Flying Tricolour at Stormont

HemlockOption

Nodin wrote: »

I want to know why you equate the targeting of members of armed forces in a conflict with the targeting of random civillians.

To me - your language is that of the military strategist. I am not involved in that world. Therefore I believe your question is over-the-top.

Nodin

HemlockOption wrote: »

To me - your language is that of the military strategist. I am not involved in that world. Therefore I believe your question is over-the-top.

Hardly - your quote again -

And why did they do that I wonder? A response to an act of equal brutality.

...this referring to the attack on a crowd of civillian sports supporters in response/retaliation for the killing of members of the armed forces/agents of the state.

Do you generally support the targeting of civillians in reprisal for attacks on armed forces?

Why do you think one justifies the other?

p1akuw47h5r3it

9 pages of utter ****e.

Chuck Stone

junder wrote: »

Nice try with the semantics, still does not negate the fact that all you presented was an opinion

Junder, it's more than just an opinion when it appears in a peer reviewed journal.

If you want to refute the content of the article perhaps you will take the time to submit it in writing to its author.

Link to piece.

Link to Journal.

Anyway, we're risking derailing the thread so I'm out.

HemlockOption

HemlockOption wrote: »

To me - your language is that of the military strategist. I am not involved in that world. Therefore I believe your question is over-the-top.

Nodin wrote: »

Hardly - your quote again -



...this referring to the attack on a crowd of civillian sports supporters in response/retaliation for the killing of members of the armed forces/agents of the state.

Do you generally support the targeting of civillians in reprisal for attacks on armed forces?

Why do you think one justifies the other?

This has gotten boring. Don't you agree? I'm out of here - Cheers Nodin!

Sound of Silence

How many pages has it been since the actual topic was discussed?

It's an interesting topic. It would be great to get back to it...

bwatson

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sure it is. However here we have you stating that firing into a crowd of supporters at a sporting fixture in retaliation for the targeting of members of the opposition forces is a "A response to an act of equal brutality".

This raises the question - do you (generally) support taking reprisals against a civillian population when armed forces are targeted?

Actually Nodin, IRA assassination squads murdered British civilians in their homes that day too. Even those military personnel who were killed were systematically executed in the most sickening manner. You are persisting with your question yet you are either ill informed or are being deliberately misleading. I'm not surprised you see these killings as far less significant however.

I think most people would see the way that British intelligence officers were executed in such a cold manner was an absolute disgrace regardless of what happened after. Certainly most in Britain would.

I remember you denouncing Israel's contemporary use of targeted executions too. Quite hipocritical do you not think?

fasttalkerchat

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Its a unique situation. Calling it a foreign flag is a bit disingenuous... and I think you know this STU and are just saying it for rhetorical purposes.

Unionists have a majority in Stormont. Even if Alliance and the Green MLA sided with nationalists Unionists still significantly outnumber them - so I don't think it will happen.

Progressive republican Conall McDevitt MLA said something interesting

"“The flags issue will have to be discussed. There are three possible outcomes from an SDLP point of view — both flags, no flags or an agreed flag. The symbols inside the building at present are representative of its history. It would be great to explore how that could change.”

The 9-county Ulster flag might be a contender for this. I wouldnt be surprised if it ends up they fly both the union flag and this one.

The Ulster flag wouldn't be a relevant flag. It would be like flying an Ireland Rugby flag at the Dail.

I don't see the need for either flag to be flown. There's enough flags on lamposts without adding to it.

LordSutch

On a related issue, I recently read that a proposal had been made that the Union flag should fly outside every Hotel in Dublin & the rest of the Republic. Why? well seeing as Britain is our Number One tourist market is it not a little odd that the Union flag isnt automatically flying on each and every Hotel in the country! In recent years British tourists have started to drift away in their droves (and with their money), hence the flag proposal. As I say, this was a recent story (I can't remember who proposed it), but it makes a lot of sense seeing as we really need our British neighbours to keep the floundering Irish tourist market alive. I am always taken aback at the amount of Tricolours flying in many parts of Britain, plenty of Irish tricolours flying over various buildings, from Hotels to conference centres, in England Scotland & Wales, and yet the hospitality of hoisting the Union flag is rarely recipricated here.

Maybe our Hotel industry should have a re-think on this 'to help' entice the British tourist (and their wallets) back to Ireland.

Sound of Silence

bwatson wrote: »

Actually Nodin, IRA assassination squads murdered British civilians in their homes that day too. Even those military personnel who were killed were systematically executed in the most sickening manner. You are persisting with your question yet you are either ill informed or are being deliberately misleading. I'm not surprised you see these killings as far less significant however.

So, you agree with reprisal killings against a civilian population?

I assume you hold the British Military in a position of moral authority, otherwise you wouldn't continue to debate the issue of state-sanctioned massacres.

If so, I would assume that any such integrity would be lost the moment a soldier squeezes the trigger.

I think most people would see the way that British intelligence officers were executed in such a cold manner was an absolute disgrace regardless of what happened after. Certainly most in Britain would.

By what standards exactly? The standards of War? The British were never known for a fickle attitude towards warfare, and would pursue victory to the edges of what could be considered morally reprehensible.

"We shall turn Germany into a desert. There are means that will vanquish Hitler and that will be through, an absolute devastating war of extermination, using large bombers against the Nazi-Country" - Winston Churchill

What followed this declaration was a very pragmatic and deliberate attack on the Civilian population across numerous German cities for the entire length of the War on behalf of the British Military - Incendiary bombs and timed explosives being particularly appealing to bomber command, as they were considered to be experimental techniques by RAF analysts, with the sole purpose of discovering the most efficent way of terrorising and destroying civilian populations. Such campaigns were bolstered by an RAF directive supplied in 1942 which allowed for the specific targeting of civilian centres.

The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death

http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrcitybomb.html

The ultimate aims were achieved, but did Britain sacrifice it's supposed moral authority, or did it ever have any?

Do you consider such actions to be morally reprehensible, or perfectly acceptable within the context of War? If you're post is anything to go by, I would guess you would consider such deaths acceptable.

Sound of Silence

LordSutch wrote: »

On a related issue, I recently read that a proposal had been made that the Union flag should fly outside every Hotel in Dublin & the rest of the Republic. Why? well seeing as Britain is our Number One tourist market is it not a little odd that the Union flag isnt automatically flying on each and every Hotel in the country! In recent years British tourists have started to drift away in their droves (and with their money), hence the flag proposal. As I say, this was a recent story (I can't remember who proposed it), but it makes a lot of sense seeing as we really need our British neighbours to keep the floundering Irish tourist market alive. I am always taken aback at the amount of Tricolours flying in many parts of Britain, plenty of Irish tricolours flying over various buildings, from Hotels to conference centres, in England Scotland & Wales, and yet the hospitality of hoisting the Union flag is rarely recipricated here.

Maybe our Hotel industry should have a re-think on this 'to help' entice the British tourist (and their wallets) back to Ireland.

You know what would attract British tourists to Ireland?

More affordable prices.

Having worked in a Hotel in the past, I can tell you that the majority of British tourists are attracted to Ireland due to it's rich culture and heritage, and most importantly it's friendly people.

I've never heard a single British tourist complain about the lack of a British flag outside of their Hotel, let alone that it would deter them from returning.

I realise you're just creating a Red Herring, but there is a huge and cavernous gulf between Hotels flying flags and the Northern Irish politics.

Regarding the actual issue, as a Nationalist I don't feel that a tricolour should be flown over Stormont. It makes little to no sense.

bwatson

Sound of Silence wrote: »

So, you agree with reprisal killings against a civilian population?

I assume you hold the British Military in a position of moral authority, otherwise you wouldn't continue to debate the issue of state-sanctioned massacres.

If so, I would assume that any such integrity would be lost the moment a soldier squeezes the trigger.



By what standards exactly? The standards of War? The British were never known for a fickle attitude towards warfare, and would pursue victory to the edges of what could be considered morally reprehensible.

"We shall turn Germany into a desert. There are means that will vanquish Hitler and that will be through, an absolute devastating war of extermination, using large bombers against the Nazi-Country" - Winston Churchill

What followed this declaration was a very pragmatic and deliberate attack on the Civilian population across numerous German cities for the entire length of the War on behalf of the British Military - Incendiary bombs and timed explosives being particularly appealing to bomber command, as they were considered to be experimental techniques by RAF analysts, with the sole purpose of discovering the most efficent way of terrorising and destroying civilian populations. Such campaigns were bolstered by an RAF directive supplied in 1942 which allowed for the specific targeting of civilian centres.

The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death

http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrcitybomb.html

The ultimate aims were achieved, but did Britain sacrifice it's supposed moral authority, or did it ever have any?

Do you consider such actions to be morally reprehensible, or perfectly acceptable within the context of War? If you're post is anything to go by, I would guess you would consider such deaths acceptable.

Firstly, maybe your next post could highlight the exact part of my post which stated that I believed shooting Irish civilians was a justified response to the unlawful and disgraceful murder of British citizens? Cheers. If not, apologize.

Secondly, I'm not at this time interested in debating with you the strategies adopted by Britain in the Second World War. I'm not sure why you would try and make comparisons between an insurgency and a nation fighting total war.

bwatson

LordSutch wrote: »

On a related issue, I recently read that a proposal had been made that the Union flag should fly outside every Hotel in Dublin & the rest of the Republic. Why? well seeing as Britain is our Number One tourist market is it not a little odd that the Union flag isnt automatically flying on each and every Hotel in the country! In recent years British tourists have started to drift away in their droves (and with their money), hence the flag proposal. As I say, this was a recent story (I can't remember who proposed it), but it makes a lot of sense seeing as we really need our British neighbours to keep the floundering Irish tourist market alive. I am always taken aback at the amount of Tricolours flying in many parts of Britain, plenty of Irish tricolours flying over various buildings, from Hotels to conference centres, in England Scotland & Wales, and yet the hospitality of hoisting the Union flag is rarely recipricated here.

Maybe our Hotel industry should have a re-think on this 'to help' entice the British tourist (and their wallets) back to Ireland.

Its mainly because many British people live with the false belief that the Irish are our closest ally. This is mainly due to the fact that Irish media outlets and political affairs are far less influencial in Britain vis-a-vis the British in Ireland. Sadly, my own experiences in the North have lead me to believe that those who identify with the Irish flag are more likely to be hostile towards my nation than those who identify with any other. If the people of other parts of the UK, England especially, realised the hatred directed at them at times I'm sure the Irish flag would fly less frequently.

I say that, but after three years in London (seemingly the flag capital of the world) Ive only ever seen the irish tricolour on the Irish embassy and the st patricks day event in trafalgar square. I fully support the right for those Irish republicans to fly the flag of their homeland while taking refuge in the United Kingdom however, and I'd like to think the same right would be afforded to me should I end up in the republic some day!

SeanW

KeithAFC wrote: »

Naturally I am fully against flying the flag of the Irish Republic. If we must negotiate, then give them the Ulster nationalist flag (the yellow one).

I'm pretty sure the Ulster flag is used by Loyalists.

Chuck Stone

bwatson wrote: »

If the people of other parts of the UK, England especially, realised the hatred directed at them at times I'm sure the Irish flag would fly less frequently.

What a load of rubbish.

The average Irish person has nothing against the English.

SMASH THE UNIONS

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What a load of rubbish.

The average educated Irish person has nothing against the English.

Fixed your post.
There are still plenty of Republican knuckle draggers who see burning the British flag as a hobby. They can usually be identified by their English or Scottish football jerseys. The Love Ulster march in 2006 just brought them all to the same place at the same time. Naturally chaos ensued. The fact that this state felt the need to spend millions of tax euros on extra gardai and security for the Queen's visit last year shows that the government is well aware of the huge anti-English sentiment among the simpletons in this country.

KeithAFC

TheONeill1641 wrote: »

Keith, where Sinn Fein also deluding themselves when they proposed sharing power with Unionists?? Big Ian 'Never' Paisley got up and said the famous 'Never!!.....Never!!....Never!!'......it should of been 'some day....some day'....you and other Unionists cannot stop the Nationalist bandwagon....it just keeps on rolling!!!

From the figures in that link on my previous post, if you bothered to read them, add up to one thing....the end of the orange culture in Ireland (higher death rate and lower birth rate).....nature has a funny way of correcting itself.

Unionists need to realise that without extending their hands of friendship NOW....to the Catholics, they will only increase their willingness to do all within their power to create change in their favour....damaging any chance of Catholics even considering a compromise on staying within the Union when the inevitable Catholic majority comes about.

I think you should actually look up the history and look at why Sinn Fein are in government. Ian Paisley repeatedly said he wanted power sharing built on solid foundations.

That involved Sinn Fein supporting the police and the rule of law. Which is what happened. And you should look up why the dissidents are upset at Sinn Fein. They are upset at them because they support the PSNI and the rule of law. Sinn Fein tapped to Ian Paisleys dance. There is no two ways about that.

Cú Giobach

bwatson wrote: »

Firstly, maybe your next post could highlight the exact part of my post which stated that I believed shooting Irish civilians was a justified response to the unlawful and disgraceful murder of British citizens? Cheers. If not, apologize.

Secondly, I'm not at this time interested in debating with you the strategies adopted by Britain in the Second World War. I'm not sure why you would try and make comparisons between an insurgency and a nation fighting total war.

This "insurgency" was a people fighting for self determination and freedom from foreign rule, just like your nation would have done if Operation Sea Lion had been carried out and been a success.
Were the members of The French Resistance nothing more than "insurgents" during the above mentioned conflict engaged in the unlawful and disgraceful murder of German citizens?
Seems to be a bit of a case of; One rule for "us" another rule for "them".

bwatson

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This "insurgency" was a people fighting for self determination and freedom from foreign rule, just like your nation would have done if Operation Sea Lion had been carried out and been a success.
Were the members of The French Resistance nothing more than "insurgents" during the above mentioned conflict engaged in the unlawful and disgraceful murder of German citizens?
Seems to be a bit of a case of; One rule for "us" another rule for "them".

Then I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention. I'm not discussing justifications, rights or wrongs in any way. The Irish rebellions and War of Independence simply took the form of an insurgency rather than a conventional war. There's nothing necessarily wrong with fighting in that manner I suppose.

However, I don't believe that the killing of unarmed people in their houses is ever in any way justified. Not by IRA assassination squads, not by US Special Forces today.

Sound of Silence

bwatson wrote:

Then I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention. I'm not discussing justifications, rights or wrongs in any way. The Irish rebellions and War of Independence simply took the form of an insurgency rather than a conventional war. There's nothing necessarily wrong with fighting in that manner I suppose.

However, I don't believe that the killing of unarmed people in their houses is ever in any way justified. Not by IRA assassination squads, not by US Special Forces today.

Which people do you happen to be referring to?

The members of the Cairo Gang?

You're quick to stress the brutality of their deaths. This, however, could not have been considered entirely foreign to the British Military. Lord Langford had spoken of the torture of suspected IRA Volunteers by British soldiers, writing that they had "[Cut] out the tongue of one, the nose of another, the heart of another and battering in the skull of a fourth".

The British people may have been shocked, but I don't think the Irish people were.

When speaking to his troops, Smyth VC, a British divisional Commander had instructed them that "If a police barracks is burnt then the best house in the locality is to be commandeered, the occupants thrown into the gutter. Let them die there; the more the merrier.

As such, the attack in Croke Park was not the only instance of reprisals against the civilian population by the British Military. You argue that distinctions should be made between "Total War" and "Insurgency". So, would you not still condemn such attacks as being grossly abhorrent?

Sound of Silence

SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »

Fixed your post.
There are still plenty of Republican knuckle draggers who see burning the British flag as a hobby.

This is not something which is in any way alien to Loyalists. I had even spoken to one, who had told me in detail how he was going to burn the Tricolour.

Provide an example of Southern Republicans burning the Union Jack.

They can usually be identified by their English or Scottish football jerseys. The Love Ulster march in 2006 just brought them all to the same place at the same time. Naturally chaos ensued. The fact that this state felt the need to spend millions of tax euros on extra gardai and security for the Queen's visit last year shows that the government is well aware of the huge anti-English sentiment among the simpletons in this country.

The whole Love Ulster parade was a shambles.

Organised by Willie Frazer, a man who on numerous occasions has been linked with Loyalist Paramilitaries - a fact which had arisen when he was refused an application for a personal weapon. It has also been noted that when speaking about such Organisations, he had argued that "[Loyalists] should never have been locked up in the first place".

He had also exclaimed that he "had a lot of time for Billy Wright...A man who called a spade a spade"

In recent years he has used funds provided for his FAIR Organisation to purchase a Saracen. This vehicle, he was hoping, would be driven around the Villages of South Armagh. I'm sure the locals will be delighted...as I'm sure it represents a hand across the divide.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/fair-chief-to-run-tours-of-terror-spots-1-1861547

Regardless, he should have been allowed to march in Dublin. People should have just turned their backs.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding the Queen. She received an adequate level of security which was in line with what any major public figure would expect to receive. Barrack Obama received even greater security, but I wouldn't assume that the Irish people were anti-American or White Supremacist...

LordSutch

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What a load of rubbish.

The average Irish person has nothing against the English.

You say that, but it must be somewhat disconcerting for any English football/Rugby supporters hanging out in any Irish pub during a match!
The English may be playing ze Germans, the French, the Russians, or ar anybody elso on the planet, and who will the Irish be cheering for?
Certainly not the English :cool:

john reilly

LordSutch wrote: »

You say that, but it must be somewhat disconcerting for any English football/Rugby supporters hanging out in any Irish pub during a match!
The English may be playing ze Germans, the French, the Russians, or ar anybody elso on the planet, and who will the Irish be cheering for?
Certainly not the English :cool:

boo hoo

Sound of Silence

LordSutch wrote: »

You say that, but it must be somewhat disconcerting for any English football/Rugby supporters hanging out in any Irish pub during a match!
The English may be playing ze Germans, the French, the Russians, or ar anybody elso on the planet, and who will the Irish be cheering for?
Certainly not the English :cool:

I was cheering for England when they were playing Wales in the Six Nations!

LordSutch

john reilly wrote: »

boo hoo

Ah sure its all just a joke isnt it

junder

Sound of Silence wrote: »

LordSutch wrote: »

You say that, but it must be somewhat disconcerting for any English football/Rugby supporters hanging out in any Irish pub during a match!
The English may be playing ze Germans, the French, the Russians, or ar anybody elso on the planet, and who will the Irish be cheering for?
Certainly not the English :cool:

I was cheering for England when they were playing Wales in the Six Nations!

I was cheering for France when they played ireland

Sound of Silence

junder wrote: »

I was cheering for France when they played ireland

So then you can't complain, I guess. :rolleyes:

Sound of Silence

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think you should actually look up the history and look at why Sinn Fein are in government. Ian Paisley repeatedly said he wanted power sharing built on solid foundations.

That involved Sinn Fein supporting the police and the rule of law. Which is what happened. And you should look up why the dissidents are upset at Sinn Fein. They are upset at them because they support the PSNI and the rule of law. Sinn Fein tapped to Ian Paisleys dance. There is no two ways about that.

As the SDLP's Seamus Mallon had said, the Good Friday Agreement was "Sunningdale for slow learners".

Ian Paisley being one...

woodoo

bwatson wrote: »

If the people of other parts of the UK, England especially, realised the hatred directed at them at times I'm sure the Irish flag would fly less frequently.

I have spent time in Glasgow and i found more hatred of the English there than i have ever seen here. You are over estimating the supposed hatred for the English here (outside of a few rabid bar stool republicans).

woodoo

KeithAFC wrote: »

That involved Sinn Fein supporting the police and the rule of law. Which is what happened. And you should look up why the dissidents are upset at Sinn Fein. They are upset at them because they support the PSNI and the rule of law. Sinn Fein tapped to Ian Paisleys dance. There is no two ways about that.

Who could possible be in government without law and order being a priority. The PSNI have changed a lot since the RUC days.