Chapter 1 - Our Tradition No nation has a greater tradition of guerrilla warfare than Ireland.
Arguable, but I can nonetheless see why that would make one proud.
Our history is full of examples of its successful use.
Successful use = death of innocent people.
We have produced some fine guerrilla leaders whose true qualities have never been fully assessed.
More than likely due to the fact that these qualities were, for the most part, pretty shitty.
Their strength lay in the support they received from the Irish people. In the final analysis it was the people who bore the enemy's reprisals. Whoever betrayed the cause, or gave up the fight, or suffered loss of spirit, it was seldom the people.
Then who was it? The cats? The shrubbery?
After a brief homage to the "kerne of old", the handbook continues:
Chapter 2 - What is Guerrilla Warfare? A small nation fighting for freedom can only hope to defeat an oppressor or occupying power by means of guerrilla warfare.
Yes, that nefarious British government mercilessly giving forum to those pesky little "oppressive" tactics like free elections and democracy, not to mention entitlements.
The enemy's superiority in manpower, resources, materials, and everything else that goes into the waging of successful war can only be overcome by the correct application of guerrilla methods.
I.e. Blow their stuff up, terrorize their citizens, and beat into submission any of your fellow compatriots who may not happen to concur with your tactics or ideology.
Guerrilla warfare might be defined as the resistance of all the people to enemy power.
Or it might be defined as the incendiary output of scamps and low-lifers.
In the struggle the guerrillas act as the spearhead of the resistance.
Up to the second world war the military textbooks ignored this phase of warfare.
Admittedly, I've read very little in military textbooks, certainly none written before World War II. But my father has, and he has given me his assurances that this is an enormous load of crusty cow pies.
On "Regular Warfare": In regular warfare the tactical objective is to destroy the enemy in battle by concentrating superior numbers at a decisive time and place. The guerrilla strikes not one large blow but many little ones; he hits suddenly, gnaws at the enemy's strength, achieves surprise, disengages himself, withdraws, disperses, and hits again.
He kills people outside of a legitimate battlefield. Normal people call this "murder".
A regular army unit depends on all kinds of tactical support: air, ground, communication, supplies, armour, artillery, reserves, units to left, right and rear. And so on. There are all kinds of weapons available. Plans are worked out by General Staffs, transmitted through a chain of command down the line. Attacks will go in under artillery, air and even sea barrages. Armour will create the breakthrough.
And collateral damage is regarded as a bad thing rather than an objective.
On "The Guerrilla": Outside of the support he gets from the people among whom he operates-and this support must never be underestimated for it is vital to his eventual success-
When this support is not voluntarily offered by the people, shoot them.
-he fights alone. He is part of an independent formation that is in effect an army by itself. He must be self-contained.
As the criminally insane generally are.
He must exhaust the enemy by constant harassment.
He must attack constantly and from all directions.
He must stage successful retreats, return to the attack, avoid encounters with the enemy that are not of his own making.
Please note that I've added a poll above the links which addresses a very important topic that affects the lives of us all. I ask that you give equal time to either choice in considering your response and vote according to what best suits your conscience.
I thank everyone in advance for their participation.
The 32-County Sovereignty Committee, which has been described as the political wing of the Real IRA, is challenging its designation in the U.S. as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in a Washington court, it has been learned. The committee, along with the Real IRA and the Irish Republican Prisoners' Welfare Association, were designated in May 2001 by the secretary of state, Colin Powell.
"It's not fair," one Committee spokesperson criticized. "Just because we blow stuff up and kill people, the State Department has to go and cut off our funds. Now how are we supposed to conduct a proper terror campaign without Yankee pity-money?"*
*Yeah, yeah. Noone really said that. At least not while someone from the press was listening.
British politicians and the media were warned yesterday to avoid demonising immigrants and asylum seekers after a damning EU report warned of mounting anti-Muslim prejudice across the continent. ...
The report by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia blamed British media for using negative stereotypes of Muslims and portraying asylum seekers as terrorists and the "enemy within" after September 11.
A high ranking EU official urged members of the media and community at large to render their complicit xenophobia to more traditional forms of bigotry, like anti-semitism. "Why attack or castigate a Muslim when you can burn down an entire synagogue?", the gentleman was heard to comment.*
*I made that up. But that doesn't mean it's not true.
Many European officials, columnists and academics now depict the United States as a selfish, gun-happy "hyperpower" that believes force is the sole solution to terrorism.
Damn straight, buckos.
Chris Patten, the European Union's commissioner for external affairs, recently told the Guardian newspaper that he hopes the United States won't go into "unilateralist overdrive."
Fortunate for Americans, the United States government doesn't give a flying rat's squidge-tail what Chris Patten thinks.
Even in Britain, the most loyal U.S. ally in Europe, there is strong pressure these days to lean away from the United States and closer to the continent. "Tony Blair has to choose," said political analyst Will Hutton, author of a much-discussed new book about Britain's place in the world. "And the fact is, the United Kingdom is European, not American, in attitudes as well as geography."
Why aren't they citing alternative points of view? Where are the Perry de Havillands and the Peter Briffas and the Léo LeBruns in all of this? Did anyone bother to ask their sort what they think. Oh, that's right. I forgot. This is the Washington Post we're talking about here. My fault for expecting as much.
Anything that might be construed as even vaguely pro-Palestinian has always been dangerous in this regard. It turns out American gun control, last week's subject, has the same effect. ("Your stupidity reflects those in your country quite well" - Bryan Clifford, New Hampshire; "Yet another anti-gun idiot" - Roger Russon; "England is the *sshole of the world" - Roger Peel [his asterisk]. And so on. And on.)
No notes on people that have sensibly ripped apart his dispatches, word for word, using logic and fairness. Just quips from letters where people chuck insults and cuss words.
Then he goes on to talk about how stupid people in America constantly fall for those Nigerian e-scams. You know, the ones that claim that they are coming from some benevolent prince deposed by an evil dictator, who will be more than happy to deposit 50 squillion dollars into your bank account in order to get his fortune out of Africa. As a reward, he will allow you to keep X percent of the total sum.
Now we come to the truly astonishing fact. At least 300 people in the US have fallen for this baloney over the past eight years, taken the bait and met the next request: sending money for legal fees, administrative costs and taxes. At any rate, 300 people have admitted falling for it. Lord knows how many were too ashamed to call the cops. One businessman apparently handed over $750,000.
Three hundred people. In a country of 270 million. Lord knows how many were too ashamed to call the cops. So there's probably a lot more than 300, Mr. Engel contends. We is stupid hear in America, and would it not be for the tender guidance of the über-elite like our friend Matthew, Nigerians would probably rob the whole of us for every last penny we've got.
No figures on how many British might have fallen for similar scams. But they be smarter than us, so probably not too many.
Tony Blair is the man in the middle of the growing tension between the United States and Europe. He has chosen to take on the role of peacemaker to bridge the rift that threatens to sour historic relations between the continents, jeopardise prosperity and undermine the War on Terror. ...
The recent rise of the “new Right” has stirred American fears that Europe is rekindling old anti-Semitic prejudices. The perceptions of shared values and common cause in the days after September 11 have been replaced by distrust and disillusionment.
Well, that, and the idiocy on the part of some of the old left.
Meanwhile, many Europeans regard George W. Bush as a gun-toting, semi-articulate cowboy whose bellicosity extends far beyond the battlefield and whose unilateralism is damaging everything from trade to the environment.
Um, okay. And meanwhile, many Americans regard Europeans as cheese-chewing, jealous snobs who continually jump to conclusions before bothering to find out the real story.
One of the darker ironies of the 20th century is that socialism proved to be least possible where it was most necessary. To go socialist, you need material resources, democratic traditions, cooperative neighbours, a flourishing civil society, an educated populace.
Funny, we've got all of that here in the U.S., and greedy, money-grubbing capitalism has suited us from the start.
It was just these vital ingredients of the project which colonialism had denied to its premodern, poverty-stricken clients. As a result, one bitter irony bred another: the effort to build socialism in these dismal conditions led straight to Stalinism, and a bid for freedom twisted inexorably into its monstrous opposite.
Yes, if only those evil colonials hadn't been left to run amock in Russia, there would have been no Darkness at Noon.
The present century looks set to be dominated by a rather different sort of irony. Capitalism greeted the millennium with one arm brandishing The Wealth of Nations and one foot triumphantly planted on the corpse of its socialist rival
Things are looking good so far...
Indeed, we may yet see the capitalist world glancing nostalgically back at the socialist project it screwed so effectively.
Ah, the days of the Purges. If only we could be blessed with their return.
Socialism, after all, is out to expropriate the propertied classes, not to exterminate them. Its weapons are general strikes and mass struggle, not anthrax and dirty nuclear bombs.
We keep our nuclear bombs quite clean, I'll thank you to notice in the future.
Its aim is for people to live in plenty, not for them to scavenge their scanty grub from war-scarred urban deserts. Socialism was the last chance we had of defeating terrorism by transforming the conditions which give birth to it.
Those urban deserts are war-scarred becaused they were home and refuge to the man who plotted and murdered three thousand of my countrymen and women. And if I hear one more bone-headed commentator say that poverty breeds terrorism, I'm going to do something really bad and mean.
Could it be, then, that in defeating socialism, capitalism will turn out to have undone itself into the bargain?
Only if you're on crack.
For the wretched of the earth have not of course retired; they have simply changed address. Whereas Marx looked for them in the slums of Bradford and the Bronx, they are now to be found in the souks of Tripoli and Damascus; and it is smallpox, not storming the Winter Palace, that some of them have in mind.
Marx did not look for them there. He was a fucking aristocrat; an armchair sympathizer, not a man who liked to get his hands dirty rubbing elbows with the disenfranchised. As far as what "some of them have in mind", we're going to hunt their like down and eliminate their bullying asses from the face of the Earth, not sit down in a circle and take the time to talk with them about their feelings.
To this extent, The Communist Manifesto has been both challenged and vindicated. It was right to predict that poverty and wealth would polarise sharply on a global scale; and it was right, too, that the dispossessed would rise up against their rulers as a result...
"The dispossessed" have "rised up against their rulers"? When did the revolutions in Cuba and Iraq start?
...it was just thinking more of mills than the World Trade Centre, trade unions rather than typhoid.
Knocking down skyscrapers in a terrorist attack is Marxism reborn????
The fact that capitalism now has no real rivals in the official political arena is precisely what causes the unofficial rancour that can blow enormous holes in it, including nuclear ones.
Yeah, that nuclear war we went through recently was a bitch.
Consider me finished. This butt munch is making me sick.
Sinn Fein received more first-time-voter support than all of the rest of the main parties put together as the party stormed centre-stage at Election 2002.
What a brilliant political tactic on the part of Gerry Adams: target the young, stupid, and naive who don't know any better. Yeah, I know that was kind of Bill Clinton's approach, especially in '92, but Adams really mastered it with this election.
Every first time voter in Kerry North received a personal letter from Gerry Adams on the morning of the election, the Sinn Fein leader deploying his individual charisma on behalf of Martin Ferris and flattering electors with a direct appeal for their backing.