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

The Cruiser

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    The man ranged widely over public life, addressed very many questions, and changed his mind on a number of things. That means that just about everybody has several reasons to disagree with him. It's also true that just about everybody also has some reasons to agree with him. But we value our disagreements more.


  • Options
    #123
    CCCP^
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭CCCP^


    Better you than me Mr. O' Brien.


  • Options
    #124
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    That is a perfectly reasonable stance, but for O'Brien, it doesn't just stop there. He joined the sectarian UKUP, he said those vile things about the murdered Bloody Sunday marchers, he rubbished the Peace Process. Merely expressing his opposition to republican violence and voicing his understanding of the unionist community wouldn't have garnered enough attention for him... :rolleyes:
    Also, people are dismissing O'Brien for various inconsistencies over his long and varied life. Who lives for 91 years and doesn't change their minds on things at a certain point? Twentieth-century Irish history is riddled with examples of people who started out on one side and ended up on the other, so why should we hold O'Brien to different standards?
    It's one thing to embrace a different political ideology to that of your younger years, it's quite another thing to be a controversialist like he was. And yes, there are other examples of people who started out on one side and ended up on the other - Kevin Myers and Eoghan Harris being two (CCOB protegés) - and they're constantly ridiculed.


  • Options
    #125
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Sand wrote: »
    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.

    Indeed, Some people aren't fully aware of the context of the times when this decision was made. The Arms Crisis and the burning of the British Embassy wasn't long before this. We also had a private army that were launching attacks often from our State.
    Dudess wrote: »
    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.

    I'd agree, but SF were a small political party then, both North and South. They had little political support.
    Dudess wrote:
    "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.

    That is extremely unfair on O'Brien The ban remained in place for years.
    Dudess wrote:
    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.

    Nope it wasn't legitimate. If they even succeeded in getting a TD elected then, they would not have sat in the Dail. They didn't recognise the Democratically elected Dail.
    Dudess wrote:
    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.

    I'd agree with the above. That is not to say everything he did was wrong and just dismiss him, as many do.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #126
    Mikel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 863 ✭✭✭Mikel


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    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??
    No, I advocate censorship where terrorist organisations are concerned.
    Really? A bit like 'murder is murder is murder' unless it is committed by someone I agree with?
    I don't understand what you mean

    Dudess wrote:
    Quote:
    'Let me on the telly before I kill again!!'
    Don't see why not. They operated in a tit-for-tat manner.
    Are you saying we should be blackmailed by terrorists to allow them on tv?
    "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.
    In what way was the IRA democratic?
    The state was defending itself by not allowing them on the tv screens of the state they did not even recognise, in order to indulge in their repugnant self justifying rhetoric.
    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.
    Sinn Fein was the political wing for a group of butchers which wanted to overthrow this state. So the taxpayers and licence payers, some of whom would have been considered legitimate 'targets' by these murderers, should be providing a platform for their propaganda?

    Maybe allowing them on our screens lend them a legitimacy which prolonged their campaign, who knows?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Seanies32 wrote: »
    Some people aren't fully aware of the context of the times when this decision was made. The Arms Crisis and the burning of the British Embassy wasn't long before this.
    Are you talking about the burning down of the British Embassy as an expression of outrage following Bloody Sunday? Oh how awful of those people who took part in it... the shooting dead of 13 unarmed civilians by the British Army was possibly a tad worse though.


  • Options
    #128
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Dudess wrote: »
    Are you talking about the burning down of the British Embassy as an expression of outrage following Bloody Sunday? Oh how awful of those people who took part in it... the shooting dead of 13 unarmed civilians by the British Army was possibly a tad worse though.

    Well aware of that. In fact I'm well aware of the abuse people had going to the funerals of the victims of the murderers at Bloody Sunday.
    Like to think though we'll never forget, we've forgiven and moved on.

    Shoot to kill was terrible too, Castlereagh, the Hunger Strikes, Rubber bullets etc.

    Still, CCOB was one of the first proponents of Unionist consent to a United Ireland. FG copied it leading to the Anglo Irish Agreement, which Unionists opposed.

    FF copied it and lo and behold, SF now accepts it.

    So, CCOB was a leader of SF policy! :eek:

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #129
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #130
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    But not surprising.

    I think you have made some fair points in your posts on this thread, donegalfella. Do you think you have managed to persuade anybody to modify his or her view?


  • Options
    #131
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    In fairness, I don't think he was "merely" that.
    whose legacy is now worth little more than ridicule.
    Much of it, yes.
    what person of such intelligence and drive, who is active in the public eye for so very long, does not do or say things that provoke controversy?
    And yet, how could someone of such intelligence resort to such stunts?
    the sputtering indignation of "But he joined the UKUP!" or "But look what he did with Section 31"! Sad, really.
    Yes, the way he could stoop so low as to insult the families of those who were murdered on Bloody Sunday is very sad all right - and for me, cancels out any good he did, frankly. It was absolutely hateful.
    Sure, admire his achievements but please understand the position of those who take issue with him. We've very good reason, don't pretend otherwise.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Botany Bay
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭Botany Bay


    Instead of deploring certain concepts, such as the targeting of civilians. Racism, bigotry, sectarianism. Conor Crusie O'Brien engaged in some well worn Intellectual dishonesty. That of, selectively and contextually choosing when and where he oppossed these ideas. Condemnation of Militant Republicanism and Nationalism in one context. Yet support of militant Nationalism in the Middle East. Condemnation of certain sectarian attacks in the North. Yet clear retiscence, in regard to condeming others, which aren't framed within his own narrow-world view. Acceptance of an invitation to and co-operation with an Apartheid regime, seemed to not examine his conscience. Then again those nasty ANC were terrorists, so why would it.

    It's interesting how he and it seems on here, many others. Selectively choose which acts and in which context to condemn. The condemnation comes voiceferously and strongly so, in the most narrow sense. Yet is strangely absent at other times. When it doesn't suit??

    Of course picking out one particular aspect of the man's life would be unfair, or perhaps doing him a diservice. But taken as a whole, it builds an interesting picture. Censorship of one extreme, yet an obvious and wilful flirtation and indeed courtship, with another. Of the northern, bible-bashing, sectarian kind. With beliefs that could best be described as primitive or medieval.

    Interesting man.


  • Options
    #133
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #134
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Indeed, in time his stint with UKUP will be forgotten about just like the party itself.

    His ideas on Unionist consent will not be forgotten and are now standard policy on N. Ireland. That could not be said in the early 70's.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #135
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Botany Bay wrote: »
    Instead of deploring certain concepts, such as the targeting of civilians. Racism, bigotry, sectarianism. Conor Crusie O'Brien engaged in some well worn Intellectual dishonesty. That of, selectively and contextually choosing when and where he oppossed these ideas. Condemnation of Militant Republicanism and Nationalism in one context. Yet support of militant Nationalism in the Middle East. Condemnation of certain sectarian attacks in the North. Yet clear retiscence, in regard to condeming others, which aren't framed within his own narrow-world view. Acceptance of an invitation to and co-operation with an Apartheid regime, seemed to not examine his conscience. Then again those nasty ANC were terrorists, so why would it.
    .

    QFT - Nail on the head there. Its not that he changed his mind over his lifetime,but that he held ultimately contradictory, hypocritical positions simultaneously.


  • Options
    #136
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #137
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Would you not consider hypocrisy a rather problematic trait? Surely it is? :confused:


  • Options
    #138
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    Whatever his failings, I for one will always remember the courage of his verbal attacks on IRA/Sinn Fein from his lonely detached house on Howth head . . .

    Sadly, Conor was one of the very few 'high profile' Southern Politicians who openy 'stood up' to Republicans during the Troubles - What a shame more Southern voices didnt have the backbone to condem the Provo's actions.


  • Options
    #139
    mountainyman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭mountainyman


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Originally Posted by Erin Go Brath View Post



    Us Irish have no shame then for all the atrocities that the IRA carried out in our name without any mandate or will of the vast majority of Irish people, its only the British who are guilty? Is that it? Conor Cruise O'Brien called it as it was, others in power constantly ducked the issue, and many still do. In a democracy people are allowed to oppose opinion or dogma, I do believe.

    I don't think that Ireland is the only country in the world not worth killing for. I am ashamed of the IRA after all they surrendered.

    MM


  • Options
    #140
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #141
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Nodin wrote: »
    Its not that he changed his mind over his lifetime,but that he held ultimately contradictory, hypocritical positions simultaneously.

    It's likely that everybody does, but most of us manage to conceal it. He didn't try: he put his ideas out there for anybody to consider.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Camelot wrote: »
    Whatever his failings, I for one will always remember the courage of his verbal attacks on IRA/Sinn Fein from his lonely detached house on Howth head . . .

    Sadly, Conor was one of the very few 'high profile' Southern Politicians who openy 'stood up' to Republicans during the Troubles - What a shame more Southern voices didnt have the backbone to condem the Provo's actions.
    It's a pity you don't acknowledge his flaws, which were quite significant.


  • Options
    #143
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    But I do acknowledge his flaws, hence my opening gambit in Post #138 "Whatever his failings" ............


  • Options
    #144
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    It looked more like "I'm gonna sweep his failings aside to focus on his GLORIOUS tirade against the provos".


  • Options
    #145
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Not when its consistency in the face of reality. If examined in isolation, the Cruisers remarks on Northern Republicans are fairly consistent, despite the fact they've little to do with the facts.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    He had links with and supported the Israeli right. They celebrated the Irgun and Lehi. Without pondering the rights and wrongs of their cause, the fact remains that they (a)targeted civillians and (b) committed acts which were classic examples of "terrorism". And thats not even touching on the colonisation of the OT. So when he opened his gob about 'men of violence' that makes him a hypocrite.

    He was notoriously soft on condemning the "other side" - be it the UDR, RUC or UDA/UVF....He took a chair from Apartheid South Africa....


  • Options
    #146
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Camelot wrote: »
    Sadly, Conor was one of the very few 'high profile' Southern Politicians who openy 'stood up' to Republicans during the Troubles - What a shame more Southern voices didnt have the backbone to condem the Provo's actions.

    Had he less brains, he would have been standing on a box ranting about 'catholic republicans' and their conspiracies to some poor sod stupid enough to walk a dog by him. The man had a rabid streak for a foe that didn't exist. He was willie Mc Crea with a bigger IQ.


  • Options
    #147
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    And he obviously wasn't stupid enough to not see all this, hence my assertion that he was an attention-seeker.


  • Options
    #148
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #149
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Well I've applauded him for speaking out against the IRA's campaign of violence. I acknowledge he was a brilliant writer and academic but I don't think that compensates for his stunts. Wagner was a brilliant composer but he was still a ferocious anti-Semite.
    As O'Brien notes, the Arab world has never accepted the legitimacy of the Israeli state, just as Irish nationalists have never accepted the legitimacy of partition. So his stance on Israel seems perfectly consistent with his stance on Northern Ireland.
    ... yet this man who was so disgusted by violence and terrorism didn't speak out against the outrageous treatment of Palestinians by the Israelis. Oh but of course... they were defending themselves. That's all right so. Let's ignore a bunch of military hard men bursting into a civilian Palestinian man's house, frightening his children, beating him, sexually assaulting his wife and then bulldozing his house - if it's defending the state, then it's perfectly reasonable.
    Do you have examples of this "soft" condemnation?
    How about "no condemnation at all"?
    So? How does that make him a hypocrite?
    It's very hypocritical really of this man to not boycott a state that implemented a violent and anti-democratic system like Apartheid.

    The more I think about him the more I'm sickened by him... and while I can understand people's admiration for some of what he did, I can't understand why people would call him a "truly great man" etc.


  • Options
    #150
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Rather ignoring his complaints re 'xenophobic nationalism', aren't you? I don't see why it should suddenly become acceptable when expressed by Likud.

    Heres how big brave Conor acted towards someone who dared report in a manner that he disapproved.
    Link

    Did you know that when three catholic lads were killed in a fire in the north in the late 1990's, he said it was an IRA plot to start hostilities again?
    donegalfella wrote: »
    So? How does that make him a hypocrite?

    He condemned racism.

    It actually makes him far worse than a hypocrite, btw.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement