"Today I will attend my local comemmoration to Volunteers Jim Lochrie and Sean Campbell, 1st Battalion, South Armagh Brigade"
Who were, of course, terrorists. Why not commemorate the bombers of the twin towers too? Good riddance to the terrorist scum.
It about time that the Irish government lived up to these ideals and stopped paying lipservice to them
Definitely. Happy Easter to everyone...
Gnarles,
I know... I know... don't feed the trolls. However, sometimes it is so hard to resist.
You condemn two men, 19 and 20 year old boys really, as terrorists. But I don't think you know what you are talking about. I think you're an ignorant man, though I might be wrong. I'm just basing my opinion on what you have to say here.
If anyone who uses arms is a terrorist than every society on earth is terrorist and the word has absolutely no meaning. Therefore, we must have some more coherent definiton of the word. If you would like to say that those Volunteers were "terrorists" then they must be something more than merely armed actors, eh? Otherwise the British are terrorists as well, which I suspect you would deny.
If the Volunteers are terrorists but the British army is not, then why? Is it because "the state" can not be terrorists? Thus making it that the Taliban can not be terrorists? Well, that appears unworkable doesn't it? So the state, and state actors can also be terrorists? Well then, we're in a bind now aren't we? So how can you keep the lads you hate labeled as terrorists? You need to do a bit more squirming don't you?
Is it targeting civilians? Well, Volunteers Campbell and Lochrie were targeting security forces. So if you still want them to be terrorists that can't be it, now can it?
How about only when non-state actors attack state actors who are democratic? Well, then you could target civilians in a dictatorship and not be a terrorist... that seems wrong.
So what is it than big man? Are two lads killed in 1975 terrorists because you say so? Or what is it?
You don't have a real answer do you?
Terrorist:
"One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals."
"Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets"
"a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities "
That define what a terrorist is ok?
"If the Volunteers are terrorists but the British army is not, then why"
State legitimacy. Read the Geneva convention sometime.
"Is it targeting civilians? Well, Volunteers Campbell and Lochrie were targeting security forces."
No, I abhor the notion that civilians are the only victims of terrorism. I have (rarther, had) family brutally murdered for being in the security forces.
I understand that these young men were chosen to join the IRA as they were vulnerable, and filled with the ambition and ideology of youth. This is all good and fine, but no excuse. I didn't join the UVF when times were hard.
So thats why I call these boys, and ALL other "volunteers" terrorist scum.
poitin
I like your answer. I'd say Gnarles wouldn't know what "coherent" or "definition" means.
Expect a grunt.
As a former RUC prison governor said of the prisoners over the years on both sides:
"It was clear early on that republicans were building up their mental strength by holding talks and seminars, and reading books.
The loyalists were to be seen and found only in the gym pumping iron"
so ignorance it is, with these plums,you were right in your early guess.
For all the talk about Volunteers being men of high moral and intellectual calibre compared to loyalists - it was IRA volunteers who abducted two children from school and shot the boy with learning difficulties, leaving him dying in the grounds of Belfast Zoo.
Gnarles,
You definition of terrorism appears to be taken from the first page that pops up in google (a website for aviation enthusiasts). Now, this is fine I suppose. However, it tends to support my assertion that you made your first post in ignorance. If this debate encouraged you to a bit of reading, all the better.
Unfortunately, your definition also suffers from some serious problems, as web cut-and-paste answers to serious questions often do. You definition is erroneous in both text and context.
First, the Geneva convention neither defines nor even uses the word "terrorist." The conventions and protocols mention "acts of terrorism." However, these passages were drafted with state action as the primary intended target. "Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited." Fourth Geneva Convention , Article 23. Additionally, AP I Article 51, and APII Article 13 prohibit targeting civilians, "[t]he civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."
Secondly, international law does not have jus cogen (a fundamental principle in international law) definition of terrorism. It didn't in 1975 and does not now. What we have is guidance on these issues. As mentioned, much of this guidance suggests several subjective and objective elements to defining terrorism. In the post-colonial period, manyh aspects of international law allowed for grey areas around the use of force against occupying powers. More recently, there has been some effort to create tighter definitions of terrorism. However, there hasn't been much success in producing a definition that does not ensare the actors on both sides of armed conflict. Many historical and recent actions by the armed forces of the UK are arguably encompassed by prevalent common definitions of terrorism, your cut-and-paste contribution to the debate included.
However, your specific accusations against Volunteers Lochrie and Campbell probably aren't. You may have a tough row to hoe if you are claiming that the civilian population of South Armagh was "terrorized" in 1975 by actions of PIRA targeting British security personnel. Your flippant accusation that "ALL other 'volunteers' [are] terrorist scum is clearly nothing more than an ignorant comment. Which brings us back full circle to the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.
Christ MR how many times have you used that one! I can only imagine you're having a bad weekend, sorry to hear that.
Let's go for the Shankill Butchers as a reposte, no let's say there were rotten apples on both sides, and move on.
You're in bad mood, everyone knows the IRA Volunteers didn't sign up for that kind of crap. To blanket them with the worst example is well rather bigoted I'd say.
catch you tomorrow when you're not in whataboutery mood 
Gnarles
Only one group of terrorists in South Armagh and they are currently taking down the last of their spy towers!
They are going back to their own country, where they belong!
You make my point parcifal. I use that example as it blows away the claim that the Volunteers were somehow "better" than the Loyalist terrorists. The only difference between them is the cause they support. ALL terrorists are bad. Full stop.
Is a better educated terrorist a better person than an ill-educated one ? If anything better educated people should know better.
More importantly, aside from the abismal republican parades with musically disabled bands, may I notify your readers of a more dignified parade.
Tomorrow the Apprentice Boys will be hosting a massive parade in Ballymena with many top quality bands.
Chris, If you want a lift the QUB branch is leaving University Rd at 10pm after parading from the Elms village.
I hope to see you there...
MR
I'm surpised with your extensive knowledge of Irish affairs that you'd come out with such simplistic one-size-fits-all statements.
The IRA was engaged in negotiations with the British at a very early stage, and since 1993 in a very public way through SF.
On the other side, you have the news today that the UVF ( run by Brit Agents ) were engaged in wholescale liquidation.
So one was a struggle for liberation and independance, through TUAS and politics, and tremendous hard work (Adams/Hume/Trimble)the other just a state sponsered massacre and a sectarian bigoted resistance campaign, with no political cause of honour or sacrifice.
You don't hear the UVF honoring their dead in the name of some great idea, cause or struggle.
They're all off their heads on heroin.
I respect only David Irvine who really tries to make an intellient case for the union and non-violence, and political engagment, he's the best guy you've got 
MR so all actions of any member of a group are imputable to all other members of the group for all of its history?
I guess you then believe that the British Army are all terrorists because they shot Daniel Teggart, two years before Bernard was killed?
So, everyone is everyone equally bad? Or do you just ignore your own logic and say IRA=Bad, British=Good?
Walk me through that one could you please.
As far as I know, several significant studies have been done of deaths during the troubles... the consensus appears to be something on the range of this:
Somewhere between 75 and 90% of those killed by loyalists paramilitaries were civilians (unarmed and non-members of any armed group). Approximately 50 to 65% of those killed by British security forces were civilians. Approximately 15 to 35% of those killed by republican paramilitary were unarmed civilians. (The figures are mostly from studies published by the Conflict Archive maintained at the University of Ulster. The PIRA killing of civilians is likely overestimated by the inclusion of more of its own Volunteers under the category "unintentional killings." This fact may push the death total of civilians killed by the IRA under 15% of the total deaths that they caused.)
Now, of course, these types of figures are of cold comfort if it was your friend, family, or neighbor who was one of the "statistics." I think we would all agree, at a minimum, that violence against civilians is wrong. However, you might note, from a "defining terrorism" perspective these figures suggest the population most likely to be "terrorized" during the troubles is in fact those in nationalist/catholic communities. The population least likely to be killed without provocation during the troubles would appear to be members of loyalist communities. Who then would be most apptly described as a terrorist?
Are all things morally equal because of anecdotal evidence of members of a group doing wrong? Of course not.
Poitin, my words exactly ( NOT
I've not the hard logic you have, but you make a consise and well put arguement about understanding what terrorism is, and esp in relation to this conflict.
That's in a few sentences.
these one-liners bashed out by unionists simply don't stand up to scrutiny, or forensics.
I speak in generalisms to get the feel of the thing, and I note you hone in on particulars to sub-divide and classify, and yet we arrive at the same conclusions!
That proves that by reason and emotion the struggle is noble and just. Slainte
You don't hear the UVF honoring their dead in the name of some great idea, cause or struggle.
Bizarre but to be expected.
They're all off their heads
Pot meet Kettle.
Poitin - I'm addressing the claim that
the IRA were saints .... OK, in the past few months there's been a begrudging acknowledgemnt that "one or two of them might have been out of line".
I don't see a lot of difference between any of them. Terrorists are evil. The IRA torture chambers were somehow better than the Shankill Butcher torture chamber ? How ?
The difference is that the broad unionist community don't honour them. So all this Easter does is suggest to my community that we ARE better than the broad nationalist community.
I dare say some decent people were driven to join republican terror groups by brain washing and circumstance just as I dare say that some decent people joined loyalist terror groups for the same reasons.
Those would be the exception rather than the rule - just as bad 'uns in the security forces were the exception rather than the rule.
MR
I'd suggest
when you say
The difference is that the broad unionist community don't honour them. So all this Easter does is suggest to my community that we ARE better than the broad nationalist community.
you mean
that because
Somewhere between 75 and 90% of those killed by loyalists paramilitaries were civilians (unarmed and non-members of any armed group).
Hence, it would be repulsive and shameful to commemorate such cowardice.
Whereas
when I say the IRA honour their dead and their sacrifice it is because as poitin points out
This fact may push the death total of civilians killed by the IRA under 15% of the total deaths that they caused.)
Hence you're not feeling better about yourselves at all but worse.
Its clear that most IRA men were patriots and good soldiers, whereas most loyalists were just simply terrorists ( killing of civilians)
No amount of wriggling gets out of that fact.
One can only arrive at that conclusion having broken it down and thought about it.
Loyalists pumping iron in the gym won't help
Now I see why we get these one-liners, convenient cover-ups.
Oops whose living with mythology.
Always here to talk
Cobblers hophead.
Its Gospel dude
ya ain't got a leg t'stand on matey
Game,set and match.
Parcifal - I appreciate the compliment.
Madradin Ruad - You say you are "addressing the claim that the IRA were saints." This is a straw-man, a logical fallacy where you grossly oversimplify the opponents position in order to make it seem ridiculous and easily bested.
No one on this topic claimed the IRA were saints. I certainly did not. The nature of violence and secrecy is, I suspect, such that many rather morally challenged people are attracted to it. Or, alternatively, that otherwise morally solid people are corrupted by engaging in it.
However, the fact that this may be the case does nothing to answer two important questions; 1) What, if any, Republican violence was "terrorism", and 2) what, if any, Republican violence was morally justified?
You go on to assert that "[t]he difference is that the broad unionist community don't honour them. So all this Easter does is suggest to my community that we ARE better than the broad nationalist community."
This is an interesting claim. What do you base it on? It seems to stand on weak foundations if at all. For much of the past century there have been large scale unionist parades and commemorations of military action, haven't there? Who are these honouring? Did not the head of the currently dominant unionist party help to establish the Ulster Constitution Defense Committee and the Ulster Protestant Volunteers? I've seen an awful lot of Nationalist politicians burned in effigy on the bonfires of Tigers Bay and plenty of other communities, haven't you? These are anecdotal bits... but what do you base your claim on that the "broad unionist" community does not honour armed actors in this conflict? I seem to recall the Sinn Fein Mayor of Belfast laying a wreath commemorating the largest organization of armed actors on the unionist side of the conflict. Would the Rev. Paisley lay a wreath at the GPO perhaps?
And finally, I guess it is merely rhetorical, but do you believe "we ARE better?" How's the argument for that one go?
Having a hard time, MR?
I've noticed that you tend to compare the IRA with unionist paramilitary groups.
It is a little bit of a red herring, as you well know.
The IRA seldom engaged these groups and focused their attentions on formal state forces.
Even the British government acknowledge that they were engaged in a conflict with the IRA, not "keeping the warring factions apart". That particular spin was dropped in the early nineties.
Without engaging in whataboutery, British soldier shoots 13 year old dead, from a range of less than 12 feet. Commanding officer lies on TV, inventing fictional riot situation to explain murder. Terrorists?
At the end of the day the Brits we ran the IRA and the loyalists AND we have got the end game we wanted. The IRA have disarmed, Northern Ireland is still part of the UK. No articles 3 and 4 of the republics constitution and we still have direct rule.
Omelettes anyone?, Blood sacrifice anyone?
The IRA seldom engaged these groups and focused their attentions on formal state forces.
Making a lie of their claims to be the protectors of Catholic communities against the Loyalist terrorists. The one time they did try and do something the IRA were as viciously callous about the innocent 'children of the nation' on the Shankill road as the Israelis about innocent palestinians.
MR
You really are in bad form.
"The one time they did try and do something the IRA were as viciously callous about the innocent 'children of the nation' on the Shankill road as the Israelis about innocent palestinians."
I assume you mean the Shankill bomb.
I don't think it was a suicide attack.
Would you agree that the civilian casualties were unintentional?
No comfort to the families, obviously. But just to be clear.
Your first point suggests that the IRA's raison d'etre was not the removal of British control of this part of Ireland. Anecdotally, people would have said that they protected nationalist areas from unionist paramilitaries. I don't think they would ever have said that was their primary role.
Would you agree that the civilian casualties were unintentional?
No. This is one of the most outrageous claims made by SF and the IRA. It was utterly impossible to envisage a bomb going off there and killing the UDA targets WITHOUT civilian casualties.
The IRA were NO better than the Israelis when they bombed an apartment block to kill one terrorist, the Hamas leader Sheikh Salah Shahada. They killed 15 innocent civilians including 9 children in what the Israeli government described as a Success.
as regards the IRA function - it was how they recruited and sold themselves abroad - defenders of the Catholic Population against rampaging protestants. One more lie from the IRA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...ast/
2148548.stm
Israel in the face of international outrage went on to backtrack though:
Those who decided to go ahead with the operation were "apparently not aware" that they were releasing a bomb onto a densely-populated area, otherwise they would not have done it, he said.
The IRA were well aware that they were bombing a densely populated area.
"They are going back to their own country, where they belong!"
Gaskin, you bigoted, racist bastard, get a life!
You may have a tough row to hoe if you are claiming that the civilian population of South Armagh was "terrorized" in 1975 by actions of PIRA targeting British security personnel.
I never claimed all civilians in S. Armagh were terrorised, although many definitely were. You demonstrate your ignorance by refusing to accept that security forces can be terrorised by IRA scum.
Your flippant accusation that "ALL other 'volunteers' [are] terrorist scum is clearly nothing more than an ignorant comment.
How so? They signed up to an illegitimate terrorist proscribed organisation, so they are terrorist scum.
Which brings us back full circle to the fact that you don't know whatyou are talking about."
Which brings us full circle to the truth that IRA members are murderers, terrorists, and generally the scum of the earth. I know what I'm writing about, old boy. I've seen the damage your brave volunteers do. Have you ever seen the aftermath of an explosion under a Land Rover with men in it? Your brave volunteers are cowardly bastards who mask their faces, and hide in the bushes while their underhand tactics are utilised.
MR
Come, come. The bomb detonated prematurely, killing one of the Volunteers and wounding another.
They were hardly suicide bombers, therefore it was unintentional.
The function and purpose of the IRA was outlined every Easter, by them, and is contained in documents and newspapers, (Republican News is a good source) available in the Linenhall Library.
Gnarles
"Your brave volunteers are cowardly bastards who mask their faces, and hide in the bushes while their underhand tactics are utilised."
All the Brits had was armoured vehicles, body armour, state of the art weaponry, air support, electronic surveillance and overwhelming numbers.
If only they'd had access to the bushes, "Old Boy".
Gaskin, you bigoted, racist bastard, get a life!
I am neither bigoted nor racist
The British army are nothing more than a force of occupation from a foreign country.
It is only right and just that they fuck off back to where they come from.
They may not be going home, they may be going to Iraq but we mustn't get our hopes up.
Come, come. The bomb detonated prematurely, killing one of the Volunteers and wounding another.
They were hardly suicide bombers, therefore it was unintentional.
Utter Cobblers
You are floundering.
If the bomb had gone off as planned and killed the Targets there was no way that Civilians wouldn't have also been killed - or do you think one of the bombers would have asked the UDA to sit where they were while the area was evacuated ?
There was NO WAY that that bomb wasn't going to kill and injure innocent civilians. Be honest and admit it - they took the same attitude as the Israelis - that to them the price was worth paying.
There was NO WAY that that bomb wasn't going to kill and injure innocent civilians.
Somebody really needs to hip Tony Blair and the RAF to this little tidbit of science.
We could make you happy by replacing English, Scottish and Welsh regiments with B specials Chris
Entirely home grown, children of the nation.
Sorted!
That's neither here nor there in this discussion LP.
I have shown that the IRA and the IDF are birds of a feather.
Anyhow - I'm off for a snooze - thanks for the interesting discussions.
"I am neither bigoted nor racist"
You do a fine impression a a bigoted racist Chris. I note that you don't deny you are a bastard. At least you've a shred of honesty amidst your twisted, bitter logic.
"The British army are nothing more than a force of occupation from a foreign country. It is only right and just that they fuck off back to where they come from"
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Chris. Don't you study law or is it a matter of "collect 10 crisp packets and get an LLB"? Northern Ireland is an integral part of Britain. Look on any map or atlas and you'll see that. Soverign territories have soverign armed forces, Chris. Like it or not.Perhaps you're in denial? Not able to accept that NI is British? You are a pathetic individual, Gaskin - Face facts. You resort to swearing when you know you are advocating the unjustifiable.
"If only they'd had access to the bushes, "Old Boy"."
Indeed, there is considerable academic research to prove that guerilla campaigns are more successful in the long term than traditional military tactics. But such are the tactics of a "dirty war".
Having large numbers never helped the British Army in Northern Ireland. They have to abide by a code of conduct and are under intense scrutiny from all sides. The IRA have no morals, they'll murder anyone to make a point. Any prod 'll do, after all - get them to "fuck off back to where they come from", as Gaskin so eloquently put it.
That's neither here nor there in this discussion LP.
Oh, it is indeed. It's indicative of the callous attitudes still in evidence in those in the corridors of power.
The IRA have no morals, they'll murder anyone to make a point.
As the British Army is currently doing in Iraq, and formerly did on the streets of Belfast. Point for point. Why, pray tell, should they be treated better just because they have on pretty bits of cotton?
"As the British Army is currently doing in Iraq, and formerly did on the streets of Belfast. Point for point. Why, pray tell, should they be treated better just because they have on pretty bits of cotton?"
Is that so? Substantiate your allegations if you can(which I doubt). You shinners are very good at spinning out allegations instead of answering questions.
Perhaps you're in denial? Not able to accept that NI is British?
Oh, this is hilarious... get this. People here are in denial because... they don't think part of Ireland is part of Britain! This is like saying "when are you guys going to admit Northern Britain is part of Ireland?" Speaking of not being able to face reality... what's the name of the place again, G? Northern... Northern... ahhh... oh yes! IRELAND, that's right. Man... you talk about the pot calling the kettle black... laffriot.
Gnarles, these kinds of statements are logical fallacies in an argument, "Gaskin, you bigoted, racist bastard..." (ad hominem) "They signed up to an illegitimate terrorist proscribed organisation, so they are terrorist scum." (begging the question).
MR, you also are retreating to dishonest fallacies, such as; "[t]here was NO WAY that that bomb wasn't going to kill and injure innocent civilians. Be honest and admit it - they took the same attitude as the Israelis - that to them the price was worth paying" (Guilt by association, plus a little ad hominem), "[t]his is one of the most outrageous claims made by SF and the IRA. It was utterly impossible to envisage a bomb going off there and killing the UDA targets WITHOUT civilian casualties" (misleading vividness and a bit of an appeal to ridicule).
In fact if all the straw-men, ad hominem, and other logical fallacies are stripped out, I'm not sure what is left.
Maybe you will find this condescending, which is not my intent. I want to understand your point, if you have one. However, at the moment, neither of you are representing what seem to be your positions sufficiently to engage in a real debate.
You both appear to believe that the IRA (and perhaps republicanism in general?) are unequivocally bad. Is this accurate? This appears to revolve around your conclusion that all members of the IRA and the IRA are "terrorists."
Gnarles, you appear to have retreated from your definition of terrorism, as you did not contest when it was questioned. You have yet to craft a definition of terrorism that would not include the British security forces. Given this, even if we accept your claim that the IRA are "terrorists" you are still left with the problem that they might be the "least terrorist" of the armed groups. This is relevant because you appear to be saying that the British should "win" the conflict (retain sovereignty) because the IRA are "terrorists." Please correct me if I am mistaken.
However, at the moment, evidence has been brought up here that the IRA has the lowest rate of targeting of civilians of any of the armed groups in the troubles. No one has contested this. Is this fact alone sufficient to make the IRA "better" than the British military and loyalist paramilitaries? If your argument hinges on your assertion that "terrorists" are bad... and you have no answer to the definition of "terrorism" that adequately explains why the IRA are terrorists and the British army are not... then you are left with a problem... aren't you?
An assertion is not an argument. A conclusion is not evidence in support of another conclusion. It is also important not to shift the burden in an argument. Don't ask those who disagree with you to disprove your assertions. The burden is on the author of a premise to support it, not to demand that others successfully challenge it.
You've made all sorts of rhetorical claims such as, "the IRA have no moral
Hmm... last bit got cut... guess I am too wordy...
Your free to say such things of course... but if you want them taken seriously, try making a claim that you can support... and not solely with anecdotal evidence (which is inherently quite weak and often misleading).
LONE PRIMATE
Oh, this is hilarious... get this. People here are in denial because... they don't think part of Ireland is part of Britain!
Sophistry.
He didn't say that "part of Ireland is part of Britain": he said that part of Ireland is British.
This is like saying "when are you guys going to admit Northern Britain is part of Ireland?"
It's not.
Speaking of not being able to face reality... what's the name of the place again, G? Northern... Northern... ahhh... oh yes! IRELAND, that's right. Man... you talk about the pot calling the kettle black... laffriot.
The contributor has never claimed that the name was not "Northern Ireland", nor that Northern Ireland was not part of Ireland. Indeed, he explictly referred to it being "part of Ireland".
So your response is entirely dishonest.
This discussion about the Provisional IRA has been channelled into a debate about the definition of "terrorism". This is a debating tactic of PIRA apologists: rather than debate the justification of the PIRA campaign, they prefer to engage in theoretical debate about defining the word "terrorism". This is because they know they are on uncomfortable ground when challenged to defend their support for thousands of murders, countless bombings and destruction, beatings, intimidation, torture, etc.
Discussion about the definition of "terrorism" might be interesting, but it is a distraction. The Provisional IRA campaign was wrong: it was completely unjustifiable, and that is the fact that PIRA apologists are trying to avoid.
MR, you also are retreating to dishonest fallacies, such as; "[t]here was NO WAY that that bomb wasn't going to kill and injure innocent civilians. Be honest and admit it - they took the same attitude as the Israelis
Entirely truthful.
How does one kill a group of people in a crowded area with a large bomb without killing bystanders ? It's Impossible.
In order to kill the UDA targets the area could not have been cleared. So civilians were bound to die. You cannot get round that inescapable fact.
The IRA and the IDF took exactly the same attitude to civilians.
Dear all
Here are some factors I believe you should all take into consideration when you are expressing your views on the IRA and indeed the UVF
1. During the conflict the IRA approached the loyalists and asked for a non agression pact whereby neither IRA would target loyalist nor the other, this was flatly rejected by loyalists in the words of david ervine, as the UVF existed to target republicans. THe questioned must be asked why did the great defenders of the catholic people wish to agree they would not target organisations involved in 'sectarian campaign' against the catholic people. (see Peter Taylors series of books)
2. loyalists went on ceasefire in 1991, during which the IRA targeted loyalist housing estates and paramilitaries to provoke them to respond as they did. SO THEY WERENT EXACTLY THE ONLY GROUP LOOKING FOR PEACE THe UVF had been in discussions with Chris Hudson a Dublin business man for years before Gery ever met John.
3. Before their 1994 ceasefire Republicans engaged in what is called the summer of proocation, whereby they tageted again loyalist housing estates and leaders such as Trevor King. This was aimed solely at provoking loyalists with the aim that the IRA would go on ceasefire with the media reporting how loyalists were still 'offing catholics' as always.
4. When the IRA broke ceasefire in 1997 loyalist maintained theres, despite the fact they had an ibvious capacity to do so as they had attacked the Sinn Fein offic in Monoghan with more sophisticated bombs which they obviously could have used again.
5. To say loyalist were ran by the 'Brits' simply as UVFmembers were informers then does the fact, Dennis DOnaldson Freddie Scap, eamus O.Callaghan Eamon Collins and a sea of othre mean the IRA were too controlled by the Brits?
He didn't say that "part of Ireland is part of Britain": he said that part of Ireland is British.
Oh, well, thank you for that fine hair splitting. Well, here's the juice. No matter how you slice it, ALL of Ireland is Irish. No sophistry involved. But in fact, you're wrong... here's what he said:
"Northern Ireland is an integral part of Britain."
Britain. Not "British". Your scroll bar busted, perhaps? Or you're too lazy to use it? Now he may or may not have said something thunderstrikingly brilliant to the effect that the north part of Ireland is part of Ireland... but not anywhere in that particular passage, or any reference from it. Perhaps you'd like to research your claim and come back with the evidence? I'll wait...
This is like saying "when are you guys going to admit Northern Britain is part of Ireland?"
It's not.
Right. And we maintain the reverse situation to be true as well. The north of Ireland is, of course, part of Ireland; it is occupied by a British administration kept in place by the collusion of a large segment of the population and under British force of arms.
Indeed, he explictly referred to it being "part of Ireland".
Not to boring here, but... where?
Discussion about the definition of "terrorism" might be interesting, but it is a distraction.
The likelihood of the moral equivalency of the PIRA and the British Army is a distraction? From what, exactly? A one-sided characterization of the Republicans as the only blameworthy party? Yes, it would seem so.
The IRA and the IDF took exactly the same attitude to civilians.
So does the RAF when they bomb Baghdad.
And?
The IRA and the IDF took exactly the same attitude to civilians.
So does the RAF when they bomb Baghdad.
But you finally admit that the IRA are as big a bunch of bastards as the IDF. Thank you Lone Primate.
Madradin,
I think you misunderstand what a logical fallacy is. When you assert "there was NO WAY that the bomb..." etc... and I refer to it as a logical fallacy I am not discussing the specific content of the sentence. What I am saying is that your argument does not support your conclusion. One of the things you keep doing is referring to the IDF, which appears to be you engaging in the logical fallacy called "guilt by association." Rather than demonstrating any evidence for your claim, "the IRA are a bunch of bastards" you simply try to assert that this is true because an example of something that the IRA did is "the same" as something, unnamed, that the IDF did.
I am criticizing your argument as dishonest and constructed on logical fallacies.
The IRA is not "bad" because members did one thing that you assert is the same as some other group that you assert is bad and does similar things. This is incoherent.
If you want to tell us why the IRA is bad, construct an argument that can be discussed. If you want to write sectarian graffiti, you are free to do so. However, expect your opinion to be unpersuasive if this is your approach.
Willow,
You claim that discussing a definition of terrorism is a distraction for a debate about the IRA. You write that it is a distraction and that, "the provisional IRA campaign was wrong: it was completely unjustifiable, and that is the fact that PIRA apologists are trying to avoid."
So, your opinion is fact, and discussing its basis is a distraction aimed at avoiding this fact?
Gnarles
"The IRA have no morals, they'll murder anyone to make a point. Any prod 'll do, after all.."
Bullshit.
Their main target were members of the Crown Forces.
MR
"If the bomb had gone off as planned and killed the Targets there was no way that Civilians wouldn't have also been killed - or do you think one of the bombers would have asked the UDA to sit where they were(sic)(only joking, always wanted to do that to Willow) while the area was evacuated ?"
Didn't the survivors report the Volunteers instructed them to evacuate prior to the explosion?
This is not a good example, MR.
I am unaware of IDF tanks or aircraft warning civilians to evacuate target areas.
You ask how one detonates a large bomb without killing bystanders.
My understanding is that the bomb was a shaped charge designed to funnel the blast upward. Those killed were trapped below the point of detonation, having been unable to evacuate because of the premature detonation.
As I said, no comfort to the families of the innocent civilians or the Volunteer.
"But you finally admit that the IRA are as big a bunch of bastards as the IDF. Thank you Lone Primate."
I think LPs reference, which provoked your cries of triumph, was to the RAF.
Hopefully you have had a snooze and are feeling better now
Poitin - The IRA showed exactly the same disregard for the civilians around their target as the IDF did for the civilians around Shahada. You can waffle, but you cannot get around that fact.
Dear all
Here are some factors I believe you should all take into consideration when you are expressing your views on the IRA and indeed the UVF
1. During the conflict the IRA approached the loyalists and asked for a non agression pact whereby neither IRA would target loyalist nor the other, this was flatly rejected by loyalists in the words of david ervine, as the UVF existed to target republicans. THe questioned must be asked why did the great defenders of the catholic people wish to agree they would not target organisations involved in 'sectarian campaign' against the catholic people. (see Peter Taylors series of books)
2. loyalists went on ceasefire in 1991, during which the IRA targeted loyalist housing estates and paramilitaries to provoke them to respond as they did. SO THEY WERENT EXACTLY THE ONLY GROUP LOOKING FOR PEACE THe UVF had been in discussions with Chris Hudson a Dublin business man for years before Gery ever met John.
3. Before their 1994 ceasefire Republicans engaged in what is called the summer of proocation, whereby they tageted again loyalist housing estates and leaders such as Trevor King. This was aimed solely at provoking loyalists with the aim that the IRA would go on ceasefire with the media reporting how loyalists were still 'offing catholics' as always.
4. When the IRA broke ceasefire in 1997 loyalist maintained theres, despite the fact they had an ibvious capacity to do so as they had attacked the Sinn Fein offic in Monoghan with more sophisticated bombs which they obviously could have used again.
5. To say loyalist were ran by the 'Brits' simply as UVFmembers were informers then does the fact, Dennis DOnaldson Freddie Scap, eamus O.Callaghan Eamon Collins and a sea of othre mean the IRA were too controlled by the Brits?
The supposedly shaped charge ... how would it have prevented the UDA targets from evacuating or did the IRA think that they wouldn't notice people trying to escape from the shop ?
It won't wash.
Madradin Ruad,
Stop with the empty rhetoric. Make a claim and defend it with some actual evidence.
Why are the IRA "bad?" Are the British army and loyalist paramilitaries equally "bad?" If no, why? Is force ever justified by non-state actors? Was it justified for any of the actors in this phase of the Irish conflict? How should a community respond to state sanctioned violence? What is the threshold of oppression that justifies non-state armed resistance?
Write something that has meaning.
MR
I posted a response to the wrong place. Oh Dear!
I'll try again.
Civilians were told to evacuate.
If the bomb had not exploded prematurely, who knows what would have happened.
If the IRA had been what you think it was, then a mortar attack on the building would have been their most likely approach (or a no warning car bomb).
Much safer for the Volunteers involved, wouldn't you agree?
LONE PRIMATE
Oh, well, thank you for that fine hair splitting.
It's not hair-splitting. On the contrary, it demonstrates the dishonesty of your response.
Well, here's the juice. No matter how you slice it, ALL of Ireland is Irish. No sophistry involved.
No-one has claimed otherwise. And no-one has claimed that to make such a statement of the obvious was sophistry. You're being dishonest again.
But in fact, you're wrong... here's what he said: "Northern Ireland is an integral part of Britain."
Well, I only read the passage to which you were responding, in which he used the word "British".
Right. And we maintain the reverse situation to be true as well. The north of Ireland is, of course, part of Ireland
Obviously: the clue's in the name!
it is occupied by a British administration kept in place by the collusion of a large segment of the population and under British force of arms.
Don't be silly. I know you feel the need to tell yourself things like that, but NI is part of the UK - it is not "occupied" - and it is part of the UK because the people vote at every election to keep it that way. Don't let the facts get in the way of your MOPEish fantasies, though.
The likelihood of the moral equivalency of the PIRA and the British Army is a distraction?
No. The definition of "terrorism". Didn't you read what I said?
POITIN
So, your opinion is fact, and discussing its basis is a distraction aimed at avoiding this fact?
Read what I wrote: I said discussing the definition of "terrorism" was a distraction from the real issue, which is the justification for the PIRA campaign.
In my opinion - like everyone else's (bar the PIRA apologists) - the campaign was completely wrong, and I am very comfortable in discussing that. My point is that the PIRA apologists are uncomfortable discussing the justification for the campaign, and hence they prefer an academic discussion about the definition of "terrorism", which avoids getting at the real issue.
"Northern... Northern... ahhh... oh yes! IRELAND, that's right. Man... you talk about the pot calling the kettle black... laffriot. "
North America and South America, shit-for-brains. Part of the same land mass, not politically a single entity.
Willow,
I did read what you wrote. I can't be blamed if it makes no sense. Likewise don't blame the messenger when someone points that out to you.
Again you are off with the "In my opinion - like everyone else's..." My challenge here, since I don't enjoy debating myself all that much... is to try to elicit from you an answer to a fairly simple question: why? I've been trying to get you (as well as Gnarles and MR) to make some kind of an argument in support of your position. So far this has been a sadly fruitless effort.
You don't like the IRA. We are clear on that. It is your opinion that the IRA "was completely wrong." Got ya. You believe that the IRA campaign was unjustified, I follow. Now, take the next step please and answer that problematic question of: why? It would be most helpful if you answer thisin the form of what you appear to think of as an "academic discussion" which I gather is your term for an argument that involves something other than circular reasoning. If you continue with the "the IRA is wrong because the IRA is bad" we don't really have anywhere to go do we?
How about this: Make a claim, provide a rational and suggest evidence, and see if you can support your assertion.
I can have a wee debate with myself offline if ya aren't up for it, eh?
Example:
PIRA's: 1969-1990s military effort was illegitimate and morally wrong. The UK was enough of a democracy and access to media and community organizing sufficient, that even in the early years republicans could have carried out a non-violent campaign to secure rights for nationalist and republican citizens within Ulster and advocate for a change in the political sovereignty of the six counties. Possible evidence for this is the success of the essentially non-violent element of campaigning coming out of the hunger strikes. There was a population willing to support republicans who abandoned abstentionism and this community could have been mobilized in mass direct action rather than in armed action. While I do not condemn all non-state violent action, I do if it is not the only realistically available option and is not truly self-defense. When it is carried out while other options were on the table, it is immoral. This seems to be the case in the Troubles. Therefore, I think the IRAs campaign was not justified.
Now, you see how that works? Do you want to go through life having others being better at doing your thinking than you are yourself? No? Well than make small point, try it on, and maybe build up from their once you get your feet under you.
Then, at last, maybe, we can actually have a discussion instead of hearing about your absolutist and unsupported opinion statements.
As for all of Ireland being Irish - look to Ammerica again. 1 land mass, but the term American widely taken to mean citizen of the USA, while Argentinians etc are also American. Those who live in Ireland are, geographically speaking, Irish, but not politically speaking Irish as that insinuates they are affiliated to the Republic of Ireland. Similarly a man who lives in the ROI is not by necessity republican, rather merely someone who lives in a republic. Don't try to insinuate we're all politically Irish - we're not.
"Then, at last, maybe, we can actually have a discussion instead of hearing about your absolutist and unsupported opinion statements."
Perhaps you should consider what we have written? Actually sit back and trink about it. The IRA are proscribed as a terrorist orginisation by the UK and the ROI, does that not suggest that their actions are illegal? What does illegal suggest? Does it suggest to you that the IRA are doing good? Does it imply that they are acting legitimately when they murder and intimidate? Old man, my opinions are substantiated by years of IRA indimidation and terror - read the papers if you want all the gory details.
Anyone opposing those who control the security apparatus and the legal system, tends to wind up "illegal".
Many Christian churches were illegal in the old USSR. Should have hanged the lot of them, eh?
But you finally admit that the IRA are as big a bunch of bastards as the IDF. Thank you Lone Primate.
And you apparently agree the armed forces of the UK are of the same thuggish ilk, since I mentioned it in conjunction with the RAF's activities in Iraq. Thank you; that's an unexpected delight.
It's not hair-splitting. On the contrary, it demonstrates the dishonesty of your response.
It was, and it didn't, as I went on to establish. Your groundless contrarianism does nothing to refute it. Facts do. Got any?
ALL of Ireland is Irish. No sophistry involved.
No-one has claimed otherwise.
The very raison d'etre of the original point, urging Nationalists to concede that NI is part of "Britain", is precisely to claim that.
know you feel the need to tell yourself things like that, but NI is part of the UK - it is not "occupied" - and it is part of the UK because the people vote at every election to keep it that way.
It is in the UK because the will of the Irish people as a whole was disregarded by the presumption on the part of the British to gerrymander an artificial "majority" where one could be mustered in order to retain a legal fiction of authority in one part of the country, predicated on the support of that artificially-created majority and force of arms. Ireland is a natural unit and sovereign entity; Northern Ireland is unnaturally-orchestrated device to politically and militarily frustrate the expression of that natural entity in the interests of one minority of the nation. It is, in fact, an effort and instance of Apartheid, manufactured and maintained by the British.
No. The definition of "terrorism". Didn't you read what I said?
I did, and that's why I asked the question. Terrorism is the use of terror in the achievement of political aims. How is a bomb going off in Enniskillen and killing innocent civilians in any respect different from one dropped on Baghdad and doing the same, except that you couldn't give a good godddamn about people living in Baghdad who aren't white, don't speak English, and don't say the right stuff about Jesus? Your hypocrisy is as plain as white bread.
North America and South America, shit-for-brains. Part of the same land mass, not politically a single entity.
Except that America is analogous to Europe, not Ireland.
Many Christian churches were illegal in the old USSR. Should have hanged the lot of them, eh?
Hard to compare the USSR to the EU, especially when one is advocating terrorism. I think the IRA would have fitted in nicely in Stalinist Russia.
"presumption on the part of the British to gerrymander an artificial "majority" "
What about your proposed gerrymandering - you suggest that NI, I repeat a sovereign and integral part of the UK, take into consideration the opinion of voters in a foreign country, the ROI. Spain doesn't decide upon Portugal's governance, and presumptious free staters have no right moral or political to inferfere in the governance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
"Except that America is analogous to Europe, not Ireland."
Clearly you are as well educated in Geography as you are in politics. America, whilst being one land mass, differs from Europe, which is not a single mass. Ireland is 1 land mass, but comprises of two soverign territories.
I think the IRA would have fitted in nicely in Stalinist Russia.
True, there were an awful lot of nations that needed liberating from THAT hegemonistic empire as well... a few IRAs might have suited them better and gotten them there sooner.
"... a few IRAs might have suited them better and gotten them there sooner."
Gotten them where sooner? have you ever worked in any former soviet states? Have you seen where they are?
The Chechen rebels should really be proud of what they do, shouldn't they?
Let's see - if there had been "a few IRAs" perhaps the former USSR would have even more alienated peoples as before, perhaps there would be a similar schism of mistrust between people who lived together.
You are an ignorant fool if you think the IRA or any of their terrorist kind are long-term solutions. They have created more hatred than ever existed before, and have set a dangerous precedent that illustrates violence can bring some political changes. Be very wary of advocating this, as some day the tables may be turned, and the terrorism may blow back in your face.
Spain doesn't decide upon Portugal's governance
Spain did, it seems to me, recover those portions of its territory overrun, conquered, and occupied by the Moslems, though... a good example; thank you. Another interesting point is that at one time, Spain DID presume to own Portugual, decide its governance; circa 1600. Fortunately for Portugual, Spain does not occupy territory considered Portuguese on the threadbare premise that some of the people there are ethnically Spanish.
Clearly you are as well educated in Geography as you are in politics. America, whilst being one land mass, differs from Europe, which is not a single mass.
Greenland is part of America. Vancouver Island is part of America. Cuba is part of America. The myriad islands of the Arctic Archipelago are part of America. The Falkland Islands, incidentally, are part of America, as is Bermuda. America is a far more compartmental venue than Europe, which really boasts only four or five discontinginous regions of any size. Again, you're equating an entire hemisphere with one small island in Europe... hardly a compelling analogy. You may attempt to shoehorn it in, as clearly you mean to, but I'm sorry, Ireland is in no way a continent, nor anything else with the ethnic diversity of either the Americas or Europe that would warrant separate states. The physical separation of the Irish Sea arguably does, but (non-sovereign) colonial statelet that is Northern Ireland is entirely an imperial artifice.
presumptious free staters have no right moral or political to inferfere in the governance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In fact, they do, at least in the latter aspect, as you will shortly discover if the Rev. Paisley continues to frustrate democracy in the north (and incidentally, were Northern Ireland in fact sovereign, it would be in the power of neither the UK nor the ROI to either furnish or deny it a legislature, nor to presume to legislate on its behalf. Such child states are not sovereign).
Whoops... previous two comments were from me; apologies for not signing in.
...Previous two anon. ones, anyway.
"Hard to compare the USSR to the EU, especially when one is advocating terrorism. I think the IRA would have fitted in nicely in Stalinist Russia."
Damn! Anon said it for me.
Gotten them where sooner? have you ever worked in any former soviet states? Have you seen where they are?
Perhaps if they'd shaken lose earlier, they'd be as well-off as the Republic of Ireland is today...
They have created more hatred than ever existed before
On the contrary. They reacted to it. An existing polity based upon the denial of the will of the Irish people in their entirety on the island; predicated on the disenfranchizement of Catholics and the continuation of such by means of law, force, and when necessarily, extrajudicial violence. Their revival after 1969 was entirely predictable and is, in truth, like it or not, the primary reason the Unionists got as far as the GFA. Were they still dealing with sheep, there is no doubt they would still be feasting on mutton.
Be very wary of advocating this, as some day the tables may be turned, and the terrorism may blow back in your face.
There are a lot fewer of you than there are of Nationalists in all of Ireland. Think of how limited their success to achieving their aims has been... then imagine how much less effective your efforts would be, particularly with no object to achieve, and only stupid bigotted rage and sour grapes to spur you on. This is a bell whose peal would quickly fade.
There are a lot fewer of you than there are of Nationalists in all of Ireland. Think of how limited their success to achieving their aims has been... then imagine how much less effective your efforts would be
LP - Glad to see you acknowledge that Nationalists have failed Of course your point about numbers can be easily side-stepped by pointing out that it's not just numbers that matter - to paraphrase "Never mind the width, feel the quality"
Glad to see you acknowledge that Nationalists have failed
Inasmuch as the Americans "failed" to achieve the moon before July 20, 1969, yes.
Of course your point about numbers can be easily side-stepped by pointing out that it's not just numbers that matter - to paraphrase "Never mind the width, feel the quality"
I would imagine you're all to familiar with having to convince people that size doesn't count.
MR,
So all this Easter does is suggest to my community that we ARE better than the broad nationalist community
Frightening comment.
Frightening comment.
Nationalism needs to take a long, hard look at itself Julius.
L.P - interesting comment about the Moon - all that energy and all those resources wasted in a pointless pissing match with the Russians - and having achieved it.... nothing. So very like what it would be like to force a "United" Ireland on the Archipelago. The Moon is still there and it's going nowhere - same as GB.
It will still be there.
Miaowww for the other comment
MR,
Nationalism needs to take a long, hard look at itself Julius
Please elaborate. What seems a little strange to myself is that the largest unionist party favours allowing those who couldn't care less about Ireland make all the important decisions for the North to sharing that decision making with their nationalist neighbours.
Yes, yes, departmental dictatorships and all that... but that can all be thrashed-out if the DUP (God forbid) acutally talk to SF.
"Greenland is part of America. [etc]"
Part, I think, you will find, of the Americas, not part of the land mass of America.
"no object to achieve, and only stupid bigotted [sic] rage and sour grapes to spur you on."
I think not. If the day arises that the Loyalist people of Ulster rise, there will be good cause. I believe in civil and religious liberty for all - a worthy cause to stand for. I will see my children have their birthright - that is a noble cause.
"An existing polity [sic] based upon the denial of the will of the Irish people in their entirety on the island"
You should be careful about how you use the term "entirety". i think you'll discover a sizeable number of people in Ireland were not denied their will. Oh, by the way, what about all the people who the IRA denied the will to live? "To hell with them, colateral damage is inevitable", is that your answer?
"Think of how limited their success to achieving their aims has been"
What are their true aims? Don't bullshit me with your 32-county socialist nonsense. The IRA are a mafia, they are money makimg entreprenurial terrorists - Slab Murphy is clearly an ardent nationalist, isn't he? An ardent businessman, more like, like the rest of the leadership. We all know that a UI isn't in their interests because even the government of the ROI hate sf/ira.
So yes, they have achieved their aims, they are a very successful illegal enterprise. The republican part is "the opium of the people", a sideline to appear legitimate to childish young republicans with identity issues.
"What seems a little strange to myself is that the largest unionist party favours allowing those who couldn't care less about Ireland make all the important decisions for the North to sharing that decision making with their nationalist neighbours."
Simply because the nationalists are not interested in sharing, they want it all. A 32-county socialist republic, not a power-sharing executive. And I presume that shinners will share gaskins opinion that we prods should, what was it, "fuck off back where we came from" (or words to that effect)? Adams and M McG went to the robert mugabe school of politics, along with every other shinner.
I think you'll find he didn't say that Gnarles, he said the British soldiers in South Armagh are going back to their own country, and... they are.
Simply because the nationalists are not interested in sharing, they want it all. A 32-county socialist republic, not a power-sharing executive
Tut tut Gnarles, so you'll let others who you cannot even vote for decide your future? Hardly a sustainable position.
Please elaborate. What seems a little strange to myself is that the largest unionist party favours allowing those who couldn't care less about Ireland make all the important decisions for the North to sharing that decision making with their nationalist neighbours.
There's several essays in this
Time to move on ?
Why look back to the contentious events of 1916 when an unmandated minority dishonestly subverted an honourable organisation and took the law into their own hands ? I know it's down played but the first casualty of the easter rising was an unarmed RC member of the DMP.
So - working on from that innocent victim - suppose in 50 years time - when hopefully I'll be pushing up orange Lilies - when NI is still part of the UK how would you feel if mainstream Unionism did a bit of rewriting of history and celebrated the campaign to keep NI British by honouring the Dublin and Monaghan bombers - OK they too killed innocents but it was done to preserve the Union and that cause's justness overrides any nastiness ... and they too had no democratic mandate and if it turns out there was some security force involvement, we'll even have an IRB type subversion ...
See what mean about nationalism needing to take a long hard look at itself ?
Second point - going 'back' to their 'own' country ? This is their country - does anybody claim that GS from Cork shouldn't be stationed in Dublin ?
The British Army. This is part of the UK. Even SF signed up to that! Certainly Scottish soldiers serving in a nominally English regiment would be less Foreign in NI than some Kerry yokel
And after all it was those on the green side of the fence who insisted that we got rid of our local militia, the B Specials.
Lastly - sharing decision making with nationalist neighbours isn't the problem - allowing complete control to
a republican movement still upto it's neck in criminality is a different matter entirely. Vote Republican and get cheap Vodka and fags ?
See what mean about nationalism needing to take a long hard look at itself
No actually... and I doubt you really believe what you said about 1916 and the Dublin & Monaghan bombings. One was an act of rebellion against foreign rule in Ireland which regretably resulted in a small number of civilian deaths, the other was an act of terrorism that deliberately set out to murder innocent people. How can you possibly compare the two?
Much has been made about the unarmed DMP man. The point is we're not celebrating people dying, we're paying due respect to the great men who woke up nationalist Ireland. I feel sorry for those who feel they must begrudge us our "independence day."
The Moon is still there and it's going nowhere - same as GB.
That's an interesting way of phrasing it... I don't think I'd have been quite as stark, but it gets the point across. Not the one you intended to, though, I think. :D
Part, I think, you will find, of the Americas, not part of the land mass of America.
These phrases are entirely interchangable; the term "Americas" was evolved almost excusively in English as in effort in disambiguation from the usurpation of the term "America" to mean "the United States". To wit: Greenland is part of North America, and North America is one of those things you're indicating when you moan on about "America". Not even a particularly clever attempt, but don't give up.
If the day arises that the Loyalist people of Ulster rise, there will be good cause. I believe in civil and religious liberty for all - a worthy cause to stand for.
I'm sure you'll elect some stellar TDs. No doubt they'll all have the name "Paisley" somewhere in their monickers.
Oh, by the way, what about all the people who the IRA denied the will to live? "To hell with them, colateral damage is inevitable", is that your answer?
Oh, and the MILLIONS the British and their armies suffered to die by murder, execution, and starvation over the generations? To hell with them, or Connaught, etc. etc. etc.? Yeah, cry me a river... you first.
What are their true aims? Don't bullshit me with your 32-county socialist nonsense.
I don't care about socialism. 32 counties suits me. Actually, I think restitution in the form of a half-dozen mainland GB counties might be a nice gesture too, while you're at it.
And I presume that shinners will share gaskins opinion that we prods should, what was it, "fuck off back where we came from" (or words to that effect)?
Well, let's be honest here; you're the ones who keep getting weepy about the Auld Coun'ry and being British... well, Britain's over there. If that's where you belong, off you go, right? If you're Irish, stay put and get on with it already.
I doubt you really believe what you said about 1916 and the Dublin & Monaghan bombings.
I despise both equally.
One was an act of rebellion against foreign rule in Ireland which regretably resulted in a small number of civilian deaths, the other was an act of terrorism that deliberately set out to murder innocent people. How can you possibly compare the two?
Because the portrayal of 1916 is every bit as dishonest as the equivalent example I offered. After all in nationalist eyes the unionist community have rebelled against what they claim. Our allegiance and obediance they dared demand in the proclamation.
The above was me
Not the one you intended to, though, I think. :D
think on this though - like the Yanks - even if you "reach" the moon and get a United Ireland - you won't be any better off. Aside from having a large hostile minority - you'll STILL be essentially British - and that's your problem. You cannot remove that Britishness. You cannot change the past. The Khmer Rouge showed the dangers and the futility of trying to shed the past and present for a manufactured future.
Because the portrayal of 1916 is every bit as dishonest as the equivalent example I offered
No it's not dishonest. The distinction I made is correct. Some lives were lost in the Rising but every effort was made to minimise the toll. The very purpose of the D&M bombings was to kill people, they're a million miles apart.
The above was me
I didn't doubt it
The distinction I made is correct. Some lives were lost in the Rising but every effort was made to minimise the toll.
I disagree. Obviously there are major differences, but there was absolutely no need to shoot unarmed policemen. But the point is that narratives can be constructed to suit.
The Similarities ?
Both Undemocratic, No mandate.
The end justifies the means.
You are arguing from your perspective that the innocents sacrificed, while to be regretted, were a price worth paying for 'the cause' which you consider just. Exactly the same narrative could be constructed for victims of Loyalist violence if my community took the same lax attitude to right and wrong and victims of loyalist violence that the nationalist community has taken to those sacrificed to the God of Irish Unity.
You're staying well clear of the central point Madradin, in Dublin and Monaghan the intention was to kill as many as possible whereas in the Rising the intention was to change the course of Irish hitory (independence within a generation). Volunteers didn't always show good judgement and unarmed DMP shouldn't have been targeted. You also have to look at it in the context of the time.
None of the great revolutions had a mandate MR. Would you compare Jefferson or Mandela to the loyalists who bombed Dublin and Monaghan?
I have to say I appreciate the good nature of the discussion Julius - we are discussing such touchy subjects.
The Central point is surely the underlying reason for the actions? I can construct a narrative where in one case the killings were to destroy the union, in the other to preserve the Union. Your central point is chosen to suit your point of view - not that there is anything wrong or underhand in that, but I think you have to remember that my community see things from a different perspective.
None of the great revolutions had a mandate MR. Would you compare Jefferson or Mandela to the loyalists who bombed Dublin and Monaghan?
Taking us onto a whole different issue. In this context, I oppose all political Violence.
But a fundamental difference - but my understanding is that Mandela and Jefferson were excluded from any democratic option.
The communities from which the Easter Rebels and the loyalist bombers sprang were NOT excluded. After all Dublin Corporation was nationalist controlled, Ireland was over-represented in Westminster and Redmond rejected Asquith's offer of a cabinet post.
p.s. This is a neat link -
http://www.ireland.com/focus/eas...s/easterrising/
Appreciation returned
Your central point is chosen to suit your point of view - not that there is anything wrong or underhand in that, but I think you have to remember that my community see things from a different perspective.
Yes and it's good to hear that perspective.
Mandela and Jefferson were excluded from any democratic option.
This has been covered a lot in the blog o'sphere lately. Home Rule was yet to be delivered on in 1916 and even if it was on the way it would have offered far less autonomy than we wanted/were entitled to.
I think those who are resisting the occupation in Iraq at the moment are in an analogous position. Yes there is a democratic option but is it real democracy?
Home Rule was yet to be delivered on in 1916 and even if it was on the way it would have offered far less autonomy than we wanted/were entitled to.
That's worth looking at though - you write that HR "would have offered far less autonomy than we wanted/were entitled to."
The point is that in 1916 the majority of Irish people didn't want more than Home rule.
It's an important point - the changes that followed didn't confer retrospective democratic validation on the actions of that tiny minority who took it upon themselves to decide what was best for the majority. That is a very dangerous precedent ... offering hope to any violent minority who think that they know what is best and that history will validate their actions.
It was an attitude that led to the authoritarian rule seen in the Independent 26 counties where the rulers took the view that the Irish People didn't have the right to be wrong - an attitude still seen today in violent republican and Loyalist circles.
I accept 50% plus one. BUT would nationalists be prepared to accept a violent minority within the unionist community who used that thinking ( the oters don't have the right to be wrong) to justify a campaign of violence if it did occur ?
That is a very dangerous precedent ... offering hope to any violent minority who think that they know what is best and that history will validate their actions.
You have a point. However, there are so many examples of revolutions/campaigns/movements where a small number of people took radical action in order to create change. When this involves violence it's always going to be contentious and as you've probably noticed there are many in the civilised 26 who'd be closer to your view than mine on this.
It is my opinion that we wouldn't have got independence if it hadn't been for the Rising, therefore I see it as seminal and something to celebrate. It's not a case of 'the end justifys the means', I think it was justified. That's my opinion.
That is a very dangerous precedent ... offering hope to any violent minority who think that they know what is best and that history will validate their actions.
You have a point. However, there are so many examples of revolutions/campaigns/movements where a small number of people took radical action in order to create change. When this involves violence it's always going to be contentious and as you've probably noticed there are many in the civilised 26 who'd be closer to your view than mine on this.
It is my opinion that we wouldn't have got independence if it hadn't been for the Rising, therefore I see it as seminal and something to celebrate. It's not a case of 'the end justifys the means', I think it was justified. That's my opinion.
I respect the sincerity of your opinions. But I have to disagree with
It is my opinion that we wouldn't have got independence if it hadn't been for the Rising,
As Ireland, as a whole, didn't get Independence.
But It's been an excellent discussion and one of the reasons I enjoy Balrog.
Yeah it definitely is good to have a calm and reasonable discussion! There's been what I can only describe as a shit-storm raging over at United Irelander... worth a look for sure.
But I have to disagree with...
Ireland, as a whole, didn't get indp. but we wouldn't have got a free state at all and would be still a British colony now in my opinion. Of course we won't agree on this but I absolutely respect the sincerity of your opinions too.
And with that I'm going to put my head down for the night...
"The point is that in 1916 the majority of Irish people didn't want more than Home rule."
Did someone ask them, MR?
Oíche mhaith Julius.
Evening Observer!
Good question! In fairness I think MR is right that they didn't want it but public opinion changed pretty quickly and dramatically afterwards...
I'm not gone just yet MR, trying to finish off an essay!
Ah, right Julius
I'm reading some more of the Irish Times
article. Some fascinating insights.
Everything I have read points to the Irish people wanting and preparing for Home Rule. From what I can see their attitudes changed for a number of reasons
1) the executions
2) disillusionment with the World war
3) Conscription, the big one.
After all SF had peaked and had started to lose electoral support before DLG raised the Conscription hare again. SF were losing by-elections.
Yeah I think that's the online version of the 1916 Supplement that the IT published recently. It is very good and even handed...
Yeah I think that's the online version of the 1916 Supplement that the IT published recently. It is very good and even handed...
Evening (morning) JG
Could I respectfully suggest that you never, ever, suggest that MR may be right.
Its not good for him
LOL Observer - curse you, I laughed so hard that it brought on a fit of coughing.
Benyllin!
Nah - I lit a menthol ciggy - eased the cough and one in the eye for SF , the anti-smoking party!
Menthol!
Your not a smoker at all.
SF have nothing to worry about.
G'night
The only bad thing about Menthol ciggies is that the packets temd to be green
When the Public realise that SF also oppose drinking, dancing, sex ( before, during and after marriage) and any other legitimate pleasure you can think of, SF's opposition to smoking will be the least of their worries!
Night Mate !
LILLIBULERO
Ho! brother Teague, dost hear the decree?
Lillibulero bullen a la, (repeated after each line)
Dat we shall have a new deputy?
Lillibulero bullen a la.
Refrain:
Lero, lero, lillibulero,
lillibulero, bullen a la
Lero, lero, lillibulero,
lillibulero, bullen a la.
Ho! by my soul, it is de Talbot,
And he will cut all de English throat.
Though, by my soul, de English do praat,
De law's on dare side, and Creish knows what.
But if dispence do come from de Pope,
We'll hang Magna Charta and dem in a rope.
And de good Talbot is made a Lord,
And with brave lads is coming abroad.
Who all in France have taken a sware,
Dat dey will have no Protestant heir.
Ara! but why does he stay behind?
Ho' by my soul, 'tis a Protestant wind!
But see, de Tyrconnel is now come ashore,
And we shall have commissions galore.
And he dat will not go to mass
Shall be turn out, and look like an ass.
But now de hereticks all go down,
By Creish and St. Patrick, de nation's our own.
Dare was an old prophecy found in a bog,
"Ireland shall be ruled by an ass and a dog".
And now dis prophecy is come to pass,
For Talbot's de dog, and James is de ass
The point is that in 1916 the majority of Irish people didn't want more than Home rule.
To buy into this would require one to ignore hundreds of years of Irish history. Struggles to break away from British governance came just about every two generations for most of the occupation of the island; the expression of the Irish urge to plot their own course was the Old Faithful of Europe. It might be fair to say that in 1916, Home Rule was as much as the average Irishman and Irishwoman realistically hoped for, but this is not the same as saying the didn't wish for more. In the end, the indefinite shelving of the bill and the creeping suggestion that the North would be exempted proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back, and frustrated expectation gave way to the true aspirations of the Irish people. If you are correct in your assertion, then why did the Irish fight? And why, when the British tired of the contest, did the Irish demand a state of their own, rather than simply the promised implementation of the Home Rule bill?
even if you "reach" the moon and get a United Ireland - you won't be any better off. Aside from having a large hostile minority
Smaller than the one you have, proportionately. Colour me unconcerned.
the changes that followed didn't confer retrospective democratic validation on the actions of that tiny minority who took it upon themselves to decide what was best for the majority.
Are you talking about the rebellion, or the later partition of the country...? No matter... the point is equally valid.
In any case, the whole "small minority" bit is a pig in a poke. Rebellions without popular support do not evolve into successful revolutions. If the rebels were a handful in 1916, they were a multitude by 1921.
I accept 50% plus one.
Oh? Just not prior to partition, I guess...
As Ireland, as a whole, didn't get Independence.
So much for "50% plus one"... never mind 70-80%.
Gnarles is a muppet
"Tut tut Gnarles, so you'll let others who you cannot even vote for decide your future? Hardly a sustainable position."
It's been sustainable to date, old chap. And yes, I'd rather let Westminster be accountable for political decisions than a) an assembly with sinn fein/ira, or b) the govt. of the ROI, or c) a 32 county socialist nonsense that sf/ira desire.
"Gnarles is a muppet"
Why thank you, sir. To be thought ill of by the likes of you is as good as to be respected by someone decent.
To buy into this would require one to ignore hundreds of years of Irish history.
Cobblers. That's a ridiculous conclusion.
If you are correct in your assertion, then why did the Irish fight?
LOL - what % of Irish people took part in the Rising ?
I wrote "The point is that in 1916 the majority of Irish people didn't want more than Home rule."
Come back Julius and Observer. All is forgiven
POITIN
Again you are off with the "In my opinion - like everyone else's..."
I actually said "like everyone else's, except PIRA apologists".
My challenge here, since I don't enjoy debating myself all that much... is to try to elicit from you an answer to a fairly simple question: why?
Why was the PIRA campaign wrong?
Well, because it had no just cause; no democratic authority or legitimacy; it was severely disproportionate to any legitimate grievances; and peaceful and democratic means of redress were available!
If you continue with the "the IRA is wrong because the IRA is bad" we don't really have anywhere to go do we?
I never began with "the IRA is wrong because the IRA is bad", so it is not possible for me to continue.
LONE PRIMATE
It is in the UK because the will of the Irish people as a whole was disregarded by the presumption on the part of the British to gerrymander an artificial "majority" where one could be mustered in order to retain a legal fiction of authority in one part of the country, predicated on the support of that artificially-created majority and force of arms.
No. The will of the Irish people as a whole was split between those who wished for an independent state and those who wished to remain in the UK. Partition reflected that will. And still does.
By your definition, all states that are created to reflect the will of their inhabitants, are "gerrymandered".
Ireland is a natural unit and sovereign entity
"Natural units" are irrelevant: it is the wishes of people that matter; not geography. And Ireland is not a sovereign entity: it is an island.
Northern Ireland is unnaturally-orchestrated device to politically and militarily frustrate the expression of that natural entity in the interests of one minority of the nation.
It's not. On the contrary, there is a "natural" majority within its territory in support of its existence. Indeed, that is why it was created. Same as any modern state.
It is, in fact, an effort and instance of Apartheid, manufactured and maintained by the British.
It's not. Certainly, it is a divided society, but that would be the case under any circumstances, and that does not constitute "apartheid". It was "manufactured" by the people living there, just as any modern state is so "manufactured". It is "maintained by the British" because it is the duty of any sovereign government to maintain all of its territory.
I did, and that's why I asked the question. Terrorism is the use of terror in the achievement of political aims.
By that definition, then, the PIRA must be terrorists.
How is a bomb going off in Enniskillen and killing innocent civilians in any respect different from one dropped on Baghdad and doing the same, except that you couldn't give a good godddamn about people living in Baghdad who aren't white, don't speak English, and don't say the right stu
How is a bomb going off in Enniskillen and killing innocent civilians in any respect different from one dropped on Baghdad and doing the same, except that you couldn't give a good godddamn about people living in Baghdad who aren't white, don't speak English, and don't say the right stuff about Jesus? Your hypocrisy is as plain as white bread.
In respect of the bomb, there is no real difference between one killing innocents in Enniskillen, and one killing innocents in Baghdad, except the obvious one that the latter bombs were much bigger and killed more people and caused more destruction.
And I can and do "give a good godddamn about people living in Baghdad who aren't white, don't speak English, and don't say the right stuff about Jesus". Unlike you, I oppose ALL unjust violence, so I don't think "my hypocrisy is as plain as white bread". Indeed, I don't see any hypocrisy on my part.
Perhaps you would like to apologise?
"Gnarles is a muppet"
Why thank you, sir. To be thought ill of by the likes of you is as good as to be respected by someone decent.
Awww, I'm sure he meant Kermit.
Cobblers. That's a ridiculous conclusion.
And you base this on...?
LOL - what % of Irish people took part in the Rising ?
Enough, evidently.
I wrote "The point is that in 1916 the majority of Irish people didn't want more than Home rule."
You did -- not that you actually backed it up with anything. I demonstrated how your conclusions might have been borne out by history -- they weren't, were they? Faced with the evidence of history, we have to conclude that, given the opportunity to aspire to something more than mere Home Rule, the Irish people were, in fact, interested in something more. And for the most part, finally achieved it.
Evidence to the contrary...?
And I can and do "give a good godddamn about people living in Baghdad who aren't white, don't speak English, and don't say the right stuff about Jesus". Unlike you, I oppose ALL unjust violence, so I don't think "my hypocrisy is as plain as white bread". Indeed, I don't see any hypocrisy on my part.
Workin' hard to bring the boyos back from Baghdad, are ye? Do tell. Opposed to triumphalist marches through Catholic areas, for that matter -- which are, perforce, celebrations of military might overawing a population and a tacit threat of more to come should the need arise...? Anything else? Surprise me.
And you base this on...?
what Irish people wanted under totally different conditions hundreds of years before cannot be used as proof of what Irish people wanted in 1916 when Ireland was prospering.
Enough, evidently
Hardly. They LOST.
We are discussing the Easter rising - NOT the events of the W.O.I. There was great popular support for that - for the reasons I have already given.
But we are discussing the Easter Rising.
LONE PRIMATE
I note, by the way, that you tried to bring the discussion back to the definition of terrorism, thus proving my point.
No. The will of the Irish people as a whole was split between those who wished for an independent state and those who wished to remain in the UK. Partition reflected that will. And still does.
Then when will NI be repartitioned to return those areas representing populations in favour of reunification to the Republic? What, they're a minority in the community, so their wishes need not be accommodated? Then why should the unionists of Ulster, who were simply a minority themselves? Either the will of the majority of the Irish people was flouted in 1922, or else there is no moral or legal constraint upon the reunification of nationalists areas from Northern Ireland with the Republic today.
By your definition, all states that are created to reflect the will of their inhabitants, are "gerrymandered".
Care to explain why Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan were excluded from "Ulster", then? Go look up the word "gerrymander"... you'll figure out it. The rest of us have.
"Natural units" are irrelevant: it is the wishes of people that matter
The majority of the Irish people voted for their own separate government; the will of a minority was inflicted upon them. What happened to the wishes of the people in that case? Inconvenient; didn't count?
And Ireland is not a sovereign entity: it is an island.
Ireland was always the latter and has been the former for generations; six of its counties are occupied by a foreign country in support of a gerrymandered minority. I, and others, believe that time will remedy this.
On the contrary, there is a "natural" majority within its territory in support of its existence.
No. An artificially-orchestrated majority that is in truth a minority of Ireland. The British themselves, in their stewardship of Ireland, did not divide the place or provide separate administrations until such time as their continued governance of the place proved untenable; only then did they found the artifice of "Northern Ireland". Given that its entity is not even coterminal with that of Ulster, a traditional province of Ireland, Northern Ireland has no natural basis whatsoever and was created out of whole cloth as an exercise in cynical political malfeasance.
By that definition, then, the PIRA must be terrorists.
And by the same token, British soldiery. I'm quite prepared to proclaim the equivalency; legalistic niceties that are themselves manufactured and maintained by force of arms neither impress me nor absolve the parties of their culpability... though they usually serve to insulate them from the rightful consequences of their actions.
what Irish people wanted under totally different conditions hundreds of years before cannot be used as proof of what Irish people wanted in 1916 when Ireland was prospering.
And your proof to the contrary is...?
Mine's the existence of a modern Irish Republic as the expression of the will of the Irish people beyond mere Home Rule. If you'd like to demonstrate that's not what they wanted... by all means, please do. I'm waiting. Been waiting, in fact.
Enough, evidently
Hardly. They LOST.
Did they? Oh, in about a fifth of the country, perhaps... and then, only temporarily.
We are discussing the Easter rising - NOT the events of the W.O.I.
You might be; I ain't.
That define what a terrorist is ok?
Here's one that isn't self-serving in the interests of states what want to behave like "terrorists" without incurring the title and the moral taint. This is from Webster's:
Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Plain, simple, honest, democratic. Nothing in there about it's okay if you sew this on your tit, or wear that kicky beret, or letting you off the hook so long as the kiss the right establishment ass. It's just exactly what it purports to be: putting someone in fear of his or her life to get them to do what you want. When the RAF bombs Baghdad and kills civilians willy-nilly, that's terrorism, and they are terrorists. Their organization is all that protects them from paying for what they do... not the morality of it in any regard.
I note, by the way, that you tried to bring the discussion back to the definition of terrorism, thus proving my point.
Which was...?
You might be; I ain't.
which is why I was wanting Observer and Julius to come back. They can follow and construct sensible arguments without playing silly games.
which is why I was wanting Observer and Julius to come back. They can follow and construct sensible arguments without playing silly games.
Gosh... can they actually establish their points with evidence and facts? That would be nice; I'd welcome that too.
They can follow and construct sensible arguments without playing silly games
Yeah but I let myself down there by calling Gnarles a muppet! Sorry fella - tired and stressed!
"Yeah but I let myself down there by calling Gnarles a muppet! Sorry fella - tired and stressed!"
All is forgiven! Do you want a hug!?
All is forgiven! Do you want a hug!?
Oh come on then!
LONE PRIMATE
Then when will NI be repartitioned to return those areas representing populations in favour of reunification to the Republic?
Never. The Belfast Agreement allows only for Northern Ireland as a whole either to remain in the UK, or transfer to the Irish Republic. This has effectively been the case since at least 1949.
What, they're a minority in the community, so their wishes need not be accommodated?
Why do you think that?
Then why should the unionists of Ulster, who were simply a minority themselves?
Why should they do what?
Unionists were a majority in what became NI.
Either the will of the majority of the Irish people was flouted in 1922, or else there is no moral or legal constraint upon the reunification of nationalists areas from Northern Ireland with the Republic today.
Regarding the latter premise, one could certainly argue that there is no moral constraint (I would probably support such an argument), but there is definitely a legal constraint (see above).
Care to explain why Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan were excluded from "Ulster", then?
They were largely nationalist areas.
Go look up the word "gerrymander"... you'll figure out it. The rest of us have.
Gerrymandering is not about drawing the boundaries of states in order to reflect the will of local populations. By your definition, every modern state is "gerrymandered".
The majority of the Irish people voted for their own separate government; the will of a minority was inflicted upon them.
In the North, the majority didn't want to be in an all-Ireland state - to have included them within such a state would have been "gerrymandering", by your logic. And the will of a minority was not inflicted on the majority of Irish people - on the contrary, the majority was facilitated: an independent state was created. The majority of nationalists AND the majority of unionists were facilitated.
What happened to the wishes of the people in that case? Inconvenient; didn't count?
Their wishes were facilitated.
And Ireland is not a sovereign entity: it is an island.
Ireland was always the latter and has been the former for generations; six of its counties are occupied by a foreign country in support of a gerrymandered minority. I, and others, believe that time will remedy this.
You’re being silly again. There is no “occupation” by a “foreign country”: Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom because its inhabitants consent to it so being. Nor is there any “gerrymandering”.
No. An artificially-orchestrated majority that is in truth a minority of Ireland.
By that argument, all states are based on “artificially-constructed majorities”, for they will all be “in truth” minorities in a larger unit. You’re adopting a Slobodan Milosevic argument against, say, Croatian independence. Or – ironically – an earlier unionist argument against Irish ind
No. An artificially-orchestrated majority that is in truth a minority of Ireland.
By that argument, all states are based on “artificially-constructed majorities”, for they will all be “in truth” minorities in a larger unit. You’re adopting a Slobodan Milosevic argument against, say, Croatian independence. Or – ironically – an earlier unionist argument against Irish independence, since the Irish were a minority in the UK!
The British themselves, in their stewardship of Ireland, did not divide the place or provide separate administrations until such time as their continued governance of the place proved untenable; only then did they found the artifice of "Northern Ireland".
By the same argument, then, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh should not have been given independence: they should have been forced to remain part of India. Your understanding, in any case, is wrong, since “the British themselves” wanted to give home rule to the entire island – they were forced by the resolve of the unionist people to agree to partition.
Given that its entity is not even coterminal [sic] with that of Ulster, a traditional province of Ireland, Northern Ireland has no natural basis whatsoever and was created out of whole cloth as an exercise in cynical political malfeasance.
“Natural bases” are not relevant. It is the will of the people – not geography or “nature” – that is what matters. I’m finding it disturbing that your argument is based on “nature” and not people – that is a dangerous belief.
And by the same token, British soldiery.
What is “British soldiery”?
I'm quite prepared to proclaim the equivalency; legalistic niceties that are themselves manufactured and maintained by force of arms neither impress me nor absolve the parties of their culpability... though they usually serve to insulate them from the rightful consequences of their actions.
So you accept that the PIRA are terrorists. But you argue that the British Army are terrorists, presumably thinking this justifies the PIRA campaign. Well, it doesn’t – you’re proving my point again – you don’t want to argue about the justification for the PIRA campaign, you only want to argue about definitions of “terrorism”.
The real issue – that you avoid – is not what constitutes “terrorism”: it is what is right and what is wrong. The PIRA campaign was wrong.
Yeah but I let myself down there by calling Gnarles a muppet!
Actually you may have been unduly complimentary.
Then when will NI be repartitioned to return those areas representing populations in favour of reunification to the Republic?
Never. The Belfast Agreement allows only for Northern Ireland as a whole either to remain in the UK, or transfer to the Irish Republic...
Ah, typical, folks, eh? One set of rules for the Taigs, then another for the Prods. Same old, same old. Keep moving the line so it never gets crossed. What a mug's game. It's always breathtaking to see hypocrisy this naked and shameless. To see a man willingly comport himself a two-dimensional cardboard villain is a rare bird indeed.
Unionists were a majority in what became NI.
Exactly the point. A minority in what was Ireland (and should have been manumitted whole and unabridged), they became a "majority" through guile and artifice.
Care to explain why Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan were excluded from "Ulster", then?
They were largely nationalist areas.
Bingo, amigo. Their inclusion would have made Nationalists a majority in Northern Ireland (as they were in ALL Irleand) and ensured the completion of the Republic. A, if not the, textbook example of gerrymandering. Divide and conquer is, after all, the unofficial, but de facto, motto of the United Kingdom in its imperial dealings from Newfoundland on up.
Gerrymandering is not about drawing the boundaries of states in order to reflect the will of local populations.
No, it's about redrawing political boundaries in a blatantly artificial means to support an electoral outcome. All of Ireland en masse was in favour of Home Rule, and by extension, independence. Only by carving off a part where a decidedly contrary outcome could be assured (more aggregiously demonstrated by omitting Monaghan, Cavan, and Donegal) was the criminal obfuscation of Irish will known as Northern Ireland promulgated.
In the North, the majority didn't want to be in an all-Ireland state
Unless you're prepared to extend the same rights to convert a local minority into a majority in terms of Nationalist areas of Northern Ireland, there's no basis for this for the six counties in the first place. They were a simple minority in Ireland, and a small one at that. If they didn't like it, they should have moved to Scotland. Ireland is Ireland is Ireland; Britain is over there --->.
What happened to the wishes of the people in that case? Inconvenient; didn't count?
Their wishes were facilitated.
Not the wishes of the Nationalists in the six counties, who constitute part of the majority of the 32 counties of Ireland. What's next; if Yorkshire votes Liberal next time, they get to form a whole separate country from England? How come simply voting SNP doesn't instantly bust off entire chunks of Scotland from the UK?
You’re adopting a Slobodan Milosevic argument against, say, Croatian independence
Why not? The British did that to the Iri
Or – ironically – an earlier unionist argument against Irish independence, since the Irish were a minority in the UK!
Yeah, I'll have to remember that the next time one country crosses the ocean or some other border to annex another. If Britain could have Ireland, why couldn't Iraq have Kuwait in 1990?
“the British themselves” wanted to give home rule to the entire island – they were forced by the resolve of the unionist people to agree to partition.
Pity they weren't forced by the resolve of the Irish people to simply pack up and go home and leave the governance of Ireland to the Irish. Mind you, if Paisley continues to sit on the pot and refuses to sh!t, that's essentially what's going to happen anyway. Let me give you a lesson in history to illustrate the point...
For most of its history, Canada's constitution was an act of the British Parliament, which meant that it could only officially be amended by the UK. It's not that Britain wanted it that way, it's that Canada's federal government and its provinces could never agree on an amending formula, and so couldn't "patriate" the damn thing. So every so often, Canada's federal and provincial governments would agree on an amendment and send it to London to be implemented, would Westminster would do. This state of affairs persisted all the way up to 1982.
This is pretty much what is about to happen to Northern Ireland. The British don't care about it; like Canada, they're STUCK with it. It's an imperial hangover. So starting in a few months' time, what really going to be happening is that Dublin will be making decisions for the North and London will be rubber stamping them, and increasingly so. There'll be debate in the Commons, there'll be give and take, but effectively, Dublin will be running Northern Ireland through London because it matters to them and it doesn't matter to the British. Eventually the reality of the whole thing will be clear to one and all and the vote will come and Northern Ireland will be "patriated" to the ROI the same way the British North America Act was to Canada in 1982.
...Of course, Paisley could do something sneaky like actually agree to get on with governing Northern Ireland and sitting down with Sinn Fein et al., and then all bets are off. But I doubt it.
I’m finding it disturbing that your argument is based on “nature” and not people – that is a dangerous belief.
Apparently. It led the British to partition Ireland in 1922 and look at the results...
So you accept that the PIRA are terrorists.
And the British armed forces, yes. Both. The British Army has maintained the colonial occupation of Ireland, at least in the North, by means of terrorism, and in collusion with the British Parliament and judiciary in abrogation of civil rights. The IRA has brought the British to the GFA. Both have achieved some measure of their respective goals. But the British are looking for the
...But the British are looking for the way out, and the Irish are looking for the way in. And in the long run, that's the telling point.
Exactly the point. A minority in what was Ireland (and should have been manumitted whole and unabridged), they became a "majority" through guile and artifice.
Republicans were a minority in the United Kingdom - although they were also active across England and Scotland ... and through guile and artifice they became a majority in one part of the UK ... If you play the Geographic Determinism card then Unionists/northern protestants have the same rights of self determination as Irish Republicans/Roman Catholics
"Why not? The British did that to the Iri [sic]"
Primate, it seems you use the British government as your benchmark? Would you care to explain why? Is it that you are a closet royalist, or do you feel bad judgement and irresponsible behaviour on the part of a government gives citizens a free card to act irresponsibly and make bad judgements themselves? John 8:7 - "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her." (In this case, Britain.)
148 comments, wow... you scamps have been busy. Okay, let's see what's for breakfast here...
Republicans were a minority in the United Kingdom
But the Irish were not willing participants in the United Kingdom. If the frequent insurrections throughout the history of the British occupation weren't clue enough, that fact was made indeputably clear when they were finally consulted and consistently elected representatives who pushed for Irish self-government of whatever stripe, unlike the other parts of the UK which were happy enough to vote for mainstream parties.
If you play the Geographic Determinism card then Unionists/northern protestants have the same rights of self determination as Irish Republicans/Roman Catholics
Fair enough: the "British", both in Ireland and elsewhere, unquestionably have a state. It's Great Britain, and it's across the Irish Sea from Ireland. That's where one goes to be "British". Many younger unionists have bowed to that fact in recent years. Those who remain are, essentically, making a long-term commitment to Ireland. Good for them; they're part of the place and deserve a say in the eventual shape of it when the injustice of partition becomes a thing of the past.
do you feel bad judgement and irresponsible behaviour on the part of a government gives citizens a free card to act irresponsibly and make bad judgements themselves?
Disregarding your blanket condemnation of anti-imperalistic acts as necessarily "irresponsible" and "bad", I believe that was the thrust of the opening statement of the Declaration of Independence. It's particularly true when one people invades and imperialistically purports to speak for another. When Irish participation in "British" government was finally permitted, it was too little in scope and too late in history. Had Ireland been marshalled more like Scotland, things might have been different (though this would in no way excuse the usurpation of the rights of the Irish people to govern themselves and their culture however they chose). But it wasn't. British government has never been, to this very day, a comfortable fit in Ireland. It's clear to me that the first chance the British get to extract themselves from the place without losing face, they'll do it. As was once said of South Carolina on the eve of the Civil War, so might still be said of Northern Ireland: "too small to be a republic, too large to be an insane asylum."
Gnarles is interested in providing us with illustrations of why Unionists feel they shouldn't have to suffer sitting down and governing Northern Ireland with the elected representatives of the Nationalist community... apparently "democracy" in his view doesn't mean electing your own representatives, but rather picking someone on the sole basis of their attractiveness to one's own political opponents (so then how come Ian Paisley gets to hold every office in Northern Ireland from Deputy King of the Barbecue on down to Lord High Squirrel Warden of Upper Down?).
But I have one here that might put the character of Northern Ireland in the eyes of most of the Irish into context for Unionists. Follow along.
There are today in the UK a number of places where there are sizable Asian minorities. Bradford in West Yorkshire, for instance, is roughly one-fifth Asian, mostly Pakistani, which is a good balance for my example because that's roughly that breakdown of the communities in Ireland when considered as a whole... (cont'd)
Suppose the Asians of the UK, or let's say Bradford specifically, decided they didn't like the policies of the British government... bombing Moslem countries, recruiting their sons to participate, celebrating funny religious observations, promoting strange values... and up and decided they'd had enough, and so armed themselves, and began drawing lines on the map to include this neighbourhood but not that neighbourhood, this street but not that street, this building but not that building... anything to include areas that would assure Asians were assured to be over 50% of the population, and excluding areas that would make them a minority (and thus doom the project). Then, having assured themselves of a legislative majority, suppose they voted that they were no longer part of the UK, but were in fact an overseas administrative unit of Pakistan, and that Pakistani law applied there, and Pakistan agreed. Their representatives, their taxes, their soldiers, their allegiance all belonged to Pakistan. Pakistani soldiers were flown in to patrol the streets, and non-Moslems in the renamed city of Islamabadbradford in the province of Northwest Pakistan suddenly found themselves living in slums, offered only the worst of the jobs, and squeezed into electoral districts that guaranteed they would never be able to elect anyone who represented their interests. If they protested, they risked arrest, or even death at the hands of soldiers from another land, who their neighbours insisted were in no way foreign.
With the shoe on the other foot here, in a strict parallel, I wonder what the gut reaction is of Unionists here.
Welcome to the world of Irish Nationalism, my friends. What you're feeling now is what they have felt for generations. And it's not just imaginary. It's real.
LONE PRIMATE
Ah, typical, folks, eh? One set of rules for the Taigs, then another for the Prods. Same old, same old. Keep moving the line so it never gets crossed. What a mug's game. It's always breathtaking to see hypocrisy this naked and shameless. To see a man willingly comport himself a two-dimensional cardboard villain is a rare bird indeed.
No idea what you’re talking about here: you’ll have to explain yourself.
The “Taigs” have never wanted repartition. And the Belfast Agreement was agreed to by the “Taigs”, so if you think they signed up to “one set of rules for the Taigs, then another for the Prods”, they can only blame themselves.
Exactly the point. A minority in what was Ireland (and should have been manumitted whole and unabridged), they became a "majority" through guile and artifice.
By the same logic, nationalists were a minority in what was the UK and they became a “majority” through guile and artifice.
Bingo, amigo. Their inclusion would have made Nationalists a majority in Northern Ireland
They wouldn’t. It would have reduced the unionist majority, though.
No, it's about redrawing political boundaries in a blatantly artificial means to support an electoral outcome.
If so, then it doesn’t apply in this case, since the boundaries were not drawn artificially. On the contrary, they were drawn in order to reflect the wishes of the people.
All of Ireland en masse was in favour of Home Rule and by extension, independence.
It wasn’t. Ireland was bitterly divided, You need to read up on your history.
Unless you're prepared to extend the same rights to convert a local minority into a majority in terms of Nationalist areas of Northern Ireland, there's no basis for this for the six counties in the first place.
If you’re saying the boundary should have been drawn in a more sophisticated manner (as opposed to using county boundaries), I couldn’t agree more. Northern Ireland should certainly have been smaller.
They were a simple minority in Ireland, and a small one at that.
But they were a majority in the north-east! And it was only the north-east that they wished to exclude from an all-Ireland state.
Not the wishes of the Nationalists in the six counties, who constitute part of the majority of the 32 counties of Ireland.
But the wishes of the majority of nationalists and the majority of unionists were facilitated, which was much fairer than facilitating only nationalists at the expense of all unionists, even in areas where unionists were a large majority. You can’t have one rule for nationalists, and another for unionists.
What's next; if Yorkshire votes Liberal next time, they get to form a whole separate country from England?
What on earth are you talking about? The above comment makes no sense whatsoever.
How come simply voting SNP doesn't instantly bust off entire chunk
How come simply voting SNP doesn't instantly bust off entire chunks of Scotland from the UK?
Because the Scots are a single people and the SNP wants the whole of Scotland to become independent, not part of it. Entirely different to Ireland, where there were two peoples, and unionists actively wanted the north-east to be separate, and the people living there voted for it in large numbers. The SNP does not seek the partition of Scotland.
Yeah, I'll have to remember that the next time one country crosses the ocean or some other border to annex another. If Britain could have Ireland, why couldn't Iraq have Kuwait in 1990?
Northern Ireland is part of the UK by the consent of its people. Kuwait is not part of Iraq, and there is no desire for Kuwait to become part of Iraq. Completely laughable analogy.
The British Army has maintained the colonial occupation of Ireland, at least in the North, by means of terrorism, and in collusion with the British Parliament and judiciary in abrogation of civil rights.
Wrong. Northern Ireland is part of the UK because its inhabitants vote regularly for it to remain so. Nothing to do with “colonial occupations”, “terrorism”, “collusion” or any other such melodramatic nonsense.
The IRA has brought the British to the GFA.
Funny, “the British” would argue it was the other way round!
But the Irish were not willing participants in the United Kingdom.
And unionists would not have been willing participants in an all-Ireland state. So if being an unwilling participant is reason for opting out of a state, then you have no argument against NI.
By the same logic, nationalists were a minority in what was the UK and they became a “majority” through guile and artifice.
Being Irish in Ireland, that's, ahhh... that's some conspiracy, alright. Clever. Boy, that took a lot of scheming and plotting, you bet. Who'd have seen that one coming?
If so, then it doesn’t apply in this case, since the boundaries were not drawn artificially. On the contrary, they were drawn in order to reflect the wishes of the people.
Which people? Not the Irish. Hence the problem. Here's the definition of "gerrymandering" from Webster's... given that, until 1922, Ireland was governed as a single unit in the UK, explain to me how the following fails to apply in the circumstance of partition:
to divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group [gerrymander a school district]
One Ireland, administered from Dublin Castle; then two. Special advantages to the Protestants in the north. Gerrymandering.
It wasn’t. Ireland was bitterly divided
Yes, into a Nationalist majority and a Unionist minority. In any fair election, referendum, or other objective measure, that would not lead to special status for the minority, but the recognition of the will of the majority. Ireland was a single political unit in the UK, like England, like Scotland, and should have been afford the same right to its holistic identity, not ripped in two against the will of the majority of its people.
But they were a majority in the north-east!
But they were a minority in the entirety. ANY election could be rejigged that way to frustrate the will of the majority; that is, in fact, the very breath of gerrymandering. That's what it's all about. Finding geographic and demographic means to frustrate a natural electoral decision by pulling illusory "majority" areas out of a hat. Say whatever you like; the fact is, Protestants and Unionists were an Irish minority. Or do Irish Catholics in England warrant the partition of that country where numbers indicate? Does any ethnic minority posess the right to carve chunks of of constitent members of the UK? If not, they neither do Protestant Unionists in Ireland. If England, Scotland, and Wales are whole units and indivisible, then so should be Ireland.
You can’t have one rule for nationalists, and another for unionists.
So why weren't the wishes of Nationalists followed and all of Ireland manumitted? Why did another set of rules suddenly spring up to divide the country?
Because the Scots are a single people and the SNP wants the whole of Scotland to become independent, not part of it.
Oh, I'm sorry... I thought there were both Scottish Catholics and Protestants. Will England be partitioning Scotland on that basis too? In fact, the Irish are a single people, too -- like the Scots, of more than one religious stripe -- and SF wanted (and wants) the whole of Ireland to be independent... not just part of it.
The SNP does not seek the partition of Scotland.
Neither did the Irish Nationalists.
Northern Ireland is part of the UK by the consent of its people. Kuwait is not part of Iraq, and there is no desire for Kuwait to become part of Iraq.
So all Saddam needed to so was make sure he had enough Iraqis in some part of Kuwait to claim that part, because they "consented" to his invasion? I suppose he should have just studied British history harder.
The IRA has brought the British to the GFA.
Funny, “the British” would argue it was the other way round!
Oh, yes, that must be why the British proposed the Good Friday Agreement back in 1969, to forestall the rise of anything like the IRA. Pretty clever of them, offering power sharing to Dublin and a real Catholic presence in Stormont way back then, without having to be compelled in any way. Sure.
And unionists would not have been willing participants in an all-Ireland state. So if being an unwilling participant is reason for opting out of a state, then you have no argument against NI.
Oh really? So what date do Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, and south Armagh cede to the Republic?
LONE PRIMATE
If so, then it doesn’t apply in this case, since the boundaries were not drawn artificially. On the contrary, they were drawn in order to reflect the wishes of the people.
Which people?
The unionist people.
Not the Irish. Hence the problem.
Well, yes, that was the problem. There were two Irish peoples. Hence the need for two states.
One Ireland, administered from Dublin Castle; then two. Special advantages to the Protestants in the north. Gerrymandering.
One British Isles, administered from London; then two. Special advantages to the Catholics in Ireland. Gerrymandering.
Yes, into a Nationalist majority and a Unionist minority.
And the other way round in the north-east.
In any fair election, referendum, or other objective measure, that would not lead to special status for the minority, but the recognition of the will of the majority.
There was no special status. Both nationalist and unionist peoples were facilitated.
Ireland was a single political unit in the UK, like England, like Scotland, and should have been afford the same right to its holistic identity, not ripped in two against the will of the majority of its people.
So your basis for forced union was simply because Ireland had hitherto been a single political unit. You don't believe that new boundaries should ever be drawn? That's an irrational position and the history of the world shows it to be an irrelevant position.
But they were a minority in the entirety.
The Irish were a minority in the entirety of the UK. By your own logic, then, they should not have been given independence.
ANY election could be rejigged that way to frustrate the will of the majority
It didn't frustrate the will of the majority.
that is, in fact, the very breath of gerrymandering.
If drawing boundaries to facilitate self-determination is "gerrymandering", then most modern states have been "gerrymandered".
Finding geographic and demographic means to frustrate a natural electoral decision by pulling illusory "majority" areas out of a hat.
The "natural electoral decision" was partition. Go get a map of the election results and you will see.
Say whatever you like; the fact is, Protestants and Unionists were an Irish minority.
Say whatever you like; the fact is, Roman Catholics and Nationalists were a UK minority.
Should they, then, have been denied self-determination?
Or do Irish Catholics in England warrant the partition of that country where numbers indicate?
There are no numbers that indicate any desire for "Irish Catholics in England" to form a state separate from England, so your point is absurd.
Does any ethnic minority posess the right to carve chunks of of constitent members of the UK?
All peoples have the right to self-determination. If you ague that Irish nationalists had such a right, then you can hardly a
Does any ethnic minority posess the right to carve chunks of of constitent members of the UK?
All peoples have the right to self-determination. If you ague that Irish nationalists had such a right, then you can hardly argue that other peoples do not.
If England, Scotland, and Wales are whole units and indivisible, then so should be Ireland.
Your logic doesn't follow because in England, Scotland and Wales there is consensus that there are single English, Scottish and Welsh peoples. In Ireland there were two.
No unit is "indivisible" if the people choose to divide it.
So why weren't the wishes of Nationalists followed and all of Ireland manumitted?
Er, because there was a large area of Ireland in which the majority of people wanted to remain in the UK!
Oh, I'm sorry... I thought there were both Scottish Catholics and Protestants.
There are. Did someone say otherwise?
Will England be partitioning Scotland on that basis too?
On what basis?
In fact, the Irish are a single people, too
Er, they're not. Don't you know anything of history? The history of modern Ireland is one of bitter division.
SF wanted (and wants) the whole of Ireland to be independent... not just part of it.
Well, that was hardly reasonable, given the large body of unionists in the north-east who didn't want to be part of an independent state. It's not reasonable to seek the inclusion of territory in a particular state against the wishes of its inhabitants.
Neither did the Irish Nationalists.
No-one said they did. It was unionists who did (as I informed you). And they won the support of the people for it within the territory to be partitioned.
Oh, yes, that must be why the British proposed the Good Friday Agreement back in 1969, to forestall the rise of anything like the IRA.
The above makes no sense.
Oh really? So what date do Derry, Fermanagh, Tyrone, and south Armagh cede to the Republic?
Unless the people residing in such areas vote for transfer to the Republic, and they never have previously, I should think the answer is never.
But I see you conceded that, since being an unwilling participant was a reason for Irish nationalists opting out of the UK state, it was therefore reason for Ulster unionists to opt out of an all-Ireland state.
Oh, yes, that must be why the British proposed the Good Friday Agreement back in 1969
Bizarre.
Come back Julius and Observer. All is forgiven !
Evening MR! I've been following this discussion and I'm pretty glad I'm not involved as it looks time consuming!
Oh, yes, that must be why the British proposed the Good Friday Agreement back in 1969
I think LP's point stands up, if something like the GFA was on the cards in 1969 things would have turned out a whole lot different. However, it clearly was nowhere near the table and that is the point that LP makes: the British had to be dragged to that position.
Predicted response from MR - "that's cobblers" LOL
I think LP's point stands up, if something like the GFA was on the cards in 1969 things would have turned out a whole lot different.However, it clearly was nowhere near the table and that is the point that LP makes: the British had to be dragged to that position.
Erm, the wording would suggest that LP thinks the GFA dates to 1969 - and as such proves that he hasn't a clue about NI
Predicted response from MR - "that's cobblers" LOL
Bollix!
Mind you Sunningdale - which gave those in the green Corner far more than the GFA - was a done deal in the early 70's. but the Greeners got greedy and shat in the nest.
MR,
LP was being sarcastic but enough about that, he can speak for himself.
Is it true that you called Jo from Joblog a "tramp"? She mentioned it in another thread today.
but the Greeners got greedy and shat in the nest
That's cobblers!
MR,
LP was being sarcastic but enough about that, he can speak for himself.
Is it true that you called Jo from Joblog a "tramp"? She mentioned it in another thread today.
but the Greeners got greedy and shat in the nest
That's cobblers!
Is it true that you called Jo from Joblog a "tramp"? She mentioned it in another thread today.
It's quite possible, but I cannot specifically remember describing her thus.
"but the Greeners got greedy and shat in the nest"
That's cobblers!
I'm glad to see you acknowledge that Sunningdale was a better deal for nationalists than the GFA. But I don't see how you can object to what followed.
I'm glad to see you acknowledge that Sunningdale was a better deal for nationalists than the GFA. But I don't see how you can object to what followed
You must be getting very tired MR, not sure where you got the above from.
As it goes I think the GFA is a better deal for nationalists and unionists. Sunningdale was basically buried by rejectionist unionism, I hope the GFA doesn't meet the same end.
I'm glad to see you acknowledge that Sunningdale was a better deal for nationalists than the GFA. But I don't see how you can object to what followed
You must be getting very tired MR, not sure where you got the above from.
As it goes I think the GFA is a better deal for nationalists and unionists. Sunningdale was basically buried by rejectionist unionism, I hope the GFA doesn't meet the same end.
You must be getting very tired MR, not sure where you got the above from.
Simple Julius - I wrote
"Mind you Sunningdale - which gave those in the green Corner far more than the GFA - was a done deal in the early 70's. but the Greeners got greedy and shat in the nest."
the only part to which you objected was "but the Greeners got greedy and shat in the nest." - an acknowledgement that Sunningdale gave those in the green corner more than the GFA.
Sunningdale fell because of the 26 county dimension that the greeners tried to force on the majority - the ill-fated "Council of Ireland"
If you read Page 8 of "A long peace?"
you'll see that Paddy Devlin warned against pushing it too far - a canny man was our Paddy. One of the greats of that period, may he Rest in Peace.
Here we are:
MR: Another tantrum from the tramp
LOL. Check it out!
Here's the part I really didn't like:
Phantom: bloggers from across a divide or from across the Irish Sea, could avoid taunting those who remember people shot dead in the street by heavily armed soldiers.
MR: Phantom - The march was banned. They were breaking the law.
Here we are:
MR: Another tantrum from the tramp
LOL. Check it out!
Here's the part I really didn't like:
Phantom: bloggers from across a divide or from across the Irish Sea, could avoid taunting those who remember people shot dead in the street by heavily armed soldiers.
MR: Phantom - The march was banned. They were breaking the law.
Assuming Jo wasn't misquoting me - it looks as if I did call her a tramp.
Jo is good at misquoting/editing
My reply that you dislike was to THIS earlier part of the Phantom's post.
But, look at how this thread began. With a mocking post on the anniversary of " 13 law breakers "
I was pointing out, with my usual pedantry , that they were law breakers.
hence :Phantom - The march was banned. They were breaking the law.
Don't know much about Devlin but he seemed a decentskin. Do you mean he warned against pushing unionists too far?
I think John Hume made more sense when he said "agreement threatens no one."
You know the way you say nationalists should take a long look at themselves? Do you think unionists should too? I'm curious...
My posts keep appearing twice, no idea why but just thought I'd mention it incase people thought I was doing it to be annoying!
Julius - One of the best books I have read is "Straight Left" by Paddy Devlin. Interesting career. Was in the IRA as a lad - and tells a wonderful story about the IRA response in Belfast to the start of WWII. One of the Socialists who was elbowed out of the way by the Derry Bourgeoisie.
Everybody needs to look at themselves here. Unionism and Nationalism belong in the dustbin of history.
I was pointing out, with my usual pedantry , that they were law breakers
Ok, that fits!
Jo is good at misquoting/editing
Have you been observing all the fuss over Jo's new contributor? It's Jacqui (her girlfriend) but is Jacqui all in Jo's head?? Mmmmmmm....
Straight Left An Autobiography by Paddy Devlin
© 1993, The Blackstaff Press.
moments we heard Chamberlain's historic words that war was indeed declared on Germany. We had little time for the British and were neutral about the Germans, as de Valera had advised us, so the Catholic community viewed the looming conflict with some detachment. Many young people of my age expected the German planes to arrive overhead at once and drop their bombs as we had seen pictures of them doing in Spain.
As soon as the broadcast was over, Lapsy arrived back at our front door. 'The OC wants you urgently in the back room of the Big Shot Billiard Hall,' he said. I followed him round and when we got there the OC called us to attention. 'I've just got word from Dublin. Great news. England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity. They have fallen into our trap. Now they have Germany to face on the European front and ourselves lying in wait to attack their backs in a deadly pincer movement. They don't know that for years the Frank Doherty Sluagh of Na Fianna Éireann have been organising and getting themselves into a state of military fitness to battle it out with them to the death. The time has at last arrived to start our battle.'
The opening shots he ordered hardly matched such a grandiose build-up. We were ordered to get brushes and buckets and prepare whitewash to paint slogans on gable walls. I was not involved in the subsequent operation, but next morning on my way to work I saw the embarrassing results. 'England's difficulty is Ireland's opera tune' had been daubed on factory walls and gables all along the Falls Road. I prayed for rain.
page 26
I heard there was a bit of a fuss - I'm not sure Jo even exists - "she" could be UI playing games....
What, specifically, do you think unionism has to look at?
The book sounds great, I'll see if they have it in the library. Weird: Ruairí Quinn's autobiography is called Straight Left too.
If I could suggest a book to you it would be That Day's Struggle - Séan MacBride's memoir. You might think he was a really hardline republican but the book really does give a very interesting view of the time and the man. He was a facinating man, won the Nobel Peace Prize, a founding member of Amnesty International etc.... Some hilarious insights into the (childish) world of international diplomacy.
I heard there was a bit of a fuss - I'm not sure Jo even exists - "she" could be UI playing games....
LOL, I think that might be stretching it a bit!
Devlin did indeed warn them - Have a look at page eight of "A Long Peace?" - you'll find it as a download on Slugger.
Straight Left is a bit of an eye-opener - the clash between secular socialism and the middle class catholicism of the Derry Mob is interesting.
Also interesting - Devlin on the emergence of the Provos :
August 1969 :
The barricades were my main concern. I knew that as long as the barricades remained up, the self-appointed leaders would never go back into oblivion. They would trigger off silly and stupid activities that would be followed by the residents if I were not there to stop them. I couldn't always be there and, given the calibre of some of those involved, I feared that a lot of other sinister things could happen behind the barricades. Criminal elements were gradually emerging, charging 'royalties' to tradesmen for using the roadways and robbing vans of their contents if they did not pay. This money went into private pockets. Behind that again, the first machinations that led to the creation of the organisation known as the Provisional IRA had begun. These were the people, under the pretext of Catholic defence, who were giving gun-handling and bomb-making lectures.
The leadership was a mixture of older, right-wing members of the IRA, and other Catholics aroused by the recent attacks, many of them middle-class professionals never associated with the IRA before. I have always believed that a number of senior Catholic clergy encouraged their involvement with the emerging Provisionals in order to break the influence of the Marxists. It may well be that they identified a greater danger to the church through the 'Godless' having a more central role. There were first-division elements in the Fianna Fail government in Dublin at the time who shared this assessment.
(page 110)
A telling factor in the emergence of the Provisionals was the stance of the Catholic church. Traditionally it had refused to recognise the need to allow politics to develop along party or class lines. Its interest, it assumed, was better served by blocking Catholics from supporting left-wing politics, even though, by doing so, it was keeping in power a political party that existed solely on its capacity to divide society by its anti-Catholic character and propaganda. Elements in the church had long been concerned about the activities of the Marxist IRA and, after the events of 1969, were happy to move by stealth, taking advantage of the situation that had arisen, to undermine the organisation. But to out-manoeuvre them the church had to find allies in other forces, compatible with its own views. The Provisionals were ideal for this purpose and, for a time, until the ugliness and immorality of what the Provisionals really stood for
became clear, they were actively promoted by the church and enabled to take over in Catholic areas. It was to be many years before the church recognised its error and condemned the beneficiaries of it.
pp
Have made a note of the MacBride Book
He's someone I have meant to have a look at - complex.
Mad
Is that when you're not polishing your pictures of the Queen and Thatcher on ya mantelpiece?
They dun a good job on you son, your cringeworthiness
Paddy Devlin was certainly an interesting guy. I understand he had difficulties within the SDLP, which had more than its share of middle class elements.
He also suffered a little bit from the Gerry Fitt Syndrome - They didn't vote for me so they must be a shower of bastards!
His biggest problem was that his left of centre non-sectarian attitude didn't please the Church ( The clonard people get a mention oddly enough )or the Derry Bourgeois Brigade and ultimately some of the lovely people of West Belfast - page 284
When Sands eventually died in May 1981 our Andersonstown house was the immediate target of organised attacks by mobs of young people. They arrived at the door on a whistled signal and hammered it with hurling sticks. Petrol bombs were made up outside the house to frighten us. They shouted obscenities. 'Get out to fuck you Protestant lover' was one insult I particularly remember.
In all honesty, MR, some of the stuff sounds more like the Sun than a serious book. "Protestant lover"?
During the Hunger Strikes?
His story about the Fianna is equally unlikely.
Gerry Fitt Syndrome.
Shame too, his politics were generally OK.
'Your brave volunteers are cowardly bastards who mask their faces, and hide in the bushes while their underhand tactics are utilised.'
3 letters,`SAS?
Commenting by HaloScan
