SF-Protecting the Brits!

by technicolour dreamcoat. Mon Jul 12, 2004 23:12

its ok not 2b anti british 2day.
you win brownie points.
if Sinn fein want to win brownie points they've done loads to do it. oh yes [Sinn Fein have already won their brownie points. have they won their "red points"? excerpt from you know "the internal report"]

by Limerick1919 Tue Jul 13, 2004 00:34

RTE TV gave this A LOT of coverage - little or no mention of the fact that the ruling was ignored. picture of gerry kelly making appeals and being heckled, tgorman made reference to shinners helping brits physically but no pictures.
Have you any photos MM or anyone else out there?

by Sexy Sadie Tue Jul 13, 2004 02:44

Responsible people behaving responsibly, not the delinquent crap we've had to put up with for the last 30 years.

by moonwolf Tue Jul 13, 2004 05:10

So, SF used violence to prevent MM and his friends from "getting stuck into"(presumably thjis means using violence) on the marchers. So MM, it's ok for you to beat up "Orangies" but not ok for you to be beaten up by other "Taigs"? ? Why don't the lot of you emigrate to the U.S and join the marines, that way you could all go to Iraq and enjoy beating up muslims together!!!!! You are truly a sad bunch up there.

by seedot Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:42

Moonwolf - the issue was not SF stopping residents attacking marchers, orangemen, loyalist drunks, hangers on or whatever. SF stood between the residents of Ardoyne and the British Army, protecting the army. Have a look at the RTE report - lite on details but that much comes through. MM - have you any more details / pics?

by ona deathlist Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:24

The peelers and brit army should have been on the other side of the barricade preventing loyalist followers taunting and throwing missiles at ardoyne residents, and SF marshalls would have been able to restrain their own people.

by skatitude Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:27

As it was, noone was restraining or marshalling taunting loyalist followers, peelers and brit army chose to focus on ardoyne residents and used the opportunity to get stuck into ardoyne residents.

by Kieron Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:43

What happened last night is the logic of provo politics. They sold out a long time ago and came to an understanding with imperialism. Keeping brit law and order is more important than anything else. This is the logical outcome of the peace process and the logical step for the former mad militarists of yesteryear. For years we had to put up with them trying to beat the brits and hitting out at them was more important than mobilising their community. Now protecting the brits is more important than mobilising their community. Same politics, same lack of thniking. The most surprising thing about all of this is that people are surprised.

by Citizen Tue Jul 13, 2004 13:10

I was very impressed with Gerry Kelly on the radio this morning. The Provos have certainly come a long way. What's that old joke about the difference between a Provo and a Stickie being just about 25 years?
And all you saddos posting about attacking the Brits and all that horseshit.
War - what was it good for in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 1999? Absolutely nothing. Say it again.
The solution in Northern Ireland does not involve "armed struggle" or attacking Brits or loyalists or vice versa. It involves slow, painful efforts to build some kind of constructive dialogue and engagement betweeen the two communities. This penny seems to have dropped with Sinn Féin. And it will drop some day with all you sad posters who criticize what Kelly and other Shinners did in Ardoyne yesterday.
Imagine. War is over.

by john Tue Jul 13, 2004 13:10

what a simplistic world you live in. The main objective was to protect the area from the loyalists and the Brits. That was accomplished and I don't think anyone is under any misapprehension as to who would have carried out the defence of the area had they broken through. That accomplished republicans then used their influence to prevent some people from heading off to attack the loyalists in their own area. Should they have allowed them to? If they did then people like yourself would be posting stuff about republicans encouraging sectarian attacks on Protestant workers.

by skatitude Tue Jul 13, 2004 14:15

It is sad that in this day and age, working class protestants choose to follow and protect the likes of rich bastard £64000 a year UUP orange man Michael McGympsey as he struts provocatively past working class catholic areas.

What has rich bastard Michael Mc Gympsey got in common with the working class protestants who risk life and limb defending him, nothing, working class protestants have got more in common with the working class catholic residents they choose to provoke and fight.

Its time working class protestants woke up and stopped pulling their forelocks to rich bastards like McGympsey, who would readily disown them and let them rot in jail in times of unrest.

by In Belfast Tue Jul 13, 2004 14:22

Provies beating their own of the streets, backed up by the brits and police. God help their people when they join the police force and get hold of those legal batons and weapons to beat those radicals into their place.

by RBW Tue Jul 13, 2004 14:24

"Provies beating their own of the streets, backed up by the brits and police. God help their people when they join the police force and get hold of those legal batons and weapons to beat those radicals into their place."

They've been at it for years.

by iosaf Tue Jul 13, 2004 14:28

to be quite honest, I dont reckon the 12th of July is a good day to re-open the conflict in Ireland. You know what I mean? It would sort of look wrong further down the line. Imagine how much fun the latter day Cruise O'Brien types and all the rest would have writing history books and avoiding the tax on them about the XXI troubles and how they started one day in Ardoyne.

Whoever stood between the British Army and the residents of the Ardoyne, had bollox and sense. It's a curious combination. Loads of people have sense without bollox and will gladly revisit a situation or envision a situation and detail how a "now familiar" "ugly scene" turns on ( í breap na súl ) to a massacre. Even more people have bollox without sense, the bigger the bollox the bigger the shouting, after my prejudice I remember one little orange lil draped in the union jack screaming bloody murder through the cordon. Loads of bollox there. But if reports are accurate, no bloody murder occured. Just one man dead from a heart attack.

So this I suppose has "fall -out" & "consequences" and so on.
If it hadn't been for those with real bollox and real sense it could have been a lot worse.
I don't think the future of Ireland and her myriad peoples, is to be best secured by such continued use of the bollox and sense of Gerry Kelly and Co working with the blessèd bollox & sense of the priests of Holy Cross Abbey. Anyone think this ought go the way of "familiar scenes" elsewhere in the north and become a yearly spectacular?

It seems "far far away" that it's time to remove the bollox from Irish politics, which might be a good thing for those with sense.

& the Parades Commision does seem to encourage quite a bit of bollox.

RTE tv and radio archives-
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0712/north.html
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3889853.stm

by john Tue Jul 13, 2004 14:53

And this happened last night did it?

Well, they're sure to pay the price then. Facts are a bit more complex than you would like to imagine. What should republicans have done? Play into the hands of the state and the loyalists and allowed the whole thing to degenerate into a sectarian slaughter?

The area was defended and would have been defended at all costs by the same people who you are accusing of beating their own off the streets. That's leadership.

BTW, where were all those "revolutionaries" who talk about winning over the Protestant working class last night? Were the SP out trying to persuade Protestant workers not to attack Ardoyne? Where was their "progressive" mate Hutchinson when all this was going? Not doing the same thing as Kelly and Storey and that's for sure..

by shinner. Tue Jul 13, 2004 15:08

As a member of Sinn Fein who tried to stop people from attacking the security forces last night I feel deeply disappointed that people have been unable to understand why we did this. The loyalist paramilitaries, the re-branded RUC and the orange order set out to achieve one thing, and one thing only every time they march up this road. To provoke the community into a riot which will then be used as propaganda against the community. Local community leaders, (not just Sinn Fein), set out to try and stop this from happening. We wished to expose the blatant sectarianism of these marches and the participants, we wished to expose the RUC/BRITS for what they are, we wished the story this morning was of thousands of loyalists brought through a Nationalist area in direct defiance of the parades commissions decision. The author of this piece obviously has an axe to grind with Sinn Fein; they may be one of these people who never recognized that the use of armed struggle is a tactic, not a principle. Either way I feel very happy that I did the right thing last night.

by Dec Tue Jul 13, 2004 15:34

"........they may be one of these people who never recognized that the use of armed struggle is a tactic, not a principle. "

There was me thinking that it was a principle from 69 to the late70s/early 80's. You will have to explain to me the tactics during that time other than it being a principle to blow the Brits out of Ireland.
Silly me.

by cormac Tue Jul 13, 2004 15:51

'There was me thinking that it was a principle from 69 to the late70s/early 80's. You will have to explain to me the tactics during that time other than it being a principle to blow the Brits out of Ireland.
Silly me."

if thats what you thought the armed struggle was about then you probably were misguided by the media. From when I was born in 1968 til I left the north in 1990 I was always under the impression that what was happening was happening in an effort to move things forward and bring some equality to nationalists. not primarily just to blow brits up for the craic of it.

by Dec Tue Jul 13, 2004 15:56

The Provies killed as many nationalists in that time as the oppressers.
Very equal indeed.

by shinner Tue Jul 13, 2004 17:03

I was sitting in front of my computer thinking, will I go into a long explanation of what the troubles were about, why they happened and indeed the use of armed struggle throughout the world in order to end imperialism, however what’s the point, the previous posts by Dec indicate that he would does not have the intellectual capacity to participate in such a debate. Until such times when the Shinner bashing stops and people are prepared to actually debate an argument this site will have no real value.

by john Tue Jul 13, 2004 17:14

check your facts - CAIN site has them - RA did not kill more or anywhere near the number of nationalists killed by Britis and loyalists

by Intellectually incapacitated Tue Jul 13, 2004 17:30

"I was sitting in front of my computer thinking, will I go into a long explanation of what the troubles were about, why they happened and indeed the use of armed struggle throughout the world in order to end imperialism"

I understand the use of armed struggle throughout the world to end imperialism. (Lots done - more to do, eh?)
I just don't happen to believe that the armed struggle in Ireland has made much of an impact on that. If you think that taking up seats in a power-sharing executive, implementing PFI, lackeying up to the WEF and Gerry's recent public declaration that he would't be protesting against the main imperialist in the world as a sign of SF's commitment to fighting imperialism then I too worry about my intellectual capacity to debate with someone who finds it easier to take the line. But sure don't worry we'll all wake up on Jan 1st 2016 and awake to an united Ireland. Sure after all, hasn't Gerry said it will be so.

by Required name Tue Jul 13, 2004 18:20

"From when I was born in 1968 til I left the north in 1990 I was always under the impression that what was happening was happening in an effort to move things forward and bring some equality to nationalists. not primarily just to blow brits up for the craic of it."

Revisionism how are ya. Republicanism was never about 'the craic of it' nor about equality under the Brits.

by Lesarch Tue Jul 13, 2004 18:53

These comments are a sad reflection on the Irish.
Welcome to an insane world. Thanks for doing your bit.

by sharp housewife Tue Jul 13, 2004 20:16

Nevermind the black ops propaganda against SF, to distract us from the clear plain fact, the PSNI did not enforce the Parades commissions ruling, to keep loyalist supporters from passing through Ardoyne.

The Parades commission ruled that loyalist supporters be bussed through Ardoyne, to avoid the volatile provovation and confrontational situation, the PSNI chose to ignore the Parades commissions ruling, imprison Ardoyne residents and force loyalist supporters past Ardoyne.

If the PSNI had to force the parade past Ardoyne they could have had the decency to avoid the heavy handed military presence by POLICING THE PARADE and LOYALIST supporters and controling them instead of targeting and batonning Ardoyne residents.

by shame and scandal Tue Jul 13, 2004 20:20

As a result of the DISGRACEFUL behaviour of the peelers, the SDLP are reconsidering their position with regard to sitting on the policing board, in effect the SDLP will be withdrawing their support for the policing board, and due to the PSNI decision to ignore the ruling of the Parades commission.

by IRSP - Irish Republican Socialist Party Tue Jul 13, 2004 21:38 irsp at irsm dot org

Orange Marches- A carnival of Reaction as reported in the plough 47 (irsp e-news service)

On this day, the July 12, 2004 it is time to remember and reflect what the Orange marches of this day mean. On the surface it is a celebration of the victory of a Dutchman over an English man fighting on Irish soil for the kingship of England. In reality it is a celebration of bigotry and intolerance. Watching the serried ranks of drummers in their gaudy uniforms one is minded of the Redcoats in the old movies lording it over the natives. The Orange marches are militaristic, racist, intimidatory and an affront to decency. The hangers on with their beer bellies, and bottles are like storm troopers eager and willing to swarm all over the croppies if there are any about. This is not about cultural identity- it is about domination. What sort of culture is it that depends on its validation by walking through areas where it is not welcome? What sort of culture is it that needs to express itself by waving the flag of a brutal and now thankfully declining British Imperialism? What sort of culture is that prances about huge bonfires on the 11th drinking to excess and cursing the Pope? What sort of culture woops and cheers when the drug dealing thugs of the UDA appear on platforms with guns and taunt their former hero Adair with calls to ³ bring it on² while the TV cameras whirl away and the police do nothing? Sectarian murderers are lionised, Chinese homes attacked, Catholics burned out all in the name of some ill defined cultural identity that can not decide if it is British or Protestant or both or Ulster Scottish or God knows what.
The Orange Order does not give one damm about the condition of protestant working class people so long as those same people see their main enemy not as the rich unionist middle classes but the poor catholic working classes. Orangeism is the means of perpetuating divisions among working class people. And while that division exists the working classes of all traditions will be slaves to nationalisms that favour their own exploitation.

The Orange Order is a successful all class alliance that has roped the exploited into facilitating their own exploitation. The trouble at Ardoyne was to be expected. Nationalists, Republicans Catholics will no longer put up with these displays of bigotry The way in which both the DUP and the UUP have rowed in behind the orange Orders in relation to the march pass Ardoyne should have sent a clear message out to all republicans. So long as the 6 county state exists there will be no movement from Unionism and the working classes of all and no traditions will still be the ones suffering, in the words of James Connolly- a carnival of reaction.

by Rooster Wed Jul 14, 2004 13:49 Dungannon

Until republicans sit on the policing boards, which were set up by Paton and engage in dialogue on the policing/parades issues then their criticism on these issues can't really be taken seriously.

by cormac Wed Jul 14, 2004 13:50

"Revisionism how are ya. Republicanism was never about 'the craic of it' nor about equality under the Brits."

one should make sure one is replying to the correct post before posting

by Republican Wed Jul 14, 2004 14:11

That you reread your own postings.

"From when I was born in 1968 til I left the north in 1990 I was always under the impression that what was happening was happening in an effort to move things forward and bring some equality to nationalists. not primarily just to blow brits up for the craic of it."

The Sticks advocated bringing more equality to nationalists under the Brits, way back in '69. That was not what the 30 years of troubles were about surely?

by iosaf Wed Jul 14, 2004 14:52 barcelona

I dont really think anyone can answer the question "what were those 30 years about", and that it is mistake to pretend that each year and it's actions and mis-actions must be judged as some result of those 30 years.

And to be honest things seem to be a "bit better" on the marching issue. Between July 8th and July 11th 1998 loyalist violence on the Garvaghy road saw over 500 petrol bombs thrown, and 14 rounds fired.

This last weekend in the Ardoyne, no rounds were fired, and only one tree was permenantly displaced.

the North seems united in it's hatred of the Parades Comission, and the PSNI are responsible for enforcing it's decisions with assistance from the British Army. I am under the impression that the British Army withdrew on the advice of local community leaders in the Ardoyne.

Ten years ago, those same community leaders would probably not have been in a position to offer such advice and that option of low conflict resolution would not have been open to anyone in the flashpoint "interchange" areas of the north.

And to be really "trite", if you take out the "community issues", the "ethnicity", the "culture", the "wrong" and the "rights" of the whole marching issue, all you are left with is a very certain European tendency to have a "ruck" in high summer.

All over Europe, young men often accompanied by some of their mammies go out on the street in the months of July and August and "have a go".
with their neighbours
with the local security forces
with the local bulls.

It's an important part of growing up in Europe.
Ireland for some reason, and I do think it's a result of XIX British victorian moralising, has lost its understanding of the tradition of graituitous summer time carnival confrontation. But "the summer riot" is not so terribly unusual. Most European cities try and get the riot in before Summer begins, my own town generally have had their go at the police by the end of May. Great fun is had by all. the Italians likewise between May and mid June "get it all out" of their systems and then just lie about in the sweltering heat. Ireland lying to more northern latitudes probably hasn't stoked up enough nervous energy which always easily latches on to political material till mid July.

Be Honest. Europe in the Summer yearly gives you "familiar images", and accordingly TV journalists are sent to two places every July.

Spanish teenagers getting gouged by bulls.
Orangemen starting a riot.

It's our Europe. And this year in the Ardoyne this peculiar tradition has not resulted directly in any deaths or serious injuries (apart from a few British soldiers who are in training to deal with Iraqi protesters) and as I've pointed out, one less tree.

politics continues. the Community continues.
"The loyalists didn't win" and there's something wonderfully good in that. The people of the Ardoyne ought be very proud of themselves. (they're most certainly invited to RTS! 2016).

:-)

by Kieron Wed Jul 14, 2004 15:29

So the provos beating their own people was really a defence. It is you JOhn who live in a simplistic world not me. The fact is the provos beat their own people in the name of respectability.

As for this tactic stuff . Armed struggle is and always has been a tactic but the provos treated it as a priniciple for many years and in the first hungerstrike tried to force a commitment to support for the armed struggle as a prerequisite for support for the campaign. Simplistic world that they lived in.

by brenners Wed Jul 14, 2004 15:52

"But the provos treated it as a principle for many years and in the first hunger strike tried to force a commitment to support for the armed struggle as a prerequisite for support for the campaign. Simplistic world that they lived in."

Your above statement is an absolute lie.
The strike in 81’ was for political status for the prisoners. People who supported the strike basically said that the struggle that is happening is a political one and not a criminal activity. They did not have to pledge support for the struggle, only recognise it for what it was. This led to support from all around the world, not for the actual struggle, but for recognition that those involved were not criminals but rather those with a genuine political grievance.
So might I respectively request that you actually make yourself aware of the true facts before you make such statements as the one above which in not at all factual.
My major problem comes when I have to deal with people who are absolute hypocrites. They will knock the struggle in the North while campaigning for the withdrawal of troops in Iraq; they campaign against imperialism everywhere else except Ireland. What is the difference between the British troops in Bassara and those in South Armagh? These so-called Left-wingers should wake up and stop being such hypocrites.

by Sinn Féin Wed Jul 14, 2004 16:10

Sinn Féin Assembly member for upper Bann John O'Dowd has challenged the SDLP representatives in the area to follow the lead of senior party colleagues and consider their positions on the DPP after the disgraceful policing operation put in place in Lurgan last night.

Mr O'Dowd said:

"Last night in Lurgan the PSNI overturned a Parades Commission determination and forced a Black Perceptory Parade through the Market Street area of the town. They then allowed a loyalist mob led by the local LVF along with DUP Councillor Jonathan Bell to blockade the town. From 6pm nationalists were unable to enter Lurgan town centre.

"After the blockade was finally lifted the PSNI attacked nationalists congregating in North Street. Party colleagues and myself had to intervene to prevent PSNI land rovers mowing down a group of young nationalists.

"Over the past two days the PSNI have on two occasions took it upon themselves to overturn Parades Commission determinations. On both occasions the nationalist community ended up being hemmed in and attacked by the PSNI. It is clear that one law operates for unionists and another for nationalists and republicans.

"Over the past week two senior SDLP members one in Larne and one in Belfast have said that they are considering their positions with regard to DPPs and the Policing Board itself. I would now challenge the SDLP DPP members in Upper Bann to do likewise in the light of last nights disgraceful PSNI operation." ENDS

by Kieron Thu Jul 15, 2004 13:38

Brenners,
Get your facts right, the hungerstrike campaign did not ask anyone to support the armed struggle however, for years before and even during the strike itself the provos argued that the campaign should support the armed struggle and this was an important stupid point for them. The fact is they lost the argument.

As for left wingers who don't support the struggle in the north, well I for one want to see a Brit withdrawal and not the Good Friday sell out. I also want to see troops withdrawn from Iraq. My point is merely that the provos protected the cops and the brits from getting a well deserved hiding. Now you don't see much of that going on in Iraq do you? Iraqis running out to stop the crowd taking out their justified anger on the troops.

So give over about moaning lefties and deal with the issues.

by john Thu Jul 15, 2004 14:06

Did you read the Irish News today, about the Paras about to open fire? Still think that the crowd would have given them a well deserved hiding?

by History repeating Thu Jul 15, 2004 14:14

The paras were going to open fire on a crowd that was protesting against the cops decision to overturn the Parades Commission.
Just as well that SF got involved - it could have led to a large recruitment drive amongst the dissidents similar to Bloody Sunday.
Could have led to that bus being detoured, eh?

by Ray Thu Jul 15, 2004 14:31

So, let me get this straight -
You think it would have been better if the paras _had_ fired on the crowd, because that would have lead to more support for dissident republicans.
That is the implication here, right?

by History repeating? Thu Jul 15, 2004 14:48

Just passing comment on the implication of what might have happened.

by john Thu Jul 15, 2004 15:08

Those republicans who persuaded the crowd not to go beyond the aim of the protest did so in the very knowledge that there was indeed every possibility that the Brits and RUC would have opened up on them, or that it would have degenerated into a confrontation at Glenbrin, with again the likelihood of casualties. Knowing that should they have stepped aside?

The bottom line was the defence of the community and that was accomplished. Had there been a serious incursion by the loyalists and/or Brits there would have been an armed defence.

by Ray Thu Jul 15, 2004 15:09

You suggest that if the SF reps hadn't intervened, the paras would have fired on the crowd. If that had happened, dissident republican parties would have been boosted. You imply that the reason the SF reps intervened was to prevent a boost to dissident republicanism. You criticise the SF reps for intervening.
That all implies that you would rather have seen the paras fire on the crowd, because f the boost this would have given to dissident republicanism.
If you'd like to see republicanism stirred up by the army killing people, why not just say so? If you wouldn't like to see this happening, why are you implying it?

by History Repeating? Thu Jul 15, 2004 17:07

"If you'd like to see republicanism stirred up by the army killing people, why not just say so? "

History dear Ray, history. Do you think the Provo's were always in the ascendency that they are? When do you think it started? Was Bloody Sunday not one of the biggest recruitment drives ever for the Provo's? Who opened fire on Bloody Sunday? Was it the Para's? I'm just passing comment on the irony of it all?
The Provo's always made mileage out of their non-cooperation with the Imperialist forces. If anything I am amused by the historical gymnestics.

by Ray Thu Jul 15, 2004 17:18

"Look at those sell-out Provies! They stopped the paras firing into a crowd of people to stop anyone else getting a recruitment boost!"

Of course Bloody Sunday was a major recruitment event for the Provisionals. And naturally, had something similar happened the other day, it would have been a major recruitment event for someone else. But do you think that was why SF tried to stop the paras from firing into a crowd*?



* I don't think it was actually that likely, the circumstances were very different from 30 years ago. I'm just amazed at the mindset that would think the only reason someone would try to stop a massacre was fear of organisational competition.

Come to think of it, though the instrument hasn't been invented yet that could measure how little I respect Grizzly and the lads, I'm pretty sure that, on the morning of Bloody Sunday, if you had offered them a choice between another day of the status quo and a bloody massacre that boosted recruitment, they would have gone for the status quo.

by H R Thu Jul 15, 2004 17:23

I'll stick with the comment:
Whats the difference between the Provo's and the Sticks?

25 years.

by H R Thu Jul 15, 2004 17:39

"Look at those sell-out Provies! They stopped the paras firing into a crowd of people to stop anyone else getting a recruitment boost!"

When you put something in inverted commas you imply that I have written that somewhere. I didn't.

by john Thu Jul 15, 2004 18:04

About 350,000 votes :)

by Ray Thu Jul 15, 2004 18:10

Its also true that when I say "What you are actually saying is" I am implying that you have actually said the thing that follows.

Its a common rhetorical tactic to restate the argument of your interlocutor, reducing it to an absurd form. The standard response to this tactic is to point out where one's position differs from the absurd form. You haven't managed to do this. Nor did you manage to point out which step in the chain (of 2.09 pm) you actually disagreed with.

So far, the sum of your hints and implications is
1. The sticks were the majority republican movement 30 years ago.
2. Then Bloody Sunday happened, the provos got a major recruitment boost, and the sticks disappeared.
3 If the paras had fired into the crowd the other night, it would have been another Bloody Sunday.
4. In other words, the provos, currently the majority, would have seen another republican movement recruit on the basis of another massacre.
5. The provos didn't want to disappear like that sticks, and FOR THAT REASON, stopped the paras from firing into the crowd.

1-4 are not controversial. Is 5 your position?

by John eile Thu Jul 15, 2004 18:11

Whats the difference between FF and SF?

about 74 years, honest, just wait and see!

by H R Thu Jul 15, 2004 18:16

"About 350,000 votes :)"

Obviously history is lost on you too. The split in 69 was over two main things, namely that the IRA should enter a ‘National Liberation Front’ in alliance with ‘the radical left’. Second, that the policy of parliamentary abstentionism should be ended.
So well done, you ended up agreeing with the second. Congrats on the 350, 000 votes (how many did Labour get as that's where most of them went to?) and oh I guess you completely forgot about the first but then they gave up on that as well. So I'll stick with with my comment. Still sounds right.

by Interested Thu Jul 15, 2004 18:36

Does anybody really think that the paras would have opened fire? In 1972 there was a real case of 'lets show the Paddies' but to open fire now would have been a political disaster and wouldn't have been sanctioned in the same way as '72.

by john Thu Jul 15, 2004 18:36

The split was about the takeover of the republican leadership by agents of the British CP - Anthony Coughlan and Roy Johnston and others under their "influence" fuck all to do with the "radical left" as has been proven by the subsequent history of that gang of chancers.

Other issue was the run down of the Army at the behest and secret machinations of that group which left the nationalist people defenceless when the civil rights campaign destabilised the northern state and led to the Unionist clampdown.

by H R Thu Jul 15, 2004 18:39

You can make up history if you want. But the two things discussed at the army convention were the two things I mentioned.

by brenners Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:34

a lot of people remeber bloody sunday - what about august 9th 1971 when the British Army killed 11 inocent civillians on that day - 10 Catholics and 1 protsetant.
That is their record.

by Dolours Price Fri Jul 16, 2004 13:24

I am confused. I was in the I.R.A myself once and as a volunteer it would have been one of my duties to fight the British Army, maybe even kill one if I had been any kind of a shot.

As a result of my 'Volunteership' I could also expect to be shot and killed or hurt by that British Army.

I am now deeply worried. I watched the news on July 12th and saw a former I.R.A comrade, Gerry Kelly,standing,arms spread wide across a retreating British Army jeep protecting the British soldiers inside!

I have not slept a wink since seeing that. Did some incompetent give me the wrong instructions when I joined the I.R.A? I will be very cross indeed if I find out that I was inducted into the Army by some eejet who got things arse about face!

I saw poor Gerry the next day, looking to be in great pain, his arm in a sling. Again was I misinformed when I was told I might have to suffer for Ireland, Gerry is suffering for Britain today?

If I did mis-read induction papers and wrongly thought that I was to fight, not defend British soldiers then I must say, in my own defence,that mine was a genuine mistake. I suppose it is a bit late to apologise to any British soldiers I may have hurt but if it can be any consolation to them I will be lighting candles in St Mary's chapel today for my sin of misunderstanding.

I remain yours in deep anguish and embarrassment.

by shinner. Fri Jul 16, 2004 13:36

A Chara,
No, your correct, when you became a Volunteer the tactic was use of arms, that tactic has moved on. you need to do the same. Is there not moral a responsiblity for the leadership of the movement to move the struggle forward through the most appropriate means possible. In what way are the 32 soverinty committee contributing to the aims of republicanisim.

by P.j. Fri Jul 16, 2004 13:56

"Yeah there was equality
By Dec Tuesday, Jul 13 2004, 2:56pm

The Provies killed as many nationalists in that time as the oppressors.
Very equal indeed."

Actually 497civilian deaths are put down to the Irish Republican Army.
883 are attributed to Loyalisim.
151 to the British Army
30 to the RUC
And inexplicably none to the UDR even though they almost certainly carried out the Dublin/Monaghan bombings.

by Stand down Sat Jul 17, 2004 22:20

Shinner then disband the IRA if the tactic of armed struggle has moved on. Is there not a moral responsibilty for the leadership of the IRA to stand down the Army if it is no longer needed, and the use of armed struggle has ceased? What do you need IRA volunteers for now - robbing lorries and beating wee lads? That is all they do nowadays that the tactic has moved on. Oh that and protect the Brits during riots.


Whether the paras would have fired or not is a moot point as the use of the water cannon effectively dispersed the crowd and diffused the immediate situation. Someone else brought up the political implications so if the Shinners claim this is not 1972 and people should move on then people should agree with them and point out that is is indeed not 1972 and the Brits did not open fire and did not need to, they did not even need plastic bullets, they squirted water and soaked everyone. Sure PCs Kelly and Storey were only telling people to go get their heads showered.

"A Chara,
No, your correct, when you became a Volunteer the tactic was use of arms, that tactic has moved on. you need to do the same. Is there not moral a responsiblity for the leadership of the movement to move the struggle forward through the most appropriate means possible. In what way are the 32 soverinty committee contributing to the aims of republicanisim."

by shinner Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:33

When I said armed struggle was a tactic, I meant at this stage the best way forward is through the current political process. This process has proved very successful for republicans. We have seen a massive growth in support for the movement at the same time we have witnessed the fracturing of Unionism. However, if people believe that we as republicans are happy to accept the Good Friday agreement as a final settlement then they must be mad. The Good Friday agreement is not even close to being a republican document. If it wasn’t for the part about prisoners I doubt it would of got republican support at all. Therefore at this stage I see no need to disband the Army. In fact if it becomes obvious that the return to armed struggle would be a more effective way of gaining our desired outcome, I would readily support that decision.

by Be consistent Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:19

So your problem is with people who do not support what you Provos are doing then, not the actual principle you pretend to argue against. Neither MM nor Price argued for armed struggle they both merely pointed out the incongrous image of Kelly and Storey and McFarlane and Copeland et al protecting the British. In what way does that contribute to furthering the aims of Irish Republicanism?

by shinner Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:23

Well one may take that lead not only from the IRA but also from the statement by the RIRA prisoners in Portlaoise who called for the Stand down of the organisation and the resignation of its army council. The following is a direct quote from that statement.
"Armed struggle should only be carried out when there is a reasonable prospect of success. When it becomes apparent that the continuation of armed operations is futile, it is the moral responsibility of the republican leadership to call a halt to such a campaign."
I think the prisoners of the RIRA put the argument better than I have.

by Carmel Tue Jul 20, 2004 18:19 rathenraw at usa dot com

The Paravisional Alliance

I am shocked! I am absolutely stunned! I am so angry at what I witnessed just now. I am republican, and I just witnessed former comrades punch and beat residents off the streets and off Brits in my own community. People/residents, who like myself objected to a sectarian march being forced through nationalist area by armed RUC/Brits/SF!! – "MM, Occupied North Belfast", posting on Indymedia

The Blanket Anthony McIntyre • 18 July 2004
The 12th of July Orange parade was permitted by the Parades Commission to strut right through the heart of a nationalist area. The march route – the Crumlin Road – is abutted on either side by the exclusively nationalist districts of Ardoyne and Mountainview. The cutting edge of the British state in Ireland, its police force, now renamed the PSNI, in the words of Brian Feeney, imprisoned ‘a whole nationalist community to ease the passage of their tormentors.’ Included in their number, courtesy of the PSNI but not the Parades Commission, were the likes of Miller, Mervyn and Melvyn Ten Bellies, freshly out of the pub, their limited vocabulary lubricated by alcohol.

Anne Cadwallader described the plight of the imprisoned residents in three words - ‘caged like animals.’ The mentality that inflicted such havoc and intimidation on the children of Holy Cross School, was given full license and free reign by the PSNI to openly flaunt itself in the face of the community that had frustrated it in its bigoted sectarian intent of three summers past. And the Neanderthals revelled in it. It was their long awaited revenge against the four-year-old ‘Fenian scum.’

The march of the miscreants was a goer only because those military forces and paramilitary police who had repressed Ardoyne for years, murdered its residents, tortured its activists, forced the foot stompers through and simultaneously coerced the local community at the point of a gun. Although Hugh Orde had earlier stated that he was ‘looking forward hopefully, to a quiet week next week’, it was a quietude to be attained through forced acquiescence.

Many in the community had ideas other than croppies lie down. This led to the emergence of what is in contention for the most bizarre alliance produced in over thirty years of conflict. As part of facilitating British policing of Irish areas in the face of fierce community resistance, the only purpose of which was to permit the tormentors of Holy Cross to strut past their victims, senior members of the Provisional outfit physically leaped to the defence of British paratroopers. Perhaps in future years this event will come to be scripted into the official history of the peace process as the gallant stand of the Paravisionals. According to the Irish Echo, chief amongst the Para protectors were ‘Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly and IRA spymaster Bobby Storey … one group of British soldiers, cut off from their fellows, were saved almost single-handedly by Storey.’ Not many republicans will have the ignominy of marching into history to the accompaniment of that dubious accolade.

Harold Gould once wrote about the war in Iraq, ‘there are reputations to be protected and egos to be saved.’ With paratroopers unrestrained in their praise for Kelly whilst talking to journalists, Sinn Fein, sensitive to the revulsion that images of its politicians and militia men protecting paratroopers could generate within working class nationalist communities, were quick to pour water on suggestions that the purpose of the ‘intervention’ was to save British military lives. ‘Mr Kelly was protecting nationalists.’ Kelly, for his part, added, ‘I was there because I have certain principles. We managed to save lives.’

While few would dispute the courage of Gerry Kelly, a forensic scientist would have insurmountable difficulty trying to find exactly what his chameleon-like principles are. Yet, it is dangerously naïve to think that without his intervention or that of Storey and whoever else waded in, the paratrooper lines would have been overrun. The tactics of Bloody Sunday would have been employed to prevent it. A Daily Telegraph journalist who had accompanied British troops throughout the day made it very clear that a point was reached when ‘the Paras felt their lives were under such threat that they considered opening fire at point-blank range with their rifles.’ There are nationalists alive today who would otherwise not be but for the Kelly/Storey intervention.

The emotive fog enveloping much of this has helped cloud and sideline an important political question, however. How has the Provisional leadership, ten years after the 1994 ceasefire, brought republicanism to a position where the British were only seconds away from perpetrating another massacre a la Bloody Sunday? What asymmetrical power relations have emerged from the efforts of the Sinn Fein negotiators that presented Kelly and Storey with a situational logic whereby they felt they could do nothing other than protect one of the British Army's most murderous regiments? They didn’t defend them because they liked them. They did so because the bizarre logic of the peace process handed them the task of both having to defend it and conceal its limitations. Their intervention was the product of a strategic bankruptcy.

In a bid to conceal this, Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams said he had no doubt ‘this was Orangeism flexing its muscle.’ What muscle? The week previously, Liam Clarke writing in the Sunday Times made the point that ‘the Orange Order has been beaten and its defeat is largely of its own making.’ The same day in the Sunday Business Post Brian Feeney wrote in similar vein, 'in every respect, therefore, the Order's political clout has diminished.' Even the once awesome Drumcree protest has been dismissed by Portadown loyalist Ivan Porter as 'a joke now.' Ardoyne on the 12th showed not Orange muscle but a severely atrophied Provisional equivalent. It demonstrated that the institutional cul de sac into which the Adams leadership has taken republicanism was the inevitable outcome of having abandoned the ideological compass that guided it through the republican struggle. How the peace process, which that leadership still proudly rather than ashamedly proclaims to have fathered, has reduced Provisional options to a comic show in the theatre of the absurd is never explained. When the Provisional IRA announced its formation in 1969, had it stated as its objectives, the reform of the RUC, the retention of Stormont, the entrenchment of the partition principle – consent, the disbandment of the IRA and a British declaration of intent to make Paisley Prime Minister, who amongst us would have risked a day in jail for that? As the US journalist Jimmy Breslin observed of the lies of the US Government, ‘only the strong memory is an opponent, and there are few of them.’

Despite what Gerry Adams says, the Sinn Fein strategy is not being obstructed by securocrats who have regained the ascendancy. Nor is the NIO out of control while Tony Blair turns a blind eye. The power disparity between republicanism and the British as evidenced at Ardoyne is the essence of British state strategy. It was precisely why it strategically engaged with the peace process. While many may find the point churlish, it was Provisional leaders who were the harbingers of the situational logic that governed events at Ardoyne on the 12th of July. Once painted into a corner there was only one choice they could make, one choice they wanted to make, one choice the British state would allow them to make. And when it came to making it, they were not found wanting.

by jacob Tue Jul 20, 2004 18:28

Caramel - could you sum up your point a bit more concisely?

by P.j. Tue Jul 20, 2004 18:35

This isn’t her point it's the 32 county sovereignty committees. You know the lot that bombed Omagh, and is full to the brim with informers.

by Rooster Tue Jul 20, 2004 22:48

This thread is such bull shit, it's the sin fein councillors that stoke up local tensions in the first place and then ponce around pretending to "calm the locals down" but surprise surprise sometimes they lose control!
Poor little gerry with his ickle bruised hand, it could be worse, he could have been knee capped!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Facts straightener Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:33

Anthony McIntyre is not a member of the 32 Co Sov Group.
Stop trying to muddy the waters.

by brenners. Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:03

He may not be a member but he certainly puts forward a viewpoint, which is consistent with the 32 CSM.
This is the organisation that the prisoners in Portlaoise asked to stand down, and then left the movement. It is discredited (32CSM).
It really makes me laugh when Price comes on here and makes statements. This woman is part of a group who the prisoners felt were only in it for personal gain. they say that the chief of staff, the smuggler from Louth, and his mates are growing fat on the proceeds while the true ideals of Republicanism are subverted. You said over the grave of O'Connor in 2000 Shame on Republicans, I say Shame on you for calling yourself one.
Tiocfaidh Ar La.

by Facts straightener Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:35

McIntyre is not a mouth piece for the 32 Co Sov Comm.
Using your logic, Gerry Kelly works for the paras.

by Carmel Wed Jul 21, 2004 15:41

Thank you for addressing this comment on my behalf and i wnt to confirm that you are correct to say I was cutting and pasting. My reasons for pasting this artcle by Anthony Mc Intyre was simple, I thought his article was a good article and one that was inspired or at least supported by comments from an Indymedia. contributor. End of story. for me.

But Re Mr Mc Intyre, I think any potential disparaging and misleading remarks made by others is something he ought to sort out for himself. And for what it is worth his article is good and I believe it is both fair and accurate.

My own view re Ardoyne which I had not anticipated posting is as follows - The Provies have seriously miscalculated the blind trusting obedience of the Ardoyne Community regarding Sinn Fein's "Bigger Picture Myth".

The wee picture for grassroot nationalists is the lack of equality and the total lack of consultation with them from Sinn Fein.

This is also clear to many within Sinn Fein and to many of their supporters. I sincerely hope the, "Kelly affair" will change the blinkered elitism being employed by Sinn Fein re the "peace process" and change their contempt in relation to the people in the community.

I call it so called peace process because for many Nationalists and Republicans there has been little evidence of the benefits from "peace" in areas to name only a few, like, Glengormley, Ardoyne, Short Strand, Ormeau lower and upper and Antrim Towns like Larne, carrick and Antrim Town itself.

More than 2000 Catholics have been forced by Loyalist hate gangs to flee their homes in the Antrim Towns since the signing of the GFA. Is this peace????

Parades are increasing not descreasing and the Brits - well there are more British Soldiers deployed in Peace time Ireland than there is in War time Iraq.

Unionist paramilitary Flags and emblems are plastered in many areas of the North including cemeteries so in general things have got worse not better. But then again that depends very much not only on your perspective but where you actually live i.e North of the border or South.

10 years on and what - Who is commemorating the hunger strikers' anniversaries that occur throughout the summer months starting in May???

Where is the Government / Assembly? Where are the tricolours on Government building? Where is the IRA? They haven't gone away they are policing the peace process by beating Republican Youth who defend the community in their (IRA) absence. Who or what group eventually decided that it was time to defend the Nationalist community in the Short Strand? It wasn't the Provisional IRA.

Who or what group speaks out against the raging pogrom against Nationalists? Is all of this such a wee picture???

Naturally any Irish Republican wants peace probably more than anyone else. Who really wants the honour of an Irish Republican funeral from their home? None of us? Killing and violence must end in Ireland and that should mean all killing and all violence.

However, I feel that I must address what I believe rightly or wrongly - an implicit view that Sinn Fein's way is the only way and that Sinn Fein Republicans are the only true republicans. Sinn Fein has changed - Gerry Adams himself (see his books) has said and I paraphrase - that the Republican movements ability to be self critical has always given it the progressive edge on all other groups. I firmly agree with Gerry Adams and so too would any free thinking Irish Republican. The secret here is to be free thinking and self critical to keep the progressive edge. This is sadly lacking in comments emanating from most recent Sinn Fein comments and in particular those expressed on this board.


Finally, If Anthony Mc Intyre reads this posting and theose other posts that have come to be because I placed his article on the forum . I am sorry that I have been naieve in my thinking that people would simply read what you had to say on the matter without rancour.

I enjoyed your article Mr Mc Intyre and I honestly believed others would also. Please keep writing and offering your sincere and honest appraisal. You have one supporter at least in me.

by shinner Thu Jul 22, 2004 13:00

After Ardoyne: Securocrats must be reined in

On Monday 12 July, in defiance of the Parades Commission's determination, the PSNI forced a crowd of Orange Order supporters, including some known unionist paramilitaries, through nationalist areas of Ardoyne, Mountainview and the Dales in North Belfast.

To facilitate this banned parade, hundreds of heavily-armed British soldiers were deployed. Local residents were corralled behind a wall of steel and faced with lines of baton and riot shield wielding members of the notorious British Parachute Regiment and the PSNI.

In sharp contrast, PSNI officers chatted with Orange spectators, some of whom engaged in highly provocative displays of anti-Catholic bigotry and whose threats of disruption and intimidation preceded the parade. The low-key PSNI operation here involved waist-high fencing and a handful of PSNI officers.

Gerry Kelly, Kathy Stanton, also a Sinn Fein MLA for North Belfast, and other Sinn Fein councillors were present throughout the events in Ardoyne.

This week, Gerry Kelly spoke to An Phoblacht's LAURA FRIEL about the events of last week.

Gerry Kelly: To begin to appreciate the anger and hurt of the nationalist community in Ardoyne you have to understand that this is the area of Holy Cross. This is the area where Catholic schoolchildren, some as young as four years of age, and their parents, were forced to run the gauntlet of unionist bigotry and violence for months as they walked to Holy Cross school. The area has also endured ongoing sectarian attacks against Catholic homes.

So this isn't just any nationalist area objecting to an Orange march; this is an area that has endured not only provocation, but sustained violent attack, some of which has been perpetrated by Orangemen and their unionist paramilitary supporters. In a nutshell, we have a population already traumatised by anti-Catholic violence and bigotry forced to witness some of the very same people engage in a coat trailing exercise through the heart of their community, against the Parades Commission's ruling and facilitated by British crown forces.


An Phoblacht: Who do you think was responsible for the decision to force this banned parade through the Ardoyne district?

The buck stops with the British Government. Clearly, the British Secretary of State, Paul Murphy, is still listening to the securocrats who have been manipulating the system here for the last 30 years and indeed, many years before that. The securocrats are still operating to a pro-unionist, anti-nationalist agenda and are attempting to hold onto the old ways of the discredited Orange state.

The NIO securocrats are a malign influence over this entire process. The process will not succeed if they are not reined in, because what we are talking about here is the same ethos, the same objectives and in many cases the same people who forced the Orange Order march down Garvaghy Road in 1997 (Indeed, the names of some of those currently involved are to be found on an NIO internal memo which found its way into the public domain at that time).

This decision was made at a political level. It is Sinn Fein's belief that the decision to force this parade through Ardoyne had already been made when unionist politicians emerged from meetings with British officials at Hillsborough some days earlier. Rather than uphold the rights of nationalist residents, the decision makers caved in to, or were complicit in, threats of intimidation and disruption by unionist politicians and paramilitaries.

This policy of appeasing those who will not engage in dialogue with nationalist residents, whose supporters indulge in blatant displays of anti-Catholic bigotry and anti-Irish racism during Orange marches, and who threaten widespread disruption and intimidation if they are not allowed to flaunt their outrageous behaviour in the faces of those they despise, goes to the heart of the political project facing us all.

That is building a society based on equality, understanding and respect; an Ireland of Equals.

The British Government's failure to implement the Good Friday Agreement and instead their policy of giving in to unionist intransigence in whatever form, the DUP, the Orange Order and unionist paramilitaries, is undermining the peace process.

How do you view the PSNI's role in the events in Ardoyne?

On 12 July the PSNI implemented the British Government's political decision. In addition to the political provocation of effectively overturning the Parades Commission's ruling, the PSNI's decision to deploy one of the most hated sections of the British Army, the paratroopers, into nationalist Ardoyne further fuelled an already volatile situation.

And let me tell you this, all the ingredients for another Bloody Sunday were in place in Ardoyne that day. That this was avoided, and it was avoided by a hair's breadth, was entirely down to a few dozen republican activists.

"The PSNI's decision to deploy British paratroopers was a recipe for disaster. The NIO had created the situation. But once given the opportunity, the PSNI reverted to the old discredited RUC style of anti-nationalist policing.

What then the future for policing?

Without the full implementation of the Patten recommendations and the introduction of real mechanisms of democratic control, the PSNI will remain unaccountable to the communities they are policing. That unaccountability is at the heart of policing. The continuing anti-nationalist ethos of Special Branch inevitably has the PSNI operating like the RUC.

Democratic accountability would make the kind of policing and military tactics deployed against the people of Ardoyne last week impossible. In that context, political solutions would have to be sought through dialogue and engagement. In circumstances where physical repression has traditionally been deployed to support and bolster unionism, the removal of repression as an option can transform the political landscape. Sinn Fein has been particularly clear sighted on the importance of getting policing right.

What about the wider political fallout on the policing issue?

In recent weeks a number of senior members of the SDLP have begun to publicly question their party's current position on policing in the North. Dolores Kelly, Danny O'Connor and Martin Morgan have all suggested that the SDLP might consider withdrawing from the policing boards. Such a move would be welcomed within the nationalist community.

But the important thing is that these realities - unacceptable policing - are grasped now and dealt with or the momentum will be lost and perhaps even reversed.


Some media commentators have tried to portray republican intervention in Ardoyne as somehow defending the British Army. How do you reply to your critics?

Some journalists enjoyed this opportunity to trivialise what was a very dangerous and volatile situation which, without the timely intervention of republicans, could have escalated into a bloodbath.

The situation was this. A crowd of unarmed civilians, many of them teenagers were facing a heavily-armed and increasingly agitated British Army unit. When a handful of soldiers became isolated within the crowd, one soldier cocked his weapon in readiness to open fire. We all know what can happen when British soldiers start firing into a civilian crowd. We can all remember Bloody Sunday.

The presence of mind and timely action of republicans in defusing the situation narrowly prevented that. This has nothing to do with how we view the British Army or for that matter the PSNI and most thinking people know that.


What consequences do you think events in Ardoyne have had on the Parades Commission?

Unionists have been trying to undermine the Parades Commission for some time. The political decision by the British Government to undermine the authority of the commission will only encourage further unionist and Orange Order intransigence.

That decision was a slap in the face to the nationalist community. It was a decision that could only have been made at a political level. That decision could have disastrous consequences for the Parades Commission.

The commission was set up precisely to ensure an independent decision making mechanism operating in accordance with its stated remit, rather than decisions made at the whim of political manipulation and unionist paramilitary intimidation. Sinn Fein will, of course, be pursuing this matter with the British and Irish Governments.

Before ending this interview, I would like to extend my sympathies, and the sympathy of all republicans to the family of Tommy Clarke".

Tommy died of a heart attack in Ardoyne on 12 July during the events described.

by roz Mon Sep 13, 2004 01:22

shinnerwatch, no-one reads all that crap you post, if your post is like ten thousand words long people will just ignore your goofball cut'n'paste attempts at debate!