• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

The Larne Gun Running - Loyalist hypocriticy?


Mattarigna

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Messages
5,135
I had being reading up on history lately, and for curiousity's sake, I took a look at the Larne Gun running incident, and I have one question for Unionists - was it not pretty hypocritical to import arms from Britian's primary enemy at the time to intentually prepare for a voilent campaign against an act passed by the parliment of the British King, to whom you had sworn loyalty to?

I am genuinely curious here, am I am personally interested to know the unionist viewpoint on this.
 

Mitsui2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
33,382
1) The Larne gunrunning was in April 1914
2) The assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand, proximate cause of World War I, did not take place until June 1914
3) The First World War itself did not begin till July 1914
4) "Hypocriticy"?
 

Mattarigna

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Messages
5,135
1) The Larne gunrunning was in April 1914
2) The assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand, proximate cause of World War I, did not take place until June 1914
3) The First World War itself did not begin till July 1914
4) "Hypocriticy"?
German-Anglo relations had be strained for decades leading up to this, and there had being much speculation of a war between the two up to that point. And also, how was it not hypocritical? Preparing for a violent campaign against the British parliment does not seem to be a good way of showing your loyalty to the state that you pledge alligence to.
 

Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
85,704
I had being reading up on history lately, and for curiousity's sake, I took a look at the Larne Gun running incident, and I have one question for Unionists - was it not pretty hypocritical to import arms from Britian's primary enemy at the time to intentually prepare for a voilent campaign against an act passed by the parliment of the British King, to whom you had sworn loyalty to?

I am genuinely curious here, am I am personally interested to know the unionist viewpoint on this.
Why the name change Toman13?

BTW, before you accuse me of hypocriticy, I am aware that Scotland has that problem, but after all, Ireland had that problem when we got our independence, and of course we made our mistakes, as all other states does(yes, even the UK fu*ks up on occasion), but we are clearly better off for doing so. Look at N.Ireland in comparison if you don't believe me.
 

TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,222
Please use spellchecks in future on thread titles.
 

Mountaintop

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
1,263
Hypocriticy: (n) electricity derived from smugness of ministers when asked to justify their high wages in a time of recession.

Synonym: Disdainable energy.

Related: Eamon Ryan

Example: ' the hypocriticy out of the minister was enough to power a small city'
 

Boy M5

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
21,731
1) The Larne gunrunning was in April 1914
2) The assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand, proximate cause of World War I, did not take place until June 1914
3) The First World War itself did not begin till July 1914
4) "Hypocriticy"?
Ah but a divided Britain was a factor in the Geman's thinking in launching their offensive. Larne & the Curragh involved senior military and establishment figures. Hell there's even military estanlishments named after Gough.
Sarajevo ws the spark the funeral pyre had long been built.
 

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,702
Unionists/loyalists are only loyal as long as they are getting what they want. Remember their reaction to the Anglo Irish agreement? RUC members being put out of their homes by loyalist mobs and shots fired at the RUC by loyalist gunmen. Some loyalty there alright.
 

Goa Tse

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Messages
2,280
In before this turns into 200 pages of whataboutery :)

and yes I agree with Aindriu, their loyalty was/is dependent on them being pampered.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,073
Twitter
No
I've come to think they wanted to be left alone, and as home rule had nothing for them they took that step. But like 1916 very few people were involved.
 

EnglishObserver

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
2,670
Loyalists were and are ULTRAS. Their Loyalty was and is to an idealised version of THE STATE. Should that idealised version of the state be threatened by those CURRENTLY in control of the state then they see no dilemma in opposing the current establishment. In a way, most people (who are not actually sheep) are ultras, in the sense that there is a line that must not be crossed by those currently in control of the state. Ultras differ from REVOLUTIONARIES in that their ideal is a conservative vision of the state, whilst revolutionaries idealise a radically new state. Ultras are by no means rare historically or contemporarily. In the context of Ulster 1912, ultras included many on the mainland, at all levels in society.

It's amazing how poorly these concepts are understood by those in The Irish Republic. Schools?
 

meriwether

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
12,604
Loyalists were and are ULTRAS. Their Loyalty was and is to an idealised version of THE STATE. Should that idealised version of the state be threatened by those CURRENTLY in control of the state then they see no dilemma in opposing the current establishment. In a way, most people (who are not actually sheep) are ultras, in the sense that there is a line that must not be crossed by those currently in control of the state. Ultras differ from REVOLUTIONARIES in that their ideal is a conservative vision of the state, whilst revolutionaries idealise a radically new state. Ultras are by no means rare historically or contemporarily. In the context of Ulster 1912, ultras included many on the mainland, at all levels in society.

It's amazing how poorly these concepts are understood by those in The Irish Republic. Schools?
Thats quite an interesting summation it has to be said.
 

Little_Korean

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
4,231
Loyalists were and are ULTRAS. Their Loyalty was and is to an idealised version of THE STATE. Should that idealised version of the state be threatened by those CURRENTLY in control of the state then they see no dilemma in opposing the current establishment. In a way, most people (who are not actually sheep) are ultras, in the sense that there is a line that must not be crossed by those currently in control of the state. Ultras differ from REVOLUTIONARIES in that their ideal is a conservative vision of the state, whilst revolutionaries idealise a radically new state. Ultras are by no means rare historically or contemporarily. In the context of Ulster 1912, ultras included many on the mainland, at all levels in society.

It's amazing how poorly these concepts are understood by those in The Irish Republic. Schools?
Another possible term could be 'conservative revolutionaries.'

Unionists are about preserving the Unionist status quo whenever possible. Hypocrisy doesn't come into it.
 

Slievenaglogh

Active member
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
249
I've always thought it was a very poor show that the ship used in the gun-running, SS Clyde Valley, having been bought and brought to Carrickfergus in 1969, wasn't preserved. This was due to lack of funds. Built in the 1880s, it was sent to the breaker's yard in 1974. It seems the Loyalists' interest in their heritage doesn't reach into their pocket.
 

Ex celt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
8,375
I had being reading up on history lately, and for curiousity's sake, I took a look at the Larne Gun running incident, and I have one question for Unionists - was it not pretty hypocritical to import arms from Britian's primary enemy at the time to intentually prepare for a voilent campaign against an act passed by the parliment of the British King, to whom you had sworn loyalty to?

I am genuinely curious here, am I am personally interested to know the unionist viewpoint on this.
Who,where and when swore loyalty?
 

EnglishObserver

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
2,670
I've always thought it was a very poor show that the ship used in the gun-running, SS Clyde Valley, having been bought and brought to Carrickfergus in 1969, wasn't preserved. This was due to lack of funds. Built in the 1880s, it was sent to the breaker's yard in 1974. It seems the Loyalists' interest in their heritage doesn't reach into their pocket.


They had other priorities in the early seventies.
 

collina

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
3,446
In a way, most people (who are not actually sheep) are ultras, in the sense that there is a line that must not be crossed by those currently in control of the state.
Parliment and it's government were and are in democratic control of the British State and thus draw or redraw the lines with the people's consent. To suggest that a few people resisting the will of the government, are anything other than revolutionaries merely because they want the line to remain, is enfantile.

It's amazing how poorly these concepts are understood by those in The Irish Republic. Schools?
We do have schools that espouse your type of arguement. They're normally ruin by Jesuits.
 

EnglishObserver

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
2,670
Parliment and it's government were and are in democratic control of the British State and thus draw or redraw the lines with the people's consent. To suggest that a few people resisting the will of the government, are anything other than revolutionaries merely because they want the line to remain, is enfantile.



We do have schools that espouse your type of arguement. They're normally ruin by Jesuits.
I'm not advocating any specific position. You presumably have no problem in general with minorities exercising a collective will against the will of the majority? For instance if the majority of Scots wanted independence, but the majority in The UK opposed it? Would independence be right or wrong?
 
Top