Anthony McIntyre feels that little has changed within the DUP in terms of contempt towards nationalist civilians killed by British state security services.
When the UVF member and DUP councillor, George Seawright suggested that Belfast City Council build an incinerator "to burn Roman Catholics and their priests, his expulsion from the Paisley-led party swiftly followed.
That was 35 years ago and Seawright, if not his legacy, is long since dead. Despite the much vaunted modernisation the DUP is said to have undergone, the same type of visceral anti-nationalist toxicity continues to exist. The difference is that today, rather than being sanctioned, it is rewarded.
Earlier this week the DUP announced the replacement of its North Belfast councillor for Castle DEA, Guy Spence. The man chosen to fill the shoes of Spence is Dean McCullough who greeted his appointment by claiming:
I am delighted to take up this role and to serve the people of the Castle DEA. It is an area that I know well, having been born and raised there. I also look forward to joining the DUP team on Belfast City Council, being a positive voice for north Belfast and for our city as a whole.
His party leader, Arlene Foster, was effusive in her praise for McCullough.
Dean will be an excellent representative for the Castle DEA. He has a track record of community involvement across north Belfast and alongside Cllr Fred Cobain will continue to provide first-class representation in that area.
How first class his service will be is a moot point given that he seems to subscribe to the view that nationalists should be treated as second class citizens, unworthy of the same rights to justice as other citizens. Those whose loved ones were unlawfully killed by British state security forces are most unlikely to share Foster's enthusiasm for her new councillor. This is because McCullough is an avid backer of those who have committed atrocity against unarmed nationalist civilians. When asked by myself in 2017 “what should happen to those who slaughtered the innocent on Bloody Sunday?”, McCullough's reply was that the “brave and professional paratroopers should be given a medal.’
He also described the most prolific killer on the day, Soldier F, as a gallant veteran even though his gallantry amounted to him personally massacring four of the fourteen unarmed civilians.
The conservative writer Douglas Murray sat through the evidence of the Bloody Sunday killers at the Saville Inquiry and concluded that he could say with “certainty that they include not only unapologetic killers, but unrelenting liars" and that soldier F “started lying from the moment the shooting stopped … if anyone was deserving of prosecution, then it was him.” Seemingly, none of that matters to Councillor McCullough, presumably seeing such mendacity as Soldier F behaving with chivalry.
When Sinn Fein’s Westminster MP Barry McElduff was accused of mocking the dead of Kingsmill, the DUP howled for his head on a plate. He subsequently resigned his seat, leaving Arlene Foster to proclaim:
He was not fit for public office and should have resigned in the immediate aftermath of posting the disgraceful video mocking and insulting the horrific terrorist events at Kingsmill … Over the course of the last 10 days Sinn Fein has failed to deal with the McElduff situation … By merely suspending him and continuing to pay him, they compounded his disgraceful actions and demonstrated a lack of respect and compassion for the victims of Kingsmill and indeed victims more widely.
And Dean McCullough's sentiments are somehow less egregious?
Kingsmill so resembles Bloody Sunday because it was a war crime on a par with what happened in Derry – the wanton massacre of unarmed civilians. A razor blade could not make its way through any ethical gap that exists between the two. The wilful injustice in eulogising the perpetrators of one while denigrating those culpable for the other should find no hiding place behind a flag of convenience. In the words of Howard Zinn, "there is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."
I am appalled at the DUP who recently welcomed Dean McCullough into their ranks in Belfast City Council. This man holds the view that the Paratroopers on Bloody Sunday should have been given medals. Even with the limited knowledge that The Bloody Sunday Inquiry concluded it is clear that this man paid no attention whatsoever. He is not fit to represent anyone. He quite obviously approves violence against innocent people by the state. The DUP called for the resignation of Barry McElduff for his mockery of the Kingsmill victims and rightly so. Surely the DUP have some kind of vetting procedure in place to ensure that potential candidates have the good character that people deserve. It is long overdue for the electorate not to have bigots, or indeed extremists to have any influence on decisions made by local government. At a time when we need the very best of people, at a time of loss of life to Covid-19 surely we need people who care. Dean McCullough should leave his position immediately and shame on the DUP !! Just to inform and educate Mr McCullough the Paratroopers did get decorated for their actions on Bloody Sunday!!
The Indian writer Arundhati Roy once stated that "justice out of the mouth of a politician almost always means revenge. Always justice against an enemy, never justice for all."
What say you Arlene?
“Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall
ReplyDeleteenter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth
the will of my Father which is in heaven.” -Matthew 7:21
Excellent piece, AM. I had the misfortune to witness a pro Soldier F rally; a collection of misfits whose median bulk was in sharp contrast to the comically small banner they ceremoniously unfurled.
ReplyDeleteA few things struck me when watching the demo. The first was that there were a number of army veterans there. Had they forgotten that the Paras, in satiating their bloodlust that day, led directly and unequivocally to the deaths of British soldiers? The influx of recruits and support for the Provos enhanced their lethality considerably.
The second, and most depressing, point is that I cannot imagine Soldier F receiving such sycophantic support in years gone by. I am thinking of the demonstrations against the legal abuses of power that led to the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four (and others) being released.
The British population seemed to recognise abuse of power and state persecution for what it was then. Now, not so much.
The vast majority of British soldiers were scared, frightened young men who did what they perceived to be their duty. Some of these men, under extreme stress, killed civilians. In my opinion, latitude should be given where it is due. It is blatantly not due in the case of Soldier F, he is a mass murderer, who seemed to enjoy killing, committed perjury, and changed the course of Irish and British history for the worse.
Thanks SP.
Deletegood points. I agree with the concept of latitude but you add nuance by seeming to exclude war crimes. I am not sure there is any easy way to deal with that objection.
A war crime is a war crime is a war crime. Except when the British are involved. Many states are opting out of the International Criminal Court so that their combatants can not be brought to trial for war crimes or crimes against humanity. The countries involved are choosing impunity for their soldiers but not for enemy soldiers. Of course they are sure their soldiers will commit such crimes as you cannot have a war without war crimes. It is not impossible but so far beyond the realms of possibility it might as well be described as such.
ReplyDeleteImpunity only encourages future war crimes and it destroys any concept of natural justice.
I have seen Republicans deny that the IRA were ever sectarian and at times deny that war crimes happened. I would hope that Republicans in the future act in a different vein than McCullough and acknowledge the travesties and inhumanity in a way that he won't. The test of humanity isn't if you treat the opposition's actions as a war crime but if you treat your own side's as such. Best not to follow the opposition on every issue or any issue that stinks.
Giving out medals for killing non-combatants is the sign of the cretin whatever side you're on.
Simon
DeleteBloody Sunday ostensibly was about a policing operation not a battlefield between two sets of combatants. It was the unprovoked massacre of 14 peaceful civil rights demonstrators in the manner of Peterloo. It was the killing by state forces of its own citizens not of colonial subjects or of captured combatants or POWs.
So legally it was not a war crime but a mass homicide derser ving of prosecution and punishment by the criminal justice system; the same goes for the Ballymurphy massacre.
Likewise Kingsmill was not legally a war crime but a Bosnian style massacre of civilians with no connection to any military or combatant-style organisation. The same applies to the Greysteel, Sean Graham bdeting shop and McGurk's bar massacres.
Barry, I know the difference between a war crime between combatants and a crime against humanity against civilians.
DeleteWhether the conflict is a war or not is the big question. If it was these actions were crimes against humanity. If it wasn't it was simply murder. It goes beyond murder.
The term war crime is used as an umbrella term by those who do not speak legalese. I have discussed the difference on the Quill before. There is no need for you to be so pedantic.
Simon - to be fair to John O'Dowd, he didn't exactly pull his punches in speaking out against Kingsmill although I have heard other members of SF try to deflect it, even suggesting the INLA might have been responsible. Oddly enough Morrison, who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the jaxy, called on the IRA to accept responsibility for it.
DeleteGiving out medals for killing non-combatants is the sign of the cretin whatever side you're on. - sums it up concisely.
Eccellent piece also, Anthony.
ReplyDeleteIt must be put squarely to defenders of Soldier F like Cllr McCullough that an exhaustive public inquiry and that former PM David Cameron has found and declared that absolutely no wrong doing can be attributed to the dead of Bloody Sunday and the Paras behaved totally illegally. An act of mass murder (not "disputed killings" for which justice needs to be served. Premdediated killings of non- combatants no different from the hundreds committed by illegal armed groups.
Does Arlene Foster with her legal background not accept this black-and-white legal reality? If she does, then surely she should suspend Cllr McCullough not least because his remarks could prejudice the trial of Soldier F whos is a mass murderer and perjuror; his age does not alter these facts.
Barry - thanks for the comment. I agree with Simon on this. When a militray force carries out mass murder, to quibble over the legalese detracts from the otherwise very good points you make. What happened in Derry and Kingsmill all too much resemble what the Nazis did in many situations, that the description of it as a war crime seems very apt as an ethical term.
ReplyDeleteB.G. said: “It was the killing by state forces of its own citizens not of colonial subjects…”
ReplyDeleteKeep aspiring.
But British citizenship for colonial subjects is a matadors’ cape.
Fraudulently held until deceptively removed as done in Derry 1972.
Since all Vichy citizens are children of a lesser God.
Ask any Indian or Soldier F.
And also ask why didn’t the British Army…
Kill any Brits in England for peacefully protesting back then?
Because British soldiers can only get awards for killing colonials:
At the end of 1972, Lt Col Wilford, who was directly in charge of the soldiers involved in Bloody Sunday, was awarded the Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
Col Wilford was exonerated by the Widgery tribunal and six months after the event he was awarded the Order of the British Empire by the Queen.
https://www.bbc.com/news/10287463
So just deal with it and buy better knee pads.
" Killing of its own citizens", Bernadette McAliskey, 1972
ReplyDeleteMike Craig,
DeleteShe was being ironic.
Because they were obviously 2nd class British citizens.
@ AM
ReplyDeleteI find the concept of war crimes, as they apply to NI from 1969 onward, as not necessarily useful.
If what I have read is true, then the perpetrators of the Kingmills murders were also responsible for the killings of numerous British soldiers and RUC men. As unpalatable as it may seem to others, to me, as to many others, there is a distinction. The South, to my admittedly limited knowledge, exercised a degree of Realpolitik in dealing with extradition, using the criteria of whether something was political. Shooting a British solider in Crossmaglen is entirely different to lining up and shooting ten men for no other reason than they were born into a family with a different tribal identity.
The words of Derry's coronor should be applied to the Kingsmills murders "It was sheer unadulterated murder. It was murder." And the South Armagh Brigade protected them. And what does that make them?
A myriad of moral and political questions arise. To me, IRA men shooting a teenager through the legs for joyriding is nothing other than a criminal act. The RUC men beating up an IRA suspect are morally identical to the IRA kneecapping squad that I just described.
Soldier F and his cronies are murderers and should be treated as such. A former Para called Ken Lukowiak wrote an article in the Guardian asking where the justice for the families of the 52 Para's killed by the IRA during the Troubles. It's an interesting point.
I don't think any former IRA men should do any jail time for killing Para's, and I think that means that I shouldn't desire Soldier F to do any jail time either. And, I suppose, neither should loyalists convicted of Troubles era murders now-a-days. That sticks in my craw, particularly the case of Samuel Tweed, the former UDA man and suspect in "romper room" murders. Soldier F and Samuel Tweed's alleged crimes were not political, in my book, but then the IRA's weren't in lots of other people's. And the end result was dead people and bereaved families.
I just rambled a lot and don't feel I made a conclusive point, so apologies for that!
SP - I don't really follow the logic. There is a joint between the first and second paragraphs which I find difficult to buff down. The logic of the second in relation to the first escapes me.
DeleteI find war crimes a very useful concept because it captures the ethical essence of something that stands apart.
I have no difficulty with Hubert's O'Neill's powerful indictment of the Paras extended to the IRA at Kingsmill because I see no qualitative difference between either act. Lukowiak's perspective I don't share nor that of Benest either for that matter, who writing in the same paper felt there should be prosecutions. The Paras referred to by Lukowiak were combatants, much like the IRA who killed them.(didn't realise it was 52). I think the cleaners in Aldershot have a better case. Tweed's case was vindictive in my view (I remember him escaping) and I saw no public interest grounds (spurious as they often turn out to be) for prosecuting him.
Like yourself, I see no point in prosecutions. As a mechanism for truth recovery prosecutions filter truth so much we end up with very little of it.
Dead people, bereaved families and crying children - and not a lot to back up any claim it was worth it. Which explain to me why while not a pacifist, I have grown very much anti-war.
@ Eoghan.
ReplyDeleteActually she wasn't being ironic.
I've always struggled to understand the logic of those who refuse to recognise actually existing situations. If 'Northern Ireland' didn't exist as part of the UK, why were the IRA determined to remove it from the UK? Surly the fact that they were trying to remove it, proves that it exists in the first place.
I'm not disputing that many of those citizens were treated as second class, but pretending that they were not citizens does not change their situation. None of us who were born in this part of Ireland after 1922 had a choice as to which jurisdiction are citizenship came under. That was decided by accident of birth.
@ AM
ReplyDeleteI'll try and explain, though it has to be said my thoughts on all of this have evolved over time, and I comment basically to continuing evolving my thought processes.
My unease with the designation of some acts as war-crimes I think stems from the cover that the existence of a war gives to a wide range of acts - such as the bombing of Aldershot barracks. Had dozens of Para's been wiped out, few people outside the unionist community in Ireland would have cared. But cleaning ladies were killed (I saw one of their sons interviewed on TV about ten years ago: he had been in and out of prison, his life utterly ruined).
It would be difficult, I think, to deem the bombing of an army barracks as a war-crime, but killing cleaning ladies surely is?
I think I'm going to think about this a bit more before trying to join the dots up.
SP - I think there is something to be said for the view of Mohammed Ali that if a man still believes at 50 what he believed at 20 he has wasted 30 years of his life. Our thoughts if they are to qualify as that must evolve.
ReplyDeleteA war situation produces actions that go beyond the rules of war or the contextual understanding of war in a specific place or circumstance. They are what invite allegations of war crimes. Other actions within the rules or understandings (and understandings is not a dubious free concept) while horrific and brutal nevertheless fall within the rules. I have never regarded Aldershot as a war crime: it was a military installation housing the regiment that carried out Bloody Sunday. It was a monumental cock up with devastating consequences for the loved ones of the women who died. Had the women been deliberately targeted in a different location - a cinema for example, then it enters a new category.
I don't claim to have the definitive answer. It is morally very complex and a lot of grey. I have my own thoughts on it and they are open to challenge.
Mike Craig,
ReplyDeleteHow would you know she wasn’t being ironic? And it was only because the IRA recognized the actual existing situation of British occupation and rule that they tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to remove it. Because (now read slowly) Ireland is not England any more than Algiers was France or South Vietnam was the United States. So, you’re putting up a strawman argument here because no Irish Republican or Nationalist claims that the Brits don’t exist in the occupied 6 counties “…in the first place” (whatever that means). They just don’t want it to exist as part of the UK where they know without pretention that they are second-class citizens. Because as my grandfather used to say: “You’ll never see a British soldier fire his rifle at unarmed English people in England.” I would add, if a British soldier ever did fire at unarmed English people in England then that soldier would most likely be forthrightly prosecuted unlike any British soldier shooting unarmed Irish people in Ireland. And since you’re not disputing British second-class treatment of Irish people in Ireland (because no one can dispute that) then rhetorically speaking what are you arguing about here? Because if you’re second class (like a Palestinian in Israel) then you’re not fully a citizen with all rights and privileges appurtenant thereto. And so, government soldiers get to shoot at you with impunity. Which is why jurisdiction (legal word for power and authority), in order to be legitimate, can only flow formally or informally from the authority of fully fledged citizens and not from any government – especially a foreign government. So, yes you do have a choice and maybe it’s time you recognized that actual existing situation like East Germans did in 1989 or you can go back to Russia so to speak.
@ Eoghan
ReplyDeleteOh yes, the IRA. Those who Bernadette described as, “The men with guns and no politics”.
Read that one slowly!
How far do you suggest we have to go back in history before we recognise that the map is what it is?
The longer a political map exists the harder it is to reverse its evolution back to what you imagine it was in a distant past. In the case of Ireland, to the 12th Century perhaps?
Those Brits you claim are occupying the 6 Counties have lived here for 4oo years, this fact can't be swept away. Do you recognise the United States of America?
Didn't your Granddad know about Churchill and the Miners of Tonypandy? Of course you're going to point out that they were Welsh and not English.
Just to clarify my position, because in your black and white view of the World you seem to have mistakenly pinned me down as some kind of unionist.
I am an atheist who happens to have been born in the north eastern part of the island of Ireland. That my ancestry is both Irish and Scottish is nothing more than a matter of fact, and is of little consequence to the reality of my life.
My allegiance is to the Working Class peoples on this Planet, rather than to the piece of land I found myself inhabiting by accident of birth.
My current political home is within the UK Labour Party as this is the most effective organisation of my class which exists within these islands at the present time.
And for the record, I believe that Ireland should not have been partitioned in 1922, but I also believe that, rather than attempting to bomb the border away, the argument for separating this part of Ireland from the UK needed to be a political one. History has proven me right on this one.
The demands of the Civil Rights Movement, were the same class -based demands which could be heard in Europe at the time, they were not demands about territory. The Provisionals changed that narrative from one of equality of citizenship to one of a battle for territory. A move away from class based politics.
There are many video records online of interviews with those affected by sectarian pogroms by loyalist mobs, none of these people cited a united Ireland as being a cure to their problems.
Mike Craig,
ReplyDeleteBetter yet, why be cryptic?
Explain what you think B.D. meant by saying that?
I suspect she was merely saying that armies be subordinate to politics.
Since: “She helped found the Irish Republican Socialist Party in 1974, but resigned in 1975 when a proposal that the INLA be made subordinate to the party was rejected.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/bernadette-mcaliskey-i-am-astounded-i-survived-i-made-mad-decisions-1.2798293
And so, she didn’t favor the IRA/Sinn Fein paradigm.
But here is proof she was being ironic in 1972:
“I had a very moral view when I was younger. I thought everybody cared. I think it’s part of a Catholic upbringing, that idea of universal solidarity. That was a journey for me . . . I didn’t think the government was bad. I genuinely thought they just didn’t know and if I just went to London to tell them, people would say, ‘Do you hear that young woman there? We need to do something about that.’ But then I realised: the bastards, they do know and not only do they know, they don’t see anything wrong with it.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/bernadette-mcaliskey-i-am-astounded-i-survived-i-made-mad-decisions-1.2798293
At any rate, men with guns are always per se political.
That’s why the British Army has so many of them.
Which is how they maintain the map of Ireland as it is.
Despite the fact Ireland has always been the island of Ireland.
And no one is calling for anyone living in Ireland to be swept aside.
This is just another strawman argument of yours.
And I have no problem with the US living within its own borders.
But I do not support US or UK imperialism anywhere.
Because that almost always means bombing unarmed brown skinned people:
The 1920s British air bombing campaign in Iraq
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29441383
Recall that Iraq was also a British colony.
Should they have also accepted your defeatist attitude?
Because speaking of great consequences to the reality of your life…
The fact that you’re living in a trailer on £120 a week…
In the northeastern part of the island of Ireland…
Is a function of British occupation and rule.
Your inability to recognize that…
Is simply aggravated by your forlorn hope in the Labor Party.
So you recognise The USA within its own borders? It was just an unoccupied piece of land then? Why accept that occupation without question even though it happened a lot later than Ireland's? Although you won't admit it, the reason why you accept the USA as a legitimate entity is because of the period of time which has passed since its origin. It long ago became a reality, and the brutality involved in creating it, a distant memory.
ReplyDeleteMy low income is a consequence of living in a global capitalist system, ask those South of the border if their poverty is due to british colonialism.
I am not the defeatist here, because at least I recognise who the enemy is.
Partition is a symptom of a political and economic system, it is not the cause. Continually arguing that removing the symptom will cure the illness is futile. You've decided to fight the symptom rather than the cause, isn't that defeatist?
What is 'straw man' about putting class before territory? In whose interests are countries anyway? If there was a capitalist united Ireland tomorrow, in what way would my life be improved? If on the other hand the system was overthrown in the south of Ireland, I would be first in the queue to argue for the North to join it. I think you'll find that Bernadette agrees with this thinking, but you won't quote her saying this as it doesn't suit your argument. In 2009 she said " nationalism is dead!", and last year she asked, " who would want to join the free state anyway?".
This is why I have argued that the 'National question' has always been political rather than territorial.
In short, I don't give a shit which set of exploiters rules over this piece of land which I inhabit, unless the workers control it, it's not worth fighting for.
Mike Craig,
ReplyDeleteI only accept the US within its own 50 state borders.
I don’t accept the US in any of its colonial territories,
i.e. Puerto Rico, Guam, Okinawa, Guantanamo, etc.
The US was a British colony that successfully revolted.
Ireland is still a work in progress in that regard.
That said, I accept both the US & Ireland as legitimate entities.
But I don’t accept the UK’s occupation of Ireland or Iraq.
The brutality of which is not a distant memory.
I accept though you suffer from the consequences of global capitalism.
A lot of which is engineered by London and New York banks.
Which continue funding their governments’ adventures abroad.
As such globalization is a euphemism for the same old empire building.
Just see Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins.
So, yes, a lot of poverty in Ireland results from this colonialism.
Because it thrives on exploitation of resources and wage inequality.
Which is formalized in the North but I don’t think you see that.
Because if you did then you’d see that England in Ireland is a problem.
Just like England in India was a problem for India.
Just like say the US in South Vietnam was a problem for Vietnam.
Just like Israel in Palestine is a problem for Palestine.
Just like the UK and UK in Iraq is a problem for Iraq.
Notice I say “…a problem” since there are other problems.
So, will Ireland become nirvana after England leaves?
No of course not.
No more than Vietnam became a workers’ paradise after US left.
But Vietnam is much better off without the US there.
As will be Iraq when the US and UK finally leave.
So, partition is a symptom & cause of the political & economic system.
As such, like any sickness you must treat both symptoms & cause.
That all said, I respectfully disagree with B.D.
I don’t think nationalism is dead. In fact, it’s everywhere still.
And in some cases, it pours over its own borders as imperialism:
i.e. English nationalism still rules in Ireland.
Formally in the north via the GFA.
And informally in the south via the “Free State”.
Because whoever controls territory creates and controls class.
So, don’t join the “Free State”.
Join the 32 County Sovereign Republic.
Since it’ll be more likely than your workers’ paradise.
And you say I’m a Utopian dreamer. LOL
Eoghan
ReplyDelete"I only accept the US within its own 50 state borders.
I don’t accept the US in any of its colonial territories...
The US was a British colony that successfully revolted."
Wrong. The British had 13 colonies only along the east coast. After the War of Independence the new US colonised the rest of what now is the US by ethnically cleansing territory of its native inhabitants. You condemn British colonisation but not the founding of the US?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteWrong? The British had colonies all over America.
As did the Spanish, French, Dutch and even Russians.
European colonization was a vicious competition the US joined.
In part for its own geopolitical survival hence War of 1812.
But I don’t accept any country’s right to colonize another…
Then or now.
So, I accept all natives’ right to revolt to take back their land.
However, you make an exception for England’s colony in Ireland.
And that’s wrong!
Eoghan
ReplyDeleteDo you support the right of revolt by Native Americans, Canadian First Nations, Australian Aboriginals and New Zealand Maoris to take back their lands?
How was the US colonisation of the Phillippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico etc related to its geopolitical survival?
Do you find it peculiar that the US War of Independcence was led entirely by white colonists. Where were the indigenous population and black slaves in it? Answer: many blacks fougnht as loyalists for Britain only to be shafted later. George Washington was a big slave-owner, dont't forget.
And I know this sounds like a broken record but Ireland is no longer "England's (or for accuracy's sake Britain's) colony". There is a functioning, independent and modern Irish nation state covering most of the territory of the island of Ireland. The majority of the rest of the island can join this state should they vote for it in a referendum and should the majority of voters in this Irish state vote to accept them in a parallel plebiscite. All of the above is underwitten by an international treaty registered at the UN.
I expect the usual torrent of quarter-truths and straw man arguments from you in return delivered in your default style of concdescention and personal abuse but do bear in mind the words of CP Scott, founder of the Guardian newspaper:
"Comment is free. Facts are sacred".
Barry,
ReplyDeleteI’ll reply to your insincere questions in the order you put them:
B.G. asked: “Do you support the right of revolt by Native Americans, Canadian First Nations, Australian Aboriginals and New Zealand Maoris to take back their lands?”
Yes, don’t you?
B.G. asked: “How was the US colonisation of the Phillippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico etc related to its geopolitical survival?”
It wasn’t (now read slowly) that’s why all colonies should be free.
B.G. asked: Do you find it peculiar that the US War of Independcence was led entirely by white colonists?”
Not entirely, but mostly, since Crispus Atticks led the first battle:
https://www.history.com/news/black-heroes-american-revolution
B.G. asked: “Where were the indigenous population and black slaves in it?”
Fighting on both sides here:
https://www.history.com/news/black-heroes-american-revolution
And fighting on both sides there:
https://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plans/native-americans-role-american-revolution-choosing-sides
B.G. said: “Answer: many blacks fougnht as loyalists for Britain only to be shafted later.”
That’s called the Irishman’s lament.
For instance, Spike Milligan fought in the British Army during WWII.
And despite being badly injured in battle...
Was not given British citizenship when he applied for it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_Milligan
B.G. said: “George Washington was a big slave-owner, dont't forget.”
That’s only because England helped and permitted him to be.
Until England finally passed the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/12/british-history-slavery-buried-scale-revealed
B.G. said: “…Ireland is no longer ‘England's (or for accuracy's sake Britain's) colony’.”
Were you tortured in UK schools to repeatedly say that?
If so - then just repeat this antidote: N.I. is an English colony.
Since, for accuracy’s sake, Britain is an English legal fiction.
The rest of Ireland is a neo-colony of England’s.
But since you can’t get the simple reality that Britain-is-England…
I’m not going to try explaining more complex concepts to you.
B.G. said: “All of the above is underwitten by an international treaty registered at the UN.”
Which says N.I. can join Ireland when England says so. Whoopee!
Yet, the Annan Plan for a United Cyprus was supported by UK in 2004.
Which was for a federation with single sovereignty rather than...
A weak confederation comprising two separate sovereign states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annan_Plan
B.G. said: “I expect the usual torrent of quarter-truths and straw man arguments from you.”
Point out one here.
B.G. said: "Comment is free. Facts are sacred".
This from a guy who thinks Britain isn’t England.
You wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you in the ass.
Worse, how did anything you wrote here…
Add to the discussion of DUP’s hypocrisy re: Bloody Sunday 1972?
Answer: it didn’t.
Rest assured though the DUP is grateful for all you do here.
On a lighter note:
DeleteIn an interview for The Independent newspaper Spike Milligan was asked "You carry an Irish passport. Do you see yourself as Irish?"
He replied:
I never see myself as Irish, but I am. My father and mother were both Irish and had Irish passports. I had a British passport, but when I went to get it renewed, and said my father was born in Ireland before 1900, they said I couldn't have a British passport - some bloody law.
So I said, fuck you. I went to the Irish Embassy and I said: "My name's Spike Milligan, can I have a passport?" And they said, "Oh yes! We're short of people."
I love Spike Milligan.