Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

gingerjon

They fought and died for our freedom

188 posts in this topic

If that is true then good for the Guardian.

I'll see if I can locate it. I hope I wasn't imagining it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike Adams who is a paragon of honesty.

The Guardian can do what they like, it's their paper.

But they are hardly challenging extremism, they are endorsing it (or the right kind of it).

I never said anything about Adams' honesty or otherwise: although I did mention his role in terrorism: but again one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter-just ask nelson mandela: doesn't he have blood on his hands?

They are not endorsing extremism at all. What extremist views does Adams hold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was exactly my point (not "an obssession"), the left are not guardians of free speech as Sev would have us believe nor do they challenge extremism as others suggest, They tolerate extremism and even give it a platform but only if it "the right kind of extremism".

I feel I've been misquoted here. I was responding to a point made by another poster that said that left were for the subjugation of free speech when in fact that is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said anything about Adams' honesty or otherwise: although I did mention his role in terrorism: but again one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter-just ask nelson mandela: doesn't he have blood on his hands?

That's such a cliche and a really ugly one at that. It would like saying that one man's racist thug is another man's saviour of the white race.

The violence in South Africa was started by the Apartheid government, the ANC had been a peaceful organisation until their protests were smashed to pieces.

Remind me when the IRA were peaceful. Don't bring up the Bloody Sunday cliche either because the IRA's campaign began four years before that.

The blacks in South Africa had no vote. When did this happen in Northern Ireland? And don't try the gerrymanderry argument either because they have had PR in elections since the 70s.

The ANC were campaigning for equal rights, Northern Ireland had equal rights legislation in the 70s. The IRA were campaigning for secession of an area that had minority support for this.

They are not endorsing extremism at all. What extremist views does Adams hold?

Aside from ethnic cleansing of Protestants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point getting upset by this man burning a poppy, the symbol and occasion means so much more.

I attended the ceremony in Poulton-le-Fylde yesterday. Moving and impeccably observed.

You seem to have started hanging out in all my old haunts. You've not started fracking, have you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's such a cliche and a really ugly one at that. It would like saying that one man's racist thug is another man's saviour of the white race.

The violence in South Africa was started by the Apartheid government, the ANC had been a peaceful organisation until their protests were smashed to pieces.

Remind me when the IRA were peaceful. Don't bring up the Bloody Sunday cliche either because the IRA's campaign began four years before that.

The blacks in South Africa had no vote. When did this happen in Northern Ireland? And don't try the gerrymanderry argument either because they have had PR in elections since the 70s.

The ANC were campaigning for equal rights, Northern Ireland had equal rights legislation in the 70s. The IRA were campaigning for secession of an area that had minority support for this.

Aside from ethnic cleansing of Protestants?

Mandela's and Adams' status as terrorist or freedom fighter-as you say a trite concept, depends on your point of view-it's purely a value judgement. They have both been closely connected with the deaths of innocent people.

Adams as far as I know, has no outstanding charges or convictions. He is a senior elected poltician in a part of the country that has seen a great deal of strife and division, causing death and mysery on both sides.

Therefore the Guardian or any other publication for that matter is at liberty to hire him as they see fit. No law is being broken, and people are at liberty to buy the paper or not as are you. Don't buy the thing if you disapprove of its writers. On the other hand what should be done? I buy the Guardian occassionally, along with the Telegraph, Mail and so on. There are writers I enjoy: I'm a big Grace Dent fan, writers who get up my nose: Melanie Phillips, Rod Liddle the whole mix. I don't give a flying fart about paper's choice of writers. I either read them or I don't and wouldn't dream of questioning their right to employ a particular person-including Nick Griffin

edit ; as far as I'm aware protestants aren't an ethnic group, but anyway that would be incredibly difficult to do. For a saner perspective, here's Adams himself

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gerry-adams-springs-surprise-with-a-protestant-view-of-religion-1674860.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pure politics. He's trying to curry favour. It suits him to be the big statesman now but back in the day he made speeches about "driving the settlers into the sea" and this was no idle threat. It was IRA policy to create Catholic only areas.

He may not have outstanding charges but he's done time in connection with terrorism. If the Guardian think this okay with them then that's one reason why I never buy their paper (at least not since the Education section has been available online).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Because that itsn't the topic of this thread. But I'm sure Google is your friend if you would like to find out more about the liberal Tory tradition. You may find it harder to establish that libertarian and liberal were once two words used interchangeably (and indeed I still tend to use them this way) as that might require access to the Oxford Dictionary. But you might get lucky.

Well no actually

The word stems from the French word libertaire. The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate,libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left anarchism since the 1890s. The term libertarianism is commonly considered to be a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from ethnic cleansing of Protestants?

There have been many protestant IRA members over the years,John Graham,George Gilmour and George Plant were protestant IRA members in the 1930s and 40s until the early 1960s there was a well known Shankill Road Division which was almost entirey protestant.

David Russel was a protestant PIRA man killed in Derry in 1974. Ronnie Bunting was an INLA volunteer during the 1970s.

Sinn Fein was always adamantly a secular organisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been many protestant IRA members over the years,John Graham,George Gilmour and George Plant were protestant IRA members in the 1930s and 40s until the early 1960s there was a well known Shankill Road Division which was almost entirey protestant.

David Russel was a protestant PIRA man killed in Derry in 1974. Ronnie Bunting was an INLA volunteer during the 1970s.

Sinn Fein was always adamantly a secular organisation.

Possibly, but Adams was also a senior IRA figure and they weren't always non sectarian e.g. Kingsmill. Having said that they weren't as nakedly sectarian as the loyalists who frankly seemed to think any Catholic was a legitimate target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but the Guardian don't do this for any other group. They tolerate "alternative views" but only if they are far-left and anti-British, you won't see loyalist terror groups getting the same access.

Nor do they have any need to do this, everybody else can cover Northern Ireland without giving the chance to a spokesman for a terrorist group. You only need to report on the issues. You can discuss what Sinn Fein believe without letting them push their propaganda.

Simply not true. Even during the height of the conflict the Guardian often had pieces from many of the groups involved - including from people linked with armed loyalist groups. You may see that as pushing propaganda, others might see it as an opportunity to learn more about what was really going on - without it being interpreted by journalists.

Don't forget that at several times during 'The Troubles' British governments had contact with terrorist groups - despite official denials - often at ministerial level. Governments also pursued some very controversial policies in relation to Northern Ireland, policies that often proved counter-productive. Why shouldn't the public have had the opportunity to hear from the people actually involved? After all one of the important things about freedom of speech, and access to the opinions of others, is that it helps to hold governments to account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pure politics. He's trying to curry favour. It suits him to be the big statesman now but back in the day he made speeches about "driving the settlers into the sea" and this was no idle threat. It was IRA policy to create Catholic only areas.

He may not have outstanding charges but he's done time in connection with terrorism. If the Guardian think this okay with them then that's one reason why I never buy their paper (at least not since the Education section has been available online).

Are you trying to say the Loyalists where Angels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pure politics. He's trying to curry favour. It suits him to be the big statesman now but back in the day he made speeches about "driving the settlers into the sea" and this was no idle threat. It was IRA policy to create Catholic only areas.

He may not have outstanding charges but he's done time in connection with terrorism. If the Guardian think this okay with them then that's one reason why I never buy their paper (at least not since the Education section has been available online).

Then what's your problem? You don't wish to read what's in a newspaper - a newspaper whiuch is acting entirely legally in hiring or commissioning its writers so you don't buy it. That's the way the system works.

Personally I enjoy reading stuff I don't agree with, but that's just me. I enjoy newspapers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no actually

The word stems from the French word libertaire. The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate,libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchistJoseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left anarchism since the 1890s. The term libertarianism is commonly considered to be a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.

You're talking about the libertarian movement. I'm talking about its early meaning. And yes, it was used interchangeably with liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to say the Loyalists where Angels?

I don't think he is saying that - I don't think anyone is under any illusions about what the Loyalist groups got up to (with a little help from their friends?).

The argument is that although the Republican Movement, in the form of PIRA and Sinn Fein, was ostensibly a secular movement, it did sometimes act in a sectarian way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you trying to say the Loyalists where Angels?

I didn't mention the loyalists so how could you interpret my words that way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been many protestant IRA members over the years,John Graham,George Gilmour and George Plant were protestant IRA members in the 1930s and 40s until the early 1960s there was a well known Shankill Road Division which was almost entirey protestant.

David Russel was a protestant PIRA man killed in Derry in 1974. Ronnie Bunting was an INLA volunteer during the 1970s.

Sinn Fein was always adamantly a secular organisation.

The INLA were never part of the IRA. Different organisation.

The other IRAs of which you speak between the 30s and 60s were not the Provisional IRA but the Official IRA. Similar name, different organisation.

There may have been or two nominal Protestant members but they deliberately killed people on the basis of their presumed religion. Hard to see that as anything but sectarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he is saying that - I don't think anyone is under any illusions about what the Loyalist groups got up to (with a little help from their friends?).

Precisely. The difference is that some like to make out that the IRA were civil rights campaigners that perhaps went a bit too far. Few people would argue similar for the loyalists so I don't feel the need to describe them as murderous sectarian bigots. It's usually taken as read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The INLA were never part of the IRA. Different organisation.

The other IRAs of which you speak between the 30s and 60s were not the Provisional IRA but the Official IRA. Similar name, different organisation.

There may have been or two nominal Protestant members but they deliberately killed people on the basis of their presumed religion. Hard to see that as anything but sectarian.

I know my Irish politics, I know the difference betweeen the IRA and INLA. The Provos targeted members of the security services, who were largely protestant, but they were targeted as security personnel and not on the basis of their religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than half their victims were civilians.

I wonder which religion they belonged to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than half their victims were civilians.

I wonder which religion they belonged to.

That happens in every war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he is saying that - I don't think anyone is under any illusions about what the Loyalist groups got up to (with a little help from their friends?).

The argument is that although the Republican Movement, in the form of PIRA and Sinn Fein, was ostensibly a secular movement, it did sometimes act in a sectarian way.

Having stopped all three (Adam, McGuinness & Paisley) at a VCP during the 70's only one was abusive towards the soldiers and he was the Loyalist one, I was also there during the period when the PIRA attacked the OIRA and got a bloody nose.

As bad as the PIRA where they always gave a bomb warning where the Loyalists never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Adams and McGuinness were polite isn't the point.

The loyalists didn't use bombs much (at least not since the 70s), they shot people. The IRA used bombs and shot people.

But it's not a contest. The IRA don't get to be nice guys even if the loyalists were worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That happens in every war.

Not usually deliberately. That generally comes under the heading of "war crimes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than half their victims were civilians.

I wonder which religion they belonged to.

That will be the Christian religion in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - June 2017

League Express - Mon 17th July 2017