David McKittrick; These protests are NOT over the flag.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

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.

Excuse me to interfere in your conversation with junder. It´s just that it seems to me that you´re missing the point he´s trying to make. In general I would agree with his opinion about "that there are different interpretations to events" because this kind of approach to historical events has been taken and made from both sides.

There isn´t anything in Irish history which is so much and so strong controversial debated than the whole history of NI because it´s a place of extremes and so are some of the opinions on what happened there within the last century.

This, as my opinion has been proved on these boards since I joined them and taking part in threads like this. I think that one is more quickly inclined to view posts like that of junder as a "biased opinion" once one has recognised that he´s a Unionist / Loyalist. Sometimes it´s funny to see it that way, but one doesn´t benefit from that if one want to have a serious and reasonable debate on the topic.

IMO it´s also some kind of an democratic attitude to display that one is inclined to deal with controversial opinions may they be that misinterpreted like his posts.

Quite frankly, I haven´t come across any plain statement in which it is told that exactly just one single event kicked off the troubles. I´m more considering that it has been several and various events and wrongdoings which led to the troubles and the question to me is, from where to start. That means from which year and which event. There might be some plenty different views on that. One precisely date can be picked as it is the date when the British Troops from GB has been deployed to support the RUC. I wouldn´t forget that at that time there were British Garrisons already in NI, but to sent them in to support the Police in doing their "duty" demands order from London.

Just to take one example, combined with an "what if" question. Would there ever had been a Civil Rights Movement in NI if the Civil Rights Movement in USA had never been established? I think that this is an essential question because the Civil Rights Movement got its inspirations from the USA. The desire to prevail their right of civil rights in NI has been there before. No doubt, the patterns they followed came from the USA.

Well that´s my opinion and also my interpretations of these civil rights movements in two different countries with one common aim. You´re of course free to oppose these interpretations of mine.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No need to excuse yourself, it's a discussion board.

I get the point he's trying to make. The problem is that he is trying to make that point to justify a lie.

This is left to your own interpretation if you like to see it that way, cos he didn´t say so.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Would you agree that there's different interpretations to historical facts? We are very specifically talking about one fact here which is not open to interpretation.

Yes, I agree on that but I don´t support interpretations which are twisting the truth. I agree on the way to see such statements as what they are, just statements opposing the common knowledge and therefore had to be proved.

Even the very specifically one fact is open to interpretation because it bears the possibility that the British Army in some way might had justified their deploying of troops to NI "because of the IRA killing people". If you´re inclined to neglect that possibility then you´re missing the tricks in "Public Relations" by the BA.

Just one suggestion to consider two separate versions with the same effect:

1. "We´re going to deploy troops to NI because the RUC is not capable to deal with the riots caused by the IRA"

2. "We´re going to deploy troops to NI because there has been riots and killings reported, caused by the IRA, and the government is to restore public order there by support of the BA".

Which one would you choose to go with it to the British public?

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Indeed. But I've only ever seen one claim that it was down to the IRA killing people. There are a lot of things open to interpretation of course, and there always will be. But imaginary murder sprees aren't one of them. That's beyond revisionism.

There are more grey zones in writing and talking about history which not seldom borders on revisionism and beyond. Therefore it is not easy to find books about Irish history and in particular about NI which are guaranteed unbiased or neutral written. At least these are my experiences on that matter and in the end it´s always on the reader to decide whether the author suites him or not in different ways.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No, he just quoted a post addressed to gallag asking gallag about a lie and answered for gallag with "interpretation".

OK, let us leave it like that.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

But it's not. The IRA were not killing people at the time. There were no reports of the IRA killing people at the time. There are no recorded murders by the IRA at that time or indeed, in the preceding decade. This is not "open to interpretation". This is fact. That people are still claiming this is open to interpretation is absolutely baffling to me.

Well, how much do you know about psychological warfare by the military? I´m no expert on this but it is one part of this to either make up things by invention or simply twisting the truth. In this profession one should have no qualms using or telling lies. What counts is the effect it has on the people concerned. The two examples I told you were made from gallags post and I shaped that into two different versions to show how different this can be used. I wasn´t saying that it dealt with the truth, that´s irrelevant to the examples because the aim is the effect on the public to justify the deployment of British troops to NI.

Under normal circumstances the British Forces are not to be used within the UK or any part of it, except the UK has to face an aggressor from outside. As I said before it demands the decision of the British government and the Minister of Defence to give these orders. It is in general speaking a sensitive matter. That it is that way has indeed been proved over the decades during the trouble. The British politicians in the UK was speaking about "public disturbances", the British Army was speaking about "the war against the IRA". The fact that the British government refused to acknowledge these "disturbances" as a "state of war" is also the reason for why they refused the imprisoned IRA men to alter their status according their demands, they were simply been kept as "criminal offenders" according the law. Otherwise these IRA men would had been "PoW" and this would had been a significant difference because the British government had thus admitted that it would had been indeed engaged into a "civil war" on its own territory.

Whether it is "open to interpretation" as you are rejecting in your opinion is quite another matter because it often has been taken as being "open to interpretation".

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Here's an example. I could claim that the Catholics in Divis were simply defending themselves from the LVF as my interpretation. That would be factually incorrect, would it not? Because the LVF did not exist at the time. Easily disprovable. Or perhaps that the UVF had bombed the Dail. Or that Ian Paisley shot the pope. All lies. Not open to interpretation.

"Catholics defending themselves from the LVF" is open to interpretation as long as one doesn´t uses a precicely date from when on this happened. Before the LVF was founded it´s easy to disproof it, afterwards it´s not so easy anymore.

"The UVF had bombed the Dáil" surely has nothing to do with interpretation because such thing never happened and it would had rapidly been proved as a lie.

"Ian Paisley shot the pope" that´s also not to sell to anybody because everybody knows that he´d never get that near to the Pope and he never would had liked to meet him. It would be different if someone had claimed that "Ian Paisley was plotting to assassinate the Pope by his henchmen". What about this version, still a lie but just to consider the effect if such thing had been reported in the news.

It all depends on what was really possible and what really happened. There is the grey zone where many things can get lost.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You can say they started it or they started it or the Brits came in for this, that and the other reason, but you can't make up your own facts, and you can't explain away factual inaccuracies and outright lies with "open to interpretation." You can't invent murders and explain it away with interpretation.

Yes one can make up own facts and the inquiery on Bloody Sunday is the best example for that. To invent murders and explain it away with interpretation is difficult, but even such things can work.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Go back and read the posts concerned.

I already got your point, there´s no need for me to re-read the posts concerned, because we´re already on a theoretical level in this regards.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

There's none that claim a 1968/69 IRA killing spree to my knowledge.

That was not the point I´ve been thinking about.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

...
I really thought the penny had dropped here since the IRA were not killing people in 1969 and so it has been rapidly proved as lie. It's what my post was and is asking gallag for evidence to the contrary.
...
The only grey zone is the people saying "well maybe the IRA really were killing people in 1969 and that's why the Brits were brought in".

There it is, the point from where some interpretation can start, although one can insist on whether such interpretation starts with an "maybe"or not.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It's the only point I've been talking about. I'm challenging this allegation by gallag and I would like to be provided with proof that it happened or to have it recanted. If you would like to discuss historical interpretation in more general terms, Junder seems well up for that.

To get to the only point you´ve been talking about, I have to say that I can´t provide you with any proof.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

If you can find me any suggestion, any hint at all from a relatively reputable source that IRA were responsible for murders in 1968 or 1969 and that is why the British army were brought in then I'll agree that gallag's statement was "open to interpretation".

I'm waiting.

That´s not possible because before the split of the IRA in December 1969 there was no activity of the old IRA since the end of the border campaign in the 1950s.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It didn't work then and it won't work now, because they have only one strategy. They have never been very sophisticated politically in peace times and it is going to be their downfall.

I´m sure, some of them will survive their downfall. But if Scotland remains in the Union with England, then this downfall is less doomed. Ideas aren´t dieing so quickly. I suppose that their committment to Unionism / Loyalism is so deep rooted that they still would uphold it even when the UK wouldn´t exist anymore.

Who is politically sophisticated at all in NI (I mean which part of the two sides)? I think one can tell on the recent flag protests. My vote goes to the silent majority. It´s a pity that a minority of thugs can disturb and damage the whole economy of a country.

Thomas_I wrote: »

Who is politically sophisticated at all in NI (I mean which part of the two sides)? I think one can tell on the recent flag protests. My vote goes to the silent majority. It´s a pity that a minority of thugs can disturb and damage the whole economy of a country.

I think there is no doubt that SF are trying to look past the usual hidebound issues that trap parties involved in the failure that is NI. They have expanded the concerns of the party and are a complex political organisation now that continues to grow in appeal to people of a socialist bent.
And in the scale of things associated with the North the current kerfuffle over the flag really isn't that big a deal. As I keep saying, it won't be a major issue in a few months.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

...and the penny has finally dropped.

I do appreciate your sense of humour.:)

Lingua Franca wrote: »

In the local history section of the museum where some of those things are already, or into a room in City Hall which could be dedicated to the history of Belfast City Hall. There are a lot of unused rooms in there, and it really is a shrine to unionism. They could be replaced by local art and sculpture that is neutral and inclusive, there's no shortage of that around.

So that´s the real reason for all the fuss about the flag. It´s not just to have it not anymore flying all days around the year, it has been perceived by them as an assault on their "shrine of Unionists identity". Now that you´ve said that I see the whole thing a bit different and it explaines a lot more to me why these people got so up set and outrageous. Not that I´m inclined to justify that in any way, but this puts some other and different light on the whole story.

I suppose that this is a common knowledge among the people in Belfast and therefore, I suppose also that the Alliance Party knew very well what they were doing by that motion in the City Council.

I don´t think that it is an good idea to come up with removing things inside the hall to replace it into a museum or anywhere else inside the building, because this is just putting fuel into the fire.