The Cruiser

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe it might have taken a root and branch look at the sectarian statelet that led to it, rather than hang around for another few decades before doing what it should have done in the first place....

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You'll find that the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem and Golan are not within Israels internationally recognised borders.

Mikel

Nodin wrote: »

Maybe it might have taken a root and branch look at the sectarian statelet that led to it, rather than hang around for another few decades before doing what it should have done in the first place....

Which was?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He stated that Israel was correct in occupying the West Bank and should continue to do so. Thats above and beyond defending borders and citizens.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The quality of the work was never in question. However dear old Conor would froth at the mouth at any sympathetic or realistic portrayal of any nationalist.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It underlines the hysterical rabidity of the man on that area.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

....he breached the boycott. In fairness he probably didn't think that they should apply to such an august personage as himself, but still....

Nodin

Mikel wrote: »

Which was?

Reform said sectarian statelet...? Getting rid of the whole "sectarian" part being a good start.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Absolutely. How precisely he was supposed to be for the colonisation of the OT but against the Apartheid state of SA is another of his mental hijinks.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It was 1998, not 1974. And yes, claiming one group burned three of 'their own' to death to make the other lot bad without a shred of evidence is indeed hysterical. As was his description of those killed on Bloody Sunday, and various other utterances through out the years. 'Unbalanced'.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

...so forcefully that it was the attitude of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa that pushed him out.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dudess

Donegalfella, why the disingenuousness? O'Brien was outraged by one violent organisation which he perceived as anti-democratic... yet other violent, anti-democratic organisations were fine - just because they were the "more legitimate construction" (your words) of a state. So state violence against innocent civilians (not self defence) – fine, because it's government officials behind it rather than "bandits". There's the hypocrisy Nodin is talking about.
Neither is ok... although I'd argue state violence is actually worse - especially when it's scenarios like that which I described in Palestine where bullying and abuse are brought into the equation – hardly within a soldier’s remit. How the **** is that self defence?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh you know there were cultural and academic boycotts against SA in operation but of course O'Brien had to be different.

Nodin wrote: »

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

What a bully.

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?

Jesus Christ, I despair. And people here are DEFENDING him?! Those small boys were the Quinn brothers. It was known from early on that that attack was carried out by loyalists.
After the attack, the Orange Order, whom CCOB no doubt professed to admire greatly,

ignored requests by the RUC to cease playing when passing by the house of their grandmother.

(Wiki) :mad:

donegalfella wrote: »

You fail to note that "big brave Conor" was editor-in-chief of The Observer at the time. An editor-in-chief is professionally responsible for his paper's content.

Are you for real? So an editor-in-chief in a democracy can try to get a journalist fired because they personally disagree with the topic the journalist covers? And among the topics he took issue with was the experiences of catholics during the Civil Rights era? These people were being brutalised and discriminated against and he still considered them Sinn Fein/IRA scum? What utter vileness by him. I actually can’t believe I’m reading this. Yeah, some editors-in-chief would behave like that all right – in China.
I studied journalism, I worked in two national newspapers - no, it doesn't work like that in this democracy of ours.

Exactly what do you think an editor-in-chief does when he doesn't like a reporter's work?

"Doesn't like?" Surely that only applies to copy which is libellous, inaccurate, badly written? And sadly, business interests have to be taken into account also nowadays as the line between editorial and advertising is becoming increasingly blurred. But even then, no need for sackings, just have words with the journalist and don't publish it.
Political views being at odds with those of the editor-in-chief really don't come into it - I can't believe you wrote that.

Does he give her a pat on the head and a big bonus?

Eh... no. They just... don't try to get them fired?

And when he journeyed to South Africa he condemned white supremacism and the so-called necklace murderers. Perfectly consistent with his beliefs, in my book.

Fair enough.

At that particular time in Northern Ireland, it was commonplace to attribute any explosion, any shooting, any kind of suspicious event, to a renewal of sectarian hostilities. The province was on a knife-edge, and O'Brien was hardly the only one who thought the peace process doomed to failure. It doesn't exactly make him a hysteric.

I fail to see the point in his whingeing though. What did he want? Things to continue the way they were? Maybe instead of trying to piss on people’s parades, he could have used his writings for constructive commentary/suggestions.

Academic boycotts are anathema to the spirit of academic freedom that O'Brien had been so instrumental in upholding elsewhere in Africa.

It’s not like academics over there could say whatever they wanted though. A professor who taught me in UCC is South African and had to get the hell out of there during the 70s for voicing his opposition to the regime.

Nodin

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Call me a tree hugger, but when "statehood" requires creating a semi-apartheid system outside your own borders, I'll just have to pass.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That it was a ridiclous, irresponsible and stupid comment to make, much like many others the man spouted.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Like Gerry Adams and many others in the Republican movement?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

Like Gerry Adams and many others in the Republican movement?

Nope, they just took 40 years to realise that what CCOB was saying was correct. Unfortunately 100's were killed in the process.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dudess

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I and plenty of others consider acts by the U.S. army to be terrorist

Democracy has nothing to do with it. A newspaper is a privately owned and privately financed entity.

True, but...

An editor-in-chief has every right to decide what range of views he does and does not want to see expressed in its pages. You think this doesn't happen everywhere from the Sun to the New York Times?

Not sackings, no. An item doesn't actually have to make the pages, the buck does not stop with its writer. Far from it. It has to go through several more avenues before publication. Ah I can't believe you think O'Brien had the right to bully that woman. All he had to do was say he didn't want her to write material of that nature and the articles could have been "spiked".

The Unionists of Northern Ireland considered Mary Holland to be a pro-nationalist writer. O'Brien didn't want the Observer leaning politically in that direction, as was his prerogative as editor-in-chief.

But he did want it leaning in another specific political direction.

Why don't you submit a thoroughly researched, beautifully written article to the Irish Times extolling the virtues of white supremacism? Let us know whether the editor-in-chief decides to run it.

Ah Jesus Christ... and so Godwin starts to rear its head. Do you have to pick such an extreme example? Talk about not comparing like with like! Examining the experience of catholics during the Civil Rights era versus extolling white supremacism. Come on! And no, Geraldine Kennedy wouldn't want her paper used as a platform for such political ideology, the same way O'Brien didn't want his paper used as a platform for less fanatical but still fairly extreme political ideology... oh wait.
If I wrote a thoroughly researched, beautifully written article about white supremacism I'd be very surprised if The Irish Times had a problem with it. That's what Mary Holland did, she wrote about something, not extolling the virtues of it. But it was about something which unionists did not want to face up to, so that made her "pro-nationalist". :rolleyes:

LordSutch

Nodin wrote: »

Like Gerry Adams and many others in the Republican movement?

Gerry Adams, a fine & upstanding pillar of the community if ever I saw one.

'Adams' swimming against the tide indeed :rolleyes:

Adams & his ilk were the bain of the Cruiser (or maybe his fuel) but either way Conor stood up to him & condemned him, & rightly so, so dont ever hold up 'Provo' Adams as some kinda virtuous pillar ........

Unless of course you supported the Provo's & their aims.

Dudess

Camelot wrote: »

Swimming against the tide indeed :rolleyes:

Yup. That's what CCOB did.

Adams & his ilk were the bain of the Cruiser (or maybe his fuel), but dont ever hold up Prove Adams as some kinda virtuous pillar ........

Yet "his ilk" would surely mean his loyalist counterparts... but no condemnation from the Cruiser. Or you for that matter.

I don't get the rabid anti republican violence but the "oh yeah they're scum too" throwaway comments in relation to loyalist paramilitaries. Yet many of them would have wanted to "off" you and CCOB simply due to your nationality...

LordSutch

Listen here Dudess, I dont like Loyalist scum bags any more than you do, I condemn them 100%, I despise them & I loath their actions, but this Thread is about Conor Cruise O'Brien, and he focused on Republicans & their blood lust to attain their aims at any cost, & I have always agreed with CCOB for standing-up to them.

He was one of the very few voices 'with any weight' down South standing up to Adams & Co.

Well done the cruiser I say.

dlofnep

I don't wish death on anybody, but suffice to say - Ireland is a better place to live in today.

dlofnep

Camelot wrote: »

Unless of course you supported the Provo's & their aims.

To remove British rule in Ireland, which was at that time oppressing catholics, colluding with loyalist terrorists and failing to accept responsibility for the deaths of countless civilians? Seems like a reasonable aim to me.

K-9

dlofnep wrote: »

To remove British rule in Ireland, which was at that time oppressing catholics, colluding with loyalist terrorists and failing to accept responsibility for the deaths of countless civilians? Seems like a reasonable aim to me.

Against the will of the majority in the Statelet?

Preferred the Civil Rights Associations aims myself.

Also preferred the SDLP's way of going about the above.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pjproby

ccob get twelve pages of responses(at least) on boards.ie
you may love him or hate him but he made you think.
I was in the Irish Labour Party in 1969, Ambivalence was prevalent. Dual membership(with Sinn Fein) was common. He forced people to choose.Many came back to Labour disenchanted with Sinn Fein's sense of order.
Will you get as many references on your death.
Sunningdale was for slow learners. How many IRA men/women slunk into the mire of their own depravity to achieve a united Ireland?
Thirty years later-thousands dead no sign of that elusive state.
Sunningdale would have achieved it all.
Sleep well Conor you made us think.

K-9

pjproby wrote: »

ccob get twelve pages of responses(at least) on boards.ie
you may love him or hate him but he made you think.
I was in the Irish Labour Party in 1969, Ambivalence was prevalent. Dual membership(with Sinn Fein) was common. He forced people to choose.Many came back to Labour disenchanted with Sinn Fein's sense of order.
Will you get as many references on your death.
Sunningdale was for slow learners. How many IRA men/women slunk into the mire of their own depravity to achieve a united Ireland?
Thirty years later-thousands dead no sign of that elusive state.
Sunningdale would have achieved it all.
Sleep well Conor you made us think.

Have to say, THE best post on this thread. For all his faults and there were many, if SF and indeed FG and FF had listened to him from the start, the Troubles would have been a short period in History.

On Sunningdale, such a lost opportunity and yes, Paisley and the Loyalist Paramiliatries should have applied the same principles of listening to the other side, despite popular opinion.

He changed Nationalist and eventually Republican opinion in Ireland. We should be eternally grateful.

P. Breathnach

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't wish death on anybody, but suffice to say - Ireland is a better place to live in today.

In what way is your life better as a result of the death of CCOB?

My guess is that he scarcely entered your consciousness in the past few years, and that he never did you any harm other than, perhaps, irritate you occasionally.

Dudess

Camelot wrote: »

Listen here Dudess, I dont like Loyalist scum bags any more than you do, I condemn them 100%, I despise them & I loath their actions, but this Thread is about Conor Cruise O'Brien, and he focused on Republicans & their blood lust to attain their aims at any cost, & I have always agreed with CCOB for standing-up to them.

He was one of the very few voices 'with any weight' down South standing up to Adams & Co.

He was slow to condemn loyalist paramilitaries though, which is of relevance when discussing the man's legacy, and utterly baffling. By the way, I'm not implying you support loyalist terrorists, I know you don't. I just don't understand the disproportionate focus on republican violence to the point of neglecting the atrocities on the other side - violence is violence.

Well done the cruiser I say.

For a lot of what he achieved, yes... but it's so sad he had to say those things about the Bloody Sunday murdered. Unforgivable. Yes, I admit I find it hard to see past it... I won't apologise for it though.

dlofnep wrote: »

To remove British rule in Ireland, which was at that time oppressing catholics, colluding with loyalist terrorists and failing to accept responsibility for the deaths of countless civilians? Seems like a reasonable aim to me.

Me too, but I cannot support the violence that accompanied it.

Seanies32 wrote: »

Preferred the Civil Rights Associations aims myself.

Also preferred the SDLP's way of going about the above.

The Civil Rights movement encountered obstacles at every turn though, thanks to the suspicion of hardline unionists who insisted these people were not simply appealing for more rights but that it was code for "fighting for a united Ireland"... yet they weren't. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. Well done hardline unionists! :mad:

donegalfella wrote: »

Okay, so now we get down to it—the opinion held by you and plenty of others is that the U.S. Army are terrorists, just like Al-Qaeda are terrorists. That level of moral equivalence just about says it all, really.

Explain to me how certain actions (and these are only the ones we know about) by certain members of the U.S. army, the Israeli army and the British army aren't terrorist? You know, it would be quite a different story if these soldiers followed best practice to a tee, but no: they've tortured and beaten, they've targeted civilians... please don't tell me they're still not capable of being terrorists just because they're state-backed.

And where did I say that O'Brien had the "right" to "bully" her? By all accounts, the two engaged in several heated disputes about the content and style of her articles, and she gave as good as she got. Such disputes are not exactly an unusual occurrence in the world of journalism—or indeed, in the world of employment as a whole.

He tried to get her sacked - a bully.

I was intentionally picking an example that was extreme, almost absurd, to make it clear that the editorial staff has to look at more than just an the factual accuracy of an article or the quality of its prose before they publish something in the paper. They have to evaluate the politics of the piece, and they have to consider how it will be received by their readership.

And if it's not deemed appropriate for publishing, they don't publish it. No need for the auld "I'm gonna get you fired for this" tactics - really there isn't.

You're continuing to act as if O'Brien had some sort of moral obligation to publish Holland's work without questioning it, when he didn't.

No, again, I'm simply saying he didn't have to try to get her sacked.

As editor-in-chief of a privately owned newspaper, he had been placed in the position of having the final say over the paper's political direction. His entanglement with Holland took place in 1979, a charged time in the history of the Troubles—and the import of her journalism was more significant then than perhaps it seems to us now, almost thirty years on.

One can certainly suggest that O'Brien made the wrong call when he opposed Holland—and I'm not by any means trying to suggest that he was right about everything all the time.

I accept your point that the Observer wanted to keep things leaning in a certain direction politically, however I strongly suspect that's how CCOB would have liked to steer things anyway. He was in an extremely biased position.

I've already said that when one lives the bulk of a 91-year-long life in the public eye, one inevitably made mistakes that are recorded and dredged up time and time again by one's political enemies. But I do think that the level of disparagement and vitriol being leveled at O'Brien in this thread—from people who are prepared to write off his entire career because he once said X about Y—is inexcusably simplistic and naive.

Can you not see the gravity of some of the stuff he did/said? Do you not realise the hurt that Bloody Sunday comment would have caused? That comment was really serious. Ditto his joining the UKUP. I know I keep bringing those up but you just seem to view them as slip-ups when they would have been like a kick in the stomach for northern nationalists.

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

The Civil Rights movement encountered obstacles at every turn though, thanks to the suspicion of hardline unionists who insisted these people were not simply appealing for more rights but that it was code for "fighting for a united Ireland"... yet they weren't. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. Well done hardline unionists! :mad:

Yep, the hardline Unionists wrecked it as did the Hardline Republicans who thought it was code for "killing for an United Ireland".

Well done Hard line Republicans, thanks for the 30 years!

The vast majority of the Civil Rights Association chose the SDLP, the democratic choice who led the way for others to follow!

Not far off CCOB!

PS. CCOB and people like him made SF earn their position in a democratic society. They had to accept their seats in the Dail, accept democratic principles, accept their view was a Minority opinion and that the war was pointless, led to the Hume Adams talks etc.

Basically to earn their voice in a political process they had to renounce violence and earn a democratic mandate and it eventually led to Power sharing.

CCOB was advocating power sharing long before SF even contemplated it! In that respect, SF owes CCOB and should acknowledge he was ahead of his time!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blinding

pjproby wrote: »

ccob get twelve pages of responses(at least) on boards.ie
you may love him or hate him but he made you think.
I was in the Irish Labour Party in 1969, Ambivalence was prevalent. Dual membership(with Sinn Fein) was common. He forced people to choose.Many came back to Labour disenchanted with Sinn Fein's sense of order.
Will you get as many references on your death.
Sunningdale was for slow learners. How many IRA men/women slunk into the mire of their own depravity to achieve a united Ireland?
Thirty years later-thousands dead no sign of that elusive state.
Sunningdale would have achieved it all.
Sleep well Conor you made us think.

It was Unionists/Loyalists that took down Sunningdale.

Had the british stuck with Sunningdale it would have been interesting but thats all history now.

Maybe both sides were just not ready at that stage.

Dudess

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry, but how is the above even relevant? I'm referring to when members of those three armies commit human rights abuses en masse... how is it wrong of me to compare them to terrorists? I'm not saying those armies in and of themselves are "official terrorist cells", I'm referring to certain individuals who are members of these armies and the acts they have perpetrated. Please don't pretend e.g. the Israelis haven't been responsible for utter horrors against Palestinians. Even as a kid in the 80s I remember the international outcry over same.

Soldiers of legitimiate democratic states such as Israel

Debatable. Put yourself in a Palestinian person's shoes for one moment.

the United States, or the United Kingdom have fought bravely throughout the twentieth century to bring freedom, peace, and liberty to the world—but you see them as identical to the Arab terrorists who fight so that women can be subjugated, so that gays can be tortured and executed, or so that Jews can be exterminated from the face of the earth. You effectively argue that these soldiers are just as bad as the Palestinian terrorists who would strap bombs to their own children and blow them up to fulfill some perverted ideal of honor. You effectively argue that the British Army is just as bad as the IRA, who wantonly sought to blow up old-age pensioners and kill young babies, all so they could fulfill their antidemocratic fantasy of a United Ireland. But you are so grievously wrong.

Of course the likes of e.g. the thugs at Abu Ghraib are as bad... if not worse because they were supposed to be representing a democratic, "freedom-loving" nation.

Conor Cruise O'Brien at least had an attuned moral sense; he knew when wrongs were being perpetrated, and he almost always had a good idea why. He didn't shy away from the truth

No, he also sought to embellish it somewhat - e.g. the Quinn boys, Bloody Sunday again. He obviously looked for wrongs being perpetrated... by one particular side.

He never became an apologist for Ghanian dictators or Soviet butchers or Irish nationalist maniacs.

Yeah we've established that. He did become an apologist for the Israelis though, he did become an apologist for fanatical unionism. I marvel that you don't see wrong in those, that you turn a blind eye to the wrongs perpetrated by those two groups.

That's the world that O'Brien feared, a world where black is white and white is black, and nobody knows which way is up anymore.

You and he seem to be the black and white ones - terrorists versus a western state's militia = evil versus good, no shades of grey...

Mikel

dlofnep wrote: »

To remove British rule in Ireland, which was at that time oppressing catholics, colluding with loyalist terrorists and failing to accept responsibility for the deaths of countless civilians? Seems like a reasonable aim to me.

Aims are one thing, you can have any aim you want.
It's how you go about it that is in question.