balance of power

by rozzy Mon Sep 13, 2004 01:54

This is big boys rules and I believe if the Sinn fien/ IRA hadn't stepped in and drawn a line then Drumcree would have been an absolute nightmare.


In 1998 gerry adams said "you don't think drumcree was an accident, do you?"