Wednesday, October 31, 2007
“While I was of the view that no military solution was possible..”
I don’t intend to comment much on the fulsome apology of Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams, or the PIRA apology for their “mistakes” he referenced, beyond noting that the man it was directed at, Colin Parry, had already dealt with the possibility that such an apology would be proffered
“I don’t want an apology, I don’t expect an apology. That is not on the agenda, if I got one it wouldn’t mean anything.”
Nor do I intend to comment much on the attempt to usurp the consultation of the Eames/Bradley group, beyond noting that a focus on the perpetrators and what they have to say to their own people might be more beneficial than what Adams is suggesting.
However, he also called for a victim-centred truth process to help Northern Ireland deal with its bloody past. That process, he proposed, should involve all people, including those in England and the Republic of Ireland, bereaved or maimed during the Troubles. “A truth process must reach out to these people,” he argued.
But it is worth noting that his actual speech included his own version of his truth about the past..
On the one side there were nationalists and republicans who were denied basic human and civil rights, including the right to vote, access to housing and work. The north existed under a permanent state of emergency, with special laws, special courts and a range of state armed paramilitary organisations to implement its will. The civil rights campaign of the 1960s was an attempt to initiate reform. The demands were simple—the right to vote, an end to discrimination in jobs and housing, and the repeal of the special laws. On the other side was the unionist government, the unionist establishment and the British government.
Adams goes on to argue that
By the mid to late 1970s it was obvious that there was a military stalemate. The British could not defeat the IRA—the IRA could not militarily defeat the British.
And the violence continued with each side seeking to develop new strategies, new tactics, new and more deadly ways of killing each other.
Within republicanism, armed struggle was the dominating tendency. There was a belief that only the IRA could move the British government. There may have been misgivings or serious concerns about particular military operations but there was no real dissent from armed struggle. It was taken for granted that that was the way of things.
While I was of the view that no military solution was possible I also felt armed struggle was a necessary form of struggle and I defended this position without being dogmatic about it.
But how to break the impasse?
The Sinn Fein leadership carefully considered this and concluded that if the impasse was to be broken then republicans needed to go on a political offensive. And we realised very early on that this would require republicans taking initiatives. At its core it would require Sinn Féin constructing a viable political alternative to armed struggle which could deliver republican goals.
In a letter I wrote in the early 1980s to Catholic Bishop Cahal Daly, who was a vocal opponent of republicans I said: ‘Those republicans who engage in armed struggle, or who defend the legitimacy of armed struggle in pursuance of Irish independence, do so, not through any fixation with physical force, but through a necessity. Those who voice a moral condemnation of this tactic have a responsibility to spell out an alternative course by which Irish independence can be secured. I for one would be pleased to consider such an alternative.’
I have to say it became clear very quickly to me and to others in our leadership that if we were to wait on others providing the alternative it would never happen. They were locked in a mindset.
The quote from the letter dated in the 1980s, however, would not seem to be as conclusive as Adams would appear to believe.
And it ignores other elements of the struggle which were deployed - in a “campaign which drew its lessons from previous such periods in Irish history, as well as from contemporary experience around the world.”
And for an alternative analysis of the outworking of that Process™ see this previous post. Or this one.
After all, it might already be too late..
Pete Baker @ 11:19 PM
dewi,
As you say - time will settle the argument. It does make one wonder what happens next in the unionist camp.
Can the DUP hold onto their supporters or will they simply abstain? Can’t see the UUP coming up with an alternative political strategy and they certainly don’t have the young talent.
Interesting to watch republicans being careful about Paisley and the DUP. “If you haven’t anything good to say, say nathing!” seems to be accepted without anyone actually saying it.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 06:02 PMlib 2016,
I see you are back explaining to us unionists that our time is up. I seem to remember that you at least thought our children had value. Care to remind me of the quote you made?I see you think Adams and the IRA did evil do that goos would trimuph.
I suppose that evil to make good trimuph includes Enniskillen, after all here is your infamous quote:-
“As for Enniskillen itself - the nationalist population was under attack from the British Army and the community which backed them. They fought back and when there is violence innocent people get hurt....end of story.”I think in your case lib the effect of your posts is to remind all unionists that amongst the reasonable nationalist and republican posters here there are also some proper cheerleaders.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 06:15 PMSunningdale for slow learners-over 20 years of additional violence-that is even if accept the lie about the armed struggle being justifiable.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 06:26 PMTurgon,
Tut! Tut! You are back to felon-setting now. If you can’t attack the argument attack the person making the argument? Seems like a sad way to demonstrate the paucity of your ideas but if you want to make a fool of yourself who am I to stop you?
Enniskillen was wrong and lost Sinn Fein a great deal of support. They have apologised for that as for much else but you know all that and still want to rake up old and injudicious post which I made after you had MOPEd excessively as is your wont.
This isn’t LuvUlster and it was precisely those sort of shoddy tactics which destroyed it. Don’t reckon much on your chances of destroying Slugger.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 06:26 PMveritas,
Just so that there should be no doubt - the IRA campaign was wrong and misguided in my opinion. Unfortunately after Bloody Sunday it was probably inevitable.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 06:30 PMHey Turgon do you remember the one about the provos shooting two cows-for supplying milk to the security forces-pretty much sums up the futility of violence perpetrated by them mainly against their fellow Irish people.people just coming home from their work.or people in a gospel hall.yes those volunteers were so brave....hot.James Connolly must be turning in his grave.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 06:39 PMand before bloody sunday?
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 06:40 PM“While I was of the view that no military solution was possible..”
Was it before or after Bloody Friday and La Mon that you came to that view, Gerry?
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 06:45 PMlib 2016,
I was on holiday when you made that post, so do not blame me for starting it. You are the one who made the above post. It was actually in answer to Dewi who is hardly a unioniost poster.The fact is that your leader is now claiming that he knew that the republican murder campaign was wrong and yet he feels it was other people’s moral duty to stop it and not the IRA’s. So actually it was the other people not giving in to what the IRA wanted which meant that the IRA had to kill them which in turn makes it the victims fault. His and, if you support him, your moral compass is spectularly derranged.
You have accused me of attacking you yet you say this about me “....you can always have your hate back.”
Yes of course lib I am a hate filled sectarian bigot and all the many posts I make here drip with my hatred of Roman Catholics, I guess that is why I am so supportive of the loyalist cheerleaders and indeed pronounce how I would do anything to stop a united Ireland.
Care to find any quotes I have made on such subjects?
You on the other hand are a tolerant, liberal minded, intellectual like your idol Gerry Adams.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 06:51 PM@Harry
“Lib, are ye a betting man?”
Actual real life bookie odds can be found at
http://www.paddypower.com/bet?action=go_type&category=SPECIALS&disp;_cat_id=&ev_class_id=33&ev_type_id=8569United Ireland by 2012 25 - 1
United Ireland by 2017 20 - 1
United Ireland by 2022 14 - 1
United Ireland by 2027 10 - 1Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 06:54 PMSorry of course you leader is not saying the IRA was wrong only that the campaign was never going to work. No not wrong. Clearly to pointlessly continue a campaign of murder which you do not hope to win is not wrong. No it is clearly the fault of the people who will not let you win.
My how I misunderstand the world. It is great to have such moral guardians such as you lib to help us.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 06:55 PM@lib2016
<i>Adams has admitted that in his own opinion ‘he did evil so that good might triumph’. The same might be said of many people, not least the pilots who bombed Dresden or the only country which has actually used nuclear bombs.<i>
The problem with that analysis is that defeating and democratising Nazi Germany or Japan was indeed good, but forcing Northern Ireland into union with the south without it’s consent was not “good”, in fact it was “bad”.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 07:03 PM“Did the army council have any other choice”
Oh yes - ability of South Armagh IRA truly astonishing. Whatever your views how these people kept the war going a logistical miracle.
That’s why I find the latest stuff so worrying.Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 07:38 PMThe Republican illusion was that, given the passage of sufficient time, what was irredeemably *bad* at the time it happened would somehow be absolved by history.
Now, where did they did that idea?
That idea, however, enabled them, good church-going Catholics like Gerry and Martin, to refuse to accept the Pope’s plea to stop the violence in 1979.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 07:54 PMOn the s. Armagh issue - it was interesting that against the background of the murder of young Quinn, Eamon Collin’s inquest was finally concluded - revealing an even worse scale of barbarity, presumably perpetrated by the same clique of individuals.
It was horrifying how republican blogs such as Balrog revelled in the murder of men like Collins. I suspect there will be moral consequences - even, and I’m sure SF shudder at the thought - electoral ones.
To be deemed a “tout” seems to justify the most barbaric treatment imaginable. Unsurprising, against such a history, that whatever Mr Quinn did or was believed to have done, was deemed by some to merit what was done to him. In what was done to him and to Collins we see the utter perversion of morality - the complete loss of proportion.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 08:01 PMdewi
I never cease to be amazed at how deep in the gutter some people will look to find heroes. I suppose our own position on the moral scale can best be judged by those we look up to.
Your knowledge of where the IRA campaign was at is extremely shallow if you believe that the S Armagh outfit could have kept it going much longer.
The reality is totally different from the mythology.British security services had infiltrated the IRA from top down. Since the Anglo-Irish agreement, their Irish counterparts had increasingly come on board.
Just as S Tyrone was all but wiped out because of their refusal to come on board with the Adams/McGuiness strategy, so too would the serious “operators” in S Armagh have been.
Slab realised this and acted accordingly.
That this decision would allow him to pursue at full pelt his economic activities - though he didn’t realise at the time the screw would gradually be applied there, as well - helped make his mind up.Be under no illusions, the IRA was finished as a credible force.
Some areas, like S Armagh would have taken longer to defang.
But they could never have sustained. Not with touts working at the highest levels of the provos who were actively working towards ceasefire, disbandment and politics alone.
And caught, as well, in a pincer movement of British and Irish security services.Their day had passed them by and Slab, whatever we think of him, was smart enough to realise it.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 08:29 PMAdams and the Republican movement in general rarely do things in a random fashion. Although as I have posted above some of this is Adams having little much political to do now presenting himself as the political philosopher and renessaince man to add to author (and cheerleader for; if by chance not actual sectarian murderer).
Some of this is probably vanity but as the Penguin has noted there is another subtext.
It is clearly an attempt to rewrite history so that the IRA campaign was an unfortunate, inevitable and necessary response to the evil unionists / Brits (this is the context in which people like lib 2016 function). Adams also by claiming to accept that the IRA campaign would never create a united Ireland also manages to avoid too much embarassment for abandoning “Ireland unfree will never be at peace” etc. In this shiny new version of history the Republican movement knew they would never get a united Ireland but carried on as that was the only way to get power sharing and SF in government. The implication can also be that all the IRA “volunteers” accepted this and were quite happy with it. This narrative also attempts to undermine people like Bobby Sands’s relatives and Republican SF by implying that the hunger strikers etc. knew all this; were quite happy with it and as such would support what has now happened. This is an important bulwark against the more extreme elements in the republican movement complaining about compromise and allows the views of the likes of Ms. Swift from West Fermanagh to be ignored.
An additional aspect of the strategy is that it is another unionist engagement. It allows Adams and the IRA to parade themselves as not actually sectarian killers and cheerleaders. It allows them to proclaim they are sorry for the troubles. Of course they are sorry that the evil unionists / prods were so evil that they (the IRA) had to kill them. However, the semblance of some form of regret can be presented as showing how unbigoted the republican movement actually is.
Then if unionists reject it they can yet again be presented as bigots and living in the past, unable to move on etc. etc. and this shows that actually the unionists were the problem all along , further justifying the need to kill them. If some unionists do accept Adams’s comments then it can be presented as a weakening in unionist solidarity and further proof of the sucess of republican strategy and of the nearing of a united Ireland.
As ever this is a fairly clever move by SF but these moves always tend to flounder on the annoying tendancy of unionists and many others to remember that the IRA were actually a collection of sectarian murderers.
Still all this does allow Adams to prance about as the liberal minded intellectual statesman. Ironic that this is the week when Prof Anthony Clare died. When Adams explained that unionists were suffering from false conciousness and needed to realise that they were Irish, Clare pointed out that this attitude was fundamentally fascist; something which seemed to amaze Adams. Maybe not quite so clever and intellectual then our Gerry. Still clever enough to have the likes of lib 2016 regarding him with awe.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 09:05 PMEva I agree,I dont recall any law suit against the Sunday world over their claims about “ the fisherman”
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 09:18 PM“When Adams explained that unionists were suffering from false conciousness and needed to realise that they were Irish, Clare pointed out that this attitude was fundamentally fascist”
Is this true? When did this interview take place?
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 09:38 PMTurgon
Excellent, yet again.
I am amazed at how many people literally do not realise just how fascist Adams and his crew actually are.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 09:38 PMSorry - objectively - South Armagh IRA managed to keep the most professional army in the world fairly fully occupied for a good while. Nothing to do with heroes just an analytical observation.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 09:51 PMIn the absence of an answer to my previous question, I think I must point out that had an interview with Ian Paisley Snr taken place at the same time as that of GA, that Dr Paisley’s view at that time might SLIGHTLY have been at odds with his current position....
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 09:58 PMDewi
I did understand your comment. A military perspective is that what happened to Eamon Collins DID work. It would appear that what he did - and you can read what he did in “Killng Rage” - justifid what happened to him.
Did “British Intelligence"/the securocrats drive a chisel through Brian Nelson’s eye socket?
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:14 PMGoing back to the original thread, I think it is good that Adams faced the Parry family re the needless and cruel killing of their son. Maybe the British Army/RUC members who killed people - and didn’t lose a single day’s pay for doing so - during the conflict could feel similarly inclined…
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:47 PMbeano:
At that time there were few governments interfering to any great degree in employment practices of private companies.
There was an aristocracy in Northern Ireland which comprised the industry leaders, the politicians, and the other usual types. The government didn’t directly intervene but these people spoke to each other and I find it pretty hard to believe they weren’t all reading off the same hymnsheet.
Harry:
That explains your posts then. Have you tried fornicating? You’d be surprised how therapeutic it is.
I didn’t know you had a sense of humour!
Regarding the posts about whether or not there will be a UI .. I think all of that is besides the point. The question is when will we stop worrying about whether there is a UI or not. We’ve made a lot of progress towards that point. People accept the need to be nice to Ireland. Ireland accepts the need for good relations with the UK, and vice versa. People have loosened up a hell of a lot. I’m even starting to hear unionists calling themselves “Irish” again where previously they would not, and when you see the Larne borough council going to Dublin to ask for help upgrading a road, you know that things have moved on.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:54 PM
