Conference tallis::celt

    
    
    These figures puzzle me, more surprise me. The republican nationalists
    have killed by far the most people and the highest pecentage of people
    killed were catholic civilians. Can we believe these figures or are
    they RUC generated statistics.
    
    My question is what percentage of catholic civilians were killed by
    republican nationalists?
    
    Tony
    

    It only seems odd because of a lack of symmetry between the two
    sides.
    
    The targets for nationalist attacks are most often the security
    forces.  These are `legitimate targets' and the set themselves up
    by wearing a uniform.  
    
    There is no equally visible equivalent on the other side (except,
    perhaps, the Sinn F�in councillors) so the targets for loyalist 
    attacks are, more often than not, catholic civilians.
    

    Liam

    Re: .1
    
    The statistics are those of the "Irish Times", who state that their
    tally differs slightly from that of the RUC.
    
    I can attempt to answer your question:
    
    Assumption (1): All the victims of Loyalist and Security Force
    violence are Catholic (not completely true):
    
    Victims of Loyalist Paramilitaries:		 	 780
    Victims of Security Forces:			 	 360
    							----
    Total						1140
    Nationalist Paramilitaries killed by
    Security Forces and Loyalist Paramilitaries:	 183*
    							----
    							 957
    
    * This is the 300 Nationalist paramilitary deaths MINUS
      the 117 given separately by the Irish Times as having
      been killed by their own organisations in internal feuds,
      or as informers, or were blown up by their own bombs.
    
    Given the figure of 990 Catholic civilians have died in total,
    this leaves us with a minimum estimate of 33 Catholic Civilians
    killed by Nationalist Paramilitaries. 
    
    I assume you were looking for this figure for reasons associated
    with its irony, rather than that it is more "wrong" for a 
    Nationalist paramilitary to kill a Catholic civilian instead of 
    a Protestant.
    
    Toby

Re: .2
    
>    The targets for nationalist attacks are most often the security
>    forces.  These are `legitimate targets' and the set themselves up
>    by wearing a uniform.  
    
 This statement shows (a) there is such a thing as Republican propaganda
 and (b) it works. Not that I am accusing you of being a propagandist,
 Liam, just that you have been deceived.

 It is not true that the target for Nationalist attacks is most often
 the security forces. In terms of "targets", civilians are more likely
 to be victims than members of the security forces, particularly if
 you remember that the IRA/ INLA/ IPLO carry out a very wide range
 of violent activities. 

 For example, you can go through a list of bombings like:

 Moffetts Furniture Store, 1971	  	(4 dead)
 Abercorn Restaurant,1972 		(2 dead)
 Donegall Street,1972     		(6 dead)
 "Bloody Friday", 1972	  		(9 dead)
 Claudy, 1972		  		(9 dead)
 Birmingham, 1974	  		(21 dead)
 Guildford, 1974	  		(5 dead)
 La Mon Hotel, 1978			(12 dead)
 Kingsmills, 1976	   		(10 dead)
 Mountbatten Assassination, 1979 	(4 dead)
 Ballykelly disco bomb,198?		(17 dead)
 Darkley Gospel Hall, 198?		(3 dead)
 Harrods,1983				(6 dead)
 Brighton Grand Hotel, 1984		(5 dead)
 Enniskillen, 1987			(11 dead)
 Teebane, 1991				(7 dead) 
 Baltic Exchange, 1992			(3 dead)

Recall in each case those wounded is at least double those killed, in 
many cases multiplied by a factor of 10 or more.

These were mainly "economic targets" but, of the people killed, only
the Teebane workers, (more remotely) Lord Mountbatten and some soldiers
who attended the Ballykelly disco were "legitimate targets" (to use the 
parlance of the IRA). The vast majority of those wounded were civilians.
    
    I think that the figures in .0 show that Nationalist 
paramilitaries are in reality indiscriminate whether they kill or injure
    security forces or civilians (particularly Protestants) - in fact the 
    IRA/ IPLO/ INLA kill security force members and civilians in something 
    like a three-to-two ratio. The ratio of woundings must be something
    like one-to-ten. See note 1116 for some comments on this.
 
All the above were terrorist attacks in the grand style. In other 
"economic" bombings, the Nationalist paramilitaries have caused tens of 
millions of pounds worth of damage, not to mention incidents like
robberies, punishment shootings, hostage-taking, racketeering, executions 
and internal feuds.

So let's nail the lie that the Nationalist paramilitaries
"mostly" attack security forces. It's got the same credibility as
Bugsy Siegel's excuse for the Mafia: "We only shoot each other!"
It is an attempt to portray Nationalist paramilitaries as clinical 
and efficient in targetting the security forces, however the truth 
    is painfully different.

And let's also remember that most IRA/ INLA/ IPLO operations against
security forces are not carried out against the British Army,
but against the RUC - shooting cops on the beat doesn't strike
me as being very "military" in style. Attacks on the UDR almost
all take place when the victim is off-duty and at his/her most
vulnerable. Currently, the Nationalist paramilitaries concentrate
to the maximum extent on "soft targets", just like their 
counterparts across the sectarian divide.

Saying that the victims "set themselves up " is a classic technique 
of blaming the sufferer to somehow avoid caring about his/ her
tragedy. Don't fall into that trap, either.

Toby
    

    Re .4
    
    I know all about the IRA's (INLA's/IPLO's etc.) catalogue of terror,
    and I am not trying to excuse anything, but rather to explain. 
    Also, I am not deceived.  The Irish Times figures show Security
    force victims - 930, protestant civilians - 630, so my statement
    stands.  The IRA claim that they focus on `legitimate targets' is
    a simple statement of fact, if one accepts their definition of
    legitimate target.  This helps to explain the disparity in the figures
    noted by .1.
    
    As it happens, I don't accept the IRA's definition of legitimate
    target.  I think they are fighting an unwinnable war for a phantom
    objective.  Since the objective is not achievable (short of genocide
    on the northern protestants) their war cannot be just, and in an
    unjust war there are no `legitimate targets'.
    

    Liam    

    
    Re: .5
    
    We are ALMOST in complete agreement, but I am wary of statements
    that make it appear that the Nationalist paramilitaries are
    conducting clinical and efficent operations against the security
    forices and have little affect on the lives of "ordinary people".
    Your statement stands only if you confine it to deaths, if you look
    at robberies, bombings of "economic" targets, hostage taking,
    racketeering etc. you will find that "ordinary people" are affected
    by the IRA/ INLA/ IPLO far more than the death statistics might lead 
    you to believe.
    
    Its true that the IRA has a list of "legitimate targets" but this
    is so broad as to be directed almost indiscriminately at anyone
    who actively supports the British presence, and by the evidence
    they are also prepared to kill and wound indiscriminately to get 
    at those "legitimate targets".
    
    In 1987, for example, Northern Ireland saw 489 shootings, 236
    explosions, 506 malicious fires, and 858 armed robberies, all
    of which led to the deaths of 3 members of the British Army,
    16 members of the RUC, 8 members of the UDR and 66 civilians.
    While I am not saying that Nationalist paramilitaries are
    responsible for all the acts given above, or even that they
    were all politically related, however it shows that the picture
    of paramilitaries waging a surgical campaign against security
    forces with a few unfortunate "accidents", is a false one.
    
    There is a perception (particularly beyond these shores) that
    "they" (Protestant paramilitaries) have no compunction in killing 
    civilians, while "our" side conducts its campaign on non-sectarian
    lines and avoids useless killing of bystanders as much as possible. 
    I'm afraid this naive perception just doesn't stand up to the
    facts.
    
    While I agree with the bland statement that the Nationalist have
    killed more of the security than they have of civilians, I would
    not then concede their claim of running a campaign directed
    solely against "legitimate targets".
    
    I also agree with you that we are here discussing the iniquity of
    the way Nationalist paramilitaries conduct themselves - your
    statement (if I might paraphrase it) that these groups have no
    legal, ethical or moral right to wage their campaign in the 
    first place, is also something I can wholeheartedly support.
    Toby
    
    Above figures are form Flackes & Elliott: Northern Ireland 
    A Political Directory, 1968-88. 

    

Doubtless most noters will have become acquainted at this time with
the death of Peter McBride, 18-year old Catholic father of 2, shot
while running away from a British Army patrol in the New Lodge area
of Belfast on Friday 4th. He was apparently unarmed, and had fled 
after arguing with the patrol of Scots Guards.

Two members of the patrol are under arrest (in army custody) on
charges of murder. All the usual Nationalist suspicions have
been aroused - even if found guilty, there is no guarantee that
they will serve a full gaol term, as happened in the notorious case
of Private Ian Thrain. This soldier, after being found guilty of 
murder, was released and returned to duty after serving two years 
of his sentence.

In an unrelated event, Sinn Fein councillor Michael McLaughlin
showed again how that party's thought is still developing. He
stated that Protestants could not be coerced into a United
Ireland, and that they must be persuaded by peaceful advocacy.
He stated that the "quarrel" was with the British state in
Ireland and drew attention to a "convergence" between Sinn Fein
with the ideas of John Hume.

It is encouraging, even invigorating, to hear a Sinn Fein 
leader talk in these terms. If Sinn Fein continues on this
path, it could (possibly) become part of a Nationalist
consensus in Ireland. It could do so, for example, by
signalling support for the New Ireland Forum Report, put
together by the other Nationalist parties. It will also
have to somehow disentangle itself from the IRA.

McLaughlin went on to challenge those who decried Republican
violence to also oppose state violence on the streets of 
Northern Ireland. Which brings us back to Peter McBride.

There is no denying that a great deal of security force
activity is provocative and counter-productive. Occasionally,
it has been tantamount to murder. For people like Joe
Hendron, SDLP MP for West Belfast, and Brian Feeney, SDLP
councillor for the area where McBride got shot, it must
be a constant struggle to keep advocating peaceful response
even in the face of cases like this one. But I don't think
they can be found wanting in answer to challenges like
    that of McLaughlin. 
    
However, killings like this one do not "justify" anything.
McBride's death is just another senseless killing among
the others over the last two weeks:

1 IRA execution of an alleged informer (IRA responsible)
1 bystander killed in IRA gun attack (IRA)
2 IPLO members killed in an internal feud (IPLO)
1 UVF man killed in an internal feud (UVF)
1 British Army soldier killed (IRA)
1 Nationalist civilian killed (British Army)
2 Nationalist civilians killed (probably UVF assassination)

For there ARE areas of redress - under the Anglo-Irish
Agreement, Mr David Andrews Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Ireland was quick to demand a full enquiry
into the shooting, and will raise the matter with the
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. For once, the 
actions of the RUC were prompt - the soldiers were in
court within 24 hours of the shooting.

It is by these means that the death of Peter McBride can
be changed from becoming a meaningless statistic. The
old cycle of: State violence --> Nationalist powerlessness
and frustration --> Nationalist violence --> State
response, must be broken. Amnesty International have
shown again and again how state violence can be mitigated
by the peaceful advocacy that McLaughlin is in favour
of - this is the avenue that must be pursued by Nationalists 
who desire peace. Anything else only leads to more senseless
    and pointless deaths, mostly of the those completely
    innocent of any wrongdoing..
    
Nationalists have a lot more to gain in terms of world
support by sticking to legitimate means of protest.
More killings only besmirches the Irish case in the eyes 
of world opinion, and makes it seem like "just another 
death in that crazy Northern Ireland".

Further, Mr McLaughlin is being a bit coy - it is going to
be hard to separate the "British state" from the people
who support that state and give it meaning. The fact is
the Protestants see any attack on the British state as
an attack on themselves - and only a cessation of violence
will lead to the beginnings of the "peaceful advocacy" he
wants to pursue.

In spite of the savagery of the last two weeks (the official
death toll must now be at 3004), there are grounds for optimism
in Northern Ireland. 

Toby
    

  
  December 1776.  From the Essay, The Crisis, by Thomas Paine

  "These are the times that try men's souls,"  Paine began. "The summer
   soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from
   the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the
   love and thanks of man and woman.  Tyranny, like hell, is not easily
   conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the
   conflict, the more glorious the triumpth.  What we obtain too cheap,
   we esteem too lightly:  'Tis dearness only that gives everything its
   value.  Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and
   it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as Freedom
   should not be highly rated."

    
    Thanks, Mark, for the quotation .... but I am not sure if we
    put the same interpretation on it .... to me the "Tyranny"
    Paine refers to is the tyranny of hatred and communal violence.
    The country we must stand with is the country that exercises
    restraint and tolerance, even though it is oh so easy to echo 
    the catch cries of "No Surrender" or "Tiocfaidh �r l�" .... the 
    glory of peace without bloodshed is worth striving for.
    
    I also feel Thomas Paine, a true Republican, would resent the
    application of his words to a indiscriminate campaign of violence
    perpetrated by an elite group of conspirators without any 
    reference to the wishes of the people .... Paine stood for the
    "The Rights of Man", remember, pray tell me how the 3000+ deaths
    recorded in this note support anyone's rights. Note also that both 
    Loyalists and Nationalists could draw exactly the same justification 
    from your quotation. 
    
    The quotation I would give you in reply is that of Paine's
    contemporary, Wolfe Tone, the man who wanted to unite Catholic
    and Protestant under the common name of Irishman. At his trial,
    Tone said:
    
    "I looked for warfare in the open field, but if that has
     turned into a campaign of murder, rapine and plunder, then 
     I must heartily apologize to the court."
    
    Toby
    

  Toby,
    There is only one interpretation for Paine's words, the "Tryanny" 
  that Paine refers to was the presence of the British army of 
  occupation.  You're really stretching it with your communal violence
  baloney, but you are entitled to your opinion, weak as it may be.
    I'm sure you would have found fault with the 1776 men of violence,
  and I can't fault you for your pacifism.  I do fault you, however,
  when you preach your pacifism, as if it's the religion for all to
  follow.  Violence is wrong but sometimes it is necessary. I'll never
  understand someone who stands by and preaches non-violence to a man
  who's being held down while his head is kicked in by a gang of 
  British soldiers.

  Thomas Paine read the quotes I posted, aloud to the American
  Revolutionary Army.  Things weren't going well, the British had had
  their fun with our soldiers.  The men were distraught, there was no 
  backing by the general populace, and the war was dragging on from 
  one defeat to another.  Tories were everywhere (they were what you 
  would call Loyalist today, men and women who wished to remain
  British).  Amazing though it may sound, we even managed to live
  with these people later, in one united country. 

  So many Americans died for this cause, and so many rotted in British
  prisons.  Was there sacrifice worth it?  Toby, don't ever fault 
  someone who is willing to fight for his freedom, just because you
  inherited yours.

                                  Mark

    I would like to ask the question - Who would you call AMERICAN - To me
    they were the INDIANS uprooted by TRANSPLANTERS who decided to fight
    among themselves and call it the AMERICAN Revolution. There were not many
    AMERICANS (if any) fighting in that War, because the TRUE American is still
    not FREE.                               
    
    Stephen
    
    Seems I have been reading the IRISH version of this in this notes file.

    I believe the tyranny Paine was referring to was that of the British
    government (king) in its treatment of the colonies as something to be
    milked rather than supported.  The British Army would have been
    tolerated or even welcomed if the Crown had had a sane policy with
    respect to the taxation and economic of the colonies.

    
    Mark,
    
    Don't try to change the goalposts - the base
    note shows that 83% of the killing here is down to either
    Nationalist or Loyalist paramilitaries. This fact seems to
    have completely passed you by - of course you can easily
    be complacent about communal strife across the Atlantic,
    you won't have to endure its consequences. When the going
    gets rough, you can always change channels.
    
    The point that the Americans of 1776 were colonists,
    who had seized land violently from its true owners,
    has been made above. Ironically, they were in the position 
    that the Northern Ireland Loyalists are in now. The 1776 
    patriots also saw no problem with owning and trading in 
    black slaves.
    
    It is a fact that after Independence, over 100,000 Tory
    Americans had their property confiscated and were
    forced to leave the country - "ethnic cleansing"
    before its time! Is this what you and your compatriots
    have in mind for the Loyalists of Northern Ireland?
    Is fate of Yugoslavia is also going to be that of Ireland? 
    Is that what you want, Mark?
    
    Tom Paine and his comrades fought for high ideals -
    but they have no right "to rule beyond the grave".
    The freedom they fought for was the freedom TO CHOOSE,
    and we can choose to accept some of the things they
    accepted and reject others (like colonisation, black 
    slavery - and "ethnic cleansing"). Paine and Jefferson
    (and Pearse and Connolly) would expect no less of us.
    I would argue that if Paine and Jefferson were living 
    today they would execrate the IRA, IPLO, UVF, UDA and 
    all their works. They would truly see them as barriers 
    to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
    
    

    
    In respect to being described as a "pacifist", let me state
    unequivocally that I am not a pacifist. A pacifist is against
    violence in all circumstances, I would describe myself as
    as pragmatic in my attitude to violence, that is I admit 
    that situations exist where violence is the only means
    of settling an issue. I believe that this attitude is
    shared with the majority of humanity.
    
    We would all of course, use violence to defend ourselves
    and our families, we would use an appropriate level of
    violence to defend our property. On the personal level,
    the choices are easy. It is more difficult when we get
    to discussing the application of mass violence i.e.
    violence administered on our behalf by some authority
    or group claiming to represent us.
    
    At this stage of the 20th century, in most western
    societies, the state is given the sole authority to
    use violence - arrest, detention, execution etc.
    though citizens are by law entitled to use violence
    in certain circumstances. Things were different in,
    say, the feudal era, when private armies and private
    violence were common.
    
    My problem with the private armies in Ireland is
    that they have no legitimate authority, have no
    clearly defined political or military objectives, 
    are prepared to inflict deep suffering on a innocent 
    population in pursuit of meagre gains, and are clearly 
    only indulging in violence either for monetary gain,
    or for propaganda. Their "strategists" spout the
    "People's War" theory of Mao and Ch� Guevara, in
    practice you find the same old communal hatreds.
    
    On the other hand, the response being pursued by
    the state is fraught with many risks to normal 
    human and civil rights. However, these can be 
    combatted by the time-honoured methods of protest
    and international pressure.
    
    Pragmatically, there is nothing that can be gained
    from violence in Ireland that is worth the suffering
    it entails. A look at the fate of Lebanon, Cyprus,
    Sri Lanka, Bosnia, and other divided societies can
    only confirm that.
    
    Toby

re. .11
  Stephen, I would call American, those people either
  born or naturalized in the North American continent.
  We commonly refer to what you called INDIANS, as
  native Americans.  I would also be the first to agree
  with you that the native Americans were given a bum
  deal.

re. .12
  The tyranny wrought on America was by the British
  government and it's military representatives (the 
  British army of occupation).  If you read the
  Declaration of Independence you'll notice that human
  rights, along with (illegal trials, seizures, billeting
  of British troops) were some of the U.S.'s major
  issues with the British.  As for "The British Army would
  have been tolerated or even welcomed", perhaps by
  your relatives, not by mine.

re. .13
  Toby, I forgot to comment on your quote from Wolfe
  Tone.  I believe this is the same Wolfe Tone who also
  stated, "... break the connection with England, the
  never failing source of all our political evils and 
  to assert the independence of my country."
  As for your comments on the mistakes made by the 1776
  patriots, I never said they were gods above reproach,
  just that they were heroic.  I would argue that if Paine
  and Jefferson were alive today they would be busy
  writing political doctrine in support of the IRA.  As
  a matter of fact, of that I am certain.

 re. .14
  Sorry Toby, I see, it's pragmatism when it's pacifism
  preached to another man who is oppressed.  Sorry Toby,
  where I come from, we still call a spade a spade.

  You state:
  "Pragmatically, there is nothing that can be gained
   from violence in Ireland that is worth the suffering
   it entails."
  Lovely, now if you can only convince the British, 
  you'll be all set.  Good luck.

  

    RE: .13
    
    Actually, around the time of 1776 most Native Americans generally
    welcomed the new white settlers.  Trading between the two groups
    was substantial - Native Americans exchanging pelts, agricultural
    knowledge, etc. for metalwear and other novelties.  More Native
    Americans died of Old World diseases than from violent conflict
    with the white settlers.  Most of the more violent conflicts between
    the settlers and Native Americans occurred later in the 1800's in the
    Midwest.
    
    Also, many of the Tories who left for Yarmouth and Halifax later
    later returned after several years.  Remember that something like
    50% of the settlers were pro British, the other half were pro
    independance.  I'm not sure of the fraction that left the colonies
    due to the revolution, but not *all* Tories were forced to leave the
    colonies.
    
    /George
                      

    Toby, I checked tonight and there were about 250,000 Massachusetts
    residents in 1776.  According to Nova Scotia history, several thousand
    Tories arrived due to the revolution (mostly from Boston).  So at most
    two percent of the population left.  (I believe about 1/3 of them returned
    to Massachusetts several years later)  And the Tory population was
    much higher than 2% at that time.  So some Tories hid or kept a low
    profile in the years after the revolution.
    
    /George

    
    Re: .16 and .17
    
    Robert Middlekauff in the "The Glorious Cause" gives the number
    of American Loyalists as 500,000, which he states was about 16% 
    of the white population. He goes on to state that 80,000 left
    the country during or after the war and went to Canada, Britain
    or the West Indies. The different states passed laws regulating
    Loyalism, passing laws against anyone who had supported the
    British war effort mainly by confiscating all or part of their
    property. The Loyalists were weakened by being spread out 
    through the colonies - in no area did they form a strong
    majority. If you are looking for Irish parallels, they were
    more in the position of the Anglo-Irish, rather than the
    Ulster Scots-Irish.
    
    Oddly, the main supporters of the British were Germans, Dutch
    or Scots. English or Scots-Irish (in general) supported the 
    Revolution - colonists like their cousins in Northern Ireland.
    I reckon if Paine or Jefferson were alive today, they would
    to quite likely to support their relatives - don't you?
    
    Personally, I would regard Paine's legacy as one for us all
    - but we have to admit that there were cases where the
    Revolutionaries fell short of their high ideals. That
    does not make the ideals ignoble, though.
    
    Toby

    
    Re: .15
    
    "..if Paine or Jefferson were alive today they'd be writing
     in support of the IRA ....."	(Mark Holohan)
    
    I'm sure most Americans would turn with disgust from the thought
    of the writer of the Declaration of Independence trying to justify
    the taking of innocent lives, in effect becoming an ally of
    Colonel Ghadaafi, however let's look at this proposition in
    terms of the IRA compared with the patriots of 1776.
    
    (1) Legitimate Authority: The patriots of 1776 organised a
    Continental Congress representing over 80% of the people
    of the colonies. This justified the magnificent statement
    in the Declaration of Independence "We, the people,... .
    This Congress was recognised by a major power (France) and 
    signed a Treaty of Assistance with it.
    
    The IRA CANNOT justify any such statement as "We, the people,..".
    Their political wing has never achieved more than 5% support
    in Ireland, or 13% support in Northern Ireland. They never
    got the support of a major power - even Colonel Ghadaafi
    is busy telling the British all about his links with them.
    The PLO keep them at arms length, and even "Pravda" drew
    the line after the Enniskillen bombing.
    
    (2) Clear Military and Political Objectives: After the
    Declaration of Independence the Patriots had a clearly
    enunciated and detailed objective. The IRA have nothing
    except cheap slogans like "Brits out!" or "Tiocfaidh
    �r l�". What form of United Ireland they want, Federal,
    Unitary or Otherwise is unclear. Nor is it clear what
    would the future of the Loyalists be in any state they
    might set up.
    
    (3) The objective worth the suffering involved.
    The American War of Independence was light in casualties,
    relative to later wars, armies were small and fought in 
    the open field with relatively little effect on civilian 
    populations. American deaths amounted to about 6000 in
    an 8 year war, about .32%, the vast majority being
    soldiers. Deaths in Northern Ireland are at .2% in a war 
    lasting 25 years, with the majority of victims being
    totally innocent of any wrongdoing. The "war" is in 
    fact a type unheard of in the 18th century - a communal
    war must as we are now seeing in the former Yugoslavia,
    accompanied by a tremendous depth of bitterness lacking
    in 1776, a bitterness that will take years to eradicate.
    
    (4) Violence directed towards a military objective.
    The major effort of the 1776 patriots was directed
    towards the enemy army in the open field. Since the
    IRA cannot defeat the British in the open field,
    its violence is mainly directed at the MORALE of the
    opposition, thus it is mainly for propaganda
    purposes. It is a message repeated long after everyone
    has stopped listening. It is also directed for material 
    gain for the organisation - bank robberies, kidnapping,
    racketeering etc. I find it hard to picture Thomas
    Jefferson leaving Monticello to sell "An Phoblacht"
    at street corners, or George Washington leaving
    Mount Vernon to rob a bank or blow someones kneecap
    off, but Mark seems to think they would.
    
    While the men of 1776 were revolutionaries, they
    were careful to put themselves forward as legally
    constituted authority fighting a "just war" for
    clearly defined objectives. In fact they feared 
    revolutionary violence out of control of authority
    and would have vehemently rejected any indiscriminate
    killing or sectarian warfare. I do not accept (nor 
    would any sensible person) that they would support 
    (or even understand) the war being waged in Northern 
    Ireland.

    
    Re: .15
    
    Mark, 
    
    Correction .... Tone wished to break the connection
    with England "...by uniting Catholic and Dissenter". You
    omitted that key qualification. "Dissenters" were what
    we would now call Presbyterians, unfortunately the latter-
    day claimants to his mantle see Presbyterians as Armalite
    fodder. Tone went on to lament the "assassination, murder
    and plunder" of the 1798 Rising just like I said. He
    would surely lament the similar results of the IRA
    campaign.
    
    I stand over pragmatism as the way forward. You may think
    in absolutes if you like, but you will find it only
    ends in fanaticism and a corrosive hatred. Conficius
    said "It is easy to shoot beyond the mark" (he did,
    honest!). I can only hope you (and your ilk) come to 
    your senses in time.
    
    The security forces in Northern Ireland are not angels,
    I will admit that, but I cannot admit that they are
    not capable of improvement through peaceful means.
    
    Toby

  Toby, your really out on a limb now, hold on a second
  while I go and get my saw :-)

  From you .18, you say,
  "If you are looking for Irish parallels, they were
    more in the position of the Anglo-Irish, rather than the
    Ulster Scots-Irish."
  I think not.  Perhaps if I draw a picture:
       Ulster Scots-Irish --> Loyal to Britain
       American Tories --->  Loyal to Britain
       
  the blasphemy continues with
  "Oddly, the main supporters of the British were Germans, Dutch
    or Scots. English or Scots-Irish (in general) supported the 
    Revolution - colonists like their cousins in Northern Ireland.
    I reckon if Paine or Jefferson were alive today, they would
    to quite likely to support their relatives - don't you?"
  I think not.  These two men fought against the British,
  ergo they would not have supported a bunch of Loyalist.
  For your information, Paine was born in England.  I bet
  he even had British relatives, that didn't stop him
  from supporting a cause that was right.  
  Here's another shocker, I was born in London, I have
  plenty of relatives in London, do I support the British?
  I think not.
                               Mark

 Where's my axe? :-)

  re. .19

  I'm glad you mentioned Colonel GhaGoofy.  The British and their
  Libyan ally, Colonel GhaGoofy, are teaming up as we speak, to
  tackle the Irish Republican Army.  I'm sure they'll make good
  bed-fellows.
  Then you followed with your anti-rebuplican diatribe.

  Where do you get your American History facts from?  A book 
  published in London?  I've some suggested reading on American
  History if you are interesed (just send me mail).  You would
  be suprised at the things the founding fathers did in their
  war on the British.  From printed propaganda, and gross 
  distortion of British attrocities, to the torture and killing
  of civilians aiding the enemy.  There was nothing legal, and 
  few things moral in what had to be done to win the freedom of 
  the U.S.  The only difference between our founding fathers and
  the Irish Republican Army of today, is that they have been given
  the benefit of time in which to have their actions judged.

  The Son's of Liberty (the organization formed by our founding
  fathers to ferment a revolution) was not considered a legitimate
  authority (at least by the British, and their Tory supporters).
  They also did not have a majority support of Americans, unless 
  you consider a few hundred followers to be support of the people.  
  
  I won't continue picking apart your other errors (like the 80%
  representation, or legally constituted authority), but I suggest
  you find yourself another history book (perhaps one not printed
  in Britain?).
                      Mark
  
  

    Its funny how little is said of the Massacre of the True Americans by
    the so called civilised Colonists who's only priority was to gain more
    land by any means (very much like the Brits). Just like the "Battle of
    Wounded Knee" (American Properganda) not a battle but a massacre of
    Sioux men, women and children by 7th cavalrymen, who either lost their
    heads or were bent on revenging their defeat at Little Bighorn. 
    
    Stephen 

    
    Re: .21 & .22
    
    I think we can easily deduce where Paine would have stood today
    from an incident which happened later in his life.
    He actually experienced "Revolutionary Terror" while living in
    Paris during the Revolution. For opposing the Reign of Terror
    engineered by Robespierre, Paine spent 11 months in gaol. Thus
    Thomas Paine had some scruples about the means to be used to
    achieve the "Rights of Man".
    
    Like Wolfe Tone, Paine (and Washington and Jefferson) looked
    to open warfare against the enemy in the field to achieve their
    ends - they would have reacted with loathing to a terrorist
    campaign in which the majority of losses were innocent lives.
    
    Toby
    
    P.S.
    I notice that Colonel Ghafaafi is less popular with the 
    "Republican Movement" than he once was. Mark, does this
    mean that you think the IRA should give the guns back?

Charlie Fox, the 63-year-old east Tyrone Catholic shot dead in his 
pyjamas last Monday night by people who proclaim their commitment
to "civil and religious liberty", might have been listening to his
radio two weeks ago when respected Protestant churchmen asserted 
that their community was the victim of a policy of "ethnic cleansing"
in the border regions.  If he had a radio in heaven last Tuesday, 
he and his wife Teresa will not have heard much railing against the 
deaths of the elderly couple in their farmhouse near Dungannon.  With 
the exception of local Unionist MP Ken Maginnis, there has been little
criticism of the killers from the Six County establishment.
  The Foxes were no strangers to the consequences of loyalist
hatred.  Some years ago they were among the first on the scene when
two elderly Catholic neighbours were cut down by loyalist paramilitaries
(another glorious case of mistaken identity).  Their son-in-law, Kevin
McKearney was murdered in his shop last January as he served his
customers.
  It is not just in east Tyrone that Catholics are on a receiving end 
of a campaign which has provoked virtually no criticism from the 
political and religious establishment in the Six Counties.  Twenty 
four hours after the shootings in Tyrone, some other defenders of
liberty machine-gunned a terrace of Catholic homes on the Crumlin
Road in Belfast, injuring a child and narrowly missing a week-old
baby.  But such behaviour scarcely merits mention in the mainstream
media: not even the murders of 500 Catholics in north Belfast have
caused them to work up a head of steam.
  As we have pointed out before, the primary victims of the politics
of sectarianism in the North are uninvolved Catholic civilians.  In
virtually every decade in this century the economic sectarianism
which underpinned the northern state and its institutions has welled-up
to the point where it found expression in physical violence directed
against Catholics.  No amount of polished rhetoric can obscure that fact.

-- The Sunday Business Post, September 13th, 1992.

    
    Frankly, I think the Sunday Business Post are being very
    selective: They fail to mention the case of David Dougan,
    shot and wounded by the IRA through the window of his home
    in Co Armagh last Monday night. The IRA claim he is a member
    of the Royal Irish Regiment, which is denied by his family
    and the authorities. 
    
    No doubt the IRA will apologise for its "mistake", as it has
    so often before. By concentrating on Protestant security force
    members and their families, the IRA hopes to avoid the tag
    of being sectarian.
    
    I draw your attention to an article in yesterday's Irish Times
    on the subject of tit-for-tat killings. They reprint the
    following statement from the IRA, which they call "breathtakingly
    pompous":
    
    "The reckless decision by the British police and commercial
     interests not to evacuate hotels in London's Park Lane on
     Sunday evening could have led so easily to loss of life.
     On this occasion they were fortunate that the explosive 
     device was a small one. In the future, this policy of
     playing with people's lives may well lead to have more
     serious consequences."
    
    The SBP articles verifies the Irish Times reporter: the
    IRA are very adept at shifting blame (they "apologised"
    for Enniskillen, too), and some people are gullible 
    enough to fall for it. The SBP also seems to forget
    that for three security force lives taken by the IRA, 
    two lives of Protestant civilians are also taken. 
    
    The article goes on to quote a priest as calling the IRA's
    intelligence gathering as "pub-talk". A young man was shot
    for always having his shoes shined (Obviously he had to be in
    in the UDR.) I have heard of a case of a young man being
    shot because he drove a new car (Obviously must be on a good
    security force salary.)
    
    The article also describes the fears of Protestants living
    in the border areas, who are as vulnerable to the IRA as
    Catholics in North Belfast are to the UVF. These people
    don't have much confidence in the IRA's "intelligence".
    
    Toby

    Toby, the British learned very very quickly that the colonists
    did not practice "open warfare".  On the contrary, the militias
    ambushed the British by shooting from trees, behind houses,
    everywhere they were not expected.  That's probably why the
    colonists were so successful.  And yes, several innocent lives
    were lost as in every military campaign.  There's a great
    interpretive center at Lexington Green describing the battle of
    Lexington and Concord.

    
    Re: .27
    
    True, but the colonists discovered very quickly that to 
    defeat the British, they would have to fight in line like
    European armies. Hence the importance of the Prussian
    von Steuben, who was employed to teach them to do exactly
    that.
    
    There was a dirty partisan war in the Carolinas, with
    Tories and Whigs burning each other's farms, but that
    took place only with the strong disapproval of the
    Revolutionary commander, and it was a sideshow to the
    main campaign.
    
    Toby

    
    I think that the glorification of open field warfare over 
    guerilla methods is sick.
    
    Liam

    
    Re: .29
    
    I think the point made was that the revolutionaries of 1776
    would have drawn the line at terrorism, particularly if it
    caused more useless suffering than the problem they set out
    to resolve.
    
    Don't confuse assertions that something is a fact with 
    "glorification".
    
    Toby

 re. .29
  Even more important, don't confuse Toby's "facts",
  "the colonists discovered very quickly that to 
  defeat the British, they would have to fight in line
  like the British," with the reality, that the 
  revolutionaries fought a guerilla war.

  Toby, the freedom fighters of 1776 won cause they 
  weren't stupid enough to, stand in a nice straight 
  line, fight by British rules, or wear bright red 
  coats.

  There was nothing glorious about the British, or their
  method of fighting. (Read note 1104.16 for examples)

              Mark

    The minutemen were mostly farmers.  All they had
    were muskets, with which you can not hit the broad side of
    a barn.  There are bullet holes in houses a 1/2 mile from
    the North Bridge. 
    
    Julie - from Concord, MA.