Saturday, December 29, 2007

Page 2 of 4 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >

1. btw, lib.

   While Mick is, undoubtedly, “very intelligent”.

   I’m not so sure he’d appreciate being labelled, by you, as a “unionist”.

   And finally..

   “As I understand it this blog has always been about challenging unionism to recognise that the old ways just won’t work.”

   You understand incorrectly..

   And not for the first time..

   Posted by  on Dec 31, 2007 @ 01:48 AM

2. I for one have every confidence that these matters can be dealt with better on a local level, than by Shaun talkin to himself. Lets remember that, when we (rightfully castigate) our own Assembly.

   Posted by  on Dec 31, 2007 @ 03:18 AM

3. I would like to point out that the above post was not made by me.

   Although on this occasion it is relatively innocuous, it does indicate that someone is intent on impersonating me - for reasons best known to themselves.

   For the sake of authenticity I would appreciate it if Slugger would indicate that indeed there is a case of personation here - and not for the first time either, Pete. Thanks. :)

   Posted by  on Dec 31, 2007 @ 10:40 AM

4. Pete,

   I’ve forgotten when I first stumbled across ‘Slugger’ but I do remember reading ‘A Long Peace’ and being deeply impressed that this was a new kind of unionist thinking.

   The authors of ‘A Long Peace’ are Trevor Ringland, David Steven and Mick Fealty.

   To quote Mr. Fealty;

   “Our aim was to focus on the future from a Unionist point of view and how this might be achieved...’

   I thought then and still think that Mick has stayed right on target, helped a lot of non-unionists to see things differently in the process and, not least, enabled us all have to have a bit of crack along the way.

   I’d be interested to hear your ideas on why this blog has been so successful. If I’m completely wrong about how Mick sees his function then enlighten me, please.

   Posted by  on Dec 31, 2007 @ 11:09 AM

5. lib2016, the study was merely a piece of research into Unionist ‘thinking’ and involved interviews with Unionists and non-Unionists. Trevor Ringland is perhaps the only author who labels himself Unionist.

   Posted by Nevin on Dec 31, 2007 @ 12:12 PM

6. Mr. Fealty,

   Do you care to comment?

   Posted by  on Dec 31, 2007 @ 01:06 PM

7. lib 2016’s contributions here follow a fairly familiar pattern for SF members / supporters. Initially we have a denouncement of the first post from Pete Baker. Then, when I dared to point out the inconsistencies of lib’s claims on his opposition to violence we had standard “unionist engagement” stuff. In this we are asked to accept the integrity etc. of cheerleaders. If unionists do; then it can be heralded as an example of unionists becoming more “reasonable”. If, however, unionists do not; then we have some pseudo psycho babble about us not being willing “to see past your grief and anger but that is your problem, not mine.” This of course allows republicans to mascurade as the victims of this unreasonable unionist dislike. Hence, showing their general unreasonableness, flat earthness, bigotry etc; all implying that their views do not need to be taken seriously and of course implying to some that indeed killing them was the only real option and can be covered with comments like this “when there is violence innocent people get hurt....end of story”.

   The real truth here is in lib’s comment “And damn you for putting me in this position again!” Of course that is the problem. I did not put lib in that position it was lib himself with his own previous comments. Still why let that get in the way of a good MOPE.

   A more interesting bit of spin, however, is the idea that Mick Fealty and indeed slugger in general is a unionist blog. I very much doubt that lib is so stupid that he regards Mick having analysed a unionist position as making him a unionist (by that logic I as I often analyse SF’s position; I am a republican).

   To suggest that Mick and slugger are unionsit is, however, an excellent bit of spin. Repeated often enough as with so many republican lies it may even acquire a pseudo truth. It allows republicans a bit more MOPEry; so that when Mick or any other moderator objects to a republican’s comment it can be seen as bad Mick and the bad unionists discriminating against poor republicans. More than that it may be an attempt to force the moderators even subconciously to be more accomodating to republicans, something I trust will fail.

   Most importantly, however, by spreading the net of supposed unionist very widely it allows republicans to pronounce some “unionists” as good and progressive and moving towards a rapproachment with republicans. This allows republicans to believe that they are wining partial converts with strategies like unionist engagement, as well as annoying the other unionists (a vitally important part of unionist engagement). It also allows them to present supposed increased divisions within unionism’s view of republicans allowing them to feel that unionism is falling apart and final victory is at hand (maybe as soon as 2016). Finally of course it allows republicans another opportunity to paint unionists who will not engage with them as flat earth bigots who are irrelevant, should be laughed at and of course whose deaths in the past were unfortunate but entirely explainable and indeed probably largely justifable.

   The whole thing is of course one long complex spun lie. That does not, however, mean it is not useful to republicans to spin it.

   Posted by  on Dec 31, 2007 @ 03:28 PM

8. Turgon,
   I vote Sluggers to award you an honory doctorate, for your patient, forensic analysis of the republican mindset :)

   Posted by  on Dec 31, 2007 @ 06:07 PM

9. Turgon,

   At this stage of the game republicans don’t need to discredit traditional unionism. It crashed in flames long ago, as did hardline traditional Catholic republicanism.

   We live in an increasingly multicultural society where the majority of us have already recognised the need to work together.

   Republicans acknowledge the damage their struggle did and have publicly regretted the hurts done in the struggle for national freedom, though I for one would claim that it had become inevitable by 1972 at the very latest.

   The verdict of history is already in and if unionists don’t accept their part in creating the conditions of the last 80 years then they will never be able to build a modern credible identity.

   To deny that ‘Slugger’ is an attempt at modernising Unionism I find just incredible. Why do you suppose LuvUlster was an embarrassing disaster and Slugger marches on?

   My theory is that LuvUlster was a demonstration of the hatred which seems to be all that traditional unionism has left us.

   Mick has managed to raise the bar for at least the more progressive of your community and you aren’t even clued up enough to be aware of what he is about.

   Posted by  on Dec 31, 2007 @ 08:17 PM

10. Turgon - it’s time for you to engage with Lib2016. The last 40 years ain’t been a lot of fun for anyone. From afar I have to say that resistance at times seemed not only justified but necessary.

    Posted by  on Dec 31, 2007 @ 08:31 PM

11. Dewi

    You are wrong---big time!
    The form of resistance was neither justified or necessary.
    Militant Republicanism lost the “Battle” with the very first murder in which they were involved and then made matters worse by trying to explain it as a necessity.

    Posted by  on Dec 31, 2007 @ 10:10 PM

12. “From afar I have to say that resistance at times seemed not only justified but necessary.”

    Dewi, who was resisting and what were they resisting?

    Posted by Nevin on Dec 31, 2007 @ 10:43 PM

13. I’ll agree that physical force republicanism was a deadend - the establishment forces in Ireland and Britain were very conservative and saw the Civil Rights campaign as destabilising.

    The problem is that the British Army allowed their extensive experience in fighting colonial wars to guide their approach to the troubles in Ireland.

    Once the Paras were turned loose on unarmed civilians the die was cast. The teenagers (including many friends of mine) were already reading books like ‘The War of the Flea’ and they had no hesitation in using that knowledge to fight back. One weekend’s training and they were ready to go, and more than willing.

    The only alternative was Ghandian civil disobedience which would have involved allowing the Brits to keep on murdering until world public opinion forced their withdrawal. I still believe that it would have been the wisest choice but few agreed with me.

    Posted by  on Dec 31, 2007 @ 11:00 PM

14. lib2016

    I agree entirely that if Ireland had produced a Ghandi we would be living in a different world. We can not turn the clock back or give militants another chance let alone re write history.
    Unfortunately Ireland was unable to find a Ghandi.
    That is the great pity and history will judge this generation harshly as it deserves.
    Lacking in imagination and courage.

    Posted by  on Dec 31, 2007 @ 11:55 PM

15. And, despite the attempted distraction, getting back to the actual topic..

    Posted by  on Jan 01, 2008 @ 12:39 AM

16. Pete,

    It’s the usual charade - the deal has already been done or Sinn Fein wouldn’t have committed themselves to policing. We know it, you know it, and the British government wouldn’t have raised the subject if they weren’t in the process of preparing unionists to accept the inevitable.

    Now if unionists were prepared to be open about their need to modernise we might get somewhere. Instead we have to put up with a potentially useful thread being turned into yet another excuse to attack Sinn Fein.

    ‘parties pre-empting ongoing police investigations’ indeed? That appears to be the only medium of communication for some unionists on this board.

    Unionists need to take the beam out of their own eye.

    Posted by  on Jan 01, 2008 @ 01:50 AM

17. Dewi,
    Firstly Happy New Year. I always try to answer you but I was out last night. I do regard you as someone I greatly enjoy discussing things with and despite our different opinions I would regard my relationship with you as friendly.

    I must, however, demur from your telling me that “it’s time for you to engage with Lib2016”

    Firstly: I must with respect point out it is for me to “engage with” whomsoever I wish; I have a fairly clear knowledge of my own mind and it is not really for others to tell me what to do or think.

    Secondly: I have “engaged with” many nationalist and republican posters on this site. I have discussed many issues and advanced my opinions in a forthright but I hope largely courteous fashion. For the times when I am impolite I seek forgiveness.

    You Dewi know full well the specific episode and series of statements made by lib 2016 which I object to. We have yet to see any form of apology for what must be amongst the most insensitive remarks made on this web site. To be perfectly honest to regard lib as anything other than a troll is fairly charitable.

    I might also point out that when one is told things like: “And damn you for putting me in this position again!”, “I am honestly sorry that you find it impossible to see past your grief and anger but that is your problem, not mine.”, “Perhaps I should be more tolerant of those who cling grimly to their hate rather than embrace the changes of the last twelve months.”

    The above are hardly comments which make it easy to “engage with” lib, they come relatively close to playing the man and not the ball though I am not one to go running to the moderators when people attack me; I have found other slugger members views of me the most effective defence against such attacks.

    Engaging with lib would also be a pretty pointless task. His world view is essentially that unionism is almost totally to blame for the troubles, unionism is now falling apart, all our young people are leaving, a united Ireland is an inevitability, the deal is already done and the timetable already mapped out. Well if one has a set of beliefs like that there is little to discuss. Even on this site we have Mick Fealty pronounced as a “good” unionist moving us forward. Lib seems to laud the DUP for knowing that a united Ireland is inevitable and moving unionists towards it. Now whilst I am no supporter of the DUP, I do think that would be something of a minority analysis within the DUP (probably a minority of zero).

    Of course traditional unionists are just denounced as hate filled bigots etc. So now Dewi what am I meant to engage with: an individual who has made endless insulting remarks against my community and against what we hold dear, tells us that we are to blame for the troubles, dismisses murders of friends and relatives and proclaims that we are going to loose anyway. Finally we at one stage has a comment the at least our children might be useful for something or words to that effect.

    Now Dewi I do not think I am a completely unreasonable man but what on earth am I meant to engege with?

    Posted by  on Jan 01, 2008 @ 12:53 PM

18. Happy New Year to all - and apologies to Pete for digressing.

    1) I would say that when you and your neighbours are in danger of being burned out of your homes or being killed then self defence is justified.
    Nevin and Ulsterfan - that happened historically.

    2) Turgon - I certainly agree that Lib’s infamouus Enniskillen remarks were inappropriate. He has come close to apologising for remarks probably made in temper. A specific apology would be useful.

    3) I agree with some of the historical analysis of the conflict he posts - which is done in a lucid and logical fashion. There are many trolls of many hues on this site - I don’t regard Lib as one thereof.

    4) Turgon - of course you are well able to well able to make your own mind up and express it well and always civilly - apologies if my advice sounded like instruction ! - Certainly didn’t mean it that way. This particular feud has gone on too long however - if you note Lib’s “Ghandian civil disobediance” I suspect that’s his true position which I’m certain you could repect.

    5) Lib2016 - an apology for those Enniskillen observations would be a good way to start a(nother) peaceful year and put this to bed.

    Posted by  on Jan 01, 2008 @ 01:25 PM

19. Dewi

    I did not say resistance was wrong but I did say that the form adopted by republicans was not only wrong from a moral point of view but was greatly counter productive.

    Posted by  on Jan 01, 2008 @ 02:05 PM

20. 1/I apologise unreservedly for my tactless and unpleasant dismissal of other peoples grief. I was wrong and I will try not to repeat giving needless offence. This blog should be about breaking down barriers, not making people feel defensive.

    2/I do feel that the authorities in NI and in Britain had a great deal of responsibility for the events of the last 80 years. There is no way to say some things pleasantly and I do hold the British authorities guilty of murder. There seems to be no point in not being candid when that’s what is called for.

    Posted by  on Jan 01, 2008 @ 02:17 PM

21. Turgon,

    For most Nationalists/Republicans and non tabloid reading UK mainlanders the Provos campaign is best understood in the context of the then ongoing historical difficulties between Britian and Ireland. The GFA/STA, in reforming the non ireland state, reallinging it’s constitutional position, letting the insurgents out of prison and putting then into government is de-facto recognition of this. However, most Unionists, DUP , UUP etc and Dublin 4 ideologues are in denial about this reality.

    Posted by  on Jan 01, 2008 @ 02:21 PM

22. An absolute classic piece of SF propaganda from lib 2016 there. An “unreserved apology”. Now any unionist who rejects such an apology can only be an evil flat earth bigot. If a previously sceptical unionist were, however, to accept lib’s comment then it would be another small step in “breaking down barriers”.

    Except, of course.

    Had lib actually wished to apologise for those remarks he could have done so at the time. The fact that is has taken this long tells us something in and of itself.

    Of course, however, lib is not apologising for holding those views, oh no he is apologising for his “dismissal of other peoples grief”. There is a world of difference between being sorry for dismissing people’s grief and being sorry for actually feeling that the cause of their grief was the the sad but completely reasonable consequence of the “nationalist population” having “fought back” and “when there is violence innocent people get hurt....end of story.”

    So no: this is no apology; this is a classic piece of weasel worded lying which could have come from Adams himself. Taken with all the other remarks about unionists from lib even on this thread; I doubt any but the most gullible will see this as anything other than more spin.

    “This blog should be about breaking down barriers” but you lib are one of the most effective builders of barriers on this web site. Ironically what you fail to understand (or in view of some of your other comments do understand and indeed enjoy) is that attitudes like yours simply help to ensure that there will never be a united Ireland even if by chance one day the border is removed.

    Now by all means indulge in a bit of pyscho babble and a bit of good old fashioned MOPEry. Then do not forget to tell me that my views and wishes are hopless and I will soon be defeated as well as being myself an unreconstructed hate filled bigot.

    Posted by  on Jan 01, 2008 @ 03:52 PM

23. Sammy,

    Firstly Happy New Year.

    I know well the analysis you put forward.

    My most fundamental problems with this purely pragmatic approach are that it is giving in to immorality and evil. You and many others will probably understand (whilst I am sure that lib 2016 will not) that my committment to opposing murder is greater than my committment to the union.

    I also believe that the current “solution” is no solution at all as it continues to allow crime to be committed by terrorists of both genres; and of course as I have stated before, I am sadly confident that political violence will re-emerge here in the not very distant future. The current agreement in my view makes that recurrance even more likely.

    Posted by  on Jan 01, 2008 @ 04:21 PM

24. Turgon, From your 11.53 -
    “We have yet to see any form of apology for what must be amongst the most insensitive remarks made on this web site.”

    We have now, and specifically relating to the effect of the remarks on others feelings. You asked for an apology for the remarks not for his views - and that’s waht he gave.
    You two ain’t ever going to be lovers but surely that’s enough for a truce at least?

    Posted by  on Jan 01, 2008 @ 04:46 PM

25. lib2016

    I was shocked at the “Enniskillen” remarks too.

    I accept your apology.

    Let’s all make this year better in terms of respecting each other and other’s points of view.

    Posted by  on Jan 01, 2008 @ 04:51 PM
Page 2 of 4 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.