Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…105106108110111…118

Comments

  • Options
    #3212
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Part of the job of the 'national broadcaster' is to report the news, impartially. Sinn Fein where at that time a mandated party.
    Who were allied with PIRA who had as an aim the dismantling of the state.

    Can you cite any example where a country made the resources of the state available to their enemies? The more usual course of event would be to intern natives of the countries that were their enemies.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Section 31 was just another example of the Irish state colluding with the British to suppress Irish people.
    How so? Successful governments opted to retain the legislation. How did the collusion manifest itself?
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I would imagine you are in a very small minority that think it was anything but counter-productive.

    I said it was (probably) counter-productive but that is besides the point.


  • Options
    #3213
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    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.

    If you insist
    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.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    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.

    These things are not mutually exclusive - the state was sectarian, the security forces engaged in terrorism; but that does not mean that the analysis of Republican gangsters and terrorists falls anyway short of the mark.


  • Options
    #3214
    Shakespeare's Sister
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭Shakespeare's Sister


    osarusan wrote: »
    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?
    Yep, I thought that was atrocious - and said so.
    Also, speaking of the Ballymurphy thread - Teresa 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?
    Same thing. I condemn lack of a holistic criticism of atrocities in the North/Britain, no matter where it comes from.
    All this "the Troubles are only down to republicans" stuff though is misleading for people who aren't knowledgeable about the whole saga though.


  • Options
    #3215
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Magaggie wrote: »
    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.
    I make no distinction between the two murder victims (Jean & Joan) and have said as much on one of the many threads running here. It is equally regrettably that neither (probably) will ever have justice served.

    Again I will say, the importance difference between the two is that nobody attempts to defend loyalist death squads or bloody Sunday or Ballymurphy, hence there is little to debate when there is no disagreement.

    It is a very different situation with republican wrong-doings. There is almost nothing they did that won't be defended by someone, hence the debates tend to extend around these incidents.


  • Options
    #3216
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    Who were allied with PIRA who had as an aim the dismantling of the state.

    Can you cite any example where a country made the resources of the state available to their enemies? The more usual course of event would be to intern natives of the countries that were their enemies.

    The people who voted for SF where enemies of the state? Are you for real?

    How so? Successful governments opted to retain the legislation. How did the collusion manifest itself?
    Section 31 itself stifled SF's electoral progress, electoral progress which eventually empowered them to bring an end to the conflict.
    Irish state collusion with the British also saw the introduction of the brutal and corrupt Heavy Squad and also the huge resources spent enforcing and securing a border(mainly to placate Unionism) that constitutionally we believed shouldn't be there.


    I said it was (probably) counter-productive but that is besides the point.
    Why is it 'besides the point', we need to be mindful of a free media and ensure it' likes never happens again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3217
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,623 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Magaggie wrote: »
    Yep, I thought that was atrocious - and said so.
    But you're not answering my question - what conclusions do you draw about the opinions who made no comment at all?


  • Options
    #3218
    Shakespeare's Sister
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭Shakespeare's Sister


    osarusan wrote: »
    But you're not answering my question - what conclusions do you draw about the opinions who made no comment at all?
    They're likely too extreme in their republicanism for my liking.


  • Options
    #3219
    Shakespeare's Sister
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭Shakespeare's Sister


    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    I make no distinction between the two murder victims (Jean & Joan) and have said as much on one of the many threads running here. It is equally regrettably that neither (probably) will ever have justice served.
    I didn't mean you. I'm only talking about a handful of people - and they know who they are. As I said, criticism of the IRA/Sinn Féin isn't what I have an issue with (I do it myself); that, alone, does not a Harris/CCOB protegé make.


  • Options
    #3220
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The people who voted for SF where enemies of the state? Are you for real?.
    Yes. Were you unaware that they did not recognise either state and wanted to establish a new (old?) 32 county republic. And they were prepared to murder the guardians of this state in the "fund raising" efforts to do so. Do you not consider that subverive?

    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Section 31 itself stifled SF's electoral progress, electoral progress which eventually empowered them to bring an end to the conflict.
    Irish state collusion with the British also saw the introduction of the brutal and corrupt Heavy Squad and also the huge resources spent enforcing and securing a border(mainly to placate Unionism) that constitutionally we believed shouldn't be there.
    My question was how. How did the collusion manifest itself?
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Why is it 'besides the point', we need to be mindful of a free media and ensure it' likes never happens again.
    What is besides the point is whether the tactic worked or not. The controversy over section 31 was about the principle of the matter.


  • Options
    #3221
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Like pulling teeth this is.
    RandomName2 wrote: »
    You declare criticism of armed republicanism to be the consequence of hypocritical revisionism.

    Where?
    This is something that you did in your post. You whitewash the issue; saying that all opponents are biased, dimwitted, and propagandists.

    Where?
    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.

    Where?
    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.

    Where?

    See, you're being lazy not taking my individual points and countering them - I'm not a mind reader. Now if you'd just taken the original post and broken it up, countered, refuted, asked for clarification you wouldn't have wasted all this time.

    Stop being lazy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3222
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Magaggie wrote: »
    I didn't mean you. I'm only talking about a handful of people - and they know who they are. As I said, criticism of the IRA/Sinn Féin isn't what I have an issue with (I do it myself); that, alone, does not a Harris/CCOB protegé make.

    From where I am sitting, it is every bit as evident on the other side. There are very, very few who highlight the wrong-doings of both sides with equal vigour.


  • Options
    #3223
    Shakespeare's Sister
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭Shakespeare's Sister


    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    From where I am sitting, it is every bit as evident on the other side. There are very, very few who highlight the wrong-doings of both sides with equal vigour.
    I wouldn't expect a staunch republican or loyalist to, to be honest. That doesn't mean I agree - I just wouldn't expect it.

    I would expect it though from people who claim not to be affiliated (or at least not staunchly affiliated) with any ideology, and who claim to condemn all violence and sectarianism in the north... yet blatantly focus disproportionately in one direction.

    Although I would expect a staunch republican or loyalist not to be saying sh-t like "Time to forget the past and move on" as there's no way they'd apply the same philosophy to an atrocity that affected their community.


  • Options
    #3224
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    From where I am sitting, it is every bit as evident on the other side. There are very, very few who highlight the wrong-doings of both sides with equal vigour.

    Personally I think if you picked up a gun or signed up to be in the PIRA, UDR, BA, RUC, UVF and got shot then tough really, you knew what you were getting into and decided to do it anyway.

    When it comes to killing people who wanted no part in the conflict then I would condemn those who killed them equally and always have. Kingsmill, Enniskillen, La Mon, Miami Showband, Bloody Sunday, Warrington etc are unjustifiable by any civilised person's standards.

    That said I place the blame for causing the conflict at the feet of Unionists and the British and see the PIRA as a symptom of a disease rather than the disease itself.


  • Options
    #3225
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    Yes. Were you unaware that they did not recognise either state and wanted to establish a new (old?) 32 county republic. And they were prepared to murder the guardians of this state in the "fund raising" efforts to do so. Do you not consider that subverive?
    They did not recognise the state but where not at war with it or offered it any threat, and that was not the reason for Section 31.


    [
    My question was how. How did the collusion manifest itself?
    I have no idea what you are looking for if not what I posted above. If you want a history of the Heavy Gang(the stuff that hasn't been supressed) google it. Then google the effects of the border on everday life.
    What is besides the point is whether the tactic worked or not. The controversy over section 31 was about the principle of the matter.

    That what caused most of the problems on this island people sitting waffling about high moral principle while others got on and got stuff done.


  • Options
    #3226
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,077 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ryan101 wrote: »
    And SF/IRA just took over repression manipulation and control of their own community


    bull****

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #3227
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,077 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Busted Flat. wrote: »
    Could you give me an idea what age group you are in. Or are you doing the leaving cert this year.

    he's still in cresh

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #3228
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,077 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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?

    nonsense, wrong, the IRA never wanted to overthrow the state, they wanted removal of british rule in NI, or at least, equality for all citizens of NI, section 31 was speciffically to silence these people from exposing the wrong doings of britain in the north as the irish government were afraid that should the truth come out and people saw britain for what it was it could have lead to protests in the south, and that such audio could have leaked to the BBC causing the british to see the military for what it was, causing issues there and possibly causing britain to invade the south in revenge for exposing of wrong doings by the army

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #3229
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,077 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


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

    there were no apologists and defenders of those who sought to overthrow the state as there wasn't anyone who wanted to overthrow the state, still though the apologists and defenders of the BA and their slaughtering including via their little loyalist friends were able to spread their poison over the BBC and RTE.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #3230
    WilyCoyote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,059 ✭✭✭WilyCoyote


    Zed Bank wrote: »
    What is a "shinnerbot" ?
    The opposite of the Irish Nationalism is bad brigade.
    One who doesn't slavishly adhere to the British take on things.


  • Options
    #3231
    WilyCoyote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,059 ✭✭✭WilyCoyote


    Am pulling out of this debate. Too much manufactured indignation by Brit lovers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3232
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    WilyCoyote wrote: »
    Too much manufactured indignation by Brit lovers.

    ... he said, with manufactured indignation. :P


  • Options
    #3233
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    mylefttesticle wrote: »
    Because Irish citizens live up there and Irish citizens live down here and we are all Irish citizens.

    Except for the majority who wish to stay British




    (or part of the UK for those about to get pedantic).


  • Options
    #3234
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    end of the road wrote: »
    he's still in cresh

    From the one who can't spell CRECHE :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #3235
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    end of the road wrote: »
    he's still in cresh

    still waving your 'fleg' ?


  • Options
    #3236
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    ryan101 wrote: »
    still waving your 'fleg' ?

    Which "fleg" would that be?


  • Options
    #3237
    Tail Docker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,954 ✭✭✭Tail Docker


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Which "fleg" would that be?

    Considering you are a former member of the British Army, I'd guess that would be a Union Jack. I'd also guess you might not be entirely impartial in your view of the whole matter.


  • Options
    #3238
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Tail Docker wrote: »
    Considering you are a former member of the British Army, I'd guess that would be a Union Jack. I'd also guess you might not be entirely impartial in your view of the whole matter.

    *sigh*

    Jean McConville was murdered in cold blood, anyone who had any hand in her murder (no matter who they are) should be arrested, tried and jailed.

    The victims of the Ballymurphy massacre were murdered in cold blood, anyone who had any hand in those murders (no matter who they are) should be arrested, tried and jailed.

    The victims of the La Mon restaurant firebombing were murdered in cold blood, anyone who had any hand in those murders (no matter who they are) should be arrested, tried and jailed.

    The victims of Bloody Sunday were murdered in cold blood, anyone who had any hand in those murders (no matter who they are) should be arrested, tried and jailed.

    Would you like me to list each and every heinous crime with the above or will that suffice to point out that i treat all murders the same? fWIW no matter what my job was in the past i have not tried to justify the murder of innocent civilians or tried to blame the police for not acting quick enough. If there is evidence of a crime then the person (whoever they are) should be arrested, tried and if found guilty....locked away like any common criminal!


  • Options
    #3239
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    bumper234 wrote: »
    *sigh*

    Jean McConville was murdered in cold blood, anyone who had any hand in her murder (no matter who they are) should be arrested, tried and jailed.

    The victims of the Ballymurphy massacre were murdered in cold blood, anyone who had any hand in those murders (no matter who they are) should be arrested, tried and jailed.

    The victims of the La Mon restaurant firebombing were murdered in cold blood, anyone who had any hand in those murders (no matter who they are) should be arrested, tried and jailed.

    The victims of Bloody Sunday were murdered in cold blood, anyone who had any hand in those murders (no matter who they are) should be arrested, tried and jailed.

    Would you like me to list each and every heinous crime with the above or will that suffice to point out that i treat all murders the same? fWIW no matter what my job was in the past i have not tried to justify the murder of innocent civilians or tried to blame the police for not acting quick enough. If there is evidence of a crime then the person (whoever they are) should be arrested, tried and if found guilty....locked away like any common criminal!

    I look forward to the IRA fan boys stating something similar.


  • Options
    #3240
    twowheelsgood
    Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭twowheelsgood


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    They did not recognise the state but where not at war with it or offered it any threat, and that was not the reason for Section 31.
    end of the road wrote: »
    nonsense, wrong, the IRA never wanted to overthrow the state

    Really? So what do you suppose Danny boy had in mind when he talked about “taking power in Ireland”?
    Danny Morrison wrote: »
    Who here really believes we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other, we take power in Ireland?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3241
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Does anybody honestly believe if the IRA achieved there victory of removing all things British( army ,ruc,government,) from the north they would stop there ,
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement