Lord Eames and moving on
The Noble Lord Eames has kept a fairly low profile since the glitteringly successful launch of his personal credibility self destruction campaign (also known as the Consultative Group on the Past Report). One of the problems for Eames is that now that his brief period in the limelight (rather uncomfortable as it turned out) is over he has to go back to being a retired CoI prelate; one who is now rather unpopular with the overwhelming majority of his former flock. As such, I always suspected an attempt at a degree of revisionism on his report. Somewhat appropriately it was reported in 1st April’s News Letter.
Clearly there are bits which Eames will want the unionist community to focus on for him to “move on” from his personally disastrous report:
In a speech at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in Donegal, Lord Eames said: “Future generations will look back to the conflict in Northern Ireland and will read of fear and uncertainty.
“They will read of division and murder. They will read of great bravery and courage of those who kept the light of hope alive.”
“They will read of victims and of innocent people who carried scars of mind and body for the rest of their lives.”
“But they will also read of the bravery of those who sought to protect our society from terrorism and who paid a huge price, the ordinary ranks of the RUC, UDR, and later the PSNI and RIR.”
“Men and women who returned from duty to live with their families in homes which were always at risk.”
“Men and women who faced murder at their work and in their homes. Many of them still carry physical and mental scars of those days. As many of them asked us – does society really appreciate our sacrifice?”
It is unclear whether Lord Eames feels that they agree that he appreciates their sacrifice: not if the reaction of unionist politicians, victims groups or indeed the comments his group gathered are anything to go by. Of course at the time he found ways to dismiss all those comments but I suppose now a bit of rewriting of his previous actions is called for.
Unfortunately also his attempts at explanation for the report were as flawed as his attempts to air brush out equating the death of the innocent with those of their murderers.
“Our report looked at a time when united condemnation of murder and violence did not exist. It was a time when our society was deeply divided and suspicious.”
“It was a time when terrorism stalked our society. It was a time when any suggestion of shared responsibility in government was impossible.”
“Then came the ceasefires and the Belfast Agreement and the course of history changed.”
The noble Lord is again being disingenuous here. It is undoubtedly true that society here was deeply divided (just as it is now). However, he is again conflating two different things. The division is true as is the fact that shared government did not work (though it was tried at Sunningdale). However, there was pretty united condemnation of murder and violence. The reactions of the overwhelming majority of nationalists to Enniskillen, Teebane, Kingsmills and Darkley were disgust, revolution and unequivocal condemnation; the same reactions came from the elected nationalist politicians of the time. Yes there were a few dishonourable exceptions: but only a few. Equally the overwhelming majority of unionists were disgusted by and condemned unreservedly Greysteel, the Shankill Butchers, Sean Graham’s bookmakers and the Loughlinisland murders. Again there were dishonourable exceptions but not many
What Eames is trying to pretend, however, is that these facts did not exist. This is to allow him to gain some shred of an excuse for regarding the murders of the past as different to the murders of the present (just as I predicted he would). The only way he can carry off this deception, however, is to pretend that we were all, in some way supportive of, or in some way guilty of, the crimes of the past. A quote from Eames Bradley explains this: “A reconciling society takes collective responsibility for the past instead of attributing blame and avoiding responsibility.”
Again as I said at the time -”This sort of nonsense ignores the fact that in law and in most reasonable people’s minds ‘society’ has nothing to take responsibility for. Individuals committed very wrong acts. Lord Eames should remember that the Bible suggests that everyone is accountable before God for his or her sin, not for other people’s. ‘The Past’ in question here is actually the wrong, immoral and evils acts of the past. Any of us who did not commit crimes here is innocent. As such we have no responsibility for the actions of the past. If Lord Eames wishes to claim he is responsible for something in the past that is for his conscience: Mine and I submit almost all of ours should be clear on this matter. Let us leave Lord Eames to wallow in the self righteousness of his own self appointed guilt should he choose.”
Eames has brought to his latest comments the same intellectually lazy and dishonest attitude he brought to his whole report. Unfortunately for the noble Lord, it is not only Jim Allister who has called for his whole report to be binned. Opposition to his report seems about as united as opposition to murder always was. However, I am sure the noble Lord will not let such inconvenient truths get in the way of his campaign to rehabilitate himself: how successful that campaign will be, however, remains open to question.
As I said throughout Eames Bradley is not fit for purpose and had Lord Eames thought a little more about the true nature of the task in hand he would have realised that ages ago. That would, however, have required more lateral thinking and intellectual honesty than he has ever shown before and he shows no sign of gaining it now.
FFS Turgon. If someone who has attempted to tackle one of the most incredibly difficult and divisive subjects that could possibly be put before anyone now has to “rehabilitate himself” for daring to try, then this whole placed is completely foobar and no mistake.
Is it not enough to disagree with him, that you have to play the man?
kensei,
You call it playing the man. I call it pointing out that the man (once a leading prelate) is being extremely disingenuous and in the view of many, not just myself, utterly dishonest.
Well said Turgon….Eames is damaged goods and an outcast amongst his own flock in the COI and within the wider Reformed denominations.
Turgon
Your critique of Eames and his intellectually lazy contribution to the report certainly resonates with me. It is too late for Lord Eames to rehabilitate his product and join those engaged in revisionist history writing. The damage has been done by Eames Bradley in particular with the attempt to establish an equality of victims and to equate murders of the past to murders of the present. The role of the various Christian denominational leaders in perpetuating the conflict must be examined in the same light as they currently attempt to bathe in over the police and military murders. My criticisms of Eames-Bradley are focused on the perpetuation of costly quango-like activity that invariably fails to deliver any measurable product. Dennis Bradley must also accept his contribution to this debacle. Closure cannot be ordered, forced, compelled or revised.
Eames and Bradley choose to accept an assignment to deliver closure; they must accept that their publication failed to achieve the desired effect, quite the opposite.
When I first skimmed through Turgon’s rant above against Lord Eames I thought Eames must have done something really terrible in Turgon’s eyes – embraced the doctrine of transubstantiation possibly, or blessed the opening a Marian shrine – something really outrageous like that. But no, all Eames has done is pay tribute to the suffering and sacrifice of RUC, UDR and RIR victims.
In order to understand his attack we have to see it through the prism of Turgon’s own political stance.
Since such an expression of sympathy might find favour within the |Unionist community, Turgon takes offence. Why? Because Lord Eames is pro-Agreement and in Turgon’s eyes only those who are anti-Agreement are permitted to wrap the mantle of Unionist self-righteousness around their shoulders. Only they must be permitted to use the memory of Unionist dead and wounded to their political advantage. And of course matters are not helped by the small coincidence that not only is Lord Eames in favour of the Agreement, he is an Anglican, ffs! And you can’t get much worse than that. Unless you’re a Taig that is.
Turgon’s fundamental mistake, common enough in Protestantism, is that he appears blind to the fact that unionism bears part of the moral responsibility for the Troubles for its failure to reform when the time was ripe. For him, blame placed on the people of violence is the transcending, almost the only judgment that matters. Although he himself no doubt lives an ordinary moral private and professional life, he absolves him from any share any collective moral responsibility on the part of those who were unable to see what was needed to achieve a better society. After all these years, this refusal to accept wider responsibility for the communal breakdown leaves him open to moral censure, if that’s the game you’re in. This strain of Protestant individualism is simply not enough for rebuilding society. You don’t have to be a killer to remain a threat to society. Those who try to grasp the idea of collective responsibilty risk making mistakes like Robin Eames. It is a risk Turgon will never take, secure and complacent in his own view of the world, thanks to sacrifice of others.
Brain,
Yes by all means wallow in a bit of the self righteousness of self appointed grief.
Brian I was 1 when Stormont fell. As such I could not have had any part in reforming society pre the end of Stormont. Maybe you could apologise for the clear lie of accusing me of failing to reform.
I never committed any crimes during the troubles (or afterwards). As such I am completely innocent of the troubles. Anyone else in Northern Ireland who committed no crimes is just as innocent whatever their politics. People like journalists (maybe including you) continually pointed out during the troubles that the overwhelming majority wanted nothing to do with the violence.
Now are you trying to imply that I was in some way guilty for something or are you just playing the man. Alternatively by all means accuse me of something. Just remember the laws of libel. You have already tried hypocrisy and insult so I expect little better of you.
Turgon, there you go again. Narrowing the idea of moral responsibility to committing ” crimes.” Blindness towards the need to reform extends far beyond the fall of Stormont to the present day. Even Ian Paisley who bears so much responsibility for stirring up the communal fears that produced the Troubles very belatedly saw the point, but only after he was forced to deal with the physical force tradition.
It’s no good thrashing around with words like “lies ” and “hypocrisy.” I may not be able to convince you of what seems to me your wilful moral blindness in these issues but I want to put on record there are other non-polemical views. The philosopher John Gray has useful insights in his book “Gray’s Anatomy.” He has commented:
” The search for a narrative which confers confers meaning on people’s lives and shows them to be part of a larger, meaningful picture, is a deep-seated human need..( but) the search for meaning is dangerous when it spills over into politics.Its’ not only dangerous when it produces Communists and Nazis.. because it creates a preference for policies which satisfy this need for meaning rather than have an actual effect”. In other words, you may prefer to be personally righteous in your own world of rather than take measures that improve society. This is very common in Slugger. Perhaps one day, you’ll have a go at these matters in a less exposed forum, in sympathetic but diverse company and have a rethink. There’s something about you that gives me hope!
Brian,
I was one when Stormont ended: now try apologising for accusing me of responsibility for Stormont failing to reform.
Continuing Brian. Let us see: you feel that unionists like me by not reforming were partly responsible for the troubles: tell me have you read the blogs where I pointed out the corruption and wrongness of the old Stormont regime? I have done them and you should easily be able to find them.
Your current line is typical of the Eames Bradley / liberal set. That is that everyone was guilty: except of course for yourselves, the liberal luvvies. The simple fact is that I am innocent of the murders of the troubles and all that the troubles entailed. I regard many nationalists as just as innocent. Anyone who did not commit crimes is innocent and anyone who opposed violence is actually on colossal moral high ground. That includes people for who I have absolutely no time politically such as John Dallat.
One can oppose the current political dispensation without supporting murder or a return to violence: tell me Brian do you accept that Mark McGregor opposes violence? You see I do despite having diametrically opposed views to his.
You need to understand that you cannot tar us all with the brush of evil violence supporting (or even partly complicit) bigots. I have a right to my views and I will not be accused of immoral or evil actions individually or collectively simply because it suits your narrative.
I will also continue to denounce the intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt position of the noble Lord Eames who tries to tar us all with the violence brush to excuse giving an amnesty to murders and allowing them to wipe the slate of their vile crimes clean.
Now by all means descend into the gutter with the murderers should you desire: I cannot for the life of me see why you want to. well actually I can: it is to further your own agenda. So do if you want: but you are not dragging the rest of us in Northern Ireland down there with you.
Which spcific part of unionism, Brian, responsible for reform are you identifying? It would be helpful to name names and give dates so that those of us who refuse to accept your guilty Prod label and liberal-unionist retrospective analysis know exactly who to hold to account. I can’t recall much from you during your tenure with the BT selling the idea at the time. Indeed take your collective responsibility and sell it to Caitriona Ruane – perhaps she’ll buy it.
PACE Parent,
I suspect Brian has fled the scene: he may not like it when people challenge him. Unlike in his journalist days he cannot pontificate without the right of instant reply.
The fact that you can not even see his point means he hit the target dead on. But as you are completely obstniate in the face of the facts means there is little use in responding.
But I suspect he will any way, you just over estimate your importance if you think people need to respond on your schedule
Yeah Mick man not ball but hardly original on this thread
I have no problem at all in being challenged, but I have said my piece. Think about it all again Turgon, quietly, some time.
Brian,
Now try apologising for accusing me of failure to reform Stormont. Or maybe you think I, at the age of one, was controlling it all from my mother’s arms in South Londonderry.
Maybe you could also respond to PACE Parent and name the names: oh yes you are probably too much the coward.
Oh yes you have said your peace: by which you try to be smug, condescending and run away: in reality the actions of a coward who will not stand up and defend the insults he throws at the vast majority of decent people in Northern Ireland. Unsurprising you did not say such things as a journalist Brian: I suspect your employment might have been very short and I doubt you would have had the courage to throw away your career by such remarks.
“its failure to reform when the time was ripe.”
The language of reform was widespread but those activists who sought change IMO didn’t seek better conditions for all in a UK context.
The language of rights was often used as a smokescreen by those who had all-island agendas of various hues. The language of responsibility didn’t get a look-in.
Those who ignore the potency of the constitutional question will probably sleep-walk into 2016.
Perhaps as much attention needs to be paid to the sins of omission as to those of commission.
Turgon
To be blunt, stop being a child. The question of collective responsibility and how attitudes and voting patterns far short of “crime” affect wider society in a positive or negative fashion is a difficult one, hard to define and full of grey areas but undoubtedly. Perhaps impossible for you to get that closed little brain around. Moral repsonsibility in any case extends far beyond “I have not committed any crime during the Troubles”.
You have your opinion and your closed world view and I accept that. What I cannot accept is the level of vitriol and nonsense terms like “liberal set” being chucked at those who dare to transgress by attempting to grapple with some of these issues. They may not be right but the attack on character and motive is completely and utterly despicable. And you dare call yourself a Christian?
Complete man playing and an attempt at intellectual terrorism that right wing Unionist seems so fond of. Please stop, or at least stop posting huge pieces on Slugger doing it.
Turgon,
You really need to learn a little bit of humility. You may not be guilty of any indictable crimes but you sure as hell are guilty of staggering arrogance, religious bigotry, overweening self importance, an extraordinary ability to see the beam in others’ eyes and not the mote in yours… and intellectual dishonesty on a scale so vast that everest is nowt but a wee ant hill by comparison!!
Nevin,
er… why should activists have looked to a uk context? is there something wrong with an all-island context?
I think you will find that they did look for rights in a uk context at first but you might have noticed that british policy since 1922 has been to keep ireland out of the gentlemen’s sport of british politics. There was no federal govt who was going to come in and impose central control, to use an analogy with the deep south. The us govt saw the south as its own territory, the british have never regarded ni as being an integral part of the uk. rather they saw it as a useful bargaining chip with which they could control the roi govt. the fact that this policy has lead to the deaths of thousands has not cost them a moment’s thought. unlike the roi who have rightly agonised about the influence of their constitution and nationalist culture on politically motivated violence, noone in the uk has ever stopped to think whether the existence of a state religion (anglicanism) and access of this religion only to seats as of right in the house of lords and all the other antiquated mullarkey of mono protestantism at the apex of the atate.. whether all this might have influenced loyalist murder gangs. oh no such thought is not for them. ireland has nothing to do with them. And you wonder why the activists you speak of turned away from uk solutions?? maybe the deliberate murder by the british govt of 14 of their supporters in broad daylight had a small influence upon them. oh yes and we are still waiting for saville…
kensei,
I will post on slugger whatever I want unless Mick tells me otherwise. I have never told you what to post or not to post and I will thank you to do the same. For you to tell me not to post on a topic and then accuse me of intellectual terrorism is a bit rich.
dub,
As ever any chance of commenting on the blog? No I guess attacking me is just too much fun isn’t it?
Kensei,
Turgy baby pretends to be a pacifist. I have never met a pacifist who routinely uses such vitriol and violence in his/her discourse. This contradiction is at the root of his intellectual dishonesty. He sees what he calls terrorism as some kind of terrible disorder affecting those pesky proles. He also demands apologies and threatens libel when a patently decent man such as Brian attempts to get him to grow up a little. And he does not feel in “any way” Irish but apparently does consider himself “Northern Irish”. He has never managed to explain in what way that adjective after “Northern” differs from “Irish”. Doubtless they may look the same to us pope worshipping pagans. To neo Israelites like himself the truth is so apparent but at the same time so recondite that it would very blasphemy to utter it!!
Turgon
I don’t give orders, I merely request.
Turgon,
Well i’ll accept your challenge.
This notion of everyone in the six counties being responsible for the deaths, pain and suffering of the Troubles is a way of getting round the central culpability of the governments of Ireland and the UK who both allowed the monstrosity called Northern Ireland to be created and continue to exist outside the party politics of both sovereign states. They both allowed this buffer zone to fester on their doorsteps and constantly implied that any problems there were the inhabitants’ own fault. Britain has to take the larger blame as it has always been the sovereign power, but Ireland’s collusion cannot be ignored. Both states preached that western democracy would cure every ill but refuse to grant this (and still to) to the patient outside their door. Western democracy means electing those who govern you and spend your tax payers money. That has never existed in Northern Ireland and will not for the forseeable future. In default of this communalism is the only possible politics. Yet outsiders, especially ROI and UK look down on these people as backward although they have both (ROI and UK) deliberately prevented them from accessing democracy.
Eames is much more right wing than he seems. He was utterly useless during Drumcree. He is a great fan of this undemocratic meaningless entity called Northern Ireland. Because he is he dare not utter the truth as to why the entity has been convulsed by violence and inter communal friction for the sum total of its duration. So he has to blame everyone. This is what the technocrats who are keeping NI on life support do. Read Marianne Elliott’s book on “Ulster” Catholics for the same approach from soneone from a nationalist background. Dennis Bradley loved that book by the way. Read his drooling comments on the sleeve.
kensei,
Thank you for that. I will of course completely ignore your request.
I do, however, like the idea of right wing unionists being guilty of intellectual terrorism. Would that republicans had only be able to be accused of intellectual terrorism: there would be a lot more people alive in this country.
dub,
Good attempt. However, now you are saying that the governments are blaming us here for what happened. You seem to say that the governments are wrong in so doing. That seems to mean that you accept that the overwhelming majority of us had no culpability. So actually you seem to be reinforcing my point that it is a lying falsehood to blame us all for the troubles.
Maybe on reflection you should stick to personal attacks as your attempt at reasoned debate agrees with my point that the vast majority of both unionists and nationalists have nothing whatsoever to apologise for.
Turgon,
What i am not allowed to agree with you?? Just to make it crystal: there is no “seeming” about it. I do say that the govt’s of ROI and UK blame the people of NI for their troubles and I do indeed think that this is criminally wrong. Also the technocrats of the “new” northern ireland do the same. Read Marianne Elliott for a very sophisticated example (much more sophisticated than Eames).
Why is it all zero sum with you?? Unionists and nationalists should be able to agree on many things, not the least of which is that this groteqsue charade of a statelet should never ever have come into existence and the peculiar rules which its custodians insist upon ensure that its inhabitants will never know the luxuries of living in an “ordinary” western democracy. Carson understood that. I think you do too.
dub,
So you agree that it is wrong to accuse us all of being responsible for the violence of the Troubles.
Good I take it you now see why I take grave issue with Eames for perpetuating that weasel worded lie and also why I took on Brian Walker for repeating it.
At this rate you may yet try to understand unionists. Then again you ask why it all has to be zero sum with me. Well in your case this is what you published on this thread about me:
“you sure as hell are guilty of staggering arrogance, religious bigotry, overweening self importance, an extraordinary ability to see the beam in others’ eyes and not the mote in yours… and intellectual dishonesty on a scale so vast that everest is nowt but a wee ant hill by comparison!!
I think you can work out why I am not especially well disposed to yourself. I might also point out that unlike some I do not remove direct attacks on myself.
Turgon,
Like Carson, i think you hinted once that you would prefer in some circumstances a united ireland to the grotesqueries of northern irelandism. The other “option” for ni, complete integration into the uk state and its party politics is simply not on the cards, and too “late” historically. The British tories may not understand this though and lead us all into further misery and bloodshed.
dub,
I am sure with vitriol like yours even an all Ireland state would never be truly united. I think you can understand why I would never accept any meeting of minds with the likes of you. Just look at your comments.
Turgon,
Not being well disposed to me should not prevent you from seeing merit in my arguments and the possibility of some kind of agreement between us. It certainly has not stopped me from doing same in relation to your good self.
Unionists and nationalists have both played their parts in the stage allotted to them by the British. Both are entirely understandable. For them to grow into new parts a new stage is needed.
The only thing i find hard to understand Turgon is the ruthless state craft and cold bloodedness of the British. I mean the word “British” in the same way that Paisley uses it so please don’t say i am talking about you. Just to make it crstal: i am not talking about you. I am talking about the mandarins in Whitehall, the Foreign office and the whole rotting lot at the top of that warmongering feudal monarchical monstrosity which we have the singular misfortune to have as our nearest neighbout.
Sorry dub you had you chances to have reasoned discussion and failed to take them but instead insulted me.
Start by apologising for all the utterly inappropriate man playing you have done over months. Then I might try engaging with you in a few more months.
So you agree that it is wrong to accuse us all of being responsible for the violence of the Troubles.
Turgon,
You have already accepted that our minds have to some degree “met”. You can’t deny the area of our agreement just because you don’t like what i say about you. Or rather you can if you want but it would be rather silly wouldn’t it given what you have said above?? You know your reactions are your own, it is silly to believe that other people dictate them.
dub,
Our minds have in no way met. I am actually a pretty fair minded individual and will debate with many people on this site. At the moment you are not one of them because, amazing as you may find it, I am not a disembodied entity but actually a person and repeated personal attacks do leave me not wishing to have a civilised discussion with you for the simple reason that I am fed up with being insulted.
I could have had just cause to have your comments removed on many occasions and maybe had you red carded. However, I am not into that sort of thing. I do not, however, feel disposed to joint you little intellectual tete a tete.
Turgon,
You already have “engaged” with me, as i pointed out in the last post. And you challenged me to deal with the matter at hand, which i have done.
You are now trying to find reasons not to engage with me perhaps because you are terrified at this level of agreement between an outspoken opponent of NI and yourself.
Are you going to apologise for all the rude things you said about Eames. No of course you are not going to do that. Nor am i going to apologise for anything i have said about you. It was all merited. I have never insulted you as a person. I have only attacked qualities you have exhibited whilst making your arguments and also your arguments themselves. If i have caused you any personal hurt or suffering by any comments i have made then yes i unreservedly say that i am very sorry about that. But I am not apologisiing for anything i have said. And i repeat that at the end of the day you and you alone are responsible for your feelings.
Turgon,
No problem. It was you who challenged me to take up the debate and in the first few nano seconds of that you were up for it, as would indeed be logical. You are perfectly entitled not to debate with me if you please. But I suspect the reason is that i have come out with stuff that you were not expecting and you are not quite sure how to respond.
This site is not about making friends whatever it is about.
dub,
You say you have never insulted me as a person. Well let us see:
“guilty of staggering arrogance, religious bigotry, overweening self importance, an extraordinary ability to see the beam in others’ eyes and not the mote in yours… and intellectual dishonesty on a scale so vast that everest is nowt but a wee ant hill by comparison!!”
“Your cynicism and nihilism in this piece are truly breathtaking. Your mask is dropping very quickly now. All those silky smooth pieces in the nor so distant past are but a mere memory as you increasingly salivate as your long expressed fantasy of a return to violence seems to have come true for you… now real unionist politics can return, without the nightmare of a republican ceasefire… And you call yourself a christian.. That is some joke.”
“What the fuck are you, just a white settler?”
” you really are a sickening little bigot. i’m personally so fed up with your nicey nicey guy image”
Turgon
Thank you for that. I will of course completely ignore your request.
I do, however, like the idea of right wing unionists being guilty of intellectual terrorism. Would that republicans had only be able to be accused of intellectual terrorism: there would be a lot more people alive in this country.
It’s nothing to be proud of, and it is painful to see how easily you walked straight into the predictable response. The point being, Turgie baby, is that if Right Wing Unionism wasn’t as guilty of intellectual terrorism there’d be more people alive all the same. Woah…. and we’re right back into the heart of this thread. Do you see what I did there?
God but I’m good.
Turgon/dub
I hope you don’t mind if I interject.
Turgon
I completely accept your premise that there is not an equality of victims.
Can you perhaps suggest a differentiation between victims?
I can accept that lumping all together is a mistake, but where do you go from there?
Open ended question.
kensei,
You see I am guilty of nothing, it is you who claimed I was guilty of intellectual terrorism. Try to address what I said rather than what you wish I had said. I liked the idea because it showed your moral bankruptcy in conflating an invented concept: intellectual terrorism with a real one; republican’s terrorism.
Right wing unionism is no more guilty of intellectual terrorism than any other group: whatever your invented concept is. It is a nothing concept, merely a figment of your own pathetic cheerleader imagination which seeks to conflate the real crimes of your friends with pretended made up wrong doings of others.
Even if intellectual terrorism did exist, it would have killed no one: real terrorism did.
Even if unionists were guilty of it: they would be utterly blameless beside republicans.
However, republicans were and are guilty of terrorism which is why so many people are dead. You may approve of that I cannot tell.
Turgon
Oh noes! Having walked straight into it, you are now all over the show.
“Invented concept”. Well, yes. I thought about it and came up with something that works on a couple of levels. I have no idea if it is original or not, but that’s not the point, is it.
The idea that only the act of physical violence is the only thing that cause or contribute to negative outcome is so flimsy as to not withstand even the simplest application of intellectual rigour. Such is the terrible power of idea and oratory. I shall leave it as an exercise for you to come up with situations where this is not the case; it should not be to hard, even for you.
Having been caught out, you trot out the standard accusation of “Cheerleading”, despite the fact that I have not commented in any way shape or form on “Republican terrorism” or otherwise. Indeed you even admit that later on! Try to stick to the point at hand and avoid playing the man there. Like what I did.
I know it stings but swallow the medicine like a good boy, would you? I’d prefer I provoked you to some thought rather than tedious flailing defense mechanisms.
“is there something wrong with an all-island context?”
No. Did it not look strange to you that Nationalists of whatever hue should walk behind a banner demanding British rights for British citizens? Those who weren’t Nationalist appear to have been blinded by the smoke.
kensei,
Listen to your self you have won nothing you have said that right wing unionists are “guilty” of intellectual terrorism. You decided that all on your own
Which sort of terrorism were republicans guilty of: oh yes the real sort.
Which sort of terrorism do you support? Or to put it another way are you a republican?
As to me playing the man: who said this “And you dare call yourself a Christian?
Turgon,
Well done you have dredged up some fairly spicy comments i made on a political website in relation to your political views, your manner and style of debate, and your views of your nationality.
You have still not explained why, having rightly challenged me to engage with the subject of your blog entry re: Mr Eames, you have run away from engaging with me. You have also not explained why you initially engaged with me and then suddenly stopped. This moment of arrestation seems to have occurred directly that you realised that i was not agreeing with you by accident or through stupidity but through design. Why someone who has sharply and yes, perhaps in an ad hominem, fashion, criticised you in the past, should inspire such behaviour in you just because he should happen to agree with you on something is something difficult to understand. In the continuing absence of explanation from you forgive me if i read your mind (hell you can read the mind of deceased naval celebrities from Rathmines) and diagnose that such agreement disrupts your closed view of the world in which unionists and nationalists must disagree, preferably by the first lording it over the latter so that the latter respond violently, thus proving the unionists sense of moral superiority and confirming their view of nationalists’ inferiority. You seem to love that little british created stage in which we all play the part of hating eachother. Sorry if i seek another more worthy stage where we can all be allotted more worthy roles.
Turgon
Listen to your self you have won nothing you have said that right wing unionists are “guilty” of intellectual terrorism. You decided that all on your own
I am not “playing” to “win”. I put some bait which you went straight for. I believe you “liked” the idea.
Which sort of terrorism were republicans guilty of: oh yes the real sort
You need to watch those universal quantifiers, Turgon. Some republicans were involved in violence. Quite a small minority in fact.
Which sort of terrorism do you support? Or to put it another way are you a republican?
One half: open goal. I don’t actually support any kind of terrorism. Second half: multiple fallacies in a single statement.
As to me playing the man: who said this “And you dare call yourself a Christian?
Maybe that skated the line, though no actual malice intended. Just pointing out the disconnect between your stated opinion and your claimed beliefs. WWJD, dude? Maybe I missed the bit where he started ranting about the liberals?
dub,
“I have never insulted you as a person”
Well we have disproved that little lie haven’t we?
No. Did it not look strange to you that Nationalists of whatever hue should walk behind a banner demanding British rights for British citizens? Those who weren’t Nationalist appear to have been blinded by the smoke.
Er… dont know where to start there, Nevin. What surprises me most about that slogan is the use of the word “citizen” rather than “subject”.
You seem to be inferring that the CRA was just a ghastly commie republican plot. Of course some of the prime movers behind it were communists and republicans but you need to look at the kind of communists and republicans they were. The modern liberal sort. And they fatally misunderstood the dynamics of northern life and politics. Something you could never accuse the provos of. Which is why they are now where they are and why the CPI and WP and PD are where they are.
Turgon,
Er no “we” haven’t. I don’t know you from Adam so how on earth could i attack you personally? i have attacked you views trenchantly, aspects of your belief system and the arrogant and sneering fashion with which you put them across. And pointed out on innumerous occasions the disconnect between this and the lovey dovey butter would not melt in my mouth buddhist style innocence which is another one of your personas on this site. Get over it. You can sure give it but you cannae tek it.
kensei,
You have accused me and indeed right wing unionists of intellectual terrorism, a concept you have dreamed up. I have no idea what this concept is: it is quite fun as it contrasts with real terrorism; you know the sort which republicans committed against people here and which resulted in the sectarian murders which we all know about. It also contrasts with the same sectarian terrorism which drove loyalists.
Even if it did exist and it was true that unionists did this, it would be as naught compared with the crimes of real terrorism. Also to accuse me of it in a debate with Brian Walker is pretty pathetic. To try to conflate a fairly sharp exchange between two people on an internet debating forum with say the Rising Sun murders demonstrates a breath taking ability to compare like with unlike.
So you do not support any form of terrorism? Do you support the IRA terrorist campaign which was waged against people here? Do you support the loyalist terrorist campaign? I can answer an unequivocal No to both those. Can you? If so good.
As to man playing attacking my religion is pretty insulting to me: I doubt you have the intellectual honesty to provide an apology.
dub,
Back to man playing I see: you may now begin to understand my reluctance to “engage” with you.
Turgon
Don’t let them grind you down – it is people like Walker who just like Paisley are responsible for the mess here over the last 40 years not you, if he feels guilty then let him be he should.
Murdering women, children and unarmed politicians is not the same as IRA terrorists being killed planting bombs and no amount of spin will change that. The only problem was we did not accept it was a war and did not have a shoot to kill policy that removed a lot more terrorists.
I however have to accept they are in Government as a means of stopping then killing more innocents, it doesn’t mean I have to like it or accept them as being equal to the people here who had no thoughts of killing any one.
Frustrated Democrat,
Thanks for that: sadly I have to go out now so I may be a while before I can resume.
Regards
Question for Brian Walker….Did you consult your relative Dessie Boal QC, former MP and Attorney General before writing the nonsense above against Turgon’s well written text?