Well first, it is well-known that the IRA has never been too fastidious in its selection of bedfellows, witness its involvement with the murderous Colombian narco gangs. But the narco gangs have never been crusading against Christianity, indeed they are nominal Catholics themselves. I think the explanation must lie elsewhere.
There is no question that there is an affinity within the hard left for Islamic terrorists. There's been much speculation on these boards about the motivation for a political ideology to undermine the West's defenses in a war waged by fundamentalists who would trample every dearly held belief of the left such as the beauties of atheism, feminism, and secular one world government. Why would the hard left, like the IRA, betray its own, albeit distorted, principles? Why do Western feminists remain silent in the face of Muslim oppression of women?
The best answer I have heard is that feminists are leftists first and feminists second and that implies that there is some sort of pull for leftists in the war against Western liberal democracy. If that is so, I would venture that the same applies to the IRA. I assume that it goes without saying that the IRA is also a very leftist organization.
The best answer to this seeming inconsistency is to cite the history of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, all of whom sold out not only their nationstate, but also their own party in the quest for personal power. Mao for example provided intelligence to the Japanese to use against the Nationalist Chinese in World War II. On many occasions he sold out his own Communist armies to the Nationalist Chinese to advance his own personal quest for power. Thus I am postulating that there is a gene in the leftist DNA which amounts to a mad and reckless rule or ruin strategy.
This is not at all inconsistent with the notion that the left loathes the western nationstate, especially the United States, as the major obstacle to its imposition of One World leftist rule. Thus, every self-respecting modern leftists who found himself in the 18th century would would have hated the American Revolution and loved the the French Revolution because he believes he would have emerged as the Napoleon from the carnage. Better Armageddon than status quo.
I confess I do not find this explanation completely convincing and would welcome other thoughts.
