Comments on The Pensive Quill: Reflecting on Saville

Anthony, "This is the point - the common for...

2010-08-29T22:25:25.857+01:00

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.

Robert, 'The convergence of interests was of ...

2010-08-29T07:29:20.023+01:00

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.

Anthony, "But there was a great degree of co...

2010-08-27T10:17:30.903+01:00

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.

Robert, by now I can't remember. Sorry, if it...

2010-08-27T09:24:29.667+01:00

Robert,

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

Anthony, "Overall I don't think that loy...

2010-08-27T08:48:37.112+01:00

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??

Robert, On the issue of British state violence to...

2010-08-26T20:36:40.202+01:00

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.

Anthony, "Overall I don't think that lo...

2010-08-22T22:07:30.450+01:00

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.

Robert, it is a very powerful statement for a un...

2010-08-22T08:54:11.982+01:00

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.

Robert, I think the reason many people suspect pre...

2010-08-22T00:23:16.497+01:00

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.

Anthony, "Was it mass murder?" Of cour...

2010-08-21T22:49:24.870+01:00

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.

Robert, might well be so. We develop positions a...

2010-08-20T23:31:07.053+01:00

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.

Anthony, "Thanks for enlightening me!"...

2010-08-20T23:25:05.682+01:00

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.

Tain Bo, The Act of Settlement is not anti -Catho...

2010-08-19T19:24:58.674+01:00

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.'

Robert So Protestants are the innocent victims an...

2010-08-19T00:37:15.244+01:00

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.

Robert, TPQ has no uniformity and it is to be exp...

2010-08-18T22:11:12.797+01:00

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.

Tain Bo, There are historical and, in my opinion,...

2010-08-18T21:09:22.262+01:00

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.

Robert, just caught this as I was about to leave...

2010-08-18T20:59:24.481+01:00

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.

Anthony, "The context of the discussion - yo...

2010-08-18T20:32:56.949+01:00

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.

Anthony, "Overall, I would hold to the view ...

2010-08-16T22:52:44.069+01:00

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.

Robert, As I said don’t dwell on the ‘snobbish’ ...

2010-08-14T10:17:38.931+01:00

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.

“Most Christians staunchly defend their ideas of &...

2010-08-13T05:03:31.053+01:00

“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.

Robert “As for Heidegger - so what?” Well unless...

2010-08-13T05:02:06.614+01:00

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...

Tain Bo, Yours is an almost surreal proposition g...

2010-08-12T13:10:36.143+01:00

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?

Anthony, On this matter and all others, in the wo...

2010-08-12T12:58:46.958+01:00

Anthony,

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

Robert, despite your best efforts it remains imm...

2010-08-12T12:44:02.310+01:00

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