The run up to conflict in Northern Ireland

[T Fearon]

Anyone can become a political representative anywhere as Mary Mc Aleese has shown,but the point had to neutralise her nationalism to both win and maintain the presidency.

My core argument is what is the point of agitating for a United Ireland that is never going to happen (certainly by agitating for it) and when one of the main constituencies (ie the current 26 county state) doesn't even want it to happen?

[armaghniac]

Anyone can become a political representative anywhere as Mary Mc Aleese has shown,but the point had to neutralise her nationalism to both win and maintain the presidency./quote]

Whether you agree with her or not, I'm pretty certain that Mc Aleese believed she was advancing nationalism by having QEII show up as she did. I'd certainly take her judgement on this matter over yours.

[quote[My core argument is what is the point of agitating for a United Ireland that is never going to happen (certainly by agitating for it) and when one of the main constituencies (ie the current 26 county state) doesn't even want it to happen?

A United Ireland will not happen by agitating for it, it will happen by working for it and providing economic models for its operation. The 26 county government are not going to agitate, which would be counter productive in any case. But by having higher economic growth than the UK for the last 5 decades they have done their bit to show the viability of an independent Ireland.

[smelmoth]

An interesting thread title but surely open to abuse. Is the important isuue not really did anything in the pre 1969 period justify anything in the post 1969 period? It is pointless for nay-sayers to deny the mis-rule in NI but it is equally (and more gruesomely) fatuous for anybody to list the instances of (comprehensive) mis-rule and use that to justify killings in the 60s, 70, 80s and 90s and very, very sadly thereafter. The reality is that in the troubles over three and a half thousand people were murdered. Tragic and horrific in any sane mid. Over 2000 of these murders were at the hands of republicans. These murders cannot be justified. It cannot be said that these murders were justified or "worth it". Or that events in the pre 1969 period warranted this "response". I note the posters who say the "volunteers" had to act as they did. I don't see, even under the cover of this (thankfully) anonymous forum, any posters being able to justify these specific murders.

[smelmoth]

Anyone can become a political representative anywhere as Mary Mc Aleese has shown,but the point had to neutralise her nationalism to both win and maintain the presidency./quote]

Whether you agree with her or not, I'm pretty certain that Mc Aleese believed she was advancing nationalism by having QEII show up as she did. I'd certainly take her judgement on this matter over yours.

[quote[My core argument is what is the point of agitating for a United Ireland that is never going to happen (certainly by agitating for it) and when one of the main constituencies (ie the current 26 county state) doesn't even want it to happen?

A United Ireland will not happen by agitating for it, it will happen by working for it and providing economic models for its operation. The 26 county government are not going to agitate, which would be counter productive in any case. But by having higher economic growth than the UK for the last 5 decades they have done their bit to show the viability of an independent Ireland.

And would you say "their bit" is enough?

[imtommygunn]

Anyone can become a political representative anywhere as Mary Mc Aleese has shown,but the point had to neutralise her nationalism to both win and maintain the presidency.

That is nonsense. Reaching out olive branches is not neutralising. It is forward political thinking. She is not the only one to have done it either.

[smelmoth]

An interesting thread title but surely open to abuse. Is the important isuue not really did anything in the pre 1969 period justify anything in the post 1969 period? It is pointless for nay-sayers to deny the mis-rule in NI but it is equally (and more gruesomely) fatuous for anybody to list the instances of (comprehensive) mis-rule and use that to justify killings in the 60s, 70, 80s and 90s and very, very sadly thereafter. The reality is that in the troubles over three and a half thousand people were murdered. Tragic and horrific in any sane mid. Over 2000 of these murders were at the hands of republicans. These murders cannot be justified. It cannot be said that these murders were justified or "worth it". Or that events in the pre 1969 period warranted this "response". I note the posters who say the "volunteers" had to act as they did. I don't see, even under the cover of this (thankfully) anonymous forum, any posters being able to justify these specific murders.

I think your post reads that the environment that people lived in had little to do with their actions during that time. I think that's quite a bit off the mark.

Are you arguing that the prevailing environment justifyied any particular murders?

[smelmoth]

An interesting thread title but surely open to abuse. Is the important isuue not really did anything in the pre 1969 period justify anything in the post 1969 period? It is pointless for nay-sayers to deny the mis-rule in NI but it is equally (and more gruesomely) fatuous for anybody to list the instances of (comprehensive) mis-rule and use that to justify killings in the 60s, 70, 80s and 90s and very, very sadly thereafter. The reality is that in the troubles over three and a half thousand people were murdered. Tragic and horrific in any sane mid. Over 2000 of these murders were at the hands of republicans. These murders cannot be justified. It cannot be said that these murders were justified or "worth it". Or that events in the pre 1969 period warranted this "response". I note the posters who say the "volunteers" had to act as they did. I don't see, even under the cover of this (thankfully) anonymous forum, any posters being able to justify these specific murders.

I think your post reads that the environment that people lived in had little to do with their actions during that time. I think that's quite a bit off the mark.

Are you arguing that the prevailing environment justifyied any particular murders?

It's easy to say that none of it should have happened, in hindsight.

Frankly that is nonsense. Maybe you are arguing that individuals went out there to unthinkingly lash out but I'm invariably told that that republicans had a strategy, a command and a justification. In which case they thought about their actions before they acted.

[smelmoth]

What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

[seafoid]

What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

The political system broke down over the injustices forced on Catholics. the PTB wouldn't accept the civil rights marches . It was only afterwards that the violence started.

[smelmoth]

What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

Believing in a cause is one thing. The miserable conditions they were subjected to would be another. I don't think you can discount that as a factor in why people did what they did.

Did I discount it?

I am off the view that it was not enough to justify murder. I stand by that.

When I ask for those who seek to justify murder to spell out their justification the "justifiers" fall silent entirely or engage in side arguments. Very, very strange that these clearly justifications are entirely missing. And it is murder we are talking about. Some fairly clear cut justification is actually required/ 

[smelmoth]

What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

The political system broke down over the injustices forced on Catholics. the PTB wouldn't accept the civil rights marches . It was only afterwards that the violence started.

Are you saying that there were no other alternatives available in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s?

Are you saying that murder was justified?

Are you saying that murder worked?

Are you saying that murder worked when nothing else could have worked?

Please be specific

[Rossfan]

Who started the "murdering" in the 1960s??

[seafoid]

What exactly do you think drove so many people into such a movement?

You entirely miss the point. Believing in a cause does not justify any means.The means has to be justified.

The political system broke down over the injustices forced on Catholics. the PTB wouldn't accept the civil rights marches . It was only afterwards that the violence started.

Are you saying that there were no other alternatives available in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s?

Are you saying that murder was justified?

Are you saying that murder worked?

Are you saying that murder worked when nothing else could have worked?

Please be specific

the Unionists thought they could control everything and that enough brutality would put the taigs back n their place. Croppies lie down. With that sort of attitude violence was hardly surprising. And the state wasnt strong enough to come back to a workable equilibrium. NI was a complete failure in that respect.
.
Did murder work? Certainly the violence was effective in destroying the NI economy. 
Did murder work when nothing else could have worked ? The Unionists strangled everything else

Remember Sunningdale for slow learners ?

[seafoid]

Does this sound familiar?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/12/southafrica

I recently read Joel Joffe's excellent book The State vs. Nelson Mandela, about the notorious Rivonia trial in South Africa in 1963-64. Joffe describes a world of bigotry, misinformation and deliberate twisting of the legal system in favour of the state against those it considers to be its enemies. In South Africa in the mid-60s terrorism suspects could be held without trial for long periods of time at the whim of the police; conversations between lawyers and their clients were routinely bugged, the information being used to help the prosecution form its case in advance; and religious leaders who dared to raise tricky religious or political topics were chastised by the press.

[T Fearon]

Seafoid I think a big reason for Unionist treatment of Catholic/Nationalists (and I'm not condoning it) was born out of the perceived disloyalty to the state and lack of trust.

Also Unionist condemnation of violence is a bit hollow as if the show was on the other foot the violence from unionism would have been ten times worse

The vast majority of people up here don't,and never did hate each other due to religious affiliation.