ChatterBank2 mins ago
John Hume. Rip.
19 Answers
Throughout the darkest days of the troubles he worked hard for a peaceful way forward. He seemed to me a political
Gulliver in a world of Lilliputians.
Gulliver in a world of Lilliputians.
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Agreed
// He was regarded as one of the most important figures in the recent political history of Ireland and one of the architects of the Northern Ireland peace process. He was also a recipient of the Gandhi Peace Prize and the Martin Luther King Award, the only recipient of the three major peace awards. In 2010 he was named "Ireland's Greatest" in a public poll by Irish national broadcaster RTÉ to find the greatest person in Ireland's history.[1] In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI made Hume a Knight Commander of the Papal Order of St. Gregory the Great. //
// He was regarded as one of the most important figures in the recent political history of Ireland and one of the architects of the Northern Ireland peace process. He was also a recipient of the Gandhi Peace Prize and the Martin Luther King Award, the only recipient of the three major peace awards. In 2010 he was named "Ireland's Greatest" in a public poll by Irish national broadcaster RTÉ to find the greatest person in Ireland's history.[1] In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI made Hume a Knight Commander of the Papal Order of St. Gregory the Great. //
For someone as intelligent as you NJ, it always baffles me that you have it in for the NI peace process.
John always had a ready answer for the people who doubted what he and others were doing: there are people walking and talking on the island of Ireland today who wouldn’t be doing so without it. Today it’s largely only the tiny TUV and dissident terrorists who reject it. Which pretty much says it all.
John always had a ready answer for the people who doubted what he and others were doing: there are people walking and talking on the island of Ireland today who wouldn’t be doing so without it. Today it’s largely only the tiny TUV and dissident terrorists who reject it. Which pretty much says it all.
//...there are people walking and talking on the island of Ireland today who wouldn’t be doing so without it.//
Yes, and there are people in government today who wouldn't be there without it. In fact some among their number should arguably be in prison. It depends how much you are prepared to forgive for "peace". If you are prepared to seek it whatever the price then it's a highly successful deal.
Yes, and there are people in government today who wouldn't be there without it. In fact some among their number should arguably be in prison. It depends how much you are prepared to forgive for "peace". If you are prepared to seek it whatever the price then it's a highly successful deal.
That’s a poor, poor argument NJ.
I understand why for example people in Coleraine are livid about the architect of the Railway Road bombing being elected to local government. But the realisation that everything in this short life is relative and not absolute is one of the things that makes people seek peace through compromise. Often when the absolutists on all sides are shouting at them.
I understand why for example people in Coleraine are livid about the architect of the Railway Road bombing being elected to local government. But the realisation that everything in this short life is relative and not absolute is one of the things that makes people seek peace through compromise. Often when the absolutists on all sides are shouting at them.
//That’s a poor, poor argument NJ.//
I don't believe that it is. Your example of the people of Coleraine is one of, I imagine, many examples. The parties were brought to the table by means of violence - extreme violence in many circumstances. They were not threats, they were acts. The threat was that those acts would continue until the perpetrators got their own way. It was terrorism, pure and simple, in which many people who had no involvement and in many cases no particular view on the matter one way or the other, suffered either death or injury. I was very nearly one of them when a bomb exploded on London's Victoria station.
The very fact that such violence leads to one group or another getting its own way indicates a failure in my opinion. Yes of course all avenues to secure peace should be explored. But the NI agreement was not a compromise or an accommodation. It was a capitulation, plain and simple.
I don't believe that it is. Your example of the people of Coleraine is one of, I imagine, many examples. The parties were brought to the table by means of violence - extreme violence in many circumstances. They were not threats, they were acts. The threat was that those acts would continue until the perpetrators got their own way. It was terrorism, pure and simple, in which many people who had no involvement and in many cases no particular view on the matter one way or the other, suffered either death or injury. I was very nearly one of them when a bomb exploded on London's Victoria station.
The very fact that such violence leads to one group or another getting its own way indicates a failure in my opinion. Yes of course all avenues to secure peace should be explored. But the NI agreement was not a compromise or an accommodation. It was a capitulation, plain and simple.
“ The parties were brought to the table by means of violence - extreme violence in many circumstances. They were not threats, they were acts. The threat was that those acts would continue until the perpetrators got their own way.”
Incorrect actually, if you know the history of it. It wasn’t like that at all.
Incorrect actually, if you know the history of it. It wasn’t like that at all.
//Incorrect actually, if you know the history of it. It wasn’t like that at all.//
I do know the history of it and we'll have to disagree. Whilst the Republican movement would like to portray their cause as one which shifted from bullet to ballot, the reality is far more complex. During the 1980s they tried to underscore their legitimacy by contesting Westminster elections - with no intention of participating at Westminster, a strategy which they continue today. Even then their long held affiliation with violence was hard to break and it was not until 1994 that the agreed a "ceasefire" - a few months after a mortar attack was launched against Heathrow Airport.
You could argue until the cows come home about the role violence played in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement. To save time, just ask yourself one question: do you think the parties would have been round the table discussing power sharing in NI if there had been no "Troubles"?
I do know the history of it and we'll have to disagree. Whilst the Republican movement would like to portray their cause as one which shifted from bullet to ballot, the reality is far more complex. During the 1980s they tried to underscore their legitimacy by contesting Westminster elections - with no intention of participating at Westminster, a strategy which they continue today. Even then their long held affiliation with violence was hard to break and it was not until 1994 that the agreed a "ceasefire" - a few months after a mortar attack was launched against Heathrow Airport.
You could argue until the cows come home about the role violence played in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement. To save time, just ask yourself one question: do you think the parties would have been round the table discussing power sharing in NI if there had been no "Troubles"?
Fundamentally what led to the Peace process and the Good Friday agreement was the realisation by the IRA that they couldn’t win. They sent a message to British govt saying that the conflict was “over” and they needed a way it could be brought to an end: in other words a way that would enable them to end it without causing a significant split in the republican movement.
The days when the IRA held a gun to the head of the “Brits”, if they ever did, were long gone.
Besides which, it’s a mistake to see the conflict simply as IRA nasties v the good guys. That was what it felt like a lot of the time, but there was a lot more to it of course.
The days when the IRA held a gun to the head of the “Brits”, if they ever did, were long gone.
Besides which, it’s a mistake to see the conflict simply as IRA nasties v the good guys. That was what it felt like a lot of the time, but there was a lot more to it of course.
It was the IRA which was concerned about a split.
But a split of course would not have been good for anyone because of course it would meant the rebel faction carrying on fighting.
As it was, some form of dissenting faction was bound to emerge, to deadly effect when it came to Omagh as a matter of fact, but ultimately the dissidents have failed.
But a split of course would not have been good for anyone because of course it would meant the rebel faction carrying on fighting.
As it was, some form of dissenting faction was bound to emerge, to deadly effect when it came to Omagh as a matter of fact, but ultimately the dissidents have failed.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago