The Truth about the 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis

by Frank#1 Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:15

Cormac Eile wrote:

"I just can't see any way that a united Ireland can be achieved without precipitating a civil war, unless that common future is first proposed, then nurtured, and then brought to fruition"

What I proposed represents the best starting point for such a process as it places unionism at the heart of constructing it from the beginning.

by Donnchadh Fri Jul 07, 2006 18:15

There will always be conflict in Ireland until the British stop supporting the position of the Unionists. Do you think the French Algerians would ever have accepted Algerian independance if DeGaulle hadnt stood up to their unreasonable demands? While Britain supports partition with guns and money there will never be peace or democracy in Ireland. Joining partitionist assemblies created by British law only makes the British more intractable in their position and puts off the prospect for democracy in Ireland.

By the way Cormac, people voting for or against issues like joining the EU in no way gives added validity to the so called Bunreacht na hÉireann - any more than people in 1918 voting for Sinn Féin in a British organised election gave validity to the British occupation.

by Cormac Eile Fri Jul 07, 2006 15:57

Hmmm, I think they're going to need a little more convincing that that Frank.

As things stand, since the last time this nation had a united stance, and a mythology to bind us in that stance (under the United Irishman movement), the northern unionists have become more and more alienated from any sense of identity with nationalists.

The sad thing is that it is possible to find a common identity. I've met, worked with, and am good friends with several lads who are now working in Dublin, but who came from staunch unionist, and even Loyalist backgrounds. It takes them a while to get used to the idea that we're not backwards, lazy, indolent creatures given to mindless and random violence. A kind of a slow process of change comes over them, and eventually they start to abandon much of the prejudice they've been raised with. The same thing can happen for Northern Nationalists. Both sides are raised with terrible prejudice, in a society infected with a numbing and inhibiting hatred. This has to be defused before a common future can be proposed.

I just can't see any way that a united Ireland can be achieved without precipitating a civil war, unless that common future is first proposed, then nurtured, and then brought to fruition.

For that I'd be willing to see a new All-Ireland consitution proposed and implemented. I'd be willing to give up some of my Gaelic pride to see that day. I can't see that this nation will ever be one homogeneous Gaelic society. We will have to compromise in order to achieve a United Ireland.

by Frank#1 Fri Jul 07, 2006 14:06

Loyalists pledge loyalty to a government they perennially mistrust. That is why they demand a veto over its decision making concerning them. The democratic framework in which they exist is not an inclusive or accountable one for them hence the continuing instability. Unionism has conceded that a UI is possible and to that end they should be strategically engaged to address this possibility. Rather than nationalists throwing nationalist orientated Green Papers at them they should be encouraged to formulaste their own given the reality of the possibity.

by Cormac Eile Fri Jul 07, 2006 13:56

What is your strategy to convince them to take part in that democracy, and to be loyal to it's consitution, and to convince them not to engage in acts of dissidence aimed at undermining that constitution?

by Frank#1 Fri Jul 07, 2006 13:40

for them to be part of an inclusive and accountable democracy.

by Cormac Eile Fri Jul 07, 2006 13:38

what is your intention towards the unionist and loyalist population?

by Frank#1 Fri Jul 07, 2006 13:35

Partition perpetuates the conflict in Ireland and the conflict between Ireland and our neighbouring island. Continued British Parliamentary activity in Ireland negates our democratic expression because the British govt is not democratically accountable to any section of the Irish people. Irish democracy is the solution to the Anglo Irish conflict.

by Cormac Eile Fri Jul 07, 2006 13:14

I can see why you'd say that, but that isn't what I was saying.

It would have been preferrable that all people on this island vote for these issues. It wasn't feasible in any way.

It is always important to vote.

All I was saying was that it is highly unlikely that a different result would have arisen, had it been possible to canvas the electorate in the 6 Counties.

And having said all that, I do believe it would be better to have a 32 County Republic. I don't think it is worth forcing it in a way that will precipitate a perpetual conflict. We either resolve it before unification, or we don't unify at all. If we allow a perpetual conflict to take root in a unified Ireland, the British will have succeeded. They'll have a neighbour who can never rival their economic power, due to internal instability. This is the core element of British interest in Ireland - ensuring that we never rival their economic power, or threaten their security.

by Frank#1 Fri Jul 07, 2006 13:03

I had posted on this thread earlier as Frank but am not the same Frank whom Cormac Eile has engaged with so I've added #1 to make the distinction.

Cormac Eile wrote:

"The addition of a northern vote into these plebiscites would not have been numerically significant enough to make a difference, as the Loyalists would either not have voted, or would have voted for the lesser of two evils as they'd have seen it. The nationalist vote would have been split. Therefore, the will of the majority of the people on this island, as democratically implemented, is that Bunreacht na hEireann is the duly mandated and implemented constitution of this island, and supercedes all others."

The 'logic' of this interpretation would allow for the presumption of democratic outcomes which could facillitate the idea that because Labour's vote is much smaller than Fianna Fail's there's no point in having a vote at all, merely implement whatever FF wants to given their largest party status. Democracy requires more depth than that.

by Cormac Eile Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:34

Frank,

While you have your dates correct, your conclusion is totally invalid.

The first referendum put to the people in Ireland was the third amendment. This was in 1972 and was in relation to our membership of the EU. By voting on this amendment, no matter what the result was, the majority of the electorate in this state (and on this island), approved of the constitution.

But, we don't have to look to 1972 for this approval and mandate from the people. The governments voted into power immediately after the treaty gave that constitution validity over all previous governments, constitutions, and documents.

The people who voted the government into power under Bunreacht na hEireann gave that constitution, and the government under the constitution validity.

The addition of a northern vote into these plebiscites would not have been numerically significant enough to make a difference, as the Loyalists would either not have voted, or would have voted for the lesser of two evils as they'd have seen it. The nationalist vote would have been split. Therefore, the will of the majority of the people on this island, as democratically implemented, is that Bunreacht na hEireann is the duly mandated and implemented constitution of this island, and supercedes all others.

To suggest otherwise is to ignore the democratically expressed will of every generation of Irish citizens since the treaty, and is an outrageous insult and slur to Irish patriots and democrats everywhere.

by Donnchadh Thu Jul 06, 2006 23:31

"What exactly is meant by whether or O'Bradaigh and O'Connaill should have "allowed" Adams and McGuinness into leadership positions? Are republican leaders elected democratically?"

Jerome, I did say that as the republican movement is a democratic movement the ability to prevent British constitutional reformists taking leadership positions is limited. That said, Adams and McGuiness got their positions in Sinn Féin as a consequence of their positions in the IRA. In any army promotion is based on merit. I dont think people who had no conception of, or loyalty to the Republic should have been promoted at all as they clearly had no merit in a republican army. Again, Adams was quite carefull to keep his reformist position quiet until he had gained power, even going so far as to say at the 1983 Ard Fheis, that he had no intention of going into Leinster House, while all the time perparing the ground for just such a move. Today, he still uses these dishonest and underhanded methods against the gullible membership of his party.

by Frank Thu Jul 06, 2006 22:35

Cormac Eile says,

"the majority of the people of Ireland have voted for the current constitution time and again down through the history of this Republic."

When did the Irish people, as an independent sovereign unit, vote for a constitution?

The 26 counties is a state not a country. The country of Ireland was divided by its oppressor, Britain. The 26 counties is a state administered by the Dublin Government. It alone does not represent the sovereign nation of Ireland.

Cormac Eile says,

"It is invalid to claim that a prior constitution trumps a constitution duly enacted and implemented by mandate from the people."

The "prior constitution" you talk about was made by your fellow Irish citizens a generation before you as an independent unit. The 26 counties "constitution" was on written in 1937 after Britain divided the country into 6 and 26 county states. The 1937 document is invalid as it claims to be the "Constitution of Ireland". Ireland is made up of 32 counties.

by jerome Thu Jul 06, 2006 21:57

What exactly is meant by whether or O'Bradaigh and O'Connaill should have "allowed" Adams and McGuinness into leadership positions? Are republican leaders elected democratically?

by Donnchadh Thu Jul 06, 2006 20:40

Lets have a referendum and ask the people of Ireland - all 32 counties - if they want to live in two partitionist statelets or one 32 county Irish Republic. Let the people decide. I have no doubt that the republican position will be vindicated.

by Cormac Eile Thu Jul 06, 2006 19:59

Nonetheless Frank, the fact is that the majority of the people of Ireland have voted for the current constitution (and it's predecessor) time and again down through the history of this Republic. It is invalid to claim that a prior constitution trumps a constitution duly enacted and implemented by mandate from the people. You cannot negate the current will of the people by harping back to previous documents that have explicitly been superceded by subsequent excercise of the the public will through a vote.

It is nonsensical to suggest otherwise. It is also an insult to the people of this nation.

Are you suggesting that the will of the majority at every single referendum was invalid? If so, it shows that you have zero respect for the population of this country.

by Donnchadh Thu Jul 06, 2006 19:43

Sorry Ghandi, I overreacted, but the question you raised was about the OSF/PSF split and, as you say, Adams and McGuiness had nothing to do with it. But cant understand why you are defending OIRA/OSF - they continued to kill people for absolutely no reason right into the mid seventies.

by Ghandi of North Strand Thu Jul 06, 2006 17:06

Donnchadh

You claim that I have "incredible level of ignorance" this is more usually a claim from PSF mushrooms than from yourself, don't get bogged down in preconcieved ideas, but look at this issue freshly, like an increasing number of Republicans are.

I did not say that Adams & McGuinness were founder members, I have regularly pointed out that they only jumped ship so to speak when they say which was going to be the bigger grouping.

It may seem a small issue to you but "The only result of this, of course, was people being killed and maimed for absolutely nothing", is a key issue.

At least MacGiolla, Goulding, Garland, showed courage when refused to send out young men and women to fight and die and to kill for something that was unattainable at that time

Whilst Adams & Co contibued to send them out to kill & to die whilst they were pursuing a totally different agenda.

by Frank Thu Jul 06, 2006 16:48

Cormac Eile,

Once the Irish Republic was proclaimed on 24th April 1916 it sparked another Irish historic rebellion against British occupation. The 32 county Irish Republic declared in 1916 was supported by the people through the Irish Declaration of Independence on 21st January 1919. The Irish Declaration of Independence was declared by the First Dail Eireann and it was enacted by the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland. The Parliament of the Republic of Ireland was a freely elected governing legislator whose members were elected by the people of Ireland. Ireland was free of British rule.

Then the Brits offered an unfair and dubious treaty which divided the Irish people. This created a civil war in which the pro-Treaty group were given unlimited support by the Brits. After the pro-Treaty side won, the remaining anti-Treaty Republicans who had the support of the Irish people through the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland had to openly discard their loyalty to the First Dail Eireann for fear of imprisonment, torture or death.

by Donnchadh Thu Jul 06, 2006 16:35

I was refering to the Sinn Féin constitution. By your logic anyone who voted in any election in any part of Ireland under British occupation also voted for British rule. That, of course, is rubbish.

by Cormac Eile Thu Jul 06, 2006 16:08

If by that constitution you are referring to a constitution that establishes sovereignty over the land and people of the island of Ireland. The only constitution on this island that can lay claim to that is the Constitution of Ireland, as voted for by the majority of the citizens of this Republic time and again since its inception. Every time we hold an election or a referendum in this state, that constitution is given a mandate by the people.

Sinn Fein cannot lay claim to a constition or a mandate based in the 1916 proclamation, as that document has been superceded and overlain by each and every vote taken in this state since then.

Sinn Fein and RSF have no mandate whatsoever, and are traitors to the citizenry of this nation.

by Donnchadh Thu Jul 06, 2006 15:55

I do agree with you, however, that the Ó Brádaigh, Ó Chonnaill, MacStiofáin leadership bear a heavy responsibility for allowing reformists like Adams and McGuinness into leadership positions in the first place, as do an earlier leadership for allowing in the likes of Garland, MacGiolla and Goulding. But with the massive influx of civil rights protestors in the early seventies, and the democratic nature of the republican movement - at least till Adams got his hands on it - it was almost impossible to prevent this.

by Donnchadh Thu Jul 06, 2006 15:45

I might also say Ghandi, that it shows an incredible level of ignorance to believe that Adams and McGuiness had anything to do with the 1969 split. Adams did not walk out of the 1970 Ard Fheis. McGuiness stayed in OIRA for another year and only joined PIRA because, in his own words, "they were more active." Republican analysis had nothing to do with his decision.

Again, your swallowing of Harris rubbish that MacGiolla, Garland and Goulding had "boundless courage" shows a complete lack of understanding. These men used the same dirty tricks to undermine the Sinn Féin constitution as Adams and Co. tried in 1986. Then they recognised British law in Ireland by recognising the 26 county and 6 county partitionist assemblies which were created by British law. Then, like Adams and McGuiness, they continued armed actions against the British law they recognised as legitimate. The only result of this, of course, was people being killed and maimed for absolutely nothing. Once you have recognised British law in Ireland armed struggle against it is completely illogical and will enevitably come to nothing. MacGiolla, Goulding, Garland, McGuiness and Adams showed a boundless lack of courage when they sent out young men and women to fight for something that they had already surrendered, i.e. the 32 county Irish Republic and its law.

by Ghandi of North Strand Thu Jul 06, 2006 15:45

Jonston states

"so the new Provisional IRA was formed. Its aim was to defend Nationalist communites from the British and their loyalist counterparts in Ireland".

He is correct they were not about defending the Republic or ending British rule no matter what claims they came out with

by Gahndi of North Strand Thu Jul 06, 2006 15:41

Donnchadh,

I am well aware of the Indo, not publishing Republican viewpoints, and they generally do'nt publish anything from me, in this case they published an editted version of about 100 words rather than the 850 above.

Whilst it true that those who continued on in the leadership of RSF are also some of those who created PSF, from its early days it was clear that the vast bulk of memebrship was nationalist rather than Republican. The leadership must bear some responsibility for this. '86 did'nt happen over night. Its clear that GA at least was pursuing this agenda from '76. Those who formed RSF stayed until then, just as those who left with McK, waited until the damage was done.

The fact that Haughey provided some weapons regardless of how they were used, the issue is his reason for creating the Provos. He used the issue of abstention along with the pograms in the North to try and smash the movement.

As for whether I know what I'm talking about or not those who know who I am know the answer.

by Donnchadh Thu Jul 06, 2006 15:27

Ghandi, the small group who "created" the provisionals in 1969 were, to a man and woman (women have never been so easily corrupted by the attractions of British constitutionalism as men have), the same group who "created" RSF in 1986. They were all vets of the forties and fifties campaigns. The reason they broke with OSF was on the question of abstentionism. They stood on a tradition going back to 1916 and they had no intention on abandoning that tradition and the basic philosophy of revolution as opposed to British constitutional reform. They saught and seek the creation of a new society not the reform of an old imperial society. Its true that their ranks were swelled in the early seventies by angry young civil rights protestors, like Martin McGuiness, who hadnt a clue about republicanism - but it is completely false to say these angry young men had anything to do with the formation of the provisionals. Men like McGuiness and Adams are exactly the same as Goulding et al. They are reformists and when, unfortunately, they came into leadership positions they attempted to hi-jack the republican movement as MacGiolla and Goulding tried to do in the late sixties.

You are completely taking the attempts of a small element in Fianna Fáil to help with arms out of context. This was a tiny intervention and had no real effect what so ever. If it had any effect it was on FF itself not the republican movement. And if Charles Haughey tried to help people who were being butchered in their own streets, then he is to be comended for that - it was one of the truly good things he attempted to do in his long career.

You must have been suspicious of your own argument when the sunday indo printed it. They would never print the truth from a republican who knew what he was talking about.

by Ghandi of Noth Strand Thu Jul 06, 2006 14:10

Jonston claims I have a British point of view, as a life long Republican and an activist since I was a young teenager, I have been accused of many things, but this is a first.

Of course I have an agenda, we all have, mine is in line with the views of Tone, and is to break the connection with England through the unity of Catholic Protestant and Dissenter in the common name of Irishman.

What your agenda, clearly you have'nt even read what I have said, I never claimed that Dublin helped Nationalists, The whole tenet of my argument is that FF and Haughey created the Provisionals in order to defeat Republicanism, and used some genuine Republicans to do so, and as we currently stand they appear to have done so.

The use of the abstentism issue in '70 was as in '86 desinged to create a specific objective and ultimately to defeat Republicanism.

As we now know it was not the Provisionals defending nationalists but rather various different groupings contriollled by British Intellegence carrying on a pretend war to further British policy in Ireland.

by Jonston Thu Jul 06, 2006 13:09

Ghandi of North Strand has a hidden agenda. His post is filled with lies, and unsupported observations. Let me state some facts for your information:

The Officials decided to leave the Nationalist communities defenceless in the north of Ireland, so the new Provisional IRA was formed. Its aim was to defend Nationalist communites from the British and their loyalist counterparts in Ireland.

It was not the IRA that created the sectarian conflict, but the Brits. The Brits used the loyalist and unionist people in Ireland to attack the Nationalist communities.

Throughout the conflict the Dublin Government never helped the Nationalist people of the north of Ireland at all. The IRA defended the Nationalist people.

by Ghandi of North Strand Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:47

Barry is correct in that the 1986 argument is not the issue. As Republicans we know what happened, the wider world is not particularly interested.
He points out that the destruction of the Provos were sown early on, I would agree that the seeds were sown at their very creation. If Ingrams claims are correct and his past record would indicate that he is, the question arisies as to when teh agents became agents. The real possibility is that needs to be looked at is that they were agents when they joined the Provisionals and that British Intelligence was inviolved along with Haughey in seeking the destruction of Republicanism

The real argument that needs to be re visited is '69/'70 and not '86. For me one of the key differences is, why people joined the various movements, and an answer to this will show what they will settle for. Did they see themselelves as soldiers of the Republic who were attempting to re-establish it or where they joining for civil rights and defence of nationalists.

I attach an unedited version of my recent letter in the Sunday Indo, which hopefully may lead to a debate.

Dear Sir

Eoghan Harris (Sunday Independent 18th June) has again hit the nail on the head, in relation to the Political activities of Charles Haughey, For those of us who consider ourselves to be Republican the key event of the past 35 years was the creation of the Provisionals by Fianna Fail and the subsequent conflict which left over 3,500 Irish people dead and many thousands spending their young lives in prisons.

Harris states that Goulding, Mac Giolla and Garland behaved with boundless moral courage, again he is correct, the problem was that because of the conflict many of us got sucked into a militarist position which effectively became pro active and reactionary rather than revolutionary. Their analysis of what Haughey was up to has now been shown to be correct, Goulding correctly identified the outcome of creating a group like the Provisionals, who were basically a defence organisation and not a Republican movement and who would morph into a sectarian gang who would have nothing in common with the teachings and ideals of Tone. The ready acceptance by their members of the GFA and the return of Stormont show quiet clearly that they were not grounded in Republican ideology but the argument for Civil Rights.

It is clear that Fianna Fail set out to destroy the Republican Movement and were prepared to sacrifice a generation of Irishmen to maintain the status quo and the corrupt hold on power they had built up in the 26 Counties. This power base is clearly illustrated by Haughey, Lawlor, Burke and their corruption of politics.

It would be wrong however to assume that Haughey acted on his own I have no doubt that he acted under the instructions of the Government and Lynch, who only moved to protect his own position once the plot became public.

Whilst the creation of the Provisionals has been described as a major split in the Republican Movement it was not an ideological split but one over weapons, Haughey’s offer of short arms which Goulding clearly saw as an attempt by Dublin to create a climate of close quarter combat, rather than the long arms necessary to take on the British Army, he argued that close quarter combat was designed to lead towards a situation of Irish men killing Irishmen and would descend into a sectarian conflict. . Most of those who created the Provisional were not members of the Republican movement at the time, they had clearly an influx of new young activists who joined to defend their communities and were not particularly concerned about re-establishing the Republic. It should also be recalled that the OIRA was also attracting an influx of volunteers and was the more active army on the streets up until 1972. Despite the current revisionism for example in relation to the Battle of the Falls the OIRA under Jim Sullivan was the predominant Republican force.

It is also clear from the list of ten people given by Captain Kelly to John White the IRA OC in Derry for execution in return for guns and money, which included Goulding, Garland, McGurran, Sullivan, & McMillen that the Dublin government was concerned at the refocusing of the Republican Movement towards socialist politics. It is now obvious to republicans that the Provisionals have been controlled by British Intelligence from its inception, it would be naive to believe that Dublin was not aware of this and that they also had agents in place.

The creation of the Republican Socialist Movement in 1975 which was a more ideological split that ’69 and the subsequent feuding between both groups gave the intelligence agencies the opportunity to have both groups wipe each other out. This is clearly exemplified by the murder of an uninvolved civilian Christy Phelan who out for a walk came upon the gang and was stabbed to death by British Intelligence agents in the guise of Loyalist Paramilitaries as they attempted to blow up a train of Official Republican supporters on its way to Bodenstown 30 years ago this month and blame it on the INLA and thus re-ignite the feud. There has been no investigation of his murder or demands for a public inquiry from the usual sources as the results of such an enquiry would be too unpalatable. Of course Christy Phelan was only a working class man going about his own business that Sunday afternoon and not a lawyer. His families’ suffering was irrelevant to successive governments.

If Republicans want to move forward and ensure that there is a future for Republicanism that have to re-look at the arguments of ’69 and accept that Goulding and the rest of the Official leadership called it right. If there is to be a criticism of the ORM leadership in those years it may be based around the ceasefire of ’72 and whether it was perhaps called a few years too early. With hindsight if we were to have lisented then we would not now have Sunningdale Mark II and 3,500 graves.

Is Mise

by Donnchadh Thu Jul 06, 2006 00:04

I might also point out that all one has to do for a complete understanding of what is happening to PSF today, is read Ruirí Ó Brádaigh's speech at the 1986 Ard Fheis. The bottom line is that if you recognise British law and take part in parliaments created by British law, then you must live by British law.

by Donnchadh Wed Jul 05, 2006 23:51

Barry there are several basic problems which all relate to the dropping of abstentionism and RSF's percieved obsession with it. One, it is PSF who constantly bring up the issue by claiming that they are Sinn Féin - when any casual look at them now makes it obvious that they are just another British constitutional party. Sinn Féin has signified revolutionary republicanism since at least 1917 - not British constitutional reformism. The lie is also put out that RSF was founded in 1986, this coundnt be further from the truth. Adams and Co. expelled themselves from Sinn Féin by breaking section 1b. of the constitution.

But more important than this is the conflict between a revolutionary method of change and a reformist method. I think to paraphrase Rosa Luxemburg here from her essay "Revolution or Reform" would not be irrelevant to this discussion. She reasons that the secret of historic change through the utilization of political power resides in the passage from one form of society to another. She continues: "That is why people who pronounce themselves in favor of the method of legislative reform in place of and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for a modification of the old society." This has also been the republican position since (at least) 1916. This continues to be Republican Sinn Féin's position.

Capitulating to the "reality" that most people recognise Leinster House and Stormont will modify the revolutionary not the partitionist system. His participation in that system will not be a threat to that system but will greatly strengthen and enhance it, updating it to encorporate opposition. Although RSF is small, it stands on the bedrock of a great tradition and continuity. It may provide the nucleus around which a real alternative to Britain's system of privelege for the few and oppression for the many may form.

I agree totally with you that the armed struggle was misused by Adams and Co. to suppress opposition. But I think to be fair this was a feature of the Adams leadership which is not true of earlier leaderships. A look at the movement's history since the civil war till the mid eighties show a hugh diversity of intellectual input and a very large participation in the social issues of the day. Ruirí Ó Brádaigh pointed out in many speaches throughout the seventies that Sinn Féin must not be simply a cheerleader for the armed struggle. He himself was very involved in the co-operative movement. Today RSF members are actively involved in their communities.

As for the lack of condemnation of atrocities which could in no way be seen as part of the war of liberation, again the leadership of the seventies were never slow to condemn such actions. Such actions belittled the great sacrifices made by so many noble Irish soldiers, and, of course merely result in one injustice replacing another.

I would also say that it is a popular misconception that RSF are militarists or fixated on armed struggle. Since 1986 there has been no rush into an armed struggle situation. The conditions for success simply are not there at the moment. That does not mean that PSF followed the correct path. The IRA called off campaigns and dumped arms several times during the 20th century. They did not, however, surrender to British rule and become part of the system they had set out to replace.

by Barry - 32 csm Wed Jul 05, 2006 21:55

Now that this subject has been more than adequately covered in this thread would it not be more importune for republicans to start spelling out how maximum democracy and sovereignty can be acheived , successfully struggled for . What they entail , what they entitle us to . What denying these national rights to us means for our future as a people . Concentrating on how British institutions in Ireland and the politics which are necessary to prop them up are detrimental to all our interests .
While I understand that the events of 1986 are a prelude to what is happening in 2006 and the importance of guarding against future machinations forgive me for believing that RSF have perhaps a habit on spending too much time discussing the minutiae of those events when they have little interest to the ordinary Irish person on the street . They arent exactly conducive to attracting people who wish to see fundamental change to the republican cause .
I hope this will be taken in the manner its intended , constructive criticism, but it has long appeared to me that elements in RSF see it necessary to keep fighting the debate they lost in 1986 perhaps as moral vindication for their existence when there are ample enough reasons in their programmes such as Eire Nua/Saol Nua which should allow them to on that basis alone .
That particular debate is over although I agree republicans should be mindful of the lessons . One lesson is certainly that an over reliance on militarism turned out to be a double edged sword and was used to stifle democratic debate . Once the Army leadership said "if you dont support this youre undermining the armed struggle" that was that effectively . Support for armed struggle was the PRIMARY basis on which ending abstentionism in the free state was sold to both the Army and Sinn Fein . Entering Leinster House it was claimed would significantly enhance that struggle , augmented with tonnes of modern weaponry the provos had never dreamed of .

All one has to do to return to that position in the future is for unscrupulous individuals to toe the party line incessantly until they take over (no doubt well aided with artificially enhanced military reputations) and there you go , back where you started or even worse .
In my opinion the seeds of the provos destruction as a progressive force were sown early on with a fundamentally undemocratic organisation much too reliant on its military endeavours and with little enthusiasm for political activity ( I dont mean electoralism) . Over reliance on militarism also resulted in tactics which often appalled many ordinary Irish people , and their revulsion being dismissed as "soft" and people with no understanding of the ruthlessness of war . However if the revelations by Martin Ingram turn out to be true ( as all his previous ones have been to now) we can see yet another British method to apparent Irish madness , such as in the human bomb attacks I have no difficulty describing as a war crime . Under international law such tactics are illegal . And they are immoral . Forcing any civilian to drive a bomb anywhere is immoral in my opinion . Very few questioned these tactics again because the movement was undemocratic . And perceived softness akin to treachery . In reality criticism was treachery .
While there are people within RSF such as ROB , his brother Sean , Des Dalton and others who are undoubtably intellectually gifted and sincere republicans , incorruptible . And while I agree with and commend the EN/SN programmes I believe this fixation on 1986 is extremely unhealthy for RSF . It seems to me to insist on a return to a total rigidity as a defence mechanism , yet which in itself is not conducive to democratic debate , therefore unconducive to internal democracy . Which means the mistakes of the past could again be repeated in the future . Ourselves alone are the true saviours , Toe the party line to be hardline and dont ask too many questions .
While EN/SN are commendable documents and basically the blueprint Id like to live under given the choice they will not acheive the republic . They do not show us the way to it . They do not challenge the usurpation of Irish sovereignty which is at the root of our problems .
I dont believe military action on its own can get us there . Nor do I believe a political party will either . Although both can be of immesurable help . Whle RSF see it as vital to maintain their unbroken continuity with the founding of Sinn it may well be that the Sinn Fein project itself is simply a failed one as regards acheiving seperatist objectives and republicans must constuct a new one . Similar in some ways , different in others . Being proven morally right and faithful years later isnt enough in my opinion .

by Jonny Bonkowitsch Wed Jul 05, 2006 21:18

UP THE RA!!!!

by seán Wed Jul 05, 2006 20:54

Wow that's an excellent reply Seaicilín. I misunderstood what you were talking about and started shooting without checking. Gabh mo leithscéal a chara.

by Donnchadh Wed Jul 05, 2006 14:29

A Sheaicilín, a chara,

Your analysis of the situation is obviously 100% correct. Setting up a six county free state will be detrimental for the prospect of a free and united Ireland. People will settle in to their positions of power and they will have no motivation to upset the apple cart. As for when New PSF go into coalition with Fianna Fáil - this will only result in New PSF becomming as tied to big business interests in the south as Fianna Fáil are. Once the really big money starts flowing into their coffers they again will have no interest in putting that money at risk. Of course, there will be "dissidents" in the ranks, but these will be delt with in the same way as the abstentionist revolutionaries were in 1986. As for me repeating a paragraph from the article, my purpose was to redirect the conversation back on to the topic.

by Seaicilín Wed Jul 05, 2006 03:06

A Sheáin, a chara,

In response to your questions:

"You think people here shouldn't go as far back as 1986 to discuss what happened then?"

My response: I was just expressing my humerous exasperation at Donnacha going over ground that he had already covered in his initial report, which was a very well presented, interesting and thought provoking analysis on the clandestine goings-on that occurred at the 1986 Ard-Fheis, which I don't doubt did occur and resulted in that catastrophic split in the Republican Movement, but I don't see the sense in repeating it as nothing can be done to resolve or mend the split now and splits annoy the hell out of me. Although, it just might make people more observant and be on the look-out for such incidents of skulduggery and dodgy dealings in future.

"Explain, then, why the provie membership made a big show to identify themeselves with what happened at the hungerstrikes, or in 1916, or for that matter, why they show their faces at Bodenstown."

My response:

I presume, as I'm not a member of "provie", that they identify with Wolfe Tone, 1916 and the hunger strikers, because they believe they share the same vision as those admirable people of a United Ireland free from British tyranny - although, disappointingly, their vision is becoming increasingly impaired over the years due to the prevailing dark clouds of British imperialist agents, and fashionable Sinn Féin's astonishing and appalling quest for power, that they will even lower themselves to administering British imperialism in Stormont with extreme right wing bigot & lunatic, Paisley, - although, I suspect, they would prefer to bypass this for now, due to it being a no-go area at present and go ahead with the "cross-border committees and initiatives" etc., and wait until they obtain power in Leinster House with Fianna Fáil, as this would strengthen their hand over events in the six counties, but that's only my personal view.

Power is an extremely corrupting and seductive force, and they have to their detriment been enticed into this Stormont arrangement from which they may find there's no escape (even for Gerry Kelly), what I mean is, that if Stormont is successful, then they can kiss their vision of a United Ireland a goodbye forever (even if they take power in Stormont and Leinster House) and the citizens of Ireland will end up with exactly what we have now for possibly another 800 years or more, and why would the Brits leave Ireland if Stormont was up and running successfully, as they would be making money from taxes etc., and getting someone else to take responsibility and do their dirty work and that's a nice little set-up for them isn't it?).

Slán anois!

by Donnchadh Wed Jul 05, 2006 01:40

Now that Sticky PSF have recognised British law in Ireland, served as British Ministers and enjoy the benefit of being on the British payroll, Im not surprised they dont want to look back - except to cash in on the sacrifices of Irish republicans like the hunger strikers. Of course they dont mention that these men and women were soldiers of the Irish Republic - not armed civil rights protestors looking for equality of treatment as British subjects.

by seán Wed Jul 05, 2006 00:17

Seacailín a chara,

You think people here shouldn't go as far back as 1986 to discuss what happened then?

Explain, then, why the provie membership made a big show to identify themeselves with what happened at the hungerstrikes, or in 1916, or for that matter, why they show their faces at Bodenstown.

In all these cases ther was some "skulduggery" as you nicely put it, and so maybe "we should let it rest for now" or even conclude, as you do, that " 'Tis 2006 now, and there's nothing good will come out of always looking back, sure it'll only trip us all up from moving forward."

by The wild old wicked man Tue Jul 04, 2006 20:11

Michael you come on here and insult the Irish people and their anti-colonial struggles, digging up old stories about times gone by.
So Senor De Valera signed the book of condolences for Mr. Hitler upon the latter's demise. Big swinging mickey ...

Just for the record, the Jewish community in Dublin - the people one would expect to have been most offended by De Valera's "diplomatic incident" - arranged the planting of a forest of 10000 trees in his honour in Israel:
"In 1966, the Dublin Jewish community arranged the planting and dedication of the Eamon de Valera Forest in Israel, near Nazareth, in recognition of his consistent support for Ireland's Jews. Speakers on that occasion said nothing about wartime refugees or the visit to Hempel."
http://www.ucc.ie/icms/irishmigrationpolicy/Judaism%20T...d.htm

So maybe it's time to stop blowing this stupid little footnote to irish history out of all proportion.

But you've started so I'll finish. Did you never hear the old saying that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones ?

Now it's your turn to look in the mirror of history and answer for Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld, aka Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.

"During the marriage of the future queen, princes Juliana, with the German-born Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld in January 1937, it became clear how closely associated the Dutch elites were with Nazi Germany. Prince Bernhard, who, together with his brother had become a member of the Reiter-SS, was surrounded by friends who were active National Socialists. During a gala night which took place two days before the wedding in the Building of the Arts and Sciences in The Hague the 'Horst Wessel Lied', virtual hymn of the SA, was performed. Some of the invited guests, among whom was queen Wilhelmina's uncle, duke Adolf von Mecklenburg, who was standing next to the bride, paid their respects with the Nazi salute.(9)

The pro-German attitude of the Dutch authorities and elites was also confirmed by the German diplomat Wolfgang zu Putlitz, who, in 1938, after his return from London, where he had been for four years, was assigned to the post of Counseller in The Hague."

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Time to demolish the self-serving myth of heroic Dutch resistance.
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp412.htm

A painful and embarrassing exercise in self-criticism for the Netherlanders. But you know what they say: NO PAIN NO GAIN !

by Klinsmann Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:20

Michael, one last thing, if you still around here is a link that should be of interest to you.

http://www.internationalist.org/dutchplunder0903.html

Since you are such a commited internationalist. Just have a read about your social democratic friends and what they are up to in iraq.

That's all from me about this subject.

Klinsmann

by incredulous Mon Jul 03, 2006 23:54

Let me get this straight- You believe that the ENTIRE membership -or as close to that figure as makes no difference- are employed by Sinn Féin?

That seems rather unlikely to me regarding most political parties, but Sinn Féin places such a huge reliance on volunteers I don't see how anyone can believe it even for a minute. Even people who have such deep-seated prejudice against the party as displayed on this thread must have enough self-respect to know that that's delusional.

by Donnchadh Mon Jul 03, 2006 23:53

Its important to analyse what happened in 1986 because the Adams/McGuinness leadership have continued to use the same methods to mislead their membership right through the so called peace process. They will also use these methods if they get any opposition to supporting the British Colonial Police or to going into coalition with Fianna Fáil. No doubt if they get into coalition with Fianna Fáil they will continue their corrupt practices - as if Fianna Fáil werent corrupt enough. Not that I recognise the free state assembly but unfortunately it does have a real impact on peoples lives.

It is also galling to republicans that they continue to claim that they are Sinn Féin even though they expelled themselves from Sinn Féin and have no right to a name that has signified revolution as opposed to British constitutional reformism since at least 1917.

by Sean Oglach Mon Jul 03, 2006 22:27

tom eile I believe that the membership knows what is happening and choose to ignore the scullduggery of the leadership because by and large they are employed by Sinn Fein or other associated schemes and are fearful of their jobs.

by Sharon - Individual Mon Jul 03, 2006 22:05

I doubt very much that the above posts from Mick , Tom Eile and Klinsmann , amongst others , will have any impact on Michael .
I imagine that the latter already had his mind made up in relation to Irish republicanism before he ever arrived here . In his last post he stated - " All I said as an politically interested person is that I have a problem with nationalism of any country." You may indeed be a 'politically interested' person , Michael , but , regarding Irish politics , you are not a 'politically knowledgeable ' person - yet you continue to pass comment on an issue which you are obviously 'not up to speed' on .
For your own sake , Michael - give it a rest . For now at least .

Sharon .

by tom eile Mon Jul 03, 2006 22:05

You can’t just ignore history in that way . It’s not a question of getting into a time machine but of checking the historical record . If what Donnchadh says is true it means that a fraud was perpetuated on the membership of Sinn Fein by the leadership. – it wasn’t just a piece of skulduggery . If that is the case it makes the decision to drop abstentionism invalid. If Sinn Fein’s leadership was prepared to dupe its membership in 1986 and the same leadership is in place today what guarantee is there that the membership isn’t being led by the nose today?

by Seaicilín Mon Jul 03, 2006 21:37

Donnchadh, what are you trying to do, get into the Guinness Book of Records for the longest statement on an event that occurred in 1986! You have stated your viewpoint well, gan dabht, there was probably some skulduggery going down at the Ard-Fheis in 1986, ach, let it rest for now ,we can't be putting ourselves in a time machine and transporting the Republican Movement back to the beginning of that Ard-Fheis and get a different result now. 'Tis 2006 now, and there's nothing good will come out of always looking back, sure it'll only trip us all up from moving forward.

Slán anois!

by Donnchadh Mon Jul 03, 2006 20:49

Let's get back on topic. If we look at the attempt of Adams and co. to weaken abstensionism at the 1985 Ard Fheis: Comhairle Limistéir Bhaile Átha Cliath put forward a motion proposing that abstensionism “be viewed as a tactic and not as a principle.” Adams supporters Danny Morrison, Tom Hartley and Seán Crowe were the main speakers in favour. The motion was rejected by 181 votes against to 161 in favour. That means that there were 342 delegates representing 171 cumainn. This was a serious setback for Adams. To drop absentionism on these numbers he would need to change the vote of 60 delegates. That would have taken years if he had played by the rules. So what did Adams do? Besides intimidation of existing cumainn, merging of hostile cumainn and just plain refusing to let hostile voices into the Ard Fheis? Well, he just created over a hundred new, fake, paper cumainn. If we look at the figures of the vote in 1986 on Resolution 162: 429 in favour and 161 against. That means a total number of 590. There were now 295 cumainn. 124 new cumainn??? In the space of a year? And they all supported Resolution 162? And even stranger these 124 new cumainn just disappeared in 1987, because at the 1987 PSF Ard Fheis the numbers were back to about 340 delegates. I would be very interested if anyone who reads these figures would not agree that the Adams/McGuiness leadership perpetrated an obscene fraud at the 1986 Ard Fheis.

by Mick Mon Jul 03, 2006 18:31

Michael,

It took a while for you to reveal your true political analysis, but you have shown us all your true colours with that last post.

by tom eile Mon Jul 03, 2006 14:56

You have chosen to intervene in a debate between Irish republicans .I don't think you fully understand the issues involved ,but I hope you get better aquainted with them while you are in Ireland where we take our history very seriously . Whatever differences I would have with Klinsman on present day politics he is right to point you to the position that Irish republicanism took to the Spanish civil war .
The Labour Party which has won your support has made a coalition pact with a party called Fine Gael . Please check out the fascist roots of this party . In the 1930’s Irish republicans fought with the anti-fascist international brigade in Spain . Fine gael was back then openly pro- fascist and pro-nazi. During the Spanish civil war the founder of that party , Owen O’Duffy ,organized a battalion of Irish volunteers to fight under General Franco. Franco as you probably know was a fascist as was Duffy . Fine Gael’s one time leader and taoiseach (prime minister) John A. Costello speaking in the dail (parliament) during that period said this:"The Blackshirts have been victorious in Italy and Hitler's Brownshirts have been victorious in Germany, as assuredly the Blueshirts will be victorious in Ireland".
The Blueshirts was an armed fascist organization based on European fascist models comprised in country areas of the thuggish sons ( and daughters) of Irish big ranchers .In the cities it drew support from the same lumpen anti-semitic elements that supported Hitler in Germany .The Blueshirts were defeated - physically - by the IRA . But it was touch and go.
I would urge you to reconsider your position on Irish republicanism Michael and to make an independent study of its history .Irish republicanism is completely opposed to sectarianism .Its roots go back to an organization formed at the end of the eighteenth century called "The United Irishmen" whose aim was to unite Irish people of all religious persusasions and none in support of the same ideals that inspired the French and American revolutions. Don't take my word on all this- check it out .

by Donnchadh Mon Jul 03, 2006 14:39

I think Klinsman has said it all very eloquantly. I might also say that he is not the only foreign national who has taken the trouble to learn the facts about Ireland. At the last RSF commoration I attended there were faces from several continants. Maybe some were interested tourists but Im sure a good percentage were there because they have learned about the Republican Movement and recognise their own anti-Imperialist struggles in Sinn Féin's policies. Michael you also say that the Orange Order also see Sinn Féin as sectarian? Of course there have been secterian individuals in Sinn Féin, but the movement was founded by Protestants and the most important commoration every year is to the grave of Wolfe Tone - a Protestant. Protestants have been involved right through the struggle right down to today. Many of them have made the ultimate sacrifice for Ireland's freedom. In many ways their sacrifice was even greater since, not only did they have to face the brutality of the British occupation forces but also would have had less support among family and friends as many Catholic volunteers had. Republican commorations are held in Protestant grave yards the length and breth of the country. The Republican Movement has always been anti-sectarian. The Orange Order bans catholics from even joining their organisation - even Protestants who are married to Catholics are not allowed to join. Sinn Féin's Éire Nua policy is specifically designed to give Protestants a powerfull position in a United Ireland. This policy was debated at length with various sections of the Unionist community. Unfortunately New PSF has dropped Éire Nua, Adams said it was a "sop to Unionists." It is still a central policy of Sinn Féin. By the way Michael, I never suggested you go home, I suppose you can do something to help the victims of Dutch colonialism from here - I ment to take a rest from this thread until you know what your talking about. But, my apologies - you are far from the only one around here who dosnt know what they are talking about.

by Mick Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:40

Your ignorant comments are incorrect. You know nothing about what the Brits have done in Ireland and to the Irish people.

You are not a socialist. You support the anti-socialist Labour Party.

You are blaming centuries of imperialist war on nationalist freedom movements. What about the imperialists who were in the Nationalists' countries? Why do you think the freedom movements were formed?

The same imperialist Brits that have abused, raped, tortured and murdered our fellow citizens, friends and family members for years are still occupying 6 of 32 counties of Ireland. They still control the majority of media business in all 32 counties. They still have a world-wide propaganda machine. Through all this they have conformed many berks like yourself.

by Klinsmann Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:38

Michael, I am also a non-irish EU national living in Ireland but of german decent. I have read all the things you said. I am not going into dutch history because it has nothing to do with you or the subject of this thread. I don't know where you getting all the false information about Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein is part of a european parliament grouping that includes various left, green, socialist and communist parties. Including a dutch socialist party. So much on Sinn Fein not being part of a wider picture. The two Sinn Fein MEP's (barbara de bruin and mary lou mac donald) play a very important and constructive role in the EP. Gerry Adams is also actively involved in Spain trying to bring about a peaceful solution to the basque conflict. I don't see Pat Rabitt down there.

By comparison the irish labour party is a member of the ESP (European Socialist Party) that inludes war parties such as the british new labour party of tony blair. As a real socialist you should oppose these social democratic parties as they are actively involved in destroying the social welfare states all over europe and are part of the neo-liberal agenda. I do understand your problem with nationalism but imperial nationalism is not the same as liberation nationalism. You try to equate for example german chauvinistic nationalism with legitimate irish nationalism (or call it better patriotism). I am sure the dutch were also good nationalists by defending their country during the german occupation. And rightly so.

Overall, I think your problem is about not asking the right questions. Ireland has its own specific socio-economic features and should not be judged through dutch socialdemocratic "googles". You say that irish republicans sympathised with Hitler but you don't say that they also fought against Franco in Spain. Take for example Michael O' Riordan who recently died.

Please get the whole picture first, before you accuse republicans of being racist, sectarian etc. Otherwise you are insane.

With european socialist greeting,

Klinsmann

by Michael Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:23

"Michael you would probably be better to bow out of this discussion while you still have some dignity left. You obviously know as little about Dutch history and the problems your colonial record is still causing today as you know about Irish history. Most of what you have written here seems to have been picked up in British and O'Reilly family rags. It lacks any coherence or logic and bears little if any relation to the facts. You know the old saying "Charity begins at home?" Well I suggest you start learning something about your own history and do something for its victims - who are still suffering today because of it."

You still don't understand, I am going to stay here and regard ireland as my home. I have absolutely nothing against the irish in fact its the opposite otherwise I would not be here. All I said as an politically interested person is that I have a problem with nationalism of any country. Nationalism caused so much death and suffering over the last 200 years (and I also include the netherlands). As a socialist I would vote for an internationalist party (ie labour party ) not being tied to narrow minded vandetta politics. You are the ones that are counter productive to the cause of a united working class and ireland. In fact I would like to see a united european working class, dealing with the real problems of globilisation. But your sectarianism plays into the hands of those who like to conquer by dividing.

And again you say I should check out "my own " colonial past " and that I am influenced by the british or O'reilly family rags. Again: Your are not able to communicate with another EU national without accusing him of being pro-british unionist or colonialist. I have absolutely nothing to do with Britain, in fact their government are criminals. Reagards Iraq. But for you its like a reflex to swing that pro-british club. Grow up and see the world, there is more to Ireland versus the british.

by non-nationalist Irishbman Mon Jul 03, 2006 08:33

Actually I think Michael has made many excellent points - of course, if one is a nationalist and/or a bigot it might not come across that way. His point about the march in Dublin is a case in point. Yes, the OO is an openly bigoted anti-Catholic organisation. But then to Protestants the Republican movement in all its guises is an openly bigoted, anti-Protestant organisation! Even granted that the OO is all Republicans say it is, democracy still means that people with a different point oif view are allowed to exercise their right to march. Like it or not, the OO has massive support in the North, and by preventing it from exercising its democratic rights you have sent an absolutely terrible message to the Protestant community in the north, one which has the further effect (though you can't see it!) of postponing even further your goal of a united Ireland. (How can this possibly be achieved when a million people in the North remain opposed to it? What are you doing to win them over????) Such are your sectarian/nationalist binkers. Your continued efforts to hold a Dutchman living in Ireland responsible for the colonial practices of Holland in years gone by betrays little more than a feeling that outsiders should bugger off home and have no right to comment on Irish affairs. Oh, you cover it up a bit, but that is what lies beneath. pretty much. Shame on you - and well done Michael for standing up to these berks. Not all of us in Ireland are wee Irelanders. Welcome to the country, and keep on expressing your views wherever and however and on whatever you feel you like.

by Ted Mon Jul 03, 2006 07:27

Re the Love Ulster march. This march was not about "Protestants" marching down O'Connell Street. You should do some reading up on the Orange Order, they are an openly bigoted anti-Catholic organisation. It is no more sectarian for us to oppose their marching than it would be racist to oppose a BNP march. Having said that, you're failing to distinguish between SF and RSF on this issue. SF didn't oppose the march (although I personally did).

SF policy calls for Ireland to become bilingual, not Irish-only. I don't see why that would require anyone to give up their language.

by Donnchadh Mon Jul 03, 2006 02:08

Michael you would probably be better to bow out of this discussion while you still have some dignity left. You obviously know as little about Dutch history and the problems your colonial record is still causing today as you know about Irish history. Most of what you have written here seems to have been picked up in British and O'Reilly family rags. It lacks any coherence or logic and bears little if any relation to the facts. You know the old saying "Charity begins at home?" Well I suggest you start learning something about your own history and do something for its victims - who are still suffering today because of it.

by Michael Mon Jul 03, 2006 00:14

I am serious about my points and will awnser your questions. Although they are out of context.

1 and 2.

The fact that you can not accept protestants (and I don't like their sectarianism either) marching down O'Connell street shows your level of tolerance towards religious minorities on this island of ireland and is evidence enough. The disgraceful stone and bottle throwing gave some indication how you republicans are going to deal with people of other traditions (like them or not is another question) You want everybody to conform to your all ireland agenda. That includes having to learn irish or banning soccer from GAA grounds.

You simply don't have the greatness to tolerate other peoples civil rights. Do you know what the word republic means? The french republic is the opposite to everything you standing for. People in this forum wrote I am excluded from talking about irish issues because I have not read the small print and the real facts about irish history (your historical view of events). Its obvious that SF is going to replace irish with english should they ever control the whole of ireland. Is that not in the green paper. It means forcing minorities to give up their languages too. Its called Irish Cultural Nationalism

3 and 4

I am not speaking for the non-irish population but I am one of them. I have many coloured friends here of whom face racist abuse and ignorance here never experienced in the Netherlands. You want me to be ashamed of my country of origin? Its not my fault what happend over the centuries. The same as I would never blame a young german for the crimes ochestrated by the Nazis. You are lucky not being born in a country that has an imperial past. That is one thing I envy the irish for.

5 and 6

By you I meant you republicans. De valera was involved in the 1916 rising and send also condolences on Hitlers death. He was republican or not? I did not generalize about irish people but specifically meant republicans having sympathies for Hitler and turning a blind eye to his crimes including the holocaust. Of cause I accept that my country the Netherlands has also commited horrific crimes. But I am not a nationalist trying to glorify my country and their colonial past. I am very critical about the past. I never said your politics are insular. What I said was that you republican in-house fighting is petty. And of cause your sectarian googles cloud the view for bigger issues such as the environment, social issues etc. You call me an arrogant yup and anti-irish. It just confirms that anybody not agreeing with your politics is anti-irish. Sinn Fein or RSF =Ireland is that what you saying.

7.

I did bother checking the websites of SF and RSF about issues such as housing, jobs, environment, social issues etc. But all these issues appear of secondary importance. Nationalism is primary.

by D'other Sun Jul 02, 2006 22:37

Sean - the reason I brought up the issue of the February Strikes was because you and others on the thread happily conflate the opinons of Michael with the actions and opinions of past ruling Dutch elites. Thats a mistake, and its the sort of political stupidity that has characterised responses to his arguments on why he would feel more comfortable voting for the legacy of some sort of labour movement than the various splinters of Irish nationalism.

Don't event attempt to suggest the strikes weren't anti-fascist, but just against its excesses. That line won't wash and is an incredible low to stoop to. You'll find the reason there was no open resistance to the Nazis until 1944 and the beginning of sabotage operations and intelligence being passed on to the Allies is rather obvious.

Risking your life to paint "down with Hitler" on a street corner may have seemed like a clever idea in 1941, but when the ruthlessness of German occuaption becomes real - you quickly keep your head down for more serious operations. The same pattern was there in Germany, the KPD lost hundreds of thousands of members in brazen, open mass propaganda operations making the assumption it was operating as an illegal entity under some regime like Bizmarcks - what a mistake.

What did I expect Irish workers to do during the war? Nothing really, but far less than you seem to expect from Michael in relation to travelling back and some how rectifying his own state's colonial legacy.

by Paul Sun Jul 02, 2006 22:21

Bye

by seán Sun Jul 02, 2006 22:16

You are of course right to point out the strike in 1941 - but it's also fair to point out that this was more in response to the activities if _Dutch_ nazis and their bullying and repression of Dutch jews which peaked in the few months before the strike. It was more than nine months after the occupation, so it wasn't because of opposition to the Germans as such. Many of those who ended up in Buchenwald and other places were rounded up at that time. There is no evidence of any serious activity against the occupation from then till the end of the war.

What exactly do you mean that Irish workers should strike against at this time? How would that help?

by seán Sun Jul 02, 2006 22:01

Michael you've made a lot of points to stir things up here, and that's wwlcome if you're serious. However you might prove you're not a troll by answering the following points.

(1) You said "People from other nationalities are accepted in this country by you only as long they follow the party line."

Where is the evidence for this?

(2) You said, "Having to read up on all the history, having to learn the irish language, joining the GAA (and don't play soccer) etc."

Where do you get all this from? The only possible reference to this is the spin PSF is making about having an Irish-speaking leadership, which I have been castigating here. History? GAA? Not playing soccer? Evidence please.
A reading of history migt help you to understand what happened here (just as a knowledge of Labour Party policy might help you decide whether to support them!)

(3) You said "I am dutch living in this country and eligible to vote"

Considering the historical role the Netherlands played in brutal and barbaric colonialism throughout the world, you're hardly in a position to speak for most of the non-Irish in this country.

(4) You say that people here want you to " feel guilty about it and undo the colonial past." You think the colonial past is nothing to be ashamed of?

(5) "The way you treated the jewish refugees during WW2 was disgraceful."
If you mean by "you" the Irish government, I agree. (starnge that you seem willin gto generalise about Irish people form athis shameful, epsiode in hostrory, but you do not want to accept guiolt for Nethrlands fa more horific imperialis past.

(6) "I never said I am pro-colonial or anti-irish."

You certainly displayed that sentiment. You disparaged irish politics as insular and petty (compared to other great nation-states like Netherlands of course), and you have the arrogance to tell people who they should support without even checking their policies, as you admit yourself. Arrogant and insulting - yup, anti-Irish.

(7) You support the Labour party because " they focus on issues such as housing, jobs, environment, social issues etc."

As do boith PSF and RSF. Did you bother to check?

(8) "That's all for me in this forum."

Bye.

by d'other Sun Jul 02, 2006 21:23

You are right Michael, these troglodyte republican trolls are insane, especially the ones inhabiting this trollfest of a thread. Not only are they exposing the national chauvinism that lies behind the thin veneer of their left anti-imperialist rethoric, but they are doing it in a fantastically tribalistic and racist manner. Watch as they conflate the habits and mistakes of ruling elites in a nation's past with the political opinion and responsibility of the inhabitants of that rule. Then there's the accusations of historical ignorance. We may not have sent volunteers to the Wehrmacht, but neither did partake in massive communist led strikes against the occupations like the Dutch in February'41. But sure what would second rate republicans care for working class history? When as this thread shows they are more than happy to conflate nation and class as long as they can still make glib rethorical points about the working class and pose as the non-sequitur inheritors of Connolly and Larkin. I really do pity those left republicans behind the likes of Fourtwrite who have to put up with idiots like ye disgracing their political language.

by mr. politically correct Sun Jul 02, 2006 20:43

Well at least we didn't help round them up and send them to the concentration camps like the Netherlanders - some of the best collaborators in Europe.
Nor did we supply thousands of VOLUNTEERS to the Waffen SS.

by Michael Sun Jul 02, 2006 20:35

That's what I am talking about? People from other nationalities are accepted in this country by you only as long they follow the party line. Having to read up on all the history, having to learn the irish language, joining the GAA (and don't play soccer) etc. I am dutch living in this country and eligible to vote but I am called a troll, pro-british unionist, peeler and now you want me going back in dutch history, feel guilty about it and undo the colonial past. You are insane.

Why don't you undo irelands flirting past with the fascists of Europe. Especially de Valera who send condolences on Hitlers death. The way you treated the jewish refugees during WW2 was disgraceful. You irish have been colaborating with english settlers in Australia by killing aboriginies and colonising their land. You are part of the white man's shamful history too.

I never said I am pro-colonial or anti-irish. I have huge sympathy for Ireland and the struggle against any invaders or oppressors. All I tried to say was to find it hard to vote for SF and RSF because of their sectarian nationalism and my symapathies are with the labour party. As they focus on issues such as housing, jobs, environment, social issues etc. and are not hostage to narrow minded sectarian politics. That's all for me in this forum.

by Donnchadh Sun Jul 02, 2006 19:40

Michael I think your time would be much better spent trying to undo the current problems caused by Holland's disgraceful colonial history than trying to lecture anti-colonial, anti-imperialist groups in Ireland. When you have done that why dont you come back here and tell us how you did it.

by mellow yellow Sun Jul 02, 2006 19:40

Sounds like a real peaceful place ....
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=templ...ry=32

by the fortuynate pimmeltje Sun Jul 02, 2006 19:32

Yes indeed, tell that to Pim Fortuyn or Theo Van Gogh .....
A very peaceful resolution of problems indeed !

And there's a lot more to come because anyone who knows the Netherlands knows how it is simmering below the surface ...

As for not having paramilitary groups, what about the South Moluccan Liberation Army ?
Or are you too young to remember that ?

by Michael Sun Jul 02, 2006 18:54

"Well that explains your problems. Probably suffering from a surfeit of liberal Dutch political correctness. Sadly the ultra-liberal multi-culti polder-model Utopia has taken a bit of a shaking recently. "

At least we don't have paramilitary groups in Holland. I know that you people hate a free society. Because you could not operate there , spreading fear, hate and intimidation. Unfortunately also a multi cultured society comes sometimes under strain due to its complex diversity. But problems are resolved peacefully and your comment shows the level of despise for a diverse and open society. You are just not able to have normal politics.

Next:

"Socialists in Ireland have always contended that the working class in this country does not consist of a protestant working class and a catholic working class. "

That sounds very nice. All nice and simple slogans but what about achieving it?

by tom eile Sun Jul 02, 2006 18:20

Socialists in Ireland have always contended that the working class in this country does not consist of a protestant working class and a catholic working class. We believe that their is one working class in ireland that has been divided by British imperialism in the same way as it artificially divided Hindus and Muslims in India .
Republicans here support the right of the Irish nation to exist and to determine its own fate in the same way as I'm sure you would support the right of Holland to exist as a nation . There are some people who claim to be socialists in Ireland who would have you believe that British imperialism does not exist and that Irish republicanism is responsible for the divisions in Irish society . That is not the case .

by Michael Sun Jul 02, 2006 17:45

You say socialism and a united ireland is the aim of republicans by any means. What does include any means? Killing civilians? And what about socialism? How can you achieve socialism in a united ireland without including the protestant working class of the six counties. Unless you deport or suppress them as Stalin would have done. I am not saying that is what you want. But the phrase by any means necesary is pretty scary.

by GPJ Sun Jul 02, 2006 17:25

Re: Michael

Lots of points on your post which I disagee, yet I'll take it that you've been influenced by the anti-Irish republican propaganda machine.

Learn something of the inclusiveness of irish revolutionary history. Then you'll realise that the aim of republicans is independence and socialism not reactionary religious politics.

A 32 county Irish Workers Republic, by any means necessary.

by Michael Sun Jul 02, 2006 17:04

Even if I would make the effort to study any of the SF or RSF political material. What would I learn?
Anything about bread and butter issues ie. housing, health care, global warming etc.? Or only nationalist and republican rhetoric like how to hate brits and the best way to kill them in order to expand the republic.

Now they want to make irish the offical language of Sinn Fein. Good luck with your recruiting campaign of non-irish nationals. Bad enough having to learn english. Try to tell a chinese or polish person, they have to learn irish in order to join SF. As I said SF is for irish people only. You are the ones that exclude people and like to turn back the clock. With your outlandish reactionary nationalist romantacism. Sitting in that little sectarian bubble of yours.

Someone in this forum wrote that it is strange I am not saying what country I am from. Why is this so important? I am originally from eindhoven in holland. That probably makes me a lutheran orange bastard in your eyes.
I get sick!!!!!!!!!

by Ted Sun Jul 02, 2006 16:33

Seán a chara, as I said, the party is still discussing the matter internally. It's a big project. I apologise for the absence of a progress report in An Phoblacht, but it seems slightly absurd to interpret this as evidence that the whole idea is just "spin". If we were spinning it, you'd have heard more about it lately, wouldn't you think?

by Sharon - Individual Sun Jul 02, 2006 13:14

Michael -

That link you posted as per guidelines removing link to fascist site concerns a different political organisation to the one which I support . I suggest you take up your grievance with them , rather than attempt to try and lay blame on a person who is not a member or supporter of the organisation in question .
If , at this stage , you remain ignorant of the differences between both of those political groupings then you would be well advised to refrain , for now , from futher comment as you are only doing harm to the cause which you purport to espouse .

Sharon .

by Sharon Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:38

Here is an article about how racist sinn fein members are. You can say what you want but I can't imagine any other parties in Ireland (republic) having those kind of members. Binge drinking racist thugs.

removing link to fascist siet containing cut and paste from Evening Hearld - editor No matter how internationist and democratic your leaders like to look on TV. On a grass root level its pure "white catholic irish only" politics. Of course you have some "token foreigners" too. No one knows what you republicans are standing for. One day you are over in the US licking arse there the next day you over in cuba hugging Castro. I have no problem with either but I am really confused about your politics. I am not close to the labour party but for me they are the smaller evil and the clostest thing you can get to a modern socialist party on this island. Not having all this paramilitary stuff going on besides. How can you claim to be socialist by alienating the protestant working class?

by Ted - SF Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:59

Seán, a meeting was held last weekend to discuss how to progress the plan to make Irish the working language of SF. I wasn't at the meeting so I don't know the specifics of what was decided, but it is still very much part of the party's plan.

by Sharon - Individual Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:48

" The labour party is the only party that appeals to me and my non-irish friends."

"I don't know much about Pat Rabitt and what he may said about immigrants."

Michael-
You have posted on this thread about your support for a particular political party and you followed-up that post by admitting that you "don't know much" about where the leader of that party stands in relation to an issue which is important to you . That may count as 'political comment' wherever it is that you come from originally , but we operate by different criteria here ie we attempt to find out the details before making a comment .
For your own sake , Michael , I would suggest you do the same in future . As far as I am concerned , the rest of your comments fall at the same hurdle ie political ignorance .

Sharon.

by Michael Sun Jul 02, 2006 02:01

I don't know much about Pat Rabitt and what he may said about immigrants. But non-irish people find it very hard to connect to parties here that are primarely based on some old civil war politics or feeding on some irrational hatred against the Britain. Where I am from, we are glad that the british army liberated us from the Nazis. I am not trying to defend their unjust actions in Ireland and other former colonies. But all this hatefull backward nationalist rhetoric really does not pull any votes in a modern and changing ireland. You all hate protestants and "brits" today and another time you will hate blacks and asians. At least the labour party with all its sometimes stupid leaders is part of a worldwide labour movement I can relate to. Not hostage to narrow minded sectarian politics of SINN FEIN or RSF. If you people should ever take full power on this ireland, I think its time for anybody not being irish to get the hell out of here.

by Donnchadh Sun Jul 02, 2006 01:37

Given the fortress the EU has built up against "foreigners" getting into it and the obstacles it has emposed on poor countries trading on an equal basis, Im surprised at our EU nationalist has the temerity to cast aspersions on a movement, some of whos members have made the ultimate sacrifice in the fight against imperial ambition. It doesnt seem to occur to Michael that the EU appears to most people in the so called third world as just an updated form of the oppression meted out by EU members such as Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Austria, etc., when they openly espoused their evil terrorist imperialism. "Backward and medieval shit" indeed with the superficial liberal glazing that your Labour party tries to give it. While Sinn Féin Poblachtact maintains associations of solidarity and support with the poorest of the poor all over the world your Labour party merely props up the rotten EU exploitation system which keeps them in poverty.

by Sharon - Individual Sat Jul 01, 2006 23:59

" The labour party is the only party that appeals to me and my non-irish friends."

This link might also appeal to you , Michael -
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75038

Sharon .

by seán Sat Jul 01, 2006 22:27

That's interesting Michael. Perhaps you should check up what Pat Rabbitte, the leader of the Labour Party, said about immigration and about taxing the super-rich. Then call back and tell us how they're so progressive.

by Michael Sat Jul 01, 2006 20:38

I am an EU national living in Ireland and able to vote for the upcoming elections. I find it very hard to vote for any party that claims to be nationalist be it Sinn Fein or RSF. To me its all backward and medival shit. The labour party is the only party that appeals to me and my non-irish friends. They are part of the bigger picture i.e. he european socialist party etc. Beneath your fancy republican talk, you are all right wing anti-foreigner anyway (ie. ireland for irish only).

by Sharon - Individual Fri Jun 30, 2006 21:29

I thought that 'Real continuity provo republican' would have at least attempted to offer some class of an explanation regarding Mr. O Caolain's 'country' comments on 'Newstalk' radio [see above post] : perhaps he/she failed to acquire 'direction' from 'the leadership' re how best to answer !

Sharon .

by Sean Oglach Fri Jun 30, 2006 18:58

It seems, like Gerry in Texas, that Sinn Fein doesn't like awkward questions.

When they eventually become cleansed enough to the satisfaction of the DUP they will take their seats, those nice cosy seats that they so desire they brought Republicanism to it's knees in order to be able to sit on them. They'll put up with the bullying and the backhandedness, trying hard to please and the years will pass by. Meanwhile the scumbag drug dealers, the up and coming Gangsters and other lowlifes will have taken control of our areas and the people will be left to live in fear in their own homes.

Talk of a United Ireland will gradually be discouraged and the Sinn Fein leadership will eventually disappear from the annual commemorations leaving only the C-listers to show their faces until they too disappear.

I won't go on!

by Donnchadh Fri Jun 30, 2006 17:49

What answer could they possibly give? They will administer British rule in Ireland to the best of their abilities.

by Sean Oglach Thu Jun 29, 2006 22:14

I see that no one has decided to answer my question for the politically aware in Sinn Fein.
What happens if and when The DUP allows Sinn Fein into their Government?

This is I'm sure a simple question, so I don't expect a RANT for a reply!

by Donnchadh Thu Jun 29, 2006 21:59

Paul it seems you didnt notice that when Provisional Sinn Fein and PIRA were led by republicans i.e. people like Ruirí Ó Brádaigh, Daithí Ó Chonaill and Máire Drumm, the Brits just referred to them as "provos." Now that New PSF are led by British Constitutionalists the Brits are delighted to refer to them as Sinn Féin. Of course, the Brits feel elated to have bagged Sinn Féin. But they have not bagged Sinn Féin - they have just bagged a latterday Fianna Fáil. The new Brit word for "provo" is "dissident," i.e. someone who give his or her allegiance to the 32 county Republic, not to some botched GFA or otherwise concocted manifestation of British Imperial rule in Ireland.

Ghandi, of course you are not far from the truth. But the Officials did continue to risk the lives of misled volunteers for several years after they turned their back on the Republic and recognised British law in Ireland. They also murdered republicans in the army of the Republic. But I will agree that their crimes were less than those of the Adams/McGuinness mis-leadership. But only in the number of ruined lives not in the fact of cynical waste of life. Once Adams and Co. recognised British law in Ireland, as they did in 1986, they knew quite well that the only logical outcome of this recognision was the participation in British constitutional politics. Within the British constitutional system there is no place for armed struggle, as everybody within that system must recognise and adhere to the precepts and rule of British law. The British system may be changed from within, but it may not be overthrown. Of course, if Adams and Co. had said this honestly in the late eighties they would have been thrown out of leadership straight away. So they used a doomed and castrated armed struggle to mislead the republican heartlands and to silence opposition. If you spoke out against the party line you were accused of undermining the armed struggle. Little by little the New PSF armed wing was run down to the point were it no longer posed a threat to Adams and Co. Then it was scrapped like so much old rubbish. The horrific truth is that all those who died, who spent years in prison and who suffered horrific injuries after 1986, just suffered to ease the Adams/McGuiness leadership into British constitutional politics. The only cause that is worth one drop of blood is the full independance of Ireland and the reinstatement of the 32 county Irish Republic. Bombing London to get a better position in the GFA talks and leverage in Stormont Castle was a vile atrocity in that it risked the lives and liberty of republican volunteers and caused death and injury to civilians.

by Seán Thu Jun 29, 2006 21:42

'Amused' had the following to say:

"Sean Oglach is no gaelgoir:"

'Gaeilgeoir' is the proper spelling. With the 'i' and the capital 'G'.

"You don't understand Gaeilge"

Unlike the average SF member? And, to ask the same question again, to which I got no reply: how's it going with the recently announced idea that the SF leadership would be taking intensive courses in Irish? Bet they're hoping to let that story die away.

"Sean Oglach"? Do you know that it is not proper grammar in the Irish language (Gaeilge)?"

The only thing wrong with it is the absence of a síne fada on the "O" and perhaps the space before it. If that omission was done deliberately by someone else it would show disrespect towards the norms of the language, as some provos here have done with my name. Except for that, it's perfectly good Irish. Methinks you have no idea what you're talking about (what's new?).

If you think it's bad Irish, how would you translate it? Go on give us a laugh.

by Frank Thu Jun 29, 2006 20:19

Sean Oglach says...

"OK a sensible question for the Sinn Feiners.

Paisley and the DUP eventually allow Sinn Fein into their Government.
Start from there... What happens next?"

Real etc says...(Again)

"I have no need to debate with these people"

QED!

by Sean Oglach Thu Jun 29, 2006 19:27

OK a sensible question for the Sinn Feiners.

Paisley and the DUP eventually allow Sinn Fein into their Government.
Start from there... What happens next?

by Barry Thu Jun 29, 2006 19:16

can i maybe add my opinion as someone who was there
It was 20 years ago . The good guys lost , the movement was tricked and led down a reformist path. get over it . Im sorry to say this paticular debate has developed in to a slanging match with nothing more to offer as in the way of insight .
In my opinion anyway but do carry on if youse all must .

by Sean Oglach Thu Jun 29, 2006 19:08

They used to have touts in the IRA of course they did! High ranking touts and how do you know there are no others? Gerry says, perhaps?

Don't go throwing stones in glass houses!

by Paul Thu Jun 29, 2006 18:54

The British war machine always refer to the IRA as PIRA. Some people commenting on this website refer to Sinn Féin as PSF. This shows a change in of focus of strategy for the Brits. They used be at war with the IRA. Now they are at war with Sinn Féin. They used to have touts in the IRA. Now they have agents manipulating the media against Sinn Féin.

Tiocfaidh Ár Lá – Sinn Féin Abú

by Amused Thu Jun 29, 2006 18:44

Sean ask yourself this question:

How do you know that all the comments on Indymedia.ie are not just posted by a team of MI5 agents?

by Sharon - Individual Thu Jun 29, 2006 18:43

By way of high-lighting just how far PSF has strayed from the republican path , I refer readers to a radio interview today (Thursday July 29) on Dublin's 'Newstalk 106FM' (at 1.10PM) with PSF Leinster House member Caoimhghin O Caolain , in which Mr. O Caolain verbally lashed Mary Harney (PD) for her poor showing in attempting to properly organise what Mr. O Caolain described as "...the healthcare system in this country.... " ; then , within the space of a few sentences , he continued on to refer to "...the state of healthcare in this country...." .

Mary Harney has indeed failed to successfully tackle that which she has political responsibility for and that fact has been pointed out by , amongst others , Fianna Fail [backbenchers] , Fine Gael , Labour etc in similar comments to those uttered today by Mr. O Caolain . However , the difference is , or should be if we are to believe the PSF people on this thread , that Fianna Fail , Fine Gael , Labour etc often refer to "this country" when in actual fact they mean this (26 county) State - a partitionist mentally to be expected from a partitionist political party .
Perhaps 'RCPR' or some other PSF member/supporter on this thread can tell me what "country" Mr. O Caolain was referring to , and also tell me what insight into a persons mindset is given when that person refers to this State as a "country" ?

Sharon .

by Sean Oglach Thu Jun 29, 2006 18:39

Right!!! Real Amused Continuity Provo Paul who are you Republican!!! Pick a name and STICK TO IT.... STICK TO IT! OH HO! Sore one!

Who is THIS EVERYBODY?
Do you know Everybody who is typing away on their computers?

I think this EVERYBODY is YOU!

by Barry Thu Jun 29, 2006 18:28

jaysus lads if yous are going to spend a whole thread insulting each other at least do it with a bit of style . This is woeful repetitive stuff .

by Real continuity provo republican Thu Jun 29, 2006 18:19

Poor Sean, I have only used this pseudonom on this thread, the other posters are different people. You obviously still haven't got it EVERYBODY thinks you are a joke, not just me EVERYBODY. I also find it incredibly amusing that your Irish is so bad. But yet again we can expect another moronic post from you go on call me a provo again.

by Sean Oglach Thu Jun 29, 2006 18:13

Another name change? Away and get the Tae for the Gaelic speaker and stop annoying him/her for spellings.

by Amused Thu Jun 29, 2006 18:07

Sean Oglach is paraniod: "Who are You? Real Continuity Provo Republican perhaps?"
Sean Oglach is no gaelgoir: "It's none of your business what my name is!"

Just to let you know, "Cén t-ainm atá ort as Bearla?" means "What is your name in English?"
You don't understand Gaeilge.

Do you not know why you call yourself "Sean Oglach"? Do you know that it is not proper grammar in the Irish language (Gaeilge)?

You "Sean Oglach" must be in RSF because you make me laugh at every comment, you joker!

by The Riddler Thu Jun 29, 2006 18:07

Erm, Sean who books the flights to Washington, London, Brussels, the Basque country, etc,etc...?

by Real continuity provo republican Thu Jun 29, 2006 18:06

Get a grip Sean, you've no political brains, can't come up with any arguments and just repeat the same idiotic bullshit over and over again.

by Sean Oglach Thu Jun 29, 2006 17:58

Well Paul I think that those who hang about the Sinn Fein centers making tea and running messages are actually the only ones doing anything.

by Sean Oglach Thu Jun 29, 2006 17:50

Did one of the elder Sinn Feiners write that bit of Gaelic out for you? It's none of your business what my name is! Away and get the tea on!

by Paul Thu Jun 29, 2006 17:47

Sean Oglach says,

"From observing the comments made on this thread I have come to the conclusion that those of the Provo persuasion are more than likely the ne'er-do-wells who hang about Sinn Fein Centres making the tea and running messages."

You can not counter any arguments against you, so you attack the people making the comments, who you know nothing about. For your information, Sinn Féin centres around Ireland have very busy people working in them. Who do you know "hang about Sinn Fein Centres making the tea and running messages."?

by WTF?? Thu Jun 29, 2006 17:41

Typical RSF reponse. Dont come up with an intelligent argument just call them provo's. oooohhhh what an insult. Great politcal brains there in RSF

by Sean Oglach Thu Jun 29, 2006 17:41

The Sinn Fein Quartermaster must have run out of teabags cause he's back and Ranting!

by Who are you Thu Jun 29, 2006 17:38

Cén t-ainm atá ort as Bearla?

by Real continuity provo republican Thu Jun 29, 2006 17:36

Here we go again somebody attacks RSF and they must be provo's. It's a broken record Sean everybody thinks your a joke, not just the Provo's EVERYBODY. You are a farce, an embarassment, a BIG JOKE.

by Real continuity provo republican Thu Jun 29, 2006 17:34

RSF have been caught out continually lying. If you think they are winning any debate anywhere, let alone on this website, then you really are an absolute idiot. RSF have done nothing but repeat the same old lies and try to put words in people's mouths. It is really no wonder that everybody thinks you are an absolute joke. No threat politically and the CIRA are no threat militarily. RSF are nothing but a big joke for everybody else to laugh at.

by Sean Oglach Thu Jun 29, 2006 17:29

And who are you? Maybe if you understood Gaelic you would know what Sean Oglach meant!
Typical Provo response calling names when you have no argument to put across.

And Na-Na-Na to you!!!

by Who are you Thu Jun 29, 2006 17:13

Are you in the DUP, Mi5 or what???

What type of a name is "Sean Oglach"???

by Sean Oglach Thu Jun 29, 2006 16:58

From observing the comments made on this thread I have come to the conclusion that those of the Provo persuasion are more than likely the ne'er-do-wells who hang about Sinn Fein Centres making the tea and running messages.

Their arguments consist of Na-Na-Na-Na! Get the last word in, even if it's idiotic and childish. As for the moron who keeps wishing happy birthday to RSF, maybe he just likes birthday parties.

Those who are putting up arguments against the Provos are winning the debate hands down because they stick to the facts and Sinn Fein have given them enough rope with which to hang their apologists.

by Frank Thu Jun 29, 2006 15:14

Padraig states...

"History will not repeat itself. Do you know why? Sinn Féin won't let it."

Please tell me you see the magnificent irony in this statement. Please!

by Padraig Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:49

Donnchadh says,

"In 1970 the young people turned to the old timers who had kept the torch burning through the lean years of the thirtys, forties and fifties. These brave men and women had endured hungerstrikes, internment, state assassination squads, the defections of egoists who grabbed the easy profits of bowing to British rule, and the constants taunts by the establishment and the defectors that their time was past and that they were irrelevant. History repeats itself."

This tells us that RSF are the careerists. They, with the help of British agents inside and outside their group, are trying to let the next generation of young Irish people suffer at the hands of British tyranny again. The dissidents are an absolute disgrace. History will not repeat itself. Do you know why? Sinn Féin won't let it.

Ireland has been under the control of Britain for over 800 years. The last 80 is no different. Every time Irish people rose for freedom, they were crushed. This is because Britain is well versed in destroying whole generations. Just look at the empire they controlled. Through that empire they manipulated and exploited the world. The effects are still clear today as they were at the height of that terror.

What the majority of Irish people understand is that when our children are allowed to be educated, they can contribute to the struggle for freedom and continue the struggle by raising future generations. That is the struggle brought into a practical view of the long term strategy.

The majority of Irish people also understand that the Brits know this and try to destroy the future generation through conflict. After all, the conflicts happen in Ireland giving the English people plenty of peace to raise their own children.

This is why I am confused about who controls these small dissident groups.

by Real continuity provo republican Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:05

Frank shows yet again that he has the intellect of a child. Watching doesn't understand words, showing another RSF idiot's intellect to be the same as a toddler. Donnchadh continues with his complete drivel, keep on spouting it, you still make me and everyone else laugh. Sharon continues to try and put words in other people's mouths, the reason being she is incapable of getting across decent arguments of her own. Sharon you dont understand politics so don't try and insinuate that I am a careerist, its such a pathetic and completely untrue argument. But then again you dont have the intelligence so I shouldn't waste my time with you, you are after all a complete waste of space. The jokers of RSF continue to make absolute idiots of themselves and prove themselves to have the intellect of toddlers.

Keep on spouting crap bar stool republicans, keep on posting stuff to make us all laugh. Its not as if you have a valuable contribution to make to the national struggle or any social struggle.
And finally: Happy 20th Birthday RSF, Revisionist Sinn Fein. Your only bar stool republicans, supported by far right bigots. Racists and morons is the tiny and irrelevant bit of support you pathetic people have.

by Ghandi Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:52

Donnchadh says

"if not completely merged with Fianna Fáil like the first stickies are with Labour, perhaps with Adams as the FF leader"

While this is a very likey scenario, comparing it with the Sticks in this regard is wrong, an elitest careerist group left WP and ended up in Labour. These people in the main where those attracted in through the colleges etc., and were only intent on power one way or another.

As you are aware the Sticks are still there. One of the things that can be said in their favour is they set out on a political path whether one agrees with it or not, and did not see the need to send thousands of our young men and women to jails or graves, (with the exception of the various feuds and pograms) and to continue in a war which has left 3,500 dead, and has left us with a deal that is far worse than that which was available at Sunningdale.

by Frank Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:48

Real etc says...

"Any chance of a decent argument?"

Real etc replies...

"Any chance of a decent argument?"

Real etc says...

"Any chance of a decent argument?"

Frank concludes...

"Great analytical skills there frank, its the logic of a toddler. Any chance of a decent argument? I think not."

by Watching 'Real Continuity Provo' Embarrass Himself Thu Jun 29, 2006 07:08

Clearly, 'Real Continuity Provo' is oblivious to the meaning of 'revisionism' (just as he is oblivious to the meaning of republicanism).

by Donnchadh Thu Jun 29, 2006 03:31

The really interesting thing is that no New PSF enthusiasts have tried to refute any of the facts and figures in the above article. We've had some mindless slagging from one individual but that's it. Its twenty years now since the attempted hijacking of the Republican Movement. Of course, it was a great setback for Irish Republicanism, but the important thing is that the unbroken continuity with 1916 and the second, all Ireland, Dáil Éireann, and right back to Wolfe Tone was preserved for the next generation. And let nobody be fooled by the New PSF spin and propaganda. When your suffering in a rotten British dungeon or enduring the hardships of revolutionary activity, knowing that you stand on the two hundred year old bedrock of Irish Republicanism, and on the legal authority of the second Dáil, is a mighty comfort and inspiration. In ten years time New PSF will have been completely absorbed into the British partitionist system, if not completely merged with Fianna Fáil like the first stickies are with Labour, perhaps with Adams as the FF leader. He is already well practiced in hijacking political parties. A new generation is already starting to reject the abjectness of New PSF. When they fully back the British colonial Police and begin to take the PSNI's side against nationalist youth, they will become utterly despised. In 1970 the young people turned to the old timers who had kept the torch burning through the lean years of the thirtys, forties and fifties. These brave men and women had endured hungerstrikes, internment, state assassination squads, the defections of egoists who grabbed the easy profits of bowing to British rule, and the constants taunts by the establishment and the defectors that their time was past and that they were irrelevant. History repeats itself.

by Sharon - Individual Thu Jun 29, 2006 01:31

I obviously hit a nerve ! *
You wrote -
More revisionism abounds from you Sharon. I did not use the term dissident yet you claim that I do. Just point to one quote where I said it, you are an absolute liar.
I take it then that you do not consider RSF to be a 'dissident' republican organisation ?

This is just a continuation of you people making stuff up about people you disagree with. Nowhere in Adams quote did it say anything about merely tweaking the constituion, that is you yet again making stuff up.
Gerry Adams stated that PSF wanted "maximum constitutional change ..." ie the present constitution , just 'tweaked' . Why do you feel the need to defend the man when he is looking for something which you , yourself (apparently?) do not agree with ?

Its pretty pathetic at this stage that you keep on being caught lying. And all this careerist bullshit, you are pee brained bar stool republicans, I have a job and have no interest in any parliament but you numbskulls can't get that into your tiny little brains.
* You have made it obvious that you will follow the man , rather than the policy : you are what those you admire in constitutional politics would regard as 'a safe pair of hands' and will be duly rewarded for your 'yes-manship' in time . You will eventually latch-on to a PSF coat-tail and will , one day , tell your grandchildren all about your 'career' on the world stage in the service of 'republicanism' : in other words , you will , sir/madam , 'dine for Ireland' !

You offer absolutely no analysis whatsoever apart from provo bashing drivel, you are a waste of internet space. You are not republicans, you are just right wing conservative liars. Pathetic liars.
Like Martin's friend , Henry Kissinger , you mean ?

Sharon .

by Willie Nilly Wed Jun 28, 2006 23:41

Wasn't De Valera about to face the firing squad after 1916 and didn't he go on to hang Republicans when he got to power?

Power corrupts and the thought of it has corrupted Adams!

by Sean Oglach Wed Jun 28, 2006 23:35

Sure didn't Gerry and Martin go to Hillsborough to give credence to George Bush when he was about to bomb the Civilian population of Iraq to Kingdom come.

George needn't worry about problems landing his torture flights in Shannon if Gerry is the future Taoiseacht.

by straight talking Wed Jun 28, 2006 23:30

According to RSF Adams is a careerist. Now in this careerist plan of Adams he joined Sinn Fein instead of the SDLP. In this plan he was interned and shot. In this plan he spent years undermining the republican movement for his own ends. Give it a break RSF if the man was such a careerist why the feck wouldn't he have joined a careerist party like the SDLP straight away and saved himself a lot of bother. Give us a break RSF come up with some decent politics and talk about that rather than some conspiracy theory bullshit. People are right, you are a joke.

by interested Wed Jun 28, 2006 23:21

I'd be interested in the tape. How would I get it? I would be able to put it up on this website

by Sean Oglach Wed Jun 28, 2006 23:16

In the 25 years since the Hunger Strikes there has been a steady decline and erosion of Republicanism, brought about by the opportunistic Adams who after the election of Bobby, saw for himself, the possible chance to rise to the dizzy heights of a John Hume, feted in the halls of power by the Great and the Greedy.

Shame on those who remain silent. Perhaps fearful of their jobs in Provisional Sinn Fein Plc.

by Seán Wed Jun 28, 2006 23:02

There is an interesting thread here with PSF members claiming they are socialists. For anybody who is interested, a friend of mine attended a conference in San Antonio, Texas, where Gerry Adams was main speaker. There were any number of Gerry-groupies present but during question time afterwards, one "dissident" asked the awkward question, what Gerry Adams thought would be the agenda for a socialist prospect after the GFA agreement. Now you gotta admire Gerry, he rarely gets thrown, but this happened then. He stuttered, he actually went red in the face and then he accused the questioner of being "benign imperialist" (whatever that means), then explained to his audience that he preferred to see SF as "sort of Republican Labour". That was in 1998 or thereabouts. Now there isn't any way way you can construe this as socialism.

Oh and I can indeed substantiate this. I have it on tape. Anybody want copies? I have a few blank tapes to spare so it would be no problem to send a few to any interested parties within reason. I haven't been involved politically since 1986 (disillusioned) but I'd say somebody else could use it.

by Seán Wed Jun 28, 2006 22:44

Again, the good old PSF party hacks are chanting the mantra: "dissidents bad, Stormont good" to the exclusion of facts and reason.

No "watching Seán" it would be difficult for me to substantiate my account of what happened, except that anybody who was there would know that - one thing is certain, you weren't. You certainly weren't there in 1978 either - I was. That's when Gerry Adams was elected vice-president. I attended every Ard-Fheis from 1971 to 1986 so yes I do know what I'm talking about.

BTW I notice you can't do me the courtesy of putting a "fada" on my name. Do you have a problem with that? Feel uncomfortable with that sort of stuff?

by real continuity provo republican Wed Jun 28, 2006 22:16

Great analytical skills there frank, its the logic of a toddler. Any chance of a decent argument? I think not. As for Sean oglach, mere repitition of idiotic points. Sinn Fein members are sheep, wow you convinced many people there. Maybe RSF will double their pathetic numbers now. Will any RSF member actually come on this website and give a decent argument or will they constantly repeat the same crap? Its clear what the answers are. More things for everyone outside of micro republicans to laugh at.

by Frank Wed Jun 28, 2006 21:16

Real continuity etc really has a knack for self exposure. Consider, he begins with...

"Regurgitating the same old crap"

and then fodders off it...

"Somebody points out the inherent idiocy in your arguments. They must be provo's. Not only are they provo's but they are dupe's for careerist leaders. I am no dupe Frank which is why I point out the moronic arguments made by micro republican groupings. Also I am anti authoritarian and have a distrust of all leaders. But of course we can expect the usual amusing comments from the micro republicans of "provo this, careerist that, traitors this, brit agents that, blah blah, everybodys a dupe except us, we know it all, 1986.....f" and then their foaming at the mouth begins."

Touche!

by Sean Oglach Wed Jun 28, 2006 20:18

I think that the saddest part of the whole inexcusable direction that Adams & McGuinness have taken the Party formerly known as Republicans, is that so many have and are following them blindly, going where Republicans would never would have dared go were it not for the fact that they were now leading sheep who bleat at the merest criticism of their masters.

This is why Sinn Fein will succeed in becoming the largest and most corrupt Political Party in all Ireland because their followers like those in other Parties do what they are told without question.

Our day has gone....Again!

by real continuity provo republican Wed Jun 28, 2006 18:25

More revisionism abounds from you Sharon. I did not use the term dissident yet you claim that I do. Just point to one quote where I said it, you are an absolute liar. This is just a continuation of you people making stuff up about people you disagree with. Nowhere in Adams quote did it say anything about merely tweaking the constituion, that is you yet again making stuff up. Its pretty pathetic at this stage that you keep on being caught lying. And all this careerist bullshit, you are pee brained bar stool republicans, I have a job and have no interest in any parliament but you numbskulls can't get that into your tiny little brains. You offer absolutely no analysis whatsoever apart from provo bashing drivel, you are a waste of internet space. You are not republicans, you are just right wing conservative liars. Pathetic liars.

by Sharon - Individual Wed Jun 28, 2006 17:57

Sharon, I must criticise your blogspot. Is there anything on it that is from recent times rather than republishing articles from years ago. From a brief glance of it there doesn't appear to be much (in fact any) analysis on it from yourself, which is understandable as your analysis is pretty awful.
We do , occasionally ,offer analysis , depending on the article in question . The blog itself was not set-up to cover material from recent times , as should be evident from the blogs title ! And the 'analysis' offered by those like yourself in attempting to portray PSF as 'republican' is "pretty awful" , as one would expect , given the impossible task undertaken .

While I oppose the use of the term dissident, I also oppose stupid statements like the one above, it merely reinforces peoples perceptions of you people being off the wall and only interested in mindless provo bashing.
Yet it was yourself that used that term to describe RSF . You hypocrite . Re "provo bashing" - republicans have always attempted to [verbally] politically "bash" those that left republicanism to enter Leinster House , and that is what is happening on this thread .

As for Adams statement, "maximum constitutional change" is exactly what many socialists want.
But how many republicans do you know that have fought simply to 'tweak' the present constitution , as PSF seek , compared to those who fight to do away with the present constitution altogether ? Do you not recognise that there is a difference ?

The problem with all you micro republicans is that you have no politics apart from the brits out, provo bashing slogans that you constantly spout on the internet. Your politics are awful and belong in a pub for drunken bar stool peace time soldiers.
So now we are "micro-republicans" , not "dissidents" ? ! Thank you for the up-grade . And I truly hope you achieve your own up-grade someday - an office job in Leinster House . Or Stormont , perhaps . Or even Westminster !
You rebel you ... !

Sharon .

by Watching Sean Wed Jun 28, 2006 16:38

Interesting and completely untrue version of events there Sean. Also plenty of unsubstantiated allegations. Is this all we can expect from RSF, revisionist lies? What next in 10 years time we will hear the same false allegations that 32csm people were excluded from the Ard Fheis dealing with the GFA. Your post is just the same old tired, and completely untrue, version of events. You sad people just can't take it that you lost the vote so instead have to make up bullshit, why don't you go and talk to somebody who was actually there rather than inventing pathetic lies. By the way who do you think was party president in 1978? Adams was interned in 1978, get your facts even a little straight. Revisionist Sinn Fein, thats what you should be called.

by real continuity provo republican Wed Jun 28, 2006 16:00

Regurgitating the same old crap. Somebody points out the inherent idiocy in your arguments. They must be provo's. Not only are they provo's but they are dupe's for careerist leaders. I am no dupe Frank which is why I point out the moronic arguments made by micro republican groupings. Also I am anti authoritarian and have a distrust of all leaders. But of course we can expect the usual amusing comments from the micro republicans of "provo this, careerist that, traitors this, brit agents that, blah blah, everybodys a dupe except us, we know it all, 1986.....f" and then their foaming at the mouth begins.

by Frank Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:37

The problem with this incessant fixation with the 1986 Ard Fheis is its sterility and its uncanny ability to make opportunist clowns like real continuity etc. come across as persons of political ability. They're not. They're unthinking fodder for their leaderships ambitions, ambitions which are now firmly set within a partitionist framework. It's quite sad really........both, that is!

by Real continuity provo republican Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:40

Sharon, I must criticise your blogspot. Is there anything on it that is from recent times rather than republishing articles from years ago. From a brief glance of it there doesn't appear to be much (in fact any) analysis on it from yourself, which is understandable as your analysis is pretty awful. Saying silly things like "Your use of the term 'dissident' , on loan to you from Westminster , "can only help British propaganda ."" While I oppose the use of the term dissident, I also oppose stupid statements like the one above, it merely reinforces peoples perceptions of you people being off the wall and only interested in mindless provo bashing. RSF are irrelevant and are no threat politicaly, CIRA are no threat miltarily why would most people care what you are called. As for Adams statement, "maximum constitutional change" is exactly what many socialists want. Are you trying to suggest that whatever conservative state we would all live in under RSF, if they somehow managed to take power, wouldn't have a constituion? The problem with all you micro republicans is that you have no politics apart from the brits out, provo bashing slogans that you constantly spout on the internet. Your politics are awful and belong in a pub for drunken bar stool peace time soldiers.

by No revisionism Wed Jun 28, 2006 07:35

"One of Many" said:
"I know who I would join if I wanted to contribute to the long struggle for freedom", and proceeded to provide a link to the Provisional political party.
"...if I wanted to contribute..."
Why do you not want to contribute?
Since you don't want to contribute to the struggle for freedom, I would agree that the Provisional Movement may very well be the proper path for you.

by Sharon - Individual Wed Jun 28, 2006 00:11

PSF are "building" a constitutional political party , not a republican one.
Your use of the term 'dissident' , on loan to you from Westminster , "can only help British propaganda ."
Regarding "infiltration" - PSF are in no position to attempt to lecture on that issue .
You stated that you know who you would join if you wanted "to contribute to the long struggle for freedom" : however , in an interview with 'The Irish News' newspaper on Thursday , July 17 , 1997 , Gerry Adams stated that the aim of PSF was to achieve "maximum constitutional change and a renegotiation of the union. "
"Freedom" ?

Sharon .

by One of many Sinn Féin supporters Tue Jun 27, 2006 23:37

Sinn Féin is building Republicanism all around Ireland and is gathering support for the struggle from the International community.
Dissidents have no support in Ireland and outside of our communities they are portrayed as criminals and "terrorist-type murders" - This can only help the British Propaganda.

Sinn Féin is lead by the Irish people for the Irish people.
Dissidents can be and are easily infiltrated so they can be manipulated and controlled to carryout actions to the benefit of British Propaganda.

I know who I would join if I wanted to contribute to the long struggle for freedom.

by seán Tue Jun 27, 2006 21:55

I was at the 1986 Ard-Fheis. I had been a delegate for a north Dublin cumann but I was replaced 2 weeks previous to the Ard Fheis, against the rules for selecting delegates. It was a weird time when people who were previously friends suddenly acted and talked like robots, like Stepford Wives, and no debate was accepted within cumainn on the issues that were to be raised at that Ard-Fheis. I call that time the depoliticisation of Sinn Féin - at cumann level as well as Comhairle Cheantair Átha Chliath there was no rational arguments but forward for removing the existing policies, it was merely "the army says this" or "we've got to support the army", etc. etc, and the two unsubstantiated abuse removed by editor Charlie McGlade and Joe Cahill would be dragged in to give their bit on politics they didn't understand.

I knew what was happening then of course, because I had been a member of Óglaigh na hÉireann previously and know that the army occasionally issues a directive to volunteers who are in Sinn Féin to vote a certain way. It was plain and obvious within my cumann and confirmed by some friends who remained friends afterwards, that an army block vote operated.

There was even an effort to block me going through the doors of the Ard-Fheis! I got through thanks to the inefficiency of the door security. When I was inside, some of my erstwhile friends were angry I was there. I didn't talk to them and they didn't talk to me. Sad paranoiacs.

Incidentally, the build up to all this started sometime in 1978, (you'll note, long before the hunger strikes), when Sinn Féin organisers (salaried by the army) began to muffle all references to the Éire Nua programme - and whatever you might think about that policy, it was the democratically agreed policy of Sinn Féin at that time. It was simply that Adams & Co had taken a decision to remove that policy. Ironically, their argument at that time was that it was a "sop to loyalism"! Look at these guys now!

There's so much I could write about that time but that's about it for now.

Hey "comrades" - how's the policy of a Gaeilge-speaking leadership going? Yeah that's what I guessed - forgotten. Good spin at the time though.

by Sharon - Individual Tue Jun 27, 2006 20:36

"Constitutional nationalists should by now have realised that there is no British solution , there is no partitionist solution and that a new and imaginative approach is required . "
-AP/RN , 30 May 1991 , page 14 .

One particular poster on this thread is apparently of the opinion that Stormont and Leinster House offer that "new and imaginative approach" .
Ni seoinini sinn go leir !

Sharon .

"Far right bigot" . With Mr. Kissinger !

by Real continuity provo republican Tue Jun 27, 2006 19:39

Poor Sean. I have no need to debate with these people. These people are intellectualy challenged and are trying to reinvent history. Once again for you slow learning people in RSF. A vote was taken, you lost and then went off to form a new party. This party, RSF, is as irrelevant today as it was back then. Such clowns, you are similar to the lads who deny the holocaust, not surprisingly since you get a lot of support from far right bigots.

by sean mcintyre Tue Jun 27, 2006 19:32

This individual has shown that he is completely unable to engage in debate in any form. He clearly is unable to refute any of salient points made within the article. Instead, he trolls. If anything the posts by this sad sack has shown that RSF view of events is most likely the truthful "side of the story".

by real continuity provo republican Tue Jun 27, 2006 19:26

Still repeating your nonsense. Nobody cares, even less people actually believe your nonsense. 20 years of your party and this is the best you can come up with. As for section 31 why would anybody want to keep your irrelevant party quiet when you provide people with such amusement. Also you have refused to comment on your fan club from scumfront and other assorted far right bigots, why is this? trying to keep this quiet are you?

Once again everybody sing along Happy 20th birthday RSF. 20 years of irrelevancy, 20 years after they lose a vote they still can't accept the democratic decision. You lost a democratic vote. TS now go off and try and sell somebody, somewhere a paper.

by Donnchadh Tue Jun 27, 2006 19:07

Its telling that the New PSF enthusiasts who actually have half a brain have stayed silent on this matter, guess they hope that it will go away. But anybody who is interested in how Adams and McGuiness will behave if they ever get into any sort of colonial adminstration would do well to reflect on their behaviour in 1986 when they couldnt get their way by legal means. Expect more of the same. Many people have asked whats the difference between DeValera, Collins and Sean McBride and then MacGiolla, Golding and Adams. There is a big difference. Collins and DeValera entered the British partition system as idealists but quickly were corrupted by power. McBride entered with ideals, tried to keep those ideals but soon found himself outside the free state loop pricisely because he tried to retain his ideals. MacGiolla and Golding had already compromised themselves with their dirty dealing in Sinn Féin but despite all retained a small amount of idealism that also turned out to be too much for the Free State system. They too found themselves spat out of the system without much delay. Adams, on the other hand was totally corrupt and hungry only for power in itself long before 1986. No doubt he and his minions will fit in very well in Leinster House and Stormont. How long before they are calling for the reintroduction of Section 31 to silence the Republican Movement.

by Real continuity provo republican Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:40

Thats it boys keep repeating your nonsense. Everyone who laughs at you is a provo, despite the fact that its not true. Keep repeating untruths about the 1986 Ard Fheis as some moron might believe you. Once again the reality is a vote was taken, you lost and then walked out. If Adams was expelled for discussing that motion then so was the 12 RSF boys aswell. Another reality is nobody gives a shit what you boys say. Your completely irrelevant, your a joke. All you do is Provo bashing, the fascists at scumfront like you, other assorted far right bigots like you aswell which shows exactly where your politics are. You are peace time soldiers irrelevant to the national stuggle and completely irrelevant to any social struggles aswell. Keep on posting on the internet boys its the only thing you morons are any good for.

Happy 20th Birthday RSF. 20 years of doing absolutely nothing!

by no revisionism Tue Jun 27, 2006 07:00

Real - whatever your name is - Real ignorant,
The only thing irrelevant is the Provisional Movement. Their political party is now nothing more than the Stoops with a more interesting history and less integrity. You know it. Most of that movement and its supporters know it. But you stick your heads in the sand and talk about a legacy you and your party have forsaken. The ones you are really arguing with are yourselves. Keep it up. Maybe if you keep repeating your nonsense, you may, someday, actually convince yourself that it contains some truth.

by Donnchadh Tue Jun 27, 2006 02:29

The really tragic thing is that Real Continuity Provo or whatever he calls himself is a perfect example of what New PSF now have for activists. If they havent got a mantra written out for them by their puppet masters they go all haywire. This is what happens when a group of dissidents leave the bedrock of republican ideology, built up over two hundred years of sacrifice and hard experiance, and opt for the cult of the charismatic leader, who inevitably turns out to be a master just as bad as the one he started out to destroy.

by Willy Nilly Mon Jun 26, 2006 23:47

Keep typing Real idiotic, Curious Provo & whatever else, the boys in White coats are coming for you!
I'm away to type with someone with even a titter of brains about them?

by real continuity provo republican Mon Jun 26, 2006 22:17

Nobody asked you anything wily nilly. Also I am not arguing with you. I wouldn't argue with a child and I consider you people below the intelligence of most children. You are absolutely irrelevant people, you make me and everybody else laugh with your delusions. As for politics.ie there you go thats proved it for me, you people are more moronic than I thought if you think some anonymous poster on that website means anything. It shows the lack of depth of your political awareness.

But once again comradely 20th birthday greetings to our irrelvant clowns in RSF. Leading nobody nowhere fast and yet still persisting in calling everyone who disagree's with them a provo. Old men and peace time soldiers the few of you.

by disgrace Mon Jun 26, 2006 21:44

on politics.ie, a member of the provos was asked did he support the british police in Ireland, and did he support former Republicans (provos) joining said police and arresting/shooting Republicans.

His answer:

" really don't think it is that much of an issue. I oppose these groups so it is not something which would concern me"

That is where the provisional movement is at, a cairde. They are no longer anything resembling Republicans. They too are the enemy.

by Willie Nilly Mon Jun 26, 2006 21:43

Real Continuity Provo Republican seems to be a Real Eejit if you ask me! What passes for argument is Garbled ranting!

By the way what have Sinn Fein to show for 101 yrs of existence?

by real continuity provo republican Mon Jun 26, 2006 21:19

You people make me laugh yet again. Anybody who criticises you is a provo according to the deluded little world you live on. Get this you people EVERYBODY thinks you are a joke. According to your outlook the whole of Ireland apart from the irrelevant and tiny RSF are provo's because they laugh at you boys. Keep it up you continue to make me laugh.

Happy 20th birthday RSF. 20 years of absolute irrelevancy. 20 years of absolutely no valued contribution to Irish life. 20 years of hilarity.

by Willie Nilly Mon Jun 26, 2006 21:13

Donnchadh, Just read your bit about the 1986 Ard Fheis. Great stuff! Ignore the New Sticks! I must say one thing however, I don't believe that the Dissident Republicans are going to achieve anything because by their acceptance of Brit Rule, their Surrender of weapons and their summery dismissal of the Army the Provos have ensured that never again will there be any sort of successful resistance to Britain in Ireland.

It's fortunate that the Provos haven't as yet any input to Policing because if they did you would find things a lot worse than they already are! They would probably reintroduce Internment!

As for those who find your statements very funny. That's hilarious coming from a party who gave the DUP such a good laugh when they nominated Paisley as first Minster.

by Real continuity provo republican Mon Jun 26, 2006 18:07

Unluckily for you I have read Freud, my opinions of his writings aren't relevant to this pretty irrelevant thread. Politics is important to me I never claimed it didn't, what you fail to understand is that everybody thinks RSF are a joke. We also laugh at the Sparts, Peoples Democracy and other assorted jokers. You fail to understand that after 20 years RSF are still considered completely irrelevant and a bunch of cranks. People consider RSF as just a bunch of bar stool republicans, peace time soldiers if you will. Its not as if there is any evidence that the CIRA are in any way a "military threat" or that RSF are a "political force". But please please please keep on posting, you provide us with a constant supply of amusement. Why don't you call me a traitor?

Happy 20th Birthday to RSF. Where will I send the birthday cake to?

by Donnchadh Mon Jun 26, 2006 17:51

And what did the 20,000 people turn up for? A place in her majesty's British Government in the six occupied counties? The honour of administering her Majesty's British rule in Ireland? Joining her Majesty's British Colonial Police in Ireland and telling PIRA volunteers to give themselves up to the PSNI as Adams has recently done? Sounds like a really effective way to get Her Majesty to leave us. I guess if RSF dumped all its principes and tailored its policy to the latest opinion poll then it could get 20,000 people to waste their time in a field too.

Its obvious you have never read Freud. All psychological studies show that people only make jokes about whats most important to them.

by Real continuity provo republican Mon Jun 26, 2006 17:06

Tut tut tut. We talk about you for a laugh, your statements are very very funny, you know a group of friends relaxing talking about things they find hilarious. Also this isn't PSF members this is people from all different persuasions. And as for the demo's. Sinn Feins local area demo's pull in more people than RSF can manage at their national demos. There was 20,000 people at the Make Partition History Rally. RSF wouldn't be able to organise anything on the scale of that. APRN's sales have increased, not decreased in recent years. RSF's paper contains nothing but Provo bashing. RSF is completely irrelevant. All its members seem to do these days is go onto to websites and say "we're the real Sinn Fein, Adams broke the constitution, blah blah blah". Here's the reality, a vote was taken, you lost, 12 or 16 people walked out.
Happy 20th Birthday RSF

by Donnchadh Mon Jun 26, 2006 16:57

First you say nobody cares about my opinions, then you say that you and your friends have been talking about them. I guess talking about things you dont care about is the New PSF way. And of course I dont attack Sinn Féin at all. If you read my article it is totally in support of Sinn Féin and its unbroken constitution. And talking about newspapers - does anybody actually buy An Phoblacht since War News ended? I doubt the New PSF enthusiasts who actually buy it bother to read it as they know exactly what will be in any edition months before it is written. As for the "huge" New PSF demonstrations - groups like gay rights, the trade unions and the Legion of Mary get far bigger crowds.

by Real continuity provo republican Mon Jun 26, 2006 15:57

Not at all. Your obsessive nature amuses the hell out of me and everyone I have talked to about it. All RSF do is try and bash Sinn Fein. Its very very amusing. Revisionists abound in irrelevant micro republican groupings. So hows the paper sales going? Any "big" demos planned?

by Donnchadh Mon Jun 26, 2006 14:15

You seem very upset for someone who dosnt care about it.

by Real continuity provo republican Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:27

Once again the irrelevant and obsessed RSF are trying to reinvent history. Not content with having lost a vote at the 1986 Ard Fheis, they now attempt to reinvent history. The 12 or 16 people who walked out of the Ard Fheis that year left to set up a party. They lost the vote as 2/3rds voted to accept the motion as is required by the Sinn Fein constitution. Now during the 20th anniversary of RSF all that the irrelevant RSF members do is attempt to reinvent history by attacking Sinn Fein. Get over it lads, nobody cares what you think, you are irrelevant and a completely useless organisation. You have no popular support. Keep on attacking Sinn Fein, nobody honestly gives a crap what you think.

by pesky truth Mon Jun 26, 2006 07:12

Donnchadh, a chara,
You've got some nerve disturbing the revisionist fantasyland that the Provisional Movement and their supporters have constructed!

Good post.