"Q: What do you say to those people who are unhappy but are pulled the other way by feelings of loyalty?

A: Examine their consciences. Take a good look at what is going on. If they agree - ok. If not then speak out." - Fourthwrite interview with Brendan Hughes

TPQ reproduces Gemma Murray's latest feature from the News Letter on physical force republicanism. In this piece she has interviewed former INLA volunteer and blanketman, Tony O'Hara. It initially featured on 8 January 2014.

The 57-year-old, who spent five years in prison for INLA activities, said 'nothing will be achieved by the current republican [dissident] campaign apart from filling up jails'. 'They [dissidents] need to realise that,' he added.

Even years ago when I was involved I had difficulty about taking life. But then it seemed a necessary part of the war.

If they continue it is a waste of their time and only inflicts hardship on a community that is already under terrible hardship from the economy and everything else.

What they [dissidents] are doing at the moment is going nowhere. When we look back all the people who lost their lives, and those who were injured and hurt in attacks and bombings everywhere, it achieved nothing.

The former blanketman, who was the cell mate of the first republican prisoner to die on hunger strike, Bobby Sands, added that 'all those lives were lost and it wasn’t worth it'.

'Hindsight is a great thing,' he added. 'Myself and my friends were prepared to die so that Ireland would be free. But what was I prepared to die for?'

He added that:

nothing will be achieved [by dissident republicans] by fighting on apart from misery.

Nothing can be achieved for the next 20 years, if they keep going, apart from more people going into jails.

There is no difference between what the Provos were fighting for and what they [dissidents] are fighting for.

But the big difference is the lack of support from the community. It is not there any more. If you look back in the history of Sinn Fein from 1975/76 you see headlines like "Smash Stormont".

Now years later the same members are in government there. They [Sinn Fein] keep on using the word dissidents, but the Provos were the largest dissident group going.

They left the IRA. For them to use the word dissidents when they themselves were dissidents is laughable.

They use the word like it is a dirty word.

Mr O’Hara said that is why he did not use the term.

The Londonderry man, who joined the INLA in 1975 when the IRA went on a temporary four-month ceasefire, added he 'never had any hope for the Haass talks. When you get people who are so entrenched in their position there is no chance of them moving on'.

Tony O’Hara is the sixth former senior republican and blanketman to speak to the News Letter calling for dissidents to examine the history of the Troubles and rethink their campaign.

In recent weeks former senior Provisional IRA man Tommy Gorman said 'a group of us have been making this point about dissidents for a long, long time'.

Earlier, former hunger striker Gerard Hodgins asked dissident republicans to:
try and come up with a non-violent alternative because there is no appetite or support for a violent conflict in this country among any significant number of the population.

Former Provo Tommy McKearney said he believed dissident republican violence was bolstering Sinn Fein support.

And in the first of the series former senior IRA men Anthony McIntyre and Richard O’Rawe branded the ongoing dissident campaign as “madness” and called for them to stop.

Mr McIntyre said: 
Republicans lost the war and the IRA campaign failed and the dissidents need to be told that it failed rather then be allowed to continue thinking what they do. It cost so many lives.

Not one Life was Worth Losing During Troubles, says Former INLA man


"Q: What do you say to those people who are unhappy but are pulled the other way by feelings of loyalty?

A: Examine their consciences. Take a good look at what is going on. If they agree - ok. If not then speak out." - Fourthwrite interview with Brendan Hughes

TPQ reproduces Gemma Murray's latest feature from the News Letter on physical force republicanism. In this piece she has interviewed former INLA volunteer and blanketman, Tony O'Hara. It initially featured on 8 January 2014.

The 57-year-old, who spent five years in prison for INLA activities, said 'nothing will be achieved by the current republican [dissident] campaign apart from filling up jails'. 'They [dissidents] need to realise that,' he added.

Even years ago when I was involved I had difficulty about taking life. But then it seemed a necessary part of the war.

If they continue it is a waste of their time and only inflicts hardship on a community that is already under terrible hardship from the economy and everything else.

What they [dissidents] are doing at the moment is going nowhere. When we look back all the people who lost their lives, and those who were injured and hurt in attacks and bombings everywhere, it achieved nothing.

The former blanketman, who was the cell mate of the first republican prisoner to die on hunger strike, Bobby Sands, added that 'all those lives were lost and it wasn’t worth it'.

'Hindsight is a great thing,' he added. 'Myself and my friends were prepared to die so that Ireland would be free. But what was I prepared to die for?'

He added that:

nothing will be achieved [by dissident republicans] by fighting on apart from misery.

Nothing can be achieved for the next 20 years, if they keep going, apart from more people going into jails.

There is no difference between what the Provos were fighting for and what they [dissidents] are fighting for.

But the big difference is the lack of support from the community. It is not there any more. If you look back in the history of Sinn Fein from 1975/76 you see headlines like "Smash Stormont".

Now years later the same members are in government there. They [Sinn Fein] keep on using the word dissidents, but the Provos were the largest dissident group going.

They left the IRA. For them to use the word dissidents when they themselves were dissidents is laughable.

They use the word like it is a dirty word.

Mr O’Hara said that is why he did not use the term.

The Londonderry man, who joined the INLA in 1975 when the IRA went on a temporary four-month ceasefire, added he 'never had any hope for the Haass talks. When you get people who are so entrenched in their position there is no chance of them moving on'.

Tony O’Hara is the sixth former senior republican and blanketman to speak to the News Letter calling for dissidents to examine the history of the Troubles and rethink their campaign.

In recent weeks former senior Provisional IRA man Tommy Gorman said 'a group of us have been making this point about dissidents for a long, long time'.

Earlier, former hunger striker Gerard Hodgins asked dissident republicans to:
try and come up with a non-violent alternative because there is no appetite or support for a violent conflict in this country among any significant number of the population.

Former Provo Tommy McKearney said he believed dissident republican violence was bolstering Sinn Fein support.

And in the first of the series former senior IRA men Anthony McIntyre and Richard O’Rawe branded the ongoing dissident campaign as “madness” and called for them to stop.

Mr McIntyre said: 
Republicans lost the war and the IRA campaign failed and the dissidents need to be told that it failed rather then be allowed to continue thinking what they do. It cost so many lives.

56 comments:

  1. Tony wouldn't I've been happy being called a Londonderry man, that's an oppressors word for a Derryman.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tony-

    " Not one life was worth losing "-

    We'll Lenny butcher Murphy had a life worth losing and I am sure if we put our minds to it we could come up with others-

    AM-

    Six Republicans from the six have now been interview by the newsletter and the message has got out -but I think that some Republican from the 26 should also back up the other six in another interview so it's a 32 county message going out-
    Just my opinion by the way-

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Not one life was worth losing during troubles"

    I really dislike reading or hearing this statement again and again from various sources. I am not disagreeing with the statement, and I understand the enormous loss and the sacrifices of those throughout the troubles.

    Each has their own right express their opinion and of course the opinions of those who were directly involved in and experienced conflict are particularly important. But I feel that such statements do, to a certain extent, delegitimise those very sacrifices and the IRA campaign which was largely justifiable.

    Hindsight is a great thing, and of course at some stage during the troubles, and probably earlier than many believe, the struggle was led down the wrong path and we are where we are now. I'm sure that if many of you who were activists could go back you would all change many many things, but I imagine most would still have joined the IRA, facing those same conditions of the sixties and seventies. It is easy to make the "Not one life was worth it" now in hindsight, and I feel that such statements seek to show the futility of armed struggle, rather than to cast a spotlight on the inadequate leadership that was to blame for it's failure.

    I also think that the "Not one ife was worth it statement" is one that will be lost on so called dissidents who will simply point the finger at SF sellouts for the failure. These armed groups can also, in some manner, claim the high ground. They, after all, did not have the wool pulled over their eyes like many others did for so long (myself included although I am of a younger generation).

    I have great respect for volunteers who sacrificed all and I'd like to add that the struggle, in whatever form, for Irish unity is not over yet. Those who died continue , and will continue to inspire many. One day unity may occur, and maybe then their lives and others would have been worth it after all.

    I hope I have not strayed too much from the original intentions of the article, but they were my immediate thoughts. The futility of armed struggle is an argument I am still not convinced of, and I still think that there is an onus on those who continuously try to persuade armed groups to a different trajectory to give a real incentive and to build an alternative political grouping to achieve a united Ireland

    ReplyDelete
  4. You don't look all that sweet or deserving to me, MichaelHenry.

    Can we put your name in the pot?

    Also all the tubes who felt all authoritarian down in South Armagh/ Monaghan. Starting with Conor Murphy. There's one no-one will mourn.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I live in a Nationalist / Republican district. The Newsletter is not stocked by our local Newsagent. I suspect its the same in similar Nationalist / Republican districts. Im at a loss as to know who these Newsletter articles are supposed to reach. Does anybody have any idea of the percentage of the Newsletter readership that is Republican be they dissident Republicans or conforming Republicans?
    Does anyone know if any of the Newsletter 6 received payment for their contributions? just asking like

    ReplyDelete
  6. MH

    I suspect no doubt you would put Joe O Connors name and Paul Quinns name in along with Lennie Murphys as one's who's lives were worth losing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think it's important that the great contribution being made by those who've chosen to address the issue of continuing political violence and who do so in the context of the campaign conducted by the Provisional IRA takes more account of the underlying cause of the conflict. While it might not have been worth one life in terms of what the Provisional's ultimately agreed to it's vital to keep in context that it was the violence of the Unionist state and the British government that brought this situation about. I'm sure all the contributors recognise this but it's not coming out in the narrative. The violent conflict here resulted from the inability of Unionism, backed by the British state, to cede the just demands made by the nationalist community through the civil rights movement. The IRA and its ambitions to mount an armed struggle of course was a central pillar in the process that set this place on fire but it's doubtful whether that alone would have brought the situation about. Much of the response by republicans was defensive - particularly in the beginning in the urban theatres of Belfast and Derry - so the question surely arises what else could they have done. It might not have been worth one life but what other choice was there at the end of the day when the British Army was murdering at will in places like Ballymurphy and the Bogside?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Eddie you can most newspapers on line and the most relevant on the o6c Nuzhound (updated daily)..

    I read Tony's piece yesterday morning with a coffee...

    ReplyDelete
  9. i dont think anyone is doubting that some defensive measures had to be taken against loyalists and the BA-however the ira's campaign to unite ireland was pointless and futile,what would it have changed?this is a question all republicans must take seriously-we have a 'free' 26 county ireland,but whats the difference,we still vote in some knobs every 4 years that makes no difference to the lives of working people,the bankers and big buissness still rule through capitalist institutions-honestly i cannot see what a capitalist united ireland would change?people in the north are as free as people in the south-period-this rubbish about freeing ireland must cease[im not saying people are completly free in either state but thats another discussion]..

    ReplyDelete
  10. Don't really believe the sentiment that not one life was worth losing .............. in the context of things though seeing as we are not really all that further along than we were a few decades ago - maybe that point has some value.

    However to state that no life was worth losing in my mind is a detriment to the honor of those that did lose their lives. Maybe no more should be lost............ at least until we can decide upon what path we are all traveling on and whether it can be a united path or one made from many trails.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's not necessarily about 'freedom' in the capacity you hint at but the democratic right of the Irish people to freely determine their own destiny free from external impediment or interference. And in terms of the campaign to unite Ireland let's not forget their were two sides in this and the violence of the Provo's was responsive to a terrorist war being inflicted on the Irish people. Once it started there was no stopping it until one side or the other achieved a victory or until it reached a stalemate. But what's important is that the engine behind the conflict was the military occupation. If things were somehow normal here why were there thousands of troops on the streets when I was growing up? Why did it take a military operation to prop this place up? The Provisional IRA might not have achieved its objective of forcing a British withdrawal but the conflict itself was caused by Britain's violence against the nationalist community. That's the backdrop we always need keep in mind. It might not have been worth one death but what else could have been done when the Brits were shooting peaceful protesters dead on the streets... That's my take on it for the little it's worth

    ReplyDelete
  12. Those who took up arms were left with no other choice

    ReplyDelete
  13. First brits i seen were getting cups of tea handed to them.Some local women going with them who went on to be top shinners lol.Its turned full circle again tea n buns allround .Was it worth it was it fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As I pointed out before I'd prefer that these valid points were made in a place where they actually could be read and Unionist only newspapers are not that place.

    I am convinced that we must as Republicans persuade those who still see armed actions as the way forward otherwise.

    The debate has begun so lets take it further along the road.

    My opening gambit is that, not one life was worth losing during the struggle and more so today, that the taking of life to say the struggle goes on can never be justified.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dixie it's men like yourself who have the authority to make such a process a reality. I for one support what you're about one hundred percent and would firmly believe the young lads and lassies in your area would listen to the likes of yourself and Paddy if you's reached out. I'm sure you probably feel I've done my bit and it's time to get offside, maybe not I don't know, but that is something you've definitely got to offer a new generation - the wisdom of your own experience

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree with Tony as do many other`s too regarding lost lives. This is especially poignant for whats been alleged,revealed on touts etc. Would it not have been better if in the late 70,s this was known.A lot of lives would have been saved inc others shot as touts. There`s a strong possibility some were setup. Those and all others.There`s nothing right r glorious with any hostilities Having no choice is also a wrong against another.Gandhi`s words " Its easier to die defending a cause than take another`s for it."
    One of the main reasons of the troubles were created by Loyalist`s and Orange supremacists.Their bigotry hatred against Catholics and Irish identity were endorsed.
    These culture-less nomadic brainless are still marching especially in areas of true Celtic Irish Cultured faithful areas.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tony,

    The reality is the Brits could give a toss and actually enjoying watching us run up and down the street beating our own heads with our own stick.

    The ongoing campaign has largely gone unharmed with the exception of the prisoners the continuation will eventually lead to some poor soul going to a grave.

    Republicanism has lost too much to be inviting more lose is only to the British gain.
    Republicanism must adapt and cease lingering on the peripheral of the lost war to which we can thank SF for piggybacking on the death and destruction all so they could go play same old Stormont politics.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 'but the democratic right of the Irish people to freely determine their own destiny free from external impediment or interference'. if your talking about democracy then the people have spoken,they are in favour of the settlement we have-that is democracy speaking..

    ReplyDelete
  19. In light of what was being inhumanly denied of Catholics since the 1921 British fragmentation of Ulster following Carson’s threat of orchestrated UVF violence, which was initially backed by groups of pro-unionist high ranking mutineer officers within the occupying forces, this as we all know inevitably paved the way for a unionist dominated gerrymandered government that frequently turned a blind eye to sporadic loyalist sectarian murders of innocent Catholics.
    Under the above circumstances, and coupled with rife RUC & B-special bigotry, and the potency of loyal order mob influence in the running of the state, there just weren’t too many viable options left for Catholics when it seemed no one with political clout or a valuable level of influence seemed interested in getting involved or highlighting the wrongs of the state.

    The facts were the ‘state’ was imposed on us through the threat of protestant violence from a community of colonised Anglican aliens and this has always been very conveniently forgotten by unionists & loyalists alike.

    We didn’t ask to be refused jobs, to live three families to a house and to be attacked during the marching seasons by drunken mobs and sometimes murdered for no other reason other than we didn’t sing the sash.

    The reality is the Anglican protestant population created the climate and conditions for an armed reaction from the native Irish Catholics,…what did they seriously expect was going to happen?
    It reminds me of the Nazis when they seized power in 1933 where they orchestrated a policy of repression towards Jews, the same thing happened here, protestants seized power with the threat of violence hanging in the air and by fuck they abuse that power just like the Nazis.
    By 1969 the British army had arrived who many believed were here to put right what was obviously wrong with this place and Catholics gave them some lay way and a measurement of time to work on it, but lo and behold they were only sent here to keep propping up the oppressive sectarian government which inevitably made them part of the wider problem.

    In this context I believe Catholics were justifiably and morally right in taking the road of armed resistance.



    Were the deaths of over 3000 people worth it?

    Obviously the taking of innocent lives cannot be justified even if some of them were sectarian bigots, and I also believe the level of ‘combatant’ deaths weren’t necessary for what little was achieved.

    Were republican deaths worth their sacrifice to put Sinn Fein into Stormont?

    No one gave their lives for Sinn Fein to administer British rule.
    In the end the Sinn Fein leadership betrayed the dead volunteers and they should be ashamed of themselves for it.
    What‘s bizarre is there are still deluded saps out there toeing the corrupt Sinn Fein political line believing they’re elite republicans which is ludicrous!

    ReplyDelete
  20. cormac francis caulfield said...

    "if your talking about democracy then the people have spoken,they are in favour of the settlement we have-that is democracy speaking.."


    Not so...

    A Truly democratic outcome can only be achieved when the freedom to vote in a free and democratic election is present.

    Those north/south referendums were not free and democratic elections they were engineered elections which had pre-set terms and conditions imposed on them restricting the course of true democracy.

    True democracy in Ireland can only be achieved whenever the population of the entire 32 counties are voting for or against the same thing in the same election.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sean,

    whilst I always find your contributions a must read and even though I agree to an extent on your suggestion to Dixie and the others whose experience is invaluable it raises the issue of placing the burden on them.

    I shall try and explain as the articles have come in and been replaced with other articles that merit attention I have thought “what next” when the ongoing articles dry up and our attention is spread elsewhere.

    The Quill has been part of the platform and I would suggest we form an informal committee here if possible with the purpose of not letting this initiative be bypassed and replaced with other argument.

    Which if agreeable and workable could then expand on to other social media sites like Facebook and twitter…etc this in turn would target the younger audience who are more likely to be on those places.

    Although the input is priceless it would seem a shame if we leave it at that.

    I don’t think we should adopt the thought of I have done my bit and that is it for me. If Dixie and others agree with your idea then the onus is on us who have spoken out against armed struggle not to let the message fall from site.

    I for one would be happy to invest time and effort in what I suggest.

    The old saying no part to small none to great applies.

    It’s a suggestion I will leave in the court of public opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dixie,

    most reading of papers seems to be done online. Papers I would never have bought (if only for financial reasons) I now read online.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Those in the South were never asked to vote on the Agreement but to amend Articles 2 and 3 of Bunracht na hEireann. In the six-counties, taking away the fact that the 1998 Agreement has been effectively binned anyway - slashed and superseded by St. Andrew's - the referendum was not held to vote on the Agreement but to permit the British government to make legislative changes to the status of the Northern Ireland state. Right or wrong? Furthermore the talks process was predetermined to build on the Framework Documents and no other constitutional options were on the table, certainly not a reunified Ireland as Sinn Fein themselves admit - even were it only there to be raised and dismissed. It was never an option. How is any of that democracy? The Irish people weren't consulted on their desires because if that had been the case, as research has consistently shown, they'd have expressed support for a British withdrawal and a reunified Ireland. The power of the British military stranglehold subverts democracy here, there's no other way to look at it. If this is NOT the case then let's allow the people to determine this for themselves in an all-Ireland poll. Depending on the result the logical next step would be to set up some form of constitutional convention to construct a constitution capable of satisfying ALL the communities in our country and to oversee a process of transitioning to whatever new arrangements might be AGREED. That would be democracy, what we have now is a Vichy-type administration and political arrangement that serves the diktats of a foreign power because it is dependent on that power for survival. Democracy and 'Northern Ireland' are mutually exclusive terms which yes indeed none other than Ian Paisley admitted yesterday or in the very recent past

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sean Bres,

    I can't say I don't identify with your comments on not worth a life. I think the type of observation you query reflects outcome. I look at what was achieved and don't feel I can think of one person who died that I can say to their relatives 'yeh, this was worth your loved ones life.' And I know you could not or would not either. It was not the fight Sean that made it worthless, it was the outcome. But something tells me I am preaching to the converted.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tain I didn't mean to put the onus on Dixie or others but his contribution to any such process as the one you outline would carry much more weight than the likes of mine. Of course I'd be willing to do anything I can do to further this also as I firmly believe that while political violence existed here for legitimate reasons, not all of which have been addressed, from a strategic point of view its absence might allow something more effective to be built in the conditions that currently exist. We could be on the verge of major changes to the international system with the ongoing crisis in the financial system. The sovereign bond bubble is way out of control and when the crash comes an already fucked up situation is going to get much worse than anything we've already seen. While the people are keeping their heads down now, with their own debts and families to worry about, in this eventuality they will be looking for solutions. We need to be ready to give them ours and of course this is about much more than just getting the Brits out of Ireland. I view the raft of repressive legislation, much of it being guinea-pigged on the likes of Marian Price and Alex McCrory, as the state preparing for the eventuality I'm talking about. 'Anti-terror' is the pretext for enabling a militarised police state with repressive functions capable of tramping down the inevitable dissent when the shit hits the fan. This will be used on ALL the people and not just political dissidents. At this point the people might have to choose fascism or socialism. We have to have our socialist alternative expressed, articulated and standing by for if and when the people arise and look for change. In the meantime we build but we'd better get a move on

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sean, and now for a day of relaxing with my son, reading and watching Scandinavian crime fiction on TV. The sheer volume of traffic on the blog (over 6000 page reads yesterday) takes up too much time unfortunately. And there is a queue of articles waiting to go - the length of a politician's nose. There is another life outside the internet and I am not one of those people who rush to see what is been said about me on the net. It is rarely good anyway! Best for the day.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Enjoy your day Tony, if it ends with Swansea inflicting yet more damage to the pride of Old Trafford I think we'll both be happy but sadly at the expense of your cub. FFS how could you let that happen, tut tut! As I said anyway have a good one

    ReplyDelete
  28. AnBuachaill writes, "Hindsight is a great thing, and of course at some stage during the troubles, and probably earlier than many believe, the struggle was led down the wrong path and we are where we are now. I'm sure that if many of you who were activists could go back you would all change many many things, but I imagine most would still have joined the IRA, facing those same conditions of the sixties and seventies."

    This seems more than valid to me. Different times, different conditions, immediate pressures and needs.

    It could be argued that lives sadly had to be lost for the plight of the nationalist community in the North to become known to the rest of the world. The importance of 1981 can never be underestimated as a call to the world to look, to examine, and to learn. As an American high schooler, a teenager with all the usual teenage obsessions (i.e. girls), the story of Bobby and his comrades came over the airwaves like a haunting melody. I was probably the only one in my high school whose ears pricked up, but thanks to reading and the odd documentary with the ubiquitous images of lads vs. land rovers, prick up they did. And the same was true for many others around the world, some of them, unfortunately, clueless west side of the Atlantic bastards with alcohol fueled patriot game delusions. Whatever the case, a case was made. Death was noticed, in 1981 and earlier too.

    The sacrifice worth it? Not for this Yank to say, not my place, but the combustions of Irish history would never have gained any international attention without the perseverance, pain, and suffering of more than a few brave men and women.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sean,

    Enjoy your day Tony, if it ends with Swansea inflicting yet more damage to the pride of Old Trafford I think we'll both be happy but sadly at the expense of your cub. FFS how could you let that happen, tut tut! As I said anyway have a good one

    Sean there have been people knee capped for thinking less!!!!!!!!!! Utd are a team in transition... Watch this space, they'll win the champions league..

    ReplyDelete
  30. Am enjoying it Frankie although the red devil beside me is grumping at me. He has no cause to celebrate this weather given the performances of UTD!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sean, he will survive. I have a book review to do as well for tomorrow. Well, I don't have to do it but I usually throw something together for Sunday.

    ReplyDelete
  32. In hind-sight if the sticks had defended RC areas initially and pushed a political campaign of recognising N.I. and calling for British rights for British citizens (where SF are today)the vast majority of killings would have been averted. But Goulding and Co. would have been in Stormont a decade or two earlier instead of McGuiness + Co. THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE I SEE.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Larry,

    good to see you back. Getting ready for the whiskey here LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mackers
    whiskey? Good man!! it will help rationalise the SF trajectory... but likely take 3 bottles and a coma.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Larry,

    and this time I have to go.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Not another one... FFS Frankie catch yourself on, the only thing that lot gonna win is the n-power Championship next season. Oi! Young Hughes! Long time no see old buddy, hope you're keeping well. Never heard from Dieter since

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sean Bres
    I got an email from Dieter after he got home. But nothing more. likely stuck under a mountain of books.

    ReplyDelete
  38. AnBuachaill said: “The futility of armed struggle is an argument I am still not convinced of, and I still think that there is an onus on those who continuously try to persuade armed groups to a different trajectory to give a real incentive and to build an alternative political grouping to achieve a united Ireland.”

    My sentiments are the same since I will never acknowledge the legitimacy of England’s occupation and rule of Ireland which is itself based on armed and violent invasion and domination of Ireland.

    That said there is merit nevertheless in doing the futility math: they outnumber and outgun us!

    And there has never been a whole lot of us willing to fight and die like Muslims or Vietnamese.

    So what to do?

    How do we get England to leave?

    We have to take their incentives to stay away.

    And that doesn’t mean or rule out armed struggle since that will always be an arrow in our quiver that doesn’t really ever have to be played given the many passive forms of resistance that can and should be taken up such as boycotting, disinvesting, striking, shunning, ridiculing and merry pranking like Code Pink does in the States to prevent and undermine any sense of British rule’s normalization here.

    Note that there is a big difference between passively resisting occupation and rule as I propose and actively assisting it as Provisional Sinn Fein and the rest of the Vichy Irish State political parties do.

    As such they too must be boycotted, shunned and ridiculed…even after England leaves!

    All the while we should always be reaching out in solidarity to, yes, English Republicans and others who also oppose their government’s imperial invasions and occupations of other countries whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or Ireland.

    And take heart that there is no futility in doing that math since most English people polled want the UK out of Ireland and feel no sense of kinship or loyalty with “Northern Ireland” unionists or loyalists.

    ReplyDelete

  39. AnBuachaill said: “The futility of armed struggle is an argument I am still not convinced of, and I still think that there is an onus on those who continuously try to persuade armed groups to a different trajectory to give a real incentive and to build an alternative political grouping to achieve a united Ireland.”

    My sentiments are the same since I will never acknowledge the legitimacy of England’s occupation and rule of Ireland which is itself based on armed and violent invasion and domination of Ireland.

    That said there is merit nevertheless in doing the futility math: they outnumber and outgun us!

    And there has never been a whole lot of us willing to fight and die like Muslims or Vietnamese.
    So what to do?

    How do we get England to leave?
    We have to take their incentives to stay away.

    And that doesn’t mean or rule out armed struggle since that will always be an arrow in our quiver that doesn’t really ever have to be played given the many passive forms of resistance that can and should be taken up such as boycotting, disinvesting, striking, shunning, ridiculing and merry pranking like Code Pink does in the States to prevent and undermine any sense of British rule’s normalization here.

    Note that there is a big difference between passively resisting occupation and rule as I propose and actively assisting it as Provisional Sinn Fein and the rest of the Vichy Irish State political parties do.

    As such they too must be boycotted, shunned and ridiculed…even after England leaves!

    All the while we should always be reaching out in solidarity to, yes, English Republicans and others there who also oppose their government’s imperial invasions and occupations of other countries whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or Ireland.

    And take heart that there is no futility in doing that math since most English people polled want the UK out of Ireland and feel no sense of kinship or loyalty with “Northern Ireland” unionists or loyalists.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Owen, "and there is never been a whole lot of us willing to fight or die like the muslims or Vietnamese" what? Irish volunteers was never the problem, the strength of our enemy was always the problem. Regarding the attitude of the English they are a proud warrior race ,always have been, the English will follow their royalty, government to the ends of the earth, world wars etc. They look upon us Irish as a nation of drunken rabble rousers i would not look at them for assistance.

    ReplyDelete
  41. David Higgins said: “Owen, ‘and there is never been a whole lot of us willing to fight or die like the muslims or Vietnamese’ what? Irish volunteers was never the problem, the strength of our enemy was always the problem. “

    And…there never have been a whole lot of Irish Volunteers…ever.

    Regarding the attitude of the English they are a proud warrior race ,always have been, the English will follow their royalty, government to the ends of the earth, world wars etc.

    All nations have their self-serving myths and illusions.

    And for what it’s worth…none of my English friends and relatives are pro-royalty or government.

    They look upon us Irish as a nation of drunken rabble rousers i would not look at them for assistance.

    Such people have grown fewer over the years.

    Moreover, the Vietnamese successfully reached out to the anti-War movement in the U.S.

    So you may be surprised where all your friends are.

    ReplyDelete
  42. owen I might, may be pleased in the rises of the collective conscousness of the english. I have cousins in england london and their attitudes are abysmal. they are racist, proud to ,in Ireland they see the Brits as un type force. the ignorance i found amongst the londoners i met staggering ,,simply not interested.

    ReplyDelete
  43. owen, last thing ,the amount of volunteers the provies had over twenty eight Years was not to be sneezed at more than enough to defend our
    communities if needed for long years ahead
    the leadership put an end to that!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Since all of our evidence is largely anecdotal, we shouldn't paint with a broad brush. After all, it's these same Londoners (or at least whole lots of them) that voted for Ken Livingstone and George Galloway.

    ReplyDelete
  45. David, it's one thing (and a noble one at that) to have enough volunteers to defend your communities. But it's another thing all together to have enough volunteers to repel an invader. And that's the whole point of this article and commentary, i.e. the military futility of taking on more than we can chew so what else can be done to get the job done short of selling out and running the place for them.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Sean,

    My apology as I didn’t mean any inference of burden I do understand what you mean and at the time of my original comment was overly tired and common sense would dictate waiting and having a sleep and a rethink before posting.
    Then common sense eludes me even at the best of times.

    Fortunately today I had a conversation beyond the net and without going into one of my long rants had a few of my concerns addressed and left a lot wiser.
    Certainly a lot of the positive things said will eventually work their way into a comment or comments here.

    Again my sincere apology for me jumping the gun.

    ReplyDelete
  47. While having sufficient numbers of volunteers to defend our communities is always a noble thing to have, it has never been enough to repel the invader.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Tain there was no offence taken at all and no need to apologise

    ReplyDelete
  49. SIMILAR FOOD FOR THOUGHT

    In Popular Resistance in Palestine, Mazin Qumsiyeh explores the rich history of the overwhelmingly nonviolent popular-resistance struggles in Palestine over the decades. Rather than being a Western import, it "developed indigenously, organically, naturally and beautifully" (p. 1). This noted Palestinian scholar documents how, in nearly 130 years since the onset of political Zionism, "The Palestinian people rose from the ashes of each onslaught to engage in novel forms of civil resistance" (p. 2). Fortunately, while he pulls no punches in his assessment of Zionist oppression, he is also frank in the way Palestinians themselves have helped undermine the effectiveness of their resistance, thereby avoiding the tendency by some Western supporters to romanticize and oversimplify the Palestinians' history of struggle. Qumsiyeh reminds us that conquest, colonization and expansion is by its nature violent and requires violence to maintain it. By contrast, he argues that those resisting such aggression have more options at their disposal. A pragmatist rather than a pacifist, Qumsiyeh rejects the false dichotomy of moral but ineffective nonviolence versus amoral but effective violence, and instead recognizes that violent resistance by Palestinians has long been used as "justification to brutalize the population, further uproot us and destroy our homes and lands" (p. 8). Today, by monopolizing state power and the instruments of repression, Israel leaves the Palestinians with "little hope of containing the cancerous growth of colonial settlements on their own land by violent methods" (p. 8). In particular, "Resistance by violent means has far more constraints and is more likely to fail than popular resistance because it requires much for logistical support (arms, etc.), secrecy, killing of armed combatants, difficulty in establishing geographic areas for armed control and much more" (p. 9). While recognizing that even nonviolent resistance can be subjected to brutal repression, Qumsiyeh also observes that it is far less devastating in terms of both people killed and social and economic disruption. --- Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta, Middle East Policy Council, Winter 2011, Volume XVIII, Number 4

    http://www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/popular-resistance-palestine-refusing-be-enemies?print

    ReplyDelete
  50. Owen, i think most people support non violent resistance, it was successful for Ghandi, King and others round the world, the civil rights movement tried it here. I understand the argument if you use violence to win power you will use it to keep it. The question remains is it feasible i dont know anybody that would remain passive in the face of state violence. do you?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Tain Bo......
    The Quill has been part of the platform and I would suggest we form an informal committee here if possible with the purpose of not letting this initiative be bypassed and replaced with other argument.

    I'd assume that most republicans in their own areas know each other..Wouldn't it be easier if they got together locally and simply found common ground first....In an informal setting (simply invite X,Y & Z over for a coffee) and list all the common ground each group has. I reckon there is more common ground than anything else and probably the same gripes.
    I think everyone could easily list at least10 issues that they all have in common..From welfare, PSNI...straight to a 32 democratic country. But all the name calling in public or online as several posters have mentioned is simply playing into SF's hands..Your communities will think.."Fcuk, they can't agree among themselves..I'll stick with the devil I know"...Whats wrong with coming up with an electoral pact among anti-GFA supporters? Over the next 2/3 years there are how many elections on the horizon...???

    ReplyDelete
  52. David, I very much want to believe that most people everywhere support non-violent resistance but I think the jury is still out on that especially in Ireland where there has always been native support for British rule in Ireland in whole or in part as a matter of public policy and civic tradition hence the Civil War and the so called Good Friday Agreement and all the electoral support for it. That said to answer your question, sadly yes, I think most people everywhere are dangerously deferential to State authority and violence which makes people like Ghandi and King unique just like Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh, the Palestinian Human Rights Advocate and Biologist who practices and preaches non-violence in the face of State violence.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Frankie,

    I jumped the gun on that one I wish I could blame it on the Whiskey but that is not the case.
    I had a conversation minus the net and was set straight on my comment and a few other issues.
    I think I said as much to Sean but am sure that overtime the gist of the conversation I will try and fit in as comments.
    I agree with what you say the common ground is there it is a case of finding that cohesive bond and that as we all know is always in dispute.

    As my friend told me just look at the latest ongoing debate as a way of clearing some of the rubble there is a lot more rubble to clear at times we are stuck in the 70s, 80s, it makes it difficult for the younger generations to get a clearer picture of where things should go.

    I am all for an electoral pact as the end game will come down to strength in the political arena… it might take a while to get it moving but it is something that is lacking for anti treaty republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Personally Tain Bo I think your idea if 'fleshed out' is a goer. But it would have to start at a local level first. On face value there is more to unite anti agreement republicans than divide them. Does it matter who takes the platitudes, the slaps on the back etc. as long as the objectives are relaized. Is the problem because of old scores being settled, ego's..or a total mistrust between the various groups.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Frankie,

    I think it has possibilities too and everything does start at a local level. I am not sure if it is mistrust between groups but a lack of direction as one says this path the other say no our path is better.
    Everyone is pointing in the right direction and there is more in common but for whatever reason minor division overrides commonality.
    Clearing the debris and cleaning up old issues would pave the way for a “new” approach.
    A lot of people don’t know who to follow as the minor divisions cause major support problems and rightly just lose interest.

    The web provides virtual communities which could be helpful at a local level and if used effectively it would link communities together and create a broader community.
    The drawbacks are finding the right combination of thought to break out of the old mentality and slowly adapt to the times and kick off from there even if it is just taking advantage of the very strong disillusioned sentiment of SF and begin by taking back the lost identity by promoting one solid political voice uniting the many banners were groups can still maintain their identity but are willing to unite under the greater good that can come from unity.

    ReplyDelete