| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1016.1 | | PEKING::WOODROWJ | The Purple People Eater | Tue Mar 10 1992 07:30 | 74 |
| The man must be a total paranoid. Furthermore, he accuses everybody,
including fellow priests, of telling porkies, and then goes telling
some of his own.
Porky No 1: But they say, Moore had gone and fired shots, while
drunk, over the grave of this murdered man. He was
then restrained, put into the care of a minder and
advised to go to a doctor the next day.
He was disarmed, suspended from duty and released into the custody of
a fellow officer on condition he attended counselling the following
day. It wasn't advice. It was an order.
Porky No 2: "British Secretary Peter Brooke stated untruthfully
that Moore was on his way to the doctor when "the
incident" occurred."
Peter Brooke did not say that Moore was on his way to the doctor when
the incident occurred. He said that Moore had an appointment for
counselling which he failed to keep.
Porky No 3: People remember that British agents had been
responsible for the bombing in Monaghan and Dublin
years ago which pressured Dail deputies into adopting
repressive measures in the south to which many of them
were hesitant.
While there may have been speculation to this effect, there has never
been the smallest shred of evidence produced to support the
hypothesis. It falls into the same unfounded rumour category as the
same Fr Wilson going about in West Belfast during the hunger strikes
whipping up panic that the security forces had conspired with the UDA
to use the death of Sands to mount an armed attack on the Falls Road.
Porky No 4: They remember also, 20 years later, that British
soldiers now admit that the Bloody Sunday murders in
Derry were done with a view to provoking an armed
response from the IRA.
British soldiers have never admitted anything of the sort. Even if
they had wished it, they had no need to provoke an armed response from
the IRA. It already existed and had existed for over a year. 62
members of the security forces were already dead at the hands of the
IRA. (14 RUC, 43 BA and 5 UDA). The British Army in Derry had come
under fire almost 200 times during the week previous to Bloody Sunday.
What the ex-colonel of the paras has admitted is that, after 20 years
consideration, he had come to the conclusion his troops were probably
mistaken in their belief that they had come under fire from the crowd.
That they did come under sniper fire there is no doubt, and even the
IRA admits it. However, it does not matter what soldiers believe 20
years later. What matters is what they believed at the time, and
whether or not they had reasonable grounds, at the time, for that
belief.
And on what does this so-called man of God base his ridiculous and
lying assertions? The sole fact that the family of the unfortunate
officer did not see fit to provide the press with a photograph of the
deceased for them to publish in their paper. I very much hope that
the RUC does not go releasing pictures of the deceased to the press
before receiving permission from the bereaved. I'll tell you one
thing for nothing. If ever one of my family were to commit murder and
then suicide, I'd see myself damned before I even spoke to the press,
let alone allowed them access to a photograph of the dead loved one.
And what motive does he assign for this machiavellian conspiracy? He
alleges it was set in motion in order to set the mood for the
reintroduction of internment and other repressive measures. He claims
that the RUC conspired to have a multiple murder laid at its own door
in order for the RUC to reinforce the case for the RUC interning
people. The man's mad; hopelessly, helplessly, incurably mad. He'll
have the Jews conspiring with the Nazis to burn down the Reichstag in
order to justify the gas chambers next.
Joe
|
| 1016.2 | | SIOG::OSULLIVAN_D | B� c�ramach, a leanbh | Tue Mar 10 1992 11:28 | 4 |
| I'm awfully tempted to reply to that last one, but the following bit of
advise from my pork butcher restrains me:
'Never argue with a pig, it wastes your time and it annoys the pig'
|
| 1016.3 | | PEKING::WOODROWJ | The Purple People Eater | Tue Mar 10 1992 11:43 | 7 |
| And I am awfully tempted to reply to that last one that you know when
you have made your case when they attack you rather than your case.
But then, it would never occur to me to argue with a pig. We obviously
move in different circles.
Joe
|
| 1016.4 | Sigh...... | MACNAS::JDOOLEY | Go on outa dat,we don't believe ya | Tue Mar 10 1992 11:47 | 5 |
| ........and some people hope for peace and understanding between these
two islands by the end of the century.
I won't hold my breath.
|
| 1016.5 | Pigs in a poke | SIOG::OSULLIVAN_D | B� c�ramach, a leanbh | Tue Mar 10 1992 12:08 | 18 |
| reply: .3
"you know when you have made your case when they attack you"
Reading reply .1 certainly seems to make Fr. Wilson's case.
I'm not going into the individual 'porkies', by which I take it you mean
lies. My only overall comment is that each of your points are
distortions, something at which you excel (don't blush please). You
know your real strength is what is behind your falsifications i.e. an
army armed to the teeth capable of containing and repressing a whole
section of the Irish population. As soon as that goes so does the
mouth.
-Dermot
p.s. I'm arguing in my spare time.
|
| 1016.6 | | PEKING::WOODROWJ | The Purple People Eater | Tue Mar 10 1992 12:09 | 14 |
| To the best of my knowledge, John, there is peace between our two
islands though I would agree with you that understanding is in somewhat
short supply.
I would contend, however, that the growth of understanding is not
helped by people who misuse their position as a minister of religion to
sow hatred and dissent by the spreading of lies, innuendo and false rumour.
And that goes for the Rev Ian Paisley as it does for Fr Des Wilson.
However, I do tend to expect somewhat better from the Roman Catholic
church than I do from the Free Presbyterians, the utter rejection of
Episcopalianism & Catholicism being the very raison d'etre of the latter.
Joe
|
| 1016.7 | A bad day's work | MACNAS::TJOYCE | | Tue Mar 10 1992 12:19 | 37 |
|
I have little acquaintance with Father Wilson, but I can remember
him going back to the start of the Troubles as a happy, roly-poly
sort of man, the kind who would be good crack over a few pints.
In the mid-70's, I can recall him declaring on RTE's
"Late-Late Show" (a talk show) that he would sooner entrust himself
to what he called his "Protestant Fellow Countrymen" than he would
to the British government.
I next saw Fr Wilson on TV during the Maze Hunger Strikes. I was
startled by the change - this man seemed definitely in a state of
acute stress. He assured the interviewer that Loyalist
gunmen were trying to kill him. The happy man who had possessed
an endearing faith in his fellow-countrymen of a different religion
was long fled, it seems. Recently I saw him at a Peace Meeting (see
1007) where I was surprised to hear him haranguing and abusing
people who were struggling in their own way for peace and justice
on this island.
Personally, I believe that Father Wilson went through some terrible
trauma during the Hunger Strikes (possibly a beating or assassination
attempt) that has permanently soured and embittered his personality.
He is another casualty of the troubles, a member of the walking wounded.
I am profoundly sorry for him, but I must agree with the .1 note.
Only someone with a paranoid mind could have put that particular
constuction on the events he describes, which were repulsive and
distressing enough.
For example, I watched the BBC programme on Bloody Sunday, and
no one from the BA made the type of admissions he describes.
Most of his other statements are unsupported by any reliable
evidence, and if they serve any purpose, will only terrorise
and traumatise people further, and drive them into the arms
of the paramilitaries. I regret to say it, but this may be the
very purpose Father Wilson intends.
Toby
|
| 1016.8 | | PEKING::WOODROWJ | The Purple People Eater | Tue Mar 10 1992 12:27 | 27 |
| Very well, Dermot. You accuse me of distortion. Justify yourself.
Tell me:
Was Moore not disarmed, suspended and released into the custody of a
fellow police officer on condition he attended for counselling the
following day?
Did Brooke say that Moore failed to keep an appointment for counselling
or did he say that he was on his way to see a doctor when the murders
were committed?
What proof can you present that the Dublin bombings were carried out
by the SAS or some other arm of British intelligence?
Which British soldier who took part in Bloody Sunday has admitted that
it was an intentional ploy to provoke an armed response from the IRA?
Were the figures I presented for the Security Force casualties prior to
Bloody Sunday twisted? If so, present the true ones.
If you wish to accuse me of lying and twisting facts, then establish
the basis in fact for your allegation. Otherwise I am driven to
conclude that you are as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal; unable to
dispute one single word of the reply I entered in .1, you are forced to
fall back on vulgar abuse.
Joe
|
| 1016.9 | Take the log out of your own eye! | SIOG::OSULLIVAN_D | B� c�ramach, a leanbh | Tue Mar 10 1992 12:49 | 28 |
| I do not know any more of the incident at the Sinn F�in offices other
than newspaper reports. The article in .0 is news to me. Interesting
news and the points raised within it (ones that you choose to ignore)
deserve serious attention. The locals in this instance have a set of
facts which seem at variance with the story as put out by the RUC. At
the very least it is worth investigating both sets of stories . Security
force collusion in the murder of civilians is a proven fact, a la
Stevens/Stalker enquiries. All your so called fanatasy and figures cannot
take away from this fact and I believe reactions from locals in Belfast
should be seen in light of the crimes committed against them by the
"security forces".
It is also worth noting that since the increase of British troops on
the streets in the north, harrasment of locals has increased noticably.
This has been attested by many SDLP councillors in last Sunday's
papers.
Some questions which remain to be answered:
Why wasn't this person at least locked up after firing guns over a coffin
(an IRA man would have been shot on sight for such activity)
Why were 13 innocent civilians shot in Derry?
Why were bombs let off in Dublin & MOnaghan before a D�il vote on the
offences against the state act?
-Dermot
|
| 1016.10 | | PEKING::WOODROWJ | The Purple People Eater | Tue Mar 10 1992 13:20 | 20 |
| Re: .9
What set of facts do the locals have that are at variance with the
story put out by the RUC. Fr Wilson doesn't tell us. He merely
asserts that they exist. If they do, in fact exist, what possible
reason can he have to choose not to tell us? Of course, if they do
not exist he has an excellent reason for not telling us.
It ain't no good asking me why Bloody Sunday or the Dublin bombings
happened. I didn't do them, so I don't know. So I do not present
any hypotheses I may have as fact. If I have an hypothesis to present,
I present it as an hypothesis. If I have a fact to present, I present
it as a fact.
Father Wilson has taken a whole set of hypotheses and presented them as
they were fact. He is not an unintelligent man. He knows full well
what he is doing when he does that. He is either insane or evil. I
give him the benefit of the doubt.
Joe
|
| 1016.11 | | EPIK::HOLOHAN | | Tue Mar 10 1992 13:43 | 15 |
|
Joe Woodrow is the only paranoid in this thread. He starts off
accusing Fr. Des Wilson's statements as being "Porkies" (I assume
this is British for falsehood?, for further reference Joe,
porkie means a fat pig, or a fat person in the American language).
Each of his first three "porkies" sounded more like analogies, and
his fourth is a sick attempt to justify the British Army murder of
Civilians. Joe tries to make you feel for the murderers:
"62 members of the security forces were already dead at the
hands of the IRA",
"The British Army in Derry had come under fire almost 200
times".
Joe, how can you in good conscience do this? Do you always
side with butchers? Don't you have any morals?
Mark
|
| 1016.12 | Toodle-pip, OLD boy | WREATH::DROTTER | | Tue Mar 10 1992 17:10 | 22 |
| re: .11
<Do you always side with butchers? Don't you have any morals?
Mark,
You must be new to this file: Woodrow, or so he claims, used to
enforce British colonial "law and order" on the Irish nationalist
population, in NI through the barrel of a gun. That is to say, he
served in the *illustrious* British Army in NI.
You remember the British Army, don't you Mark, the same colonial army
of occupation that brought us The Boston Massacre, (5 unarmed civilians
murdered in that one); Amritsar in India, (another "colony" where
thousands of unarmed, peaceful, Ghandi followers were slaughtered
wholesale); Bloody Sunday in Derry, (14 unarmed civil rights marchers
gunned down in cold blood by (get this!) *elite* British Paratroopers.)
So you see, Mark, asking Joe if he sides with butchers, or has any
morals, is kind of a non-sequitur. Kind of like asking a coward
if he has any guts.
|
| 1016.13 | | PEKING::WOODROWJ | The Purple People Eater | Wed Mar 11 1992 04:38 | 30 |
| Re: .11
Your definition of a porkie is quite correct, Mark. Porkie is
abbreviated rhyming slang for a pork pie - lie. However, to add to
your 'further reference', porkies are also an American colloquialism
for porcupines.
There is no way in which Fr Wilson's first three porkies can be taken
to be 'analogies'. An analogy is an attempt to demonstrate the truth
of one hypothesis by showing a whole or partial similarity with the
logic of a proven hypothesis. A lie, on the other hand, is an
intentionally false statement. Fr Wilson was not attempting to make a
logical comparison. In the first two porkies, Fr Wilson was stating as
fact that which he knew not to be true; in the second two porkies he
was stating as fact that which he did not know to be true. All four
examples fulfill the definition of a lie.
I do not attempt to justify Bloody Sunday. However, I do not subscribe
to any conspiracy theory regarding it. If I were to subscribe to any
hypothesis, it would be that it was the logical result of putting
overstretched and demoralised troops into a situation of endangerment
without adequate leadership and direction. Were I to blame anyone, I
would blame the stupid bloody idiots who put them there and the stupid
bloody idiots who thought it clever to mount demonstrations in the middle
of a battle zone, thus forcing armed soldiers into positions where they
can be shot at and killed. Something of the sort was bound to happen
sooner or later. Indeed, its inevitability was such that one is forced to
consider whether or not that was the intention.
Joe
|
| 1016.14 | | EPIK::HOLOHAN | | Wed Mar 11 1992 09:24 | 18 |
|
Re: .13
The analogies I referred to were your statements.
Are you really that dumb? or are you only playing
dumb? (dumb as in the British term "thick").
You most certainly are justifying Bloody Sunday.
Now you excuse the British murderers because they
"were overstretched and demoralized". You go on
further to blame the victims,
"the stupid bloody idiots who thought it clever to
mount demonstrations in the middle of a battle zone,
forcing armed soldiers into positions where they
can be shot at and killed".
You're a sick individual!
Mark
|
| 1016.15 | | WMOIS::CHAPLAIN_F | Tempus Omnia Vincit | Wed Mar 11 1992 09:57 | 15 |
|
On the contrary, Mark, he is very sane...simply filled with hatred for
the Nationalist community of the north. A true Paisleyite.
I must admit, reading his notes for perhaps three years or so, he has
provided quite the education for me. I never fully realized the depth
of that hatred among the English, so eager to lie, so willing to give
up whatever integrity they may have possessed for the end of vilifying
the Irish at home and abroad, so profound is his soul-sickness.
I believe, however, he will be gone shortly. Understand the sickness
in his heart and let him go and be forgotten.
Frank
|
| 1016.16 | amen. | SUPER::DENISE | she stiffed me out of $20.!!! | Wed Mar 11 1992 11:30 | 1 |
|
|
| 1016.17 | Enough is enough | MACNAS::TJOYCE | | Wed Mar 11 1992 11:54 | 26 |
|
Re: Previous notes.
I have lived as close to the English as anyone in this country
(Ireland) and I must say the views expressed on the English do
not correspond to mine. If fact I am rather reminded of Hitler's
rantings on the Jews in "Mein Kampf".
If you are to accuse the English of race hatred of the Irish
(and I for one have never seen it) you do Ireland a great
disservice by associating us with your own pathological race
hatred. This Irishman at least will have nothing to do with
it.
For the record, I disagree with the views expressed three
notes ago on Bloody Sunday. I do agree that the leadership
of the paras on that day are mainly responsible. General
Ford, commander of the BA in the North, called "Go, Paras,
Go!" as they charged. I believe murder was committed and
I would still hope that the Widgery Enquiry is re-opened,
and someone may yet stand trial for that terrible day.
However I refuse to dishonour innocent dead men, by
condone the killing of more innocents in return.
Enough innocents have been slaughtered.
Toby
|
| 1016.18 | ZZZZzzz | CHEFS::HOUSEB | | Wed Mar 11 1992 12:16 | 5 |
| Please do not generalise with the English hate the Irish stuff. It is
untrue in a general sense, although true among some individuals, and is
tiresome to read.
Brian.
|
| 1016.19 | Amen! | MACNAS::TJOYCE | | Wed Mar 11 1992 12:24 | 1 |
|
|
| 1016.20 | | PEKING::WOODROWJ | The Purple People Eater | Wed Mar 11 1992 12:25 | 26 |
| Mark,
When I refer to bloody idiots, I am not referring to the victims.
I am referring to the officers who committed the paras in tactical
circumstances which, in my opinion, rendered it highly likely they
would lose control of the situation, and to the people who organised
an illegal demonstration in circumstances of increasing violence and
which had been condemned by all responsible people from both sides of
the sectarian divide.
The victims themselves I believe to have been just young, innocent
idealists that I suspect were sent like lambs to the slaughter. In the
circumstances, sooner or later there was bound to be a cock-up, and
a lot of innocent people were going to get hurt, as indeed happened.
I do not regard the squaddies as murderers. I believe that they were
victims as well. They are more and more coming to realise that the
people they killed were innocents who had been set up. That's
something they are still having to come to terms with.
Personally, I do not believe reopening the enquiry would achieve a
great deal. Most people have already made up their minds, and I don't
think anything is likely to change them. Too much blood has flowed
since.
Joe
|
| 1016.21 | | WMOIS::CHAPLAIN_F | Tempus Omnia Vincit | Wed Mar 11 1992 12:45 | 8 |
|
re .18
Yes, asleep you seem to be.
For the largest part I was referring solely to the English involved
in this discussion.
|
| 1016.22 | Pax Britannica | SIOG::OSULLIVAN_D | B� c�ramach, a leanbh | Thu Mar 12 1992 06:38 | 16 |
| Toby, I do not read your interpretation into Frank's comments, which
are directed specifically at Porky and his likes. You are a bit quick
getting on your high horse. If there are nazi comparisons in Ireland
then it is evident in the massive military control infrastructure which
has been built up and refined over the last 20 odd years. But then I
suppose you would prefer to get a bargain in downtown Belfast than
bother yourself about that.
I shouldn't have to say this, but your note by implication paints
people like myself as rabid English haters. I refute that and I resent
the implication. What I cannot abide however is the cringing
colonialist mentality that has ever enabled the English to parade
suitable paddies to lend them credibility in their unjust and divisive
control of this country.
-Dermot
|
| 1016.23 | | PEKING::WOODROWJ | The Purple People Eater | Thu Mar 12 1992 09:09 | 27 |
| Believe it or not, Dermot, Brits more sensitive than I, both in Britain
and in Ireland, somewhat resent being compared to the Nazis when it
was the Brits, both on the mainland and in Northern Ireland, who bore
the initial responsibility for stemming the Nazi tide while the
Republic sat on its backside doing nothing, applauded the Nazi invasion
of the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, and denied access to her ports by
the British Navy while the IRA actively colluded with the Nazis.
However, we also remember the thousands of men from the Republic who
voluntarily crossed over to Britain to fight by our side, and who now
lie forgotten in the war graves of Europe tended by the British. And
we remember the firefighters from the Republic who came to the aid
of Belfast after it was bombed.
So we know that the true spirit of the Irish people is not always
represented by their leaders as neither is it represented by those
who seek to draw such vile comparisons.
I would suggest to you, however, that it does not aid the cause of
Irish Unity to compare your putative compatriots, who happen to be
protestant and unionist, with Nazis. Strangely enough, it does not
persuade them or cause them to love you more. Possibly, they are more
sensitive than I because I, being British and living in England, do not
need you to love me whereas you, if you are ever to unite Ireland, need
your protestant and unionist co-habitants to love you.
Joe
|
| 1016.24 | | WMOIS::CHAPLAIN_F | Tempus Omnia Vincit | Thu Mar 12 1992 09:23 | 14 |
|
Ah now Dermot, you've got him raving now. I guess the comparison with
the Nazis was too close to home. Not surprising his defensive reaction
then.
His talk of Irish unity, the necessity of good relations between the
Nationalist and Unionist communities, yet not a word of Britain's
culpability in causing and continuing the war.
And then, of course, the barely cloaked venom against the Irish
throughout the little man's diatribe; that same venom I've seen
manifest itself in all its hateful glory time and time and time
again over the years.
|
| 1016.25 | zzzzz | SIOG::CASSERLY | Eireannach is ea me | Thu Mar 12 1992 09:37 | 19 |
| In all levels of society we have extremists. From what I have observed
in recent notes in this file we have come upon a number of people who
would appear be extremists in their own right.
I have many friends who live in NI and mainland Britain. I have
friends from NI with whom I associate with in my social life. They all
have opinions on the 6 counties situation and I am happy to say none
are extremist. Like myself,they live for the future and not for the
past. One or two of you experts should try the same instead of talking
in ever decreasing circles about a subject of which you feel so
strongly about.
What has happened in the past is part of our history and heritage.
But to grow as a people and a nation we must learn to move on from the
past and educate our children to do the same.
The personel insults which have been flying around of late do
absolutely nothing for your opinions or arguments and serve only to
show you extremists up for what you really are. Extremists!
Are there no moderators on this notes file?
slan
|
| 1016.26 | The New Nazis on the Block. | WREATH::DROTTER | | Thu Mar 12 1992 09:51 | 96 |
|
How is it that, one of the "world's older democracies" has debased and
degraded itself to such practices as found only in fascist dictatorships?
I say Dermot's right: the term "NAZI" still applies.
'The Troubles' Also Corrode British Liberties.
by Maureen Johnson
Manchester Union Leader
8/14/89
LONDON (AP) -Behind the lives destroyed by 20 years of violence in Northern
Ireland, lies another casualty: the corruption of civil liberties in Britain
itself.
In its attempts to crush the Irish Republican Army (IRA), a nation that
ranks among the world's older democracies adopted laws which opponents
say would look more at home in a fascist dictatorship.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher defends the practice of detaining suspects
for a week without charging them or banning British radio and television
stations from broadcasting interviews with IRA members as part of the price
for fighting terrorism.
"To beat off your enemy in a way you have to suspend some of your civil
liberties for a time," she said after last October's imposition of the
broadcast ban, which also covers members and sympathizers of 10 other
militant groups.
"None of us can be neutral as between the terrorist and the law-abiding
citizen", added Thatcher...
Her critics, however, detect a gradual warping of democratic freedoms since
"the troubles" flared and Britain dispatched troops Aug. 14, 1969, to keep
Northern Ireland's Protestants and Catholics apart. Twenty years later,
the troops remain.
The "Financial Times" of London, in an editorial in December, commented on
a "lengthening list of recent government decisions each of which has given
greater weight to reasons of state than to the civic rights of the individual.
Most, but not all, arise from the troubles in Northern Ireland."
However, the most controversial legislation, The Prevention of Terrorism Act,
is a legacy of a Labour government - enacted in 1978 after 21 civilians
were killed by an IRA bomb in an English pub.
The act, which applies throughout what is known formally as the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, includes police powers to detain
suspects for up to a week without charge.
In the decade of rule by Thatcher's Conservative government, Northern
Ireland's death toll climbed past 2,700 and Britain has been cited 21 Times
- the most by any country - for violating the European Convention On Human
Rights.
Her government imposed the ban on paramilitary groups and limited, or
proposed limiting the right of a suspect to remain silent.
Since last fall, courts in Northern Ireland have been able to interpret
an accused's silence after arrest as an indication, in some circumstances,
of guilt. Those circumstances are:
- Failing to mention during interrogation any fact offered in defense
at trial.
- Refusing to be sworn or answer questions at trial.
- Failing to explain any possessions or marks on the defendant's
clothing or person at the time of arrest.
- Failing to give an account for being at a particular place at the
time of arrest.
The courts themselves, which are convened without juries which might be
intimidated or split along sectarian lines, are also an extraordinary step
taken in 1973 to combat terrorism.
[End of article.]
One of the "Older democracies", eh? Wot a joke. Without stessing the obvious,
I'm sure even the most languid British observer knows why HMG has stooped to
such aberrant, uncivilized behaviour by passing such Nazi-like laws, and
WHO these "laws" were designed to subjugate.
It certainly isn't your own citizens, is it?
I mean, if a Diplock court were such a great thing, why don't all of the
good citizens of one of the "older democracies" run right out and DEMAND of
your MPs that this form of "equitable" jurisprudence be installed in jolly olde
England for everyone??? Eh Woody?
One of the ironies of life, or moreso, paradox is to see people,
governments and countries actually become what they fear most.
And considering how Britain mobilized so completely against Hitler and the
Nazis, isn't it now ironic that Britain has become the "new Nazis on the block"
with their fascist behaviour in NI.
|
| 1016.27 | | WMOIS::CHAPLAIN_F | Tempus Omnia Vincit | Thu Mar 12 1992 09:59 | 14 |
|
re .25
Becoming angry over injustice and bigotry is extremism??? If that's
the case then fine...an extremist I am.
I personally see extremism, however, as incorporating violence into
one's political philosophy, and I've not seen anyone advocate that here.
Or are you simply shy at the expression of anger? One man's 'insult'
is another's justified rebuttal.
Thanks
|
| 1016.28 | | EPIK::HOLOHAN | | Thu Mar 12 1992 11:10 | 13 |
|
Yes, in all levels of society we unfortunately have extremists. The
Joe Woodrow's and Ian Paisley's of life are sad. In society we also
have those who are apathetic. I think I find them more disturbing
than the extremists, because they share a general lack of compassion
and understanding of their fellow man, and turn a blind eye when their
fellow man is treated unjustly.
You're right to want to live for the future. You shouldn't live for
the past, you should learn from it. The more you learn from the past,
the less likely you will be to repeat, or allow to be repeated, the
mistakes from the past.
Mark
|
| 1016.29 | A word for Ian Paisley | MACNAS::TJOYCE | | Fri Mar 13 1992 05:29 | 8 |
|
While I disagree with Ian Paisley, kindly remember that he is an
Irishman elected by Irish people to represent their views. If
you are working for a United Ireland then it is the Ian Paisleys
of Ireland and their followers you must convince that such a
political entity would be in their interests.
Toby
|
| 1016.30 | | PEKING::WOODROWJ | The Purple People Eater | Fri Mar 13 1992 07:27 | 10 |
| It is also important to remember, Toby, than Ian Paisley's party
represents less than a quarter of the Unionist vote, and his Free
Presbyterian church represents just 1.6% of the non-catholic
population.
To stereotype every Unionist and every Protestant as an Ian Paisley
represents to me people who, when they look at Paisley, see only a
reflection of themselves.
Joe
|