breaking: Gerry Adams Arrested in connection to McConville - MOD WARNING First Post

ryan101

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Could you give me an idea what age group you are in. Or are you doing the leaving cert this year.

The age group that watched innocent women and children out shopping being blown to pieces by brave masked pot bellied IRA men who hid bombs designed to kill civilans out shopping and then ran away.

Karl Stein

Busted Flat. wrote: »

It is truly amazing that most of the posters on here, and other anti SF sites are so ignorant about what happened in the last 40 years.

[Repost with a little editing]

In 1966 the 50 year anniversary of the Easter Rising ('good' Republicanism/Nationalism) was celebrated with gusto by the Irish state and Irish people. In 1976 the 60th anniversary wasn't. The rise of the 'bad' sort of Republicanism in the north and south had given the establishment the ****s so a concerted and somewhat successful campaign to cleanse the public consciousness of Republicanism/Nationalism was carried out not unlike the paranoid McCarthyism of the US in the 50's.

A 'chilling effect' atmosphere was fostered by those in power. Academics, intellectuals, journalists and commentators critical of British and Unionist terrorism in the north were viewed as a threat to the establishment and so were expunged from the public consciousness (see Connor Cruise O'Brien and Section 31). The Myers', CCO'B's, and Dudley Edwards' of the world had the public consciousness to themselves and embarked on a campaign to stigmatise all things Nat/Rep, downplay British terrorism that gave rise to militant Republicanism and this worked its way into revising the history of British Rule in Ireland.

So when we hear our resident Cruisermaniacs call the Nationalist/Republican interpretation of historic events in Ireland 'revisionism' what we're hearing is a cacophony of revisionists who are blissfully unaware that revisionism is exactly what they're dimwittedly engaging in.

Busted Flat.

ryan101 wrote: »

The age group that watched innocent women and children out shopping being blown to pieces by brave masked pot bellied IRA men who hid bombs designed to kill civilans out shopping and then ran away.

I am familiar with your age group now, good luck with the leaving cert.

wetdarknight2

ryan101 wrote: »

The age group that watched innocent women and children out shopping being blown to pieces by brave masked pot bellied IRA men who hid bombs designed to kill civilans out shopping and then ran away.

+1. Many young people who would be sf supporters now were not around in the 70's, do not remember all the searchers of bags etc going in to shops. And who was leader of the PIRA in Belfast during Bloody Friday?

Karl Stein wrote: »

In 1966 the 50 year anniversary ......

And a few decades earlier during the early forties Dev let some IRA men starve to death in an Irish prison. No great outcry of sympathy, like it or not.

ryan101

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I am familiar with your age group now, good luck with the leaving cert.

Come back to me when you've finished junior infants so

Busted Flat.

wetdarknight2 wrote: »

+1. Many young people who would be sf supporters now were not around in the 70's, do not remember all the searchers of bags etc going in to shops. And who was leader of the PIRA in Belfast during Bloody Friday?


And a few decades earlier during the early forties Dev let some IRA men starve to death in an Irish prison. No great outcry of sympathy, like it or not.

Devilera was a financial republican, for his own benefit, and how he enriched himself. An opportunistic low life that conned the people.

twowheelsgood

Karl Stein wrote: »

Section 31 & revisionism

Ah yes, section 31. I am always amused at indignation that this provokes in republicans. For our younger viewers, let’s remind them as to what it was about.

The PIRA for much of the time that section 31 was in force was a subversive organisation that had as one of it aims, the over throw of this state, Ireland. Section 31 prevented these subversives from using the state broadcaster RTE to help them with this aim.

And the republicans were terribly cross about this! Just to recap, they were pissed that the state did not give them access to the state’s resources to help them destroy the state!!! Have you ever heard anything as daft?

It should be added that arguments could be made that the gains from frustrating the state’s enemies possibly did not exceed the negatives that accrue with any kind of censorship, and also, that said enemies possible benefited from the ban, on a propaganda front and also because they were spared having to go before the cameras when one of their spectaculars went wrong and innocents died.

But seriously, when in history did a state every give such assistance to its enemies?

As for revisionism, I have always wondered why there are negative connotations associated with this word. As if the first draft of history had some sort of authority that could not be challenged!

Imagine if the initial response of Dubliners in 1916 was not revised? And is it not the case that great republican wet dream would be to persuade Britain to fundamentally revise much of her history?

Busted Flat.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Ah yes, section 31. I am always amused at indignation that this provokes in republicans. For our younger viewers, let’s remind them as to what it was about.

The PIRA for much of the time that section 31 was in force was a subversive organisation that had as one of it aims, the over throw of this state, Ireland. Section 31 prevented these subversives from using the state broadcaster RTE to help them with this aim.

And the republicans were terribly cross about this! Just to recap, they were pissed that the state did not give them access to the state’s resources to help them destroy the state!!! Have you ever heard anything as daft?

It should be added that arguments could be made that the gains from frustrating the state’s enemies possibly did not exceed the negatives that accrue with any kind of censorship, and also, that said enemies possible benefited from the ban, on a propaganda front and also because they were spared having to go before the cameras when one of their spectaculars went wrong and innocents died.

But seriously, when in history did a state every give such assistance to its enemies?

As for revisionism, I have always wondered why there are negative connotations associated with this word. As if the first draft of history had some sort of authority that could not be challenged!

Imagine if the initial response of Dubliners in 1916 was not revised? And is it not the case that great republican wet dream would be to persuade Britain to fundamentally revise much of her history?

Get a life lad, nobody looked at the news on RTE and their sticky journos, most people looked at the BBC and UTV for news about the war in the six counties.

Just as a side point little Tommy was on RTE this evening about Gerry Adams, on the clip it shows the cars leaving Antrim barracks by the back gate, little Tommy was at the front gate waiting for his big news item, did the worm or RTE give accreditation to the camera for the film. No little Tommy was embarrassed about his fook up. How much does it cost to keep that little bigot up there. Surly he would be better employed cleaning the tables in the canteen.

twowheelsgood

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Get a life lad, nobody looked at the news on RTE and their sticky journos, most people looked at the BBC and UTV for news about the war in the six counties.

So why was section 31 an issue? (The BBC had a similar ban in place BTW)

RandomName2

Karl Stein wrote: »

[Repost with a little editing]

In 1966 the 50 year anniversary of the Easter Rising ('good' Republicanism/Nationalism) was celebrated with gusto by the Irish state and Irish people. In 1976 the 60th anniversary wasn't. The rise of the 'bad' sort of Republicanism in the north and south had given the establishment the ****s so a concerted and somewhat successful campaign to cleanse the public consciousness of Republicanism/Nationalism was carried out not unlike the paranoid McCarthyism of the US in the 50's.

A 'chilling effect' atmosphere was fostered by those in power. Academics, intellectuals, journalists and commentators critical of British and Unionist terrorism in the north were viewed as a threat to the establishment and so were expunged from the public consciousness (see Connor Cruise O'Brien and Section 31). The Myers', CCO'B's, and Dudley Edwards' of the world had the public consciousness to themselves and embarked on a campaign to stigmatise all things Nat/Rep, downplay British terrorism that gave rise to militant Republicanism and this worked its way into revising the history of British Rule in Ireland.

So when we hear our resident Cruisermaniacs call the Nationalist/Republican interpretation of historic events in Ireland 'revisionism' what we're hearing is a cacophony of revisionists who are blissfully unaware that revisionism is exactly what they're dimwittedly engaging in.

I don't see why you see it as mutually exclusive.

Both sides were full of psychopaths.

Ultimate irony that the paramilitaries of neither side targeted each other.

wetdarknight2

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Devilera was a financial republican, for his own benefit, and how he enriched himself.

Heard that about other republican leaders such as Haughey, but never heard DeValera accused of that. How, pray tell, did he enrich himself by allowing republicans starve themselves in Irish jails? Do you think politicans benefit by starving people in jails?

Busted Flat. wrote: »

An opportunistic low life that conned the people.

If that's right how come there was no outcry from the Irish population? He could not have conned all of the people all of the time surely?

wetdarknight2

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ultimate irony that the paramilitaries of neither side targeted each other.

sometimes they did.

Karl Stein

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Ah yes, section 31. I am always amused at indignation that this provokes in republicans.

Do you ever get sick of putting words in people's mouths and completely missing the point?

Not only were IRA spokespersons banned from the airwaves a chilling effect ensured that anyone who didn't sing from the hymn sheet was silenced:

[O'Brien] saw opposing nationalist and unionist traditions as irreconcilable and switched from a nationalist to a unionist view of Irish politics and history ... He summarised his position as, "I intend to administer an electric shock to the Irish psyche".

wikipedia.org

We had an apologist for Unionist/British terrorism as our censor-in-chief, not just an apologist but a liar, misogynist, islamophobe and quite the nutjob:

[CCO'B] wished to "cleanse the culture" of republicanism and would like the bill to be used against teachers who allegedly glorified Irish revolutionaries. He also wanted it used against newspaper editors who published pro-republican or anti-British readers' letters.

O'Brien stat[ed] that the "killing strain" of Irish republicanism, "has a very high propensity to run in families and the mother is most often the carrier".

a successful libel action was brought against CCO'B by relatives of Bloody Sunday victims for alleging in a Sunday Independent article in 1997 that the marchers were "Sinn Féin activists operating for the IRA"

O'Brien opposed the 1998 Good Friday Agreement

wikipedia.org

Shameful stuff.

Busted Flat.

wetdarknight2 wrote: »

Heard that about other republican leaders such as Haughey, but never heard DeValera accused of that. How, pray tell, did he enrich himself by allowing republicans starve themselves in Irish jails? Do you think politicans benefit by starving people in jails?

If that's right how come there was no outcry from the Irish population? He could not have conned all of the people all of the time surely?

Shares sold in the us to finance the Irish Press, when Irish US citizens try to check them out they were on useless paper.

RandomName2

wetdarknight2 wrote: »

sometimes they did.

An amazing 97 paramilitaries lost their lives in the Troubles at the hands of Paramilitaries from the "other side" - otherwise accounting for roughly 3.3% of murders.

You'd think that they were on the same side - hell, 280 Paramilitaries lost their lives at the hands of other Paramilitaries from their own side (e.g. Loyalists killing Loyalists or Republicans killing Republicans). Huh.

And who killed more Irish security forces? Republicans, naturally. :pac:

Karl Stein

RandomName2 wrote: »

yadda, yadda, yadda

I have no idea why you bothered quoting me. It's ironic that you chastise me for the quality of my posts while simultaneously posting ill-informed rubbish and quoting me with irrelevancies.

Busted Flat.

RandomName2 wrote: »

An amazing 97 paramilitaries lost their lives in the Troubles at the hands of Paramilitaries from the "other side" - otherwise accounting for roughly 3.3% of murders.

You'd think that they were on the same side - hell, 280 Paramilitaries lost their lives at the hands of other Paramilitaries from their own side (e.g. Loyalists killing Loyalists or Republicans killing Republicans). Huh.

And who killed more Irish security forces? Republicans, naturally. :pac:

Silly comparison.

twowheelsgood

Karl Stein wrote: »

Not only were IRA spokespersons banned from the airwaves a chilling effect ensured that anyone who didn't sing from the hymn sheet was silenced:

Yes, the apologists and defenders of those who sought to overthrow the state were also barred.

Granted "singing from a different hymn sheet" sounds much less sinister than subversive activist.

Karl Stein wrote: »

We had an apologist for Unionist/British terrorism as our censor-in-chief

Section 31 was retained by successive governments after CCOB departed until it was eventually repealed. So your effort to attribute this to a single "traitor" to the cause does not really wash.

RandomName2

Karl Stein wrote: »

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed quis eros quam. Suspendisse placerat id erat in lacinia. Duis dolor arcu, lacinia bibendum auctor eu, luctus eu ligula. Sed lacinia tristique condimentum. Phasellus in gravida justo, eget tincidunt nunc. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Maecenas semper laoreet risus quis sagittis. Curabitur convallis aliquam nisl ac pharetra. Duis volutpat massa vitae enim interdum sodales. Proin vestibulum, nisl et ullamcorper sodales, libero diam bibendum metus, id suscipit leo nunc in nisi. Nulla tincidunt aliquet congue. Mauris ultricies ipsum ac sem sagittis, in lacinia dui venenatis. Mauris quam libero, tempor non mattis id, ultrices in arcu. Sed vestibulum posuere iaculis. Suspendisse potenti. Aliquam lorem neque, semper eget hendrerit non, consequat vel arcu.

Curabitur blandit nisl sit amet sapien volutpat ultrices. Vestibulum auctor ipsum at sagittis condimentum. In vitae urna ac lacus bibendum hendrerit. Mauris eu feugiat lacus, vitae posuere risus. Cras id ultrices neque. Nulla facilisi. Ut placerat sem sed ante sagittis molestie. Mauris in sollicitudin enim. Nunc sit amet lacus tempus, sagittis tortor a, facilisis purus. Mauris scelerisque ullamcorper tempus. Etiam tristique risus lacus, in dapibus ipsum mollis id. Curabitur ligula orci, aliquet a mi eu, tincidunt pulvinar est. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Suspendisse potenti.

Ut orci augue, scelerisque a augue quis, malesuada ultrices lacus. Nullam dictum viverra velit. Pellentesque non mi faucibus, condimentum diam nec, facilisis lacus. Phasellus at erat id ipsum ultrices malesuada. Quisque fermentum nunc quam, nec volutpat massa pharetra non. Vestibulum non sodales orci, a tincidunt libero. Nam id mauris risus. Nulla sagittis luctus turpis, in egestas libero viverra et. Mauris dignissim sem eget neque condimentum consectetur. Quisque sed dui vel massa facilisis facilisis. Maecenas auctor interdum dui, ac tincidunt neque ultricies ac. Curabitur dapibus metus vel mi fermentum pulvinar. Fusce mattis in justo eu placerat. Cras feugiat sapien sit amet quam ultricies adipiscing.

Integer ut orci sit amet mi varius aliquam. Duis sagittis leo elit, vitae laoreet massa porta eget. Sed id eros id turpis faucibus adipiscing. Etiam convallis et nisl et aliquet. Morbi fermentum, odio sed rhoncus pulvinar, diam erat venenatis tellus, ut tristique dolor elit sed nunc. Aliquam nec orci non libero feugiat ornare. Nam luctus pulvinar justo, nec fringilla elit gravida a. In venenatis eros eget mauris pharetra varius. Aenean porttitor bibendum accumsan. Proin at orci quis massa interdum placerat. Praesent vitae mattis magna, at ultrices odio. Phasellus ac pharetra est, nec placerat ligula. Ut volutpat tincidunt neque. Aenean dignissim iaculis nisl eget ultricies. Praesent semper, lectus in consequat scelerisque, nulla sapien bibendum odio, ut pharetra nisl dui posuere sapien. Cras suscipit mattis lectus quis ultrices.

Sorry, didn't quite catch that. Perhaps if you didn't LMFTFY my post I could understand what part of what I was referring to of what you were referring to, you were referring to.

RandomName2

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Silly comparison.

Which one, how so?

Karl Stein

RandomName2 wrote: »

Sorry, didn't quite catch that. Perhaps if you didn't LMFTFY my post I could understand what part of what I was referring to of what you were referring to.

*sigh*.

If you're going to quote me take particular points I've made and counter them instead of quoting a lengthy post and offering three lines of blabber as some sort of response.

Try harder.
Be better.

Shakespeare's Sister

twowheelsgood wrote: »

One lingering legacy of this is the hostility that persists for physical force republicans. And this IS the reason for the hostility, not that Southerners did not care what happened to Irish people North of the border (the arms crisis, the burning of the British embassy, the hunger strikes and many other things clearly dispel this myth) or any silly physco-babble about latent guilt or some such nonsense.

Criticism of republican violence is completely correct - that's not what I'm referring to.
It's plain as day there are some people down here who have a baffling need to dismiss even moderate Northern nationalism, and who are incapable of a holistic criticism of atrocities in the north (see: certain people on this thread, who did a disappearing act when the discussion focused on what led to the Troubles, and who were conspicuous by their absence on the Ballymurphy thread). I don't care if the following names are brought up over and over, it's relevant: CCOB and Eoghan Harris protegés (two men who have written and said and done vile, rotten things - particularly Cruise O'Brien).
I don't know what causes such insecurity and forelock-tugging in these people, but it's there.
And nationalism is completely reasonable from people whose identity has been fodder for beating them down. I don't bother with nationalism/patriotism, but that's because I have the luxury of not needing to. And as said: nationalism can be completely innocuous, such as supporting your country's team. I subscribe to the "born in a random geographical location, therefore nothing to be proud of" to a point... but you could say that in relation to your family, your locality... yet family closeness is fair enough, civic pride is fair enough. There is nothing wrong with a mere affinity to where you are from (whether that's family, community, country) so long as it doesn't turn into hostility. And there is certainly nothing wrong with protectiveness of your community/identity when it's getting the sh-t kicked out of it - literally and metaphorically.

Zed Bank wrote: »

What is a "shinnerbot" ?

A term used by people who would also say someone who is sympathetic with Northern nationalism is a Celtic jersey wearing scumbag. A simpleton term in other words.

ryan101

Magaggie wrote: »

A term used by people who would also say someone who is sympathetic with Northern nationalism is a Celtic jersey wearing scumbag.

I wear a celtic jersey, but thankfully I'm not a SF/IRA scumbag

Happyman42

twowheelsgood wrote: »

Yes, the apologists and defenders of those who sought to overthrow the state were also barred.

Granted "singing from a different hymn sheet" sounds much less sinister than subversive activist.

Section 31 was retained by successive governments after CCOB departed until it was eventually repealed. So your effort to attribute this to a single "traitor" to the cause does not really wash.

Part of the job of the 'national broadcaster' is to report the news, impartially. Sinn Fein where at that time a mandated party.
Section 31 was just another example of the Irish state colluding with the British to suppress Irish people.
I would imagine you are in a very small minority that think it was anything but counter-productive. It was enthusiastically endorsed and enforced by the stickie controlled RTE (by their own admission) too.
It was also deeply shameful.

osarusan

Magaggie wrote: »

(see: certain people on this thread, who did a disappearing act when the discussion focused on what led to the Troubles, and who were conspicuous by their absence on the Ballymurphy thread)

To suggest that people can be judged in some way, or that we can draw conclusions on their opinions, based on what they do not post is a pretty dangerous suggestion - are you sure you stand by it?

Shakespeare's Sister

osarusan wrote: »

To suggest that people can be judged in some way, or that we can draw conclusions on their opinions, based on what they do not post is a pretty dangerous suggestion

I guess so. But they're ALL OVER one perspective yet don't touch another perspective with a bargepole, yet they're obviously reading it.

RandomName2

Karl Stein wrote: »

*sigh*.

If you're going to quote me take particular points I've made and counter them instead of quoting a lengthy post and offering three lines of blabber as some sort of response.

Try harder.
Be better.

*assuming you are taking about post 3195*

You declare criticism of armed republicanism to be the consequence of hypocritical revisionism. This is something that you did in your post. You whitewash the issue; saying that all opponents are biased, dimwitted, and propagandists.

By extension, you claim that the antithesis of such claims were true: that armed republicanism was in binary opposition to the terrorist, sectarianism of British terrorism.

I said that these things are not mutually exclusive - that the state was sectarian, that the security forces engaged in terrorism; but that does not mean that the analysis of Republican gangsters and terrorists fall anyway short of the mark. However, you are either unable and unwilling to debate the issue: you seem to believe that analysis is a zero-sum game where only those that drown out their opponents can be heard - a scenario where truth is superfluous.

Karl Stein

Magaggie wrote: »

nationalism can be completely innocuous,

A point lost on the pseudo-enlightened.

osarusan

Magaggie wrote: »

yet don't touch another perspective with a bargepole, yet they're obviously reading it.

A few pages ago, a few posters of republican persuasion argued that the police are the ones really responsible for deaths of IRA bombs because they didn't evacuate fast enough. As far as I can remember, no other posters of the same persuasion took the time to comment on this - what would you infer from this?

Also, speaking of the Ballymurphy thread - Theresa Villiers' announcement that there would be no inquiry into the masacre was widely used on here as a contrast with Adams' arrest as an example of political policing.

Yet, at the same time as she made the statement about Ballymurphy, she also announced that there would be no inquiry into the La Mon restaurant firebombing, which killed 12 people.

What would you infer from the lack of a thread highlighting the La Mon decision, and the lack of reference to it by posters in other threads?

Karl Stein

RandomName2 wrote: »

*assuming you are taking about post 3195*

We're getting there slowly but surely. You're making progress, well done.

Now would you be a good lad and actually quote the post and counter the individual points instead of having me do it for you.

I took the time to write the post it's only fair you take the time to respond to it as I would to points you would make.

Keep going, you're nearly there.