Provisional Sinn Féin Booted out of Trinity over hate mail

by pat c Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:11

The Union Jack still flutters over TCD. I cried at the Brightonbombing, cried because Thatcher survived. The only thing that brightened me up was seeing Tebbitt being carried out on a stretcher his faced twisted in agony. A small comeback for the agony that he had imposed on the Working Class. This took place during the Miners Strike and there were celebrations in mining communities at the news of the bombing.

Remember how Tebbit used to tell people to get on their bike and search for work? Well, the Revolutionary Communist Group in England put a picture of Tebbitt on his stretcher with the headline: "On Your Stretcher Tebbitt!".

by POP watch Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:21

Where the workers in the Grand Hotel all tories and supporters of Tebbitt?

by pat c Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:26

were the 6 cleaning women killed in the OIRA attack on the Paras HQ supporters of Ted Heath?

No hotel stall were killed in the Brighton attack.

by POP Watch Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:51

"I regret the deaths at Brighton,'' said Xxxxx. "I deeply regret that anybody had to lose their lives."

But not you, eh Pat?

by pat c Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:54

I never heard either the WP or OIRA utter any regret at the deaths of the cleaning women at the Para HQ.

The person you qoute regrets the deaths but believes he was invoved in a legitimate struggle. I hope that puts it in context.

by POP watch Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:16

"....the oira aldershot bombing took place at the para reg hq, outside the officers mess. the intention was to kill a large number of para officers. it was a military target. it also has be seen in the context of what it was: a direct response to Bloody Sunday."

Aren't archives brilliant?
Pat the political chameleon. I bet you fight with your own shadow. Don't you think that the ceasefire called shortly afterwards was sign of their regret?

by pat c Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:28

You are the person who raised bo mbings and civilian casualties. I responded to you in kind. I agree that the PARA HQ was a military target. But this would not tie in what the WP have been saying for so many years.

What exactly is your point? Do you think its ok for the OIRA to kil cleaning women at Aldershot but not for the IRA to put hotel workers at risk in Brighton?

I dont see how a cesefire would show regret. REgret that people had to die yes. But not regret for the struggle or actions.

Did the OIRA ceasfire in 1972 show any regret on the part of the OIRA? Certainly not, the OIRA continued kill soldiers and RUC men. The last RUC man they kil led was in a bank robbery, how symbolic of what the OIRA had become. Should I mention the OIRAs continued attacks on the IRA and IRSP and INLA in 1975 and 1977 or themurder of Seamus Costello. And the ongoing criminality of the OIRA.

We could be here quite a while you know if we are going to continue with these exchanges.

by POP watch Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:43

"We could be here quite a while you know if we are going to continue with these exchanges."

Indeed we could!

by pat c Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:47

so lets agree to disagree then.

by obvious Thu Nov 17, 2005 13:57

Pat, and fellow thinkers, I would have thought the most obvious point wasn't whether targets were legitimate or otherwise, but whether this kind of action achieves anything. The evidence would suggest that it doesn't. The IRA campaign ended in inevitable defeat. Their actions tended to reduce the bulk of their community to passivity, while arousing the Protestants to outrage, and also equipping the British state with tremendous propaganda in favour of repression. A smaller and smaller core of active guerrillas could not smash through those factors.

Had Thatcher been killed, she would immediately have been replaced by another, deified by the media and had her policies pursued even more ruthlessly by the securocrats.

Maybe after decades of failed endeavour a search for new tactics would be a good idea....

by pat c Thu Nov 17, 2005 14:13

obvious has a point. thatcher was replacable. but it doesnt take away from the joy that was felt by so many at the news of the attack. and the srrow that was felt when it was learned that Thatcher had survived. As Sean MacManus put it: "I was gutted when they didnt get Thatcher".

by Con Carroll - Class War Thu Nov 17, 2005 14:36

Nice one
Class-War London are organising a party 6pm the Saturday after the Evil Fascist Thatcher dies. Trafalgar sq

by Barry Thu Nov 17, 2005 16:56

Although theres no doubt Thatcher was and is an odious psychopathic woman who deserved her comeuppance in Brighton , all she did was enforce British labour party policy in Ireland . The decision to criminalise , dehumanise and brutalise Irish prisoners was taken by the Labour party and the H Block regime was put in place by them in 1976 .

The blanket / no wash protest was already underway for over 3 full years by the time she came to office . The regime in the H Blocks Thatcher oversaw was entirely a Labour party construct . Unfortunately history has wiped their complicity in these crimes from the communal memory in place of personalised hatred against this particular individual . The deaths of 10 hungerstrikers and the institutionalised brutality of the HBlocks were as much Labours responsibility as hers .

The British labour party reacted with equally vicious contempt for years to the fact that 100s of men were living in brutal and utterly disgusting conditions in a British jail in Ireland . They crowed how they were "squeezing them like a tube of toothpaste" and confidently predicted they would beat the blanketmen who they referred to as animals while they ran the prisons .

Ulsterisation , Normalisation and Criminalisation was introduced by "old" Labour . And their full and total support for thatchers stance throughout the Hungerstrikes should never be forgotten .

by pat c Thu Nov 17, 2005 17:18

Tony Benn, Eric Heffer, Jermey Corbyn, Dennis Skinner and other Labour MPs supported the H Block hunger strikers as did many members of the Labour Party. You are right though the H Blocks were A Labour Cabinet creation. Tony Benn served in that Cabinet, from his diaries it is clear he opposed the criminalisation policy. Yet he remained in the Cabinet. Thats on his own conscience.

by Barry Thu Nov 17, 2005 17:34

But again it gets back to personalitys , rather than structures as a whole . Ive no doubt at all the men you mention are honourable , decent men . Just as Im sure there were plenty of RUC men who didnt agree with collusion etc .

But this whole Thatcher thing 20 years on is a bit much . She was no worse than Heath or Callaghan , and ceratinly not as regards Ireland . I find that far too often politics , particularly Irish politics , concentrates on the attributes of the individual and not the issues at hand . The downside of the personal demonisation of Thatcher is investing in her all that was wrong with Britsh rule . This contributes to people sometimes missing the point . They blame her rather than British interference in Ireland itself . And none of them , neither Callaghan or Blair would have acted any differently .

And stuff like that also contributes to the cult of personality here , rather than democratic republican structures . IMO anyway .

I just think peoples efforts would be better spent attempting to remove British interference and defending Irish sovereignty than taunting an 80 year old sow about her dead husband . If the above story is true those involved in that e mail showed poor taste and judgement . Republicanism should be above that type of carry on .

.

by pat c Thu Nov 17, 2005 18:19

"But again it gets back to personalitys , rather than structures as a whole . Ive no doubt at all the men you mention are honourable , decent men . Just as Im sure there were plenty of RUC men who didnt agree with collusion etc ."

its not fair to compare them to "honest" rucmen. Whatever my disagreements with them they continued to support the H Block prisoners despite IRA actions in England. they were socialists in their own way and worked to change the structure of the lp through the campaign group of mps.

by Obvious Thu Nov 17, 2005 18:32

You are clearly very animated by the issue of sovereignty - you write about it often on this and other threads. But I have yet to see you explain how you intend to achieve it. You have argued before that if the British declare their intention to withdraw there will be no Protestant resistance other than from 'a drug dealing rabble.' (That is, it can easily be faced down, with minimal loss of life - how minimal, Barry? 500 dead? 5000? 500,000?)

As I recall, your main piece of empirical evidence in support of this incredible assertion was that your father worked with some Protestants in 1969 and acquired the conviction that they would do a deal if confronted with the serious possibility of British withdrawal - seem to me to be a narrow evidence base on which to gamble so many people's lives!

But it follows, does it not, that we should be prepared to risk an all out civil war on your say-so that the Prods will just roll over? Perhaps you think that even if just a few thousand were to die then the joys of a united Ireland would be so great that this would be a price worth paying.

But what does not seem to follow is any clear statement from you or the organisation to which you belong of how to get this. I can only imagine that you would favour a resumption of the IRA campaign - if I am wrong, please correct me. If you do not fabvour such a thing, then it seems that only argument and persuasion remain.

Or have I missed an important part of your world view? Please note that I am not trying to start a debate about perfidious Albion or anything like it. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the Border remains a vital issue; that the British have no right here and all of that. My point is: even if we do accept this, it does not follow that a military struggle will achieve your ends. And indeed plentiful experience would suggest it always ends in shambles.

You do not, I believe, have a coherent or convincing position on this,. Merely ranting against the injustices heaped on us by the British does not begin to address the crucial question I am posing here: do the tactices that you appear to favouir have a chance of success? I would say they do not, and that therefore your whole project collapses around you.

by Barry Thu Nov 17, 2005 20:20

For your information my father was a senior trade union repesentative who worked alongside and represented protestants in a major northern factory throughout the entire 1970s , 69 -81 to be precise . He also represented them at numerous boards , employment and compensation tribunals etc and sat on trades councils with them as well throughout the entire 70s . He attended TUC conferences in England regularly in their company too . He helped negotiate safe passage for workers with loyalist leaders as well during the LAW strikes etc and regularly came into contact with unionist politicians in the course of his union work . And they all knew who he was and what he was . And as a former British soldier who served alongside Gusty Spence he even popped into the British legion ( as he was entitled) for a pint with them the odd time when union and factory issues needed discussing . He met more than a few protestants in 1969 . He even met with Brian Faulkner , Harold McCusker and senior loyalists as part of his work and theres a black and white photograph of them together at a meeting to prove it .

Ive also pointed to the historical fact that when a British withdrawal looked to be firmly on the cards the extremes of unionism and loyalism said publicly they were prepared at least to examine and discuss options such as federalism etc . Political structures in a united Ireland that they could live under and regard as fair and honourable . Figures such as even Paisley himself , John Taylor , McMichael , Tyrie , Sam Smyth and Desmond Boal have all in the past shown an openess to discuss these issues at least because at the time it appeared to be in the protestant people of the norths interest to do so . The only thing that convinced them it was in their interests to do so was the imminent threat of British withdral . The willingness to avoid a doomsday civil war was most definitely there .

As President of Sinn Fein in the 70s ROB was even able to give an address on his proposals to unionists in Belfast during the 70s and he wasnt hounded from the hall in which he addressed them . The Feakle talks undertaken in the 1970s where concrete proposals for structures of unity were discussed with protestant leaders also held out possibilities that were dashed by Garda Special Branch intervention and the simultaneous cranking up of sectarian warfare by British intelligence . Yet the churchmen who attended Feakle maintain it was a positive meeting and felt a lot more could have been acheived had they been allowed to continue further .

These are instances of empirical and historical rather than anecdotal evidence that cant be dismissed . With concrete proposals that could accomodate and protect Irish sovereignty and independence , the Ulster protestant identity and tradition and structures which could guarantee an end to clerical interference , civil war was seen mutually as avoidable in the face of a phased British withdrawal . Providing unionists could be guaranteed a fair political settlement under which they wouldnt be dominated or discriminated against and in which they could see concrete structures that they could live under. This is something the left and constitutional nationalism have both failed to do ( save for maybe the WP who idolised eastern bloc regimes and wanted one here too, a sure fire winner if ever there was)

I am not personally advocating federalism and am not a follower of ROB , but it is also a fact that neither the left nor constitutional nationalism have as yet defined the political structures they would like to see in a united Ireland nor how these political structures could ever hope to accomodate those of the northern protestant tradition and defend national sovereignty. New Sinn Fein can now be included in the fold of constitutional nationalism having adopted its historical position . Their answer is to revive British structures in Stormont and administer British rule .

Neither camp have even attempted to bring an end to Irelands colonial era or plan for future unity . Thats because they recognise British sovereignty over Irish sovereignty and are happy to retain the system. Instead they settle for useless mantras of the need for unity under colonial rule , while at the same time contributing sweet fuck all to any concrete proposals that will bring about an end to the colonial situation or what Ireland could be like without it . They contribute nothing to the search , they engage with no-one in seeking an end to this stinking state merely seek their own niche within it . And they routinely deride those who dont follow suit as a shower of bastards and the cause of Irelands woes .

British colonial rule itself is incapabale of ever bringing people together , full stop. It institutionalises sectarianism by its very nature and is a disaster in all its forms . Continually looking to the colonial power in Ireland , Britain , to solve our problems when they are the fucking problem is an utterly backward way of finding a solution .

A country without national sovereignty at the core of political life , and that does not even have the concept of sovereignty in its political structures cannot sort out its internal problems with any degree of satisfaction . Fundamental rights of self determination and an end to foreign interference are a prerequisite to normal political life anywhere in the world . Without this we accept it as pefectly normal to hand over our political futures and political structures to a colonial power who then determines the future of our nation . Once we do this its a logical step to hand over our airports and national resources to foreign interests as well . What rights do we as a people have to them in the first place if not a sovereign right ?

As things stand Britain refuses to recognise Irelands right to national self determination as it always has . As a result the politics practiced throughout Ireland have sought to reflect this and accomodate it rather than challenge the denial of national sovereignty which is our fundamental right . The politics practiced throughout Ireland are British politics , as they are predicated on the right of Britain to occupy Ireland and not on the Irish people acting as a unit to determine their affairs without foreign interference . That will always result in a fucked up political system and ensure further conflict .

But of course its a lot easier to just sit and call republicans a shower of no good bastards for seeking an end to it than trying to bring about an end to it yourself .

by obvious Thu Nov 17, 2005 23:22

Barry - I won't debate this with you. Anyone reading this can decide for themselves whether your father's credentials as a trade unionist are sufficient to outweigh Greysteel, the murder of hundreds of Catholics in the 1970s (and the wholesale dumping of their bodies in The Village in Belfast, The Miama Showband Massacre etc). You evidently think that Protestant resistance to your goals would be a) minimal and/or b) amount to no more than a few thousand (how many?) dead, that you have decided is a price worth paying. Everyone must decide whether this is a perfectly sensible strategy, as you think - or stark, raving luncay, as I believe it is.

By your silence, or more accurately , your absolute refusal to address the question, I also can only conclude that you do advocate a resumption of 'The War' as a way to achieve your goals. You think that a few hundred (at best) urban guerrillas can achieve a Britis hdeclaration of internt to withdraw - and furthermore that the Prods will more or less accept this. (If a few thousand die as a result, what odds? Ending the Border is worth it). Thus violence is the way forward? Again, a perfectly sensible strategy, in pursuit of rational goals - or the rantings of a madman, in the support of the unimportant.

I know which conclusion I have reached.

by Barry Thu Nov 17, 2005 23:32

Go back over what Ive written here or anywhere else before you start slabbering a pile of bullshit about 1000s dead etc . Where do I even advocate Guerrilla warfare by a few hundred or a few million for that matter . What the fuck are you rambling on about . Just because you had an answer already prepared to your question doesnt mean you can just slot it in when Ive said something different . Your away with it here .

What is your political issue that you feel I havent addressed . And I havent advocated warfare or violence anywhere . Please point out where ?

by seedot Fri Nov 18, 2005 03:20

Barry, there is no point referring to or engaging with a troll - as they say "Barry - I won't debate this with you. "

Your post brings two questions to mind:

1. From what you have heard of the uwc, how sectarian was protestantism at this time? Your anecdote seems to confirm other impressions (e.g. Robert Fisk on the strike) that when the government was the enemy Loyalism may have been reactionary but it wasn't (as?) sectarian.

2. The Republic that claims sovereignty - how are the people defined? If it is geographic then it must negotiate it's validity with all people born on the island. If it is by birthright this is an opening for anti-(protestant/british/unionist) sectarianism as well as loads of other crap. Would the theorists of the republic you know have views on the recent referendum - did you discuss or campaign on this?

by baffled Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:55

I presume from your comments above that:

1. You therefore advocate persuasion and argument, aimed at both the Protestants and the British, as a way to achieve a united Ireland. After all, you are opposed you say to a guerrilla struggle. You therefore presumably think that such tactics cannot work. And perhaps you think they were a waste of time in the past. (Truthfully, it is hard to know what you think, let alone why).
2. Therefore, if the Real IRA were to declare a war tomorrow taking the form of say a few bombs in London, you would energetically and publicly oppose it.

Now - have I got you right?

by Barry Fri Nov 18, 2005 16:48

or a plain troll .

by baffled Fri Nov 18, 2005 17:10

and i presume that if you had some confidence in your ideas you would answer the question, rather than evade it. For or against violence, Barry? The question remains. Unanswered by you

by Barry Fri Nov 18, 2005 17:29

You dont question for one second the right of the British to use armed violence against Irish people in their own country , which makes you a hypocrite and a troll .

. As long as any part of this country is occupied by a foreign power then absolutely , without question , Irish people have an inherent right to use armed force against that foreign occupation . Just like every other people throughout the world have the same right . Is it just the right of Irish people to resist foreign armies on their soil you have a problem with or everybody ?

by baffled Fri Nov 18, 2005 17:51

so you do advocate an armed campaign against British rule in Ireland? I am just trying to understand what you want!!!! You seemed easrlier to say you were NOT advocating a strategy of war - now you seem to say that you are. Which is it? Please be specific and answer the question.

The issue in any event was NOT about your 'right' or otherwise to wage war. It was:

1. Do you advocate a war?
2. If you do, rather than go on about your r'ight' to do so (one most Irish people contest), please discuss whether it is likely to succeed?

By reverting to an emphasis on British duplicity, and your 'right' or otherwise to engage in war (without being clear about whether you are advocating thsi course of action or not) you are just evading the question.

Look, it is possible to accept everything you say about Britain and the need for sovereignty etc - but to question whether violence is the way to go about it. You are just not addressing this issue. Again.

by Barry Fri Nov 18, 2005 18:11

I am not a member of any armed organisation , therefore I will not be going about any armed campaign . Neither do I advocate anyone else doing something that I am unprepared to do . I support fully and absolutely their right to do it though if thats what they choose . I fully and absolute support the right of people to engaged in armed actions against an occupier , whether it be here , Palestine Chechnya or Iraq .

And I certainly wont be devising any strategy or plan of action as you seem to be convinced I will. You not only seem to assume all of this you also think I will post the details of any such plan on Indymedia well in advance . Im sorry , I just cant help you . I am not the Reals Chief of Staff nor am I their wing commander strategist in chief . I simply cant answer questions I dont know the answer to .

What I do believe though is that republicans have no intention of embarking on another 30 year day in day out grind in an attempt to emulate or copy the last phase of the conflict . And nor do I believe the issue for them is British duplicity , as Sinn Fein seem to think , but Britains right to occupy any part of this island in the first place . Now could you give it a rest for a wee while because Seedot put a couple of good questions there Id like to try and address .

by Less Baffled Fri Nov 18, 2005 18:17

Now I am less baffled. It is much clearer.

You are a hyp[ocrite. On the one hand: 'I am not a member of any armed organisation , therefore I will not be going about any armed campaign . Neither do I advocate anyone else doing something that I am unprepared to do '. Yo usee Barry this kind of implies you are against an armed struggle - for reasons you don't specify, but which I would presume include the quite sensibel view that it is unlikely to succeed.

But on the other hand: 'I support fully and absolutely their right to do it though if thats what they choose . I fully and absolute support the right of people to engaged in armed actions against an occupier ' . So - if some poor deluded young man decided to launch a bombing campaign, you don't support the campaign (since you don't advocate any such thing), but you support his right to engage in it. Is that right? This means you will sit by the fireside swilling whisky, maybe singing rebel songs, and cheering others on to their destruction.

You are some character fella - and Irish people in general have had enough of your kind.

by Barry Fri Nov 18, 2005 18:33

I cant sing , I stopped drinking whiskey years ago and I have oil fired central heating . Now please , enough of your buffoonery .

by woman's hour Fri Nov 18, 2005 18:37

tell us more...

by observer Fri Nov 18, 2005 18:38

I have some sympathy for the peoplearguing against you here. I also have read many of your comments, generally with bewilderment. After following you on this thread, I am even more bewildered. I simply have no idea of how you propose to get this united Ireland. You oppose a new war strategy - but if others engage in one you are quite cool with it, since it is in your view their 'right' (one that by the way over-rides the right of the rest of us to peace and quiet). Uhhh?

Meanwhile, your own strategy is - what exactly? But maybe you don't know yourself.

Any chance you could tell us how you and your organisation propose to achieve Irish sovereignty?????

by Barry Fri Nov 18, 2005 18:49

As well as putting your over active imagination on hold for a while ? . Some of the conclusions you reach above in your posts verge on the hysterical . From me gleefully rubbing my hands at the prospect of mass graves to MY morphing into a whiskey sodden Darby O'Gill type figure singing wrap the green flag round me as some poor 12 year old goes out against the brits with a pike .

Here , knock yourself out

http://www.32csm.org/pow.html

Why Im even arguing with a PD is beyond me

by tiny tim Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:28

Be Gob boys, but there's no stopping the Sindo - the Provies are sending emails! God bless the mark!
Can somebody ask Eoghan Harris what he knows about a robbery at Heuston Station in 1973.... cos I don't think the Provos did it, but certan people iinked to the Sindo got a few bob out of ...