Northern Ireland is insulated from the real world by a UK government seeking to keep the place as pacified as possible until society there becomes (relatively) normal. That molly-coddling will not last forever.
” They feel self-conscious and tend to deliberately make a point of never saying the difficult word combination of “Northern Ireland” and only use easier sounds such as “North””
_________
Fork handles,
This might blow your mind, but many people describe NI as the “the north” in common parlance simply because it’s less cumbersome than the official name. A lot of unionists describe the ROI as “the south” in normal conversation for precisely the same reason. Mental eh? Lock them up.
Incidentally, the sickness you describe above must be some variant of the one that prevents so many people who were born, bread and buttered on an island called Ireland from referring to themselves as “Irish”. Oh the horror of that word. “Irish”. There I said it again.
” the “conflict” consisted mainly of Republicans attacking and killing a load of people; Loyalists attacking and killing a smaller number of people back.. ”
________________
Offensive, mealy-mouthed, bollocks.
Take a gander at CAIN and note that the first civilian to die was at the hands of Loyalists, the first cop to die was murdered by Loyalists and the first bombing was committed by Loyalists (masquerading as Republicans).
But sure the Loyalists weren’t the aggressors, they were only killing a smaller number of people back.
“Never mind all that lark about reasonable force and acting within the law. We might as well do away with inquests and give the security forces a free hand to murder at will anyone who they believe is a threat.”
There is a difference between a guy running for a train and two lads in jumpsuits waving kalashnikovs around.
“And if the British Army reserve the right to shoot unarmed people, then they have no right to complain about getting shot at themselves?”
If anybody claims the right to shoot at an unarmed individual, then they forfeit the right to scream about human rights when it happens to them. In my opnion.
“I think the republican line is farctionally more subtle (though no less flawed). From what is frequently stated here and elsewhere republicans claim that since the security forces claimed moral superiority over the IRA, then they (the security forces) had to abide by higher standards.”
_____
Conversely, the IRA themselves claimed moral superiority over the British Army by virtue of the fact that their cause was a just one. Why, then, didn’t they themselves feel obligated to conduct themselves in a manner befitting of the “good guys”?
“Those Brits think they’re better than us, so we’re allowed to behave worse than them”. It’s just so convoluted.
When it comes to the troubles, I would dispute the notion that the words “British” and “morally superior” belong in the same sentence. But at least the Crown Forces never came come out of a firefight screaming about their human rights.
Ed Moloney’s Voices from the Grave: Two Men’s War in Ireland has received considerable attention in the press and in the public realm since its publication earlier this year. Although the book relates the experiences of the Provisional IRA’s Brendan Hughes and the PUP/UVF’s David Ervine, much of the discussion has focused on Hughes’ stories [...] read our review »
Having somehow managed to avoid watching a single episode of the widely praised West Wing TV series I was delighted to discover the entire Box set in my Christmas stocking – and with enough spare time over the holidays to give it a good lash. But with 10 episodes of the first series under my [...] read our review »
I’m currently trawling through Norman Davies’s fabulous new tome – “Vanished Kingdoms” – Five stars in the (London) Telegraph’s review from Ben Wilson: All the nations that have ever lived have left their footsteps in the sand,” writes Norman Davies. “The traces fade with every tide, the echoes grow faint, the images are fractured, the human [...] read our review »
Comment on Normality and rugby
on 19 May 2012 at 11:39 pm
“Well done to all British clubs :Hearts and Chelsea won, and Ulster were beaten, 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.”
_____
Oh dear. Sit down Ulsterman.
Go to comment
Comment on Unemployment in Ireland: a tale of two countries…
on 16 May 2012 at 10:32 am
Northern Ireland is insulated from the real world by a UK government seeking to keep the place as pacified as possible until society there becomes (relatively) normal. That molly-coddling will not last forever.
Incidentally, Northern Ireland is not a country.
Go to comment
Comment on “are you serious?” – redux
on 8 May 2012 at 7:34 pm
” They feel self-conscious and tend to deliberately make a point of never saying the difficult word combination of “Northern Ireland” and only use easier sounds such as “North””
_________
Fork handles,
This might blow your mind, but many people describe NI as the “the north” in common parlance simply because it’s less cumbersome than the official name. A lot of unionists describe the ROI as “the south” in normal conversation for precisely the same reason. Mental eh? Lock them up.
Incidentally, the sickness you describe above must be some variant of the one that prevents so many people who were born, bread and buttered on an island called Ireland from referring to themselves as “Irish”. Oh the horror of that word. “Irish”. There I said it again.
Go to comment
Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
on 4 May 2012 at 3:27 pm
” the “conflict” consisted mainly of Republicans attacking and killing a load of people; Loyalists attacking and killing a smaller number of people back.. ”
________________
Offensive, mealy-mouthed, bollocks.
Take a gander at CAIN and note that the first civilian to die was at the hands of Loyalists, the first cop to die was murdered by Loyalists and the first bombing was committed by Loyalists (masquerading as Republicans).
But sure the Loyalists weren’t the aggressors, they were only killing a smaller number of people back.
Go to comment
Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
on 3 May 2012 at 6:02 pm
“Never mind all that lark about reasonable force and acting within the law. We might as well do away with inquests and give the security forces a free hand to murder at will anyone who they believe is a threat.”
There is a difference between a guy running for a train and two lads in jumpsuits waving kalashnikovs around.
Go to comment
Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
on 3 May 2012 at 6:00 pm
What are you talking about “sidestep”? When I said “anybody”, what did you think I meant?
Had the IRA got the upper hand in that firefight, what would they have done to the wounded soldiers? Killed them stone dead.
I’m a nationalist, but the whole “live by the sword, die by the sword” thing absolutely applies in scenarios such as this one as far as I’m concerned.
Go to comment
Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
on 3 May 2012 at 5:50 pm
“And if the British Army reserve the right to shoot unarmed people, then they have no right to complain about getting shot at themselves?”
If anybody claims the right to shoot at an unarmed individual, then they forfeit the right to scream about human rights when it happens to them. In my opnion.
Go to comment
Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
on 3 May 2012 at 5:45 pm
“Seriously, what are you talking about?”
______
If the Ra reserves the right to shoot unarmed people, then they have no right to complain about getting shot at themselves.
Is that an unreasonable statement?
Go to comment
Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
on 3 May 2012 at 5:32 pm
“So if the IRA kill a few soldiers that’s fine too?”
I’m not saying it’s fine. No aspect of the troubles was fine.
Go to comment
Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
on 3 May 2012 at 5:27 pm
“I think the republican line is farctionally more subtle (though no less flawed). From what is frequently stated here and elsewhere republicans claim that since the security forces claimed moral superiority over the IRA, then they (the security forces) had to abide by higher standards.”
_____
Conversely, the IRA themselves claimed moral superiority over the British Army by virtue of the fact that their cause was a just one. Why, then, didn’t they themselves feel obligated to conduct themselves in a manner befitting of the “good guys”?
“Those Brits think they’re better than us, so we’re allowed to behave worse than them”. It’s just so convoluted.
When it comes to the troubles, I would dispute the notion that the words “British” and “morally superior” belong in the same sentence. But at least the Crown Forces never came come out of a firefight screaming about their human rights.
Go to comment