Search for historical statements by the Irish left
reasons I discuss elsewhere,
the Irish left is far more likely than the Irish right
to make embarrassing statements supporting foreign non-democrats
(such as Cuba, Nicaragua, Palestine, Libya, Vietnam
and the Soviet Union).
Such statements need to be remembered.
De Rossa attended a
Soviet propaganda event in Dublin,
January 11, 1983.
He then however protested US Vice-President George Bush's visit to Ireland,
May 18, 1983.
October 25, 1983,
about the use of Shannon Airport by US military on their way to and from
protested US President Ronald Reagan's visit to Ireland in 1984.
He gushed praise over
Soviet dictator Gorbachev's visit to Ireland,
April 3, 1989,
despite the fact that Bush and Reagan were elected and Gorbachev wasn't.
De Rossa defended the communist regime of Nicaragua:
De Rossa defends Nicaragua in the Dail,
26 Apr 1983:
"One of the most serious charges made by the USA against the Sandinista Government was that of persecution against the
... They continue to repeat this charge despite the fact that it has been denied by independent sources".
Dail, 6 December, 1984.
A motion is proposed to call on the Soviet Union to grant Jews religious freedom
and allow them to emigrate.
What kind of lunatic could speak against such a motion?
De Rossa could:
"the proposers of the motion did not approach
Deputy Mac Giolla
or myself to see if we would be prepared to support this motion. ... we recognise that there is a problem of alienation of Jews in the Soviet Union. However, we do not go along with the terms of the motion as put forward because it is an over-statement and the case made to support it has not been proved.
There are obviously two sides to every story and no case has been made for the defence."
Note the patronising "alienation" of Jews, not "oppression" of Jews.
He claims there is something wrong with being anti-Soviet!
"the case that is made concerning the USSR is in many instances tinged with a high level of anti-Sovietism. I heard Deputy Taylor deny that he is in any way anti-Soviet, and I accept and welcome that."
Like a credulous child, he believes Soviet propaganda:
"The case has been made that Jews in the Soviet Union are completely oppressed, are denied any rights and denied the facilities to practise their religion or to learn the Hebrew language. I have here some figures from an official Soviet source which to some extent at least refutes the assertion that all Jews in the Soviet Union are oppressed. I will go through those figures very quickly.
Religion in the Soviet Union is a private matter, ...
we have to accept there are two sides to every story. I am simply putting forward my views on this matter and I am indicating that I do not believe there is total oppression of Jews in the Soviet Union.
I should like to quote a letter which appeared in the English language Soviet Weekly".
He sneers at political prisoners:
"People have listed people who are persecuted in the Soviet Union. I have here a report to the Council of Europe and it lists a number of people who were imprisoned allegedly for trying to teach the Hebrew language or for pursuing cultural affairs. It always amazes me that all these people are very well educated."
De Rossa attacks Israel:
Israeli wall creating Palestinian ghettoes
Proinsias De Rossa, March 9, 2004.
compares the Israeli security wall
to the Nazi ghettos:
"Looking at the watchtowers, guns and barbed wire, I thought of the Warsaw Ghetto.
Growing up just after the second World War, I could not understand how the world stood by (*)
while six million Jews
were gassed, burned and buried alive. I learnt the answer in Qalquilya.
First, you dehumanise your victims, than you criminalise them en masse, and then you imprison them en masse.
Finally, you can kill them while the world watches."
(*) The world did not "stand by", Mr. De Rossa.
Britain and America - the two countries you have spent your entire career attacking
- fought to stop it, and sacrificed
to end it.
They were joined by
Australia, Canada, New Zealand
Ireland stood by, it is true -
to its eternal shame.
Ireland stood by
because of all the appalling
anti-British, anti-American and "anti-war" people
who, unfortunately, so often dominate discourse in this country.
the modern Irish left,
Sinn Fein - your first political party - not only stood by,
supported the Nazis.
Were you not aware of this?
It was no secret, then or since.
If you "could not understand" growing up in the 1950s
how the world stood by during the Holocaust,
if you thought it was such a big issue,
then how come the first political party you joined
was the only one in Ireland that had supported the Nazis?
Yes I know you were never pro-Nazi.
Yes I know Sinn Fein were no longer pro-Nazi when you joined them
(because Germany had lost).
Yes I know you have renounced Sinn Fein long ago anyway,
and gone through
a long political journey since.
I am glad you have.
But you've still a long way to go
before you understand who are the kind of people who will
in the face of fascist, communist or Islamist tyranny,
and who are the kind of people who will
go out there and fight it.
If you really wonder how people could have stood by in WW2,
then you should become (as I have become)
a fan of Britain and America,
and a bit of a sceptic of countries like Ireland.
March 1, 1997:
De Rossa admits WP links to the genocide state of North Korea.
"Mr De Rossa said they sought to establish relationships with a lot of other parties, including the North Korean Communist Party."
March 5, 1997:
De Rossa admits links to the Soviet Union:
"He agreed the WP decided to seek formal relations with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in November 1983.
He understood from reports that contact had also been made in the 1970s."
De Rossa admits other links to tyrants:
"Mr De Rossa said the WP subsequently sought to establish formal relationships with the communist party of East Germany."
March 6, 1997:
De Rossa says Sean Garland of the WP did seek funds from Moscow.
"Mr Garland said it was true he had sought money but he had not received any. He was asked what authorisation he had for seeking such money and he had said none, that he had done it of his own accord."
De Rossa did not see this as morally wrong:
"Mr De Rossa replied that it was not a serious matter to seek funds from other parties. The money was not sought from Russia. As he understood it, it was sought from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It was not a crime to seek financial support from other parties."
De Rossa admits the WP received support from East Germany:
"Mr MacEntee asked if the WP had any support from East Germany. Mr De Rossa said there was an occasion in 1987-'88. There was a request to a party in Germany to know if they would be in a position to provide them with a printing machine."
Proinsias De Rossa's support for
He praises the Eastern Bloc for finally (after 40 years) letting its slaves go,
and says the Eastern Bloc countries have therefore
"proved more responsive to popular pressure"
than the western countries which have allowed their people actually pick the government
for all of those 40 years!
McGrath called for a state visit to Ireland by the
unelected dictator and mass murderer Fidel Castro.
interviewed in Magill, Feb 2006:
"I think Castro is a great guy, a charismatic figure who's been
totally misrepresented by the West."
Magill asks: "So you've no problem with his torture chambers and suppression of free speech?"
McGrath: "Well, that's all news to me.
I never heard about that.
Amnesty hasn't said anything about it to me lately.
This is just rightwing propaganda."
Amnesty country report 2005.
"[Amnesty International] last visited Cuba in 1988
and has not been permitted into the country since then."
Says it all, really.
A regime so criminal they will not even permit Amnesty to exist there.
Cuba: No dissent allowed,
9 August 2005:
"The Cuban authorities continue to suppress any form of dissent
by methods such as harassment, threats, intimidation, detention and long-term imprisonment."
What is wrong with McGrath that he cannot simply read what Amnesty say about Cuba?
He reacted to
the deliberate killing of thousands of innocent American men, women and children by
hate-filled Islamic religious fascists as follows:
"But there will almost certainly be a dark side. For there
is in American culture a fundamentalism no less strong than that of those
who may have plotted yesterday's carnage. The tendency to divide the world between
the forces of God and the forces of Satan, the elect and the damned, is, ironically
one of the things that America shares with its most ferocious enemies."
Michael D. Higgins
is the political heir of
Eamon de Valera,
Fintan O'Toole is the intellectual heir of
- providing the intellectual support for an inward-looking,
"anti-imperialist", anti-foreign companies, anti-capitalist,
that refuses to support Britain and America
in this great war on fascism.
is not all bad.
He has been a pioneer in atheist secularism both North and South of the border.
He has been fairly anti-sectarian on the NI issue.
But he is also a radical leftist
who is anti-American, anti-Israel
and, like so many left-wing "atheists", pro-Islam.
He is a
and a member of the pro-jihad
He openly supports the Islamic religious jihad groups
Hamas and Hezbollah.
His solidarity with right-wing Islam abroad
seems rather a betrayal of his left-wing secular ideas at home,
to say the least.
McCann the "atheist" spins for the Islamic religious fascist regime of Iran:
McCann claimed (Eamon Dunphy show,
Newstalk 106, Mon 20 Mar 2006)
that the Iranian
Nice to know he supports brave dissidents
struggling for freedom in foreign lands.
McCann, 6 Feb 2014, spins for the Iranian regime's bid to get nuclear weapons.
He refers to
"Iran's ambition to develop its nuclear programme for - it insists, entirely plausibly - peaceful purposes".
McCann the "atheist" is horrified by disrespectful cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed, 2006:
McCann seems to be a "secularist" only when it comes to Christianity.
When it comes to a religion he admires, Islam,
he is horrified by disrespectful people who criticise it.
McCann's statement on the Danish cartoons, March 2006
"the recent decision of [the editors of "The Blanket"]
to re-publish deliberately provocative, racist
anti-Muslim cartoons, commissioned originally by the right-wing Danish
newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, is a step too far. In our view, their
publication marks the end of any positive role that The Blanket might play
in a world saturated in anti-Muslim prejudice".
President Obama in reality is carrying on the war against the jihad in a
very similar manner to President Bush,
despite Obama's dreadful appeasing rhetoric.
But the Irish left, which hated Bush, are silent, because Obama is a Democrat, and black.
McCann is rare on the Irish left in pointing this out, and continuing to oppose Obama.
One could almost admire his integrity - if integrity in a jihad supporter
was something to be admired.
"What did George W. Bush do which Obama is not continuing to do?
The main differences seem to lie in skin-tone and hypocrisy quotient, with George W. coming out lighter on both counts."
I agree with McCann.
The only difference is he thinks this is terrible, whereas
I think it is great.
McCann the "atheist" is horrified by a disrespectful movie about the Prophet Mohammed, 2012:
"Innocence of Muslims" riots of 2012,
when right-wing religious maniacs rioted and killed across the world,
secularist Eamonn McCann
came out with a strong defence of free speech
and the right to criticise religion.
This is Islam, a religion he admires because it is violent and anti-western.
(At least, a large part of it is.)
So he rushes to the defence of religion.
The right side of history and freedom of speech, Eamonn McCann, 27 Sept 2012.
"the publication of cartoons or films mocking Mohammed can seem to sum up an all-encompassing racist hatred and contempt for Muslims.
the key element of freedom of expression is the right to decide whether and what to express and when. Considering publication of the material many Muslims find offensive against the background of the West's role in the Arab and Muslim world, the principled, moral course is freely to decide not to publish."
Eamonn McCann, 24 Mar 2016, defends Cuba's communist revolution and dictatorship as
"the overthrow of the alliance of the Batista regime and US freebooter capitalism".
He says about the US conflict with Cuba:
"there’s a balance of political morality to be made ... and the weight of morality is on Cuba’s side."
Yes, Cubans have no human rights, and there have been no elections since 1950,
and the Cuban economy was destroyed, and the people impoverished for decades,
but at least "freebooter capitalism" suffered a setback. Hurray!
"A friend of a friend" of McCann saw Israeli people behaving badly, maybe decades ago!
In his first story,
his former partner
once allegedly saw (in the 1960s?)
"Arabs shrinking back on the pavements to allow Jews to pass, being literally, physically pushed out of their way if they didn't move fast enough".
In his next tall story,
a communist nutjob friend
once allegedly saw (in the 1930s?)
"a group of Jewish settlers moving through a market in Haifa systematically pouring kerosene over the produce on display on Arab fruit and vegetable stalls."
Elder of Ziyon replies:
"I have visited Israel frequently and have not seen any such incidents. Arab schoolgirls walk fearlessly in Jerusalem, giggling amongst themselves like any other kids. Jews and Arabs shop together in the malls, Arab and Jews work together in the hotels and hospitals."
I agree. When I visited Israel in 2014, it was notable that there were Arabs everywhere,
freely working, shopping and mingling with the Jews.
Everyone seemed pretty tolerant.
McCann is a hate-filled ideologue, not a truth-teller.
Shame on the Irish Times for printing such rubbish.
He compares Sharon to Ian Paisley.
"Each based his ideology on books of the Bible".
He quotes from appalling books like
Genesis and Leviticus.
But there is just one problem:
Ariel Sharon was secular (maybe even atheist) and never talked about religion.
And then you notice that
McCann never actually quotes Sharon.
It is telling that McCann never produces any quote from Sharon
to show he was motivated by religion.
He simply declares that
"Sharon will have believed as he went about his work that he was wielding the sword of God"
without bothering to provide a word of evidence that Sharon believed this.
Shame, shame on the Irish Times for printing this rubbish.
A reader's letter replies on 20 Jan 2014:
"Sir, - Eamonn McCann's article ... lacked one important thing - namely, facts, to support his thesis.
At no point does McCann provide any evidence that the biblical quotes he provides, or any part of the Bible, had any impact on Ariel Sharon's political ideology."
no.262, 8 Aug 2006.
Eamonn McCann declares open support for the Islamic religious jihad:
"The US/Israeli assaults on Lebanon and Gaza have posed the question:
"Which side are you on?"
On the side of the US and its Israeli surrogate,
or the side of the resistance?
Socialist Worker makes no bones about it.
We are on the same side as Hezbollah and Hamas."
with a mob
looting the offices of US defence company Raytheon, Derry, Aug 2006,
because it supported Israel.
Shame on him.
The Israel-hating fanatic
Eamonn McCann, 14 July 2014, calls
And the Irish Times prints this guy.
The anti-Israel fanatic
Eamonn McCann, 30 Aug 2018,
calls me "a racist warmonger".
Shame on the Irish Times for giving this libellous extremist a platform.
disputes the trial of Saddam:
"Saddam Hussein was quite right to question the presiding judge at his trial.
Under what authority was Rizgar Mohammed Amin sitting in judgment on the legal president of Iraq?
Saddam was a tyrant, he manipulated the electoral process to give feigned legitimacy to his rule but,
under international law, he was - and remains - president of Iraq.
In contrast, the judge presiding over the trial of Saddam has no legitimacy whatsoever.
He was appointed by the illegal invaders and occupiers of Iraq.
The court has no basis in the Iraqi constitution or Iraqi law.
It has no basis under international law."
This passage alone is enough to make me dismiss
Vincent Browne's entire life's work.
Nobody who describes an unelected dictator as being
(or ever having been) the legitimate ruler of any country
can be taken seriously when they write about politics.
As Richard Waghorne
says, such a statement is in opposition to
"the fundamentals of democratic thought".
Perhaps Vincent Browne is saying that the legal recognition of Saddam by other states
shows what a nonsense international law is.
But no, he intends the possible lack of legal status of the invasion to be a criticism
of the invasion.
Waghorne describes my world view:
"Moral clarity demands that we deny tyrants the status of legitimate rulers.
To do any less is to accord to unelected strongmen the same moral status as democratically elected leaders."
Vincent Browne is relaxed about Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology.
Why? Because the democracies have nuclear technology,
so it would be only fair for every maniac dictator in the world to have it too.
"Iran is entitled to develop nuclear energy".
He even defends their threats against Israel:
"In challenging the legitimacy of the state of Israel, Iran ... is advancing a reasoned opinion supported by historical fact."
He even makes excuses for their pursuit of nuclear weapons:
"If Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons capacity, it has been encouraged to acquire it by those very countries that now threaten it."
And of course he says Israel is to blame for Iran's plans to destroy it:
"even if it was the case that Iran was then or is now trying to acquire nuclear weapons capacity, the blame for that would lie with those states that conspired to create those circumstances in which Iran feels it necessary to acquire such capacity."
One would have thought the left would be against nuclear proliferation,
not in favour of it.
He actually condemns the 1981 Israeli bombing which stopped Saddam's
nuclear weapons program!
"How is it that double standards in the conduct of foreign affairs is the accepted norm?"
he asks like a simpleton,
wondering why it's ok for Israel to have nuclear weapons but not Iran.
Why doesn't he try listening, just once, to the answer.
It's because Israel is a democracy
and Iran is a dictatorship.
Dictatorships should not be treated the same as democracies,
not on this issue, or any other.
There's something fundamentally wrong with
Vincent Browne that he cannot see this.
He even ends with:
"Meanwhile, hands off Iran."
Thank heavens people like Vincent Browne don't run the US or UK.
What a dangerous world it would be if people like him had power.
According to him,
the Berlin Wall was not built to keep communism's enslaved people in, but rather it:
"defused a dispute that hung over from [WW2], a dispute that could have resulted in far worse consequences, possibly a nuclear conflict in the heart of Europe."
(Well wasn't that very nice of those nice communists to build it then!)
According to his leftie history, somehow the West provoked Stalin into
oppressing Eastern Europe, something he would never have done otherwise.
He concedes that
"The repressive character of the East German regime"
caused people to flee,
but you have to love the passive tense:
"in response to this leakage, .. the infamous Berlin Wall was constructed in August 1961."
Not "the communist dictatorship constructed the Berlin Wall".
But "it was constructed" by persons unknown.
And you can feel the sneer around "the infamous"
as if we are all very simple-minded for viewing it as evil.
He then sneers that the evil America may have approved its construction.
(According to him.)
And further sneers that
"its fall 20 years ago was seen as an emblem of victory for the "free world"".
Yes, real sneer quotes this time.
He sneers at the East Germans being granted the vote:
"the rapture for western "democracy" has faded".
Yes, his sneer quotes, not mine.
Based on, well, no convincing evidence, he says of the wall:
"its fall was not the liberation it promised."
Crumbs, what a sneering cynic.
over Vincent Browne any day!
He says about the TV drama "Love/Hate":
"The series underscored the sense that criminality, in the main, is associated with an assortment of "scumbags" ... "scumbags" emerging from communities that have no care for the welfare of children, for education, for the rudiments of decent living, for normal civilised behaviour. At times, it is conceded, these "scumbags" may be charming, even charismatic, but they embody a violent gene, bringing fear not just to their victims but also to society in general and in particular to the societies in which they operate. It is implied that they deserve to spend their lives behind bars, irrespective of the niceties of the legal system."
Sounds about right.
But then he spoils it all by saying this is not true!
And instead he comes out with some
Marxist sociology nonsense about crime being the fault of society,
of inequality, of poverty, and so on.
He needs to read some
Vincent Browne, Oct 2012, says Israel is a "cancer".
He says that Israel, not Islamism, is the root cause
of the global Islamist violence.
"Israel is the cancer in foreign affairs.
It polarises the Islamic community of the world against the rest of the world.
And unless you deal with the problem of Israel
and the problem of Palestinians
in that part of the world
there is going to be conflict".
This is what the left believes.
This is why I am not a leftist.
Tom McGurk, 6 June 2010,
Israel's self-defence in the Gaza flotilla incident
"murder, piracy, kidnap and gross larceny all in one. ...
how does this action differ from what Somali pirates do on a regular basis off east Africa?"
"Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, western capitalism and the free market seemed messianic and triumphant. Against this backdrop, Castro's solitary experiment, that persisted on a small island off the coast of Florida, became even more tantalising."
So in the middle of all this wonderful good news,
Cuba's sad, solitary, bad news story became
He obviously only has contempt
for those Cubans who sadly hoped that the fall of the Soviet empire
would mean their liberation too.
The propagandist McGurk says:
"Despite what propagandists say, the Castro revolution proved hugely popular with ordinary Cubans."
How does McGurk know, since Cubans are not free to tell us?
"Of course, the average Cuban has little material wealth, and the Party remains at the centre of everything. But, then, this is a society where, with food, housing and transport so cheap, and education and health free, material wealth is largely irrelevant. Anyway, since the state owns all the shops, goods are the same price everywhere.
To be in Cuba is to experience the wonder of a society where the tyranny of consumerism does not exist. There is no advertising at all and individualism comes second to the common good."
So, from his position as a wealthy, well-paid media star in Ireland,
one of the richest and freest countries on earth,
does McGurk casually dismiss a society of endless poverty and complete lack of
Oh, the tyranny of being rich!
If only McGurk could be poor like the Cubans!
Just as they do not understand the neo-cons,
so the Irish Times reader does not understand the jihad.
And this bland, politically-correct spin will keep them that way.
If you really want to understand the jihad,
and understand the currents in Islam
that have led to modern Islamist terror,
you need to read sites like
which have for years been casting a cold, unflinching eye on uncomfortable reality:
on a classic example of media bias in a
Mary Fitzgerald article on Al Jazeera:
"she contrasts it with the "rabidly right-wing" Fox News
and the "sombre, earnest and careful" BBC.
Why does she omit the epithet "left-wing" from the BBC's description, being its most abiding characteristic?"
Muslim immigration is simply seen as a good thing.
While I have sympathy for any individual Muslim trying to improve their life,
the concept that more Muslim immigration might eventually lead to violence, or calls for sharia - as has happened in the UK and other places -
is simply not mentioned here.
There are no sceptical voices.
She notes that the Clonskeagh mosque is linked to the
Muslim Brotherhood and
But what they stand for is not really explained.
She notes that al-Qaradawi
supports Palestinian suicide bombing.
But she does not explain
his other abhorrent beliefs.
Nor are the beliefs of the
Fitzgerald casually quotes
Abd al-Bari Atwan
supporting the Arab revolutions,
without telling us that he is a supporter of Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terror.
He supports nuking the Jews of Israel:
"If the Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square and dance with delight."
Does Fitzgerald, with all her meticulous research, not know about this guy?
Or does she not care?
Fitzgerald, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, spins that there were only
within the Islamic world where 9/11 was celebrated or condoned.
She ignores the
showing that the majority of Egyptians supported 9/11,
and that majorities in many Islamic countries supported Bin Laden.
Since when is a majority a "pocket"?
(Bizarrely, Fitzgerald quotes these polls later in the article, but it doesn't stop her using the word "pockets" above!)
She sympathetically quotes the son of Bin Laden mentor
Abdullah Azzam (died 1989)
as claiming that his father would not have supported 9/11 and Al Qaeda.
No evidence for these absurd claims is presented.
supported global terror against the infidel.
He promoted the blood libel against the Jews. He said the Jews
"mix the blood of a Christian or Muslim into dough."
There is even a terrorist group called the
Abdullah Azzam Brigade.
Fitzgerald claims that
"The soul-searching the attacks triggered in the US was mirrored in many Muslim-majority countries".
Yet no evidence of this "soul-searching" is presented.
Indeed it is notable how little soul-searching about jihad, sharia, the Koran and Mohammed
took place in the Islamic world after 9/11.
Even later in the same article she notes that
the majority in Jordan, Indonesia and the Palestinian territories supported Bin Laden in 2003, 2 years after 9/11.
She notes that Al Qaeda support has declined since then, but this is not "soul-searching" after 9/11.
It is Muslims who support or tolerate the killing of Jews and infidels
suddenly being angry when Muslims get killed.
It is self-interest and gross hypocrisy, not "soul-searching".
Fitzgerald claims that
"The once-plodding process of reforming an ancient religion to fit contemporary times has accelerated in the decade since 9/11".
But again no evidence is presented.
In reality, there has been little reform in Islam since 9/11.
Those Muslims willing to re-examine the Koran and Mohammed
are still a tiny minority under death threat.
They said in May 2011
after the death of Bin Laden:
"May Allah have mercy on Osama, the Sheikh of Jihad, the Imam of Piety, the example of asceticism and the model of patience, the pioneer of glory in this age, and the awakener of the Ummah from its slumber.
We in the Brigades of Abdullah Azzam bear witness that we only went out for jihad after incitation from Sheikh Osama bin Laden, by his words and his actions."
Maybe Mary Fitzgerald should explain to them that Abdullah Azzam would have opposed all this.
I'm sure they'd like to know.
Here's a good example of why in 2006 I said Mary Fitzgerald does a line in whitewash rather than exposure.
See the article:
"Muslims divided on cleric's teachings",
Mary Fitzgerald, Irish Times, October 6, 2006.
This is an article about one of the world's leading Islamofascists,
She puts in some (but hardly a lot) of the bad stuff about this repellent nazi, but she never puts the boot in.
Instead she sneers at a British "tabloid" for calling him "evil".
She ends with:
"Extremist or moderate? The jury is still out."
From that article, would you ever get the impression that
Yusuf Al-Qaradawi was the raving maniac
calls for the elimination of Israel:
"anybody in the world, with faith or without faith, must come together in order to eradicate this cancer from the body of humanity."
In the article on Al-Qaradawi above, Mary Fitzgerald quotes
as if he is some reasonable commentator.
A 22 year old Irish Muslim is killed fighting in
in Dec 2012.
What is the one question most people would ask?
What was he fighting for?
Does Mary Fitzgerald address that question in the article? No.
The article has an almost comically misleading headline:
How pee-cee can you get.
The Irish Muslim killed was in fact fighting for the jihadist group
which wants to enslave Syria under sharia law.
He was certainly not fighting for Syrian freedom.
Mary Fitzgerald in fact explains Liwaa al-Umma
But not here.
El Sayed said his motives for fighting were as follows:
"searching for the truth, defending the weak against injustice and the oppressors, and helping to build peace in the world".
suggests this is just code for fighting for Islam:
"Every 'reason' that El Sayed gave for joining the jihad to overthrow the Alawites, is also the 'reason' that will, sooner or later, animate those who will plan and plot and actively embark upon Muslim jihad within Ireland itself, against Irish non-Muslims and the non-Muslim polity of Ireland."
Who I block:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who:
(a) target my job,
(b) target my appearance, or:
(c) libel me (such as call me racist).
I will not debate such people.
I will block them.