Burning the Embassy.

by mansergh Mon Feb 06, 2006 22:22

I like that line "Muslim governments I believe are allowing their citizens to attack symbols of the Denmark so that their violent hostility will be vented harmlessly rather than to cause a bigger explosion later."

Of course many people make the mistake of thinking something is crude, when in fact is anything but.

The Irish state of course was loathe to pay HMG the compensation it demanded for the destruction of the Merrion Sq legation. There wasn't even enough time to check the walls for the sort of listening devices they later were to get in the Falls road, and sure maybe even popped up in the Rialto home of the Trident ploughshares.
Instead, as the British white-washed Bloody Sunday with the Widgery report, the Irish state organised a deal with many of its vested interests to find a new and more suitable location for the legation of HMG to the republic of Ireland (Eire).

The arrangement of the two adjoining properties on Shrewsbury Road seemed to work well, and the title deeds were transferred from the Royal Dublin Society (founded 1731) to the British state by approval of votes of the member of that society, thus saving the Irish state a few bob.

The British for their part seemed quite happy with the arrangements continuing to hold their ambassador's residence in the Dublin Mountains, and not until they opened the British Tourism offices on Dame street were they to return to the centre of the city.

I wonder where the Lebanese and Syrians will put the new Danish embassy? I wonder these things, because I have occupied so many diplomatic legations over the years, and learnt quite a lot from it.

I hope that young people will do their best to talk to their elders about these years of Irish history. And remember from whence they came. As Tacitus a roman writer put it "veritas visu et mora falsa festinatione et incertis valescunt" = "Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay, falsehood avails itself of haste".

or put very very simply crudely even-

first impressions are generally false.

your history your heritage : think it & work it.

by Flynn O'Flynn Mon Feb 06, 2006 18:50

I believe it was legitimate and indeed inevitable that Irish people vented their anger at the Bloody Sunday tragedy by burning the British embassy.
Few people would disagree that it was sane response rather than that the entire 32 counties of the Irish nation as a whole became locked in a futile war with the British military. It was restrained and within proportion. In "Seven Ages" the RTE produced series from the mid 1990's Garret Fitzgerald believes that the frustration of the Irish people was allowed to be vented without the interference of the police forces on a symbol of the British establishment for percisely this reason.

Some deluded individuals would draw a crude paradigm with the burning of the Danish embassy after the "insult" of Muhammed, the alleged founder of Islam. That's my opinion. Do you agree?
Muslim governments I believe are allowing their citizens to attack symbols of the Denmark so that their violent hostility will be vented harmlessly rather than to cause a bigger explosion later.

by migrant diasporia Sun Feb 05, 2006 18:07

because of their wish to listen in freedom to the prophet Lennon, and yet more funkier lyricists like James Hendrix. And because of the cartoonists long term effects a few of them got locked up within five years for something they didn't do. But that was history. Oh and it was not that nice for women either, sure they couldn't find a condom unless they hijacked a train from Belfast and copies of edna O'brien had to be passed around on the "Q-T" for their shocking irreligious content. But as the president of Ireland remarked last week in UCC we have to accept that the republic of 1916 was promoted by men and women of catholic persuasion which "opened them up to a global world of reference" and meant they were really nice people just that somewhere between 1916 and 1972 something went wrong with "global catholicism" but its all been sorted out now with the revolutionary motion picture "Life of Brian" by a British sociologically minded collective (open only to Etonians) which they first screened in 1979 though Irish people couldn't see it legally in Erin till 1986.

That was the brits fault.

everyone had a great day out.

FUCK YOU.

kids learn that way.

Fuck the kids as well.

by typo Sun Feb 05, 2006 16:07

for the line :-
"At the end of the ruck, everyone avoided singing John Lennon's "Imagine", coz though the prophet (PBUH) had written it the year before, the song described in his own words as "an anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalistic song, but because it's sugar-coated, it's accepted." was still considered respectful by the Irish peoples who knew in their heart that he was on smack getting daily back rubs by Yoko Ono."

please read -

"At the end of the ruck, no-one sang John Lennon's "Imagine" vecause though Lennon the prophet had it written it the year before, the song described in his own words as "anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalistic [ ... ] sugar coated" was not yet considered by the Irish peoples of either then dominant of ethnic, or cultural, or religious background to be respectful, and many of them knew in their hearts he was on smack getting daily foot massages from Yoko Ono, and if their kids were into that sort of thing, there was always a boat to England which left in daily basis, and no you're not welcome home, off with ye"

Think of this as a Sunday Papers Historical supplement.
Now fish out your elders and ask them about it.