David McKittrick; These protests are NOT over the flag.

junder · 22-01-2013 10:38PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

no, it certainly is not. You're thinking of revisionism, something loyalists are particularly fond of, especially when it comes to how exactly the troubles started.

Sure And republicans have never been guilty of that,

Lingua Franca · 22-01-2013 10:41PM

Still waiting to see this evidence of a Brit summoning IRA murder spree, Junder.

junder · 22-01-2013 10:42PM

SoulandForm wrote: »

This is something that is very annoying about a lot of Unionists and Loyalists; they expect there subjective feelings to have the same respect as objective fact.

This is something that is very annoying about republicans, they expect songs song in irish bars by men wearing Arran jumpers to be objective fact.

junder · 22-01-2013 10:43PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Still waiting to see this evidence of a Brit summoning IRA murder spree, Junder.

Speak to Gallag about that since its his view your questioning.

Lingua Franca · 22-01-2013 10:51PM

junder wrote: »

Speak to Gallag about that since its his view your questioning.

He's not answering either. Funny, that.

Haystack. · 23-01-2013 12:35AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So wrong.

If it hadn't been for Unionist/Loyalist state and sate facilitated violence (up to murder and ethic cleansing) against the CNR community then the BA might not have ended up on the streets. They came initially to protect Catholics from Unionists/Loyalists.

It was ethnic cleansing from the British Army or Protestants but it wasn't ethnic cleansing of Protestants by PIRA death squads in South Armagh and all over Ulster was it? Hypocrite and a PIRA apologist.

Thomas_I · 23-01-2013 07:08AM

Dubhlinner wrote: »

... They were sent over because the RUC were in no position (ie did not have the numbers or equipment) to cope with the situation(including loyalist pogroms which i am certainly not denying). That is fact. ...

That´s one part of the official version and the other part is "to protect the Catholics from these pogroms".

Isn´t it curious that in all these documentaries there were footages that shows the BA are welcome by the Catholics? Catholics inviting British soldiers to tea in their homes and so on. It can´t all have been made up but well, this lasted just for a short time.

Thomas_I · 23-01-2013 09:20AM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I love Puckoon, I re-read it last week and it's full of um... non PC humour. To say the least. The film with Sean Hughes is quite good.

I've still not watched it but after being told by some one who works there, I think it was the Belfast Telegraph or perhaps Slugger O'Toole that confirmed that the audience was made up of the protestors who'd scared the ticket holding audience off when they arrived.

No wonder when one takes a look at some of the bully boys among the audience there.

Thomas_I · 23-01-2013 09:22AM

Haystack. wrote: »

It was ethnic cleansing from the British Army or Protestants but it wasn't ethnic cleansing of Protestants by PIRA death squads in South Armagh and all over Ulster was it? ...

It was simply another kind of civil war.

laoch na mona · 23-01-2013 09:26AM

no its a group of unionists who reject the idea of equality

Happyman42 · 23-01-2013 09:44AM

There is a notion amongst Unionism that everything they did was moral and right because they had the force of tradition and their god behind them. They haven't faced up to the fact that a lot of what they did exacerbated the problem and is still doing that and they where largely the arbiters of their current position - having nowhere to go, and finding themselves at odds with the very identity they so desperately clung to. There is a hardcore which fails to see their place in the world and they are consequently jealous of the health of republicanism as an idelology. They need to move forward, not backward. I think the more extreme reactions we see helps the more progressive to do this, the Unionist elements of the Alliance being a case in point.

Thomas_I · 23-01-2013 09:44AM

laoch na mona wrote: »

no its a group of unionists who reject the idea of equality

There are apparently several groups of that kind in NI.

Thomas_I · 23-01-2013 10:00AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is a notion amongst Unionism that everything they did was moral and right because they had the force of tradition and their god behind them. They haven't faced up to the fact that a lot of what they did exacerbated the problem and is still doing that and they where largely the arbiters of their current position - having nowhere to go, and finding themselves at odds with the very identity they so desperately clung to.

I see it quite that way too.

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is a hardcore which fails to see their place in the world and they are consequently jealous of the health of republicanism as an idelology. They need to move forward, not backward. I think the more extreme reactions we see helps the more progressive to do this, the Unionist elements of the Alliance being a case in point.

This applies for the Republicans as well because to transfer "republicanism as an ideology" into a "New United Ireland" provokes the transfer of "Unionism" and thus the same problems as well into that new Ireland. It´s the only option I can see for the sake of an peaceful united Ireland. I´m more inclined to think about a pluralistic and democratic Ireland for the benefit of all its inhabitants than to advocate an ideology which might become obsolete in the event of the unification of Ireland. I also think that one can´t have it the other way. Everyone of them should have his place in that without fear from either side. That´s the only way it can work and I´m more an realist than an utopist in these regards. I´m sorry but I can only see republicanism as a purpose to achieve a united Ireland. Once this would be accomplished I can´t see any further use of that, because Ireland without NI is already a Republic. It can and hopefully it will only be united as a Republic.

Lets hope that the more progressive will prevail.

Happyman42 · 23-01-2013 10:06AM

Thomas_I wrote: »

This applies for the Republicans as well because to transfer "republicanism as an ideology" into a "New United Ireland" provokes the transfer of "Unionism" and thus the same problems as well into that new Ireland. It´s the only option I can see for the sake of an peaceful united Ireland. I´m more inclined to think about a pluralistic and democratic Ireland for the benefit of all its inhabitants than to advocate an ideology which might become obsolete in the event of the unification of Ireland. I also think that one can´t have it the other way. Everyone of them should have his place in that without fear from either side. That´s the only way it can work and I´m more an realist than an utopist in these regards. I´m sorry but I can only see republicanism as a purpose to achieve a united Ireland. Once this would be accomplished I can´t see any further use of that, because Ireland without NI is already a Republic. It can and hopefully it will only be united as a Republic.

Lets hope that the more progressive will prevail.

I think the world can see who is 'trying' to move forward. I agree that there is a way to go, but I think SF have a vision of a new republic that I think I can sign up to. I have never voted for them before in a national election but they become more attractive by the day as they mature economically, more people like Pearse Doherty are needed though.
True Republicanism does not need to become redundant.

Lingua Franca · 23-01-2013 10:11AM

gallag wrote: »

Seriously? If it was not for the IRA killing people the British army would never have been on the streets over here

gallag, could you provide a reputable source for this or retract it, please.

Thomas_I · 23-01-2013 10:30AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think the world can see who is 'trying' to move forward. I agree that there is a way to go, but I think SF have a vision of a new republic that I think I can sign up to. I have never voted for them before in a national election but they become more attractive by the day as they mature economically, more people like Pearse Doherty are needed though.
True Republicanism does not need to become redundant.

To me some questions remain: "What is true Republicanism?" and "What place has it really in the present Republic of Ireland?" and "What place would it supposed to have in a new Ireland?"

Republicanism is the claimed grass-root of SF but the other political parties (most of the older ones from the same stock) claim to be republican as well. So what´s the point in this? It rather appeares to me that to be "republican" in the RoI is just a naturally thing based on the democratic Irish State.

Dubhlinner · 23-01-2013 11:37AM

Thomas_I wrote: »

That´s one part of the official version and the other part is "to protect the Catholics from these pogroms".

Isn´t it curious that in all these documentaries there were footages that shows the BA are welcome by the Catholics? Catholics inviting British soldiers to tea in their homes and so on. It can´t all have been made up but well, this lasted just for a short time.

Yeah, wasn't denying that. Made reference to that very point in previous post. This is tedious

Thomas_I · 23-01-2013 11:50AM

Some cartoon from a book covering the years 1994 to 1996:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/cartoons/t96p104.htm

Funny, that cartoon in which John Major is asking himself: "What´s a sash? What´s a lambeg? What´s bratash? What planet are these guys from?"

Seems as if nothing has changed in compare to the recent flag issue(?)

Another selected from that website:

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/cartoons/t98p100.htm

junder · 23-01-2013 01:10PM

I was at an orange parade last year in London, in celebration of the jubliee, it was hosted and orginised by the English grand lodge and was one of the biggest parades I have attended. Was a very proud moment to parade past the houses of parilment and we where very well revived by the people of London. Another interesting point is that I met my English girlfriend at a orange parade in southhampton, her son was in a English flute band, so it seems unionist culture is not as far removed from the mainland as some people would like to believe

Thomas_I · 23-01-2013 01:21PM

junder wrote: »

I was at an orange parade last year in London, in celebration of the jubliee, it was hosted and orginised by the English grand lodge and was one of the biggest parades I have attended. Was a very proud moment to parade past the houses of parilment and we where very well revived by the people of London. Another interesting point is that I met my English girlfriend at a orange parade in southhampton, her son was in a English flute band, so it seems unionist culture is not as far removed from the mainland as some people would like to believe

Well done and the link in my previous post leads to a cartoon from 1998. It´s just a cartoon and the Orange Order has done enough publicity to be well recognised by the people in GB.

By the way, that website has some cartoons about Republicans too, but I guess that´s not that sort of humour you´d prefer.

But serious, the traditions of the Orange Order are specifically bound to NI and those parading in GB are from there. I guess those in England and elsewhere supporting the flag protests in NI are from NI also.

One can meet plenty of different people in London, some Orangemen parading there isn´t a great deal anyway.

junder · 23-01-2013 01:48PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Is this honestly what you believe? Have you really no clue as to what happened? This is factually incorrect. You cannot rewrite the circumstances which led up to the troubles. They are not in dispute.

'The pogrom myth' by Malachi O'Doherty

"Many people will remember this week as the anniversary of a pogrom, an attack on Catholic homes by the massed ranks of the RUC, B Specials and Loyalist paramilitaries.
Two great lessons were assimilated by many Catholics from that experience, or that understanding of their experience. These were that the Northern Ireland state was hostile to them and that the IRA, which had failed to defend them, would have to be beefed up so that it could do a better job the next times the prods went doo lally and descended on them.
The flaw in this version of August 1969 is that it takes no account of the plain fact that it was rioters in Ardoyne and the Falls Road – Catholics – who started the Trouble in Belfast that week, and it was very big trouble they started."

http://malachiodoherty.com/2009/08/12/the-pogrom-myth/

Read, ingest, enjoy, and as I said before history is always open to interpretation

Lingua Franca · 23-01-2013 01:56PM

junder wrote: »

'The pogrom myth' by Malachi O'Doherty

"Many people will remember this week as the anniversary of a pogrom, an attack on Catholic homes by the massed ranks of the RUC, B Specials and Loyalist paramilitaries.
Two great lessons were assimilated by many Catholics from that experience, or that understanding of their experience. These were that the Northern Ireland state was hostile to them and that the IRA, which had failed to defend them, would have to be beefed up so that it could do a better job the next times the prods went doo lally and descended on them.
The flaw in this version of August 1969 is that it takes no account of the plain fact that it was rioters in Ardoyne and the Falls Road – Catholics – who started the Trouble in Belfast that week, and it was very big trouble they started."

http://malachiodoherty.com/2009/08/12/the-pogrom-myth/

Read, ingest, enjoy, and as I said before history is always open to interpretation

There's not an IRA killing mentioned in there, dear. It was "IRA killing people" that brought the Brits in that you're trying to prove. Try again and this time try answering the question asked about the actual statement made.

The only killing mentioned in that link is the killing of 9 year old Patrick Rooney by the RUC...

You'll also note that it's about one pogrom and is not claiming to be the event that kicked off the troubles.

I give your post an F. Please try to stick to the subject matter at hand.

junder · 23-01-2013 01:59PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

There's not an IRA killing mentioned in there, dear. It was "IRA killing people" that brought the Brits in that you're trying to prove. Try again and this time try answering the question asked about the actual statement made.

The only killing mentioned in that link is the killing of 9 year old Patrick Rooney by the RUC...

In not trying to prove anything, only showing that history and so called historical facts are completely down to
Interpretation

Lingua Franca · 23-01-2013 02:06PM

junder wrote: »

In not trying to prove anything, only showing that history and so called historical facts are completely down to
Interpretation

But certain facts aren't down to interpretation and someone's blog doesn't change that. Facts are facts. The fact claimed was that the British army was brought in to quell IRA murders. This is factually incorrect and easily disprovable so you can babble on about "interpretation" all you want, you still can't make up your own facts. Which you should have noticed by now with all the avoidance and now the reaching you're doing. If the best you can do is a blog post, that should tell you something. You should really stop trying to defend the indefensible, it's doing your cause no favours.

Speaking of facts being open to interpretation... I can tell you didn't bother to read the comments under that post!

junder · 23-01-2013 02:24PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

But certain facts aren't down to interpretation and someone's blog doesn't change that. Facts are facts. The fact claimed was that the British army was brought in to quell IRA murders. This is factually incorrect and easily disprovable so you can babble on about "interpretation" all you want, you still can't make up your own facts. Which you should have noticed by now with all the avoidance and now the reaching you're doing. If the best you can do is a blog post, that should tell you something. You should really stop trying to defend the indefensible, it's doing your cause no favours.

Speaking of facts being open to interpretation... I can tell you didn't bother to read the comments under that post!

All facts are open to interpretation include take for example the Bombay street 'fact' Malachi is presenting a totally different interpretation of the events that have been called the 'loyalist pogrom' he is also saying that in his view the army was brought into because the RUC could not maintain order anymore, and again he is pointing the figure at republicans for this happening, so yer the reasons for the army being brought here are still very much open to interpretation. Lets not forgot as well that Malachi claims to be an eye witness to these events.

golfball37 · 23-01-2013 02:29PM

Malachi's experiences were in Belfast though. The British Army were brought into NI to relieve the siege/standoff in Derry after the battle of the bogside.
Belfast didn't even come into it.

Lingua Franca · 23-01-2013 02:29PM

So show us this different interpretation of why the British army were brought in, the one that says it was because the IRA were killing people.

Please use more reputable sources than a blog that doesn't even mention the British army at all.

The fact is, you can't.

circadian · 23-01-2013 02:41PM

golfball37 wrote: »

Malachi's experiences were in Belfast though. The British Army were brought into NI to relieve the siege/standoff in Derry after the battle of the bogside.
Belfast didn't even come into it.

This. It's my understanding that the request was made by the residents as at that point the army were seen as impartial compared to the RUC.

junder · 23-01-2013 02:48PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

So show us this different interpretation of why the British army were brought in, the one that says it was because the IRA were killing people.

Please use more reputable sources than a blog that doesn't even mention the British army at all.

The fact is, you can't.

Jesus it's like talking to the wall. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE BRITISH ARMY WHERE BROUGHT IN, IN RESPONSE TO THE IRA KILLING. In fact I have offered no opinion on why the army came in. The point that i am making is only that there are different interpretations to events that's all. Gallag offered his interpretation, and since you have a problem with it take it up with him

Lingua Franca · 23-01-2013 02:59PM

I did, but he's gone strangely silent.

Fact is, he stated that "If it was not for the IRA killing people the British army would never have been on the streets over here". I called him out on that easily disprovable lie. YOU quoted that post with the defence that it's open to interpretation, which it's not. You quoted the exact same post questioning the accuracy of his claims again with a link to a blog post that mentions a single event of 1969 but doesn't mention the British army at all.

If you're not saying that the British army were brought in in response to IRA killings, please stop quoting the post questioning the lie. It looks like you're trying to respond to that post because that is in fact what you are doing.

David McKittrick; These protests are NOT over the flag.

Comments