“We can’t let Sinn Fein indoctrinate young Nationalists with hate”
UUP Larne Borough Councillor Mark Dunn had an platform piece published in today’s Newsletter in which he challanges the percievied ideological supremacy the Republican movement purveys over the hunger strikes.
Unionism should be willing not only support and represent the innocent victims of the troubles, but also challenge the majority voice of nationalism’s tailored story glorifying a sustained sectarian murder campaign to a relatively unscarred generation of young people.One truth that escapes Sinn Fein Youth’s story to young nationalists is that the prisoners who went on hunger strike were not in prison due to their belief in a united Ireland, or even obtaining one through force. They were sentenced for crimes including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, bombing, hijacking and membership of nationalist murder gangs.
He also expresses concern at the percievied motivation of nationalists voting Sinn fein to many unionists.
The problem is, that it is not an unreasonable conclusion for law abiding people to draw from this campaign, that a vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for retrospectively legitimising murder.
Yes indeed, I guess. Just like the people who vote conservative in the UK are retrospectively legitimising the fire bombing of Dresden.
“…it was unionism that stood firm in defence of the rule of law and shared human values…” but isn’t the nationalist claim that the RUC (officers of the law) were part of the problem and not the solution, the polar opposite of the claims made by M Dunn. Therefore all he’s doing is restating the same ol’, same ol’ preaching to the converted.
“…committing suicide…” isn’t his 1980’s rethoric; can’t this ‘leade’r add something progressive.
How did Peter Punt’s version of things go down in Wash DC? Can anyone post a link?
Martin Gilbert: Just like the people who vote conservative in the UK are retrospectively legitimising the fire bombing of Dresden.
Except that the war was run by a coalition government. So I suppose that makes it an argument against power sharing (i.e. without an opposition)…
No Reader; you seem to have missed my point entirely (sarcasm towards Mr Dunn).
Also, althought it was, as you say, a coalition, the tories were the major partner and Churchill personally approved the Dresden bombing.
One more time: Dresden was bombed in support of a military objective and at the request of an ally – the Soviet Union – of the US and UK. I know Nazis, holocaust deniers (there is a difference) and their sympathisers (let the record show the IRA) have long tried to compare Dresden with Nazi war crimes but it won’t wash and every time that lie is repeated it should be answered.
And I am not going to second guess his decision or, indeed, that of H.S.Truman to drop the bombs on Japan. It was un ugly time and people often do things in those situations which are easy to criticize in hindsight.
Glad it wasn’t me who had to make such decisions.
Ok – On the same note we must not allow Unionists to continue to distort the history and significance of the Battle of the Boyne; a distortion which has led to the slaughter of countless number of innocent Catholics by loyalist death squads armed by agents of the British state and which has also been responsible for breeding blind bigotry and hatred towards those of the Catholic faith…not to mention the mindless parades.
Equally, we must not allow sections of the Unionist community to distort the history of the Black Pig’s Dyke, which they wrongly represent as evidence of an independent state of Ulster.
When everybody is prepared to embrace the TRUTH we will all be better off…..
C.S. Parnell
I don’t disagree at all. I made no attempt to equate the two.
A myth certainly has been propagated that Dresden had no military value. It did. It was a centre of manufacture where many many Nazi slaves were (mis)employed.
I am a great admirer of Winston Churchill.
The point I was trying to make is that it is better to go forward (bearing the wounds and anguish) rather than trying to go back or constantly dwelling on the past.
It’s mentally more healthly I think.
History will decide and there’s no room or need for the moral certainty being displayed here. Two parts of Western Europe warred about which had the most right to dominate the rest of the world. Millions were killed by and on both sides, and we use it to score cheap points. If nothing else shows us how futile war is surely this thread does.
lib2016
There is no such thing as moral certainty.
You could easily change a few words in your post and it describes N.I.
Change “Western Europe” to “N.I.”, “rest of the world” to “the other side”, and “millions” to “thousands”.
We have to learn to let the past go (but still remembering)and learn to live together as good neighbours, just like Europe has done for the past 60 years.
It pleases me greatly to know that some obsessive arsehole is lying awake at night quietly raging about “unionist distortion of the Black Pig’s Dyke”.
Have a great life Sohnlein. It’s the life you deserve.
Isn’t The Man in the Iron Mask, on E4+1 now, fun? Certainly it has the edge on this MOPEfest.
Isn’t Dunn’s point though about trying to criminalise the struggle yet again, and that’s why the Hunger Strikers went on strike.?
SSR there was no need to be abusive though eh.
Its more comical to imagine some poor bugger raging at Black Pigs Dyke, than get obsessed about it, as you did playing the man.
Spirit Level
Isn’t it amazing how many “criminals” (convicted no less, went on to be great spiritual leaders/prime ministers/presidents:
To name but a few:-
Ghandi
Nelson Mandela
Martin Luther King Jr
Jomo Kenyatta
De Valera (awaiting some howls)
Robert Mugabe (least said the better in his case)
Jesus
…..
To look at your list, Joe, its a mixed bag… definately a few in there that don’t support your cause.
Mandela: Gerry Adams in black face — a mouthpiece for left wing bombers. Lionized primarily because his enemy the governmetn of South Africa, was worse than his fellow travellers.
Ghandi and King are legit examples… Kenyatta I’d have to research, having heard some good and some bad… Jesus you have backwards — he was a spiritual leader before the court case, which was, not so much a court case as Pilate pandering to the mob. Mugabe… Mugabe was better back when he was a rebel / bandit, but that is the general route of revolution in Africa — come meet the new boss, same as the old boss…
Which leaves us Dev… frankly, I think Dev is much ado about nothing — privately clever and public stupid, or at least tone-deaf. Suffered from a bad case of form over substance
Ironically, the smartest thing he may have done is NOT accept NI when he had the chance during WW II.
What is wrong with fostering in indigenous Irish nationalists a hatred for British colonialism?
Joe: Isn’t it amazing how many “criminals” went on to be great spiritual leaders/prime ministers/presidents
And if Paisley goes on to be first minister… Well – he was imprisoned in 1969
“They were sentenced for crimes including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, bombing, hijacking and membership of nationalist murder gangs.”
criminal behaviour in anyones language sanitised by historical distortion so they can find a purpose to their wasted lives
“their revenge was the slaughter of our children.”
should be on the biggest gable wall in belfast
Diarmid Logan: “What is wrong with fostering in indigenous Irish nationalists a hatred for British colonialism? ”
In and of itself, in a vacuum — nothing.
However, Dev was not a good political leader, nor was he a good military leader. He let Griffith and Collins bring home the bad news so he could grandstand, precipitating the Irish Civil War. His “bent” neutrality during the Second World War served its purpose, but sending condolences on Hitler’s assassination… not politically astute.
The smartest thing he may have done was keep Ireland out of the war and not let himself be lured in with an offer of Ulster.
Dread Cthulhu
I generally share your analysis.
Sloppy wording of mine. I didn’t mean that they were all great..
I think Dev’s philosophy held Ireland backward for too long.
I disagree with you on Mandela, however. There was an awful bloodbath waiting, I think, and he persuaded the majority to look forward rather than dwell totally in the past.
Now if only…..
JOE: “There was an awful bloodbath waiting, I think, and he persuaded the majority to look forward rather than dwell totally in the past. ”
Maybe… that said, his followers weren’t shy about spilling blood, nor about setting off bombs. One of his closest associates in the great struggle was J. Slovo, head(?) of the S.A. Communist Party
If Gerry had had the stomach for twenty years in jail, maybe he’d be lionized, too…
Spirit Level,
“SSR there was no need to be abusive though eh.
Its more comical to imagine some poor bugger raging at Black Pigs Dyke, than get obsessed about it, as you did playing the man.”
Now the question is who would be the funniest person to see “raging at Black Pigs Dyke?” My list would include any of the following:
1) Bertie
2) Paisley
3) Martin
4) The guy who made the original post stating that: “It pleases me greatly to know that some obsessive arsehole is lying awake at night quietly raging about “unionist distortion of the Black Pig’s Dyke”.
Any of the above would be hilarious. Got any other suggestions anyone?
[i]“The problem is, that it is not an unreasonable conclusion for law abiding people to draw from this campaign, that a vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for retrospectively legitimising murder.”[/i]
Alternatively, in view of the actual data on killings during the Troubles, an objective observer maght conclude that a vote for continued union within the UK is a vote for legitimizing murder, both in the past and today.
When all is said and done, some research on the Sutton database on the CAIN site reveals that the Briotish security forces killed 192 civilians out of 363 persons killed (about 53%) and the unionist paramilitaries — whom the security forces provided with arms, training, intelligence, cover and immunity — killed some 873 civilians out of 1,030 persons they killed (sbout 85%).
So, if we follow the logic of the author, it would seem that those who vote for continued union are legitimizing murder.
On the other hand, the Provisional IRA killed 516 civilians out of 1,706 total killings (about 30%).
Hmmm…… Methinks the author should reassess his conclusions.
BTW, with regard to sectarian killing, the Sutton records show the unionist paramilitaries guilty of some 715 such murders and the republican paramilitaries guilty of 151.
Again, I suggest the author reassess his conclusions.
“The problem is, that it is not an unreasonable conclusion for law abiding people to draw from this campaign, that a vote for Sinn Fein is a vote for retrospectively legitimising murder.”
The funny thing is that many SF voters would actually believe they were voting for peace, by giving the political process republicans the upper hand over the physical force republicans.
I’ve oversimplified that a little, and we could argue forever over whether they would be correct to think like that, but nonetheless I’m pretty sure that is the thinking of a significant number of SF voters.
The provos were trying to kill soldiers and policemen. Its hardly surprising they killed less civilians. Though were the majority of these catholic?
Before the hunger strikes convicted terrorists were piling up in prison with nowhere to go. Now they can go wherever they like. A victory of sorts.
And with no unionist prepared to argue strongly that the civil rights campaign was necessary and legitimate, or to offer to share power with nationalists on principle, SF are free to re-present their armed ethnic adventure to metropolitan brits as a freedom struggle rather than political blackmail.
When all is said and done, some research on the Sutton database on the CAIN site reveals that the Briotish security forces killed 192 civilians out of 363 persons killed (about 53%) and the unionist paramilitaries—whom the security forces provided with arms, training, intelligence, cover and immunity—killed some 873 civilians out of 1,030 persons they killed (sbout 85%).
Am I correct in interpreting the above paragraph as arguing that security forces and loyalists killed between them 138% of civillians?
Ho hum.
aquifer: “And with no unionist prepared to argue strongly that the civil rights campaign was necessary and legitimate, or to offer to share power with nationalists on principle, SF are free to re-present their armed ethnic adventure to metropolitan brits as a freedom struggle rather than political blackmail. ”
Hey, you can’t blame the provos for this last…
“Am I correct in interpreting the above paragraph as arguing that security forces and loyalists killed between them 138% of civillians? ”
No.
By the way, it was a silly arguement and it got a silly response.
TAFKABO: “Am I correct in interpreting the above paragraph as arguing that security forces and loyalists killed between them 138% of civillians?”
No, TAFKABO, you’re not.
To restate: British security forces killed 363 persons, of which 192 civilians were civilians(about 53%)
To restate: the unionist paramilitaries killed 1,030 persons, of which 873 civilians were civilians (about 85%).
Dresden was a war crime, the whole war was a crime, as are all wars, all caused for economic gain. Let’s be honest, the Allies didn’t give a monkeys about concentration camps. They actually denied existence of them for 10 years.
aquifer
From the Sutton database, of the 516 civilians, 260 are identified as from the Protestant community, 167 from the Catholic community and 89 as not from Northern Ireland, i.e. religion/religious background not specified.
But, even if all 89 in the not from NI category were Catholics, the count would be 260 Protestants to 256 Catholics.
But, the civil rights campaign was legitimate and necessary and unionists’ refusal to share power is hardly principled, the armed rebellion of the PIRA is/was, in reality, a freedom struggle.
Wouldn’t it be easier if people said
X group killed X number of people, X% of which I have dehumanised through selective terminoology in order to minimise and rationalise their murder?
TAFKABO: “Wouldn’t it be easier if people said ‘X group killed X number of people, X% of which I have dehumanised through selective terminoology in order to minimise and rationalise their murder? ‘”
Probably, but it would be harder to make the numbers support a thesis then, wouldn’t it?
UUP Larne Borough Councillor Mark Dunn says;
“..the prisoners who went on hunger strike…were sentenced for crimes including murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, bombing, hijacking and membership of nationalist murder gangs.”
Mark should be reminded that during the hunger strike, while the UUP urged the government not to concede to the hunger strikers, they were at the same time asking them to grant the special status in question to loyalist prisoners.
[i]“Wouldn’t it be easier if people said ‘X group killed X number of people, X% of which I have dehumanised through selective terminoology in order to minimise and rationalise their murder? ‘“[/i]
Easier, true, but the statement would be a lie in this instance. Killing a combatant on the battlefield during a war is not murder except under exceptionasl circumstances
Like many of the unionist persuasion, you seem unwilling or unable to admit that the British security forces and the unionist terrorists did not wage war against their armed enemies but against innocent bystanders, i.e. civilians. For all the unionist complaints about PIRA terrorism, they are shamefully silent when it comes to admitting the far more vicious terrorism of the British/unionist forces.
You are right in condemning terrorism and terrorists. You are wrong in closing your eyes to the terrorism of the British and unionists.
And I fear that your refusal to face the reality of the violence in NI will, sooner or later, destroy any chance of real peace in NI
“far more vicious terrorism”
You can’t get more vicious than proxy bombs. The viciousness of the terrorism from the IRA was not of secondary degree to anyone. The IRA/UVF etc were all vicious evil bastards. The legitimate forces of the state, were just that legitimate forces. There were however some amomgst them who were a disgrace to their uniform and were also evil bastards (The Miami Showband for example)
You are right in condemning terrorism and terrorists. You are wrong in closing your eyes to the terrorism of the British and unionists.
I never said the word terrorist in my posts, I said X group, deliberately phrasing it so that anyone, from any side, could apply it to their own favourite flavour of truth.
You need to start reading what people say,and not just replying to the things you have imagined they said.
TAFKABO
Get with the programme! You are a unionist therefore when you say terrorist or murderer you must only be referring to republicans. Oh and another thing you must assume that all nationists are terrorists.
I suspect that your not catching on so fast is down to all that loss of sleep that we have fretting about the RC church.
It’s quite simple really.
Hey, Joe…
Speaking of Mugabe…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4932060.stm
Bertie
Silly me, I’ve been slipping lately, haven’t even reached my hypocrisy quota this month.
Dread Cthulhu
If for real, what an amazing turnaround.
Pity the poor people who had to be brought to the brink of starvation.
The refusal of the ‘colonial authorities’ to keep their word about the promised land reforms just might have something to do with all this.
Does anybody doubt that the white farmers/land speculators (tick as appropriate) have been caught in a squeeze between two governments, a financial and political story which has been almost entirely reported in human interest terms. Our wonderful press strikes again!
The fasciating part of Fartricks post is the point where he seeks to reassure us he is non sectarian.
As if being found guilty of sectariansism is so much worse than taking pleasure in bloody slaughter.
It’s an issue I think merits discussion.
Sounds like a plea for psychiatric help fartrick. And STOP SHOUTING!
Please don’t feed trolls…
I nearly got sick reading that post from fart.
I interviewed someone once who had been in La Mon, and it was a story that left me badly shaken.
It was the polar opposite of a great day, it was a shamfeul day when people attending a dog show got obliterated.
This man has a sick and warped mind, and I find his comments reprehensible
lib2016: “The refusal of the ‘colonial authorities’ to keep their word about the promised land reforms just might have something to do with all this. ”
Oh, I dunno… Mugabe surely had his share of the mess to take credit / blame for… Likewise, the question at the start was not “if,” but “how quickly.” Ultimately, the result — a slower, deliberate approach, favored by the “colonial authorities,” would have been more beneficial. The proof is in the pudding… or the empty larder, as it were. Mugabe’s “redistribution” of land from working farmers to political cronies took his nation from breadbasket to basket case, his whinging on about a “Western plot” notwithstanding.
Frankly, I wouldn’t be suprised if the white farmers don’t leave him to twist in the wind. Ironically, some have already been “engaged” by other African nations, lured in by cheap leases and governmental support.
TAFKABO: “It’s an issue I think merits discussion. ”
Do you mean on the board, or just among the voices in fartrick’s head?
I agree to the extent that SF shouldn’t be allowed a monopoly on expressions of republicanism and the interpretation of history e.g. claiming direct descent from 1916. They are not direct political-descendents of the Republicanism that defeated the British in 1921 either. They are closer in descent from the Anti-Treaty Republicans that fought in the Civil War, but even here the relationship is not direct because most of those later accepted the Southern state’s legitimacy. The Provos were only founded in 1969. Their roots are in the sectarian problems of the North and not anything Southern.
TAFKABO: As if being found guilty of sectariansism is so much worse than taking pleasure in bloody slaughter.
It’s an issue I think merits discussion.
Leaving aside the exact sentiments expressed by fartrick and indeed whether fartrick or La Mon was sectarian, what I find interesting is the suggestion by TAFKABO that it’s OK to make false allegations (X is sectarian) as long as there are more serious allegations (X supports murderer) which can be proven true.
As TAFKABO would say, it’s an issue I think merits discussion.