Monday, June 19, 2006
A game of two halves…?
There’s a few things worth returning to in Drew Nelson’s Irish Times interview. This statistic is one of them:
“In the first 20 years of the Troubles four Orange halls were burnt, one of which was in Cavan. But since 1989 there were 240 burnt. It is significant that at around the same time the republican movement started to oppose our parades. There was occasional bother before that but not to this extent.”
So is it a meaningless coincidence? Does it relate to reactionary factors, like changes in the type of Loyalist violence? British countermeasures? Or is it simply part of a ‘war by other means’ designed to undermine confidence in the Unionist community?
Mick Fealty @ 07:05 PM
Mick
It’s interesting that you put the DUP in the dock for this as well as Sinn Fein.
Of course I do; I don’t subscribe to their sanctimonious hypocrisy. The position they take makes sense only if you yourself are whiter than white. If not stop the pretence and get on with it.
It gives the impression (whether true or not) that in the Peace Process™ game every last thing must be brought to a table somewhere and bilaterally agreed before it can be dealt with by the defaulting community.Truly depressing and unfortunately seems to be the case, but this again is one of the reasons (and the DUP position) why I think that neither side is that confident. If you were confident in yourself would you get bogged down in such trivia? No! but here you can’t show weakness and you can’t be seen to back down. Signs of insecurity.
I remain of the opinion that the best way forward is for Hain to sack the lot of them; widen the consultation, end the side deals, look at the agreement, take on board the various ideas and agree some necessary changes with the government in Dublin and then hold fresh elections. I would also make all candidates enter into a contract next time. If any group want to boycott the election let them.
The current position is pathetic and there are issues here that we need clear policy on. Basically we have a weak Secretary of State, I think poorly advised, vacillating and being make to look quite ridiculous. How do you deal with a class full of diffident children? Be firm but with a smile, if you don’t have to put up with nonsense don’t.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 10:59 AMMF:It gives the impression (whether true or not) that in the Peace Process™ game every last thing must be brought to a table somewhere and billaterally agreed before it can be dealt with by the defaulting community.
Whoooaah!! We started this thread considering the possibility that the attacks on Orange halls are an organised campaign. We seem to have moved seamlessly to assuming that this organised campaign exists and is being held back as a bargaining chip in negotiations by SF. Hold your horses Mick!
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 11:18 AM“And there’s another one! Instead of trying to prescribe the limits of debate by your interpretation of the thread, I present to you the alternative option-to free your mind from its chains”
The whole point of this thread is to discuss the underlying reasons for the change. See those questions at the top?
Complaining about people “offering excuses” official makes you a moron, Darth. Consider like you’ve just wet yourself in public.
“I think it’s wrong to attack the property of people I don’t like,even if the people doing it are people I do like
See? Not so difficult.”
I don’t like scumbags who damage anyone’s property, and I’ve went apeshit on my friends when they decided to kick over bins when drunk. It is a personal pet hate, anytime, anywhere. But that isn’t what the thread is about.
“Whoooaah!! We started this thread considering the possibility that the attacks on Orange halls are an organised campaign. We seem to have moved seamlessly to assuming that this organised campaign exists and is being held back as a bargaining chip in negotiations by SF. Hold your horses Mick!”
Seonded. Actually since I already raised this point earlier, thirded. It seems to me this si the type of things are not agreed by parties at the macro political level - they are either dealt with by agreement and resolution within government, or they are tackled by government initiative enforced by the police and the courts. The former is possible, but overshadowed by parades, and the latter is seemingly impossible. You are way, way out here, Mick.
Seconded
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 11:56 AMBriso,
I take your point.
All I have argued is that the party has proved it can be a hugely positive influence in helping settle long running and apparently intractable disputes. However this should not preclude asking why certain areas of unrest are being cleared up and others are not. I underline again, this has to be speculative, since no background other than the crude figures are in the public domain.
Kensai,
This is key, I think:
It seems to me this si the type of things are not agreed by parties at the macro political level - they are either dealt with by agreement and resolution within government, or they are tackled by government initiative enforced by the police and the courts.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 12:01 PMBriso, there are further assumptions made as well as those two you have listed. Even if it is an organised campaign, and that campaign is being organised by the leadership of (P)SF, that doesn’t mean that it is fair to blame the nationalist/republican ‘community’. There is no such thing as such a community. NI is either one community or dozens/hundreds, depending on how you look at it.
If so-called Catholics and/or Republicans and/or Nationalists are attacking Orange Lodges then they are enemies of the Irish Republic (in my little opinion!). All attacks on civilians for nothing more than their religion/culture/politics are unacceptable and their elimination are precisely what the Irish Republic should be about. I place those people firmly in the same box labelled “enemies” as any person who kills a Catholic because of their religion.
I’m the first to be annoyed at (P)SF turning a blind eye to these b*****ds and while I’m a republican I don’t see myself voting for anyone any time soon (must check out these eirigi folks though). PSF may or may not condemn these attacks (and the leadership may even be genuine) but they are still turning a blind eye to the low level anti-Protestant prejudice that exists right across Republican areas.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 12:01 PMAre the increase in attacks since the late 80’s evidence of somebody (insert conspiracy theory here) deliberately making the conflict a primarily religious one, where previously it was a political struggle which some idiots on both sides used as cover for a selfish tribal struggle?
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 12:08 PMOC,
Blantly sectarian murders were higher in the 1970s than the 1980s or since. Perhaps the attacks on Orange halls and churches are an expression of sectarian hatred that had previously more direct expression in murders. Unlikely but possible.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 12:28 PMGaribaldy said: “Blantly sectarian murders were higher in the 1970s than the 1980s or since. Perhaps the attacks on Orange halls and churches are an expression of sectarian hatred that had previously more direct expression in murders. Unlikely but possible.”
You mean that they haven’t gone away, you know.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 01:56 PM“The whole point of this thread is to discuss the underlying reasons for the change. See those questions at the top?”
That would be these one then-
“So is it a meaningless coincidence? Does it relate to reactionary factors, like changes in the type of Loyalist violence? British countermeasures? Or is it simply part of a ‘war by other means’ designed to undermine confidence in the Unionist community? “
To which I pointed out the nature of the attacks, and the mealy-mouthed half-baked condemnation, or more often excuses, from some posters.“Consider like you’ve just wet yourself in public”
No. Consider like I’ve just pissed all over you, cos you’re fooling noone with your juvenile abuse posturing as debate .
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 02:04 PMIndeed. The same hatreds and the same ways of thinking still infect our body politic.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 02:04 PMDK:You mean that they haven’t gone away, you know.
Garibaldy:The same hatreds and the same ways of thinking still infect our body politic.
I think you can go even further. There are people around who have been brutalised by the troubles. They have killed people, often shutting down the human part of themselves to be able to do it. They definitely haven’t gone away.
But that’s beside the point as we still haven’t enough information about this ‘campaign’. Some questions I would like answers to.
How does the rate of attacks change over time since 1989? Is it currently dropping or rising? Are they correlated with parade decisions? Are they correlated with political events? Are they correlated with local factors (i.e. hall burned, church burned, hall burned ........)? Are they related to demographic hotspots? What is the modus operandi (i.e. are they clearly orchestrated by organised teams or are they ‘low-tech’ such as could be carried out by opportunistic teenagers)?
That should keep you busy.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 02:15 PM“That would be these one then-
“So is it a meaningless coincidence? Does it relate to reactionary factors, like changes in the type of Loyalist violence? British countermeasures? Or is it simply part of a ‘war by other means’ designed to undermine confidence in the Unionist community? “”Yes. The questions about why the attacks happened.
“To which I pointed out the nature of the attacks,
and the mealy-mouthed half-baked condemnation, or more often excuses, from some posters.”Which didn’t actually answer those questions, merely went on a rant about people offering excuses when the whole thread is about the rational behind the attacks, which you pointed to as “excuses”. You wanted to have a go, and added nothing to the debate.
“No. Consider like I’ve just pissed all over you, cos you’re fooling noone with your juvenile abuse posturing as debate.”
No, Darth, you’re just my special, special punching bag. When you reach an adult level of debate instead of endless whataboutery, I’ll start engaging you on an adult level.
“This is key, I think:
It seems to me this si the type of things are not agreed by parties at the macro political level - they are either dealt with by agreement and resolution within government, or they are tackled by government initiative enforced by the police and the courts. “
Ach. That first bit should have read “within communities”, but I think the point still stands. It’s not really down to SF or the DUP to trade this at a leadership level like decommissioning, and it wouldn’t work if it did. There is certainly a role for them to provide leadership on the issue though, but making clear it isn’t aceptable, like an anti-racism campaign. But if the Assembly was up it would surely be it’s job to tackle this kind of low level crime.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 03:45 PMDarth,
PLAY THE BALL!!!
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 04:21 PMBriso,
>>I think it is bad that the new estates are being marked out in such a way as to make sure no taigs buy houses in them.
If you are saying its a new estate IN Newbuildings, well I very much doubt that there is graffitti anywhere on the gable walls of these new houses.
I don’t think religion has ever been issue at all when it comes to buying new houses in Newbuildings and you would be better to retract your comment.
To rephrase your statement : the comments of a few are applied to the whole village which is unfair and counter-productive.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 09:35 PM‘Attacks on Orange halls, like attacks on properties belonging to other political, cultural or religious organisations, are wrong and shouldn’t happen.
But…’
Chris Donnelly:
There’s always a but, isn’t there Chris?
Except when it comes to things like Holy Cross. In that case there are no buts - the violence and protests by loyalists are just dismissed out of hand. ‘Think of the wee girls’ is the cry, and you don’t want any consideration of the context or circumstances of the protests and attacks. No consideration of ‘cultivating a frightening intimidatory atmosphere’ there was there. No indeed - just focus on the violence and don’t think of any wider considerations.
Why is that Chris?
Why is there a but when it comes to the OO? Your message is essentially ‘anti-OO violence is of course wrong, BUT they created the circumstances that led to it’.
Why the double standard Chris?
Why no statements like this: ‘the Holy Cross violence was wrong, but you have to understand that nationalist attacks on the loyalists created the circumstances that led to it’?
As usual it’s blaming the victim when the victim is from the unionist side.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 10:12 PM‘For instance one cannot infer that Republicans per se are responsible for these individual actions.’
Who do you suspect then Mick? A bad ass unit of the Brownies?
If by ‘Republicans’ (your capitalization) you mean fully paid up members of the local Sinn Fein branch then no, it can’t be proven that any attack on an Orange Hall was done by them. But I think it is fair to say that it is those from ‘the republican community’ who do this sort of thing. They may not be fully paid up members of anything in particular, but they have the republican mentality, and the lesser brained of them carry out such sectarian attacks. Or even those with a brain and an agenda.
If its ‘loyalists’ who carry out sectarian attacks on catholics and Catholic property then I think its entirely reasonable to call those who attack OO halls republicans.
Of course if you want to go the ‘it may all be done by non-political hoods’ route then feel free. But I don’t think anyone is buying into that.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 10:29 PM‘i think the attacks on catholic churches post ceasefires of 1994 would be considerably more than attacks on orange halls since 1989’
reality check:
That’s nice. Does that mean burning down OO halls is OK then?
Any other things you’d like to throw into this shallow bit of whataboutery?
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 10:32 PM‘you ->
<- point of this thread’kensei:
I thought darth’s post was very good. And I thought your post here was a poor attempt to ignore the contents of it.
Are you that scared of actual facts that you dismiss his post with a ‘you missed the point of the thread’ response?
He didn’t miss the point of the thread - he is spot on, with actual facts. A number of posters have tried to downplay the attacks, or blame the victim, or engage in whataboutery (whatabout attacks on Catholic churches?). Anything but give an unqualified ‘these attacks are wrong’ response.
It is indeed insightful to see the number of posters from the republican viewpoint trying to deny or minimise or explain these statistics without wanting to overtly justify them.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 10:36 PMI see the Daily Ireland has a story with the INLA accusing Special Branch of using an agent provocateur to attack Orange halls in the area of south Derry. I won’t link it as it would screw up the page as I can’t do it properly.
A novel explanation for attacks on Orange halls.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 10:42 PM‘And there’s another one! Instead of trying to prescribe the limits of debate by your interpretation of the thread, I present to you the alternative option-to free your mind from its chains’
darth:
Good post. You set out actual facts, and he didn’t like it. So he tries to box you in by defining what he sees the thread as being about. In the course of which he decides not to deal with your points.
Many posts from nationalists are like that. Ignore the issue, engage in whataboutery, blame the victim, state that the victim was asking for it, say it’s not that serious anyway. Anything to avoid condemning those who carry out the violence.
If this was about Holy Cross I doubt these folks would be so interested in examining context, other similar acts of violence, contributing factors etc. No - in that case it’s simply bad loyalists/unionists who have to be condemned in an unqualified fashion. Why is that?
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 10:42 PM‘No. Consider like I’ve just pissed all over you, cos you’re fooling noone with your juvenile abuse posturing as debate .’
Darth:
Well said.
His is the typical republican tactic when there is a debate. He defines what the debate is supposed to be about, so that he doesn’t have to address your points. As you say, when confronted with the fact that there has been a change in the number of attacks, many posters did not take this as fact and try to explain it. As you say they preferred to try to make out that the fact isn’t true, or to enage in whataboutery. Or to try to minimize the impact of it.
But he doesn’t criticise these people for not addressing what he sees as the point of the debate. No - he waits until you point out that those people engaged in all manner of issue avoidance tactics and then attacks you, as presumably in his eyes the first person to take the debate outside his parameters. It is juvenile abuse on his part.
According to him of course, the point of the thread is not to condemn such violence, but to explain reasons for it. So you get hammered for daring to introduce the radical concept of people who don’t condemn and instead excuse it, or try to wish it away.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 10:52 PM“I thought darth’s post was very good.”
Of course you do. Judging by your crazy, crazy rants on the other thread, your like his younger brother, or something.
“Are you that scared of actual facts that you dismiss his post with a ‘you missed the point of the thread’ response?”
No, I was just pointing out he misse dth epoint of the thread. Of course reasons (‘excuses’)are for things are going to be offered up, because reasons were asked for.
“He didn’t miss the point of the thread - he is spot on, with actual facts. A number of posters have tried to downplay the attacks, or blame the victim, or engage in whataboutery (whatabout attacks on Catholic churches?). Anything but give an unqualified ‘these attacks are wrong’ response.”
No, a number of posters offered up reasons as asked, and asked about other buildings, because we are interested in whether or not this is a general trend, or specific to OO halls. It would be very revealing. Were there a few taht were borderline whatobutery? Sure. Did his rant help? No.
“It is indeed insightful to see the number of posters from the republican viewpoint trying to deny or minimise or explain these statistics without wanting to overtly justify them. “
Sigh.
you————>
<- point of thread“Good post. You set out actual facts, and he didn’t like it. So he tries to box you in by defining what he sees the thread as being about. In the course of which he decides not to deal with your points.”
No, I refered to what the thread is actually about. Try, you know, reading the post.
“Many posts from nationalists are like that. Ignore the issue, engage in whataboutery, blame the victim, state that the victim was asking for it, say it’s not that serious anyway. Anything to avoid condemning those who carry out the violence.”
I know, I know. *Ahem*
I don’t like scumbags who damage anyone’s property, and I’ve went apeshit on my friends when they decided to kick over bins when drunk. It is a personal pet hate, anytime, anywhere. But that isn’t what the thread is about.
“If this was about Holy Cross I doubt these folks would be so interested in examining context, other similar acts of violence, contributing factors etc.”
In a specific thread, no. In a thread that said attacks on schoolchildren have increased dramatically in a shortt period, yes. Do you see?
“No - in that case it’s simply bad loyalists/unionists who have to be condemned in an unqualified fashion. Why is that?”
I don’t condemn Unionists. I pity them. I condemn people who make moronic points.
And as a thread backing up someone who missed the point, yours is even less useful than the intial one. Congratulations! I look forward to your next foaming at the mouth rant.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 10:56 PM‘A novel explanation for attacks on Orange halls.’
Garibaldy:
Indeed that is novel.
I don’t suppose the obvious answer to why nationalists are increasingly attacking Orange Halls is allowed to be stated.
I’d say it’s because a certain amount of nationalists are sectarian bigots and they think it’s fun to do so. Now that the official campaign of violence has been wound down, they have to find some way to get their jollies.
As the official armed campaign wound down in the late 80s and early 90s, the low intensity stuff ramps up. It seems blazingly obvious to me.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 10:58 PM“As the official armed campaign wound down in the late 80s and early 90s, the low intensity stuff ramps up. It seems blazingly obvious to me.”
I know this is a novel idea, and I hope it doesn’t blow your mind or anything, but have you any actual evidence of that, or is your “blindingly obvious” view just as much speculation as anyone else here?
You do realise that merely thinking something isn’t enough to make it true, right? I tried that once, but Natalie Portman got the police after see insisted she wasn’t my girlfriend.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 11:06 PMHarpo,
I wasn’t endorsing the argument, just bringing people’s attention to it as it seemed relevant to the thread.
If you read the thread the whole way through you’ll see me, and others, making similar arguments to your own.
Posted by on Jun 21, 2006 @ 11:08 PM
