Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What will Big Ians Legacy be

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Ri na hEireann wrote: »
    Firstly the question was relating to grants for intercounty players. Murrow is perfectly entitled to his outlandish theories as regards the GAA but to bring a point into a conversation which it had no place in ,is provacative in itself. His demeanour was that of a childish schoolboy trying to bully an illogical point across. My point is, there was no need for it. I welcomed his contribution to the programme with regard practical political issues and saw it as a forward moving step to see a unionist speak on southern political issues from a purely unbiased point of view. However, true to form he had his little dig at nationalist culture.

    Agreed . . . However, it must be said that Since Fein have been ratchetting-up the temprature in recent months with 'Childish carry-on' like demanding that all (Unionist/British symbols be removed from council buildings) including things like a 'Princess Diana Mug' which no doubt gives great offence to Shinners? you then have Sinn Fein wanting to hold a 'Celebration of the life of a convicted bomber (In the Long Gallery in Storemont itself)! so if Mr Murrow has a little dig at Sinn Fein or Nationalists generally, then I certainly wouldnt blame him (in the face of provocation).
    Ri na hEireann wrote: »
    Murrow classed the GAA as a half sport half political movement. This theory may have had some foundation decades ago but to hold onto this sentiment is trivial. Of course the GAA is going to name places after Irish fugures most of whom contributed to the playing fields.

    And some who were in the IRA, or IRA sympathisers maybe :rolleyes:
    Ri na hEireann wrote: »
    I'd also have reservations as to what you would class a terrorist and what you would class a freedom fighter. Do you suggest that the men of 1916 were terrorists?

    The 35 Thousand Irish men who died in 1916 (Somme) were not terrorists, and as regards the 150 who caused chaos & mayhem in Dublin that same year 'No comment' (remember I am an Irish Unionist) and with regard to the PIRA & their 35 year terrorist campaign in the North ....... :rolleyes:
    Ri na hEireann wrote: »
    This proves my point exactly though. I feel we're about to take a step backwards in Northern politics.The two extremes will dominate at the expense of everyone else and progress will be hindered. I think the hardline unionists need to step back a reassess the situation before they launch another negative campaign for Ulster.

    And Sinn Fein seriously need to think about their childish actions & get a grip before the whole cosy relationship with the DUP falls into farce (& worse)?


  • Options
    #33
    Gobán Saor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 415 ✭✭Gobán Saor


    His legacy will be the Troubles, plain and simple. If the nascent civil rights movement in the sixties had been able to achieve the modest reforms that O'Neill's government was on the verge of introducing, then there would have been no Burntollet, no riots, no battle of the Bogside, the Provisional IRA would never have come into existence, loyalist paramilitarism would have been stillborn, the British Army would never have become actors in the drama and 3700 people wouldn't have been killed.

    Paisley's enduring effect was to use his undoubted charisma and powers of rhetoric to torpedo any movement by moderate unionism for 35 years. Shame on him and those that admire him.


  • Options
    #34
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    flogen wrote: »
    Wasn't meant to flatter the man - just put it in a simple sentence!

    I was going to add that his change of heart may have come about because of his long-term dissent - by that I mean he began to realise his mortality and realise his ranting was all he had as a legacy.

    His change of heart surely does come from the pragmatism of wanting to remain in power, but I think it also comes from the pragmatism of wanting to be remembered for something good and not something bad. Remember that his extreme views gained opposition within Unionism too, so his ability to bridge extremism and moderation, leading ultimately to peace gives him a good chance of being idolised by all Unionists like his hero Carson.

    I also think he had his change of heart so that he wouldn't be remembered for the harm he did to the peace process for decades, which surely is the most cynical of reasons to go into government with SF.


Advertisement