The Race for the ARAS.....

[Applesisapples]

No. If it squeaks like a weasel, etc...

Where did you come up with the idea that I suggested somebody here SAID John Hume was less than a true Irishman.? I said some regard him as less than a true Irishman. The lads you incessantly post in praise of don't make categorical statements like that. They denigrate. They call names - "stoop" , etc. And then you employ the ultimate weasel trick of semantic deconstruction when you can't answer the substantive argument. So, to disarm that, I'll rephrase the clause to clarify that it's my opinion that some regard him as less than a true Irishman.

Now - the substantive point - do you agree or disagree with the substance of the article we're discussing, in the light of my point about the reverence with which Hume and McAleese are regarded here belying the suggestion that people here have an anti-Northern bias? If you're tempted to respond with another question, evasion or misdirection, please reconsider and try answering my question first.

Some here do have an anti northern bias. But it is some times provoked by the anti southern rhetoric of some northern posters and per haps vice versa. But not all are like that, thankfully.

[Applesisapples]

No. If it squeaks like a weasel, etc...

Where did you come up with the idea that I suggested somebody here SAID John Hume was less than a true Irishman.? I said some regard him as less than a true Irishman. The lads you incessantly post in praise of don't make categorical statements like that. They denigrate. They call names - "stoop" , etc. And then you employ the ultimate weasel trick of semantic deconstruction when you can't answer the substantive argument. So, to disarm that, I'll rephrase the clause to clarify that it's my opinion that some regard him as less than a true Irishman.

Now - the substantive point - do you agree or disagree with the substance of the article we're discussing, in the light of my point about the reverence with which Hume and McAleese are regarded here belying the suggestion that people here have an anti-Northern bias? If you're tempted to respond with another question, evasion or misdirection, please reconsider and try answering my question first.

Your first paragraph is taking weaseling to an art form.

Your second paragraph, well, I would need to read the article first but in so far as I am concerned there is a partitionism which is rife in the 26 counties. It is in-built and in-grained. To my mind, there is a huge disinterest in the 6 counties. A fondness for Hume & McAleese doesn't demonstrate an interest in the north. It demonstrates the reality that, in these two people, the folks of the 26 counties see a version of the 6 counties which is acceptable to them, i.e. a non-Republican version which will never criticise the south for sitting idly by during the darkest days of the northern state-let. These two people will never cause them to look in the mirror. These two people will never challenge the hypocricy of people in the twenty six counties towards their attitudes to armed rebellions at either end of the 20th century. Even unionist politicians and british army generals receive a better welcome from the media than any six county republican will. Consider this much,

Mary McAleese/John Hume come on the Late Late show: They are to be revered and praised as they fit the mould of thinking (six counties, but not six county Irish Republican).

General Mike Jackson on the late late show: Despite being in charge of the British army during Bloody Sunday, Jackson still had the gall to make a claim that the British army "had prevented unlawful force being used for political purposes". This went unchallenged by Kenny, who, to applause from the audience, smiled politely as he talked to Jackson as though he were a minor celebrity, and began asking him about what it must have been like for "the guys on the ground" dealing with the IRA.

Ian Paisley on the Late Late show: Also received tremendous applause and treated with the utmost respect and was not questioned once about the Third Force etc

Martin McGuinness on the Late Late Show last year: Quelle surprise, Tubridy just wanted to talk IRA.

Nally that speaks more about RTE and the journalists than it does for the people. And Turbidy is recognised as a dose my most people north and south.

[Applesisapples]

A couple of observations, if it was war then neither the forces of the state nor the IRA can accuse each other of murder...atrocities possibly. If it was not war then the killings and collusion raise serioous questions for the State and the innocent victims serious questions for the IRA. But what we had was a war of propaganda as well as bombs and bullets. No one completely right or wrong. It is complex as I keep pointing out. I would say though the interaction between Hardy and Nally proves that there may be some truth in O'Connor's article...go read it.

[muppet]

You justify recent republican murders on the basis of ancient ones.

that, my friend, is what the 26 county state was founded on. If gaaboard.com was about then, they'd say the same thing. You won't agree but I want you to tell me why...

That was a part of what the 26 county state was founded on. Sadly it is what some people think was the only reason the 26 became independent. Part of that was because of what followed. The men with the guns then turned on each other and the winners took power and as usual wrote the history.

The War of Independence is estimated to have cost around 1,400 lives. While obviously tragic it must be obvious that such a relatively small loss of life was hardly enough to drive the Brits out of the 26 on its own.

ok, we've now established the 26 county state was founded on murder but the sell by date has since passed...as for 'While obviously tragic it must be obvious that such a relatively small (insert:1,400) loss of life was hardly enough to drive the Brits out of the 26 on its own', can you explain that a little more to me?

If I said it was founded on a game of chess you'd claim it involved the slaughter of bishops.

Do you seriously think that a couple of years after losing 1,000,000 people in getting on the winning side in WW1, that losing 500-600 in Ireland is what drove them out on its own? If it is one thing the British do well even today, it is to persuade their people to accept casualties as part of engagement. Contrast the way the British media and citizens treat their war dead and compare it with the Bush administrations banning of showing any coffin returning.

[Evil Genius]

A couple of observations, if it was war then neither the forces of the state nor the IRA can accuse each other of murder...atrocities possibly. If it was not war then the killings and collusion raise serioous questions for the State and the innocent victims serious questions for the IRA.

Whatever else it was, it most definitely was NOT a "war". 

But what we had was a war of propaganda as well as bombs and bullets. No one completely right or wrong. It is complex as I keep pointing out. I would say though the interaction between Hardy and Nally proves that there may be some truth in O'Connor's article...go read it.

There is no doubt that it was complex, nor that all sides used Propaganda for their own purposes.

Nonetheless, one of the most morally repugnant of the claims by the Terrorists (all sides) is that they were somehow fighting a "war", rather than engaging in a squalid, murderous and atrocious power struggle, purportedly on behalf of whatever community they claimed to serve, but inevitably on their backs.

[deiseach]

Nonetheless, one of the most morally repugnant of the claims by the Terrorists (all sides) is that they were somehow fighting a "war", rather than engaging in a squalid, murderous and atrocious power struggle, purportedly on behalf of whatever community they claimed to serve, but inevitably on their backs.

Do you include the various agents of the British government in this definition, i.e. the members of the Army and the RUC who used violence for politicial purposes? And spare me any talk of subjecting them to full force of the law because the historical record shows that soldiers and policeman were subject to a different law to Provos and Stickies, one which routinely validated their terror

[Rossfan]

Nonetheless, one of the most morally repugnant of the claims by the Terrorists (all sides) is that they were somehow fighting a "war", rather than engaging in a squalid, murderous and atrocious power struggle,

Is war not usually squalid , murderous and has an atrocious power struggle in there somewhere? 

[Applesisapples]

A couple of observations, if it was war then neither the forces of the state nor the IRA can accuse each other of murder...atrocities possibly. If it was not war then the killings and collusion raise serioous questions for the State and the innocent victims serious questions for the IRA.

Whatever else it was, it most definitely was NOT a "war". 

But what we had was a war of propaganda as well as bombs and bullets. No one completely right or wrong. It is complex as I keep pointing out. I would say though the interaction between Hardy and Nally proves that there may be some truth in O'Connor's article...go read it.

There is no doubt that it was complex, nor that all sides used Propaganda for their own purposes.

Nonetheless, one of the most morally repugnant of the claims by the Terrorists (all sides) is that they were somehow fighting a "war", rather than engaging in a squalid, murderous and atrocious power struggle, purportedly on behalf of whatever community they claimed to serve, but inevitably on their backs.

You miss the point, the if the state and unionist deny it was war then the criminals on all sdes deserved due process and not to be shot on sight by the forces of the state. However despite their protestations to the contrary the British and Unionist did consider it war hence thevarious activities of MI5, special branch, RUC and the army. What we had was the IRA claiming it as a war but decrying the use of the tactics of war by the British and on the other hand we have the state denying a war but also denying due process. Propaganda really. However it was a war between too opposing sides and a hangover from the war of independance. Although I know you will not agree.

[Declan]

You just gotta love Johnny's analysis:

2011Patriarchal impulse decided Áras race
JOHN WATERS

Tired of 'mothering', we wanted a man in the Áras

IN WAYS, our public discussions are remarkably restricted where it comes to pursuing comprehension of political events. One difficulty is that political analysis tends to restrict itself to classifying under narrowly focused political or ideological headings: the parties, "Independents", "left wing", etc. Another is that subterranean but strictly policed rules of engagement place less orthodox modes of exploration out of bounds.

Political correctness and other unwritten strictures debar the possibility of deeper understandings concerning the state of the collective psyche and the archetypal yearnings that impinge on collective representation of individual democratic choices.

Democratic leadership, in addition to its political dimension, tracks a deeper archetype: that of parenthood. The qualities we seek in our leaders derive from an unfathomable, inherited need to be parented at the level of nation. If you apply this idea to the recent presidential election, you notice patterns that have been overlooked this past week. After 21 years of "mothering", we appeared keen – although this remained unsayable – to put a man back in the Áras.

Perhaps this was down to our undergoing a crisis unprecedented within living memory, suggesting that, in moments of uncertainty, we don't cling to nurse but glance anxiously around for dad.

Early in the campaign, this desire remained obscured, but as things progressed, the front-runners emerged as representations of different types of male strength, climaxing in an epic struggle between the athlete-cum-manager and the teacher-father: Seán Gallagher as latter-day hunter-gatherer versus Michael D's embodiment of the elder guru – Keith Wood wrestling John Scotus Eriugena.

We desire that our fathers be wise yet genial, dependable and restrained, strongly empathetic but frank, prudent but unafraid, stoical but unfanatical, tough yet patient, thoughtful but not incontinent of speech. Our grumbles notwithstanding, we feel safer with leaders who quietly require that we postpone gratification and commit ourselves to sacrifice for our own long-term good. These are the father values erased from our surface culture by 40 years of aggressive feminist agitation.

That the two female candidates ended up bottom of the table has been noted but in a timid, unfocused way that elided its significance. Anyone who thought another woman candidate would ipso facto be a shoo-in had not looked closely at either Mary Robinson or Mary McAleese, both of whom were not so much exceptional women as exceptional at being women in a public world ordered to male responses. Both exhibited that quality of emotional restraint that is among the male qualities feminism has most energetically sought to disparage – as well as rich baritones with which to advertise their possession of it. You had to listen to just 10 seconds of Mary Davis and Dana to divine that neither of them enjoyed similar capacities.

In terms of public achievements, David Norris and Martin McGuinness ticked several of the father boxes. However, each in turn broke the spell by virtue of poor responses in the face of criticism, resorting to most unfatherly modes of riposte: a plaintive boastfulness in the case of Norris and, on McGuinness's part, a baffled and – once, infamously – unchivalrous rage in reacting to the insubordination he encountered.

Both men came across as adhering too closely to recognisable "Irish father" stereotypes. Gay Mitchell, too, was too shrill and ornery to be a reassuring father figure, and besides was too closely identified with the main ruling party to convince us that he could be a truly independent parent to the nation. In February, we had elected Enda as the best available patriarchal option. But – while extending him respect and affection – withheld total trust until we could observe him in action. His subsequent performance had been commendable but not entirely convincing, so we subconsciously remained on the lookout for a figure to counterbalance the Taoiseach's weaknesses for populism and easy sanctimony.

Seán Gallagher was largely a projected image, but an effective one: the strong, silent type who looked like he might be good in a scrum. His body language was uncompromisingly masculine, but in a way that seemed unaffected, even unconscious. Lined up behind a table with the other candidates, he would reach across his opponents for the water jug with a certainty that said more than a thousand speeches urging a renewal of national self-confidence.

Until the final couple of days, he remained matter of fact, calm under pressure, uncomplaining, quietly disdainful of bitching and recrimination. His message of hope and positivity, combined with a slightly fanciful idea of the presidency as a means of regenerating the economy, managed at once to elevate him above politics while suggesting that as president he could shoulder-charge the system into a different direction. He ran for the presidency as though he was running for government, and almost made it over the line.

But when the Dragon's father-mask slipped, Michael D became our default choice, the thoughtful, teaching father, the kind whom his offspring respect and adore but also tease on account of half the time not having a clue what he's on about. We will roll our eyes to heaven a fair bit between now and 2018, but, behind the enjoyment of his eccentricities, will also listen carefully to this father-president who we intuit knows us better than we know ourselves.

[highorlow]

Well it's a grandfather we elected now so Waters needs to go back over his whole thought process again and conjure up another article. He should really think hard about it first though, we should let him ponder it, say for a whole year?

[lynchbhoy]

A couple of observations, if it was war then neither the forces of the state nor the IRA can accuse each other of murder...atrocities possibly. If it was not war then the killings and collusion raise serioous questions for the State and the innocent victims serious questions for the IRA.

Whatever else it was, it most definitely was NOT a "war". 

But what we had was a war of propaganda as well as bombs and bullets. No one completely right or wrong. It is complex as I keep pointing out. I would say though the interaction between Hardy and Nally proves that there may be some truth in O'Connor's article...go read it.

There is no doubt that it was complex, nor that all sides used Propaganda for their own purposes.

Nonetheless, one of the most morally repugnant of the claims by the Terrorists (all sides) is that they were somehow fighting a "war", rather than engaging in a squalid, murderous and atrocious power struggle, purportedly on behalf of whatever community they claimed to serve, but inevitably on their backs.

interesting - so the soldiers were there just to carry out car insurance spot checks !!
Soldiers, fighting usually equals war...
you can dispute it all ya like though!
the same soldiers that under gov/local establishment gov were ordered to kill/persecure/terrorise and collude with local unionist/loyalist/ruc members to do the aforementioned etc etc as you have effectively agreed with (well your response the last time was one that didnt or couldnt argue against this 'fact').

[Evil Genius]

Nonetheless, one of the most morally repugnant of the claims by the Terrorists (all sides) is that they were somehow fighting a "war", rather than engaging in a squalid, murderous and atrocious power struggle, purportedly on behalf of whatever community they claimed to serve, but inevitably on their backs.

Do you include the various agents of the British government in this definition, i.e. the members of the Army and the RUC who used violence for politicial purposes? And spare me any talk of subjecting them to full force of the law because the historical record shows that soldiers and policeman were subject to a different law to Provos and Stickies, one which routinely validated their terror

The Army and Police were legimately the forces of law and order in NI, so that whenever a recruit joined, he swore an oath to uphold the law.
Whereas paramilitary organisations (whether Republican or "Loyalist") were most definitely NOT legitimate; therefore recruits to those organisations were swearing an Oath to break  the law.

Now I do not deny that Security Forces members often broke their Oath, nor that this was sometimes covered up, either by their superior officers, and/or by their political masters. Nor would I deny that this was somehow less grievous than law-breaking by paramilitaries etc - arguably it was even worse.

But in the end, the aim of the paramilitaries was by definition, to kill, maim and destroy - which was why eg they made and planted bombs in public places. Whereas the aim of the security forces was to save life, avoid injury and protect property, which was why eg they defused the bombs and evacuated the public. In doing so, the great majority of their members did so honourably and courageously.

The fact that a minority chose to subvert and undermine their efforts, in a shameful and repugnant manner, should not detract from the fact that had it not been for the ordinary squaddie or police constable "holding the ring", NI would have deteriorated into all-out Civil War*, with death and destruction on a scale which would have dwarfed what we actually suffered.


* - And if there are Northern posters on here who would deny this last point, I suspect that some of our Southern posters who know their own State's history, will appreciate my point.

[Evil Genius]

Nonetheless, one of the most morally repugnant of the claims by the Terrorists (all sides) is that they were somehow fighting a "war", rather than engaging in a squalid, murderous and atrocious power struggle,

Is war not usually squalid , murderous and has an atrocious power struggle in there somewhere? 

I would agree that all wars inevitably have a "squalid and murderous" element to them. But that should not conceal the fact that many also have a noble aim, eg the fight against Fascism (Spanish Civil War or WWII) or the prevention of mass slaughter of civilians (overthrow of Gadaffi).

I have no doubt that the (successful) actions of the Security Forces in preventing NI from degenerating into all-out Civil War could be categorised as "noble", notwithstanding that a minority of their members at times behaved atrociously (thereby making the job that much harder for everyone).

[Evil Genius]

You miss the point, the if the state and unionist deny it was war then the criminals on all sdes deserved due process and not to be shot on sight by the forces of the state. However despite their protestations to the contrary the British and Unionist did consider it war hence thevarious activities of MI5, special branch, RUC and the army. What we had was the IRA claiming it as a war but decrying the use of the tactics of war by the British and on the other hand we have the state denying a war but also denying due process. Propaganda really. However it was a war between too opposing sides and a hangover from the war of independance. Although I know you will not agree.

I do not deny that for a period, a section of the Security Forces employed a "shoot-on-sight" policy. I do not defend this.

But let's not lose the run of ourselves here: for the entire duration of the Troubles, the entire modus operandus  of the Terrorists was to "shoot-on-sight". Which is why they committed the great majority of killings. By contrast, despite there being as many as 28,000 armed soldiers and 14,000 armed police in NI at one stage, killings by Security Forces were considerably fewer.

Now I'm not trying to defend unlawful killing by Security Forces. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that had they been operating under the rules of a conventional War (eg WWI), or even of a Guerilla War (eg the Black and Tans), NI would have been nearer to Lebanon, or even Chechnya, than the squalid little conflict it eventually became.

[lynchbhoy]

think the 'rules of war' (if not the geneva convention etc) were not upheld from the 'forces of law and order' from the outset so cant see how complaints can be made about any subsequent fighting back in such a war thereafter.
This is a case of one side being as bad as the other - but one side were meant to be the custodians of the law but failed miserably in that (though there were undoubtedly good ruc guys as well as decent soldiers but their senior rankers were barking orders at them).

I've never heard yet of shoot to tickle - and doubt if either side tried this !

chechnya - seriously !