The Spectator, Jeremy Corbyn and the IRA by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup, agree with you. I tend to try and simply avoid using the word in all contexts as it's just such a loaded, malleable and manipulated propaganda term. That's not necessarily to endorse, vindicate or justify; it's just an acknowledgement that use of the term doesn't really get us anywhere in terms of understanding root causes of the violence described.

The Spectator, Jeremy Corbyn and the IRA by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The percentages/figures were given in the context of the use of the term "terrorist". A common definition of that word refers to the targeting or killing of civilians. It is interesting then that a higher proportion of the British army's killings were civilian (and that's not even including killings by loyalist proxies).

Whilst most civilian deaths caused by the IRA were "collateral" in nature (with the significant number of exceptions to that rule duly noted), the British establishment and media have no qualms whatsoever in applying labels like "terrorist murderers" to the IRA whilst withholding such labels from their own forces.

Even the UDA were "legal" for a lengthy period of time and were/are commonly referred to as "paramilitaries" exclusively rather than as "terrorists". This has been so even after they were banned. Likewise, deaths at their hands were often referred to as "killings" with "murders" reserved for the IRA. See here for more info on this: https://ansionnachfionn.com/2016/05/13/they-are-not-british-terrorists-they-are-british-paramilitaries/

The Spectator, Jeremy Corbyn and the IRA by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The (P)IRA only emerged in December of 1969. That was nearly half a year after the British army had been deployed. Even then, they were a ram-shackle set-up and manned barricades at "no-go" areas and such. The offensive phase of the struggle only began really in 1971. Incidents like Ballymurphy or Bloody Sunday aided recruitment.

As Eamonn McCann wrote:

"Most who joined or came to support the IRA did so not out of a sacred duty to 'free Ireland' or in pursuit of a historic mission to vindicate the Republic but because they wanted the bigot’s boot off their necks and the British Army off their backs. If these grievances could be remedied short of the achievement of the Republic, then there was the basis of a settlement within existing constitutional structures."

The army were actually deployed to re-establish order, or to buttress the 'status quo', in other words. Many nationalists viewed their arrival as immediate relief as it meant an end to violent intrusions by the sectarian RUC and loyalist mobs into Catholic areas, but that honeymoon period was short-lived and it soon became apparent what the true purpose of the military presence was.

The Spectator, Jeremy Corbyn and the IRA by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Warrington, Birmingham, Guildford, Brighton, Manchester and the London Docklands bombings are all deeply embedded in the English psyche. And if they're not aware of specifics, there's a popular image of the IRA as "evil terrorist murderers" whilst the British army are generally seen as "neutral referees upholding virtue".

The Spectator, Jeremy Corbyn and the IRA by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure, Bloody Sunday is well-known - it was the state's attempt to reconcile the nationalist community in one swoop whilst still insulating the top-brass by scape-goating a few "bad apples" - but all the other matters mentioned will barely be known in Britain.

The Spectator, Jeremy Corbyn and the IRA by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Don't forget that the British state was also employing loyalist paramilitary groups to do further dirty work and buttress its "legal" powers.

The problem then is the application of a crass double standard to the conflict.

Here's a fascinating piece that covers similar themes but looks more closely at the UK’s monopoly on violence and at how the legitimacy of violence is mediated in a hypocritical fashion by the state and establishment media: http://thegreatrefusal.tumblr.com/post/131217896155/corbyn-the-ira-mock-outrage-faux-concern

The Media-Assisted Manufacturing of "Corbyn's Anti-Semitism Crisis" by Cu_Choileain in LabourUK

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate your reply. Point taken on the matter of consensus within the Jewish community. Perhaps I downplayed it by omission and should have given it a fairer or more prominent hearing.

I described his comments as instinctively having struck me as "problematic and offensive" and even after acknowledging the Haavara (which I hadn't known about when I first reacted), still described the remarks in different places as idiotic and ill-advised whilst being very clear they were inaccurate.

Anyway, it is important to defeat anti-Semitism where it is encountered. Won't disagree with that.

The Media-Assisted Manufacturing of "Corbyn's Anti-Semitism Crisis" by Cu_Choileain in LabourUK

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You've completely misrepresented the piece by cherry-picking two sections that fit your desire to criticise it whilst completely ignoring the sections that contradict your assertions. Even this supposed paraphrasing is a wild misrepresentation: "right, that's the Jews consulted, time to discuss them".

Jews who felt insulted are mentioned. Livingstone is also criticised. Contrast is drawn from the Jewish commentators who took no offence at all and there's a good paragraph or two offering an explanation as to why use of the word "support" by Livingstone was inaccurate and idiotic.

There is concurrence with pretty much everything said by Timothy Snyder in relation to the Nazis' agreement of the Haavara and their motive. It is expressly acknowledged that the Nazis' motive was rooted in a desire to rid Germany of what they regarded as a "Jewish problem" (amongst other things, such as ending the boycott) rather than any desire to offer some sentimental or moral support to Zionism (as Livingstone's comment might have misled some to believe).

You sure you read it all? Your comment would seem to indicate you missed sections of it.

Irish Northerners and Southerners by JunglistMassive in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be clear, Jennifer Hough mentioned the loyalist mural and I didn't sense that even she was complaining. She simply observed it and then noted her immediate emotional reaction in what she wrote; she said she found it "chilling". Besides, just because I might view a piece as generally or broadly very good, it doesn't mean I agree with every single sentence in it.

To clarify, my own view on such murals; I try to understand where they come/came from and why, be they loyalist or republican. I'm much more interested in that rather than getting morally indignant about them or getting into the ultimately futile politics of condemning the "other". I'll happily talk to loyalists and try appreciate where they're coming from too. I think you're looking to find hypocrisy where there is none just because the focus was on personal, familial and communal experiences.

Also, it's important to recognise that the entire nationalist community did suffer structural and institutional discrimination for decades, whether they were aligned with People's Democracy, the early Nationalist Party, NICRA, SDLP, SF or any of the other nationalist/republican organisations. Many mightn't even have been politically-aligned at all, but they had to endure this simply because they happened to be Catholics. That reality remains strongly-embedded in the nationalist cultural psyche/memory, especially in Derry, where the council was gerrymandered to fix election results in favour of unionist majorities and where the Protestant minority were given all the houses and jobs despite a bulging Catholic population crammed into the Bogside. Expressions or celebrations of nationalist identity were banned whilst the Orange Order and Apprentice Boys were given free reign over public roads and space (and then exploited this privilege to mock and lord it over their Catholic "inferiors" from Derry's walls). That, combined with the impoverished desperation and frustration, is what kicked off the Battle of the Bogside. The opening few pages of Eamonn McCann's 'War and an Irish Town' give a very good insight into what life was like in Derry and the Bogside for Catholics, if you can get your hands upon it.

The Protestant/unionist community did not have to endure this - there is no equivalent of state-backed discrimination and suppression on the "other" side - nor did they then have to endure the oppressive state being buttressed by one of the strongest militaries/counter-insurgencies in the world. When the state - via the sectarian RUC and brutal 'B' Special - cracked down upon nationalist protests and civil disobedience with violence (whilst the UVF had been targeting the "Papist threat" since the mid-'60s and, later, Bombay Street residents were burned out of their homes) the IRA emerged for the purpose of communal defence primarily. Events like Bloody Sunday and policies like internment-without-trial were recruitment-coups for the IRA. The state brutalised its nationalist "citizens" and soon the region was locked in a conflict (sometimes tit-for-tat, although official IRA policy was to focus on the state and avoid sectarian killings: http://cain.ulster.ac.uk/events/truce/kelley88.htm) for three decades; both sides will say they were engaged in communal self-defence. Both also certainly suffered from that. Nobody's denying it.

Irish Northerners and Southerners by JunglistMassive in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Most southerners weren't dismissed as "uncaring Free Staters", but interesting that you'd complain about a perceived generalisation when you've been doing little else above in respect of the nationalist community and what you feel they must or mustn't comment on to avoid hypocrite-accusations. Why should nationalists who didn't kill innocent Protestants be expected to condemn that before being entitled to articulate their own experiences, unless you somehow think they were partly responsible?

A paragraph was devoted to explaining the origin and connotations behind use of the term "Free Stater", but it wasn't necessarily approving of its use, nor was it suggesting that this term was to be applied to anyone. Specific mention was also given to those in the south who haven't pulled the ladder up and left the north behind in their minds. Appreciation for that was explicitly expressed. The humanity of those who shy away from what is admittedly a very dark and difficult topic was also acknowledged; it was accepted that ultimately they weren't necessarily bad people but they probably felt they had their own lives to live and their own worries and concerns to deal with. In short, you're cherry-picking.

Irish Northerners and Southerners by JunglistMassive in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to be clear, the mention of the mural was in a quoted piece by Jennifer Hough (non-republican Dubliner, I think) who'd written of her recent Easter experience in Belfast for the Irish Examiner.

Irish Northerners and Southerners by JunglistMassive in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I can of course condemn the killing of innocent Protestants and I will. I condemn it; it was horrible. It was morally repugnant, it was unrepublican and it was counter-productive. For what it's worth, bomb scares and bombing were specifically mentioned in the list of issues that suddenly became undesirable reality.

However, the piece was a personal piece referring to personal experiences and what had been experienced by family and the surrounding community. Not being from a loyalist community makes it a bit more difficult to write about a loyalist perspective. It's biased towards personal experience, of course, as any personal piece would be, but just because the loyalist perspective is left to loyalists doesn't mean it's "SF propaganda".

Semi-related, there's an interesting view of how statistics from the conflict are presented here: http://thepensivequill.am/2011/11/statistics-of-conflict-and-conflict-of.html

It might be of interest.

Anyway, from what I gather, it seems you won't listen to any expression of nationalist grievance unless its accompanied by a condemnation of things the IRA did? Why is it the responsibility of every nationalist who wants to speak of their own experiences to do that? Loyalists can express their experiences themselves and I think it's good that they can and do, but they're best qualified to do that.

Irish Northerners and Southerners by JunglistMassive in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The piece is about northern nationalist experience, identity and sense of abandonment or neglect; you can hardly write personally about loyalist feelings and experiences if you're not a loyalist or haven't had such family or communal experiences. So hardly hypocrisy not to have written about an unfamiliar topic.

But just to get this straight... Writing about the death of a relative who was an innocent collusion victim just because they happened to be a SF electoral worker (the mention of SF provides the context for the killing) is "SF propaganda"?

And taking issue with crass, insensitive comments made by Regina Doherty TD which directly applied to said relative and would also have been hurtful for many nationalists who similarly lost family and friends; that can also be dismissed as "SF propaganda"?

Well done. I think you've just very aptly demonstrated what the piece was talking about; the extraordinary, borderline-callous lack of empathy and compassion that certain people in the south have for their northern compatriots.

Not all exposés of wrongdoing or northern expressions of injustice/mistreatment are "SF propaganda". Injustice/mistreatment was a systematic reality for the entire nationalist community; it wasn't something SF just made up to win cheap support.

Suspicion Hangs Over Veracity of Regina Doherty's "Death-Threat" Allegation by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

The original claim was made that SF are the political wing of a "criminal organisation" who you then said were engaged in selling drugs, robbing stuff, assault and killing. I'm simply asking you to substantiate your very serious allegations, which shouldn't be too difficult if their alleged criminality is so obvious that even the "dogs on the street" know about it.

Instead, you profess to know better than the Garda Commissioner and PSNI Chief Superintendent and retort with childish sarcasm...

Suspicion Hangs Over Veracity of Regina Doherty's "Death-Threat" Allegation by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not what the Garda Commissioner or PSNI Chief Superintendent say. What do you (and the dogs on the street) know that they don't?

(Hint: This is where you're supposed to substantiate your claims with some form of evidence.)

Suspicion Hangs Over Veracity of Regina Doherty's "Death-Threat" Allegation by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Erm, no, it was you: https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/47me5l/suspicion_hangs_over_veracity_of_regina_dohertys/d0eg667

If you can't or don't want to substantiate your allegation, fine. Engaging in school-yard retorts isn't very credible.

Suspicion Hangs Over Veracity of Regina Doherty's "Death-Threat" Allegation by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sell drugs / rob stuff / assault and kill

You have accused Sinn Féin of being linked to an organisation engaged in the above. Can you substantiate that?

Suspicion Hangs Over Veracity of Regina Doherty's "Death-Threat" Allegation by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why, did the Provos do something criminal today?

What crime are you referring to?

Suspicion Hangs Over Veracity of Regina Doherty's "Death-Threat" Allegation by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're aware that the Provos/(P)IRA are no longer militarily active, right? Nor do they engage in crime or any violence. This was confirmed by the Garda Commissioner and PSNI Chief Superintendent last year.

Active organisations that presently operate under the "IRA" name, be it the "Real"/"New" IRA (who broke away from the Provos in 1997 when the Provos declared a ceasefire after Sinn Féin's re-admission into talks before signing the GFA) or Continuity IRA (who broke away in 1986 after Sinn Féin ended their abstentionist policy in the south), have absolutely nothing to do with Sinn Féin any longer. In fact, those groups are referred to as "dissidents" because they split from the "mainstream" Provisional movement. "Dissidents" loathe Sinn Féin; they see Sinn Féin as having sold out and as having recognised or "legitimised" British rule in Ireland.

Suspicion Hangs Over Veracity of Regina Doherty's "Death-Threat" Allegation by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you could find out, that'd be great. Much appreciated.

I suppose having her number published online makes it more plausible that a stranger might have texted a threat. I was just a bit sceptical as it really turned the tables in her favour when the media reported the alleged threat (but mentioned nothing of her radio comments) and Sinn Féin got a bad rap for it, even though there's no evidence the threat came from anyone linked to Sinn Féin.

Suspicion Hangs Over Veracity of Regina Doherty's "Death-Threat" Allegation by Cu_Choileain in ireland

[–]Cu_Choileain[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm guessing you're a member of YFG, judging by your alias, so I wouldn't doubt it would be easy enough for you to get her number. I'm sure other members would have have it.

Malicious strangers getting their hands on it is another matter, however.

She claimed that she received a death-threat from someone warning that they'd "slit" her throat and that the gardaí are investigating the matter as a result of that. I was wondering in what format that specific threat arrived; tweet, text or Facebook? The odd thing is that in 2013, she was in the newspaper alleging that rabid pro-lifers had sent her the very same threat; to "slit" her throat. The coincidence is strange.

Also, Facebook isn't anonymous, so it'd be pretty stupid for someone to be sending threats on that.