I feel sorry for Norman Tebbitt. Both he and his wife suffered in the Brighton bomb explosion and his wife, according to reports, is confined to a wheel-chair for life. If that had happened to me and my wife, I would find it extremely difficult/impossible to forgive those who had done the deed. And I wouldn’t feel too good about people associated with those who did the deed, either. I would, in short, remain bitter and vengeful.
But hurt can be overcome if you have a strong spirit. I remember interviewing Bernadette McAliskey some years after she and her husband were attacked by a loyalist gang. The UFF entered the couple’s home and shot both of them multiple times as their children watched. There were considerable grounds for believing that state forces colluded in that attack. Yet Mrs McAliskey said she had no satisfaction years later in hearing of the killing of Ray Smallwoods, one of the men involved in the attack on her and her husband. The other day Jude Whyte, whose mother was shot by a loyalist, said that were the killer to be identified, he wouldn’t want him to go to jail,but rather take part in a truth and reconciliation process. And there are others like Gordon Wilson whose daughter died in the Enniskillen bomb who showed similar ability to overcome great pain and grief.
Obviously Norman Tebbitt is not of that group. Not only does he not forgive, he hopes that dissident republicans will shoot Martin McGuinness “in the back” for toasting Queen Elizabeth. I would have thought sentiments like that, so similar to hopes of DUP councillor Ruth Patterson, were incitements to hatred and hence illegal. But I don’t expect to see Norman Tebbitt or Ruth Patterson facing any legal penalties.
Life does strange things to us all, and maybe saddest and strangest is what hurt can do. The immediate physical damage is often less damaging than the long-term psychological damage. Confucius hit the bull’s-eye: before you embark on a journey of revenge, he said, dig two graves.
Jude : That was excellent .Especially the Confucius quote..
The truth is that hatreds have damaged all of us and Mr. Tebbit has certainly every right to be bitter in those extreme circumstances.i’ve never been one to take the violent route if it can be avoided by reason, but if someone hurt or killed my family i’d be angry too.
..As I type ,there’s a bit on the radio about the naming of a park after a republican. What exactly does anyone hope to achieve by doing something like this. I’m no lover of unionism’s crazier climes but I can see this is a divisive thing to do at a time when we are trying to unite……Ultimately It’s a little crookedness which with a little perception could have been avoided….
How that will bring people together here as a united people ?,If , as nationalists we want to unite Ireland, this is a poor first step.. I really fail to see. how that will encourage unionist movement. It will only cause more resentment. As i type Jeffrey Donaldson is arguing his version and there is no meeting of minds …they are presently delving into whataboutery so there’s no new thinking there. They’d been better naming the park after a poet instead of creating another platform for a row….Just a little forethought in a very ling game …not instant gratification for the local republicans alone….which will delay any unity a little more.
Norman Tebbitt , like a lot of people here and in the UK have been so damaged by the past conflict that it will take another generation to get over the hurt. Most of us who lived through the lot of it and survived it are in a very different place and hopefully any future rows will be sorted out with the pen rather than the gun and bomb.
So far Sinn Fein is making some of the right noises if it wants a truly “united” Ireland, but naming communal parks or whatever , in honour of one “side” or t’other is not the way to go forward.
.
paddy, you seem to think that the unionists want to be bought chocolates and flowers. They don’t. They want nothing to do with Ireland or the Irish. The programme you were listening to started with an item on violence against women, how sometimes things get out of hand between wives/husbands/partners but the basic truth is that these people are (mostly) women haters and if their are periods of calm there will inevitably violence to come. Unionism were once in a position to beat their wives but not now and are coming round to the ‘fairplay,equality, moving forward’ bit. They show no comprehension of the hurt/hatred they cause by all their Queen’s bridges, their Craigavons etc and any one who says ‘what about’ is a republican extremist raking up old sores. He deviously tried to link MacRaois into the shooting at Kingsmills, citing guilt by association. What about the murderous regiment in which he was a little corporal. So either forget the past and start anew on a fair basis or continue on as we have done – suit ourselves.
I have a couple of hives of honeybees. Every summer around july the hives come under attack by squadrons of wasps trying to steal the honey. It’s a right old war in the air with many losses . The only way to protect the honeybees is to trap the wasps in bottle-traps of sweet sugary water.. I literally have to kill the wasps by kindness. They die glutted on the sweet treat.
Take the bitterness out of the equation and we may have a starting place to begin arguing the real economics of a future united country..I think that is what Marty is at but a lot of his fpllowers still haven’t got the picture.
I think most of us would already be aware that all politicians, tory,unionist, republican, Fine Gael etc all have ambivalent attitudes to violence. They all believe violence is acceptable in particular circumstances.
I just wish the tories and their friends would stop pretending they abhor violence – they’re in favour of violence when it suits their purpose. We knew that already.
Well said Jude. The naming of statues, roads, streets, parks, after people is a way of preserving their memory. In Derry, a Nationalist city, most of our streets, parks etc were named after British militarists, the Monarchy, etc. The people were never consulted. Raymond Mc Creesh was a prisoner of a war, who gave his young life so that we could live free in a new Ireland. The people in the area were consulted and approved .
Maggie May
He gave his life for nothing in the end.What we have could have been achieved without his and many other deaths.
And you forgot to mention he not only gave his life, he took the lives of others too.
The vast bulk of the catholic/nationalist population adopted peaceful means to achieve their objectives whether it be an end to partition or equal treatment as ‘citizens’ of the UK.
the catholic/nationalist population largely rejected physical force republicanism since partition right up until the early 70’s. Peaceful means were used. The IRA attempted a resurgence in the 40’s and the 50’s and this violence was rejected by the bulk of the catholic/nationalist. What did the old nationalist party achieve through peaceful means between partition and up until the civil rights association were being attacked by unionist mobs and the R.U.C.?
Anton
It’s true the Nationalist party did not prove very effective, but that is hardly an argument for embarking on a 30 year civil war.
My own view is that Unionism would have had to concede at least as much as we have now, a long time ago if the IRA had not given them the perfect excuse to dig in.
Civil Rights action, the integration of Europe, the rise of instant global news reporting, and successive British Governments which we now know were open to a United Ireland (Callaghan and Thatcher),all suggest to me that the Provo campaign was not only excessive in its method and duration but also ultimately futile.
You might argue that the hunger strikers helped bring about the rise of Sinn Fein as an electoral force,but that too might have been achieved much earlier with much less bloodshed.
giordanobruno
I was not saying it was an argument for ’embarking on a 30 year civil war’ not least that I doubt many people who joined the IRA in the early 70’s envisaged that the war would last so long. Also, As it takes two sides to have a civil war it would be rather bizarre of me to seek to justify the actions of both sides in the ‘civil war’
Nor was it a criticism of those people who pursued their political objectives through peaceful and constitutional means. However, I am saying that the system established by Britain in Northern Ireland from 1920 onwards was designed in such a way to make it impossible for the minority population to achieve their political, social & economic objectives through peaceful means.
It seems to me that the British state in it’s Northern Ireland policy spent 50 years doing what ever it could to give some nationalist people the perfect excuse to re-introduce the IRA into the equation. An interesting question is – was this by design or ignorance and stupidity?
We (meaning nationalists/republicans) should have had what we have now in 1920 never-mind arguing what we could have had in the 70’s or 80’s if the IRA had not been shooting and bombing. We (read our ancestors) could have had what we have now 90 years ago if the British state and its Irish Loyalists had not consistently prevented the operation of normal democratic society and thereby give the perfect pretext for violence from a minority of the minority community in N.I.
You said :
”Civil Rights action, the integration of Europe, the rise of instant global news reporting, and successive British Governments which we now know were open to a United Ireland (Callaghan and Thatcher),all suggest to me that the Provo campaign was not only excessive in its method and duration but also ultimately futile”
The violent backlash against the civil rights association has been well-documented many times by many writers better than me so I won’t go into the detail of that snd i’m sure you know plenty about it already. All I’ll say is violence begets more violence.
Much of what you are saying here is written with the benefit of hindsight I feel. Nobody in the 60’s or 70’s could have foreseen the extent of European integration development. Even senior people in politics across Europe working to develop international European institutions in the 50’s and onwards will acknowledge that they did not know the extent to which it would alter sovereignty across the European continent. Furthermore the process of European integration accelerated from the mid 80’s onwards culminating in the establishment of the European Union in 1992 whereby the E.U as we know it today came into being. Is it possible that the IRA ceasefire just 2 years later is much less of a coincidence than conventional wisdom says ? Possibly I think.
My point is it’s a little hollow to criticise Sinn Fein and the IRA on the basis that ‘their war’ was futile because of European integration when they ended ‘their war’ a short time after the transforming effects of European integration were cemented
The technology for INSTANT global news reporting was not developed until the late 1980’s. The 1991 Gulf War was the first major world event where instant footage appeared across the world.
If British Prime Ministers were open to a united Ireland then maybe they should have said so. It certainly would have taken the steam out of the IRA. I can’t think of anything more likely to encourage the IRA of the 70’s to stop than a British prime minister publicly (or even via private communication with Sinn Fein IRA) saying they are open to a United Ireland.
Instead Thatcher insisted on a futile criminalisation policy which arguably increased support for the IRA due in part at least that it was simply a nonsense that the IRA was ‘just a criminal conspiracy’ as she claimed to believe. She also made ridiculous statements like ‘Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley’ and she only grudgingly accepted the Anglo Irish Agreement.
Do you know of her public humiliation of Garret Fitzgerald before the Anglo-Irish where she carried on like she was Emperor of the Roman Empire with her ‘that is out that is out…’ speech
Apparently she is to have replied when asked why she agreed to the Anglo-Irish agreement, after years of preventing such developments in conjunction with Dublin, with ”because those bloody Americans made me do it”.
All these things and much more besides makes the idea that Thatcher was open to a united Ireland very dubious .
Is it possible that you’ve read something from one of our many revisionist historian embellishing a comment Thatcher made in private once into greater importance than it really deserves ?
Also do you know who Raymond McCreesh killed ?
Maggie May :
Somebody…….probably me…… [Ha!!}…..once said ,that the graveyards are full of memories that no one will remember in a hundred year’s time…even our most beloved family members.
.Ask most youngsters what all those old battles were about or why such and such a street in their home town is called a particular name and they will not know. Most of it will mean very little in years to come and will be as distant as the Crimean war. Grab any student in digs in the Holy Land in Belfast and ask them about their street’s name of origin and don’t be surprised if they haven’t a clue.. This is now….
In the present climate there’s no point in naming a street, a bridge or whatever after someone who is “perceived” to be an enemy when we’re already carping about statues of Craig or towns named Craigavon whom we already “perceive” to be enemies.. We’ve done all that already ….All the mistakes that ever could be made in Ireland have been made a thousand times over …if it hadn’t stopped when it did , cremation would have been the only choice for folk because the graveyards are brimming already…
.. If we get into tit for tat now , we’ll never get anywhere.
spot on Jude…as we know only too well here there is no legitimacy in the taking of anothers’ life or indeed a league table of suffering or trauma …just the lasting damage left by the conflict…which by its very nature became attritional …peace here, is the road less travelled as history shows us and naturally it will no doubt prove to be long and winding…I will keep your very apt Confuscius quote for my children. In less fortunate parts outside of the first world(sic) the graves continue to be dug with gusto sadly.
Even Nationalist towns are choc a bloc with bridges, hospitals and libraries named after British pirates. I agree with madadh mór about Jeffrey`s UDR days. Unionists will never change their one eyed view of the conflict. I do think it is time for an amnesty. I am tired hearing about things that happened forty hears ago. The dead are dead. Stop using them for political gain, whether you are a dissident or a member of the DUP.
Nother Jude :
It’s not that i’m disagreeing about all these british monuments and so on. I’m saying that by copying the very behaviour that you don’t like in the first place, you make yourself no better than the people you despise…
How can you say you don’t like it being done to ourselves and then the first chance we get , we repeat the very same behaviour. That sounds a lot like revenge. to me …so I suppose we can continue to poke each other’s eyes out….
As for Wee Jeffrey and his UDR days .Well he had a choice too. Not every protestant joined a military group that was obviously a well- paid part -time gig, so you could say he’s either very greedy or he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing for his lot….
I don’t agree at all because from my perspective the society was already a divided one and the side he was on had already beaten the Civil Rights marchers off the streets and the people who supported him were gaily burning people out of their homes and rallying to mobsters like Ian Paisley. I don’t see how anyone could see the condone anything that unionism was doing… and still be a moralist.. There had to be a brute reaction at some point….Nobody will turn the other cheek forever …no matter what the church says…..
I know how we got to this point…How do we move on further without hurting anyone else from either side?……Well Marty just shook the Queen’s hand again and neither of them burst into flames and spontaneously combusted …so there goes the photo opportunity……..
Maybe it’s a start….
.
Well stated Paddy kool.as for you giordano, the current struggle was statred by peaceful civil rights marches, one man one vote equal oppurtunities for housing( remember that house i tyrone where Austin Currrie squatted?) etc. These peaceful demonstarions were battoned and beaten of the streets( Burntollet, Duke Street) The first casualties were caused by the UVF( remember Gusty spence) and sammy devenny( police).
As stated, one can only turn the other cheek for so long. Not defending all the violence, but Unionist intransigence was/is a major cause of the troubles. Unionist violence , and there is/was plenty of it is as responsible for the conflict as anything else.
Donaldson ‘s UDR stint is not surprising, the UDR was not known for equal enforcement of the law.
paul
I can well understand spontaneous outbursts of violence as acts of self defence or in the heat of the moment. That cannot justify the prolonged campaign of the IRA, which was not only brutal but counter productive.
There is no dispute that Unionist intransigence created the conditions. But when you or I or anyone picks up a gun and start killing people, the primary responsibility must be with the person with the gun. We are responsible for our own actions.
True giordano, but there was a prolonged campaign by state sponsored loyalists groups that must shoulder the blame as well and therein lies the problem. While republicans have made some admissions of regret for loss of life, I feel many of the Unionist parties, notably the DUP, TUV, UKIP and PUP feel that all their actions were justified and that every death in the toubles can be linked back to the IRA. There can be no justification for Kingsmills, Le Mon , Enniskillen and other actions. But neither can there be any justification for Ballymurphy, Bloody Sunday, Miami Showband shooting, MRF murders and all the actions of the ;Glenane gang”, all of which were committed by forces of the state or by state sponsored loyalist gangs. What i want to hear from Unionism and Loyalism is ” yes we were at fault too” I am still waiting.
Paul, to para(military) phrase the great Diana Ross, you will still be waiting in ten years time. The Unionists want us to agree the IRA were the source of all the `trouble`, they will never condemn the actions of their regiments and cun…constabularies. Occasionally, they will put the boot (gently of course) into the Loyalist groups but as they see it, the so called `security forces` were totally without fault. Even if Nationalists were to accept the Unionists theory the DUP and co. would still carp on about something else. I heard the British SOS on tv last night mentioning `flags, parades and the past`. Now, what occasion do we know that has all three of these toxins? Mmm, July springs to mind.
Did Mr Tebbit know prince william was in the IRA? breaking news, BBC scoop (gaffe) Enjoy!!!
http://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/oglach-liam-cymru-our-once-and-future-king-billy-was-in-the-ra/
Anton
Thanks for the comprehensive answer. You make some fair points. It is true I am judging events with hindsight, as we all do.
Did the IRA know how long the whole mess would go on? Almost certainly not. But they were prepared for a long war as Gerry Adams said in 1973. Of course he wasn’t in the IRA so maybe that is not relevant.
What was the strategy to get the Brits to abandon 3/4 million Unionists? What chance did it ever have of working?
I believe the futility of it should have been apparent fairly quickly.
Humphrey Atkins gave the Irish government to believe that the Thatcher administration were not against a United Ireland but could not come out and say so publicly. This was in government documents released under the 30 year rule I believe.
Of course all the other players did their bit in prolonging things, but in discussing here the IRA campaign I fail to understand the reasons for continuing when they had the option to stop at any time.
As for McCreesh he was linked to a number of killings including Kingsmill as well as being convicted of attempted murder.
For accuracy I will amend my comment to ‘he probably took the lives of others’.
That’s rather big of you, Gio – ‘He probably took the lives of others’. Evidence?
He was in the ‘Ra. So he would be going through a Diplock court so you don’t really need evidence 😉
Jude
Glad to see you will be asking for evidence for any such claims in future.
Raymond McCreesh was a member of the S Armagh brigade of the IRA.
They weren’t out scrumping apples. Their purpose was to ambush and kill British soldiers.
The point I was making to Maggie May is that all too often such people are remembered as having ‘given their lives’ without any mention of the effect they had on the lives of others.
It is sad that such a young man died as he did and sadder still that he lived so violently.
So I’ll take that as a ‘No evidence’ then, gio…
Jude
He was caught setting an ambush. He was carrying an armalite used in other attacks, including I think kingsmill. He used his job as a milkman to monitor the enemy, thus helping prepare lethal ambushes.
Now that would not convict him in court, but I think it is not unreasonable for us to link him to other deaths. How many people did his unit in S Armagh kill while he was active? Does he carry no responsibility for any of those?
Do I think he probably took the lives of others? Yes.
You constructed a whole piece based on Alan Black’s statement that state agents were involved in Kingsmill. I don’t recall you asking about evidence.
So tell me Jude,do you think he did not? Do you think he was the most inept IRA volunteer in S Armagh?
Maybe he just made the tea.
I’ll take that as a second ‘No’, then…
Not sure he was linked to Kngsmill? ” He probably took the lives of others” Wow, that is right out of Special Branch mode thinking
Jude
If you want to refute any of the points I made in my last post feel free.