Reflecting on Saville

Never thought I would see the day when a large gathering of Derry nationalists would stand and applaud a British Tory Prime Minister. Watching them do so on the day the Saville Report was released, I realised that mentally I was applauding him too. Not because I like the Tories, or find them paragons of virtue and honesty. There was a simple but effective vindication in hearing from people so senior in the British political establishment – at its very apex - so at one with the British military, so divorced from the concerns of working class Derry people, being placed in a position where it was impossible to say anything other than the slain people of Bloody Sunday were innocent. Unarmed civilians with no taint of military status, mercilessly butchered.

It cannot be easy for a British Prime Minister, in particular a Conservative one, to take the despatch box in parliament in full view of an international audience and apologise on behalf of the government for the actions of British troops that were nothing short of a full blown war crime: the unprovoked slaughter of an unarmed and unsuspecting civilian population as it peacefully protested against other repressive actions by the same government standing behind the murderous regiment on Derry streets that January Sunday afternoon in 1972.

Bloody Sunday is one of those events of such trauma that I can recall exactly where I was on hearing of it. I had just left a youth club in University Street when my friend Fra Rea told me that the Brits had shot five people dead in Derry. As we now know the figures were almost treble that.

With another British regiment it may have been easier to find some mitigation no matter how little. There might even have been a smaller number of victims with a regiment less aggressive. It might have been plausibly said there was a breakdown in discipline. But none of this applies to the Paras. They went in with murderous intent and achieved unmitigated success. As the coroner Hubert O’Neill put it: ‘sheer unadulterated bloody murder.’

While welcoming the Saville verdict of unalloyed innocence I was dismayed by the lack of clarity in relation to the guilty. In the weeks that have passed that sentiment has not weakened. The culpability of the killers was not clearly spelt out. The one republican act during the North’s armed conflict that stands out in terms of comparison with Bloody Sunday was the gunning down of 10 unarmed Protestant civilians in Whitecross four years after the Parachute Regiment set out on its murderous foray. There was no hesitation in the media and British government circles in immediately characterising the attack as mass murder; no need to wait 4 decades for a judicial report to declare the butchered men innocent, which they undoubtedly were. Yet neither Saville nor David Cameron have gone this far. How can the British establishment with ease term one a murderous massacre but not so the other?

Will prosecutions be initiated or, if they are, will they succeed? Although there are enough who think for genuine reasons that prosecutions should result from the Saville findings I am not convinced there is any point in journeying down that path. A crucially damning verdict would be a simple, concise, unequivocal declaration from the British government that the act was mass murder, that the Widgery Report was a whitewash and that the British government behaviour after the event made it, at the very least, an accomplice after the fact, responsible for covering up and perverting the course of justice. That would be much more beneficial than some woolly verdict of unlawful killing or manslaughter which is probably the only outcome from court proceedings.

Bloody Sunday was a defining event in the course of the North’s conflict. It made political violence against the British state seem the most instinctive, natural and just path to follow. It stymied any reformist impulse, breathed life into those most hostile to reform, and created a mindset that violence is the only thing those, whose stock and trade it is, understand. In doing so it contributed greatly to the intensity and longevity of the conflict. Those responsible for it should not escape a just verdict because the British state masks the real culpability of the killers with declarations of fidelity to the killed.

91 comments:

  1. Very well said Anthony,I think prosecutions should follow this report,and not for revenge,yes those who pulled the trigger committed murder,but those automatons in the paras like their counterparts in the waffen ss were "only following orders" but hopefully if prosecutions were to follow we may at last get at those respectable members of the establishment who gave orders to murder subjects of this corrupt state

    ReplyDelete
  2. A futher note Anthony forgive me, I think prosecutions in this case may or should act as a deterent to proxies of the state that their actions will not go unpunished when they wander of the legal path.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Although prosecutions would be the proper way for justice to be served. I for one won’t be holding my breath. Correct me if I’m wrong. But only two British army soldiers have ever been convicted of murder during the whole duration of the troubles. I would also question whether the relatives of the victims have any energy left for a fresh campaign to get the killers prosecuted. And after nearly 40 years fighting, I wouldn’t blame them. But if they don’t. Who will?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seems wee Marty doesn't know what he is form one day to the next.

    One day he is in Irish republican, taking the all the praise for the Saville report.

    The next he is the British Deputy Minister for Northern Ireland, taking all the praise for Londonderry becoming the UK City of Culture 2013.

    I hear Gerry Kelly or another one of his flunkies. Has to keep reminding him, what audience he is addressing so he doesn't fuck up????

    Could you imagine the shit if he slipped into British Deputy Minister for Northern Ireland, mode when addressing a rabid bunch of Orish republicans????

    ReplyDelete
  5. A little aside if I may Anthony,I see on the news that Derry is ,to be the uk,s city of culture 2013, has,nt Marty informed the citizens that Gerry has planed to have Derry incorpated into the Irish republic 3 years later in 2016, so the question I ask is all this hype and money spent on promoting Derry a waste of uk taxpayers money

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know this is a distraction from your post on Saville Anthony and for that I apoligise, but the recent statement from psf,s Carol Cullen on tv re the rioting in North Belfast, she tells us that she intends to use the statutory authorities to evict those who opposed the orange orders march past Ardoyne i,e, those outside psf,s control, I wonder why they just dont resort to that old and tried tatic of nasty picketing the homes of those they take umbrage to after all it worked on Paddy Devlin,Gerry Fitt ,Anthony Mc Intyre,Tommy Gorman, and a good few others,but I suppose when your part of the establishment you dont have to do your own dirty work,then we hear Jennifer Mc Cann condeming the hijacking of a car in the Twinbrook area and while I agree this was a pointless and futile exercise,what I would like to know and for the love of me I couldnt understand why none of the radio interviewers asked it lately how many of those mla,s in psf have ever worn a mask/balaclava and have been involved in hijacking or worse,kettle/black!!I suppose we who would be diametrically opposed to psf can count our blessings they havent called for internment yet, give them time they will, flogging and hanging Felons will take a little longer,

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anthony,

    "The one republican act during the North’s armed conflict that stands out in terms of comparison with Bloody Sunday was the gunning down of 10 unarmed Protestant civilians in Whitecross four years after the Parachute Regiment set out on its murderous foray. There was no hesitation in the media and British government circles in immediately characterising the attack as mass murder; no need to wait 4 decades for a judicial report to declare the butchered men innocent, which they undoubtedly were. Yet neither Saville nor David Cameron have gone this far. How can the British establishment with ease term one a murderous massacre but not so the other"?
    Perhaps with the same ease that the Republican movement deals with their past activities. If the question - When is a murderous massacre not a murderous massacre was posed to Adams? His answer,or at the very least the implication, would undoubtably be - When it's a Republican murderous massacre.
    I personally have no problem with the Saville Report although my sympathy for the families would have been greatly enhanced with the absence of Adams, McGuinness et al as sponsors. Ken Lukowiak , author and former paratrooper writing in the Guardian reinforces this point," At the forefront of the celebrations in Londonderry this week was the one-time IRA commander Martin McGuinness. If only the families of the Bloody Sunday dead were able to have said, "The British army wrongly killed our sons. But you, Martin, have wrongly killed sons too, and so also we want nothing to do with you." It might have made our admission of guilt easier.So, we are sorry for Bloody Sunday and for the innocent lives that were taken on that day. And this we can say, even though we know that no one is ever going to set up an inquiry or give an apology to the 52 families of paratroopers who were murdered by the IRA"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Robert, those paratroopers who you speak so eloquently about, came into to our country armed to the teeth.

    Why would you seriously imagine anyone would want to apologise for their demise?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fionnuala,

    You all to conveniently forget the IRA entered England armed to the teeth on 22 February 1972, within weeks of Bloody Sunday, they placed a car bomb outside 16 Parachute Brigade officers' mess at Aldershot. It exploded without any warning at 12.40pm, killing five women cleaners, a gardener and a priest.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Robert I agree with Nuala re the paras, these thugs who came to teach us to be civilised their words, thugs almost to a man everyone I ever had the misfortune to come across,trained assassins, and armed to the teeth, yes Robert ask almost anyone from any nationalist area about the paras and they,ll say bullies, thugs and a hell of a lot worse,the point you made about Mc Guinness and Adams standing in the front of the crowds in Derry for the unvailing of the Saville report is correct, Mc Guinness should have been explaining to the people his statement to Jonathan Powell re an inquiry into bloody Sunday that an apology would suffice,Adams should have been at his loyal comrades funeral i.e Seando Moore, but then again there wasnt gonna be any cameras at that.theres a great degree of culpability on both these mens hands and questions need to be asked and answered about their role in that grubby litte war and Robert those who are asking the questions are not the british or their press but rather republicans who have not been afraid to speak out and in some cases paid a heavy price Anthony is an example.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That was the sticks Robert, revenge for bloody Sunday if my memory serves me well,

    ReplyDelete
  12. Robert,

    we are hardly at odds on the selective memory of republicans. The families of the Whitecross dead have yet to get an honest acknowledgement of culpability never mind an apology. In that sense the British have gone much further on Bloody Sunday than we have on Whitecross.

    We will be at odds on the Paras killed by the IRA. Ken Lukowiak is not comparing like with like. The dead of Bloody Sunday were unarmed civilians. The Paras killed by the IRA were armed combatants. He would have made a better case had republicans been arguing for the British to say sorry for Loughall where 8 IRA armed combatants who could have been arrested were cut down. While I dislike intensely the loss of IRA life at Loughall I have to accept that our dead were combatants. And all combatants are expected to take a risk not expected from civilians nor have the same degree of protection afforded to civilians.

    I think it is a cause of regret that your sympathy for the families was attenuated by the support McGuinness and Adams gave to their cause. I don't think my sympathy for the Whitecross families would be altered by Willie Frazer supporting their cause.

    But we can't help what we feel and you have honestly stated your views on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Fionnuala,

    "..those paratroopers who you speak so eloquently speak about, came into to our country armed to the teeth."
    I feel we are are gearing up here for another particularly thick and over cooked slice of reality pie open up wide and prepare for tonights history lesson. Everydays a school day!
    Yes they did - but who invited them in.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Robert,

    Aldershot was the work of the Official IRA. While the distinction may not matter the detail may be of interest to you

    ReplyDelete
  15. Robert,

    the man convicted for Aldershot, Noel Wilkinson, switched allegiance to the Provisionals in prison some time before his death.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think we are heading down the whataboutery road here Robert.and to be honest I dont want to go there, my last thought on this matter is that the main protagonists in that dirty little war i.e the various british goverments and their proxies ,the RUC, Army UDR, UVF,UDA,etc and the PRM, are now working together to bolster up this illegal little statelet,both sides have an awful lot to hide and you can bet your bottom dollar they,l never let us ordinary folk know the truth,and while we are prepared to engage in slagging each other of those who should be under the spotlight lie back and laugh at us, we should be concentrating the impressive thinking power here to asking the probing questions that GOVT/PSF dont want to hear or answer. they said in Derry set the truth free, I say the truth would set us all free.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Robert
    why does the British public always whine when one of their boys comes home from Ireland in a coffin that they were killed by terrorists or thugs or gangsters. No, Robert they were combatants killed by combatants. Just because the IRA did not have planes, tanks or submarines does not make them any less of a combatant. Loads of my friends here in the US-7 at last count I think have been stiffed by the Taliban, Mahdi Army, sunni insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan, their parents all accepted that their sons were combatants killed by fellow combatants. Warriors that they had not the slightest bit in common with culturally religiously or politically but warriors nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Aye Ryan and just like here as everywhere else they,ve, been the brits will do a deal with the Taliban,most probably to the disgust of the majority of the families of the dead british combatants.who will ask the question ,why did our loved ones have to die,and some cheesy politican will tell them to move on in a nice lying way ,sure sounds familar

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ryan,

    My condolences on the deaths of your friends.

    "why does the British public always whine when one of their boys comes home from Ireland in a coffin that they were killed by terrorists or thugs or gangsters"
    There are two obvious reasons that immediately come to mind Ryan.It is probaly a natural human reaction to someones death and outrage that that death was at the hands of terrorists, thugs and gangsters.
    If you can provide a specific incidence I will give you my opinion, it's not always easy to address sweeping generalities.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Marty,

    It's amazing where these discussions lead to. I see you are know, "Carrying On Up The Khyber". I'm sure you'd play a blinder as "The Fakir".
    The technical term for the deal, you are predicting, with the Taliban is called an "Exit Strategy". Do you think `aul perfidious' has one for N.Ireland?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Robert,
    'It is probably a natural human reaction to someone's death and outrage that that death was at the hands of terrorists, thugs and gangsters.'
    What I wonder about is how everybody that kills British soldiers is perceived in such a way. In 1971 the Republican News (I think - An Phoblacht perhaps) made the comment 'funny how it is that every country Britain ever invaded was filled with criminal types.' (Not a verbatim quote but faithful to the original?). I always found this an incisive cut to the chase of British self serving logic. It is rivalled by John Cleese who once famously said through one of his characters 'Our troops will fight and die to keep China British.' (Again not verbatim)
    It underlines a certain credulity – the type that makes English people think they have a good national football team when everybody else looking at it sees it for what it is.
    Maybe fewer British troops would be killed if more British governments were honest toward their society. If British society continues to believe that its troops are being sent in to fight only terrorists , thugs and gangsters rather than people who believe British troops to be terrorists, thugs and gangsters, then their troops are likely to continue to face greater fatalities and casualties.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Robert "the exit strategy" is that what the Americans used in Vietnam,more like get the f##k outa here,anyway call it what you will my friend, the fact is dear old prefidious has demonisied the indigenous people of all the countries she,s infested, anyone who dares to oppose british interests are villans ,thugs gangsters, terrorists,and using the tactics employed here i.e,using local loyal thugs in murder gangs try to out terrorise the so called terrorist,and as I said earlier they eventually end up as like norn iorn having tea with the leaders of such organisations, now you may say thats democracy in action, the question I would ask Robert wouldnt it be better to have the tea and biscuits first? before the coffins start to be flown home,as for an exit strategy for here Robert I,d bet there was one ok,if Kitsons methods had failed,

    ReplyDelete
  23. Robert, never felt any real concern over dead soldiers, certainly never felt any over dead loyalists.

    What does concern me though is the fact, that we are still have to observe the obsenity of the Orange Order parading through our roads all thses years later.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Robert,
    the Massereene attack last year was one example. The howling rage coming from everyone. It was like the dead were girl scouts helping to feed the hungry or tend to the sick. But I guess it relates to that old argument-how come a fighter pilot who drops a 2 ton bomb from a mile up in the sky is a hero and the guy who sticks it in a van is a terrorist. All comes down to your point of view on which side is right I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'll refrain, if I may, from pushing my way into this argument to land a punch or two and get back to a point Mackers made in his piece...

    Anthony referred to remembering where we where when traumatic events such as Bloody Sunday occurred. Yet strangely enough to this day I can't remember what I was doing or even where I was on the actual day of January 30th 1972. In those days we lived in the old Rosemount area on the hill above the Bogside.

    However I do remember clearly the following day when as a 14 year old I wandered around Rossville Street looking at the blood stains of those murdered and even stopping to look at the blood soaked banner which still lay where it had covered the body of Bernard McGuigan.

    What makes it surprising that I wasn't down for the riot is, in those days I was an over enthusiastic rioter who liked nothing better than being at the front throwing until my arms ached with that pain that only seemed to come from throwing stones or bottles non-stop. In fact this up front attitude led me to receiving a fractured scull, the victim of 'friendly fire', when I was hit by a piece of paving stone which rebounded off a passing jeep.

    It was my stone throwing abilities that brought me to the attentions of Na Fianna, the stepping stone to the IRA.

    Well anyway before I ramble off down another road, I can't for the life of me remember what kept me from being there on that day or even remembering the actual day. Maybe my ole Da kept me in, I don't remember, but I seem to remember something about playing a football match. And this is what makes it all the stranger because pretending to go and play football was my excuse for getting out to riot in those early days. I used to take my football kit and then hide it in some bushes in Brooke Park before heading off to challenge the might of Britain in the Bogside or up in Creggan.

    Again on remembering where you were during certain events. I remember a glorious summer's day in July 31st 1975, while I was having a tea break during my job as a steel painter on the yet completed Courtauld's factory in Campsie outside Derry, we were discussing the events of the previous night or actually the early hours of that very morning. That was the Miami Show band Massacre.

    That memory was brought back to me when I read an article in today’s paper about an upcoming RTE documentary Bombings to be shown on Tuesday at 9.35pm. In it Miami Show band bass player Stephen Travers, who survived the massacre that claimed the lives of three of his band mates, asks the question; "Who was the English Soldier who killed my band mates?"

    Travers is convinced that a uniformed man with an upper-class accent who was present at the checkpoint just before the bomb exploded was a British Soldier. He goes on to say that he was dressed completely differently, almost like an Action Man. Stephen goes on to say that when they saw him his band mate Brian McCoy nudged him and in the last words he ever spoke said, “Don't worry , Steve, this is army, British Army.”

    A book worth reading is The Miami Show band Massacre: A Survivor's Search for the Truth
    by Stephen Travers and Neil Fetherstonhaugh http://www.amazon.co.uk/Miami-Showband-Massacre-Survivors-Search/dp/0340937920

    To continue in the vein of remembering, I was in the same wing as Bik and Big Richard O'Rawe during the Hunger Strikes, the leadership wing as it was known and I remember clearly certain events like the night after the first Hunger Strike ended when I saw through the bars on my window Bobby alighting from the prison van with shoulders slumped and his slow walk up the wing telling us “Ni Fhuaireamar Feic!” We got nothing! Yet I cannot remember the day or night that any one of the ten Hunger Strikers died. I can't remember getting the news or how I felt or what we done. The memory of all ten deaths seems for some reason to have been blanked from my memory.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dixie,a cara dont hunt yourself over blanked out memories,its a form of self protection, (and maybe that brick loosened something lol) I passed the spot that the Mamai were butchered a day or two after that massacre,the rumours that I have heard over the years was that Nairac was involved in that,I can rember the bits of the van lying in that layby,hopefully the memories that realy linger with you are happy ones,

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ryan,

    We are slowing edging to specifics on a particular incident but again you omit an example of whining. With reference to Massereene allow me to provide an example. Father Tony Devlin, a local Catholic priest, said: “We don’t want to go back to this. Nobody wants to go back to this in any way at all. None of us wants it and we pray that those who engage in this will just stop it.”
    Call me radical, but that seems like a pretty rational reaction to anothers death.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Marty,

    Prosecutions would not produce a just verdict - murder by war criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anthony,

    As a matter of interest. In the case of Sergeant Michael G. Willetts, 27, 3 Para. "On the evening of the 25th May 1971 a terrorist entered the reception hall of Springfield Road Police station in Belfast. He carried a suitcase from which a smoking fuse protruded, dumping the case on the floor he fled out-side, inside the room were a man a woman and two children and several police officers. Sgt Willetts was on duty in the inner hall, on hearing the alarm he sent an NCO to the first floor to warn those above and hastened himself to the door towards which the police officer was thrusting those in the reception hall and office. He held the door open while all passed safely through and then stood in the doorway shielding those taking cover. In the next moment the bomb exploded with terrible force. Sgt Willetts was mortally wounded."
    Who was the war criminal?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anthony,

    Thank you for the details ref Noel Wilkinson(actually Noel Jenkinson on further research) which is of interest. I appreciate that the distinction may be important to you but the net effect on those killed and bereaved remains the same.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Fionnuala,

    "never felt any real concern over dead soldiers, certainly never felt any over dead loyalists." Fionnuala Perry 1.41 PM JULY 18 2010
    Evidently you and I disagree on many things but I cannot fault you on your inconsistency.."I think of him kneeling beside the two corporals with the sheer pain and hopelessness of that terrible happening etched across his face." Fionnuala Perry 1.51 PM JULY 18 2010

    ReplyDelete
  32. Robert,

    thanks for the correction on Noel Jenkinson. More proof if any were needed that time ravishes the memory - mine anyway.
    The distinction is not important at all, merely an exchange with you on accuracy, which I got partly wrong in any event by use of the wrong name. In real life for a victim there is no difference between manslaughter and murder - result is the same. The Provisional IRA would have carried out the operation given the chance so the point being made is not an ethical one.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Robert,

    The whataboutery that Marty spoke of is creeping into your take on things. Whataboutery only works as a means to deflect the gaze when both sides in a discussion are drawn into it. I don't intend to be.

    I recall this bomb attack. I was pretty young. Sergeant Willett's bravery was put down at the time as The Sun type reporting. In later years I recall being told that the child in question and woman were the brother and mother of an IRA volunteer who later took part in the 1981 hunger strike and that Willetts actually did display the courage that has been accorded to him.

    In that particular situation none would appear to be the war criminal. Combatant enters a fortified building belonging to the adversary, throws the bomb and bolts. Did he see the civilians? Republicans say he did not. Did he panic? Perhaps. Had he tunnel vision? Most likely.

    Was Willetts brave? Without qualification he was.

    There is no doubt that the IRA has been guilty of war crimes. How else can the disappeared be characterised? The unmarked secret grave is the universal calling card of the war criminal throughout the world.

    But none of that detracts from the nature of Bloody Sunday. It was an unmitigated war crime. If you have a problem with that characterisation, fair enough. No one is bound by another's interpretation. But throwing in the Willetts event does nothing to address the issue. It merely states that Willetts was brave which we already know. The suggestion is put that the IRA action was a war crime. We dont agree it is so clear cut. There are more clear cut examples you could have made but which were not as useful to you in vindicating Paratroopers.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dixie,

    a very moving post. It shows how the memory operates on each of us differently. I can remember learning about all the boys dying. The most vivid of course is Bobby's death. That had the greatest effect.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Marty,

    think you hav a point there about blanked out memories helping to protect. Just finishd reading Border Crossing and there is even more evidence that Nairac was up to Dirty Tricks. Never heard that before about the Miami and his possible involvement. But it would not surprise me.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Robert mo cara,your recollection and detail of incidents long past are very impressive,and although wrongly in my view you are consistent in your one sided opinion,are you or were you in some way involved in some sort of professional capacity with the events of the past 30 odd years? I am not getting into a whaterboutery argument here my friend, but may I just point out, that aside from the unquestionable bravery of that soldier in Springfied rd RUC station.the aforementioned station was a notorious torture spot, beatings,and cigarette burns,never mind the mock executions and threaths both real and implied were common practice here as elsewhere in the six counties,and where the paras where that type of activity always seemed to increase,those arrested in the aftermath of that action suffered brutal beatings,with no redress to this day, recently on the news there was a storyline about the resistance units Churchill had formed to fight the Germans had they manage to invade,I,m sure their tactics would not have been a whole lot different than that adopted by the PRM,

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anthony,

    What you and Marty view as whataboutery are in fact events and actions that I have utilised to illustrate points but more importantly to back them up with evidence. A constant theme in my posts has been a call to detail and not generality. The discussion is perhaps better served if events are treated in context than in snapshot. Maybe you disagree? "The Pensive Quill" presents one side of the story, I ask for no more than the opportunity to flip the coin and discuss whats on the otherside. In that respect Anthony I remove my hat in acknowledgement of your fairness in publishing everything.
    Maybe I force you to work a little harder to return the serve than you have become accustomed to chatting amongst friends? Vexen Crabtree in "Why Question Beliefs" discusses why this should be viewed as a positive rather than a negative. “There is a constant need for us to question our own beliefs, and the beliefs of those around us. It creates a healthy atmosphere of skepticism and intelligence, and prevents people from coming to unreasonable conclusions. The way our brains work mean that we frequently misinterpret events and data, and in particular, we always think there is more rationality and evidence for our beliefs that there really is. This all matters because when beliefs become unquestioned, a community can become increasingly divorced from reality. These groups always start out with borderline, but common, beliefs and slowly become more delusional over time. All these groups lacked an instinct to ask questions.In the name of truth and common sense, do not let even trivial-seeming beliefs take hold without double-checking them, because once beliefs are trivialised, a slippery slope can take you down into madness"! That is more applicable to Marty than yourself by the way.
    Where Bloody Sunday, Miami Showband etc is concerned the discussion follows a familiar Republican requirement that the actions of the British Army and Loyalism must be addressed in conditions of sterility. These events for propagada purposes, that is to produce embarrassment and confusion, need to be decontextualised for full effect.
    Conventions need only be applied to that which is mentioned. Perhaps my approach should be viewed accordingly, rather than an attempt to deflect gaze it is a call for us to look at everything. In the words of Brian Mor, " You Got A Problem With That?"

    ReplyDelete
  38. Marty,

    What am I ? I yam, what I yam. On a lighter note and in a moment of conciliatory madness and to satisfy your curiosity. I have no professional connection to the events we are discussing. Just think of me as a dim witted proxie,neanderthal, bitter wanker, eejit,etc with albeit a diametrically opposed opinion and a sprinkling of historical knowledge of the conflict. Without reverting to cliche, the events are seared into my mind and my heart.
    I have absolutely no issue with your opinion on Springfield Rd, it is your opinion and I would not have interpretated what you have said as whataboutery. Me personally, I would have possibly threw in a quote or referred to a report to corroborate my argument. I am concerned with balance and measuring the values you demand of the state, it's military and it's `proxies' with the actions of Republicanism. Having engaged in discussion with you I am convinced more than ever of the following," There is no section of this divided Ulster community which is totally innocent or indeed totally guilty, totally right or totally wrong."

    ReplyDelete
  39. Robert, you may think that is being inconsistent I do not.

    When I look back on the scenes of that day it always makes me shudder.

    I belief they should have been humiliated and degraded but not shot.

    I think republicans could have gained the upper hand that day, certainly in the eyes of the world.
    It just made me think of something you would expect to see on the Shankill, mob rule and sheer unadulterated hatred.

    I have never lost any sleep over dead soldiers or Loyalist thugs.
    I doubt anyone, but our own ever had any sleepless nights over dead republicans.
    However, I stiil believe what happened to the two corporals should have been prevented.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Robert,do not let even trivial seeming beliefs take hold without double checking them because once beliefs are trivialised,a slippery slope can take you down into madness that is more applicable to Marty than yourself by the way, do you think I,m on the way to ga ga land then Robert, if so I,ll apply to join the orange order,because if there is any group in this "pravance" that needs to double check its own beliefs its surely your mates in the orders,example the sash and here I quote an excellent letter in todays Irish news by P.Mc Parland.This song propagated by the orange order peddles the myth that the brethren fought at the battles of Derry,Aughrim,Enniskillen and the Boyne 1690 while the orange order did not come into existence untill 1795.that coin you talk of fliping Robert maybe you should take a really close look at your own opinions, you leave me with the impression that you think I am eiher a liar or a gullible fool, again that is your opinion and your intitled to it but as Murphy said never argue with a fool people may not know the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ahem Robert as a man who likes facts you refer to a divided Ulster, in one respect you are right Ulster is divided 3 counties are in the Irish republic and the remaining 6 are in norn iron,which really is the north eastern counties!and the island of Ireland was and has been kept divided by the threat of force by the undemocratic actions of the unionsts in this small section of this island,but I,m sure your opinion will be totaly at odds I wouldnt expect anything else!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Marty,

    You appear uncharacteristically touchy tonight mo cara - something I said perhaps or just having a bad hair day?

    "you leave me with the impression that you think I am either a liar or a gullible fool,..."

    While we have both indulged in unpleasantaries, I have throughout taken it all in good humour so I regret that you feel this way. I find your opinions unreasonable and sometimes irrational - you personally are evidently humourous. It's ironic that my most conciliatory post to date has elicited this response. I apologise, if you have drawn inference of personal attack on your integrity or gullibility as non was intended.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Fionnuala,

    "Robert, you may think that is being inconsistent I do not".

    I just don't think that is inconsistent - it is demonstrably inconsistent.

    "It just made me think of something you would expect to see on the Shankill, mob rule and sheer unadulterated hatred".

    Seen some attempts at the "Shinny Shoe Shuffle" in my time but this is one of the best. It was Republicans who decided to fall upon two human beings, strip them, beat them, mercilessly drop them from a height and then shoot them dead. Those terrible Prods on the Shankill cannot be blamed for this barbarity. Are you familiar with the concept of displacement in psychology?
    "In Freud's psychology, displacement (from German Verschiebung, literally meaning 'shift' or 'move') is an unconscious defense mechanism whereby the mind redirects affects from an object felt to be dangerous or unacceptable to an object felt to be safe or acceptable. For instance, some people punch cushions when they are angry at friends; a college student may snap at his or her roommate when upset about an exam grade.
    Displacement operates in the mind unconsciously and involves emotions, ideas, or wishes being transferred from their original object to a more acceptable substitute."
    Maybe I am unto something about you Fionnuala?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Robert
    As expected you digress from the subject and now I see you are playing the unqualified resident psychotherapist, Oscar Wilde quoted “I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.”

    Would you qualify the elite highly trained well disciplined Para’s on that day as brave?
    Would you agree that they went on a rampage murdering and injuring any civilian who crossed their well aimed sights?

    No great victory in an apology as the war crime probably shall fade into the silence. Perhaps in some sense the victims’ families shall find a little comfort now that the official government verdict is innocent something that we have known all along.
    I wonder why the highly trained well disciplined regiment lost control slaughtering and injuring defenseless civilians
    The phantom gunmen theory did not hold up leaving one to wonder if this was preplanned or did in fact the elite Para’s get caught up in a frenzy of self induced fear resulting in their supposed training and discipline breaking down causing the murders and wounding of helpless unarmed people.
    The commanders on the ground made no attempt to regain control probably following orders from their superiors and thinking about promotions and maybe a nice wee medal from the queen. Something to brag about to their children how the heroic Para’s had a fire fight with the phantom terrorists and unfortunately managed to murder civilians saving the day and bolstering the queens rule in the occupied 6 counties.
    Given it was the elite Para’s I doubt they broke rank leaving the assumption that it was preplanned with the intention of destroying any notion of civil rights.

    Robert I understand your views though you tend to digress from the subject and present other issues in an attempt to avoid the subject.
    I would ask if you believe the murders were justified or were they unlawful executions as the apology would imply?

    As for the 52 Para’s you mention there is a major difference as these were highly trained soldiers unlike the people murdered on bloody Sunday.
    Paid professional soldiers who understand the risk of warfare weather they died in the Falklands or Northern Ireland or any other place on earth that comes along with signing the dotted line.

    The two soldiers died horrific deaths but I don’t see you mention the likes of the heroic Shankill Butchers how they hacked both Catholic and Protestants at least pretend to be unbiased. Oh that is probably a wee chapter best forgot.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Robert, do not have to equate things that I have experienced in my own like with Freud. I will tell you what I said again, in plain English, not Ulster Scotch, apparently Ian Paisley said the latter is mumbo-jumbo crap, well, we all knew that anyway.

    Thought what happened at Casement, reflected badly on our people, I was also sorry the corporals died the way they did. This type of incident had not happened on our road before.
    Anyone unfortunate enough to stray into the paths of Loyalists usually died a pretty disjusting death.
    That day, I thought we seen the type of behaviour that was more fitting amongst Loyalists.

    Something else, never like Freud, always believed he was on the wrong side of the couch.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Fionnuala,

    I have made my point and I do not seek to labour on it. Lets get back to Anthony's post.
    Just on a point of accuracy - it is Ulster-Scots and not Scotch. Scotch is an alcoholic beverage ie Whisky. Could you provide the quote on Paisley reference, "mumbo jumbo crap" as that is very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Tain Bo,


    Liam O Ruairc on "Irish Republicanism and the Peace Process" provides an excellent example of how to construct an evidence based argument. You appear to be confusing rhetoric with evidence based argument throughout your posts. Let me demonstrate the rudimentaries of how this widely used approach works.
    " As expected you digress from the subject..." At this point you could provide an example."I was waiting on the revisionary history lessons ending.." Again you fail to inform me or your audience exactly what it was that was revisionary? "Explain the promotion of sectarianism"? Once again you miss the opportunity to deliver the `killer blow' by first establishing the promotion of sectarianism and then inviting me to explain that in my defence of the Orange Order. Perhaps when we have dealt with this we can return to the matter at hand??

    ReplyDelete
  48. Robert, apologies can we just put it down to a Freudian Slip.

    The quote, well the papers were full of it, interviewed on a programme about the 'troubles' last week.
    Ian Paisley Jnr declared that Ulster-Scots was a joke, it was nothing more than bad English.

    Strange as it may seem none of the Unionist politicans they interviewed seemed to know what he said either.
    Hope you are not all engaging in the old aversion therapy or deploying the displacement techniques. Out there torturing Catholics rather than the real target, Ian Paisley Jnr.

    The problem with psychoanalytic theory Robert is, it can be delved into and applied to almost any situation. Just like Ian Paisley Snr's bible rants, over hackneyened and they soon become redundant

    ReplyDelete
  49. Robert I understand your views though you tend to digress from the subject and present other issues in an attempt to avoid the subject.
    I would ask if you believe the murders were justified or were they unlawful executions as the apology would imply?
    Would you qualify the elite highly trained well disciplined Para’s on that day as brave?
    Would you agree that they went on a rampage murdering and injuring any civilian who crossed their well aimed sights? (Guilty of cowardice in the face of unarmed civilians try and avoid the facts.)
    I see nothing wrong with the above questions and considering the intellectuals behind the government (your government) offered an apology I would assume I need no argument as they prove their own wrong doing in fancy official terms.

    You are predictable once again avoiding my simple questions masking the subject with your reactionary not so well disguised bigotry. The quote “I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” Got the reaction as you now are also a teacher of argument a therapist and an expert on history and heaven knows what you will be next. Reminds me of the Mr. Ben show you walk into the magic shop and put on a suit and suddenly you are an expert in that field albeit for a few minutes.

    “Perhaps when we have dealt with this we can return to the matter at hand??” You should change that wee line to when you decide to stick with the subject as you keep avoiding questions.
    I did not invite you to explain anything I mentioned ownership of a Bible and as expected you treated that with suspicion asking me for proof.
    Validation:
    “I am suspicious of your mention of artwork.” Yes I would be suspicious also; I suppose you are tripping yourself up as you mention in your response to Marty “I am glad that it has not shaped my opinion to an extent where I would view my fellow countrymen and women as sub human.”
    Perhaps your doubt and suspicion would relay different? After all why would a Catholic mention artwork in a bible.

    Fact: The King James Bible is used by the Orange (dis)Order promoting sectarianism.
    You have no argument I have read the book and still do from: The First Book of Moses Called Genesis through Malachi Old Testament. The Gospel According to Mathew through: The Book of Revelation New Testament. Nothing in the books about destroying Catholicism which if you think about without Catholicism there would be no Protestantism maybe a wee bit of gratitude is in order. In my humble opinion the Orange Order is faithless distorting the law of god.
    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  50. " Again you fail to inform me or your audience exactly what it was that was revisionary?
    The revised and mutated history lessons I call it the Dr. Victor Frankenstein theory.
    Stitch bits and pieces together and give it life even though society knows it is just a monster. It is understandable that the Planters are portrayed as the superior rightful owners of the confiscated land even though they adopted parts of Irish culture along the way as they evolved into a unique separate culture based on theft and lies and of course propaganda had its value then as it is still displayed to this day. Naturally I would conclude that the necessity to justify the massive theft and displacement would be worded in such a manner to negate the rightful ownership of the land. The history is clear and it denies logic as it leaves out the victims and has effetely continued with its anti Catholic sectarian creed. You can argue that the Orange Order is a nice Christian based group though you know it and we all know it they are still parading with their false sense of superiority the proof “celebrating a so called Protestant Kings victory over a Catholic king translated in modern times “sectarianism.”
    Your pseudo intellectual manner is transparent clearly you attempt to display a superior understanding coming from the engrained mindset of orange-ism/unionism.
    I have no audience my comment was directed clearly to you I do not know any of the people who post here personally and my political and religious beliefs would differ from most. I considered myself an Ulster man (not the artificial planter unionist Ulster) and would prefer to see a united Ulster before a united Ireland as I have no faith and no trust in the free state as in reverse they confiscated three counties that rightly belong to Ulster.
    Again you use a poor example:
    “Liam O Ruairc on "Irish Republicanism and the Peace Process" provides an excellent example of how to construct an evidence based argument. You appear to be confusing rhetoric with evidence based argument throughout your posts. Let me demonstrate the rudimentaries of how this widely used approach works.”

    Considering it is a five part article you have concluded incorrectly in a weak effort at baiting and trying to display your intelligence your argument is strictly one sided and a matter of convenience a worthless salvo you would do better waiting on the full article before you misuse it trying to establish your considerable disregard for reason and logic.
    Fair play to Liam O Ruairc I have heard he is an extremely meticulously intelligent man.
    Though again what does that have to do in your convoluted posts considering you avoid questions but then I fail in my argument whereas you shine at least put a bit of undisguised effort into it as you are clearly brainwashed with centuries of farcical distorted history?
    “Thinking begins only when we have come to know that reason, glorified for centuries, is the stiff-necked adversary of thought.”
    Martin Heidegger


    Unlike you I am not trying to impress anyone with my knowledge or lack off the truth is Ulster is Irish regardless of the British attempts to eradicate our culture unlike you I am not an expert on everything perhaps you overcompensate as you appear desperate trying to sound intellectually superior like most of Unionist domination those days are gone.

    The poor loyalists betrayed by the Queen and her conniving government Provos in government that must really shake the orange faithless.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Tain Bo,

    I, unfortunately, remain none the wiser as to what it was that you found revisionary? No evidence - no argument.

    Martin Heidegger - Brilliant!

    "Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. Heidegger was elected rector of the University of Freiburg on April 21, 1933, and assumed the position the following day. On May 1 he joined the Nazi Party.

    Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede – "The University in the New Reich", on May 27, and it became notorious for its praise of National Socialism. Heidegger wrote, for example, that: "The German people must choose its future, and this future is bound to the Führer".

    ReplyDelete
  52. Fionnuala,

    "The problem with psychoanalytic theory Robert is, it can be delved into and applied to almost any situation."

    I don't have a problem with psychoanalytic theory. It would be interesting if you could provide an example. As for Ian Jnr, I think there may have been an over emphasis on the "anal" phase of his development. Just a theory, if I may say so in passing.
    As for Ian's opinions on Ulster Scots - they are just that.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Robert, don't want to be rude, but I really do not want to continue speaking about Freud, absolutely no interest in the man and as I have already said, always believed he should should have been the recipient not the prescriber.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Robert

    Great response your pomposity sounding more desperate avoiding the questions and changing the subject considering you poorly display condescending remarks typical sectarian unionist superiority complex. Clearly you are referring to Heidegger’s Catholic background and pointing out the Hitler connection.

    Now that you have made the inference on Heidegger and Nazism let me see how you squirm out of facts and truths regarding Christianity’s role in the rise of Nazism both Catholic and Protestant.

    There is a wealth of writings on the subject again I will expect the usual contrived orange distortion.

    Note: I am unbiased unlike your pathetic reference considering Germany was and probably still is two thirds Protestant obviously your orange skin is still intact but the fruit inside is and always will be rotten.

    Tain Bo,

    I, unfortunately, remain none the wiser as to what it was that you found revisionary? No evidence - no argument. “Are you implying that you are or were wise at anytime?

    Martin Heidegger - Brilliant!
    “Heidegger is Brilliant a greater mind than yours without doubt.”

    "Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. Heidegger was elected rector of the University of Freiburg on April 21, 1933, and assumed the position the following day. On May 1 he joined the Nazi Party.

    Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede – "The University in the New Reich", on May 27, and it became notorious for its praise of National Socialism. Heidegger wrote, for example, that: "The German people must choose its future, and this future is bound to the Führer".


    I like the way you removed the links to once again disguise your point and disregard for truth and reason.

    Robert or should I address Wikipedia?

    Pass it off as your original thought again you fail miserably as I laugh at you attempting to sound clever.

    The paragraph below you neglected to add this along with the rest of the page.

    “His tenure as rector was fraught with difficulties from the outset. Some National Socialist education officials viewed him as a rival, while others saw his efforts as comical. Some of Heidegger's fellow National Socialists also ridiculed his philosophical writings as gibberish.
    He finally offered his resignation on April 23, 1934, and it was accepted on April 27. Heidegger remained a member of both the academic faculty and of the Nazi Party until the end of the war.”


    Thanks for proving you are a pompous evolutionary dead end.

    Wikipedia is not exactly the best place for information.

    If you wish I can elaborate on the other camps view on Heidegger as a not so passive Nazi.

    The address you mention is less controversial than some of his earlier activities though if you knew anything about the subject you would have used the more controversial episode.

    I have no argument against Heidegger’s well documented Nazi membership but as for his influence on Nazism it would be considered minor.

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  55. Tain Bo,

    I will not be descending to your level of personnal attack - the resort to which is often an indication that the rattle and argument, where one exists, is already lost. Let's address the accusation of plagarism you have made and the issues you raise.

    1."Pass it off as your original thought again you fail miserably as I laugh at you attempting to sound clever"

    A very foolhardy statement based on a demonstrable lack of knowledge regarding quotation marks and their correct usage. The information that I relied on with reference to Heidegger were placed within quotation marks which normally suggests to the reader that the material has been derived from another source. Your secondary error as to the application of inverted commas arises from your unusual practice of quoting from me without using quotation marks, making your own comment and then inserting that within quotation marks. For example,

    I, unfortunately, remain none the wiser as to what it was that you found revisionary? No evidence - no argument. “Are you implying that you are or were wise at anytime?

    Martin Heidegger - Brilliant!
    “Heidegger is Brilliant a greater mind than yours without doubt.”



    2."Clearly you are referring to Heidegger’s Catholic background and pointing out the Hitler connection."

    Given that I made no mention of Heidegger's Catholicism I remain at a loss as to it's relevance. Where did I mention his religion? The irony that appears to have went over your head was you were talking like a fascist and quoting a fascist philosopher. Accordingly there was nothing neglected in my quotation as the point had already been established.

    3."Now that you have made the inference on Heidegger and Nazism let me see how you squirm out of facts and truths regarding Christianity’s role in the rise of Nazism both Catholic and Protestant"
    "There is a wealth of writings on the subject again I will expect the usual contrived orange distortion."

    The problem, as always, is you have'nt actually presented anything for me to squirm over from the wealth of writings. What are the facts and truths that you speak of? I think we should work on the puncuation and establishing an argument. Tain Bo says still does'nt represent an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Robert, sorry for the delay but holidays trump commenting! We need to be able to leave the place when we do leave it.

    Facts and evidence are often used selectively to make the point 'what about?'. There is always a context to their usage. What that context is will undoubtedly be a matter of dispute. For this reason it is to no avail to call context to the stand on your behalf as if it is an objective witness. Context is always alibi - maybe a genuine alibi, perhaps a false one but one that must be demonstrated rather than assumed.

    A constant theme in your posts has not been 'a call to detail'. Rather there has been the highlighting of a particular detail to make a point which in essence is an attempt to recontextualise. The detail of the Northern conflict is so immense - billions of details involved - that to claim a have called to detail can only be inflated.

    The context of the discussion - you do not have to support the context - is the war crime committed on Bloody Sunday. Rather than answer that head on you said what about 'Sergeant Willis?' What relevance to Bloody Sunday as a war crime has the death of Sergeant Willis? You appear to have sought to evade that particular context and presented the snapshot of Sergeant Willis. I think this is where myself and Marty merge. You 'ask for no more than the opportunity to flip the coin and discuss what’s on the other side.' You have ample opportunity to do that on this blog. But looking at the other side of the coin can be the rationale for avoiding the first side.

    For that reason there is little chance of me seeing it as snapshot versus context where you provide the context. While I agree with contextualisation it seems to me that you have opted not to engage with the context provided and have again sought to divert the gaze. Engaging with it does not mean acquiescing in it.

    'Maybe I force you to work a little harder to return the serve than you
    have become accustomed to chatting amongst friends?'

    Pause to consider how snobbish this rings – you serving stronger than the lesser beings who come to the site. Apart from that it seems so wide off the mark. There is nothing in the serve that I have not encountered before on numerous occasions. No new angles, no variation in thrusts. If I am not wrong each serve has been returned but the potential for a rally fizzles out with the ball still on your side of the net. I think Tain Bo drew attention to it – a failure to deal with the issue.

    Your citing of Vexen Crabtree in "Why Question Beliefs" hardly challenges us given that his hill is the one we have long chosen to die on. I would suggest that in my treatment of republican violence I have been much more faithful to the prescript of Crabtree than you have been in your treatment of British violence. If not please cite.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Here are a few examples of true Nazis both Catholic and Protestant.

    “An early member of the Nazi party and one of its principle leaders, [Hermann] Göring founded the Gestapo and served as the Reichsluftfahrtminister of the Luftwaffe.
    With the Catholic Church the Führer ordered a concordat to be concluded by Herr Von Papen. Shortly before that agreement was concluded by Herr Von Papen I visited the Pope myself. I had numerous connections with the higher Catholic clergy because of my Catholic mother, and thus-- I am myself a Protestant-- I had a view of both camps.”
    -- Hermann Göring (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol.9)

    “Although he himself [Hitler] was a Catholic, he wished the Protestant Church to have a stronger position in Germany, since Germany was two-thirds Protestant.”
    -- Hermann Göring, Nazi (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol.9)
    “The Führer wanted to achieve the unification of the Protestant Evangelical Churches by appointing a Reich Bishop, so that there would be a high Protestant church dignitary as well as a high Catholic Church dignitary. “
    -Hermann Göring (Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945, Vol.9)
    “When we call for the unification of the Protestant Church, we do so because we do not see how, in a time when the whole Reich is unifying itself, twenty-eight Landeskirchen can persist.... In the interpretation of the Gospel one may hold the command of God higher than human commands. In the interpretation of political realities, we consider ourselves to be God's instrument.”
    -Joseph Goebbels, Hannover Kurier, 29 March 1935, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]


    “To continue and complete his Protestantism, nationalism must make the picture of Luther, of a German fighter, live as an example above the barriers of confession for all German blood comrades.”
    -Hans Hinkel, Der Tag, 17 Feb. 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

    Heinrich Himmler
    “One of the most powerful men in Nazi Germany, Himmler served as the commander of the German Schutzstaffel (SS) and controlled the Gestapo. He grew up as a devout Catholic and attended mass regularly. Eventually he moved away from Catholicism toward Aryan occultist beliefs, but he, nevertheless, never lost his belief in God and he thought of Jesus as an Aryan.
    I swear before God this holy oath, that I shall give absolute confidence to the Fuehrer of the German Reich and people.”
    -Heinrich Himmler, reminding his hearers about the oath taken by all SS men as well as by the military forces (Hitler's Elite, Shocking Profiles of the Reich's Most Notorious Henchmen," Berkley Books, 1990)
    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  58. Rudolf Hoess
    Hoess served as a senior Nazi official, member of the SS and Waffen-SS (with the rank of SS-Obersturmbannführer) and commandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp where he held responsibility for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people.
    In his Nuremberg cell, Rudolf Hoess told psychologist G.M. Gilbert how he got brought up in a rigorous Catholic tradition:
    “My father was really a bigot. He was very strict and fanatical. I learned that my father took a religious oath at the time of the birth of my younger sister, dedicating me to God and the priesthood, and after that leading a Joseph married life [celibacy]. He directed my entire youthful education toward the goal of making me a priest. I had to pray and go to church endlessly, do penance over the slightest misdeed-- praying as punishment for any little unkindness to my sister, or something like that.”
    -Rudolf Hoess (Hitler's Elite, Shocking Profiles of the Reich's Most Notorious Henchmen," Berkley Books, 1990)

    Joachim Hossenfelder
    Hossenfelder, a student of theology after WWI became a Protestant country pastor in Sillies. In 1929 he joined the Nazi Party, and in 1933 became the head of the German Christian Movement in Berlin which attempted to combine Christianity and Nazism to reflect Hitler's view of "Positive Christianity." Hossenfelder liked to call the movement, "The Storm Troops of Jesus Christ."
    Bernhard Rust
    Rust joined the NSDAP in 1922 and Hitler appointed him as Minister of Science, Art, and Education for Prussia. Later he served as Minister of Education in Nazi Germany.
    In the 150-year Wars of Religion we were, as a Reich and Volk, almost destroyed. Today we stand in a bitter struggle for existence against Bolshevism. I appeal to the Christian churches of both confessions to join with us against this enemy in defense of their living values of belief and morality.
    -Bernhard Rust, Volkischer Beobachter, 9 Feb. 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]


    Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance.... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp [Schrot und Korn].
    -Bernhard Rust, Volkischer Beobachter, 25 Aug. 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

    “Jews can help themselves.”
    -Cardinal Bertram to Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) referring to the Nazi attacks on the Jews. (Quoted from John Cornewll's "Hitler's Pope")

    [We] German Catholics have not been surpassed by anyone in readiness to make sacrifices, love of our country and fidelity to the fatherland.... And in the struggle for the freedom of our fatherland after the war, a staunchly catholic man, Leo Schlageter, became the shining example of love of the fatherland unto death.
    -Bishop Buchberger of Regensburg in 1935, [Lewy]
    [Note, Leo Schlageter was a Nazi and a Martyr for National Socialism.
    At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat, expressed its confidence in the new German [Nazi] government.
    -Cardinal Faulhaber, Carroll, James, "Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews,"Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001
    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  59. Martin Luther's dirty little book:
    On the Jews and their lies
    A precursor to Nazism
    By Jim Walker
    Originated: 07 Aug. 1996
    Additions: 20 Nov. 2005
    In Mein Kampf, Hitler listed Martin Luther as one of the greatest reformers. And similar to Luther in the 1500s, Hitler spoke against the Jews. The Nazi plan to create a German Reich Church laid its bases on the "Spirit of Dr. Martin Luther." The first physical violence against the Jews came on November 9-10 on Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) where the Nazis killed Jews, shattered glass windows, and destroyed hundreds of synagogues, just as Luther had proposed. In Daniel Johah Goldhagen's book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, he writes:
    "One leading Protestant churchman, Bishop Martin Sasse published a compendium of Martin Luther's antisemitic vitriol shortly after Kristallnacht's orgy of anti-Jewish violence. In the foreword to the volume, he applauded the burning of the synagogues and the coincidence of the day: 'On November 10, 1938, on Luther's birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany.' The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words 'of the greatest antisemite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews.'"
    No apologist can claim that Martin Luther bore his anti-Jewishness out of youthful naivete', uneducation, or out of unfounded Christianity. On the contrary, Luther in his youth expressed a great optimism about Jewish conversion to Christianity. But in his later years, Luther began to realize that the Jews would not convert to his wishes. His anti-Jewishness grew slowly over time. His logic came not from science or reason, but rather from Scripture and his Faith. His "On the Jews and Their Lies" shows remarkable study into the Bible and fanatical biblical reasoning. Luther, at age 60 wrote this dangerous "little" book at the prime of his maturity, and in full knowledge in support of his beliefs and Christianity.
    Few people today realize that Luther wrote 'On the Jews and Their Lies.' (He also wrote such works like "Against the Sabbatarians.") Freethinkers should become aware of the anti-Semitic influence that Luther has brought on the world. His vehement attack on Jews and his powerful influence on the believers of the Germans has brought a new hypothesis to mind: that the Jewish holocaust, and indeed, the eliminationist form of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany may not have occurred without the influence from Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies."
    Walter Buch, the head of the Nazi Party court, admitted Luther's influence on Nazi Germany.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Strange indeed as Hitler unites Catholic and Protestant under unique never before seen circumstances occurring only in Germany under the banner of God and Nazism with precision destroying anything that did not comply with the new Rome, influential Protestants and Catholics coordinating the rise of Nazism.
    I would venture to say you shall deny or change the subject considering we are now years away from Bloody Sunday and I will take your silence and refusal to answer the simple questions as your way of admitting the Para’s are guilty of murder. Though your bigotry and hatred of Catholicism bars you from committing orange order blasphemy as the King James Bible does not condone murder.
    I will take it that the cult version of the secret orange order says different but much like the Nazis you fail in belief and use religion as an excuse.
    Myth 1: Hitler was not a Christian
    Myth 2: Hitler pretended his Christianity only for political purposes
    Myth 3: Hitler got his ideas of Aryan superiority and Jewish hatred from Darwinian evolution Myth 4: Hitler followed Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy”

    Congratulations on your summary of Heidegger and his great influence on Nazism naturally one of the most influential philosophers pales in your wake as you have contributed so much to humanity and being.

    ReplyDelete
  61. “Heidegger’s life entered a problematic and controversial stage with Hitler’s rise to power. In September 1930, Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) became the second largest party in Germany, and on January 30, 1933 Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany. Up to then virtually apolitical, Heidegger now became politically involved. On April 21, 1933, he was elected rector of the University of Freiburg by the faculty. He was apparently urged by his colleagues to become a candidate for this politically sensitive post, as he later claimed in an interview with Der Spiegel, to avoid the danger of a party functionary being appointed. But he also seemed to believe that he could steer the Nazi movement in the right direction. On May 3, 1933, he joined the NSDAP, or Nazi, party. On May 27, 1933, he delivered his inaugural rectoral address on “The Self-Assertion of the German University.” The ambiguous text of this speech has often been interpreted as an expression of his support for Hitler’s regime. During his tenure as rector he produced a number of speeches in the Nazi cause, such as, for example, “Declaration of Support for Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist State” delivered in November 1933. There is little doubt that during that time, Heidegger placed the great prestige of his scholarly reputation at the service of National Socialism, and thus, willingly or not, contributed to its legitimization among his fellow Germans. And yet, just one year later, on April 23, 1934, Heidegger resigned from his office and took no further part in politics. His rectoral address was found incompatible with the party line, and its text was eventually banned by the Nazis. Because he was no longer involved in the party’s activities, Heidegger’s membership in the NSDAP became a mere formality. Certain restrictions were put on his freedom to publish and attend conferences. In his lecture courses of the late 1930s and early 1940s, and especially in the course entitled Hölderlin’s Hymnen “Germanien” und “Der Rein” (Hölderlin’s Hymns “Germania” and “The Rhine”) originally presented at the University of Freiburg during the winter semester of 1934/35, he expressed covert criticism of Nazi ideology. He came under attack of Ernst Krieck, semi-official Nazi philosopher. For some time he was under the surveillance of the Gestapo. His final humiliation came in 1944, when he was declared the most “expendable” member of the faculty and sent to the Rhine to dig trenches. Following Germany’s defeat in the Second World War, Heidegger was accused of Nazi sympathies. He was forbidden to teach and in 1946 was dismissed from his chair of philosophy. The ban was lifted in 1949.

    ReplyDelete
  62. The 1930s are not only marked by Heidegger’s controversial involvement in politics, but also by a change in his thinking which is known as “the turn” (die Kehre). In his lectures and writings that followed “the turn,” he became less systematic and often more obscure than in his fundamental work, Being and Time. He turned to the exegesis of philosophical and literary texts, especially of the Presocratics, but also of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and Hölderlin, and makes this his way of philosophizing. A recurring theme of that time was “the essence of truth.” During the decade between 1931 and 1940, Heidegger offered five courses under this title. His preoccupation with the question of language and his fascination with poetry were expressed in lectures on Hörderlin which he gave between 1934 and 1936. Towards the end of 1930s and the beginning of 1940s, he taught five courses on Nietzsche, in which he submitted to criticism the tradition of western metaphysics, described by him as nihilistic, and made allusions to the absurdity of war and the bestiality of his contemporaries. Finally, his reflection upon the western philosophical tradition and an endeavor to open a space for philosophizing outside it, brought him to an examination of Presocratic thought. In the course of lectures entitled An Introduction to Metaphysics, which was originally offered as a course of lectures in 1935, and can be seen as a bridge between earlier and later Heidegger, the Presocratics were no longer a subject of mere passing remarks as in Heidegger’s earlier works. The course was not about early Greek thought, yet the Presocratics became there the pivotal center of discussion. It is clear that with the evolution of Heidegger’s thinking in the 1930s, they gained in importance in his work. During the 1940s, in addition to giving courses on Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, Heidegger lectured extensively on Anaximander, Parmenides, and Heraclitus.”
    As I stated before your pseudo intellect is transparent delusional and considerably boring, one sided in essence you are just arguing with yourself. Your expert opinion seems to come from a very unreliable source so perhaps Mr. Ben you should try and remove your “I am superior and I am always right attitude.”
    My apology Anthony for straying away from your article

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anthony,

    A belated welcome back. Firstly I want to address a matter that has caused me considerable surprise.
    "Pause to consider how snobbish this rings – you serving stronger than the lesser beings who come to the site."
    The Pensive Quill follows a familar format, no less stimulating, informative or enjoyable for that, but no challenge to a republican narrative on the conflict exists here. Thats an observation and not a criticism. Why should it, you may ask - we are Republicans? This is were the relevance of Vexen Crabtree's "Why Question Beliefs" enters. As a Protestant and Unionist my perspective interupts the discourse and challanges the opinions and beliefs of contributors on this site and vice versa. So this is what the tennis metaphor was pointing to and not to any delusions of superiority or the possession of a stronger serve.
    My intent is not to insult but to inform , be informed, engage in some debate and enjoy the banter. The irony being I choose to do that amongst Irish Republicans.
    You say that there is no challenge, in, "...that this hill is the one we have long chosen to die on." and furthermore,"There is nothing in the serve that I have not encountered before on numerous occasions. No new angles, no variation in thrusts." You may not be personally challenged Anthony but I detect evidence that people are being challenged. Fionnuala Perry's claim that," I had two uncles who were keen hurlers, however at the behest of Carson they were not even allowed to carry a hurl let alone play.", provides a perfect example of Crabtrees `unreasonable conclusions', and I am not picking on Nuala here, but as I pointed out Carson left N.Ireland in 1921 and played no part in it's governance. Tain Bo provides another example for different reasons. My audacity in commenting has created tension and an almost tangible rage because his thinking, "..that more rationality and evidence for our beliefs than there really is.", has been challenged and his recent substantial dissertation provides ample proof that indeed a .."slippery slope can take you down into madness"! The personal attacks would tend to confirm my analysis and diagnosis.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anthony,

    "If I am not wrong each serve has been returned but the potential for a rally fizzles out with the ball still on your side of the net."
    I believe you are wrong Anthony. Sticking with the tennis theme, the match opened,7th July, in "You got A Problem With That?" with my serve being, "Considering that the Ulster Unionists have been successful in enduring all that Irish Republicanism could throw at them.." Keep in mind that you, Interested and Liam ORuairc amongst others would support that statement. Included in Tain Bo's return is the following," Face the reality the Orange Order is nothing but a corrupt blight on the Protestant faith, I read the Protestant bible and confess I own an expensive version of one as the art work is beautiful but have not been able to find anything thing in it that promotes sectarianism. Maybe the Orange Order Bible says different."
    The potential for a rally builds at this point with me providing this return,"Just a few checks to authenticate that expensive Bible as being Protestant. Only a King James version, note that I am not referring to King James II, can be viewed as truly Protestant. That authentification should be located at the front of your bible." This point is important to confirm that we are debating on the same text of biblical scripture. No return is forth coming for a period of ten days, my opponent appears to have left the court? To be fair to Tain Bo he is under no obligation to reply immediately, I don't, nor is he obliged to reply at all. He may have gone on holiday or simply did'nt log on to the site. However I would question your objectivity in adjudicating on what side of the net the ball has settled on particularly when the evidence contradicts your judgement in this instance. My suspicion is that Tain Bo discerned some danger in confirming the text and the point scoring potential of my backhander. I note his presence on "The Visit", 13th July but he chooses not to return to the subject. Finally returning,17h July, he requests,"Explain the promotion of sectarianism as I have failed to find it in the King James version? Glady I will provide you the information you asked for then." I think I have been quite consistent on this from the outset - I can respond to an evidence based argument - I won't respond to rhetoric. The promotion of sectarianism has not been established. Accordingly the quid pro quo offer is irrelevant.
    I will in due course respond to all the matters you have engaged me on and if I miss any please do pull me up on that.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Robert,

    none of this is relevant. I was not involved in that debate. I think I may have quipped something about bibles on my blog. I watched it, found it entertaining but had no inclination to join it. I referred to the exchange between you and me in the context which you seem to have raised it - that being the question of your serve being more difficult to return. What happens between you and Tain Bo is immaterial to the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anthony,

    On the contrary it is very relevant, particularly when one has been accused of snobbery. Your inference was incorrect in the first instance. Tain Bo becomes relevant when you yourself make him relevant,"I think Tain Bo drew attention to it – a failure to deal with the issue."

    ReplyDelete
  67. Robert,

    despite your best efforts it remains immaterial.

    The snobbery shall be dealt with in a late post. When I replied this morn I had yet read the snobbery comment. But don't take it too seriously.

    Tain Bo is not material to the point I make. His debate with you is of no consequence to the issue I have raised with you. He was cited simply to make the point that I was not alone in noticing a failure to engage with the issue

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anthony,

    On this matter and all others, in the words of Louis Armstrong, "We have all the time in the world."

    ReplyDelete
  69. Tain Bo,

    Yours is an almost surreal proposition given that you provide information premised on the idea that I somehow would want to defend the Catholic church's behaviour or that of nominal Protestants in relation to Nazi Germany. Why would I want to do that?
    As for Heidegger - so what?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Robert

    “As for Heidegger - so what?”

    Well unless one has an interest in philosophy “so what?” returns to the stiff necked thought, though the intellectuals will continue to expand on thought and refer to Heidegger either to dispel or advance his arguments. “So what?”

    Indeed my position is surrealist and expedites my decent into madness though I would not take it as a personal attack and call for a referee. Regretfully Robert I was insane long before the internet though I appreciate your diagnosis.

    The role of Christianity in Nazism is important and obviously to this day is still influential even if you go into a denial the parallels being the Orange Order and its superior attitude display similarities using a distorted form of faith to attack another faith that they deem as godless.


    “Yours is an almost surreal proposition given that you provide information premised on the idea that I somehow would want to defend the Catholic Church’s behaviour or that of nominal Protestants in relation to Nazi Germany. Why would I want to do that?”

    Robert I am not anti Protestant I have made it clear that I oppose what I see as a cult the Orange Order. I do not defend the Catholic Church as I understand why people turn away from Catholicism I am under no delusion as religion is much like great Empires subject to the rules of change they rise and fall.
    I was not asking you to defend Catholicism again you minimize the role of Protestantism by using the term “nominal” or in my view a denial.
    I assume the word nominal excuses the role of “in name only Protestants?”
    Your belief that a bible needs the authentic stamp of man is implying superiority which is a denial of religious freedom. Am I supposed to believe the word inside the book or the stamp?
    That statement would refer me back to Luther and his fanatical ideas.

    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  71. “Most Christians staunchly defend their ideas of "true" Christianity (never seemingly to realize that other Christians have their own ideas, or if so, they get labeled as false Christians), but Luther had power and influence, and he vehemently opposed anyone who went against his version of True Christianity. One cannot deny Luther lived as a Christian, and an influential one at that. So to oppose him for practicing his brand of religion cannot serve to justify Christianity anymore than Oskar Schindler can be used to justify "true" Nazism, or neo-communists to justify Communism, or war to justify murder.
    But perhaps the most lasting damage of all came from Luther openly advocating the abandonment of using natural reason (Luther considered his use of theological reasoning different from natural reason, i.e., scientific reasoning) . His theological message to live by faith and to abstain from listening to reason has mentally enslaved the lives of millions of Christians to this day. Throughout his literary life he wrote statements such as, "Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason," "We must give reason a vacation and enter a different school. We must refrain from consulting reason. We must bid reason hold its peace; we must order it to be dead. We must gouge out its eyes and pluck its feathers...," "You must kill the other thoughts and the ways of reason or of the flesh, for God detests them." I can find no other influential writer who has spent as much ink, ad nauseum, against the very investigative tool which has kept the human species alive-- reason.
    Therefore, I not only hold against Luther's Jewish hatred and his merciless attacks against his enemies, including Catholics, Protestant peasants, Turks, atheists, and infidels, but also because of his extraordinary intolerance, adherence to faith and superstition, unworkable morality, and his rejection of reason and science. I cannot imagine a man who has spread more dangerous beliefs than Martin Luther.
    And no one should ever forget that his justification for these atrocious works came entirely from Christian Protestant beliefs fueled by the Bible. I don't know how Protestant Christians will react when faced with the realization of Luther's mad intolerance, but they will have to deal with the fact that this man stands as the Inventor and Creator of their Christian denomination.
    The history of Luther provides just one example of why religion (not just Christianity), and ideology, whether it comes in the form of Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, communism, Nazism, or any other belief system, creates the intolerant play against life and nature.”
    On the reverse side I have not found anything in the Roman Catholic bible that justifies any indiscretions and atrocities committed in the name of Catholicism. I would be more than willing to discuss the history of Papal corruption I would not use “the nominal Catholics” to distance their willing participation in religious slaughter enforcing their belief that they are the “True Christians.”

    As for the Papal visit Robert, I did not invite the Pope unfortunately he is a guest of your Queen and Government or a guest of the Union. I do not view his trip as a religious one instead it is political and bad timing as his presence much like some of the disputed parades raise tension.
    I think I already commented to Marty that I would not be attending as I said it is a political visit under the guise of religion, having no say in the matter I would prefer the visit did not take place.


    Regarding posts I have a problem with the server not accepting the posts hopefully that glitch is fixed.
    To your credit I welcome you and your opinion I don’t expect we shall agree on much but you are staying your course and I respect that.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Robert,

    As I said don’t dwell on the ‘snobbish’ comment. It was said in passing. I do note however that you said ‘surprised’ rather than ‘offended’. Offended types are forever off in search of somebody or someone to offend them.

    You do inform, engage, banter, and to boot take a bit of ill tempered stick which makes me ill at ease. But as Marty said to Westie it goes with the turf. We allow as much a possible rather than stymie discussion.

    But I still feel you do not adhere to Vexen Crabtree to the same degree you invite others to do.

    I don’t doubt that some republicans are challenged by your views whether on TPQ or off it. That I don’t feel challenged is because I have been exposed to all such views before. I have the benefit of having had discussion and dialogue with unionists for about twenty five years. It began in prison through correspondence with unionist academics and proceeded from there. I often found in Belfast that former prisoners who would accompany me to book launches or events in Queens or the arts milieu could be very uncomfortable. They would not be hostile to their hosts but deeply uneasy. Brendan Hughes and Tommy Gorman were notable exceptions and were easily able to deal with the different views they were exposed to. Familiarity breeds contentment!!

    Overall, I would hold to the view that the republican project has been dealt with much more critically by republicans on TPQ than the unionist project has been addressed by the unionists who visit it.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Anthony,

    "Overall, I would hold to the view that the republican project has been dealt with much more critically by republicans on TPQ than the unionist project has been addressed by the unionists who visit it."

    Your personal candour is unique as it is refreshing but that does'nt necessarily hold across TPQ but it contrasts starkly with the Shinners.
    I agree that Unionist's visiting this site tend not to question the sometimes questionable or concede that wrongs have been perpetrated. I believe I am on record here as citing that no side was completely right or completely wrong.
    There is a distinct difference in our positions. Your critique of the Republican project arises from what you see as the betrayal of the provisional movement, the death of Republicanism and the ensuing hypocrisy of Sinn Fein. With the exception of the DUP's hypocrisy in relation to Sinn Fein the same position does not pertain to Unionism.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anthony,

    "The context of the discussion - you do not have to support the context - is the war crime committed on Bloody Sunday. Rather than answer that head on you said what about 'Sergeant Willis?' What relevance to Bloody Sunday as a war crime has the death of Sergeant Willis?"You appear to have sought to evade that particular context and presented the snapshot of Sergeant Willis."

    Having clearly stated that I did'nt have a problem with the Saville Report I can hardly be accused of not addressing the issue head on. Indeed, the inclusion of Ken Lukowiak's apology is not indicative of an evasion or disengagement from the particular context of Bloody Sunday. I note that you initially credited me with having honestly stated my views on the matter.
    I have never couched a point in the language of `what about'. The instance of Sgt Willets was preceeded with, "As a matter of interest", the interest to me being your application of conventions to Republican actions.
    Yes I agree that,"Engaging with it does not mean acquiescing in it.", but equally having your opinions probed in relation to another matter does not mean relinquishing your point.
    Bloody Sunday and Sgt Willetts are snapshots of events when addressed in isolation. In conjunction they cease being snapshots and begin to provide a picture of the wider context to which they belong. I do not provide the context - history does.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Robert,

    just caught this as I was about to leave so will answer it while here even though there are lots of other things need answered. But there we go.

    I don't think you are being dishonest. I believe you did give your honest view. I sense you are unhappy with many things that the British state did and which the unionist community supported but are unable to bring yourself to the logical terminus of your sentiment. It is called denialism. And we are all guilty of it. It takes others to see it for us. The things we cherish are often difficult for us to see in a bad light.

    Accepting Saville does not tackle the issue Robert. Saville found the victims innocent. That is a far cry from stating another obvious - the act was one of mass murder of an unarmed civilian population. That was the context to the wider discussion; the issue that you have not addressed head on. It is all very well to divorce yourself from loyalist actions which are defined as illegal. But there still seems to be a reluctance to deal with the reprehensible actions of the 'legitimate' forces of the British state.

    On context history never provides context; interpretations of history do. And you hardly need me to tell you that history is written from the perspective of the present.

    Ken Lukowiak's 'apology' - not your citing of it - I found pretty shallow. To equate the thugs of the Parachute Regiment with peaceful marchers didn't cut the mustard.

    Bloody Sunday is an event of such profundity that no amount of putting it on a par with the death of Sergeant Willis as a snapshot takes away from it being a war crime committed against a civilian population Let us cut to the chase. Was it mass murder? If you think not, so be it. We will not fall out over it.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Tain Bo,

    There are historical and, in my opinion, perfectly rational reasons for the provisions contained in the Bill Of Rights 1688, the Act Of Settlement 1700,the Act Of Unions and reinforced by the Coranation Oath Act 1680 and the Accession Declaration Act 1910.
    Each time a Roman Catholic has ascended the throne it has resulted in the persecution of those who opposed Catholic beliefs and practises. Historically this has involved burning people at the stake for crimes such as the denial of papal infallibility.
    In the case of the last Roman Catholic monarch, King James II, much of the provisions were enacted to prevent a repeat of his proroguing of parliament in 1685.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Robert,

    TPQ has no uniformity and it is to be expected that nothing will hold across its pages.

    Even with yourself I think there is a reluctance to deal with serious grievances experienced by the republican community. There seems to be an unwillingness to state outright that the British state butchered, tortured, framed, discriminated inter alia.

    It strikes me that unionists still want to shout ‘clean hands’ in a dirty conflict. Stating that no side was completely right or wrong is an anodyne way of approaching the issue.

    ‘Your critique of the Republican project arises from what you see as the betrayal of the
    provisional movement, the death of Republicanism and the ensuing hypocrisy of Sinn Fein. ‘

    Thanks for enlightening me! I am not sure what my critique stems from. On reflection I know where it stems from but am not so certain as to what sustains it. I guess as I evolve in what I think the critique changes. Republicanism was never going to answer the question of partition. But that was a late post critique discovery. All political parties are hypocritical, not just SF. A serious problem is that the hypocrisy helps distort everything. Was the opposition as perfidious as we always felt it to be? Were we as righteous as we always felt ourselves to be? We can no longer rely on the critiques provided by leaders who have turned out to be as straight as cork screws.

    The betrayal – I think that came more through how they managed failure rather than failure per se.

    I think if I were to pick one thing out that has irked me more than anything else it has been the pervasive censorship. That has been the one constant. It has prevented a proper understanding of the conflict. And opposition to censorship by no means has to stand on a republican base. It irks me whoever does it. When the Left opted for it on the issue of the Danish cartoons I was deeply disappointed.

    I suppose I get along better with - and prefer - free thinking unionists than I would with censorious republicans. Although I notice from another post that you appear to distrust free thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Robert
    So Protestants are the innocent victims and the butchered Catholics over the years of Protestant Kings or Queens are quietly excused away by that logic.

    The 1701 Act of Settlement prohibits any Catholic from becoming King or Queen, or marrying the heir to the throne.
    This is not democracy at work as the Act makes clear it is anti Catholic and sectarian.
    Returning to the original article the Queens Para’s butchered the people if I am following your logic after all they were Catholics and expendable as they pose a threat to all things Protestant.
    It is 2010 these old laws just keep sectarianism alive and as it states Catholics out.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Tain Bo,

    The Act of Settlement is not anti -Catholic per se. The Act does not prevent any member of the Royal family from becoming a Catholic. How many Roman Catholics are disadvantaged by it? 'So long as the Sovereign is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England it would be as ridiculous to believe that a Roman Catholic could be Monarch as that a Protestant could be ruler of the Vatican City and Bishop of Rome.'

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anthony,


    "Thanks for enlightening me!"

    Perhaps I was thinking a little too loud on the 'combustibles' that fuel your 'fire' there.
    A constant theme and obvious subject of objection is that of censorship. Had things, politically, panned out differently would your continued membership of the Prm not have necessitated a great deal of self censorship?

    Will address the other points and questions, if not tonight tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Robert,

    might well be so. We develop positions and into them rather than emerging from the womb with them. An event can change many things.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Anthony,

    "Was it mass murder?"

    Of course it was. Unionists do not accept it was pre-meditated, I say that not in mitigation or deflection but in making a distinction with, "the most instinctive, natural and just path..", that Republicans were already on prior to and proceeding Bloody Sunday. It is those events that make it so difficult for Unionists to address grievances to your community's satisfaction. Richard O'Rawe touches on this during his review of Beauty And Atrocity,".. perhaps unionists owe nationalists an apology for decades of misrule, though I doubt that that will ever happen given that the unionist community suffered greatly during the recent IRA campaign."
    As for bringing myself to the logical terminus of my sentiment. That terminus is as already stated that no one was completely right or completely wrong. You view that as somehow pain free. I would ask you to reflect on that a little longer. After long personal reflection that I feel is a fair appraisal. It provokes questions similar to that which you point out. "Was the opposition as perfidious as we always felt it to be? Were we as righteous as we always felt ourselves to be?" The pain free option would be to declare victory for Unionism and question no further.

    "Even with yourself I think there is a reluctance to deal with serious grievances experienced by the republican community. There seems to be an unwillingness to state outright that the British state butchered, tortured, framed, discriminated inter alia."

    et tu Robert!

    There is no reluctance Anthony. Loyalists also faced the wrath of the state, everything you list was visited upon us also.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Robert, I think the reason many people suspect premeditation on the part of the Paras is because of their long, bloody record of unlawful killings right throughout the Troubles. Killing civilians was for them just too much of a habit to be unintentional.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Robert,

    it is a very powerful statement for a unionists to make - that Bloody Sunday was mass murder. I think the vast bulk of unionists do not regard it as mass murder even where they do think something was not right about the incident. Premeditation is another issue. I am inclined to believe that there was a degree of premeditation but to what level and to what extent I remain unsure. I think the British government did not go in without giving consideration to a wide range of possible outcomes including the one that came to define the day. Elsewhere we have clear pointers to and traces of premeditation on the part of British forces - the shoot to kill and the SAS killings were premeditated. So the question for me is firmy believing that premeditated killings did figure in British state thinking what ethical constraint would have prevented that state exercising premeditation on Bloody Sunday. That does not prove premeditation,merely raises a question about it. Prior to Bloody Sunday the British were foolishly creating the Provisional IRA. Bloody Sunday was the event that gave it the final touch. It meant that when direct rule was introduced republicans could no longer see a difference between the Unionist government and the British one. There is a view at senior levels of the IRA leadership of the time that had direct rule been introduced at the time of the introduction of British troops in 69 the Provisional IRA would never have formed.

    Without doubt unionists suffered grievously due to the republican campaign. But too often a remark like that is made by those who inflicted the foul for the purpose of appearing conciliatory while still shirt pulling in the hope of not beingspotted. Which undermines the sincerity of the acknowledgement. For reasons like that the unionists will never issue an apology. Nor are they likely to while SF leaders continue to distance themselves from the grievances inflicted.

    In making the statement that Bloody Sunday was mass murder it seems clear that you did reach the terminus of your sentiment. It does provide a much clearer context for your comments about no side being entirely right or entirely wrong.

    Your final point that 'Loyalists also faced the wrath of the state, everything you list was visited upon us also' sounds like a PUP critique. It does not seem to reflect a more widespread unionist perspective. Overall I don't think that loyalists experienced anything like the degree of state violence that republicans underwent.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anthony,


    "Overall I don't think that loyalists experienced anything like the degree of state violence that republicans underwent."

    Evidently not but I do not think that was due to any benevolence on the part of British administrations. Republicans in essence were pitted against the state in direct conflict, loyalists were not.

    'Loyalists also faced the wrath of the state, everything you list was visited upon us also' sounds like a PUP critique. It does not seem to reflect a more widespread unionist perspective.'

    It is my own critique informed by experience and observation. That it sounds familar indicates that it is a shared view albeit from a non member or supporter of the PUP. As to why it is not more widely reflected, the overwhelming majority of Unionists did not support the paramilitaries and as you have already pointed out do not question the actions of the state.

    " I think the British government did not go in without giving consideration to a wide range of possible outcomes including the one that came to define the day."

    I don't know, it always appeared like crisis management gone very wrong. I don't think there was any sophistication to government strategy at that stage other than containment.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Robert,

    On the issue of British state violence to loyalists not being as severe as experienced by republicans

    "Overall I don't think that loyalists experienced anything like the
    degree of state violence that republicans underwent."

    Why bother inferring equivalence in your earlier comment?

    There was no great benevolence n the part of the British state towards loyalists. But there was a great degree of collusion and a convergence of interests at certain times which compelled the British to think in terms of interests rather than friends. They had a different strategic approach to the management of loyalists. However the ease with which that case could be made years ago has been problematised by the degree to which we now believe republicanism to have been penetrated.

    I did not suggest there was anything wrong with sharing a PUP analysis. The analysis may be wrong but that is another matter.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anthony,

    "Overall I don't think that loyalists experienced anything like the degree of state violence that republicans underwent."

    "Why bother inferring equivalence in your earlier comment?"

    I don't understand. The initial quote was yours??

    ReplyDelete
  88. Robert,

    by now I can't remember. Sorry, if it has caused confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Anthony,

    "But there was a great degree of collusion and a convergence of interests at certain times which compelled the British to think in terms of interests rather than friends."

    The convergence of interests was of course the Union and a common foe. The relationship between Unionists and the state was no 'love in a bucket'. Collusion and the perversion of justice as we have seen from the report into the 'Claudy Bombing' smiled on many more than which the accusing finger has been pointed to date.
    I hope as this 'sickening process' unfolds that it engenders a resolve to never repeat the mistakes of the past.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Robert,

    'The convergence of interests was of course the Union and a common foe.'

    This is the point - the common for was not the eradication of all political violence but republicans.

    And this convergence led to other convegences which fuelled loyalist political violence.

    The relationship between Unionists and the state was no 'love in a
    bucket'.

    Republicanism found it conceptually difficult to see unionism as having any degree of autonomy. Now they have bought into it completely and turned the logic of the armed campaign upside down.

    As time unfolds more will come to light about the degree to which the British were running agents within republicanism. I would say their involvement was high.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Anthony,

    "This is the point - the common for was not the eradication of all political violence but republicans"

    The convergence of interest was not the result of any grand scheme.
    There was no agreed agenda, strategy or tactics. The idea that no ability or motivation for action existed outside of the intelligence services orbit is fiction. Loyalists would find it absurd if you put it to them that they had somehow been treated more favourably than Republicans. Indeed there are many instances in court sentancing, for example, where Loyalists were dealt with in a harsher manner than Republicans. I agree, it is a nonsense to suggest that the British government was an impartial referee on the constitutional position of N.Ireland. However the stats don't stack up in attempting to conclude from that that they were partial to Loyalism.
    Overall, of course the British government and Unionists wanted to eradicate Republican violence. It was wrong.

    ReplyDelete