Is the conflict in Ireland over?
Only a year ago at the start of Irelands centenary of the Easter Rising, I would have said undoubtedly, most definitely and without any doubt whatsoever.
Now a year later, I am finding it difficult to really care be honest.
So, what has changed?
Sinn Fein have tirelessly promoted peace and reconciliation on this island and beyond for the past 20 years at least which tied in nicely with the equality, fairness and unity called for in the Easter proclamation.
As a result, the Irish economy all over this island is benefitting from the stability that brings.
Could anyone seriously deny that is the truth. Judging by the comments on Martin McGuinness’s retirement from politics, suggests the people know it is the truth and even the southern media struggle to go against the obvious truth.
So where has all the hate and resentment, lies and deceit, corruption and disdain directed against Irish nationalism been coming from?
How has the optimism and confidence I had only 12 months ago turned into despair and resentment?
The first shock to my system which I still have not recovered from, was the venom and hate which flowed from the Irish general election of 2016.
It is simply remarkable how much Martin McGuinness has changed in 12 months to force the mealy-mouthed well-wishes that people like Enda Kenny, Charlie Flanagan, Michael Martin are choking on today.
I have much more respect for Ian Paisley Jnr who I do believe was genuine and for whom I would gladly give my vote if he was standing in my area.
In fact I would rather share power with that sort of unionism and certainly loyalism than the Mike Nesbits, Arlene Fosters and Jeffrey Donaldsons of this world.
Or even the Enda Kenny, Michael Noonan and Michael Martins who put me off the notion of a united Ireland, which is a joke it is so divided today, not so much along the border where people on both sides are the same people who share the same daily struggles, but with the deeper south who can all go fuck themselves for all I care.
Indeed I would have no issue with money going towards 12th night bonfires to keep them safe, to help remove what politically inspired hate we can from such events and preserve the loyalist culture and traditions, just as I expect the same respect towards preservation of Irish culture which people like Nelson McCausland and Gregory Campbell work so hard to destroy and I just don’t see the southern elite understanding the need for such bonfires or even have any greater respect for the promotion of Irish beyond vote grabbing.
They prefer the sham fights over rent with the landlord elite in both Fine Gael and Fianna Fail set to cash in on the 12% increase over 3 years.
I don’t expect perfect politicians, but I do expect decent human beings and governance in both parts of Ireland has these in very short supply.
So much for the centenary of the Easter proclamation, Enda Kenny could hardly hold his head up with shame.
The southern establishment have shown their true colours in their resentment of the troubled north. They are unworthy to have the Irish tricolour as their flag.
Post Brexit they have been forced to deal with the issues northerners have had to cope with all of our lives as it may soon impact the southern economy.
The UK are taking back control of their borders. Is Ireland even considering taking control of our borders?
According to Enda Kenny, yes, he has made it very clear the Irish border ends with the 26 counties and focus should be on minimising customs checks while he waits for “our share of firms leaving the UK after brexit” that Noonan pronounced he is so optimistic off.
I even think these two dolts genuinely believe this but the sad thing for me is the Irish electorate also not only believed it but were so readily willing to abandon the north of our country once again this time for selfish personal economic security. The fact it is crap will dawn on them later this year and the current Dail will certainly collapse as a result.
These people sicken me to the point I am questioning whether I even want a united Ireland any more.
I am aware there are issues on both parts of the island, the DUP are clearly the most corrupt party on these islands, the banking crisis and Ireland’s ill-preparation for it off the back of too many landlord TDs cashing in on the poor financial governance the world succumbed to over greed.
Many now foolishly believe capitalism is the problem and somehow the failed policies of Marxism will be the panacea for Irelands ills.
Capitalism drives economies, it creates ambition, drive and efficiency in business.
But introduce capitalist blinkers into government and economic regulations, and you get globalisation, exploitation, unfair distribution of wealth, the rise of the proletariat class. The EU has capitalist governance at its core, yet many self-proclaimed socialists are the EUs biggest supporters.
Sensible socialists such as Jeremy Corbyn are not anti-capitalist, will ensure the UK escape the EU, and will support Irish unification which will be our only defence against crushing economic changes under way driven by the new direction the UK, US and Russia are driving which will turn global economics on its head in a new post globalisation era.
But is it all too little too late?
It was the threat to the London economy that led Britain to support the Good Friday agreement. I have no doubt they genuinely will accept Irish unification.
The truth is they have absolvedthemselves of all responsibility for the continued partition of Ireland since.
If Dublin wanted unity it could have it easily.
They don’t and the enemy of Irish unity today is not London but Dublin.
They have chosen to protect their bank balances at the expense of Irish citizens.
Now those bank balances are under threat from brexit, they are keeping options open and will finally start making noises about unity.
So why is it my heart and every instinct in my being telling me they can go to hell?
Stormont must remain closed until the UUP, DUP and unionism in general learn to respect Irish nationalism, until the British government drops its national security veto and acknowledges the conflict was not one sided.
Likewise Irish unity must also be off the table until the civil war parties prove they are capable of representing all of the people on this island as was the wishes of the rebels as laid out in the Easter proclamation.
In fact, Ireland needs to be rubbed out and start again.
If only we had our own Donal O’Trump to make Ireland great again in the eyes of Irish people at least.
Don’t be getting yourself in a tizzy,Jessica. The struggle will only begin when the Britishers leave. That should separate the sheep from the goats.
“Sinn Fein have tirelessly promoted peace and reconciliation on this island and beyond for the past 20 years at least”
And so, as the party most responsible for the violence, they should have.
Let’s not get too misty eyed, though. It was the realisation thst their terror campaign was futile thst led them to end it, not a change of heart and recognition that it was wrong. Still today, they seem to glorify and legitimise it.
While we can praise the political skill of McGuinness and Adams in steering the monstrous Provo movement away from terror, and the warmth and openness of McGuinness once established in power, let’s not forget that their commitment to peace is realpolitik not principle.
It started with Gusty Spence murdering but facts don’t matter to you.
“It started with Gusty Spence murdering but facts don’t matter to you.”
1. How ‘it started’ isn’t relevant to the point to which you are responding.
2. It’s not a fact that Spence ‘started it’, but an opinion.
3. Facts do matter to me.
“How ‘it started’ isn’t relevant ”
How on earth is how the conflict started not relevant?
That wouldn’t by any chance be, because it was unionism which started it?
The british army also could have prevented the conflict by dealing with the unionist mobs and protecting the catholic areas that they were meant to in the first place.
Instead when they were too soft and unionist mobs started attacking them, they chose to side with the unionist mobs and put catholic areas fighting back under military curfew. They also stood by along with RUC while loyalist gunmen attacked catholic neighbourhoods unobstructed.
That is what led to the PIRAs existence and the prolonged conflict which ensued.
All of that is fact MT.
“How on earth is how the conflict started not relevant?:
Rather obviously, because whoever ‘started it’, the Provisionals were responsible for most of it.
re:2
I agree with you that Spence ‘starting it’ is an opinion rather than a fact. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the circumstances which led to the violence here.
“And so, as the party most responsible for the violence, they should have.”
Ian Paisley and his unionist associates, most of which are in the DUP is the party most responsible for the violence that started the conflict MT.
Perhaps unionism will acknowledge their role one day.
There will never be peace until you do and the british veto on truth is removed.
“Ian Paisley and his unionist associates, most of which are in the DUP is the party most responsible for the violence that started the conflict MT.”
Provisional republicans were responsible for most of the violence.
“There will never be peace until you do and the british veto on truth is removed.”
We’ve had peace since the Provo and loyalist ceasefires.
First of all, it is a positive that you don’t deny unionism started the conflict and that is was driven by Ian Paisley and his unionist associates or that most of them are or at least were in the DUP, a political party Ian claimed would give political cover to loyalist murder.
We are going back a considerable time, not sure how many are still around let alone still active in the party.
Now lets address this responsibility thing.
Yes, the PIRA were the most successful group in the conflict, in other words they did the most damage.
No one is denying that.
When you decide to engage in war or conflict, you dont do so to make friends. You have made a difficult choice and a commitment to engage in murder and mayhem, to obey orders regardless how abhorrent they are to you, you have dedicated your life to the destruction of your enemy and accepted you must live with the consequences of your actions no matter what they may be. In all conflicts that always ends up with innocents killed and maimed, black propaganda is designed to sow discord which results in loss of trust and paranoia leading to your enemy turning on their own.
That is the reality of war or conflict, that is what it means.
Some find it easy, but most find it soul destroying, mind twisting and psychologically draining.
The longer it goes on, the more people are effected and the more traumatised society becomes until communities are at breaking point and on the verge of mass exodus to escape and seek refuge.
There is no justification of war or conflict, there is no just war theory – only excuses to placate the population.
The only sensible solution is not to let conflict start in the first place.
With all this first hand experience and hindsight, it is not encouraging that unionism still has not learned that lesson or that the southern establishment and its media care more about party politics than they do about pursuing the unity and reconciliation of this island..
“Yes, the PIRA were the most successful group in the conflict, in other words they did the most damage.
No one is denying that.”
It’s despicable that you consider murder to be success.
But at least you acknowledge that the Provos were responsible for the most violence and thus it was only right that they did most of the heavy lifting to end it.
“There is no justification of war or conflict”
Yet you supported PIRA slaughter. Naked hypocrisy. Hang your head in shame.
“It’s despicable that you consider murder to be success.”
So if you have a child heading off into a conflict they never started, would you be saying to them. Now, don’t you go killing anyone over there or doing anything despicable.
Of course we would prefer they didn’t have to go at all, but if they were determined, my advice would be, if anyone threatens you, just kill them, don’t even think twice about it, look after yourself and make sure you come home safe.
And no, I don’t think I feel any shame for holding this view. I would however be ashamed if I didn’t. Such is the way I am.
“But at least you acknowledge that the Provos were responsible for the most violence and thus it was only right that they did most of the heavy lifting to end it. ”
I would have no problem with that at all MT, of course not.
I was disappointed at the time and when I read the GFA my stomach buckled, but in time I came to respect it was the right thing to do and my support gradually switched from the IRA to Sinn Fein and now conflict would be the last thing I would want to see return thanks to the positive work they have done and the changes I can see already taking place.
“There is no justification of war or conflict”
Yet you supported PIRA slaughter. Naked hypocrisy. Hang your head in shame.”
I think I covered this in point 1.
If unionism and the british thought they could start another conflict in Ireland and somehow not meet a determined opposition, I hope now you understand just how determined indigenous populations can be. Dublin should pay particular heed to this as the Irish people are indigenous to the whole of this island and not the 26 county Ireland being fostered.
If they screw up on the economy over EU and Brexit, they may face an irate population themselves.
“So if you have a child heading off into a conflict they never started, would you be saying to them. Now, don’t you go killing anyone over there or doing anything despicable.”
PIRA death squad members weren’t ‘heading off into a conflict’. They were staying at home and joining illegal and illegitimate death squads.
“Of course we would prefer they didn’t have to go at all, but if they were determined, my advice would be, if anyone threatens you, just kill them, don’t even think twice about it, look after yourself and make sure you come home safe.”
Shameful, disgusting views from an arch hypocrite.
“And no, I don’t think I feel any shame for holding this view. I would however be ashamed if I didn’t. Such is the way I am.”
Utterly shameless in your despicable views.
“I think I covered this in point 1.”
You didn’t.
I was trying to communicate with you on a level you might understand MT, though perhaps you aren’t a parent.
Or perhaps there just isn’t any level you can accept any point of view other than your own.
I guess what this election will really reveal, is what percentage of unionism is as intransigent as you are MT.
Ian Paisley jnr has proven our differences are not irreconcilable and that there is an element of unionism capable of compromise, forgiveness and progressive thinking which for a while I did not believe existed. This election could be the last opportunity for some time however.
Lets hope we all give it one last chance to get it right.
“I guess what this election will really reveal, is what percentage of unionism is as intransigent as you are MT.”
I’m not intransigent.
“I’m not intransigent”
Thanks for the chuckle MT, I needed that :).
“And so, as the party most responsible for the violence, they should have.
Let’s not get too misty eyed, though. It was the realisation thst their terror campaign was futile thst led them to end it, not a change of heart and recognition that it was wrong. Still today, they seem to glorify and legitimise it.
While we can praise the political skill of McGuinness and Adams in steering the monstrous Provo movement away from terror, and the warmth and openness of McGuinness once established in power, let’s not forget that their commitment to peace is realpolitik not principle.”
Eh? Have we been hacked by #fakenews?
Well I don’t want to go back 800 years but even MT would have to agree that the relatively recent concept of armed resistance originated with Edward Carson forming and arming the UVF in the early years of the 20th century in resistance to the wishes of the majority both in Ireland and in the rest of the U.K.
In the face of the threat of violence the British government capitulated and partition occurred leading to a hundred years of discrimination and chaos.
This led to the formation of civil rights groups and peaceful demonstrations which were met by violence while the state authorities stood idly by .
We all know the rest of the story.
So MT what say you as to where the violence originated. ?
It is better to just put one idea to M T at one time. He seems to have trouble dealing with multiple facts.
MT absolutely loves to speak about “facts” until the facts clash with the laws of cause and effect. MT has some notion that things happen without reasons.Bad men do bad things to good men and that’s the whole story .It would be an interesting exercise to read exactly how he thinks the last spate of violent action actually happened, in his own words. It sounds like he believes in instantaneous combustion, to me . No real reason for it at all ,by the sound of things. I wonder why he thought the UVF armed themselves at the beginning of the 20th century and declared their intent for treason if they didn’t get their way.Why exactly did they want to do that ? It sounds like a pretty radical thing to do …to threaten the king and government.I wonder why they got up in the morning and thought that it would be a good idea ? You might as well ask why millions of ordinary people decided to get off their backsides and head off to be slaughtered in the First World War.i wonder why they thought that was ever going to be a good idea too and what they were going to get out of it besides getting blown to bits.People do get some very odd notions, eh?..No reason for it at all.Let’s just go and kill a few Germans and get home in time for Christmas, eh? That’s the kind of thing folks like to do .
When unionism finally got its way and got the partitioned Ireland they wanted so badly , they proceeded to make such a screw-up of that until it all but exploded in their faces and had to be taken away from them and ruled directly from Westminster instead, that’s it’s hardly surprising that their descendants now in the 21st century are continuing to make a right old screw- up and a haims of governance that no- one is able to work with them or even trust them with the purse strings, so scandalised are they. Some things have never really changed and the same addle-pated corruption, snidery and stupidity still drives the agenda here.The same foolishness that creates conflict over and over…..but then MT doesn’t believe that .he thinks conflict simply falls from the clear blue sky…..or maybe he’ll tell everyone about his own Big Theory.
Could well have been an onset of lemmingitus, but in my own view, the millions of ordinary people who decided to fight in the First World War of which members of my own family are included among the ranks of the Ulster 36th. I imagine my great grand daddy who was a republican and who wanted home rule, did not do so to get slaughtered but that he was and I am sure his comrades in the Ulster 36th felt the same, going to be the ones doing the slaughtering and that so many countries standing together against Germany would have finished the job quickly and returned to request the promises made by the English to both not allow home rule but partition the country to the unionists and that home rule would indeed be implemented and Ireland would not be divided to the nationalists.
Well, my grand daddy got blown to pieces and never returned, Ireland was divided and my Grand Mother put his medals in the bin and he was never talked about again.
In MTs eyes that was shameful behaviour, but had England refused to cave in to the unionist insanity and been bothered to treat Ireland with respect, a whole different scenario may have played out. As you say harry, had he been born a few miles down the road. his whole outlook could be completely different.
Countries which are divided in this way very rarely have happy endings.
“MT absolutely loves to speak about “facts” until the facts clash with the laws of cause and effect.”
Explain what this means, please.
“MT has some notion that things happen without reasons..”
I don’t have such a notion.
Between 1966 and 1969, at some point in that period the troubles officially started, there are different dates and events but all would be inside this period.
The PIRA did not exist and it was the british and unionists who committed 100% of all murders, bombings, maiming’s etc…during this time.
Most murders and shootings would have been carried out by the RUC back then but the UVF would also have been very active in this period with their bombing campaign, spurred on no doubt by the reverend Ian.
Cause and effect implies that had unionism not ran amok for those three years, the troubles would not have started and the PIRA would not came into existence.
In fact, if it had not been for the british army deciding to support the unionist rampage, putting catholic streets under military curfew and joining in with the murder and shooting of Catholics, in particular on bloody Sunday, then the ranks of the IRA would not have been swelled and an all out conflict could have been averted and ended it in the early 70s.
Then had it not been for Robert Nairac and the Glenanne gang, the ceasefire in 1975 may also have ended the conflict, there were genuine attempts to end the conflict then but he had other ideas and his brutal efforts designed to end the ceasefire and escalate the conflict to bring the SAS over unfortunately succeeded
The reality is that unionism started the conflict and it was the poor management by the british state of its forces that kindled it and Nairac who made it so difficult to end.
By the 30 year rule, at the end of each year from here on in, we will learn who the real architects of peace were.
MT ….that is you simply applying your usual lazy one -liner approach of cutting and pasting when it is your own explanation that is required as answer in the conversation and not another dubious question or quest for explanation to something which is a simple statement. What you are doing it’s what is called simple “distraction” . It’s what magicians do on stage shows to hide themselves and the nature of their trickery …that same kind of nonsense we’ve witnessed from our own political giants of the DUP and their SPADS to cover the bareness of their current arguments over impropriety in government (and their arses).Which is why the Executive had to be closed. We all know it is a silly game .
For a change…Why not try engaging in the questions and providing a few answers of your own and your own thoughts and ideas to see if we can actually have a real conversation ?…. instead of bogging your head down in the pedantry and minituae of someone else’s words . This is not a court of law here. What is to be gained by that ? You want an explanation of “cause and effect”…is that it?…. at this late stage of the game?…Is that it? Maybe that’s the problem we’ve had in Ireland from the very beginning . Maybe a whole lot of people don’t also realise that for every action taken there is an equal reaction. That’s what has been happening in Ireland all along. There is a reaction to every action. Go back as far into history as you want and take it from there. Take any point in time in Irish history and use it as your starting point and go from there….or just take this last fifty years if that makes it any easier …but start somewhere.
Someone tweaks your nose and you tweak back.Someone steals your wife and you burn his house down . Someone takes your land and you strike back.Someone suppresses your language and you fight back .Someone suppresses your religion and you go underground and fight back. Someone burns your house down and you get a gun and shoot him.
These things are happening in society every day an dlawyers make their living off it .
. So what happens in the next scenario when the police are from only one section of the community and they start tweaking the law to suit themselves and that community . The police attack you on the streets for example … or shoot your brother down in the gutter when he is unarmed, just because they can …. and then simply get away with it .That…i think is where the buck stops. Do you understand why some may have fought back? Some may have felt no need but they were the lucky ones, I’d imagine.
Try this ..what do you think caused someone like Martin McGuinness to dedicate himself to changing the situation in Ireland? What do you think his reasons are ?What do believe happened to him as an individual that sent him on a path which ended with him jointly leading an Executive. What experiences do you think drove a man like him to put so much work into such a project , when 99% of people couldn’t be bothered?
“MT ….that is you simply applying your usual lazy one -liner approach of cutting and pasting when it is your own explanation that is required as answer in the conversation and not another dubious question or quest for explanation to something which is a simple statement.”
Can you give me an example?
“What you are doing it’s what is called simple “distraction” ”
On the contrary, quite the opposite. I’m avoiding Jessica’s ‘-they started it’ distraction in order to stay on topic.
“For a change…Why not try engaging in the questions and providing a few answers of your own and your own thoughts and ideas to see if we can actually have a real conversation ?”
I do this regularly when relevant questions are asked.
“You want an explanation of “cause and effect”…is that it?”
No. I.know what cause and effect is..I wanted to know what you meant when you said MT absolutely loves to speak about “facts” until the facts clash with the laws of cause and effect.”” Could you explain?
There you go again MT. You have just proven that you have really nothing to say.No more to add. A completely empty vessel….And no I will not be explaining that for you….. The End
It
“There you go again MT. You have just proven that you have really nothing to say.No more to add. A completely empty vessel….And no I will not be explaining that for you….. The End
It”
No. You have proven that your criticism of me was invalid, as you weren’t able to explain what you meant.
I will not be distracted from the point in hand by engaging in Jessica’s (and now seemingly your) tactics of trying.to reduce every discussion to ‘themnuns started it’.
The point is not simply a you started it MT.
I understand that you have been brought up to believe the conflict was nothing more than an IRA terrorist campaign.
The british strategy since the early eighties was to reduce their public presence and move to a position where they could claim to be an impartial referee and to move away from political conflict to one of criminalisation.
Anyone who lived through those times, knows perfectly well who started it.
What I want you to explain to me, is not whether you agree who started it, but why my view that it was never a terror campaign but a conflict in response to unionist aggression, that the UVF bombing campaign in the 60s, the british use of CS gas against people in their own homes, state murder both direct and later under covert operations led to support for violent response which in turn led to violent response from loyalism beginning a cycle of violence which was difficult to stop.
The fact remains, loyalists were instructed to murder unarmed uninvolved Catholics by british intelligence services who armed, trained and instructed them in the early 70s, then abandoned along with the rest of us while allowing a pointless conflict to endure.
I know there was no loyalist terror campaign during the conflict, that it was physical response to violence inflicted in them and they operated in the way their british state instructed them to. I am well aware of the racketeering and criminality and all of the terrible deeds that are part and parcel of societies plagued with conflict but in my view, the only acts which accurately could be described as terrorism, were the actions led by Ian Paisley and the RUC in opposing the civil rights marches to begin with.
The actions later carried out within a cycle of violence inside a conflict are not terrorism no matter how brutal and murderous they are, but part and parcel of what conflict is. Murder and mayhem on a grand bloody scale.
I have no bad feelings towards the loyalists who tried to murder me MT, not do I consider them terrorists.
To be honest, I don’t give them a second thought any more, though I remain traumatised and unable to deal with political rejection, in particular from Dublin, the lack of understanding or not appearing to give a damn hurts me more.
I imagine that many loyalists feel the same about the lack of empathy from London.
But then, I have no idea what you have endured, what you feel caused our problems, what you think would resolve them, because all you do is criticise views on this site because it is considered a nationalist blog.
If we could persuade you to open up and tell us what you think, that would be very interesting to may I believe MT.
Hearing that you think I or anyone else should hang their heads in shame doesn’t really make that much of a difference to anything.
“The point is not simply a you started it MT.”
It is. It’s a simplistic assessment that you use to excuse your support for PIRA terror.
“I understand that you have been brought up to believe the conflict was nothing more than an IRA terrorist campaign.”
Then your understanding is wrong.
I will leave it there then MT
As I said, this election is purely about identifying those what percentage of the public support intransigent sectarian views and those willing to embrace reconciliation and a shared future,
We have reached the end of the road in the peace process, post election it will be a new road entirely which will be up to the people elected to agree on our behalf.
This election will be about choosing the new direction we take which may or may not lead to Stormont. My money would not be on it leading to Stormont and you and your ilk are why.
“We have reached the end of the road in the peace process”
You think the PIRA is going to reform and renew its campaign? Or the loyalists?
“My money would not be on it leading to Stormont and you and your ilk are why.”
You think the Assembly will collapse because of people who concidtently opposed terror continue to oppose its retrospective justification? What a strange view.
The PIRA no longer exist and will NOT be coming back.
While the UDA and UVF may well according to the PSNI have been recruiting all this time and still at it, the PIRA have not and what age do you think they would be by now?
Even if the will was there, I don’t think they would physically be up for it.
A lot of time has passed and none of us are getting any younger.
Economic stability in Ireland is in the interests of the whole world, including unionists.
I don’t know what age you are MT, but it is time you grew up.
“The PIRA no longer exist and will NOT be coming back. While the UDA and UVF may well according to the PSNI have been recruiting all this time and still at it, the PIRA have not and what age do you think they would be by now? Even if the will was there, I don’t think they would physically be up for it.
A lot of time has passed and none of us are getting any younger.”
So it’s the loyalists you think are renewing their campaign after the election?
No, I think loyalists have moved further than the unionist politicians have and accept peace is the only way forward.
There is no support for the continued existence of these groups except for the encouragement they have received from the UUP and DUP, who’s support is not from the people who were at the sharper end of the conflict but those who benefitted from it.
The element they have kept alive in case a threat is needed at some point may well erupt under certain circumstances but it will be the PSNI they will have to face and it will be bloody but short lived.
There are those on the republican side who hold a candle for violence also, and while they have gotten away with shooting kids who break their rules, they have very little respect in their own communities and would not be capable of any sort of campaign that you are so desperate to get back into your comfort zone MT.
If the two governments can guarantee respect and parity of esteem, that agreements can be honoured, and the outstanding issues put to bed, then I think enough has been done to show politics could work in Stormont – but only on these conditions. No political party in London or Dublin or even the people there would tolerate the behaviour that went on mostly by the DUP.
I will not say it would be impossible, but I just don’t see how it would be possible for unionism to make up for the lacklustre effort they have made over 2 decades in anywhere less than 2 years and I don’t think nationalism would believe any meaningful change has occurred in under 2 years either. It would take such acts that people like yourself would consider as defeat, as concessions, as totally unacceptable even if they are in signed agreements.
The DUP have dug themselves into a hole so deep, that no one even has a ladder that could help them out and it would take time and acts of trust to put one together.
And even then I don’t think they have the necessary components to even do this.
So the roads post election will be new and it will be up to those elected to agree on them.
I doubt anyone will be suggesting a loyalist or republican campaign of violence, sorry if that disappoints you or people like you.
In fact, that would be just the life boat the DUP would need.
Probably why you are so obsessed with refusing to let the violence of the past go.
“No, I think loyalists have moved further than the unionist politicians have and accept peace is the only way forward.”
So who’s going back to ‘war’ after the election?
Just because we have reached the end of the road in the peace process, does not mean we are going back to war.
It means the people who negotiated the peace process we had which has clearly failed beyond any doubt whatsoever, has gone as far as it can and it will be up to a new generation to agree a new way forward.
Now, I would be of the opinion that enough time has passed that they will be able to do this without a return to war which you are simply obsessed with.
If a majority of unionists are sitting on tenderhooks the way you are, just waiting for a war to break out the way you seem to be, then it is purely because your elected representatives have led you and then left you that way.
That is your problem to deal with.
Nationalism will not be paying the price for your paranoia and bigotry any longer though.
“Just because we have reached the end of the road in the peace process, does not mean we are going back to war.”
You mean because peace has been established the process can finally end?
“It means the people who negotiated the peace process we had which has clearly failed beyond any doubt whatsoever”
How can the peace process have failed if we have established peace?
“If a majority of unionists are sitting on tenderhooks the way you are, just waiting for a war to break out the way you seem to be, then it is purely because your elected representatives have led you and then left you that way.”
I’m not sitting on tenterhooks waiting for war to break out. You’re he one talking about the end of the peace process, not me.
“Nationalism will not be paying the price for your paranoia and bigotry any longer though.”
I don’t have any paranoia or bigotry. It’s you who displays those traits.
MT
I note that PK has written:
“And no I will not be explaining that for you….. The End”
In my recent experience, PK tends to take his bees out for a fly whenever he has a question to face.
If it’s of any help, I’ve no idea what facts clashing with cause and effect means either.
“If it’s of any help, I’ve no idea what facts clashing with cause and effect means either.”
Maybe he’ll have a change of heart and explain.
“If it’s of any help, I’ve no idea what facts clashing with cause and effect means either.”
MT sees the conflict here as a one sided PIRA terror campaign.
The facts suggest otherwise, that the PIRA would not have existed had it not been for events which caused them to come in to being in the first place.
Unionists don’t like to be reminded that it was they who started all the trouble, who are the most bigoted, most corrupt total bunch of fuck ups we have had the misfortune to have had planted on our island.
“Unionists don’t like to be reminded that it was they who started all the trouble, who are the most bigoted, most corrupt total bunch of fuck ups we have had the misfortune to have had planted on our island.”
I know that sounds like an offensive thing to say, Jessica, but Dr. Jude has already attempted to pull academic rank on another thread, and, frankly, that’s way more offensive, to way more people – Unionist, Nationalist or other.
Funnily enough, it sounded a lot like “We (academics) are the people” – but I just know he can’t saying that.
Well, what you should be more concerned about, is which was true and which was not.
Did unionism start the troubles?
We know the records show all bombings and all murders were carried out by the RUC and UVF.
Is unionism bigoted?
We know it started the trouble over opposition to civil rights for Catholics
We almost 20 years after the GFA unionism is still unable to tolerate power sharing with Irish nationalism.
Is unionism the most corrupt total bunch of fuck ups we have had the misfortune to have had planted on our island?
Unionism came to Ireland from its connection to another county, namely England or GB.
Ulster did undergo a plantation to replace Irish indigenous with GB friendly natives.
Today, we have had to endure corruption after corruption.
The UUP and DUP still look to loyalist paramilitaries to achieve political aims, namely flags and marches where they stood shoulder to shoulder in a graduated response veiled threat.
The DUPs RHI handling says it all.
If you are offended by the truth being spoken, don’t blame the messenger.
Sorry, should have read:
We know the records show all bombings and all murders were carried out by the RUC and UVF between 1966 and 1969, the period when the troubles officially began.
“We know the records show all bombings and all murders were carried out by the RUC and UVF between 1966 and 1969, the period when the troubles officially began.”
The police didn’t murder anyone during this period.
RUC officers beat Francis McCloskey, a Catholic civilian (aged 67). He died of his injuries the next day. Many consider this the first death of the Troubles
During clashes with civil rights marchers in Derry, RUC officers entered the house of an uninvolved Catholic civilian, Samuel Devenny, and beat him, along with two of his daughters. One of the daughters was beaten unconscious as she lay recovering from surgery. Devenny suffered a heart attack and died on 17 July from his injuries.
Battle of the Bogside – during an Apprentice Boys march, serious rioting erupted in Derry between Irish nationalists and the RUC. RUC officers, backed by loyalists, entered the nationalist Bogside in armoured cars and tried to suppress the riot by using CS gas, water cannon and eventually firearms.
Irish nationalists held protests throughout Northern Ireland. Some of these became violent. In Belfast, loyalists responded by attacking nationalist districts. Rioting also erupted in Newry, Armagh, Crossmaglen, Dungannon, Coalisland and Dungiven. Six Catholics and two Protestants were shot dead and at least 133 were treated for gunshot wounds.
Scores of houses and businesses were burnt out, most of them owned by Catholics. Thousands of families, mostly Catholics, were forced to flee their homes and refugee camps were set up in the Republic
The British Army was deployed on the streets of Northern Ireland, which marked the beginning of Operation Banner.
Three people were shot dead during street violence in the loyalist Shankill area of Belfast. Two were Protestant civilians (George Dickie and Herbert Hawe) shot by the British Army and one was an RUC officer (Victor Arbuckle) shot by the UVF. Arbuckle was the first RUC officer to be killed in the Troubles. The loyalists “had taken to the streets in protest at the Hunt Report, which recommended the disbandment of the B Specials and disarming of the RUC”.[
The UVF detonated bombs in the Republic of Ireland. In Dublin it detonated a car bomb near the Garda Síochána central detective bureau.[19] It also bombed a power station at Ballyshannon, a Wolfe Tone memorial in Bodenstown, and the Daniel O’Connell monument in Dublin
All of this happened before the PIRA existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles_and_peace_process#1960.E2.80.931969
“RUC officers beat Francis McCloskey, a Catholic civilian (aged 67). He died of his injuries the next day. Many consider this the first death of the Troubles”
They didn’t beat him, they struck him on the head with a baton. This wasn’t murder. At worse it would have been manslaughter.
“During clashes with civil rights marchers in Derry, RUC officers entered the house of an uninvolved Catholic civilian, Samuel Devenny, and beat him, along with two of his daughters. One of the daughters was beaten unconscious as she lay recovering from surgery. Devenny suffered a heart attack and died on 17 July from his injuries.”
Again there’s no suggestion that this was murder. (And note that if he died of a heart attack then he didn’t die of his injuries, though the two are surely connected.)
“Battle of the Bogside …”
The police didn’t murder anyone during the ‘Battle of the Bogside’. The events subsequent to the ‘Battle of the Bogside’ marked the start of the Troubles.
“MT sees the conflict here as a one sided PIRA terror campaign”
When did I say that?
For any Rip Van Winkles out there who may have slept through this past fifty years , take careful note of the date of the events following . A friend of mine saw this happening and recalls it vividly :
“OHN Gallagher was shot dead and two other men were wounded when B Specials opened fire on nationalists during trouble in Armagh in August 1969.
The 30-year-old left behind a wife and three children under the age of seven. Despite a finding that “there was no justification” for his shooting, no-one has ever been convicted over his death.
He was one of eight people who lost their lives over a two-day period as trouble flared across the north in scenes which convinced the British government to deploy troops.
Mr Gallagher had been making his way home from the pub after 11pm on August 14 1969 when he got caught up in violence in the area around the city’s Catholic cathedral.
According to the Scarman tribunal, which investigated the trouble across Northern Ireland that week, a riot began as up to 300 Catholics left a civil rights meeting at around 10.30pm and the numbers increased as both Catholics and Protestants left pubs at closing time.
A group of 17 B Specials from the nearby village of Tynan were drafted in to the city to help the RUC and told by the most senior officer to follow him to Cathedral Road.
However, the B Specials were travelling in four private cars and lost the county inspector who had already left the scene when they arrived.
He later told the inquiry it was unlikely he would have deployed the reserve officers, who were more used to rural road patrols than riot situations, if he had known the extent of the trouble.
The tribunal heard that as the party drove along Cathedral Road they saw a riot ahead and three of the cars stopped at crude barricades but the fourth drove through, coming to a halt in Edward Street.
According to Scarman: “There were some threatening movements from the crowd. It was a moment of panic. The party believed they were isolated and ambushed. Most of them jumped out of their cars and fired.
“A few moments later those in Edward Street fired towards Cathedral Road. No order to fire was given and these two ragged bursts were all the firing that occurred at that time and place.”
Mr Gallagher was shot in the back. A postmortem examination found that he had consumed enough alcohol to be “considerably under its influence”.
“It is possible, but not certain, that he was staggering,” the findings continued.
Fr Damien McKenna remembers the panic that caused the crowd to run towards the Tynan B Specials.
He had parked his car near the cathedral and was trying to make his way home on foot when he encountered a crowd of up to 60 people.
He recalled seeing police officers in the area of the fire station and city hall with a crowd of loyalist protesters behind them.
“Most of us were just worried that they were going to try and attack the cathedral or something,” Fr McKenna said.
He said the officers began moving towards the nationalist crowd and suddenly “they made a charge towards us, shouting, and we ran back towards the cathedral and at that stage B Specials from Tynan arrived at the other side of the cathedral in three cars”.
“They lined across the road and fired straight down at us and John Gallagher was a few yards in front of me and he just fell,” Fr McKenna said.
Fr McKenna was 25 years old at the time and had been ordained just four months earlier. He said he remembers thinking: ‘I have to do so something for this man’.
“I went out and whispered an act of contrition in his ear and gave him absolution. The bullets were still coming down the road,” he said.
All the B Specials appeared in front of the tribunal but each denied having fired into the crowd.
They claimed they had been ambushed by a waiting crowd and had heard shots being fired.
Twelve said they had fired shots into the air and one claimed his sub-machine gun had fired accidentally into the ground.
A sergeant said shots had been discharged to scatter the crowd and protect each other.
The tibunal concluded that while it was impossible to determine who had killed Mr Gallagher, the inquiry “rejects the contention that none of the B Specials fired into the crowd”.
The suggestion that the officers had been fired upon was also “vague and uncertain”.
Scarman wrote: “If, which the tribunal doubts, it occurred at all, it was not serious enough to justify firing by the B Specials for effect.
“After making allowances for the strange, difficult and frightening situation in which they found themselves there was no justification for firing into the crowd.”
The B Specials were a reserve police force with a reputation for violence and were drawn from the unionist community.
Mr Gallagher’s widow Jean rubbished the Tynan group’s claims that they had come under fire that night.
“They are talking through their hat,” she said.
It is understood the Police Ombudsman has examined the circumstances of Mr Gallagher’s death.
However, the victim’s widow told The Irish News that even if the case was reopened she did not believe anyone would be charged with her husband’s murder.
“Forty years has passed. A lot of the B Specials are all dead now and if they didn’t tell the truth at the time they’re hardly going to now,” she said……”
Paddykool the Armagh killing happened outside the time frame under discussion.
the 40 years have passed is in quotes suggesting it is a comment and made in the past, you ignorant little unionist scumbag prick
Well pardon me ,MT but I was responding to …
“We know the records show all bombings and all murders were carried out by the RUC and UVF between 1966 and 1969, the period when the troubles officially began.”
The police didn’t murder anyone during this period…..” which was your cut and paste plus your usual one-liner….
Although , I suppose you might want to argue that this didn’t actually happen in 1969 at all …..or possibly that the B Special Constabulary were’nt actually really proper policemen at all.I can see where you might go with that one all right…..but in the real world 1969 did indeed follow 1968 and the B Specials were sort of “special” but not quite real policemen at all.I wonder what they were, eh? In any case my friend witnessed it first hand and watched them drive away, but as you imply, he was probably imagining everything anyway.
“Well pardon me ,MT but I was responding to …“We know the records show all bombings and all murders were carried out by the RUC and UVF between 1966 and 1969, the period when the troubles officially began.” The police didn’t murder anyone during this period…..” which was your cut and paste plus your usual one-liner….”
Yes, I know.. that’s why it’s outside the time frame.
“Although , I suppose you might want to argue that this didn’t actually happen in 1969 at all …..or possibly that the B Special Constabulary were’nt actually really proper policemen at all.I can see where you might go with that one all right…..but in the real world 1969 did indeed follow 1968 and the B Specials were sort of “special” but not quite real policemen at all.I wonder what they were, eh? In any case my friend witnessed it first hand and watched them drive away, but as you imply, he was probably imagining everything anyway.”
Genuinely don’t know what point you’re trying to make. The killing happened after the Troubles officially began.
So MT …just out of curiosity and for no other reason , you understand….Imagine this is a pub -quiz question(and it might well be for all I know!) .What date do you remember the Troubles actually starting on …. or if you were possibly not around at the time , what day or date do you reckon you would pick as the starting point? Was this on a date before the Provisional IRA actually formed or was it possibly at a later date?….or maybe it simply depends whereabouts in the country you might have lived ? What would be your best answer an dwhat would be your rationale??
“So MT …just out of curiosity and for no other reason , you understand….Imagine this is a pub -quiz question(and it might well be for all I know!) .What date do you remember the Troubles actually starting on …. or if you were possibly not around at the time , what day or date do you reckon you would pick as the starting point? Was this on a date before the Provisional IRA actually formed or was it possibly at a later date?….or maybe it simply depends whereabouts in the country you might have lived ? What would be your best answer an dwhat would be your rationale??”
The Troubles are generally regarded as having started with the deployment of troops on 15 August 1969. This isn’t news.
“The Troubles are generally regarded as having started with the deployment of troops on 15 August 1969. This isn’t news.”
Ok, so if deploying the british army started the troubles MT, why was the british army deployed in the first place?
“Ok, so if deploying the british army started the troubles MT, why was the british army deployed in the first place?”
It was deployed at Stormont’s request because the police couldn’t cope with the civil unrest on the evening of 14/15 August.
I am certainly no expert on history and I really do appreciate you giving your actual views MT.
I would be extremely keen to learn your opinion on why if the british army coming over started the troubles conflict, they were welcomed by the catholic community on their arrival.
“The arrival of the British troops was greeted with cheering and singing from behind the barricades in the Roman Catholic area of Londonderry.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/14/newsid_4075000/4075437.stm
“I would be extremely keen to learn your opinion on why if the british army coming over started the troubles conflict, they were welcomed by the catholic community on their arrival.”
They were welcomed as protection against loyalist mobs.
This is basic stuff.
Keeping it basic works for me MT.
So if you will indulge me, why would it not be more accurate to consider the loyalist mobs to have been more responsible for starting the conflict than the british army who had only just arrived and received a lovely warm welcome from the catholic community?
I recall images of women bringing the soldiers cups of tea.
“So if you will indulge me, why would it not be more accurate to consider the loyalist mobs to have been more responsible for starting the conflict than the british army who had only just arrived and received a lovely warm welcome from the catholic community?”
I’ve no idea. I never said it wouldn’t be more accurate to consider the loyalist mobs to have been more responsible than the Army. Clearly they were.
“I’ve no idea. I never said it wouldn’t be more accurate to consider the loyalist mobs to have been more responsible than the Army. Clearly they were.”
So if you consider the loyalist mobs to be clearly more responsible than the Army, then why would it not be more accurate to say that they started the conflict.
The BBC for example consider the troubles conflict to have started on 5th October 1968 over a Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association march when police officers surrounded the marchers and beat them indiscriminately and without provocation injuring over 100 people including a number of MPs?
They seem to think it was started by the unionist police force.
But then, these police were often part of the loyalist mobs
As Harry pointed out, some consider the People’s Democracy march between Belfast and Derry being ambushed at Burntollet by 200 loyalists and off-duty police officers armed with iron bars, bricks and bottles as being a start point.
It would also explain why the UVF were planting bombs and blowing up water and electricity installations in March and April in 1969.
Do you not consider these bomb attacks as part of the troubles MT?
“So if you consider the loyalist mobs to be clearly more responsible than the Army, then why would it not be more accurate to say that they started the conflict.”
Yes obviously it would be more accurate to say that loyalists started the conflict than it would be to say that the Army started it.
But it would be more accurate to recognise that there were multiple causes.
That is indeed perfectly reasonable MT, but here is a biggie for you MT.
These loyalist mobs who along side police that were attacking a peaceful civil rights campaign.
Would that not by definition equate to terrorism?
Is the BBC not correct, and the catholic community had been facing one sided oppression and political terrorism from politically motivated mobs including armed members of the police who were literally getting away with murder from October 1968?
“These loyalist mobs who along side police that were attacking a peaceful civil rights campaign.
Would that not by definition equate to terrorism?”
No. And no more so than nationalist mobs attacking a peaceful Apprentice Boys march and subsequently the police was terrorism.
“Is the BBC not correct, and the catholic community had been facing one sided oppression and political terrorism from politically motivated mobs including armed members of the police who were literally getting away with murder from October 1968?”
I’m unaware of the BBC making such a statement.
“These loyalist mobs who along side police that were attacking a peaceful civil rights campaign. Would that not by definition equate to terrorism?”
No. And no more so than nationalist mobs attacking a peaceful Apprentice Boys march and subsequently the police was terrorism. ”
Well perhaps you could explain how you come to that conclusion MT.
First of all, I accept the Google definition of terrorism, that it is “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”
Are you saying that these loyalist mobs which included police officers who murdered innocent civilians did not do so for a political aim of preventing Catholics being given equality in northern Ireland?
Were the UVF bombings not also with a political aim in mind?
Here is the link to the BBC statement claiming their view that the conflict started in 1968.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/troubles
“Well perhaps you could explain how you come to that conclusion MT.”
Rioting isn’t terrorism.
‘Here is the link to the BBC statement claiming their view that the conflict started in 1968.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/troubles”
There’s no.mention there of terrorism or police murder from 1968.
It is unclear what point you are trying to make.
The point is MT, you have stated so many times that the troubles was not a conflict, but a PIRA terrorist campaign.
That sounds disingenuous and one sided in my view, and while I am pretty rubbish at history it does not stack up with the memories I have from the late 70s and all through the 80s in particular.
The first contradiction which glares at me, is not only from what I read, but as I pointed out, the BBC have referred to this terror campaign as having started in 1968. More than a whole year before the PIRA existed.
The records of deaths verify that 100% of all of the murders prior to the PIRA response in 1970 were carried out by the police, and it is well documented that unionist mobs led by Ian Paisley and his supporters with state police support were attacking a peaceful civil rights campaign and trying to intimidate Catholics out of the place where thousands of families were indeed driven out.
Yes, the catholic community fought back and riots were so intense the state lost control requiring the british army to come over to put an end to the state attacks on Catholics.
I guess I am just trying to figure out how anyone can seriously see the conflict as being a one sided terror campaign based on its origin story.
Also how you see this state led aggression where armed police forces were murdering with impunity was no more terrorism than the rioting that resulted from their actions.
It would be extremely helpful if you could help us to understand how you come to this conclusion.
“The point is MT, you have stated so many times that the troubles was not a conflict, but a PIRA terrorist campaign.”
I have never said that, so by definition your point is irrelevant.
“The first contradiction which glares at me, is not only from what I read, but as I pointed out, the BBC have referred to this terror campaign as having started in 1968. More than a whole year before the PIRA existed.”
As I’ve already stated, the BBC article doesn’t mention terrorism beginning in 1968.
“The records of deaths verify that 100% of all of the murders prior to the PIRA response in 1970 were carried out by the police”
No records verify this claim. Your claim is false. The records show, for example, thst the first person killed on 14 August was a Protestant shot by the IRA.
“Yes, the catholic community fought back and riots were so intense the state lost control requiring the british army to come over to put an end to the state attacks on Catholics. ”
Ironically the trouble on 14/15 August that led to the deployment of troops was started quite deliberately by Catholics and it was Protestants ‘fighting back’ on thst occasion.
“I guess I am just trying to figure out how anyone can seriously see the conflict as being a one sided terror campaign based on its origin story.”
You ought to direct that question to yourself. I have never deemed it to be one-sided.
“Also how you see this state led aggression where armed police forces were murdering with impunity was no more terrorism than the rioting that resulted from their actions.”
This sentence doesn’t make sense.
I must be mistaking you for another MT.
Sounds to me like you say one thing then when pressed to clarify what you mean, you just deny having ever said it.
It seems to me that the troubles was a conflict caused by the abandonment of Irish people by their own to be left defenceless and at the mercy of a unionist state who abused the control they should never have been given and which a british state cared nothing about. We are considered still to be less than second rate Irish.
To listen to the southern establishment today, they have no only abandoned us more deeply, but despise our very existence.
You are living proof that unionism has not changed one iota and never will MT.
The people in the south have changed and have become too civilised to tolerate the northern Irish who they care nothing for,
If compromise and accommodation with fair treatment for all Irish people is not taken seriously, there is no way these arrogant and opposing attitudes can live together on this small island and in my opinion, war will be inevitable throughout every county of this country.
“Sounds to me like you say one thing then when pressed to clarify what you mean, you just deny having ever said it.”
In that case you’re listening to untruths as I express my views consistently. I have never once stated that the troubles was not a conflict, but a PIRA terrorist campaign.
But feel free to search the blog and post up an example of me doing so. You’ll be a long.time looking.
Once you’ve established that I’ve never said it you can apologise.
“You are living proof that unionism has not changed one iota and never will MT.”
I do not represent unionism, but if I did, why do you think I am.living proof that unionism has not changed one iota and never will?
So the above mentioned John Gallagher , having been murdered (or maybe you’d prefer “manslaughtered”,or possibly “mown down by machine -gunfire”….. or variously, simply killed ,or culled or whatever terminology you’d prefer ( by B special Constables on- call from the RUC )…..for being over -the- limit coming from the pub and trying to get himself home,at 11pm on August 14 1969 ….was actually ,not in fact a Troubles victim at all , given that they didn’t actually give a starting date for the Troubles, officially ,until the following morning on August 15 1969….is that it, MT?
“So the above mentioned John Gallagher , having been murdered (or maybe you’d prefer “manslaughtered”,or possibly “mown down by machine -gunfire”….. or variously, simply killed ,or culled or whatever terminology you’d prefer ( by B special Constables on- call from the RUC )…..for being over -the- limit coming from the pub and trying to get himself home,at 11pm on August 14 1969 ….was actually ,not in fact a Troubles victim at all , given that they didn’t actually give a starting date for the Troubles, officially ,until the following morning on August 15 1969….is that it, MT?”
No, I think the evening/night of 14/15 August, that culminated in the deployment of troops would be considered the start.
Some would date the start of the Troubles as Burntollet on 4 January 1969.. MT when that Peoples Democracy march was attacked, MT.That would have been Paul Bew(er Lord Bew ,now I suppose) the historian ‘s view ….and he was there on the spot. some people would have even earlier dates in mind.
“Some would date the start of the Troubles as Burntollet on 4 January 1969.. MT when that Peoples Democracy march was attacked, MT.That would have been Paul Bew(er Lord Bew ,now I suppose) the historian ‘s view ….and he was there on the spot. some people would have even earlier dates in mind.”
I know. That’s why I said ‘generally’.
“the 40 years have passed is in quotes suggesting it is a comment and made in the past, you ignorant little unionist scumbag prick”
Is this type of comment acceptable on your blog, Jude?