éirígí and militarism

[mickyk200]

I was wondering were éirígí stood on military action. I am well aware they have no armed wing but do they condemn it? Do they embrace the armed struggle? Are they silent on the matter?

[Jim]

i asked that question on the brendan mccionnaith thread.Comrade Ryan gave his response to it as well.

[mickyk200]

Nothing on the site?
No printed polices?

[FTA69]

It isn't necessarily the most relevant or pressing issue at hand to be fair.

[mickyk200]

It isn't necessarily the most relevant or pressing issue at hand to be fair.
yes I know I was just curious.

[JPL]

It isn't necessarily the most relevant or pressing issue at hand to be fair.

It would be to some. I think it's a fair question to be asked.

[RisenBelfast]

My understanding is, and I'm open to correction as I'm not a spokesperson - éirígí has no moral objection to armed struggle but believes the conditions do not exist for one and it would be counter-productive at present.

[mickyk200]

My understanding is, and I'm open to correction as I'm not a spokesperson - éirígí has no moral objection to armed struggle but believes the conditions do not exist for one and it would be counter-productive at present.
I agree...éirígí seem all the more appealing. One question, how do ya pronounce it? lol

[RisenBelfast]

eye - rig - ee

[mickyk200]

eye - rig - ee
cheers

[wherenow]

My understanding is, and I'm open to correction as I'm not a spokesperson - éirígí has no moral objection to armed struggle but believes the conditions do not exist for one and it would be counter-productive at present.

Cloiseann se mar an PD's

Sounds like the PD's back in the day. Support the struggle, but we're not getting involved because the time is not right and the working class is not motivated.

[mickyk200]

Cloiseann se mar an PD's

Sounds like the PD's back in the day. Support the struggle, but we're not getting involved because the time is not right and the working class is not motivated.
It's true though. The PD'S said that the working class weren't motivated when they were, éirígí can see that the vast majority reject a return to armed struggle.

[Foyleview]

I think that on such an important question there should be an official opinion from eirgie on violence.

[mickyk200]

I think that on such an important question there should be an official opinion from eirgie on violence.
They have no policy papers directly relating to it. Seeing as they are only a newly initiated party we can't expect every issue dealt with straight off the bat.

[RisenBelfast]

Micky,

You've got it. The membership does decide on policy papers and it really is one man/woman one vote. All you can get for now is a feel of where éirígí is going, the route will be mapped out by the members (not leadership) over time.

The great thing is if you joined at the start, now or later - you'll get a real vote and a personal input. It's up to the members to shape the project.

........and no Democratic Centralism doesn't apply because they meet between ard fheiseanna

[mickyk200]

Micky,

You've got it. The membership does decide on policy papers and it really is one man/woman one vote. All you can get for now is a feel of where éirígí is going, the route will be mapped out by the members (not leadership) over time.

The great thing is if you joined at the start, now or later - you'll get a real vote and a personal input. It's up to the members to shape the project.

........and no Democratic Centralism doesn't apply because they meet between ard fheiseanna
Where as you based?
Will there be more locally based involvement from éirígí later?
i want to actually make a difference I'm sick of all this OSF road safety ballix... I'm a big boy now I can cross the road ffs! lol

[Jim]

éirígí can see that the vast majority reject a return to armed struggle.


The majority of the Irish People have always rejected armed struggle,its not a new thing.

[mickyk200]

The majority of the Irish People have always rejected armed struggle,its not a new thing.
There was more support for the armed struggle 20 years ago than there is now. That's the issue at hand. If there's anywhere near as much support tomorrow for it as there was following Bloody Sunday it will the armed struggle will start for the weekend. But there's not.

[Foyleview]

Micky,

You've got it. The membership does decide on policy papers and it really is one man/woman one vote. All you can get for now is a feel of where éirígí is going, the route will be mapped out by the members (not leadership) over time.

The great thing is if you joined at the start, now or later - you'll get a real vote and a personal input. It's up to the members to shape the project.

........and no Democratic Centralism doesn't apply because they meet between ard fheiseanna


well i look forward to seeing what happens. all i ll say is that its easy being all things to all people. its whenever you are making decissions on contentious matters such as mentioned before that you begin to see your real strength.

[Jim]

There was more support for the armed struggle 20 years ago than there is now.

True but that still doesnt mean that the majority of irish people supported armed struggle.Only a minority have ever supported armed struggle regardless who was doing it.

[JPL]

eye - rig - ee

not with the fadas. the correct pronunciation would be ayre-ee-gee.

[mickyk200]

not with the fadas. the correct pronunciation would be ayre-ee-gee.
air-ee-gee?

[JPL]

air-ee-gee?

yes.

[mickyk200]

yes.
I'm gonna have to get in the habit of that now...for a long time I was saying ear-gee ¬¬

[JPL]

well é - ay

mé = may

so éir = ayre

so - ayre-ee-gee :)

But I wouldn't worry about it. I say Oge-ra Shinn Fayne all the time instead of Oge-ra Hinn Fayne. The S is silent. It's just habit I guess.

[conghaileach]

The pronunciation does depend on what part of the country you're in.

[Zaga95]

Hi, what exactly is éirígí?

[mickyk200]

Hi, what exactly is éirígí?
éirígí is an Irish, Socialist Republican, political party committed to ending the British occupation of the six counties and the establishment of a thirty-two county Democratic Socialist Republic. The same as every other republican party except they are new to Irish politics as only just becoming a party. And they have no baggage unlike every other republican party.

[JPL]

The pronunciation does depend on what part of the country you're in.

Pronunciations can change, like dia duit/dia dhuit.. But a fada over a vowel is still a fada over a vowel :)

[Zaga95]

éirígí is an Irish, Socialist Republican, political party committed to ending the British occupation of the six counties and the establishment of a thirty-two county Democratic Socialist Republic. The same as every other republican party except they are new to Irish politics as only just becoming a party. And they have no baggage unlike every other republican party.

nice, nice...thanks

[mickyk200]

Pronunciations can change, like dia duit/dia dhuit.. But a fada over a vowel is still a fada over a vowel :)
Thought the Irish language was standardized some years back?
It was just your regional dialect that effected the pronunciation, like in Donegal the "f's" as very soft compared to Belfast Irish when the it's very broad and bold in pronunciation

[mickyk200]

nice, nice...thanks
no baw =]

[FTA69]

The majority of the Irish People have always rejected armed struggle,its not a new thing.

That's not the question at hand, the issue is whether enough Irish people support an armed campaign in order for it to be viable, the obvious reality is that there isn't.

[Liam Lynch]

My understanding is, and I'm open to correction as I'm not a spokesperson - éirígí has no moral objection to armed struggle but believes the conditions do not exist for one and it would be counter-productive at present.

Why is that, could you expand?

[JPL]

Thought the Irish language was standardized some years back?
It was just your regional dialect that effected the pronunciation, like in Donegal the "f's" as very soft compared to Belfast Irish when the it's very broad and bold in pronunciation

That standardization was made by the educational system. There are still regional dialects. The purists weren't very happy with the standardization from what I gather.

[conghaileach]

Pronunciations can change, like dia duit/dia dhuit.. But a fada over a vowel is still a fada over a vowel :)
éirígí can be pronounced "eye-ree-gee" or "air-ee-gee" or "eer-ee-gee" and maybe a few other ways as well.

[conghaileach]

That standardization was made by the educational system. There are still regional dialects. The purists weren't very happy with the standardization from what I gather.

The Munster Gaeilgeoirí were pretty happy with the official standard as they dominated all of the committees that worked on the standardised forms. Connacht was represented relatively alright, but Ulster Irish was all but ignored.

[Liam Lynch]

And eirigi and militarism?

[conghaileach]

I think that's been covered.

[Liam Lynch]

I think that's been covered.

Was hoping for a bit more meat on the bones.

[wjeilis]

19 years before 1916 Connolly wrote: "Having learned from history that all bourgeois movements end in compromise, that the bourgeois revolutionaries of today become the conservatives of tomorrow, the Irish socialists refuse to deny or to lose their identity with those who only half understand the problem of liberty. They seek only the alliance and friendship of those hearts who, loving liberty for its own sake, are not afraid to follow its banner when it is uplifted by the hands of the working class, who have most need of it. Their friends are those who would not hesitate to follow that standard of liberty, to consecrate their lives in its service, even should it lead to the terrible arbitration of the sword."
Later on he wrote: "We believe that in times of peace we should work along the lines of peace to strengthen the nation, and we believe that whatever strengthens and elevates the working class strengthens the nation.
But we also believe that in times of war we should act as in war." - James Connolly. His view is one which I am sure is shared by many.
However, there is not a war situation at present.

[QuinnP]

Sounds good to me too.

[wjeilis]

Slándáil is a great word.

[belfast 1916]

That's not the question at hand, the issue is whether enough Irish people support an armed campaign in order for it to be viable, the obvious reality is that there isn't.

what is enough, is there a number? also what if a member of eirigi was also a member of an armed republican group whould eirigi kick him/her out?

[conghaileach]

what is enough, is there a number? also what if a member of eirigi was also a member of an armed republican group whould eirigi kick him/her out?
Why would such an individual be in éirígí?

[RisenBelfast]

As éirígí analysis is - armed struggle is currently counterproductive to the development of Republicanism, I can't see how those engaged in it would even consider applying for membership and I assume they would be declined as they do agree with the party strategy.

[Jim]

As éirígí analysis is - armed struggle is currently counterproductive to the development of Republicanism,

Is that offical eirigi policy?

[FTA69]

what is enough, is there a number? also what if a member of eirigi was also a member of an armed republican group whould eirigi kick him/her out?

There isn't exactly a specific number, but it is clear that there is not enough Irish people on board with a project that is capable of forcing a British withdrawal. Your other question has been answered.

[belfast 1916]

As éirígí analysis is - armed struggle is currently counterproductive to the development of Republicanism, I can't see how those engaged in it would even consider applying for membership and I assume they would be declined as they do agree with the party strategy.

but in your membership page you state membership is open to ALL who support a 32 county socalist republic, you might want to add except, if you support or are involed with armed struggle, because it looks like eirigi doesnt like that type of republicanism. So what are armed republicans now lepers?

[FTA69]

but in your membership page you state membership is open to ALL who support a 32 county socalist republic, you might want to add except, if you support or are involed with armed struggle, because it looks like eirigi doesnt like that type of republicanism. So what are armed republicans now lepers?

What? You are having a whinge over nothing and are trying to start a row over f*ck all, who called anyone lepers? The fact that Éirigi does not believe in armed struggle as a viable tactic does not mean that they think any less of anyone else.

RB was correct in his assertion, your original question is simply stupid as those involved in armed struggle would probably not agree with Éirigi's approach anyway.

This "with us or against us" lark is plain political immaturity.

[belfast 1916]

Why would such an individual be in éirígí?

why not????

[belfast 1916]

As éirígí analysis is - armed struggle is currently counterproductive to the development of Republicanism, I can't see how those engaged in it would even consider applying for membership and I assume they would be declined as they do agree with the party strategy.

why, do armed republicans not want the same goals as eirigi. an armed republican might totally agree with the politics of eirigi except he or she might believe in the current use of armed struggle, it sounds very eletist that "they would be declined as they do not agree with party strategy" stinks of psf talk to me

[belfast 1916]

What? You are having a whinge over nothing and are trying to start a row over f*ck all, who called anyone lepers? The fact that Éirigi does not believe in armed struggle as a viable tactic does not mean that they think any less of anyone else.

RB was correct in his assertion, your original question is simply stupid as those involved in armed struggle would probably not agree with Éirigi's approach anyway.

This "with us or against us" lark is plain political immaturity.

"stupid" thanks for the insults, im not involved in armed struggle but id support its use,but i like eirigis politics so can i not have both aspects in my thoughts

[FTA69]

"stupid" thanks for the insults, im not involved in armed struggle but id support its use,but i like eirigis politics so can i not have both aspects in my thoughts

I said your question was stupid, I never said you were stupid. Yet again you are twisting things and seeking to cause drama over nothing.

why not????

Because if someone believed in armed struggle as a primary tactic then surely they wouldn't be joining a political party who doesn't? That's only logic.

[soldier of life]

this is getting pathetic...why would an active armed republican intent on armed struugle at the present time join eirigi. it is a contradiction in terms really.

i see eirigi's stance on armed struggle is similar to the irsp,and a good one imo.good to see the organisation grow and grow,seems like some good people in eirigi.

i have a question.are eirigi a politcal party or are they are pressure grouplike the 32s?do they intend to stand in elections in the future??

[Nijinsky]

this is getting pathetic...why would an active armed republican intent on armed struugle at the present time join eirigi. it is a contradiction in terms really.

i see eirigi's stance on armed struggle is similar to the irsp,and a good one imo.good to see the organisation grow and grow,seems like some good people in eirigi.

i have a question.are eirigi a politcal party or are they are pressure grouplike the 32s?do they intend to stand in elections in the future??

They are now a political party unlike 32csm but I dont believe that they have yet taken a decision to run for elections

[Comrade Ryan]

Can I add something to all this coversation.

It is my reading of eirigi, that they are no opposed to armed struggle, indeed many of their histories are based in a movement which did engage in amred struggle - the provisional movement.

However, at this jucture, they don not believe armed struggle is the best way forward. They believe that any chances of success are minimal to non-existant and thus they are concentrating on building a political alternative to re-engage with disillusioned and unrepresented republican socialists.

They are also interested, in time, in building strong a positive links with people moving in the same direction, a broad based social movement type concept.

So it is my opinion, that to join eirigi it is not necessary that you don't agree with armed struggle, but it would be unlikely that you would join it if you seen armed struggle as primary in current conditions.

I think eirigi's position on this is a little more generous than has been allowed for here.

[belfast 1916]

Can I add something to all this coversation.

It is my reading of eirigi, that they are no opposed to armed struggle, indeed many of their histories are based in a movement which did engage in amred struggle - the provisional movement.

However, at this jucture, they don not believe armed struggle is the best way forward. They believe that any chances of success are minimal to non-existant and thus they are concentrating on building a political alternative to re-engage with disillusioned and unrepresented republican socialists.

They are also interested, in time, in building strong a positive links with people moving in the same direction, a broad based social movement type concept.

So it is my opinion, that to join eirigi it is not necessary that you don't agree with armed struggle, but it would be unlikely that you would join it if you seen armed struggle as primary in current conditions.

I think eirigi's position on this is a little more generous than has been allowed for here.

thanks comrade ryan for your input, the reason i was putting a bit of pressure on this subject is that i am friends with some belfast eirigi people and I know some of them to be of the tradional militant republican position and I know that some of them arent totally opposed to the use of armed struggle as neither am I. I seriously like the politics of eirigi and have talked with afew belfast eirigi members about joining, but i did but a few questions to them as they did to me about different things like do they support using stormont are they pro or anti gfa/st andrews, pro/anti psni and i like all there answers. They agreed with me that an all out return to armed struggle wasnt right in todays climate but that a cutting edge would a some stage be required in the future because it wasnt sinn fein that brought the brits to the table it was the RA and theres nothing wrong with talking imo just so long as we keep our principles and discuss the right subjects and get a better deal for republicans and not just the nationialist position

[Comrade Ryan]

thanks comrade ryan for your input, the reason i was putting a bit of pressure on this subject is that i am friends with some belfast eirigi people and I know some of them to be of the tradional militant republican position and I know that some of them arent totally opposed to the use of armed struggle as neither am I. I seriously like the politics of eirigi and have talked with afew belfast eirigi members about joining, but i did but a few questions to them as they did to me about different things like do they support using stormont are they pro or anti gfa/st andrews, pro/anti psni and i like all there answers. They agreed with me that an all out return to armed struggle wasnt right in todays climate but that a cutting edge would a some stage be required in the future because it wasnt sinn fein that brought the brits to the table it was the RA and theres nothing wrong with talking imo just so long as we keep our principles and discuss the right subjects and get a better deal for republicans and not just the nationialist position

No problem mate.

Things like this are not cut and dry and should not, in my opinion, be presented as such. People can only deal with the realities as they see them now, they cannot be expected to lay down all encompassing ground rules for all time.

I do think eirigi is right about the way things stand. I think the likelihood of any, even semi-successful, armed campaign is highly unlikely, more than highly unlikely, in fact.

There is a need to re-engage around republican socialist politics though - and that is where eirigi comes in, I think.

I think, in many respects, the ideology is drowning and someone needs to throw it a lifeline - the more the merrier.

[Carlos McJackle]

Can I add something to all this coversation.

It is my reading of eirigi, that they are no opposed to armed struggle, indeed many of their histories are based in a movement which did engage in amred struggle - the provisional movement.

However, at this jucture, they don not believe armed struggle is the best way forward. They believe that any chances of success are minimal to non-existant and thus they are concentrating on building a political alternative to re-engage with disillusioned and unrepresented republican socialists.

They are also interested, in time, in building strong a positive links with people moving in the same direction, a broad based social movement type concept.

So it is my opinion, that to join eirigi it is not necessary that you don't agree with armed struggle, but it would be unlikely that you would join it if you seen armed struggle as primary in current conditions.

I think eirigi's position on this is a little more generous than has been allowed for here.


I d point out at this juncture for benefit of clarity that whilst undoubtedly prevalent the support for engagement within armed struggle , as opposed to the right to enage in it , is not compulsory within 32 csm and most definitely and certainly not primary within 32 csm . For example anyone who knows me is well aware that within and without 32 csm Ive publicly advanced the opinion and analysis since about 2001/2 up until now that the conditions for insurgency do not exist . Im a fully paid up and active member of 32 csm and have never been once chided or has any attempt been made to silence this viewpoint . In fact its met with a lot of agreement .
What eirig[i believe is their own business but I do not like to see my organisations position being misrepresented , much less my own .
It seems to me though that 32 csm is more accomodating to different points of view in this regard and the issue can be discussed more openly and frankly .

[Dúiche Néill]

I d point out at this juncture for benefit of clarity that whilst undoubtedly prevalent the support for engagement within armed struggle , as opposed to the right to enage in it , is not compulsory within 32 csm and most definitely and certainly not primary within 32 csm . For example anyone who knows me is well aware that within and without 32 csm Ive publicly advanced the opinion and analysis since about 2001/2 up until now that the conditions for insurgency do not exist . Im a fully paid up and active member of 32 csm and have never been once chided or has any attempt been made to silence this viewpoint . In fact its met with a lot of agreement .
What eirig[i believe is their own business but I do not like to see my organisations position being misrepresented , much less my own .
It seems to me though that 32 csm is more accomodating to different points of view in this regard

Do you not think that the public support of the 32CSM for the RIRA undermines their credibility? It's very difficult to take anyone seriously when they are allied with people who would boast of launching a campaign to force the Brit army back onto the streets, in a newspaper interview, and then utterly fail to carry out any effective military actions. If people like yourself within the 32CSM were able to use their influence to persuade the RIRA to stand down then the credibility of your movement would be greatly enhanced.

[Carlos McJackle]

[QUOTE]Do you not think that the public support of the 32CSM for the RIRA undermines their credibility?

no , and obviously neither does Seamus Breslin and the others currently joining with him. 32 CSMS public support for any armed group only goes so far as to support its right to bear arms and engage in armed actions , not that it advocates armed actions taking place . It also makes a determined stand against any attempt to criminalise acts of insurgency against the foreign occupation . To take any other position is illogical in my opinion .

It's very difficult to take anyone seriously when they are allied with people who would boast of launching a campaign to force the Brit army back onto the streets, in a newspaper interview, and then utterly fail to carry out any effective military actions.

They announced their intent to carry out actions , and ive little doubt they will .

If people like yourself within the 32CSM were able to use their influence to persuade the RIRA to stand down then the credibility of your movement would be greatly enhanced.


there are posters on this baord who were threatened with and sentenced with death unless the RIRA stood down . Others were abducted from their homes . I myself was warned repeatedly Id be killed for aligning with this movement . I will not be persuing this agenda under any circumstances .

[Dúiche Néill]

no , and obviously neither does Seamus Breslin and the others currently joining with him. 32 CSMS public support for any armed group only goes so far as to support its right to bear arms and engage in armed actions , not that it advocates armed actions taking place . It also makes a determined stand against any attempt to criminalise acts of insurgency against the foreign occupation . To take any other position is illogical in my opinion .
That's a bit of a cop-out answer in advance...we only support their right to carry out armed actions so when things go wrong we're not really supporting it. If a Sinn Féiner had tried that one during the conflict they'd have been laughed out of town.


They announced their intent to carry out actions , and ive little doubt they will .
But you don't advocate them carrying out actions or believe that the conditions are right for actions...interesting position.


there are posters on this baord who were threatened with and sentenced with death unless the RIRA stood down . Others were abducted from their homes . I myself was warned repeatedly Id be killed for aligning with this movement . I will not be persuing this agenda under any circumstances .
The RIRA never stood down and none of these alleged death sentences were carried out so I would have to take that all with a large pinch of salt. Great justification for not doing the right thing though; particularly seeing that you believe that the conditions don't exist at present and all that. Do you find yourself in self-contradictary dilemas a lot?

[Carlos McJackle]

[QUOTE]That's a bit of a cop-out answer in advance...we only support their right to carry out armed actions so when things go wrong we're not really supporting it. If a Sinn Féiner had tried that one during the conflict they'd have been laughed out of town.

Not at all . As a result of the Stormont agreement criminalisation of Irish insurgents and acts of insurgency came thundering back onto the political agenda . We view it as absolutely essential that the right of Irish citizens to resist foreign occupation of their territory be upheld and defended from the age old criminalisation agenda . The same agenda your party has publicly and unashamanedly persued against republicans . If we do not publicly stand up and resist any attempt to criminalise the Irish struggle then we are not defending and articulating Irish sovereignty against the concerted political attack upon it .
At the same time we are a grass roots up organisation and opinions upon current enagement in armed struggle vary from person to person , from time to time and as regards tactics persued . Democracy therefore would be sacrificed for militarism , our constituion subverted and all the rules essential to our existence would fly out the window if we forced any member to adopt a position they didnt agree with which did not even concern our organisations activities but anothers . Ive gone into this matter at great length with Cael and spelled out the reasons why militarism plays no part within our organisations constitution or democratic decision making process and can never be allowed to . It would involve the subversion of our entire constitution


But you don't advocate them carrying out actions or believe that the conditions are right for actions...interesting position.

I never said that . Personally I dont believe the conditions for a successful insurgent campaign exist , not that I believe armed actions from time to time arent necessary as an intervention .


The RIRA never stood down and none of these alleged death sentences were carried out so I would have to take that all with a large pinch of salt.

I dont believe that when the Provsionals come to your door and tell you you have been sentenced to death you can take it wth a pinch of salt , I doubt very much you would . One of my freinds was murdered so I dont take it with a pinch of salt in the slightest I believe others were to be murdered in the follow up . When republicans from different parts of the country inform you of an intent by an outfit like the provisionals to kill you you most certainly cannot take it with a pinch of salt unless your a total fool . I also believe that had the military structure been stood down many people would simply have been picked off .If not murdered then abducted and mutilated . I believe their ability to shoot back was the only thing whuich prevented an all out pogrom at one stage .

And I also belive people could yet be murdered . A well known shinner was caught with an AK in my locality quite recently . Sinn Fein leaders are boasting in leinster house that their paramilitary structure must be allowed to continue in existance in order to combat "the dissidents" . Therefore a very clear armed threat is in existence against our membership , emanating from the provisionals military structure which seems to be its only purpose for existing .

"Great justification for not doing the right thing though; particularly seeing that you believe that the conditions don't exist at present and all that. Do you find yourself in self-contradictary dilemas a lot

Do you believe maintaining a party militia with the openly expressed sole aim of suppressing republicans is doing the right thing ? Do you believe the conditions exist to kill republicans that your party has activelyy set out to criminalise in the public mind ? Do you often get into such contradictory dilemmas as regards your martys military structure or do you have no moral qualms about its purpose for its continued existence ?

[Dúiche Néill]

Not at all . As a result of the Stormont agreement criminalisation of Irish insurgents and acts of insurgency came thundering back onto the political agenda . We view it as absolutely essential that the right of Irish citizens to resist foreign occupation of their territory be upheld and defended from the age old criminalisation agenda . The same agenda your party has publicly and unashamanedly persued against republicans . If we do not publicly stand up and resist any attempt to criminalise the Irish struggle then we are not defending and articulating Irish sovereignty against the concerted political attack upon it .
At the same time we are a grass roots up organisation and opinions upon current enagement in armed struggle vary from person to person , from time to time and as regards tactics persued . Democracy therefore would be sacrificed for militarism , our constituion subverted and all the rules essential to our existence would fly out the window if we forced any member to adopt a position they didnt agree with which did not even concern our organisations activities but anothers . Ive gone into this matter at great length with Cael and spelled out the reasons why militarism plays no part within our organisations constitution or democratic decision making process and can never be allowed to . It would involve the subversion of our entire constitution
The 32CSM, as an organisation, is supportive of the RIRA no matter how you try to spin it. No matter a person's personal position vis a vis armed militancy, they are endorsing it by their membership of the 32CSM. As you have pointed out an individual member really has no opportunity to change this situation as your constitution pretty much forbids the discussion. Pontius Pilate would be very inpressed.

I never said that . Personally I dont believe the conditions for a successful insurgent campaign exist , not that I believe armed actions from time to time arent necessary as an intervention .
Define a "necessary" "intervention" stating an example of it by the RIRA and how it was "necessary" and in any way useful.

I dont believe that when the Provsionals come to your door and tell you you have been sentenced to death you can take it wth a pinch of salt , I doubt very much you would . One of my freinds was murdered so I dont take it with a pinch of salt in the slightest I believe others were to be murdered in the follow up . When republicans from different parts of the country inform you of an intent by an outfit like the provisionals to kill you you most certainly cannot take it with a pinch of salt unless your a total fool . I also believe that had the military structure been stood down many people would simply have been picked off .If not murdered then abducted and mutilated . I believe their ability to shoot back was the only thing whuich prevented an all out pogrom at one stage .
That's fanciful beyond belief, the concept that the IRA were prepared to take out the RIRA but were prevented by the continued existance of the RIRA is just rubbish. If they IRA had been serious about liquidating the RIRA there wouldn't be a RIRA to be talking about.

And I also belive people could yet be murdered . A well known shinner was caught with an AK in my locality quite recently . Sinn Fein leaders are boasting in leinster house that their paramilitary structure must be allowed to continue in existance in order to combat "the dissidents" . Therefore a very clear armed threat is in existence against our membership , emanating from the provisionals military structure which seems to be its only purpose for existing .
Are you talking here about the 32CSM or the RIRA? I don't believe that the IRA is actively targetting either, indeed only yourselves seem to be of that opinion.

Do you believe maintaining a party militia with the openly expressed sole aim of suppressing republicans is doing the right thing ? Do you believe the conditions exist to kill republicans that your party has activelyy set out to criminalise in the public mind ? Do you often get into such contradictory dilemmas as regards your martys military structure or do you have no moral qualms about heri purpose for existence ?
You're misrepresenting the remarks made by Caiomhin Ó Caoilan. He was speaking about what the IRA AC symbolises rather than them being actively concerned with the activities of the RIRA. Your suggestion that this is in any way linked to plots to "kill Republicans" is totally paranoid. Last time I checked the only threats to kill being issued by Republicans in the last few years were from anti-GFA sources.

[Carlos McJackle]

[QUOTE]The 32CSM, as an organisation, is supportive of the RIRA no matter how you try to spin it and its right to.

I havent spun anything . Ive pointed out to you very clearly that 32 csm supports the organisations right to exist , to bear arms and use armed resistance in defence of Irish national sovereignty . I cannot make that any clearer . Ive also explained very clearly why weve made public statements to this effect and will continue to do so . There is no spin involved .
You seem to be arguing that no such right exists and that your party is perfectly correct in its agenda of criminalising the Irish peoples right to resist occupation through arms

No matter a person's personal position vis a vis armed militancy, they are endorsing it by their membership of the 32CSM.

they are endorisng the Irish peoples right to engage in armed force against the occupation of their national terrirory . A position your party regards as a criminal act .

As you have pointed out an individual member really has no opportunity to change this situation as your constitution pretty much forbids the discussion. Pontius Pilate would be very inpressed.

I have pointed out no such thing . Our constituition does not forbid discussion on the pros and cons of armed struggle and Ive made my views very clear over the years as have others . Nobody , not once , has ever even attempted to suppress or silence my views on the matter despite my long held and vocal position on the conditions being absent for a succesful insurgency . However if you do not believe that right exists then by definition its a criminal illegimate position and not a right at all . Anyone who views armed reistance as criminal and illegitimate as opposed to a legitmate right of defending and asserting national sovereignty in the face of foreign occupation is incapable of politically defending national sovereignty . Therefore has no place whatsoever within the sovereignty movement , it would be completely illogical . Nobody criminalising the right of the irish people to resist occupation has any place within the sovereignty movement

Define a "necessary" "intervention" stating an example of it by the RIRA and how it was "necessary" and in any way useful.

I believe the firing of an anti tank rocket into MI5 HQ was necesary and useful in that it was a popular move , well received on the streets and encouraged those republicans within our organisation to get over the Omagh stigma and start to organise openly and politically without shame and taunts . It raised morale and assited the political growth of our movement at a crucial stage .It was very well timed in my opinion .
I believe the actions taken against PSNI mmebers a few months ago gave a clear political message , not just to those in nationalist areas who may have contemplated joining or supporting the British police for misguided reasons but in that it forced constitutional nationalist leaders to come out and attempt to criminalise it , it exposed very clearly the reality of their positon . It brought the issue of sovereignty to a head and into the public forum to be debated . I belive that as a result of this our position was strengthened and not weakened . People who had become demoralised and drifted away came back to the sovereignty movement with renewed enthusiasm . Certainly nobody defected to the Provisionals as a result of that debate .


That's fanciful beyond belief, the concept that the IRA were prepared to take out the RIRA but were prevented by the continued existance of the RIRA is just rubbish. If they IRA had been serious about liquidating the RIRA there wouldn't be a RIRA to be talking about.

I believe very strongly they intended to take on the RIRA , and I also believe that militarily the RIRA structure would eventually have collapsed and ceased to function in the event of an all out feud against it . I also believe that Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams would be well known republican martyrs had that structure not been weakened and demoralised sufficiently prior to any assault . I believe Joseph OConnors murder was to be a precursor to such an assault , and that amidst a wave of virtual internement the intent was to artificially embroil RIRA and CIRA in a feud in Belfast which would have resulted in a number of deaths and total demoralisation and defeat . I believe the situation came perilously close to that position and that the murder by the provsionals of Jospeph OConnor and the sinister attempts by the British to blame another organisation were done very deliberately to bring that scenario about . I believe people may yet be murdered , although I dont believe the provos would blamed .

Are you talking here about the 32CSM or the RIRA? I don't believe that the IRA is actively targetting either, indeed only yourselves seem to be of that opinion.

Im talking about both . Caoimhain OCaoilain is very much of that opinion , he even attempted to convince the deputies of Leinster House and has been thanked by Bertie Ahern for his movements efforts in persuasion

You're misrepresenting the remarks made by Caiomhin Ó Caoilan. He was speaking about what the IRA AC symbolises rather than them being actively concerned with the activities of the RIRA.

No no no Im not . Ive had my life threatened by the provisional IRA . Ive been persistently tailed and enquired after . Numerous people have come forward and told me about persistent questioning as to where i was living , working , socialisng etc etc . Ive had an attempt to run me over in a car , Ive had a number of family members brutally assaulted and abducted . My comrades have been abducted , assaulted , stripped naked and interrogated sometimes about myself . One was murdered . This was all done by the provisional IRA . I didnt imagine any of it . So when Mr OCaolain talks about being a bulwark and Bertie Ahern thanks him for the persuasion theyve engaged in Im under no illusions at all as to what they both mean .

Your suggestion that this is in any way linked to plots to "kill Republicans" is totally paranoid. Last time I checked the only threats to kill being issued by Republicans in the last few years were from anti-GFA sources.


what sources were these ?

[Dúiche Néill]

I havent spun anything . Ive pointed out to you very clearly that 32 csm supports the organisations right to exist , to bear arms and use armed resistance in defence of Irish national sovereignty . I cannot make that any clearer . Ive also explained very clearly why weve made public statements to this effect and will continue to do so . There is no spin involved .
You seem to be arguing that no such right exists and that your party is perfectly correct in its agenda of criminalising the Irish peoples right to resist occupation through arms
You haven't spun anything? You just altered my post when you quoted it, how is that not spin? You have to resort to sneaky underhand tactics to introduce the criminalisation mantra. I never questioned the right to resist; I did say, as you have, that the right conditions do not exist. This makes armed militancy wrong at the present time. I started by talking about the diminished credibility of the 32CSM, you have done little to enhance it.

they are endorisng the Irish peoples right to engage in armed force against the occupation of their national terrirory . A position your party regards as a criminal act .
The "Irish people" are not engaged "in armed force against the occupation of their national terrirory", a tiny self-appointed clique are engaged in sporadic acts of wasetful futility that are increasingly causing people to spend wasted years in prison. You have recognised the futility of these actions yet you don't see the contradiction in supporting them.

I have pointed out no such thing . Our constituition does not forbid discussion on the pros and cons of armed struggle and Ive made my views very clear over the years as have others . Nobody , not once , has ever even attempted to suppress or silence my views on the matter despite my long held and vocal position on the conditions being absent for a succesful insurgency . However if you do not believe that right exists then by definition its a criminal illegimate position and not a right at all . Anyone who views armed reistance as criminal and illegitimate as opposed to a legitmate right of defending and asserting national sovereignty in the face of foreign occupation is incapable of politically defending national sovereignty . Therefore has no place whatsoever within the sovereignty movement , it would be completely illogical . Nobody criminalising the right of the irish people to resist occupation has any place within the sovereignty movement

I can argue against the RIRA without "criminalising" anything, you consistently raise the criminalisation smoke screen to deflect criticism. The conditions do not exist for armed uprising at this time. There is no point in engaging in actions that waste and risk lives for no realisable gain. It's not criminalisation, it's common sense.

I believe the firing of an anti tank rocket into MI5 HQ was necesary and useful in that it was a popular move , well received on the streets and encouraged those republicans within our organisation to get over the Omagh stigma and start to organise openly and politically without shame and taunts . It raised morale and assited the political growth of our movement at a crucial stage .It was very well timed in my opinion .
It was "well timed" to guarentee the Hollywood build-up and the MI5 budget for years to come. In reality it was a futile act of symbolism that was nothing more that an a cock-standing exercise that did nothing to advance the cause of Irish unity...quite the opposite if MI5 gained anything out of it and there is no reason to suggest that they didn't.

I believe the actions taken against PSNI mmebers a few months ago gave a clear political message , not just to those in nationalist areas who may have contemplated joining or supporting the British police for misguided reasons but in that it forced constitutional nationalist leaders to come out and attempt to criminalise it , it exposed very clearly the reality of their positon . It brought the issue of sovereignty to a head and into the public forum to be debated . I belive that as a result of this our position was strengthened and not weakened . People who had become demoralised and drifted away came back to the sovereignty movement with renewed enthusiasm . Certainly nobody defected to the Provisionals as a result of that debate .
Nationalist communities are being destroyed by crimninality and some Nationalist want to get involved in their policing by challenging Unionist domination of policing and neglect of Nationalist areas. What about their rights? If the personnel carrying out one of these attacks had been killed by the policeman being attacked would it have been a worthwhile act, would their deaths have been a worthwhile price to boost RIRA morale?

I believe very strongly they intended to take on the RIRA , and I also believe that militarily the RIRA structure would eventually have collapsed and ceased to function in the event of an all out feud against it . I also believe that Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams would be well known republican martyrs had that structure not been weakened and demoralised sufficiently prior to any assault . I believe Joseph OConnors murder was to be a precursor to such an assault , and that amidst a wave of virtual internement the intent was to artificially embroil RIRA and CIRA in a feud in Belfast which would have resulted in a number of deaths and total demoralisation and defeat . I believe the situation came perilously close to that position and that the murder by the provsionals of Jospeph OConnor and the sinister attempts by the British to blame another organisation were done very deliberately to bring that scenario about . I believe people may yet be murdered , although I dont believe the provos would blamed .
Your belief puts you into a tiny minority. It's interesting that you talk of how "Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams would be well known republican martyrs", particularly in light of threats against their lives and a recent statement about 'legitimate targets'. This would suggest that contingency plans for assasination had been made. If the IRA were made aware of such plans then it is natural that they would have countered them. You're talking about assassinating the Sinn Féin leadership after all.


Im talking about both . Caoimhain OCaoilain is very much of that opinion , he even attempted to convince the deputies of Leinster House and has been thanked by Bertie Ahern for his movements efforts in persuasion
That's your warped opinion, the majority of the right-thinking people would utterly disagree.


No no no Im not . Ive had my life threatened by the provisional IRA . Ive been persistently tailed and enquired after . Numerous people have come forward and told me about persistent questioning as to where i was living , working , socialisng etc etc . Ive had an attempt to run me over in a car , Ive had a number of family members brutally assaulted and abducted . My comrades have been abducted , assaulted , stripped naked and interrogated sometimes about myself . One was murdered . This was all done by the provisional IRA . I didnt imagine any of it . So when Mr OCaolain talks about being a bulwark and Bertie Ahern thanks him for the persuasion theyve engaged in Im under no illusions at all as to what they both mean .
And all we have for proof are your words, the words of somebody who has boasted about plans to assassinate Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness on an open forum.


what sources were these ?
Your mates in the RIRA talking about legitimate targets and the threats to numerous Republicans. Sure haven't you confirmed it yourself by talking about assassination plans.

[FTA69]

[QUOTE]
particularly in light of threats against their lives and a recent statement about 'legitimate targets'.


The threats to Adams and McGuinness emanated from the so-called IRLA and had nothing to do with the 32s, despite some peoples' best efforts to portray a false scencario where the 32s are trying to whack the SF leadership.

[Dúiche Néill]

The threats to Adams and McGuinness emanated from the so-called IRLA and had nothing to do with the 32s, despite some peoples' best efforts to portray a false scencario where the 32s are trying to whack the SF leadership.

Who said anything about the 32s, I'm talking about the RIRA. The recent RIRA statement referred to Sinn Féin ministers as legitimate targets and we have a 32CSM member, above, referring to RIRA plans to ensure that "Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams would be well known republican martyrs". The 32s aren't "trying to whack the SF leadership." but there is growing evidence that the RIRA have certainly considered it.

[FTA69]

The recent RIRA statement referred to Sinn Féin ministers as legitimate targets and we have a 32CSM member, above, referring to RIRA plans to ensure that "Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams would be well known republican martyrs". The 32s aren't "trying to whack the SF leadership." but there is growing evidence that the RIRA have certainly considered it.

Those threats didn't come from the RIRA either, as I said they came from the IRLA, which are probably controlled by the Brits. In the RIRA statement to which you are referring they stated clearly that they have no intention at all of killing anyone in SF. You are only felon setting.

[Dúiche Néill]

Those threats didn't come from the RIRA either, as I said they came from the IRLA, which are probably controlled by the Brits. In the RIRA statement to which you are referring they stated clearly that they have no intention at all of killing anyone in SF. You are only felon setting.

Good man, snuggle up securely under the criminalisation comfort blanket and pull the wool safely over your eyes. We have a 32CSM member on this board stating:
"I also believe that Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams would be well known republican martyrs had that structure not been weakened and demoralised sufficiently prior to any assault"
Sounds a lot like the RIRA were actively engaged in attempts to assassinate the Sinn Féin leadership. Recent statements prove that they haven't given up on the idea either.

[FTA69]

"I also believe that Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams would be well known republican martyrs had that structure not been weakened and demoralised sufficiently prior to any assault"

He said that they would be targeted if the IRA tried to wipe them out, he didn't say they were planning on shooting the two of them for the craic. Likewise the RIRA themselves said clearly that they have no intention of shooting anyone to do with the Provos, did you somehow miss that part or something?

[Dúiche Néill]

He said that they would be targeted if the IRA tried to wipe them out, he didn't say they were planning on shooting the two of them for the craic. Likewise the RIRA themselves said clearly that they have no intention of shooting anyone to do with the Provos, did you somehow miss that part or something?

No, he is saying that the Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness would have been taken out had the RIRA not been "weakened and demoralised sufficiently prior to any assault", as a result of Omagh. This admission was a bit of a gaffe on Carlos' part but it's out in the open now.

[scarface]

Good man, snuggle up securely under the criminalisation comfort blanket and pull the wool safely over your eyes. We have a 32CSM member on this board stating:
"I also believe that Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams would be well known republican martyrs had that structure not been weakened and demoralised sufficiently prior to any assault"
Sounds a lot like the RIRA were actively engaged in attempts to assassinate the Sinn Féin leadership. Recent statements prove that they haven't given up on the idea either.

The only Republican murdered by other so-called republicans since 1998 was Joseph O'Connor who was murdered by the PIRA in 2000

[FTA69]

No, he is saying that the Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness would have been taken out had the RIRA not been "weakened and demoralised sufficiently prior to any assault", as a result of Omagh. This admission was a bit of a gaffe on Carlos' part but it's out in the open now.

No he meant that they would have been targetted if the IRA hadn't managed to kill them all in one fell swoop. We'll see when he comes back, he can speak for himself, although you are simply interested in felon-setting.

[Dúiche Néill]

No he meant that they would have been targetted if the IRA hadn't managed to kill them all in one fell swoop. We'll see when he comes back, he can speak for himself, although you are simply interested in felon-setting.

That's not true, I have steered clear of the criminalisation foil employed by militant apologists throughout this debate. It was Carlos who introduced all the talk about threats abductions etc; does that not count as "felon setting"? It would appear from what Carlos is saying that any actions allegedly carried out by the IRA were mitigated by a real and potent threat to the lives of the Sinn Féin leadership.

[FTA69]

It was Carlos who introduced all the talk about threats abductions etc; does that not count as "felon setting"?

No, because in the past those incidents occurred; what you are trying to say is that there is a threat posed to Sinn Féin from the RIRA when in fact no such threats exist. This situation was seized upon in light of these "IRLA" threats when certain people started asserting it was the RIRA behind them, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

It would appear from what Carlos is saying that any actions allegedly carried out by the IRA were mitigated by a real and potent threat to the lives of the Sinn Féin leadership.

Yeah, that's it lad. Merciful hour...

[Dúiche Néill]

No, because in the past those incidents occurred; what you are trying to say is that there is a threat posed to Sinn Féin from the RIRA when in fact no such threats exist. This situation was seized upon in light of these "IRLA" threats when certain people started asserting it was the RIRA behind them, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.



Yeah, that's it lad. Merciful hour...

The 32s are the ones that are trying to imply that they are under threat from the Republican movement. In the past the RIRA were obviously deluded enough to contemplate killing Adams and McGuinness. I don't think they would be stupid enough to pull something like that now, even though they still make bold statements in newspapers.

[Carlos McJackle]

why dont you go and ring the peelers ? eejit

[Dúiche Néill]

why dont you go and ring the peelers ? eejit

Why don't you try debating, rather than resorting to insult and provocation?

[RisenBelfast]

Any chance you guys could move this to somewhere relevant? Or the Mods intervening?

This is the éirígí board and you aren't anywhere near on topic.

[Éire32CS]

Who said anything about the 32s, I'm talking about the RIRA. The recent RIRA statement referred to Sinn Féin ministers as legitimate targets

You are totally blinded by your own views

As an involved party, there is an large element of accountability and is therefore a legitimate target but is unlikley to be targetted as a result of the spin off and adverse affects from which any actions against would entail

It is the same situation that has been around always, for example with SDLP in Stormont back in the day, but they weren't targetted for obvious reason and those conditions still apply now.

Thta doesn't change the legitimacy of the target, to act on these double standards that you want would be extremly hypocritical.

[Dúiche Néill]

You are totally blinded by your own views

As an involved party, there is an large element of accountability and is therefore a legitimate target but is unlikley to be targetted as a result of the spin off and adverse affects from which any actions against would entail

It is the same situation that has been around always, for example with SDLP in Stormont back in the day, but they weren't targetted for obvious reason and those conditions still apply now.

Thta doesn't change the legitimacy of the target, to act on these double standards that you want would be extremly hypocritical.

This post makes no sense, either logically or linguistically

[Comrade Ryan]

I d point out at this juncture for benefit of clarity that whilst undoubtedly prevalent the support for engagement within armed struggle , as opposed to the right to enage in it , is not compulsory within 32 csm and most definitely and certainly not primary within 32 csm . For example anyone who knows me is well aware that within and without 32 csm Ive publicly advanced the opinion and analysis since about 2001/2 up until now that the conditions for insurgency do not exist . Im a fully paid up and active member of 32 csm and have never been once chided or has any attempt been made to silence this viewpoint . In fact its met with a lot of agreement .
What eirig[i believe is their own business but I do not like to see my organisations position being misrepresented , much less my own .
It seems to me though that 32 csm is more accomodating to different points of view in this regard and the issue can be discussed more openly and frankly .

Seeing as you quoted me there, can I ask where I have misrepresented your organisations position>

[belfast rep]

RB is right here, this is a thread on eirigi, please get back on topic. or start a new thread in the 32csm/SF section

[Comrade Ryan]

RB is right here, this is a thread on eirigi, please get back on topic. or start a new thread in the 32csm/SF section

Good call.