Conference tallis::celt

    
    You know what's truly ironic? How Mark makes a hobby of dredging up
    every polemic he can find that tries to show the injustice of British
    rule, especially with regard to the emergency powers that are a reaction 
    to the terrorism instigated by the IRA and their loyalist equivalents, 
    while he makes it very clear that the IRA, who are lawless, are beyond
    condemnation because their cause is right. In short, the ends justify
    the means, for one side... 
    

  re. .1
  I'm terribly sorry Mr. Eastland.  Did I upset your
  delicate British sensibilities by daring to question
  oppressive British legislation, British human rights
  violations, and British state-sponsored terrorism?

                    Mark

 

    
    As I say, I'm just commenting on the true irony here - you being so 
    concerned with human rights when you support an organization who
    happily blows off kneecaps without a second thought, let alone due
    process. But do carry on.    
    

    I know that trying to get a straight answer to a straight question from
    the pro-IRA lobby is a waste of time, but let me try:
    
    	Q. If your wife / girlfriend / daughter had been killed
    	   in the recent bombing of the World Trade Centre in 
    	   New York, would you have considered it an acceptable
    	   price to pay to help the terrorists achieve their aims?
    
    I wait, not too optimisitcally, for a straight answer (perhaps Mr
    Holohan feels he should avoid this one?)

 re. .3. .4

 What, does an article condemning British
 legislation that violates human rights, have to do
 with accusations of support for the IRA?

                       Mark




                 

    
    I already told you. Face it, you're an unlikely messenger. 

 re. .6
  Ok Eastland, back to your fantasyland, please take
  your IRA bogeymen wet dreams somewhere else.  I think
  you would have more fun in 
 
        alt.ira.ira-supporters.are.everywhere 
 
  Everyone knows you for the British apologist you are.

 Now, back to the topic at hand.  Does anyone know if
 the Republic of Ireland has similiar oppressive 
 legislation. 

                   Mark

From:	US1RMC::"IRL-POL%[email protected]" "IRL-POL - Discussion of Irish Politics" 28-JUL-1993 12:08:30.73
To:	George Darcy <TALLIS::darcy>
Subj:	RE: Emergency Powers in northern Ireland

Thanks to Mark Holohan for this post. In his response, Tony Killeen is
correct in that there are similar laws enacted in the south....with
not insignificant exceptions. All of these so called "prevention articles"
are none the less repressive and an insult to sound judicial reasoning.

        1. In the south charges under these articles are and have been
successfully challenged. In the north, no such possibility exists.

        2. Gardai must be in uniform and present identification on
request.
        3. Some information is not permissable to ask for ie.
           "where are you coming from" is permissable
           "where are you going is" is not.
        4. Prior to arrest, the questioner has no "right" to other
information, such as birth date, place of work, information about
friends and relatives etc.

The list of exceptions is extensive, and the differences between the
acts profound. Anyone wishing a copy of the particulars of each, north
occupied Ireland and the south need only send me their snail mail
address as I enter all text myself and haven't the time to do so here.

                                               slan go foill

                                               Chuck O'Ceallaigh

    Anyone can look at 154.24 in mr4srv::world_forum (as of now anyway) and
    see you equate the IRA with the American patriots in 1776. As for the
    'current topic', you don't really start discussions. You post articles
    you find in the Globe or on the net, then steadfastly refuse to engage
    in discussion. That's probably why you don't get much response. Also I do 
    not regard myself as a British apologist. My own belief is that the
    troops should pull out after the 6 counties are forced on an unwilling
    Republic, with a change in constitution and guarantees to what would
    become the new minority. Not everyone will agree and perhaps there are
    fatal flaws with such a simplistic statement of desire (such as whether
    anyone could guarantee anything).   
    
    In any event, realizing you run when the hard questions start, I'll risk a 
    comment without necessarily saying I agree with it. While I was in England
    in April after the Warrington attack by the brave freedom fighters, I read
    a column by Conor Cruise O'Brien saying that limited internment of both
    IRA and Protestant paramilitary leaders would be the only thing that
    would cut down the violence. That was in the Independent I think. The same 
    day the Sunday Times published a list of the names of the leaders of the
    IRA along with their addresses. They apparently live with impunity as
    Godfathers in the Republic. He favored limited internment so as not to
    enable any more false martyrs than necessa, to avoid the mistakes of the
    past internment policy.

    I imagine American troops in Panama were guilty of infractions too.
    I can't think of any situation where the authorities are dealing
    with day by day terorrist attacks or risk of attack where you'll
    find the same degree of civil liberties as you might find in, say,
    Maryland, and even in the US, having 2,290 prisoners on death row is seen
    as a blow to human rights by your Amnesty international, alomg with other
    infractions.

    What is hypocritical is folks like you with an obvious axe to grind,
    and IRA supporters in general, crying out "oooh, look, they no play by the 
    rules like they should". As I say, you're a lousy messenger.
 
   
    

.4�    I know that trying to get a straight answer to a straight question from
.4�    the pro-IRA lobby is a waste of time, but let me try:
    
    So gratifying to be proved right.

    
    The point is to disseminate propaganda rather than to discuss the issue, 
    after all. 

  The issue is British human rights violations and
  oppressive legislation.  Would you like to discuss
  it?  

                     Mark 

re.13 

Yes please. You're always good for a laugh when you try to spout off about 
the alleged abuses.

You normally, sorry *always*, end up trying to generalise in the usual 
racist claptrap.

See ya'

Mark R.

    
    Ok, we're waiting. Discuss it then. 

  What do you think it must feel like to be one of
  the 60,000 innocent men/women detained under the
  PTA just because they have Irish accents or Irish
  names? 

  What do you think it must feel like, to be one of 
  the 7,000 arrested and held for 7 days?  I'd bet it
  leaves a bad taste in a man's mouth to lose your
  job (cause you couldn't get to it), and your only
  means of supporting your wife and children.

  Speaking of racism, isn't it interesting that the
  South African's wanted similiar legislation
  for themselves.  As a matter of a fact, aren't the
  British pushing for identity cards, so they can
  track the coming and going of nationalist as they
  come and go from their ghettos.

  I notice that Rennison makes the claim that these
  are alleged abuses.  I suppose you don't believe
  that the PTA exists?  Perhaps you live in a cave?
  Ah, yes that must be it.  Don't get the Daily Mirror
  delivered to the local caves?
                         
                       "See ya'"
                        Not if I see ya first.
                            Mark H.

    Mark, come to England and preach your words. Do it in London: perhaps,
    you'll get blown up by your friends.

>  What do you think it must feel like to be one of
>  the 60,000 innocent men/women detained under the
>  PTA just because they have Irish accents or Irish
>  names? 

All innocent are they ?  I find that very hard to believe. Incidently, it 
doesn't apply exclusively to those with Irish accents/names. Seven people 
were arrested in Scotland last month under the PTA. One of them, a 
housewife, has since been released. The police put this down to them 
receiving the wrong information. So you see, it's not a huge conspiracy 
against the Irish alone.


>  Speaking of racism, isn't it interesting that the
>  South African's wanted similiar legislation
>  for themselves.  As a matter of a fact, aren't the
>  British pushing for identity cards, so they can
>  track the coming and going of nationalist as they
>  come and go from their ghettos.

The ID card proposal has been scrapped - too unpopular.



>  I notice that Rennison makes the claim that these
>  are alleged abuses.  I suppose you don't believe
>  that the PTA exists? 
 
Of course the PTA exists. We have a problem with terrorism so the logical 
step is an Act of Parliament to try to combat it. IF the US had a terrorism 
problem, wouldn't you find it just a little strange if your govenment did 
nothing about it ?


>    Perhaps you live in a cave?
>  Ah, yes that must be it.  Don't get the Daily Mirror
>  delivered to the local caves?
                        

Believe it or not, I don't live in a cave and I don't buy the Daily 
Mirror. If your knowledge of Britain was anything at all, you'd know that 
the Daily Mirror is sold in Scotland as the Daily Record (which I don't buy 
either).  I read the Glasgow Herald if that's of any interest.

By the way, I don't disagree with everything you write Mark. I have 
absolutely no doubt at all that there are human rights abuses in Northern 
Ireland. I agree that some day Ireland should be one nation again. 

What does annoy me is your simplistic arguments that if British troops were 
to withdraw, the whole problem would go away. From where I am, if the 
troops were to pull out, the you-know-what would really hit the fan.  The 
loyalists paramilitaries recently orchestrated riots because the Orange 
Walk was re-routed to avoid catholic areas. They saw this as a betrayal of 
their rights, their history etc.  Now if that's what they do when they are 
asked to change their walks, think what they will do when told to change 
their country. And remember there will be no British Army to protect the 
Catholics this time. 


Cheers...Mark

    
    Mark said "I can speak for London" when it comes to detention or
    harassment by police there of people with Irish accents, yet when
    asked to spell out his experiences in that city, including dates,
    demurred. I suspect this proposition of his is equally suspect. 
    

  Sorry Mark, you're right, probably only 59,993 were
  innocent.
  
  By the way, the US does have a problem with terrorism,
  but we haven't begun to censor political parties, 
  hold "jury-less" trials, or put troops in our 
  Arab-American communities.  On the other hand, it's
  probably time that we question our unwavering 
  funding for the Israeli war machine.  Perhaps it's
  time that the British question their unwavering
  support of the Loyalist.  Is the British government
  so afraid of the Loyalist that it must kick the
  Nationalist dog, to placate the Orangemen.

  Perhaps it's time for the might of the British Army
  to be used to disarm, and "educate" the Loyalists?
  Or better yet, perhaps the folks involved should all
  be invited to the peace table, and allowed to come
  to their own decisions.

  As for the newpapers in Scotland, you'll have to 
  forgive me.  I've only lived in London, not any
  other part of Britain.

                        Mark

    
    The US does NOT have a problem with terrorism on anything like the same
    scale as does Britain or NI, so cut the holier than thou. If ever
    terrorism such as used against WTC is a constant fact of life you can
    expect a lot of pushing for suspension of some of the BOR. The fact
    that in the US the neo-constitutionalists and pro-rights lobbies
    work to prevent any meaningful law enforcement against drug gangs or in the
    inner cities, is nothing to be especially proud of. The RICO act in
    this country and SWAT type paramilitary tactics (such as dropping a
    bomb on a city block in Philadelphia, or shooting a man to death in his
    house during a raid for marijuana) come mighty close to the kinds of
    things you are targetting Britain for. The rights of endless black
    prisoners on Death Row for 20 years are nothing to write home about
    either.
    
    

    re: -1
    
    The old Brit tactic again.  Change the subject and ridicule the person
    who brings up the subject.
    
    Britain's record in Ireland is despicable, full stop.  Wholesale civil
    rights abuses are a permanent part of their maintaining a hold on
    the country.  Most of their victims are easily marginalised and do not
    have the means to counter their tactics.  Britain has chosen violence
    as their solution to the problem.

    
    The way you use "Brit" comes close to a stereotype. I had hoped we were
    past that now. Perhaps you'd like to explain how you meant it? While 
    you're at it, show the ridicule in the reply.  
    

re. .23

  PLONK

    
    My new nickname?

Mark,

With a reply like .23, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously ?
A one-word insult and nothing else - that's pretty low.

Mark R.

    
    Meanwhile IRA presumably firebomb Bournemouth. Great military target
    that. What a war machine.
    

 re. 27
  Must be time to arrest a few paddys down at the building site, knock'em
  around a bit, and force a confession or two.  That ought to keep the 
  British public happy.

                   Mark

    
    Oh dear, a rather typical gratuitous reply again. And one gets the idea
    that the 'lot of economic damage' is not ungratefully received, Those
    that were bombed were hardly the Tory establishment. 
    

You're nothing but a racist Holohan.  To make generalisations like that 
about any minority group would get you sacked.

 re. .30
  No, what I am is someone who is disgusted with the
  British racism directed towards the Irish people.

                    Mark
  

    
    So your answer is to use racist comments in this notes file, huh.
    

    re: .28
    I have just rediscovered this notes file.... somethings just never
    change do they!!
    
    Tom

    I heard on the radio this morning that two people were awarded �6000
    each for wrongfull arrest and detention by the police some time ago.
    They had gone to the wrong address.
    

I've just finished reading about in the Glasgow Herald.  Supposedly the two 
were arrested, strip-searched in a room with the door open, denied food and 
water for 10 hours, denied access to a phone in order to notify family of 
their whereabouts. They were given access to  a solicitor five minutes 
before their release and it was only then were they told why they had been 
arrested.  

Police blame "administrative errors causing them to go to the wrong 
address.

Apparently the arrests were of a fairly brutal nature. One of the victims 
told of feeling a boot on the back of her neck forcing her face into the 
carpet. Both suffered substantial bruising.

�6000 seems a little on the low side to me.

Mark

 re. .34

   This is a step in the right direction.  Now there is
  another 60,000 from 1986 alone, who deserve to be 
  awarded compensation.  Unless of course this is just
  a token jesture, for political reasons.
                         Mark

    
    Keystone Cops are alive and well.

    Addressing the point about U.S. support for Israel:
    Different issue completely, without U.S. support, Israel would be in a
    world of hurt really fast.  Israel went to war on all possible fronts
    the day it was declared a sovereign nation and has been under constant
    attack ever since.  Israel and the Jewish people have been oppressed an
    persecuted in ways the people of NI don't even have nightmares about. 
    60,000 people stopped, questioned, and perhaps harrassed, are not even
    a drop in the ocean compared to 6million people systematically murdered
    during a less than ten year period.  The oppression of the Jewish
    people has been going on since before Ireland had even been discovered. 
    The Israelis have made a strong resolution that they will never allow
    to happen, what they allowed to happen before the formation of the
    Jewish State, in support of that effort they have enacted legislation
    that is fiercely protective of their rights, both to a homeland and to
    their safety within those borders.  There is no question that they have
    commited numerous human rights violations in that cause, at least by
    Western standards.  What most westerners do not understand is that
    Israel and the Middle East, are not in the West, they have a different
    set of standards, different codes, not to mention the fact that there
    is a war, a real war, going on along Israel's borders, terrorism is a
    daily issue in Israel and they are surrounded by potential enemies.  
    There is no comparison between Israel and it's conflicts and the
    Northern Ireland Troubles.
    
    I would also like to address the statement that the situation in NI is
    a war.  A war is when two nations, or two political/military factions,
    decided to fight each other over some cause, which may be real or
    imagined.  Both sides  generally throw all available military assets
    into the fray to achieve victory as quickly and completely as possible. 
    Israel is fighting a war.  Yugoslavias republics are at war.  Northern
    Ireland is not at war, if it was, there would be no problem today
    because British troops would have marched in by Divisions, along with
    Armored units, artillery units, special ops. troops, aviation units
    etc. and would have stomped on the rebellious elements, reducing any
    sympathetic region and population to ashes  as it went.  The IRA, no
    matter how much it wants to be called an army, does not fight like an
    army and would, most likely, have trouble fielding a unit as large as a
    regiment. let alone even one division.  
    I am afraid that the situation in NI is something between a police
    action and a state of perpetual terrorist activity.  It is not a state
    of normalcy by any stretch of the imagination.  
    
    What I find interesting is that some anti-british folks in here scream
    about British violations of human rights and civil rights in NI,
    ignoring the fact that the IRA has a long history of assault, torture,
    murder, mutilation, etc. of Catholic persons who they believe, either
    rightly or wrongly of collaborating with the British.  They also ignore
    the fact that if the IRA stopped hiding amongst innocent civilians like
    the cowards they are, the British army would have no need to go looking
    for them there and would not have to bother the civilians.  One more
    thing I find funny is that all at once, some in here call this a war,
    but at the same time, expect the British to follow rules as if it were
    a period of normal peace time.   I guarantee you that no nation in it's
    right mind would condemn another nation for acting suspiciously toward
    citizens of a region that is hostile to them.  It would be suicide not
    to since such a failure in a nation as open as Britain, would be
    tantamount to negligence of the public safety.  The U.S. needs to
    consider this as our own domestic terrorism, both political and
    gang/drug related continues to escalate.
    
    It is easy to assign blame, it is far more difficult to accept it.
    
    Andrew
    
    Personally I believe that the Irish, whether of North or South,
    Protestant or Catholic, Nationalist or Loyalist persuasion have the
    right to live in peace and with rights equal to any other member of
    their nationality.   I do not believe in the use of terrorism to make a
    political point, especially about human and civil rights since acts of
    terrorism deny those rights to others.  Terrorists are criminals, not
    freedom fighters or patriots.   
    "patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings."
    
    
    

    
    Well put indeed, but when it comes to the Israelis, they did indeed
    launch their own ethnic cleansing with the help of Montgomery during
    the 1936-1939 Arab rebellion (Montgomery in his traditional manner talked 
    of "concentrating on killing the rebels", referring to the Palestinian
    rebels.) 
    

>     Addressing the point about U.S. support for Israel:

      Address it somewhere else.  Israel is behind  the slaughter of Lebanese
      civilians (men, women and children), and the shelling of Irish UN Peace keeping
      troops.

      BTW, I have no intention of discussing Israel or it's slaughter of Palestinians,
      any further with you in the Celt conference (it's not the place).

>     I would also like to address the statement that the situation in NI is
>     a war.  A war is when two nations, or two political/military factions,
>     decided to fight each other over some cause, which may be real or
>     imagined.

      I'm still laughing over this one.  Did you get the definition of a "war"
      out of her majesty's dictionary for juvenilles?  "Well these are the 
      British rules so there...."
      It seems to me that the rule-book is the first thing that
      gets thrown out in a war.

>     Both sides  generally throw all available military assets
>     into the fray to achieve victory as quickly and completely as possible. 
>     Israel is fighting a war.  Yugoslavias republics are at war.  Northern
>     Ireland is not at war, 

      Guess you haven't been watching the news lately from north east Ireland.
      I guess since they are not at war, they must be at, peace is it?

>     if it was, there would be no problem today
>     because British troops would have marched in by Divisions, along with
>     Armored units, artillery units, special ops. troops, aviation units
>     etc. and would have stomped on the rebellious elements, reducing any
>     sympathetic region and population to ashes  as it went.

      What was it, 30,000 occupying "troops", and the war still continues.     

>     The IRA, no
>     matter how much it wants to be called an army, does not fight like an
>     army

      "Where's their Red Coats, they don't line up smartly on an open field,
      those Americans could hardly be called an Army" - British General Lord Red Coat

>     and would, most likely, have trouble fielding a unit as large as a
>     regiment. let alone even one division.  
>     I am afraid that the situation in NI is something between a police
>     action and a state of perpetual terrorist activity.  It is not a state
>     of normalcy by any stretch of the imagination.  

      Agreed, a perpetual state-sponsored terrorist regime, where the Army
      colludes with loyalist murder gangs, where censorship reins, and juryless
      trials are held.  Where murderers go free, so long as they're in the
      British army.

>     
>     They also ignore
>     the fact that if the IRA stopped hiding amongst innocent civilians like
>     the cowards they are, the British army would have no need to go looking
>     for them there and would not have to bother the civilians.

      That must be why the British feel the need to place their military
      bases next to schools full of children.

>     One more
>     thing I find funny is that all at once, some in here call this a war,
>     but at the same time, expect the British to follow rules as if it were
>     a period of normal peace time.

      It's the British who want it both ways.  

>     I guarantee you that no nation in it's
>     right mind would condemn another nation for acting suspiciously toward
>     citizens of a region that is hostile to them.  It would be suicide not
>     to since such a failure in a nation as open as Britain, would be
>     tantamount to negligence of the public safety.  

      And what a bang up job the lads are doing too!

>     The U.S. needs to
>     consider this as our own domestic terrorism, both political and
>     gang/drug related continues to escalate.

      Well, we have the British example, and can see the road it leads down.
      Obviously there is a better way.

>     
>     It is easy to assign blame, it is far more difficult to accept it.
>     
>     Andrew
>     
>     Personally I believe that the Irish, whether of North or South,
>     Protestant or Catholic, Nationalist or Loyalist persuasion have the
>     right to live in peace and with rights equal to any other member of
>     their nationality.   

      Exactly, and since this is not the case, I can understand what the IRA
      are fighting for.

>     I do not believe in the use of terrorism to make a
>     political point, especially about human and civil rights since acts of
>     terrorism deny those rights to others.  Terrorists are criminals, not
>     freedom fighters or patriots.   

      The criminals are the ones that commit murder and assault with impunity,
      and are then sent back to their British regiments with the nod and wink
      from teh British government.



                                      Mark

    
    What happened to the first version, where you addressed your opponent
    as 'my British chum'? Anyway, as I was saying, it's the usual cynical
    game - talking about throwing out the rule-book, but only for your
    (version one analogy) 'freedom-fighters'. 
    

Mark,

Your knowledge of events in Northern Ireland is obviously so much more 
advanced than mine will ever be. I have to put up with censorship, 
brainwashing and the bigotry of my fellow countrymen.  So rather than make 
up my own mind about the following questions, I'll ask you.

(a) What are the IRA and what is their cause ?

(b) Where do they get the money to finance their operations ?

(c) Is what they are doing (bombing, shooting, intimidation etc) "right"
    from a moral standpoint ?

Please don't answer the above by repeating for the nth time that everything 
even remotely connected with Britain belongs in the cesspit ?  Don't tell 
me yet again that if Britain did X and Y then the whole situation would be 
resolved.  Just answer A,B and C so that I can begin educating the other
55 million+ citizens of this country.

Thanks in advance,
Mark R.


P.S  I know what your opinions on the above are with regards to the British 
Army and loyalist paramilitaries, so do't tell me tham yet again either 
please.

    
    	Hows this for a solution?
    
    	Why don't they take messrs. Paisley, Adams et al, intern them in
    the same unit at the maze and tell them that they'll get released when they
    have agreed a peace formula and do the same with all their minions if
    they cause any trouble. In other words round them up and if they don't
    talk, tough!
    
    Just a few comments about previous replys, I don't believe that Mark
    actually knows any more about N.I. than any of us. Reading about it in
    any rag, be it the Daily Record, Mirror, Times, New York Times or
    whatever will only tell the story from the writers point of view ( Mark
    only copies the stuff in here to support his views). The old saying to
    know it is to live it, i suggest is the only way to know whats going
    on. Now although I haven't lived it in the sense that i've been to N.I.
    I have been to the south, where I found that almost everyone I have
    ever asked about the I.R.A. or whether Ireland should be one country
    etc, said that they despised the I.R.A. and most couldn't care less
    about the North. So thats a view from the streets. Also, since I am
    Scottish, living in England and have done for 11 years I have first
    hand experience of English racialism. Unintentional often, but never
    the less racism just the same.
    
    Lets be clear about "the war aspect" Many of the British armies top
    brass are catholics, so i don't believe that they target catholics in
    the popultaion. This "war" is simply a deep routed hatred between two
    religious groups one of whom wants to stay within the English Empire.(I
    chose my words carefully) the other side who would, I believe, also want
    to stay within, if the hatred did not exist. And the terrorists who
     would have their own side believe that their preachings are the gospel and
     to follow them. Not unlike Bosnia is it? That the Americans want
    to bomb!
    
    English Empire? I hear you ask, It may come as a surprise to many but
    Scotland has never and never will be an I.R.A target because they
    understand that fact well enough. And the Rangers, Celtic banter that
    goes on is real enough, but it is still banter and both sides co-exist
    relatively peacefully considering that the troubles are less than 100
    miles away.
    
    As for Britains record in Ireland, I would not defend it for a moment
    but to draw some parallels to show that Britain is not alone in trying
    to opress the population by violence. Who remembers how America won the
    Vietnam war (just to emphasise the point about reading not living).
    America bombed Cambodia on a flimsy excuse about communists.
    America bombed Libya aided and abetted by the British government.
    The assasination of the Kennedys by the American "establishment"
    Ask L.A. about human rights on it's streets?
    America is the last "civilised" country to commit murder in it's
    prisons.
    And lot's more.
    The point I hope everyone can see is that, while guys like Mark are
    spreading second hand poison it's fuel to the fire. It's not what is
    said but the way it's said Mark.
    Perhaps a Protestant bigot once summed it up for me. He once said that
    there were only two things in life that he hated; religious bigotry and
    catholics.
    Pick the bones out of that lot.
    
    Bill the Anglo.

 re. .43 

 Mark R.,
    Ask your questions to the soldiers your government
 is fighting, I do not speak for them. 

                     Mark H.

 re. .44

   Bill, 
     I make no claims about knowing more than anyone
   else, I continually post articles so we can all
   learn more.

     If posting articles detailing human rights violations,
   and oppressive legislation is "fanning the flames",
   would you suggest burying our heads.  See no, hear no,
   speak no evil?
                         Mark

    
    The IRA are 'soldiers' in the same sense that Abu Nidal are soldiers,
    Holohan. And your aim is not to learn or to inform, but to remain sadly
    myopic (one can see that by the utter lack of balance in the stuff you
    copy from the network to post)
    

    
    	Mark,
    
    What I was doing was balancing the argument up, something that you so 
    adamantly refuse to do and trying to offer some sort of, albeit naive, 
    solution.
    The British army is not unique in using violence to quell the masses as
    I pointed out in .44 and it is not unique for them to do it in Ireland
    either! Aden 1967 I think, Mad Mitch (Scotsman) and his paratroopers
    shot up the Arabs because one of them killed one of his troops.
    (arab terrorist) He swore that none of his men would lie where they
    were shot and the only safe way to recover the body was to wipe the
    arabs out. And to prove the point about it not being a solely British
    attitude, remember Pan-Am 103 that was bombed and wiped out hundreds of
    American and Scottish innocent civilians, American reaction; bomb Libya
    killing dozens of innocents in the process. Bit like the British army's
    reaction to IRA terrorism n'est-ce-pas?
    The point is Mark, you only pass around the propaganda that supports
    one very narrow minded side in this whole fiasco, glossing over some of
    the wider issues that exist on both sides of the Atlantic. I don't
    expect that you support your own governments 'state sanctioned
    terrorism' any more than you support Britains. But to support any form
    of terrorism to my mind is scandalous.
    I think that most people would agree that the troops should not be
    there but it seems clear to me that without them there would be all out
    civil war in Ireland and thousands more innocents would be murdered
    because of it.
    So come on, how about presenting some balanced views for a change and
    why not denounce your own governments activities while you are about
    it.
    
    Bill 

  Bill,
    I don't think it's my place as an American to tell
  folks the "solution".  I'd say it's up to all parties
  involved to sit down at the peace table and come up
  with one.  Unfortunately the British government doesn't
  really want peace.  That's why they don't invite Sinn
  Fein to the peace table, that's why they collude with
  loyalist terror gangs, that's why they let South African
  arms "slip through" to the Loyalist, that's why they
  have jury-less trials, and that's why their soldiers
  can murder with impunity.

    As for Pan-Am flight 103, we were all disgusted at
  the murder of those people.  And then my disgust 
  turned to anger when the British government decided
  to use it for propoganda purposes, and blame the
  killing on the IRA.  The British government will stoop
  to new low's in their effort to "win" their dirty 
  little war in north east Ireland.

    As for my government, it isn't occupying north east 
  Ireland, so there isn't really much point in my 
  denouncing it in the celt conference. 

                         Mark

    
    Mark,
    
    I must say that it's the first time i've ever heard that one. Are you
    going to post the source of that accusation.
    I drove through Lockerbie two days after the bomb and stayed in
    Edinburgh for a week after that. As you can imagine, the papers and TV
    were full of it and I do not recall anyone even mentioning the IRA in
    the same breath. The IRA, for all that they are an evil bunch of
    sadistic bastards, know their targets and have never wavered from them.
    Everybody knows that here, so even if somebody did make a muttering
    about terrorism and the IRA and Pan-Am all in the same sentence I don't
    think anyone would have taken it seriously.
    
    The British don't really want peace? Ridiculous, they've said all along
    that if the IRA renounces violence then there would be negotiations.
    No government in the world negotiates with a Kalashnikov up its
    derriere so it's the old Mexican stand off routine.
    I take your point about this being the CELT notesfile and accept your
    loud no comment about your own government, but it needs to be said
    nevertheless, just in case some misguided people like yourself start to
    believe that Britain is the lone aggressor in the west.                                                      
                                                            
    I bet the Irish are very pleased that the Americans are not the
    occupying force in NI because Dublin would have have been de-foliated
    and bombed by now. Such is their track record.

    >I bet the Irish are very pleased that the Americans are not the
    >occupying force in NI because Dublin would have have been de-foliated
    >and bombed by now. Such is their track record.
    
    Yeah, bombed by ready-to-eat meals.  Slag the Americans whenever
    possible, but at least they are doing something about the Yugoslavian
    holocaust.  It's more than the "E.C." is doing.  Sorry about straying
    off of the base note...
    
VNS MAIN NEWS:                                    [Andy Payne, VNS UK News Desk]
==============                                    [Fareham, England            ]
    European News
    -------------
    Two US planes dropped 13,440 ready-to-eat meals over the besieged
    Bosnian city of Mostar last night.  Boxes designed to open in mid-air,
    spreading the packaged meals inside over a wide area, were pushed out
    of the C-130 Hercules cargo planes. The food supplies are the first
    which about 55,000 people in the Muslim-controlled sector of the city
    have received since June. Many are on the brink of starvation, UN
    officials have said.

    
    
    
    		SPAM Bombs  !!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    
    

    
    re .51, Clintoon's Bosnia 'policy' has been miserable psychological 
    torture for the Sarajevans is about all you can say for it. 
    

    
    Don't misunderstand me, I'm not slagging off the Americans for the sake
    of it, merely pointing out a few facts to those who continually assert
    in here that Britain is the perpetrator of draconian, suppressive measures
    against a defenceless population  to the exclusion of all other
    countries. 
    The base note may or may not be an accurate account of some newly
    inflicted restriction on the population, who knows? Can we believe
    anything thats written in a propaganda war?
    Furthermore, desperately trying to avoid a rat-hole, honest, I don't
    hear any denials of your own malpractices over the years!
    
    Bill

    Re: .53, Agreed, no argument there.  Clinton's Yugo policy (if you can even
    call it a policy - I wouldn't) is however more than the E.C. came up with.

    
    By the way, given that Holohan is using this forum as a propaganda
    platform against the British as a race, let alone its part in NI, and
    given how we are continually being told of its crimes, how Americans
    should recoil at these crimes and so on, it is totally valid to ask the
    accuser to explain his own country's actions, here or anywhere else
    when such tactics are being used. Probably the readership would prefer
    that this file be a celebration of the Celtic race and what things
    there are to do and see in the Celtic countries, rather than be
    dedicated to regurgitations of the works of Des Wilson, Globe calumnnist 
    extraordinaire etc. It would indeed be nice if the ongoing misery in NI
    could be kept to a few topics, rather than new ones being opened at
    every excuse, but that would defeat the Goebbels campaign.
    

 re. .50

    I saw British newspapers, and news reports, two
 days after the Lockerbie bombing with titles like,
 IRA terrorists strike over Lockerbie.  Now you claim
 to have been through Lockerbie.  Did you try reading
 a newpaper, or turning on the news during your stay?

 Are you really ignorant of these reports, or are you
 just trying to stir the pot?  What's your game, with
 your denial over the base note's information on the
 PTA?  

 re. .53
   As for the slaughter of the Bosnians.  I'd point
 out that Bosnia is in Europe, and I'd say it's 
 time for the Europeans to show some spine and fix
 their problem themselves.  It's not the U.S.'s 
 responsibility to bail out Europe every time you
 screw up. The Bosnians have pleaded for British
 and French do-nothing forces to leave and let them
 re-arm (something the U.S. supports), or at least
 let the U.S. bomb some sense into the Serbians (another
 solution that is vetoed by the British and French).

    
    British troops in Bosnia are not 'do-nothing'. They are escorting food
    convoys and getting shot at for doing it. 
    

    If the U.S. was the "occupying" force in NI, the troubles would have
    ended long since.  The U.S. has little tolerance for terrorism and the
    IRA would have been rooted out and prosecuted fully long since, to the
    degree that no-one in their right mind would have tried to continue the
    fight with force.  It is not as if there are not similar issues in the
    United States, The Civil Rights movement is a clear example of a
    persecuted group of people trying to win equal rights and dignity for
    themselves against the majority population.  They won the fight, mind
    you, by dogged non-violence, by taking the higher ground and sticking
    to it through thick or thin.  The nationalist movement of NI could win
    the same way if they had the guts to put down the guns and bombs and
    start behaving like rational, civilized, human beings.  Then, if
    Britain maintained the same policies (beyond a reasonable period in
    which to determine the genuity of the new nationalist non-violent
    resolve) the British would stand alone as perpetrator of violence in NI
    and would have no credible defense behind which to stand for continuing
    a policy of martial law and ethnic suspicion.  As it stands now, with
    the state of violence in NI it is somewhat reasonable for Britain to
    prosecute all leads and to enforce any policy that might help to limit
    or punish acts of terrorism in NI.
    
    As for Bosnia/Hercegovina/the former Yugoslavian Republics, very few
    persons of political and or military experience think that the
    situation there can be helped by foreign military intervention any
    more.  Current analysis shows that the time for intervention was over
    twelve months ago and that the current situation is basically a lost
    cause in which no-one is yet willing to surrender.  If you need to
    blame a U.S. administration for non action leading to tragedy, the
    blame would seem to fall to Bush/Quayle rather than Clinton/Gore who
    are only the inheritors of such failed foreign policy debacles as
    Yugoslavia and Somalia, the policies for both of which were commited to
    under the Bush Administration.  As far as blaming the E.C., who knows,
    what the considerations were, perhaps the E.C. did not want to end up
    in an Afganistan or post WWII era Balkan type situation.  The Bosnian
    situation makes NI look tame, but may well be what would lie in store
    if Britain did as Mr. Holohan and many others seem to suggest, and just
    pull out of NI completely without a workable peaceful solution in
    place.
    
    The earlier notes in this conference had a much more uplifting and
    unifying tone than many of these later notes.  Much of this political
    stuff sounds too much like Soapbox, too much polarity here, not enough
    balance.
    
    Andrew
    
    I may be guilty of the above mentioned polarity at times myself, but I
    do try to look at as many sides of the issue as possible before coming
    down on one side or the other.

    
    Just to pursue this tangent a mite longer, Bush can be blamed for
    refusing to help in ex Yugoslavia but not for his lack of consistency.
    Clinton's failure has been the endless waffling that gives nothing but
    false hope to the Sarajevans (though not any more). My own opinion is that
    Bush had a window when the Yugoslavian navy were shelling Dubrovnik to
    show Milosevic he couldn't necessarily get away with what he had in
    mind, by blowing a few ships out of the water.
    

    >to it through thick or thin.  The nationalist movement of NI could win
    >the same way if they had the guts to put down the guns and bombs and
    >start behaving like rational, civilized, human beings.  Then, if
    
    Baloney.  The IRA group are a violent minority of the entire
    nationalist community.  The bulk of the nationalist movement
    (in all of Ireland) do in fact support a peaceful, phased,
    transition of power from Britain to the peoples of the North,
    including a complete military withdrawal.
    
    By contrast, it is the British, who from extremist Loyalist
    pressure, continue to prop up the privileged NI regime, harass
    and shoot nationalist civilians with impunity, drive Saracens
    and Tanks through nationalist neighborhoods, erect watchtowers,
    fences and concrete borders, cut of roads to and from NI, wreck
    houses, etc...
    
    It is a war about real and perceived power, not of condoms or the
    Pope or anything else...  It is a silly war too in this day and age...

    
    re .59
    
 >   to it through thick or thin.  The nationalist movement of NI could win
 >   the same way if they had the guts to put down the guns and bombs and
 >   start behaving like rational, civilized, human beings.  Then, if
 >   Britain maintained the same policies (beyond a reasonable period in
 >   which to determine the genuity of the new nationalist non-violent
 >   resolve) the British would stand alone as perpetrator of violence in NI
    
     The nationalist movement does not consist entirely of gunmen and
     bombers. In fact, the majority of nationalists try to achieve their
     goals using constitutional/political means only. I thought anyone who
     would bother to express an opinion on the six counties would know this
     fact. 
    
     Denis.
     

Mark H,

I cannot remember the press ever pointing the blame of the Lockerbie 
bombing to the IRA.  Could you tell me which papers carried such headlines, 
so that I can dig out the back-copies from the library.  I'm not douybting 
your story, I just can't remember, that's all.

In all fairness though, when one considers that the IRA are responsible 
for the other 99% of bombings on the British mainland, it would hardly be
surprising if immediate suspicion was placed on them, don't you agree ?

Mark R

 re. .63
  The IRA attack a U.S. jet-liner, get real.

  I don't remember which Newspapers, just the titles
  that were flashed accross the screen, and the report
  on ABC news, that the British police suspected the
  IRA.  I suggest you try some of your major papers,
  in the 1-2-3 day period after the bombing.

  Now this was obviously a crock, and an attempt to
  utilize the murder of American and Scottish civilians
  in her majesty's propoganda war against the IRA.

    RE: .63
    
    I heard it too.  It was on the network news in the US (ABC,
    CBS, and NBC).  For the first two days after the Lockerbie
    incident, the news reports said that Scotland Yard suspected
    the IRA.  I don't know which British news outlet supplied
    the American networks, but like all things concerning NI
    it didn't surprise me.

    
    Nice to see some sensibilities coming in to the proceedings, however,
    Mark H, I have to say again, as has already been pointed out, nobody
    except a fool would try to pin the blame for bombing an American plane
    on the IRA. Re.57, no I am not trying to stir any pot but you seem
    blind to the fact that there are an awful lot of British and American
    press hounds who will write anything to sensationalise a story and of
    course people like you grab it and use it as propaganda. Fair play i
    suppose but it all harks back to what i said about having to live it,
    not read it.
    As for the days immediately after Lockerbie, you obviously have no
    experience of the terrifying events that happen when a jumbo jet falls
    out of the sky, or for that matter the panic that sets in when the bomb
    alarms sound (yes we have to have them and they are tested every
    Monday). Our builidings have been evacuated more than once for suspect
    packets which have been found. This is reality, not the Sun newspaper,
    who, I suspect was responsible for the IRA smear campaign.
    Anyway i've drifted from the point, it was impossible to escape the
    media reports of this event and I repeat, at no time did i hear or see
    any such accusation, except perhaps as a "this is terrorism of the kind
    associated with". Which of course is fair comment, not for nothing is
    this known as terrorism.
    Re the early note about baloney,
    Baloney,
    I didn't say anything about Irish Nationalists, of course they want a
    negotiated united Ireland, I hope they get it. What I said was that
    everyone I spoke to, thoroughly Irish everyone of them, didn't care
    about what happened in the North. And before you ask, i for one know
    that there is a huge difference between the ideals of the Nationalists
    and the IRA, the problem is, because of the propaganda that gets
    written here and many other places, it's difficuilt for the casual
    observer or indeed the dedicates like you Mark to sort out the meat
    from the garbage. 
    
    Bill

    I can understand what a bomb alert is like.
    One day I went down town on a message and on returning I left my coat 
    in my work place to go to the canteen for lunch, leaving my car keys in
    the coat.
    On queuing up to pay for my meal there was an announcement to leave the
    building due to a bomb warning. Even though it was pelting rain outside
    most people got as far away from the building as possible while the
    police checked each section for suspicious items. We were eventually
    allowed to gain shelter in the canteen while the rest of the building
    was checked. A lot of people got soaked who, like me, couldn't get into
    their cars for want of the keys which we had left in our work areas at
    that time. 
    The caller was not the most popular person that day and many choice
    words were used to describe him/her that day.......
    

    re.65
    just in case you are under any misapprehension, Scotland Yard is not
    where you might expect it to be.... It's in Westminster, London and
    actually the name of a police station.
    But there are still a few unanswered questions in this topic, which i
    must say have been very neatly deflected, summed up as follows,
    Do the noters support the IRA in their campaign of terrorism?
    Do the noters support State (including U.S.) sponsored terrorism?
    I'll vote now! NO TO BOTH. no ambiguity there is there? And if I did
    i'd like to think i had the balls to say so.

>
> re. .43 
>
> Mark R.,
>    Ask your questions to the soldiers your government
> is fighting, I do not speak for them. 
>
>                     Mark H.



You vehemently deny supporting the IRA and that's fine by me. You deplore 
all violence and therefore all perpetrators of violence. Fair enough.

Your reply above, though, I do find strange. If my questions in .43 had been 
about the British Army and/or the Loyalist terror gangs, you would have had 
no problem answering them. Indeed I wouldn't need to ask them because you 
have stated your opinions (sorry - facts) on these same issues elsewhere in 
this notesfile. Thanks to you, I now know exactly what the BA and the 
loyalist gangs are, I know where they get the cash and I definitely know 
that they are wrong in what they are doing.  You say so - it must be true. 

But, you can't answer the same questions about the IRA because you "don't 
speak for them".

The only conclusion I can draw from that, therefore, is that you speak for 
the British Army and the Loyalist gangs.

If you don't even up things a bit by giving us the same useful information 
about the IRA, I will have to assume that you are actually a closet 
loyalist.  


Sarcastic ? Me? Surely you jest!

Mark R.