Gerry Adams exposed , his lies demolished at brothers rape trial

[Casually Red]

Now I doubt spooks are that cynical or anybody in whitehall cares that deeply for NI .
Its hardly Algeria if anybody had cared deeply aboutt he place maybe the troubles wouldn't have lasted as long as they did.
Frankly if westminister had given a damm about the place the unionists wouldnt have got to play apartheid light
Mind you if their was a spook determned to destroy irish republicanism he'd probably be left to get on with its not as if anybody else had any ideas intrest in the place

i take it you missed the MI6 Cheifs latest little speech . Or the fact 15 percent of all Britians military intelligence resources are currently concentrated in the 6 counties. The unionists simply served the imperial purpose . When their little one party state was no longer fit for purpose Britain sought to make it fit for purpose .If Britian hadnt cared it would have fucked off long ago and left the UN to sort it out . It would not have criminalised itself repeatedly in front of the entire world and spent, and continue to spend, billions propping a failed state up .

 

[Casually Red]

How wonderful

Mr Adams leads a bunch of vile killers but is given credence by Shamrock flaunting Yankee Kings,
While Orange tinged Union flag wrapped white haired loons chant "No Surrender"

If course, the fault of our "Government"


Imbedded in this the notion that our leaders are perfect and totally liable
Anyone actually have a remotely objective view, or perhaps even, a mirror?

yeah..ive just held one up and there appears to be a white mans burden staring back at me. Quite shamefacedly .

 

[Casually Red]

Hm goverment was ready to deal most republicans wanted a deal the unionists didnt and were prepared to fight or at least strike and generally make things impossible

wrong, republicans were every bit as determined to wreck any deal which would see any form of devolved British rule or powersharing legitmised . They made that abundantly clear . Thats why ten of them also later starved to death . To ensure they could never be criminalised and any form of British state in Ireland could never be normalised .
Adams completey sold that position out, and has his spin doctors tell people they died to get gerry adams votes and start the peace process.

 

[toggle]

Interesting
So, if say Scargill had upped the anti with an armed wing, the Mines would now have self government?

way to proove you missed the point completely.

 

[hipipol]

yeah..ive just held one up and there appears to be a white mans burden staring back at me. Quite shamefacedly .

Oh dear me.....
Imperialist I am not
This would imply a belief in some sort of fixed hierarchical world view where a chosen elite select the correct path for the lives of others
The opposite
We do the best we can
All choices are thus interim
Absolutes are only attainable in theory

 

[Casually Red]

oh right, its yoda

 

[hipipol]

way to proove you missed the point completely.

I disagreed with the basis of the discussion
It was well school yard/undergrad common room wankery

 

[hipipol]

oh right, its yoda

Nope
Not simply a mangling of grammatical structure
A simple difference of viewpoint

 

[Casually Red]

levitates cup of tea with mind

 

[DaveCinzano]

levitates cup of tea with mind

 

[Casually Red]

thats class

 

[Idris2002]

Wilson was no B.Liar

Except for that time he sent 60000 troops to prop up Malaysia during the Borneo confrontation.

 

[revol68]

wrong, republicans were every bit as determined to wreck any deal which would see any form of devolved British rule or powersharing legitmised . They made that abundantly clear . Thats why ten of them also later starved to death . To ensure they could never be criminalised and any form of British state in Ireland could never be normalised .
Adams completey sold that position out, and has his spin doctors tell people they died to get gerry adams votes and start the peace process.

Here lies the problem for honest republicans, you accept a settlement short of a United Ireland and as such have to face up to the futility of the armed struggle and how it only further entrenched sectarianism and actually set back any move towards a United Ireland or be a mental irredentist nationalist frothing at the mouth over a fourth green field and how everyone is a dupe of Brit imperialism.

Dishonest republicans pretend the armed struggle was really just an extension of the civil rights movement and we had 30 years of violence in able for catholics to have equal rights.

 

[Idris2002]

Dishonest republicans pretend the armed struggle was really just an extension of the civil rights movement and we had 30 years of violence in able for catholics to have equal rights.

The armed struggle certainly wasn't just an extension of the CRM, but I'm not sure that violence of some sort wasn't required to make the majority concede equal rights to the minority. . .

 

[revol68]

The armed struggle certainly wasn't just an extension of the CRM, but I'm not sure that violence of some sort wasn't required to make the majority concede equal rights to the minority. . .

majority and minority, is this the level of analysis you want to go with?

anyway, certainly there may have been a violent backlash from loyalism, indeed they shut down Sunningdale but the notion that the armed struggle was about attaining equal rights is utter balls, the campaign was launched with the idea of destabilisation, republicans taking an immiseration approach. Inequality and years of gerrymandering etc were the fuel but they weren't the fire.

The Provo's campaign stoked up sectarianism and left little room for liberal unionists and nationalists to work out reforms, it was designed precisely to do so. Likewise Paisley and co worked from the other side to ensure the same thing.

Now witness as the cunts join hands together and talk peace and forgetting the past, talking about the troubles like it was some bad weather rather something they actively produced.

 

[Idris2002]

majority and minority, is this the level of analysis you want to go with?

anyway, certainly there may have been a violent backlash from loyalism, indeed they shut down Sunningdale but the notion that the armed struggle was about attaining equal rights is utter balls, the campaign was launched with the idea of destabilisation, republicans taking an immiseration approach. Inequality and years of gerrymandering etc were the fuel but they weren't the fire.

And what is consumed when a fire burns, dear boy? As for levels of analysis, I contain multitudes.

I don't say that the armed struggle was about attaining equal rights, only that the statelet would only have changed under severe pressure. This is so regardless of whether or not those who exercised that pressure had a different aim in mind.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The armed struggle certainly wasn't just an extension of the CRM, but I'm not sure that violence of some sort wasn't required to make the majority concede equal rights to the minority. . .

The civil rights movement in the US was largely not violent. Certainly, the MLK strand of the movement explicitly eschewed any violence and also made what was, imo, the very necessary step of reaching out to the majority.

Could some kind of 'March on London' have been organised? I don't know. But when people end up praising the likes of Gerry Adams, I can't help thinking that something must have gone wrong with their thinking.

 

[revol68]

And what is consumed when a fire burns, dear boy? As for levels of analysis, I contain multitudes.

I don't say that the armed struggle was about attaining equal rights, only that the statelet would only have changed under severe pressure. This is so regardless of whether or not those who exercised that pressure had a different aim in mind.

You think the Provos campaign helped in the slightest achieve equal rights? I suggest you've been buying into Provo revisionism. It denied space for reform and "normalisation", not as an unforeseen consequence but as an explicitly stated goal.
I'm not a pacifist so I don't imagine some kind of violence might not be needed to change things but not the provo's violence because funny enough the provo's campaign was specifically designed to stop any such reforms within the northern polity.

 

[Idris2002]

You think the Provos campaign helped achieve equal rights? I suggest you've been buying into Provo revisionism. It denied space for reform and "normalisation", not as an unforeseen consequence but as an explicitly stated goal.

No,wee man, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that the initial demand for civil rights would evoke a vicious response from the Stormont regime, which in turn would provide a much wider pool of recruits for the PIRA's armed effort to deny "space for reform", which in turn meant that the conflict could only be ended by means which were more radical than mere reform of the existing NI statelet, even if they ended in ways inconsistent with the goals of the PIRA.

Which leads me to this point . . .

The civil rights movement in the US was largely not violent. Certainly, the MLK strand of the movement explicitly eschewed any violence and also made what was, imo, the very necessary step of reaching out to the majority.

Could some kind of 'March on London' have been organised? I don't know. But when people end up praising the likes of Gerry Adams, I can't help thinking that something must have gone wrong with their thinking.

No, there couldn't have been a "March on London" for the simple reason that in NI control of the streets was a zero-sum game which could only be won by one party. Taking the US civil rights model into the NI context was no simple matter, because NI was a very different society from the US.

(and there was a physical-force element in the US civil rights movement, even before the Panthers. butchersapron knows more about that one)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And what is consumed when a fire burns, dear boy? As for levels of analysis, I contain multitudes.

I don't say that the armed struggle was about attaining equal rights, only that the statelet would only have changed under severe pressure. This is so regardless of whether or not those who exercised that pressure had a different aim in mind.

Tell me if you think I'm way off, but the decisive pressure from the top that ended segregation in the southern states of the US came from elsewhere in the US. The federal government was forced into action by the actions of campaigners. In NI, was there was the potential for decisive pressure from above from the government in London, forced into action by campaingers?

 

[Idris2002]

Tell me if you think I'm way off, but the decisive pressure from the top that ended segregation in the southern states of the US came from elsewhere in the US. The federal government was forced into action by the actions of campaigners. In NI, was there was the potential for decisive pressure from above from the government in London, forced into action by campaingers?

Yeah, I have to say I think that's way off. I've already alluded on this thread (I think) to Jim Callaghan's line about how nobody in Whitehall understood Ireland when the balloon went up.

Both Eisenhower and Kennedy, and after them Johnson all knew what the south was and what they were dealing with.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, there couldn't have been a "March on London" for the simple reason that in NI control of the streets was a zero-sum game which could only be won by one party. Taking the US civil rights model into the NI context was no simple matter, because NI was a very different society from the US.

I accept that, but control of the streets was pretty much a zero-sum game in many parts of the South in the US, too, before the federal govt intervened. External forces stronger than the local polity/police intervened.

 

[Idris2002]

I accept that, but control of the streets was pretty much a zero-sum game in many parts of the South in the US, too, before the federal govt intervened. External forces stronger than the local polity/police intervened.

Key point: the relationship between Westminster and Stormont was not the same as the federal relationship between Washington DC and the southern states.

 

[revol68]

No,wee man, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that the initial demand for civil rights would evoke a vicious response from the Stormont regime, which in turn would provide a much wider pool of recruits for the PIRA's armed effort to deny "space for reform", which in turn meant that the conflict could only be ended by means which were more radical than mere reform of the existing NI statelet, even if they ended in ways inconsistent with the goals of the PIRA.

Don't patronise people, especially those with a better understanding.

Your argument is all over the place.

Firstly the conflict has ended with "mere reform of the existing NI statelet", the GFA is Sunningdale for slow learners.

You seem to now be arguing that clamp down on civil rights helped produce the Provo's campaign, no one has denied that, that is obvious. The argument is that the Provo's campaign hindered the achievement of equal rights, something obvious from the fact they explicitly stated that as part of their strategy.

but I'm not sure that violence of some sort wasn't required to make the majority concede equal rights to the minority. . .

This post in the context of the thread implies that the provo's campaign might have been something of a necessary evil to force the "majority" to concede, something which is utter bullshit.

I mean "minority versus majority" is the kind of shit you'd expect from some dullard undergrad studying Deeply Divided Societies 101 at Queens.

 

[revol68]

Key point: the relationship between Westminster and Stormont was not the same as the federal relationship between Washington DC and the southern states.

No the Brits abolished Stormont and showed themselves to be far more amenable to the civil rights cause than the US federal government.

The ferociousness of the Provo's campaign in the early days was precisely because they feared a reformed northern polity being knocked out.

 

[Idris2002]

Don't patronise people, especially those with a better understanding.

Your argument is all over the place.

Firstly the conflict has ended with "mere reform of the existing NI statelet", the GFA is Sunningdale for slow learners.

You seem to now be arguing that clamp down on civil rights helped produce the Provo's campaign, no one has denied that, that is obvious. The argument is that the Provo's campaign hindered the achievement of equal rights, something obvious from the fact they explicitly stated that as part of their strategy.



This post in the context of the thread implies that the provo's campaign might have been something of a necessary evil to force the "majority" to concede, something which is utter bullshit.

I mean "minority versus majority" is the kind of shit you'd expect from some dullard undergrad studying Deeply Divided Societies 101 at Queens.

I taught some of those dullard undergrads in my time, WEE MAN, and I would have been grateful if even one of them had shown that level of analytical nous!

Did Sunningdale include policing reform that mandated a 50/50 representation of both communities in the force? Was Sunningdale legitimised through consitutional change and elections, or not?

 

[Idris2002]

No the Brits abolished Stormont and showed themselves to be far more amenable to the civil rights cause than the US federal government.

The ferociousness of the Provo's campaign in the early days was precisely because they feared a reformed northern polity being knocked out.

The Brits didn't abolish Stormont until 1972, three years into the shooting war and after the Provies had been living out their Che Guevara fantasies.

 

[revol68]

The Brits didn't abolish Stormont until 1972, three years into the shooting war and after the Provies had been living out their Che Guevara fantasies.

And?

The point is that the brits were willing to force unionisms hand, the irony being it was the violence that would make then but yet it was also the violence that stopped it transforming into a workable solution.

The brits left this place to fester, the provos grew out of this rot and became one of the main obstacles to ending it.

To get back to my point, the provo's campaign didn't help produce reform, on the contrary it actively destroyed the possibilities of it.

Your point about some violence being needed is either insinuating the provo's campaign helped produce such reforms, which is wrong, or it's some inane general point about violence being necessary to get majorities to concede to minorities, which is bullshit on so many levels.

 

[Idris2002]

And?

The point is that the brits were willing to force unionisms hand, the irony being it was the violence that would make then but yet it was also the violence that stopped it transforming into a workable solution.

The brits left this place to fester, the provos grew out of this rot and became one of the main obstacles to ending it.

To get back to my point, the provo's campaign didn't help produce reform, on the contrary it actively destroyed the possibilities of it.

Your point about some violence being needed is either insinuating the provo's campaign helped produce such reforms, which is wrong, or it's some inane general point about violence being necessary to get majorities to concede to minorities, which is bullshit on so many levels.

To channel the vengeful spirit of Pickman's model for a second, if something is inane then it is shallow, and therefore cannot be "bullshit on so many levels" as it does not have more than one level on which to be bullshit.

The Provies campaign destroyed the possibility of certain kinds of reform, and made other kinds of reform inevitable.

 

[revol68]

To channel the vengeful spirit of Pickman's model for a second, if something is inane then it is shallow, and therefore cannot be "bullshit on so many levels" as it does not have more than one level on which to be bullshit.

The Provies campaign destroyed the possibility of certain kinds of reform, and made other kinds of reform inevitable.

It means lacking significant meaning and as any good Hegelian knows insignificance can be quite significance, that is the lack of meaning in something can actually mean a great deal. Your comment tells us nothing on one level but on another it says a lot about the kind of analysis that uses majority and minority as it's operative concepts.

And actually it was when the provo's ended their campaign that these inevitable reforms came into place, only a pervert would argue that the fact that quite alot of these reforms were now aimed at reforming situations the provo's campaign helped produced meant the provo's campaign made these reforms inevitable.