IRSP: SOLIDARITY WITH THE EZLN ON THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THEIR ARMED RISING

by Mankind Fri Jan 02, 2004 03:36

Subcomandante Marcos, the boul' Dessie O'Hare. Sure what's the difference?

by housewives favorites Fri Jan 02, 2004 11:37

Subcommandente Marcos and Dessie O hare, they're both gorgeous and housewives favourites too.

by bd Fri Jan 02, 2004 16:29

If they did they would find that they began their uprising with the support of the population.

They have rejected classical marxist/maoist bullshit.

They have sought to incorporate democratic structures in their organisation.

Can the IRSP claim the above applies to them.

The IRSP and the INLA have no mandate from anyone.

The IRSP are marxist narco terrorists.

The INLA and IRSP hardly have democratic structures apart from defending their drug pushing turf.

by United capitalist c**t front collapses Fri Jan 02, 2004 18:24

I don't think the above peeler tout should be taking the moral highground, seeing as the NIO and brit government have for years backed LVF/'C'company loyalist narco terrorists who have sold hard drugs to their working class communties. And lets not forget the CIA and contras, crack cocaine importers.

by Mankind Fri Jan 02, 2004 20:08

In fairness to the peeler I doubt his or her point is to endorse the likes of the CIA and LVF but rather point out the lack of similarities between comedy outfits like the IRSP and the INLA (black comedy I admit) to the EZLN. I even doubt bd is a peeler but I'm sure you just mean that as a term of abuse unless, that is, you're living in the past.

As a matter of fact the CIA would probably justify U.S. foreign policy by saying something like: "war brings circumstances with it that changes our normal concept of morality." Sounds like something Bush or the peeler Blair would say in response to the accusation that they flout the mythical international law we often hear lamented. In fact though these are the words of the all new Dessie O'Hare.

The new O'Hare has also made references to 'just wars' (like the one the INLA fought without popular support, as pointed out by bd). Who else fights 'just wars' without popular support? Bush and Blair, that's who.

I'm not going to say they should keep Dessie inside though. When those war mongerers whose rationalisations do bear similarities to the INLA (ie. Bush and the peeler Blair and NOT the EZLN) are walking free why should Dessie be incarcerated?

by Jenny B Fri Jan 02, 2004 21:10

Peelers are living in the past, they have failed consistently to move out of their entrenched sectarian snobbiness. Lets us not forget the Continuity RUC's, high profile on indymedia uk. Where any criticism of unionist stallwart establishment holy cows such as Basil McIvor's precious peeler son Johnathan was met with typical continuity RUC death threats. The murders of human rights solicitors Rosemary Nelson, and Pat Finucane, under the direction of RUC special branch. The british governments continued failure to embrace open and transparent policing practises with regard to the Corry report. That is why Sinn Fein who have consistently demanded the abolishment of the present RUC/PSNI, and the formation of a more accountable, transparent, unarmed and open police force did so well in the recent elections. Whose living in the past?

by Mankind Sat Jan 03, 2004 00:08

Fair enough points Jenny B but I don't think the INLA are part of the solution that's all. It seems to me that present day politics equals gang warfare, global or local, no matter what the origin. The suffering of the everyday people caught in the crossfire is used as an excuse by the profiteering weapon weilding terrorists, from Bush down. Violence breeds violence, as has been well proven in my observation.
I do recognise injustice but don't recognise further injustice as a cure.

by chief cuntstable derek bulldog bullroot Sat Jan 03, 2004 14:25

The INLA have been on ceasefire for 5 years now, unlike the RUC who flaunt their weapons and arms in our faces, and still reserve the right to shoot civillians if they wish to.

by Mankind Sat Jan 03, 2004 15:16

You're right there Cuntstable, point taken, and neither the INLA nor thr RUC have fuck all in common with the EZLN.

by 4 mankykind Sat Jan 03, 2004 19:08

The INLA have more in common with the EZLN than the RUC. The INLA were once an armed working class peasant army, obviously now they are on ceasefire, and the EZLN is an armed peasant army fighting against the tyranny and snobbiness of the rich.

The RUC/PSNI on the other hand are similar to the right wing JUNTA military protectors of the rich and powerful landed gentry upperclass. Which is why those of the professional classes such as the SDLP keep company with their peeler protectors.

by Mankind Sat Jan 03, 2004 21:20

The INLA are top down cenral planning Marxists, SubComandante Marcos was once a Marxist who went out to convert the Indians of the Chiapas. Instead they converted him to horizontal direct democracy. This democracy is what the EZLN are all about.

Both the EZLN and the INLA say they represent the poor and the oppressed. Many of the poor and the oppressed actually want the EZLN to support them. Can you ever see the INLA getting the turnout the Zapatistas got when they went to Mexico city in 2000?

When the EZLN took San Cristobal half of their weapons were fake wooden ones painted black. Still, there were deaths but the possibility of resistance was announced to a populace who badly needed to hear such a thing. I have never noticed the same buzz from any INLA activity.

The EZLN comprises of idealists like Marcos. The INLA comprises of characters like Dessie O'Hare. On the IRSP website the free Dessie O'Hare campaign states that: 'Dessie's "crime", if "crime" it was, was to be an active republican'. No, Dessies crime was to abduct a dentist and cut off two of his fingers (the son in law of the pharma-tycoon they were actually after but they got the wrong house). Dessie wanted to raise money for a new military outfit so he must have been a bit unhappy with INLA himself at that time. His partner in "crime, if crime it was" was Edward Hogan, since released because he rejoined the INLA before the agreement, unlike Dessie. Maybe the gangsters in the Irish and British governments will agree to let the one time INLA gangster O'Hare out. Whatever helps everybody stop killing gets my vote. I just hope Dessie means it when he says he now wants to help the disabled and all that.

Some argue that the INLA's struggle was a phoney front for gangsterism, personally I would say that of most armed conflicts. I think the EZLN are playing a different game though.

The INLA are just another bunch of self-appointed killers. Like Bush and Blair etc. they are secure in the knowledge that they know who should die and who should live. I'd lack the confidence to make such decisions myself, I'd need to consult with a lot of the people i represent first at least.

Finally, I didn't know snobiness was high on the EZLN's list of concerns.

by breakfast in bed Tue Jan 06, 2004 13:39

Snobbiness is the root of all evil. As the sadistic dog eat dog rich refined sophisticated landed capitalist mexicans look down on their poor mexican peasant neighbours, and use it as an excuse to treat what they presume as their social inferiors like shit.

by The ghost of Seamus - PLA Tue Jan 06, 2004 17:50

For those who uphold human rights and consider themselves "progressive" we shouldn't give a flying f**k what Dessie O'Hare did or didn't say, or if the INLA are not the EZLN, or are undemocratic, etc. we should be saying; why is he still in prison? The INLA have been on ceasefire for some time and the man has as much right as all the other 'combatants' to be released.

bd is correct in saying that the IRSP should take a closer look at the EZLN but I would argue that they should look at their ability to mobilise the masses to struggle against capitalism. bd then starts the pathetic mandate arguement. Well the US founding fathers didn't have a 'mandate' when they decided to send the British home, Connolly didn't have a 'mandate' and I would assume if you are in an organisation, the one you are in probably doesn't have a mandate, unless you are in Fianna Fail? The INLA are involved in drugs? I don't know if thats true or not, but I have seen little proof or media coverage of such a claim. Is the EZLN? After all, waging a war is an expensive business. The label "narco terrorist" is bandied about quiet frequently by the Americans, usually to justify a future invasion, lets all hope that the EZLN isn't tarred with that label.

Mankind makes some reasonable points, however I have yet to read or experience a "popular war" my ignorance of the EZLN and their history is embarrising but Im pretty sure that their struggle was instigated by injustices as was the IRA/INLA's. There are a handful of organisations in Ireland fighting for the poor yet non of them have popular support of the people of Ireland. Does this mean that they are all wrong? or does it mean that we on the 'left' just haven't got the "buzz"? Rather that deciding that we are all wrong and should go home and settle down to following the bizzare plots of 'Fair City' or a British soap, I would suggest that we continue to struggle and maybe one day we will get the "buzz".

Can Mankind tell us all how the EZLN funded their war? The odd bank job? Kidnapping? or did they tax the liberated?

by Emily Tue Jan 06, 2004 21:54

Reading all those little jabs at the likes of the irps from you lot makes me laugh and laugh!

For starters, I am not attempting to say that the irps are in anyway perfect as no one is however I see the irps as people rightly or wrongly as socialists who have taken on the powers that be which is more than I can say for the people who haunt this site or run it!

You can see just what the irps are up against: the state, their media and all those who get sucked right in there who believe the crap.

Most of those the so-called radicals are happy to set up this and that group to express support for this and that issue but when it comes closer to home thats when we see clearly just whose who!

Revolution and rebels are ok in the likes of Mexico, as long as you don't bring it here that's alright.

happy surfing rich kids!

Emily

by Mankind Wed Jan 07, 2004 02:18

Ghost of Seamus, I'm not suggesting you watch soaps, leftists or any other group have a duty to represent themselves, that's how they get a mandate. I just have a problem with groups that have killed without a mandate. By the way, Febuary 15th was a 'buzz' no?

Your point about the 1916ers is a good one though, but they had popular support outside the pale at least.

As for funding, the EZLN are a pretty low budget outfit from what I hear. They have made the world aware of their existence. They have not used violent means for sometime and they are dead easy to find out about.

Emily, the people who run this site give you the chance to express yourself in an open cultural space. I doubt Geraldine Kennedy would print a letter by you. A free democratic cultural space could be the first step to real change. I agree that actual actions have to be taken to make changes (marches obviously don't work) but INLA style resistance is not the only method. Hit them in the pocket through direct resistance that makes business expensive. They value money more than life.

The rich accusation is the same one that is used by The Sunday Independant to discredit protest etc. It's a boring and predictable putdown. Are you planning on planting any bombs yourself Emily? Who's on your hit list? Who have you decided needs to die? And seeing as we are making 'little jabs' are you a Spartacist fantasist?

BUT, the INLA are on ceasefire and the IRSP have the right to express there solidarity with whoever they want. I also have the right to express my concerns about those who have killed and who have stated they may kill again, be they capitalist supported paramilitaries, the peelers or the INLA.

Have a nice day.

by clodagh Wed Jan 07, 2004 11:21

The INLA haven't stated they may kill again, in fact no where in the post do the INLA mention killing again.
Perhaps you should actually read the initial post before going on a capitalist defensive.
The INLA and republicans are working to disarm, unlike the peelers who have no intention of disarming themselves, and with recent airport security scare mongering are intent upon militarising everyday life even more.
Your false righteous pacifist concern is really a masquarade from which to take a swipe at the INLA and republicans and also the EZLN, as you pretend to be interested in.

by Mankind Wed Jan 07, 2004 16:53

The INLA have stated that the release of Dessie O'Hare may effect their ceasefire. I was not referring to the post. You are paranoid about capitalist defenders in disguise.

by Chrisy Thu Jan 08, 2004 19:46

Neither the EZLN or the INLA have ever rejected classical Marxism per se as they were never classically Marxist to start with.
The EZLN aspired to organize or at least instigate a broad Mexican Revolution along lines similar to the Sandinistas. When it became very apparent that that was not going to happen they shifted to advocacy of Indian rights which has proven to be far more popular and effective means of building international awareness of the conditions for the poor in Mexico.

by Mankind Fri Jan 09, 2004 17:50

I stand corrected.