Live by the sword die by the sword?

Andrew McCann’s talking points have caused me some discomfort in the past, but today’s must cause some difficulty for those who would wish to challenge it.

It’s certainly one for the normal nationalist parties to ponder on considering the planned celebration of the Easter rebellion this year.

  • Henry94

    Unravelling the single colour rubik’s cube of Andrew’s thought is a pleasure I have had to largely forgo since he introduced a bizarre editorial policy of changing terminology in our posts if he didn’t agree with it.

    But if he can’t tell the difference between a protest march and a government then he won’t find the answer to his own riddle.

    The consistency lies in the right of the Irish people to decide their own government and the right of that government to permit a march on the main street.

    The rioters like the British in 1916 oppose the basic rights of the Irish people.

    However if Andrew is going to be quoted here I assume he is allowed to come and defend himself.

  • ID Lottery

    Ultonian Scottis American said…

    I would love to comment, but was told earlier by a moderator:

    “You have already been requested not to bring arguments from other sites onto Slugger.”

  • slug

    One now fears for the safety of the Queen if she is ever invited to Dublin.

    I suppose Saturday is the answer to why why she hasn’t been.

  • The Beach Tree

    Michael

    Not terribly difficlt, if truth be told.

    The use of the blanket phrase “british presence” in reality covers two situations so extraordinarily different in value, as to render the statement facetious, and pointless.

    I would argue that was not, in truth, about expunging the british presence, but expunging the british state’s presence. An entirely different animal.

    One ‘enemy’ was a minor nuisance borne of tragedy, bigotry and delusion claiming temporary dominion over one street, an ‘enemy’ more to be pitied, and tolerated by all but the most unforgiving.

    The other the world’s largest imperial power claiming overlordship of an entire country against the will of it’s citizenry. Not exactly the same, no?

    Bout of course those sypathetic to both the british state, and that particular british presence (as opposed to for example the universally warmly recieved welsh rugby fans), will attempt to conflate the two to suit their agenda, and we must expect that.

    One could of course also draw genuine distinctions between the cod-military, naive and bizarrely prim violence of 1916, and the all-out thuggery and animalism of 2006, but perhaps that is a more difficult argument.

    The line on what is a ‘british presence’ is certainly not difficult.

  • TAFKABO

    Beach Tree.

    Answer me this.

    Is the Orange Order a British institution or an Irish institution?
    Those people on saturday objeced to the presence of Unionists and the Orange order.
    It was naked sectariansim, no more, no less.
    Please don’t try pretend it was something else.

  • Moyle Rover

    slug,
    do you not see a major difference between the visit of a neighbouring head of state and a march by loyalist paramilitaries and associated hangers on. I am sure most of the people of dublin do. Also this march was only objected to by the extemes of rabid anti agreement republicanism who made the most of a dain the spotlight. Since the CIRA are riddled with informers you do have to wonder about the Gaurds performace, very poor but strikingly similar to the mayday riot in dublin 2 or 3 years ago.
    Overall not a huge surprise that RSF fancied a riot, exactly what love ulster wanted also, the only people surprised were the gaurds, very poor from them.
    As for the queen, if she fancies tea in the phoenix park I am sure it wont choke her. Her son has managed it with no kerfuffle and he is commander in chief of the paras if I am not mistaken.

  • Henry94

    slug

    One now fears for the safety of the Queen if she is ever invited to Dublin.

    RSF made it clear that keeping the Q of E out was part of the reason for the protest against the march.

  • The Beach Tree

    TAFKABO

    I really don’t know where you got these straw man arguments, but I’m not going to rise to such obvious, and juvenile, trolling.

    I made a clear and logical distinction between a British presence and the British State’s presence. nothing more. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove, but your questions have nothing to do with anything I wrote.

    But for the record, since you ask…

    “Is the Orange Order a British institution or an Irish institution?”
    Presumably both (it is the Grand Orange something of Ireland, is it not?), but much more so British (in political and cultural terms).

    What it certainly is not is the British State – so the comparison with 1916 is false and facile. That was the point I made.

    I’m not sure who’s argument you read, but it clearly isn’t mine.

    “Those people on saturday objeced to the presence of Unionists and the Orange order.
    It was naked sectariansim, no more, no less. ”

    Is the Orange Order a church, or a sect? I rather admired Mary Harney’s line

    “I don’t have much respect for the Orange Order, because it is a sectarian, b:goted organisation, but I do respect people’s right to march.”

    I can agree with that.

    “Please don’t try pretend it was something else”

    I didn’t. I made no comment on the rioter’s motivations at all. Argue what I wrote, not what you think.

  • Moyle Rover

    TAFKABO,

    the sectarianism on display at the weekend was almost as blatant as that of the orange institutions reasons for existence. Shameful all round.

  • slug

    Moyle:

    I honestly don’t know whether there were active loyalist paramilitaries in that group or not. I would guess they were outnumbered by republican paramilitaries among the rioters.

    The people there who I do know about include:

    Danny Kennedy – a UUP MLA

    Jeffrey Donaldson – a DUP MP whose relatives were killed by republicans.

    Aileen Quinton – whose parents killed by the IRA in the Eniskillen bomb.

    Willie Frazer – who has had so many relatives killed by the IRA including his dad it is impossible to comprehend.

    We have established that these victims and representatives of the unionist community are not tolerated by this republican fringe. I believe the same republican fringe would not tolerate Dublin walkabout by Her Majesty, the Queen.

  • TAFKABO

    Beach Tree.

    You say that it was about expunging the british states presence, but I am arguing that the rioters clearly had an anti Orange Order agenda, and the Orange Order are an Irish institution, not a British one, depsite the allegiance most of it’s members feel towards Britain.
    My point is that you, like others, are trying to delude yourselves into believing that what we witnessed was a noble endeavour to rid the island of the British State, when it is really about ridding the island of every single person who dares to feel a kinship with the UK.

    The sad part for me is that it was fuelled by the likes of the President with her jingoistic speech about the rebellion.
    This brings us right back to the subject of the Blog, live by the sword, die by the sword.
    you and others can shout all you like about tearing down the state, but at the end of the day it is people who will be torn apart, not buildings.

  • slug

    Henry – so I heard.

    The Queen was able to visit Stormont a few years ago and Sinn Fein were pretty respectful, not protesting just staying away and leaving the SDLP to greet her. That seems to me the right thing and showed a level of tolerance. I really hope this intolerant RSF crew don’t get the wind in their sails now.

  • The Beach Tree

    “My point is that you, like others, are trying to delude yourselves into believing that what we witnessed was a noble endeavour to rid the island of the British State, when it is really about ridding the island of every single person who dares to feel a kinship with the UK.”

    I’m sorry, TAFKABO, but you’re tilting at windmills here. I made no comment whatsoever favouring the morality, or the intention, of the rioters.

    Rather, I actually called it “all out thuggery and animalism” – hardly a discription of being noble.

    It is clear that you are trying to conflate attitudes to 1916 and 2006, as did Andrew, by using ambiguous and inaccurate comparisons for your own ill-starred political motives.

    I refuse to accept that conflation, no matter how many times you try and make it, and if you choose to ignore that refusal, it is your blindness, not mine.

    I repeat, argue what I said, not what you think.

  • pimping blogger

    Is this what blogging is about? Hyping up your fellow bloggers to appear newsworthy? Great circle there!

  • The Dubliner

    Yes, it is possible to compare a minor civil disturbance with an uprising without exposing yourself to disquiet from a psychiatrist about your mental health, but only in a parallel universe.

  • The Dubliner

    Err, how was Henry attributed my “psychiatrist” comment above? Software glitch?

  • Henry94

    What do you mean your“psychiatrist” comment?

  • The Dubliner

    Oh, not important. For some reason, my last two comments on this thread were printed under your moniker. They show (to me, anyway) as: Henry945.

    I just don’t want you to suffer for my comments. 😉

  • Henry94

    It’s happening on a lot of threads. It seems to pick a name and stick to it.

  • Take Your Pick

    Okay, it has got to be a software glitch on this thread; perhaps a cookie problem.

    My last comment again shows as “Posted by Henry945 on Feb 27”

    – The Dubliner

  • andy

    this is turning into some nightmarish Flann o’brian novel.
    One aspect of an pseudonymous character is arguing about its identity with another manifestation of same character.

    Andy
    (or presumably Henry 946 or something…)

  • The Beach Tree

    I haven’t as yet has any problems – is it really a software issue?

    – The Beach Tree