Guerrilla Warfare

by interested Mon Dec 27, 2004 09:40

but when addressing irish guerilla warfare you have not even mentioned the loyalists, which is puzzling.

by Sun-tzu Mon Dec 27, 2004 13:01

The Cuban example has not been duplicated in any other country in Latin America--in fact thousands of militants have died setting up armed actions on the foco theory--Guevara himself for one. So all is not well with that strategy.

But the approach of Protracted People's War is another matter--Vietnam more appropriately fits that scenario --not to mention the early stages of the Chinese Revolution--you know--that Mao guy.

Bit of a conceptual muddle in the article.

by barry Mon Dec 27, 2004 13:46 aranu21 at hotmail dot com

The reason loyalists were not mentioned is because on a scale of one to ten for planning, experience, innovation..... they don't rate compared to the ira,s sucess in these areas.

by interested Mon Dec 27, 2004 14:15

Dublin/Monaghan?

by max Mon Dec 27, 2004 14:24

If the " loyalists" are so loyal to the brits they need to move their stinking carcasses there Ireland will be ruled BY the Irish

by lone gunman Mon Dec 27, 2004 14:56

While the above is almost the classical "how to start your own gureilla movement"It is already well studied and known by all powers.The new version is leaderless resistance and single man cell units.

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Mon Dec 27, 2004 16:05

What strikes me most about this article (which already appeared in Ireland's Own last March) is the similarity of methods between State armies and guerilla armies: Indoctrination, loyalty, training in arms to kill, expertise in bombs, tactics in wiping out the enemy, indifference to the killing of civilians.

These are the very aspects of all kinds of war that make all war so revolting.

Admittedly some guerilla fighters and ordinary soldiers show enormous individual courage. Both, however, believe in the "hit-and-run" philosophy, which is not courageous at all. Sometimes, too, both sets of generals display brain power - like they might in a game of chess. Their "brilliance" in tactics dazzles their embedded historians, who forget the pawns wiped out along the way.

If a fraction of the money, expertise, time, dedication and brains were put into a study of non-violent resistance it would be so much a better world

by South African Friend of Ireland Tue Dec 28, 2004 08:43

There is no puzzle as to why the Loyalists have been excluded from this piece of work. A number of reasons exist for their exclusion.
Firstly, they have never had a legitimate cause.
Secondly, they have never been recognised as a bona fide guerrilla army by the likes of ETA, Shining Path or the ANC's Umkhonto we Sizwe.
Thirdly, they were in collusion with the British security forces, thereby making them a de facto arm of the British occupying forces.
Fourthly, they were the ones who started the sectarian assassinations, when the IRA had adopted a policy of attacking military targets.
Lastly, they have never displayed a constructive manifesto for the implementation of a free and equal society.

by toneore Tue Dec 28, 2004 21:50 toneore at eircom dot net

One wonders if the likes of ETA, Shining Path or the ANC's Umkhonto we Sizwe would recognize any group that didn't told to their Marxist Shtik.

How about the Israeli guerillas who fought the British? Or the Boers? Or the militia during the American Revolutionary War? Or the Peshmerga guerrillas who fought with the Coalition against Saddam? Surely they're all successful examples...

by Devil Dog Tue Dec 28, 2004 22:47

1. What exactly is a "legitimate cause"? Both Loyalist and Republican terrorists engaged in sectarian murder campaigns.

2. Toneore answered your second ridiculous claim.

3. "Occupying British forces"? More deluded nonsense. Individual members of the SF colluded with Loyalists, the majority didn't. How about the scumbag Garda traitors who passed info to the IRA?

4. See point 1.

5. Sorry, but I don't think the likes of Slab Murphy, Seamus Twomey or Kevin McKenna ever "displayed a constructive manifesto for the implementation of a free and equal society."

I can only assume you're a Provo supporter - You know SFA about N. Ireland, keep your ridiculous support of murderers to yourself, you are no "friend of Ireland".

by L.Tzu Wed Dec 29, 2004 19:58

** "(IRA) perfected the use of guerrilla warfare"

** "...with its successful British campaign.."

** "..nearly succeeded in assassinating.."

** "IRA practically had the city of London under siege"

** "successfully threw air services over London into chaos"

** "..Today the RIRA continues to make life difficult.."

"The third sin of the urban guerrilla is vanity"


Many dead people.
Many sad people.
and Ireland is not united.
and Ireland is not at peace.

Any good change I see, probably not due to IRA activity.

Also, this article author is somewhat confused from the beginning:

" 'Guerrilla’ is a Spanish word meaning ‘little war’ "

manteca LARD
mantequilla BUTTER

ventana WINDOW
ventanilla TICKET OFFICE

vaca COW
vaquilla HEIFER

bolsa BAG
bolsillo POCKET

guerra WAR
guerrilla LITTLE WAR?

-iila is sometimes a diminutive, this author wants to sound educated and clever, but it is a common trap.

I will correct:
Guerrilla is an International word meaning many many things - I leave it to reader to look in ones own dictionary. Guerrilla is a word certainly not meaning "little war".

by South Africa Friend of Ireland Thu Dec 30, 2004 07:55

Tonemore's response to my posting is absolutely correct. The political persuasions of the groups I mentioned notwithstanding, Tonemore's additional examples serve my point precisely. Each of these additions illustrate groups of people who were fighting for a legitimate cause, be it to preserve their identity or to free their land from a suppressor.
As for Devil Dog, well I am not going to lower myself to your level and respond to a posting which shows little insight into history and makes innaccurate assumptions about a person's intentions and background.

by toneore Thu Dec 30, 2004 21:40 toneore at eircom dot net

Actually, I don't support any of your points, I reject them as little more than Provo Polemics that have helped murder thousands of Irish people and are little more than National Socialism dancing to the sound of a Ceili.

Furthermore, it is unture that Loyalists have not developed a "constructive manifesto for the implementation of a free and equal society." In fact, the political wings of the various paramilitary organizations on the Loyalist/Unionist side HAVE often put forward political papers showing how NI could be improved and governed fairly, going back as far as the 1970's. Here's what the PUP have to say: http://www.pup-ni.org.uk/

It's a complete myth that they are not politically sophisticated - a myth perpetrated by Sinn Fein et al (who ironically have NO policies on anything except a so-called "United" Ireland). Can you point me to examples of speeches by Gerry Adams and his cronies about whether he supports a strong or weak dollar, tax exemptions for artists, environmental protection or stem cell research?

by South African Friend of Ireland Fri Dec 31, 2004 09:20

I think you need to stop trying to put words into my mouth or others for that matter.

First of all, I have never stated that you are in agreement with me. I merely stated that the examples of the guerrilla armies that you used served the point I was making, about having a legitimate cause.

Also I think you need to re - examine the political spectrum. IRA/Sinn Fein being National Socialist? The Nazis were National Socialist. IRA/Sinn Fein lean more towards Marxist thinking. Interesting that you use the term National Socialist along with the PUP in the same posting. Maybe something going on in your mind at a subconscious level?

I visited the PUP website and it only confirmed for me what is already known. That the Loyalists want their own brand of democracy, which is the same brand that the British purveyed when the border was established and the Six Counties came into existence. In other words artificial democracy.

I would like to ask you this question, because it really cuts to the chase in a discussion like this one.

For what reason(s) did the IRA re - emerge in the late Sixties / early Seventies? What would possess a group of people to take up arms and fight? Let me give you a clue. The same reason as Umkhonto we Siswe came into existence. Maybe that is why today Gerry Adams is a close friend of Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeke. I hope you are not going to call these two freedom fighters National Socialist because that would be embarrassing.....for you !

by kintama Fri Dec 31, 2004 13:11

some interesting points from SAFoI however he/she must be a new contributor as regular readers will realise that tonere is beyond embarassment.