Conference tallis::celt

    
    The British govt must be dreaming. The only way to win against the IRA
    militarily is to 'throw away the rule book' and conduct all out war
    against the terrorists. That means limited internment, killing known
    IRA godfathers in the Republic, throwing the relationship to the US
    and UN to the wind, and in general giving the (mainly US resident)
    hypocrites, who support IRA shopping center bombs while screaming
    foul at every 'civil rights infraction' for the benefit of the US 
    liberal wing, ammunition for more ratlike behavior. These are the same
    people who talk of 'shaking the tree' (meaning the more slaughter the
    better), then deleting their notes. I think you know who you are. I
    think we all know who you are. You think slaughter of kids in High
    streets is power to the cause. You will evade or lie if confronted
    (or pretend you didn't hear).
    

    
    It's unfortunate, Chris, that the only solution you see to the northern
    problem is a military one. That seems a bit short sighted to me. It's
    a fact of life that support for the IRA among the nationalist
    communiuty increases when the measures taken against them become more
    draconian. 
    
    Denis.

    Actually, I think it's unfortunate that *all* sides see the solution
    as a military one.
    
    Laurie.

    
    *All* sides? That is certainly not the position of the Irish government
    or the SDLP.
    
    Denis.

 re. .0

 It's interesting (if true) that the British government,
 the political wing of the British occupation forces, 
 was trying to negotiate a cease-fire with the Irish
 Republican Army.

 I thought Martin McGuiness was the head of northern
 Irish Aid, not the head of the IRA in northern Ireland.
 Makes you kind of wonder what the motive is behind
 the article.


 re. .1 "Eastland's kill em all thoughts"
 Typical!

                           Mark

    Re: .1
    
    >The British govt must be dreaming. The only way to win against the IRA
    >militarily is to 'throw away the rule book' and conduct all out war
    >against the terrorists. That means limited internment, killing known
    >IRA godfathers in the Republic, throwing the relationship to the US
    >and UN to the wind, and in general giving the (mainly US resident)
    >hypocrites, who support IRA shopping center bombs while screaming
    
    The British already tried this and it didn't work.
    
    I agree with the others noters in encouraging a peaceful settlement. There's
    no need for the violence as promulgated by both sides.  Violence begets
    violence.  It's the views such as yours that are a hindrance to a peaceful
    settlement in NI.
    
    George

    I fear you misunderstand me Denis (and accusations of 'kill-em-all'
    from the bomber's supporter are humorous). I do not for one moment
    believe the solution can be a military one. There are real grievances. 
    As much as I am disgusted by the terrorism of the IRA (and the Loyalist
    paramilitaries) I know they exist because there is a problem in that
    place called Northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland were the northern 
    part of the Republic of Ireland there would likely still be a problem, 
    with the regular roles reversed. I am simply saying that for the British
    govt to 'win militarily', they'd have to do a lot more than they are
    politically prepared to do. If more billion dollar damage bombs go
    off in the City of London (2 more like the last one will knock out
    the City as a financial center, to the delight of those that support
    the IRAs campaign) they will probably consider limited internment of
    all terror groups, as Conor Cruise O'Brien suggested after the 
    Warrington bombing (in an article in the Independent he laid out his
    analysis of why the past internment policies were fated - one emphasis
    was that any new internment would be much more narrow and apply to
    both IRA and Protestant terrorist groups) The point is that the IRA can
    go around killing ordinary folks in Britain and Ireland apologizing for the
    casualties, while their supporters in the US cynically pillory Britain 
    for human rights abuses; but if the IRA happen to blow up a little
    girl like Danielle Carter outside the Baltic exchange, or set up
    a 3,000 car bomb in the Belfast suburbs as they did last week, that's
    power to the course for the supporters of the IRA 'soldiers'. I
    hate the hypocrisy and bloody callousness of these people. They are
    the true obstacle to peace on either side, the hatemongers and
    propagandists. No, I do not advocate a military solution. I think
    the Protestants are going to have to learn to live in the Republic
    of Ireland is my belief, naive as it may be. This belief is not
    conditioned by the IRAs campaign. It would apply if the IRA were
    truly soldiers, who with support south of the border, were carrying
    out guerilla raids against British troops in the North. It would
    apply if no paramilitary or terrorist activity were present at all.
    But then I am not an Orangeman, and these thoughts might be anathema
    to them for reasons I had not considered.

    What saddens me greatly is how this conflict is a blight on our
    collective home, the Pictish isles. Most Americans have no idea
    how the place fits together, how close physically and cuiturally
    all the people are, whether they be Irish, Scots, Welsh, English and
    even Cornish or Breton. The Celtic peoples are one in spirit, as
    every lover of Daffyd Ap Gwillam knows, and the violence has to
    come to and end. It won't come to and end by creating a watertight
    police state in the North.

    I respect the view that Republicans take. I have no respect for
    those that support a campaign that plants bombs in shopping
    centers and I resent their presence. 

    

    RE: .7  by NOVA::EASTLAND 
    
    >What saddens me greatly is how this conflict is a blight on our
    >collective home, the Pictish isles. Most Americans have no idea
    >how the place fits together, how close physically and cuiturally
    >all the people are, whether they be Irish, Scots, Welsh, English and
    >even Cornish or Breton. The Celtic peoples are one in spirit, as
    
    The "Pictish isles"?  I suppose if the Normans packed up and went home,
    the English could claim solidarity with all the other conquered Celtic
    races, but until then, Northern Ireland, like England, is just another
    country held captive as spoils of war.
    

    
    You illustrate perfectly Dennis what I was saying about Americans'
    knowledge of Britain :-).
    
    The English are not the Normans. The English are a melting pot of
    Vikings, Jutes, Picts, Angles, Saxons, Celts and Normans, maybe even
    some Beaker people. 
    

    
    OK Chris, fair enough. But what tougher military policies can HMG take
    that will eliminate IRA and protestant para terrorism? Sure, they can
    adopt an even more vicious shoot to kill policy and reintroduce 
    internment. However, this will only add to the problem in my opinion.
    After the Loughgall incident some years ago in which eight IRA men were
    shot, the IRA said that they would have no trouble replacing the eight men
    that were killed. Internment? Why should an across the board (republican
    & loyalist) internment policy work this time when the previous one, which
    was just aimed at republicans, failed. 

    While I certainly understand the frustration and anger which British 
    people feel when their towns and cities are bombed, a violent and
    repressive response from the British plays right into the hands of the 
    IRA. The nettle of a political solution will soon have to be grasped.
    And the only way to start is for the British government to come out from 
    the unionist camp in which it is firmly entrenched and act as the neutral
    go-between it has so often claimed to be

    The nationalist community in the north is becoming more alienated every
    day. Even their constitutional politicians are now targets of the loyalist
    paras and there is shag all support for them among the political parties in 
    the south. Even one of Dublin's leading Sunday newspapers is carrying out
    smear campaign against the SDLP and John Hume in particular. It bodes ill.

    Denis.

    
    
    re: .5
    
    
    I think Martin Galvin is the person associated with Irish Northern Aid.
    
    
    
    

    
    	Nice to see some sense at last; .7 is a very well balanced
    statement and .8 is at least correct in saying that N.I. is a spoil of
    war, that we cannot hold on to forever, like Canada, Rhodesia, S. Africa
    etc etc. and dare i say it, the great U.S. of A.

    
    How quickly would the IRA replace their leadership if they were taken
    out? Sunday Times listed 5 or 6 of them, living quietly in the
    Republic. Perhaps internment would have to be both sides of the border.
    I don't want to get into a review of internment particularly (though I
    will try to dig out Conor Cruise O'Briens's article if I can find it),
    because I do not believe it will work politically at all. Surely the
    point is that if driven into the corner, Britain will ante up the
    stakes. They cannot politically do what they did in the Arab rebellion
    in Palestine in 1936-1939, when they killed tens of thousands and
    imprisoned the same number, to aid the Jewish state. As a previous note
    pointed out, the IRA are being protected by the limits of political 
    possibility, not their brilliance as a fighting force. 
    

    
    I would say the IRA would replace their leadership very quickly.
    Probably after a quick fued between the leading contenders but it
    would be replaced. As for Conor Cruise O'Brien, forget it. His feet
    are stuck firmly in the unionist camp. In fact he is part of the
    campaign to smear the SDLP, calling John Hume "coldly sectarian" and
    caring not one iota about the safety of SDLP members in the north.
    
    Denis.

    
    I know that about Conor Cruise, Denis, but he is after all Irish!
    Well perhaps Anglo-Irish by now. I doubt IRA would replace leadership
    very effectively if denied th comforts of home in the south, but this
    is where I defer to the likes of Edward Luttvak and other experts on
    terorrism. One thing we agree on  -the IRA isn't going away - probably
    won't go away if the reunion occurred either. 
    

 re. .7

 Mr. Let's kill em all Eastland, sure can back peddle
 fast when confronted.  You speak a murder campaign
 out one side of your mouth, and a concilitory campaign
 out the other.  You showed your true self in .1
 Makes one wonder what other kind of violence you 
 support.  

                    Mark

    
    Rubbish. I have been entirely conistent with regard to violence in the
    conflict. I deplore all terrorist acts by any group, IRA or other, whereas 
    it's clear to me from notes remaining and deleted that you support the 
    IRAs bombing campaign. Shall I remind you of how you ended a soapbox
    note after the baltic exchange bombing? You know, the taunt about the
    stuff that was bought in packages from the Czech communist government. 
    Why not set the record straight and say here once and for all that you
    deplore the IRAs bombing campaign? Hmmm? You can throw in that you
    deplore British state terrorism too if you like. Just set the record
    straight, eh Mark? (Let's not hold our breath). And you talk of what
    violence I support? Oh, that's rich..  
    
    What I said in .1 was that the price Britain would have to pay to
    defeat the terrorists would involve steps that would make it a pariah
    politically. I started out by saying "British govt must be dreaming",
    Given that Denis misconstrued it I guess I should have been more
    specific. Detailing those steps does not mean I support them. I have
    said what I support. In fact it differs little to what end you would
    like to see, though we differ on the means for sure. 
    

    Yes please Mr. Holohan; answer, yes or no.
    
    Do you deplore the IRA's bombing campaign?
    
    Laurie.

  I deplore all violence.  I also understand that there
  are times when an armed struggle is necessary.
  I've listed article after article on the British
  violations of human rights in north east Ireland,
  their portrayal of "peace keeper between warring
  Irish" (which is actually a collusion with loyalist
  murder gangs documented by Amnesty International),
  employment discrimination against the nationalists,
  the British implementation of oppressive legislation,
  British censorship, British juryless trials,  British
  sponsored executions of political opponents, British
  bombing of a foreign capital to influence oppressive
  legislation in the unoccupied section of Ireland,
  and British terrorizing of the nationalist community.
  

                        Mark

>   I deplore all violence.  I also understand that there
>   are times when an armed struggle is necessary.
    
    Ok, nutcracking time at the farm.. Does this necessary armed struggle
    include the bombing campaign currently underway in Britain? Are
    Warrington, the Baltic exchange and car bombs in Belfast 'necessary
    armed struggle'?  
    
    Condemn these acts of the IRA and others like them, and I have no
    problem with anything else you want to write about. I might disagree
    but at lesst I'll know you won't shrug it off as a 'tragic result of a
    necessary armed struggle' if any relatives of friends are killed or 
    mutilated. 
    

    All I wanted was "yes" or "no".
    
    So, which is it? "Yes" or "no"?
    
    Laurie.

re.20

  Ask your questions to your British mates who are
  responsible for these reactions to their injustices
  during this war.

  I guess "I deplore all violence" isn't clear enough
  for the likes of you.  Are you thick? or just plain
  stupid?  Which of the words didn't you understand.
  
                             Mark

  P.S.
  If you continue with your "nutcracking" type remarks,
  of "terrorist supporter" remarks, I won't waste my
  time with you.

    
    I wouldn't say it was that I was stupid Mark. You say you deplore all
    violence yet realize armed struggle is sometimes necessary. That takes
    some clarification. Do you or do you not support the IRAs bombing
    campaign, as manifested in the explosions in Warrington or at the Baltic 
    exchange? Why won;t you answer Mark? Do you have anything to hide? I
    can only assume by your refusal to answer that you are lying when you
    say you deplore all violence and that you are afraid of the reaction
    you would get here if you came clean - either that or you are rather
    confused and don't see how anyone might be confused by the
    juxtaposition of the two statements "I deplore all violence" and "armed
    struggle is necessary". So which is it? If the latter, we await your
    explanation. I don't think there are too many people in here who have
    much time for a guy who supports bombs such as those in Warrington or
    carbombs that explode in the streets of Belfast. It's about time you
    came clean..
    
    

 re. .23
 Please just answer my question.  What part of
 "I deplore all violence" don't you understand?

   Ok let me be patient here. You say you deplore all violence yet go on
   to say armed struggle is necessary. I am therefore asking what constitutes
   necessary armed struggle that is of course by definition violent and 
   therefore deplorable but necessary anyway. Clear enough for you? I think 
   this is rather simple logic after all, but it might have escaped you - 
   let's be charitable on that. 

   Sooo, I then want to know whether the Warrington and Baltic exchange bombs
   fall into the category of being deplorable yet a part of the 'necessary
   armed struggle', meaning you support them?
   
   Simple enough now? Could you just please answer that for us. Thanks..
    

  You didn't say whether it was the "I", the "deplore",
  the "all", or the "violence", that you don't 
  understand.  Please answer for us. Thanks...

    
    No, what is said was that you should clarify the second statement you
    made and I explained exactly what needed clarifying. It means nothing
    that you deplore all violence if you state in the next breath that
    you support 'armed struggle' when that armed struggle currently
    consists of just the violence you say you deplore. Clearly you are
    having a hard time condemning the IRAs bombing campaign. That speaks
    for itself and needs to be made clear once in a while. 
    

 
  I didn't say I support 'armed struggle', those are
  your words.  I said I understand the need for an
  armed struggle.

  What's so difficult for you to grasp?  Let me give
  you an analogy that perhaps even you can understand.

  It was deplorable to have to kill German/Japanese 
  civilians, and soldiers during world war II.  Do 
  you also understand that this armed struggle
  was necessary?



 

    You said "I also understand that there are times when an armed struggle 
    is necessary". One of those times was WW2. Ok. I presume you think
    another such time is now in Ireland. So, the question once more becomes
    whether the IRA bombing campaign, aimed not at military targets but at 
    people doing their Saturday shopping as was the case in Warrington, is 
    part of that necessary armed struggle. Do you, or do you not, support 
    such bomb attacks as Warrington and the Baltic exchange? Yes, or No, or 
    will it be more evasion. 
    

    Mark,
    
    I understand fully every word of your qualified statement deploring
    violence. I also understand your second statement regarding the need
    for "armed struggle". You kindly helped me in this (hitherto I had been
    confused as the two statements seemed contradictory) by explaining to
    Chris that in conflicts such as WWII it was necessary to use the
    violence we both deplore as the cause was "just". I understand and
    agree with that. So, that cleared, there being no need for you to ask
    me which part I don't understand, I'll repeat my question. A question
    to which I require a simple yes or no answer:
    
    Do you deplore the IRA's bombing campaign?
    
    Any more than "yes" or "no" or a continuing refusal to answer the
    question, will leave me only one conclusion. That conclusion will be
    that you support the bombing of innocent civilians in shopping malls
    and at their place of work, and that therefore, your qualified
    statement regarding your ahborrence of violence is meaningless since
    you clearly believe your cause to be "just". That inevitably leads one
    to the conclusion that you do not deplore this particular form of
    violence.
    
    "Yes" or "No" please.
    
    Laurie.

    
    And while you're at it Laurie, why don't you reply to 1252.39 and
    aknowledge the "mistake" you made in the first paragraph of 1252.38.
    
    Denis.

 I've already told you I don't support violence, 
 and I deplore it's use.
 Since Nationalists civilians are targeted by the
 British Army, it's easy to understand why British
 civilians might be targeted by the Irish Republican
 Army.  Though in truth I doubt this was the IRA's
 goal, as their history tends to be one of economic
 targets.

 Of course, I do find it amazing that the IRA stay
 on the high ground and keep their attacks mostly
 economic, while the British military has no
 compunction in colluding with Loyalisty murder
 gangs, murdering civilians in Dublin, murdering
 Irish children (and never bringing the murderers
 to justice), and carrying out political assasinations.

                       Mark

RE: <<< Note 1259.31 by CLADA::DODONNELL "Nothing personal.It's just business." >>>

�    And while you're at it Laurie, why don't you reply to 1252.39 and
�    aknowledge the "mistake" you made in the first paragraph of 1252.38.
    
    On the former part, I'll have to go back and look. For the latter, I
    recall it was the "Brit" issue. Please accept my apologies, both for
    the original accusation, which was caused by my confusing you with
    another noter, and my ommission to apologise for it earlier.
    
    Mr. Holohan, "yes" or "no" please. Do you deplore the IRA's bombing
    campaign?
    
    Laurie.

Mark H.,

Ask me a question, any question you like (provided it's not personal) and 
I'll demonstrate how a question (loaded or otherwise) should be answered.

Easy enough, eh ?

Then we'll see if you can do likewise.



Mark R.

    Could we move the inquisition to the locker room please.

 Laurie,
   Believe it all you want, believe the earth is flat
 for all I care.
                    Mark

RE 32
 
     I've been a read only noter for a while now but this statment is
    just to much..

   >Since Nationalists civilians are targeted by the
   >British Army, it's easy to understand why British
   >civilians might be targeted by the Irish Republican
   >Army.  Though in truth I doubt this was the IRA's
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   >goal, as their history tends to be one of economic
    ^^^^
 >targets.
    
     What other goal could they have had at Warrington?,
    They exploded two bombs in a street at peek shopping 
    time.The second going off moments after the first so
    it would kill people as they fled from the first.And
    you doubt there aim was to kill innocent children..
    ...How sad.
    
     SCott

RE:                     <<< Note 1259.37 by KOALA::HOLOHAN >>>
�           -< Say it a thousand times, that still won't make it true. >-
    
� Laurie,
�    Believe it all you want, believe the earth is flat
�  for all I care.
�                     Mark

    So Mark, correct me. I want to be corrected. I want to believe the best
    in my fellow noters. Answer the question. "Yes" or "No". You have it in
    your power, with just a few keystrokes, to correct the impression a
    growing number of readers are forming.
    
    Do you support the IRA bombing campaign? "Yes", or "No"?
    
    Laurie.

    It isn't an inquisition,. We're trying to establish a context for the
    discussion. I believe that a noter in this conference is an IRA
    supporter. I believe that this person likes it when Britain and British
    people are hurt in IRA bombs. I have repeatedly given that person the
    opportunity, with a simple question, requiring a simple, one word
    answer, to correct this perception. I would prefer to be mistaken, and
    would welcome being corrected. However, this person consistently fails
    to take that opportunity. If more people believed as I do, then this
    person's biased out-pourings and copied notes and texts would be given
    a lot less credence in here than they obviously are.
    
    This person knows that, which is why this person won't say "yes" or
    "no" to the simple question "Do you deplore the IRA bombing campaign?".
    
    Laurie.

    
    re .39, agreed in all respects. It's important. 

Re.     <<< Note 1259.36 by PLAYER::BROWNL "No... I've had my ears lowered" >>>
    
    Why are you going on with this line of questioning ? It's getting
    nowhere and it's becoming boring. If a noter chooses to keep some of his
    opinions to himself then that's his right. If he supports the IRA
    that's his business. If he supports the Army, that's his business also. 
    If he chooses not to tell you, then that's his right. If you don't
    agree with him it's your problem, not his.
    
    >............If more people believed as I do, then this
    >person's biased out-pourings and copied notes and texts would be given
    >a lot less credence in here than they obviously are.
    
    I don't think it would make any difference. The postings you refer to
    are not written by Mark, just posted by him. Personally I like reading
    them as they tend to offer a viewpoint not normally encountered in the
    mainstream media.
    
    Tony.

    
    So, do you support the IRAs bombing campaign, as a matter of interest?
    I'd venture to guess that if terrorist bombs were exploding in Melbourne
    shopping districts, you'd be quite interested to hear the bombers were
    just soldiers, and you might want to find out what kind of individual
    you were talking to. 
    
    As for the articles you refer to, some indeed are in the mainstream
    media, namely the Boston Globe which is 'mainstream' liberal (and
    politically correct). Others are clearly hopelessly partisan. But in
    general no one is arguing about articles of any kind or whatever
    credibility being posted. 
    
    Sometimes questions have to be answered. People here mostly answer
    questions that are put to them. There's no dialogue any other way, and
    without dialogue you might as well be input to a newsfeed from the
    alternative and mainstream press and official publications from the
    various groups.
    

    I have persisted thus far, because it was important to me to establish
    a context for the debate, and to establish the "credentials" of the
    person who was so persistently attacking my beliefs. I have drawn my
    own conclusions, and will no longer be asking the question; it isn't
    necessary. All is now in perspective, all is now crystal clear. Most
    importantly, I now understand why the Troubles will not be over for a
    very long time, certainly in my lifetime, which barring accident or
    ill-health, will surely see the dawn of the next century. How bloody
    sad.
    
    Laurie.

    
    What a very profound note indeed Laurie. So you now see why the
    troubles will go on into the next century, eh? Perhaps you would
    like to expand on that for me, as I too, think that the troubles
    will go on for a long time. However, I feel the reason is a little
    more complex than the one you probably think. Or maybe I'm wrong.
    Surprise me.
    
    Denis.

    No surprises Denis,
    
    It's actually quite simple. Firstly, there can never be any peace as
    long as the bombs and killings continue to be perpetrated by all
    parties. Secondly, unless and until people stop supporting these
    killers, the killing won't stop. Thirdly, as long as there are
    politicians and business men with a vested interest in extending the
    problem the whole thing will be scuppered as soon as it looks likely to
    end. In other words, the environment doesn't even exist for a
    cessation/peace, and worse, the desire for such an environment doesn't
    seem to exist amongst many of those in a position to create such an
    environment. It's all very depressing.
    
    Laurie.

Re.                     <<< Note 1259.42 by NOVA::EASTLAND >>>
    
    >    So, do you support the IRAs bombing campaign, as a matter of interest?
    It's none of your business.
    
    >I'd venture to guess that if terrorist bombs were exploding in Melbourne
    >shopping districts, you'd be quite interested to hear the bombers were
    >just soldiers, and you might want to find out what kind of individual
    >you were talking to. 
    
    I'd be quite interested in *why* they were doing it. I'd work at fixing
    the problem at the source. Catching and jailing bombers isn't going to
    stop the problem.
    
    Tony

    
    It's only my business to the degree that if you do support their
    bombing campaign, I would like to think you'd be honest about it (hard
    to have any worthwhile discourse without a bit of honesty on such
    a central point) and also because if you did I'd write you off as
    someone beneath contempt and not worth the time of day. 
    
    As for your last paragraph, it's obvious you think any time a bunch
    of terrorists start blowing up people, everyone's supposed to ask what
    they want and just do it. I guess you've pretty much answered the
    question. You think what the IRA do is justified by the circumstances.
    Am I wrong? Oh, sorry, none of my business. I just have to read a bunch
    of terrorist apologia instead and draw my own conclusions..
    
    Thanks, I have.
    

RE:       <<< Note 1259.46 by BONKIN::BOYLE "Tony. Melbourne, Australia" >>>

�    I'd be quite interested in *why* they were doing it. I'd work at fixing
�    the problem at the source. Catching and jailing bombers isn't going to
�    stop the problem.
    
    That's an interesting paragraph Tony. It leads to a couple of
    questions. Firstly, if "catching and jailing bombers isn't going to stop
    the problem", then what is? Secondly, what happens if, after having
    followed your preferred course, you've discovered "*why*" they are
    bombing, killing and maiming, you decide you actually don't think they
    have a real case (it's subjective, after all)? The discovery of the
    cause hasn't stopped it, has it?
    
    Laurie.

RE.46

That's a cracker Tony, that really takes the biscuit.  So if I come up to 
you and punch you on the face, you won't hit me back.  You'll say "Come on 
down the pub. I'll buy you a pint and we can talk about what's bugging 
you" ?

No, I didn't think so.


Mark R.

  re. .49
  Well that's a good one.  Now suppose you were a thief
  and a liar, who happened to occupy this person's 
  land, regularly kick down his front door, and use 
  his children for target practice.

  So he comes up and punches you in the face, would
  you shoot him for it?  I know I wouldn't, but then
  again, I'm not British.
 

                       Mark

     Let's see.. 

     o Italian govt authorities in Sicily should leave it to the mob. 
       They should also not try to arrest Mafiosi who bomb the Uffizi, but
       instead talk to them and find out why they are doing it. 

     o German govt should've listen to Bader-Meinhoff gang instead of  
       arresting them. 

     o Basque nationalists should be asked why they are setting off bombs, then
       at a meeting with all elements, the common denominator (meaning 
       acceptable to the most extreme) should be found in their various 
       demands, and the territorial borders redrawn acordingly and immediately.

     o Pakistan should've found the KGB agents who set off bombs in Peshawar
       during the Afghanistan conflict and acceded to their demands to not
       aid Mujahadeen.

    As a matter of interest, from 1948 to 1965 PLO never considered attacking
    an Israeli, let alone a Jew, outside Israel. From 1965 on Fatah attacked
    water lines, railways etc inside Israel. Only in 1968 with the PLFs
    hijacking of an El Al airliner did the emphasis shift to terrorism by
    extreme elements in the Palestinian movement. Many Palestinians today, 
    including those in the PNC, revile the likes of Abu Nidal for associating 
    the Palestinian cause with terrorism. There are obvious parallels.
     
    

    RE: .47
    >question. You think what the IRA do is justified by the circumstances.
    
    No, Tony is right.  You have to look at it in the light of 600+ years of
    military occupation of Ireland by the English.  And the denial of every
    basic human right during that time: right to speak Irish, freedom to
    practice catholicism, right to vote, right to own real property.
    Think of it, it was just 1970 that my friends in Donegal finished paying
    off the English "landlords" for their property.  Buying back the
    property which was illegal confiscated from them.  Sounds like what we
    did to the American Indians.  The final payment - only 23 years ago.
    
    I personally am not for a violent campaign against the British.  I do
    not think that violence is the answer to solve the problems in NI.  It
    just aggravates a bad situation.  But I can understand why some people
    support the IRA, especially if you live in certain parts of NI, where
    they are power vacuums.
    
    One could turn around your arguments very easily and ask you if you
    support the British Army which kills innocent civilians in NI?  Aidan
    McEnespie's death at Anacloy comes to mind, for example.  Do you pay
    British tax?  Yes or No?  If so, then you implicitly support state
    sponsored terrorism.  It's a 2 way street.
    
    I am further amazed today to see Israel and Palestinians giving peace
    a try in the Middle East.  Israel and the US to recognize the PLO.
    Incredible.  Looks as if the British / Irish problem will retain its
    record as one of the world's longest running wars.
                                                         
    RE: .48
    >have a real case (it's subjective, after all)? The discovery of the
    >cause hasn't stopped it, has it?
    
    You have to go one step further than simply discovering the problem.
    You will eventually have to *solve* the problem.
    
    Several things could be done to ease the problems in NI.
      -Returning "balanced" local rule
      -Gradually remove the British Army completely
      -Implement joint sovereignty of NI with the Republic in the interim
      -Possibly make NI an independant EC state?
      -Remove all border posts, controls, gates, etc.
      -Remove all heavy military pieces from NI
      -Integrate the police forces
      -Integrate housing and schools
      -More funding for Irish cultural issues
      -Creating economic development zones in depressed areas of NI
       (downtown areas of Belfast/Derry as well as outlying fringe areas
        in Tyrone and Armagh)
    
    RE: .49
    >That's a cracker Tony, that really takes the biscuit.  So if I come up to
    >you and punch you on the face, you won't hit me back.  You'll say "Come on
    >down the pub. I'll buy you a pint and we can talk about what's bugging you" ?
    >
    >No, I didn't think so.
    
    There a good book out on this.  It's called the bible.  I would think
    that dialog would be preferrable to exponential violence.  That is
    precisely one of the problems in NI - a reluctance or stubborness to
    confront problems in peaceful terms.

    
    No, you can try to turn it around that way, but it doesn't work. Aside 
    from unproven allegations surrounding British intelligence in an old
    bombing in Dublin, the British army isn't placing bombs in Dublin's
    shopping centers. I am prepared to believe there are criminal acts
    being conducted from time to time as part of the police activity and I 
    think we all condemn them. How widespread these are, is a bone of
    contention. 
    

   
   And look, there are all kinds of issues operating here. The likes
   of Bomber Harris and even President Truman may be more tolerated when
   civilization itself is in the balance, as it was during the world war.
   When 500 lb bombs are raining down daily with gross inaccuracy, bomber
   crews unloading in murky weather etc, thousands of people dying each
   day, billions being spent on the war and so on, the berserker viciousness 
   tends to increase. It becomes all-out war for survival. 

   The NI conflict is not in this category. The IRA cannot defeat the British
   militarily, obviously, and the reverse may indeed be also true. Both sides
   are undoubtedly engaged in political assassinations from time to time,
   though the British have to be much more careful than the IRA as to who
   they attack. I do not believe the leaders of the IRA are unknown to MI6,
   just as I think every terrorist leader of any importance in the Middle
   East is quite well known to them. They cannot however send in the SAS
   to kill them while they are living as godfathers in the Republic. But the
   IRA of course is quite free to try to kill the duly elected prime minister
   of Britain as a 'legitimate target' as they don't have to play by any
   rules at all. Both sides will use clandestine forces to take out people
   they believe are spies. 

   What the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries are doing is not military
   in nature. They are simply going around killing random targets based on
   no other criteria than that of race and/or religion. Placing 3,000 lb
   bombs in cars on the outskirts of Belfast, not close to any military
   target, is a terrorist act pure and simple, just as placing bombs in
   litter baskets in Warrington, designed to spew out shrapnel at shoppers
   is terrorism. These are not the acts of soldiers, but of terrorists.
   The world knows full well what terrorism is. Was the WTC bombing terrrorism
   or a legimimate economic target to stop America's support of the Jewish
   state? By Boyle's law, the NYP shouldn't have arrested the perpetrators,
   but instead told the Feds to pull support for Israel uncondtitionally.

   You can make an intellectual exercise of it all you want. Fact is the
   IRA are responsible for more deaths than all the other groups put 
   together, and decent people everywhere will condemn acts like Warrington.
    
    

> And look, there are all kinds of issues operating here.

  Issues like human rights violations, collusion of
  the British army with loyalist terror gangs, jury-less
  trials, censorship, summary executions of political
  opponents by the British Army, and of course target
  practice on the nationalist community.

  Yes the likes of Bomber Harris are tolerated in
  Englo-land.  Not only tolerated but statues erected
  lauding the murder.

>though the British have to be much more careful than the IRA as to who
>they attack.

  Yes, they need to make it look like the loyalist
  committed the attack.

> The world knows full well what terrorism is.

  We sure do, it's the political use of terror and
  intimidation.  Good examples would be the British
  forces occupying north east Ireland. Their internationally
  condemned violations of human rights in north east
  Ireland.  Their collusion with loyalist terror gangs.
  Their terrorizing and intimidation of the nationalist
  community.  Their bombing of Dublin (the single most
  murderous bombing in the history of this war).

                      Mark

    Re. Note 1259.47 by NOVA::EASTLAND
    >As for your last paragraph, it's obvious you think any time a bunch
                                 ======================
    >of terrorists start blowing up people, everyone's supposed to ask
    >what they want and just do it. I guess you've pretty much answered the
    >question. You think what the IRA do is justified by the circumstances.
               =========
    
    You seem to be quite fond of telling people what they think. 
    Just because I propose a different approach to dealing with the problem
    you immediately brand me as an IRA supporter.  You're never going to
    solve the problem unless you open your mind to alternatives.
    
    
    
    RE. Note 1259.48 by PLAYER::BROWNL 
    
    >That's an interesting paragraph Tony. It leads to a couple of
    >questions. Firstly, if "catching and jailing bombers isn't going to
    >stop the problem", then what is? Secondly, what happens if, after having
    >followed your preferred course, you've discovered "*why*" they are
    >bombing, killing and maiming, you decide you actually don't think
    >they have a real case (it's subjective, after all)? The discovery of the
    >cause hasn't stopped it, has it?
    
    If you don't think they have a real case (and they obviously think they
    do) then it's time to get down to some negotiations and come to a 
    compromise. You obviously can't decide to "agree to disagree" so the two 
    sides have to work something out. There will never be peace until the 
    English government decide to speak to the people that they have the 
    problem with. We've already seen a major problem start to get worked out 
    in South Africa with the government there talking with the ANC and in the 
    last few days we've seen the Israeli government move closer to talking
    directly to the PLO. 
    
    
    Re. Note 1259.49 by VYGER::RENNISONM 
    
    >That's a cracker Tony, that really takes the biscuit.  So if I come up
    >to you and punch you on the face, you won't hit me back.  You'll say "Come
    >on down the pub. I'll buy you a pint and we can talk about what's bugging
    >you" ?
    
    No Mark, that wouldn't happen. I'd hit you back and you wouldn't hit me
    again. The analogy you drew wasn't an accurate one. The difference is
    that the IRA is not just one person. If you catch one bomber and put
    him in jail, another one comes along. The more you put them in jail,
    the more of them come along. You'll never get all of them in jail (800
    years of English/Irish history will tell you that).
    
    
    I'm glad you all found my proposed solution so stupid. The current
    solution of killing after killing after killing is obviously working so
    well that you don't need to consider any alternatives.
    
    Tony.

    re.50
    Thats the best yet Mark, Suppose you were driving down the road
    and refused to stop after "the law enforcement agents"
    asked you to!! Would you expect to be dragged from your car
    and half beaten to death? 
    I wouldn't, but then again, I'm not American.
    
    Bill

    Y'know, I find it absolutely staggering that there are people around
    who are prepared to make excuses for the IRA's behaviour. Staggering.
    In fact, I find it so hard to cope with, I feel out of my depth.
    Frankly, I can't think of any arguments that will begin to sway a
    person who thinks that way.
    
    I would be very interested in the American reaction, Governmental and
    popular, to a "war" waged by the American Indians, in the same way as
    the IRA's is. Then, I could start banging on about x00 years of
    oppression, stealing lands, lack of human rights, exploitation, etc.,
    and how it's all excusable, just after they've blown up Pheasant St.
    Mall. Difference is, I suppose, is that there isn't a world full of
    third generation American Indians to wax lyrical about the "Ould
    Coontry". Which is why, I suppose we don't have an "AmerIndiAid"
    collecting money in English pubs to blow up children in American
    shopping malls.
    
    Laurie.

    
    I don't know why you find it so staggering. There will always be
    people who will defend the IRA's actions just like there will always
    be people who will defend the UDA/UVF actions. Many people on the
    streets of northern Irish towns will make excuses for the behaviour
    of these groups, horrible though that behaviour may be.
    
    Denis.
    
    

re. .59

  Actually Denis, I personally don't believe the IRA's
  actions need to be defended, and I wouldn't even put
  the IRA in the same category as the UDA/UVF.
 
  The UVF is a sectarian murder squad who have as their,
  goal the murder of Catholics.
  Look at the recent news from northern Ireland.  The
  UVF just murdered a 49 year old Catholic man who
  delivered ice-cream.  On Monday they murdered a
  Catholic mother of three in front of her young 
  children.  The UVF also murdered a prison guard,
  cause they're upset a UVF prisoner didn't get his
  "compassionate leave".

  The IRA, who are fighting to remove northern Ireland
  from British rule, just exploded a bomb south of
  Belfast, causing $750,000 in damages, and injuring
  two of the security forces (after having phoned in
  a 45 minute warning). The IRA, have Protestant as 
  well as Catholic supporters.

  There are many people who support the IRA's actions,
  as there are many people who support the British
  Army's actions (witness the British noters in this
  conference).  Of course this is the reason why
  the IRA and the British Army need to sit down 
  together at a "peace table".

                         Mark

    Hi
    
    The time here in London is 14:00.  We have just received the "all
    clear" from the latest bomb alert.  As I look out the window I can see
    all the "military" and "financial" targets tugging at their mums and
    dads arms, pointing at the police cars,  wondering if they can enjoy
    the rest of their day.  
    
    I suppose somebody out there believes that this actually puts a halt to
    business.  It would appear not.  I would hazard a guess that feelings
    against the IRA are probably now at an all time high.  It's interesting
    and sos so sad to stand in Irish pubs and listen to Irish people condemn 
    the actions of their own countrymen.
    
    Still it's the weekend soon and I'll be off to the TOP SECRET MILITARY
    TARGET (Bournemouth Peir)  To mix with the oppresive forces as they
    prepare for their next assault on the ice cream and candy floss stand.
    
    I do Believe that the parents of Tim Parry the 12 year old blown to
    bits in Warrington,  are welcoming mail from around the world as they
    prepare to "celebrate" what woud have been his thirteenth birthday. 
    Perhaps one of the brave freedom fighters supporters would care to mail
    them and copy the mail into this conference.  I am sure we would all be
    humbled at the bravery of such a gesture. 
    
    
    If the tone of this note appears sarcastic or jovial or even offensive
    to some,  I can't apologise like so many others reading some of these
    entries makes me feel physically sick.
    
    Reading the reply of a few back.   Regarding people king in doors etc. 
    That is probably the best description I have heard of the IRA to date.
    
    
    Have a nice day.
    
    Bruce

    RE: .53
    >shopping centers. I am prepared to believe there are criminal acts
    >being conducted from time to time as part of the police activity and I 
    >think we all condemn them. How widespread these are, is a bone of
    
    Shooting unarmed civilians with rubber bullets is not a "criminal
    act", it is a heinous act, made all the more deplorable when the
    perpertrators are wearing HMG uniforms.  Yes, you may condemn them,
    but these people never get spend any time for their crimes.  And you
    wonder why there is support for the IRA...
                     

    
    Well Mark, I wouldn't equate the IRA with the UVF either but
    a corpse is a corpse no matter what it's religion or it's
    political affiliation. Every death brings more bitterness and
    division. When the time comes for "opposing" sides to sit down
    and talk then the IRA as well as the UVF/UDA must be involved.
    If not, then the constitutional politicians must come up with a 
    solution which will satisfy both communities such that the para-
    militaries are totally alienated and have lost all support.
    
    Denis.

    re 1259
    
    "the IRA have Protestant as well as Catholic supporters"
    
    Where ??? If they do then they are few and far between and probably
    living 3500+ miles away with the rest of the propaganda merchants.
    
    
    

    >I do Believe that the parents of Tim Parry the 12 year old blown to
    >bits in Warrington,  are welcoming mail from around the world as they
    >prepare to "celebrate" what woud have been his thirteenth birthday. 
    >Perhaps one of the brave freedom fighters supporters would care to mail
    >them and copy the mail into this conference.  I am sure we would all be
    >humbled at the bravery of such a gesture. 
    
    The IRA murder of the little boys in Warrington was indeed repulsive.
    And not to downplay the atrocity of their murders, I am however sadly
    amazed at the laissez-faire British response at all the other 20+ years
    of Irish deaths in Northern Ireland.
    
    I see the analogy here in the US.  Blacks killing blacks and the white
    community could care less.  But blacks killing whites and the news
    media goes biserk.  Sad isn't it.
    
    /George

    
    When was the last time rubber bullets were used in NI then?
    I do believe that their use was banned years ago, because of
    the very nature of the indiscriminate injuries that they caused.
    

    You're right Bill, the security forces use "real" bullets now.
    
    I don't remember exactly when rubber bullets were banned - was
    it in the early eighties or so?
                       
    /George

>  Actually Denis, I personally don't believe the IRA's
>  actions need to be defended, and I wouldn't even put
    
    Surprise, surprise! Just as well, as you're clearly unable to defend them, 
    as witnessed by the number of times you've ignored the question over how 
    Warrington could possibly have been a 'military target'. 
    

    it was certainly 10 years ago George, but I do think that it's unfair
    to say they just use real bullets now because it is very rare for the
    army (the army as in British and in uniform) to open fire on anyone
    these days, please correct me if i am wrong. The lasty time I heard
    about someone being shot was when some UDA guys tried to attack the 
    Sinn Fein office in Belfast.
    
    Your other comment about laissez faire attitudes is probably accurate
    but could i offer a reason why?
    On the mainland, violent deaths are very uncommon, while in NI they are
    an everyday occurence and does not make much impact on the people of
    mainland Britain, bring it to the mainland and it becomes a scandal,
    which of course is exactly why the IRA do it.
    
    Bill

 
    Tony, why not try defending your 'different approach' against the
    criticisms made? 'Alternative' it was not. And if you find the Republican
    News enjoyable and credible perhaps you should subscribe. 

    I don't know what you should find so incredible George. Personally, all
    I ask is that all people I talk to here renounce terrorism as a solution.
    There is no way that a reasonable person can equate the British army's
    activities as on a par with those of the IRA or the Protestant 
    para-militaries. Of course if you read the Republican News reports as
    fact you might think so. A good way to tell that an extremist has gone 
    pathological is to see him deploy as fact mere suppositions (such as
    the _speculation_ that British agents may have been involved in the
    Dublin bombing). If that is proven the British govt will have some 
    explaining to do, but not to raving anglophobes who would believe it
    if it were announced that Britain had gassed the Jews. 

    In a covert war there are clearly lines that are drawn. The British
    govt doesn't try to kill shoppers in Dublin, it leaves the godfathers
    to their lairs.  If Britain should be branded as a terrorist state, 
    why do you think the world community does not do so? Do you have any
    doubt that the world community _would_ do so, if Britain started 
    bombing Dublin as the IRA bombs London? Why the double standard.

    

    
    Denis, I'd be glad to hear how the IRA and the Protestant para-militaries 
    differ, apart from their stated goals.
    

    
  re. .61

>   I suppose somebody out there believes that this actually puts a halt to
>   business.

    Well if it doesn't bother you, why on earth do the British noters whine
    on about it so?

    What are you saying here?  That the IRA are not striking Britain
    hard enough?  Or that the increased insurance rates, and companies
    making the decision not to do business in London is not costing
    British companies?  Or are you saying that the British economy is
    so healthy, that it can ignore these economic attacks?

>   It would appear not.  I would hazard a guess that feelings
>   against the IRA are probably now at an all time high.

    Kinda like the feelings against the British Army after they murdered
    Ferghal Caraher?  or after the British let the load of arms from
    South Africa destined for Loyalist terrorists "slip through"?  or
    maybe like the feelings against the British Army after they murdered
    Irish children? or maybe like the feelings against the British Army
    as the truth about the Dublin bombing comes out?

>   It's interesting
>   and sos so sad to stand in Irish pubs and listen to Irish people condemn 
>   the actions of their own countrymen.

    Yes it is, sickening really.  Kinda like the Dublin "peace rally",
    with Irish people spitting on the mothers from the north whose
    children were murdered by the British Army.  

    And best of all it's even more interesting to stand in a British pub
    and listen to the silence of British people condemning the actions of
    their Army in northern Ireland.  And then best of all finish it all
    up with another "dumb paddy" joke.  
    
>   I do Believe that the parents of Tim Parry the 12 year old blown to
>   bits in Warrington,  are welcoming mail from around the world as they
>   prepare to "celebrate" what woud have been his thirteenth birthday. 

    Tim Parry's death was indeed tragic.

    I'm sure the mother's of Carol Ann Kelly, and Seamus Duffy are 
    saddened over the lack of mail from around the world when they
    celebrate what would have been their childrens birthday's, if only
    the British forces hadn't murdered them.

    Of course, I'm sure Mrs. Kelly and Mrs. Duffy understand the lack
    of concern over their children, I mean, they were only Irish after
    all.

>   Perhaps one of the brave freedom fighters supporters would care to mail
>   them and copy the mail into this conference.  I am sure we would all be
>   humbled at the bravery of such a gesture. 

    I'll be asking about the mail you sent to these Irish mothers.

>   If the tone of this note appears sarcastic or jovial or even offensive
>   to some,  I can't apologise like so many others reading some of these
>   entries makes me feel physically sick.

    I wonder if it compares to the nausea I feel from reading one of
    your British one-sided, narrow-minded posts.


                              Mark

 re. .66

  Gee, and I thought they were banned because of international outrage
  after seeing the pictures of the dead and maimed children shot by
  the British security forces.  You know, the photos of a twelve year
  old with his head half-caved in.

 re. .69
  Well let's see, well over 10 years heh?
  I guess you say this cause they moved over to plastic bullets?
  15-year-old Seamus Duffy on August 9th, 1989. Seamus became the 18th 
  plastic bullet fatality and the 8th child under the age of 16 to be 
  killed by this lethal weapon.

  As for "rare that the Army opens fire on any one these days", if you'd
  like I'll start posting the names of the 300 or so folks murdered
  by British security forces, in "disputed circumstances and extra-legal
  executions".

                           Mark

    
    Re .71 Chris
    
    I believe the protestant paras to be purely sectarian. They kill
    catholics because they are catholics. The IRA have a political and military
    enemy. Of course the misery caused by the IRA is no different or less than
    that caused by protestant paras but thats the difference as I see it.
    
    Denis.
    

    No need to tell us about the 300 or so Mark, I'm sure you're right.
    Do you happen to know how many soldiers and RUC have lost their lives?
    Not that it really matters because it's not supposed to be an "eye for
    an eye" mentality that we live in, the nature of the conflict in NI 
    dictates that it is.
    
    When I said "rare these days" I meant exactly that, there is no point
    harping on about past misdemeanours of the British army, I don't hear
    anybody disagreeing with you about certain incidents that have
    happened. What is important is the fact that the army's use of plastic
    /rubber bullets and REAL ones has gradually diminished and is no where
    near the levels it has been over the past twenty years.
    And that can only be good for everyone involved.
    
    Bill

    
    Given the source, it's almost certain to be false. Let's see the list,
    or AI report. If it's Republican News, forget it. I rate that one as
    candid as the Nicaline News Network from Sandinista days (remember that
    one, World_forumers?) 
    
    Denis, I believe the IRA are killing people just because they are
    Protestants and/or British. I see no difference betweem them and the
    UVF/UFF (I just heard on the BBC that the UFF just killed a father of
    6 in his own home). 
    
    By the way, the BBC World service announcer just said "The UVF/UFF have
    been responsible lately for more deaths than the IRA, who are fighting
    for British troops to leave NI so the Irish people can decide the
    future of the island for themselves". I don't think the IRA or Sinn
    Fein would have any problem with that description. So much for BBC
    calumny, at least in today's broadcast.
    

    RE.                     <<< Note 1259.75 by KERNEL::BARTHUR >>>
    >....................................................there is no point
    >harping on about past misdemeanours of the British army, ............
    
    That's a cracker Bill (�M.R.)
    
    How far back would you like us to forget ?
    
    Last week's house raids ?
    Gibralter Murders ?
    Birmingham Six?
    Bloody Sunday?
    Prohibition of the Irish Language?
    Prohibition of the catholic religion ?
    All of the above ????
    

    I don't recall saying anything about FORGET!!
    Is this another example of reading only what you want to read?
    
    But I will answer your statements the way I think I understand you
    bearing in mind that we were discussing the British Army.
    
    Last week's house raids : don't know anything about them! as far as I
    know, not reported here.
    
    Gibralter Murders: you must be mad ! even the IRA admitted that they
    were shot on active service. And the excuse given by the SAS for
    shooting them was that they couldn't be sure that there was no remote
    control device ready to be activated. Perfectly plausible, even though
    it is entirely possible that they intended to kill them anyway.. 3
    deaths as opposed to hundreds of innocents, yes we can forget it!
    They were buried with full IRA military honours.
    
    Birmingham Six: Nothing to do with the Army
    Bloody Sunday: A crime
    Prohibition of the Irish Language: Nothing to do with the Army
    Prohibition of the catholic religion: Nothing to do with the Army
    
    Got anymore crackers?
    
    
    

    
    You forget. When IRA gunmen kneecap someone, or shoot an ordinary cop
    in Warrington, they are soldiers. When the SAS take out the IRA, they
    are murderers. 
    

 re. .76

 AI report, United Kingdom Human rights concerns (June 1991)
 Section 4. Northen Ireland: killings by security forces.

 "There have been 21 prosecutions since 1969 of members of the security
  forces for killings using firearms while on duty in Northern Ireland.
  Nineteen of these were found not guilty.  One was convicted of
  manslaughter and given a suspended sentence.  Just one -- a soldier
  was convicted of murder and given a life sentence for murder --
  however it was eventually revealed that he had been released after
  serving two years and three months of his sentence and had been reinstated
  in the Army.  A total of 339 people have been killed by the security
  forces during the same period.  Most of those killed were from the
  Catholic population and many were unarmed;  many were killed in
  disputed circumstances."

  Now Mr. Eastland, could you please provide a reference or a report
  for the "small mind" syndrome that you seem to suffer.  Could you
  also explain your right wing comments that would equate Amnesty
  International with the Nicaline News Network.

                                     Mark

    >Prohibition of the Irish Language: Nothing to do with the Army
    >Prohibition of the catholic religion: Nothing to do with the Army
    
    Also, prohibition to own property.  Not to be dredging up history
    but all of the restrictions were enforced by the British Army,
    who maintained barracks all throughout Ireland.
    
    The British Army would enforce evictions for non-payment of rent.
    More times than not however, you simply left out of shame. 
    Interestingly enough, many English landlords never even visited
    their holdings in Ireland while they owned them.
    
    "Mass Rocks" were rock outcroppings in the mountains were the native
    Irish would congregate to celebrate Mass.  The location of the mass
    rocks was so chosen so that the natives could easily see and avoid
    the advances of the British redcoats as they patrolled the area.
    The British put a price on the priest's head.
    
    The Donegal case I referred to a prior note was interesting.  When
    Ireland declared its independence and much land was reclaimed from
    the British, the British demanded to be compensated.  The Irish people
    made payments to the Irish government which in turn paid it to the
    British government.  The Irish government did not have the economic
    and financial means to avoid paying back the British, primarily 
    because the UK was their biggest market for their goods.  My friends
    in Donegal made their last payment in 1970.  I don't know the
    specifics about Irish compensation.  If anyone knows more info
    I'd be interested.  Please correct me if I'm wrong too...
    
    Regards,
    /George

    
    Well, I don't know. I might have a small mind, but at least I don't
    have a list of dozens if not hundreds of questions I haven't answered.
    On the other hand, you seem to have a problem reading. I equated
    Republican News with the NNN. AI is another whole category. How many
    pages were devoted to the thousands of IRA-caused deaths in the issue you 
    took that from? (add that to the list of questions you won't answer). 
    We've seen that summary before a few times. You were going to enter a 
    list, weren't you?. I'd like to see that, rather than an AI summary. I'd 
    like to see what both sides have to say about the cases on an individual 
    basis - not just the horror stories of kids injured by plastic bullets, 
    and not just from Amnesty int'l, who have a history of devoting reams of
    paper to crimes by governments, whether British, Israeli, Guatemalan
    or Salvadoran, while passing briefly over the miseries caused by
    the guerilla and/or terrorist groups opposing them. Who knows, perhaps
    such research would widen your horizons? 

    Incidentally, I don't doubt the British army is guilty in some of these
    incidents. I am also very glad to see you disapprove of political 
    killings. Will you be putting Airey Neave's death in that category?
    (add that to can't/won't answer list).
 
    

   This article is heart-wrenching, and even more so,
 when you place it in the context of how these British
 loyalist murder gangs are being armed.  A good example
 of this is the recent arms shipments from South Africa
 to British loyalist paramilitaries.  The British 
 government had been "tracking" the ship carrying the
 arms all the way from Johanesburg, but mysteriously
 "lost track" of it when it pulled into Belfast to
 unload it's cargo.

                        Mark


From the UPI newswire (3-Sep-1993):

	A Spokesman at police headquarters said the Protestant groups -- the
Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Freedom Fighters -- had re-
organized and re-emerged with a wave of brutality not seen in Northern
Ireland since the mid-1970s when a killer gang known as the ``Shankill
Butchers'' roamed the streets of Belfast hunting down Catholics and
cutting their throats in back alleys.
	``The actions of this week's killer gangs have sickened police
officers who had become hardened to some of the most brutal crimes in
the past 24 years,'' said the spokesman.
	In the past week killers smashed their way into their victims homes
with sledgehammers in the dark of night when the families were in bed.
Their victims were singled out and shot at point blank range, one beside
his wife as they lay in bed. His six children watched helplessly as
their father died minutes later.
	The youngsters, aged between 3 and 11, cried, ``Don't die, daddy.
Don't die daddy.''
	In another shooting, a 13-year-old girl cradled her father, a prison
officer shot by the UVF, in her arms and pleaded, ``Please don't leave
me, daddy.''
	He died minutes later.
	The killers had claimed all their victims had been associated with
the IRA and its political wing, Sinn Fein, but the claims were denied by
the organization and the victims' families.

    
    Indeed it is heart-wrenching. If only you found the IRAs victims
    experiences equally so. As for the arms shipment, I'll be sure to watch
    for the news on that. I can't see what the British govt has to gain by
    arming the UFF/UVF.  
    

    RE: .82  by NOVA::EASTLAND 
    
    >Well, I don't know. I might have a small mind, but at least I don't
    
    It's not often I agree with you.
    

    
    Ah 'tis true young Dennis. Not often enough for sure. 

    Hi
    
    Sadly it appears that the parents of Tim Parry have been unsuccesful in
    getting Gerry Adams to agree to a public meeting with them.  He agreed
    to meet in private but would not agree to their wishes,  which would
    have given him the opportunnity to express his views and opinions to
    the general public.
    
    Also the parents are being quoted as being greatly saddened at the lack
    of understanding of the situation in America.  They are also appalled
    at the vast amount of "inaccurate" anti British propoganda used to
    spread misinformation.
    
    They should read Mr Holohans rantings !!  this would give them a true
    un-biased picture.  
    
    I put in a note stating FACT !! Mr Holohans reply shows his vast lack
    of knowledge or even understanding of the word.  
    
    Mr Holohan appears not to understand that the campaign of violence
    orchestrated by the "Glorious Freedom Fighters"   in mainland Britain 
    brings terror to children,  not to police or soldiers.  Digital who pay
    his wages are one of the companies that suffer as a result of his
    support.
    
    How I would enjoy to think that you would have the courage of your
    words and stand inside the taped of zones explaining how it's all O'K
    and for a just cause.
    
    How simple his solutions are.  Get the British out and the problem stops. 
    Why couldn't we all have thought of that one. ??
    
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce (A Scot who lives and works here in London)

    RE .81
    Indeed I agree that the army were involved in "enforcing the law"
    however bad that may have been. But at the end of the day it's the
    politicians who need the ass kicks, because it is they, the
    decision/policy makers who are ultimately responsible and lets not
    forget that all this first started 303 years ago when war mongerers
    thinly disguised as Monarchs, who battled for and won lands to give his
    "noble men", that first started this farce in the first place.
    What we now have is a British government thrashing about because it is
    duty bound by monarch and British passport holders to protect these
    lands.
    
    Now if Britain was Republic......?

Hello Mark H.,

I see you've yet again told us all where the so-called 'Loyalists' get 
their arms from.  Any chance of now telling us where the IRA get their 
finance and arms from ?  You surely have, at the very least, an inkling of 
an idea.

Mark R.

 re. 87
"Also the parents are being quoted as being greatly saddened at the lack
 of understanding of the situation in America.  They are also appalled
 at the vast amount of "inaccurate" anti British propoganda used to
 spread misinformation."


 UPI newswire, the Boston Globe, Amnesty International,
 Helsinki Watch, and the Human Rights Commission of 
 Europe. 

 In the British language these names mean, "inaccurate
 anti-British propoganda filthy supporters of terrorists."

 In the American language, we call them information
 services, and Human Rights organizations.

                      Mark


 P.S.
 As for propoganda misinformation, that comes out of
 the British Information Service in D.C.



 

   From: [email protected] (JONATHAN FERZIGER)
   Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.issues.conflict,
	clari.news.group,clari.news.europe,clari.news.group.jews
   Subject: Norwegian woods were site for secret Israeli-PLO deal
   Date: Sun, 5 Sep 93 0:31:10 EDT
   
	JERUSALEM (UPI) -- Over low-key breakfasts, late-night bull sessions
and leisurely walks in the Norwegian woods, diplomats from Israel and
the Palestine Liberation Organization laid the groundwork for the deal
that may change the Middle East political landscape forever.
	The two teams met secretly 14 times and stayed overnight together in
a secluded mansion south of Oslo. In the course of seven months, they
hammered out the terms for an agreement on Palestinian self-rule in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip, which Israel captured 26 years ago and has
ruled by military occupation since.
	A key compromise worked out in Norway was the "Gaza-Jericho First"
plan that has propelled the rest of the autonomy plan forward.
	Dispensing with decades of mistrust and hostile rhetoric, the Arab
and Jewish negotiators paved the way for mutual recognition between
Israel and the PLO, which their leaders now hope to ratify.
	Details of the back-channel talks -- so secret that Eliakim
Rubinstein, Israel's chief negotiator with the Palestinians at the
formal peace talks in Washington, was kept out of the loop -- emerged in
interviews United Press International conducted with government sources
involved with the Norwegian meetings, and Israeli newspaper accounts.
	"It started as an experiment that people figured was destined to
fail, but thought, 'Why not try it anyway?"' an Israeli diplomat said.
"Then it picked up its own momentum when both sides got to know each
other in Norway."
	It was a Norwegian academic, Terje Rod Larsen, who first approached
both sides more than a year ago about cooperating in a study on
Palestinan living conditions in the occupied territories. Larsen,
director of the Norwegian Institute for Applied Science, recruited
Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin through a mutual friend, Yair
Hirschfeld, a professor of Middle East studies at Haifa University, who
later became part of the secret team.
	Other key Norwegian players were Foreign Minister Johan Jorgen Holst
-- whose unexplained absence two weeks ago from King Harold's 25th
wedding anniversary celebration caused a stir until the reason was
revealed -- and Jan Egeland, Norway's state secretary for foreign
affairs.
	After a few months of research as both Arab and Israeli sides got to
know each other, the potential for more ambitious goals became apparent.
Both PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and the Israeli Foreign Ministry gave
the green light for the talks to pursue the remote possibility of mutual
recognition.
	By that time, in May, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was
steering the secret contacts and had sent his ministry's director-
general, Uri Savir, to Norway at the head of a six-member team to assess
their progress. Arafat, meanwhile, sent Ahmed Krai, the senior PLO
official known as Abu Allah, to lead the cover negotiatign group.
	Several of the initial encounters took place at Holst's own home in
Oslo, but as the momentum developed, the Norwegians decided to shift the
locale to a century-old mansion in a small town south of the capital.
Secluded in the lush country setting, the Israelis and the Palestinians
worked out the details of arrangements for early self-rule in the
overcrowded Gaza refugee camps and the desert town of Jericho.
	Living together in the house helped dispel the mutual distrust that
each side harbored, Larsen told the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth.
The negotiators shared breakfast, lunch and dinner. They would wander
around the surrounding woods and talk late into the night over drinks.
	Fearful of word leaking out, Norwegian security sealed off the area
around the mansion. Neighbors curious about why lights were on all night
were told that two professors were writing a book.
	One of the key ingredients in keeping the meetings secret in Israel
was the fact that Peres was running the show.
	The rivalry between the foreign minister and Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin is legendary, and most Israelis believed Rabin's assurances that
he was keeping firm personal control over the key bilateral peace talks
in Washington. Peres, who had been prime minister himself in the mid-
1980s, had to content himself with responsibility over the less-
glamorous multilateral talks.
	But Peres, who seemed to chafe in public at his lesser role, was
cultivating the backdoor approach. Last week, Rabin said his longtime
political foe had kept him informed every step of the way. Rubinstein,
on the other hand, has asked to resign from his job at the head of the
official peace delegation.
	Peres also said that the United States was told about the secret
meetings, although not all the details. Before revealing the contacts
with the PLO publicly, Peres and Holst traveled to California to brief
U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher about the diplomatic
breakthrough.
	Days later the proposed "Gaza-Jericho First" agreement was revealed
to the Israeli public, whose reaction has been lukewarm. The prospect of
reconciling with the PLO, long regarded as a terrorist organization
responsible for the killing of hundreds of Israelis, has been hard to
swallow, although most people thought it was inevitable.
	Right-wing opposition groups have vowed to engage in civil
disobedience on a massive scale, and some extremist settlers have
threatened armed insurrection. Arafat has been trying to sell the deal
among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, but radical Muslim groups
like Hamas, who reject any agreement with Israel, are promising a
bloodbath.
	For the moment, neither the autonomy deal nor the mutual recognition
treaty has been signed. Israelis and Palestinians are trying to put the
finishing touches on the landmark agreement this week, meeting in
Washington, Norway, and most probably in some other unlikely part of the
globe where secret contacts are still taking place.

    >Also the parents are being quoted as being greatly saddened at the lack
    >of understanding of the situation in America.  They are also appalled
    
    The same could be said of the mainland British, most of them who
    care very little about NI.  And that is even more saddening than
    your Irish-American waxing nostalgic about the ol' sod...
    
    At least Gerry Adams agreed to meet with them in private.  Did the
    Queen mother or Maggie ever agree to meet with any of the civilians
    that their army shot dead?  I think not.
    
    /g

The UFF (Ulster Freedom Fighters) yesterday murdered Catholic hairdresser 
Sean Hughes in Belfast.  Mr Hughes was a father (I don't know how many kids 
are now orphaned).  He has been worried about his own safety and used to 
vary the route he took to work.

The local MP agreed that the police had a hard enough job, but the level of 
protection given to the catholic community was simply not good enough.

Now I knew that there were troops on the streets of West Belfast, but 
until I saw Panorama on Monday night (with the father of Tim Parry), I 
didn't realise just how heavy the prescence was.  I simply find it quite 
unbelievable that three men can jump out of a transit-van, run into a shop, 
gun down one of the occupants, and then escape without the "security" forces 
being aware of what was happening.  This sentiment was echoed in the BBC's 
report on the incident on last night's 6 O'Clock News.

This death brings the "Loyalist" gunmen's tally to five dead in eight days. 
Not one arrest has been made. No end to this carnage is foreseen by anyone.

Patrick Mayhew said on the TV last night that "Political objectives could 
not be achieved through the use of violence."  I find this strange.  To the 
best of my knowledge, the political aim of the loyalist terrorists is to 
maintain the status quo.  Every day that passes without any move towards an 
agreement whatsoever is a victory for these monsters.

What these idiots don't understand is that their actions will tarnish the 
image of the rest of the Loyalist community in exactly the same way that 
the IRA have blackened the name of the Nationalist community.

I am putting this note in here because this appears to be the forum for 
discussion on these matters. If anyone feels strongly that this topic 
should be deleted, moved or whatever, let me know by mail.

I am concerned that a balanced perspective must be maintained when we are 
discussing these issues.  I hope that no one sees this as propoganda of any 
sort.


Mark R.

	STRASBORG, France (UPI) -- The Human Rights Commission of the Council
of Europe has accepted the petition presented against the United Kingdom
by the families of three Irish Republicn Army activists killed by
British forces in Gibraltar five years ago.
	Following lawsuits in both Gibraltar and Northern Ireland, the
petition was pending in front of the European commission since 1991 and
was examined on Sept. 3.
	According to the applicants, Daniel McCann, Mairead Farrell and Sean
Savage were ``executed in cold blood'' on March 6, 1988, by a military
unit of Britain's Special Air Service, or SAS, on the British colony of
Gibraltar.
	At the time that they were killed, the three IRA members were unarmed
and carried no explosive detonation device. The British government
contend that there had been no plot to kill the activists and that the
soldiers had honestly believed that they had a car bomb.
	After the hearing and deliberations, the Commission declared the
application admissible. The decision was not announced until Monday
because the Commission had to bring the news to the families and to the
British government.
	The case raised issues under Article 2 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, which states that ``the right to human life is protected
by law.''
	The Commission now will consider the merits of the application and
place itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a
friendly settlement of the matter.
	If a solution is not reached, the Commission will draw up a report
and state whether there is a breach by the state concerned of its
obligations under the convention.

  The news program detailing British Intelligence
  collusion with the Loyalist murder gangs and the
  "slipping through" of South African arms for the
  loyalist was BBC's Inside Ulster Programme, 
  on January, 1993.

  British intelligence alleged a breakdown of their
  own intelligence and surveilance services.  The
  shipment, it was reported, had been monitored by 
  British Intelligence from South Africa to northern
  Ireland, but a breakdown occurred when it arrived 
  and they lost trace of it.  The report pointed out
  how the South African weapons have enhanced the 
  killing capacity of loyalist paramilitaries.

                        Mark

    RE: .93
    
>What these idiots don't understand is that their actions will tarnish the 
>image of the rest of the Loyalist community in exactly the same way that 
>the IRA have blackened the name of the Nationalist community.
    
    How true Mark. I took an Irish language course in Donegal recently.
    There were many from Northern Ireland who took the course, Protestant
    and Catholic alike.  There was even a Presbyterian minister from
    Belfast.  Before leaving they all made sure to tell me not to mail
    (post) them anything with Irish Gaelic on the outside of the envelope.
    They would then be labelled as nationalists and thus soft targets by
    the loyalist community.  The latest killings you see in NI by the
    loyalists are all soft targets.
    
    Will Major, Remmington, and their cronies pursue the loyalist killers
    with as much vim & vigor as they pursue the IRA?  I wouldn't want to
    hold my breath.
    
    /George

    
    I'd like to keep going in this debate but I'm off now for three weeks
    to get married and go on honeymoon.
    I'm off to swim with Funghi, no less and staying in Castle Gregory and
    then Galway, so if you can find me I'll buy the beers.
    
    Bill

    Hey, have a great trip - but then again - you're going to 
    Galway and I don't have to tell you that...

    
    
.32 > Of course, I do find it amazing that the IRA stay
    > on the high ground and keep their attacks mostly
    > economic
    
    The high ground. Economic attacks. So that's blowing up seven year olds and
    fish shops on the Shankill Road is it? 

 re. .99
  No, that was wrong.

  The IRA's attempt to eliminate the leaders of the
  UVF (after the UVF's recent campaign of attacking/
  murdering nationalists) was wrong.

  I'm certain that the British security forces, who
  are well known as being impartial peace keepers
  (forgetting of course everything I've read by
  third party human rights organizations)
  would have eventually gotten around to arresting
  and charging their mates, er I mean UVF, and
  would have stopped the slaughter of more innocent
  civilians.

  By the way, how go the "peace talks", so that this
  sickening cycle of violence does not continue?

                      Mark

  

    Most of today's UK newspapers have pictures on the front page of Gerry Adams
    carrying the coffin at the funeral of the bomber who blew himself up.
    The outrage that this has caused makes it extremely unlikely that the
    British government will have any dealings with Adams. Even the Dublin
    government is reported as being embarrassed.
    
    So, no more talks. Which is probably exactly what the IRA wants.

    >The outrage that this has caused makes it extremely unlikely that the
    >British government will have any dealings with Adams. Even the Dublin
    
    It doesn't matter anyhow.  The British were planning to ban him from the 
    mainland even prior to the Shankill bombing.  The British want no
    part of negotiations with Sinn Fein, that's obvious.  And the cycle
    of violence continues...

    > The British want no
    > part of negotiations with Sinn Fein, that's obvious.  And the cycle
    
    That may be true. The converse may well also be true.
    
    Like you say in your title, peace puts many organizations out of
    business. And the IRA, UVF and their like would be foremost amongst
    them.
               
    

    
    Question for Mark,
    
    Given the actions of Gerry Adams (at the funeral) do you now understand
    why the British people are so outraged when an IRA bomb kills innocent
    people?
    
    You have asked the question of us, often enough, about the apathy of
    the Brits to shootings of catholics. I must say as well that
    the shooting of loyalists is greeted with just as much apathy.
    It appears that its the bomb makers that are loathed and unfortunately
    for their supporters there is only one side guilty of that.
    
    About the peace talks. The news last night was that John Hume had been
    greatly encouraged by remarks made by Major and Adams that the peace
    talks would still be conducted. I don't know any more, I only just
    caught it on the TV.
    
    Bill

    
    Fact is a single death is always less newsworthy than a bomb killing
    many, wherever it happens.
    

    
    True. In the meantime the UFF is busy totting up the catholic death
    count. Two catholic brothers shot dead in their home in Co Armagh
    last night. 
    
    

    >Given the actions of Gerry Adams (at the funeral) do you now understand
    >why the British people are so outraged when an IRA bomb kills innocent
    >people?
    
    Yes, I can understand that.
    
    No can you understand why the Irish people get outraged when members
    of the royal family and British politicians travel over to Northern
    Ireland, secretly and unannounced, to decorate and pin medals on
    members of the British military units that have recently been
    involved in shooting unarmed Irish civilians, be they nationalist or
    whatever?  Does that sink in?

    
    I've got every sympathy for the feelings of the Irish, on both sides.
    You don't have to be Irish to be a republican, you won't ever hear me
    extolling the virtues of the House of Hanover or her Greek husband, nor
    indeed the offspring that I pay my taxes to keep. Or the brown nosers
    that keep them in their castles.
    
    Maybe thats the answer, the United Republic of Ireland and Scotland.
    I wish!!
    

"Given the actions of Gerry Adams (at the funeral) do you now understand
why the British people are so outraged when an IRA bomb kills innocent
people?"


  As for British outrage, if the British had any sense they would be
  outraged by their governments consistent and constant attempts to
  scuttle the peace talks.  Be it by censoring or by banning political
  opposition.

  Where was the outrage at the murders of the nationalists that occured
  before the IRA's attempt to take out the UVF terrorist leadership.
  These weren't murders committed in attempts to kill IRA members, these
  were pure attempts to terrorize the nationalist community.
  Is it only the killing of loyalist that inflames British opinion 
  and catches British attention?

  Where is yours, and the British presses outrage over the latest 
  murder of two Catholic brothers in front of their 11-year old sister,
  at her birthday party?

  The British press likes to refer to these as "Retaliation murders".
  Were the murders and attacks on Nationalists civilians "retaliation
  for attempts at a peace proposal"?  Are the murders of Nationalists
  civilians, retaliation for the shankill explosion?  The Nationalists
  being attacked and murdered have nothing whatsover to do with the
  IRA. 

  Where is the outrage over the possibility that the British army
  are colluding in these murders?  Before you dismiss this, ask
  yourself why Amnesty International has documented evidence of
  British Army collusion with loyalist murder gangs.


                      Mark

  

    
    Well I didn't expect you to understand or answer the question.
    The fact still remains, it's the bombs that provoke the outrage and the
    site of a "politician" carrying the coffins of terrorists. It's that
    behaviour that is infuriating and it's that behaviour which slams the
    door on dialogue.
    
    You've got to remember that just because the media, most of which is
    politically controlled, sensationalise attacks by the IRA and merely
    report killings by the loyalists that we (brits in general) don't feel
    the same amount of disgust that you do.
    
    Bill

    
    A nit, but I thought Liz was of the house of Windsor, and I am not a
    big supporter of the Royals but I think saying they're kept there as
    head of state by 'brown-nosers' is a bit strong. Lots of folks rather
    like them and think they benefit from having them there.
    

    
    Yes you are right, people only think they benefit from having them!
    I don't think that the majority of Irish people would agree with you
    nor Scots for that matter.
    
    And yes it is the house of Windsor, via Hanover somewhere along the
    line and of course Scotland in 1603 which was a political coup for the
    English which effectively protected her northern borders from the
    "rebellious Scots". Some years before, the English queen Elizabeth had
    the Scottish monarch, Mary Stuart, a French catholic, put to the sword
    which eventually led to the Jacobite rebellion at Culloden which was
    brutally crushed by "Stinking Billy" or Sweet William the Duke of
    Cumberland.
    Sounds a bit like modern day Ireland don't you think?
    
    Given that all this trouble was caused by religious fanatics and more
    importantly by Kings and Queens from an age when divide and conquer was
    the norm, don't you think that monarchy and monarchists have no place
    in todays society? If they didn't exist, would there be a problem in
    Ireland?
    Fix the cause not the symptom!
    
    No apologies for the history lesson.
    
    Bill

    
    Oh and I meant to say,
    
    the "rebellious Scots" bit comes from a verse (second i think) of our
    national anthem which says ......rebellious Scots to crush, God Save
    the Queen. It's a reference to General Wade I think, but guess what,
    it's hard to find the whole song in print.
    No self respecting Scotsman should ever entertain the song or stand-up
    for it when it's played at theatres or wherever.
    
    Apologies for getting off the subject, I'm off my soap box now.

Article 2097 of clari.news.terrorism:
Path: sousa.ako.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!wupost!looking!clarinews
From: [email protected] (RIC CLARK)
Newsgroups: clari.news.trouble,clari.news.europe,clari.news.terrorism,clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.group
Subject: Catholics and Protestants mourn victims of loyalist attack
Keywords: international, shooting, trouble, terrorism, non-usa government,
	government, general ethnic, special interest
Copyright: 1993 by UPI, R
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 93 10:33:56 PST
Location: ulster, great britain
ACategory: international
Slugword: ulster-conflict-victims-update
Priority: regular
Format: regular
ANPA: Wc: 527/535; Id: z4353; Sel: ulibb; Adate: 10-31-N/A; V: update
Approved: [email protected]
Codes: yibbrul., yiz.rul., yigfrgb., yijerxx.
Lines: 52
Xref: sousa.ako.dec.com clari.news.trouble:3818 clari.news.europe:8665 clari.news.terrorism:2097 clari.news.gov.international:27550 clari.news.group:4715

	BELFAST, Northern Ireland (UPI) -- The appalling impact of the Rising
Sun pub massacre only sank into the rural Greysteel community Sunday as
the dead and injured were identified by their relatives.
	Seven people were killed and 11 injured when gunmen from the outlawed
Ulster Freedom Fighters sprayed a Halloween celebration in the bar with
automatic gunfire late Saturday. One gunmen shouted ``trick or treat''
before opening fire. A Royal Ulster Constabulary spokesman said a number
of people were being questioned about the attack.
	Police said all the dead lived locally and two were women. One 19-
year-woman, Karen Thompson, was shot alongside her 20-year-old boyfriend
who also lived in the village.
	Another victim, John Burns, was a former soldier who served with the
Ulster Defense Regiment, which merged into the Royal Irish Regiment
earlier this year.
	Five women and one man were among the most seriously wounded. Two
women were critically wounded and three women and a man were seriously
ill. Five others were discharged from hospital.
	Throughout the day groups of stunned onlookers mingled outside the
bar under a grey sky. The silence was only broken by the sobs of women
laying a growing carpet of floral tributes at the door of the Rising
Sun.
	Paul Bateson, a senior consultant at the Altnagelvin Hospital where
the dead and injured were taken, said the victims ``looked as if they
had been sprayed with bullets.''
	``Some were dead, some critically wounded and some so shocked they
couldn't talk,'' Bateson said. ``They don't appear to want to talk at
all. This is not an unusual feature in such an event.''
	The owner of the Rising Sun bar Jim Moore said up to 200 customers,
many wearing Halloween costumes, were settling down for a country and
western evening when the gunmen struck.
	``I was on my way to the bar when the shooting started,'' he said. 
``When I went down people were lying dead all around the place. The
first I saw was my own father. I know he is dead, but I want no
retaliation.''
	Moore added, ``Catholics and Protestants drank in the pub together.
It's sad it had to end up like this.''
	Retired Catholic bishop, Dr. Edward Daly, told mourners at Sunday
mass near the scene of the carnage that the gunmen were not dying for
the people.
	``The people are dying for the gunmen,'' he said.
	The head of the Anglican church in Ireland Archbishop Robin Eames
described the Rising Sun attack as ``pyschopathic bloodletting.''
	``The situation is so desperate we have got to realize that all
agendas must take second place to the total cessation of this violence,''
Eames said.
	John Hume, leader of the Social Democratic Labour Party, who has been
under bitter attack by Protestants following his talks with Gerry Adams,
leader of the Irish Republican Army's political wing, said he was
appalled by the killings.
	The victims of the bar shooting ``were totally innocent as were the
Shankill victims last week,'' Hume said, referring to an IRA attack that
killed 10 people and injured 61 others.

    
    Talking of British secret plans, I hope no one suggests the govt were
    in league with the terrorist scum who perpetrated the pub massacre.
    

  re. .115
  There is currently no evidence to prove that the
  British government were in league with the loyalist
  who committed the "trick or treat" massacre.

  It's interesting that you mention it though.  
  Especially in light of the collusion between the
  British security forces and the loyalist terrorists,
  that has been documented by Human Rights organizations.
  Amnesty International has documented collusion before.
  Collusion that suggests not isolated individuals,
  or incidents, but a government policy.

               

    
    I do not believe for a moment that the British government were in
    league with those that carried out this atrocity. However, I do 
    believe it possible that they were aided and abetted by an individual
    or individuals of some section of the security forces.
    
    Denis.

    
    re .116... evidence eh? Normally conjecture is enough for you. 
    

 re. .118
  I suggest you try reading note 1008, and educate yourself.

    
    Ho ho, that's rich coming from you. 
    

    Well the British government reversed its statement and verified that
    has been {negociating,discussing,listening,cohorting,pick-your-verb}
    with the IRA for the past year.

    
    Ahem, yes I saw that. I was quite surprised to say the least.
    

    
    I'm disapointed that you didn't believe me when I wrote about it
    here, Chris. ;')
    
    Denis.

    
    Well, for one thing, I wanted to hear something official on it, versus
    newspaper speculation. For another, it caught me by surprise, as it did
    the Unionists.
    

    
    I'm really pleased, just proves what a bunch of liars ALL politicians
    are.
    I'm even more pleased that all Holohan's guff has been dis-proved not
    by theoretical journalism but from the horse's own mouth!
    
    Anybody read the Sunday Times double page spread this weekend?