What's with the anti-Republican attitudes?

walrusgumble

DoireNod wrote: »

I think the media has a big part to play in that. The whole situation created by partition, then the Troubles and the body-count which accompanied it, made it hard for people to be 'proud' of being Irish, since people associated it with 'terrorism'. :eek:

Maybe I'm wrong.

possibly, would i would have genuine faith that the people themselves have enough cop on to be able to make their own indepenent judgements.

one would not be human if they were not horrified by the body count, republican, unionist or other. some in the media were only expressing what they saw and tried to be truthfull regardless whether its good or bad or against their personal views

Liam Byrne

walrusgumble wrote: »

some in the media were only expressing what they saw and tried to be truthfull regardless whether its good or bad or against their personal views

Yup....and it's even more "whataboutery" to blame the media for reporting what actually happened.

If nothing despicable happened, they couldn't report it.

IIMII

RiverWilde wrote: »

So you're okay with terrorism? In your mind it's perfectly acceptable to detonate a carbomb in a busy town and murder innocent people going about their daily lives? You're fine with the notion that if you murder enough people they'll come around to your point of view?
Yeah, I think you're the one who needs to cop on.

Riv

Are you ok with terrorism? You think it is ok for the British army to shoot innocent and unarmed people in a busy town for no good reason, whilst going about their daily lives? You're fine with the notion that if you murder enough people they'll come around to your point of view?
Yeah, I think you're the one who needs to cop on.

---

My actual point: Too many ugly things have happened on this island, over too many centuries. Once you introduce arms to politics (and I include the British army), events spiral out of control. Good was not a word I assoctiate with the Irish struggle for independence, and there were crazy and unforgivable acts carried out by Irish groups. But the fact remains that the British have been responsible for millions of deaths on this island from murder and famine. The truth of the matter is that the greatest terrorist organistation in Irish history wasn't even Irish, it was the English/British army. It's a fact. You can't just look at one side of a story

ChocolateSauce

IIMII wrote: »

Are you ok with terrorism? You think it is ok for the British army to shoot innocent and unarmed people in a busy town for no good reason, whilst going about their daily lives? You're fine with the notion that if you murder enough people they'll come around to your point of view?
Yeah, I think you're the one who needs to cop on.

That isn't terrorism. It's a massacre (arguably worse), but the army is accountable to the government; terrorists are accountable only to themselves.

walrusgumble

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yup....and it's even more "whataboutery" to blame the media for reporting what actually happened.

If nothing despicable happened, they couldn't report it.

i do not believe doirenod was doing a "whataboutery" in this regard. actualy i would say he wasn't . he was simply expressing a possibility that the media have a part to play for turning people into anti-republicans and by trying to compare actions of men and women of 1900-1940's to modern day standards. examples such as ccob and eoin harris. i do not believe doirened is actually completely blaming the media or most of the media.

i am simply saying that the media is only a fraction of the reason for people forming the views they have.

in fairness to doirenod, over the years there has being some extremely vicious and untrue accounts made by the media, in particular in the english papers on issues like the north, its own people, falklands etc. i am sure editors of certain papers regardless of nationality might approach a story differently to how it was done by their predeccessor in the past. some papers had clear agendas.

some might think of all sorts of gerry adams, but it use to be hillarious they way certain media (when he was not allowed to be filmed or heared in interviews here and uk) made him out as a total retard, thug, cornerboy etc. yet in some aspects (not the south's economy) he is well capable of putting his ideas across. by the way, this is something the british noticed a long long long time ago during the secret talks. have a look on youtube for the clip of steve coogan on the day to day as gerry adams which the headline (bastards?) - (i know it was more taking the pis* out of the british media, but there you go.

was the ban on sinn fein from the media really a good idea? they could not be heard in this region yet could get a place in america on places like larry king (assuming they were allowed into the us) you can't deny, and you would be a total idiot if you did, that some members of sinn fein worked day and night and worked their bones to actually get their people to agree to a peace process and good friday agreement, where actually willing to meet unionists and did not actually have the mentality the media believed it had. a political group along with other people risked their necks at the hands of militiants (the same goes for the unionists by the way) to convince the heavy men that constitutional means was the only possible resolution.look what has happened to people like mitchell mcloughlin who has spent all his life, and possible destroyed his own personal live to represent and protect his community in the method that was possibly available to him at the time in light of the circumstances. why were they shut out? or mor to the point why for so long? why did it have to take more killings before people actually had the balls to realise that the notion of not speaking to terrorist does not always work? some in the media failed to see this as postive and did much to try and disrupt it when basically there was very little option left. thats not whataboutery

i am simply saying and doirened has not dismissed the idea that in light of the past, and in light of seriously unfair and untrue accounts written by some reporters and their papers, surely people (regardless of background) have enough cop on to form their views on their own, regarldess of what it is they believe.

walrusgumble

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

That isn't terrorism. It's a massacre (arguably worse), but the army is accountable to the government; terrorists are accountable only to themselves.

do you honestly believe that the heavy men survive on air? that they don't rely on support for the civilians of their community/tribe?

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yup....and it's even more "whataboutery" to blame the media for reporting what actually happened.

If nothing despicable happened, they couldn't report it.

Like walrusgumble has said, I wasn't blaming the media for the anti-republican feeling.

If you had read what my previous post regarding the media was in response to, you'd have realised it was to do with Irish people being 'ashamed', so to speak, of being Irish. It was not an attempt to blame the media for fostering an anti-republican feeling among the Irish public.

Lone Stone

Because life is to short to be angry, move on

K-9

IIMII wrote: »

Are you ok with terrorism? You think it is ok for the British army to shoot innocent and unarmed people in a busy town for no good reason, whilst going about their daily lives? You're fine with the notion that if you murder enough people they'll come around to your point of view?
Yeah, I think you're the one who needs to cop on.

---

My actual point: Too many ugly things have happened on this island, over too many centuries. Once you introduce arms to politics (and I include the British army), events spiral out of control. Good was not a word I assoctiate with the Irish struggle for independence, and there were crazy and unforgivable acts carried out by Irish groups. But the fact remains that the British have been responsible for millions of deaths on this island from murder and famine. The truth of the matter is that the greatest terrorist organistation in Irish history wasn't even Irish, it was the English/British army. It's a fact. You can't just look at one side of a story

The first paragraph is classic whataboutery.

The second is a bit 800 years.

Nodin

RiverWilde wrote: »

So you're okay with terrorism?

In certain circumstances, yes.

RiverWilde wrote: »

In your mind it's perfectly acceptable to detonate a carbomb in a busy town and murder innocent people going about their daily lives? ?

I wouldn't go quite that far.

RiverWilde wrote: »

You're fine with the notion that if you murder enough people they'll come around to your point of view??

Thats an overly simplistic analysis of the problem.

The point is that it was driven primarily by social inequality and discrimination, not some misty eyed desire to ease the pain in teddys head.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

In certain circumstances, yes.

When is terrorism acceptable?

mick867

Nodin wrote: »

The armed struggle towards a united Ireland was primarily driven by discrimination in a sectarian statelet. This is a point that gets passed over again and again. Had their been even an attempt to have a fair society up there, damn few if any would have taken up the gun.

But with the fall of Stormont all that changed

in fact Adams himself has said that - so from circa 1973 the Sectarian State was more or less gone

so now justify the murderous campaign for the period from after 1973

to the GFA.

José Alaninho

mick867 wrote: »

so now justify the murderous campaign for the period from after 1973 to the GFA.

Less repression from the Sectarian state, but more and more brutal repression from big Britain herself.

José Alaninho

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When is terrorism acceptable?

When the British perpetrate it, apparently....

gurramok

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

That isn't terrorism. It's a massacre (arguably worse), but the army is accountable to the government; terrorists are accountable only to themselves.

Please list the accountability of the British Army to the shooting dead of hundreds of unarmed innocent civilians including kids.

Please list the convictions of said soldiers in those acts.

IIMII

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

That isn't terrorism. It's a massacre (arguably worse), but the army is accountable to the government; terrorists are accountable only to themselves.

Splitting hairs. A British Army Active Service Unit riddles kids in Derry looking for civil rights to put that movement in it's place (I take it that you were referring to) and that isn't terrorism?

IIMII

K-9 wrote: »

The first paragraph is classic whataboutery.

The second is a bit 800 years.

Just because it's whataboutery and a bit 800 years doesn't mean it isn't true

mick867

José Alaninho wrote: »

Less repression from the Sectarian state, but more and more brutal repression from big Britain herself.

So we are moving goalposts here are we

what repression- in fact,

If you look at everything that SUnningdale offered- its no different to whats being used up there now.

Except there are about 3,000 more dead people

and a lot of freedom fighters now have lovely summer homes on the Donegal coast.

IIMII

mick867 wrote: »

If you look at everything that SUnningdale offered- its no different to whats being used up there now.

Except there are about 3,000 more dead people

Fairly accurate. Who scuppered it? Whose fault was it that it collapsed and why did they collapse it?

Where was the only pro-Sunningdale MP elected in the following elections?

Fratton Fred

José Alaninho wrote: »

When the British perpetrate it, apparently....

i asked a direct question, you answered with more whataboutery.

Wheely

gandalf wrote: »

It is a list of innocent people murdered by the Volunteers who you are lauding that I compiled in a very short period of time off the top of my head. I am not ignorant I am showing you that you can dress up an organisation any way you want it is their actions that show their true metal.

This so called code of conduct, call it whatever you want as far as I am concerned its just PR. Its the blood the so called "hard done" by volunteers bathed their hands in that counts. We won't agree on this. These men as far as I am concerned and in the opinion of a lot of others on this Island are thugs, are murderers and imho their actions have held this country back rather than moved it forward.

They have tainted Republicanism forever with their short sighted tribalism and blood lust. They like all the other thug organisations in the North are the same. People who act as apologists for them are imho the real ignorant ones.

I'm being completely tongue in cheek here-but it is funny to read your posts and then look at your avatar

S-Murph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When is terrorism acceptable?

It could be argued that the Irish state uses forms of structural terrorism to enforce its ideological views. Terrorism can be defined as the use of violence and fear to implement or further a particular ideological position. This is what the Gardai do all the time, its their very role in this society.

The difference however is that you are approaching this in acceptance of the dominant ideology, that is, to see the gardai as legitimate, and in a way which avoids a recognition of its use of terrorism. Your ideological position is not necessarily the 'correct' one.

Similarly, members of republican paramilitaries have an alternative ideology, and one in which they see themselves as "freedom fighters" - which as with your approach to the Gardai, avoids the label of terrorist.

Unless you are a pacifist, or some sort of anarchist, you cannot speak from a moral high ground on the 'terrorism' of republicans while accepting another, argueably more barbaric and murderous form. The Irish and British state are the largest terrorist institutions on this island. Both of which their violence preceeds any democratic mandate.

Its not constructive, and nor is it any sort of an argument, to fling the words "terrorism" and "democratic mandate" around. Both are entirely subjective to the indiduals involved.

Instead, those who use violence should be judged on the merits of that violence, their aims, their ideology, whether it is progressive etc.

IIMII

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When is terrorism acceptable?

When it's Britsh sponsored.

Happy?

djpbarry

S-Murph wrote: »

Terrorism can be defined as the use of violence and fear to implement or further a particular ideological position. This is what the Gardai do all the time, its their very role in this society.

No it is not and that has to be the single most ridiculous excuse for terrorism I’ve read to date. Kudos.

S-Murph wrote: »

Unless you are a pacifist, or some sort of anarchist, you cannot speak from a moral high ground on the 'terrorism' of republicans while accepting another form.

More horse****. If I defend my wife from attack that makes me no better than a pub-bomber? Bollocks.

S-Murph wrote: »

Instead, those who use violence should be judged on the merits of that violence, their aims, their ideology, whether it is progressive etc.

Oh right, I see. So if I blow up a pub or a shopping centre, it’s ok as long as I have a legitimate political aim?

I fear for the future of humanity sometimes. I really do.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When is terrorism acceptable?

When other avenues have been blocked. They tried peaceful protest up the North and got batoned off the street for their trouble.

Mick867 wrote:

But with the fall of Stormont all that changed?

No, only partially.

S-Murph

djpbarry wrote: »

No it is not and that has to be the single most ridiculous excuse for terrorism I’ve read to date. Kudos.

"No it is not".

Is that all you have to say?

How about

"Yes it is".

'Kudos'

More horse****. If I defend my wife from attack that makes me no better than a pub-bomber? Bollocks.

You might have missed my last line

"Instead, those who use violence should be judged on the merits of that violence, their aims, their ideology, whether it is progressive"

Oh right, I see. So if I blow up a pub or a shopping centre, it’s ok as long as I have a legitimate political aim?

It would depend on a combination of factors, not just the aim.

Potentially it could be "ok". At least those who undertake it beleive so.

It appears the use of violence and detention by the Irish state is "ok" too. Or the thousands (over 5,000) who die each year in this state due to forms of preventable inequality and deprivation. A consequence of ideological resource allocation enforced through violence and terror.

But this is all "ok" isnt it.

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

Like walrusgumble has said, I wasn't blaming the media for the anti-republican feeling.

If you had read what my previous post regarding the media was in response to, you'd have realised it was to do with Irish people being 'ashamed', so to speak, of being Irish. It was not an attempt to blame the media for fostering an anti-republican feeling among the Irish public.

Firstly, Irish people are not "ashamed" of being Irish. Look around boards at my reaction to being accused of being "West Brit" or other such bull****.

The fact of the matter is that most people are not "anti-republican"; you could say that we are "anti-republican-movement" but even then you'd be over-simplifying it, because the fact is that we are "anti-republican-movement-tactics".

And until the "republican movement" cop on to that fact, they will continue to deserve and attract contempt.

If someone tells me "I want XXXXX to happen", that's fine by me.
If someone tells me "I want XXXXX to happen, but I'll excuse all these thugs and criminals and campaign to have Garda murderers released, etc - even though they supposedly broke the rules", then I'll object, and I'll SERIOUSLY object to someone taking the stance that that somehow makes me "ashamed" to be Irish, or somehow less Irish.

The fact is that the "republican-movement" are happy to say that the scum "broke the rules", or "made a mistake" (yada, yada, yada) and yet WILL NOT SANCTION THEM; while at the same time looking for the British to make an example of anyone who has done anything objectionable or contemptable.

And therein lies the conundrum; non-sympathisers can see this inconsistency, while the blinkered followers don't.

As I've said numerous times; I've no objection to disagreeing with someone and leaving it at that, HOWEVER I cannot understand someone who makes demands from their own side without following the same ideals themselves.

Example : the republican mindset condoned the murder of McCabe and viewed Ferris visiting the scum as OK a result of those scum's previous "volunteer efforts"; but when questioning the actions of British soldiers and demanding their sanction, they made no reference to what that soldier may have done in the past for their country.

See where I'm coming from ?

And BTW, I don't agree with the above (some actions undo past goodwills) but at least it would be consistent!

WillieCocker

Oh look, another "I can't believe it's not Shinner" thread on Boards.

Liam Byrne

Nodin wrote: »

They tried peaceful protest up the North and got batoned off the street for their trouble.

Explain to me how that - damning as it is - "progressed" to become robbing banks, dragging people off to bogs to kneecap and kill them, blowing up innocent shoppers, and murdering Gardai ?

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Firstly, Irish people are not "ashamed" of being Irish. Look around boards at my reaction to being accused of being "West Brit" or other such bull****.

Dude, calm down!

I never said all Irish people were ashamed of being Irish! One poster asked if anyone felt ashamed of being Irish due to the Irish state being founded on what he believed was 'terrorism', then another asked why that was if I remember correctly. I merely suggested that the media had a part to play in that. I didn't say it was entirely the media's fault.

See where I'm coming from ?

You and I have had these discussions before, so I'm not going to go into it again. I do see where you're coming from.