David McKittrick; These protests are NOT over the flag.

junder

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Is this honestly what you believe? Have you really no clue as to what happened? This is factually incorrect. You cannot rewrite the circumstances which led up to the troubles. They are not in dispute.

'The pogrom myth' by Malachi O'Doherty

"Many people will remember this week as the anniversary of a pogrom, an attack on Catholic homes by the massed ranks of the RUC, B Specials and Loyalist paramilitaries.
Two great lessons were assimilated by many Catholics from that experience, or that understanding of their experience. These were that the Northern Ireland state was hostile to them and that the IRA, which had failed to defend them, would have to be beefed up so that it could do a better job the next times the prods went doo lally and descended on them.
The flaw in this version of August 1969 is that it takes no account of the plain fact that it was rioters in Ardoyne and the Falls Road – Catholics – who started the Trouble in Belfast that week, and it was very big trouble they started."

http://malachiodoherty.com/2009/08/12/the-pogrom-myth/

Read, ingest, enjoy, and as I said before history is always open to interpretation

Lingua Franca

junder wrote: »

'The pogrom myth' by Malachi O'Doherty

"Many people will remember this week as the anniversary of a pogrom, an attack on Catholic homes by the massed ranks of the RUC, B Specials and Loyalist paramilitaries.
Two great lessons were assimilated by many Catholics from that experience, or that understanding of their experience. These were that the Northern Ireland state was hostile to them and that the IRA, which had failed to defend them, would have to be beefed up so that it could do a better job the next times the prods went doo lally and descended on them.
The flaw in this version of August 1969 is that it takes no account of the plain fact that it was rioters in Ardoyne and the Falls Road – Catholics – who started the Trouble in Belfast that week, and it was very big trouble they started."

http://malachiodoherty.com/2009/08/12/the-pogrom-myth/

Read, ingest, enjoy, and as I said before history is always open to interpretation

There's not an IRA killing mentioned in there, dear. It was "IRA killing people" that brought the Brits in that you're trying to prove. Try again and this time try answering the question asked about the actual statement made.

The only killing mentioned in that link is the killing of 9 year old Patrick Rooney by the RUC...

You'll also note that it's about one pogrom and is not claiming to be the event that kicked off the troubles.


I give your post an F. Please try to stick to the subject matter at hand.

junder

Lingua Franca wrote: »

There's not an IRA killing mentioned in there, dear. It was "IRA killing people" that brought the Brits in that you're trying to prove. Try again and this time try answering the question asked about the actual statement made.

The only killing mentioned in that link is the killing of 9 year old Patrick Rooney by the RUC...

In not trying to prove anything, only showing that history and so called historical facts are completely down to
Interpretation

Lingua Franca

junder wrote: »

In not trying to prove anything, only showing that history and so called historical facts are completely down to
Interpretation

But certain facts aren't down to interpretation and someone's blog doesn't change that. Facts are facts. The fact claimed was that the British army was brought in to quell IRA murders. This is factually incorrect and easily disprovable so you can babble on about "interpretation" all you want, you still can't make up your own facts. Which you should have noticed by now with all the avoidance and now the reaching you're doing. If the best you can do is a blog post, that should tell you something. You should really stop trying to defend the indefensible, it's doing your cause no favours.

Speaking of facts being open to interpretation... I can tell you didn't bother to read the comments under that post!

junder

Lingua Franca wrote: »

But certain facts aren't down to interpretation and someone's blog doesn't change that. Facts are facts. The fact claimed was that the British army was brought in to quell IRA murders. This is factually incorrect and easily disprovable so you can babble on about "interpretation" all you want, you still can't make up your own facts. Which you should have noticed by now with all the avoidance and now the reaching you're doing. If the best you can do is a blog post, that should tell you something. You should really stop trying to defend the indefensible, it's doing your cause no favours.

Speaking of facts being open to interpretation... I can tell you didn't bother to read the comments under that post!

All facts are open to interpretation include take for example the Bombay street 'fact' Malachi is presenting a totally different interpretation of the events that have been called the 'loyalist pogrom' he is also saying that in his view the army was brought into because the RUC could not maintain order anymore, and again he is pointing the figure at republicans for this happening, so yer the reasons for the army being brought here are still very much open to interpretation. Lets not forgot as well that Malachi claims to be an eye witness to these events.

golfball37

Malachi's experiences were in Belfast though. The British Army were brought into NI to relieve the siege/standoff in Derry after the battle of the bogside.
Belfast didn't even come into it.

Lingua Franca

So show us this different interpretation of why the British army were brought in, the one that says it was because the IRA were killing people.

Please use more reputable sources than a blog that doesn't even mention the British army at all.

The fact is, you can't.

circadian

golfball37 wrote: »

Malachi's experiences were in Belfast though. The British Army were brought into NI to relieve the siege/standoff in Derry after the battle of the bogside.
Belfast didn't even come into it.

This. It's my understanding that the request was made by the residents as at that point the army were seen as impartial compared to the RUC.

junder

Lingua Franca wrote: »

So show us this different interpretation of why the British army were brought in, the one that says it was because the IRA were killing people.

Please use more reputable sources than a blog that doesn't even mention the British army at all.

The fact is, you can't.

Jesus it's like talking to the wall. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE BRITISH ARMY WHERE BROUGHT IN, IN RESPONSE TO THE IRA KILLING. In fact I have offered no opinion on why the army came in. The point that i am making is only that there are different interpretations to events that's all. Gallag offered his interpretation, and since you have a problem with it take it up with him

Lingua Franca

I did, but he's gone strangely silent.

Fact is, he stated that "If it was not for the IRA killing people the British army would never have been on the streets over here". I called him out on that easily disprovable lie. YOU quoted that post with the defence that it's open to interpretation, which it's not. You quoted the exact same post questioning the accuracy of his claims again with a link to a blog post that mentions a single event of 1969 but doesn't mention the British army at all.

If you're not saying that the British army were brought in in response to IRA killings, please stop quoting the post questioning the lie. It looks like you're trying to respond to that post because that is in fact what you are doing.

Thomas_I

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I did, but he's gone strangely silent.

Fact is, he stated that "If it was not for the IRA killing people the British army would never have been on the streets over here". I called him out on that easily disprovable lie. YOU quoted that post with the defence that it's open to interpretation, which it's not. You quoted the exact same post questioning the accuracy of his claims again with a link to a blog post that mentions a single event of 1969 but doesn't mention the British army at all.

If you're not saying that the British army were brought in in response to IRA killings, please stop quoting the post questioning the lie. It looks like you're trying to respond to that post because that is in fact what you are doing.

Excuse me to interfere in your conversation with junder. It´s just that it seems to me that you´re missing the point he´s trying to make. In general I would agree with his opinion about "that there are different interpretations to events" because this kind of approach to historical events has been taken and made from both sides.

There isn´t anything in Irish history which is so much and so strong controversial debated than the whole history of NI because it´s a place of extremes and so are some of the opinions on what happened there within the last century.

This, as my opinion has been proved on these boards since I joined them and taking part in threads like this. I think that one is more quickly inclined to view posts like that of junder as a "biased opinion" once one has recognised that he´s a Unionist / Loyalist. Sometimes it´s funny to see it that way, but one doesn´t benefit from that if one want to have a serious and reasonable debate on the topic.

IMO it´s also some kind of an democratic attitude to display that one is inclined to deal with controversial opinions may they be that misinterpreted like his posts.

Quite frankly, I haven´t come across any plain statement in which it is told that exactly just one single event kicked off the troubles. I´m more considering that it has been several and various events and wrongdoings which led to the troubles and the question to me is, from where to start. That means from which year and which event. There might be some plenty different views on that. One precisely date can be picked as it is the date when the British Troops from GB has been deployed to support the RUC. I wouldn´t forget that at that time there were British Garrisons already in NI, but to sent them in to support the Police in doing their "duty" demands order from London.

Just to take one example, combined with an "what if" question. Would there ever had been a Civil Rights Movement in NI if the Civil Rights Movement in USA had never been established? I think that this is an essential question because the Civil Rights Movement got its inspirations from the USA. The desire to prevail their right of civil rights in NI has been there before. No doubt, the patterns they followed came from the USA.

Well that´s my opinion and also my interpretations of these civil rights movements in two different countries with one common aim. You´re of course free to oppose these interpretations of mine.

Lingua Franca

Thomas_I wrote: »

Excuse me to interfere in your conversation with junder. It´s just that it seems to me that you´re missing the point he´s trying to make.

No need to excuse yourself, it's a discussion board.

I get the point he's trying to make. The problem is that he is trying to make that point to justify a lie.

Would you agree that there's different interpretations to historical facts? We are very specifically talking about one fact here which is not open to interpretation.

Quite frankly, I haven´t come across any plain statement in which it is told that exactly just one single event kicked off the troubles

Indeed. But I've only ever seen one claim that it was down to the IRA killing people.

There are a lot of things open to interpretation of course, and there always will be. But imaginary murder sprees aren't one of them. That's beyond revisionism.

Thomas_I

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No need to excuse yourself, it's a discussion board.

I get the point he's trying to make. The problem is that he is trying to make that point to justify a lie.

This is left to your own interpretation if you like to see it that way, cos he didn´t say so.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Would you agree that there's different interpretations to historical facts? We are very specifically talking about one fact here which is not open to interpretation.

Yes, I agree on that but I don´t support interpretations which are twisting the truth. I agree on the way to see such statements as what they are, just statements opposing the common knowledge and therefore had to be proved.

Even the very specifically one fact is open to interpretation because it bears the possibility that the British Army in some way might had justified their deploying of troops to NI "because of the IRA killing people". If you´re inclined to neglect that possibility then you´re missing the tricks in "Public Relations" by the BA.

Just one suggestion to consider two separate versions with the same effect:

1. "We´re going to deploy troops to NI because the RUC is not capable to deal with the riots caused by the IRA"

2. "We´re going to deploy troops to NI because there has been riots and killings reported, caused by the IRA, and the government is to restore public order there by support of the BA".

Which one would you choose to go with it to the British public?

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Indeed. But I've only ever seen one claim that it was down to the IRA killing people. There are a lot of things open to interpretation of course, and there always will be. But imaginary murder sprees aren't one of them. That's beyond revisionism.

There are more grey zones in writing and talking about history which not seldom borders on revisionism and beyond. Therefore it is not easy to find books about Irish history and in particular about NI which are guaranteed unbiased or neutral written. At least these are my experiences on that matter and in the end it´s always on the reader to decide whether the author suites him or not in different ways.

Lingua Franca

Thomas_I wrote: »

This is left to your own interpretation if you like to see it that way, cos he didn´t say so.

No, he just quoted a post addressed to gallag asking gallag about a lie and answered for gallag with "interpretation".

Yes, I agree on that but I don´t support interpretations which are twisting the truth. I agree on the way to see such statements as what they are, just statements opposing the common knowledge and therefore had to be proved.

Even the very specifically one fact is open to interpretation because it bears the possibility that the British Army in some way might had justified their deploying of troops to NI "because of the IRA killing people". If you´re inclined to neglect that possibility then you´re missing the tricks in "Public Relations" by the BA.

Just one suggestion to consider two separate versions with the same effect:

1. "We´re going to deploy troops to NI because the RUC is not capable to deal with the riots caused by the IRA"

2. "We´re going to deploy troops to NI because there has been riots and killings reported, caused by the IRA, and the government is to restore public order there by support of the BA".

Which one would you choose to go with it to the British public?

But it's not. The IRA were not killing people at the time. There were no reports of the IRA killing people at the time. There are no recorded murders by the IRA at that time or indeed, in the preceding decade. This is not "open to interpretation". This is fact. That people are still claiming this is open to interpretation is absolutely baffling to me.

Here's an example. I could claim that the Catholics in Divis were simply defending themselves from the LVF as my interpretation. That would be factually incorrect, would it not? Because the LVF did not exist at the time. Easily disprovable. Or perhaps that the UVF had bombed the Dail. Or that Ian Paisley shot the pope. All lies. Not open to interpretation.

You can say they started it or they started it or the Brits came in for this, that and the other reason, but you can't make up your own facts, and you can't explain away factual inaccuracies and outright lies with "open to interpretation." You can't invent murders and explain it away with interpretation. And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Go back and read the posts concerned.

There are more grey zones in writing and talking about history which not seldom borders on revisionism and beyond. Therefore it is not easy to find books about Irish history and in particular about NI which are guaranteed unbiased or neutral written. At least these are my experiences on that matter and in the end it´s always on the reader to decide whether the author suites him or not in different ways.

There's none that claim a 1968/69 IRA killing spree to my knowledge.

Thomas_I

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No, he just quoted a post addressed to gallag asking gallag about a lie and answered for gallag with "interpretation".

OK, let us leave it like that.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

But it's not. The IRA were not killing people at the time. There were no reports of the IRA killing people at the time. There are no recorded murders by the IRA at that time or indeed, in the preceding decade. This is not "open to interpretation". This is fact. That people are still claiming this is open to interpretation is absolutely baffling to me.

Well, how much do you know about psychological warfare by the military? I´m no expert on this but it is one part of this to either make up things by invention or simply twisting the truth. In this profession one should have no qualms using or telling lies. What counts is the effect it has on the people concerned. The two examples I told you were made from gallags post and I shaped that into two different versions to show how different this can be used. I wasn´t saying that it dealt with the truth, that´s irrelevant to the examples because the aim is the effect on the public to justify the deployment of British troops to NI.

Under normal circumstances the British Forces are not to be used within the UK or any part of it, except the UK has to face an aggressor from outside. As I said before it demands the decision of the British government and the Minister of Defence to give these orders. It is in general speaking a sensitive matter. That it is that way has indeed been proved over the decades during the trouble. The British politicians in the UK was speaking about "public disturbances", the British Army was speaking about "the war against the IRA". The fact that the British government refused to acknowledge these "disturbances" as a "state of war" is also the reason for why they refused the imprisoned IRA men to alter their status according their demands, they were simply been kept as "criminal offenders" according the law. Otherwise these IRA men would had been "PoW" and this would had been a significant difference because the British government had thus admitted that it would had been indeed engaged into a "civil war" on its own territory.

Whether it is "open to interpretation" as you are rejecting in your opinion is quite another matter because it often has been taken as being "open to interpretation".

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Here's an example. I could claim that the Catholics in Divis were simply defending themselves from the LVF as my interpretation. That would be factually incorrect, would it not? Because the LVF did not exist at the time. Easily disprovable. Or perhaps that the UVF had bombed the Dail. Or that Ian Paisley shot the pope. All lies. Not open to interpretation.

"Catholics defending themselves from the LVF" is open to interpretation as long as one doesn´t uses a precicely date from when on this happened. Before the LVF was founded it´s easy to disproof it, afterwards it´s not so easy anymore.

"The UVF had bombed the Dáil" surely has nothing to do with interpretation because such thing never happened and it would had rapidly been proved as a lie.

"Ian Paisley shot the pope" that´s also not to sell to anybody because everybody knows that he´d never get that near to the Pope and he never would had liked to meet him. It would be different if someone had claimed that "Ian Paisley was plotting to assassinate the Pope by his henchmen". What about this version, still a lie but just to consider the effect if such thing had been reported in the news.

It all depends on what was really possible and what really happened. There is the grey zone where many things can get lost.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You can say they started it or they started it or the Brits came in for this, that and the other reason, but you can't make up your own facts, and you can't explain away factual inaccuracies and outright lies with "open to interpretation." You can't invent murders and explain it away with interpretation.

Yes one can make up own facts and the inquiery on Bloody Sunday is the best example for that. To invent murders and explain it away with interpretation is difficult, but even such things can work.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Go back and read the posts concerned.

I already got your point, there´s no need for me to re-read the posts concerned, because we´re already on a theoretical level in this regards.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

There's none that claim a 1968/69 IRA killing spree to my knowledge.

That was not the point I´ve been thinking about.

Lingua Franca

Thomas_I wrote: »

"Catholics defending themselves from the LVF" is open to interpretation as long as one doesn´t uses a precicely date from when on this happened. Before the LVF was founded it´s easy to disproof it, afterwards it´s not so easy anymore.

1969, obviously. How is it so easily disprovable? Surely it is as open to interpretation as you think of the belief that IRA were killing people in 1969.

"The UVF had bombed the Dáil" surely has nothing to do with interpretation because such thing never happened and it would had rapidly been proved as a lie.

I really thought the penny had dropped here since the IRA were not killing people in 1969 and so it has been rapidly proved as lie. It's what my post was and is asking gallag for evidence to the contrary.

But then you continue:

"Ian Paisley shot the pope" that´s also not to sell to anybody because everybody knows that he´d never get that near to the Pope and he never would had liked to meet him.

Well, no. It would be impossible to sell that to people since there is no doubt whatsoever that he didn't. For you see, it is an outright lie, and easily disproven. Much like the suggestion that the IRA was killing people in '68-69.

It would be different if someone had claimed that "Ian Paisley was plotting to assassinate the Pope by his henchmen". What about this version, still a lie but just to consider the effect if such thing had been reported in the news.

...and this is pointless extrapolation.

It all depends on what was really possible and what really happened. There is the grey zone where many things can get lost.

The only grey zone is the people saying "well maybe the IRA really were killing people in 1969 and that's why the Brits were brought in".

Thomas_I wrote: »

That was not the point I´ve been thinking about.

It's the only point I've been talking about. I'm challenging this allegation by gallag and I would like to be provided with proof that it happened or to have it recanted. If you would like to discuss historical interpretation in more general terms, Junder seems well up for that.

If you can find me any suggestion, any hint at all from a relatively reputable source that IRA were responsible for murders in 1968 or 1969 and that is why the British army were brought in then I'll agree that gallag's statement was "open to interpretation".

I'm waiting.

SoulandForm

Loyalists not only started the Troubles but also started the War of Independence by blocking through threats of terrorism the Home Rule bill which had been passed by Westminster. They seem hell bent now on fermenting more violence so that they can prevent any further "Greening" of the north.

Happyman42

SoulandForm wrote: »

Loyalists not only started the Troubles but also started the War of Independence by blocking through threats of terrorism the Home Rule bill which had been passed by Westminster. They seem hell bent now on fermenting more violence so that they can prevent any further "Greening" of the north.

It didn't work then and it won't work now, because they have only one strategy. They have never been very sophisticated politically in peace times and it is going to be their downfall.

Thomas_I

Lingua Franca wrote: »

...
I really thought the penny had dropped here since the IRA were not killing people in 1969 and so it has been rapidly proved as lie. It's what my post was and is asking gallag for evidence to the contrary.
...
The only grey zone is the people saying "well maybe the IRA really were killing people in 1969 and that's why the Brits were brought in".

There it is, the point from where some interpretation can start, although one can insist on whether such interpretation starts with an "maybe"or not.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It's the only point I've been talking about. I'm challenging this allegation by gallag and I would like to be provided with proof that it happened or to have it recanted. If you would like to discuss historical interpretation in more general terms, Junder seems well up for that.

To get to the only point you´ve been talking about, I have to say that I can´t provide you with any proof.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

If you can find me any suggestion, any hint at all from a relatively reputable source that IRA were responsible for murders in 1968 or 1969 and that is why the British army were brought in then I'll agree that gallag's statement was "open to interpretation".

I'm waiting.

That´s not possible because before the split of the IRA in December 1969 there was no activity of the old IRA since the end of the border campaign in the 1950s.

golfball37

The besieged Catholic community of NI refferred to the IRA as "I ran away" in 1969 such was their non effort at defending the community. To say they were on a killing spree at this time is not even open for interprepation as its just not true at all.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

It didn't work then and it won't work now, because they have only one strategy. They have never been very sophisticated politically in peace times and it is going to be their downfall.

I´m sure, some of them will survive their downfall. But if Scotland remains in the Union with England, then this downfall is less doomed. Ideas aren´t dieing so quickly. I suppose that their committment to Unionism / Loyalism is so deep rooted that they still would uphold it even when the UK wouldn´t exist anymore.

Who is politically sophisticated at all in NI (I mean which part of the two sides)? I think one can tell on the recent flag protests. My vote goes to the silent majority. It´s a pity that a minority of thugs can disturb and damage the whole economy of a country.

Lingua Franca

Thomas_I wrote: »

That´s not possible because before the split of the IRA in December 1969 there was no activity of the old IRA since the end of the border campaign in the 1950s.

...and the penny has finally dropped.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

Who is politically sophisticated at all in NI (I mean which part of the two sides)? I think one can tell on the recent flag protests. My vote goes to the silent majority. It´s a pity that a minority of thugs can disturb and damage the whole economy of a country.

I think there is no doubt that SF are trying to look past the usual hidebound issues that trap parties involved in the failure that is NI. They have expanded the concerns of the party and are a complex political organisation now that continues to grow in appeal to people of a socialist bent.
And in the scale of things associated with the North the current kerfuffle over the flag really isn't that big a deal. As I keep saying, it won't be a major issue in a few months.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think there is no doubt that SF are trying to look past the usual hidebound issues that trap parties involved in the failure that is NI. They have expanded the concerns of the party and are a complex political organisation now that continues to grow in appeal to people of a socialist bent.
And in the scale of things associated with the North the current kerfuffle over the flag really isn't that big a deal. As I keep saying, it won't be a major issue in a few months.

Has the perception of that by the public grown? No party is that close associated with Republicanism than SF and their socialist grass-roots are more in re of perception rather in the background. I can´t trust them very much.

Lets hope so that the flag won´t be a major issue in a few months, but I´m not so sure of that. With the weather improving, they will come out on the streets again. I don´t think that the flag issue is solved yet. There might be some talks about a solution and the try to clam down the Unionists. Just wait and see.

By the way, I recently learned that the Ulster Covenant was signed in Belfast City Hall in 1912. I suppose that this event makes that City Hall to some solemn place to Unionists and aside from all the other arguments brought in from that side, to have the flag removed means some offence to them. What do you think?

Thomas_I

Lingua Franca wrote: »

...and the penny has finally dropped.

I do appreciate your sense of humour.:)

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

Has the perception of that by the public grown? No party is that close associated with Republicanism than SF and their socialist grass-roots are more in re of perception rather in the background. I can´t trust them very much.[?QUOTE]

What other conclusions can you draw from a party who are increasing their support, North and South?



{QUOTE]By the way, I recently learned that the Ulster Covenant was signed in Belfast City Hall in 1912. I suppose that this event makes that City Hall to some solemn place to Unionists and aside from all the other arguments brought in from that side, to have the flag removed means some offence to them. What do you think?

Both sides have their solemn places, what HAS to be understood is that NI is now a special case as a result of what was signed up to in the GFA. Both identities have to be repected and critically, democracy has to be upheld.

SoulandForm

Thomas_I wrote: »

By the way, I recently learned that the Ulster Covenant was signed in Belfast City Hall in 1912. I suppose that this event makes that City Hall to some solemn place to Unionists and aside from all the other arguments brought in from that side, to have the flag removed means some offence to them. What do you think?

Belfast City Hall is indeed a morbid shrine to Unionism/Loyalism. This was a tiny move to make it a more neutral space.

Given that it is a public building in a now majority Nationalist/Republican/Catholic city is that appropriate? No.

A lot of things should be taken out of it and placed somewhere else.

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

Belfast City Hall is indeed a morbid shrine to Unionism/Loyalism. This was a tiny move to make it a more neutral space.

Given that it is a public building in a now majority Nationalist/Republican/Catholic city is that appropriate? No.

A lot of things should be taken out of it and placed somewhere else.

I suppose that this is your sense of a shared future, right?

Placed where? And the removed things replaced by?

Lingua Franca

Thomas_I wrote: »

I suppose that this is your sense of a shared future, right?

Placed where? And the removed things replaced by?

In the local history section of the museum where some of those things are already, or into a room in City Hall which could be dedicated to the history of Belfast City Hall. There are a lot of unused rooms in there, and it really is a shrine to unionism. They could be replaced by local art and sculpture that is neutral and inclusive, there's no shortage of that around.

Lingua Franca

Thomas_I wrote: »

By the way, I recently learned that the Ulster Covenant was signed in Belfast City Hall in 1912. I suppose that this event makes that City Hall to some solemn place to Unionists and aside from all the other arguments brought in from that side, to have the flag removed means some offence to them. What do you think?

I don't think that (that the Ulster Covenant was signed there) factors into it at all. I don't think the people rioting would even know that fact and I really don't think they're even rioting about the flag. Their community representatives have said as much.

They're rioting because they are disenfranchised. Not that they feel disenfranchised, they are disenfranchised. What I hope for them is that strong rational leadership emerges and represents them, because what they have at the moment isn't cutting it.

Thomas_I

Lingua Franca wrote: »

In the local history section of the museum where some of those things are already, or into a room in City Hall which could be dedicated to the history of Belfast City Hall. There are a lot of unused rooms in there, and it really is a shrine to unionism. They could be replaced by local art and sculpture that is neutral and inclusive, there's no shortage of that around.

So that´s the real reason for all the fuss about the flag. It´s not just to have it not anymore flying all days around the year, it has been perceived by them as an assault on their "shrine of Unionists identity". Now that you´ve said that I see the whole thing a bit different and it explaines a lot more to me why these people got so up set and outrageous. Not that I´m inclined to justify that in any way, but this puts some other and different light on the whole story.

I suppose that this is a common knowledge among the people in Belfast and therefore, I suppose also that the Alliance Party knew very well what they were doing by that motion in the City Council.

I don´t think that it is an good idea to come up with removing things inside the hall to replace it into a museum or anywhere else inside the building, because this is just putting fuel into the fire.

Thomas_I

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I don't think that (that the Ulster Covenant was signed there) factors into it at all. I don't think the people rioting would even know that fact and I really don't think they're even rioting about the flag. Their community representatives have said as much.

They're rioting because they are disenfranchised. Not that they feel disenfranchised, they are disenfranchised. What I hope for them is that strong rational leadership emerges and represents them, because what they have at the moment isn't cutting it.

This is an extract from wikipedia:

The Ulster Covenant was signed by just under half a million men and women from Ulster, on and before 28 September 1912, in protest against the Third Home Rule Bill, introduced by the British Government in that same year. Sir Edward Carson was the first person to sign the Covenant at the Belfast City Hall with a silver pen,[1] followed by Lord Londonderry, representatives of the Protestant Churches, and then by Sir James Craig. The signatories, 471,414 in all,[2] were all against the establishment of a Home Rule parliament in Dublin. The Ulster Covenant is immortalised in Rudyard Kipling's poem "Ulster 1912".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Covenant

Sorry but I think different and I don´t buy your assumption that even the rioting Unionist people don´t know about that. It´s simply impossible they wouldn´t know that because this event is part of what they regard of their own culture if not a part of the core of Unionism.

Their feeling of being disenfranchised surely plays its big part in all that and I can imagine that it´s not that easy for them to cope with that. Again, that doesn´t justify the riots at all, but it explaines a lot.

SoulandForm

Thomas_I wrote: »

I don´t think that it is an good idea to come up with removing things inside the hall to replace it into a museum or anywhere else inside the building, because this is just putting fuel into the fire.

So you are in favour of Unionism dominating the political expression of the City Hall in a majority non-Unionist city?

Look at how Loyalists reacted to NICRA and its modest demands- they are always going to react violently as long as they subscribe to Loyalism. They are also clear thats in no longer about the flag anymore- its about removing all the reforms that have happened because of the GFA and the "peace process".

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

So you are in favour of Unionism dominating the political expression of the City Hall in a majority non-Unionist city?

Look at how Loyalists reacted to NICRA and its modest demands- they are always going to react violently as long as they subscribe to Loyalism. They are also clear thats in no longer about the flag anymore- its about removing all the reforms that have happened because of the GFA and the "peace process".

No, I´m not in favour of Unionism dominating anything, neither the City Hall issue nor any other thing. If you think that, then you´d get me totally wrong.

I´m in favour of a real shared future by both sides and leaving behind old quarrels. It´s simple as that to say, but it´s not simple as that to get it realised.

Does it give you some comfort when you see them suffering or outraging in a sense like "oh sweet fruit of r..."?

The same what you´re saying about the Loyalists, the same they´re saying about Republicans. This is like going around in circles and it doesn´t bring anybody any progress in the peace process. This all needs time, probably more time than one thinks.

I know about the NICRA and the Loyalists reaction on their demands. Don´t you think that it´s time to move on?

SoulandForm

Thomas_I wrote: »

I´m in favour of a real shared future by both sides and leaving behind old quarrels. It´s simple as that to say, but it´s not simple as that to get it realised.

I know about the NICRA and the Loyalists reaction on their demands. Don´t you think that it´s time to move on?

Loyalists and Unionists make no apologies; and we see with the whole fleg movement that they want to drag the place back, or at least a significant amount of them do, to the old Orange state.

Republicanism and Loyalism have radically different visions and goals. Loyalism because its based on a sense of racial superiority and religious sectarianism cant really win over Nationalists to its side because that would be defeating its purpose wouldnt it? Moderate Unionism might be able to at least argue that it can offer peace and a shared future but with Loyalism wandering around in the background thats not going to happen anyway.

The people behind the Ulster Covenant were crazed fanatics and extreme bigots. There is no way around that. Putting them up as people to be admired is not going to help matters.

Lingua Franca

Thomas_I wrote: »

Sorry but I think different and I don´t buy your assumption that even the rioting Unionist people don´t know about that. It´s simply impossible they wouldn´t know that because this event is part of what they regard of their own culture if not a part of the core of Unionism.

There was a unionist right here in this thread who didn't know that the IRA weren't active from the early 1950s to 1969 and believed that the British army were brought in to quell an IRA murder spree.

If you think that the kind of people who riot are all historians, on either side, then you are being very generous to them. The signing of the Ulster covenant isn't on the school curriculum. And most of them are too young to remember the troubles, even.

Take this guy for instance:

Perhaps the City Hall is a solemn place to him because it was there that the Ulster covenant was signed. Perhaps. But it's also not a stretch to believe that he if asked where it was signed that he might answer in Stormont, or Belfast Castle.

Buzz84

This flag protest is just a way for the UDA to flesh their muscles in their area.

It's also a great way for the DUP to win back their seat in East Belfast and using this to attack the Alliance Party.

Just look at the Nolan Show. There is no way of getting through to these people, it's a waste of time.

TOMASJ

junder wrote: »

I was at an orange parade last year in London, in celebration of the jubliee, it was hosted and orginised by the English grand lodge and was one of the biggest parades I have attended. Was a very proud moment to parade past the houses of parilment and we where very well revived by the people of London. Another interesting point is that I met my English girlfriend at a orange parade in southhampton, her son was in a English flute band, so it seems unionist culture is not as far removed from the mainland as some people would like to believe

Did any of your clan stop and have a piss against the gate posts when passing the houses of parliament,
Or did you show a bit more respect than was shown the the catholics of st Matthews church in Belfast last October

junder

TOMASJ wrote: »

Did any of your clan stop and have a piss against the gate posts when passing the houses of parliament,
Or did you show a bit more respect than was shown the the catholics of st Matthews church in Belfast last October

My clan? Sure just like your clan bombed and murderd my community. What's that? It's not right to blame you for the wrongs caused by a minority of your community. Whats that? you may not be actually from the republican community, and here's me just making a generalisation, but then the trouble with generalisations is they are not very accurate. Of course you are welcome to go through the many many posts I have made over the years to see if I have made any sectarian remarks. Far the record. I would never urinate on a place of worship be it Catholic Church, Protestant church, synagogue, mosque or temple

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

My clan? Sure just like your clan bombed and murderd my community. What's that? It's not right to blame you for the wrongs caused by a minority of your community. Whats that? you may not be actually from the republican community, and here's me just making a generalisation, but then the trouble with generalisations is they are not very accurate. Of course you are welcome to go through the many many posts I have made over the years to see if I have made any sectarian remarks. Far the record. I would never urinate on a place of worship be it Catholic Church, Protestant church, synagogue, mosque or temple

The republican people of the South who didn't agree with what the IRA where doing, made their voices heard and shunned SF and the IRA as a result and are still doing it, has the Unionist community done that to these people? No they haven't, that is why it continues. Unionism is a belligerent politics, the insistance on flying this flag and the yearly trouble over marches being exampes of it.
You don't have to be sectarian to be undemocratic.

TOMASJ

junder wrote: »

My clan? Sure just like your clan bombed and murderd my community. What's that? It's not right to blame you for the wrongs caused by a minority of your community. Whats that? you may not be actually from the republican community, and here's me just making a generalisation, but then the trouble with generalisations is they are not very accurate. Of course you are welcome to go through the many many posts I have made over the years to see if I have made
any sectarian remarks. Far the record. I would never urinate on a place of worship be it Catholic Church, Protestant church, synagogue, mosque or temple

Now where are you getting the idea that I was accusing you of being sectarian, when all I asked was a straight foward question about the respect given by matching bands and their followers when passing particular buildings in Ireland or England,

Thomas_I

SoulandForm wrote: »

Loyalists and Unionists make no apologies; and we see with the whole fleg movement that they want to drag the place back, or at least a significant amount of them do, to the old Orange state.

Republicanism and Loyalism have radically different visions and goals. Loyalism because its based on a sense of racial superiority and religious sectarianism cant really win over Nationalists to its side because that would be defeating its purpose wouldnt it? Moderate Unionism might be able to at least argue that it can offer peace and a shared future but with Loyalism wandering around in the background thats not going to happen anyway.

The people behind the Ulster Covenant were crazed fanatics and extreme bigots. There is no way around that. Putting them up as people to be admired is not going to help matters.

I´d say forget about apologies because the Republicans aren´t inclined to apologies themselves for their deeds. That´s no point at all and takes no one further. So better to get over it and look forward.

In every society one can find a minority of radicals and extremists, therefore it´s important to keep them as a minority and strenghten the moderates to weaken the radicals. This applies for Republicans as well as for Unionists. There´s no other way to achieve a better society but to get the moderates in power and keep them in power and above all it´s the society itself who should take care that the peace process will not be jeopardised by radicals. To maintain this one needs stability and when it is not carried by the majority of the peaceful people it will always be fragile.

It´s time that these moderate powers from both sides stand together and stand up against these backward minded people for the sake of peace and prosperity.

I´d be careful on matters of admiration of historical events and persons because you can´t avoid that some people may take offence on such things at all. As you´re discomforted by the Unionists "traditions" so they are by the "Commemorations of the Easter Rising 1916" for instance.

The best thing would be (although I admit that this sounds upotian) to bring them both together and have a "joint celebration of their cultures and commemorations" but such imaginations only work in fantasy and to have it in reality it would be a great leap forward but demands mutual tolerance and respect, as well as none of them taking offence by the other.

What about yourself, do you consider yourself being more moderate or radical? I don´t know the answer and I won´t make any assumptions on that. I´m clearly a more moderate person on this and other matters. Tolerance is important but that doesn´t mean that being tolerant I´ve to agree with everything but the least I can do is to respect different opinions and way of life, as long as it doesn´t turn into violence.

As Winston S. Churchill said "In Peace: Goodwill" (taken from "the Morale of the book The Second World War"). I know he´s not the person you´d give some credit, but he is to me the greatest Englishman (or Briton) that ever lived. This doesn´t make me an Unionist either. I´ve also the same admiration towards great persons in Irish History, like Michael Collins. This doesn´t make me an Republican as well. I´m none of these, because my own individuality doesn´t need such extremes.
I like the UK as much as I like Ireland. I like to listen to the Scottish Bagpipe music as dearly as listen to traditional Irish music and I also like to sing "Rule Britannian" and all the other British patriotic songs. What is not so much of my music taste is that flute and drum music the Orangemen are playing on parade. This all sounds to me all of the same, with some excemptions when they play "The British Grenadier March". But I can respect their culture and I wouldn´t take offence on that. Then there are some Irish Rebell songs that I also like to listen to. There´s no contradiction to me in this at all, because what counts to me is - in re to historical persons - the character these people had and what they achieved in their lifetime for themselves and their country and as far as countries and cultures are concerned what they have to learn from it. I guess in your view I´d rather have no point at all. Having said that, I might be damned by you, but culture and music have much more to offer than by clinging to one side, it´s just that one has to be open minded for different cultures to experience and learn from that without political blinkers.

Goodwill and tolerance on a mutual basis is what NI needs and not always looking back and stirring up the past. As one said "that´s the problem with the Irish, they never forget". This applies for both sides. At least there are more people now in NI to work on the peace process and maintain what has been achieved then ever before. They belong to the future and hopefully they will prevail.

"If one always looks back to the past, one forgets about to look at the present and can´t win the future."

J Cheever Loophole

A colleague of mine is friendly with a person who is a paid employee of Belfast City Council, holding a prominent position. According to my friend's friend, the issue in East Belfast, where most of the violence has been concentrated, relates to a forthcoming UVF supergrass trial that is likely to leave a power vacuum in the area. A lot of this violence is two different individuals essentially trying to mark territory / assert influence, as they each make a bid for the crown.

Thomas_I

Lingua Franca wrote: »

There was a unionist right here in this thread who didn't know that the IRA weren't active from the early 1950s to 1969 and believed that the British army were brought in to quell an IRA murder spree.

If you think that the kind of people who riot are all historians, on either side, then you are being very generous to them. The signing of the Ulster covenant isn't on the school curriculum. And most of them are too young to remember the troubles, even.

Take this guy for instance:

Perhaps the City Hall is a solemn place to him because it was there that the Ulster covenant was signed. Perhaps. But it's also not a stretch to believe that he if asked where it was signed that he might answer in Stormont, or Belfast Castle.

I´ve seen this guy already on the BBC News website and again, the interview is difficult to follow because what he said has some interruption by the traffic noise from the street. So I couldn´t hear whether he has been asked any question re the relation of the flag issue to the signing of the Ulster Covenant at City Hall in 1912.

It doesn´t have to be on the school curriculum to learn about the signing of the Ulster Covenant, their parents take care that they will know it, as equally with other things that inherites "Unionist / Loyalist" creed and culture.

I´m barely thinking that all rioting people on either side are historians. One point in this is that on September 28th, 2012 the Unionists / Loyalists surely either celebrated or at least remembered the centenary of that event. The decision of the City Council took place on December 3rd, 2012 which is less than three months between these two dates. Therefore this historical event was more likely to be fresh in their minds than when the City Council had placed their decision at a time more previous or afterwards of that date.

I don´t think that all those people rioting on the streets are "just morons" without any knowledge of their culture they pretend to "defend" by their actions. Some of them are rioting just for fun and taking the opportunity to freak out by violent protests. Others wanted to protest peacefully and where caught up in the riots. That´s the problem and the difficulty in this, one can´t tell one from another when such riots are taking place by "professional rioters hijacking" the protests. In as far some of them peaceful protesters might became inspired to take part in the riots is another difficult question. They won´t tell you if not caught and brought to justice.

Some other poster came up with another theory, quite recently today. It´s also worth to be considered. The whole thing is a "b****y" mess.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

I´d say forget about apologies because the Republicans aren´t inclined to apologies themselves for their deeds.

Wrong.

You seem to be wandering about a lot trying to make sense of it all without the proper info or facts. Maybe do some research.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Wrong.

You seem to be wandering about a lot trying to make sense of it all without the proper info or facts. Maybe do some research.

Right then you could be so kind and recommend me the place where to find them.

Happyman42

Thomas_I wrote: »

Right then you could be so kind and recommend me the place where to find them.

Google is good I've heard.

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

Google is good I've heard.

I find some that suites:


http://www.thejournal.ie/mcguinness-dismisses-report-of-ira-apology-505871-Jul2012/

Speaking on RTÉ’s Saturday Night with Miriam, Northern Ireland’s Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness said he did not know where the SBP story was originating from “because the IRA are gone; I don’t know who’s going to [apologise]“.

However, he indicated that he believes a ‘collective’ apology should be issued by all parties involved, including the British government:

It is absolutely heartbreaking that we have been through almost 100 years of partition in the North, decade after decade of conflict – and a very bitter conflict that lasted 25 years in which an awful lot of people lost their lives. How could you not be sorry that all that happened?
But if people are going to say sorry, then everybody should say it collectively, in my mind. And that includes the British government. The British government cannot exclude themselves from the debate that we’re seeking to have which I think will be good for all of us. We have come a long way, but there is still an awful long way to go.

That means all together.

That is what turned up on google:

http://www.google.ie/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=irish+republican+apologizes&oq=irish+republican+apologizes&gs_l=hp.3...10905.11644.1.12379.6.6.0.0.0.3.179.692.3j3.6.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.BpujH7GEpdc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41524429,d.Yms&fp=56672abf00662e34&biw=1344&bih=650

Some sources say they apologized, Mr McGuinness says the IRA is gone. So what is to be taken for granted?

I agree with the opinion of Mr McGuinness. A very capable and good man, Mr McGuinness. What he says makes more sense than what many Republicans have said and still are saying. If there is any politician in NI from the very few that I know among them through the media, who is capable to bring NI forward until the peace process in NI is accomplished than it is him. I would even go that far to say that once in the proper circumstances he might be the one who leads NI into unification with the RoI.

Probably I "seem to be wandering about a lot trying to make sense of it all without the proper info or facts", do I?

Happyman42

You said: 'Republicans where not inclined to apologise'
That is wrong, the IRA apologised for the deaths of non-combatants, early in the process and SF have consistently called for a Peace and Reconcialtion commission to deal with acts carried out by ALL sides, this would include FULL DISCLOSURE of all activities and would lead to he collective apology that McG is talking about.
Guess who have trenchantly resisted that process?

Thomas_I

Happyman42 wrote: »

You said: 'Republicans where not inclined to apologise'
That is wrong, the IRA apologised for the deaths of non-combatants, early in the process and SF have consistently called for a Peace and Reconcialtion commission to deal with acts carried out by ALL sides, this would include FULL DISCLOSURE of all activities and would lead to he collective apology that McG is talking about.
Guess who have trenchantly resisted that process?

OK, I withdraw my saying "Republicans where not inclined to apologise". I also won´t to be a "pain in the a.." by stirring this up any further. I´ve recently read in a book "The Course of Irish History" that most of the peace process, i.e. the initiative that has brought it into reality is on the credit of the former US President Bill Clinton. Of course I do not forget about Gerry Adams as the one who was very close involved in the set up of the process, among other politicians which were drawn to this.

Obviously to "guess who have trenchantly resisted that process" isn´t quite hard, we all know who. The "big Reverent Ian Paisley".