‘It’s very complicated, nuanced’ William Crawley explained, talking about the violence of the Troubles. No it’s not.
- I’ve never met anyone who was opposed to political violence. That is to say, I’ve never met anyone belonging to a country which maintained an army, who didn’t pay their taxes. Armed forces maintenance is only possible by using public money. In other words, everyone who pays taxes literally supports political violence.
- Some highly respectable countries have persuaded their people to give them money so they can build bombs that, if used, would most certainly be war crimes and might well be the end of the human race. Countries like the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Israel. Is that moral, would you say?
- There was much time given on Raidio Uladh today to the choice of a peaceful path as opposed to political violence. But people didn’t always take that path of non-violence because they were high-minded pacifists. The IRA offered its volunteers the serious chance of death or long-term incarceration. Fearful, many nationalists chose a non-violent path. They did so partly because they- like Daniel O’Connell – didn’t think Irish independence was worth spilling a drop of blood over, but mainly because they didn’t want to have their own blood spilled. Self-preservation is a totally understandable response, but it shouldn’t masquerade as high-mindedness.
- Why are some people filled with horror at killings here, especially if they’re perpetrated by the other side, but don’t really give a tinker’s toss that every week in Yemen, around 100 people are killed, among them children?
- Why do we let the DUP off the hook by talking about the past? Let’s stick with now: the DUP are probably responsible for the deaths of many people suffering from life-threatening illnesses, who can’t get access to treatment because Stormont is stuck. Well done, Jeffrey.