Conference tallis::celt

    
    Looks like both Adams and Mcmanus have rejected this finally.
    The problem of the "Loyalist veto".
    

 re. .1
 Not to mention the ambiquity of the British and Irish
 government interpretations.  Too bad the British
 couldn't agree to sit down at the peace table, 
 without pre-conditions.

                       Mark

    
    Ohh right, so the IRA could set off a new bomb to make their point
    every time the negotiations didn't go their way. Might as well not even
    negotiate. Both the IRISH and the British govts agreed to that
    declaration. Who are you to tell the elected govt of the Irish people,
    or most of them, what to do?     
    

  Quite frankly I believe that Sinn Fein should reject
 the Downing street declaration.  There is no mention
 of the British laying down their arms, or putting a
 stop to their collusion with loyalist death squads.
 There is no mention of an end to censorship of political
 opposition, and there is no mention of an end to
 false imprisonment and juryless trials. Why should
 the loyalist minority have a say over the whole 
 future of the United Kingdom?  Why should the loyalist
 minority have a say over the whole future of the
 Island?  Why should British troops continue to die
 for a minority opinion that is rejected by the
 majority of people in the U.K.?

   The British government has said one thing in the
 Downing street piece of paper, and yet another thing
 in parliament.

   The only sensible thing now, would be for immediate
 negotiations of all parties involved.  Since the 
 British do not really want peace, they would reject
 this. 

    My God, preserve us all...
    
    Laurie.

Re .4

Has it entered your head that Sinn Fein and their friends the IRA are a
minority opinion in Ireland?

    Mark,
    
    Could you list for us the advantages (strategic, economic, perceived or
    otherwise) that the Brits enjoy by being in Northern Ireland. You keep
    rattling on about this army of occupation. Why, in your opinion do
    they continue to occupy?
    
    Joe.

 re. .7
 I can see no strategic, or economic advantage for the
 people of Britain.  Their young soldiers are constantly
 returned in body bags.  Whatever the reason, many wars
 are not fought for strategic or economic advantage.

 Unfortunately many of those who govern Britain see 
 both a political advantage of keeping the 
 "British stiff upper lip", "preserving the empire",
 "All for Queen and country", and "not giving in to the
 dirty rotters".

 The majority of British people want British troops
 out of north east Ireland.  It's the British government
 that refuses to listen to it's own people, at the
 economic and social expense of the British people.

                      Mark

    Oh
    
    That's a whole lot clearer now then Mark.  It's only the British
    Goverment that wants the troops in NI.  Nobody else wants them there do
    they Mark  ??
    
    Now lets see what else you tell us Mark.  You believe that the IRA and
    Sinn Fein want peace but the British Goverment do not.  You can prove
    how serious your pals are in this quest for peace by their actions.  Oh
    here comes a heavily fortified clothes store.  Lets plant some fire
    bombs in it therebye demonstrating to Holohead that we want peace.
    
    So Mark if somebody comes along and blows your head off (assuming here
    that this has not already happened) (huge big assumption there)  you
    would want us all to know that this is a sign of peace.
    
    God help us all.
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce

> out of north east Ireland.  It's the British government
> that refuses to listen to it's own people, at the
> economic and social expense of the British people.
    
    .. meaning it's the fault of the British govt that its people
    are being killed while walking down the high street, right?
    

    
    
    Re.8 
    
     Q.     What do you think would happen if "the British" pulled their
         troops out of Ulster ?
    
     A.     For Ireland you could read Bosnia !!!!
    
    
                  Graeme .    

    
    re -1


    Graeme.... 

    How could he know, He's 1000's of miles away in Pixie Land reading his
    Noraid pamphlet he got when the tin was being  passed around the Pub,
    Sort off like... War Cry that you get of the Sally Army...
    
    
    Napolion. 


      

 re. .11

 I think that would be just a start.  They also need
 to stop colluding and providing arms to the Loyalist
 death squads, end summary executions of nationalists
 politicians, end jury-less trials, and end censorship
 of political opposition.

 They would also need to ensure that they disarmed the
 Loyalist folks that they have been busy arming.

 Next might be some war reparations to pay for 
 reopening the roads they destroyed that connect to
 the rest of the country, cleanup and removal of 
 their military bases and forts, financial payments 
 to the community as a whole that they tried to
 destroy, financial damages for the censorship they
 imposed, release of all prisoners of war, fincancial
 compensation to those prisoners of war and their
 families, removal of the PTA, and financial compensation
 to those and their families who have been unjustly
 held under the PTA, and most importantly an
 international war crimes tribunal to try the British
 officials responsible for their criminal acts during
 this war.

 That's just off the top of my head, I'm certain that
 there are other "war crimes" that the British will
 need to be held responsible for.

                      Mark

    Mark,
    
    Did you ever conside that its attitudes like yours that cause Unionists
    to go bananas at the thought of Irish reunification? The only way that
    Ireland ever gains peace will be when the Unionists can be assured that
    they will not be held accountable for the past. Otherwise why should
    they give up there current position. 
    I doubt the IRA will be satisfied in a United Ireland either. Their
    vision of a united Ireland is with them on top. This will never happen,
    and so no matter what happens they are destined to be on the sidelines
    of any political settlement. Straight democracy will see to that
    (witness the current state of Sinn Fein in the Republic and the
    Democratic Left even after a double metamorphosis from the Official
    IRA/Sinn Fein they are still trying to shake off their "Fenian" roots at
    the ballot box).
    
    So what future for the IRA, another 26 years as terrorists? I think
    this is their last chance to come in from the cold. There will remain a
    few who will never be reconciled and will continue robbing banks and
    knee-capping people in kangaroo courts, but the majority should see the
    futility of carrying on and increasingly losing their support among
    Nationalists to the SDLP.
    
    Joe.

Re.11
>     Q.     What do you think would happen if "the British" pulled their
>         troops out of Ulster ?
    
    In conjunction with the IRA and other paramilitaries laying down
    their arms all in a phased withdrawal, there could develop a strange
    thing called peace. Demilitarization of the 6 counties in Ireland
    is a good thing! Bad for the British military/industrial establishment,
    but good for Ireland.  

    
    Can't answer .10, can you Holohan. Add it to the list. 
    

Add .4 as well.
    
Dave

                                The Irish Times
                                February  21, 1994
                     Peace would revitalise economy, SF told
                                  By DICK HOGAN


   AN END to the Northern conflict would immediately release the L200 million
spent annually on Border security into the national exchequer and lead to a
rise in cross Border trade, creating employment, new industries and a general
improvement in the economic well being off all the people of the island, the
Cork Council of Trade Unions told the  Sinn Fein  Peace Commission at the
weekend.

   In a submission to the fourth meeting of the commission, which met in Cork,
Mr Paddy Mulcahy, vice president of the council, representing 25,000 workers in

43 affiliated union branches, said that enough lives had been lost in the 25
years of conflict.

   "We have no desire to see more sectarian assassination of taxi drivers and
other workers who try to go about their daily business.  The Cork Council of
Trade Unions is aware that these atrocities can cease now or, we can have more
of the same into and after the next millennium," he said.

   But even setting hat argument aside, Mr Mulcahy added, the economic case for

discontinuing bloodshed and killing was so overwhelming that peace and
reconciliation had to come about because we simply could not afford anything
else.

   Mr Mulcahy said that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions was an all Ireland
trade union movement which tried to unite workers every day of the year under
extreme circumstances. "There is no group which sees the need for peace as much

as the trade union movement.


   "After all, it is usually our members who are killed, sometimes by each
other, while their unified employers, regardless of the colour of the flag they

fly, can do nicely for themselves out of the disarray of their workers.

   "It is clear from this submission that we favour peace and that we are
acutely aware of the intricacy of the Northern problem. It is also our
view that both the Provisional IRA and the British forces have proved that they
cannot defeat each other.

   "It is also our view that working class unity can in fact rid Ireland of
British imperialistic influence but that this unity is virtually impossible to
achieve as long as the military campaigns continue."

   Ms Rosaleen Murphy, of Carrigrohane, Cork who made submission to the
commission in a personal capacity, describing herself as a "socialist and an
Irishwoman", said that the Downing Street Declaration, which she rejected,
offered her a choice between a rock and a hard place and left the country as
well as the republican movement at a crossroads.

   "The Joint Declaration is another clever conjuring trick on the part of the
British to maintain their interests, while appearing to be reasonable and
disinterested," she added.


   In his submission, Mr Sean Gallagher, of the United Ireland Forum, who also
spoke in a personal capacity, urged  Sinn Fein  to consider that effectively,
for the first time since 1921, Irish self determination was on the Anglo-Irish
agenda. In putting it there through his statement that Britain had no selfish
strategic or economic interest in  Northern Ireland,  Mr John Major had given
the lie to the assertion by his predecessor, Lady Thatcher that Northern
Ireland was "as British as Finchley".

   He went on: "There are, significant advantages in the Joint Declaration,
though they do not conceal the fact that it also contains certain flaws.
Overall, however, I, believe "tat the advantages outweigh the disadvantages,
and that the Joint Declaration has in it the seeds of peace.

   "But in order for it to be of benefit to the cause of peace with justice in
Ireland, it is essential that the nationalist case be put on the table side by
side with and as an alternative to the unionist case.

   Mr Micheal O Loinsigh, chairman of the Irish Sovereignty Movement,
addressing the Commission in a personal capacity, said that the central
question now or the IRA particular and republicanism in general was whether or n
   ot
the time had come to discontinue the war against the British forces. The IRA,
he added, could not force the British out of Ireland and the British could not
extirpate the IRA.


   "May I suggest to you that, the Downing Street Declaration is as much as we
will ever get from the British. Yet it is, enough to allow us to engage in the
political struggle that must be undertaken to achieve a unity of hearts and
minds in so far as this is achievable between the loyalist community and
ourselves," he said.

   While nationalists had suffered in the past and while their day was coming,
the task for the future would be to find a fair and reasonable accommodation
with the unionists. "It is time for a new departure and the swords must be
beaten into plough shares," he concluded.

   Mr Richard Behal, a former director of  Sinn Fein  foreign affairs policy,
said that he was against the declaration. The key element in getting positive
movement, he added, was a British declaration of intent to withdraw. He
suggested that a federal or con federal Ireland, would constitute a new
dimension and break with the old British system.

   Mr John Gilligan, an independent member of Limerick Corporation, said he was

convinced that the Joint Declaration was a "blind alley going nowhere" and that

there was nothing of value in it. If the causes of violence were an IRA
reaction against the presence of the British military and the loyalist side
reacting to the presence of the IRA, then the British soldiers should be 
returned to their bases in Britain, all owing the IRA to call a ceasefire.

   Mr Padraig O Siochain, of west Cork, speaking in a personal capacity, said
he was a student of history for more than 60 years and believed that the Joint
Declaration offered nothing to "Irish Ireland" but contained "plenty of sops"
to Orangeism.  On no account, Mr O Siochain went on, should prisoners be 
used as, hostages in this peace game and we must ensure that the sacrifice of
the "Fenian dead" had not been in vain.

   Mr Pat Doherty, vice president of Sinn Fein, said that on the completion of
its work the commission would publish its findings.

   >  Q.     What do you think would happen if "the British" pulled their
   >      troops out of Ulster ?
    
    I sense a British feeling that the Irish wouldn't know how to
    maintain peace if they were ever given a chance to run the 6 counties.
    But recent history has shown, that Protestants and Catholics (how ever
    you want to classify them) are living quite peacefully today in the
    Republic without fear for their lives. If anything, the military
    theater in NI only adds to the tension.

    
    You don't think armed Loyalists and Republicans unchecked represent
    the required theatrical effect?
    

    Yes, I agree with you. The entire military theater I speak of includes
    the British military and the IRA and the Protestant Extremists.  They
    feed off each other like leeches.

    
    re 19.
    
              I wish I could believe that everything in the garden would 
    be rosey after the British pulled out of the island.However as recent
    world history has proved that is not always the case .I feel,and its
    only my opinion,that a power vacuum would be created and the that the 
    murder and suffering would increase at an alarming rate as I believe it 
    would have back in 69 when the troops went in to protect the catholic 
    families from loyalist terrorists.
              I hope I'm wrong because I think that the British government
    may be ready to pull the troops out and I would hate to see a full
    scale Irish civil war .
    
                          Graeme ..
    
    
              

    
    Well I'll tell you something, idjit Irish_american opinion aside,
    there's no way either Ireland or Britain would let the UN in there.
    Forget it.
    

The following is a list to help save Mark Holohan hours of his precious 
time.  It comprises of a series of phrases which he uses with astonishing 
regularity and predictability.  In future, instead of the ramblings we read 
in dozens of his entries, all we should see (hopefully) is a series of 
numbers. eg  The phrase "Collusion with Loyalist Death Squads and political 
censorship" will now read "2,8,5".  


1. Diplock Courts
2. Collusion with Loyalists
3. Military Occupation of North East Ireland
4. Colusion with Loyalist Terrorists
5. Censorship of Sinn Fein
6. The nice gentlemen who wear balaclavas  (IRA to you and me)
7. Beloved meesengers of peace, hope and proslerity for all (Sinn Fein)
8. Loyalist death squads (Who bear no resemblance at all to Nationalist
   Death Squads)
9. PTA (Although I still don't know what the Parent Teachers Association
  has to do with it)
10. Prisoners of war (That's terrorists to you and me)



Please feel free to add to the list.  Hopefully we can save Mark Holohan a 
lot of time.  That would be of great benefit all round. It would give him 
time to write even more notes thus increasing his chances of actually 
writing one that actually made sense.


Mark R.

    
    Well done! We can use this.

    
    11. The British don't want peace.

    And i forgot
    
    12. Talks about talks about talks.

Various other phrases such as `colonialist', `jingoistic', `knee-jerk',
etc could probably be added to the list (although I suspect that they
were mainly used by the esteemed Mr Drotter)

Chris.

13. Accident / Regrettable incident / Deliberate failure of the British 
authorities to clear area after a more-then-adequate warning from the lovable 
Irish Freedom Fighters  (Bombing of a Shopping arcade on a busy Saturday 
afternoon to you and me)

 re. .24

 re. #7,  Sinn Fein want a just and lasting peace, as opposed to a British
          peace (ie. surrender).

 re. #8,  Loyalist death squads who work under the direction of the British
          forces.

 re. #9,  PTA means the Prevention of Terrorism Act.  It is used in Britain
          to imprison and terrorize Irish Nationals.

 re. #10, Prisoners of war, that's "terrorists" only if you are speaking 
          British.

 Here's a new one:

     #14, Ignorant British noters, but we'll just call them Brits from now
          on, instead of using number 14.  I'm sure everyone in here, knows
          who I mean.

Author:      KOALA::HOLOHAN     
Number:      1336.30      Created: 25-Feb-1994 10:01am           Replies: 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Here's a new one:

That's a laugh.  You haven't said anything new for about a year.



Mark R

RE:                     <<< Note 1336.30 by KOALA::HOLOHAN >>>
    
� re. #7,  Sinn Fein want a just and lasting peace, as opposed to a British
�          peace (ie. surrender).

    Holohan,
    
    Define "a just and lasting peace" and explain how the recent peace
    accord the IRA continue to ignore fails to provide for it.
    
    Laurie.

    Folks
    
    As you all know by now Mark H only replies/writes when he has found
    some hand out that tells the rest of the world how bombing of children
    is "regrettable".
    
    With his Balaclava firmly placed back to front on his head he marches
    on.  Like the WWI Generals he spouts his morallity safe in the
    knowledge that his safe world will never experience the daily horrors
    that the rest of the world endures.  His stock of Commando magazines
    firmly stuffed in his pocket he remains as far away as he can get from
    his dressed up pals.
    
    Why oh Why did the Kennedys not invite him on their holiday to Ireland. 
    At least their visit gives us a laugh.  As one Kennedy said to the UDR
    Soldier "Why don't you go home"  Reply ....  This is my home !!! 
    Something that the Kennedys (more Irish than the Irish when it suits
    them)  had not worked out.  And they are politicians who Mark H
    believes in.  Shame they didn't bother to look up the map.
    
    # 15.  Mail people if you don't  like what they say about you. 

 For starters Laurie, I don't remember the IRA being invited to the
 table to even discuss the Downing Street Declaration.  I do remember
 Sinn Fein being told that here's the declaration, take it or leave it.
 What do you mean you don't understand something, take it or leave it.

 A "just and lasting peace" will need to be discussed immediately at the
 peace table, with everyone involved.  This game of here it is, take it
 or leave it, and maybe in 3 months we'll talk, is nothing but British
 posturing.  The British didn't even agree to stop colluding with loyalist
 death squads during this 3 month period.

                        Mark

Mark,

You could have condensed that last note to 1 line if you'd used "The List"



Mark

    >At least their visit gives us a laugh.  As one Kennedy said to the UDR
    >Soldier "Why don't you go home"  Reply ....  This is my home !!! 
    
    That was after the soldier swore at the priest, if my memory serves
    me correctly.
    
    By the way, how did Hill do in court this week in Belfast?
                                                     

    George
    
    early reports seem to indicate that there are so many Kennedy's in the
    court that there is no room for anybody else.  If Hill is spotted
    amongst this throng of upright valued citizens who know all about how
    to behave we'll let you know.  Unless of course we drive off a bridge
    or take the girls for a stroll along the beach,  maybe even take in a
    Marilyn Monroe movie or two.  Thats if we have the time in between
    taking holidays in other Countrys Court Rooms.
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce
    
    PS:  George swearing at a Priest does not explain how this burk did not
    realise what Country he was in !!!

re. .33

  Bruce,
     I think you have a lot of maturing to still go through.  
  I'm a father of 3 little boys.  I can tell you as a parent, that
  the killing of children by British forces or anyone else for that
  matter, is absolutely wrong. 

     I've no idea where you get your Balaclava, commando magazine image
  from, but if you knew me, you'd know that it's about as far off the
  mark as you can get.

     By the way, it was the British soldier who said to Joe Kennedy,
  "Why don't you go home", to which Joe replied, "Why don't you go
  back to your own country".  In case you weren't aware, the Kennedy's
  from the Cape, are Americans not Irish.

                                      Mark

    RE: .38  by KOALA::HOLOHAN 
    
>re. .33
    
    >I've no idea where you get your Balaclava, commando magazine image
    >from, but if you knew me, you'd know that it's about as far off the
    >mark as you can get.
    
    It's called demonizing the opposition.  Anybody who disagrees with any
    aspect of British policy in Northern Ireland must be painted as a
    terrorist in order to distract from what they are saying.
    

    I just thought of something.  Joe Kennedy could apply for Irish
    citizenship since his grandfather was from Wexford.

    
    Good, get him out of Cambridge!

    
    Well I'll tell you something, idjit Irish_american opinion aside,
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    You know, I read this notefile occasionally to try and educate
    myself on the situation in NI. I'm an American of Irish and Scottish
    ancestry, and I find this unfortunate phrase insulting. I might
    suggest that the phrase "idjit english-american" might be just
    as insulting. Please be more careful in choosing your words, sir.
    
    Thank you,
    Mike
     

    
    Mm, really. Now let me guess. You don't mind the names the Brits get
    called at all, right? For what it's worth, there are plenty of idjits,
    or if you prefer, idiots, in the Irish-American community, especially
    on the subject of NI. They're the ones whose knowledge of the situation
    was derived from Mother Goose.
    
    Given I don't know you from Adam, I think you can assume that I am
    not referring to you. Neither am I referring to my wife for that
    matter who is an Irish-American from Southie, or to any of the other
    quite reasonable and well-meaning folks who don't specialize in
    Brit-bashing drivel.
    

    When you generalize, you invite criticism. I'n talking about your
    "idjit irish-american" statement which I took as a generalization,
    and insulting. I am not so naive to think that there are not
    those of irish extraction making idiotic statements, of course
    there are.
    
    And if you read my note further, I mentioned that "idjit english
    american" phrases are just as insulting. Expand that to "idiot
    Brits" or the like if you wish.
    
    Point is they're all insulting when you (the plural) generalize.
    
    It's really not worth belaboring this any further. You got my point.
    
    Mike
    
    

    
    Well you're right. It could be taken as a stereotype. We tend to forget
    the readers out there. I think you'll find however, that you need the
    'thicker' skin by far if you happen to be British. 
    
    Anyway, now you're here - prompted by a perceived insult as it may be,
    why not add your 5c somewhere. 
    

    -1,
    I can't add my 5c yet, because I am ignorant of the background
    and facts.. I need to do some reading first. But thank you
    and continue!!
    
    Mike
     
    
    

    RE: .40  by TALLIS::DARCY 
    
    >I just thought of something.  Joe Kennedy could apply for Irish
    >citizenship since his grandfather was from Wexford.
    
    Which Grandfather was that?
    

    To Mark Holohan.
    
    Mark I to am a father of a ten year old son.  I guess where we differ
    is my son has to live in the shadow that so willingly lend you support
    to whilst ensuring that your children are kept about as far away from
    it as is humanly possible.
    
    Maybe me and almost everybody else in this conference misses something
    in your Mark.  But you sure as hell come across as a supporter of
    the IRA and therefore a supporter of their campaign against children.
    
    If I have it wrong then please print that you do not support the IRA.
    
    Please only answer this one line.  Do not go into your usual British
    Toadie facist at war with retoric.
    
    Either you support the IRA and their campaign or you don't.
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce

    
    You're wasting your time. Anyway, Adams is still talking out of both
    sides of his mouth. Talking about disapproving fish and chip shop bomb
    while supporting misguided scum like Begley. If the entire island of
    Ireland did vote as he says they should, and voted to let the North
    deciced its future, one wonders if the IRA would accept it. After all
    the elected govt of the Irish people in the 26 counties already decided
    that and the IRA reaction is to keep killing. 
    

Results of an opinion poll just out:

91% of the population of Ireland would like the IRA to stop violence
immediately and permanently.

66% of Catholics in the North, 79% in the South would not like to see a
united Ireland without the freely given consent of the Ulster Unionists.     

Sinn Fein of course immediately issued a statement rubbishing the poll.

Dave

>91% of the population of Ireland would like the IRA to stop violence
>immediately and permanently.
>66% of Catholics in the North, 79% in the South would not like to see a
>united Ireland without the freely given consent of the Ulster Unionists.     

     Even with a 5% margin of error this poll shows that the normal
    people that the IRA claim to be fighting for are against them and
    what they stand for(as every decent person should be).

     
>>Sinn Fein of course immediately issued a statement rubbishing the poll.


    We would expect nothing else.

    SCott
    
    P.S Who was the Poll for ????

>    P.S Who was the Poll for ????

It was jointly commissioned by the BBC and an Irish newspaper, the name of
which escapes me. The figures come from today's Daily Telegraph.

The British connection is no doubt already being exploited by the IRA 
apologists in an attempt to deflect attention from the (unsurprising) results.  

Dave

Author:      CTHQ::LEARY     Tonya's speed dial number: #*
Number:      1336.46      Created: 25-Feb-1994 04:12pm           Replies: 52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    I can't add my 5c yet, because I am ignorant of the background

That hasn't stopped anyone else from doing so in the past  :-)



MR
    
    

 re. .51

  Did they ask what percentage of the population of
  Ireland would like the British forces to stop their
  violence immediately and permanently?

  I'd bet that if you polled the IRA themselves, that
  91% of them would like to stop violence immediately.

  What percentage of people in Ireland would like the
  British forces to stop colluding with loyalist death
  squads?

  You can get a poll to say any damn thing you want,
  by picking who to canvass, and wording your question
  carefully.

                          Mark

     RE.54

            Well....there's a reply no one expected.


    SCott

    
    Well it appears to me that they asked the Irish people and
    incidentallly, this is only one of a number of polls which have been
    taken in the last year and are mentioned elsewhere in this conference.
    
    All of which came back with similar results.
    
    Bill

    
    There also was a certain Irish election where SF only achieved 3%
    (three percent) of the vote.
    
    And a slightly higher 15%(of the nationalist/republican/catholic vote)
    in NI's elections.    
    
    Now your going to tell us that anybody can rig an election...
    
    Gordon...
     

Re: <<< Note 1336.54 by KOALA::HOLOHAN >>>

I would imagine that a high percentage of the population would answer in favour
of all of the questions you pose.  How does this change the survey result that
the aims of Sinn Fein and the IRA are out of step with the wishes of the
population at large?

>  You can get a poll to say any damn thing you want,
>  by picking who to canvass, and wording your question
>  carefully.

You are quick to rubbish the poll without evidence and without stopping to
consider that its findings may accurately reflect public opinion. Just like
Sinn Fein.

Dave

    I think we have #15 to add to the list of .24
    
    .54
    >  You can get a poll to say any damn thing you want,
    >  by picking who to canvass, and wording your question
    >  carefully.
    
    1293.20
    >  For starters, polls can be slanted.  Who was canvassed for
    >  this poll, the folks in Shankill?  I could take a poll in Divis,
    >  or Ballymurphy and show you a different story.
    
    You can take your pick of the implementations.
    
    Joe.             

    RE: .50
    
    Dave,
                 
    Agreed, 99% of the Irish people with whom I've talked would like
    IRA violence stopped immediately.  But most of them also would like
    eventual Irish unification and a British withdrawal from the 6 counties.
    While Britain has stated it has no political or economic interest in NI,
    it has yet to make the statement of its intent to withdraw from Ireland
    at some point in the future.  Getting the terrorists to stop their
    bombing campaign is a must, but it is only half the equation.

    
    Irish Sunday Independent. 
    

> But most of them also would like
>    eventual Irish unification and a British withdrawal from the 6 counties.
> Getting the terrorists to stop their
>    bombing campaign is a must, but it is only half the equation.

I'm not sure whether by 'British withdrawl' you mean withdrawl of troops,
creation of an independent state or unification.

I would imagine that withdrawl of troops would follow once violence (on both
sides) ceased and the situation stabilised. This would not happen overnight.

Regarding the other options, the question is, what happens to the ~1,000,000
Ulster Unionists?  Any solution without their consent would be doomed to fail,
and would probably result in even more violence.

The IRA campaign over the last 25 years has only served to increase the division
and distrust between the two communities. The IRA has made Irish unification
more difficult, not easier. 
  
Dave

re. .62
"The IRA campaign over the last 25 years has only served to increase the division
and distrust between the two communities. The IRA has made Irish unification
more difficult, not easier."

 More Downing street propoganda.  Perhaps it's the
 British partition, the loyalist veto, the British
 military occupation, the British military collusion
 with loyalist death squads, the imprisonment of the
 innocent, the jury-less trials, and the littany of
 human rights abuses reaped upon Irish men/women/and
 children by the British forces.

 Are we going to have to wait another 15 years for a
 movie to be made about this latest collusion of the
 British forces with loyalist death squads, before
 we begin to believe that the problem is the British.

                     Mark

    re.60
    
    George, I'm sure you would find that 98% of Brits would like to see
    Irish unification as well.
    Guess where the 2% who don't, live?
    
    Bill

re. .63

Not more Downing Street propoganda. My own view which I'm sure is also the view
of the vast majority of the Protestant population. If you don't believe that,
fine.

What else would you expect, that the Unionists should want to hop into bed with
those who have killed, maimed and destroyed in a futile attempt to force them
to submit?

Does your master plan for the unification of Ireland say what to do about them? 
Ignore them and hope thay will go away?  Forcibly resettle 1,000,000
people who have the right to an Irish as well as a British passport? 
Wipe them out?

Dave

PS Please use the number codes, it saves disk space.

    re.64

     Agreed If that's what the people on both sides want.

    
    .63

     Where have we heard that reply before.

    Scott

    
    It's easier to be an armchair radical if you just blow angry smoke.
    Don't ask any brain-taxing questions.
    

 re. .65

 I'm certain that many Loyalists believe as you do.
 The British propoganda machine has made a good job
 at hiding the real issues, demonizing the Nationalists,
 and censoring legal political opposition.

 This is all the more reason now for the British
 government to come clean and act as persuaders.
 Then this 2% minority of folks who consider themselves
 British, even though they were born in Ireland,
 can have their fears addressed, and allayed.

 Why don't you tell us, exactly what the Loyalist 
 fear?  Is it an end to censorship?  An end to a
 priviliged status? Will they miss the opportunity
 to kick a nationalist in the teeth.  

 The more I hear about the "loyalist fears", the more
 they sound like certain South African neo-nazi groups
 still hoping for their own privileged, and
 partitioned home-land.


                          Mark

 

 

     Hahah... That's about the best yet.
    
    
     Now your saying you know better than the majority people in NI.
    
    
    SCott

    re .68
    
    Mark H.
    
    I am sure as a father you realise that it is rude to ignore questions
    when you have invited them.  To then go on and start asking your own
    questions whilst continuing to ignore the question put to yourself
    shows a clear and obvious lack of maturity far worse then that which
    claim to see in others.
    
    please answer .48
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce

    
    Well Anyway even if Holohan doesn't get it, Martin McGuinnes is
    reported as having been a lot more reasonable at the Sinn Fein
    conference once the poll was announced. Of course they're still
    talking out of both sides of their mouth like good terrorists, but
    they see the picture. Their support is a lot more conivnced that the
    Downing st declaration represents a chance for peace than the IRA are.
    After all, without a nice little terrorist campaign going on, they'd
    have to get honest jobs. 
    

  >>  without a nice little terrorist campaign going on, they'd
  >>  have to get honest jobs. 
    
     Exactly,They can't hate the British that much...they let them feed
    there families.
    
    
    
    SCott

    Perhaps some of you people out there who normally press Mark Holohan to
    answer questions might like to answer the question he posed in .68:
    
 >Why don't you tell us, exactly what the Loyalist fear?  
    
    Whatever they fear is obviously getting in the way of a united Ireland.
    Maybe the Irish govt should be working to remove these obstacles so
    that the loyalist fears can be allayed. I lived in Dublin for a long
    time and my neighbours on both sides were prodestants. As far as I
    know, their lives were not adversely affected by living in the Republic.
    
    The only thing I can think of is the stupid Divorce laws (or lack
    thereof). Any other fears ????
    
    Tony.
    

    
    What do you fear? Maybe you'd like some terrorist outfit trying to bomb
    you into becoming part of New Zealand. I admit a little far fetched,
    but in general people fear being coerced into union. You;ve heard of
    the phrase 'Shotgun wedding', right? 
    

Re:	<<< Note 1336.68 by KOALA::HOLOHAN >>>


The British propaganda machine has no need to demonize the Nationalists. The IRA
has done that without any outside assistance.

> Then this 2% minority of folks who consider themselves
> British, even though they were born in Ireland,

I don't understand this. Which 2% minority are you referring to?

Dave

Re .73

A few reasons why the Loyalists might not embrace a united Ireland:

The economy
Tax
Social security
Cost of living
Power of the Catholic Church
Divorce
Abortion
Contraception

Add to that what they have suffered at the hands of the IRA. There has long been
a suspicion that the Irish government has done less than it might to curtail
the activities of the IRA. For example, the extradition laws have never been
satisfactory from a British/NI viewpoint. Murder may be regarded as a political 
act provided that an automatic weapon is not used. Thus the state is seen as
sheltering and protecting those who maim and kill.

Dave

    
    >divorce
    >abortion
    >contaception
    >TAX
    
    ...But think of how they would all be "saved" from Hell on the
    day of judgement
    
    Mick -) -)

 re. .76
  The 2% I'm talking about is the minority of folks 
  (north east Irish Loyalists) who consider themselves
  British (ie. 1,000,000 out of 50,000,000).


  The British government needs to start working towards
  peace.  It needs to stop colluding with loyalist
  terror squads, and to start answering the questions
  that Sinn Fein is asking it.  Once they do that they
  could begin to undo the years of damage they have
  done, and start working as persuaders, to allay the
  fears of the folks who call themselves loyalists.

  Everyone of the "fears" you mentioned can be addressed
  via negotiations.  But those negotiations can't 
  happen if the Unionist maintain their veto over
  British policy in north east Ireland, and especially
  if the British government refuses to immediately
  sit down at the peace table.

                Mark

 

  >The British government needs to start working towards
  >peace. 

    It is.

    >It needs to stop colluding with loyalist
  >>terror squads, 

    It doesn't.

    >and to start answering the questions
  >that Sinn Fein is asking it.  

    Sinn Fein are not as important as they would like people to believe.
    As has been said before they,represent a very small minority of the
    people in NI.So the peace process will move on with or with out them.


    >Once they do that they
    >could begin to undo the years of damage they have
    >done, and start working as persuaders, to allay the
    >fears of the folks who call themselves loyalists.

     The majority of the people in NI can make up their own mind,they do
    not need to be "persuaded" by anyone.

>    Everyone of the "fears" you mentioned can be addressed
>  via negotiations.  But those negotiations can't 
>  happen if the Unionist maintain their veto over
>  British policy in north east Ireland


    You just don't get it do you....You have know idea of the level of
    hatred between the two side.
    
    > and especially
  >if the British government refuses to immediately
  >sit down at the peace table.

     What's so out rages about what the BG want,"Stop killing and then
    we'll talk".makes sense to me.....and millions of others.


    SCott
 

 re. .79

 People committed to peace would not continue to 
 collude with loyalist terror gangs, and would 
 immediately sit down at the peace table with their
 "enemies".

 As for your refusal to believe that the British
 fores collude at a high level with the loyalist 
 death squads, I can only say that your beliefs do
 not match the facts as presented by human rights
 organizations (AI for one), and human rights activists
 in north east Ireland (Father Des Wilson for one).

 The peace process will not move anywhere unless the
 folks who are at war immediately sit down at the
 peace table.

"What's so out rages about what the BG want,"Stop killing and then
we'll talk".makes sense to me.....and millions of others."

 I'll tell you, the BG wants the folks it's at war
 with to stop for 3 months, but makes no concession
 that they will stop their collusion with loyalist
 terror gangs, or their continued littany of human
 rights violations directed against nationalists.

                     Mark

    Ok Mark, so what will the IRA lose by stopping the campaign for 3
    months. Nothing!
    
    What would they gain for this action: a seat at the talks table and a
    moral victory of sorts over the loyalist terrorists.
    
    The way I see it if the IRA came in from the cold now and began talking
    the loyalist will escalate their violence in an effort to taunt the IRA
    back into the fray. However its then that the IRA need to sit tight as
    continuing terrorist activity by the loyalist paramilitaries will only
    lead to their demonisation (to borrow a metaphor) in the media.
    
    This won't happen however as the IRA don't care about peace, they're
    only really interested in what they can get out of the whole mess
    politically. Why be an elected politician, who could be out on his ear
    at the next election  when you have respect out the
    barrel of a gun right now.
    
    Joe. 

    I agree with Joe.  The IRA should call a cease fire, irrespective
    of what Britain does.  Maybe a cease fire would be enough to set
    into motion a discussion of British withdrawal.  Certainly, the
    public eye would shift over to Britain.  I realize the nasty
    actions each side has endured and provoked, but eventually you
    have to say enough is enough.
    
    Sinn Fein won a major political war with Britain concerning the
    U.S. visa.  Momentum is on their side now.

re     <<< Note 1336.76 by NEWOA::GIDDINGS_D "The third world starts here" >>>
>A few reasons why the Loyalists might not embrace a united Ireland:

>The economy
>Tax
>Social security
>Cost of living
    All good financial reasons although I would have thought that the economy 
    of the ROI is in far better shape than the economy of NI. I also thought 
    that the cost of living was pretty similar between the ROI and Britain. 
    Anyone got any up-to-date figures?
    
>Power of the Catholic Church
    Not as powerful as they imagine, not at the government level. The CC
    *does* have a lot of infulence with the man in the street thru their
    Sunday Mass sermons. I think this is a diminishing infulence as new
    generations come along.
    
>Divorce
    Unbelieveable that there is no divorce in the ROI although from the
    current indications this may change after the next referendum. The lack
    of divorce is on religious grounds and if I was a loyalist I wouldn't
    have anything to do with the republic until laws like this were
    changed.
    
>Abortion
    There's no abortion in NI either.
    
>Contraception
    I thought contraception was freely available in the ROI.
    
    
    Tony.

    
    re- SF visa
    
    	Statement this morning (after Major's visit) from US, 
    
    No more visa's issued to SF until the IRA stop the violence.
    
    

re 80
 
> I'll tell you, the BG wants the folks it's at war
> with to stop for 3 months, but makes no concession
> that they will stop their collusion with loyalist
> terror gangs, or their continued littany of human
> rights violations directed against nationalists.


    Q: What has the IRA gained in the last 3 months

    A:NOTHING!.

     So we're no closer to peace than we were 3 months ago.Just think how
    much the peace process would have moved in the IRA had stopped their 
    killing 3 months ago.

     Jerry Adams shot his mouth off in the US about how he was going to 
    do this that and the other to get peace....what's he done...nothing.

     Just think how much pressure SF/IRA would have out on the BG if we
    were now at the 3 month of no action.You're yer own worst enemy.
    
    
    SCott

 Q: What has the British government gained in the last
   3 months of refusing to explain their declaration,
   and continuing their collusion with the loyalist
   death squads.

 A: They've managed to kill more innocent nationalists,
    and have used their media machine to try and paint
    Sinn Fein as the hold-outs.  They've also managed
    to hold off any possibility of peace.



 What would have been lost by having the British explain
 their contradictory remarks on the declaration?
 What would have been lost by having the British 
 stop their collusion with the loyalist death squads?

 In 3 months the British could have cleansed themselves
 so that they would have had a right to sit down at
 a peace table.

                        Mark

    
    
    And so it goes on and on and on and on and on...........
    
    
    
    SCott

    Mark H.
    
    You seem to have forgotten to answer my question,  please reply if only
    to show me and others that we have misjudged you and that you do posses an
    opinion of your own.  Like you said Mark "as a father of three
    children"  I hope that you don't teach them to ignore questions.
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce

    re.87

     BTW The security forces have killed no one this year.


    SCott

    
    
    
                   <<< PEAR::DKB100:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< SOAPBOX.  Just SOAPBOX. >-
================================================================================
Note 1140.194             Gerry Adam's visit to the USA               194 of 196
BLKPUD::CHEETHAMD                                    61 lines   2-MAR-1994 07:49
                             -< Further thoughts >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  re .177 in particular " crocodile tears concerning the IRA don't impress 
me." and many others in general.

   The fact that the moderators would probably delete the reply prevents me 
using the language that immediately springs to mind regarding the above 
quote,instead let me relate a little personal experience.

   As I stated in my original note we live quite close to where the Warrington 
bomb was planted. My wife is the head teacher of a junior school in the area 
and a 10 year old girl in her school was involved in the explosion. The girl in 
question was standing next to one of the children who was ripped apart by a 
fragments from the bin that the bomb was planted in. The girl is now virtually 
dumb, all she does is make drawings showing balloons with BANG in them, she is 
receiving extensive psychiatric help and unsurprisingly suffers from 
nightmares. I would personally regard it as a great pleasure and priviledge to 
tear the murdering hypocritical b******s who planted that bomb to pieces with 
my bare hands. This also applies to the apologists and sympathizers for such 
atrocities.

   re miscarriages of justice in general. As is stated in previous notes 
miscarriages of justice have certainly happened, are regretted by most 
people, and efforts such as appeal hearings to uncover then and compensation 
to try make some amends to those wrongly convicted are to be applauded. All 
societies will attempt to protect themselves from terrorists and 
murderers, given the atrocities that the IRA have committed and the fact that 
the police are composed of human beings who get disgusted and angry in the 
same way as the rest of us I'm pleased that in the most part those who have 
been convicted are demonstrably guilty. As a rider to this and to Mr Toohey's 
comments regarding army activities in Ireland I'd like to hear his comments on 
the Phoenix program. This was an official program run by the CIA in Vietnam 
which undertook to assassinate Vietnamese SUSPECTED of being Viet Cong cadres. 
As Mr Toohey has stated that he was involved in Vietnam I would be interested 
in any comments he has to make on this.

  re the NI situation in general. Adams failure to convince the rest of the 
army council to renounce violence has now resulted in a further step back 
for the peace process. Due to this failure the Official Unionists have 
now decided that they are now longer prepared to talk to the Southern 
government regarding cross border institutions. Can the IRA apologists not 
see that the IRA is the main obstacle to a lasting peace in Ireland and 
eventual re-unification. Can they not understand that if the British were to 
follow the simplistic slogan "Brits out" that a bloodbath would result,with 
loyalist terrorist groups targeting innocent catholics. Non of the IRA 
aplogists we have seen in this note have cared to comment on the 
fact,reiterated a number of times, that the IRA (Sinn Fein) gets 10% of the 
vote or less, and even get a minority of the Republican vote.. comments please 
gentlemen.

  Finally a query which might possibly be answered from the other side of the 
pond. Messrs Toohey et al obviously hate all "Brits", the more mature of us 
tend to take people as individuals rather than members of some imagined racial 
stereotypical group I would guess, but hating all "Brits" is their privledge. 
My query is whether this is a purely american attitude, I've visited 
Ireland, both North and South, a number of times on company business, met some 
very nice people, and had some very convivial evenings, both in Dublin and 
Belfast (Have you been there Mr Toohey?). What I have never encountered is the 
blind racial bigotry to be found in some of the replies to this note. I'd 
welcome any enlightnment on this.

                                     Dennis  

 re. .89
  What question?  Your note that's filled with 
  accusations?

 re. .87
  Not through lack of trying, besides the loyalist
  death squads with whom they collude have done
  their murderous best.

               Mark

 
    
    
 >> Not through lack of trying,
    
    
     when ?
    
    
    
    SCott

    Mark.
    
    Your reply shows the true level of your maturity.  However no one will
    be suprised by that.  The question was.::
    
    DO YOU SUPPORT THE IRA AND THEIR CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHILDREN.
    
    the answer can only be yes or no.
    
    So that there is no misunderstanding this time Mark I have put the
    QUESTION in Uppercase characters (big letters to you Mark)  It has a
    line all on it's own in the middle of the note.  If you require any
    further clarification (I see now where Gerry Adams gets it from) 
    Please do not hesitate to reply in this conference.
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce (who's really pleased he learned to read before starting to go
    into notes)

                  <<< TALLIS::S2:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CELT.NOTE;1 >>>
                               -< Celt Notefile >-
================================================================================
Note 1336.48               Joint Declaration on Peace                   48 of 94
YUPPY::MILLARB                                       21 lines  27-FEB-1994 09:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To Mark Holohan.
    
    Mark I to am a father of a ten year old son.  I guess where we differ
    is my son has to live in the shadow that so willingly lend you support
    to whilst ensuring that your children are kept about as far away from
    it as is humanly possible.
    
    Maybe me and almost everybody else in this conference misses something
    in your Mark.  But you sure as hell come across as a supporter of
    the IRA and therefore a supporter of their campaign against children.
    
    If I have it wrong then please print that you do not support the IRA.
    
    Please only answer this one line.  Do not go into your usual British
    Toadie facist at war with retoric.
    
    Either you support the IRA and their campaign or you don't.
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce

    Mark H
    
    I posted the original note for you again.  I'm struggling to see all
    the accusations you refer to.  Still you can point them out with your
    reply can't you.
    
    Have a nice safe day.
    
    Bruce

 re. .94

  The question has no meaning as it is based on a
  false premise.  The IRA do not have a campaign 
  against children.

 re. .95
  The bottom line is that unfortunately, my children
  grow up in a much more dangerous environment than
  yours.


  Now that I've answered your questions, please
  answer mine.

  Do support the British forces and their campaign
  against Irish children?

                           Mark

>  The question has no meaning as it is based on a
>  false premise.  The IRA do not have a campaign 
>  against children.

     What was Warrington???



>  Do support the British forces and their campaign
>  against Irish children?


     There is no such campaign...other than the one in your imagination.
    
    
    SCott
    

    The questions I see being posed are of the type
    "Do you still beat your wife?".  Cleverly worded
    and made to put the receiver on the defensive.
    
    Both sides in the conflict are guilty of civilian
    murders whether or not it was an IRA bomb in a
    fish shop or a British soldier shooting up cars
    at a checkpoint.
    
    Arguing endlessly about who is to blame or who supports
    one particular side will not solve the conflict. Let's
    instead move forward and discuss efforts to build peace
    and demilitarize the region.
    
    It's getting monotonous reading these replies.
    
    /g

    RE: .94  by YUPPY::MILLARB 
    
    >DO YOU SUPPORT THE IRA AND THEIR CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHILDREN.
    
    So, it's back to the McCarthy hearings again, is it?
    

    
    Not really. Many of the people Tailgunner Joe went after hadn't written
    as many notes.
    

    Actually, asking Holohan questions is a pointless exercise. Recently I
    asked him many times "Do you believe that the Warrington bombing was a
    cowardly act?". A question which, unlike those recently posed, does not
    resemble "Do you beat your wife", but which, like those recently posed,
    Holohan chose to completely ignore, and which required a simple yes/no
    answer.
    
    I've given up debating with him, or asking him questions. As I said at
    the time, his silence on that matter, and his utterances before and
    after that, have led me to an inescapable and inevitable conclusion.
    
    Laurie.

    Re. 97
    
    Mark  shame on you !!  If your pals knew what you were saying.
    
    >> Do Support the British ..........
    
    Still it looks like your starting to see the light.
    
    Next time you visit Planet Earth give us a shout we could go for a beer
    together.
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce

		BRITISH MOLE IN NORAID

TUNBRIDGE WELLS (Rueters) - Documents found in the home of the former
head of MI6, General Sir Arthur Pakenham, indicate that a British
citizen now living in the United States is a mole in Noraid (the
American organisation that supplies the PIRA with weapons and funds).
	Pakenham's papers were to be indexed by the British Museum
when the documents were discovered.  According to very reliable
sources in the PMO, the Prime Minister has been aware of the mole and
has kept the Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Albert Reynolds, apprised of
the situation.
	Sources in the Foreign Office indicated that the mole works
for a Massachuset-based hi-tech manufacturer which enables him access
to a world-wide network of Noraid and PIRA sympathizers.  The same
sources said that the mole, who was born in England but moved to
America in his teens, was recruited by MI6 with the cooperation of the
FBI and CIA.  No details were given about the date of recruitment or
duration of his activities; his codename was "MH".
	Attempts to contact his family in London were unsuccessful,
but colleagues in America who have known him and his activities in a
vast computer network expressed shock at the news.  As one colleague
in Spit Brook, MA stated, "He was the finest example of the support 
that Irish-Americans provide to the struggle in Northern Ireland, 
I guess he really stuck to his British roots after all".
	Sources in Whitehall said that during the last year, the
mole's work had become too strident, "drawing too much attention". 
One source indicated that the mole "protests too much, we had to cut
him loose.  Most of his rantings were unbelievable and embarrassing,
destroying any credibility that would have continued to endear him to the
Irish-Americans".
	CNN's Larry King was contacted in Los Angeles, during the
earthquake, that the mole wished to have representation whenever Sinn
Fein was interviewed.  As Mr. King knew at the time that Mr. Adams was
eventually to appear in the US, he agreed to an opposing viewpoint.  A
Mr. Trotter was suggested by the mole to represent his case.  Mr.
Trotter has been cited in MI6 files as the mole who proceeded MH.
	As recently as February of this year, Mr. Trotter and MH have
been observed attending Irish language classes.  This was seen by
informed sources of the CIA as an attempt to get back into the good
graces of MI6 and MI5, for future monetary considerations.
	;^)  ;^)  ;^)  ;^) ;^)  ;^)  ;^)  ;^) ;^)  ;^)  ;^)  ;^) 

    
    Hope you don't get 'mole mail' demanding retraction :-).
    

re. .104

  Well, the cat's out the bag, now everyone knows
  you're stupid.

               Mark

 P.S.
  Would you be the same Rushton, Eastland duo found
  in a British apartment, dressed in women's clothing,
  attempting to (well I can't really print it here). :-)

    
    That's not fair cuz as you know, if we return the insult we run
    the risk of having to see your illiterate mail messages exhorting
    deletion. 
    

    
    great laugh for a Friday afternoon that one!! :>)
    
    Bill

    
    RE .107
    
    Chris,
    
    	Are you implying that Mark is advocating the censorship of an
    opposing parties views ??
    
    Gordon...
    

    
    Makes quite a habit of it it seems.
    

  >>Well, the cat's out the bag, now everyone knows
  >>you're stupid.

  >>Mark
    
    Aw, c'mon!!  With smiley faces and all, a little (granted, very little)
    bit of humour and you have to become offensive.
    
    But, what the hell, I've been called worse.
    
    Have the day you deserve.
    
    Yours in stupidity,
    
    Pat

This is a very heated discussion!

It is also being conducted by regurgitating the propaganda of all sides.

RE: What would happen if the British Army pulled out of Ireland? Probably
    not very much. The British propaganda has been constant for a number of years
    in forcasting a civil war. However, Irish and Scots-Irish live quite
     happily together in the USA, England, Canada, Australia, NZ and
    surprisingly (perhaps for some respondents in this note) in Ireland.
    Irish/Scots-Irish were distributed all over the Island before 
    partition and there was no mass movement across the new border.
    The Irish Government has long proven the IRA's deadliest enemy (when it
    suits them) and would be able to control the situation far better
    than any other Govt.. 

RE: IRA wants to control all Ireland.
    Again this is mostly propaganda. When it was in vogue to consider 
    Communists as society's worst enemy the IRA were painted as Communists.
    Now that nobody would believe that any more the same propaganda 
    message has changed to suit the times.  If a United Ireland ever comes
    into being the IRA would disappear (or be removed) very quickly.

RE: Warrington. This should be condemmed by all sane people. It was a futile
    exercise directed at people who have no influence over the future of Ireland.
    It was just as futile as the killing of thousands by the fire-bombs in
    Dresden in WW2. Just as futile as the bombing of thousands of innocents
    all over the British Empire between the two world wars. 
    I'm not in any sense claiming that one offsets the other, rather before
    we call Mr Holohan to justify the bombing in Warrington consider the
    sentiment of the biblical saying "Let him who is without sin cast the first
    stone".

Mark

    
    What a ludicrous argument. Because of what happened in a world war
    (that saved Ireland from fascism too), that's supposed to mean wd can't
    criticize the IRA for being terrorist scum, which they undoubtedly are,
    whatever apologia I see attempting to crawl between the lines in the
    previous reply. As to what happens if the army moves out of Northern
    Ireland, leaving it to the RUC to police the terrorists of both sides,
    can you say "Beirut". 
    

    
    By the way, there's a guy on soc.culture.celtic in a topic about 
    Irish-American input into the NI situation, who's bleating the same
    line of IRA/Sinn Fein propaganda we are innured to seeing here. Check
    out how many Irish citizens, both in Ireland, north and south, and in
    the US, are trying to tell him what the true situation is, where the
    IRA injure more Catholics through knee-cappings and the rest of their
    gangsterish tactics than anyone else. 
    

    Typical British propaganda has Ireland in a full scale civil war,
    if the British military were to leave Ireland.  Instead I believe
    a military pullout would be a catalyst for peace, provided that
    all groups were fairly represented in a new police force of NI.
    
    As other noters have pointed out, people of different religious
    and political backgrounds seem to get along just fine in the
    Republic.

> provided that
> all groups were fairly represented in a new police force of NI.
    
That's an easy thing to say, but a difficult thing to achieve.

Dave

    re .115
    
    While I'd like to agree with you, I'm afraid you underestimate the
    hard-line stance of a sizeable amount of the Northern Loyalist
    community. Loyalist terrorists while not as well armed or organised as
    the IRA have been more lethal in the last two years than the IRA and
    far more indescriminate (even by IRA standards). I don't think its
    propaganda that such people will not take a United Ireland "lying
    down". While an imposed United Ireland would probably not reach a
    Beirut scenario, even if the whole country was brought to the current
    level in the North it would be a disaster for the people of the
    Republic and the lot of the people of the North would probably get
    worse, as British Government subsidies dried up. Remember 50% of the
    workforce in NI is employed by the state.
    
    Joe.

    RE: .117                                   
    
    Joe, I never mentioned a "United Ireland" in my note.  What I speak
    about is a NI that polices itself, with a police force made up of
    equal members from both communities, and without the British military
    to back up one particular side.
    
    A united Ireland is a desirable (in my opinion) but very different goal,
    and to be achieved only by agreement by both communities.
    
    I believe a non-partisan police force can be succesfully implemented
    under the supervision of the peoples in NI, and British and Irish
    (Republic) authorities.  As with any plan there is some risk of a deeper
    civil war within NI.  However, there are things which can alleviate
    the transition and build trust among the communities, such as
    	- gradual, phased withdrawal of British troops
    	- permanent independent supervision of NI police force by Irish
    	  and British
    	- integrated police force in NI (50/50)
    	- integrated patrols
    	- continual exchange of personel thoughout NI
    
    I really believe that a demilitarization of NI is the only way to
    secure peace in province.  The timing and decision of joining the
    Republic is disjoint from demilitarization.
    
    If done correctly a British military withdrawal is a catalyst to peace.
    
    /george

    George,
    
    apologies for reading more into your note than was intended. I also
    think that your suggestion has merit. It would certainly allow a
    situation where it could be really seen had anything improved since the
    days of the Stormont government in relation to civil rights. It would
    also require a tight and absolutely impartial control structure. I
    doubt that either the UK or the Irish government or both would be
    suitable.
    
    Joe.

    
    Ireland is not in a 'full scale civil war'. Not yet it isn't. And for
    the Loyalists to refuse to be bombed into union is not "British
    propaganda'.
    

    
    
    Has anyone done a "Show Moderator" lately ??			:-)
    
    
    keVin

    Nice one.....
    
    I think the Pope should be a moderator as well..., after all its really
    all his fault :-)
    
    Joe 

MANTON ADVOCATES PEACE IN NORTHEAST IRELAND

Congressman Thomas Manton recently spoke on the floor of the United States
House of Representatives on the issue of a united Ireland.  In his speech,
Manton called upon the Clinton administration to continue to advocate a peace
plan for northeast Ireland.

Congressman Manton, who is chairman of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs,
and who was recently chosen Grand Marshal of New York City's 233rd Annual St.
Patrick's Day Parade, reaffirmed his commitment for peace in northeast
Ireland.

Manton stated, "I think it's appropriate that we join to discuss prospects for
a United Ireland at this juncture.  In the last several months, those of us
concerned about human and civil rights in northeast Ireland have had reason
for hope.  This optimism began when the most important Catholic leaders in
northeast Ireland, John Hume, the leader of the SDLP party and Gerry Adams,
the leader of Sinn Fein, announced that they had craft a historic plan to end
civil strife in northeast Ireland.  Later, British Prime Minister John Major
and Irish Prime Minster Albert Reynolds took another step to encourage the
peace process by issuing their joint Declaration of Peace. More recently,
President Clinton's decision to allow Gerry Adams into the United States last
month provided an important opportunity for Mr. Adams , whom the British have
silenced through censorship in his own country, to share the perspective of a
substantial segment of the Catholic population in northeast Ireland.

While these events have been positive, change in northeast Ireland is o=long
overdue.  We cannot be satisfied by the encouraging gestures we have received
from Mr. Major, Mr. Reynolds or President Clinton.  We cannot be satisfied
because we cannot allow any more young lives to be sacrificed to the ongoing
sectarian strife in northeast Ireland.

Several weeks ago, Amnesty International released a troubling report entitled,
"Political Killings in Northern Ireland," which noted that more than 150
people have been killed by crown forces in northeast Ireland during the last
20 years.  About half of those killed were unarmed individuals.  Most were
Catholic.  Disturbingly, Amnesty International expressed the view that there
was convincing evidence that British crown forces in northeast Ireland
practice a policy of deliberately killing suspects rather than arresting them.
 The gravity of such a charge cannot be overstated.  The idea of the RUC
shooting suspects, thereby taking upon themselves the role of investigator,
prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner is shocking to ,e as a former police
officer, and as an American.  To date, the British have still not responded to
Amnesty's charges.

Unfortunately, these kind of charges against British occupying forces in
northeast Ireland are not new.  While international media attention is often
rightly given to the tragedy if IRA activity in Ireland, in the US we do not
often hear of the equally gruesome violence perpetrated by the loyalist
paramilitary groups against Catholics there.  My point today is not that one
type of murder is worse than another, but rather, that after more than 20
years and the deaths of more than 3,400 people, overall, the time has come to
stop simply laying blame at one side or another and bring peace to the whole
of Ireland.

Those of us who have joined here today believe that we can no longer be
patient with small steps towards peace.  We must offer support to President
Clinton, and the Irish and British Prime Ministers for their efforts up to
this point.  But we must urge them to do more.  The fact is, northeast Ireland
is one of the last vestiges of the British colonial system.   British rule in
northeast Ireland is enforced today by the barrel of the gun.  TO me, it seems
the sensible thing, from all standpoints, would be to create a government for
all of Ireland which protects the rights of both Protestants and , encouraged
integration rather than reinforces separation and is determined by the ballot
rather than by bombs and fear.  I firmly believe this is an Ireland that the
Irish people fervently desire.  Of course, as Americans we cannot make peace a
reality.  Although we can continue to speak out and urge our President to
encourage the British and Irish governments to support peace, peace must
ultimately come from the Irish people themselves.  However, they must be given
the support necessary to achieve this goal.  I pledge my support, and ask my
colleagues to join me in continuing to call attention to the suffering in
northeast Ireland, and speak out until the goal of peace for all of Ireland is
realized."

Congressman Thomas Manton is happy to attack British rule 'by the barrel of
the gun' but is strangely silent on the IRA's attempt to coerce the Loyalists
into a united Irelend by the bomb and the bullet. He conveniently ignores the 
fact that the Loyalists (the majority in NI, remember) want to remain part
of the UK.  How he proposes to 'create a government for all of Ireland...
determined by the ballot' I'm not sure, since the ballot in both the North
and South, judged by Sinn Fein's share of the vote, says different.  

When I see phrases like 'British occupying forces' I expect this sort of 
drivel. It's stuff like this that gives Americans a bad name.

Dave

    
    They're all like that. They think all they have to do is drone on about
    British injustice (which of course occurs, no denial from any of us),
    Diplock courts, Amnesty int'l, job discrimination, while praising the
    IRA as freedom fighters, and that will make their case for them. And it
    does, with the braindead. 
    

re. .124

  Strangely silent on the IRA?

  Mr. Manton says, and I quote, "While international
  media attention is often rightly given to the tragedy
  of IRA activity in Ireland,".

  It seems you conveniently ignored his statements in
  your attempt to demonize him.

                       Mark

    
    Looks like Holohan found a new word. "demonize". Add that to the
    Diplock courts, AI and the price of eggs in the Catholic areas of
    Belfast.
    

Mr Manton devotes 16 words to the IRA in a long tirade against the British.
Looking at his own figures, the security forces are responsible for 150 deaths
out of a total of 3,400. That means that 3250 deaths were not the responsibilty
of the security forces.  

Methinks his emphasis is a little misplaced.

Dave

 re. .128

 Perhaps it is because Mr. Manton, like many others
 around the world, has come to the conclusion that
 the British are the problem in north east Ireland.

                       Mark

    
    I don't think even you believe that Holohan. I think it might have
    begun to penetrate that dense fog that the problem is that the
    Loyalists can't and won't be bombed into union. By the way, when are
    you going to get out of the land you stole from the Native Americans
    when you were planted in North America?
    

re. .130

   I'm not really too interested in what you believe
   Eastland.  It doesn't really have any relevance to
   reality.
                     Mark

    
    Judging by your inability to reply to the hundreds of outstanding
    questions addressed to you, I'd say you demonstrate only too well the
    depth of your understanding of the situation and your lack of interest
    in a real exchange. All you can do is repeat your little mantras one
    after the other, like a parrot.
    

    re 127
    
    Sorry Chris but "demonize" is an old favorite of Mark's,
    normally used in the form of
    
    "....the British media's demonisation of ______" 

    
    It _is_pretty pathetic isn't it. I'm almost missing Drotter. At least
    he eventually answered questions addressed to him, albeit with a unique
    use of vocabulary. 
    

>   I'm not really too interested in what you believe
>   Eastland.  It doesn't really have any relevance to
>   reality.

I can't believe that you have the arrogance (or stupidity) to post
that here, given your own track record.

    Last night the IRA executed a motar attack on Heathrow Airport. Four
    mprtars were fired and hit the northern runway. Luckily none exploded.
    If they had or one had hit an aircraft on take off there could have
    been 200 to 300 killed. The only damage done was to some cars in the
    car park when the car holding the motars exploded. This happened at the
    same time that the government was voting to maintian or finish the
    Prevention of Terrorism Act. It is expected to have caused great damage
    to the Peace Declaration.

     Surely Simon, you must realise that this was an accident. The bombers
    were clearly aiming for the military part of Heathrow. Any suggestion
    that they were attempting to kill innocent civilians is the kind of
    scurrilous lie put about in the British Government's pathetic attempts
    to demonise the IRA.
    
    Sorry? What military part of Heathrow? [fx: pages rustling] Oh, there
    isn't one...
    
    Laurie.

Heathrow is the world's busiest international airport, handling 47 million
passengers per year. At peak times, such as the time of last night's attack,
there is more than one aircraft movement per minute. But for the grace of
God we could be reading about another Lockerbie this morning.

I can't express in words my contempt for the scum who did this.

Dave

    I am taking my family on holiday in 11 days time, to Eurodisney. My
    children have never flown before, and once they have been told they
    are going, will be really excited at the prospect of flying for the
    first time.
    I view what happened last night with great concern. I used to work at 
    Heathrow and know just how busy it is at that time. Not just the
    aircraft movements but all the cars and lorries going about their
    business.
    I think the IRA have shown their complete and utter contempt to ANY
    peace moves that are going on and have shoved two fingers up at
    everyone and said F*** you, we dont give a SH*T.
    
    It's a great pity they didn't blow themselves up at the same time.
    
    But then again, that would have made them heroes, not just the cowardly
    SCUM they are.
    
    
    				Dave

    Boys, boys! It's all the fault of the British Government. Why? Because
    (and I'm not making this up), they aren't serious about peace! If the
    British government were to remove the totally unreasonable
    pre-condition to allowing terrorist groups a seat at the peace-table,
    this would never have happened!
    
    Laurie.

    If the cowardly scum who did this are caught then they can look forward
    to a fair "British" trial and then be sent to jail for 300 years
    because of all the people they might, could have, nearly killed.

  

 Deja vu!  Didn't the British pull a stunt like this
 about 20 years ago as some other "anti_terrorist"
 legislation was being debated?  All in the name of
 forcing the Irish government to clamp down on the
 Irish Republican Army.  Of course the British military
 succeeded in that plot at the cost 25 Irish lives.

                      Mark
 


 

 After the "cowardly scum" (ie. random Irish National
 pulled off the streets of London), is held incommunicado
 for 7 days, and tortured, we'll have a "British" inspired
 confession on the sinking of the titanic (er. I mean the
 mortar attack on Heathrow), that will hold up in any
 "British" court.

                    Mark

    
    The giant brain hums into action again. Of course, the Jewish settler
    who killed 50 folks in the Hebron mosque was really a paid agent of the
    PLO. Duh! My brain hurtttt when I rote that.
    

 re. .144

"Duh! My brain hurtttt when I rote that."

 No doubt, a complete sentence and all.
 Austrolopithicus had a small cranial cavity, and now we
 know he suffered severe headaches when forced to think.

 Classic examples of his thoughts being:
 "Duh!, should I get up today"
 "Duh!, should I say I'm of special Welsh stock"
 "Duh!, should I say, live by the Armalite, die by the
 armalite"
 "Duh!, should I bleat, remove my note"

 Eastland, perhaps you should have another go at
 trepination to relieve the pressure.
                  Mark


     
 

> Eastland, perhaps you should have another go at
> trepination to relieve the pressure.
>                  Mark

bollocks, you can't even spell it, Mark.

    
    Give the lad credit. He is trying after all. But, mystery of mysteries,
    we haven't yet heard from him on the latest act of the brave freedom
    fighters, have we? You think it's worth waiting for? Or perhaps he
    might tell us all about his Congressman and the McBride principles, or
    the Diplock courts? 
    

>    fighters, have we? You think it's worth waiting for? Or perhaps he
>    might tell us all about his Congressman and the McBride principles, or
>    the Diplock courts? 
    
oh yes, I wait in anticipation of his well thought out and reasoned
debate, I'm sure I'm set to learn the real truth about the latest
incident from a cliche free rant, er I mean tirade, er...

I wonder if he'll use that fantastic `demonise' phrase again?

Chris.

    
    Wonder why .149 is set hidden? Wonder who requested it.
    

    I did because I'm fed up with the foul language and personal
    attacks.  Please tone it down.  Thank you.  /George

>    Wonder why .149 is set hidden? Wonder who requested it.
    
I wouldn't like to guess, but whoever it was wasn't quick enough.

Dave

    
    Mmm, well that's an improvement. One might be able to understand how
    upsetting it is for people living at the scene of these mindless
    attacks to hear pathetic conspiracy theories about them.
    

    I apologise for offending certain people, but it must be understood
    how frustrating it is for noters living in the UK. Whenever we have
    a bombing or shooting incident carried out by republican terrorists
    over here in the UK, certain noters the other side of the "pond" take
    great delight in laying the blame, very smugly, at the door of HMG.
    
    Twice last year both of my children were in buildings that were later
    found to have explosive devices in. I made a point of this, only to
    be told "What a dangerous place to have a holiday/live etc"
    
    I was very angered by this reply, as it almost dismissed the fact that
    my kids lives were put in danger by an irresponsible act. 
    
    It is the blinkered, unreasoning views held by some noters that caused
    me to vent my frustration and anger.
    
    Nothing to do with NI is straight forward, it is never black and white.
    There are good and bad on both sides, and until the senseless killings
    stop on all sides, nothing is going to get done.
    
    
    				Dave
    

    
    I wonder what would have been said in this conference if the brave
    freedom fighters had scored a diplomatic own goal by hitting an
    American Airlines 747 as it was landing; full of British soldiers
    disguised as American buisnessmen?
    
    Since one plane touches down at the rate of one every 50 seconds or
    there abouts, i doubt that American lives would not have been lost last
    night.
    
    So once again the IRA have given everyone, including America, the big V
    sign.
    I'd like to know which city would have been bombed by the Americans
    this time if one of their airliners had been hit last night?
    
    Bill

re. .154

  Apology accepted.

  I too have family in London, and have flown to/from
  Heathrow many times.  Unfortunately, given the
  abuses your government is reaping on the nationalist
  population, I'm not surprised this happened.  Though
  there is some serious doubt as to whether or not the
  IRA even did this, since the British have been known
  to commit these acts and blame the IRA.  Especially
  when there's a vote on for more oppressive legislation.

  We can all only hope that the British government will
  stop it's human rights violations, end it's jury-less
  trials, end it's collusion with loyalist terror gangs,
  and immediately sit down at the peace table, without
  one-sided pre-conditions.

                      Mark

    While I still dispute what you are saying, can you inform me of which
    incident you are referring to that happened 20 odd years ago which
    resulted in 25 deaths.
    
    			Curious,
    
    				Dave

Re: .113

You missed the bit about "between the wars". By the start of WW2 the RAF
had 20 years experience of bombing civilians. Nothing to do with
saving anyone from facism - everything to do with holding on to Colonies.

M

re. .157
 
 The bombing of Dublin and Monaghan in 1974.
 25 people died in Dublin, 6 died in Monaghan town.

    
    It's 'fascism'. It's true Britain did a lot of nasty things in its
    imperial days, including a brutal putdown of the Palestinian revolt in
    1936-1939. History is full of brutality. You could even put some USAF
    bombing raids in that category. I don't know how many civilians they
    bombed between the wars. Perhaps you could start a note on it. You
    could also tell us what relevance this has to present-day terrorist
    acts by the IRA, or are you claiming Britain deserves it?
    

    RE: .136  by SUBURB::FRENCHS 
    
    >Last night the IRA executed a motar attack on Heathrow Airport. Four
    
    Somebody executed a mortar attack.  How was it determined to be the IRA?
    

  Looks as if the British government intentionaly
  ignored the warning that the IRA had phoned in one
  hour before the attack on Heathrow. 
  Was the British government hoping that a U.S. carrier
  might get caught in the attack, and hence ignored
  the warning?  I hate to make this accusation, but
  the British have been known to do these things to
  influence U.S. public opinion.  

                    Mark

    I would find it very odd if the IRA were responsible for the
    mortars at Heathrow.  That said, here's the AP report...
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    

	LONDON (AP) -- Four mortar shells were fired toward Heathrow
Airport from a car Wednesday night following telephone warnings in
the name of the IRA, but police said none of the shells exploded
and no injuries were reported.
	A scheduled Concorde flight from New York touched down on the
targeted runway 17 minutes before the attack, Heathrow and British
Airways confirmed.
	Apparently as a result of firing the mortar shells, the car,
parked near a hotel close to the northern runway, caught fire and
exploded, a police spokesman said.
	``It was like the whole car park (parking lot) was on fire,''
said Piyush Kadiwar, who manages a cafeteria nearby. Police said up
to 10 vehicles were damaged.
	The runway was closed as authorities searched for shells but
Heathrow, one of the world's busiest airports, remained open.
Departing flights were delayed an average of 30 minutes and
arrivals 20 minutes, the airport said.
	Scotland Yard said in a statement that three of the four rounds
had been found intact and parts of the remaining one had also been
recovered. It first reported five mortar shells were fired, but
later said the total was four.
	Several telephone warnings that included recognized Irish
Republican Army code words were received, said Cmdr. David Tucker,
head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch.
	The attack came just before the House of Commons voted to renew
of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, aimed at the IRA and other
paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland.
	The IRA, which wants the British out of Northern Ireland, has
frequently used improvised mortars there and, in 1991, in a bold
daylight attack against the prime minister's official London
residence. Airports have not been an IRA target in the past.
	It was the biggest attack in London since Dec. 15, when prime
ministers John Major of Britain and Albert Reynolds of Ireland
offered the IRA's political allies a place in negotiations if the
violence stopped.
	The two prime ministers planned another meeting on their
Northern Ireland initiative Thursday.
	Home Secretary Michael Howard announced the attack in the
Commons as lawmakers were debating the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
	``I don't know if that incident is supposed to send some message
to this House as we conclude our debate,'' said Howard, the Cabinet
member responsible for law and order issues. ``But if it is, there
is only one conclusion which the House can responsibly take.''
	The House then voted to renew the act.
	Scotland Yard said the mortars were fired from a small Nissan
car in a parking lot at the Forte Excelsior Hotel on the perimeter
of the airport.
	The busy A4 highway nearby, a main route west from London, was
sealed off and the hotel was evacuated, Air News said.
	``I've come back from trying to sell Great Britain, and look
what's happened,'' said Matthew Wallace, manager of a Scottish
hotel who was on his way home from the International Tourism
Exchange convention in Berlin.
	``I wouldn't be surprised this was designed to kill the tourist
trade.''
	Heathrow, west of London, served 40.2 million international and
domestic passengers last year, ranking it fifth busiest in the
world.


    
    

    >Last night the IRA executed a motar attack on Heathrow Airport. Four
    		    ^^^
	You know this as fact? 

	 LONDON (Reuter) - IRA guerrillas signaled their contempt for
the British government and a faltering Anglo-Irish peace
initiative with a daring mortar strike on the world's busiest
international airport.
	 The Irish Republican Army's mortar salvo on London's
Heathrow airport Wednesday threatened to shatter the peace
plan's fragile credibility as Britain's Northern Ireland
minister and the Irish foreign minister entered talks about
Northern Ireland on Thursday.
	 The guerrillas came close to disabling the airport and
scoring a propaganda triumph with their mortar attack, which was
seen as a violent response to parliament's renewal Wednesday of
tough anti-terrorism laws.
	 Five mortars hit their target, one of the airport's main
runways, and could have caused devastation but they failed to
detonate. Nevertheless, the runway was closed while police
searched for more unexploded mortars and airline passengers
suffered lengthy flight delays.
	 Officials in London and Dublin insisted the attack had not
shaken their faith in the three-month-old peace initiative,
which seeks to persuade the guerrillas to stop fighting and join
talks on Northern Ireland's future.
	 But the attack on Heathrow, the IRA's first major strike
since the so-called Downing Street Declaration was launched,
left the diplomatic effort looking even more futile.
	 The IRA's renewal of its campaign on the mainland will make
it nigh impossible for Northern Ireland Secretary Sir Patrick
Mayhew and Ireland's Dick Spring to put an optimistic gloss on
the peace prospects after their routine meeting in London.
	 Hopes of a breakthrough have turned to scepticism and
frustration as the IRA's political wing Sinn Fein refuses to
make any firm response to the proposals without first securing
what it calls ``clarification'' of the key clauses.
	 The declaration, hailed at the time as an historic gesture
of reconciliation, asserts that Britain has no long-term
interest in Northern Ireland but gives the province's Protestant
majority an electoral veto over any link-up with Dublin.
	 There was no immediate claim of responsibility from the IRA,
whose ultimate aim is a united Ireland, but police and
government officials were in no doubt about who was responsible
for the early evening mortar strike.
	 The IRA used the same kind of car-mounted mortars against
Prime Minister John Major three years ago and only narrowly
missed the room where he was meeting his cabinet.
	 British officials condemned the latest mortar attack as a
``cynical'' gesture of defiance against parliament's decision to
renew the anti-terrorism statutes which allow police to hold
guerrilla suspects for up to a week without charge.
	 The laws must be routinely extended every year.
	 The home-made mortars were launched from the car park of an
airport hotel less than a mile (1.5 km) from Heathrow's northern
runway after a caller with an Irish accent telephoned various
news organizations with a bomb warning.
	 The caller told police to close the airport completely and
halt incoming flights but officers decided against disrupting
the busy flight center on the basis of what were described as
``unspecific'' warnings.
	 ``It is quite clear that the objective of the IRA was to
close the airport,'' said Home Secretary (interior minister)
Michael Howard. ``They have failed in that objective.''

>  Though
>  there is some serious doubt as to whether or not the
>  IRA even did this, since the British have been known
>  to commit these acts and blame the IRA.  
    
    
     He's gone,he's out a here,he's flipped...say hello to Captian Kirk when
    you pass him.
    
    
    SCott 

             Re all the doubters


      After every major attack by the IRA we get the"How do you know it
    was the IRA".If there was a phone warning(I missed the news as I'm
    night shift) they will have used a code word.The reason they use a code
    word is so they don't get blamed for other peoples wrong doings.And as
    was ridiculously suggested that HMG carries out attacks and blames then
    on the IRA.....don't you think the IRA might just deny these attacks,
    are there any denials for any attacks......NO!.So come on...lets try 
    and keep a grip on reality
    
    
    SCott

    RE: .167  by KURMA::SNEIL 
    
    >After every major attack by the IRA we get the"How do you know it was
    >the IRA".
    
    The reason I asked was that I've not had access to any of the news
    media since the first report of the attack.  I wanted to know if  the
    IRA had taken "credit" for it, or if this was just assumed.  Meanwhile
    I went and found this:
    
Article: 5049
From: [email protected] (Reuters)
Newsgroups: clari.world.europe.western,clari.news.terrorism,clari.news.aviation,clari.news.issues.conflict
Subject: IRA Say They Carried out Heathrow Mortar Attack
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 6:40:21 PST
 
	 DUBLIN, Ireland (Reuter) - The IRA Thursday claimed
responsibility for a mortar attack on London's Heathrow airport,
Ireland's state-run broadcasting service RTE said.
	 It said the Irish Republican Army, which fired four mortars
Wednesday night from a hotel parking lot across a perimeter
fence into the airport, insisted it had given specific warnings
about the attack nearly an hour before.
    
Article: 5050
From: [email protected] (AP)
Newsgroups: clari.world.europe.western,clari.news.terrorism,clari.news.aviation
Subject: IRA Claims Airport Attack
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 10:40:08 PST
 
	LONDON (AP) -- The Irish Republican Army on Thursday claimed
responsibility for a mortar attack on Heathrow airport, and its
leading political ally blamed Britain for prolonging the conflict
over Northern Ireland.
	Four mortar shells fired from an hotel parking lot Wednesday
night landed near the north runway but did not explode. No one was
injured but the north runway was shut down 40 minutes later and
many flights were delayed.
	It was the first big attack in London since Britain and Ireland
launched their Northern Ireland peace initiative Dec. 15. The
declaration offered the outlawed IRA's legal political ally Sinn
Fein a role in talks on Northern Ireland's future if the IRA called
off the violence.
	The IRA claimed responsibility in a statement given to RTE,
Ireland's state broadcasting service.
	Asked whether the deadline had now passed for the IRA and its
allies to accept the declaration, Irish Foreign Minister Dick
Spring said Thursday: ``I think it is very close to it.''
	Spring met in London with Britain's Northern Ireland secretary,
Sir Patrick Mayhew, who insisted there were ``very sensible grounds
for being hopeful'' that the two governments political parties in
the province could make progress with or without Sinn Fein.
	Prime Minister John Major told the House of Commons that the IRA
attack ``will make no difference whatever to the search for peace
in Northern Ireland.''
	Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein, blamed the attack on the
British government's refusal to answer his calls for
``clarification'' of the terms for talks.
	`` ...This attack comes in the middle of a stalemate. I would
ask now for John Major to end the stalemate,'' Adams said in a
radio interview with RTE.
	``There are causes of conflict, the conflict is ongoing. Every
so often there will be something spectacular to remind the outside
world,'' Adams said.
	The IRA, which issued a statement Thursday claiming
responsibility for the airport attack, has mounted bigger strikes
without apparently deflecting diplomatic efforts. Last year,
Britain and Sinn Fein continued their secret contacts despite a
massive IRA bomb in the financial district which killed one man and
caused millions in damage on April 24.
	The delay in closing the north runway and authorities' decision
to keep the airport open caused controversy.
	``It is intolerable that this incident put the lives of pilots,
their flight and cabin crews and their passengers at risk,'' said
Chris Darke, general secretary of the British Air Line Pilots
Association.
	Commander David Tucker of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist branch
said none of the shells hit an area actually used by aircraft.
	A spokeswoman for the airport said police had finished searching
the north runway and it was reopened at 9:55 a.m.
    

    And to top it all, Gerry Adams publicly sTated that there would be more
    suprises and these attacks would continue.
    
    It is obvious to me that Gerry Adams, Sinn Fein, The IRA...
    
    
    		DOES NOT WANT PEACE....
    

    Last night, they did it again; four more mortars near Terminal 4 which
    fortunately also failed to explode.
    
    Now Mark, refresh my memory. Tell me how it is that British that are
    refusing peace.
    
    The Downing Street Declaration states simply that peace talks are open
    to anyone *except* those who continue terrorist activities. There is
    no ambiguity. The IRA has shown in no uncertain terms that it is not
    interested in talking peace except on its own terms, terms of
    surrender by all parties with an opposing view.
    
    This is neatly underlined by the sectarian killing of a Protestant
    policeman last night in NI; the IRA have admitted responsibility.
    
    Go on Mark, tell me again.
    
    Laurie.

>  Looks as if the British government intentionaly
>  ignored the warning that the IRA had phoned in one
>  hour before the attack on Heathrow. 

I thought you might dredge this one up. In case you are not aware, one of the
IRA's tactics is to issue vague warnings then blame HMG/the police/the army/
Ian Paisley's aunt for not acting on them.

Had Heathrow been evacuated, guess where one of the evacuation areas is?
The car park from which the mortars were fired.

Dave

The Adams statement has been condemned by politicians on all sides, including
Northern Ireland Nationalists.

Dick Spring has said that the Heathrow attacks were not what he had been led
to expect and that Sinn Fein's credit is now 'very low, if not extinct'.

Dave

    To make matters worse, the Loyalists have killed someone today as well.
    
    They're all mad.
    
    Laurie.

    Hey, he sent me mail too, because I made a word-play on his name. He
    didn't threaten me as such, just suggested that "since we both might
    meet someday in a professional, or even perhaps a non-professional
    situation", it wasn't a good idea for me to continue to do so.
    Naturally, I have immediately stopped; I wonder what sort of friends he
    might have.
    
    Laurie.

    

    Folks
    
    It seems my note has been set hidden.  Therefore we have to assume that
    Mark H is a really nice guy who just enjoys nice pastimes (inset
    occasional bombings)
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce

    RE: .172  by PLAYER::BROWNL 
    
    >Hey, he sent me mail too, because I made a word-play on his name. He
    
    Hey, I made a word-play on his name and I didn't get any mail.  Waaaah!
    

After two attempts it seem our errant cousins ffrom the auld sod are better at
making whiskey that morters.  If it wasn't souch a tragic situation I'd be
inclined to suggest that they stick to store bought.

Tom

re: - what relationship to old atrocities?

 I was making a simple point here that the British Govt. (past ones) have
 used similar tactics. Perhaps an analogy is a burglar who has his house
 burgled is not likely to get much sympathy!

re: IRA not interested in peace.
 This is just propaganda. Everyone involved wants peace, the issue is
 upon who's terms that peace is based. Simply because one group doesn't
 want to get involved in another's route to peace doesn't mean that
 peace is not a goal.

RE: Did the IRA do it?

 Of course they did. They are the only ones waging such a campaign at the
 moment. Even if the British Govt. would sink to such levels as staging
 the incident themselves - they wouldn't have the need to. The IRA
 are waging war "by any means necessary" and have never tried to
 hide their involvment in such acts. It would be pointless as well.

RE: Are the British Govt' deliberately putting civilians in the Front Line
    and ignoring warnings?

 It is well known to the police that a current IRA tactic is to give only
 very vague descriptions of where an incident will occur. They deliberately
 do this to extend the economic impact well beyond the target area.  In fact
 there are many false alarms given with the correct code-words.

 If you listen to the Govt' spokesmen after such attacks, they don't keep
 a secret of their policy to minimize the economic impact. They didn't
 evacuate the Airport and they didn't close the runway. They tried to make
 a very obvious statement that the Airport was still running.

 There are obvious dangers if the respective policies are continued

Mark


 

    
    Oh sure, "The IRA want peace" on their terms, which are unacceptable,
    so they 'don't' want peace. Actually all this 'want peace' talk is
    silly. It's obvious the IRA want to continue blowing up people and
    buildings, and as long as they do the UDA,UFF etc will retaliate.
    It isn't the British or the RUC that's been doing the killing. Or don't
    you understand that? What do you think of a 'war' where one side
    refrains from killing the other.
    
    As for your lessons in British history, thanks. We all know what
    atrocities all nations under the sun have pereptrated through history.
    Most of our ancestors were guilty of it. This is utterly irrelevant to
    the situation on the ground today, and again I ask you, is this your
    justification for IRA terrorism? That the Brits killed civilians in
    the past? I don't know what your nationality is. Are you claiming your
    govt is blameless?
    
    Finally, do you think the IRA are justified in blowing up airports or
    runways to airports until the British pack up and go home? Then,
    when you've answered that, tell us what you think will happen in the
    North? 
    
    

    What I don't understand is why the IRA chose LHR: it must damage their
    standing in the international community, especially the US, as many
    foreign nationals would have been killed had the mortars exploded.
    
    Only 10 or so miles away is RAF Northolt, an airbase just as vulnerable
    to mortar attack (perhaps even more so) than LHR.
    
    Then the IRA would have been able to boast of a "legitimate target",
    rather than the indiscriminate killing of foreign nationals they would
    have achieved at LHR.
    
    Has the Army Council, as well as Adams, lost control of the ASUs ?
    
    John
    

>re: IRA not interested in peace.
> This is just propaganda. Everyone involved wants peace, the issue is
> upon who's terms that peace is based. Simply because one group doesn't
> want to get involved in another's route to peace doesn't mean that
> peace is not a goal.
    
    I tend to agree. One could argue both ways. That the IRA don't want
    peace because they keep on bombing. And that Britain doesn't want
    peace because they refuse to negociate the conditions of peace...
    
    The key point of the peace plan is the Unionist veto. The IRA will
    not give in to a Unionist veto over a United Ireland. And apparently
    the British will not give up the Unionist veto at this time.
    
    So where does that leave us?  Most everyone (British, southern Irish,
    and most northern Irish with the exception of hardcore loyalists) that
    I talk to tend to agree a United Ireland is the long term answer.
    
    So how do you get from here to there, in some time frame, without all
    the ugly violence?
    
    - Establish a political framework (devolved government) acceptable to
    all parties for initial implementation
    
    - Announce today a British military withdrawal at some specified date
    in the future provided all conditions are met
    
    - Integrate the NI police force with representatives from both
    communities, the British, and Irish garda�
    
    - Establish stiffer sentences for future terrorist activities
    (bring back the chair :vo )
    
    - Agree to a plan for future representation of NI, either in a
    federal structure (26 + 6), provincial structure (4 provinces),
    complete Unity
    
    - For power-sharing, establish some segments of government (such
    as judicial for example) in the North
    
    - To legally challenged person such as myself :v) the legal
    ramifications would appear daunting.  But establishing some legal
    board where problems of law could be addressed with consultation
    of both British and Irish authorities.
    
    - Agreement to change various objectionable laws in the Republic
    pertaining to divorce, etc...
    
    - Agreement to give British citizenship to children of people in NI
    who request it.  Also provide relocation assistance for those people
    wanting to move.
    
    - Financial and economic aid from the UK, European Community (that's
    what they're there for), and the US (whynot?)
    
    - Remove all border posts and security towers, re-establish all
    roads into and out of the North.
    
    - Build a major international airport in Tyrone and start reaping
    some of the US and European tourist trade
    
    - Enjoy the new peace...
                         

  What's being lost in the anti-IRA rhetoric, is the
  fact that the British forces are currently colluding
  with the loyalist death squads in attempts to murder
  and intimidate the nationalist population.  Would
  a government that wanted peace refuse to sit down at
  the peace table, would a government that wanted peace
  refuse to end it's collusion with the loyalist death
  squads?

  For all the whining that has gone on about the "mortar
  attack" on Heathrow, it should be pointed out that
  the Irish Republican Army has intentionaly been
  launching mortars that won't explode.  Their goal
  has been economic damage.

  Who in their right mind would take a chance and fly
  into Heathrow or Gatwick?  (Besides the Queen Mummy).

                     Mark

>  the Irish Republican Army has intentionaly been
>  launching mortars that won't explode.

How do you know this?

Dave

    
    Please remove the racist remark in -1. I also find it passing strange
    that you should be boasting that the IRA deliberately used duds, given
    how you approve of their using the real stuff in other places. 
    

    Any piece of metallic detritus (unexploded mortar or not) can cause a
    major disaster to an aircraft taking off or landing.  So it was still
    either naivety on the IRA's part (which I doubt a professional
    terrorist organisation has) or careless disregard as to the outcome of
    their actions on defenceless civilians (of which the IRA has a track
    record).
    
    There are many reports of IRA mortars failing to explode in various IRA
    attacks in NI, so it is more likely to be faulty equipment/operation
    that is the cause than the alleged soft-heartedness of the IRA.
    
    IMHO, the LHR and LGW attacks were ill-judged political actions by the
    IRA. There is no need to demonstrate "Look what we can do" (as if after
    Warrington, Harrods, City, Hyde Park, Birmingham, Dover, Guildford
    anybody in the UK needed reminding about the implicit vulnerability to
    terrorist attacks).
    
    All that happens is that they p*ss off foreign nationals travelling
    through the busiest international airport in the world, most of whom
    don't GAF about what is happening in NI.  
    
    In addition, they have given Westminster and the Dail the perfect
    opportunity to hang Adams out to dry as being totally untrustworthy.
    (Maybe that's what the IRA Army Council want: perhaps Adams is so out
    of favour now with the IRA bosses that they want to nullify him without
    assassinating him and blaming it  "on security forces".)
    
    Politics is dirty.
    
    John
    

 British government is continuing to ignore the IRA's
 warnings and according to AP.

``The luck of the British authorities who are deliberately
taking these calculated and cynical gambles with peoples' lives
will inevitably run out,'' it said.

"Lines of angry passengers waited for telephones and toilets or
to buy food. Others sat slumped over their luggage. The public
address system poured out a stream of messages announcing
cancellations, delays and advice to passengers to go home and
consult their travel agents."

 According to Reuters:

``We can cope with one or two incidents, but if they
continue and our customers suffer, then we'll have to consider
trucking cargo down to continental airports instead of using
Heathrow,'' said Steve Finch, managing director of Burlington
Air Express U.K. Ltd., a major British air freight forwarder.

Damage to the airport, which has just spent $44 million
upgrading facilities, was scant, but the Irish Republican Army's
aim was to inflict financial pain with high-profile attacks on
British economic and commercial targets.

    
    You sound rather pleased. Wonder if any DEC shipments, customers or 
    personnel were put at risk.
    

 re. .190

  I hope not. Perhaps they could be re-routed through other, safer
  countries, until this thing is worked out.

                  Mark

    Digital do in fact ship a lot of cargo via Heathrow, we even had an
    office and warehouse in the grounds.
    
    
    Simon

re .191

really easy to be smug when you're sat several thousand miles away, isn't
it?  It's really big of you to make all your clever comments when others
lives are in danger, but, well, I suppose it's all just light entertainment
as far as you're concerned.  Git.

    Just for the record, Heathrow is not, as the English would like it to
    be, the busiest airport in the world. It is actually the fifth busiest.
    
    It would do no harm for Heathrow to lose some business to other
    European or English colonial airports like Prestwick, Glasgow,
    Edinburgh, Aberdeen etc.

 
>  Who in their right mind would take a chance and fly
>  into Heathrow or Gatwick?  (Besides the Queen Mummy).

You could try asking our project manager, who flew in from Geneva last week.
Or the Americans who were here. Or perhaps you would rather see Digital's
business go down the pan while they stay at home.

Just to get something straight, it's not the security forces who are putting
lives at risk at Heathrow. It is the IRA.

You may approve of what the IRA are doing. The Irish government certainly
doesn't. 
 
Dave 

    So the alternative to not evacuating the airport is to close and
    evacuate. Where do all the people go? For a start one of the evac.
    areas is the hotel carpark where the first motar was fired from. The
    IRA are known to plant secondary devices in the evacuation path. In
    an evecuation situation it is a human trait to panic. People are going
    to try and get out as quick as possible. There would be injories,
    possibly deaths as people could get trampled.
    

    

     John Major said yesterday"There will be no talks while the violence
    continues".

     A TV poll the other day showed that over 70% of British people think
    that there should be no more talks at all.
     
    
     SCott

Holohan,

Are you typical of the American attitude to terrorists ?  If so, you are a 
nation of wimps.  Do you really belive that because some lunatic fringe is 
trying to cause disruption that people should give in ?  

I hope that your fellow countrymen have a little more backbone than you. If 
not, the good ole US of A would be brought to a standstill by one man with 
a water pistol.

As for your "I only ever wanted to be an American" bit....  Pass me the 
sick bucket please.



Mark R.

Note title:  5th NOT 1st                                         Lines:   6
Author:      IRNBRU::EDDIE     Eddie McInally, FIS, Ayr. 823-3537
    
>    It would do no harm for Heathrow to lose some business to other
>    European or English colonial airports like Prestwick, Glasgow,
>    Edinburgh, Aberdeen etc.


Yes, just think of all the benefits that Ayrshire could reap, Eddie.  We 
could have more noise pollution, traffic chaos as all the cargo was trucked 
out of Prestwick, more air pollution from the exhaust fumes AND we could 
become a terrorist target too.  Brilliant idea !!  Why didn't I think of 
that one ?


Mark

I hope that both sides of this question would realize that the IRA is and 
has always been a Marxist organization and as the communist empire crumbles
they are becomming very nervous.  Lets count now communism consists of
PRC, Cuba, IRA and The University of Wisconsin.

JMHO

Tom

    re .196 "English colonial airports like Prestwick, Glasgow, Edinburgh,
    Aberdeen"^^^^^^^^
    
    Brave man !!! :-))
    
    
    BTW, the claim was for the busiest International Airport (O'Hare has
    more aircraft movements but not international ones; the only
    challengers in Europe could be CDG, Schipol or Frankfurt.
    
    John

Isn't the English colonial airport of Prestwick only used for rubber band jobs
these days?

Dave

(Who had to fly to Glasgow on his last visit to Ayr)

    �  then I could clear up our little misunderstandings
    
    Look out Bruce, make sure you wear steel knee-cap protectors.
    
    While on the subject of torture, several years ago an Army Captain was
    captured by the IRA. He had been tortured and killed. When he was found
    it was revealed that he had had his knee-caps drilled and threaded and
    an eye bolt screwed into each knee, he was found hanging from a rafter of
    an old warehouse.

    RE .202
    
    Mark,
    
    Can you name the last Scottish IRA target ?
    
    If having lots of aircraft flying over you is all bad then why do the
    English insist on grabbing as much as they can ? Aeroplanes = money !
    
    Eddie.

    
    
    
    
    
    	200+ replies, and it just goes on, and on, and on , and on .......
    
    	
    
    	Jaysus Lads, Have ye no home to go to ????		
    
    	
    
    	"Put an Irishman on the spit, and you can always get another
        Irishman to turn him."    
    
        George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) Anglo-Irish Playwright, critic"
                                                                           
    
	
    

    Time now lads, drink up now.
    
    Right so. Time lads.
    
    Please. Time.

    
>    Can you name the last Scottish IRA target ?
 
Nope.  But I've no doubt that the IRa can hit a moving target, economic or 
otherwise.

   
>    If having lots of aircraft flying over you is all bad then why do the
>    English insist on grabbing as much as they can ? Aeroplanes = money !

I'm not disputing that a busier Prestwick airport would have it's 
advantages Eddie.  I'm just keen to point out that there's a drawback to 
everything, including increased economic activity.


Mark

    Re -.1
    
    Why do you think the IRA hasn't targeted Scotland ?
    

RE.-1  I don't know, but I'll have a few guesses.  Tell me if I'm right.


	A lot of Scots are of Irish descent (me included) ?

	A lot of Scots are sympathetic to the cause of Nationalism and
		see many similiarities between Scotland and NI  ?

	A lot of Scots provide financial support for Irish nationalist
		organisations  ?

	
I really don't know Eddie. Perhaps you could enlighten me ?


Mark

    
    I think it may be along the lines of, "We are fellow celts who have
    also been oppressed by the English".I don't know if I read any sort of
    weird pride in that or not. Scotland has certainly had its own role in
    the history of Northern Ireland.
    

    

     I think you'll find that most Scot's will support the the Majority of
    the people in NI who want to remain part of the UK.



    SCott

    
    You'll also find that many Scottish Catholics and Scottish
    Protestants sympathise with their respective communities in NI
    and provide support/funding/safe houses for both sides.
    
    Gordon...(A Scottish Protestant from Irish decent)
    

    
    Scotland's historical ties are indeed close, as can be seen by looking
    at a map. They had to have been engaged with each other due to
    proximity - more engaged than those in the South perhaps.
    

    In my opinion .216 comes closest to the answer although all of the
    other comments are perfectly valid.
    
    Scotland is still an English colony similar but not identical to NI
    which has its own particular problems. One of the reasons I have heard
    quoted as to why the "Conservative & Unionist Party" do not want
    Scotland to be independent is because it would set a precedent for
    Wales and NI. The Tories will never give up any "corner of a foreign
    field that will be forever England".
    
    Ed.

 re. .220

 Eddie,
   Perhaps the Scottish people aren't asking the English government
 in the right way?  What methods are currently be employed by
 Scotland to seek it's independence?
   
                     Mark

Didn't the Scots Nats got creamed in the last general election? 

Dave

    
    I think Holohan is suggesting a bit of the old  'economic targetting'..
    We all know about Bannockburn et al, but I think you should recognize
    that many Scots have rather enjoyed the Act of Union at times, like
    when England was the workshop of the world and so forth. But sure, go
    ahead, blame it all on the English. 
    

    
    Having lived in England for 12 years now, maybe i can add something to
    this.
    There is no doubt that the government in England is very biased towards
    it's own. There is also no doubt that many English commentators regard
    Scotland, Wales and Ireland as mere provinces.
    That said, the English are no different to any other race in their
    attitudes or hang-ups about different subjects and they have some
    pretty peculiar narrow minded attitudes about some things. But don't we all!
    
    Scotland ought to have it's own parliament though but i would stop
    short of independance because nationalism really has had it's day.
    There is no real good reason why countries cannot have unions but
    govern themselves which is more or less what happens in Europe today.
    
    Auld Reekie born and bred.

Re: Scotland's involvement 

I don't think the IRA would target Scotland, it's really England they are
seeking independence from.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but ...

Scotish people aren't just involved because they're close. The "Protestants"
in Ulster are, by and large, more usefully referred to as the "Scots-Irish".
When England decided to colonize Ireland the prime beneficiaries of this
policy were Scots. Some Scots integrated, as indeed did most of the English
settlers. I can't recall them at the moment but some of family names
that are commonly regarded as quintessentially Irish are actually Scots. I
think it's the Mc.xxx range. However the Scots-Irish in Ulster didn't
integrate and rest, as they say, is history...

Suppose that some day the Scots decide to get serious about independence and
resort to an irregular military campaign to achieve it. Let's
further suppose that the Scots-Irish don't like the deal they are getting in
Ireland [if you listen to Ian Paisley that's a current reality]. It would be
interesting to speculate who the Scots-Irish would back? I wouldn't like
to call that one, I'd put the odds 50/50 Scotland/England. 

An interesting historical perspective is the American Revolutionary War.
By the time the land rush, from Scotland to Ireland, was in full swing the
latecomer Scots found that all the best land had gone. Some of them went 
on to America, often joined by relatives that had settled Ireland some
generations back. Their migration was mainly to the "Back Country", which
I think is now the west parts of the Carolina's and Virginia. Not plantation
country, more south and west of that. Historical attention usually focusses
on the "shots that were heard around the world" in 1776 (or thereabouts).
Though the Revolutionary war might have been said to have started in Boston
that town basically sat the war out. The British were thown out of America
by George Washington's Army. That army was primarily made up of Scots-Irish,
Scots-Borderers [probably their descendents].
Now whether history is any predictor of the future? Your guess is as good
as mine. But I do agree with the extract in the Bernadette Devlin posting
that resolving the problems in Ireland is about correcting historical
wrongs. It's also interesting that these events are more recent by 100-200 yrs
that the events that are the root cause of todays problems in Ireland.

Mark

p.s. the part about Scots-Irish involvement in American Independence comes
from a book called "Albions Seed". If anyone's interested i'll post full
details of that book.

    
    The British were thrown out of America by many English descendants, I
    am quite sure of that. The soldiers the German king of England sent
    were Hessian mercenaries in large part, Boston at that time was ranked
    second only to London as English literary center, and with 4 million
    odd inhabitants the American colonies and Britain were involved as much
    a civil war as anything, given the support the colonies had in the
    shires of England, Scotland and Wales (who were all together in the
    colonialist expansion into North America and other parts of the world).
    
    I guess I read into your notes, few as they have been to date, yet
    another one who likes to bash the Brits whenever there's a chance.
    Maybe I'm wrong. 
    

    I'm not so sure it's Brit-bashing per se that is being brought out,
    but more a perceived (possibly from this American's viewpoint)
    recounting of history(anti-British gvmt?), right or wrong.
    
    To me, it's very interesting to try to understand how perception
    of history has shaped many viewpoints, particularly of the Irish
    diaspora here in America.
    
    So I find all history on the anglo-irish-scot-welsh relationships
    vital as long as it's kept in the proper context.
    
    And I wish a happy St Patrick's Day to all, and may there be
    peace in the British and Irish isles soon, however idealistic
     that may sound.
    
    Mike
      

    Interesting comments on the Beeb this morning from Congressman (did't
    catch his name, but he is Grand Marshal this year of the NY St
    Patrick's Day parade) and Joe Kennedy (no friend of the UK).
    
    Both said that the IRA should now back off violence and give the peace
    process the chance to work out.
    
    Congressman (?) was concerned that now the US was talking about Iraq,
    Lenanon and NI in the same breath.
    
    John
    

    
    
    re .23
    
    "many Scots have rather enjoyed the Act of Union at times, like when 
     England was the workshop of the world"
    
     Maybe so, but many Scots can remember when Scotland was the workshop
     of the world. Nowadays there's little or no steel industry,
     shipbuilding, car industry, coalmining, heavy engineering etc etc. 
     Much of this has disappeared under Conservative governments who have
     never had much support in Scotland, so its no surprise when we "blame
     it all on the English"
    
      Danny.

    re .229
    
    What about the "oil", Danny ?    You haven't mentioned the "oil" that
    the Sassenachs stole, or the profits from military expenditure on
    shipyards, naval bases, air bases, tourism, grants to attract industry
    (especially in Silicon Glen) that Johhny Cope's men have forced on the
    poor "crofters".
    
    :-))
    
    
    John

Re .222

> Didn't the Scots Nats got creamed in the last general election?

Yes. The people of Scotland voted Labour again. Labour had promised a 
Scottish Assembly and they won most of the seats in Scotland with the 
Tories only getting 9 out of 76 seats. In the previous general election the 
Tories had only 6 out of 76 seats in Scotland and in both cases we
suffered a Tory Government.

The Scottish National Party are the second most popular party in Scotland
behind Labour with the Tories in FOURTH position. The figures quoted on 8th 
March this year were as follows :-

    Labour  47%
    SNP     25&
    Lib/Dem 15%
    Con     13%
                 
While consistently polling a high percentage of the vote in every election 
the SNP fail to win many seats because of the British "first past the post" 
electoral system.

The issue of Scottish independence has been discussed at length in
IRNBRU::SCOTLAND note 195. This conference also covers many other aspects 
of Scotland and Scottish life. (Hit KP7 to add)

Re .223

> many Scots have rather enjoyed the Act of Union at times, like
> when England was the workshop of the world and so forth

Can you explain to me why Scots should enjoy England being the workshop of 
the world ?

The double standards of the English Government can be seen when they tell 
the Scots "it is better to be in a Union because you can reap all of the 
benefits of belonging to a bigger establishment", while they are 
continually striving to disempower the European Union by vetoing all 
attempts to move towards true European Federalism.
    

re .229,

exactly the same story in northern England, I'm sure that the dock workers
on the Tyne who lost bids to the Clyde will be interested to hear your
comments.

Chris.

>Author:      KOALA::HOLOHAN     
> re. .220
>
> Eddie,
>   Perhaps the Scottish people aren't asking the English government
> in the right way?  What methods are currently be employed by
> Scotland to seek it's independence?
>   
>                     Mark


Scotland is similiar to NI in many ways.  An example of this is 
considerable amount of people who believe that some sort of break with 
England is a good idea.   The Scottish Nationalists are very vocal and have 
a high profile in Scottish life.  They have a fair amount of support 
accross the country.  As Eddie points out, the shambolic first past the 
post electoral system has been their downfall.  Their number of seats in 
Parliament is grossly understated.   

Where the SNP wish to influence policy, they use argument, persuasion, 
facts, statistics.  In many cases, they win the argument, in some they 
lose.  That's life.  Recently, a couple of hardline nationalist groups have 
sprung up - Settler Watch and another crew whose name escapes me right now. 
Their activities have involved intimidating English settlers, Vandalising 
property etc.  They have been, quite rightly, comdemned by the SNP.  

So Mark, the SNP have accepted that the only way forward is to continue to 
try to influence people by means of persuasion and argument.  If they were 
to become associated with acts of violence, as your question above seems to 
recommend, their support would plummet.  Another factor to consider is that 
the Nationalism debate in Scotland isn't really based on religion.  You 
may hear sections of the support of certain Glasgow football clubs singing 
in favour of the Pope,the Queen, the IRA, the UDA or whoever.  However 
these are the same people who do not know that Wolf Tone was actually a 
Protestant or that the the Queen has absolutely nothing to do with the 
Protestant Church of Scotland.  These supporters also tend to have single 
figure IQs.  

All in my humble opinion as usual,

Mark R.

    Scotland united politically with England (it was already linked through
    a shared monarch) because the Scottish Grandees wanted access to
    England's world wide trade. Scotland's own attempt to found a colonial
    empire ended with the destruction of the Darien settlemnt on the
    isthmus of Panama at the hands of the Spanish. The Scots at least had a
    little more leeway in surrendering their parliament than the Irish a 
    century later, although the people of Edinburgh rioted when they heard
    the news, it was their leaders who capitulated.
    
    I think that the union between the nations of Britain and Ireland has
    outlived it's usefulness. The break-up of the British unitary state would 
    be the final act of de-colonisation, and it's replacement by a looser
    confederation within Europe, may even show the way ahead for a fair
    settlement in Ireland.
    
    
    Woody.

   From George Melloan's column in today's Wall St Journal (Melloan
   is deputy editor (international)).

   "One root of my family tree. assiduous research has shown, sprang
   from the green hills of County Tyrone. According to the ninth
   century Book of Armagh, St Patrick himself once wandered thereabouts,
   converting the heathen Irish to Roman Catholicism. I'm one of the
   45 million Americans who claim Irish ancestry..
   ....
   
   "Of course one can't avoid Ireland's dark side. after a week in
    which the IRA harassed Britain again by lobbing some mortar shells
    over the boundary fences of Heathrow Airport. But judging from
    weekend manifestations in SAn Francisco and Boston, most of the
    IRA's remaining support comes from America's lunatic fringe. In
    the Irish Republic and even Northern Ireland, disgust with the
    IRA's bloody doings is rising. The gentle St Patrick would have
    found them appalling.
 
    "But don't let me spoil the fun that will enliven hospitable and
    boozy venues in NY and other American towns and cities roday.
    The gentle legends will live on. And in the pubs of Dublin there
    are some who will raise a glass today to the future of a new, modern
    Ireland, with little place for the ancient hatreds of Sinn Fein and
    the IRA. If Ireland's sons and daughters in the New World could only
    be in Dublin to see what's really happening, it might be a merrier
    St Patrick's day all around.

 Yes, I've been warned that there would be a British
 press blitz trying to undo the damage done, by
 freedom of speech in America (ie. the Gerry Adams
 visit).

 Hopefully some of those raising glasses will be
 praying for an end to British human rights violations
 in north east Ireland.  I'll make my toast to an
 end to British collusion with loyalist death squads.

 "lunatic fringe", this of course is British for 
 people who dare to read reports by Amnesty 
 International and Helsinki Watch, and then dare to 
 question the crimes of the British.  What disgust
 would St. Patrick have for those who only concentrate
 on the IRA, and forget the real criminals behind
 this bloodbath, the British.

                       Mark

> Yes, I've been warned that there would be a British
> press blitz trying to undo the damage done, by

I didn't realise that the Wall St Journal was in British ownership. 

Dave

    
    Took the words right out of my keyboard. Glad to see the remarks hit
    home. They are of course spot on target.
    

Re: .226

The English descendents were responsible for declaring independence, particularly
the Puritan Hegemony. However, they didn't do very much of the fighting. 
Independence was delivered by the Scots-Irish and Scots Borderers that made
up George Washington's Army. 

The replies prior to my last note indicated [to me at least] that the 
respective authors had no idea of the Scots connection to the current
situation in Ulster. My only intent was to raise awareness of the connection.

With regard to the point of the Revolutionary War, I was hoping to emphasize
two points: 
  1. The affinity between Scots and Scots-Irish is perhaps greater than
     their respective affinity to the English. 
  2. That on the last chance the Scots and Scots-Irish [descendents!] had
     to unite they did so against the English. 

In other notes there had been some very negative reaction to American involvement
in resolving the current situation. I was also hoping to raise awareness of
the historical importance of the Scots-Irish in American history. They really
delivered the USA, had they chosen to ally with England we would probably
still be talking of the "North American Dominion". 

There, hidden agenda revealed!


Most of that history comes from the book "Albion's Seed", which is a study of
the origins of American culture. It spans the four regional migrations from the
British Isles (Puritan East Anglia to New England, Civil War Cavaliers 
to Virginia, Quakers to Pennsylvania and the Scots-Irish and Scots Borderers
to the "Back Country"). It's not at all political but it does discuss
the cultural origins and bonds between the Scots and Scots-Irish.

Mark

    

     The IRA launched a mortar attack on police station/army barracks,One
    mortar hit a lynx helicopter,one RUC officer was injured in the
    attack.
     The mortars were fired over houses,Luckily for the people living in
    those houses all made it over them.

    SCott

    Well
    
    According to our resident IRA expert,  the mortars are meant to explode
    if they hit anything in a uniform but miraculously won't explode if
    they hit civilian targets like airports.  Clever blokes these freedom
    fighters.
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce

    Unless it's an accident, like Warrington, of course.
    
    Laurie.

    

     The IRA launched another mortar attack on a joint Police and Army
    patrol.6 members of the security forces were injured.
     They held a family hostage for 4 hours,then launched the attack from
    their house.

    SCott 

    
    Careful Scott, or your pal might show up :-).
    

    C'mon lads, it's just a request for clarification.
    
    Laurie.

    Well the IRA have called a 3 day ceasefire over Easter.  The government
    have called it cynical and ask why the ceasifire can't be extended
    indefinitely.
    
    This could be an interesting development.  It has come at a great time
    for John Major as it diverts a lot of attention away from the EEC
    fiasco and the calls for his resignation.
    
    I'd say that the ceasefire is a step in the right direction.  The
    government should, in my opinion, talk to Sinn Fein for 3 days but make
    it clear that when the ceasefire ends, the talks end too.
    
    I have little faith in either Sinn Fein or the UK government so I will
    not be holding my breath waiting for a breakthrough.  But there is
    always hope.
    
    
    Mark

    RE; .246
    
    Well said. Yes, let's hope.
    
    Laurie.

    
    Why do the IRA only declare ceasefires at public/religious holidays ???
    
    Anything to do with them also wanting a quiet weekend with the family
    along with everybody else.

This one is also rumoured to be in celebration of the "Easter Rising" in
1916. 

M

    The IRA seem to declare "cease-fires" at "holiday" times like Christmas
    and Easter. I don't recall any such offers from the thugs on the
    Loyalist side. Personally, I don't see why it's so difficult for all
    the terrorists to call a ceasefire, and to sit down at a table with
    the British and Irish governments, and each other. that, after all, is
    what they *claim* they want.
    
    Laurie.

    

     The IRA launched two attacks after there cease-fire.The First was
    2 minutes past midnight,they fired shots at a check point.the second
    was a grenade attack on a RUC station.No one was hurt.

     
      SCott

    Not to forget that "someone" killed a woman in Belfast the day before.
    The UFF are suspected, and the motive is believed to be "because she
    was a Catholic". They're all sick, the lot of 'em.
    
    Laurie.

from An Phoblacht/Repubican News
April 9, 1994


AP/RN Editorial/ Opinion
No time for trivia

The British government has made much propaganda in recent days and weeks,
asking what clarification Sinn Fein could possibly want about the Downing
Street Declaration.

Sinn Fein has consistently said that it is concerned about the ambiguous
wording of the document itself, as well as about subsequent contradictory
statements by both governments and has asked what processes are envisaged for
moving the peace process forward. Sinn Fein has also requested to know what
the British government's long-term intentions are towards Ireland.

This week, Gerry Adams has expanded further on what clarifications Sinn Fein
is seeking. In an interview with the Irish Press he outlined that republicans
want clarification of where the British government stands on the Government of
Ireland Act. He pointed out that while the declaration mentions Articles Two
and Three of the 1937 Constitution, the British act is omitted.

Adams also spelled out for the British the concern of republicans about the
status of the unionist veto, which he described as ''a governmental imperative
which gives one party more rights than any other,'' a right which no group
should have. He echoed the sentiments expressed by Martin McGuinness that
there could not be a situation in terms of Irish democracy ''when one side can
have a veto''.

He pointed put that a unionist veto meant no movement and also that we cannot
have a new Ireland without them. He asked then how do the British government
intend moving the process forward?

The churlish manner in which this week's IRA suspension was publicly greeted
by John Major is regrettable given that the British government has clearly
lost the clarification debate at this stage. The suspension offered Major a
golden opportunity, as John Hume and Cahal Daly have pointed out, to provide
clarification without 'losing face'. But others have also played a negative
role this week, particularly Dublin Foreign Minister Dick Spring. Spring took
the opportunity to describe a Sinn Fein candle-lit vigil for peace outside the
British embassy in Ballsbridge - timed to coincide with the start of the IRA
suspension - as ''a cheap and odious publicity stunt''.

Whether he likes it or not, republicans are genuinely involved in trying to
move forward a peace process. Spring could have instead taken Mitchel
McLaughlin's constructive advice and launched a diplomatic offensive to secure
British support for a peace initiative that comes out of Ireland, designed by
Irish people, for all of the Irish people.

Another trivial and highly-personalised contribution was made on Mitchel
McLaughlin by Fine Gael's Austin Currie, whose contribution to their radio
debate consisted almost entirely of a negative verbal attack on the Sinn Fein
councillor.

For republicans and indeed, the entire nationalist community, the peace
process is more than a political football for cheap pointscoring. It is a
matter of life and death. Elected representatives from all parties have a duty
to take this process seriously. The statement in the Sunday Business Post by
Henry Mountcharles criticising John Bruton for not recognising the concerns of
the nationalist community is a welcome sign.

The name-calling continues though. On Wednesday, 6 April, John Hume was
described by Official Unionist leader James Molyneaux as ''the actor's voice
of Mr Adams''.

Everybody on these two islands, particularly politicians, has a duty to take
the peace process seriously and to try to move things forward. This week, the
IRA has made a significant gesture. Sinn Fein is ready to move forward. It
would indeed be a shame if the British government allows political cowardice
or Tory Party infighting to place further barriers in an already difficult
road towards peace.

    

     The BG has answered sinn fiens call for clarification so now all
    involved are calling for SF to react positively...we'll see.
    
    
    
    SCott

    Did the British Government publish their response to Sinn Fein?
    It would be interesting to read it...

    
    Its in most of the papers here....Liam may summarize on Monday.(it runs
    to 20 page document)
    
    Probably will not be a response until after the May European elections.
    Its dialogue of some sorts between the parties so is a good sign. 
    
    Sectarian tension is extreemly hight at the moment. Paisley has said he
    is not interested in talks anyway but the official Unionsists are
    not dismissing anything.
    
    Mayhew is doing ok....all sides accept this.
    
    
    Mick
    

    the latest Anglo-Irish summit has been "postponed", to allow
    differences of opinion to be settled, political correspondents state
    that the impasse is about the de-commisioning of arms. The peace
    process is in its deepest crisis since its inception. I hope the
    Clinton visit can kick-start the process again as it looks like no-one
    in these isles wants to be seen to `give in' to the other side on this
    issue.
    
    Personally, I think that asking either side to hand in any of their
    arms as a pre-condition to All-party talks is not an option, it simply
    won't happen as has been said repeatedly. Let's hope that someone can
    keep the process going, the price of failure is too high....
    
    Ray....
                                        

    
    Irish Government cancelled at the last minute. It would seem there is
    very little "give" fom both sides. The british want a gesture on
    giving up arms Before any all-party talks...SF say that the this is
    unacceptable and unsellable to the IRA as its imposing pre-conditions
    to talks.. The unionists are insisting that a gesture on de-commisioning is
    essential before they will take a chair...
    
    I think a joint gesture might be the only way forward..ie some weapons
    from both paramilitary sides..and parallel movement on prisoners. 
    From a practical point of view you can be sure that both sets of
    paramilitaries have solid plans for re-arming in any case.
    
    Overall not looking toooo good
    
    rgs,
    
    
    mick