Conference tallis::celt

    I wonder if Big Brother will extend the ban to print media too?
    Simian cartoon figures will replace photos of Sinn Fein members.
    Sinn Fein T-shirts and other memorabilia to be banned in mainland
    Britain.
    
    The British authorities have such tremendous trust in their
    journalists and in their television viewers.

    It chills me to the bone if Britain allows, or forces, its journalistic
    ouput to stoop to the all-time low of the 19th century Punch cartoons
    alluded to in the previous reply.
    It must be emphasised time and time again that there is a big
    difference between the IRA and the plain people of Ireland. This is not
    helped when people see the tricolour, the flag of legitimate sovereign
    state, draped over the coffin of a dead bomber. Nor is it helped when
    confusion is created between the old IRA which fought in 1920's for
    Irish freedom and , many of whose members are still alive getting special
    pensions for their service , and the present-day organisation who use
    the name.
    

The culprits here are definitely the UK government.  To be fair to the 3 
main news services (BBC, ITN & Channel 4), they have openly voiced their 
disagreement with the government and have stretched the rules of the 
broadcasting ban.  Many interviews with Gerry Adams and other Sinn Fein 
members have used voiceovers with an almost perfect lip-synch so that to 
the casual observer, it would appear as a normal interview.

The restriction of the press in this country is nothing new.  After the 
americans bombed Tripoli, the government got very ratty indded with the BBC 
for the "adverse" reporting of the raid.  I think that we had a right to be 
told that the planes missed their stated targets by two miles on one 
occasion but this didn't fit in with HMG's image as world peace broker.

In some of my more cynical moments I fear that the government are milking 
the current wave of violence in NI for all that it is worth as it diverts 
attention from other issues which deeply divide the Tory party - i.e. VAT 
on fuel and European Union.  Law and Order and a bit of IRA/Sinn Fein 
bashing always seems to draw them together.


Mark

    The current ban is a farce. To extend the terms of the ban would be
    counter-productive. Let people listen to the voice of Gerry Adams, view
    the pictures of him carrying the coffin, and make up their own minds.
    
    Dave 

  One only has to listen to British noters to realize
  that the censorship of political opposition is not
  a farce, but a successful British policy, used to
  demonize the political opposition and human rights
  advocates who dare to speak out against British
  policy in north east Ireland.  These same folks who
  call this type of ban a farce would go on and
  justify the placing of a Star of David on political
  opponents who happen to be Jewish, whenever they
  appear on TV.

  Maggot Thatcher will be on Larry King live tonight
  at 9:00.  The number is 202-408-1666 for anyone
  who is interested in asking her questions.

  Maybe she can explain to the American people why
  censorship of political opposition is a "good thing"
  in Britain.

                 Mark

  

    
    No need to demonize Sinn Fein. They do a good enough job of that
    themselves..
    

I have to agree, I'm against this sort of censorship, British tv companies 
know how to expose the hypocrisy of low-lifes like Adams.

The British Government are weak on this, as yesterday's statement, that the
broadcasting restrictions were to protect the familes of victims from seeing 
the perpetrators justifying their crimes on tv, was an appeal to the emotional
in the face of heavy critism of this censorship.

Dave.

 
  >  These same folks who
  >  call this type of ban a farce would go on and
  >  justify the placing of a Star of David on political
  >  opponents who happen to be Jewish, whenever they
  >  appear on TV.

    You must be off your trolley!
    
    Looking at the notes by certain American contributers, it amazes me how
    much more they claim to know about the situation in NI from 3000 miles away
    than people born and brought up there, and how closed their minds are to
    anything that deviates from their fanatical beliefs.
                                    

    I agree entirely with .4, .6 and .7
    
    Laurie.

    >Looking at the notes by certain American contributers, it amazes me how
    >much more they claim to know about the situation in NI from 3000 miles away
    >than people born and brought up there, and how closed their minds are to
    >anything that deviates from their fanatical beliefs.
    
    One could argue the same thing about the mainland British, many of whom 
    have little interest or knowledge of the affairs of NI.  If anything,
    most Americans want to see the conflict peacefully resolved, in a
    manner acceptable to both communities and cultures of NI.  I don't
    believe there should be any prerequisitive to promoting peace in NI.
    The situation there is intolerable and needs attention badly.
    
    /George

 re. .8
  Do you understand that apartheid is wrong, even though
  you live thousands of miles from South Africa?

  You'll find that Americans tend to believe that censorship
  is wrong, that jury-less trials are wrong, and that
  state-sponsored terrorism is wrong.

  Oh, and by the way, I happen to have been born in London,
  does that make me part of the club entitled to opinions,
  your worship?

                      Mark

    
    Yes I believe apartheid is wrong, censorship is wrong, state-sponsored
    terrorism is wrong. Juryless trials have to be seen in the context of
    the intimidation that goes on in NI.
    
    I also believe that IRA and Loyalist terrorism is wrong. And yes you
    are entitled to your opinion. How much credence it attracts is another
    matter.
    
    Dave   

    
    Mark,
    The trouble is, the poison that you spew out is aimed at Brits and
    Britain in particular and no amount of coaxing by us allows you even a
    glimmer of understanding from our point of you.
    You consistently deny us any semblance of intelligence or
    understanding.
    Thats probably why nobody can get round the table and talk.
    
    I also believe you when you say that most Americans believe in the
    things you say, but the evidence of American atrocities is quite
    overwhelming when viewed from this side.
    And I won't bore you with the examples again.
    
    Just take it on board, things don't appear to us the same way you see
    them and we are right on the doorstep, censored or not.
    
    Bill
    

 re. .13
 "... glimmer of understanding from our point of you".

 Which point of view is that?
 One that justifies jury-less trials?
 One that calls a nobel prize-winner a "terrorists"?
 One that only takes issue, when the British press
 reports on an "IRA attrocity"?
 One that never utters a word as Nationalists are
 murdered day after day?
 Or could you perhaps mean a point of view that tries
 to justify censorship of political opposition.
 Or perhaps it's one that doesn't believe that there
 is collusion between the British forces, and the
 loyalist terrorists?


"Just take it on board, things don't appear to us the same way you see
 them and we are right on the doorstep, censored or not."

 If you've a problem with how things appear, then 
 try opening your eyes.

 "Thats probably why nobody can get round the 
  table and talk"

 Might it also have something to do with the British
 refusal to invite their enemies to the peace table?
 

    
    Well I've tried to get some dialogue between us, I think everyone
    reading this will agree, except you of course.
    
    Everyone I'm sure, because you've said it often enough, understands
    your point of view blinkered as it is and has focus only on the
    loyalist atrocities. You never once acknowledge the other side of the
    coin. I'm not saying it's right mind, just that you don't acknowledge
    that there can be another view.
    
    But I'll tell you what is really infuriating and why IMHO you get
    everybodys back up; You obviously know a lot about Irish history and
    politics, thats great; you know nothing about WW11 as proved in one of
    your replies, you know nothing about blanket bombing in Vietnam; you
    know nothing about Human Rights violations in the States; and you know
    nothing about state sponsored terrorism in Somalia, Nicargua, Cuba etc.
    I don't believe you don't, you just don't acknowledge it and deflect
    the arguement back to how Britain is top of the league. AI's league,
    which is hardly surprising is it?
    
    I think you do your country a great dis-service with your rantings, a
    country which boasts the highest educational standards in Western
    Europe. I would expect more intelligent arguement from one of it's most
    loyal sons. No pun intended!

"...and you know
 nothing about state sponsored terrorism in Somalia, Nicargua, Cuba etc.
 I don't believe you don't, you just don't acknowledge it and deflect
 the arguement back to how Britain is top of the league."

 As this is the Celt conference, I figure it's an inappropriate
 place to discuss state sponsored terrorism in Somalia, Nicaragua,
 or Cuba.   


"I think you do your country a great dis-service with your rantings, a
 country which boasts the highest educational standards in Western
 Europe."

 My country is the United States of America.  Last I
 looked, we weren't part of Western Europe.  Could this
 be a British geography book you get your information
 from?  Case you haven't noticed, we're no longer
 a colony, and no longer part of the British empire.

    RE: .16
    
    Pathetic.
    
    I'll help you. He actually thought you were Irish! Amazing, isn't it?
    
    Helpfully, Laurie.

    Well
    
    Now I understand why Mr Holohan prints so much kak in here.  An
    American waxing lyrical about problems in a Country full of people that
    he is as remote from as it is possible to be.  Please accvept my and
    I'm sure a lot of the others invites to come across the pond and live
    here for a few weeks.
    
    I lay odds that you wont get shot at by a British Soldier, 
    unfortunately I could not gaurantee that the Glorious Freedom Fighters
    might not mistake you for a Strategic Military Target.  Still If they
    did hesitate in blowing up or kneecapping you etc.  They would invite you
    to one of their trials where you would luxuriate in the comfort of
    their Jury system which is sooooooo much better than any body else's.
    
    I love the comments about the Soldiers mates not owning up to who did
    the "mis-deed".  Not like the good old Freedom Fighters eh ??  I mean
    look how they told everybody who was really guilty in the Birmingham
    Six Case.
    
    Still I'm off to work on the military commuter train now.
    
    Bruce.
    
    PS: I do hope you do not have to worry about being in a military zone
    over there in Boston.

    well, well, well,
    
    At last, something I long suspected but could never find out. You're an
    American!
    Now I know why you know nothing about history...
    Rambo won the Vietnam war didn't he Mark?
    And John Wayne took on the Sioux nation and won using a Colt 45.
    
    Your credibility is ZERO, you sure your name's not Richard with a
    capitol P.
    
    
    
    

    Well I've almost finished laughing now.
    
    hey Mark I guess you believe that the American Indians all killed
    themselves.  I mean everybody knows that the Americans didn't get
    involved in wiping off the face of the earth.
    
    Ah well back to reallity..
    
    
    
    Bruce

Re the last few,

You can't talk about that. It's not about CELTIC things.  Sure, Mark H can 
talk about the firebombing of Dresden (He possibly thinks it Ireland) but 
you can't ever ever talk about any possible American improprieties because 
thay have nothing to do with Ireland.

MR

    re .21
    
    Be reasonable. He didn't mention Dresden at all on Friday.
    
    Dave

    
    Watch it, or he'll hit you with a big fat Amnesty International
    yearbook.
    

    RE: .21
    
    Agreed, let's keep the topic focused (on media censorship).
    
    RE: .20
    
    (Rat hole) You're almost correct, most Native Americans were
    killed from diseases brought by the white man.  And I believe
    that more Native Americans were killed by fellow N.A. than
    by the white settlers.  Although agreed, the white settlers
    were indeed the main cause of the N.A. downfall in North America.
    
    RE: .19
    
    >You're an American!
    >Now I know why you know nothing about history...
    
    Thanks for that pleasant comment.  You have a happy day too!  :v)

 re. .17
  Now why's that Laurie.  Even though you've said
  you're ashamed of your 50% that's Irish, I figured
  you for 100% British.
  
 re. .18
  "waxing lyrical"?  Is that British, for posting 
  information on human rights violations?

  "Please accvept my and I'm sure a lot of the others
   invites to come across the pond and live
   here for a few weeks."

  Ah, now that's awfully nice of you old chap, but
  as I was born in London, and have lived in your
  third world, fifth rate country before,]I'll pass.

  re. .19
  My father is Irish, my mother is Welsh.  I scraped
  my British citizenship off my shoes when I was
  fourteen.  Yes I'm an American, and quite proud of
  that fact.
  
  "Your credibility is ZERO"
  You can guess where I place a Brit credibility
  rating.   Right up there with a Brit government
  credibility rating.

  Oh, by the way, on the (rat hole), wasn't it British
  colonial policy to wipe out the indigenous population
  of every colony they tried to subdue.  Or was it
  only in Australia, America, and South Africa?

    RE: .25  by KOALA::HOLOHAN 
    
  >Oh, by the way, on the (rat hole), wasn't it British
  >colonial policy to wipe out the indigenous population
  >of every colony they tried to subdue.  Or was it
  >only in Australia, America, and South Africa?
    
    I don't think it was British colonial policy to wipe out the native
    peoples in the American colonies.  There were wars with them from time
    to time, but they also treated with some tribes as allies against the
    French.  It wasn't until America was independent and expanding Westward
    that genocide as political expedient really became government policy.
    

    
    re .24
    
    O.K. you've got a point, I meant to say European history and don't wish
    to tar all Americans with the same stick as our resident "expert" on
    all things British and European... and Irish of course.
    
    Here we have an American who is telling the world what a bunch of
    cretins we are in Britain, how we censor political opposition and
    violently quell the rebels in Ireland.
    All this from someone who was just about toilet trained when he left
    these shores and I doubt if he's ever set foot in Ireland.
    
    As I said, credibility absolute zero.
    
    Have a nice day y'all.

re:. 25
>  Ah, now that's awfully nice of you old chap, but
>  as I was born in London, and have lived in your
>  third world, fifth rate country before,]I'll pass.
>  re. .19
>  My father is Irish, my mother is Welsh.  I scraped
>  my British citizenship off my shoes when I was
>  fourteen.  Yes I'm an American, and quite proud of
>  that fact.
Sorry if I break into this discussion, I probably shouldn't, being Italian and
not ancestry related to Ireland, but, if you are so much disgusted of this
third-world part of the world why don't you just forget about it (and leave
this conference) ?
Before you flame off: this is not an invitation, just a question !

Mauro.

    re .25
    
    You've got it slightly wrong. In NI the Republic is often referred to
    as 'the third world'. If you had ever driven on the road from Belfast
    to Dublin you would understand why.
    
    Dave

 re. .27
 I see, so what you meant to say, was that Americans
 are ignorant of European history.  You're something
 alright.

 You'll notice that many of the articles I post are
 UPI, newspaper, and Human Rights articles.

 re. .28
 That's easy, I don't consider Ireland, third-world.
 It's one of the loveliest countries I've ever been
 in, and has the friendliest population.  I've never 
 been, or lived in a country that was so friendly to 
 Americans.  Granted, I've only lived in America, 
 Mexico, and Britain. 

                        Mark

 

    
    re .30
    it's very obvious that you at least are ignorant of Europen history and
     judging by some of your comments on British colonialism you are rather
    ignorant of American history as well. In fact I think you are just
    plain ignorant. Not that I hold it against you because ignorance can
    always be corrected.
    
    But go on prove me wrong, tell us all about the bombing of Dresden.

    >You've got it slightly wrong. In NI the Republic is often referred to
    >as 'the third world'. If you had ever driven on the road from Belfast
    >to Dublin you would understand why.
    
    Parts of Dublin and the some sections of motorways in Ireland may not
    match up to NI standards, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it third
    world.  The motorways in Ireland are fast catching up with all the EC
    subsidies.  Also, the artificial �3600 yearly subsidy per person in NI
    is partly responsible for the imbalance in living conditions...  I
    wouldn't expect that to continue for very long.

 I may well be ignorant on the details of the Dresden
 bombing (not having been there, like yourself?).  
 Correct me if I am wrong, thankyou.

 Dresden was a civilian German city. During World War 
 II,  Dresden was bombed flat, a fire-storm ensued, and
 many German civilians were burned to death (not sure of
 the numbers, over a 100,000?).  There were no military
 targets in Dresden, the bombing campaign was one of 
 terrorizing as many civilians as possible.  The British have
 recently erected a statue commemerating the man who
 led the "raid", a man nick-named "Bomber-Harris".  
 While much of the world would regard this kind of 
 action as criminal, the British government believes 
 the man is a hero.

 The amazing thing about this British policy, is that
 they can scream "terrorist murderers" when the Irish
 Republican Army wrongly kill a half-dozen people, but
 yet go on in another breath, and erect a statue to
 a man who helped kill thousands.

 Now, where did an ignorant American like myself go
 wrong, your British worship?
                       Mark

 

    
    Re: .33  Dresden
    
    A tragedy to be sure, but remember the Nazi forces had tried
    to do exactly the same thing to London in 1940 and later in
    the war just about the time of the Normandy invasion were
    firing V1 rockets at London at the rate of about 200 per
    day.  There was no defense against these weapons since they
    flew much faster than the fastest fighter planes of the time
    and their use was totally indiscrimate.  They were designed
    to fly over a general target area and simply crash and explode
    when their engines died.  Most of them fell on equally helpless
    civilians.
    
    While I can be very sorry for what happened at Dresden, if it
    had been my family in London that the V1s were flying over I
    believe I would have done the same thing as the British did
    with Dresden.
    
    Steve
      

    Very good Mark,
    Once again you've managed to carefully word the answer in order to skim
    round the circumstances.
    
    In fact the bombings were carried out by the allied bombers under
    Harris's command. Guess who the allies were that had the aircraft to do
    it? 
    What you had then were American, Polish, British and Canadian crews
    with a few others sprinkled around.
    
    Dresden (i believe) was flattened in retalation for the bombing of
    Coventry which is/was also an engineering city.
    
    Is your excert taken from one of AI's manuals by any chance?
    
    Oh, and if its any consolation, British Conservatives have a habit of
    glorifying the unglorious and honouring those who least deserve it and
    there was a protest over here when the statue was erected and just fir
    the record, the protest was not censored.
    

    re .33
    OK now tell us about the atomic bombs on Japan.

    I don't think bringing Dresden into this discussion does any more good
    then mentioning the thousands of deaths at Nagasaki or Hiroshima, or
    the carpet bombing (with glass beads or napalm etc.) during Vietnam.
    
    Simon

    re .37
    Exactly.

re. .34, and .35

 Ah, now we are getting somewhere.  Are you both
 saying that the targetting of civilians was wrong,
 but somehow understandable, under the circumstances?

                     Mark

    
    See 1259.54..

     The Targeting of civilians is WWII was a major part and
    strategy of that war.

     The Targeting of British and Irish Civilians by Irish
    Cowardly murder squads is Unforgivable,and is not
    "Understandable" under any circumstances. 


    SCott

    re .39
    Do you think that the circumstances of WWII are comparable to the
    present situation in NI?
    
    Dave

re. .42
 No, but I think the targetting of civilians in Dresden
 is just as wrong as the targetting by the British
 military of civilians in Dublin, or the accidental
 targetting of civilians by the Irish Republican Army.
 I believe it is British hypocrisy that does not see
 this kind of targetting as wrong, no matter who does
 it.

 I can however understand why Dresden occurred, why
 the British military murdered civilians in Dublin, 
 and why the Irish Republican Army inadvertantly 
 targetted civilians in their attempt to kill the UVF
 commanders.

 The allies were trying to win the war against Germany.
 The British don't value Irish lives very highly when
 it comes to influencing a political decision, and 
 besides it was easy to blame it on the Loyalist.
 And the Irish Republican Army are resorting to 
 inefficient, and inaccurate explosives ( I assume 
 because of the arms embargo, err excuse me the laws
 that make it illegal for them to be supplied with
 military equipment).

             Have a nice day,
                      Mark

 

>>, or the accidental targetting of civilians by the Irish Republican Army.
           ^^^^^^^^^^

     Your ridiculous comments are obscene and degrading to the families
    of the people murdered by the IRA. 

     If this wasn't such a terrible topic.....we'd laugh at you.Blinded
    by hate,blinkerd to the truth....you sad man.....Your sick.


    SCott

    RE: .43  by KOALA::HOLOHAN 
    
    >the accidental targetting of civilians by the Irish Republican Army.
    
    To suggest that the people killed in the Shankhill fish shop bombing
    were "accidental" victims is disingenuous to say the least.  The IRA's
    claim that they had a "military" target in mind does not excuse the
    civilian casualties they were willing to inflict as collateral damage.
    

 re. .44

 Are you saying that the killing of the civilians 
 was intentional?  I find that highly unlikely as
 an Irish Republican Army soldier died in the attack,
 because the bomb exploded prematurely.

"If this wasn't such a terrible topic.....we'd laugh at you.Blinded
 by hate,blinkerd to the truth....you sad man.....Your sick."

 Scott, don't spit all over yourself.  

    >civilian casualties they were willing to inflict as collateral damage.
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    I'm not picking apart your choice of words Dennis, but I had to laugh
    every time I heard this being discussed by Norman Swartzkopf or the
    other military debriefers during our Gulf war.  I suppose collateral
    damage was the p.c. way of saying civilian deaths...  It makes running
    a war much more palatable for the average american family during prime
    time viewing hours.

re .45

  Dennis,
   What if there had not been any civilian casualties, but the
   blast had been successful in wiping out just the leadership of
   the UVF?
   I don't believe that the IRA's goal was to target civilians.
   This is in stark contrast to the UVF's goal, or the British Army's
   goal, which has been the targeting of civilians.

                            Mark

    RE: .48  by KOALA::HOLOHAN 
    
   >I don't believe that the IRA's goal was to target civilians.
    
    Of course not, no more than Stormin' Norman's goal was to target Iraqi
    civilians, but you've got to admit they didn't let that stop them.
    
    And yes, George, my use of the term "collateral damage" was intentional.  
    
    It's so much more tasteful than "innocent bystanders", don't you think?
    

    
    
    	re: 48
    
    
    >>   What if there had not been any civilian casualties, but the
    >>	 blast had been successful in wiping out just the leadership of
    >>   the UVF?
    
    
    
    
    	 ALL killing is wrong.
         --- ------- -- ------
    
    
    
    
    keVin
    
    
    	 
    

> and why the Irish Republican Army inadvertantly 
>				    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> targetted civilians in their attempt to kill the UVF
> commanders.

How can you "inadvertantly" target someone ? You either target them or you 
don't.  In this case the IRA targeted innocent protestants just as much as 
they targeted the UVF leadership.  

Why didn't the IRA use one of their marksmen to take out the specific 
target ?  I'll tell you why.  Because they were not only after the UVF 
leaders, they wanted to scupper all peace talks.  They wanted to undermine 
the Adams wing of the IRA and bring an end any talk of a negotiated 
settlement.   Also, an attack on the Shankhill by a lone gunman is far too 
dangerous.  Thats why they sent Begley and an 18 year-old boy to do it.  
Begley was, at best, a bit of a slow-witted character if you catch my 
drift.  He and his pal were expendable.  They were always going to die.  
That's why the IRA are as much responsible for their murder as they are for 
the others that died.

No matter what way you look at it, the IRA meant to kill innocents.  Why 
else did they carry it out on a busy saturday afternoon ?  They couldn't 
phone a warning because then the UVF leaders up the stairs from the fish 
shop would have escaped.  So no matter what way you look at it, the 
customers of Frizells Fish Shop were all going to die.  They were all 
targets and the IRA knew that.



> And the Irish Republican Army are resorting to 
> inefficient, and inaccurate explosives ( I assume 
> because of the arms embargo, err excuse me the laws
> that make it illegal for them to be supplied with
> military equipment).

Oh I get it.  If we let the IRA have more weapons there would be less 
carnage.  Why didn't I think of that.  

 
And before you start your usual "What about internmant, violence by 
loyalist, Brit soldiers etc", foget it.  Just tell your pals at Noraid to 
stop supporting violence.

Mark R.

    Perhaps you could explain who it was the IRA was really trying to
    target at Warrington. Or at Basingstoke.
    
    Many years ago in the centre of Belfast I was caught on the edge of a
    large bomb blast. I was undertaking a military manoeuvre known as 'going
    home from school'. Others around me were engaged in undercover operations
    termed 'active shopping duties'. I watched as people had their arms sliced
    open by large sheets of plate glass which fell vertically out of high
    windows. In news reports, these were described as minor injuries.
    This was on the EDGE of the blast.
    
    The military target? A cinema.

     re .52

     Your wasting your time,Holohead never answers questions like yours
    that proves to any rational person that the IRA are not "Freedom fighter" 
    by any stretch of the imagination.And do plant bombs which target.....
    who ever might be passing at the time,as you can vouch for with your lucky
    escape.

     SCott
     

    During the summer of this year, my wife and two daughters went on a
    visit to the seaside, organised by our local community association.
    They had a great time, paddling in the sea, building sandcastles and
    walking on the pier.
    
    What has this got to do with this note ??.....because they went to
    Bournemouth and two days after this trip there was a bloody great bomb
    diffused at Bournemouth Pier that had been planted by the so called
    "glorious freedom fighters of the Irish republican cause"
    
    Last year, I went shopping to Oxford with my family and went, amongst
    others, to the Reject shop. A week later a bomb, planted by the
    "glorious freedom fighters etc, etc", went off in the Reject shop.
    
    When you look at all the shock and outcry in the US when the bomb
    went off in the World Trade Centre, how would they react if it happened
    everyday in any town or city. When you can't go shopping without the
    fear of " is there a bomb in that waste bin ", or even enjoy a day out
    at the seaside with the family. What would they do if Libya, Iraq, Iran
    or any other country the US has pissed off over the years decided to
    commence a bombing campaign in their mother country. I wonder.. 
    
    I wish all sides were sincere in their desire to solve this problem
    peacefully, and get around a table somewhere and try and talk it out.
    
    I admit that the British Government are not squeaky clean but to
    keep blaming them for all the troubles is pure hypocrisy. I get
    totally sickened by the news reports when innocent people get killed
    in Northern Ireland. Whether they are Catholic or Protestant, they
    should have the right to go about their daily lives without fear.
    
    The fear of being shot/blownup because you building site worker doing a
    job for the Army, the fear of being shot/blownup because your Grandad 
    helped the Black and Tans, because you are a relative of a Sinn Fein
    sympathiser, because, because, because...the excuses for these cowardly
    acts go on and on.  
    
    Then think of the British Soldier. I don't suppose any of them want to
    be there any more than Mr Holohan wants them there. Would you like to
    go through years of training, only to be sent somewhere were you are
    hated by some, where you stand the risk of being blownup walking past
    a car, or shot by someone hiding in a house.
    
    
    					Dave.
    
    

    Banning Sinn Fein from the airwaves will not stop the troubles. Why not
    get them around the table for talks. Right, there would be an outcry
    at the start, but this situation needs hard decisions to be made and
    if it brings peace then it would be all worth it. How many heads of
    state in the commonwealth have been ex terrorists leaders, it makes
    you think. The only long term agreement will have to include Sinn Fein
    and the results will need to be acceptable to the Unionists or
    otherwise the same thing will happen all over, this time the Unionists
    will resist. Lets go for it, if it saves one life, then it will be
    worth it.
    
    Stephen
    

 re. .51, 
 Ask your questions about IRA activity to the IRA.
 And please tell your pals in the British government,
 to stop supporting violence.

 re. .52
 Ask your questions about IRA targetting to the IRA.
 I can only surmise why they have been trying to wreak
 economic havoc on the British.

 re. .53
 Learn to talk like an adult.

 re. .54
 I feel very badly that this war might possibly put
 not only my family members and friends, but yours
 in danger.  Yes, Britain is a very dangerous place to 
 holiday.  You should also probably post your note
 in a wider read conference, so others can see how
 dangerous it is in Britian, and not risk their lives
 by visiting.

 re. .55
 This sounds like the most sensible idea.  Instead of
 having everyone call each other names, and let this
 thing continue, why not invite everyone to the peace
 table, and work on a solution.  As the British government
 are behind this censorship, and refusal to invite all
 parties to the peace table, the pressure must be put
 on them to do so.

                   Mark

    >I wish all sides were sincere in their desire to solve this problem
    >peacefully, and get around a table somewhere and try and talk it out.
    
    Precisely.  And it's obvious that the parties are not interested in
    achieving peace in NI.  You have the British government who refuses to
    talk with Sinn Fein, banning them on the airwaves, banning members from
    mainland Britain.  Then you have the hardcore IRA who won't stop their
    bomb attacks.  Then you have the odd British soldier who gets his
    jollies from shooting up nationalist cars at border checkpoints.  And
    you have the loyalist paramilitaries who won't stop for anything.
    So here we are.  Will the violence get worse?  Probably so - until
    people have the courage to sit down and negotiate *and* renounce
    violence.  Preconditions are simply an excuse for continued violence.
    
    >Then think of the British Soldier. I don't suppose any of them want to
    >be there any more than Mr Holohan wants them there. Would you like to
    >go through years of training, only to be sent somewhere were you are
    >hated by some, where you stand the risk of being blownup walking past
    >a car, or shot by someone hiding in a house.
    
    That's why the British military should *not* be in Ireland in the first
    place.  The policing force in NI should be composed of NI residents, fully
    integrated, made up of loyalist and nationalist alike.  Achieving that
    will be a difficult goal, but not insurmountable.

 >Ask your questions about IRA targetting to the IRA.
    
    What a pathetic cop-out.
    
    Dave 

 O.K. Dave,
 Could you please explain to me why the British Army
 decided to shoot a mother, while her four kids were
 in the car, as they passed through a British Army
 checkpoint, two days ago?

 Could you please explain to me the "military target"
 that the British were after when they set a bomb off
 in Dublin?

 Could you please explain the military target that the
 British Army shot fourteen times, at a funeral last
 week.

 Could you also please explain to me the "military 
 target" that the her majesty's glorious soldiers shot
 on bloody sunday in Derry?

 Could you please explain military strategy behind her
 majesty's glorious soldiers murdering a twelve year 
 old girl as she went to the corner for milk?

 I could go on and on, but I'm getting sick of the
 narrow minded, one sided attitude of the British
 noters in here.

                    Mark

    
    Re; .39
    
    I'm not saying it was right or wrong, but only that under the
    circumstances those who had to make the decision at the time
    saw it as the only reasonable thing they could do.  Frankly,
    I don't see any point to war to begin with, but if I found 
    myself in the middle of one I expect I might have to make
    some choices that I'd prefer not to.
    
    Steve
    

MARK H.,

My questions concerning IRA targetting were rhetorical.  i.e. I wea TELLING 
you about IRA activity, not asking (I've long given up asking you 
anything).

What I am now suggesting is that you and your NORAID buddies, being soooo 
concerned about the nationalist community in NI stop funding an 
organisation that not only targets innocent protestants, but also sends 
young nationalists (18 yrs old for God's sake) and others who are too 
dim-witted to know better, like Thomas Begley.



MR

> I could go on and on, but I'm getting sick of the
> narrow minded, one sided attitude of the British
> noters in here.

why does the word `hypocrite' come to mind?  Oh, you ARE British...

    Hi All.
    
    Well the sun is shining here in London this morning and I feel great
    !!  Not because of the weather though......
    
    I've just been able to have my morning laugh thanks to Mr Holohan....
    
    I think you should get on the TV Mark.  There is a genuine shortage of
    people with a sense of humour.  People like you  who can make others
    have a laugh by just jotting down a few words.
    
    What I'm really curious to know though Mark.??
    
    You have told us that your'e not Irish, but an American.  I think I can
    see this is true.  However I believed that Americans still lived here 
    on Planet Earth.  You're recent comments re' ACCIDENTAL TARGETING 
    of Civilians show either that you indeed live on Planet ZOOG, or have 
    completely lost what little marbles you may have possesed.  
    
    If you are to be believed,  you expect us Earthlings to accept that
    putting a Dirty Great Big Bomb in the middle of a Shopping Centre with
    no regard for the people who will be maimed or killed is accidental !!
    
    This raises a whole new concept of what life on your planet must be
    like.  
    
    Oops sorry Your Honour. I stole that accidently.
                                             
    Ooops I think I've just accidently raped somebody, how forgetful of
    me.
    
    Oh,  I've mislaid my semtex in the Shopping Centre.
    
    Ho Ho my familys just been accidently blown to bits.
    
    Well folks This Guy is employed by this company.  We are told our people
    are our greatest asset.  Would anybody care to boast that we have an
    asset like Mr Holohan (space traveller extrodinaire)
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce (Who has never been invited to the Planet Zoog,  but like
    Holohead can comment on it)
               

    Re .56
    
    I apologise if I gave the impression that the UK was an unsafe place
    for a holiday, quite the opposite if you look at the number of tourists
    that have been murdered over the last 12 months in Florida. 
    
    What I was trying to indicate was my outrage that my wife and two
    daughters can't even go for a day trip to the seaside without someone
    trying to blow them up.
    
    Re .59
    
    I am trying very hard to keep an open mind with the events in NI. If
    you can give me some dates of the events you have indicated I will try
    to find a completely UNBIASED view of what happened.
    
    The bomb in Dublin....didn't the guy who got arrested for that make
    some kind of accusation of collusion with the Army.
    
    Bloody Sunday.....all I can remember from the news reports at the time
    was a march/demonstration (about what I can't remember) which turned
    into a bottle/brick throwing riot (for what reason I can't remember),
    and the Army opened fire with live ammo. I assume this was before they
    were issued with rubber bullets. I can only imagine what happened that
    day was down to panic due to...not having been over there long, not
    trained for that scenario, not prepared for what happened, not wanted
    over there by many and basically scared shitless by the day's events.
    I cannot imagine they were under orders to fire live ammo at unarmed
    civilians.
    
     The same goes for the latest incidents...the woman in the car and the
    mourner. I cannot believe that a highly trained soldier would
    deliberately fire on an unarmed civilian ...prove me wrong.
    
    				Dave.
     
    
    

    
    RE: .63 By YUPPY::MILLARB 
    
    >We are told our people are our greatest asset.  Would anybody care to
    >boast that we have an asset like Mr Holohan (space traveller extrodinaire)
    
    If you bought this line, you're the one from another planet.      
    
    
    RE: .64 by NEWOA::GATHERN 
    
    >The same goes for the latest incidents...the woman in the car and the
    >mourner. I cannot believe that a highly trained soldier would
    >deliberately fire on an unarmed civilian ...prove me wrong.
    
    You're saying it was an accident?
    

re. .64

"What I was trying to indicate was my outrage that my wife and two
 daughters can't even go for a day trip to the seaside without someone
 trying to blow them up."

 Sorry, this sounds like a dangerous place to me.


 If you would like to find out more about the British
 bombing in Dublin, I'd refer you to note 1236.

 I'm afraid that your justification for the British
 Army's "reaction" on Bloody Sunday, are insulting.
 The British officer in charge ordered his men to fire
 on the unarmed crowd.  The British government gave
 a medal to the officer for his actions, and the British
 government published a white-wash of the incident
 (the widgery report).

 As for the soldier who shot at the mourner, you 
 might be right, I suppose it's possible that his
 gun "accidently" fired 14 times into the mourner.
 On the other hand, I'd say it's highly unlikely, that
 he accidently fired the 14 rounds.

 As for the mother who was shot in front of her four
 kids as she passed through a British check-point 3
 days ago, I suppose it's possible that the children
 and their mum produced guns and threatened to blow
 away the British soldiers that surrounded them.
 But I'd say that this was also highly unlikely.

    Re .65
    
    Perhaps I am being naive, but maybe it was a horrible accident. I just
    cannot comprehend why a soldier would want to shoot an unarmed woman in
    a car deliberately. What did he hope to gain from it?.
    
    					Dave 

    Re .66
    
    I dont know what the firing rate of the standard issue of the Army is,
    but if it is semi-automatic or automatic, then it would not take much
    to fire off 14 rounds.
    
    As for my "insulting comment" about what MIGHT have been the reason for
    the order to open fire, as I said, until I can read a completely
    UNBIASED report on what happened, anything I might say is pure
    supposition.
    
    				Dave                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
    

    RE: .67 
    
    Well, unfortunately there has been a disproportionate number of "accidental" 
    shootings by British soldiers over the years in NI, Aidan MacEnespie,
    Fergal Carrahar, and now this woman in the care are a few that come to
    mind offhand.  I realize that patrolling NI isn't easy, especially if
    you are a target.  But it appears there are some number of unprofessional
    soldiers frolicking about NI.
    
    Again, as I said before, this situation doesn't have to be.  The British
    military shouldn't be there in the first place.  The British government
    needs to put pressure on the loyalist to enter into a power sharing
    agreement with the Nationalist.  As part of this process, police powers
    must be shared among the two communities.  If there is no incentive for
    power sharing then the alienation of the two communities will continue.
    Currently, the number of Catholics in the RUC is disproportionately
    small - I think it is about 5%.
    
    Many mainland British noters have complained about the situation in NI
    and how it directly affects their lives.  I understand your frustration.
    But whether you care about NI or not, your government has inherited the
    problem.  It needs to be solved.  And that won't be done by
    stonewalling the peace process, refusing to talk to Sinn Fein,
    maintaining the status quo, etc...
    
    There will be residual violence in NI for some time to come, regardless
    of whether the IRA calls a cease fire.  I personally would hope they
    renounce violence completely.  But like everywhere (including the US),
    there is always a class of people who will choose violence over
    working problems through peacefully.

    RE: .70
    
    >> Unfortunately there has ben a disproportionate number of accidental
    shooting by British Soldiers over the years.
    
    
    According to some noters if we were to believe them,  there has been a
    disproportionate number of accidental bombings by Brave Freedom
    Fighters over the years.
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce

    RE: .66  by KOALA::HOLOHAN 
    
    >As for the soldier who shot at the mourner, you  might be right, I
    >suppose it's possible that his gun "accidently" fired 14 times into the
    >mourner.
    
    Hey, be fair now.  Not all 14 rounds went into the mourner.  Some of
    them missed.
    

RE.70

George,

I understand what you are saying about getting Sinn Fein and the Unionists 
round the negotiating table.  However, even if you did get Mr Adams and Mr 
Paisley to talk to each other, it would do absolutely no good at all.  Both 
sets od paramilitaries are currently being run by extreme hardliners who 
are no more interested in peace than you or I are interested in 
train-spotting.  

Even if Adams , Paisley , Major and Mark Holohan's dog all managed to reach 
agreement, it would not stop the hardliners (who are the ones with all the 
guns, bombs, etc) from killing anything that they don't like.  It wouln't 
stop the British soldiers from all that they are alleged to do either.

Then again, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be talks.  If it helps 
to marginalise the violent men even further, then it may be worthwhile. 
Particularly if it manages to cut these demons off from their cash supply.
Mind you, I can think of easier ways to stop the IRA from getting a 
substantial proportion of their money.

MR

    
    Let's say the World Trade center problems get worse. Some outfit is
    determined to kill New Yorkers. How would you like it, George, to be
    told by a Briton, that he shared your 'frustration' but that you must
    understand the US govt inherited the problem? Sound right to you, would
    it? I gather btw, that you do not support the Irish and British govts 
    in their jointly stated declaration that the will of the majority in
    the 6 counties must decide the future? 
    

    
    Incidentally we can sure see who supports the bombing campaign in
    Britain can't we? Not that there was ever much doubt.     
    

> Mind you I can think of easier ways to stop the British
> Army from continuing their occupation of north east
> Ireland, and stop their funding by Britains.
> Get the picture.

     Perhaps you could spell it out for us?
 

 .73
 Ian Paisley is invited to the peace table.  Gerry
 Adams is not, because the British do not want peace.

 As for being no good at all to invite all factions
 to the peace table, how the hell do you know that,
 when your government refuses to try it.  You're 
 probably right though, as the British don't really
 want peace, even if everyone was invited to the 
 peace table, I'm sure the British government would
 come up with another way to scuttle the talks.

 Mind you I can think of easier ways to stop the British
 Army from continuing their occupation of north east
 Ireland, and stop their funding by Britain.
 Get the picture.

                     Mark

 

>I understand what you are saying about getting Sinn Fein and the Unionists 
>round the negotiating table.  However, even if you did get Mr Adams and Mr 
>Paisley to talk to each other, it would do absolutely no good at all.  Both 
>sets od paramilitaries are currently being run by extreme hardliners who 
>are no more interested in peace than you or I are interested in 
>train-spotting.  
>Even if Adams , Paisley , Major and Mark Holohan's dog all managed to reach 
>agreement, it would not stop the hardliners (who are the ones with all the 
>guns, bombs, etc) from killing anything that they don't like.  It wouln't 
>stop the British soldiers from all that they are alleged to do either.
    
    As I said prior, you'll never be able to quell all the violence. 
    That's a given.  But what if the British government said "Look, we
    are leaving within 15 years time".  As part of this withdrawal we
    are going to set up an local government and local police force,
    with powers equally shared between the two communities.  Those
    interested in contributing to this "new" society, please apply.
    
>Then again, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be talks.  If it helps 
>to marginalise the violent men even further, then it may be worthwhile. 
>Particularly if it manages to cut these demons off from their cash supply.
>Mind you, I can think of easier ways to stop the IRA from getting a 
>substantial proportion of their money.

    While I don't agree with the IRA aims, the problems in NI are not
    entirely to be blamed on the IRA.  The problem moreover, is the
    intransigence of people to work together.  The British have the power
    edge the communities together.  I think they could use their influence
    more in this area.
    
    >Let's say the World Trade center problems get worse. Some outfit is
    >determined to kill New Yorkers. How would you like it, George, to be
    >told by a Briton, that he shared your 'frustration' but that you must
    >understand the US govt inherited the problem? Sound right to you, would
    >it? I gather btw, that you do not support the Irish and British govts 
    >in their jointly stated declaration that the will of the majority in
    >the 6 counties must decide the future? 
    
    Well in my own opinion, to a certain extent, the US's unwavering support
    of Israel is partly to cause for the Muslim extremist terrorism.  They
    chose NYC because it has the largest proportion of Jewish people in the
    USA. But that's a whole other topic.  And yes if this were the Muslim
    conference, I would read and consider your comments/ideas about the
    bombing in NY.  I am not particularly opposed to views of other nationals.
    
    And concerning the joint statement of the will of the majority, it's
    simply that - a joint statement with little impact.  I am more interested
    in returning local rule to NI, jointly and evenly shared by the two communities,
    and removing the British military from there.  I care less about nationalities
    and such.  You're all in the EC anyways.  What difference does it
    really make.

My goodness.  I nearly fell off my seat.  Mr Holohan totally ignoring facts 
and letting his petty anti-british prejudices get in the way once more.  
That's a surprise reaction from him, that is.  Never seen that one before.

You still haven't made any comment about the IRA sending Thoams Begley, a 
nationalist incidently, to his certain death. Or the use of an 18-yr-old 
child in the bombing of the Shankhill. These are not IRA "soldiers" as you 
called them, but innocent pawns in the IRA's big game of "Screw the 
Americans for every penny you can."

I can hear your reply already..

"Britan bombed Dublin 19 years ago......collusion with the 
loyalists......plastic bullets....rant rant etc."

Well I know all these things. You'll be preaching to the converted.  I'm 
talking real-time. I want to know what you think of the things that are 
happening now.  I won't hold my breath though.


MR

    
>    And concerning the joint statement of the will of the majority, it's
>    simply that - a joint statement with little impact.  I am more interested
>    in returning local rule to NI, jointly and evenly shared by the two communities,
>    and removing the British military from there.  I care less about nationalities
>    and such.  You're all in the EC anyways.  What difference does it
>    really make.
    
    ..presumably in spite of the will of the majority. As for all being in
    the EC, that is really meaningless. Maastricht spirit isn't going
    anywhere for a while. 
    

    
    Btw George, try telling someone from STrasbourg that it doesn't matter
    whether the city is part of France or Germany because 'they're in the
    EC'. You really should spend more time in Europe.
    .

    I have spent considerable time in Europe.  And many of the problems
    in Europe (Corsica, Bosnia, Basque region, Tirolia, Greater Hungary,
    Macedonia, Saami in northern Sweden, etc...) are precisely due to
    provincial thinking, including Northern Ireland.  I would argue that
    as time marches on, nationalities will be of less importance in the EC.

    
    Well the time hasn't marched that far yet, and in my opinion won't for
    a very long time, your experiences as a tourist nothwithstanding. I
    trust you're of the opinion that the Spanish army should leave the Basque
    separatists to it as well, given how bad Franco was in the past. That
    should be enough to decide who's right - that and the bombings against
    'economic targets' in Madrid of course.
    

re. .80
"Well I know all these things. You'll be preaching to the converted.  I'm 
talking real-time. I want to know what you think of the things that are 
happening now.  I won't hold my breath though."

 O.K. let's talk real-time.  Amnesty International says
 that the collusion between the British Army and the
 loyalist terror gangs is still going on.
 I think this is a proof, that the British are not
 really interested in peace, but are interested in
 clouding the issue of their occupation, by playing
 the north east Irish against one another.

 The censorship of political oposition is on-going,
 and is wrong.  This is perhaps one of the worse things
 that the British do, perhaps even worse than the 
 direct murder of nationalists.  This is a policy
 that hides the truth.  Freedom is the right to be
 able to say 2+2=4, but in Britain, it sometimes 
 equals 3, or even 5 (credit to George Orwell).
 Where one man/or woman is censored or banned, then
 no men are truly free.

 I think that the shooting of a mother of four 3 days
 ago in front of her four kids, was disgusting, and
 and obvious attempt by the British Army to terrorize
 the nationalist community.  You see, if you have
 an Irish name, and are stopped at a British check-point,
 you never know if you'll be murdered.

 I also think the shooting of a mourner at a funeral,
 by a British Army soldier was another attempt by the
 British Army to terrorize the nationalist community.
 The message was, anyone who is remotely seen as 
 supporting the nationalist community, or caring about
 the death of a nationalist, is a target for murder
 by the British Army.

                   Mark

 

    RE: .85  by KOALA::HOLOHAN 
    
    >I think that the shooting of a mother of four 3 days ago in front of
    >her four kids, was disgusting, and and obvious attempt by the British
    >Army to terrorize the nationalist community.  ...
    
    and
    
    >I also think the shooting of a mourner at a funeral, by a British Army
    >soldier was another attempt by the British Army to terrorize the
    >nationalist community.  ...
    
    Now wait a minute, the fish shop bombing was an "accident", but both of
    these incidents are without a doubt part of an organized campaign by the
    British Army?  
    
    I don't buy that.  Excitable, undereducated, otherwise unemployable
    kids with itchy trigger fingers maybe, but even the Redcoats who killed
    five "innocent bystanders" in the Boston Massacre of 1770 were found
    not guilty after a jury trial.  And their defense counsel was none
    other than John Adams, patriot and future President of the U.S.A., so
    don't tell me the fix was in.
    

Yes Mark

Now could you tell me your opinion of the IRA's latest tactic of sending 
18-yr-old children and the educationally sub-normal (good PC phrase that) 
on bombing campaigns.   Both these people were catholics and were sent to 
their almost certain death.

MR

 >The censorship of political oposition is on-going,
 >and is wrong.  This is perhaps one of the worse things
 >that the British do, perhaps even worse than the 
 >direct murder of nationalists.  This is a policy
 >that hides the truth.  Freedom is the right to be
 >able to say 2+2=4, but in Britain, it sometimes 
 >equals 3, or even 5 (credit to George Orwell).
 >Where one man/or woman is censored or banned, then
 >no men are truly free.
    
    America, that last bastion of freedom, has declined to issue a visa
    to Gerry Adams. Apparently they have evidence that Adams in is involved
    with the planning of the activities of the provisional IRA 'at the
    highest level'.  The Irish government is in agreement with the
    decision.
    
    I guess they must both have bowed to pressure from a third world, fifth 
    rate nation.                      
    
    Dave          
    
    The Irish government is in agreement with this
    decision. 

re.88

Oh no! I guess Amnesty International will be condemning the US of A for this.

What an oppressive regime they must have, then again I expect it was the "special"
relationship between the US and the Brits that must have swung it.


Gary.

ps.
What's this, it's been atleast 24 hours since we've had a mention of Dresden!

 re. .86

"Now wait a minute, the fish shop bombing was an "accident", but both of
 these incidents are without a doubt part of an organized campaign by the
 British Army?"

 Well let's put it this way, if the fish shop was
 "accidently" bombed 14 times, (or more than once)
 then I'd believe that it was not an accident.

 The British Army's policy of patrolling Nationalist
 communities with loaded guns, constantly pointed at
 the heads of Irish men/women/ and children is no
 accident.

"but even the Redcoats who killed
 five "innocent bystanders" in the Boston Massacre of 1770 were found
 not guilty after a jury trial."

 Actually, the two soldiers who witnesses had seen 
 firing, Matthew Kilroy and Hugh Montgomery were found
 guilty of manslaughter.  Of course, in keeping with
 British justice, they had their thumbs seared, and
 then returned to dury.  Hugh Montgomery later confessed
 to his lawyer that he had actually shouted,
 "Damn you, fire!" (Information from Patriots-The Men
 who started the American Revolution)

                        Mark

 re. .88
 A sad decision indeed.  I only hope that in making it
 we get appropriate British kiss-ups as we deal on 
 GATT. 

 As for the Irish government being in agreement,
 this isn't the first or the last time that the Irish
 government has believed that somehow bending to the
 will of the British will enhance their bargaining
 power.

    CLINTON DENOUNCES ADAMS FOR FAILING TO SHUN TERRORISM
    
    PRESIDENT Clinton has denounced Sinn Fein Leader Gerry Adams as a top
    IRA strategistand condemned him for failing to renounce terrorism.
    
    The attack - in a letter to former New York Mayor David Dinkins is a
    powerful aid to Britains war against pro-IRA fundraisers in America.
    
    The President says to Dinkins " Credible evidence exists that Adams
    remains involved at the highest level in devising IRA strategy.
    
    Clinton also said " The IRA's October the 23rd bombing in Belfast that
    killed 10 people including two children has underscored the brutal and
    terrorist nature of the organisation and undermined efforts to resume
    the political dialogue among parties ". 
    
    Well Well Mr Holohan it looks like the President of your Nation that
    you love so much thinks about as much of your talk as the rest of the
    Free Speaking world does.  Of course it may be that he gets his info
    specialy vetted by fellow Americans who like yourself never actually
    visit Ireland.
    
    Have a nice safe day over the pond.
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce

    I think the US decision to deny Adams a visa was wrong.
    If we let Paisley in, then we should let in Adams.
    The policy is inconsistent.  But it again shows our
    "special" relationship with Britain.  Example, you
    let us bomb Libya from Britain.  We continue to deny
    Adams his visa.  The list of favors is endless.

        Letting the US bomb Libya by UK based aircraft and refusing 
        Adams a visa are both fights against terrorism. It is good to 
        see Americans realising the whole problem and not just a 
        fanciful selective  subset.
        
        Simon

    
    Is Paisley head of the political wing of the UFF then? It was the right
    thing to do and Kevin Cullen of Glob says both Irish and British govt
    lobbied for the denial- neither want to give him such a platform. 
    

>    Free Speaking world does.  Of course it may be that he gets his info
>    specialy vetted by fellow Americans who like yourself never actually
>    visit Ireland.


Er Bruce,

You don't seem to understand.  Mr Holohan *has* been to Ireland.  In fact, 
he was in Belfast at the time of Bloody Sunday.  And before history repeats 
itself, I know that Bloody Sunday happened in Derry.

Therefore, MH has all the info and lowdown on the recent troubles.  By that 
same token, it may interest you to know that I was in Srinigar, Kashmir 
when the predominantly Hindu police force killed 50 demonstrators - an act 
that sparked off the troubles going on there for the last 8 years.  So if 
you want to know anything at all about the inter-religious strife in the 
disputed area of Kashmir, I'm yer man - *NOT*.


Mark

    >Is Paisley head of the political wing of the UFF then? It was the right
    
    I don't know what Paisley's terrorist connections are, if any.  I do
    know that he is vehemently opposed to any power sharing or any peace
    settlement that involves the desires of the nationalist community.

    re' .96
    
    Hey Mark.
    
    Thanks for the info I'll keep that in mind.  By the way I was in a pub
    the other night when Billy KERNEL:: Arthur accidently bought me a pint 
    (and he's a Tarts Supporter).  So anything you need to to know Billy 
    feel free to ask. :*)
    
    Bruce 
                 

    RE: .90  by KOALA::HOLOHAN 
    
    >The British Army's policy of patrolling Nationalist communities with
    >loaded guns, constantly pointed at the heads of Irish men/women/ and
    >children is no accident.
    
    It's not just Nationalist neighborhoods.  Just about everywhere I went
    in Belfast last month there were troops pointing guns at me.  Did my
    Aran Isles sweater mark me as a potential threat in their eyes.   
    Did they think maybe I had a bomb in my canvas bookbag?
    

    
    re .97, exactly - you don't know. Whereas we all know Adams is closely
    connected to the IRA. You're suggesting the US govt bans Paisley
    because of his political opinions, just because you don't like them.
    That's not why they're banning Adams. He can be a nationalist as much
    as he wants. We can really see your commitment to freedom of political
    opinion. Let anyone in to the US, even if they're closely affiliated
    with terrorist organizations as long as they're not, heaven-forbid,
    unionists, because we all know unionists are evil land-grabbers whose
    opinions are not to be taken into account, even if they've been living
    in the North as long as America has been a nation.
    

    
    BBC interviewed semeone from one of the predominantly catholic regions
    of Belfast yesterday. He was complaining that if someone gets into a
    dispute with an IRA man, perhaps over a girl, it's a guaranteed
    kneecapping for them.     
    

re. .96

"In fact, he was in Belfast at the time of Bloody 
 Sunday. "

 I was? Quick, you better tell my Mum that her 8 year
 old had booked himself a ticket to Belfast, and
 wasn't out playing on the swings like she thought
 he was.

re. .98
"Thanks for the info I'll keep that in mind."

 Bruce, like you have one, come-on.

"(and he's a Tarts Supporter)"
 I wouldn't be at all surprised, its gotta take money
 to stomach the likes of Billy. :-)

    >re .97, exactly - you don't know. Whereas we all know Adams is closely
    >connected to the IRA. You're suggesting the US govt bans Paisley
    
    Big deal.  Thatcher and Major and closely connected with the British
    Army, an army that has been repeatedly convicted of shooting unarmed
    civilians in NI, yet we allow them visas to visit the US.
    
    >unionists, because we all know unionists are evil land-grabbers whose
    
    I disagree.  Most unionists are not evil land-grabbers.  And the
    unionist have *every* right to have their opinion taken into account.

    
    US shot a few unarmed citizens too in various places around the world
    over the years and Britain lets the president in etc etc. Go on, keep
    apologizing for the terrorists by trying to make the case that everyone
    is just as bad as they are. 
    

    >US shot a few unarmed citizens too in various places around the world
    >over the years and Britain lets the president in etc etc. Go on, keep
    >apologizing for the terrorists by trying to make the case that everyone
    >is just as bad as they are. 
    
    I am not apologizing for the terrorists.  As I've stated before their
    actions are to be condemned.  But I don't think the British Army's
    record in NI is anything great either.  It's my opinion.  You're
    entitled to your own.  The problem in NI is not one-sided as you
    may want everyone to believe.

    In effect you are, though. When you adopt the view that the British
    Army is as terrorist as the IRA or UDA, there are consequences to 
    that view. (1) You lose all right to hold up the army to a higher
    standard of behavior. So if they decide to set off bombs in the 
    catholic areas, that's to be expected of them. (2) You demote the
    terorrist atrocities to tit-for-tat retribution. 

    You hold the minority view though. Most people in this country know
    full well what the IRA is.  And they don't equate it with an army,
    any army, unless you call Palestinian Liberation Force - General
    Command, an army. 

    And really, I am quite aware that no one is blameless in this
    situation. But facts are facts, and it doesn't help to go around
    inventing parity where it doesn't exist.
    

re. 104
"US shot a few unarmed citizens too in various places around the world
 over the years and Britain lets the president in "

 Hey Eastland (apologist for HMG), if you can pull your
 head out for a second, Gerry Adams didn't shoot anyone.
 He has a peace plan that might work for occupied north
 east Ireland.  The British consider him a British 
 citizen, but they won't let him into other parts of 
 their country. The British do not want peace.  Peace
 might mean a united Ireland, and Britain fears this
 more than anything.

                    Mark

    
    Are you denying the US shot unarmed civilians, not as deliberate policy
    but out of contingencies of panama and other operations? As for your 
    pal Adams, no one wants any part of his plan. Do you know what's in it, by
    the way? Does the plan include an island-wide referendum by any chance?
    What makes you think Adams' plan has any credibility at all with the
    Unionists? Oh, sorry, that doesn't matter does it. Anyway, your IRA
    pals blew up any chance that had at the fish and chip shop.
    
    As for fearing a united Ireland, that's pure poppycock. Most people in
    Britain would be happy to see it, presuming the protestants were happy
    with it, which is where your idea falls apart, because without their
    acquiescence, you'll have a bloody and disunited Ireland.
    

 re. 108
 Why does the British government censor political
 opposition?
 Why do the British security forces collude with loyalist
 terror gangs?
 Why does Britain hold jury-less trials?
 Why does Britain convict and imprison innocent men/women?
 Why does the British Army shoot mothers in front of
 their children at British army check-points?
 Why does the British court system not punish British
 soldiers who kill/attack nationalists?
 Why does Britain allow arms to "slip through" to the
 loyalist terror gangs?

 Because Britain does not want peace.  They feel that
 so long as it's only Irish people dying, the violence
 is acceptable. Acceptable enough to allow them to hold
 on to their colony.

    
    Don't you think it's time _you_ answered some questions, youngster?
    Anyway, that must be what, the 100th time, you've asked those
    'why do you beat your wife' questions (though some have validity).
    I've seen lots of people here and on the internet try to discuss them
    with you, but oh dear, you never seem to answer do you. Go back to
    sleep. 
    

    Na na
    don't go to sleep Mark, I've grown to like reading your fairy
    stories.
    
    So why don't you give us all a Monday evening treat and tell us that
    great new story. You know, the one about the bank robbery and the
    priest and Noddy from Noraid!

>re. .96
>
>"In fact, he was in Belfast at the time of Bloody 
> Sunday. "
>
> I was? Quick, you better tell my Mum that her 8 year
> old had booked himself a ticket to Belfast, and
> wasn't out playing on the swings like she thought
> he was.

Sorry 'bout that MH.  It must have been your old buddy Joe Drotter.  Well 
you know what they say about peas in a pod.

 re. 108
> Why does the British government censor political
> opposition?

  Cos the current govt are a very ill-informed bunch indeed, IMHO.

> Why do the British security forces collude with loyalist
> terror gangs?

  I reckon this does happen but not on the scale you suggest.  I reckon 
they probably hope to glean intelligence and to infiltrate the UVF,UFF etc 
and this is one way of doing it.  I have no evidence, just a hunch.


> Why does Britain hold jury-less trials?

  Well the folks in Belfast are not known for their willingness to come 
forward and help police with their enquiries.  This is one way of getting 
round that.


> Why does Britain convict and imprison innocent men/women?

  Because like very other nation on God's earth, our system of justice is 
far from perfect.  Mistakes are made (sometimes delibarately no doubt)  and 
not only with Irish people either.  There are numerous incidences of the 
wrong person being banged up (Stefan Kiszko to name but one).  


> Why does the British Army shoot mothers in front of
> their children at British army check-points?

  Don't know.  Haven't read enough about it.  *PERHAPS* its because the 
soldiers are young/inexperienced/bigotted/stupid.  I don't know, just 
guessing.

> Why does the British court system not punish British
> soldiers who kill/attack nationalists?

  Well there's one in process just now.  I'll wait for the outcome, then 
give you an answer.

> Why does Britain allow arms to "slip through" to the
> loyalist terror gangs?

  I don't know that they do.  Sure the loyalists get arms from somewhere 
but so do the IRA (wonder who funds them ????) and I don't hear any 
suggestions that the Government let them "slip through".


> Because Britain does not want peace.  They feel that
> so long as it's only Irish people dying, the violence
> is acceptable. Acceptable enough to allow them to hold
> on to their colony.
 
A: If that's true, why do you keep posting opinion polls showing that 
most folks here *do* want peace.   That just doesn't add up.


I'd love to continue this discussion, but I'm off sitting exams for the 
next 10 days.  I'm sure you wish me all the best, don't you Mark ?


Mark R.

    Hey 
    
    Lets be reasonable hear.  If Clinton let Adams into the US surely he
    would be doing us a favour.  Lets face it guys he and his buddies will
    only be over there for a short time before some "accidental,  nothing
    to do with me I'm a politician" bombs start going of in Military
    shopping malls.  This would surely lead to a reduction in the amount of
    accidents that we see here in the UK.
    
    Lets all remember it's comming up to Christmas and the IRA's accidental
    bombing campaign always get accidentaly stepped up at this festive time
    of year.  So for those of us fortunate enough be able experience first
    hand the joys of this type of accidental campaign I think we should all
    support Mr Holohan and encourage Clinton to let Adams (trust trust me
    would I be involved in anything dodgy) in to the Country.  I mean it's
    not as if he would nick all your money is it ?  I mean ask a Preist !!

    There's something I don't understand about this business of denying a
    visa to Gerry Adams.  I was under the impression that British subjects
    did not require a visa to enter the United States.  Is this correct? 
    And if Gerry Adams is of Northern Ireland, is he not a citizen of the
    U.K. and therefore entitled to all the rights and privileges thereof?
    
    I myself found it very strange to travel from Dublin to Belfast without
    encountering so much as a conductor to punch my train ticket, but when
    travelling from Belfast to Liverpool to be treated to an interrogation
    by H.M.'s security forces.  
    

    
    I too am looking forward to hearing about how the Brinks job in
    Rochester, NY that netted not a few million and the one in Abington
    could not possibly be for funneling dough to the IRA via NORAID, that
    humanitarian mission whose sole job is to feed bereaved families. After
    all the IRAs bank robberies in the Republic can have nothing to do with
    those conducted here by those with rather strong connection to the
    Movement. And of course they can't possibly be condemned on such flimsy
    evidence (even the FBI acknowledge there are just a lot of things
    fuelling speculation right now). However, based on a TV show, we are
    fully entitled to claim as a fact that the Bruteish army tried to blow
    up Dublin.
    

re. .115

  There is no evidence to even suggest that the
  robbery in Rochester had even the remotest connection
  to Irish Northern Aid.  It's just another sick
  example of a propoganda machine in action, that
  links anyone with an Irish accent or Irish name,
  and a criminal activity to the IRA.

  NORAID would have been shut down years ago if they
  funneled money for anything other than humanitarian
  aid. End of story.


                     Mark

    
    Re .114
    
    >And if Gerry Adams is of Northern Ireland, is he not a citizen of the
    >U.K. and therefore entitled to all the rights and privileges thereof?
    
    If you think it's hard to understand that Adams isn't allowed to travel
    to the US, what do you think of the fact that Adams isn't even allowed
    to travel to "mainland" Britain? As I've said before, perhaps the north
    of Ireland is just a colony after all.
    
    Denis.

>  NORAID would have been shut down years ago if they
>  funneled money for anything other than humanitarian
>  aid. End of story.
>
>
>                     Mark

Mark,

You don't by any chance believe in the Loch Ness monster do you ?  Anyone 
so gullible as to actually believe the above must surely be ...oh I  give 
up.  

Tell me, do NORAID get receipts for everything spent in their name ?  And 
tell me this, if NORAID don't fund the IRA, who the hell does.  Now don't 
fob me off by asking me questions in return.  I've answered loads of your 
questions.  It would be great if once, just once, you answered one of mine. 
Try the one about the IRA sending children around Belfast with bombs in 
packages bound for fish shops. What do you think about that ?


Mr. Patient

    
    Most funding is from catholic communities of NI, but there's still
    enough room for some 'overseas' contributions. I guessed right.
    Conjecture becomes  cast iron evidence when it comes to British govt
    alleged misdeeds but is wild speculation and propaganda when applied to 
    pro-IRA factions. Why bother to even try to discuss this stuff with a
    puppet. 
    

    >Most funding is from catholic communities of NI, but there's still
    >enough room for some 'overseas' contributions. I guessed right.
    
    Yes Chris, and London is one of them.

    FYI
    
    According to a recent Sunday newspaper.....
    
    The IRA is estimated to have an annual income of between 4 and 6
    million pounds, and they need 4 million minimum a year to function.
    Cash from US supporters has recently shrunk to less than 100 thousand
    pounds a year.
    
    The Loyalists have an estimated annual income of approx. 250 thousand
    pounds.
    
    
    					Dave

    re.114
    I don't understand it either.
    
    Providing Adams is a British passport holder he should at least be able
    to travel to the UK without a problem.
    
    This year I have travelled twice to Eire and nobody on the ship,
    whether they were German, American or anything else, needed to show a
    passport at either side.
    By implication, if Gerry Adams wanted to travel to the UK, he only
    needs to jump on the ferry at Rosslare. 
    
    However, being a politician, allegedly, he gains some publicity by
    being banned.
    But here's the rub, is he trying to travel on his UK passport or his
    Irish passport; because he surely has both.
    So I agree, I don't see how he can be banned but there again I don't
    believe that he should be censored either. It seems like a petty
    political game to me.
    
    
    
    
    
    

re. .118

 Stop bothering to ask me where the IRA gets their
 funds.  I have no idea.  I do however know where the
 British Army gets their funding to continue their
 war.  The British taxpayers.

 As for Irish Northern Aid, I do know that
 they would be closed down if they ever supplied 
 anything other than humanitarian aid.  They are 
 closely watched by both the IRS, and the FBI to 
 ensure that the money is only used for
 humanitarian purposes.  Most of this aid is in the
 form of aid to families of prisoners, legal aid,
 and information.  By the way, every humanitarian
 organization in the U.S. is also closely watched
 by the FBI and IRS, to ensure that they are never
 used as fronts for military aid (unless of course
 the front is run by the U.S. government).  

 I know that the British government consider this
 "aid to the enemy" and hence the British propoganda
 machine is always in full swing trying to stop the 
 flow of even this humanitarian aid.  They don't want
 people accused of political crimes, and placed before
 a British judge, to have proper legal counsel.  They
 want to marginalize not only the prisoners of war, 
 but also their family members, in an attempt to break
 the spirit of the opposition to their occupation.

 As for your question, I imagine the Irish Republican
 Army sends young men into battle, for the same reason
 that the British Army sends young men into battle.

                 Mark

    >By implication, if Gerry Adams wanted to travel to the UK, he only
    >needs to jump on the ferry at Rosslare. 
    
    That would be an interesting exercise for Adams... sneak into Britain
    ...give a few speeches...and see what happens...he'll get good
    publicity that's for sure...then the British can arrest him, jail
    him and send him back to where he belongs, whatever that place is
    called.

> As for your question, I imagine the Irish Republican
> Army sends young men into battle, for the same reason

    Battle  = placing bombs in cars, litter baskets or small parcels
    delivered to fish and chip shops, then scurrying off.
    

    I a big speach last night Mr. Major has saed he WILL talk to the IRA
    at the peace table if they denounce violence.
    
    
    Simon

    The IRA and the UVF get some of their funds by operating protection
    rackets. They are reputed to have agreements carving up the areas they
    control. Sounds like the days of prohibition in the States.
    
    PS Anyone fancy being a juror and risking a kneecapping (or worse) if
    the 'wrong' verdict is reached?
    
    Dave                 

    Majors speech last night was probably as far as was politically wise
    that he could go. But of couse Mr Adams decides to throw a spanner
    in the works and state that talks were ongoing with the Government.
    The unionist will be mad enough with last night statement but will
    see it as a betrayal to have talks with Sinn Fein will the arm 
    struggle is continuing. Lets hope that people on both sides will
    have the courage to press ahead for peace (long term peace) and then
    start discussions on finding some mutual ground to progress. Lets hope
    this is the start of the end to violance.
    
    Stephen

    
    According to Beeb this morning, it has been the position of the govt
    that they'll talk to Sinn Fein if IRA renounces violence for quite some
    time. No news. 
    

    It may have been the position of the British government, but they
    have never stated it officially and strongly as last night.  Adams
    now holds the sliotar.

    
    I think you will find they HAVE stated it officially and strongly.They
    simply emphasized it yesterday. 
    

    
    It seems HMG have been having talks with Sinn Fein already. Major
    pulled the plug on them when he needed unionists votes to stay in
    power.
    
    Denis.
    

    
    Beeb says unlikely on that. The 'talks' that Adams refers to
    probably document the SDLP go-between role.  Unlikely there have been
    official contacts.
    

    
    Not according to to-day's Irish Press. Said that talks were held 
    during the the year between the Government and Sinn Fein with
    Major's knowledge.
    
    Denis.
    
    

    
    We'll have to see whether that's confirmed by any sources. Seems
    very unlikely. 

    I think when you get the Unionists confirming the existence of these
    talks, then there must be some truth in it. What other way have the
    Brithish Government of finding out exactly where the IRA stand. They
    know that for lasting peace, sinn fein will have to be accomadated
    at the discussions with the unionists. Her M.G. also said that if
    the DUP won't talk with sinn fein that they will still go ahead. I
    think they have the backing of the OUP, if the IRA stop all violance
    for a period of time (six months was mentioned ) for the talks to start
    I don't know who the UVF or UFF will listen to inrelation to the
    unionists parties but if they think that Unionists are been sold down
    the swanney, then I'd say it would be back to square one. I like to say 
    one thing about John Major, for a man that needs the votes of the nine
    Unionists to be able to decide when the next election will be, it is
    a very brave move to make and if it succeeds a very historical one.
    I think everyone agrees that peace is needed for this troubled land.
    
    Stephen
        

    
    All the talk could have been about back-channel discussions via
    SDLP-Sinn Fein talks. I can't see the Conservative and Unionist party
    going in for direct talks with Sinn Fein in secret. It would destroy
    their credibility with the Unionists and stop any leverage the govt has
    with them. And much as many seem to think Unionists just have to be
    told what the deal is, then let them get on with it, if peace is what
    you're after they have to concur with it. 
    

    
    Today's lead story in the Irish Press again claims that British
    government representativies had talks with Sinn Fein earlier this
    year. The paper quotes "reliable sources". The paper also said that
    the Sinn Fein members spoken to, included Martin McGuinness, who had
    been described as Britain's number one terrorist.
    
    Denis.

    
    I'll believe it when I hear it on the Beeb :-)
    (No Beeb world service this morning due to coverage of GRAFTA debate)
    

    
    Today's Boston Herald says that political and religious leaders in
    Ireland have called on the IRA to renounce its campaign of violence in
    order to exploit a 'window for peace'. 
    

 re. .140
 Have they also asked that the British renounce their
 campaign of violence?

                      Mark

    
    No, I don't think they did, Mark. 

    
    Sammy Wilson of the Democratic Unionist Party (Paisley's party) has
    said the some loyalist paramilitaries are genuine and patriotic. I
    wonder if they should be banned from the airways. Earlier this year
    a DUP member of Down council was charged with recieving money ie
    runnung a protection racket for the UVF.
    
    Denis.

>Author:      KOALA::HOLOHAN     
>Number:      1278.141     Created: 22-Nov-1993 11:09am           Replies: 143
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> re. .140
> Have they also asked that the British renounce their
> campaign of violence?
>
>                      Mark


A very misleading note (surprise, surprise) Mark.  Not all British (in fact 
very few) are involved in a campaign of violence.  

I believe that any Irish people reading this conference would be upset 
(quite rightly) if we started saying "Irish" when we actually meant "IRA" 
or "UFF" or whatever. 

Please re-post the above so that we know exactly which particular "British" 
you mean.

Thank you,

Mark R.  

 re. .144

  Oh, that's easy, by British campaign of violence, 
  I mean, the British Army, the RUC, the SAS, the
  UDA, UDR, the UVF, UFF.  I also mean the collusion
  between the British "security forces" and their
  loyalist terror gangs. 

            Your welcome,
                    Mark