IRA comments by Rose McGowan

Remove all ads!

What do you think about the comments made by Rose McGowen while filming "50 Dead Men Walking"

Have they been taken out of context?

 

Further proof that the beautiful people should just keep their yaps shut

 

I think the possibility of this being an out of context situation is there. A lot of people joined the IRA because of how they felt and were indoctinated at the time. She may have been trying to say that she can see why a person, at that time and in that situation, would do such a thing.

Most know how I feel about Muslim terrorists, for example, but I don't think it's such an illogical or unfair statement to say that if I were a young Muslim man in a country like Iraq, having been indoctrinated in a Wahhabi environment, not knowing what I know now, and having seen some horrid things happen, I might become a terrorist. That most assuredly does not imply that I myself, right now, agree with the aims, goals or methods of Muslim terrorists.

Perhaps the "100%" element of her comment made some people think that she fully endorses the IRA agenda now, knowing what she presently knows.

 

Not to play semantics, but Wahabi Islam is actually quite rare in Iraq. Wahabi Islam is actually an export of Saudi Arabia, and while Saddam was Sunni (and most assuredly not Wahabi), most Iraqis are Shia (and the Shia are considered apostates by Wahabi Muslims).

 

Touche -- I was simply trying to demonstrate the radical indoctrination that some of these Wahhabi (and other!) schools are reported to inflict on their students. "A country like Iraq" means, in my mind, any of the states in the Middle East with a large number of Islamics who tend to not see eye to eye with the United States (it's funny how Saudi Arabia is a US ally, yet the Wahhabi folks who come from this erstwhile ally hate the West with a passion.)

 

Thanks for the quote Snook, I'm rubbish with this technical stuff.
Tal - sorry boss!

BTW, I'm not saying I agree with her comments, I just wanted to know what people thought

 

I don't think the statement was taken out of context, but I'm not sure I'd criticize her either. From what I know of the situation, the IRA terrorism was a response to some pretty reprehensible treatement by the british government. Targeting uninvolved civilians is never excusable, but guerilla warfare tends to get messy quick and a small resistance group doesn't have many choices.

I'm not saying I agree with her or would do it myself, but I do understand how someone could respect the IRA.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about that history bit.

 

Maybe people who are not from Ireland or don't have Irish roots don't really understand the role of Sinn Fein or the IRA has for the Irish.

And there appars to me a misconception abound about what the IRA is (I largely wiki-ed that): The Irish Republican Army (IRA) was a military organisation descended from the Irish Volunteers, established 25 November 1913 and who in April 1916 staged the Easter Rising. It was a leftist, nationalist movement with roots in the unions. The IRA fought a guerrilla war against the Crown forces in Ireland from 1919 to July 1921. The most intense period of the war was from November 1920 to July 1921. Their fighting led to the independence of Ireland from the Crown. The IRA of the Civil War and subsequent organisations that have used the name claim lineage from that group.

Ireland - Easter Monday in Dublin #1 - Sinn Fein on parade.
Ireland - Easter Monday in Dublin #2 - Sinn Fein on parade.
Ireland - Easter Monday in Dublin #3 - Sinn Fein on parade. Note the implicit claim on the large poster they are holding.

I took those photos two years ago when I was in Dublin. I presume that there is a reason why, for a long time, the IRA could raise funds so well in Boston for instance. I have a theory on why that is so: I have made the observation that it is often so that exiles are at times the most fervent of patriots, presumably because their patriotism gives them an identity that they otherwise miss, and having in the past at times been ostracised in their new country only confirms that. In their fervour they are often not historically correct *. For the Irish I gather that the IRA must be part of their founding myth. Every nation has such a narrative. Myths are never factually correct. My best guess is that that Rose McGowan simply reiterates what she has heard by uncles and relatives or read in glorifying books. Go to an average book store in Dublin and you'll likely find such literature (I haven't looked, but I am confident).

* Talking with my Turkish colleagues only underlines that impression.

 

I'd agree with the diaspora's mythologising the IRA but I'm afraid the details are more the myth than the reality. The Sinn Féin/IRA of the 1920's War of Independence is NOT the SF/IRA that emerged in the 1960's in the North. The 'old' IRA immediately splintered after independence into two groups, those for and against the peace treaty (it only applied to 26 of 32 counties and didn't provide full independence). These two groups formed the basis of the two dominant political parties, effectively our Republicans and Democrats. Both have been normal political parties since the 20s. Most political groupings in Ireland can trace their origin back to the old IRA in some form. The 'new' IRA emerged in Northern Ireland in the 60's. Whilst it would have some connections to the old IRA it would certainly not be considered the direct descendant. Confusion arising from the name has certainly helped it in raising funds, particularly among Irish Americans.

There would be a massive gulf in moral standards between the old and new IRAs. The old one was pretty good as terrorists/ freedom fighters go. It enjoyed the overwhelming support of the native population and almost exclusively limited itself to attacks on the occupying armed forces. The new IRA enjoyed much less popular support. SF only overtook the peaceful SDLP as the main nationalist party in the North since the IRA declared its ceasefire. SF has a tiny level of support in the South and is a pariah, the other parties knowing that including it in a coalition would lose them a lot of their own suporters. The new IRA regularly sought to cause massive damage to innocent civilians and frequently frustrated efforts to reconcile the two communities (murdering any Catholics who join the police hardly helped in resolving its bias towards Protestants). The new IRA became a massive criminal organisation in its own right and ended up imposing its own control over swathes of poorer Catholic areas instead of the rule of law. The North was undoubtedly founded as a sectarian state, with Unionists using their slight majority to cover their actions in the guise of a democracy. Whether the IRA's response was proportionate is debatable and it is without doubt that it quickly became part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

I'm unsure as to the context of Rose McGowan's comments. I would be inclined to believe that she meant she could understand why somebody would join the IRA if raised in that environment. If not, well, it's hardly a revelation that a Hollywood actress is a bit dim, now is it?

 

We're in agreement there.

 

Ah. Thanks for the enlightenment. I retract all my above remarks.