A game of two halves…?
There’s a few things worth returning to in Drew Nelson’s Irish Times interview. This statistic is one of them:
“In the first 20 years of the Troubles four Orange halls were burnt, one of which was in Cavan. But since 1989 there were 240 burnt. It is significant that at around the same time the republican movement started to oppose our parades. There was occasional bother before that but not to this extent.”
So is it a meaningless coincidence? Does it relate to reactionary factors, like changes in the type of Loyalist violence? British countermeasures? Or is it simply part of a ‘war by other means’ designed to undermine confidence in the Unionist community?
Mick
It’s interesting that you put the DUP in the dock for this as well as Sinn Fein.
Of course I do; I don’t subscribe to their sanctimonious hypocrisy. The position they take makes sense only if you yourself are whiter than white. If not stop the pretence and get on with it.
It gives the impression (whether true or not) that in the Peace Process™ game every last thing must be brought to a table somewhere and bilaterally agreed before it can be dealt with by the defaulting community.
Truly depressing and unfortunately seems to be the case, but this again is one of the reasons (and the DUP position) why I think that neither side is that confident. If you were confident in yourself would you get bogged down in such trivia? No! but here you can’t show weakness and you can’t be seen to back down. Signs of insecurity.
I remain of the opinion that the best way forward is for Hain to sack the lot of them; widen the consultation, end the side deals, look at the agreement, take on board the various ideas and agree some necessary changes with the government in Dublin and then hold fresh elections. I would also make all candidates enter into a contract next time. If any group want to boycott the election let them.
The current position is pathetic and there are issues here that we need clear policy on. Basically we have a weak Secretary of State, I think poorly advised, vacillating and being make to look quite ridiculous. How do you deal with a class full of diffident children? Be firm but with a smile, if you don’t have to put up with nonsense don’t.
MF:It gives the impression (whether true or not) that in the Peace Process™ game every last thing must be brought to a table somewhere and billaterally agreed before it can be dealt with by the defaulting community.
Whoooaah!! We started this thread considering the possibility that the attacks on Orange halls are an organised campaign. We seem to have moved seamlessly to assuming that this organised campaign exists and is being held back as a bargaining chip in negotiations by SF. Hold your horses Mick!
“And there’s another one! Instead of trying to prescribe the limits of debate by your interpretation of the thread, I present to you the alternative option-to free your mind from its chains”
The whole point of this thread is to discuss the underlying reasons for the change. See those questions at the top?
Complaining about people “offering excuses” official makes you a moron, Darth. Consider like you’ve just wet yourself in public.
“I think it’s wrong to attack the property of people I don’t like,even if the people doing it are people I do like
See? Not so difficult.”
I don’t like scumbags who damage anyone’s property, and I’ve went apeshit on my friends when they decided to kick over bins when drunk. It is a personal pet hate, anytime, anywhere. But that isn’t what the thread is about.
“Whoooaah!! We started this thread considering the possibility that the attacks on Orange halls are an organised campaign. We seem to have moved seamlessly to assuming that this organised campaign exists and is being held back as a bargaining chip in negotiations by SF. Hold your horses Mick!”
Seonded. Actually since I already raised this point earlier, thirded. It seems to me this si the type of things are not agreed by parties at the macro political level – they are either dealt with by agreement and resolution within government, or they are tackled by government initiative enforced by the police and the courts. The former is possible, but overshadowed by parades, and the latter is seemingly impossible. You are way, way out here, Mick.
Seconded
Briso,
I take your point.
All I have argued is that the party has proved it can be a hugely positive influence in helping settle long running and apparently intractable disputes. However this should not preclude asking why certain areas of unrest are being cleared up and others are not. I underline again, this has to be speculative, since no background other than the crude figures are in the public domain.
Kensai,
This is key, I think:
It seems to me this si the type of things are not agreed by parties at the macro political level – they are either dealt with by agreement and resolution within government, or they are tackled by government initiative enforced by the police and the courts.
Briso, there are further assumptions made as well as those two you have listed. Even if it is an organised campaign, and that campaign is being organised by the leadership of (P)SF, that doesn’t mean that it is fair to blame the nationalist/republican ‘community’. There is no such thing as such a community. NI is either one community or dozens/hundreds, depending on how you look at it.
If so-called Catholics and/or Republicans and/or Nationalists are attacking Orange Lodges then they are enemies of the Irish Republic (in my little opinion!). All attacks on civilians for nothing more than their religion/culture/politics are unacceptable and their elimination are precisely what the Irish Republic should be about. I place those people firmly in the same box labelled “enemies” as any person who kills a Catholic because of their religion.
I’m the first to be annoyed at (P)SF turning a blind eye to these b*****ds and while I’m a republican I don’t see myself voting for anyone any time soon (must check out these eirigi folks though). PSF may or may not condemn these attacks (and the leadership may even be genuine) but they are still turning a blind eye to the low level anti-Protestant prejudice that exists right across Republican areas.
Are the increase in attacks since the late 80′s evidence of somebody (insert conspiracy theory here) deliberately making the conflict a primarily religious one, where previously it was a political struggle which some idiots on both sides used as cover for a selfish tribal struggle?
OC,
Blantly sectarian murders were higher in the 1970s than the 1980s or since. Perhaps the attacks on Orange halls and churches are an expression of sectarian hatred that had previously more direct expression in murders. Unlikely but possible.
Garibaldy said: “Blantly sectarian murders were higher in the 1970s than the 1980s or since. Perhaps the attacks on Orange halls and churches are an expression of sectarian hatred that had previously more direct expression in murders. Unlikely but possible.”
You mean that they haven’t gone away, you know.
“The whole point of this thread is to discuss the underlying reasons for the change. See those questions at the top?”
That would be these one then-
“So is it a meaningless coincidence? Does it relate to reactionary factors, like changes in the type of Loyalist violence? British countermeasures? Or is it simply part of a ‘war by other means’ designed to undermine confidence in the Unionist community? ”
To which I pointed out the nature of the attacks, and the mealy-mouthed half-baked condemnation, or more often excuses, from some posters.
“Consider like you’ve just wet yourself in public”
No. Consider like I’ve just pissed all over you, cos you’re fooling noone with your juvenile abuse posturing as debate .
Indeed. The same hatreds and the same ways of thinking still infect our body politic.
DK:You mean that they haven’t gone away, you know.
Garibaldy:The same hatreds and the same ways of thinking still infect our body politic.
I think you can go even further. There are people around who have been brutalised by the troubles. They have killed people, often shutting down the human part of themselves to be able to do it. They definitely haven’t gone away.
But that’s beside the point as we still haven’t enough information about this ‘campaign’. Some questions I would like answers to.
How does the rate of attacks change over time since 1989? Is it currently dropping or rising? Are they correlated with parade decisions? Are they correlated with political events? Are they correlated with local factors (i.e. hall burned, church burned, hall burned ……..)? Are they related to demographic hotspots? What is the modus operandi (i.e. are they clearly orchestrated by organised teams or are they ‘low-tech’ such as could be carried out by opportunistic teenagers)?
That should keep you busy.
“That would be these one then-
“So is it a meaningless coincidence? Does it relate to reactionary factors, like changes in the type of Loyalist violence? British countermeasures? Or is it simply part of a ‘war by other means’ designed to undermine confidence in the Unionist community? “”
Yes. The questions about why the attacks happened.
“To which I pointed out the nature of the attacks,
and the mealy-mouthed half-baked condemnation, or more often excuses, from some posters.”
Which didn’t actually answer those questions, merely went on a rant about people offering excuses when the whole thread is about the rational behind the attacks, which you pointed to as “excuses”. You wanted to have a go, and added nothing to the debate.
“No. Consider like I’ve just pissed all over you, cos you’re fooling noone with your juvenile abuse posturing as debate.”
No, Darth, you’re just my special, special punching bag. When you reach an adult level of debate instead of endless whataboutery, I’ll start engaging you on an adult level.
“This is key, I think:
It seems to me this si the type of things are not agreed by parties at the macro political level – they are either dealt with by agreement and resolution within government, or they are tackled by government initiative enforced by the police and the courts. ”
Ach. That first bit should have read “within communities”, but I think the point still stands. It’s not really down to SF or the DUP to trade this at a leadership level like decommissioning, and it wouldn’t work if it did. There is certainly a role for them to provide leadership on the issue though, but making clear it isn’t aceptable, like an anti-racism campaign. But if the Assembly was up it would surely be it’s job to tackle this kind of low level crime.
Darth,
PLAY THE BALL!!!
Briso,
>>I think it is bad that the new estates are being marked out in such a way as to make sure no taigs buy houses in them.
If you are saying its a new estate IN Newbuildings, well I very much doubt that there is graffitti anywhere on the gable walls of these new houses.
I don’t think religion has ever been issue at all when it comes to buying new houses in Newbuildings and you would be better to retract your comment.
To rephrase your statement : the comments of a few are applied to the whole village which is unfair and counter-productive.
‘Attacks on Orange halls, like attacks on properties belonging to other political, cultural or religious organisations, are wrong and shouldn’t happen.
But…’
Chris Donnelly:
There’s always a but, isn’t there Chris?
Except when it comes to things like Holy Cross. In that case there are no buts – the violence and protests by loyalists are just dismissed out of hand. ‘Think of the wee girls’ is the cry, and you don’t want any consideration of the context or circumstances of the protests and attacks. No consideration of ‘cultivating a frightening intimidatory atmosphere’ there was there. No indeed – just focus on the violence and don’t think of any wider considerations.
Why is that Chris?
Why is there a but when it comes to the OO? Your message is essentially ‘anti-OO violence is of course wrong, BUT they created the circumstances that led to it’.
Why the double standard Chris?
Why no statements like this: ‘the Holy Cross violence was wrong, but you have to understand that nationalist attacks on the loyalists created the circumstances that led to it’?
As usual it’s blaming the victim when the victim is from the unionist side.
‘For instance one cannot infer that Republicans per se are responsible for these individual actions.’
Who do you suspect then Mick? A bad ass unit of the Brownies?
If by ‘Republicans’ (your capitalization) you mean fully paid up members of the local Sinn Fein branch then no, it can’t be proven that any attack on an Orange Hall was done by them. But I think it is fair to say that it is those from ‘the republican community’ who do this sort of thing. They may not be fully paid up members of anything in particular, but they have the republican mentality, and the lesser brained of them carry out such sectarian attacks. Or even those with a brain and an agenda.
If its ‘loyalists’ who carry out sectarian attacks on catholics and Catholic property then I think its entirely reasonable to call those who attack OO halls republicans.
Of course if you want to go the ‘it may all be done by non-political hoods’ route then feel free. But I don’t think anyone is buying into that.
‘i think the attacks on catholic churches post ceasefires of 1994 would be considerably more than attacks on orange halls since 1989′
reality check:
That’s nice. Does that mean burning down OO halls is OK then?
Any other things you’d like to throw into this shallow bit of whataboutery?
‘you ->
<- point of this thread’
kensei:
I thought darth’s post was very good. And I thought your post here was a poor attempt to ignore the contents of it.
Are you that scared of actual facts that you dismiss his post with a ‘you missed the point of the thread’ response?
He didn’t miss the point of the thread – he is spot on, with actual facts. A number of posters have tried to downplay the attacks, or blame the victim, or engage in whataboutery (whatabout attacks on Catholic churches?). Anything but give an unqualified ‘these attacks are wrong’ response.
It is indeed insightful to see the number of posters from the republican viewpoint trying to deny or minimise or explain these statistics without wanting to overtly justify them.
I see the Daily Ireland has a story with the INLA accusing Special Branch of using an agent provocateur to attack Orange halls in the area of south Derry. I won’t link it as it would screw up the page as I can’t do it properly.
A novel explanation for attacks on Orange halls.
‘And there’s another one! Instead of trying to prescribe the limits of debate by your interpretation of the thread, I present to you the alternative option-to free your mind from its chains’
darth:
Good post. You set out actual facts, and he didn’t like it. So he tries to box you in by defining what he sees the thread as being about. In the course of which he decides not to deal with your points.
Many posts from nationalists are like that. Ignore the issue, engage in whataboutery, blame the victim, state that the victim was asking for it, say it’s not that serious anyway. Anything to avoid condemning those who carry out the violence.
If this was about Holy Cross I doubt these folks would be so interested in examining context, other similar acts of violence, contributing factors etc. No – in that case it’s simply bad loyalists/unionists who have to be condemned in an unqualified fashion. Why is that?
‘No. Consider like I’ve just pissed all over you, cos you’re fooling noone with your juvenile abuse posturing as debate .’
Darth:
Well said.
His is the typical republican tactic when there is a debate. He defines what the debate is supposed to be about, so that he doesn’t have to address your points. As you say, when confronted with the fact that there has been a change in the number of attacks, many posters did not take this as fact and try to explain it. As you say they preferred to try to make out that the fact isn’t true, or to enage in whataboutery. Or to try to minimize the impact of it.
But he doesn’t criticise these people for not addressing what he sees as the point of the debate. No – he waits until you point out that those people engaged in all manner of issue avoidance tactics and then attacks you, as presumably in his eyes the first person to take the debate outside his parameters. It is juvenile abuse on his part.
According to him of course, the point of the thread is not to condemn such violence, but to explain reasons for it. So you get hammered for daring to introduce the radical concept of people who don’t condemn and instead excuse it, or try to wish it away.
“I thought darth’s post was very good.”
Of course you do. Judging by your crazy, crazy rants on the other thread, your like his younger brother, or something.
“Are you that scared of actual facts that you dismiss his post with a ‘you missed the point of the thread’ response?”
No, I was just pointing out he misse dth epoint of the thread. Of course reasons (‘excuses’)are for things are going to be offered up, because reasons were asked for.
“He didn’t miss the point of the thread – he is spot on, with actual facts. A number of posters have tried to downplay the attacks, or blame the victim, or engage in whataboutery (whatabout attacks on Catholic churches?). Anything but give an unqualified ‘these attacks are wrong’ response.”
No, a number of posters offered up reasons as asked, and asked about other buildings, because we are interested in whether or not this is a general trend, or specific to OO halls. It would be very revealing. Were there a few taht were borderline whatobutery? Sure. Did his rant help? No.
“It is indeed insightful to see the number of posters from the republican viewpoint trying to deny or minimise or explain these statistics without wanting to overtly justify them. ”
Sigh.
you ——–>
< - point of thread
"Good post. You set out actual facts, and he didn’t like it. So he tries to box you in by defining what he sees the thread as being about. In the course of which he decides not to deal with your points."
No, I refered to what the thread is actually about. Try, you know, reading the post.
"Many posts from nationalists are like that. Ignore the issue, engage in whataboutery, blame the victim, state that the victim was asking for it, say it’s not that serious anyway. Anything to avoid condemning those who carry out the violence."
I know, I know. *Ahem*
I don’t like scumbags who damage anyone’s property, and I’ve went apeshit on my friends when they decided to kick over bins when drunk. It is a personal pet hate, anytime, anywhere. But that isn’t what the thread is about.
“If this was about Holy Cross I doubt these folks would be so interested in examining context, other similar acts of violence, contributing factors etc.”
In a specific thread, no. In a thread that said attacks on schoolchildren have increased dramatically in a shortt period, yes. Do you see?
“No – in that case it’s simply bad loyalists/unionists who have to be condemned in an unqualified fashion. Why is that?”
I don’t condemn Unionists. I pity them. I condemn people who make moronic points.
And as a thread backing up someone who missed the point, yours is even less useful than the intial one. Congratulations! I look forward to your next foaming at the mouth rant.
‘A novel explanation for attacks on Orange halls.’
Garibaldy:
Indeed that is novel.
I don’t suppose the obvious answer to why nationalists are increasingly attacking Orange Halls is allowed to be stated.
I’d say it’s because a certain amount of nationalists are sectarian bigots and they think it’s fun to do so. Now that the official campaign of violence has been wound down, they have to find some way to get their jollies.
As the official armed campaign wound down in the late 80s and early 90s, the low intensity stuff ramps up. It seems blazingly obvious to me.
“As the official armed campaign wound down in the late 80s and early 90s, the low intensity stuff ramps up. It seems blazingly obvious to me.”
I know this is a novel idea, and I hope it doesn’t blow your mind or anything, but have you any actual evidence of that, or is your “blindingly obvious” view just as much speculation as anyone else here?
You do realise that merely thinking something isn’t enough to make it true, right? I tried that once, but Natalie Portman got the police after see insisted she wasn’t my girlfriend.
Harpo,
I wasn’t endorsing the argument, just bringing people’s attention to it as it seemed relevant to the thread.
If you read the thread the whole way through you’ll see me, and others, making similar arguments to your own.
Kensei,
Have you seen Closer? If not you’d like it a lot.
Although Lucy Liu is clearly top of the range.
“I’d say it’s because a certain amount of nationalists are sectarian ###### and they think it’s fun to do so. Now that the official campaign of violence has been wound down, they have to find some way to get their jollies.”
Though to be fair, let’s see if we can channel this to the actual topic of debate.
Some elements of Nationalism have always held sectarian attitudes. Why the did the number of attacks on OO halls suddenly increase in a short period? Does it fit a wider pattern of escalating attacks on both sides?
I know you are going to come back with it’s all the IRA/SF/Evil Nationalists instead of something intelligent, but hey! at least I’ll give you a chance.
“Have you seen Closer? If not you’d like it a lot.
Although Lucy Liu is clearly top of the range. ”
No, I shall have to check it out. I just realised I forgot about Scarlett Johannsen, who is clearly the finest thing walking the Earth right now. Please accept this picture as apology:
http://www.keebler.net/blog/wp-content/images/2005/7/Scarlett_Johansson_Esquire003.jpg
Ms Johansson certainly has her attractions. But (a) seems to be Woody Allen’s new actress of choice, which is in no way disturbing
(b) is going out with the total moron Josh Hartnett
Thus she lacks Lucy Liu’s brains. I mean, Lucy in the snow outside the restaurant in Kill Bill.
As for Closer, for the only time in your life you’ll wish you were Clive Owen.
As for burning Orange halls, maybe they should put pictures of such beauties on them, and no-one will dare violate them
‘No, I was just pointing out he misse dth epoint of the thread. Of course reasons (’excuses’)are for things are going to be offered up, because reasons were asked for.’
But many posters went beyond ‘reasons’ (or even ignored giving reasons) and engaged in the usual issue avoidance stuff, engaging in whataboutery and denial that it even is happening or is worth bothering about. He simply addressed those points, given that they had been raised.
How is it that you didn’t have a go at the guys who didn’t give reasons either? Those who said ‘whatabout attacks on Catholic churches’ etc? Why don’t they come in for your ‘stick to the exact point of the thread’ mantra? I’d say it’s because you are quite happy for them to post that stuff. Darth didn’t post what he did in a vacuum – he responded to many who went outside your stated parameters. Yet you attack only him. Why is that?
Most threads deviate from the main thrust of the thread, often to ridiculous extremes. It’s even up to interpretation about what is being sought in many threads. So why does Garth draw your ire for simply responding to what people posted? Are we all just supposed to stick to the main point (as defined by you) and not address the responses that others come up with? That would mean pretty boring threads. Is there no room for tangents or slight deviations from the main point when people bring them up?
‘Judging by your crazy, crazy rants on the other thread, your like his younger brother, or something.’
I’d say your stuff comes closer to crazy, crazy rants, but I’m too polite to say so. And who are you by the way? The elder sister of Martin McGuinness? You seem like it by the way you went into ‘we’re not here to talk about that’ mode. Very MM in style. Attempt to limit the discussion to what you see the isue as and howl down any fiollow up questions with the usual ‘we’re not here to talk about that’ tactic.
‘and asked about other buildings, because we are interested in whether or not this is a general trend, or specific to OO halls. It would be very revealing.’
Now here we have it. Who is this ‘we’ who decided they would be interested in this tangent? Here’s your double standard – you accuse Darth of deviating from the purpose of the thread, but in the next breath you deem this ‘other buildings’ deviation to be worthy of our consideration. You stated quite strongly to darth that the only purpose of the thread is reasons as to why these specific attacks increased, now you allow a deviation away from that. But on that you like of course.
Who died and made you queen of what deviations in a thread are to be allowed and which are not? SFAIK you aren’t in charge of policing the tangents or deviations that threads go on, and I’d say that your put down of Darth is simply based on his politics. And yours. So a deviation into other types of buildings (that of course naturally brings in attacks on buildings where your side is the victim) is allowed by you, whereas a follow up on the nonsense posted by severl other posters (where the follow up is posted by a unionist) is disallowed by you.
I’d say if you don’t like a post ignore it. But don’t start playing the drama queeen as if no one else has started deviating from the central theme and YOU aren’t going to stand for it. So you attack it.
‘Were there a few taht were borderline whatobutery? Sure.’
No – at least 2 of them were outright in your face whataboutery. No attempt to disguise it. Why do they get excused as ‘borderline’?
‘Did his rant help? No.’
He didn’t rant. He posted a reasonable response to what several posters had posted. Is that not allowed your highness?
You sound like one of my daughters did when she was about 7 – anything she didn’t like to hear was dismissed as us screaming at her. So you dismiss Garth as ranting and me as posting crazy crazy posts.
Is there any chance that you would stop these attacks on us and address what we actually say and not have a go at us for how you perceive we deliver it?
‘No, I refered to what the thread is actually about. Try, you know, reading the post.’
Except of course when someone moves the discusion onto a tangent that wasn’t, you know, in that original post that you refer to. I didn’t see any reference to, you know, ‘other buildings’? Did you? Try, you know, reading the post.
Again, I’ll say it. You only object to deviations when it’s a unionist posting them about some related aspect that you don’t want to, you know, address. When it’s one that drags in nationalists as victims, you know, that’s fine with you, and ‘we’ suddenly become interested. ‘We’ being nationalists who want to broaden the discussion on your approved lines.
More for kensai:
‘In a specific thread, no. In a thread that said attacks on schoolchildren have increased dramatically in a shortt period, yes. Do you see?’
No I don’t. You are getting mixed up again. This was a specific thread about attacks on one sort of buildings. It was not about attacks on all sorts of buildings generally. It was specifically about attacks on OO halls. Not buildings generally. Thus by your own rules of sticking to the subject you should limit yourself to that subject and not go on a tangent about attacks on all buildings.
If OO halls are the Holy Cross kids in your analogy, then this thread was specifically about only those kids. What you did here was open up the discussion to a discussion about all schoolkids and not just those that the original post was about. Do YOU see? You broke your own stated rule. I’d say you did that on purpose as it deflects the focus from the attacks on OO halls.
I’d like to hear you if a unionist pulled a similar ploy and opened up a debate about the Holy Cross kids to a general discussion about attacks on all schoolkids. Yet that’s what you are advocating here, on the basis that ‘we’ would be interested. It’s issue avoidance. Not all of us are interested in your tangent.
‘I pity them’
Just as I pity nationalists like you. What’s next in your arsenal? Nah nah nah nah nah?
‘I condemn people who make moronic points.’
Does that include yourself? You’ve made several in this reply. I thought your getting the schoolkids analogy backwards was your best.
‘And as a thread backing up someone who missed the point, yours is even less useful than the intial one.’
He didn’t miss the point and neither did I. You just don’t like what we are saying. He responded to specific posts. You don’t like what he said so you attack him.
‘Congratulations! I look forward to your next foaming at the mouth rant.
Again here we see the attitude of your sort of nationalist – anything you don’t want to hear is dismissed as a rant.
‘Why the did the number of attacks on OO halls suddenly increase in a short period?’
I answered that in the next sentence, Did you miss it? I said it’s because as the official armed campaign wound down, they have to find some way to get their jollies. Low intensity attacks instead of the former stuff.
‘Though to be fair, let’s see if we can channel this to the actual topic of debate.’
I did address the actual topic of debate. You just didn’t read my second sentence. I gave a reason for why these attacks increased. First you ask for reasons why these attacks increase, I give you one, and you ignore it and pretend that I didn’t address the topic. No channeling was required if you could have concentrated.
Sad.
‘Does it fit a wider pattern of escalating attacks on both sides?’
By your own stated rules this is irrelevant, Didn’t you want reasons on these specific types of attacks? Suddenly you introduce a totally irrelevant issue – ‘let’s ignore the reasons for the increase in these attacks and see what we can compare them to.
If you didn’t know, comparing one type of attack to another is not coming up with a reason as to why the first sort increased. That’s like talking about the issue of ‘why have rapes increased’ and diverting it to include a discussion of ‘let’s compare it to increases in other sorts of crime’.
Your ‘Does it fit a wider pattern of escalating attacks on both sides?’ isn’t a reason for why attacks on OO hlls specifically increased. It’s just an attempt to get the debate to the level of ‘well themmuns were doing it to our buildings, so of course there were going to be more attacks on their buildings’.
‘I know you are going to come back with it’s all the IRA/SF/Evil Nationalists instead of something intelligent’
I didn’t. So much for your channeling abilities.
But what if that is the reason? That PSF/PIRA deliberately started a low intensity campaign of attacks on OO halls? Is no one allowed to state that as a potential reason? PSF/PIRA did far worse things – shooting Prod workers, a census worker, firebombing dinner dancers, bombing kids on the streets of Warrington, so I doubt the likes of skinny Bobby Sands or Martin Ferris would have lost much sleep over a lot of OO halls going up in flames. Skinny Bobby certainly didn’t think bombing a furniture store was anything much to get worked up about. In his fanatic mind that was an act of war. War crime more like.
I have never been of the view that all nationalists are evil but the PSF/PIRA sort definitely are. I wouldn’t put this OO hall campaign past them. When you support bombing kids to death on the streets of Warrington, or shooting a van load of Prod workers, what’s the odd OO hall? Nothing.
Harpo
Thanks this reminds me of something
I have never been of the view that all nationalists are evil
Could someone explain to me the concept of original sin, does it mean that the assumption of the church is that we are all intrinsically evil?
Original sin may be taken to mean:
(1) the sin that Adam committed;
(2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
For me it is one of those Christian concepts that always struck me as decidedly dodgy. It has been rattling around in my head since I was 10, who would want to belong to a religion which views you with such low esteem? Your father was a sinner, therefore you will be a sinner and so will your children and grandchildren. Good for self esteem!
Sorry bit off topic.
In work, this will have to be brief:
“I’d say if you don’t like a post ignore it. But don’t start playing the drama queeen as if no one else has started deviating from the central theme and YOU aren’t going to stand for it. So you attack it.”
When it is so obviously missing the point, in fact, basicaly attacking the point of thread, I’m free to attack it. As for thread creep, fine if it happens naturally. Less so when someone comes in and has a wee rant.
“Is there any chance that you would stop these attacks on us and address what we actually say and not have a go at us for how you perceive we deliver it?”
I’ve addressed it several times, bud.
“Except of course when someone moves the discusion onto a tangent that wasn’t, you know, in that original post that you refer to. I didn’t see any reference to, you know, ‘other buildings’? Did you? Try, you know, reading the post.”
No, the general pattern is directly relevant. I’m more interested in the wider pattern on the Nationalist side, to be honest.
“Again, I’ll say it. You only object to deviations when it’s a unionist posting them about some related aspect that you don’t want to, you know, address.”
Well, that is a large generalisation to make for a single thread. But it is also untrue. I have on several occassions made my opposition to violence or something stupid that Nationalism has done. But the quality of debate from Unionist bloggers, probably fair_deal accepted, is at all time low here. It’s either the IRA, still the IRA, “parapoliticians”, ranting on “Nationalists” a la you, the IRA, whataboutery, the IRA, or adding “but sure it’s all just Prods that are sectarian” at the end of posts.
“I didn’t. So much for your channeling abilities.”
You did, you implied it in your original post (which I ignored) and then you said it without saying in your follow up here.
Not ranting? How many half page long posts have you had in the last few days?
Actually, that “probably” is unfair on fair_deal there, as he’s a more reasoned poster than me
and has certainly gave me pause for thought. Just needs to drop the questionable sources.
No-one has answered my earier question, so I’ll ask it again: Are the Orange Halls used by the nationalist community? If not – could they be, as this would make them less of a target.
Also, has anyone ever been caught? This might reveal the kind of people doing the attacks (teenagers, adults, RSF members etc.).
Kensie,
Here are some statistics on some of the ‘low intensity stuff’ indulged in by loyalist and republican paramilitaries. The statistics highlight the hypocrisy of those paramilitary leaders who attempt to brand themselves as peacemakers.
Paramilitary-style shootings and assaults 1973-2005
The growth of assaults in the the 1990s reflect the desire of loyalist and republican paramilitary leaders to control ‘justice’ in their fiefdoms. Presumably those close to the leadership will usually be exempt from such barbaric justice.
Am I looking at those figures wrong? The Republican figures seem to be relatively static aside form a spike 94-95 (coincidence around 1st ceasefire), beginning to tail in the last few years.
Loyalists seem the growth area in those figures?
There is also no breakdown of attacks by group, or community breakdown. And yes, I know it isn’t acceptable for paramilitaries to beat the crap of their own communities, but the thrust of your argument is low intensity “war”, which must be directed on the other side to hold.
“Are the Orange Halls used by the nationalist community? If not – could they be, as this would make them less of a target.”
Rumsfield covered it earlier I think, in which he gave some examples where they were. I don’t know how widespread this is though. Are the attacks in more urban areas, as these would seem to be less likely to be shared?
Kensei,
The 1995-6 republican bulge in assaults coincides with a dramatic cut in shootings; presumably such shootings would have been difficult to explain during a ceasefire/cessation.
Loyalist statistics are much higher than republican ones. This could be due to a number of factors. Many attacks will have gone unreported to the police, especially in republican fiefdoms. Loyalists have sought to emulate republicans in the ‘justice’ sphere and this has needed stronger measures to lessen state control in their fiefdoms. Also, loyalists have been subjected to much less political pressure by governments and local politicians as few, if any, of their parapoliticians were likely to achieve positions in a NI Executive.
“Also, has anyone ever been caught? This might reveal the kind of people doing the attacks (teenagers, adults, RSF members etc.). ”
Surprisingly, given our..ahem..brilliant new police force, there have been virtually no arrests, nevermind charges. I bow to the ingenuity of our teenage generation, but the manner of attacks detailed elsewhere by me does suggest the involvement of older and more focussed individuals, who understand how things like insurance companies,and criminal damage
claims work.
Attacks are predominantly in rural areas kensei, where the Hall is the focus for much of the protestant community’s activity, and where it’s easier to mount the time-consuming and laborious preliminaries of breaking through a roof without alerting the neighbours.
And as for special branch agents provocateurs being behind the attacks in County Londond’y, I very much doubt that the MP for the area has been near Killygullib-or anywhere else in his constituency for that matter. :0)
‘I know this is a novel idea, and I hope it doesn’t blow your mind or anything, but have you any actual evidence of that’
kensei:
I thought the point of this thread (as stated by yourself) was to put forward potential reasons for why these attacks increased. I have just done so.
When did anyone mention having evidence to back up the potential reason?
‘You do realise that merely thinking something isn’t enough to make it true, right?’
I do. Where did I claim that my potential reason was actually true?
http://tinyurl.com/lq62q
THe securocrats. The INLA claims they unmasked a tout the securocrats got to attack Oroange Order halls. I am sure there are plenty who would deem the demise of those incubators of sectarianism no great loss.
“I bow to the ingenuity of our teenage generation, but the manner of attacks detailed elsewhere by me does suggest the involvement of older and more focussed individuals, who understand how things like insurance companies,and criminal damage
claims work.”
Forgive me for not understanding this point, but why would you need to understand a criminal damage claim unless it was an inside job?
“When did anyone mention having evidence to back up the potential reason?”
Never, my point was your guess is merely as good as anyone else’s here, so don’t rubbish their views in rant-o-vision.
Interesting question.
I don’t know about north of the border but south of the border Drumcree had a huge influence on attitudes to the OO. It would be, as elfinito described it, the elephant in the room for this discussion.
(Continues to write with the nationalist goggles on)
The Orange Order went to war with the nationalist community for a variety of reasons, showing total ambivalence to the health, concerns and welfare of the nationalist community.
Any sense your average Irish nationalist may have had of the Orange Order being anything other than a tool of unionist power and control disappeared in the last decade and a bit. (takes off nationalist goggles)
I do think the increase in nationalist “confidence” such as over 200,000 Irish citizens north of the border today as opposed to just 28,000 ten years ago has led to an intolerance of groups like the Orange Order.
More importantly, I have the horrible feeling that many northern nationalists see the OO as the flagship of unionist culture and if they can hole this below the water-line then a great victory will have been achieved.
Unionists say no surrender so for many there is no point in negotiating. The long war has begun and just like Highlander, “there can only be one”.
All this talk of cross-community is a joke which is why Greenflag is nearer to the truth than many would like him to be when he mentions the 2 county solution as being something both sides could live with.
The nationalist community don’t want to accept being “British” in any way shape or form anymore now that they “officially” have the choice of being Irish and the unionist community want nothing to do with being Irish.
The next generation of northern nationalists will be less accommodating than this group on the nationality question, as will their unionist counterparts.
“Forgive me for not understanding this point, but why would you need to understand a criminal damage claim unless it was an inside job? ”
because my unduly cynical friend, there are certain evidential requirements for a criminal damage claim to succeed, and if they are not met then the NIO doesn’t pay out, and the insurance company foots the bill, and hikes the premiums for all Halls. One of those tests is whether the act was carried out by a paramilitary group, so if the Provos pre-”ceasefire” had claimed an attack the compo would have been a formality
“because my unduly cynical friend, there are certain evidential requirements for a criminal damage claim to succeed, and if they are not met then the NIO doesn’t pay out, and the insurance company foots the bill, and hikes the premiums for all Halls. One of those tests is whether the act was carried out by a paramilitary group, so if the Provos pre-”ceasefire” had claimed an attack the compo would have been a formality”
So, you are claiming this is professional done to force insurance claims up? Good grief that’s criminal genius. I don’t think you could make that jump without evidence.
There has never been a UVF flag on display in Newbuildings village, this is utter lies