Messages

Oh I get it...you think Celtic supporters have to be Shinners as well. Broad minded sort, aren't you? 

Not at all but generally people of YOUR mindset don't support the hoops, more at home with the peepil, where did you say you were again? Lisburn or Ballymena?

But I won't try to upset you too much after that result... 

People of YOUR mindset don't usually follow foreign games at all, do they?

Great result for the hoops, great strike from wee McDonald. Looking good for 2009. 

That said, I don't think the 50 years of unionist misrule in any way justifies the so called armed struggle carried out by Irish republicans

Myles,
Clearly you're attempting to provoke so I don't see the point in wasting my time trying to teach you the distinction between the groupings and the reasons behind the struggle...I would suggest reading some literature on the subject.

What literature would you suggest, teacher?

something that would teach you that even after 800/90/35 years the problems still exist from the oppressive apartheid type rule from the campbells/paisleys/craigs etc and their forefathers

if things were now on an even keel we wouldnt be having this discussion.
A smidgen of public funding the GAA may receive, but until the unionist/loyalist community and the establishment etc clear up their own house, then their mindset is one that will not change to any welcoming GAA clubs, you must have missed this debate on here before, but its not the name of a handful of GAA clubs that stops unionist/loyalists from joining, its their mindset.
The only way theyd change that right now is if we wee back tugging our forelocks and playing second class citizens again.
think you have a lot of history to find out about, youre obv too young to remember or just plain naive!
(if not a tad stupid).

You're clearly suffering from the worst case of mopery I've come across in a while. Here's a tip:throw out all those books you have about the Famine, and the Poor Laws, and the Plantation of Ulster, go out and buy yourself a newspaper and read it. Try and ease yourself into the 21st Century. You'll find it's not such a bad place. 

Looks like Pennant's off to Real Madrid - there was never a snowball's chance in hell of him joining the hoops. He's probably on 2 or 3 times what the top paid player at Celtic's on. Donati looks like he's for Atlanta, according to the BBC. McGeady will also be out the door come January. If we get 4m for him we should grab it.

I think you might be better placed to tell us how Walters Wonders are getting on surely?

Oh I get it...you think Celtic supporters have to be Shinners as well. Broad minded sort, aren't you? 

That said, I don't think the 50 years of unionist misrule in any way justifies the so called armed struggle carried out by Irish republicans

Myles,
Clearly you're attempting to provoke so I don't see the point in wasting my time trying to teach you the distinction between the groupings and the reasons behind the struggle...I would suggest reading some literature on the subject.

What literature would you suggest, teacher?

[two men were convicted of little more than having guns]

Yet another bigot on the gaaboard

Why on earth would young unionists choose to play a game against teams or in sports grounds named after people who, not so long ago, were trying to kill their fathers / uncles / brothers, etc, etc? Seems a no brainer to me.

Pat Darcy's response

"If we can live with the Craigavons, Mountjoys, Kings, Queens, Windsors and Royal Victorias, then I would ask the Minister to tolerate the Casements, Wolf Tones, Kevin Barrys, Pearses, Sam Maguire and the Clarkes."

My apologies - I should've been clearer. I was referring to the naming of clubs after people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years, rather than those from the war of independence. Also Darcy's response is a case of comparing apples with pears. If the GAA were naming clubs after old politicians, former Irish presidents, and so on, there probably wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. They're naming them after people the wider unionist community - including those Darcy wants to see taking up the game - would view as terrorists. And what's your definition of bigot, BTW? Someone who holds a different view than yourself? Very liberal, I'm sure.

I'd suggest to you that the negative impact that James Craig had on the north was probably more pronounced than Kevin Lynch or Bobby Sands', neither of whom were convicted of killing or attempting to kill anyone. Craig's impact has lasted to this day--neither Sands or Lynch's 'violent' contributions have had any long-lasting effect.

In any case I'm not sure a large section of the unionist community can talk about affiliations with terrorism, and I do not think that these clubs have been so named because the people they commemorating were trying to kill people either.

You're hair splitting. Whether or not Sands or Lynch personally killed anyone is irrelevant. They were paid up members of an organisation which killed many people, unionist and nationalist alike. Likewise, it is the impact of the organisation you have to measure. The 'long lasting effects' of the IRA are still being felt by many families on this island and in Britain.

It could be argued that Craig was a strong factor in the emergence of the Troubles--Bobby Sands and Kevin Lynch had no such part. It isn't even up to debate whether or not Craig was a bigot running a bigoted organisation that discriminated against and sometimes murdered Catholics on the basis of their religion.

Your use of the term 'an organisation' gives us an idea of how little you know about the two people involved, and again, neither man is being lauded for their physical force republican activities because again they didn't actually do much at all.

More importantly, no-one is asking you to play for the clubs in question, or expecting you to. I suppose you don't vote in the elections on the basis that Sinn Fein have many people who used to be in the IRA, and the system of democracy lets them have a say? If you're offended by the fact that two men were convicted of little more than having guns then I'd suggest you are a raving bigot who has nothing better to do with his time.

That's okay then. I was worried that they'd been convicted of something serious. 

If you consider being in possession of guns as being something serious then I wonder if you are as vociferous in your condemnation of the loyalists who refuse to decommission their weapons? Are you prepared to answer any of the rest of my points?

Are you saying that you think possessing guns is not serious? What do you think guns are used for? If I ask you to mind a gun for me until such time as I can get around to shooting my neighbour, and you agree to do so, do you not think you deserve to go to jail just as much as me? Of course I think loyalists should decommission their weapons. Why would I not? As for your other points, if you're expecting me to defend Craig and the old Stormont regime, you're going to be disappointed. I don't try and defend the indefensible. (That said, I don't think the 50 years of unionist misrule in any way justifies the so called armed struggle carried out by Irish republicans.) I know I won't be asked to play for the clubs in question, but that's hardly the point. If the GAA is serious about attracting protestants / unionists to the game, then it needs to clean up its act. I think we're agreed on your last point - I have nothing better to do with my time. 

I've just reread your post and it says what I thought it did first time. What you said about the Garnerville Gaels: 'whether I would regard the recruits of Garnerville to be Gaels or not is irrelevant'. If it's not relevant, why did you mention it at all? You make it relevant by implying that there is a chance that you might not regard the recruits as Gaels. You do the same with the state forces - IRA comparison. I made the link between the IRA men being commemorated and loyalists Billy Wright and Lenny Murphy. You, when addressing this point, immediately brought in the RUC, the B Specials, et al. That's making a link, no matter how you dress it up. And why do you think there's no equivalence between republican and loyalist paramilitaries? From where I sit, they're mirror images of one another.

You're clearly from the DUP school of debating 

There are none so blind as those, that will not see

Taught by Jesuits. None better. 

[two men were convicted of little more than having guns]

Yet another bigot on the gaaboard

Why on earth would young unionists choose to play a game against teams or in sports grounds named after people who, not so long ago, were trying to kill their fathers / uncles / brothers, etc, etc? Seems a no brainer to me.

Pat Darcy's response

"If we can live with the Craigavons, Mountjoys, Kings, Queens, Windsors and Royal Victorias, then I would ask the Minister to tolerate the Casements, Wolf Tones, Kevin Barrys, Pearses, Sam Maguire and the Clarkes."

My apologies - I should've been clearer. I was referring to the naming of clubs after people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years, rather than those from the war of independence. Also Darcy's response is a case of comparing apples with pears. If the GAA were naming clubs after old politicians, former Irish presidents, and so on, there probably wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. They're naming them after people the wider unionist community - including those Darcy wants to see taking up the game - would view as terrorists. And what's your definition of bigot, BTW? Someone who holds a different view than yourself? Very liberal, I'm sure.

I'd suggest to you that the negative impact that James Craig had on the north was probably more pronounced than Kevin Lynch or Bobby Sands', neither of whom were convicted of killing or attempting to kill anyone. Craig's impact has lasted to this day--neither Sands or Lynch's 'violent' contributions have had any long-lasting effect.

In any case I'm not sure a large section of the unionist community can talk about affiliations with terrorism, and I do not think that these clubs have been so named because the people they commemorating were trying to kill people either.

You're hair splitting. Whether or not Sands or Lynch personally killed anyone is irrelevant. They were paid up members of an organisation which killed many people, unionist and nationalist alike. Likewise, it is the impact of the organisation you have to measure. The 'long lasting effects' of the IRA are still being felt by many families on this island and in Britain.

It could be argued that Craig was a strong factor in the emergence of the Troubles--Bobby Sands and Kevin Lynch had no such part. It isn't even up to debate whether or not Craig was a bigot running a bigoted organisation that discriminated against and sometimes murdered Catholics on the basis of their religion.

Your use of the term 'an organisation' gives us an idea of how little you know about the two people involved, and again, neither man is being lauded for their physical force republican activities because again they didn't actually do much at all.

More importantly, no-one is asking you to play for the clubs in question, or expecting you to. I suppose you don't vote in the elections on the basis that Sinn Fein have many people who used to be in the IRA, and the system of democracy lets them have a say? If you're offended by the fact that two men were convicted of little more than having guns then I'd suggest you are a raving bigot who has nothing better to do with his time.

That's okay then. I was worried that they'd been convicted of something serious. 

Most of that post is just standard Irish republican revisionism, especially the attempt to make some equivalence between the state forces and the IRA. That doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all, but that's for another thread. You compare the Garnerville Gaels with the Dungiven club and hint that you have some difficulty in seeing them as Gaels. Why? Who died and made you arbiter of all things Irish? Because they happen to be police recruits you think that makes them somehow less Irish than you?

Read the post. I said it's irrelevant, one way or another. I've no problem with Garnerville Gaels, in fact, good luck to them. We're all members of the same organisation and even in this new dispensation Rule 2 applies to them as much as it does to me.

As for the equivalence arguement, I don't accept your premise. You're claim I'm equating Republicans with state forces, show me where I said that. In fact, I was very careful as to not to say that. I mentioned about the chequered history regarding the State forces and their attitude towards to the GAA and its members and how the GAA has moved on. However, what I don't accept is your arguement is that Republicans are the equivalent Loyalist paramilitaries,to paraphrase myself from an earlier post, they're as far away as a lighthouse.

As the old song goes, "Ireland is a very funny place sir, it's a strange and a troubled land". You can't pigeon hole what happened in the North over the past 90 odd years into black and white, absolute right and absolute wrong - things just aren't that simple - and you and many, many others are trying to paint this as a black and white issue when it clearly isn't.

I've just reread your post and it says what I thought it did first time. What you said about the Garnerville Gaels: 'whether I would regard the recruits of Garnerville to be Gaels or not is irrelevant'. If it's not relevant, why did you mention it at all? You make it relevant by implying that there is a chance that you might not regard the recruits as Gaels. You do the same with the state forces - IRA comparison. I made the link between the IRA men being commemorated and loyalists Billy Wright and Lenny Murphy. You, when addressing this point, immediately brought in the RUC, the B Specials, et al. That's making a link, no matter how you dress it up. And why do you think there's no equivalence between republican and loyalist paramilitaries? From where I sit, they're mirror images of one another.

"Myles" is another of those blinkered one eyed thick Unionists who think the 6 Cos was a perfect Heaven for everyone till about 1970 or thereabouts when some crowd of "Terrorists" called the IRA started a campaign of violence for no apparent reason.
The Myleses and the like - Allister and his one voice backwoodsmen,Frazer and the like-  need to realise that 1922 to 1967 is gone and will NEVER come back.
They also need to  confront and come to terms with Unionism's evils over those years and before they start on the GAA realise too that for Nationalists( 45% of the pop of the 6 Cos) the use of totally British names on public buildings,roads,bridges towns  is annoying at best,downright insulting at worst and is of course the result of the awful violence and land grab inflicted on the Irish in the past.
As for complaining about the GAA getting public funding -- are GAA people and Nationalists in general in the North exempt from paying tax/VAT/Excise etc?
Myles -public funding is exactly that PUBLIC. In the North the public = 55% Unionist and 45% Nationalist. Or are you such a backwoodsman that you still think it's a case of Unionists handing out money to "them"

You and your stereotypes. 'He criticises the GAA, therefore he must be a unionist bigot'. In point of fact, I belong to the 45% nationalist population you talk about and I object to my taxes being given to the GAA until such time it puts its house in order.

[non party political.]

Don't think jealousy has anything to do with it, with respect. I think it's more that the GAA portrays itself as an apolitical, non sectarian organisation, while at the same time allowing its members to name clubs after hunger strikers, allowing its teams to use GAA facilities for competitions honouring IRA men killed 'on active service', allowing commemorations to take place on its premises, etc etc. If unionists / loyalist football teams were honouring the Billy Wrights or Lennie Murphys in a similar fashion there'd be a huge outcry amongst nationalists. Why the double standards?

Don't kid yourself, the Gaelic Athletic Association isn't apolitical. See Rule 2 - "The Association is a National Organisation which has as its basic aim the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes".

Now look at Rule 7

(a) The Association shall be non-party political. Party political questions shall not be discussed at its meetings, and no Committee, Club, Council or representative thereof shall take part, as such, in any party political movement. A penalty of up to twenty four weeks suspension may be imposed for infringement.
(b) The Association shall be non-sectarian.

Despite your belief that the GAA is "Sinn Fein in football boots" and despite the appearance many of my provincial comrades many project, the GAA isn't Ulster centric. I'm sure there are Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and even a few SDLP cabals up and down the country. However, the fact remains, whatever the political viewpoint of the various clubs at local level, the organisation as a whole is non party political.

As for the GAA "allowing" clubs to name themselves after Hunger Strikers, you ignored the thrust of my last point. Clubs are based upon the parishes and communities where they come from. No one can presume to tell the people of Dungiven who they can and can't name their club after, just like they can't tell the people of Loughmacrory or Galbally who they can and can't honour. Likewise, the old Rule 21 is now gone and whether I would regard the recruits of Garnerville to be Gaels or not is irrelevant, they are entitled to to call themselves Garnerville Gaels.

As for the Billy Wright / Lenny Murphy thing, we've been told for 40 years that the Unionists of "Ulster" are law abiding and God fearing people. They had their RUC, their B Specials and their UDR/RIR and they're regarded as heroes by Unionists. None of those organisations were exactly friends of the GAA or the Nationalist community for the duration of the troubles and I'm sure many on the board can regale you with the numerous encounters with said organisations on their way to and from matches. Yet Rule 21 is gone, the GAA has moved forward. You're the one that was talking about naming clubs after "people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years". How do you think the McAnespie family feel about the comrades of the Solider who murdered Aidan being able to partake in GAA activities now, 20 years after his death? Let's be perfectly fair, Unionist politicians in the North have very little room to be pointing the finger of double standards in the North at the GAA

Most of that post is just standard Irish republican revisionism, especially the attempt to make some equivalence between the state forces and the IRA. That doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all, but that's for another thread. You compare the Garnerville Gaels with the Dungiven club and hint that you have some difficulty in seeing them as Gaels. Why? Who died and made you arbiter of all things Irish? Because they happen to be police recruits you think that makes them somehow less Irish than you?

From where I'm sitting, jealousy seems to be the root cause for most of these attacks because of the community infrastructures that the GAA has built up in the 6 counties and that they're miles ahead of their Unionist counterparts in this regard.

You're right, jealously and bigotry.  If we did rename Kevin Lynch's club the bigots like myles would go after clubs named after saints, there would always be something.  These people have no interest in the GAA, they see clubs thriving and they can't take it. I think the have only realised a few years ago, after they were finished trying to kill us, what a thriving force the GAA is and it kills them. 
It also kills them that people like the hunger strikers would be remembered because it reminds them of what they've done, they use the word "terrorist" at every opportunity in an attempt to avoid the blame for what they've done. 

They are different for one simple reason and that is time. There is noone walking around today still traumatised by what happened 90 years ago.

So you think it's all forgotten? You'd like that wouldnt you?

But it should then stop pedalling the 'we want to reach out to unionists' crap and acknowledge that, in the north of Ireland at least, it is basically Sinn Fein in football boots.

Of course it is, you seem to know a lot about the GAA, wake up myles, it's not a nightmare you're having, nationalists are really on an equal footing with you. 


btw myles, what makes you think you've a right to dictate to a community how to remember a deceased member?

If an organisation receives public funding, which the GAA does, then there are certain obligations which go with that money. One such obligation should be not to cause offence to a large section of the community by celebrating the memory of people who killed their friends and relatives. The GAA ignores this obligation. The GAA is supposed to be a sporting body. It should stick to sport and leave the politics to others.

My apologies - I should've been clearer. I was referring to the naming of clubs after people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years, rather than those from the war of independence. Also Darcy's response is a case of comparing apples with pears. If the GAA were naming clubs after old politicians, former Irish presidents, and so on, there probably wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. They're naming them after people the wider unionist community - including those Darcy wants to see taking up the game - would view as terrorists. And what's your definition of bigot, BTW? Someone who holds a different view than yourself? Very liberal, I'm sure.

Sure while we're at it, how about we change the names of the St. Pat's, St John's, St Michaels because they might offend Atheists.

And the Fr Devlin and Fr McGuigan parks because they might offend all the various non-catholics as well.

Give me a break. Out of the 2500 plus clubs in Ireland, Unionists continue to site examples of a handful of clubs which cause 'offense'. Fair enough, but as Darcy noted in his speech, these clubs are microcosms of the communities they represent. Instead of chastising the wider GAA, why don't they express their concerns to the clubs and communities in question to see why people are honoured and for what reason? It's very disingenuous of the DUP politicians to keep up these public proclamations with the sole intent of depriving GAA clubs throughout the North with money from Funders.

From where I'm sitting, jealousy seems to be the root cause for most of these attacks because of the community infrastructures that the GAA has built up in the 6 counties and that they're miles ahead of their Unionist counterparts in this regard.

Don't think jealousy has anything to do with it, with respect. I think it's more that the GAA portrays itself as an apolitical, non sectarian organisation, while at the same time allowing its members to name clubs after hunger strikers, allowing its teams to use GAA facilities for competitions honouring IRA men killed 'on active service', allowing commemorations to take place on its premises, etc etc. If unionists / loyalist football teams were honouring the Billy Wrights or Lennie Murphys in a similar fashion there'd be a huge outcry amongst nationalists. Why the double standards?

Looks like Pennant's off to Real Madrid - there was never a snowball's chance in hell of him joining the hoops. He's probably on 2 or 3 times what the top paid player at Celtic's on. Donati looks like he's for Atlanta, according to the BBC. McGeady will also be out the door come January. If we get 4m for him we should grab it.

Yet another bigot on the gaaboard

Why on earth would young unionists choose to play a game against teams or in sports grounds named after people who, not so long ago, were trying to kill their fathers / uncles / brothers, etc, etc? Seems a no brainer to me.

Pat Darcy's response

"If we can live with the Craigavons, Mountjoys, Kings, Queens, Windsors and Royal Victorias, then I would ask the Minister to tolerate the Casements, Wolf Tones, Kevin Barrys, Pearses, Sam Maguire and the Clarkes."

My apologies - I should've been clearer. I was referring to the naming of clubs after people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years, rather than those from the war of independence. Also Darcy's response is a case of comparing apples with pears. If the GAA were naming clubs after old politicians, former Irish presidents, and so on, there probably wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. They're naming them after people the wider unionist community - including those Darcy wants to see taking up the game - would view as terrorists. And what's your definition of bigot, BTW? Someone who holds a different view than yourself? Very liberal, I'm sure.

I'd suggest to you that the negative impact that James Craig had on the north was probably more pronounced than Kevin Lynch or Bobby Sands', neither of whom were convicted of killing or attempting to kill anyone. Craig's impact has lasted to this day--neither Sands or Lynch's 'violent' contributions have had any long-lasting effect.

In any case I'm not sure a large section of the unionist community can talk about affiliations with terrorism, and I do not think that these clubs have been so named because the people they commemorating were trying to kill people either.

You're hair splitting. Whether or not Sands or Lynch personally killed anyone is irrelevant. They were paid up members of an organisation which killed many people, unionist and nationalist alike. Likewise, it is the impact of the organisation you have to measure. The 'long lasting effects' of the IRA are still being felt by many families on this island and in Britain.

My apologies - I should've been clearer. I was referring to the naming of clubs after people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years, rather than those from the war of independence. Also Darcy's response is a case of comparing apples with pears. If the GAA were naming clubs after old politicians, former Irish presidents, and so on, there probably wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. They're naming them after people the wider unionist community - including those Darcy wants to see taking up the game - would view as terrorists. And what's your definition of bigot, BTW? Someone who holds a different view than yourself? Very liberal, I'm sure.

So you've no issue with clubs being named after those who fought in the war of independence or before it, why not? Why are they different than those who fought in the last 30 years? 
I can only think of one club you'd disagree with the naming if that's the case, and that's Kevin Lynch's in Derry.  I can't think of any grounds.  So that's one club when there's what? a couple of thousand GAA clubs? You think they're terrorists, so what? A lot of people don't think they were terrorists. Basically what you want is an monopoly on what communities name their clubs, wake up, it's not 1969 anymore. 

They are different for one simple reason and that is time. There is noone walking around today still traumatised by what happened 90 years ago. There are still many people, on the other hand, living with the legacy of the recent conflict, people who had family members killed or injured by those Kevin Lynch would have considered his comrades. The GAA needs to recognise this. If it doesn't want to recognise this, fine. But it should then stop pedalling the 'we want to reach out to unionists' crap and acknowledge that, in the north of Ireland at least, it is basically Sinn Fein in football boots.