Conference tallis::celt

    
    Truly, George, there's no light at the end of THIS tunnel.
    
    Is there any hope the EC will take a hand in any of this?
    
    Frank
    

    The English won't let the EC have any involvement in this. It would
    only prove that they can't clean up the mess in their own back
    yard. I don't think another 1000 troops will make any great difference
    either. 
    
    Tony.

    The British insist that it is an "internal affair" and hence of no
    concern to the E.C or the U.N.
    
    The 1000 extra troops will do nothing unless they can get out there and
    search the bejasus out of NI and get as much of that Semtex sh!t off
    the streets that they can.
    
    The Brits could also pursue the Czechs who supplied the stuff in the
    first place.........
    

    RE: .3
    
>    The Brits could also pursue the Czechs who supplied the stuff in the
>    first place.........
    
    But, wouldn't that be interfering in the "internal affairs" of a
    sovereign nation?
    

    In view of the fact that the former East German border guards are being
    held responsible to the new united Germany for their actions, it seems
    only reasonable that the post-communist Czech Government would assist
    the British in finding the suppliers of the Semtex and try them for 
    arms trafficking.
    
    I suppose however it would be diificult to prove a crime was committed
    in the first place.
     

    The British should then also go after the Israeli and South African
    arms dealers that supply the "other" para-military groups in NI with
    their governments' blind-eye.
    
    George

   RE .3 << Note 991.3 by MACNAS::JDOOLEY "Go on outa dat,we don't believe ya" >>>
    >                     -< Find the Semtex, quickly! >-

    
>    The 1000 extra troops will do nothing unless they can get out there and
>   search the bejasus out of NI and get as much of that Semtex sh!t off
>  the streets that they can.
    
    How do they do this. They break their way into nationalist homes
    without a search warrant and tear the houses apart. This invasion of
    privacy is one of the reasons why the army is hated in NI. It's also
    the greatest recruiting factor for the IRA & INLA. What would you do if
    some foreign force kept wrecking your house ?
    
    
   > The Brits could also pursue the Czechs who supplied the stuff in the
   > first place.........
    
    Maybe they could also persue the people who supply guns to the UVF &
    UFF. Ooooh, silly me, they already know that, it's THEMSELVES !
    
    
    

    
      We (U.S.) sent more troops to Viet Nam many, many times and look how 
    successful that was.......
    
    
    paddy
      

    
     Indeed Paddy.  And the British understand the Irish about as well.
    

    You all make valid points about the UFF UVF etc. but the big killer in 
    the North at the moment is the Semtex explosive that can take out
    unarmed building workers 7 at a time.
    
    All in the name of Irish freedom.
    

    
    ...and take out the rubber bullet launchers that can take out an
    innocent 15 year old child.... 
    
    
    All in the name of Irish Protection.

    
>>    How do they do this. They break their way into nationalist homes
>>    without a search warrant and tear the houses apart. This invasion of
>>    privacy is one of the reasons why the army is hated in NI. It's also
>>    the greatest recruiting factor for the IRA & INLA. What would you do if
>>    some foreign force kept wrecking your house ?
    
    	sometimes when a faction is so long oppressed the only seemingly 
    	logical solution is violence.
	
    	and the brits aren't willing to talk to the *right* people...
    	you can't have meetings on peace when you exclude an important 
    	entity (sinn fein et al)
        
    

    Let me just re-state my view on the North and it's problems.
    People, any people who use explosives in the reckless, callous way
    that the PIRA use them deserve every countermeasure that the Brits
    can throw at them. I am sick to the teeth of people apologising for
    them and excusing their actions.
    
    This does not mean I condone or in any way approve of the actions
    of the Brits or the Ulster Unionists or "the other side",if those
    actions are outside the law.
    
    I would, for example, find any attempt to re-introduce internment
    without trial, any executions of republican people, or any panic
    measures that the Brits might be thinking of just as reckless as the
    actions of the IRA.
    
    This situation requires very careful and considerate thinking and
    planning but it would be a start if the IRA announced a detailed
    plan to disengage from what is to all intents and purposes a war.
    If they can't renounce violence, like the rest of the politicians
    want as a condition for talks then they can't expect to be invited
    to them.
    
    BTW on the night of the killing of the 7 building workers with the
    bomb, I got a good earful of abuse from a Northern Irish guy who was 
    down here ( Galway) on  a visit. He ,at that moment hated all Irish
    people and the IRA and wasn't afraid to say so in no uncertain
    language.
    
    	No one spoke out in support of the IRA then...........
    
    

What happened to the original title of this note - "While we sit idly by ..."?


I was eagerly anticipating elaboration on what the original author, and the 
participants in this conference, thought that the "we" meant, and what they
thought their "we" should be doing (instead of sitting idly by).

    One possibile solution set, suggested by the replies so far, might be ....

	"We"    = Everyone not resident in Northern Ireland

	"Doing" = Get off our butts, get over there and help search for the
		  SEMTEX.


However, the replies (including .0) didn't seem to pick up on the theme at all!

Was this why the title was changed?

[Maybe there should be a note titled "Solutions for Northern Ireland?"]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the figures.

Latest personnel estimates (from last night's BBC Newsnight programme) ...


	11,000 RUC
	11,000 British Army (Not including the 600 more going soon)
	 6,000 UDR (Part time local army reservists)
	------
	28,000 Total Security Personnel
	------

	   300 Active IRA gunmen
	    60 Active 'Loyalist' gunmen
	------
	   360 Total Active gunmen 
	------


So the ratio is 78:1 of Security personnel to (estimated) terrorists.


[This was illustrated by stating that, if the ratio of Security personnel
 to the populace was replicated in the UK mainland, there would have to be
 more than one million personnel involved in policing work.
 So taking the UK population as 60 Million, this would seem to indicate
 that there is one 'Security' person per 60 members of the populace in
 Northern Ireland just now.
 This seems to check out roughly - 28000*60 = 1.6 million]

However, this doesn't take in to account the normal (non-security) policing
activities of the RUC.



Further points from the programme:

a) One of the sections in the Anglo-Irish agreement states that the Army/UDR
are always to be under the jurisdiction of the RUC ("for security assistance
purposes only") and that every attempt should be made to ensure that a Police
representative is present at all incidents involving the general public.

b) The leaders of the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland
had a very frank discussion with the British Prime Minister yesterday,
anticipated more in the near future, and stated that more progress seemed
to be made with the smaller group of key people.
[Not sure what the exact definitions for "main" and "constitutional" are,
 but it doesn't include Sinn Fein.]

c) Albert Reynolds, asked to comment on the total re-structuring of his new
Dublin government, and the implication of its possibly softer face on its
constitutional claim to the territory or Northern Ireland, said that
"... all possibilities would be actively pursued.".
[This claim is one of the main sticking points in the "Talks", since it is
 argued (from the Unionist side) that its existence is one of the main
 encouragements to the IRA.
 This was stated as being the reason why the major of Belfast refused to
 meet the Irish's Republic's President on her recent visit to the town.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John	(Very saddened at the image which the land of his birth is
	 being forced to present to the world, caused by a few animals
	 in its midst.)

[My first ever entry in this conference!]

    
    re .13
    
     Then you miss the point entirely.  
    
     You say the PIRA "deserve every countermeasure that the Brits can
    throw at them".
    
     Well, "every countermeasure" is thrown at the ENTIRE NATIONALIST 
    COMMUNITY, not just the Provos, and until you understand what kind
    of reaction that treatment will provoke, I suggest you study the
    issue a while longer. 
    
    Frank
    

Re .14 John.

>c) Albert Reynolds, asked to comment on the total re-structuring of his new
>Dublin government, and the implication of its possibly softer face on its
>constitutional claim to the territory or Northern Ireland, said that
>"... all possibilities would be actively pursued.".
>[This claim is one of the main sticking points in the "Talks", since it is
> argued (from the Unionist side) that its existence is one of the main
> encouragements to the IRA.
> This was stated as being the reason why the major of Belfast refused to
> meet the Irish's Republic's President on her recent visit to the town.]

The constitutional claim is contained in Articles 2 & 3 of the south's
constitution. It is more than just a claim on territory. For nationalists
in the six counties it guarantees their status as belonging to the Irish 
nation. It allows northerners to hold Irish passports. We (the south) have
done very little to help northern nationalists down through the years but 
deleting Articles 2 & 3 would mean a betrayal. I know we have to be 
conciliatry towards unionists but not at the expense of denying nationalists
their identity. Unionists and British politicians and even southern Irish
politicians speak glibly of removing these articles without considering
the implications.


Albert Reynolds said that should talks ever proceed between parties in the 
north and south then Articles 2 & 3 will be on the table for discussion -
ALONGSIDE THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT. As long as he sticks by this policy
he will have my support.

    Re: .16
    
    Were it true that Articles 2 & 3 were ever necessary to guarantee
    the rights of the Northern Irish Nationalists to Irish Citizenship,
    Denis, then those articles would need have claimed the entire world.  
    My understanding is that all that is required to claim Irish Citizenship
    is an Irish ancestry, and indeed there is many an Irishman who has
    never laid foot in Ireland. 
    
    How this situation will continue following the abolition of national
    passports and the full introduction of EC passports, I do not know.
    However, as both the United Kingdom and Ireland are members of the
    EC, this problem will not arise for Northern Irish nationalists.
    Unless, of course, the Northern Irish finally decide to call down
    a curse on both our houses, and go their own way outside the EC.
    
    Joe

    
    Re: .17
    
    >Were it true that Articles 2 & 3 were ever necessary to guarantee
    >the rights of the Northern Irish Nationalists to Irish Citizenship,
    >Denis, then those articles would need have claimed the entire world.  
    >My understanding is that all that is required to claim Irish Citizenship
    >is an Irish ancestry, and indeed there is many an Irishman who has
    >never laid foot in Ireland. 
    
    Should Articles 2 & 3 be abolished, then to my knowledge, only people
    of southern Irish ancestry will be entitled to Irish Citizenship. The
    northern Irish will then be deemed purely British and not Irish. Even
    those who wish to be deemed Irish only, will be denied Irish passports
    despite having been born and dragged up in Ireland.

    I don't see why, Denis.  As a sovereign nation, you are quite entitled
    to define criteria and award citizenship to whomsoever you please.  The
    only bother you will have will be with the EC who might object to Irish
    citizenship being used as a back door by Americans and such seeking to
    emigrate to Europe.  You'll certainly have no trouble with the Brits.
    The Irish have always been entitled to enter, work and settle in the UK 
    even before the EC.
    
    Articles 2&3 make no mention of the people.  They speak solely of 'the
    national territory'.
    
    Joe

    Children of persons born in Ireland are automatically considered
    Irish citizens.  Grandchildren of persons born in Ireland can apply
    for Irish citizenship (with a fee).
    
    Last year, 750 Americans applied for Irish citizenship - hardly
    enough people to cause problems with the EC.

    John,
    
    Glad to meet you.  I changed the title of the base note to make it
    clearer what the note was about.
    
    "While we sit idly by" was meant to refer to the laisser-faire attitude
    of most people towards Northern Ireland.  Since writing the base note
    an additional 600 soldiers have been sent to NI.  There is now the
    highest concentration of soldiers in NI since the seventies.
    
    I hate to bring up analogies that sometimes aren't completely analogous,
    but the Berlin Wall has come down, Soviet Union is becoming democratic,
    Palestinians (Arabs in general) are talking to Jews, but the trend
    in NI is just the opposite.
    
    Instead, we have more soldiers in NI, more violence by all parties,
    60 million dollars of military barracks renovation, more closed border
    roads, more border checkpoints, talk of internment, more innocent
    deaths.

    Re .20

    Well Woody, we may be able to award citizenship to whomsoever we please
    but to six county nationalists their identity is not in the gift of 
    the south.  They are entitled to Irish citizenship as much as I am
    because they are of and from Ireland.  

    So where's the problem, Denis?  If the citizenship rights of the six county
    nationalists is not in the gift of the South, why do they need Articles
    2 & 3 of the constitution of the South to award them those rights?
    
    Methinks you are maybe going round in circles chasing your own tail.
    
    I'll tell you what Articles 2 & 3 are essential for, though.  It is not
    to protect the citizenship rights of willing Northern nationalists, but to 
    enforce them upon unwilling Northern Unionists.
    
    Joe

    
   The problem is, that removing said articles will deny them the right to
   Irish passports. That is my understanding based on objections to the
   removal of articles 2 & 3 by northern nationalists. As you point out
   the wording in the articles refer to territory, not people, however in
   reality, articles 2 & 3 recognise that all people on the island are Irish
   and entitled to Irish citizenship.

   And by the way, removing the articles as a means of appeasing unionists
   is laughable. Once the articles are removed they will find some other
   bogeyman to attach themselves. 

    Re:  .21 - DARCY
    
    I wouldn't bank on that if I were you.  I would imagine that, within the
    construct of a Federal Europe, the citizenship rights of all the
    members will need to be brought into line.  I would rather doubt that
    an exception will be made to accommodate a single member.
    
    I, for example, was born in Canada and my birth was registered in
    Canada and not with the British High Commission.  Were I to have
    remained in Canada and applied to enter the UK today, I believe that
    I might have some difficulty in spite of the fact that both my parents
    held British passports and citizenship.
    
    Joe

    Note .22 has a very important few words in it which a lot of the noters
    in this conference seem to forget.
    
         "...MORE INNOCENT DEATHS."
    
    I resisted for a very long time  getting involved in this discussion,
    mainly because of some very strong feelings on the matter. Howerer,
    here we go.
    
    We can discuss the moral rights or otherwise  of the IRA, the UFF, the
    British Army, the UDR, the RUC and other groupings forever. This still
    does not justify innocent deaths. I dont care what the (pick a name
    from the list) did to (Unionist/nationalist - depending on the name you
    picked) it does not justify some of the mass murders we have seen
    recently - on both sides. NOTHING can justify them.
    
    It seems like a very simple issue with Sinn Feins exclusion from the
    talks. I for one do not want to see Sinn Fein included until they
    denounce violence - I do not want to hear Gerry Adams tell the world he
    is justified - see pervious paragraph.
    
    I was brought up on the Monaghan/Fermanagh border - 100 yds on the
    Monaghan side. I have been shot at and arrested by the British army for
    no reason - this is a product of the environment created BY ALL SIDES
    including our own lily white government in the south - I do not
    particularly blame the British army.
    
    From a leaving cert class of 30 (U.S. - read High school - I
    think) 4 are dead through violence, 1 when planting a bomb, the other 3
    were involved in shoot outs. Their lives were uselessly wasted
    
    
    Close to my home, on a road the runs between the towns of Roslea and
    Lisnaskea (both in Fermanagh) the IRA decided to plant a bomb in a
    ditch. This was a radio controlled device aimed at an army patrol 
    which used the road regularly. The IRA held a family hostage in their
    home about 300 yds from the bomb and a clear view. The bomb was planted
    in a section of recently dug earth where a lane joined the road.
    
    In the meantime a mother and her 2 year old child came down the road
    and stood on top of the bomb - 10 minutes later the army patrol came
    along and those bastards in the name of Irish republicanism exploded
    the bomb killing the mother and child.
    
    In case you are wondering where the detail came from - NOT from TV or
    newspapers - it came from the family being held hostage.  The IRA SEEN
    the mother and child be decided that the target "justified the
    sacrifice" 
    
    This is the war that is going on in N.I.  justify that - and do not
    make the excuse that this was an isolated incident - I know that it is
    not.

    I would suggest, Denis, that the concern of the Northern Nationalists
    is not that the removal of Articles 2 & 3 would deprive them of their
    citizenship but that it would make it possible for the government of
    the Republic to deprive them of their right to citizenship.  Could it
    be that the Northern Nationalists distrust the government of the
    Republic as much as the Northern Unionists distrust the Government of
    the UK?  An interesting thought and, to be honest, one that had not
    occurred to me previously.  However, reviewing the history, it seems
    eminently reasonable.  However, you can hardly expect the Unionists to
    be enormously concerned about possible duplicity in respect of the
    Republic's support for the Nationalist cause for a united Ireland.
    
    I rather wish you would not use emotive words such as 'appease' in
    respect of the Unionists, Denis.  One does not appease one's friends
    but one's enemies.  You give me to understand that you want them as
    loyal friends and fellow citizens, not as enemies.  You need therefore 
    do what is necessary to them win to your cause and hold their friendship.  
    That is not appeasement.  Unless, of course, your wish is not to win them 
    to your side but to drive them out of Ireland, in which case we have 
    little to discuss.
    
    I mean, it isn't as though it's a lot that being asked of you.  We
    don't expect you to win Ian Paisley to the Nationalist cause.  The
    breakdown at the moment is about 60:40.  All you have to do is change
    that to 49:51 and a United Ireland is yours.  You have HMG's word on
    it, and HMG, believe it or not, keeps its word and, even if we didn't,
    the UN would make us because they are the guardians of the Anglo-Irish
    Agreement.
    
    Joe

    I rather doubt that a United Ireland would work even if their was a
    51:49 vote in favour of it.
    
    We now have, at present time as you pointed out, a 60:40 vote in 
    favour of the Union and there is uproar and violence and trouble and 
    death.
    
    All a slim nationalist majority vote would do would be to turn the
    tables (ie the Unionists would be the underdogs and the Nationalists
    would be the new Authority.)
    
    Without the consent of the minority no government or political system
    can work peacefully in the long term.
    
    Some sort of Dual Nationality or federal system is needed but I won't
    hold my breath waiting for it.
    

    
    re .27
    
     A 49:51 ratio is hardly possible is it?  Even if de facto truth, such
    an eventuality would most certainly be "covered-up" by HMG, much as it
    covers-up ALL facts that don't jive with its desires vis-a-vis northern
    Ireland.
    
     All this, of course, you know.
    

    I fear you are in all probability right, Dooley.  However, the boot
    would be firmly on the other foot.
    
    Which leaves the the Republic with two alternatives.  Either they can
    follow the tradition of seventy years and stand idly by, wringing their
    hands and mouthing Nationalist platitudes while doing nothing, or they 
    can follow the excellent advice from the leader of the Irish Labour Party 
    (God forbid I should ever support a Labour Party) and start addressing 
    themselves to those aspects of the Republic which the Unionists find most 
    objectionable.
    
    Unfortunately, I am not qualified to define to you exactly what they
    are.  I do know what they were originally, but much blood has flowed
    under the bridge since then.   Nevertheless, I would suggest that it 
    may be well worth finding out.  I am rather doubtful that they will
    prove considerable.  Certainly, my impression has been that they exist
    rather more in ingrained attitudes than in matters of substance.  I 
    would further suggest that Frankie's .29 would not be a good place to 
    start.  
    
    Finally, I would say that I believe that the only way a peaceful united
    Ireland can be achieved is by first reconciling the two communities
    in the North before you try to merge the Northern Community into the
    Republic.  Britain cannot do that on her own, as neither can the
    Republic.  We can only do it together.
    
    Joe
    

    Thank you for that, ::KERR.  May I say that you are far more
    understanding of the British Army than I would have been in the
    circumstances.  I cherish a distinct distaste of being shot at.  Please
    accept both my thanks and my apologies.
    
    Joe

    
    Re .27

    >the Republic to deprive them of their right to citizenship.  Could it
    >be that the Northern Nationalists distrust the government of the
    >Republic as much as the Northern Unionists distrust the Government of
    >the UK?    

     The answer to that is absolutely yes. Since partition nationalists
     have looked to Dublin for support but Dublin has done little or 
     nothing for them.

     Yes of course I would like the unionists as friends. However, the
     unionists do not want me as a friend. How can I hold out the hand
     of friendship if the person I hold it out to is going to bite it.
     However that does not mean that I don't support making changes in
     my society. I do. I think our social policies should reflect the
     fact that there are a million plus protestants in Ireland and we
     should discontinue legislating on a purely partitionist or twenty-
     six county basis.

     As far as a nationalist majority in the north is concerned, I've
     stated before what I believe will happen. All the "democratic" 
     unionists will demand repartition on the grounds that they form
     the majority in the very north east of the province. The British
     government will support them as they've always done and we'll
     have a new northern Ireland, where the wishes of the "majority"
     will be upheld.
    

    re: .31 and .32
    
    
    Now there's a sight for sore eyes: an Irishman reduced to apolgising
    for the foreign, colonial British Army presence in his OWN country, 
    all the while being congratulated and sweet-talked by an Irish-hating 
    racist Brit who served in that same colonial army of occupation, 
    enforcing "law & order" on Irish nationalists through the barrel of a gun.
    
    Got to hand it to you Joe, you Brits know how to tame 'em! 
                            

    What you say about the Unionist campaigning for repartition is very
    probably correct, Denis, unless you do something about it.  However,
    what you say about the British Government allowing it is incorrect as
    we are bound not to do so.  The Anglo-Irish agreement is very specific
    on the point.  I quote Article 1(c)
    
    (The two Governments)
    
    "Declare that, if in the future a majority of the people of Northern
    Ireland clearly wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a
    united Ireland, they will introduce and support in the respective
    Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish"
    
    That means we can't repartition even if we wanted to.  Which, I assure
    you we won't.  The majority of the electorate in the UK would quite happily 
    hand the problem on to the Republic today, and to hell with the Unionists.
    Any electoral advantage associated with the Union has been long since
    dissipated.  It's only a few old dinosaurs like myself who do not wish
    to see Ireland rent by another civil war and remember we have a
    responsibility with regard to Northern Ireland which we neglected for
    far too long and it's some of our own chickens coming home to roost,
    along with those of the Republic.
    
    Joe

    Re: .24 - Drotter
    
    I understand how much it pains you, Joe, when Irishmen object to
    sacrificing their women and children to appease your hatred of the
    British.  However, that is your problem, not mine.  If you wish to
    indulge in one of our ritual slanging matches, I suggest you take it to
    Soapbox where I shall be more than pleased to accommodate you.
    
    It will have to wait till Monday unfortunately, for first I must needs
    return home to polish up my jackboots.
    
    8^)
    
    Joe

    Re: .34
    
    This is exactly why I did not want to get involved in this.
    
    You missed the entire point. I am not apologising to anybody for
    anything. I even put the point in capitals. I will do it again
    
             "....MORE INNOCENT DEATHS."
              -------------------------
    
    This time I have enen underlined it. This is what the statistics mean
    on the ground. There is no justification.
    
    Please ::Drotter go back and re read .31 OPEN your eyes. What's going
    on in N.I. is a self perpetuating madness being fed by massive egos on
    all sides. As usual the only casualties are the innocent.
    
    Before you excuse an act of violence thing of the 2 year old girl whose
    life was ended because some thick bastard decided that the sacrifice
    was worth it.
    
    Finally, note .31 is a condemnation of violence. It is not directed at
    any one group, I just happen to know the details in the examples I 
    gave. As is usual in this kind of situation actrocities are carried
    out by all sides and ususlly on the innocent.
    
    BTW, I have a cousin in prison in the north. He was involved in the
    original London Underground (Tube) bombings in the 70's and the
    subsequent letter bombing campagin. 20 years on, he now admits that he
    was wrong.
    
    The bottom line is - There is no longer a right side and a wrong side.
    It just has to be stopped.
    
    Gerry   

  re: .37
    
    Thanks for your note. Having just returned from Derry, where I went to
commemorate the 20th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, (having been in Derry 
shortly after the original), I know what it's like up there. This time I
survived many personal searches by the Army/RUC, a house raid by the 
British Army & RUC, (10 soldiers, 2 RUC) an IRA bombing in the centre of 
Derry, and a fair amount of hassle from the RUC. BTW, the Brit Army goons 
that searched the home I was staying in, also  stole packs of cigarettes 
from my luggage that I had brought over as gifts for friends.
It happened while we were all held at gunpoint in another room of the home. 
Dirty little thieving Brit Army goons. 
    
    But then again, if you can steal part of an island from the indigenous
    people, what's a few packs of nicked cigarettes, eh?  
        
    A very interesting experience.       
    
You have to understand the inherent British government's dishonesty regarding
the north of Ireland, the hidden agenda of the Brit government.
    
They have absolutely NO INTENTION of allowing peace to happen in Ireland.
    
Their blatant dishonesty has led the British government to perform countless
acts of premeditated murder and institutionalized terrorism on a wide scale.

Fr. Des Wilson in his booklet entitled, "Against Violence In Ireland"
explains his view of why seemingly any peace effort is deliberately designed
by the British to fail:

      "In other words, a solution in the north of Ireland could create
  a constitutional crisis in Britain which would be very damaging for th British
  government. What they will do, however, is create so-called "initiatives"
  in N. Ireland which they know will not succeed and which, indeed, must not
  be allowed to succeed. So the British government goes through the motions
  every three years or so and produces a plan for N. Ireland.

    The plan is always a variation of the one plan which people in Ireland do
  not want.

    In Ireland, many people have suggested solutions to the problem: a United
  Ireland, Independent Ulster, a Federated Ireland with two states, Federated
  Ireland with four states, integration with England, Scotland and Wales, a
  return of the old Stormont form of government. Not one of those proposals is
  ever placed on the table for discussion. The one proposal placed on the table
  for discussion is the solution proposed by nobody but except the Westminster
  government itself; namely continued control of the north of Ireland by the
  London government with some form of shared power which will ensure that Irish
  nationalists will never have a chance to form a government, or be an effective
  part of government even in their own country.

   The one solution which the British government will allow us to discuss is
  the solution proposed only by itself. Any colour you like, so long as its
  black. But, the British government knows that neither Irish democrats, nor
  pro-British elements in Ireland will accept this "solution". Every initiative
  then, must fail, and is meant to fail."

   Of course, the homicidal hacks that run the Brit government, (just like Fr.
Wilson said above), keep trying to blow smoke in everyone's eyes with
so-called "peace initiatives". As you recall, the latest came a several months
back from the British Colonial governor of "Northern Ireland", Peter Brooke.

   The objective for the British government in all of these talks is to secure
a political arrangement whereby political stability will be achieved, while
maintaining the undemocratic and continued partition of Ireland. Plain and
simple.

   Make no mistake about it, the partition of Ireland remains the British
government's sole policy for Ireland. The current strategy is as it always has
been: maintain the status quo of partition. Despite all indications to the
contrary, the dishonest and dumb Brit government keeps trying to shovel sh*t
against the tide: wed the denial of democracy (Ireland resolving it's own
problems) to "political stability" (peace in Ireland).

   How many times does it have to be said: Ireland has a British problem to
which there can only be an Irish solution, decided by the people of Ireland
themselves. This artificial creation, known as "Northern Ireland", propped-up
and maintained by massive Brit military presence has only protracted the
conflict, and exacerbated the political instability.

   The real scope and agenda of any current peace initiative or talks in
London with Major and the *5* (not 4) political parties in NI should be:
   1.)Self-determination
   2.)Irish independence
   3.)National democracy (for the entire island of Ireland)

  Instead, all current "peace initiatives" from the British colonial governor
Brooke is the same-old-sh*t: refinement of partition. And what is the direct
result of this policy: conflict, bloodshed, and political instability because
of British interference in IRISH affairs. Because of this dishonest policy,
peace is as far away as ever.

   Democracy is the key to peace and stability in Ireland. Unfortunately,
democracy is not part of Britain's plan for Ireland. When you get right down
to it, peace has never been on the British government's agenda for Ireland.
"Piece", but never Peace.
                                                   

    re: .36
    
    Really, Wooden One, there is no need for a slanging match with you,
    either here or in Soapbox. 
    
    There really is little sense in fighting a coward.
    
    By the by, did you ever formulate an answer for the note Mr Fraser
    put in SOAP so long ago? You remember the one don't you Joe?! in which he 
    stated that the quoted articles by Fr. Des Wilson are "very close to the 
    facts." The note in which he, as a professional soldier, gave a career
    in the "Brutish Army" beacuse of the political attitude in the BA
    against NI. You may recall that he said (for the record, I might add),
    that he had no time for the IRA and there actions; that he wished only
    peace for his Irish friends and their families. The part I thought
    that was the bravest of all by this man, was when he wrote:
    
    (paraphrasing)  that peace will never happen as long as England has a 
    puppet-master's glove in Northern Ireland.
    
    All this time, and you've never addressed the subject of this note.
    Oh well, he who fights and runs away...

    
     In case some folks aren't aware, Mr Woodrow is notorious in other
    conferences for his vitriolic, anti-Irish sentiments, and has dropped
    in here no doubt in an attempt disrupt any constructive conversation
    on the topic.
    

    I think that the first step to any peace process in Northern
    Ireland is for Britain to announce a phased withdrawal of
    *ALL* military forces from Ireland.  Just as America holds
    the cards to any lasting peace in the Middle East, Britain
    holds the cards for initiating a peace process in NI.
    
    Britain's fears of a bloodbath in NI after withdrawal
    can be remedied by the presence of UN soldiers if necessary.
    The continued presence of British military in NI just
    continues the wave of violence.  Adding more British soldiers
    to Ireland only fuels the fire.
    
    Troops out by 2000. 

    
     Only fools would argue otherwise, George.  Thanks.
    

    
    Re: .38
    
    In answer to the question posed in the title of the note, the answer
    is yes.
    
    As you were in Northern Ireland recently, can I ask you a few 
    questions:
    
    When you prayed for the dead of Bloody Sunday, did you pray also
    for the dead of Teebane? Enniskillen? Darkley? La Mon? Harrods?
    Oxford Street? The two Australian tourists shot in Belgium, the
    6 month old baby shot in Germany? 
    
    Did you pass by Teebane crossroads and lay a wreath? Did you maybe
    talk to any local Protestant people? To any of the children in the
    bus that was first on the scene and who saw the heads, trunks and limbs
    lying on the road? 
    
    You should have gone to see Gordon Wilson in Ennsikillen. He would have 
    made you a cup of tea, while he told you how his daughter died in an IRA
    bomb. 
    
    Did you meet any of the IRA's human bombs? Or their families?
    Did you visit the family in Fermanagh where every son has been 
    shot by the IRA for joining the UDR? When you came south did
    you drop by Thomas Oliver's farm, and explain to his family that
    Tommy had to die because the IRA said he was an "informer".
    
    Have you ever met a loyalist man or woman and explained your 
    views to them? Have you tried to convince them that a United Ireland
    is right for them? What have you to offer them, all 1 million,
    in a United Ireland? Have you asked them to surrender their 
    Britishness? Have you been able to tell them of even one
    election when the majority of the nationalist Irish people,
    North or South, supported your opinions?
    
    What have you done to reconcile Irishmen with one another,
    "Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter" as Tone put it?
    
    I would be very interested in your answers, and not the macho 
    bragging "I know what it's like up there ......" Do you really?
    
    Toby

    Toby,
    
    You haven't been in here for a while, welcome back your entries are
    like a breath of fresh air.
    
    		Brian.

    
    re .43
    
     And that's a two-way street, Toby.  Can you recite the litany of
    death and injury on BOTH sides of this war?  It isn't happening in
    a vacuum and its causes fuel the rage that makes for daily atrocity.
    
     For many, as long as the response to the redress of nationalist 
    grievances remains stalling, stonewalling, treachery and brute force, 
    the only visible course of action remains violence.
    
     Anyway...
    
                                     PEACE
    
    Frank
      
     

Re: .45 - Frankie

I don't know if Toby can, Frankie.  However, for the years for which I have
the audited figures:
                           Deaths by Violence

By:           Nationalist Paras     Loyalist Paras        Sec Forces  Total

Victims:   Sec Forces	Civilians	Civilians	  Civilians*   

1981		44	   25		  12		     20		101
1982		40	   31		  13		     13		 97
1983		33	   21		   7		     16		 77
1984		28	   12		   7		     17		 64
1985		29	   13		   5		      7		 54
1986		24	   17		  14		      6		 61
1987		27	   32		  11		     23		 93

Total:	       225	  151		  69		    102		547

*Civilians killed by the Security Forces include IRA Volunteers killed on 
active service.  (In response to a remark when I first entered these
numbers, official statistics do not differentiate between 'innocent' 
civilians and Active Service Unit Volunteers as the dead cannot be
convicted)

These figures, of course, exclude the 6746 people wounded and maimed over
the same period, the vast majority by IRA bombs and in ambushes on the
security forces, with a few hundred knee-cappings thrown in to encourage
the catholic population. 

Only casualties occurring within the Province are included.  Civilian and 
army deaths and injuries in mainland Britain or on the continent of Europe
are not included.

Security forces, in this context, include full-time and part-time members
of the British Army, UDR and RUC.

Joe

    Joe, could you quote your source for your figures?
    
    Thanks,
    George

>These figures, of course, exclude the 6746 people wounded and maimed over
>the same period, the vast majority by IRA bombs and in ambushes on the
>security forces, with a few hundred knee-cappings thrown in to encourage
>the catholic population. 
    
    Does that 6746 include those beaten while in jail?
    
    The are innocent people killed and maimed by ALL sides of the
    conflict in Ireland.
    
    The only way to peace is through negotiation with all parties
    and a gradual withdrawal of all British military forces from
    Northern Ireland.
    
    /George
    

    Re: .47/48 - George D'Arcy
    
    The figures, George, are extracted from a number of sources
    
    o	The IRA by Tim Pat Coogan
    o	Northern Ireland since 1945 by Sabine Wichart
    o	Ulster - Conflict & Consent by Tom Wilson.
    
    The original sources were The Chief Constable's Reports and the Flackes
    & Elliot directory.
    
    Injuries received in custody, whether inflicted by the Para-militaries
    or by the Security Forces or, for that matter, self-inflicted are not,
    to the best of my knowledge, included.  If you have any substantiated
    figures in this respect, I would be glad to be made aware of them.
    
    I agree with you that the ultimate resolution to this problem can only
    be achieved through negotiation.  A precursor to such negotiations must
    be an agreement to a permanent cessation of violence, and a commitment
    by all parties to achieving a settlement through negotiation.  Once a
    settlement is achieved, then it must be guaranteed by both the UK and
    the Irish Government.  If this means a change to the Irish
    Constitution, then so be it.
    
    If Ireland is ever to be united, then the government of the Republic
    needs to demonstrate, if I may misquote, that it is more than just a
    Nationalist government of a Nationalist people.   This it has yet to
    do.
    
    Joe

    re: .43
    
    Very Interesting. 
    
    Not ONE example of an atrocity committed by the British Army against 
    the Irish nationalist population. Not one reference to Bloody Sunday
    (whose commander now admits the marchers were innocent), or Fergal Caraher,
    or the 12 year old girl, Carol Ann Kelly, shot in the back of the head 
    by the ever-so-illustrious (and elite!) Brit Army scumbags as a drive-by 
    shooting. There are too numerous examples of so-called Brit 
    "Peace-keepers",  and "Security" forces involved in the shooting deaths
    of unarmed civilians that have never even been investigated for any 
    wrongful death, let alone brought to trial.

    It's also interesting how you get compliments from Reading, (note .44)
    How drole to see a Brit lionizing an Irishman who's down on his knees,
    apologizing for being Irish.
    
    Then again, I suppose after 820 years of colonial occupation, there's
    bound to be a few Irishmen who actually believe that Brit colonial crap
    that indeed, Irishmen are an inferior race, unfit to make their own
    decisions about their own country's destiny, and should apologize for 
    living.
    
    Toby, get off your knees, stop apologizing for being Irish, and while
    you're at it, you may want to start questioning why Brits who have served
    with the colonial forces of occupation of YOUR country are patting you 
    on the back, telling you you're doing a good job, when you're down on 
    your knees, groveling for forgivness for being Irish.
    
    Toby, it is very painful dealing with an apologist like you. Perhaps
    you should study the following quote, and try to build up some
    self-confidence.
    
       "In the past, cultural genocide was practiced on the Irish by the
        British. Now however, this has slowly and subtly changed to cultural
        suicide. Self-confident nations do not abandon their history,
        culture and traditions.
    
        Unfortunately, the quality colonized peoples lack is self-confidence:
        they cannot deal with the present or project a future because they
        will not face the past."
    
                                      - Robert Ballagh   


   When you're done breast-beating about all the Loyalist/Unionist deaths,
maybe you might like to read one or more of the following articles/books
to help you get a more impartial view of who's doing what to whom in the
    north of YOUR country. In the north of IRELAND. After you read these
    publications, I'll answer your questions about my experiences in the
    north of Ireland with the Loyalist population. BTW, on my way to
    Derry, I did in fact stop at Teebane Crossing. I'd be damn curious when
    the last time you were (if ever) in the Bogside and Creggan.  
    
 List of papers concerning the UK published recently by Amnesty International.
                                                                
1.) ILL-TREATMENT

  A) UK - Northern Ireland: Recent Cases of Alleged Ill-Treatment
     (AI Index: EUR45/13/88)

  B) Allegations of ill-treatment in Northern Ireland (in "Concerns in Western
     Europe", June 1988 - Feb 1989, AI Index: EUR 03/01/89

2.) FAIR TRIAL

  A) UK - Northern Ireland: Killings by Security Forces and "Supergrass" Trials
     (AI Index: EUR 45/08/88)

  B) UK - Alleged Forced Admissions During Incomunicado Detention
     (AI Index: EUR 45/01/88)

  C) UK - Alleged Forced Admissions During Incomunicado Detention: Update
     (AI Index: EUR 45/01/89)
     
  D) People Convicted for Bombings in Guilford and Woolwich in 1975 (in
     "Concerns in Western Europe", June 1988 - Feb 1989, AI Index: EUR 03/01/89

  E) UK - Appeal Hearing of Six Men Convicted of Bombings in Birmingham
     (AI Index: EUR 45/14/88)

  F) UK - Update on the Case of the Six Men Convicted of Bombings in Birmingham
     (AI Index: EUR 45/14/90)

3.) ARRESTS and DETENTIONS ON NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS

  A) UK - Amnesty International Challanges National Security Detention
     Procedures, Investigates Possible Prisoners of Conscience
     (AI Index: EUR: 45/02/91)

4.) KILLINGS

  A) UK - Northern Ireland: Killings by Security Forces in Northern Ireland:
     Update
     (AI Index: EUR 45/02/90)

  B) UK - Investigating Leathal Shootings: The Gibraltar Inquest
     (AI Index: EUR: 45/02/89

Re: .50 - Joe Drotter

Very interesting indeed, Joe.  And what grounds do you have for supposing
Brian to be a Brit who has served with the British forces in Northern 
Ireland, other than he works in Reading?  There are, after all, more than
two million Irish people living and working in the UK, and a fair number
in Reading.

I see no evidence of Toby apologising for being Irish.  Nor has he any need
to apologise to you who are not Irish.   

I believe that we are all reasonably aware of your hatred of the British,
Joe.  You are free to hate whomsoever it pleases you.  However, I fail to 
see how Bloody Sunday, Fergal Caraher or whatever crime, real or alleged,
of the British Army can be used to justify the killing of one Irishman by 
another other than by those. like yourself, to whom the Irish people are mere
cannon fodder of their own private war. 

Joe

    re: .51 - Joe Woodrow
    
    And you wonder why I call you Woodhead.
    
    I didn't say Brian served with the British colonial occupation forces
    in NI. Re-read the note, Woody. I said he got compliments from Reading,
    (implying the compliment was probably from a Brit.) I have found from
    my travels most Brits are so vehemently anti-Irish as to be outright
    racist about it. Innit odd a Brit would be lionizing an Irishman who 
    obviously is embarrassed about being Irish?
    
    As for my statement:
    
    <...you may want to start questioning why Brits who have served with 
    <the colonial forces of occupation of YOUR country are patting
    <you on the back, telling you you're doing a good job, when you're down
    <on your knees, groveling for forgivness for being Irish.
    
     do I have to spell it out for you, Woody? THAT'S YOU, J-O-E. And your note
    .51 proves that completely.
    
    As for your blatant accusation that I harbour hatred of the British, I
    won't dignify that with an answer. 
    
    Joe, your presence in the CELTfile, (as one who has served with a homicidal 
    British colonial army of occupation that seeks to hold onto land that 
    does not belong to your country, that seeks to prolong the division within 
    IRELAND), goes beyond a joke in poor taste. Your presence here is obscene.
                   
    <However, I fail to see how Bloody Sunday, Fergal Caraher or whatever 
    <crime, real or alleged, of the British Army can be used to justify 
    <the killing of one Irishman by another...                            
    
    That's the problem with you neocolonialist Brits, you just can't get it
    through your thick skulls that Britiain's colonial army presence in 
    IRELAND is the root cause of this continued violence and bloodshed 
    between Irish people. 
    
    Ah yes, I can here the crap now: "we're the ever-so-brave Brits, proudly 
    standing between two warring factions of Irish." 
    
    Nice "PR" image, but it's a crock. 
    
    
    With Germany being reunified, with the fall of the Russian empire, with
    1992 supposed to be the year all barriers in Western Europe go away,
    what do we have the Brit governmentt doing in the north of Ireland:
    
    building more watchtowers, underground bunkers, and fortifications 
    on the border with the Republic. Talk about thick.

    WREATH::DROTTER
    
    As you accurately state I am indeed British born.  But in no way am I
    anti-Irish as you guessed in your previous note.  I have an Irish
    mother and support many things Irish in everyday life here in England.
    
    What I don't support is the use of illegal violence in Ireland by
    anyone - and also I find it hard to understand anybody who tries to
    justify either sides use of it.  There is no justification for the
    murder of 8 innocent building workers, there is no justification for
    the murder of 5 innocent men in a betting shop and there is no
    justification for the murder of teenage joyriders.
    
    Finally I was not lionising Toby, and I'm sure he was not apologising
    for being Irish, he certainly was not down on his knees.  Read his
    latest entry and channel some energies in that direction - it is the
    only way forward.  Believe me - axes, guns, bombs etc etc will not
    solve the problem.
    
    		Brian.

    I'm not going to voice my opinion on the Northern Ireland situation at
    present, and for the following reason....

    "An American, on vacations with his family in Northern Ireland, was
     on his way to visit friends when a bomb exploded nearby which resulted
     in his death. The scene was witness by his wife and three children.
     Other witnesses at the scene reported that, prior to his death, the
     American was heard to utter these final words - 'I hope to Jaysus that
     that was planted by IRA terrorists and not some f%%king pro-Brit!'. The
     IRA have since denied any involvement in the incident. The identity of
     the victim is to be revealed shortly...."

    Come on Mr.Drotter - get your act together!  I realise that the above is
    a sad joke, and possibly in very bad taste, I apologise for this. However,
    having just tuned back into this conference (following a long absence), I
    am appalled by certain opinions which you have voiced over other members
    of the human race. Get a grip!

    Now before it is claimed that I am German (via nodename), let me assure
    you that I am a born and bred Irishman. I am not apologetic for this
    fact, I do want any credit for it, but I myself am proud of it. Regardless
    of a person's nationality, I think it fair to say that most decent human
    beings detest violence, particularly that which results in human death (as
    already voiced by Gerry Derr and Joe Woodrow, for example).

    I don't know where you get your opinions, nor do I care. However, I really
    wish that you would either keep them to yourself, or at least, amongst
    your closed-circle of 'friends'. To insinuate that an Irish born person who
    is not anti-British is therefore not fit to call themselves Irish, is
    complete and utter BULLSHIT (if you'll excuse the language), not to mention
    a very narrow-minded generalisation and one which does little to improve
    human relationships.

    Enough!

    Ciao,
    Se�n.

    Come on Mr. Drotter and stop being such a biggot. Being 100% Irish
    myself, I have some very strong opinions on this matter. However, I
    will listen to all sides with the hope that I may learn somenthing new,
    or that someone may eventually come up with a solution to this mess.
    Violence of all kinds, verbal (which you use frequently) or physical is
    wrong, and cannot be condoned no matter what the cause. I would be
    willing to bet that a large majority of the Irish people would give
    anything just to be able to co-exist with Britain peacfully and forget
    about borders etc.. This will never happen while there are people like
    you around.
    
    Gerry (not apologising for being Irish)

    re: .57
    
    <I would be willing to bet that a large majority of the Irish people
    <would give anything just to be able to co-exist with Britain peacfully
    <and forget about borders etc.. 
    
     I agree that most Irish people want peace and to forget about 
    borders and all the past atrocities Britain has committed on the Irish. 
    
    But must the Republic of Ireland do it at the expense of their 
    fellow countrymen, Irish nationalists in NI? It seems to me that
    a lot of the southern Irish are quite prepared to abandon the
    Irish nationalists in the north for the sake of "peace." As Robert
    Ballagh said in that quote in .50, self-confident nations do not 
    abandon their history, culture, and traditions. 
    
    <This will never happen while there are people like you around.
    
    No Gerry, peace won't happen in your country, in Ireland, while
    there is a British colonial army of occupation around. And as long as
    a lot of southerners are prepared to commit cultural suicide.   

  I've just finished reading all the replies to note 991.
  I think I'm going to puke!

      The Irishman who apologizes for the British after
      being shot at by the British Army.
      The British noters who continue to support 
      the human rights violating establishment.
      The Irishman with his stupid American jokes.
      or the man who spews only anti-IRA propaganda.

  I feel sad for the nationalist in the north, whose
  freedom would be sold by some in the south.  How does 
  the saying go, "If you put one Irishman on a spit, 
  you'll always get two more to turn it". 


                       Mark Holohan

 
 

    Joe,
    
    When I am talking about Irish people, I am also including the
    Nationalists in the North. If the IRA only stopped for a minute to
    think of the misery they are causing for Irish people, North and South,
    and all around the world too, they might see that their actions are
    doing absolutely nothing for those Nationalists in the North who they
    claim to represent.
    
    Gerry                          

    
    Gerry,
    
        So what's your answer to cure the "Troubles".  If not violence,
    what will bring equal opportunity and treatment to the Nationalists in
    the North?
     
        Remembering of course the mostly peaceful, political route was tried 
    from 1923 to 1969 with very little sucess.
    
    paddy

Let me put another angle on this discussion. The Home Rule debate
in Scotland is really hotting up, and is rarely out of the news in
England now. A recent poll showed that 50% of Scots wanted independence,
and while that might have been a one-off, there is a very real prospect
of some transfer of power to Edinburgh.

Support for devolution in Wales has doubled since the 1979 referendum
there on home rule and now stands at 47%. This is a majority, if you
eliminate the "don't knows/no opinions". 

The entire UK, not just Northern Ireland is needing a radical overhaul.
If Scotland were to get independence, however, it would have its
own army and as such would probably not be involved with Northern Ireland.
The debate in Scotland has undoubtedly inspired the Welsh, and in time
they may leave the Union or have devolution.

This would essentially leave the United Kingdom as the "Untied Kingdom"
and what's left of it would be part of the island of Britain plus
part of the island of Ireland, with Northern Ireland having a 
predominantly English rather than British army, there.

Many of those in Northern Ireland are actually of Scottish, rather
than English descent. What is the attractions to them of remaining
attached to England ?

The situation in Northern Ireland may start taking a whole new set
of changes due to political reform on the mainland.

Craig

    Paddy,
    
    I have no answer. However I do know that killing innocent people, on
    either side, is NOT the answer. 23 years of violence and we are no further
    ahead than when it all started. There's got to be a better way.
    
    Gerry
    
    

    
    Gerry,
    
       I think we are further ahead then in 1923, when the world didn't even
    know what a Northern Irealnd was let alone where it was.  
    
       I don't condone killing innocent civilians either.  But then that is
    only one aspect of the violence isn't it.  The British Gov't has come under
    the gun (so to speak) in regards to the judicial system.  The British
    establishment is in the process of their own little 'watergate' and
    will hopefully come out a better system in the end.  
     
    The Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, etc. will never allow the system to 
    be as corrupt again.  At least I hope it is that way.  Because I feel
    that locking up known innocent people for 16 years a pretty violent
    act.    
    
    People are taking the British Gov't to task and the crimes committed by the
    gov't officials are not as easy to coverup anymore.   
    
    I see more and more people asking, what the hell is going on over
    there?
    
    Why even the British are starting movements to get the troops out
    (TTG).
    
    I really think the end is near for the British Gov't presence in
    Northern Ireland.  Without the war I don't think things would be where
    they are today.  They would be worse, for the Nationalist that is.
    
    
    So Gerry, have you written any public officials about what you feel.  It
    does wonders, really.  Don't just sit back and do nothing,  a letter to
    the right person does wonders.  Try this one on.  Write Gerry Adams
    and tell him the way you feel.  I'll bet you get a response.  Then go
    with the flow.  You never know what might happen.
    
    paddy

    
    Craig,
    
       Tell me more about the movement for independence.  Is it seen as a
    smart move economically?  How does it effect trade?  If Scotland goes
    and Wales goes then what will happen to the (fill in the blank).  
    
       Wow this could be very interesting!!!!!!!  Seriously
    
    paddy

re: .60

 <If the IRA only stopped for a minute to think of the misery they are causing
 <for the Irish people, North and South, and all around the world too...

  Gerry,

  How come the British government, with its 16,000+ troops in YOUR country,
don't think this way? How come they don't stop for one minute and think
about the misery that they have inflicted on your fellow countrymen, both
nationalist and loyalist for the past 23 years??? Setting up a sectarian state,
treating the indigenous population like 2nd class citizens in their own
country Internment without trial, shoot to kill as a form of judicial policy,
Diplock courts, etc.

How come they don't listen to their own people, (remember the recent survey:
over there - 61% of all British people want out of NI)? 

   Truely, HMG actions (if I may quote you) "are doing absolutely nothing for
those Nationalists in the North who they claim to represent."

   On the other side of the coin, in the south, how come they don't stop for
one minute and think about the misery that they have inflicted on their
fellow countrymen, the nationalists? By turning their backs on these people
they've done nothing but prolong the conflict. I'm sure there are a lot of 
southern Irish that would sell out the Nationalists in the north, sacrifice 
them really, because for a lot of southerners, they are an enigma, an 
embarassment. These southerners somehow feel that they would be better off 
if the nationalists would just "go away", or were cast adrift. The ultimate
manifestation of cultural suicide - a country that has abandoned its
history, culture and traditions. Over the centuries, the British government
sure knew what it meant to destroy your language, didn't they?

   Unless you've been to the north of Ireland recently, as I have, there's
NO WAY (if you live in the south) that you're getting the truth about what's
happening up there from the TV or your newspapers.

       I agree Gerry, all sides should stop and think for a minute about
the misery they are causing the nationalists in the north.

    Why cannot the British government announce their intention to
    withdraw all military forces from Ireland *in conjunction with*
    the IRA laying down their arms and renouncing violence???
    
    Negotiations are not one sided.  Britain will never defeat the
    IRA.  Likewise the IRA will never drive Britain out of Ireland.
    It is a stalemate plain and simple.
    
    Violence breeds violence.  Sending more British soldiers to Ireland
    only makes matters worse.  Lets end the conflict by getting all sides
    of the conflict at the negotiating table.
    
    Who really wants this conflict to continue?  It is a stain on
    Britain, on Ireland, and on Europe too.  

>          <<< Note 991.65 by DELNI::CULBERT "Free Michael Culbert" >>>

    
>       Tell me more about the movement for independence.  Is it seen as a
>    smart move economically?  How does it effect trade?  If Scotland goes
>    and Wales goes then what will happen to the (fill in the blank).  

The Scottish National Party have been campaigning for independence for
decades, and in the mid 70's had a campaign of "it's Scotland's oil".
The discovery of North Sea oil fuelled (ahem - excuse the pun) the
demands for independence as it was clear that Scotland had the resources
to go it alone as a nation. That debate then died down for a while after
the fixed 1979 devolution bill failed. The bill was fixed, because not
voting in that referendum was equivalent to voting NO. How many elections
do you know of when not voting is counted?

Anyway, a few years ago the SNP changed their tactic from absulute
independence to one of independence within the EC, like Ireland. This
seems to have proved very popular, SNP support has gone up from about
10-20% to about 25%. However, the number of people in favour of this
form of independence is actually around 40-45%. A recent ITN poll showed
it at 50%, although time will tell if this was a one off or not.

On the devolution front, all the parties got together to form the
constitutional convention in 1988. All except the Conservatives
who are not advocating any form of change at all. The SNP joined
the convention and then quickly left when it became apparant that
independence wasn't going to be considered as an option by the Labour
dominated convention.

So, the situation today is that the SNP is advocating independence,
The Tories are fully behind the Union as it is, and the other main
parties wish devolution. The current levels of support are approx
40-45%,20%,35-40% respectively I beleive.

The SNP is the only party advocating an open three way ballot between
the three options.

More details in the Scotland conference, there are topics on Home Rule
and "Republic of Scotland" (marvin::scotland)

Craig

    Joe, Paddy,
    
    I am not , for one minute condoning the tactics of the British army,
    the RUC or any other group involved in the 'Troubles'. I feel as much
    abhorence for a death by a British soldiers bullet as by an IRA bomb.
    What I don't understand, and maybe one of you could explain it to me,
    is, how can the killing of, for example, eight workmen who are not in
    any way connected ( except perhaps that they happen to be protestant)
    with the troubles help the IRA in their cause. I can see ( not that I
    agree with it) some reason behind targeting the British Army, but nine
    times out of ten it is innocent civilians that get killed. What exactly
    does this achieve? How does this bring us closer to a United Ireland?
    When are the IRA and all the other subersive groups going to wake up to
    the fact that they are only adding fuel to a fire that is already out
    of control. Even if the British armyleft Northern Ireland in the
    morning, who can honestly say it was worth the spilling of all the
    innocent blood of the past 23 years.
    
    Paddy, as regards writing Gerry Adams, I wouldn't waste the paper. I
    would have nothing to do with a man who the killing of innocent people.
    
    Gerry

     re:.69

     Gerry,

     When I recently went over to Derry for the Bloody Sunday Commemorative,
I would bring up the subject of Teebane which had happened only 3 days
previous. I told people that blowing up 8 building workers was deadful.

    It was quickly pointed out to me that what is going on in NI is an all-out
war the British government is waging on the Irish nationalist minority.
It was also pointed out to me that the French during WWII killed thousands of
Vichy French collaborators both during the war, and after France was liberated.

   These so-called "innocent" building workers as you put it, were not creating
new housing, or building playgrounds. They are building permanent watchtowers,
underground bunkers, re-enforcing border fortifications, (so much for borders
coming down 1992, eh?), and more "interrogation centers." That is a euphemistic
term for torture chambers, like the notorious Castlereagh Interrogation Centre.

   As a member of Amnesty International, I certainly don't condone violence.
But your quickness to take the British position and propaganda that these
were "innocent" building workers, conveniently failing to mention *what* they
were building, leads me to believe you don't know what's going on up there.
It's no fault of your own: British propaganda, your paranoidly censorious
media in the south, and a Brit-Wannabe Dublin government have really brainwashed
you. As a matter of fact, they wouldn't need a full "brainwashing" for you.
Rather, a light rinse would do. :^> 


   
    <Paddy, as regards writing Gerry Adams, I wouldn't waste the paper. I
    <would have nothing to do with a man who (condones?) the killing of
    <innocent people.


  So then Gerry, I guess this means you won't be sending any letters to
Johnny-Boy Major either, eh? Especially since it is the presence of his
British army in the north of your country, and which has been even
moreso responsible for spilling innocent blood by being the root cause of the
trouble in the first place. Which then means you won't be doing anything
at all.

Let's see if I can follow your logic: you refuse to talk to Sinn Fein because
you feel they condone the spilling of innocent blood. By the same logic then,
 you can't talk to the Tory government because they are equally, nay,
are even *moreso* guilty of spilling innocent blood by maintaining a colonial
army of occupation in YOUR country. So, you'll just sit there and talk to
nobody. Hmmmmmm, odd.
                 

    Joe,
    
    I would tend to think that you are probably a lot more informed on this
    subject than I, or most noters here for that matter. However, my point
    still remains the same. I maintain that nothing has been gained by the
    killing of people on either side of the struggle. Whether there are
    other ways of obtaining a united Ireland, which I support by the way,
    I'm not sure. But I am convinced that violence will play no part in it.
    
    I am definitely guilty of sitting on the fence, as it
    were, but there are more people involved here than John Major and Gerry
    Adams. What about the peace groups? Why did you not mention them when
    you spoke of making my voice heard? I guess they run against the grain.
    So I don't think that you are even close when you try to follow 'my
    logic'. I'll leave you guessing on that one though. As for brainwashing,
    someone sure did a good job on you where the IRA are concerned.
    
    Gerry
    
    

    re: .71
    
    
    <I'll leave you guessing on that one though.
    
    No, there is no guessing about it: the way you're trying to skate
    around with some vague references, without actually answering
    the note, it's obvious you don't have a plan, and you don't care
    about your fellow countrymen in the North (very chic these days in
    Ireland). You'd make a good_______________ politician.
              Choose one:
                           1.)Fine Gael
                           2.)Fianna Fail
    
    Of course, if you'd like any of the articles/books from Amnesty
    International listed in note .50, I'd be more than happy to send them
    to you. As for peace groups (in the Republic, I assume?) do you
    mean the New Concensus? Aren't they sponsored secretly by MI6, or is
    it MI5??? You know, the way our CIA sets up fake movements and groups
    to topple governments unfriendly to the US. Thats' what I heard anyway.  
    
    <As for brainwashing, someone sure did a good job on you where the IRA
    <are concerned.
    
    No one has brainwashed me regarding any of the paramilitary
    organizations in NI. The kind of innuendo you make with that           
    statement is usually used by Brits to try and smear anyone
    who brings up the topic of NI. It's a hackneyed Brit ploy.
    Perhaps you were trying to imitate them?
    You know what they say: imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
    
    While you're thinking that one over, here's a little food for thought.
    From Des Wilson's booklet, "Against Violence in Ireland."
    
           "On a visit to the offices of Helsinki Watch, we found a 
    remarkable state of affairs.  As long as we were talking about
    Ireland in general terms, talking about prisoners, or about countries
    where everyone recognizes there is a lack of democracy, all was well.  
    But as soon as the conversation turned upon a direct criticism of the 
    British government and its regime in Ireland the atmosphere changed.  
    Immediately, without any reason and with no mention having previously 
    made of any political party in Ireland, the person in charge asked us, 
    Are you members of the IRA? 
    
    There is such a craven fear of questioning or criticising the British
    government that it is assumed that the only people with the nerve to 
    do it are the IRA.  All others, it would seem, have been successfully 
    intimidated into silence,  They neither challenge not even ask what the 
    British government is doing in Ireland.
    
            It seems as though the British propaganda machine has
    successfully stopped rational argument of discussion about Irish affairs.  
    This they have found fairly simple, because for example, radio and 
    television interviewers play the game for them.  They will ask irrelevant
    questions in the middle of a rational conversation about the situation 
    in Ireland: 
    
        "Are you in favour of the IRA, are you a marxist, is anybody else a
    marxist, or have you come to America to collect money?"
    
            There is one way to overcome the strangle-hold which British
    propaganda has on people's minds.  That is to encourage them to study
    what the British system of government is really like and what it does 
    to its own people. And to study therefore, the real reasons why we as 
    Irish democrats cannot agree to such a system of government in
    Ireland."

    If I'm a politician, then what are you? You have not yet answered my
    question as to how the killing of innocent people has advanced the
    cause of a United Ireland. Until someone can give me an adequate answer
    to that I will always have the same opinion...that "the freedom of
    Ireland is not worth the shedding of one drop of blood". I do not have
    to have a plan. I do not have to support Fine Gael or Fianna Fail or
    anyone else for that matter. But I do have an opinion, to which I have
    as much right to voice as you have yours.
    
    Gerry

    re: .73
    
    Ah yes, the ever popular Irish ploy of answering a question by asking
    a question. 
    
    What am I? I'm a member of Amnesty International. I know what the Brits
    are doing in the North of YOUR country. Also, I've been there, as
    recently as a month ago.
    
    I'm not the one you should be asking about spilling innocent blood.
    John-Boy Major is the one who holds the reins of a foreign (British)
    colonial army of occupation in IRELAND, YOUR country. 
    And if you read any of that Amnesty International literature, you'll
    see that the HMG has an awful lot of innocent blood on their hands.
    Ah but I forgot: for people like you it's not chic to bring that up,
    that the presence of the British colonial army of occupation in your
    country is the root cause of violence and the spilling of innocent
    blood.
    
    You're entitled to your opinion. Although considering the vast amount
    of censorship in the Republic, the revisionist history writing in ROI,
    and the chic, in vogue attitude that the Brits know what's best for
    your country, especially about the North, I dare say, what the Brits
    are doing to the people in the south reminds me of that one-liner: 
    if I want your opinion, I'll tell it to you. 
    
    
    BTW, I see the new Taoiseach constantly making reference to his
    "extensive" personal friendship with John-Boy Major. Everytime I 
    pick up a newspaper, he's bragging about it again. Frankly, it's
    getting boring. He reminds me of the bragging done by the Paddy 
    that's been invited to sup in the Manor house... 
    
    
          

    You're right DROTTER, it is OUR country and more than 90% of the voters
    support political parties that have at the very least, business-like
    relations and attitudes towards the British.
    
    I find your attitude towards Irish nationals very insulting and
    dangerously inflammatory.
    
    We have enough anti-Brit lunatics only ready and waiting to insult
    thy British without you encouraging them.They are thankfully a small
    minority but, like all bigots, only need encouragement from the likes
    of you to do it.
    
    I take it you are not an Irish citizen or a resident of Ireland,
    therefore I assume you are at a safe distance from any enemy or
    faction in this situation. I would thank you to let the people both
    North and South come to their own arrangments that will allow them to
    live in peace and safety here. We have to live with the results of any
    action that may be taken.
    
    Your insulting, rabble-rousing, inflammatory language and insulting
    attitude can only make it worse for us here.
    

    
    
    re: .75
    
    
    
                     YYAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwnn.

    How can you get to the truth when the news and the facts about the 
    situation in the north are censored not only by the Irish government,
    but also the media as well????
     
   There is profound censorship in the Republic. Both self-imposed,
and de jure. I bought a book when I was just in Derry, called
"No Comment - Censorship, Secrecy and the Irish Troubles." by
Article 19 (international Centre on Censorship). ISBN 1-870798-36-8.

  In this book, it refers to the (southern) Irish censorship ban as:

        "It has been said that Section 31, rather than operating as just
         another of the many regulations affectiong broadcasting, has
         "taken over" RTE, conditioning its entire editorial ethos and
         resulting in an overly cautious line on all news and documentary
         programmes. With the great capacity of TV to influence popular
         beliefs and perceptions, Section 31 has even been referred to
         in psychoanalytic terms as the "national superego", in that its
         censorious demands, by now internalised at an almost unconscious
         level, prevent the nation from addressing the crisis from which
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
         the ban arose." pp 36-37
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^  

   According to this book, the Republic of Ireland is *more* into
censorship than the British themselves. 

        "One of the points made by the UK Home Secretary in defence
         of his own media ban was the prior existence of a similar
         measure in the Irish Republic; in fact, Mr. Hurd told the
         Commons* that the wording his Notice used was largely drawn
         from the Irish ban's wording. (The Irish Government, he said,
         was not consulted, but was informed in advance of the measure.)
         In fact, the Irish ban goes rather further than that in the UK,
         and pre-dates it by many years." p. 34

         * "Hansard" 19.10.88

   Unless you've been to the north of Ireland recently, to see for yourself, 
   then there's NO WAY (living in the south) that you're getting the truth 
   about what's happening up there from the TV or your newspapers.

    RE: .75  You're right on the button there, John, but I doubt it will
    sink in as you can see by Joes' intellegent reply in .76. Typical ploy
    when you don't have any comeback. 
    
    So, Joe, who were the 28 people who were injured on the London Train
    bomb this morning, working for? I suppose you will tell me they were
    also building prisons or torture chambers or some such garbage. How
    does this latest act of terrorism advance the cause for a United
    Ireland?
    
    

re: .78
    
    
    <So, Joe, who were the 28 people who were injured on the London Train
    <bomb this morning, working for? I suppose you will tell me they
    <were also building prisons or torture chambers or some such garbage.
    
    
       Gerry, the only garbage around here is your note, and your
    lame attempt to ram words down my throat. 
    
    As a member of Amnesty International I don't condone violence, either 
    from paramilitary organizations, or from institutionalized terrorism, 
    as practiced by the British Army on the nationalist population in NI.
    
    So don't hurl this latest paramilitary atrocity at me in a challange.
    I do find it peculiar though, that it is in vogue these days by people
    from the Republic to harp on IRA atrocities, but to never give voice
    to the British atrocities such as the murder of 14 unarmed civil rights
    marchers on Bloody Sunday and the subsequent obscene cover-up 
    known as the Widgery Inquest? Or such British atrocities as documented 
    by Amnesty International, the European Convention on Human Rights, 
    The Helsinki Watch Report of 1991 (ISBN 1-56432-020-0), Cieran
    deBaroid's book "Ballymurphy and the Irish War", the writings of 
    Fr Raymond Murray,  (esp his book entitled "The SAS in Ireland"), 
    John Stalker, Colin Wallace, John Stevens, and the findings of the
    independent tribunal that investigated the Fergal Caraher murder. 
    
    Would you care to tell us your opinion about any of these? Have you
    read any of these? Have you even heard of any of these things?
    
    
    
    As for Mr Dooley, it's obvious he's never been to the Bogside or the
    Creggan, or Ballymurphy. And he lives in the Republic where censorship is
    so profound. To have him tell me about NI, reminds me of the story
    about a blind man trying to describe an elephant. He hasn't a clue
    about what's really going on up there, and he doesn't know me. So, his
    note was not worth replying to.
    
    Although, I must admit, after re-reading it, he did say something 
    absolutely right-on, (obviously, he doesn't put the same meaning on 
    it that I do), and that was:
    
    <I would thank you to let the people both North and South come to 
    <*their own arrangments* that will allow them to live in peace and
    <safety here. We have to live with the results of any action that 
    <may be taken.
    
    I couldn't agree more! This is an IRISH problem, for which there can be
    only an IRISH solution. The Irish (those of Irish descent, and those of
    British descent) should be allowed to resolve their own problems.
    Massive British Army presence supporting one community over another
    is NO SOLUTION.
    
    Removing Articles 2 & 3 thereby effectively abandoning  the Irish 
    nationalists is no solution either.
     
    Ignoring the detrimental influence of the British Army's presence 
    while harping on IRA atrocities is no solution either.
    
    Other than that, he and I are in complete agreement!

    
    Come on boys....  I don't think anyone in here condones the
    injury/death of innocent civilians.  Even, the Joe's that contribute to
    this and other notes.......
    
    But Gerry,  where were you when the Sinn Fein office was done in, or
    the betting office.  We all agree (I think) the issue of innocent
    people getting hurt/killed is wrong.....
    
    Now Gerry, I made the comment to you about writing Gerry Adams to spark
    you into some action instead of just moaning.  If you don't want to
    write him, here are some alternatives;  Dr John Alderdice
                                            Rev Ian Paisley
                                            Father Des Wilson
                                            Mr. John Hume
                                            Father Faul
                                            Touchie Reynolds 8*)
                                            Prez Robinson
                                            Mr Joe Doherty
                                            Mr Oliver Kearny        
                                            Mr John Majors
                                            Prince Charles
                                            Mr Michael Culbert
        
    The list goes on and on and on.  The issue I was trying to raise is
    everyone has a view on what will end this troubled time in North
    Ireland.  The more you write and read the more you learn.  I have the
    addresses for these folks if you are inclined to write.  
    
    I have written to all these people and gleaned quite a bit from these
    and other sources.  But I must say Ian was/is the most colorful.
    
    So lets all try and keep this file civil okay.

    Paddy, the only point I'm trying to make in here is that Killing and
    injuring people is not getting anybody anywhere. That goes for both
    sides of the coin. Joe seems to think that if you're not on the side of
    the IRA, then you must be brainwashed by the British. THis couldn't be
    further from the truth. I think Irish people are quite capable of
    thinking for themselves.He likes to reinforce this by insulting remarks.
    I would say he has driven more people away from this conference than 
    anyone else with this type of argument. People who have an opinion, and
    are quite entitled to voice it.
    
    I take your point about writing to prominent people and learning more.
    Maybe you could send me thos addresses sometime.
    
    
    Gerry

    In Joe's book, Gerry, if you ain't on the side of the IRA then you're
    a neo-colonialist-fascist-imperialist-brain-washed-boot-licking-baby-
    killing-Irish-hating-lackey-of-the-British-Empire like me.
    
    Welcome to the club.
    
    8^)
    
    Joe

    re: .81
    
    <Joe seems to think that if you're not on the side of the IRA, 
    <then you must be brainwashed by the British. THis couldn't
    <be further from the truth. 
    
    
     Gerry, you are absolutely correct: NOTHING could be further from the
    truth.
    
    Re-read my notes, without your twisted slant. I have never once
    condoned the IRA. Please show us all where I have. Unless of course
    you're implying that Amnesty International is an IRA front. Or that
    every nationalist in NI is a member of the IRA. Is that what you mean?
    Or do you think quoting Des Wilson is "being on the side of the IRA.
    How about the Helsinki Watch Report? Is it just IRA propaganda?
    And John Stalker too??
    
    Unless of course, you're emulating neocolonialist type Brits again: 
    where besmirching anyone who brings up the topic of NI is labeled a 
    "terrorist" or a "terrorist supporter."  Is that what you're doing?
    
    Cut the crap Gerry.
    
    

    There you are, Gerry.  You've already graduated to brainwashed-
    neo-colonialist status.
    
    Just keep hanging in there, and you'll get the whole works.
    
    8^)
    
    Joe

     re: .82
    
    Well, if it isn't the honest-broker Brit who "stood bravely between two
    warring factions of Irish" in NI. Was it fun enforcing enforcing
    "law & order" through the barrel of a gun on the Irish nationalists
    in NI Woody? Do tell us. 
    

    >I would say he has driven more people away from this conference than 
    >anyone else with this type of argument. People who have an opinion, and
    >are quite entitled to voice it.
    
    Gerry, your opinion *is* valued by others and you *are* entitled to
    voice it.  The answers to the problem in Northern Ireland will only
    surface through dialog and understanding.  So I hope you do not leave
    the conference.
    
    I urge everyone to keep the discussion at a professional level.
    
    /George 
                  

                            The Irish Times
                            August  10, 1994
          IRA has clearest, view of conflict, historian argues
                            By SUZANNE BREEN



    The IRA is the only party involved in the Northern conflict which is
completely clear in its view of what is wrong, how the situation can be
changed, and what should replace the status quo, the historian Mr J. Bowyer
Bell told an audience at the west Belfast festival yesterday.


   Unlike the Taoiseach, Mr Reynolds, or the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)
leader, the Rev Ian Paisley, the Provisionals knew that the source of the
conflict was Britain. They were also aware that the situation would be changed
not by tampering with Articles 2 and 3 or economic investment but by
"physical force that very Irish way of saying shooting people".

   Mr Bowyer Bell said he did not believe that the Downing Street Declaration
contained anything new. He said Sinn Fein was "an aspect of armed struggle"
and argued that when the gun was taken out of republicanism, Sinn Fein's
politics would resemble those of the Workers' Party. If the British army
withdrew from the North, he suggested, the republican movement might seek a
peaceful way ofachieving its aims.

   He argued that loyalists might also accept a withdrawal if it was guaranteed

that their traditions would be protected. There could even be an RUC office in
Tralee and a Garda office in Belfast, he said.

   Mr Bowyer Bell warned that Britain could not be seen to have been coerced
into leaving the North. The decision to withdraw would be made only if it could
be presented as a magnanimous gesture which would receive world applause.
Republicans should not hiss and boo during the departure.

   Loyalists were the most difficult grouping to deal with, he said: "Not the
ones in suits and ties or Ian Paisley but the paramilitaries." The Ulster
Defence Association (UDA) and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) were
motivated by "fear and loathing, and you can't write treaties to deal with
vengeance".

   However, Mr Bowyer Bell suggested that loyalists could have a change of
heart. Young, white men in Alabama had shot and beaten up blacks decades ago
but the atmosphere in states in the Deep South had changed and such
behaviour had stopped.

   Nationalism was more unpopular in the Republic than in most other Western
industrial countries, he said. The republican movement was detested not just
by establishment opinion but by a broad section of the population, especially
the young.

   Mr Bowyer Bell spoke of the lack of serious interest about the Northern
conflict in the US. There was general sympathy towards the Irish but their
experience of "terrorist operations" had left most Americans suspicious of the
IRA's campaign which was not seen as a national liberation struggle.

   Meanwhile, at another lecture, "The Costs of War and the Dividends of
Peace", Mr Mike Tomilson of the West Belfast Economic Forum, said that a
political settlement of the conflict could provide the framework for economic
regeneration across the entire island. Mr Tomilson said that the conflict had
cost at least Pounds 23.5 billion since 1969. The Pounds 2.25 billion spent
annually on the conflict could be used as the basis of an international
reconstruction fund to provide full employment.

================================================================================
Note 991.87           More troops sent to Northern Ireland              87 of 87
KOALA::HOLOHAN                                       69 lines  17-AUG-1994 09:07
                    -< IRA has clearest, view of conflict >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...................., the historian Mr J. Bowyer
Bell told an audience at the west Belfast festival yesterday.
			     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
	No doubt the audience liked what he had to say then !!!!
	I wonder will he go on the after dinner circuit to other 
	venues in NI where the audience may not be as receptive to 
	his version of the truth .

....... Republicans should not hiss and boo during the departure.

	I guess you'll not be there for the occasion then :-)

....Nationalism was more unpopular in the Republic than in most other Western
industrial countries, he said. The republican movement was detested not just
by establishment opinion but by a broad section of the population, especially
the young.

	I wonder why !

   Mr Bowyer Bell spoke of the lack of serious interest about the Northern
conflict in the US. There was general sympathy towards the Irish but their
experience of "terrorist operations" had left most Americans suspicious of the
				     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
IRA's campaign which was not seen as a national liberation struggle.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	How come you never met this guy when he was in the US formulating
	his opinion !

   Meanwhile, at another lecture, "The Costs of War and the Dividends of
Peace", Mr Mike Tomilson of the West Belfast Economic Forum, said that a
political settlement of the conflict could provide the framework for economic
regeneration across the entire island. Mr Tomilson said that the conflict had
cost at least Pounds 23.5 billion since 1969. The Pounds 2.25 billion spent
annually on the conflict could be used as the basis of an international
reconstruction fund to provide full employment.

	This is the article you should be reporting on . This is the key .
	Everyone can move forward when there is peace and stability which 
	will make everyones lot a happier one . The first step has been 
	taken .... who's brave enough to follow .

	Mr H.... you're exempted from answering as I know your opinion
	already .

F.

    
    He can't answer anyway. I fully expexct he'll just repost the AI report
    for  about the sixth time in answer to the reply I just gave in 1400,
    refusing to even acknowledge it doesn't say what he claims it does. 
    Just like dealing with the Iraqi ambassador, at a more socially reduced
    level of course.