Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Fodla32

Did Adams and McGuinness tout on the Eksund and the Marita Ann?

4 posts in this topic




For all its faults, its worth watching the above film, as it gives a very clear idea of the vast amount of military support Colonel al-Gaddafi gave to the Provisional IRA. It would be no exaggeration to say that the Colonel was the material backbone of PIRA, right from 1972. Without Libyan state support, PIRA would have been no more effective than the IRA is today - for all the bravery of its Volunteers.

What's very clear is that by the mid 1980s, Irish resistance fighters were in a better position than they had been at any time during the previous 400 years. In 1920, the IRA had tiny stocks of arms and ammunition, and almost no money. By 1985, PIRA had the full support of a very rich and well armed oil state.

So, what went so terribly wrong? On the Eksund alone, Al Gaddafi had sent one million rounds of ammunition, a thousand assault rifles, hundreds of detonators, tons of semtex, heavy machine guns, and surface to air missiles. There had been, at least, three other shipments of surface to air missiles. They were never used. Some nonsense was subsequently put out about them having been defective. Maybe one shipment was defective - but all three? I don't think so.

I think its very clear that Al Gaddafi wanted PIRA to launch a full scale guerilla war against British occupation, in the mid 1980s, at a time when Adams and McGuinness had already shafted the Republican leadership of Ó Brádaigh and Ó Connaill, and had already embarked on the surrender process. There was no way they could allow the Eksund and the Marita Ann to land in Ireland. Such a huge military capability would have made it impossible to sideline and politically castrate the military men and women, and to surrender PIRA.

It was not only the surface to air missiles that were never used. The vast bulk of the arms and equipment Al Gaddafi sent was never used. It stayed buried, until concrete was poured on it, under the gaze of an official of the British Crown.

Its clear that Adams and his lackeys saw the arms Al Gaddafi sent as only being a pawn in the game of surrender. Just as they saw the bombing of the Baltic Exchange and Canary Wharf as a bargaining chip in their quest for better terms of surrender, and Crown appointments. They also saw the weapons as a way to stop Volunteers going with Ó Brádaigh, after the spit in 1986. Its clear that they never saw the arms as a way of actually beating the British occupation.

Colonel al-Gaddafi wanted victory over the British army in Ireland. Adams and McGuinness wanted Crown employment. That being the case, we must consider the possibility that Adams and McGuinness were in panic when they heard what Al Gaddafi was sending to Ireland, and touted to the British government on the Eksund and the Marita Ann. I don't believe the bullshit about Sean O'Callaghan for one minute. That guy was known as a Walter Mitty since the late 1970s, and was certainly never given sensitive information. Of course, he is glad to accept the "credit" for touting on the Marita Ann, as it ensures him media attention, and a nice pension from the Brits.

Of course, it was not only the weapons and money that Al Gaddafi had to offer. What the Republican Movement needed just as much was Al Gaddafi's ideas and experiments in Direct Democracy and the rule of Peoples Committees. What PIRA needed to be doing, as well as using the weapons Al Gaddafi was sending, was to be setting up the institutions of the Republic. With state support from Libya, this would have been very easy to do. But, Adams and McGuinness were too weak minded and cowardly to anything like that. Their only ambition was to become Crown ministers and grandees in the Brit \ free state régime. McGuinness admitted as much, during the free state presidential elections, when he said on RTÉ television that the victory of the Catholics in the north was seeing him in high governmental office. How pathetic is that? How could such a man ever have been considered a Revolutionary?

When PIRA called its ceasefire, in 1994, it had built nothing. Once the armed struggle was over, there was nothing left. Nothing but to take up employment in the enemy camp.

PS. We will never forget the shameful and treacherous moment, when the Judas Goat Adams and his cowardly gang of sell outs, called on Colonel al-Gaddafi to surrender to the NATO invasion, and turn Libya over to US corporations and racist lynch mobs. Needless to say, unlike Adams, Al Gaddafi was a soldier and a hero, who preferred death to surrender.
John, nico and Lugh Ildánach like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think outside support for a revolution is always a good thing? After all, it was outside support given to Libyan and Syrian terrorists that made them so powerful.

 

There are no country's now that would support foreign revolutions the way Libya did.

Fodla32 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think outside support for a revolution is always a good thing? After all, it was outside support given to Libyan and Syrian terrorists that made them so powerful.

 

There are no country's now that would support foreign revolutions the way Libya did.

 

It depends on who is giving you support, and why. As you say, Libya didnt expect anything in return from PIRA - except to actually use the weapons. Syria and Iran now support Hezbollah, and thats a good thing. Its entirely different when imperialists fund and arm pseudo-gangs, like the rats in Libya and Syria, to overthrow sovereign states.

John likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0