John Waters - "We must seize Tricolour back from thugs"

MakeEmLaugh

This article by John Waters was taken from today's Irish Times:

IF OUR displeasure concerning the paramilitary display at the funeral of the assassinated criminal Alan Ryan is confined to a moralistic outrage at the calculated affront offered to the State, we will have missed the point.

There is a far more ominous strand in this saga, captured most succinctly in an article in the Irish Mail on Sunday last weekend, in which reporter Alison O’Reilly recalled a 2010 meeting with Ryan, in which he castigated the current Sinn Féin leadership for selling out on republican ideals.

“Martin McGuinness is a Judas,” he said. “The nine hunger strikers who died for Ireland would turn in their graves if they saw what he has done.” O’Reilly pointed out that 10 republican prisoners died in the 1981 hunger strike. When she asked Ryan to name them, he simply laughed.

This remarkable exchange with someone whom journalists seem matter-of-fact about identifying as head of the Dublin branch of “the Real IRA” should provoke deeper questions than we have yet managed to articulate. It takes us beyond parody, beyond our worst nightmares, beyond the most fatalistic prognostications of the Jeremiah revisionists who warned us of the dangers of untreated nationalism.

Here was an unreconstructed thug who had strutted under the Tricolour – which finally draped his coffin as few honest citizens can hope for themselves – appropriating a solemn and sacred national historiography in order to reduce it to his own requirements, but feeling no necessity to know or understand it. Either this is the most ludicrous – and therefore harmless – pantomime, or evidence of something terminal.

I believe it’s the latter: possibly a sign of the imminent death of the Irish nation, certainly of the emptying-out of the patriotic chalice that has sustained Ireland through many centuries of strife and abuse. Unless we seize our flag and history back from thugs such as Ryan there can henceforth be no legitimate, authentic expression of a nationalistic sentiment or a patriotic idea.

For the revisionists, of course, the very idea of Ireland as an integral political concern had become corrupted, perhaps rendering Ryan inevitable. The main context of their prognostications was the bloody campaign of the Provisional IRA, to which most of the aforementioned hunger strikers belonged.

From this perspective, Irish nationalism was ugliness and thuggery from the start. The revisionists sought to demolish any distinction between the Provos and, for example, their 1916 antecedents – proposing, in effect, that the condition now represented by the late Ryan might yet become the naked and inevitable culmination of Irish nationalist endeavour.

In this schema, the whole of our history is junked. Unless we can establish a point of fundamental distinction, and draw a line across it, we must accept the logic the revisionists proposed, and should therefore furl up our flag and slip away into the post-historical night.

But, let us stop to think a little before it comes to that. In truth, surely, there are several lines we might draw across the map of our nation’s history. There is one, for instance, to be drawn between the signatories of the Proclamation and the movements to which the Maze hunger strikers belonged. This line separates a tradition that was overwhelmingly honourable from something that became dark, sadistic and evil. But there is a line to be drawn, too, between the hunger strikers and latter-day “dissident republicans” such as Ryan.

For all the nastiness of the PIRA and INLA organisations to which men such as Bobby Sands and Patsy O’Hara belonged, there was something noble and redemptive about the conviction and sacrifice of these men.

Their actions were born of an idealism that today has become inaccessible in our culture, either through subjective impulse or objective understanding.

The issue, then, is not some intrinsic corruption – or even progressive degeneration – of Irish nationalism, but something far more complex.

What requires to be contemplated here is a protracted historical unfolding, having to do with the increasing self-consciousness of modern culture. In the hall of mirrors that the mass media society creates for itself, it becomes more and more difficult to adopt a sufficiently “virginal” or “innocent” demeanour before the great questions of national realisation, something societies before the middle of the 20th century were able to take for granted.

We can evince a superficial admiration for men such as Patrick Pearse or Roger Casement or Sands, whom we may consider courageous or principled or idealistic, but we cannot today access the inner life of such men, because the self-centred obsessions of our culture render them alien.

Our collective thought processes tend increasingly to assume that this is because such perspectives as they arrived at were freakish by definition, some process of cultural evolution having rendered obsolete and ludicrous the passions that resulted.

Yet, rarely in our history have we required patriotism more than now, when it has become inaccessible to us.

The pervasiveness of a knowing cynicism has made impossible the evincing of an authentic nationalism, and yet the husk of this indispensable phenomenon remains to be misappropriated by a different and more lethal brand of cynic.

And this usurping, causing us to retreat even further from what we cannot understand, accelerates the process which leads to our destruction.

What are people's thoughts?

I will say this, at least Waters didn't specifically name Francis Hughes as having something "noble and redemptive" about starving himself to death in 1981.

Hughes was a murdering thug, who planted the car-bomb that decapitated 10-year old Lesley Gordon, and blew her 7-year old brother into a field. Her crime? Her father William was a factory-worker and part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. He, too, was killed.

golfball37

What I think is- you used this article to have a go at Francis Hughes. Why didn't you just start a thread about him rather than hiding under the cover of this article?

Happyman42

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

This article by John Waters was taken from today's Irish Times:



What are people's thoughts?

I will say this, at least Waters didn't specifically name Francis Hughes as having something "noble and redemptive" about starving himself to death in 1981.

Hughes was a murdering thug, who planted the car-bomb that decapitated 10-year old Lesley Gordon, and blew her 7-year old brother into a field. Her crime? Her father William was a factory-worker and part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. He, too, was killed.

should provoke deeper questions than we have yet managed to articulate.

:D Good man John, I'm sure you are smart enough to come up with the questions to service your needs.:rolleyes:

For all the nastiness of the PIRA and INLA organisations to which men such as Bobby Sands and Patsy O’Hara belonged, there was something noble and redemptive about the conviction and sacrifice of these men.

I said it before and I'll say it again, give it thirty or forty years and they'll have appropiated Martin and Gerry as 'their heroic statesmen' in the same way as they appropiated Tone, Pearse etc.
It's the way it works with those who ignored their fellow countrymen and the partitionist. Thankfully I have been spared most of Waters musings, so I don't know which one he is.
I think this article and others is indicative of the fact, that some are not looking forward to 2016 and the soul searching it will bring.

joseph brand

If it's written by Waters, it's not worth reading.

I have Waters on 'ignore'. And I'm not talking about boards.ie

Happyman42

joseph brand wrote: »

If it's written by Waters, it's not worth reading.

I have Waters on 'ignore'. And I'm not talking about boards.ie

He's gonna drive the British out by making them listen to his songs.

MakeEmLaugh

golfball37 wrote: »

What I think is- you used this article to have a go at Francis Hughes. Why didn't you just start a thread about him rather than hiding under the cover of this article?

I do not feel the need to "hide" under the cover of any article. I regard Francis Hughes as a murderer. I regard those who commemorate him as some kind of freedom fighter either clueless halfwits or, worse, apologists for criminal terrorism.

This is merely one aspect of this article I selected. There are other talking points: whether the Tricolour can be reclaimed as an heroic symbol of the Irish nation, or whether it has been irreversibly besmirched by the likes of Ryan, Hughes or indeed Pearse.

Happyman42

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I do not feel the need to "hide" under the cover of any article. I regard Francis Hughes as a murderer. I regard those who commemorate him as some kind of freedom fighter either clueless halfwits or, worse, apologists for criminal terrorism.

This is merely one aspect of this article I selected. There are other talking points: whether the Tricolour can be reclaimed as an heroic symbol of the Irish nation, or whether it has been irreversibly besmirched by the likes of Ryan, Hughes or indeed Pearse.

I know it's off topic but why single out Francis Hughes? It's a bit of an odd thing to do. Personally affected by his actions?

Nodin

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I do not feel the need to "hide" under the cover of any article. I regard Francis Hughes as a murderer. I regard those who commemorate him as some kind of freedom fighter either clueless halfwits or, worse, apologists for criminal terrorism.

This is merely one aspect of this article I selected. There are other talking points: whether the Tricolour can be reclaimed as an heroic symbol of the Irish nation, or whether it has been irreversibly besmirched by the likes of Ryan, Hughes or indeed Pearse.

Or whether it was in fact "besmirched".

MakeEmLaugh

Happyman42 wrote: »

I know it's off topic but why single out Francis Hughes? It's a bit of an odd thing to do. Personally affected by his actions?

You're right, it is an odd thing to do. The fact is, we know more about the actions of Hughes than we do the other hunger strikers.

Bobby Sands was arrested for possession of a firearm, rather than murder, like Hughes.

We know the leadership of the IRA at the time took such matters into consideration. Seth 'Vik' McFarlane volunteered to go on hunger strike first in 1980 and then again in 1981, but this was nixed by the IRA leadership because of McFarlane's involvement with the 1976 Bayardo Bar bombing, which killed five Protestants, only one of which was a member of the UVF.

Sunnyisland

Make Em Laugh wrote: »

You're right, it is an odd thing to do. The fact is, we know more about the actions of Hughes than we do the other hunger strikers.

Don't count me in with your we, Another few truths that you seem to have left out in which a quick google would have shown you

Hughes was the most wanted man in Northern Ireland until his arrest following a shoot-out with the Special Air Service (SAS) in which an SAS soldier was killed.[2] At his trial he was sentenced to a total of 83 years' imprisonment, and he died during the 1981 Irish hunger strike in HM Prison Maze.

Hughes initially joined the Official Irish Republican Army, but left after the organisation declared a ceasefire in May 1972

He led a life perpetually on the move, often moving on foot up to 20 miles during one night then sleeping during the day, either in fields and ditches or safe houses; a soldierly sight in his black beret and combat uniform and openly carrying a rifle, a handgun and several grenades as well as food rations

On 18 April 1977 Hughes, McGlinchey and Milne were travelling in a car near the town of Moneymore when an RUC patrol car carrying four officers signalled them to stop.[9][11] The IRA members attempted to escape by performing a u-turn, but lost control of the car which ended up in a ditch.[9] They abandoned the car and opened fire on the RUC patrol car killing two officers and wounding another, before running off through fields.[9][11] A second RUC patrol came under fire while attempting to prevent the men fleeing, and despite a search operation by the RUC and British Army the IRA members escaped.[11] Following the Moneymore shootings the RUC named Hughes as the most wanted man in Northern Ireland, and issued wanted posters with pictures of Hughes, Milne and McGlinchey.[11] Milne was arrested in Lurgan in August 1977, and McGlinchey later in the year in the Republic of Ireland.[11]

Hughes was eventually captured on 17 March 1978 near Maghera in County Londonderry after an exchange of gunfire with the British Army.[12] A member of the Parachute Regiment, L/CPL David Jones,[13] was killed in the gun battle, and another para seriously wounded. Hughes was wounded in the leg. He managed to limp away but was discovered the next morning in a search and surrendered to British troops.
In February 1980 he was sentenced to a total of 83 years in prison. Hughes was tried for, and found guilty of, the murder of one British Army soldier (for which he received a life sentence) and wounding of another (for which he received 14 years) in the incident which led to his capture, as well as a series of gun and bomb attacks over a six-year period. Security sources described him as "an absolute fanatic" and "a ruthless killer". Fellow republicans described him as "fearless and active".

Hughes was involved in the mass hunger strike in 1980, and was the second prisoner to join the 1981 Irish Hunger Strike in the H-Blocks at HM Prison Maze. His hunger strike started on 15 March 1981,[14] two weeks after Bobby Sands became the first hunger striker. He was the second striker to die, at 5:43pm BST on 12 May, after 59 days without food.[15] His death led to an upsurge in rioting in nationalist areas of Northern Ireland.
His cousin, Thomas McElwee, was the ninth hunger striker to die. One of his brothers, Oliver Hughes now sits on Magherafelt Council.
He is commemorated on the Irish Martyrs Memorial at Waverley Cemetery in Sydney, Australia.

Francis hughes was just one of thousands caught up in a conflict not of there making, and where your OP started of well it descends into picking out one individual for what it seems personal reasons,a lot of people can do that,My Aunt was one of 35 killed in the dublin/monaghan bombings in 1974, No one was ever convicted nor are the files of that time open to see who actually carried out the bombings,My point being let it go OP it was a dirty terrible conflict in which many innocent and not so innocent people lost there lives and by picking out one Individual solves nothing.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=francis%20the%20hunger&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFrancis_Hughes&ei=gDRUULW6DISKhQffvICwCA&usg=AFQjCNH9qYQpUul2fqIXn_0owuc9LJYqAA

SaoriseBiker

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Hughes was a murdering thug, who planted the car-bomb that decapitated 10-year old Lesley Gordon, and blew her 7-year old brother into a field. Her crime? Her father William was a factory-worker and part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. He, too, was killed.

Any proof of the above or as usual just unionist MOPERY ? No murdering thugs in the UDR or fore runners the B Specials ?

MakeEmLaugh

realies wrote: »

Don't count me in with your we, Another few truths that you seem to have left out in which a quick google would have shown you

Hughes was the most wanted man in Northern Ireland until his arrest following a shoot-out with the Special Air Service (SAS) in which an SAS soldier was killed.[2] At his trial he was sentenced to a total of 83 years' imprisonment, and he died during the 1981 Irish hunger strike in HM Prison Maze.

Hughes initially joined the Official Irish Republican Army, but left after the organisation declared a ceasefire in May 1972

He led a life perpetually on the move, often moving on foot up to 20 miles during one night then sleeping during the day, either in fields and ditches or safe houses; a soldierly sight in his black beret and combat uniform and openly carrying a rifle, a handgun and several grenades as well as food rations

On 18 April 1977 Hughes, McGlinchey and Milne were travelling in a car near the town of Moneymore when an RUC patrol car carrying four officers signalled them to stop.[9][11] The IRA members attempted to escape by performing a u-turn, but lost control of the car which ended up in a ditch.[9] They abandoned the car and opened fire on the RUC patrol car killing two officers and wounding another, before running off through fields.[9][11] A second RUC patrol came under fire while attempting to prevent the men fleeing, and despite a search operation by the RUC and British Army the IRA members escaped.[11] Following the Moneymore shootings the RUC named Hughes as the most wanted man in Northern Ireland, and issued wanted posters with pictures of Hughes, Milne and McGlinchey.[11] Milne was arrested in Lurgan in August 1977, and McGlinchey later in the year in the Republic of Ireland.[11]

Hughes was eventually captured on 17 March 1978 near Maghera in County Londonderry after an exchange of gunfire with the British Army.[12] A member of the Parachute Regiment, L/CPL David Jones,[13] was killed in the gun battle, and another para seriously wounded. Hughes was wounded in the leg. He managed to limp away but was discovered the next morning in a search and surrendered to British troops.
In February 1980 he was sentenced to a total of 83 years in prison. Hughes was tried for, and found guilty of, the murder of one British Army soldier (for which he received a life sentence) and wounding of another (for which he received 14 years) in the incident which led to his capture, as well as a series of gun and bomb attacks over a six-year period. Security sources described him as "an absolute fanatic" and "a ruthless killer". Fellow republicans described him as "fearless and active".

Hughes was involved in the mass hunger strike in 1980, and was the second prisoner to join the 1981 Irish Hunger Strike in the H-Blocks at HM Prison Maze. His hunger strike started on 15 March 1981,[14] two weeks after Bobby Sands became the first hunger striker. He was the second striker to die, at 5:43pm BST on 12 May, after 59 days without food.[15] His death led to an upsurge in rioting in nationalist areas of Northern Ireland.
His cousin, Thomas McElwee, was the ninth hunger striker to die. One of his brothers, Oliver Hughes now sits on Magherafelt Council.
He is commemorated on the Irish Martyrs Memorial at Waverley Cemetery in Sydney, Australia.

Francis hughes was just one of thousands caught up in a conflict not of there making, and where your OP started of well it descends into picking out one individual for what it seems personal reasons,a lot of people can do that,My Aunt was one of 35 killed in the dublin/monaghan bombings in 1974, No one was ever convicted nor are the files of that time open to see who actually carried out the bombings,My point being let it go OP it was a dirty terrible conflict in which many innocent and not so innocent people lost there lives and by picking out one Individual solves nothing.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=francis%20the%20hunger&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFrancis_Hughes&ei=gDRUULW6DISKhQffvICwCA&usg=AFQjCNH9qYQpUul2fqIXn_0owuc9LJYqAA

A few objections I have to this

(a) When I say "we", I am referring to those of us who have bothered to research the facts. I wasn't necessarily including you.

(b) I did not "leave out" any truths. I mentioned the truth which was related to my post. When one is making a point, it is not necessary to surround that point with other information which doesn't alter it in any way.

(c) Copying and pasting a lengthy extract from Wikipedia is not akin to good argument. It is actually the opposite. It will make the person you are addressing bored and want to dismiss what you have presented them with.

(d) The conflict was not specifically of Francis Hughes making, but it was not specifically of any one person's making. The fact is, Hughes contributed tremendously to that conflict with his murderous campaign against those representing law and order. His suicide created more fanatics which continue to represent a threat to the people of the island of Ireland today.

(e) Why mention the Dublin/Monaghan bombings, particularly when you incorrectly state the number of casualties on the day? I am sorry for the loss of your aunt, but this does nothing to strengthen your argument, or weaken mine. I regard those who carried out the Dublin/Monaghan bombings as every bit as murderous as Francis Hughes. They, too, should not be venerated.

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Any proof of the above or as usual just unionist MOPERY ? No murdering thugs in the UDR or fore runners the B Specials ?

Hughes' involvement with William and Lesley Gordan's deaths is common knowledge. If you can't be bothered to do your own research, don't pester me. Read a book.

And yes, there were murdering thugs in the UDR - Billy Hanna, Robert McConnell, Harris Boyle, Wesley Sommerville. They were just as despicable as Hughes was. What is your point?

Nodin

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

............ The fact is, Hughes contributed tremendously to that conflict with his murderous campaign against those representing law and order. .......

Had they been genuinely representing "law and order" there wouldn't have been a campaign in the first place.

Einhard

God John Water writes an awful lot of shoite. Even if he has somethign interesting and relevant to say, he wraps it in such verbiage as to make it unreadable.

RMD

Nodin wrote: »

Had they been genuinely representing "law and order" there wouldn't have been a campaign in the first place.

The campaign was due to an unsuccessful civil rights campaign, not the security services in Northern Ireland.

Nodin

RMD wrote: »

The campaign was due to an unsuccessful civil rights campaign, not the security services in Northern Ireland.

You'll find that the security services response to said campaign was "intrinsically linked", as they say. It's rather well documented.

Happyman42

RMD wrote: »

The campaign was due to an unsuccessful civil rights campaign, not the security services in Northern Ireland.

That is an astonishingly ignorant thing to say.
Who ensured that there was an abscence of civil rights or enforced the discrimination?

MakeEmLaugh

Nodin wrote: »

Had they been genuinely representing "law and order" there wouldn't have been a campaign in the first place.

Precisely what were they representing, then?

What was James Flanagan, a Catholic from Derry, representing when he was Chief Constable of the RUC in 1973?

What were Catholic judges like Rory Conaghan, William Doyle, William Staunton and William Travers representing when they were murdered by the IRA?

What were other Catholic judges like Turlough O'Donnell, Garret McGrath and Ambrose McGonigal representing when the IRA attempted to kill them?

What was Gabriel Mullaly, a retired RUC inspector and Catholic, representing when the IRA planted a bomb under his car in 1989, killing him and leaving his five children fatherless?

If the RUC, which was responsible for the death of a total of 44 Catholics, were not representing law and order, then what was the IRA, responsible for the death of 338 Catholics, representing?

SaoriseBiker

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Hughes' involvement with William and Lesley Gordan's deaths is common knowledge. If you can't be bothered to do your own research, don't pester me. Read a book.

During the Presidental election, it was " common knowledge " that Martin McGuinnness was respondcible fo just about everything in the troubles, Mountbatten, McCabe, Warrington, Birmingham etc, etc. " common knowledge " is bollox

And yes, there were murdering thugs in the UDR - Billy Hanna, Robert McConnell, Harris Boyle, Wesley Sommerville. They were just as despicable as Hughes was. What is your point?

Francis Hughes like thousands of young men and women were reacting to British terrorism. Thanks to Francis Hughes we have 30+ less British terrorists in this world, just like Tom Barry, Dan Breen, Ernie O'Malley and other great Irish men before him.

SaoriseBiker

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Precisely what were they representing, then?

What was James Flanagan, a Catholic from Derry, representing when he was Chief Constable of the RUC in 1973?

What were Catholic judges like Rory Conaghan, William Doyle, William Staunton and William Travers representing when they were murdered by the IRA?

What were other Catholic judges like Turlough O'Donnell, Garret McGrath and Ambrose McGonigal representing when the IRA attempted to kill them?

What was Gabriel Mullaly, a retired RUC inspector and Catholic, representing when the IRA planted a bomb under his car in 1989, killing him and leaving his five children fatherless?

If the RUC, which was responsible for the death of a total of 44 Catholics, were not representing law and order, then what was the IRA, responsible for the death of 338 Catholics, representing?

The RUC were offically responcible for 55 deaths, carrying out the first murders which brought about the troubles which included 67 years old Sam McCloskey beaten to death by them at a Civil Rights march in Dungiven and 9 year old Patrick Rooney shot by them when they machine gunned the Divis Flats in Belfast.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1969.html

MakeEmLaugh

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

During the Presidental election, it was " common knowledge " that Martin McGuinnness was respondcible fo just about everything in the troubles, Mountbatten, McCabe, Warrington, Birmingham etc, etc. " common knowledge " is bollox

That is an idiotic analogy to make, though I would expect no less from you. I am not speaking in broad strokes, I am talking about a specific double-murder - of William Gordon and his daughter Lesley - which Francis Hughes' unit planned and carried out. No member of the Republican movement, nor Hughes' family, has ever refuted his part in this double-murder.

Francis Hughes like thousands of young men and women were reacting to British terrorism. Thanks to Francis Hughes we have 30+ less British terrorists in this world, just like Tom Barry, Dan Breen, Ernie O'Malley and other great Irish men before him.

I do not subscribe to your vile belief that the 30+ people whose deaths Hughes was personally responsible for were "British terrorists". Presumably you regard Constable Ronan Kerr as a "British terrorist", as there is no different between his killing, and the killings Hughes carried out.

SaoriseBiker

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

That is an idiotic analogy to make, though I would expect no less from you. I am not speaking in broad strokes, I am talking about a specific double-murder - of William Gordon and his daughter Lesley - which Francis Hughes' unit planned and carried out. No member of the Republican movement, nor Hughes' family, has ever refuted his part in this double-murder.



I do not subscribe to your vile belief that the 30+ people whose deaths Hughes was personally responsible for were "British terrorists". Presumably you regard Constable Ronan Kerr as a "British terrorist", as there is no different between his killing, and the killings Hughes carried out.

If their's anything idiotic matey it's posting sh*te and then trying to defend it as " common knowledge " !!!!!!

MakeEmLaugh

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

The RUC were offically responcible for 55 deaths.

Not much of a reader, are you? I said the RUC were responsible for the deaths of 44 Catholics, which is the official number.

Terrorist-apologists like to harp on about how, throughout the Troubles, all the RUC did was murder defenceless Catholics. I'm surprised a sectarian bigot like yourself would care about any non-Catholics killed by the RUC.

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

If their's anything idiotic matey it's posting sh*te and then trying to defend it as " common knowledge " !!!!!!

Wow, Plato himself would be floored by such formidable debating skill. What was your next argument going to be: "I know you are but what am I?!"

SaoriseBiker

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Not much of a reader, are you? I said the RUC were responsible for the deaths of 44 Catholics, which is the official number.

Terrorist-apologists like to harp on about how, throughout the Troubles, all the RUC did was murder defenceless Catholics. I'm surprised a sectarian bigot like yourself would care about any non-Catholics killed by the RUC.



Wow, Plato himself would be floored by such formidable debating skill. What was your next argument going to be: "I know you are but what am I?!"

Becasue I criticise the RUC that makes me a " sectarian bigot " !!!!!

Nodin

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Precisely what ........., representing?

A sectarian statelet, where the nationalist population were discriminated against, and had their protests against that discrimination beaten off the streets by the supposed forces of "law and order". Seeing as you asked.

MakeEmLaugh

Nodin wrote: »

A sectarian statelet, where the nationalist population were discriminated against, and had their protests against that discrimination beaten off the streets by the supposed forces of "law and order". Seeing as you asked.

And in your vast wisdom, when did Northern Ireland cease to be a "sectarian statelet, where the nationalist population were discriminated against, and had their protests against that discrimination beaten off the streets"?

Was it October 10, 1969, when the Hunt Report was published, recommending that the RUC be disarmed and B-Specials disbanded, both of which then happened?

Was in March 30, 1972, when the Stormont Government was abolished, ending Unionist politicians' ability to introduce discriminatory laws?

Was in December 1, 1976, when the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act was introduced, quote, "to render unlawful, in connection with such employments and occupations, certain kinds of discrimination on the ground of religious belief or political opinion"?

And how did Francis Hughes killing William Gordon and his 10 year old daughter Lesley in 1978 improve the rights of Nationalists/Catholics in Northern Ireland one iota?

Nodin

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

And in your vast wisdom, when did Northern Ireland cease to be a "sectarian statelet, where the nationalist population were discriminated against, and had their protests against that discrimination beaten off the streets"?
...........

1998.

The b-specials were returned under the guise of the UDR.

wingsof daun

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Precisely what were they representing, then?

What was James Flanagan, a Catholic from Derry, representing when he was Chief Constable of the RUC in 1973?

What were Catholic judges like Rory Conaghan, William Doyle, William Staunton and William Travers representing when they were murdered by the IRA?

What were other Catholic judges like Turlough O'Donnell, Garret McGrath and Ambrose McGonigal representing when the IRA attempted to kill them?

What was Gabriel Mullaly, a retired RUC inspector and Catholic, representing when the IRA planted a bomb under his car in 1989, killing him and leaving his five children fatherless?

If the RUC, which was responsible for the death of a total of 44 Catholics, were not representing law and order, then what was the IRA, responsible for the death of 338 Catholics, representing?

They were representing an armed campaign against British imperialism and occupation by a foreign army in NI... Highlighting the large number of Catholic deaths does not diminish what they represented. Anyone, regardless of religion, nationality or colour can be deemed a legitimate target according to IRA doctrine, if they are working for/helping British imperialism in Ireland. Many of these Catholics were traitors and thus met their deserved fate in the 30 year war. Everything has a time and place and such acts are commonplace in a war.

MakeEmLaugh

Nodin wrote: »

1998

What exactly was achieved in 1998 that was so wonderful for Nationalists?

An agreement which was approved by the UVF and UDA, who had slaughtered Nationalists en masse?

An agreement which stated that the "present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish"?

An agreement which had the country internationally recognised as "Ireland" edit its constitution so that the six northern-eastern counties of the island were most definitely not part of "Ireland"?

An agreement which, in over 11,500 words, uses the word "nationalist" only three times?

Nodin

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

What exactly was achieved in 1998 that was so wonderful for Nationalists?

An agreement which was approved by the UVF and UDA, who had slaughtered Nationalists en masse?

An agreement which stated that the "present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish"?

An agreement which had the country internationally recognised as "Ireland" edit its constitution so that the six northern-eastern counties of the island were most definitely not part of "Ireland"?

An agreement which, in over 11,500 words, uses the word "nationalist" only three times?

So you're against the GFA then? Interesting.

The GFA offered a comprehensive solution to long standing issues, from parades, policing to matters of governance.

You'll find that to solve a conflict, all sides usually have to be included. You might explain how matters would be resolved without the loyalists participation.

Mr Cumulonimbus

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

There are other talking points: whether the Tricolour can be reclaimed as an heroic symbol of the Irish nation, or whether it has been irreversibly besmirched by the likes of Ryan, Hughes or indeed Pearse.

Interesting. Why bring in Pearse as well? Considering that Pearse and others hoisted it above the GPO in 1916, and even before that, Thomas Francis Meagher (Young Irelander in the 1840's) is meant to have been given it as a gift. The Young Irelanders were physical force advocates too.

Was the tricolour not linked to physical force nationalism, even before the 1916-1922 period? How was it besmirched?

MakeEmLaugh

Nodin wrote: »

So you're against the GFA then? Interesting.

The GFA offered a comprehensive solution to long standing issues, from parades, policing to matters of governance.

You'll find that to solve a conflict, all sides usually have to be included. You might explain how matters would be resolved without the loyalists participation.

I never said I was against the Good Friday Agreement. My point was that Northern Ireland did not cease to be "a sectarian statelet" all of a sudden in 1998. The improvement in the rights of Catholics/Nationalist was a gradual process, which had mostly been achieved by the mid-1970s.

All terrorists such the IRA and UVF did was prolong the agony for the citizens of Northern Ireland; the IRA in particular, with its imbecilic belief that Northern Ireland could be removed from the United Kingdom without the consent of the people living there, and its theft of 1696 lives, more than the UVF's still despicable body-count of 396.

The Good Friday Agreement was a defeat for the IRA and for Sinn Féin. In January 1984, the IRA's Army Council issued a statement, saying

"This is war to the end. There will be no interval... When we put away our guns, Britain will be out of Ireland and an Irish democracy will be established in the Thirty Two Counties with a national Government."

Funny, that. As far as I know, the British flag still flies at Belfast City Hall, and the IRA have put their guns away.

All the IRA got out of the Good Friday Agreement was the release of convicted terrorists from prison, provided they behaved themselves. Those who didn't, like Marian Price, end up back in jail. Rules of the game.

Happyman42

Nodin wrote: »

1998.

The b-specials were returned under the guise of the UDR.

The name change was enough to fool one poster here,:rolleyes: The reason they all eventually sat down and worked out the mutually acceptable GFA was that all previous efforts where just lipservice. Enough to appease those who didn't really care but non effective as far as those at the coalface where concerned.

Happyman42

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

The Good Friday Agreement was a defeat for the IRA and for Sinn Féin. In January 1984, the IRA's Army Council issued a statement, saying

Is this the same IRA who refused to decommision (a requirement if SF where to be allowed to the table) and forced the British PM to climb down? They didn't decommission until the deal was done, that is not a surrender, it's a negotiated settlement. Doesn't sound like a 'defeat' to me. It isn't viewed as one by the majority of Nationalists in the North either.

Nodin

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I never said................ Rules of the game.

It's a negotiated settlement, and like all such, contains elements of compromise.

You haven't explained to me how a deal would have been concluded without input from the loyalists yet.

MakeEmLaugh

Happyman42 wrote: »

They didn't decommission until the deal was done.

So they surrendered in 2005 instead of 1998. What's your point? Their sole aim was a united Ireland, going back to the Provisionals first statement in 1969:

"We declare our allegiance to the 32 county Irish republic, proclaimed at Easter 1916, established by the first Dáil Éireann in 1919, overthrown by forces of arms in 1922 and suppressed to this day by the existing British-imposed six-county and twenty-six-county partition states."

In 2012, Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland is still an entirely separate country. The IRA handed over its guns and promised not to kill any more people. If that's not a surrender, then what exactly would have been a surrender for the IRA?

Nodin wrote: »

You haven't explained to me how a deal would have been concluded without input from the loyalists yet.

I don't have to explain because I never said a deal should have been concluded without the input of loyalists. That was, however, Sinn Féin's aim for nearly thirty years, before the Good Friday Agreement.

In 1983, Gerry Adams gave an interview in Magill magazine in which he said "We have to break the loyalist veto", meaning the, in his words, "artificial majority" created by the state of Northern Ireland.

Well, not only did the loyalists have input into the ending of the conflict in Northern Ireland, they were triumphant over the IRA. And they know they were triumphant over the IRA.

Nodin

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I don't have to explain because(...........)over the IRA. And they know they were triumphant over the IRA.

I don't see the words 'We must exclude the loyalists' there. As the loyalists and unionists eventually lost their effective veto, he was correct.

It would be short sighted, self defeating and wrong to have excluded the loyalist community from input into whatever agreement and framework was reached.

Going back to your earlier statement

An agreement which was approved by the UVF and UDA, who had slaughtered Nationalists en masse?

you seem there to have rejected participation by the UVF/UDA as somehow beyond the pale, yet now seem to be using it to say the GFA was a 'defeat' for the republican movement. It seems to me the only consistent point of your position is the urge to say "ha ha, you lost" to republicans.

Happyman42

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

So they surrendered in 2005 instead of 1998. What's your point? Their sole aim was a united Ireland, going back to the Provisionals first statement in 1969:

"We declare our allegiance to the 32 county Irish republic, proclaimed at Easter 1916, established by the first Dáil Éireann in 1919, overthrown by forces of arms in 1922 and suppressed to this day by the existing British-imposed six-county and twenty-six-county partition states."

In 2012, Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland is still an entirely separate country. The IRA handed over its guns and promised not to kill any more people. If that's not a surrender, then what exactly would have been a surrender for the IRA?

Firstly: You should read the GFA from the point of view of a previously disenfranchised nationalist or republican.
Secondly:The Unionists sole aim was to dominate the power, resist a UI to the death, and ensure that SF would never ever come to power.
Fail on 3 counts.
The IRA did NOT decommission until the agreement was satisfactory to them. No amount of your 'surrender lust' spin will change that. Look at the timeline of events. They came off ceasefire to underline their demands and focus minds.

Crooked Jack

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

So they surrendered in 2005 instead of 1998. What's your point? Their sole aim was a united Ireland, going back to the Provisionals first statement in 1969:

"We declare our allegiance to the 32 county Irish republic, proclaimed at Easter 1916, established by the first Dáil Éireann in 1919, overthrown by forces of arms in 1922 and suppressed to this day by the existing British-imposed six-county and twenty-six-county partition states."

In 2012, Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland is still an entirely separate country. The IRA handed over its guns and promised not to kill any more people. If that's not a surrender, then what exactly would have been a surrender for the IRA?



I don't have to explain because I never said a deal should have been concluded without the input of loyalists. That was, however, Sinn Féin's aim for nearly thirty years, before the Good Friday Agreement.

In 1983, Gerry Adams gave an interview in Magill magazine in which he said "We have to break the loyalist veto", meaning the, in his words, "artificial majority" created by the state of Northern Ireland.

Well, not only did the loyalists have input into the ending of the conflict in Northern Ireland, they were triumphant over the IRA. And they know they were triumphant over the IRA.

HAHA! This is hilarious, at least when you started you at least tried (failed, but tried) to give the impression that this was something other than you venting some steam about nationalism. Less than three pages in and the mask slips completely.
So have you got it all off your chest yet? Calm down before you give yourself a stroke. Wouldn't wanna miss next years marching season

Executive Steve

We must seize column inches back from eejits like John Waters.

MakeEmLaugh

Nodin wrote: »

I don't see the words 'We must exclude the loyalists' there. As the loyalists and unionists eventually lost their effective veto, he was correct.

A cursory glance at any Irish republican literature will show that "loyalist veto" refers not to whatever Party is in charge in Stormont, but to the existence of Northern Ireland as a state in itself i.e. Articles 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty:

"If before the expiration of the said month, an address is presented to His Majesty by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to that effect, the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland, and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920"

This is why, in 2009, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, former leader of Republic Sinn Féin (political front of the Continuity IRA), criticised Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams by saying:

"Who is the traitor? Is it those who behave as they always have behaved and believe sincerely as they always believed in the republican struggle? Or are they people who turned their coats like McGuinness... who said they would never accept the unionist veto and now have done so?"

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Unionists sole aim was to dominate the power, resist a UI to the death, and ensure that SF would never ever come to power.
Fail on 3 counts.

Excuse me? How did the Unionists fail at "resisting a United Ireland to the death"? That statement does not make sense.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Calm down before you give yourself a stroke. Wouldn't wanna miss next years marching season

You don't have to worry about me. I am quite calm. I have the facts and logic on my side. I have cited several sources and dates which prove my argument irrefutably. All I have been met with is feeble claims that the IRA's violent campaign was for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom - with the British flag still flying over City Hall and Queen Elizabeth II on the local currency - but with a few more Catholics in Government. This shows a complete lack of knowledge on the history of the Provisional IRA.

And I won't be going up to Northern Ireland for marching season. As someone who was raised Catholic, with a Gaelic name, I don't think I'd fit in. However, you're assumption that I must be a Protestant in order to dislike Sinn Féin and IRA belies your own sectarianism.

Happyman42

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Excuse me? How did the Unionists fail at "resisting a United Ireland to the death"? That statement does not make sense.

Again, you need to read the GFA without the 'surrender lust'.

If you did you would see that the political position of NI has changed completely. The Unionists now have to conform to what the majority want to remain as democrats. Resistance to the death would be futile and the important thing about that is; they know it. Prompting Jim Molyneaux to say, 'This is the worst thing that has ever happened us'.
Also, what makes your 'surrender' concensus nonsense is the fact that the British tried again and again (including the Iron Lady) to negotiate a settlement in secret, behind the backs of the Unionists, hardly the actions of a government in control of the situation or a sign of 'rebels' under pressure.
Why did the British drop the decommissioning demand, can you spin that from your surrender lust perspective?

JustinDee

"Who is the traitor? Is it those who behave as they always have behaved and believe sincerely as they always believed in the republican struggle? Or are they people who turned their coats like McGuinness... who said they would never accept the unionist veto and now have done so?"

- Subjective rhetoric aside, there's an easy answer to this daft question.
The traitor is whoever denegrates and ignores the will of the majority of the island while bandying the word 'democracy' about.

Crooked Jack

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

And I won't be going up to Northern Ireland for marching season. As someone who was raised Catholic, with a Gaelic name, I don't think I'd fit in. However, you're assumption that I must be a Protestant in order to dislike Sinn Féin and IRA belies your own sectarianism.

I did not, nor would I, make any such assumption on you or anyone else's religious beliefs.
Your language (The IRA lost, loyalists won, Queen's currency, Union flag over Belfast etc...) just led me to believe that an idiotic display of paranoia, triumphalism and empty roaring rhetoric would be right up your street.

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

"Who is the traitor? Is it those who behave as they always have behaved and believe sincerely as they always believed in the republican struggle? Or are they people who turned their coats like McGuinness... who said they would never accept the unionist veto and now have done so?"

- Subjective rhetoric aside, there's an easy answer to this daft question.
The traitor is whoever denegrates and ignores the will of the majority of the island while bandying the word 'democracy' about.

What do you call somebody who fights for and enshrines parity of esteem, equal oppurtunities for their people and establishes a 'democracy' that works, then?

Nodin

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

A cursory glance at any Irish republican literature will show that "loyalist veto" .....

According to you. You'll pardon me not taking your word for it.

JustinDee

Happyman42 wrote: »

What do you call somebody who fights for and enshrines parity of esteem, equal oppurtunities for their people and establishes a 'democracy' that works, then?

Once an accepted democracy is established, all the rest of these tenets you list are subsequently ignorant of the wishes of people that these self-appointed protagonists delusively purport to represent.

Racketeering, extortion, armed robbery, kidnapping, and murder are most certainly not required, once a fair democratic vote has been achieved as already expressed.

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

Racketeering, extortion, armed robbery, kidnapping, and murder are most certainly not required, once a fair democratic vote has been achieved as already expressed.

And you have sources that show Martin McGuinnes is involved in the above?

JustinDee

Happyman42 wrote: »

And you have sources that show Martin McGuinnes is involved in the above?

He was PIRA and in leadership, wasn't he? Unless of course you can claim that they simply didn't know at the top table or even funnier still, claim he wasn't involved with anything ever.

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

He was PIRA and in leadership, wasn't he? Unless of course you can claim that they simply didn't know at the top table or even funnier still, claim he wasn't involved with anything ever.

PIRA ceased to exist once the settlement was reached as they said they would.

wingsof daun

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

A cursory glance at any Irish republican literature will show that "loyalist veto" refers not to whatever Party is in charge in Stormont, but to the existence of Northern Ireland as a state in itself i.e. Articles 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty:



This is why, in 2009, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, former leader of Republic Sinn Féin (political front of the Continuity IRA), criticised Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams by saying:

"Who is the traitor? Is it those who behave as they always have behaved and believe sincerely as they always believed in the republican struggle? Or are they people who turned their coats like McGuinness... who said they would never accept the unionist veto and now have done so?"



Excuse me? How did the Unionists fail at "resisting a United Ireland to the death"? That statement does not make sense.



You don't have to worry about me. I am quite calm. I have the facts and logic on my side. I have cited several sources and dates which prove my argument irrefutably. All I have been met with is feeble claims that the IRA's violent campaign was for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom - with the British flag still flying over City Hall and Queen Elizabeth II on the local currency - but with a few more Catholics in Government. This shows a complete lack of knowledge on the history of the Provisional IRA.

And I won't be going up to Northern Ireland for marching season. As someone who was raised Catholic, with a Gaelic name, I don't think I'd fit in. However, you're assumption that I must be a Protestant in order to dislike Sinn Féin and IRA belies your own sectarianism.

You should also have noted that Adams, McGuiness and co sat at a round table 20 odd years ago somewhere down in Longford and promised to not cease the armed struggle until the last British soldier left Ireland. It appears that went out the window when the GFA came along. A northern bank robbery to sweeten up disillusioned members of the PIRA combined with their lack of knowledge of their history and the goals set out long ago, seemed to lead to the decommission and therefore peace. Some of them need to do some soul searching.