The DUP and TUV are fighting over the Maze Shrine. Jim Allister accused the DUP of having done a deal over the Conflict Transformation (Shrine) at the Maze. This was angrily denied by the DUP with Simon Hamilton calling for Allister to make an apology. In reply Allister has repeated the claims and also the fact that he has called on both the current and previous DUP Environment ministers to de-list the Maze and have the remaining buildings demolished.
Fair play to Iain, he managed to get over 2,200 people voting in his poll for the top Northern Irish blogs this year… We (just, I imagine) retained our top spot, with Splintered coming straight in at number 2, no doubt his pet subject du jour will have garnered him a lot of fans… I’ve [...] read our review »
World by Storm has a nice piece up on the IRA’s role in helping MK, the armed wing of the ANC, in the 1980s. In particular he sees a strange alchemy at work there: …if one can think of a clearly legitimate contemporary struggle it was that against apartheid and it is to the credit [...] read our review »
Somehow I escaped reading this essential school text, with its story of racism in 1930s American South. Living in Northern Ireland, I draw parallels with sectarianism, with its similar bigotry and prejudice. To Kill a Mockingbird was part of a Unite Against Hate campaign event at Parliament Buildings in Northern Ireland, which I’ve written [...] read our review »
[i]Moving on does not involve glorifying the actions of members of sectarian death cults.[/i]
Nobody is asking you to do this. The majority of people on this island do not share your particular interpretation of the Provisional IRA. In fact, most would also find your interpretation and account of this period in history quite offensive. It’s when you make inflammatory statements, based on extreme bias (and, most likely, prejudice) just like this that you leave yourself very open to the accusation that you are incapable of moving on. Why don’t you leave “us lot” to indulge in the glorification of such awful, awful people.
[i]Can you shed any light on why Robert was in The Maze in the first place, or is that a tad inconvenient when discussing his couragousness.[/i][sic]
It’s not one bit inconvenient! From memory (I was born long after Sands died) I think that he was imprisoned after the RUC claimed that they found with him with ammunition. I do recall, however, reading that he was tried (through the Diplocks, of course) and acquitted of offences of a much more serious nature. A positivist view of history would save you from further hysterical, impassioned and somewhat offensive outbreaks.
Thanks fot that padraic…you say it all.
Now – what about the OC?
Why was he in The Maze?
[i]Now – what about the OC?
Why was he in The Maze?[/i]
Take a big deep breath, exhale, then let go – you’re only clinging on by our fingertips at this stage. Like I said before, leave to us Catholics to glorify our “sectarian death cults”. Don’t you worry your little head about them. They can’t hurt you now.
“Take a big deep breath, exhale, then let go – you’re only clinging on by our fingertips at this stage. Like I said before, leave to us Catholics to glorify our “sectarian death cults”. Don’t you worry your little head about them. They can’t hurt you now”
No, honestly, I’m just fine padraic!
Like I say, I really, really, don’t care where you say your prayers.
Yesterday’s fredom fighters, today’s traitors.
Republican “history” never changes.
“If you had seen your family burned out your home by sectarian mob as state security forces looked on, I would think you too would be radicalized by the experience.”
Fortunately, violent psychopaths such as Mr Sands formed a tiny minority (less than 1%) of the citizens of Northern Ireland. Most people who experienced suffering did not decide that their own experiences justified inflicting suffering on others. In fact, most people who experienced suffering would never wish to inflict it on others. Psychopaths, of course, are wired differently.
By the way, I wonder what Mr sands would think about the Shinners implementing Thatcher’s policy of criminalisation that he protested against? I’m sure that, had he lived, he’d be thankful that he wasn’t dumb enough to starve himself to death so that Gerry and Martin could have well-paid jobs and nice pensions as Her Majesty’s civil servants.
[i]Yesterday’s fredom fighters, today’s traitors.
Republican “history” never changes[/i]
What a pathetic attempt to move the goalposts when your petty little myopic argument collapses! Sadly for you I don’t think you’ll find nobody on this forum willing to bite your measly bait.
pardon me, that should have read “I don’t think you’ll find anybody..”
“What a pathetic attempt to move the goalposts when your petty little myopic argument collapses! Sadly for you I don’t think you’ll find nobody on this forum willing to bite your measly bait”
Except you, perhaps!
Good night padraic….you do irony very well.
Once again, of course, you’ve outsmarted me and have proven yourself to be intellectually superior to every Provo sympathiser who dares engage you in battle
Biting the bait would be directly engaging with the content of your latest outburst. Very sadly for you, it would seem, I did no such thing. I merely highlighted your attempt to encourage someone to participate in another round of name-calling and Taig-bashing.
No doubt you’re off to dream about the heady days of Carson and Craigavon… good times.
Kieron,
re. Police Bill – if it was not important then why was it recently amended?
Jesus. Details are not your thing are they ? It is not a “police bill”, very little of the bill deals with the police. And who said it was not important ? You made that part up. It’s a necessary prerequisite for there to be devolved policing and justice powers.
It is important in that it is a requirement. But it’s just not interesting. There is nothing in the legislation that was passed to talk about. It changes the law so that the powers can be devolved. It’s fantastically boring, with the possible exception of the part where it is confirmed that the assembly will appoint the justice minister directly (ie not via d’Hondt). I don’t understand why you want to have a thread about it. It’s just enabling legislation.
What will be interesting, and certainly not boring, is the extensive legislation that will be required to map out the new justice ministry and the mechanics of all that. That does not exist yet, which makes sense because the details of devolved justice powers haven’t been announced in public yet. You seem to be under the misconception that this is what was passed in Westminster, which isn’t surprising as you do have a penchant for self-delusion. This can all easily be cleared up by actually reading the legislation.
What’s the amendment you’re talking about ?
padraic,
Not sharing your views, does not make me “myopic”.
I base my views on lifetime experiences.
Your hissy fit when someone disagrees with your views, says more about your myopia than mine.
If you want to discuss our respective views, I’ll be very fair with you.
In fact, I’ll allow YOU to dictate the “terms of engagement” in any discussion you wish to have with me.
You state the rules, I’ll play by YOUR rules.
Fair enough?
I’m sure some of you guys would be interested in this link,
‘Did five, or even six, of the republican prisoners who were on hunger strike in the Maze prison in 1981 die to advance the political strategy of Sinn Fein?‘
“When Jimbo has to hold Tupperware parties to raise funds for his campaign you know he is struggling.”
Disagree
When he starts holding Ann Summers parties then you know he is struggling.
6countyprod
Evidence for what? You are already making a case for your point of view.
Do you know what evidence is? It is what the scientific process is based on. Anti-intellectual was not an insult btw, I was pointing at how you seem to have a problem with history based on evidence from the time. Intellectual thinking would usually test any hypothesis by the evidence available. You do seem to have a problem with this or allowing people the chance to do this. In post five above you clearly avoid reason and that is why you are a bigot son. It is rather funny though that you took anti-intellectual as an insult. Given that if you had just understood my arguement you would have knew what i meant.
Do you mean, ‘…if you had just understood my [arguement] argument you would have [knew] known what I meant’?
Reader
You asked me what the hungerstrikes meant to me. I will try to be honest even though I use my own name and some of it will not be liked.
Growing up, I saw them as heroes I had learned songs of Joe McDonnell, Bobby Sands and the other eight. I saw Sands as the follow on from Tone and Pearse. I saw Maggie Thatcher as a bitch. May I point out this was all still at school and probably followed the Sinn Fein version. I supported sinn fein then and nearly joined them in my home town. I decided against it as politics progressed and I lost a lot of faith in the ideas sinn fein told us. Their opposition to the EU, I could not reconcile myself with. There it is, my disagreement with sinn fein comes from their policies and not from the fact they were the IRA. People will not be impressed with this. After this I would say I started to question my support for violence as a valid tool for change. This was when I was about 19 and at univerity and since sinn fein has been the majority party in the nationalsit community. Maybe I like the underdog.
From there you will deduce I was only about second or third year when the good friday agreement was signed so I never considered the choice between violence and politics in my choice of the way forward. All I can therefore do is look at History and think what would I have done? I am certainly not a pacifist and believe when a state fails and democracy can not protect the rights of people it is there to serve, violence against that state is a legitimate tool. I must stress that I believe all avenues of the democratic process must be exhaiusted beforehand. I am in no doubt that stormont failed too many of the people of Northern Ireland. If I had lived through the late sixties and early seventies, if I had saw the burning of Bombay street by forces of the state, if I had saw murder on Derry streets by British paratroopers or or if I had knew somebody who was locked up because of outdated or flimsy intelligence I think I may have saw violence against the state as legitimate. I think that is why I still respect the names of Sands and the other nine. I know awful things happened during the troubles and by no stretch do I think all the actions of the IRA were justified but I do see some actions as understandable from a certain perspective in a broken country. Therefore I will not sit and condemn anybody from Northern Ireland for what happened during the troubles as I can only look at what I might have thought at the time. From this I would then go on to suggest that there were special circumstances in Northern Ireland and as a result to label the prisoners as common criminals was wrong and very stupid by the british government. This was a time when the government still seemed to have no qualms with what their soldiers had done in Derry. I see no reason why a nationalist would have any faith in a state like this. I am not here to place blame for the troubles however.I would say from many of my posts I argue how the executive should now work for the people of Northern Ireland, I am firmly of the belief people voted for the GFA therefore we must accept this framework for government. I would much rather concentrate on getting it working than debate who was at fault 30 years ago as all I can see is that there were many failures by many players.
I don’t doubt Gerry adams pushed the political project once he realised their was support out there, that’s why I consider it pivotal to Northern Ireland and the fact it was one of the most deadly periods in the history of Northern Ireland shows it is worth serious consideration when examining history. I note your disagreements about what republicans say the hungerstrikes meant to them. I would say it would be interestinbg if all ten were still alive, would they all agree on the future of Ireland? I doubt it therefore I don’t pay attention to cries of,’Bobby would be rolling in his grave.’
From writing this post I realise where my sources of information on our History come from, many have been looked at through green tinted glasses and many times the source of evidnece is what I was fed by people with and an even darker green tint. That is my main arguement for a museum, our history must be studied in a neutral manner and this neutral manner must be defended to the hill. We must allow people to learn from our mistakes and a museum seems to be quite a tool for studying the past.
That is what I meant 6countyprod, good to see you now know why you are a bigot and can not present any valid case against a museum.
Hey, Peter, good post! No. 17, that is; not too keen on 18 though. I suppose I am borderline!
Cheers, mate! You behave yourself now.
6countryprod
Have not been on in a few days, thank you for the compliment. I was aiming at being honest, hope you get where I come from. Maybe 18 was over the top
. We will talk again, I am sure.
Peter Fyfe,
“Therefore I will not sit and condemn anybody from Northern Ireland for what happened during the troubles as I can only look at what I might have thought at the time.”
If that is true that is an utterly pathetic argument.
So you do not condemn Lenny Murphy’s actions? Indeed your logic dictates that you do not condemn Bombay Street or Bloody Sunday.
Maybe you should realise that there were those in Northern Ireland who committed evil crimes against their fellow citizens and they richly deserve condemnation.