John Waters - "We must seize Tricolour back from thugs"

MakeEmLaugh

Nodin wrote: »

So you're against the GFA then? Interesting.

The GFA offered a comprehensive solution to long standing issues, from parades, policing to matters of governance.

You'll find that to solve a conflict, all sides usually have to be included. You might explain how matters would be resolved without the loyalists participation.

I never said I was against the Good Friday Agreement. My point was that Northern Ireland did not cease to be "a sectarian statelet" all of a sudden in 1998. The improvement in the rights of Catholics/Nationalist was a gradual process, which had mostly been achieved by the mid-1970s.

All terrorists such the IRA and UVF did was prolong the agony for the citizens of Northern Ireland; the IRA in particular, with its imbecilic belief that Northern Ireland could be removed from the United Kingdom without the consent of the people living there, and its theft of 1696 lives, more than the UVF's still despicable body-count of 396.

The Good Friday Agreement was a defeat for the IRA and for Sinn Féin. In January 1984, the IRA's Army Council issued a statement, saying

"This is war to the end. There will be no interval... When we put away our guns, Britain will be out of Ireland and an Irish democracy will be established in the Thirty Two Counties with a national Government."

Funny, that. As far as I know, the British flag still flies at Belfast City Hall, and the IRA have put their guns away.

All the IRA got out of the Good Friday Agreement was the release of convicted terrorists from prison, provided they behaved themselves. Those who didn't, like Marian Price, end up back in jail. Rules of the game.

Happyman42

Nodin wrote: »

1998.

The b-specials were returned under the guise of the UDR.

The name change was enough to fool one poster here,:rolleyes: The reason they all eventually sat down and worked out the mutually acceptable GFA was that all previous efforts where just lipservice. Enough to appease those who didn't really care but non effective as far as those at the coalface where concerned.

Happyman42

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

The Good Friday Agreement was a defeat for the IRA and for Sinn Féin. In January 1984, the IRA's Army Council issued a statement, saying

Is this the same IRA who refused to decommision (a requirement if SF where to be allowed to the table) and forced the British PM to climb down? They didn't decommission until the deal was done, that is not a surrender, it's a negotiated settlement. Doesn't sound like a 'defeat' to me. It isn't viewed as one by the majority of Nationalists in the North either.

Nodin

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I never said................ Rules of the game.

It's a negotiated settlement, and like all such, contains elements of compromise.

You haven't explained to me how a deal would have been concluded without input from the loyalists yet.

MakeEmLaugh

Happyman42 wrote: »

They didn't decommission until the deal was done.

So they surrendered in 2005 instead of 1998. What's your point? Their sole aim was a united Ireland, going back to the Provisionals first statement in 1969:

"We declare our allegiance to the 32 county Irish republic, proclaimed at Easter 1916, established by the first Dáil Éireann in 1919, overthrown by forces of arms in 1922 and suppressed to this day by the existing British-imposed six-county and twenty-six-county partition states."

In 2012, Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland is still an entirely separate country. The IRA handed over its guns and promised not to kill any more people. If that's not a surrender, then what exactly would have been a surrender for the IRA?

Nodin wrote: »

You haven't explained to me how a deal would have been concluded without input from the loyalists yet.

I don't have to explain because I never said a deal should have been concluded without the input of loyalists. That was, however, Sinn Féin's aim for nearly thirty years, before the Good Friday Agreement.

In 1983, Gerry Adams gave an interview in Magill magazine in which he said "We have to break the loyalist veto", meaning the, in his words, "artificial majority" created by the state of Northern Ireland.

Well, not only did the loyalists have input into the ending of the conflict in Northern Ireland, they were triumphant over the IRA. And they know they were triumphant over the IRA.

Nodin

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I don't have to explain because(...........)over the IRA. And they know they were triumphant over the IRA.

I don't see the words 'We must exclude the loyalists' there. As the loyalists and unionists eventually lost their effective veto, he was correct.

It would be short sighted, self defeating and wrong to have excluded the loyalist community from input into whatever agreement and framework was reached.

Going back to your earlier statement

An agreement which was approved by the UVF and UDA, who had slaughtered Nationalists en masse?

you seem there to have rejected participation by the UVF/UDA as somehow beyond the pale, yet now seem to be using it to say the GFA was a 'defeat' for the republican movement. It seems to me the only consistent point of your position is the urge to say "ha ha, you lost" to republicans.

Happyman42

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

So they surrendered in 2005 instead of 1998. What's your point? Their sole aim was a united Ireland, going back to the Provisionals first statement in 1969:

"We declare our allegiance to the 32 county Irish republic, proclaimed at Easter 1916, established by the first Dáil Éireann in 1919, overthrown by forces of arms in 1922 and suppressed to this day by the existing British-imposed six-county and twenty-six-county partition states."

In 2012, Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland is still an entirely separate country. The IRA handed over its guns and promised not to kill any more people. If that's not a surrender, then what exactly would have been a surrender for the IRA?

Firstly: You should read the GFA from the point of view of a previously disenfranchised nationalist or republican.
Secondly:The Unionists sole aim was to dominate the power, resist a UI to the death, and ensure that SF would never ever come to power.
Fail on 3 counts.
The IRA did NOT decommission until the agreement was satisfactory to them. No amount of your 'surrender lust' spin will change that. Look at the timeline of events. They came off ceasefire to underline their demands and focus minds.

Crooked Jack

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

So they surrendered in 2005 instead of 1998. What's your point? Their sole aim was a united Ireland, going back to the Provisionals first statement in 1969:

"We declare our allegiance to the 32 county Irish republic, proclaimed at Easter 1916, established by the first Dáil Éireann in 1919, overthrown by forces of arms in 1922 and suppressed to this day by the existing British-imposed six-county and twenty-six-county partition states."

In 2012, Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland is still an entirely separate country. The IRA handed over its guns and promised not to kill any more people. If that's not a surrender, then what exactly would have been a surrender for the IRA?



I don't have to explain because I never said a deal should have been concluded without the input of loyalists. That was, however, Sinn Féin's aim for nearly thirty years, before the Good Friday Agreement.

In 1983, Gerry Adams gave an interview in Magill magazine in which he said "We have to break the loyalist veto", meaning the, in his words, "artificial majority" created by the state of Northern Ireland.

Well, not only did the loyalists have input into the ending of the conflict in Northern Ireland, they were triumphant over the IRA. And they know they were triumphant over the IRA.

HAHA! This is hilarious, at least when you started you at least tried (failed, but tried) to give the impression that this was something other than you venting some steam about nationalism. Less than three pages in and the mask slips completely.
So have you got it all off your chest yet? Calm down before you give yourself a stroke. Wouldn't wanna miss next years marching season

Executive Steve

We must seize column inches back from eejits like John Waters.

MakeEmLaugh

Nodin wrote: »

I don't see the words 'We must exclude the loyalists' there. As the loyalists and unionists eventually lost their effective veto, he was correct.

A cursory glance at any Irish republican literature will show that "loyalist veto" refers not to whatever Party is in charge in Stormont, but to the existence of Northern Ireland as a state in itself i.e. Articles 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty:

"If before the expiration of the said month, an address is presented to His Majesty by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to that effect, the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland, and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920"

This is why, in 2009, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, former leader of Republic Sinn Féin (political front of the Continuity IRA), criticised Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams by saying:

"Who is the traitor? Is it those who behave as they always have behaved and believe sincerely as they always believed in the republican struggle? Or are they people who turned their coats like McGuinness... who said they would never accept the unionist veto and now have done so?"

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Unionists sole aim was to dominate the power, resist a UI to the death, and ensure that SF would never ever come to power.
Fail on 3 counts.

Excuse me? How did the Unionists fail at "resisting a United Ireland to the death"? That statement does not make sense.

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Calm down before you give yourself a stroke. Wouldn't wanna miss next years marching season

You don't have to worry about me. I am quite calm. I have the facts and logic on my side. I have cited several sources and dates which prove my argument irrefutably. All I have been met with is feeble claims that the IRA's violent campaign was for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom - with the British flag still flying over City Hall and Queen Elizabeth II on the local currency - but with a few more Catholics in Government. This shows a complete lack of knowledge on the history of the Provisional IRA.

And I won't be going up to Northern Ireland for marching season. As someone who was raised Catholic, with a Gaelic name, I don't think I'd fit in. However, you're assumption that I must be a Protestant in order to dislike Sinn Féin and IRA belies your own sectarianism.

Happyman42

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Excuse me? How did the Unionists fail at "resisting a United Ireland to the death"? That statement does not make sense.

Again, you need to read the GFA without the 'surrender lust'.

If you did you would see that the political position of NI has changed completely. The Unionists now have to conform to what the majority want to remain as democrats. Resistance to the death would be futile and the important thing about that is; they know it. Prompting Jim Molyneaux to say, 'This is the worst thing that has ever happened us'.
Also, what makes your 'surrender' concensus nonsense is the fact that the British tried again and again (including the Iron Lady) to negotiate a settlement in secret, behind the backs of the Unionists, hardly the actions of a government in control of the situation or a sign of 'rebels' under pressure.
Why did the British drop the decommissioning demand, can you spin that from your surrender lust perspective?

JustinDee

"Who is the traitor? Is it those who behave as they always have behaved and believe sincerely as they always believed in the republican struggle? Or are they people who turned their coats like McGuinness... who said they would never accept the unionist veto and now have done so?"

- Subjective rhetoric aside, there's an easy answer to this daft question.
The traitor is whoever denegrates and ignores the will of the majority of the island while bandying the word 'democracy' about.

Crooked Jack

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

And I won't be going up to Northern Ireland for marching season. As someone who was raised Catholic, with a Gaelic name, I don't think I'd fit in. However, you're assumption that I must be a Protestant in order to dislike Sinn Féin and IRA belies your own sectarianism.

I did not, nor would I, make any such assumption on you or anyone else's religious beliefs.
Your language (The IRA lost, loyalists won, Queen's currency, Union flag over Belfast etc...) just led me to believe that an idiotic display of paranoia, triumphalism and empty roaring rhetoric would be right up your street.

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

"Who is the traitor? Is it those who behave as they always have behaved and believe sincerely as they always believed in the republican struggle? Or are they people who turned their coats like McGuinness... who said they would never accept the unionist veto and now have done so?"

- Subjective rhetoric aside, there's an easy answer to this daft question.
The traitor is whoever denegrates and ignores the will of the majority of the island while bandying the word 'democracy' about.

What do you call somebody who fights for and enshrines parity of esteem, equal oppurtunities for their people and establishes a 'democracy' that works, then?

Nodin

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

A cursory glance at any Irish republican literature will show that "loyalist veto" .....

According to you. You'll pardon me not taking your word for it.

JustinDee

Happyman42 wrote: »

What do you call somebody who fights for and enshrines parity of esteem, equal oppurtunities for their people and establishes a 'democracy' that works, then?

Once an accepted democracy is established, all the rest of these tenets you list are subsequently ignorant of the wishes of people that these self-appointed protagonists delusively purport to represent.

Racketeering, extortion, armed robbery, kidnapping, and murder are most certainly not required, once a fair democratic vote has been achieved as already expressed.

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

Racketeering, extortion, armed robbery, kidnapping, and murder are most certainly not required, once a fair democratic vote has been achieved as already expressed.

And you have sources that show Martin McGuinnes is involved in the above?

JustinDee

Happyman42 wrote: »

And you have sources that show Martin McGuinnes is involved in the above?

He was PIRA and in leadership, wasn't he? Unless of course you can claim that they simply didn't know at the top table or even funnier still, claim he wasn't involved with anything ever.

Happyman42

JustinDee wrote: »

He was PIRA and in leadership, wasn't he? Unless of course you can claim that they simply didn't know at the top table or even funnier still, claim he wasn't involved with anything ever.

PIRA ceased to exist once the settlement was reached as they said they would.

wingsof daun

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

A cursory glance at any Irish republican literature will show that "loyalist veto" refers not to whatever Party is in charge in Stormont, but to the existence of Northern Ireland as a state in itself i.e. Articles 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty:



This is why, in 2009, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh, former leader of Republic Sinn Féin (political front of the Continuity IRA), criticised Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams by saying:

"Who is the traitor? Is it those who behave as they always have behaved and believe sincerely as they always believed in the republican struggle? Or are they people who turned their coats like McGuinness... who said they would never accept the unionist veto and now have done so?"



Excuse me? How did the Unionists fail at "resisting a United Ireland to the death"? That statement does not make sense.



You don't have to worry about me. I am quite calm. I have the facts and logic on my side. I have cited several sources and dates which prove my argument irrefutably. All I have been met with is feeble claims that the IRA's violent campaign was for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom - with the British flag still flying over City Hall and Queen Elizabeth II on the local currency - but with a few more Catholics in Government. This shows a complete lack of knowledge on the history of the Provisional IRA.

And I won't be going up to Northern Ireland for marching season. As someone who was raised Catholic, with a Gaelic name, I don't think I'd fit in. However, you're assumption that I must be a Protestant in order to dislike Sinn Féin and IRA belies your own sectarianism.

You should also have noted that Adams, McGuiness and co sat at a round table 20 odd years ago somewhere down in Longford and promised to not cease the armed struggle until the last British soldier left Ireland. It appears that went out the window when the GFA came along. A northern bank robbery to sweeten up disillusioned members of the PIRA combined with their lack of knowledge of their history and the goals set out long ago, seemed to lead to the decommission and therefore peace. Some of them need to do some soul searching.

Oaklilly

An agreement which had the country internationally recognised as "Ireland" edit its constitution so that the six northern-eastern counties of the island were most definitely not part of "Ireland"?

Ofcorse it is - all you have to do is just go there every place name, every valley, mountain everything all around you derives from Irish. How the **** isn't it Ireland, I wont have any politician telling me so because I know in my heart that it is.

Happyman42

wingsof daun wrote: »

You should also have noted that Adams, McGuiness and co sat at a round table 20 odd years ago somewhere down in Longford and promised to not cease the armed struggle until the last British soldier left Ireland. It appears that went out the window when the GFA came along. A northern bank robbery to sweeten up disillusioned members of the PIRA combined with their lack of knowledge of their history and the goals set out long ago, seemed to lead to the decommission and therefore peace. Some of them need to do some soul searching.

Which section of the community of NI shouted 'Never' & 'No' the most?

Everyone compromised in a negotiated settlement, but one side had to eat more grass and lost more. But they had too much to begin with, that's what caused the conflict. And again, as Molyneaux said, they lost it all, because to stay democrats they now have to give way to the wishes of the majority. And that is the victory.
For men and women prepared to die for a cause and not benefit personally, it doesn't matter if it takes a 100 years, the job is done.

cyberhog

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

This article by John Waters was taken from today's Irish Times:

What are people's thoughts?

We should be more worried about our politicians ceding ever more power and control to europe than bickering about the past.

Davidth88

As a British person , I remember when the Union Flag ( Sometimes called the Jack ) was linked with right wing groups , basically if you were seen displaying the Union Flag then you must be a racist etc.

Thank god , this position has to some extent been retrieved , partly to things like the golden jubilee and the Olympics .

Really , Irish republicans ( real ones ) need to act to ensure their flag is not hijacked in the same way , how this happens , not sure , but you need to act.

Happyman42

Davidth88 wrote: »

As a British person , I remember when the Union Flag ( Sometimes called the Jack ) was linked with right wing groups , basically if you were seen displaying the Union Flag then you must be a racist etc.

Thank god , this position has to some extent been retrieved , partly to things like the golden jubilee and the Olympics .

Really , Irish republicans ( real ones ) need to act to ensure their flag is not hijacked in the same way , how this happens , not sure , but you need to act.

The British flag was lost when ordinary people couldn't look to it with pride anymore, nothing to do with being linked to right wing groups as such, although it was used by them too.
It became a trite symbol of a desire to be a cohesive nation; emblazoned on everything from underpants to towels. I don't think the Olympics (an expensive but transient feel good event) or the Jubilee will save it, as Britian (As a concept) is in an ever downward spiral.

You can't 'take back a flag', Waters is spouting nonsense, you can however take back a country by prioritising what that country was meant to be. In Ireland's case, that is 'A Republic'. And that we don't have and never really did, we play lipservice to the ideal, but it's not what we have.

maccored

wingsof daun wrote: »

A northern bank robbery to sweeten up disillusioned members of the PIRA ....

The good old bank robbery. Its nearly hitting its ten year anniversary and STILL theres not one shred of evidence to back up such an absurd claim. What ever happened to being able to back up claims with facts around here?

Scofflaw

Enough hilarity...

moderately humourlessly,
Scofflaw

Fitzerb

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

I do not feel the need to "hide" under the cover of any article. I regard Francis Hughes as a murderer. I regard those who commemorate him as some kind of freedom fighter either clueless halfwits or, worse, apologists for criminal terrorism.

This is merely one aspect of this article I selected. There are other talking points: whether the Tricolour can be reclaimed as an heroic symbol of the Irish nation, or whether it has been irreversibly besmirched by the likes of Ryan, Hughes or indeed Pearse.

Could I just ask you one question so that I can gain a perspective on your thinking.

Do you consider the soldiers of the 1st parachute regiment involved in Bloody Sunday Derry as murders also ? Your answer will tell me all I need to know

MakeEmLaugh

Fitzerb wrote: »

Could I just ask you one question so that I can gain a perspective on your thinking.

Do you consider the soldiers of the 1st parachute regiment involved in Bloody Sunday Derry as murders also ? Your answer will tell me all I need to know

Yes, absolutely. May I ask what you have learned from this?

Mr Cumulonimbus

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Yes, absolutely. May I ask what you have learned from this?

Just asking again what I asked you earlier on in the thread, why do you think Pearse may have besmirched the tricolour?