Conference tallis::celt

     What utter Bull.
    
    
     SCott

    RE: .1  by KURMA::SNEIL 
    
     >What utter Bull.
    
    Such an intelligent and reasoned response.
    

    
    .. but accurate. The writer's attempts to place the IRA morally above
    the activities of their loyalist counterparts would be laughable in any
    other environment.
    

    .2

     It's all it deserved.
    
     SCott

> The Shankill Road bombing cannot be viewed in isolation: it did
> not happen in a vacuum. It must be analyzed in perspective,
    
    You could say exactly the same about the Loyalist response.
    Doesn't make it right does it?
    
> It occurred against a backdrop
> which is an unprecedented level of genocidal slaughter against
> the Catholic people (thirty assassinated this year so far). The
    
    I don't know the figure for murders of Loyalists over this period. I do
    know that over 25 years, the IRA has murdered more people than everyone
    else put together.
    
    .3 is right.
    

  re. .5
  Since you insist on playing the "who killed the most game".
  Who has killed the most civilians.

  The British.

  And to add up even more British perpetrated attrocities,
  could you please justify the fire-bombing of Dresden?
  Or how about British policy in Ireland over the last 800
  years?  Oh, too far back, well where do we draw the line.
  Is it at 800, 400, 200, the last 70, 25, or the last 2
  years.  Or does the cut-off only get set when it fits
  the British propoganda line?

  What Western nation has accumulated the most violations
  in the European court of human rights?

  Answer - Britain.

  What nation censors political opposition, holds jury-less
  trials, and colludes with terrorist organizations.
  Answer - Well more than one. Britain, Saudi Arabia, 
  Syria, to name a few.

  
  >Since you insist on playing the "who killed the most game".
  >Who has killed the most civilians.
  >The British.

      More BS

  >And to add up even more British perpetrated attrocities,
  >could you please justify the fire-bombing of Dresden?

     Get real,That was during a war in which civilians on all side
    (bar Americans) were targets.

  >Or how about British policy in Ireland over the last 800
  >years?  Oh, too far back, well where do we draw the line.
  >Is it at 800, 400, 200, the last 70, 25, or the last 2
  >years.  Or does the cut-off only get set when it fits
  >the British propoganda line?

     The "English" Government done some terrible things in the past
    but Please lets stick with the present troubles.


>  What nation censors political opposition, 
    
    They are wrong to do this
    
    >holds jury-less trials, 
    
    They are right to do this.
    
    >and colludes with terrorist organizations.
  
     BS.
    
    
     SCott

re. .7

  Does the B in BS stand for British?

"Get real,That was during a war in which civilians on all side
 (bar Americans) were targets."

  I see so civilians are legitimate targets during 
  a war?  Well I guess this puts the Irish Republican
  Army on higher moral ground than the British Army,
  because the IRA do not intentionally target civilians.
  Yet time and again, we see how the British security
  forces have been caught targeting civilians.

"The "English" Government done some terrible things in the past
 but Please lets stick with the present troubles."

 Yes, the "British" government has done some terrible
 things.  For your purposes you would like
 to define the present as, the past 25 years?  Why
 not the past two, wouldn't that be "more present"?

 And, no matter what the British propoganda industry
 feeds to you, Jury-less trials are wrong.  A man/woman
 can not be given a fair trial unless that trial is
 by a jury of their peers.  A jury-less trial only
 allows an oppressive state, to continue in it's
 oppressive policies, unhindered.

 If you would like to learn more about British collusion
 with loyalist terrorist, I suggest you read Amnesty
 International's article on British human rights violations
 in north east Ireland.

                   Mark

>>  Does the B in BS stand for British?

      Aren't we the bitter one.


  >I see so civilians are legitimate targets during 
  >a war?  

     I didn't say it was right.

   > Well I guess this puts the Irish Republican
  >Army on higher moral ground than the British Army,
  >because the IRA do not intentionally target civilians.
  
    What utter crap!.What the hell was the target of the Warrington
    bomb.You are so blinkerd and narrow minded that it takes away
    credibility for anything worth while you say.

>   Yet time and again, we see how the British security
>  forces have been caught targeting civilians.

    In the past maybe...but not now.

> And, no matter what the British propoganda industry
> feeds to you, Jury-less trials are wrong.  A man/woman
> can not be given a fair trial unless that trial is
> by a jury of their peers.  A jury-less trial only
> allows an oppressive state, to continue in it's
> oppressive policies, unhindered.

     It would be impossible to find an impartial jury in NI 
  BTW who is it that you think controls this so called "Propaganda
    industry"The British Media are against the gag on SF as much as you are.

    > If you would like to learn more about British collusion
    >with loyalist terrorist, I suggest you read Amnesty
    >International's article on British human rights violations
    >in north east Ireland.

     Sorry,But the fact that AI was set up by a terrorist put doubts on
    anything they have to say.


              
    
    SCott

    RE: .9  by KURMA::SNEIL 
    
>>   Yet time and again, we see how the British security
>>  forces have been caught targeting civilians.

    >In the past maybe...but not now.
    
    OK.  When was the last time they were caught?
    

    OK Scott, tell us how many British servicemen are currently
    serving time in jail for killing civilians (be they Nationalist
    or Loyalist or whatever) in NI?  Being on parole doesn't count
    either...
    
    You don't need a calculator either.  ;v)

"It would be impossible to find an impartial jury in 
 NI"

 That's quite a catch-all phrase. If it's British 
 police on trial (who fake evidence to convict the 
 innocent), we need to dismiss the case, cause
 they can't get an impartial jury.

 If it's an Irish Nationalist on trial, we need a 
 jury-less trial so we can ensure a conviction, err,
 I mean because we can't get an impartial jury.


"Sorry,But the fact that AI was set up by a terrorist put doubts on
 anything they have to say."

 You've got to be joking, right?  You'd dismiss the work
 of one of the worlds foremost human rights organizations,
 because the man who founded it was branded a "terrorist"
 by the British?  

 Now since most of what Amnesty International reported,
 if confirmed by Helsinki watch, will you tell me that
 Helsinki Watch was founded by a "terrorists".

                        Mark


 

    Sean McBride was as much a terrorist as George Washington.
    Didn't he win a Nobel prize too?

     There are British soldiers in prison for killings in NI.The numbers
    I'm unsure off.The last one I remember happened 2/3 years ago.The soldier 
    said that his gun had went off by accident,the bullets hit the road approx
    12 feet in front of the victim and bounced up and hit him.
   
     
     I notice that there was to defense to the "we don't kill civilians"
    claim.....what crap.
    
     SCott 

    
    Well maybe my memory is faulty or something but the soldier involved
    was not imprisoned for "accidently" shooting the victim.
    
    Denis.

    
    You should know by now that there is little point in challenging Mark's
    claim that the IRA don't deliberately target civilians. It's an
    essential part of his wacky belief system. I wouldn't worry about even
    refuting it. No one in their right mind believes it for one moment, the
    evidence to the contrary is so damning. 
    

    Well it has to be said .0 surely is a comedy script or a hideous joke ?
    
    I mean "we don't" target civilians.  Well the good old secret UDA
    headquarters located in the gents toilet cistern in basingstoke railway
    station is a bit of a giveaway.  Good Job our brave freedom fighters
    were able to show their vast military intellect by realising that there
    are no civilians hanging around one of the UK's busiest commuter
    stations.  To prove that thet knew their business in not targetting
    civilians we then had a couple of bombs placed in Reading railway
    station.  Kind of fills you with confidence doesn't it.
    
    I mean lets face it Mr Holohan I now feel totally confident that armed
    with .0 in my pocket I can get on my train in Basingstoke go to work in
    the West End of London,  have a pint in ia quiet pub in Covent garden
    go vist my customers down in Canary Wharf and never ever have to worry
    about getting blown up.
    
    man I wish I had your confidence your totally un-biased hands on
    experience of the "troubles" set s fine example to all of us
    non-believers who had begun to think that civilians were your pals
    targets.
    
    Still they looked like an hounorable bunch of upstanding everyday nice
    folks in their black hoods and flack jackets.  Just the sort of people
    you would want to share a pint with safe in the knowledge that if your
    a civilian they wont hurt you.
    
    I should think even your brave freedom fighters must pee their pants
    reading some of the stuff you pour into this conference.
    
    
    Bruce

    
    Re: .16    -< Let him rant >-
    
    You know, reading some of these tit for tat replies from both sides
    of the issue, I get the feeling that this is much more a debate among
    egos than a heartfelt inquiry into the problem.
    
    Why can't there be simple agreement that, politics aside, indiscriminate
    bombing of whomever may be unlucky enough to be in the way and the equally
    indiscriminate machinegunning of whomever happens to be socializing in
    a pub on Halloween are not heroic acts.  Persons who do those things
    are nothing lowly cowards no matter how noble the cause they profess.
    They are not patriots.  They hide behind the cause as an excuse to do
    what they are really committed to, murder.
    
    Steve
    

    
>    Why can't there be simple agreement that, politics aside, indiscriminate
>    bombing of whomever may be unlucky enough to be in the way and the equally
>    indiscriminate machinegunning of whomever happens to be socializing in
>    a pub on Halloween are not heroic acts.  Persons who do those things
>    are nothing lowly cowards no matter how noble the cause they profess.
>    They are not patriots.  They hide behind the cause as an excuse to do
>    what they are really committed to, murder.
    
 
     Couldn't agree more.
    
     
    
     SCott

    RE: .16
    
    I can see your point, recently there has been an air of "I can piss
    further than you can" in here. However, I think that if you read back
    a little in the conference, you'll see that almost everyone, whichever
    "side" they tend towards (plus, of course, those who are
    disinterested), has roundly condemned the killings by all parties.
    There is, however, one notable exception...
    
    Laurie.

    Absolutely
    
    Dave

    
    Took the words out of my mouth, Laurie. 

re. .20, .21

   Polly want a cracker?


   Once again for the British impaired, I condemn
   all violence. 
 
   But I can also understand why the Irish Republican
   Army are responding to British violence, documented
   human rights violations, censorship of political
   parties, jury-less trials, collusion of the British military
   with their Loyalist terror gangs, and state-sponsored
   terrorism.

                  Mark

    
    Yawn...

    
    Re: .23
    
   > But I can also understand why the Irish Republican
   > Army are responding to British violence, documented
   > human rights violations, censorship of political
   > parties, jury-less trials, collusion of the British military
   > with their Loyalist terror gangs, and state-sponsored
   > terrorism.
    
    When you "condemn all violence", but in the next breath say that
    you understand why the Irish Republican Army are responding with
    it, you don't make very much sense.  It would have made more sense
    to me if you had ended your reply with your first statement or not
    made it at all.
    
    Steve
    
    

re. .25
 Do you understand that violence is wrong? Do you
 also condemn violence?

 Now say you believe in only peace-full means to
 combat a violent enemy.  Now say you tried  
 peace-full marches, and were met with British bullets.
 Now say you tried the ballot box, and are met with
 censorship.  Now say you try the court-system, and
 are met with a farce.  Now say you try getting a
 job and are met with discrimination.  Now say you
 send your 12- year old daughter down the road for 
 milk and she's shot dead by a British soldier. 

 Now tell me, you've tried all these peace-full means,
 without success, what are you left with?

 I condemn violence, but I can understand why the
 American colonies had to use violent means to
 throw off the yoke of British tyranny, do you?

    
    Re: .26
    
    First I am not saying that I support the position of the British
    government with respect to Ireland.  I am discussing the senseless,
    random acts of violence against civilians.  I would understand a man
    whose daughter was shot dead by a British soldier who then took action
    against that *particular* British soldier, but I don't understand a man
    who would plant a bomb in a crowded British shopping mall nor one who
    would plant a bomb in the reputed headquarters of the opposition party
    nor one who would randomly shoot people simply because they were
    Catholic.  A man like that makes no sense to me.
    
    > I condemn violence, but I can understand why the
    > American colonies had to use violent means to
    > throw off the yoke of British tyranny, do you?
    
    You're comparing apples and oranges here.  The American colonies
    directed their violent resistance directly against the occupying
    British troops not against civilians.
    
    Steve
    

    Not to make a rathole, but Loyalist civilians in America
    were targets, and quickly fled to Nova Scotia (Yarmouth)
    and the Eastern townships of Quebec after the Americans
    defeated the British.  If you were a loyalist in New England
    after the revolution, you didn't advertise it.  Not that this
    makes attacks on civilians justified.

"I would understand a man
 whose daughter was shot dead by a British soldier who then took action
 against that *particular* British soldier, but I don't understand a man
 who would plant a bomb in a crowded British shopping mall nor one who
 would plant a bomb in the reputed headquarters of the opposition party

 Ah, but here is the crux of the problem, it's not one British
 soldier, it's thousands of them.  And you can't identify the 
 particular one who did it, cause him and his mates who were 
 driving the land-rover, aren't admitting to it.  And best of all,
 the officer in charge won't turn over information on who was 
 patrolling.  And then the courts won't bother to convict, or if
 they do, it's a slap on the wrist.  And then finally and most 
 importantly it's not just your daughter, it's your neighbor's 
 son too, and your brother whose been locked up without cause on
 a confession that was tortured out of him, and it's your
 wife in tears cause the British army has just come through and 
 busted in your front door, and trashed your house, because you
 must be a "terrorist supporter". 


                      Mark

    
    Re: .28
    
    Yes, that is true, but mostly because many of them openly
    supported and sustained the British by choice.  It was still
    a totally different thing.  The colonists via their militia
    formed an army who fought the British army.  This is very
    different from what is currently going on in Northern Ireland.
    Most of the targets in Northern Ireland are what would have
    been the Loyalist civilians in New England.  There is no
    widespread open rebellion being directed against the British
    army as there was here in 1776.
    
    Steve
      

    
    Re: .29
    
    > Ah, but here is the crux of the problem, it's not one British...
    
    That is the crux of *your* problem.  You are trying to lure me
    into a debate about the political situation in Northern Ireland.
    I am not commenting on that.  I am commenting specifically and
    solely on random acts of violence against whomever happens to
    be in the way whether they are done by British soldiers, or by
    IRA members against those in Northern Ireland who are loyal to
    Britain, or by those loyal to Britain who randomly shoot people
    who are Catholic.  What you are insisting on is debating the
    political situation.  I don't profess to know what is the right
    thing to do about that, but I *do* profess to know that the
    random violence is not justified by blaming it on the political
    situation.  The ends do *not* justify the means.  If you can't
    understand the distinction that I am making then you and I
    have nothing to discuss.
    
    Steve
    

    RE: .30  by NASZKO::MACDONALD 
    
    >There is no widespread open rebellion being directed against the
    >British army as there was here in 1776.
    
    The "official" kickoff of the American Revolution was April 19, 1775,
    but the rebellion had been fomented for several years previous.  Even
    then the majority of the colonists considered themselves loyal to the
    crown.  Much of what happened was driven by a determined minority who
    seized military and political power.  They never would have succeeded
    if it was not for the mistakes and misguided policies of the British
    government and its military leaders.
    
    History is written by the winners and much of what transpires is
    submerged by the larger issues and the grand themes.  When you get down
    to the street level and the gutter politics of the time you find that a
    lot of things took place that are best forgotten.

    
    I can't believe I agree completely with a Dennis note.
    

     A 26years man has been charged with the GraySteele Massacre.
  

    SCott

    RE: .29
    
    Mark,
    
    Let's assume I accept and agree with your note. Now, kindly tell me,
    how is that aim assisted and furthered by placing bombs in shopping
    malls WHERE THERE ARE NO MILITARY TARGETS?
    
    I know, you'll just ignore the question just as you ignore all the
    others. That's why debate with you is impossible, because it's all
    one-sided, both in content, and in practice.
    
    The answer to my question, as far as I can see, is "It isn't". However,
    I know you'll never admit that, any more than you'll ever answer "Yes"
    to the question "Do you condemn the (choose an occasion when innocent
    British civilians were blown up by the IRA) as immoral and cowrdly?".
    
    And *that* Mr. Holohan, is the crux or *your* problem. You have done
    such a good job of advertising yourself as bigotted and British-hating,
    and of being incapable of finding common ground of any kind, that your
    views and opinions (especially those rare ones of your own) are
    generally laughed at as the ravings of an deranged mind.
    
    Laurie.

    
    Re: .32
    
    >The "official" kickoff of the American Revolution was April 19, 1775,
    >but the rebellion had been fomented for several years previous.  Even
    >then the majority of the colonists considered themselves loyal to the
    >crown. Much of what happened was driven by a determined minority who
    >seized military and political power.  They never would have succeeded
    >if it was not for the mistakes and misguided policies of the British
    >government and its military leaders.
    
    > ... When you get down to the street level and the gutter politics
    > of the time you find that a lot of things took place that are best
    > forgotten.
    
    I agree with what you are saying, but I don't understand your point.
    
    
    
    Steve
    
    

  re. .35
   Economic targets.  If you would like to know why
  the Irish Republican Army picks targets to damage
  the British economy, perhaps you should ask them?
  Oh, here's an idea, why not ask your government to
  ask them?
  
  By the way, your wrong, I'm not bigotted or British
  hating.  Much of the support for stopping British
  human rights violations, their collusion with
  loyalist terror gangs, censorship, and jury-less 
  trials, comes from folks who consider themselves
  British.  Amnesty International is based in London.

                           Mark

	BELFAST, Northern Ireland (UPI) -- The Irish Republican Army has
offered to call a truce with Protestant paramilitary groups in Northern
Ireland, a statement from the group said Friday night.
	The loyalist parmilitaries responded instantly to the IRA statement
with an outright rejection of a truce.
	The statement issued by the IRA's army council in Dublin followed
comments made by a Protestant clergyman and an Irish senator after they
held a series of separate meetings with the Protestant groups.
	Irish Senator Gordon Wilson, whose daughter was killed by an IRA
bomb, and Presbyterian minister Rev. Roy Magee both said there had been
a change in the mood of the Protestant paramilitaries following the
Gresteel massacre when gunmen from the Ulster Freedom Fighters killed
seven people and injured 11 others on Oct. 30.
	An angry crowd shouted abuse and insults at 26-year-old Brian
McNeill, a shirt-cutter from Mourne Drive in the Protestant Waterside
district of Londonderry, as he arrived under heavy escort in court
Friday charged with the murders of seven people as they celebrated
Halloween at the Rising Sun bar in Greysteel.
	A total of 30 people were killed in Northern Ireland during October
in an escalation of bombimb and shooting operations by the IRA, that
fights to end British rule in northern Ireland, and the Protestant
groups Ulster Freedom Fighters and Ulster Volunteer Force.
	The Ulster Freedom Fighters, part of the outlawed Ulster Defense
Association claimed responsibility for the attack, and said it was in
retaliation for an Irish Republican Army bomb attack that killed 10
people in Belfast Oct. 23.
	The IRA statement said: ``In recent comments, Rev. Roy Magee and
Senator Gordon wilson suggest the possibility of another temporary halt
to the murder campaign by the loyalist death squads.
	``Any cessation of murderuous attacks against nationalists would, of
course, be welcomed,'' the IRA said. ``As a consequence, we would
monitor the situation and review our position towards those directly
involved in the murder gangs.''
	The outlawed IRA said the ``British government and its forces bear
ultimate responsibility for this conflict and (the) armed struggle is
aimed primarily at them.''
	Sources close to the UFF and UVF said their policies had not changed
and their campaigns against nationalists would end only in the event of
the IRA calling of its campaing.
	Friday night, a parcel bomb addressed to a Catholic-owned taxki
company in the north of Belfast was discovered by Post Office workers.
The device was defused by British army bomb experts.

    RE: .36  by NASZKO::MACDONALD 
    
    Re: .32
    
    >>The "official" kickoff of the American Revolution was April 19, 1775,
    >>but the rebellion had been fomented for several years previous.  Even
    >>then the majority of the colonists considered themselves loyal to the
    >>crown. Much of what happened was driven by a determined minority who
    >>seized military and political power.  They never would have succeeded
    >>if it was not for the mistakes and misguided policies of the British
    >>government and its military leaders.
    
    >> ... When you get down to the street level and the gutter politics
    >> of the time you find that a lot of things took place that are best
    >> forgotten.
    
    >I agree with what you are saying, but I don't understand your point.
    
    It's in response to the part you left off, which was written in .30 by
    NASZKO::MACDONALD:
    
        >There is no widespread open rebellion being directed against the
        >British army as there was here in 1776.
    
    My point is that there was no widespread open rebellion of the American
    Colonies at first.  Even during the armed conflict I would not say the
    majority of the colonists desired separation from Britain.
    
    It took many years of bullheaded intransigence on the part of the
    British government before all the bridges to a peacefull settlement
    were burnt.  
    
    In all the years since, they have not learned a thing, it seems.

"In all the years since, they have not learned a thing,
 it seems."

 That's not quite true, their tactics of suppression
 have improved and become even more under-handed.

                  Mark

    Dennis is right.  The early colonists had little qualms
    at being British (aside maybe for religious persecution,
    which even they practiced).  The sticking point was the
    arrogance of the British government - taxation without
    representation - that phrase drilled into our little heads
    as school children...

    
    ..just as well, given that the 4 million here in 1776 were mostly of
    British descent, many of them recent arrivals. 
    

    Am I right in thinking that the people who started the Boston Tea Party
    were British or of recent British descent?
    
    Dave

    RE:  .43  by NEWOA::GIDDINGS_D 
    
    >Am I right in thinking that the people who started the Boston Tea Party
    >were British or of recent British descent?
    
    No.  They were all Swedish and preferred coffee.  That's why they
    dumped all the tea.
    

    
    
    Re: .39
    
    > My point is that there was no widespread open rebellion of the American
    > Colonies at first.  Even during the armed conflict I would not say the
    > majority of the colonists desired separation from Britain.
    >
    > It took many years of bullheaded intransigence on the part of the
    > British government before all the bridges to a peacefull settlement
    > were burnt.  
    >
    >In all the years since, they have not learned a thing, it seems.
    
    I guess I don't see the reason for making this point.  You are
    quite right with this information.  Any American who took US History
    in virtually any US high school was presented with this view of the
    American Revolution.  You could go on to say many of the same things
    about the US government or any government for that matter.  Actually,
    IMO, the US government was, and still is, much more bullheaded and
    intransigent in its dealings with Native Americans than is the British
    government in NI. 
    
    I was simply saying that the reply that compared the American Revolution
    to what is going on in NI was comparing apples to oranges the times and
    the situation were different enough to make the comparison not worth
    much.
    
    By the way, don't take this as me being an apologist for the British
    government.  I don't know enough about the situation, but I do have
    the opinion that in the long run all concerned would be better off
    with Britain out of Ireland, including Britain.  The question is only
    how.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

    >Am I right in thinking that the people who started the Boston Tea Party
    >were British or of recent British descent?
    
    Yes, certainly, or Javisse in Swedish :v).  Hence, the majority of
    city/town names in Mass come from English ones.  I was just thinking
    yesterday of the number of city/town names in Mass. that come from
    native Indian names.  There are a few remnants (let's see Natick,
    Mashpee, Nantucket).
    
    What I meant in my prior note (and I believe Dennis's) was that the
    early British colonists were not particularly anti-British-government
    initially.

    >about the US government or any government for that matter.  Actually,
    >IMO, the US government was, and still is, much more bullheaded and
    >intransigent in its dealings with Native Americans than is the British
    >government in NI. 
    
    Fwiw I agree with you, but it still doesn't eradicate the years of
    difficulties in NI.
    
    At least there are still Irish people left in Ireland, down from
    the high of 8M in the late 1800's.  You can't say the same of Native
    Americans, at least in New England.
                       

    
    Indeed, the ethnic cleansing was far more effective.
    

    
    Re: .47
    
    Exactly.  I'm not inclined to side with Britain with
    respect to NI (since 3 of my 4 grandparents were driven
    from Ireland during the late 19th century by hunger),
    but it rankles me when I see Americans criticizing Britain,
    or any other government for that matter when our treatment
    of Native Americans was as bad as it could possibly have
    been and isn't much better today.  I'm not saying they
    are wrong, but only to not be so quick to criticize.
    
    Steve