The Cruiser

Nodin · 20-12-2008 12:33am

Sand wrote: »

I have never seen you get worked up about the murderous Chinese campaign in Tibet. Funny that.

I'm neither 91, nor a Journalist, nor holding myself up to be the 'bastion of virtue' you seem to think CCOB was. The fact is that he was fond of disparaging nationalism and violence in general terms when it suited him, but not when specific situations that met his approval arose. Thats hipocrisy.

O, and btw......
Link

http://orb.mogkat.com/viewtopic.php?t=1650

...amongst others.

Sponge Bob · 20-12-2008 12:53am

The Cruiser in death is evidently as divisive as was the living variant of the Cruiser , plus ca change I suppose

Danuogma · 20-12-2008 1:00am

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, its clear youre an outraged libertarian. Give it a rest.

It would be easier for you to paint me as a IRA sympathiser, wouldn't it?. After all CCOB had a knack for painting his opponents as backward, violent republicans and painting himself as some sort of enlightened intellectual. The fact is it was easy to see through his transparent, pseudo intellectualism and see him for what he was; a hypocritical old bigot with an anti Irish agenda.

regi · 20-12-2008 1:04am

The passing of a great man - RIP.

Sand · 20-12-2008 1:14am

I'm neither 91, nor a Journalist, nor holding myself up to be the 'bastion of virtue' you seem to think CCOB was. The fact is that he was fond of disparaging nationalism and violence in general terms when it suited him, but not when specific situations that met his approval arose. Thats hipocrisy.

Being old doesnt imply youre right. Many journalists are the greatest fools available for mass entertainment. And seeing as I never described CCOB as a bastion of virtue, using quotation marks is not required. And indeed, misleading. I admire him for what his enemies most despise him for. Whatever his other faults, he spoke up when others were intimidated. He refused to buy into the bull****. He saw the Provos for what they were and told them, and the rest of Ireland, what the Provos didnt want anyone to hear. He led the way in retrieving Ireland from the depths of self-pitying approval for the worst atrocities, and in doing so helpd ensure that the Provos remain at best a marginal political organisation for the forseeable future.

For your final point, its not hypocrisy, its context. Just because CCOB opposed murderous deliberate attacks by Provos on civillians, and refused to buy into the mythology of excuses offered by the perpetrators and their apologists it doesnt mean that he was a pacifist or ashamed of his country.

O, and btw......
Link

http://orb.mogkat.com/viewtopic.php?t=1650

...amongst others.

See, what I was making there was called a point. It was to note that to denounce someone because they havent been vocal enough on some point you consider important is a double edged sword. Because then suddenly people will have to have a ****ing checklist of appropriate views on hot topics they have to loudly announce to everyone they meet just so its clear that when they come the rememberance cermony it is'nt "Yeah, Nodin...alright guy kinda. But I never heard him protest about the impact of biofuel crops crowding out food production....what a mofo"

Note, that isnt an invitation for you to run to dig out posts on forums where you have made such protests...

jank · 20-12-2008 2:44am

Lads, lads, lads....
Why do you all get worked up over Sand?
He is the Ann Coulter of of this politics forum.

Doublespeak that Orwell himself would be proud of.:D

K-9 · 20-12-2008 3:13am

jank wrote: »

Lads, lads, lads....
Why do you all get worked up over Sand?
He is the Ann Coulter of of this politics forum.

Doublespeak that Orwell himself would be proud of.:D

Indeed, best quote yet.

He usually talked crap, but the odd time he spoke sense.

To see the sense you'd have to drop the prejudice though!

AlekSmart · 20-12-2008 12:51pm

I wonder,just to sidetrack for a bit,if Cuise O Briens era does not have a role in all of this.

The man was born in 1917 and grew up during a historical epoch which most of us posting here can only guess at.

His formative years would have seen the collapse of entire dynasties throughout the world.
I suspect he would have watched the Sino-Japanese events of that time with interest,just to underline the Tibet reference earlier.

He would also have watched the rise of fascism in the wake of the collapse of most other forms of viable government in mainland europe.

He would most certainly have watched the ongoing collapse of the British Empire and few have had that full of a parallell life course.

AND...He appeared to have a sense of humour too...as his comment about the electorate wanting to have him shot due to the decrepit condition of the country`s phone system rather than any nationalistic fervour,clearly shows...

Let the debate continue..... :P

Mr.Micro · 20-12-2008 1:09pm

AND...He appeared to have a sense of humour too...as his comment about the electorate wanting to have him shot due to the decrepit condition of the country`s phone system rather than any nationalistic fervour,clearly shows...

Is that not it, Irish people do not like take any criticism, not even if it is warranted, not telling us what to do attitude. I have seen it so often. I often think that is why we have such bad politicians and apathy.

Permabear · 20-12-2008 1:15pm

This post has been deleted.

Svenolsen · 20-12-2008 3:05pm

Some people seen to think that Unionism is some kind of dread disease.

Or a moral dysfunctionalism.

It is a mere political opinion.

Conor Cruise O'Brien was entitled to his opinions.

He never killed or advocated the killing of anybody.

More than can be said about a lot of Shinners.

R.I.P.

.

Nodin · 20-12-2008 3:11pm

Sand wrote: »

. Whatever his other faults, he spoke up when others were intimidated. He refused to buy into the bull****. He saw the Provos for what they were and told them, ...

No, he ascribed to them what he himself despised and continued claiming so long after people stopped listening.

Sand wrote: »

.

For your final point, its not hypocrisy, its context. Just because CCOB opposed murderous deliberate attacks by Provos on civillians, and refused to buy into the mythology of excuses offered by the perpetrators and their apologists it doesnt mean that he was a pacifist or ashamed of his country....

He was a man who associated with the Israeli right and was a fervent supporter of Israel. When they turned up to commemorate the King David Hotel bombers, oul Cruiser had no problem with it at all, or at least none that I've ever come across. Yet at any hint of that involving republicans, he has a fit. Thats hypocrisy, pure and simple. He could no more give a crap about civillians than the people who targeted them. His problem was with whatever personal demon the RA represented to him, and nothing else.

nacho libre · 20-12-2008 6:23pm

Indeed. A brave and courageous man who was morally resolute with a formidable intellect. He could see beyond the futility and scourge of bigotry by both sides in Ireland. He spoke against it at risk to his personal saftey. That is to be admired.. Unfortunately, as we know his moral umbrage at such human faillings was'nt universal, as he was close friends with a notorious bigot and regularly defended the policies of this bigots country in print. I'm not surprised some his supporters over look this and speak of double-edged swords as a ruse to excuse his hypocrisy- and perhaps there own in there selective condemnation of "obscure political violence"

still, having said that i suppose the only truly consistent people are the dead.

Dudess · 20-12-2008 6:35pm

Camelot wrote: »

a true Irish Man

How was he a true Irish man?

Interesting how many prople in this Thread are now looking back at the Provo activities (Murder, extortion, knee cappings, bank robberies, etc) through rose tinted spectacles, with some people now saying that Conor Cruise O'Brien was the baddie, while Gerry Adams & the Povo's were the Good Guys :mad:

Do you EVER criticise loyalist paramilitaries (many of whom would consider you the enemy simply because you're an Irish person - unionist sympathiser or not)?
Do you EVER consider the background to the IRA's campaign of violence? Yes they were murdering bastards, they disgusted me; Enniskillen, Warrington and Omagh still upset me greatly... but wouldn't you agree it was an inevitability such an extremist cell would form?

Sand wrote: »

Ireland needs more like him.

Well it has, in the form of Kevin Myers and Eoghan Harris. To say Ireland "needs" the likes of them though... is just being attention-seeking.

Sand wrote: »

He was a truly great man, and of course, his brilliance inspires the hiss and spitting of those who felt his scorn. For if they didnt lash out in hatred and spite, they might have to wonder if his own anger against them was merited.

The disingenuousness is priceless. You and others here like to just talk down to those of us who take issue with his views and attention-seeking stunts, and accuse us of having a problem with someone who spoke out against republican violence, period. You KNOW that's not all he did. Ok, some dumb chuckies will hate CCOB simply because he, as an Irishman, condemned the IRA.
I and others however, while we applaud the man for speaking out against the IRA's atrocities... we are disgusted by his undemocratic gagging of republicans in the media; at how he joined the UKUP, a horribly sectarian, bigoted organisation that would detest him for no reason other than the fact he was Irish if it wasn't for his lickarsery of them (if that's not an attention-seeking stunt, what is?); at his criticism of the Peace Process; at his stance on Zionism/the state of Israel; at his acceptance of an invitation to give guest teachings in South Africa under the Apartheid regime; at his refusal to acknowledge the injustices in Northern Ireland which led to the horrific tragedy that was the Troubles... and at his comments about Bloody Sunday - how frankly hateful and hurtful to the families.
He was a professional controversialist like Julie Burchill and Anne Coulter (and very inconsistent/hypocritical like them) only he was more intelligent so he got taken more seriously...
If you're an Irish person vehemently opposed to the IRA's campaign of violence, it's not a requirement that you qualify it by "becoming" a unionist. Funnily enough, I'm vehemently opposed to the IRA's campaign of violence, and I'm a nationalist/moderate republican.

Svenolsen wrote: »

Some people seen to think that Unionism is some kind of dread disease.

Or a moral dysfunctionalism.

It is a mere political opinion.

Conor Cruise O'Brien was entitled to his opinions.

It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it.

He never killed or advocated the killing of anybody.

More than can be said about a lot of Shinners.

... and loyalist paramilitaries.

nacho libre wrote: »

He could see beyond the futility and scourge of bigotry by both sides in Ireland.

No, only one side actually, considering he joined a particularly bigoted party on the unionist side.

Svenolsen · 20-12-2008 7:02pm

Dudess wrote: »

He joined the UKUP, a horribly sectarian, bigoted organisation that would detest him for no reason other than the fact he was Irish if it wasn't for his lickarsery of them (if that's not an attention-seeking stunt, what is?); at his criticism of the Peace Process; at his stance on Zionism/the state of Israel; at his acceptance of an invitation to give guest teachings in South Africa under the Apartheid regime; at his refusal to acknowledge the injustices in Northern Ireland which led to the horrific tragedy that was the Troubles... and at his comments about Bloody Sunday - how frankly hateful and hurtful to the families.

I parted ways with his views completely when he sided with UKIP and the other nutters.

He went odd in his old age all right.

Possibly age-related brain athropy.

As a young man he was a dazzlingly bright intellect.

Pity he didn't study physics or mathematics or something useful back then.

.

Svenolsen · 20-12-2008 7:04pm

Svenolsen wrote: »

I parted ways with his views completely when he sided with UKIP .

Erratum: Meant "UKUP".

Mikel · 20-12-2008 7:10pm

Dudess wrote: »

but wouldn't you agree it was an inevitability such an extremist cell would form?

I wouldn't agree with that

we are disgusted by his undemocratic gagging of republicans in the media;

Hmmm... wasn't it a gagging of representatives of terrorists who were trying to subvert democracy by murder and mayhem?
I wouldn't call that anti democratic

Dudess · 20-12-2008 7:18pm

Mikel wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with that

And why wouldn't you agree with it?

And why gag them? What does that achieve other than depriving them of the "oxygen of publicity" (I bet CCOB loved the way he had something in common with Thatcher)? Very noble I'm sure but did it stop them from committing atrocities? And that should surely be the aim of any strategy, it shouldn't be purely for the purposes of saying "**** you, I'm not letting you talk". Probably intensified things - how shameful of Thatcher and Cruise-O'Brien to put lives at risk because of some principle.

And just because it could be argued that the provos were anti democratic doesn't make the gagging order any less undemocratic either.

K-9 · 20-12-2008 8:01pm

Dudess wrote: »

we are disgusted by his undemocratic gagging of republicans in the media;

How much support did SF have and why do you think they were gagged? This was the early 70's remember.

Mikel · 20-12-2008 8:27pm

Dudess wrote: »

And why wouldn't you agree with it?

Because I don't think it was inevitable that's why, free will and all that.
Why would you think it was inevitable?

And why gag them? What does that achieve other than depriving them of the "oxygen of publicity" ...Very noble I'm sure but did it stop them from committing atrocities? And that should surely be the aim of any strategy, it shouldn't be purely for the purposes of saying "**** you, I'm not letting you talk". Probably intensified things - how shameful of Thatcher and Cruise-O'Brien to put lives at risk because of some principle.

Twisted logic if ever I heard it. By denying them airtime the authorities were putting lives at risk? Incredible.
'Let me on the telly before I kill again!!'

I am old enough to remember the arguments for getting rid of Section whatever it was, and they were along the lines of arguing that those hard nosed journos in RTE would tear them apart.
In fact the opposite occurred, every shinner who got in front of a camera danced rings around the person interviewing them.
You could argue that letting them on tv drew more people in to their campaign of butchery.

And just because it could be argued that the provos were anti democratic doesn't make the gagging order any less undemocratic either.

Er yes it does, if you have an undemocratic murderous organisation attempting to subvert the state and is willing to commit heinous atrocities, then the state is entitled to defend itself. It is not obliged to let terrorists publicise and justify themselves.

luckat · 21-12-2008 12:07am

Mad Finn wrote: »

He didn't have a daughter called Margaret, AFAIK.

He had a daughter called Kate, who sadly predeceased him by about 10 years.

Kate - a fine writer and a wonderful fiction editor - predeceased him; he also had two children of his second marriage: Patrick and Margaret.

A Dub in Glasgo · 21-12-2008 12:36am

Mikel wrote: »

I am old enough to remember the arguments for getting rid of Section whatever it was, and they were along the lines of arguing that those hard nosed journos in RTE would tear them apart.
In fact the opposite occurred, every shinner who got in front of a camera danced rings around the person interviewing them.

Let me get this straight? you advocate political censorship because the person interviewing cannot get the better of the people who you disagree with in a debate??

Er yes it does.

Really? A bit like 'murder is murder is murder' unless it is committed by someone I agree with?

Sand · 21-12-2008 1:05am

To say Ireland "needs" the likes of them though... is just being attention-seeking.

CCOB was a true Irish patriot who defended this state in its darkest days from those, within and without, who sought its downfall. You dont do that without making enemies along the way. Yes, Ireland needs more men like him. More politicians like him. More Ministers like him.

Look at Bertie, grand man, loved by all because hes never stood for a single thing in his life. Does Ireland need more like him?

The disingenuousness is priceless. You and others here like to just talk down to those of us

Ah thats harsh. Very harsh.

we are disgusted by his undemocratic gagging of republicans in the media

The Provos and their fellow travellers were at war with the democratically elected Irish state. The idea that they could kill Irish people and then be invited onto the Irish state broadcaster, paid for by those same Irish people they killed, is laughable. CCOB only treated the Provos and their ilk as they wished to be treated, as an enemy of the Irish people.

Whilst it would be nice to think RTE could handle interviews with terrorists, I have yet to see a single RTE interviewer actually carry out an objective, single minded interview. The majority of them couldnt handle Bertie Ahern, let alone an actual terrorist.

He was a great Irishman, and like all great men, he attracts much hatred and bitterness from those whom he crossed. Thats sad, but merely a vindication.

Sponge Bob · 21-12-2008 1:33am

Sand wrote: »

He was a great Irishman, and like all great men, he attracts much hatred and bitterness from those whom he crossed. Thats sad, but merely a vindication.

The Cruiser seems to have fallen out with quite a few great Irishmen ...John Hume comes to mind for example .

What is the definition a great Irishman , apart from me ...obviously .

Nodin · 21-12-2008 11:55am

Sand wrote: »

CCOB was a true Irish patriot who defended this state in its darkest days from those, within and without, who sought its downfall. .

Actually he turned into an obsessive freak, whose views departed with reality steadily as time went on. At the end, he was a parody of a parody of himself.

Sand wrote: »

Whilst it would be nice to think RTE could handle interviews with terrorists, I have yet to see a single RTE interviewer actually carry out an objective, single minded interview. The majority of them couldnt handle Bertie Ahern, let alone an actual terrorist. .

Presumably your idea of an interview consists of the Hugh Leonard approach - start the interview with 'You, Sir, are a murderer!' and carry on from there.

Sand wrote: »

He was a great Irishman, and like all great men, he attracts much hatred and bitterness from those whom he crossed. Thats sad, but merely a vindication.

The worst Irishmen seem to have much the same effect.

Nodin · 21-12-2008 12:04pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The Cruiser seems to have fallen out with quite a few great Irishmen ...John Hume comes to mind for example .

Which is telling, as behind the scenes Hume and Paisley had struck up and kept a relatively good relationship. Yet oul Connor took one look at a Northern nationalist of any hue, and all he could see was horns and a tail....

LordSutch · 21-12-2008 1:15pm

Nodin wrote: »

Yet oul Connor took one look at a Northern nationalist of any hue, and all he could see was horns and a tail....

Any hue?

Surely Connor was only critical of those nationalists who followed & supported the path of terrorism!

Nodin · 21-12-2008 2:05pm

Camelot wrote: »

Any hue?

Surely Connor was only critical of those nationalists who followed & supported the path of terrorism!

Well......to give some flavour....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/19/conor-cruise-obrien-northern-ireland

As time went on, it seemed the cruisers political stance was some sort of intellectualising of some deep hatred of what he perceived as 'traditional Irish catholicism'. Of course the people he foisted this one were often not very traditional and really only nominally catholic, but he never let that slow him down. As his first wife said, it was impossible to be married to a "man who thought he was God". Obviously 'working with' and 'putting up with' were similarily problematic. Had he been rather less trenchant and convinced of his own righteousness, he could have had a far more productive career. As it stands, his gifts were largely wasted.

As for the 'path of terrorism' his antipathy tended to be against certain groups carrying it out, not the general principle. Likewise his use of the word sectarian seemed to be rather selective. Therein lies a good deal of my hostility towards any portrayal of him as some fearless champion.

Dudess · 21-12-2008 9:42pm

Mikel wrote: »

Because I don't think it was inevitable that's why, free will and all that.
Why would you think it was inevitable?

Ok, fair enough, "inevitable" is the wrong word... "unsurprising" so. Enough injustice and there will be retaliation. Like in South Africa. Like in Palestine. Not saying Northern Ireland was as bad, but it was still pretty darn bad. Ask e.g. any catholic from the Bogside who remembers 1968.

Twisted logic if ever I heard it. By denying them airtime the authorities were putting lives at risk? Incredible.

I'm saying they could have been putting lives at risk. They didn't know they wouldn't. And it hardly helped to lessen the campaign, did it?

'Let me on the telly before I kill again!!'

Don't see why not. They operated in a tit-for-tat manner.

if you have an undemocratic murderous organisation attempting to subvert the state and is willing to commit heinous atrocities, then the state is entitled to defend itself.

"Murderous" - no doubt. "Undemocratic" - debatable really, and entirely dependent on what side of the fence you're on. How was the state "defending itself" by censoring them? O'Brien demanded the gagging order just so he could.

It is not obliged to let terrorists publicise and justify themselves.

Sinn Fein was a legitimate political party and was silenced by the state - completely anti-democratic. I wouldn't vote for Sinn Fein in a fit but state censorship is anti-democratic irrespective of who is being censored. I would say the very same had it applied to loyalist paramilitaries.

Sand wrote: »

CCOB was a true Irish patriot

People who keep saying "he was a great Irishman, a true Irishman" etc are as attention-seeking as he was. He joined the UK Unionist Party, he scorned the Peace Process, he voiced vociferous support for an ideology that is completely undermining of Irish people... he showed nothing but disdain for the Irish state so he was hardly a "patriot" - that's utter nonsense. I, like Nodin, believe there was a heavy amount of "I loathe republican terrorism but I'm gonna go against the grain and instead of merely expressing this loathing rationally I'm going to rabidly embrace unionism - won't that be so interesting and different of me seeing as I'm an Irishman!" :rolleyes:

Nothing wrong with understanding where moderate unionists are coming from and empathising with their position - I would expect any rational person to do so, even nationalists. But CCOB took it miles beyond that - worst of all were his Bloody Sunday comments.

Sand and others, people don't just dislike him because he spoke out against republican violence, there's a lot of other stuff he did that pisses people off... and you know it so stop glossing over it.

Permabear · 21-12-2008 10:50pm

This post has been deleted.

The Cruiser

Comments