Woe is the DUP
The Belfast Telegraph tonight isn’t amazingly good reading for the DUP. We have a story (no link found) about the DUP postponing it’s conference, leaving at least a two year gap between gatherings (not that my own party has had one in a while, but then again, we meet every year to elect a leader). Jim Allister reckons it is due to a downturn in DUP membership, and the possible comparisons of the Leader’s speech to that given in 2006. Then the sorry tale of Ian Paisley changing his tune on FOI remarkably soon after the Telegraph published one of his letters in relation to Mr Sweeney’s plans for the Giants Causeway. On which matter David Gordon has a piece, in which he remarks on Paisley Jnr’s only knowing of Mr Sweeney: “quite a few people spluttered in disbelief on hearing that – among them this journalist.”Not published online is the following on page 10 of the Telegraph:
July 31 2007: First Minsiter Ian Paisley hails freedom of Information disclosures in Northern Ireland and declares that Stormont departments are “making considerable strides towards achieving our goal of more open government”
October 4 2007: The Belfast Telegraph, using the Freedom of Information Act, reveals that DUP leader Ian Paisley made highly questionable claims while lobbying for a Heritage Lottery grant for would-be Giant’s Causeway centre developer Seymour Sweeney.
October 8 2007: First Minister Ian Paisley threatens to curtail Freedom of Information provisions, while slamming use of the Act by “lazy journalists who will do not any work (sic)”
Sorry – not said anything critical about either to be honest.
Taylor’s views on the Provos are more or less in line with my own.
If you want further detail on my extraordinarily interesting opinions I suggest you look through my posts in the debate with my pal from the LOTHR – Turgon. A decent Prod and good egg but with a weakness for fantasy, particulalry about the political future of Non Iron as his moinker might suggest.
ps McCall Out.
Taylor is a good historian and excellent television presenter.
I do not wish to examine his views on” The Provos origin and reaction to sectarianism and partition”
I am asking Sammy to examine the crimes committed by PIRA and to say if these are justifiable on all occasions.
“Not a Historian” ?
Well he has written a historical perspective of the Provos. Where’s me pin – I must get it out and dance on the head of it.
Sammy,
I must correct that potentially libeous slur. Turgon is from the Silmarillon! One cannot be a proper Tolkien anorak and only be into LOTR it is just not obscure enough and not written in old fashioned enough English. Also since I seem to have been appointed Osma Bin Allister’s chief spokesperson on this web site sould I now refer to Allister as Fingolfin, the initial High King of the Noldor in Middle Earth?
It is interesting to read the way these posts go nowadays. The built in assumption that Unionist domination was much better than having any form of social conflict I think is the most interesting.
Why? Because it assumes that the dynmaics of the Unionist state and of Unionism it self would NOT produce extremism, when looking back that is precisely what has happened time and time again. The first spilt – being Paieslyism with the O’Neil UUP. O’Neil’s his crime – shaking the hand of a nun and the oppressed crime? – asking for Civil Rights.
Now we have people posting here using the PIRA campagin as a means to legtimate their own new version of Unionist extremism – The DUP and Pasiely now being ‘sell outs’ and not extreme or Unionist enough.
That is precisely how we now got some of the most right wing politicians in Europe. Becuase their very success was DEPENDANT on IRA violence and attrocities. Simply becuase as I have posted elsewhere the job of running a colonial state is dependent also on DEPOLITICISATION – of the resistance.
. Someone posted that PIRA are now the chief agents of British rule here. That becomes more true with each passing month. But it could only have become true if PIRA was genuinely not radical (or ‘communistic’ as someone put it here) if they were they would not have wanted IP snr to be first minister to make British rule work. They now support the ‘fiscal rights’ UDA to its British incentives. After all a contracts a contract (even if it’s terms have been changed a few times!).
And if ever anyone needed any proof of the nature of imperial and Asendancy ideology one need only listen to likes of the new Unionist Ultras who now want to unseat the DUP and SF.
I also find it deeply repugant that people use the deaths of people they have known as some kind of weapon in an argument as if their deaths directly *legtimated* their *deeply reactionay politics.*
That was precisely the way the Rascist government in S. Africa repsonded to acts of terrorism and attrocity – ‘they’ the majority must never be freed because ‘they’ did this to us etc. It never worked there and it will never work here. Saying that ‘I also have lost someone’ because they were murdered and that legtimates my ideology is low grade emotive discourse.
I could talk about those who I lost, but I will not because it is part of the problem – the only Equality that was, is, and will be produced here – as long as we have Unionist domination will be an Equality of misery.
Ulsterfan
“I am asking Sammy to examine the crimes committed by PIRA and to say if these are justifiable on all occasions.”
Most definitely not justifiable.
Turgon,
apologies for talking behind your back. I’m afraid my knowledge of Tolkien hardly extends past Hobbiton and I must have miss-checked out your moniker on Google. And talking of names have you heard the rhyme upon which my moniker is based?
Turgon – you are even fudamentalist in your Tolkienism…
Interesting DD – I’m trying to understand the forces driving the Ultras – I don’t think it’s a restoration of priveledge to be honest – Just think it will take a little while to overcome the bad feeling toward ex-terrorists.
Feel it’s a very dangerous development – depressed when Turgon says he thinks a return to violence almost inevitable.
Sammy
Thank you
Agree that a different approach is needed at Ravenhill in regard to coaching and tactical play.
All is not lost.
Dewi
From what I have seen they dont see it as a return to privledge merely the return to the “natural state”. IMO big house prods profoundly refuse to accept they were in a state of privledge they think they were merely getting their due
Prods and other decent chaps, I’m off to my leaba ( bed in Oirish )and I leave you with my favorite Ulster Scots phrase indicating an altercation with the constabularly
“Tha police oxtert ‘im oot”.
Different Drummer,
I regard the above diatribe as clearly directed at myself. Most other debaters address their comments directly to me. Maybe your remarks are directed elsewhere, I would be interested to know.
I will deal with your comments regarding the prodiban position on the IRA first. Yes my position is that those who were in charge of what I regard as a sectarian murder campaign are not fit for government: definitley not whilst the army council of the IRA remains extant, whilst members of SF proudly proclaim that republicans may one day return to violence, oppose reporting criminal activity to the police, and make no apology of any consequence for the crimes of the IRA.
Turning to your comments about unionist domination. As you will see; when challenged by Billy Pilgrim, I set out a series of possible prodiban suggestions on renegotiation of the agreement or direct rule. Whilst you may well not accept these proposals they do not amount to a return to “Unionist domination”.
Of course Different Drummer, if the ideas and proposals of the prodiban get no support amongst the unionist (or other) electorate then there will be no change in the current agreement. If, however, a majority of the unionist population were to support these proposals what do you (as I presume you are a democrat) propose be done about this? Do you reject the right of people to vote for a political party which articulates their position? As I have said previously it saddens me that so many nationalists vote SF but I recognise both the reality of it and their right to do so. I find it biazzare that your post seems to reject the right not only of unionists to vote for a prodiban party but the right of such a party to exist.
I will not deign to comment on the remarks about people’s deaths.
The polis surely? Or the one I really like – the peelers.
Merely getting their due _ undoubtedly some did but the whole situation is historically complex (as if you didn’t know that!)
I think it’s a dangerous development though
Dewi,
I am not that fundamentalist about Tolkien. I find the folk who learn High Elvish a bit sad / mad. I was trying to lighten the tone but other things seem to have intervened.
“Feel it’s a very dangerous development – depressed when Turgon says he thinks a return to violence almost inevitable.”
Indeed I also find it most depressing. I am afraid that the levels of hatred are still very high. I think there are people on botyh sides who really think violence was justified and that a further round of it could advance their position. I think the most depressing thing I had read on Slugger was Finite Drone’s comments. They may have been naive and even in some ways childish but they clearly came from an intelligent young (presumably man) who could easily see circumstances where violence was acceptable, along with a romantisation of some sort of defensive war of liberation in the event of a United Ireland. I heard commenntds like that 20 years ago as a teenager. To paraphrase a famous phrase; They have not gone away I see.
Sammy McNally
When you say “The PIRA had absolutely no justification for its terror campaign whatsoever. “ Presumably you mean apart from the fact that the sectarian state of NonIron was set up under threat of violence, the will of the Irish people was ignored in partition, The British Army sided with the sectarian state having come in initally as a guartanor of peace, the British shot 14 innocent civilians on a civil rights march protesting about the sectarian state, the British army organised and trained loyalist parpamitliaries and gave them dirction as to who to shoot.
No. The setting up of a state (as most states were set up) under threat of (or actual) violence does not justify terrorism. If it did, terrorist campaigns would be justified in many (most?) states throughout the world, including the Irish republic.
The will of the Irish people wasn’t ignored in partition: on the contrary, partition facilitated it.
Bloody Sunday, which happened after the PIRA terrorist campaign began, cannot retrospectively justify it. Nor did it justify its continuation.
The PIRA campaign had no mandate (on the contrary, it was opposed by the vast majority of people). It had no just cause. It was disproportionate. Non-violent and democratic avenues of protest were available. On every just war criterion, it failed.
If I had your facility to deny the the relevance of all these facts in explainig the Non Iron War then I probably would agree with you but I would then be at odds with majoirty of political analysts and historical commentators.
You’re (presumably deliberately) conflating explanation and justification. Explaining something is not the same as justifying it. I do not deny the relevance of various of those factor in explaining the Troubles. And the majority of political analysts and historical commentators do not claim that the PIRA campaign was justified.
Very poor contribution. And your failure to justify the Provo campaign on just war grounds is noted.
Re. Iraq. We hear much talk of the cowardly bombers of the IRA – their mortality rate was however much highter that those in the RAF who know that the reasons given to them for the War is spurious, and that it is by most definitions illegal and yet continue to fly planes and drop cluster bombs whilst unlike the Provos getting well paid. How exactly do they sleep in their beds at night – unless they, a bit like yourself, have a facility to leave out unpalatable facts and dont realise that the big hairy arse bombs they are dropping are killing innocent Iraqi civilians.
I’m unaware of the RAF continuing to drop cluster bombs on Iraq. Perhaps you could provide a link?
Regardless, as I already explained to you, unless war crimes are committed, during a war, military operations such as those to which you allude, do not constitute “murderâ€.
Second, again as I already explained, the Iraq war, while unjust in my view, had more grounds for justification than the PIRA campaign, as some of the just war criteria are arguable and, in terms of UK participation, there was proper authority.
I commend you sir, for developing a most outrageous set of double standards.
Given that I apply the same standards to both events, and consider neither to have been just, it is not possible that they are double standards. You’re being dishonest, and I suggest that you retract your accusation against me.
Turgoning the Funimentalist New Ultra
Even if I did direct my comments at you would be the first to say that ‘this does not *describe* me’ – as you just have done – funny that…..
Very tired of you and your supporters presenting yourself as a resonable democracts when you are nothing of the sort – many authoritians supported elections – when they know they could win and if there was a chance that someone was about to stop them they got the boot on their necks. And if you don’t like what elections produce Unionist Ultra’s simply get rid of it – as they did with the UWC and the end of power sharing in 1974. It was on those terms that minorities were FORCED to accept
integration with Westminster.
It was that defining moment that estbalished ‘integration’ with the UK. Don’t think that’s revelent to now – well how baout the 2005 riots against the direct rule troops…which most Unionists supported. That is the reality of the extreme Unionist version of ‘integration’.
Do you really thing getting rid of O’Niel was democracy in action becuse he visited Maynooth! and you expect to be taken seriously as a democrat WOW! As the Portadown parilment showed it was is and will be a split to the right and a fight for the most reactionary position that is the dynamic of unionism.
I stand by my comments on the emotive use of peoples’ deaths to back up a reactionary politics,
and that goes for SF and Hunger Strikers too too.
The dead should NOT be forgotten. I think Brain Feeny in Lost Lives has done an excellent job in reminding us just who and why they died and who killed them. But to use their deaths to legtimate a new ultra Unionism – to the right of the present DUP?
I don’t think I’am being unreasonable in saying no thanks.
I take pride in the fact that as a people we can still work together as the postal strike and the Class room strike showed – there are other areas and political campagins that define us as a people which are not reactionary and which we have worked on – Civil Rights being just one of many.
Different Drummer,
I have and will continue to articulate a unionist position which is opposed to the current agreement and seeks to have it renegogiated. I will contiunue to argue that the DUP has very significantly moved from its committments only a few months ago.
Though I doubt you will accept it I support the classroom assistants fight for just pay, if you look at the posts I have consistently supported them. I doubt you will accept this but I am not some right wing ogre, in my answer to ballygobackwards on another thread I pointed out that I am no Thactcherite. I find the use of the term right wing for those who disavow the current DUP position incorrect but to be honest have given up arguing about it. It is one of the reasons I prefer the term prodiban as it is simply harmlessly funny (and no of course I do not support the Taliban).
My opposition to the agreement is based on my rejection of SF being in government at this time as I have detailed before. I have also detailed a number of pratical problems that I see with the current power sharing arrangements. You will see that my suggested alternatives involve power sharing and as the only realistic alternative direct rule.
Accusing me of using my in-laws problems as a cover for my position is also unfair. Prior to any discussion regarding my family on this thread, I had engaged in a political debate without rancour with a number of posters who challenged me to produce a prodiban alternative. I did so. The discussion regarding deaths was not started by me and only became highly unpleasant when Bob McGowan made one of his periodic unhelpful interventions. To be angered by Bob McGowan’s world view is hardly surprising and to point out that people are more than just numbers on his biazzare death balance sheet is hardly unreasonable. If you find it distressing that I mention those known to my family who died I am sorry. I personally feel, however, that those who cheerlead for or justify murder should be reminded that those dead people have names and families, and their loss still lessens all our lives. No matter who or what any relative of your who died in any circumstances was; I am sorry for your trouble.
I have consistently said I am saddened at all deaths. Due to my religious views (which I know you do not hold) I will find no pleasure at all in any death, not those of policemen nor those of IRA men killed whilst trying to kill policemen, nor those of the hunger strikers. I do think, however, it is only reasonable to allow ones’ own and family life experiences to help inform ones’ political position.
I do not want to overuse this comment but I have stated before that I feel that if (and it is an if I do not believe would have happened or worked) but that if unionist acceptance of a united Ireland 40 yeras ago would have prevented violence I personally though not pleased by it would have accepted such a thing (though being 1 at the time would have made my views on the subject difficult to ascertain). As I have said time after time there is no cause on this island in the last 50 years that justified death and violence.
Trying to say that my position is analogous to complaining about O’Neill visiting Maynooth is so specious as to be surreal.
I reject and condemn loyalist violence. I think Sunningdale should have been defeated at the ballot box and not on the streets. I condemn unreservedly the riots in 2005. I would suggest you look at my posts to Concerned Loyalist if you want a flavour of my viewws on loyalist paramilitarism.
I would suggest that your real problem is that you find it distressing that someone articulates a view of which you fundamentally disapprove yet does it without having the good taste to shout “Croppies lie down” hence, allowing them to be dismissed as a raving bigot.
Different Drummer I welcome your contribution to debate as I hope you would be willing to welcome mine. I have the right to put forward a non violent political position just as others do.
Willows me old mucker good to hear from you.
Re. Justification – I think you will find my posts related to, to use you own words the “grounds for justification”. As I stated earlier I personally dont think the Provos campaign was justified but it was MORE justified than the Englezes campaign in Iraq. The conflation, therefore, would be all yours. Geddit?
re. Double standards:
Your double standards relate to condemning the man who went to war to fight for his country ( that would the Provo) but not condemning the man (RAF/BA) who went to war to fight over a lie even though the latter would be responsible for far more civilian deaths.
p.s. In August the Englezes flew more misisons than in any other month since the war started. Source: The ToryGraph.
Dewi,
good spot – should be Polis.
Re. Rugby – why are the WRU going to NZ to get coaches – Henry is a complete tuzzer according to the Welsh players when he was here and the other half of the comedy act had dreadful results when he was here and appaling on the Telly. They dont appear to do coaches very well – hence all the choking.
Sammy – they are only resting in NZ on the way to Fiji obviously – how can’t you understand that ?
Turgoning Again and Again
I still think your restorting to the language you did about those who have been murdered was distateful, but also very typical of those Unionists who are opposed to the agreement and SF/PIRA. (One should also include the other ‘republicans’ who acted likewsie).
I know a very prominant member of the Unionist party who is also an Ultra (BTW I find the term ‘prodiban’ very childish it reminds me of an other anti agreement Unionist who calls the OO ‘Jaffas’ !) he also who tried to legtimate his anti agreement politics with highly charged emotive refeneces to the (protestant) dead and I have always found it a deeply repugant tatic. In any case as I said what it tends to do is simply reduce the argument to an Equality of misery.
Not sure I take your point about Bob McGowan. You made great play of the fact that he is not based here and therefore should be quiet – that appeared to work but what if he was – born and did live here – what then? It would have made no difference.
Why? – my guess is he would have said that he too had lost people dear to him and you would be back to the Equlaity of Misery.
But thinking over what I wrote and you have written I think there is a need for more than just a rebutal that as you also know is not my style.
But I must say just because you claim no connection to the fate of the first Ulster Unionist victim of the Ultras – Capt O’Neil, that does not mean that there is no connection.
That goes for your stance on Sunningdale. It WAS defeated at the ballot box in Feb 1974 and part of the UWC demand was that their should be a Stormont election copper fasten it.
Now if that had happened – would you have been still happy to see Gerry Fitt as no2 minister again – I don’t think so! And I don’t think the amount of paramilitray activity then would have made it a fair election (SF did stuff ballots then – which some may recall was challenged by one ‘power sharing’ Gerry Fitt) but that would have been as nothing compared to the intimidation of the UDA/UVF during the campagin back in the days when the UDA was a legal terrorist organisation -listed in the phone book!
I think it’s worth reconsidering the fall of Sunningdale and the UWC victroy which many Unionist celebrated. I recall Oliver Napier saying about those times – had Sunningdale been accepted – their would be a lot more people walking around today who needlessly lost their lives.
But to assume Ultras would not try to VIOLENTLY oppose powersharing – oh come off it! Of course they were going to (as did the PIRA). Many Unionist hands made light work of the power sharing executive. And people got used to it and sat on their hands and keep their mouths shut.
Pretty soon minorities had to get used to the jack boot too after all wasn’t Westminster doing most of the ‘ingetrating’ having decided that the best thing to do would be to encorage the UWC/UDA to win…..
Now we have the UDA setting the agenda again. I have written elsewhere that it would be the SDLP and not SF who would prove to be the real enemies for Loyalism simply because the Irvine wager – ie ‘we – [the paramilitarists] both need the British to help make us be better citizens’ would not be taken up by the SDLP as they had no arms to bargin with.
That was on the history on the social questions support for Class room assitants etc not being the mark of someone who is on the right does’t follow…there are many right wing populaists in the DUP. After all don’t the DUP now support civil rights er for everyone…
Oh and they also oppose water charges!!
The same goes for your stance against the the other colional occupations running at the moment.
The war in Afganistan and the Occupation of Iraq are opposed by the Mail and The Telegraph. But that said it is a very important stance.
It may have very far reaching implications for Britian and here so really sure you can live with the price of the successfull defeat of ‘British Imperialism’?
Different Drummer
Either your spelling or your typing is atrocious and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt especially as I am fluent Typonese especially with these consarned small keys.
But for the most part I must say BRAVO you do an excelent job of articulating both your opinion but also the hypocritical double speak you face
Many Thanks Sean I here is a better copy
Turgoning Again and Again
I still think your resorting to the language you did about those who have been murdered was distasteful, but also very typical of those Unionists who are opposed to the agreement and SF/PIRA. (One should also include the other ‘republicans’ who acted likewise).
I know a very prominent member of the Unionist party who is also an Ultra (BTW I find the term ‘prodiban’ very childish it reminds me of an other anti-agreement Unionist who calls the OO ‘Jaffas’ !) he also who tried to legitimate his anti agreement politics with highly charged emotive references to the (protestant) dead and I have always found it a deeply repugnant tactic.
In any case, as I said, what it tends to do is simply reducing the argument to an Equality of misery.
Not sure I take your point about Bob McGowan. You made great play of the fact that he is not based here and therefore should be quiet – that appeared to work, but what if he was – born and did live here – what then? It would have made no difference.
Why? – my guess is he would have said that he too had lost people dear to him and you would be back to the Equality of Misery.
But thinking over what I wrote and what you have written, I think there is a need for more than just a rebuttal that as you also know is not my style.
But I must say just because you claim no connection to the fate of the first Ulster Unionist victim of the Ultras – Capt O’Neil, that does not mean that there is no connection.
That goes for your stance on Sunningdale. It WAS defeated at the ballot box in Feb 1974 and part of the UWC demand was that there should be Stormont election to copper fasten it.
Now, if that had happened – would you have been still happy to see Gerry Fitt as no2 minister again – I don’t think so!
And I don’t think the amount of paramilitary activity then would have made it a fair election, (SF did stuff ballots then – which some may recall was challenged by one ‘power sharing’ Gerry Fitt) but that would have been as nothing compared to the intimidation of the UDA/UVF during the campaign. Which was back in the days when the UDA was a legal terrorist organisation -listed in the phone book!
I think it’s worth reconsidering the fall of Sunningdale and the UWC victory which many Unionist celebrated.
I recall Oliver Napier saying about those times – had Sunningdale been accepted – there would be a lot more people walking around today who needlessly lost their lives.
But to assume Unionist Ultras would not try to VIOLENTLY oppose power sharing – oh come off it! Of course they were going to (as did the PIRA). Many Unionist hands made light work of the power sharing executive.
And then people got very used to it and sat on their hands and keep their mouths shut.
Pretty soon minorities had to get used to the jack boot too – after all wasn’t Westminster doing most of the ‘integrating’ having decided that the best thing to do would be to encourage the UWC/UDA to win…..
Now we have the UDA setting the agenda again. I have written elsewhere that it would be the SDLP and not SF who would prove to be the real enemies for Loyalism simply because the Irvine wager – ie ‘we – [the Para-militarists] both need the British to help make us be better citizens’ would not be taken up by the SDLP as they had no arms to bargain with.
That was on the history, on the social questions – support for Class room assistants etc not being the mark of someone who is on the right; doesn’t follow…There are many right wing populists in the DUP. After all don’t the DUP now support civil rights for er everyone…
Oh and they also oppose water charges!!
The same goes for your stance against the other colonial occupations running at the moment.
The war in Afghanistan and the Occupation of Iraq are opposed by the Mail and The Daily Telegraph. But that said it is a very important stance.
It may have very far reaching implications for Britain and here, so are you really sure you can live with the price of the successful defeat of ‘British Imperialism’?
McNally
Re. Justification – I think you will find my posts related to, to use you own words the “grounds for justificationâ€. As I stated earlier I personally dont think the Provos campaign was justified but it was MORE justified than the Englezes campaign in Iraq. The conflation, therefore, would be all yours. Geddit?
No – I haven’t conflated anything, whereas you have conflated explanation with justification. You say the Provo campaign was more justified than the Iraq war on just war grounds, but you have yet – in several posts – to cite any just war grounds on which the Provo campaign could be justified. In contrast, I have cited possible arguments in favour of the Iraq war, namely just cause and proper authority.
re. Double standards: Your double standards relate to condemning the man who went to war to fight for his country ( that would the Provo) but not condemning the man (RAF/BA) who went to war to fight over a lie even though the latter would be responsible for far more civilian deaths.
When you apply the same standards to two situations then, by definition, you are not employing double standards! My conclusion from applying just war criteria to both situations is that neither the Provo campaign nor the Iraq war was just, but there are more grounds for arguing for the latter than the former. Your failure to offer any kind of argument to the contrary is noteworthy.
As regards the actions of individual Provo members vis-à -vis individual British servicemen – which you only now introduce – clearly there is an obvious moral distinction between (i) a man who joins an illegal, unaccountable terrorist organisation operating an entirely unjust murder campaign against the wishes of the people whom he claims to represent; and (ii) a man who joins the legal, legitimate and accountable armed forces of a democratic state. If the latter are deployed in an unjust war, it is the political leaders who make that decision who are to be condemned, not the individual servicemen.
p.s. In August the Englezes flew more misisons than in any other month since the war started. Source: The ToryGraph.
Does this irrelevant statement mean that you accept that they are not “continuing to drop cluster bombs� Please try to be honest.
Turgon etc,
As Dewi has pointed out there is evidence that the Provos were targetting the UDA. There is evidence that the Provos were not attempting to kill civilians in Enniskillen
Posted by It was Sammy Mc Nally what done it on Oct 14, 2007 @ 02:27 PM
This is some really soft shite i’m afraid.
Anyone who shoots someone, stabs them, plants a bomb in full knowledge of the inevitable carnage it’s about to cause is purely evil regardless of the context or any other dreamt up reasoning or apologist babbling
It’s like saying a child abuse victim who then goes on to rape a child when they are an adult isn’t quite so bad, not quite so evil. This is the sort of trash that comes out from various people on this forum when they allude, however vaguely, to the idea that the death of innocent people was somehow not so bad because those responsible were actually trying to kill “bad people” instead and it was some sort of unfortunate mistake.
What a great consolation for the rape victim or the person blown to pieces eh?
Dewi,
I think you are starting to get over the Fiji thing and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate myself for helping you confront this most difficult of issues. On a further positive note Llanelli look to have some really good young players.
Al,
My repsonses re. Enniskillen and Shankill Chip shop were in response to Turgon’s contention that the Provos were trying to kill innocent Prods – I did not say they were justified in planting either bomb. It is generally unwise to pick on inidividual comments without their context – so there – dont let it happen again.
Wilberforce me old fellow me lad,
I have already outlined the grounds for justification for the Provos war – defending your own people against a paramilitary police force and sectarian mobs and later the Brtisih military etc etc is MORE justifcation for going to war that grabbing someones oil. Suggesting the the ordinary British soilder should hide behind the following orders because they came from parliament even if parliament was misled is a very difficult moral position to justify and arguably more so than that for the Provo. The morality of the situation is not determined by government decree but by the relative merits of the case (see above).
re. Cluster bombs, I have not read anywhere that they have had an attack of conscience on that one, but my substantive point remains – that they are continuing to kill Iraqi civilians by dropping big hairy arse bombs on them with absolutely no justification whatsoever for doing so – apart from save saving face.
“There is evidence that the Provos were not attempting to kill civilians in Enniskillen ”
and just what is this “evidence”. Or should I substitute wishful thinking for evidence?
Sammy – my therapist is recommending holidays – so I’m off to Dublin next week. Apart from TCD what do you recommend ?
I have already outlined the grounds for justification for the Provos war – defending your own people against a paramilitary police force and sectarian mobs and later the Brtisih military etc etc is MORE justifcation
How can you describe the Provo war as defence ? It was clearly an offensive war, and they picked the easiest targets they could. And look at the civilian bodycount, and the number of civilians which were Prods.
To try to pretend that the Provos were about defence is a joke, and not a very funny one. They were engaging in a guerilla war.
They were engaging in a guerilla war. A Fact. But in the past. Helpful suggestions ?
Dewi,
I suspect that you are a chap of considerable afluence and therefore recommend Shanaghan’s on the Green – see link below. This will help to unburden you of a large quantity of your cash but it is seriously good. Be cautious if you order the onion rings – they arrive by the bucket.
http://www.ireland-guide.com/establishment/shanahans_on_the_green.4343.html
I’m over next week – want to see the TCD stuff to be honest. But i’ll eat where you tell me too. and on holiday so money not important till I get home……..now what are these Euro things ?
Comrade Stalin
“How can you describe the Provo war as defence ? It was clearly an offensive war, and they picked the easiest targets they could. And look at the civilian bodycount, and the number of civilians which were Prods.”
Because Nationalists were attacked ” by a paramilitary police force and sectarian mobs and later the British military” – as stated above.
That was where the Provos came from – the reason Unionists wont accept this is because it means they are partly responsible for the horrors visited on the people of Non Iron.
I do not seek to defend the way the Provos ran their War or the shocking number of innocent people they killed Protestant and Catholic.
As I Have Been saying I Find people who use peoples deaths to legitmate their ideology repugant.
IT IS LOW GRADE DISCOURSE.
THE TIME TO DRAW A LINE UNDER IT HERE IS WELL OVER DUE AS I SAID, IT REDUCES THE DEBATE TO
AN EQUALITY OF MISERY.
—————————————————–
We now have a new ‘Woe’ for The DUP as they have appeared to have over played their hand but then again one wonders what game they are actually playing or hope to play.
I had assumed that SF would stick to the legalese and say that ‘a contracts a contract’ – as of today they have changed their position and are now backing the Ms Ritchie and the SDLP.
Mr Durkan’s statement yesterday may have had something to do with that.
The way is now open for the DUP and UUP to propose that all funding for SF/republican linked projects be ended.
If that happens their will be no need for a new Ultra DUP Unionism as that proposed by J Alister etc for opposing SF/republican funding will get a good deal of support and will refresh the DUP as the UUP – the Ultra Unionist party.
If that happens it will the end of the Belfast Agreement.
McNally
I have already outlined the grounds for justification for the Provos war – defending your own people against a paramilitary police force and sectarian mobs and later the Brtisih military etc etc is MORE justifcation for going to war that grabbing someones [sic] oil.
I asked you to outline just war grounds for the Provo campaign – you haven’t, and the above doesn’t amount to it. What just war criteria do you claim the Provo campaign met?
Suggesting the the ordinary British soilder should hide behind the following orders because they came from parliament even if parliament was misled is a very difficult moral position to justify and arguably more so than that for the Provo. The morality of the situation is not determined by government decree but by the relative merits of the case (see above).
I’m not suggesting anyone should hide behind anything: it is for each individual to reconcile his own actions with his own moral beliefs. The simple point I made was that, ordinarily, killings by servicemen in Iraq are not murders: that is true. You may wish to argue that the killings were immoral, and I may agree, but that does not make them murders.
Anyway, that is a distraction from the main point which was your claim that there were more just war grounds for justifying the Provo campaign than the Iraq war. I still await your argument to support this. I have several times put it to you that the latter was more justifiable than the former because (a) the former does not meet any of the just war criteria, and (b) it is at least arguable that the latter does meet some of the criteria.
If you want to keep pressing your point, you need to articulate an argument. Simply repeating assertions is pointless.
re. Cluster bombs, I have not read anywhere that they have had an attack of conscience on that one, but my substantive point remains – that they are continuing to kill Iraqi civilians by dropping big hairy arse bombs on them with absolutely no justification whatsoever for doing so – apart from save saving face.
Yet again, you simply repeat an assertion. Where is your evidence that the RAF is continuing to drop cluster bombs in Iraq? If this were happening, I am sure at least some news sources would be carrying the story. I suggest you admit that you made this up.
Because Nationalists were attacked “ by a paramilitary police force and sectarian mobs and later the British military†– as stated above.
If we agree that when the Provo campaign began it was defensive, is it your position that it must always therefore be considered to have been defensive, even when – in actual reality – it quickly became offensive, and when the attacks to which you refer ended within less than 18 months of a campaign that went on to last 27 years? You’re engaging in a terrible distortion of reality, surely.
Also, on this basis would you consider that a 30-year terrorist campaign by black Americans – subject to far worse treatment than nationalists in NI – would have been similarly justifiable? Given the relative sizes of the populations, this would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Dewi
They were engaging in a guerilla war. A Fact.
Not so much a fact as an opinion. You will be unlikely to find the PIRA campaign featuring in any study of guerrilla warfare, which usually attributes such a term to permanent bands of soldiers, living and operating apart from society, engaging troops in sporadic actions, in circumstances of actual war. The PIRA campaign does, however, clearly come within any definition of terrorism.
Viet Cong lived in the villages apart a select few. Archetypical guerillas.
Willows Me oul Segotia,
re. jus ad bellum
My contention is that the Provos had MORE justification for their campaign than the Englezes had for attacking Iraq. It is based on the theoretical view of the ‘reasonable’ man or the man on the Omagh omnibus not on basis of the principles of a theroertical ‘just war’. I feel if we are to go down the later route we will need to come to agreement on which Just war theory we should use. I think you will find however that most of the same arguements will out and the Englezes in Iraq will not fair very well – however I’m game as you appear to have your Heart set on it.
re. Morality of Provos and the British army
You have not addressed the fact that Her Majestys forces know they are fighting a war based on lie and yet continue to kill innocent Iraqis – this arguably places them in much more difficult moral position that the Provos found themselves in. How many of them end up charged with murder will hopefully be detrmined by international law rather than by some pretend tribunal set up by the minstry of defence/attack.
re. Attack/Defence
Clearly a large part of Provos campaign was offensive but it’s origins were in the appaling behaviour of the state and the paramilitary police and the Englezes after they decided that instead of holding the ring they would turn their guns on nationalists. Clearly all sides should have sought a settlement long before they did – but as the boy Callaghan correctly observed easy to get the troops in and very difficult to get them out . The Provos were never going to surrender and the British had to have their financial district flattened before they decided on a proper compromise.
re. Cluster bombs
I dont think you actually read what I have said. We know they have dropped cluster bombs – I have not seen a statement form Ministry of defence that they have stopped and will not use them again – but my substantive point is they continue to bomb civilians for no other reason than they have not the moral courgare to admit they made what we Southerners would call a pigs Mickey out of it.
Well it looks as though I was right the first time there IS now a united front between SF and the DUP which puts them to the right of their own electorate.
Don’t know where this leaves the New Ultras.
Anyway I see you guys are still having a little trouble accepting that there are limits in rhetoric as to what can be understood as an *agreed* veriable moral truth.
But don’t let me stop you. I’m also interested to know just how long this excahnge will go on trying to do the impossible….
McNally
My contention is that the Provos had MORE justification for their campaign than the Englezes had for attacking Iraq.
Yes, I know. I’m trying to find out your grounds for that contention, but you seem reluctant to offer an argument. Why is that?
It is based on the theoretical view of the ‘reasonable’ man or the man on the Omagh omnibus not on basis of the principles of a theroertical ‘just war’.
Really? That’s interesting – so you accept that on just war grounds, the Provo campaign was unjustifiable? Why, then, did you introduce just war grounds?
As for the “theoretical view of the ‘reasonable’ manâ€, where is your evidence that the reasonable man, thinks the PIRA campaign was more justified than Iraq?
I feel if we are to go down the later route we will need to come to agreement on which Just war theory we should use. I think you will find however that most of the same arguements [sic] will out and the Englezes in Iraq will not fair very well – however I’m game as you appear to have your Heart set on it.
Um, I’ve repeatedly said that the Iraq war was unjust! As for “which just war theory†we should use, I am only aware of one, which has six principles – just cause, right intention, proper authority, last resort, probability of success and proportionality.
You have not addressed the fact that Her Majestys [sic] forces know they are fighting a war based on lie and yet continue to kill innocent Iraqis – this arguably places them in much more difficult moral position that the Provos found themselves in. How many of them end up charged with murder will hopefully be detrmined by international law rather than by some pretend tribunal set up by the minstry of defence/attack.
I’m not sure that they do continue to kill innocent Iraqis – have you evidence for this? AFAIK they are mostly confined to base and the killings are largely being carried out by terrorist groups.
As for the lies, I simply do not know whether HM forces knew they went to war based on a lie. My hunch would be that no doubt some felt this to be the case, and no doubt others believed the pre-war spin – just like the rest of society.
As for the moral position, you may be correct that a member of the British forces is in a more difficult moral position than a Provo, simply because there is no “difficulty†in the Provo’s position, which is clearly immoral, whereas there is doubt and about the British serviceman’s position and a possible conflict between his legal duty and possible personal ethics.
Clearly a large part of Provos [sic] campaign was offensive but it’s [sic] origins were in the appaling [sic] behaviour of the state and the paramilitary police and the Englezes after they decided that instead of holding the ring they would turn their guns on nationalists.
Not entirely true. The Provos began operating while the Army was still welcome in nationalist areas.
But I note that you acknowledge that “a large part of†the Provo campaign was offensive. I think it would be more honest to say that, apart from a very short period at the very start, it was entirely offensive. This being the case, when even you acknowledge that “a large part†was offensive, why do you choose to characterise it as defensive?
I dont think you actually read what I have said. We know they have dropped cluster bombs – I have not seen a statement form Ministry of defence that they have stopped and will not use them again – but my substantive point is they continue to bomb civilians for no other reason than they have not the moral courgare [sic] to admit they made what we Southerners would call a pigs Mickey out of it.
Again you repeat allegations with no evidence. How tiresome. Either provide evidence that the RAF continues to bomb civilians, or desist.
Wilbers oh I do so enjoy our little chats together.
I dont believe that the Provos war was a ‘Just War’ – but I do believe that it is has more grounds (listed a number of times) for justification than the Englezes war in Iraq based on the views of the reasonable man on the Omagh omnibus.
I have no evidence of this but am putting forward my opinion that this is the case with a view to discussion in this forum.
If you wish to engage in comparison of the 2 wars principle by principle (that list you supplied looks good to me ) then you make out the case for your boyz in Iraq and I will reply on the same basis for the Provos.
It is also my contention that, assuming the same reasonable man as above, such an individual would have greater difficulty justifying his position to himself if he were British in Iraq rather than a Provo in Non Iron. Although the appetite of the British public for overseas wars is considerable (but they do get all uppety when people fight back) you cannot rule out some sort of Vietnam effect in the future for the returning soldiery.
The Englezes continue to carry out bombing missions in a war they now know to have been based on a lie and for no other reason that they are too embarrassed or stubborn to admit they got it wrong. Lets hope they don’t leave it nearly 30 years like they did in Non Iron before coming to their senses.
To see what the brave boyz in their wonderful flying machines were up to in August
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/12/wirq312.xml