The death of Gerry Fitt.

by fittobetied Fri Aug 26, 2005 17:38

Anyone who accepts a mediaeval "honour" from a monarch can not possibly be considered a socialist.

by teg b Fri Aug 26, 2005 17:43

A lot of Scandinavian and Dutch socialists wouldn't agree with you...

by C Ó Brolcháin Fri Aug 26, 2005 19:31

Many people in working class West Belfast remember the shameful role played by their supposed representative, Gerry Fitt, during the rent strike. In fact, it was the first thing mentioned to me by many people when Fitt's death was brought up in conversation.

by mick Murray - opinion now Fri Aug 26, 2005 19:43

Gerry Fitt may be gone but his legacy lives on in the guise of the new right honourable member for Belfast West, Gerry Adams.
Both Gerry's accepted British Rule and worked for the Queen's schilling in maintaining the establishment.
Gerry Fitt must be pleased that his role in continuing the divide in Ireland has safely passed to Britain's ally in Ireland, Gerry Adams.

by socialist Fri Aug 26, 2005 20:07

Fitt was not a socialist. Fitt played a disgraceful and right wing role in the Civil Rights movement. He was one of the misleaders of that movement that channelled the anger of working class catholics down a sectarian path rather then down a class path which would have unified workinf class catholics and protestants in a common struggle for socialism. Fitt was part of the establishment, he was in the House of Lords! No socialist would ever take a position in such a rotten undemocratic and feudal institution as the Lords. Fitt was no socialist he was a sectarian right winger unless it is the same brand of Bertie Ahearns socialism of course!!

by Barry Sat Aug 27, 2005 05:23

Im actually glad that dirty excuse for a human being has shuffled off his mortal coil . When Thatcher was doing her damndest to criminalise republican prisoners Fitt supported her . When Bobby Sands and his comrades went on their fateful hungerstrike Fitt actually encouraged her not to give in . I beleive it was a serious failing of the republican movement that this miserable excuse for a man lived to die of old age . If this was the Basque country hed have been dealt with long ago .

Good riddance to a horrible nasty little man who was well rewarded by the British state he served so well . A tramp of the lowest order . Thankfully his neighbours on the Antrim rd saw him for what he was and burned him out of Belfast . That he recieved a Knighthood from Westminster afterwards is unsurprising .

The poster describing him here as a socialist is either a total moron or deliberately tryong to dishonour socialism by aligning it with one of the worst opportunist lowlifes ever to walk on Gods green shores .

By the way, remembering Adams response to the dirty protest by republican prisoners recently in Maghaberry Id say there was little ideological difference between the 2 scumbags. only timing . Their respnse was and is very simlar .

Fitt died in shame as a traitor to the cause and his people , honoured only by his friends in the British establishment . Adams did an immeasurably more serious amount of damage to the cause of fenianism and revolutionary republicanism . His end wil be just as ignominious . Fitt was a hero to the politically "fair" and a media darling once as well Gerry . You adopted his politics lock stock and treacherous barrell .

I pray youll share his traitor bastard fate also . Therell be no tears for that rotten scumbag .

by Adult Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:38

Tut tut Barry - it appears that anyone who disagrees with you is ripe for assassination. Your only regret is that more people who challenged your views didn't die during 'the war.' I suppose you have a point - how dare any of us think the IRA were wrong? What right have we to our opinions, to voice them, to debate, to disagree, to suggest or vote for a different position? We should bow the knee to armed Republicanism - or fuck off and die. Isn't that it? Also, once you get your united Ireland, why stop there and change the habits of a lifetime? I say anyone in a united Ireland who disagrees with BArry should also be shot - in fact that is too good for them. Bring back hanging, drawing and quartering - preferably in boiling oil.

by Sick-to-death Sat Aug 27, 2005 12:11

Barry - one of these days you are going to spontaneously combust with all the anger, bile and venom.

by Shipsea Sat Aug 27, 2005 14:21

Reading Barry's summation of the life of Gerry Fitt, I finally realised what he is all about. He's a fantastic parody of an IRA supporter! The violence, the bullying, the arrogance, the self-righteousness, the tunnel vision, the bitterness - all combined in one hilariously well-observed persona. Who authored him I wonder? Somebody somewhere is having a laugh, surely?

Want to know what life under the diktat of a Barry would be like? Look at the photograph in today's Irish Examiner (p.8). Gerry Fit can be seen standing in the middle of the wreckage of his home after it had been vandalised by a crazed mob of Barry-types. That's exactly what awaits us all if these thugs ever get their hands on the controls. Gerry Fitt knew that and did what he thought he should to ensure it never happened. We have a lot to thank him for. May he rest in peace.

by info Sat Aug 27, 2005 14:29

thus his point of view may be thought to be representative of that group which is of the same size and uses pretty much the same language as Republican Sinn Fein. Both groupings are considered to be the rumps of "Sinn Fein" after the decisions to end abstention to the Dail (parliament of Ireland in dublin) and accept the Good Friday Agreement. Along with the IRSP they constitute the radical and extremist political organisations of the wider republican movement but are very clearly a small if not vocal minority.

by Paradox spotter Sat Aug 27, 2005 18:46

Barry feels perfectly entitled t odecide that people who have different views from him shoudl be executed (eg Gerry Fitt) - without trial, the right of defence, appeal, the need for evidence, or any crime other than having a different opinion, robustly expressed.

On the other hand, if members of his organisation are arrested and held for questioning (note: not executed for dissent) this is harassment, persecution, victimisation.

Sounds rather a fascist perspective to me.... And a poor omen for whatever kind of united Ireland this sick mentality might realise.

by Barry Sat Aug 27, 2005 21:18

Fitt did not simply dissent ffs . I certainly do not believe ( and never will believe) that anyone who disagrees with a republican point of view should be attacked . I certainly do believe though that anyone deliberately assisting the British government to torture and kill Irish prisoners should face the consequences of their actions .

When prisoners , including his own constituents, were dying the most agonising drawn out deaths imaginable in the H Blocks Fitt rallied to the aid of the Thatcher government and publicly urged her to stick to her stance no matter what . He also joined with Jim Molyneaux in the house of commons in a bitter personal attack on the protesting prisoners , during which Bobby Sands and his comrades were derided as beasts and filthy animals .

His deliberately treacherous and cynical actions directly contributed to their deaths . Thatcher was able to point out that the leading nationalist MP fully supported her stance which was causing her major embarrassment throughout the world . It encouraged her to stick to her course . Other nationalist and religious figures who bitterly opposed the IRA and its methods were working hard to convince Thatcher that her stance would be disastrous , while Fitt deliberately chose to undermine their attempts to solve the crisis without loss of life . He knew well that people were going to die if Thatcher didnt bend , therefore he supported those deaths , loudly and publicly .His actions were utterly merecenary and callous and led to him becoming an utterly despised figure in the eyes of tens of thousands of Irish people , not all of them republican by any means . Even a great many SDLP members were utterly disgusted at his actions and slavish support for Thatchers HBlock regime .

Fitt knew full well the horrors , degradation and brutality which had been going on in the HBlocks for years and came out publicly in support of it . He knew full well that the hungerstrikers would see it through to the bitter end and cynically urged Thatcher to let them die regardless . He knew full well that men were dying and preferred to see them die rather than Britain to lose face . Fitt had no problem at all supporting their agonising deaths as well as the brutal humiliation of 100s of others . Fitt did not simply dissent from republicanism or condemn the IRA , he cynically and deliberately aligned himself with a brutal oppressive regime at a time when men were dying at that regimes hands . He publicly supported the loss of life in the HBlocks in the hope the British government would emerge triumphant . He supported the Thatcher government whose agents were murdering HBlock activists including non republicans on the outside in order to silence them . His reward was a knighthood from the British for his active collaboration .

The struggle in the HBlocks was literally a life or death one . Fitt deliberately chose to play a major role within that life or death struggle .
Anyone assisting the British government in its policy of brutalising defenceless prisoners and assisting the regime which cost them their lives, as Fitt publicly did , frankly deserves to suffer a similar fate . A callous assessment maybe , but Fitt was a damn sight more callous concerning the deaths of Irish prisoners .

by rooster Sat Aug 27, 2005 21:31

but do you think it was right that he was shot?

by Barry Sat Aug 27, 2005 21:34

I didnt say he should be shot . Just thought it was a pity he wasnt .

by Hmmmm Sat Aug 27, 2005 21:34

Barry - I am afraid that your rantings make you look more like a fascist pig (I am trying to be kind) rather than anything else.... Fitt had a different view to you on the nature of the H block hunger striles and openly expressed it. Did he have the right to do so or not, in your view? Did he have the right to say he thought Thatcher was right, or not? If he did not have right to say so, would you also say that anyone else in the Catholic community who took a similar view didn't have that right either? Where do you draw the line.

In my view, but then I am democrat and rather liberal in my sympathies, he (or anybody else with a brain and a mouth) had the right to oppose it - (irrespective of whether their opinion was justified). Remember: true freedom is a society where I might disagree, Barry, with your view, but I defend to the death your right to hold it.

But for you, Fitt had a different view - this means he should be shot - and perhaps you now think Gerry Adams should be shot too? Why stop there, of course... What a great Ireland it will be - lots of Barry clones yelping their agreement with each other, and acres of graveyards in every direction. First to go will have to be the Prods - after all, they are going to fight your idea of a united Ireland, so that's the end of them. Then there will be the people in your own community who queryteither your aims or your means, starting with the present leadership of SF - why, that's treachery, so shoot the fuckers too. Not to mention all those Brits standing in your way. And that's just Barry warming up.

You must feel very coinfident in your opinions, to abrogate to yourself to decide the fate of so many people. So, we have Muslim fundamentalists in the world with that mindset, Christian fundamental;ists in the US, and Barry/ Republican fundamentalists in Ireland. The hell to all who disagree with me - now, where is my gun? Yehaaaaaa.

by Shipsea Sat Aug 27, 2005 21:51

...that were self-inflicted! Gery Fitt did not force the hunger strikers to kill themselves! They were advocating violence as a means of challenging injustice, as you are now, Barry, and turned that violence on themselves in the absence of any opportunity to do so on the outside. This is not to justify any genuine injustice or ill-treatment they were suffering in prison but you cannot seriously argue that Gerry Fitt was responsible for their deaths.

Barry's murderous intentions towards people who pursue a different, non-violent, course of action to his own in no way justifies the wrongful imprisonment of anyone who is innocent of what he is accused of (cf Paradox Spotter above). Neither does it justify the abuse of the legal processes by which any such person is held and in fact, of all the contributions from Barry on Indymedia, his arguments on these points (different thread)are the most convincing, in my view.

by Barry Sat Aug 27, 2005 22:03

Fitt was certainly not just someone who disagreed with a political opinion or held an opinion which was unpopular. He was also not some punter in the street . He was a high profile MP for West Belfast . He knew full well that his actions in the House of Commons in support of the regime would have the most serious physical consequences imaginable - .ie the deaths of his political opponents and the continued physical degradation of 100s of others .

That is a million miles away from just holding or expressing an opinion . That is quite clearly playing a deliberately belligerent role in a deadly struggle between hostile and bitterly oppsed forces . The British had no hesitation whatsoever eliminating those who supported the demands of the prisoners - Queens lecturer Miriam Daly was tied up and shot dead in her home . Protestant HBlock activist John Turnley was murdered as well . Bernadette McAliskey and her husband were both riddled in their bed as undercover soldiers looked on . My attitude is certainly much less fundamentalist than the British governments . Fitt chose to become an active protagonist on one side of that deadly struggle and was well rewarded by them for it . As a politician he publicly supported a government policy which led directly to the deaths of political prisoners . As mp for west Belfast he was a key player in the tragedy which unfolded .In virtually any revolutionary struggle in the world ( bar this one it seems) he would most definitely have been bumped off. That is not a fundamentalist position but a realistic assessment of what would have happened anywhere else . The Basques wouldnt have hesitated to stiff him for a second .

by Shipsea Sat Aug 27, 2005 22:21

No one denies the disgusting nature of the atrocities you describe - or wants to justify them in any way. But turning to the same approach yourself is not the solution. It is one of the greatest successes of British violence in the North that it succeeded in so angering people that they began to act in the same way themselves. Rise above it!
Gerry Fitt was not advocating the murder of innocent Irish people - or the murder of anyone - he was adamant that the Republican response at the time was deadly and counterproductive - and he was proved right. You have expressed your satisfaction that he was burned out of his home. How the hell else do you expect someone like him to feel? You conpletely dismiss his achievements on behalf of the civil rights of Catholic people. He achieved so much more than people like you and yet you take the benefits that accrued to you by virtue of his efforts entirely for granted! Trying to paint him up as a sort of indirect murderer is completely disingenuous - not to say outrageous.

by rooster Sat Aug 27, 2005 22:33

I seem to remember taht it was the undercover soldiers that arrested the loyalists and gave the McAliskeys life saving first aid!

by Barry Sat Aug 27, 2005 23:17

Although Fitt did not control the prisons , his role as a politician in Westminster , representing supposedly the interests of the Falls rd made him an important figure in the propaganda battle betyween the prisoners and the British government .

Fitt publicly urged the Thatcher government not to grant ANY of the prisoners demands . The obvious and inescapable outcome from this was that people were going to die . Fitt preferred to see people die , horribly , than a just settlement be arrived at . It was preferable for him to see men die than the British government abandon its policy of criminalisation .

He actively and publicly supported the British governments criminalisation of prisoners . That is a far cry from simply opposing violence . In fact it was active political support for British violence within the HBlocks . Men were living naked and freezing for years in excrement and urine plastered cells with no visits , no tv , radio or reading materials . They were subject to constant beatings , sexual degradation and harrassment . Many were under these conditions for up to 5 years . Fitts political role was to legitimise all this . By doing so he was actively participating in this regimes implementation . He simply supported and excused the violence of the British government .

As the elected MP for West Belfast this allowed Thatcher to claim the prisoners had no support among the Irish people and that they were common criminals in the eyes of the Irish people as well as her government . This was patently not the case . Bobby Sands election and the turnout at his funeral proved that , yet Fitt carried on urging Thatcher not to bend . And more people died.

Many politicians and churchmen who utterly despised and condemned the IRAs campaign worked on a purely humanitarian level to bring an end to the crisis . Fitt on the other hand played a major role in Thatchers propaganda campaign . Thatcher hoped the men would die and no-one would care. Fitt urged her to let them die and encouraged her in her attempts to convince the world they had no support . Unlike many , many others who opposed the IRA campaign Fitt became an active cheerleader for the British governments violent campaign . That is going way , way further than simply condemning the IRA . That is playing a political role in the legitimisation of a violent British policy which led directly to the deaths of prisoners . You cannot as a politician publicly support a policy which you know full well will result in deaths and not be responsible for those deaths .

A pity the powers of political foresight you credit Fitt with as regards the IRA seem to have strangely deserted him at this time . Surely Thatchers decision to let Bobby Sands die , which he publicly urged her to do , was totally counterproductive as regards violence ? Surely the pursuit of a peaceful solution , which could so easily have been reached in the HBlocks , would have been a lot more sensible . Yet Fitt argued for confrontation rather than mediation when it was obvious that this approch would lead to loss of life . So much for his political foresight when he was booted out of office by the electorate at the earliest opportunity and became an utterly despised figure both personally and politically .

Very very few on the Falls rd will be mourning the passing of Lord Fitt , despite his being their MP for years . What an ungrateful bunch they must be .

by I see..... Sat Aug 27, 2005 23:57

Now I get it. You see, if I opposed the hunger strikers demands in 1981 (BTW, I actually supported them, but I also supported the right of others to a diferent view....) that was ok. But if for example I wrote a letter to the Irish News, and thereby publicly opposed them, that is outrageous and I should be shot. Isn't that what Fitt did? His views were wrong! But he was entitled to have them and say them in any way at any time in any forum he wised. What the fuck is the point of fighting to get rid of British oppression, only to insist that everybody has to agree with you in order to be allowed to live? I'd rather kick the bucket first....

by paradox spotter Sun Aug 28, 2005 00:00

To be clear, I absolutely agree with your points. I did not mean to imply that anything wrong perpretrated by the British, including the arrest of people guilty of no offence, was ok. The only point I was trying to make was that Barry gets very irked at such actions by the British and goes mad when his rights are violated, but also simultatenously argues that anyone who disagrees publicly with him should be without - without trial, the right to a defence, and without any evidence. It seems a bit hypocritical. I have more confidence in people protesting against injustice when their stance is consistent. Otherwise, I tend to view them as cretins - or hypocrites - or fascists. Take your pick.....

by Barry Sun Aug 28, 2005 04:29

At no stage whatsoever have I stated that anyone who doesnt agree with my opinions should be subject to any actions . PS is bullshitting and he knows it . Why make such a thing up ? If I believed such a thing I certainly wouldnt bother reading other posts or debating here with people who hold a wide variety of opinions .

Fitts actions in support of of Thatchers regime were not the mere expression of a political opinion . They were a calculated act of political support for her regime of brutality and criminalisation . His actions came in the middle of a deadly struggle between the prisoners and Thatcher in which lives were on the line . Lives were lost . In his role as a politician he did all in his power to support British brutality against political prisoners . His support for Thatchers actions as MP for West Belfast was calculated to assist her in her attempts to physically smash the prisoners and the entire republican struggle .

That is some very dangerous and heavy shit to be getting actively involved in and taking an active political role on behalf of a belligerent party . Fitts assistance to Thatcher endangered lives of republican prisoners and he knew it . He was utterly callous as regards their fate so I have little concern for whatever fate might have befallen him .

That is a very dangerous political game to play , a different thing entirely from simply expressing an opinion . Anyone deliberately endangering lives in the midst of such a crucial and deadly struggle should be perfectly prepared to endanger their own . At the end of the day he didnt so whats the fuss about anyway ?

by lkjh Sun Aug 28, 2005 08:06

Apologists for british imperialism go out of their way to accuse Republicans (wrongly) of being fascist, yet they consistently ignore the fact that there are real fascists in the shape of that "clergyman" Paisley and the loyalist paramilitaries.

by Shipsea Sun Aug 28, 2005 09:37

The hunger strikers, ultimately, ran up against the logic of their own convictions: that blackmailing, torturing and violence were a pointless means of achieving their objectives. The physical conditions you describe in prison were self-inflicted. Nobody made a single one of them go on hunger strike or smear their walls with excrement - it was blackmail pure and simple. I dont justify the ill treatment, beatings or sexual humiliation and those responsible should be brought fully to justice for that. You have to wonder though if while experiencing those things, any of the men were able to cast their minds back to the kneecappng, tarring and feathering, shootings, beatings and general murder they had been practicing and/or promoting out in the community? Did they reflect on what it felt like to be at the other end of it? If so, they should have been able to infer that, if the torture they experienced did nothing to weaken their resolve, why the hell should their own violence have a different effect on the loyalist/unionist community? Is it not the case that with every atrocity the desire for revenge was increased, the sense of outrage and injustice strengthened on both sides? It was all counter productive - whoever was doing it. Ghandi must be wishing that at least one other person on the planet had tried his own experiment so that he could have a little rest from being wheeled out as an example to the rest of us, but there it is. How much more (and how much more quickly) did they achieve their objectives in India through passive/peaceful protest.? The nature of the British occupation there was made so starkly apparent after incidents like Amritsar (spelling?) they had nowhere to go but home in shame. The irony is of course that Ghandi was ultimately murdered by one of his earlier supporters and collaborators - embittered by factional differences much as you are now, Barry. Gerry Fitt was a socialist who abhorred violence and he resisted it as fiercely as you promote it. He did not kill anyone, he simply refused to be blackmailed. Unlike many ill-informed and sentimental armchair supporters of the republican 'cause' at the time he had first hand experience of the reality of violence and refused to condone it in any form. It is really sickening to see you suggesting that he should have been 'dealt with', as you put it. There may well be many a reader of this website who believes exactly the same thing about you. He who lives by the sword...

by Mick Murry - drugs4guns Sun Aug 28, 2005 16:41

Nobody has appeared on this site to totally disagree with the obvious comparisons between Adams and Fitt.
Does this mean everybody accepts these .
As for the childish crap that fFtt should have been shot, I ask, who by? the belfast boys led by steaknife and the short strand butchers?
The 'ra were kept in their place since the 80's by the likes of Adams, martin "alls quiet in Derry" mcguinness and Pat "loughall" Doherty.
They were too busy copying Fitts ideas to do anything else.
Fitt was a scumbag but at least he only attacked republicans in the media, not like our present green MP's who have killed nationalists to maintain power over their interests.

by dropping very polite hints - "the very polite people" Sun Aug 28, 2005 17:44

Gerry Fitt,

for accepting the poisoned chalice which is a political career, like many before you and many more after, you will be judged more on deeds and words by many who never have nor would accept the responsibilities you had: to do it right or get it wrong.

RIP.

by Barry Mon Aug 29, 2005 05:51

With all due respect Shipsea , your assertion that no -one made republican pows smear their cells with excrement is completely untrue . The myth that the prisoners just chose to do it one day was promoted by the British government in order to portray them as animals ( a myth Fitt eagerly assisted them in promoting in the House of Commons) .

The situation the blanketmen faced was utterly grim . Should any blanketman leave his cell to either wash or use the toilet he had to walk alone ,completely naked , through 2 lines of hostile bigoted screws either side of the H Block corridor . They were not allowed either a blanket or even to cover themselves with a towel for this trip . Prisoners were not only subjected to abusive language but a ritual beating from the lines of screws . Prisoners were kicked and punched every step of the way ( and back afterwards) Every trip to the toilet also involved a forced strip search (on a naked man) were fingers and medical implements were inserted into the anus and mouth ( and always in that order). .

After a prolonged period of this disgusting treatment the prisoners opted to refuse to leave their cells at all . This meant they would be unable to wash as well as use the toilet .The choice between a naked , defenceless man staying put in relative safety or daily running a violent and sexually degrading gauntlet is not exactly a self inflicted choice . Its not a choice at all .

Unable to leave their cells on the grounds of basic self preservation the prisoners , 2 to a cell , had to make use of chamber pots rather than toilets . The prison governers then introduced a system were the same trolley to serve the prisoners food was used to empty the contents of an entire wings chamber pots , at the same time of course . Prisoners would have to empty their pots into one foul container while their meals were served simultaneously with the same gloved hands that was pushing a huge container of bodily wastes around a wing . During frequent cell searches screws also kicked the contents of the pots around the cells and over the prisoners and their meagre bedding , fouling all in its path .

. In order to avoid all of this disgusting treatment the prisoners then broke the windows of their cells and emptied the pots out of those . The next morning screws and orderlies went around the yards and threw the excrement back in the windows onto sleeping prisoners . The windows were then boarded up preventing the prisoners from disposing of their pot contents or even seeing outside their cell windows .

Prisoners were then faced with the abominable situation of the state using their own bodily waste as a weapon against them , not as you falsley assert them using it as a weapon against the state . The waste had to be disposed of somehow but prisoners were unable to leave their cells . They , their blankets , hair and food were being contaminated with it daily through the screws actions which were calculated and deliberate .

Prisoners only spread their excrement on the walls because it was the most hygeinic method available to them to dispose of it . Quite simply the contents of overflowing chamberpots had to go somewhere and when spread evenly on the walls using a piece of foam from their mattress it soon dried , lessening the chances of disease spreading .

Prisoners also emptied their urine under the cell door and constructed a small dam of the only material available to them , rottting waste food , to keep it out . Why ? Because the screws used a motorised floor buffer to push the urine back into the cells . Again it was the state who opted to use prisoners bodily wastes as a weapon , not the prisoners . The prisoners could either dispose of the urine that way or be beaten and sexually degraded .

Of course they had the choice to leave their cells , alone and naked and be beaten and sexually assaulted , every time they went to the toilet , day in day out for years . They had the choice to have their food served by a loyalist bigot inches away from an open barrell of piss and shite .That was some choice alright . They had the choice to have their piss and shite kicked over them and their bedding every time their cell was searched , usually once a week .

Those were the conditions men were most definitely forced to live under for years for refusing to wear a criminals uniform . They were refused access to newspapers or books , reading materials of any kind . No radio or tv ,no contact with the outside world .They couldnt even see out of their cell window . All they had was a foam mattress a tooth brush and a blanket . And to top it off every day they refused to wear a uniform meant another day added to their sentence . For many this meant their sentences were doubled .


Those conditions were certainly not self inflicted , they were inflicted upon them by a brutal regime . Your belief that individuals who carried this out should be prosecuted is admirable , but totally unrealistic . This regime was government policy . The government cant prosecute people for doing specifically what the government ordered them to do . And Fitt was an enthusiastic cheerleader and apologist for this policy of violence . You condemn this degrading violence as a crime yet you eulogise the man who supported and encouraged it .? And call me a hypocrite into the bargain ???? As MP for West Belfast Fitt knew exactly what was happening in the Blocks and knew exactly the nature of the prison regime he loudly encouraged .

That after 5 years of this prisoners opted to go on hungerstrike in protest against it was not a selfish violent act as you insist . It was not selfish blackmail . It was their only way out of a living hell . The picture you portray of the Hungerstrikers as nihilistic warped barbarians violently acting out true to their savage nature is a caricature more suited to a victorian Punch cartoon .

About as absurd as your description of Fitt as a committed socialist committed to non violence . Fitt vocally supported the disgusting , sadistic violence which went on everyday in the HBlocks . He urged Thatcher to keep it up . He supported vocally the crown forces also . He firmly supported their violence .

The lifelong socialist was also one of those who signed the orders which allowed Stormont to claw back all the money which was "owed" to it by working class nationalists who participated in the rent and rates strike . The socialist Fitt encouraged the rent and rates strike to get into power and once there betrayed those working class who had followed his orders . He readily accepted a British title and sat in the House of Lords .

Bearing in mind the suffering in the HBlocks which Fitt publicly supported and encouraged as a Westminster politician I make no apology for wishing harm upon the man . If someone reckons Im a sicko , a facist or even just childish fair enough . While republicans undoubtedly committed awful acts throughout the struggle the sheer perverted sadism of the Blocks was in a league of its own . It was inhuman and the product of twisted and sick minds . The psychology behind it was more twisted and chilling than that of the armed struggle . So bad was it that many of the perpetrators couldnt live with they did and later took their own lives . The suicide rate for those screws is staggering and carries on to today . Fitt it seems never felt guilty about anything he did , which is good for him .

Neither it seems does Gerry Adams who has since opted for Fitts policies as regards prisoners . My own brother was one of those who embarked on dirty protest in Maghaberry 2 years ago , hence my admitted bitterness at his role in the withdrawal of political status , the Steele report and his actions against Sinn Fein members who supported the prisoners struggle . The brothers description of it was simply the vilest most disgusting thing he has ever encountered in his life and just thinking of it makes me genuinely angry . If that anger comes accross as bitterness towards opportunistic politicians its unfortunate , but everyone takes certain things a bit personal.

by Shipsea Mon Aug 29, 2005 08:05

The details of conditions in the maze have long been understood. To most people, the prisoners were criminals who had taken it upon themselves to administer death and violence against the wishes of the vast majority of their community. So they were expected to wear a criminal's uniform! What did they expect? Cucumber sandwiches and tea? You refuse to engage with the effect on others of your own violence and won't recognise that the only thing you have achieved by it is that your victims hate you back with the same degree of rage and desire for revenge - that is exactly what happened in the maze. Your violence is every bit as sickening as theirs. Whether you like it or not, you are not regarded as the liberating, long-suffering heroes of romantic legend that you all believe yoursleves to be. No, you are self-appointed judge- jury-executioners - deciding who should live and who should die. You scream and howl about the violence you experience yourselves and think nothing of what you visited on other people. The same goes for the idiotic fools on the other side. Gerry Fitt was, rightly, vehement in his opposition to your violence as are the majority of your fellow-countrymen. But you know better than all of us, it seems and are prepared to kill us if we defend ourselves from the sneaking and cowardly style of murder most frequently practiced by your heroes. You're not getting the message, Barry, we dont want your solution. The vast majority of your fellow-countrymen have resoundingly rejected it. Sooner or later you are going to have to come to terms with it.

by Northern Catholic - and ex-IRA supporter Mon Aug 29, 2005 09:45

I posted the following comments to Barry on a different thread. He has not responded. I am therefore posting them here to see if he now feels up to it. NOTE: even if we grant his right to wage war etc, I am saying lets accepot that for teh sake of argument. It leaves a lot unanswered, as I try t osay below.....

'At the end of the day, your campaign failed. All that killing, all that sacrifice, all that time in prison - for what? I would conclude that the tactics, of urban guerrilla struggle in a political context of insufficient mass support (in fact, with mass opposition) just doesn't work!!!! Your right or otherwise to do it (which I would dispute) therefore becomes secondary... Look at it this way. I might have the right to jump from the top of a tall building - that doesn't mean that it is sensible, or that I have a serious prospect of achieving flight were I to do so. Granted, for the sake of argument, that you have some right to 'war' - this doesn't mean that you should, or that it will work!!!!
4. Thus, we also come back to the absolutely inescapable fact (and it was that made me personally turn away from Republicanism, as a young man, many years ago): in the face of Protestant oppposition to a united Ireland, bombing and shooting just cannot work. These people will not be intimidated into a united Ireland, and nor will they leave the island. They look on it as theirs, and are as attached to their homes as are the Catholics of the Falls Rd., the Bogside and Strabane. They will fight to their last breath. The conseqnece would be bloody civil war, putting into the shade anything we have ever seen in Irish history, and I think most probably resulting in re-partition anyway rather than a united Ireland.

But if you could 'win' such a civil war, what would you inhereit? A scorched land, cemeteries full everywhere, a deeper sense of national division than ever, unimaginable pain and horror and terror, far beyond anything that Britain ever inflicted on Ireland. You might want to ask therefore whether your objective is so goddam important as to justify that level of sacrifice and grief, even if it could be done!

In essence therefore: your tactics (whatever moral justification you construct - and I believe that is tenuous) just cannot deliver your goals. Isn't that what the failure of the Provo campaign has shown? And if so, why not move away from this form of Republicanism, and embrace the very process of persuasion that just might mean you are less demonised, and more succesful in achieving your ends. It makes little sense to spill so much blood in pursuit of the impossible....'

POINT 2
Even if we accepted all your arguments about your right to wage war (and, obviously, neither I nor most people on this island do), they fall to naught IF there is serious prospect of sustained armed Protesnat resistance.

I will be amazed if you can argue your way out of that one. I recall 1972, for example, when tens of thousands of Protestants joined the UDA and paraded around the streets - I am sure you do too. Hundreds of Catholics died, were kidnapped, brutally tortured, and had their bodies dumped on the back streets of Belfast. And this was only a beginning!!!! This scarcely seems like scaremongering, and I am sure that had the British ever issued their famous declaration of intent to withdraw then it would have been worse.

You see, Barry, you are absolutely determined to fight to the death for your vision of Irish sovereignty - no matter how paltry an objective that looks like to many outsiders. I am very curious as to why you are so committed to your cause - but imagine that Protestants would not be equally committed to theirs. Are they, perhaps, made of lesser stuff than Northern Catholics? I don't really think so, nor I am sure do you. Still, we'll see what you say - to me, it sounds like a wish fantasy, rather than a realistic appraisal of what really awaits you out there. And remember, if you are wrong, if a million of them decide to fight, you cannot achieve your ends - I should think that is obvious. They can hold their terrotory indefinitely.

For that reason too, I balk at the contrast between the importance of your aims and your methods. Truthfully, now, a united Ireland isn't really worth all the mayhem that you propose to put us through to get it. Most Catholics in the north were very exercised by the need for civil righst in 1968 and in following years keen to dismantle the apparatus of discrimination. This has been generally accomplished, and what little remains can be campaigned for politically. Truthfully, now, most do not think that getting rid of the border would be worth a civil war, or anything close to it - and I am with them. There is a disproportion bertween the value of your aims and the awfulness of your methods that is very striking. In short, we all have better things to worry about than precisely where the line on a map is drawn. In politics, as in all aspects of life, a sense of proportion goes a long way....'

Can Barry rise above his bitterness at British perfidity, and actyually address the aboive practical points? We get it Barry - you hate British Imperialism etc. The above is all about whether your method of dealing with stands a cat's chance in hell.

by Peace Mon Aug 29, 2005 09:53

Barry - the description you give of the H-Blocks is disgusting. Such treatment of prisoners is indefensible.

However, Shipsea makes some good points in return. Let me be precise. I had a neighbour who ran a little newsagent shop. One night he was having a pint in the local pub when one of your heroes walks in and shoots him in the head. The poor man died. Your hero had mistaken him for a building contractor doing work for the RUC. Now, you would say a tragic miustake etc - and that it is inevitable when you and your fellow heroes wage war that such tragedies happen. You have the right to wage war in such a way that things like this inevitably occur.

Truthfully, it just makes me sick. You, my friend, have no right to wage war on my behalf or that of the Irish people. You and your friends have no right to say to that poor grieving family that they must grin and bear it, so you can achieve your paltry objective of a united Ireland. If they had the choice would they prefer an end to the border, or their father and husband back? Is your goal worth his life????? Does life mean so little to you that you can so calmly subordinate it to your political goals???? But by your twisted logic I, this man's family, most Catholics in the North (not to mention those resistant Prods, or people in the south) have no right to have their views on this 'war' of yours taken into account: you can just sail blithely on. And then bitch when you are badly treated in prisons.

But, Barry, which is worse - the fate of my neighbour, or the ill-treatment in prisons? Your opposition to the latter has no moral credibility at all, since you are so consumed by hatred and condone so much violence yourself, violence of a much more awful and terminal character.

Your arguments are just sad and inhuman.

by Al Mon Aug 29, 2005 18:18

The hunger strikes were started in no small part due to the removal of 'political' prisoner status and internment.

The fact that the IRA, by their own admission, wanted internment as it swelled their ranks and gained sympathisers in the North and South not too mention the political sympathy seems to be ignored.

As does the fact that many, many former prisoners have never said they were treated in the way Barry describes.

Im sure it was no picnic and Im also sure their were sick fuckers in there, some might even have been prison officers but Barry is participating in the usual IRA PR stunt. Blow everything up (no pun intended) and make yourself out to be the poor little victim.

Also, putting your own crap all over the place is a common enough thing. It wasnt unique to the Maze or the IRA.

But despite all that has been said many such as Barry will never understand that the 'war' could never be won.

Barry,
Cant you see that unity without majority in favour would not end the war but revers the rolls? Instead of the IRA now the UDA/UVF is fighting for independence, only this time from Ireland.

Its an unrealistic goal and one that was never going to be reached by force. Especially considering the Irish government was against the IRA.

by info Mon Aug 29, 2005 19:59

The commentator : "Barry" as pointed out in an earlier comment is a member of a political grouping which though very small found its basis in the wider tradition of irish republicanism involved in armed struggle. His comments can not be, and have never seemed intended to be representative of the IRA at this time or in the past. The IRA is most closely associated politically with SF and all communications made by it in the past have come from the media offices of SF.
To accuse Barry therefore of "Barry is participating in the usual IRA PR stunt. Blow everything up (no pun intended) and make yourself out to be the poor little victim" is in accurate and gives the reader of this article and comments the impression that Barry is now or was formerly an activist of the IRA. The contributor Barry, as explained before comes from a micro-republican grouping which as of yet has not moved to recruit in the wider Irish community or take up a centrist position on the core issues. We can safely presume that his personal experience and those of his community shaped his politics, and that his memory and understanding of issues relating to the Irish British conflict and the militarisation of that conflict are relevant to a general understanding of the issues now. His opinions though emotive for some are based on real life experience and reflect well his minority community.

The contributor Al, describes himself as a garda, (irish police) who from the foundation of the Irish state were responsible for "national security" and as such were central in repression of republican activists and monitoring republican groupings in Ireland and worked closely with their northern irish counterparts (formerly the RUC and now PSNI). They were directly responsible for several botched investigations, the deaths of republicans and themselves suffered deaths due to the conflict.
His contributions reflect contemporary prejudice in that institution, of which he is a recent member, but are not pitched in any party political way. The garda (irish police force) has registered the lowest public confidence in Ireland since its inception, and is considered to be one of the most corrupt police forces in the EU, it is resisting public attention to its malpractise. He is also a vocal and recent advocate of an armed police force.

editor note: do not identify individuals who have not identified themselves
There is at present no armed campaign in ireland.
All armed groups party to the conflict have announced formal ends to hostilities are engaged in differing levels of the peace process, some as key players others as observers. Many families and individuals in contemporary Ireland have direct experiences of "the Troubles". The reasons "to goto war" differed for many, and the armed conflict defies any attempt to place a "starting date or finishing date". For some the conflict may be traced to the stationing of British regiments on the Irish streets in 1969. For others, the conflict had begun already. We can see peaks in the conflict, and we can agree that the conflict though not solved has seen less bloodshed in all communities involved.

Any reader interested in going beyond one obituary, and the opinions of mainly three regular commentators to this site who have left thier thoughts without declaring their interests : ought consult the CAIN site, which is the commonly agreed archive of the conflict with a start date of 1968 to the present day.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/index.html

by kintama Mon Aug 29, 2005 20:31

An interesting potted history from Al who does not seem to have read any of the books on the H Blocks and the Hunger Strikes to which many ex prisoners contributed and which to the best of my knowledge have not been disputed as the definitive position on the motivation for hunger strikes irrespective of your views on those who participated in them.
Puerile nonsense about republicans wanting internment is about as convincing as a suggestion that the citizens of Fallujah welcomed the US 'intervention ' in their city. Also if you ever wish to be a detective Al you will need to drop the unusual belief that just because someone doesnt actually make a public complaint about assaults it must mean they didnt happen. Some proof of contradictory statements would really be much more effective.
Very interested in your views on the reversal of roles which raises the following question;-
If the UDA/UVF and their sponsors in the British security services were fighting for 'independence' would they be opposed by the Gardai and the Government in the 26 counties?

by shrewd Mon Aug 29, 2005 22:47

The personality and emotions behind Al's many comments, and the fact that he has quickly come to represent an institution (though anonymously) on an international news-media site you would expect his words to be politically, historically and culturally sensitive.
Are we to consider the PD minister of justice's attempt to politicise his scheduled annual speeches to the gardaí which saw a new type of party political propaganda reported?
Are the gardaí who have failed the litmus test on complaints procedures, and open-ness to now be considered so politically biased on matters of wider Irish concern such as the Peace Process?

It has of course been interesting to note throughout the history of the state [ till the emergence of the internet ], that members of the Irish police force have not published opinions in either print media or letter pages, or through TV or Radio.
The Gardaí have followed the guidelines of their representative organisation and been aware of the disciplinary process.
A disciplinary process resulting from any release of information which could be considered a disclosure of confidential security related data or the expression of any political opinion that may cause the wider community to doubt the impartiality of the policing entity.

It has emerged today that the rank and file garda can not rely on functional radio back-up.

by Shipsea Mon Aug 29, 2005 23:43

Im not sure what the purpose of your little survey actually is, 'Info', but in so far as it relates to me it is actually very inaccurate in a number of respects. Nobody here is failing to declare any interests (incidentally what are your own? You dont tell us much about yourself). This is the community in which we live and that is all the interest anyone needs to contribute to this discussion. Your post seems to imply that there are ulterior or hidden motives at play here. So far as this contributor is concerned that is certainly not the case. What are your own I wonder? What is the purpose of your post?

by Al Tue Aug 30, 2005 00:19

well, many posts.

First off, I have read many books and spoken with those working in the RUC/PSNI and my own colleagues. Im sure everyone can appreciate that I am not about to have a cosy chat with an IRA member.

However you are taking my comments to be that of the Gardai, they are not. they are simple my own.I can assure you that I am well versed in the literature available and it is the very book mentioned above that states the IRA wanted to force thatcher to re-establish internment (Ed Maloney, the secret history of the IRA). Perhaps you should read it before calling me a liar.

As for not speaking with the press, yes thats included in the recent legislation however it was also in the Secrecy Act which all gardai must sign. please note that it does not, despite what has been suggested, forbid a Garda from expressing an opinion, it merely forbids me from discussing cases or giving out sensitive information. Something I have never done. I am also not allowed join a political party however I can support and vote but not campaign or have direct involvement. This is a recent enough change, formally Gardai could not vote. Your wrong by the way about Gardai writing pieces, try reading 'Get up them steps' by retired Garda Tim Doyle (His son recently joined the Gardai) its about his life prior to joining and his experiences during his career. You seem to forget that being a Garda is my job not my life.

As for " If the UDA/UVF and their sponsors in the British security services were fighting for 'independence' would they be opposed by the Gardai and the Government in the 26 counties?" - Very interesting question and something that could have its own thread however for now I will answer, I presume so. All terrorist activities are and will remain criminal so yes, they would be fought. They would obviously be targeting Gardai and DF members so it would be interesting to see if the attitude seen against the RUC by Republicans was then seen in Nationists towards Gardai and would the IRA then fashion themselves as a backup to the Gardai? Its an interesting question ok and one that deserves more thought.

Not sure why our radio system is mentioned. Please explain.

Would also like to point out that most of the Garda actions against the IRA was as a result of bank robberies, kidnapping and murders on the IRA's part. I remember a certain soldier and Recruit (Now Student) Garda Sheehan being shot dead in Leitrim. Also remember that this is supposedly against the IRA policy but then again that didnt save Jerry McCabe either.

Not too sure we are the most corrupt force in europe, is there any evidence whatsover to support this claim? Certainly there has been corruption, most notable Donegal however 2 cases is hardly an epidemic.

by .-) Tue Aug 30, 2005 01:20

corruption and the garda is a big topic, fitt's obit is not the place for it. we'll go into it in autumn. look after yourself. tog a bog é. we'll make a pacifist of you yet.
Ireland is way behind Italy though. so you're not the worst.

for verily Al hath drunketh of the chalice and walketh yet, he is a brother now. may misrepresentation and false reporting of opinion not hinder his way to the greater mysteries.

by kintama Tue Aug 30, 2005 01:31

Sorry Al yet again you fall short an opinion in a book is not fact. An IRA document found with confirmation that the organisation wanted internment would be proof.
Your Sindo approach to history may go down ok with your blueshirt mates in Store Street but most posters on Inymedia like some substance to arrguments made. If you can provide a named republican source to back up your case I will be happy to eat humble pie.

by 2RN Tue Aug 30, 2005 01:46

"Not sure why our radio system is mentioned. Please explain."

Al, you yourself volunteered the following information (on another thread):
"Oh, BTW. The new radio system doesn’t work properly without the holder and ear pieces/mic's haven’t been issued yet. That’s not common knowledge."
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=71624&condense_comments=false#comment119881
Now perhaps we could close these two threads and discuss Garda matters on a single thread about Garda matters instead of hopping back and forth. That would be less confusing to everyone.

by Al Tue Aug 30, 2005 02:38

kintama,
Are you suggesting that you can only speak if you have presonally interviewed an IRA member and can quote that person? if thats the case then you better not discuss any Garda matters with me unless you can name a Garda sourceand quote them.

Books written by professional authors who conducted interviews is the primary research material for most people. I also stated that i gained information from RUC/PSNI sources.

2RN
I dont believe it. you brought my occupation into this and went over 2 threads, not me. im discussing the IRA here.

by Benny McC Tue Aug 30, 2005 03:04

He asks a question on this thread. 2RN answers and points out where Al had volunteered info relating to that question. Then Al blames 2RN for the fact that Al himself is the one posting across threads!
Al, you are a slippery customer, you are the one darting and diving backwards and forwards over threads.
Yes .-), you got it right - "misrepresentation and false reporting of opinion" is what Al does best.
P.S. kintama, my guess is that you are going to go hungry.

by Barry Tue Aug 30, 2005 05:42

Odd that "Northern Catholic" feels the need in this day and age to identify himself by a religious label . Stranger still that as a mass goer he has absoluteley no faith in his fellow man and their capacity for goodness . Odder still that for someone who is so convinced of the prospect of armed loyalist armageddon he would turn away as a young man from the IRA rather than cling firmly to the only thing which stood in the way of the rampaging loyalist hordes ( not to mention continuously reminding the entire board on seperate threads of how doomed the norths catholic population is). The man seems so terrified its a wonder hes not telling us to stop having babies in case we ever accidentally outnumber the protestants .

We all know that loyalist paramilitaries and politicians have loudly announced we are on the verge of Orange armaggeddon every 2 years or so for the last...well basically since living memory allows . Everything from Home rule, the granting of civil rights , Sunningdale, the Anglo Irish agreement , the banning of Orange marches from the tunnel in the early 80s, and then the lower Ormeau , and then Drumcree and God knows how many other times has seen this threat of a scorched northern earth and catholic mass graves been used to frighten Catholics . The big bad orange bogeyman ...whooo Im sooo scared .

A more cynical observer would wonder if NC was a bit of a loyalist sabre ratller himself such is his unshakable faith in the capacity for Ulsters loyal paramilitaries to lay waste to the countryside , dispatch fenians by the tens of 1000s and even hold out "indefinitely" , no less !!

The first person to pour scorn on this daft notion was none other than James Connolly , not long after the importation of arms in Larne and the Curragh mutiny . While noting the massed ranks of stern Ulstermen he opined scornfully that while their leaders were full of bluster there was none capable of leading anything other than a small force into the field , and that only a small but disciplined military force would be capable of holding it in check . Actual Civil war is bad for business he noted and Orange leaders first loyalty is to their own bank account . Such people will always look after their own interests and seek a gentlemans agreement .The targets of choice for Orange bigots would be undefended catholics in isolated homes . And from that day to this nothing has changed .

In the UDAs heyday of the early 70s again we had massed ranks of marching 1000s in paramilitary garb threatening civil war . ( Henry McDonalds book "the UDA deals in depth with the semi comic reality behind the army fatigues and dark glasses) In 1971 thousands of angry loyalists gathered at the edge of the tiny Short strand enclave in the heart of UDA controlled East Belfast . Their object was to burn it and its surrounded residents to the ground . They encountered a determined but tiny and poorly armed force led by Billy McKee in the fledgling and equally tiny PIRA . On the same night a massive UDA mob numbering 1000s attempted a similar move against Ardoyne . The events of that night proved that the loyalist appetite for scorched fenian earth waned rapidly when confronted by fenians who were actually able to shoot back . Even if the fenians only had outdaed second world war vintage arms , and precious little of those .
http://lark.phoblacht.net/shortstrand.html
In short the much vaunted loyalist menace turned out to be nothing but hate filled cowardly rabble , eager to kill for sure but not to die . And thats what loyalist paramiltaries almost without exception have always been .
If the UDA at its height couldnt wipe out the short strand defended only by a handful of poorly armed republicans ( the provos were only a microgroup then) the prospect of them today putting the north to the torch is utterly nonsensical .

Undoubtedly 100s of innocent catholics , often elderly men on their way home from the pub were brutally murdered over the next few years by the UDA . The majority of these killings taking place in interface areas late at night . It also turned out that a number of these assassinations werent even carried out by loyalists but by the shadowy MRF , British army assassins and the forerunners of the FRU . Loyalist killers also had help from from British intelligence who thoroughly pervaded their ranks with agents . A common occurence would be a British Army armoured vehicle would crash through a barricade in a catholic area and destroy it . Soon afterwards a loyalist gang would drive through and shoot the first person they saw . These tactics were evident again in the 80s/90s , when the British would swamp an area , forcing republicans to hide guns and withdraw . Within minutes of the British withdrawing loyalists would attack . Almost always the victims were innocent . Always they were defenceless .

Perhaps the most telling example in recent years of what "not an inch" really means in the loyalist bigots mindset can be seen in the Lower Shankill and the hasty undisciplined flight of the super soldiers of Johnny Adairs c company . Despite the threats of "war" on the Shankill , the rabble fled , because that is what rabble will always do .

When faced with the distinct possibility of a British withdrawal from 72 onward the reality of the unionist approach was in fact to look out for the interests of the protestant community and try and expore at least the range of possibilities that existed for them in such a context . The Eire Nua proposals put forward by Sinn Fein in the 70s were certainly not rejected but scrutinised and debated for years by a wide variety of influential loyalists . Far from threatening civil war if there was a British withdrawal , the UDA even decided that UDI was preferable to them than British rule in the first place .

http://www.iol.ie/~saoirse/video/eirenua.htm

What Unionists are most opposed to is Rome rule and after that corrupt Dublin politicians , and who would blame them . They share this dislike with a large body of opinion on this island . However , providing unionists are not dominated by Dublin or Rome and can promote/protect their Ulster identity the threat of civil war is a nonsense . That is an arrangement even the most extreme has said they could live with .

However there will always be a dissatisfaction and simmering dislike of the state and all it stands for within my community as long as British rule remains . I encounter that dislike , distrust and thinly veiled hatred for the state virtually everyday from ordinary people ,young and old . In time this will no doubt sustain further resistance against the state . Its a certainty .
And one need only look at the sectarianism which is utterly rife throughout loyalism today to see that British rule in Ireland is a total and fucking utter disaster waiting to happen yet again . But the supporters of the status quo will undoubtedly still preach the same tired nonsense about how things should be when it blows up in our faces again , and ignore or make excuses for the the root cause , British interference in Irish affairs .

by northern catholic Tue Aug 30, 2005 09:44

Barry - sorry you are snowed under. I presume that this is because you are busy preparing a new insurgency. Training, buying guns, preparing bomnbs and so on must be wearying. It is especially tough when the majority of the people on whose behalf you are doing it don't want any such thing, because in that case you have to be doubly careful not to be caught. You have my sympathy. It is hard enough to facing down those pesky Brits and troublesome Prods. To have to contend with the oibstinate stupidity of your own people, and their doltish indifference to your obsessions (and many of whom think you are mad) an even harsher challenge.

Readers can decide whether your position is convincing. It all boils down to your assertion that of course you can win a military struggle against the British, and then face down the Prods. Firstly, enough violence can be generated so that the British will withdraw. Note: they did not do so in 1970, 71, 72 or any other year - but I presume you think that the Barry RA will generate a military struggle so much more intense than then that this time their resolve will crumble? Against the wishes of your own people, never mind the Prods, you hold the prospect for success. The US couldn't defeat the Vietrnamese when their own people turned against the war; they mnay now be facing a similar problem with IRAQ. But the BarryRA can win - against the British, against the Prods, against the will of the people in the south, against the will of the majority of CAtjholics in the North. I suppose you may have a point - you have banged your head against a brick wall for 30 years, to the obvious detriment of its contents, but a few more knocks and either British resolve or your skull must eventually give way.

In addition, you assert - I am amazed, but every man is entitled to his opinion, however crazy - that when you get your British declaration of intent to withdraw of course the Prods will roll over. You appear to accept that a few hundred (maybe thousand?) elderly Cathoilics on the interfaes may be kidnapped, tortured and dumped, as many were in 1972 - but hey, that falls short of Armageddon, so will be ok. (I hope that, in the final terrifying moments, the realisation that a united Ireland is around the corner will console them). You may, of course, be wrong? Don't you think there is a possibility that the resistance might be stronger than you think? Quotations from JAmes Connolly circa 1910 may settle the issue for you, but they don't for me. Times have changed; the Prods have had 80 plus years of their own state; their identity is even stronger; and, perhaps decisively, they have had to contend with the BarryRA for 30 years, which has reinforced their attachment to partition a tiny wee bit more than when Connolly was around. But - we may see. Get the guns out Barry and try it - sure we only have our lives to loose, and set against the marvellous prospect of a united Ireland, what does it matter whether I, my family or my neighbours have to die to achieve it.

And of course that raises againj the other point - you are sure that your goal justifies all the mayhem you propose to unleash. Most people disagree with you, vehemently, but you also assert that they have no right to stop you, and must pay the price of your resolve. A united Ireland is worth any chance, any sacrifice, any risk - such certainty is rarely found in this world, Barry, outside say one or two mental hospitals I know.

All of which leaves two alternatives in my mind. You must be Superman in a balaclava. Or.... perhaps in need of a padded cell, for those of a delusional disposition? I can't really make up my mind - maybe other readers can....

by Al Tue Aug 30, 2005 10:55

It must be a joke, surely the radio comments cannot genuinely be contributed to me in this thread. 2RN stated our radios were out of date, in his very first post he speaks off my occupation and Garda radios. Not once prior to that had I mentioned either. That is why i asked the question, because I had no idea why it was in this thread. He then pastes my comments from another thread into this one. Dont drag the discussion away from the original text and then blame me.

Barry,
It is indeed a strange world when we get along with eachother better than with other users.

In relation to your actual thread. I read 'the UDA: Inside the heart of loyalist terror' I seem to remember that the UDA was setup after the IRA was once again active. Doesnt it strike you that the IRA claims a defence was necessary prior to the UDA existing? Im not speaking about defence against unionists or the RUC but specifically against paramilitary force which is what you have touched on above.

also, didnt the UDA produce their own document that called for 'all northern Ireland workers' to stand up and demand fair working conditions and rights? In fact wasnt the Union movement of Northern Ireland seen by the UDA as the way forward?

And lastly, where are you from? I dont ask to be nosey but because I am aware that there is a marked difference in Republicin attitudes from Derry, Belfast and Armagh.

by Barry Tue Aug 30, 2005 21:18

Firstly , at no point have I urged a return to armed conflict ( although I strongly defend the right of people to fight against imperialism and always will). What I have pointed out is the bleeding obvious . Without the root cause of the conflict being removed then the conflict itself is ultimately bound to flare up again whether you or I like it or not . Idiots like yourself will blame ME for pointing the obvious out rather than addressing its root cause and attempting to solve it once and for all . That is nothing short of a useless distraction . Your hysterics are utterly pointless and address no issues at all . Remarks like " get the guns out" are both ridiculous and pathetic .

. Secondly , as regards my comments about the force necessary to prevent any attempt at the wholesale genocide YOU envisage ( which can be sustained indefinitely too according to you) , anyone with a half bit of wit knows that in the event of a dispute over sovereignty the agency responsible for security and prevention of such occurences is the UN . While far from an elite body they are more than adequate a military force to deal with whatever pogroms a drug dealing rabble may attempt . If a handful of poorly armed volunteers can hold back massive numbers a properly armed and trained military body can accomplish it much more satisfactorily .Your nightmare vision is an utter and patent nonsense , simply a rehash of the century old blackmail used to browbeat Irish people into accepting the status quo . Furthermore even the most dimwitted orangeman and politician knows that following the Balkans conflict anyone attempting to pursue such a course would be a fugitive for life . The tiny ethnic state which they would envisage ( 2 and a half counties) would be an international pariah that wouldnt last a month . Id suggest you climb out from under your bed and stop being so hysterical in your denunciations .

Republicans demand the British government declares its intent to withdraw within a specified time frame should it be 3 , 5 or even 10 years time . By international law they are required to do so in a controlled and orderly manner , not to leave a gaping power vaccuum and the collapse of basic services .
No one expects the prods to simply "roll over" . What we expect them to do is look after the interests of their people by entering into negotiation about their place , role and identity within a new Ireland . Wed expect them to drive a hard bargain also . The history of the last 30 years is littered with examples of how despite the bitterness of the times they were prepared to do that precisely when faced with the possibility of a withdrawal , examples which Ive provided in the link above .

Despite being 7 years on from the signing of the GFA just take a look at whats going on around you . Only last week in Belfast a catholic child was stabbed to death by loyalists . A Catholic mother had a petrol bomb thrown at her while she cradled her baby at her front door , injuring both . In the short strand the guns are out yet gain .In the tiny village of Ahoghill were support for the PSNI is supposedly 100% the British state is totally unwilling to protect the tiny catholic minority who are being burnt and intimidated from their homes at the rate of one household a fortnight . Those families lived there peacefully throughout the troubles but years on from the GFA are being cleansed from the area .

The PSNIs pathetic response is to issue them with fireblankets and point out which window is best to jump from . Catholic churches and homes are being attacked almost nightly . If this was happening to asylum seekers in Dublin thered be uproar . But we are condemned to this shit under British rule and simply ignored . What is also blatantly obvious to everyone is that the gangs responsible for this are basically controlled by the British state . The cauldron which will spark it off all over again is bubbling along at a frightening rate despite the massive hype about the GFA and a new dawn . This has been proved a nonsense .

The likes of yourself , rather than attempt to address this uncivilised sickening crap once and for all will simply jump on your high horse and blame the likes of me who points out that British rule in all its guises has failed and is a total failure . The entity known as Northern Ireland is a total and utter failure and always will be . I hate this , this country shouldnt be like this and I want an end to it . You can insult me by calling this an obsession but Ive good reason to have it weigh heavily on my mind . I want Irish people to live with at least a shred of dignity and not like frightened rats for perpetuity . As long as Britain remains it will never be solved , EVER . That should be perfectly clear to everyone by now .
The only way this shite can ever be put to bed for good is by a completely new start and that can only come by a British declaration to withdraw .

As regards Al , while the organisation began referring to itself later down the line as the UDA , it was originally organised as the Woodvale Defence Association , Shankhill Defence association etc ( although what precisely they were defending themselves against is anyones guess). However the people who led it couldnt agree on a name for a while . What they did agree on was the best form of defence from an imaginary enemy is attack , pre emptive attack against an entire community .The UVF too had been murdering Catholics in Belfast from 1965 . Another group called the Ulster Protestant Volunteers which was set up by Ian Paisley had been setting of bombs etc in an attempt to have the government intern the civil rights people . There was barely an IRA never mind a campaign , much less arms in the north . The leadership which had decided to go into Stormont and constitutional politics had removed them all . ( it later had no hesitation sending in massive amounts of arms to try and control republican dissidents throughout the early 70s ) The loyalist mobs which swept into Bombay street ,the lower Falls and Ardoyne in 1969 may have had no generic title ( save for the UVF , RUC, and Bspecials. Youre forgetting the Orange Order and its violent activities too ) but an armed defence was most definitely necessary . Those areas would not even exist today had the Provisionals not emerged to defend them , that is a fact agreed with by most who live there .

Importantly none of this sectarian violence erupted as a result of any IRA campaign whatsoever never mind the prospect of Irish unity . Indeed it was the very fact there was no IRA or armaments in those areas which allowed streets to be burnt to the ground in the first place . The people of those areas scorned the IRA and its Marxist leadership afterwards- referring to them as I Ran Away . Unsurprisingly it was the defence of catholic areas which came under more sustained attack later which launched the Provos in Belfast and swelled their ranks to an extent they could barely cope with .

As regards my origins , Im from a rural area , but lived and worked in Belfast from the early 90s . Interestingly I lived not only on the Falls but a stones throw from the Shankill for a while too . I worked during this time in a few hospitals as well and often saw the results of hatred at close hand . Despite what Northern Catholic and others suggest I dont have a great fondness for death or violence . Its aftermath particularly is often more sickening than the act itself . I believe what youre getting at is that it is much more common for republicans outside of those areas to have a different viewpoint than those directly under the Adams leadership , which would be perfectly true .

As regards your pint on Trade Unions may late father was a senior trade union activist during the 1970s . Despite being one of those who actually walked out in 69 to start the Provos , he was regularly in talks and negotiations with senior loyalists during that entire period as a union official . Through his union activities and contacts he was also of the firm opinion that loyalists would cut a deal providing the terms of a united Ireland were honourable and protected their identity . Because this is what loyalists told him theyd do if Britain opted for withdrawal . Civil war would only come about if they were walked over and marginalised . A united Ireland would take both sacrifice and imagination but it is workable . Without it therell be no change , just permanent sectarian hatred and bitter resentment towards Britain. If being determined to see an end to it makes a republican a lunatic , Id prefer the asylum rather than just whinge about how awful certain people are while accepting my lot in a failed system ..

by northern catholic Tue Aug 30, 2005 23:38

Barry - I believe your points are nonsense from beginning to end. I defend your right to be as delusional as you like, rather more srongly than you defend my right (or that of Gerry Fitt et al) to have a different opinion. But you have, I beieve , addressed none one aspect of the reality of the situation and not one of the points addressed to you. Maybe some readers who haven't lost loved ones or witnessed explosions or had friends in jail can address this more calmly than I can.

For Christ's sake, man, if you haven't advocated a resumption of military conflict (by an armed minority, in defiance of the wishes of the Irish people, against all historical precedent suggesting that IT CAN'T SUCEED) what have you advocated??? The only alternative is persuasion and agreement - whether it takes the form of the GFA or something else, is another matter. BUt fuck me - you want to wage war for a united Ireland, in defiance of all rationalitry, in defiance of the wishes of your own people, in spite of the fact that 30 years of the war led nowheere!!!!!!! If you have in one senetnece anyehere addressed the issue of whether a resumption of such tactics can succeed I have missed it! Barry, man, get a sense of perspective and please face reality.

You simply cannoty intimidate the British, the Irish, The Protestants, and the majority of Northern Catholics into your way of thinking - a way of thinming that seeems so self evident to you, but is rejected for fucks sake by your own people. How can you win against such a weight of pinion?????? And if you can't win, why do it?

Jesus, I truly give up.

by Not convinced... Wed Aug 31, 2005 13:37

I am delighted to know from Barry that we won't face a mass Protestant uprising when he secures his declaration of intent to withdraw (how, precisely, Barry? Reason and argument - or brute force and ignorance?). He is determined to fight and die for his principles, but I am relieved to be reassured that an utterly different mindset exists on the Protestant side - they are, after all, poor deluded, spineless creatures, without half the resolve, determination or conviction that Barry and his heroes have shown. I suppose that voting DUP is no real indication of their alienation, and a mere mask for their evident determination to embrace a united Ireland ASAP. In addition, I am impressed by the means he has used to arrive at this conclusion. His oul da used to talk to some Prods back in 1969, so we can focus in on that and set aside opinion polls, election results, Greysteel, McGurk’s bar and a hundred and one other indicators of their views. Barry’s da knows better, and now Barry does too, since his da told him so. So there.

No, we won't have to deal with any insurgency - according to Barry, just a drug dealing rabble. S o casualties will be limited - how many Barry? A few hundred? A few thousand? A few tens of thousands? In any event, you obviously think it will be worth it, so you have abrogated to yourself the right to push for this rather Final sounding Solution.

I am also relieved to know that, if push does come to shove, the UN will intervene to prevent the chaos you intend sparking off - it is a relief we won't have to rely on only on the BarryRA for help, and good to know that you can predict future US, Russian et al attitudes so clearly. Why wouldn’t they be delighted to send their troops into the middle of a looming bloodbath – I am sure the border in Ireland is as burning an issue for them as it is for Barry. By the way, tell me, Barry, is this the same UN that was so effective in Yugoslavia, that also prevented genocide in Rwanda, and that is currently doing so well in Iraq? I can now sleep easier at night.

Finally, Barry, I would like to know what brand of magic mushrooms you are on. They seem to make you utterly convinced that the way you would like things to be is the way they must surely turn out. That degree of certainty must feel nice, and it is time you shared you recipe with the rest of us, who tend to be more gloomy than you.

by Guido Fawkes Wed Aug 31, 2005 17:24

- He could have been dead since 1981 for all the relevance he exerted on Irish politics apart from being rolled out every now and then by Thatcher to justify her colonial policies in Ireland. Or am I guilty of neglecting the struggle for socialism and justice he bravely waged from the house of lords.

Such an Irishman that he gets buried in England with a UDR/ "Irish" Guard piper lament.

He will not be missed.

by patrick Fri Sep 02, 2005 22:47 Antrim Town

A great man, sadly missed, except by sectarian bigots.

by in mourning Sat Sep 03, 2005 03:58

Mr Fitt was so sadly missed Ive lost track of the amount of black flags and 1 minute silences Ive had to endure here in Belfast since his passing . Which is an absolute lie . NO-ONE MISSES HIM . Compare his shameful send off to the 1000,000 plus at Bobby Sands funeral , whom Fitt branded a common criminal for fighting against British rule here . Fitt was a Britsh lickspittle and nothing more .

The man was heartily despised throughout the north and especially in Belfast for the opportunist and mouthpiece for the British establishment he was . He was hated in life and ignored in death . Margaret Thatchers favourite Irishman . He chose to be buried in London and was given a farewell by a piper from the British army ( Irish guards/UDR). Hardly a spontaneous grieving adieu from the Irish people who absolutely despised him . Good riddance .

by Zephyr Sat Sep 03, 2005 04:55

Observing barry's deluded vitriol, is it any wonder Unionists like myself foster deep suspicion of the Republican movement who present themselves as romantic freedom fighters whilst indulging in criminality, brutality and outright sectarianism. I have absolutley no time for loyalist thugs who terrorise innocent catholics and won't defend them yet armchair terrorists like barry who happily put forward excuse after excuse for the IRAs campaign of slaughter.

by Patrick Sat Sep 03, 2005 20:36 Antrim

glad to see "In Mourning" agrees with me about Gerry Fitt. He says he was hated in Belfast, and guess what, that's all the sectarian bigots. Obviously those electing him for years didn't hate him.

As for British/Irish/Somalian establishments, thankfully Fitt was not a nationalist, and like myself was not interested in borders, but rather in people.

by Seamus Sat Sep 03, 2005 23:34 Antrim

Barry is a shining example of that select group who would rather fight for a United Ireland than actually get one.