Conference tallis::celt

 re. .0

 Wish a away.  Your draconian anti-freedom of speech
 laws don't apply to me.  I'm a U.S. citizen.

 I'm sorry that George was obliged to set my note
 hidden.  Especially when so many of the pro-British
 noters can fill notes with their bile, without a 
 complaint from me.   Where do notes that show glea
 over the murder of Dominic McGlinchy (1329) or
 the glea over the sentencing to 80 years of IRA men
 (note 1330) fit. I found those notes insulting to
 the families of those men.  But I didn't cry to have
 them removed.

                   Mark

    It's bad enough having to read this drivel without having to cope with
    spelling errors also.

    
    "Without complaint from you?"!!! WITHOUT COMPLAINT FROM YOU?!!
    Give us a break, Mark. We could fill up an RA-90 with all your
    mail complaints.
    

 re. .3
  The only notes I've ever complained about have been
 the personal attacks on me from the pro-British lobby.
 They obviously have no place in here.  Their opinions on
 on Celtic topics however, do have a right to be heard.
 Even the ones that we find ignorant and misguided.


                   Mark

    I still think Mark should contact the EAP.
    

    
    Only in your little fantasy world, Mark, are the IRA other than
    murderers who deserve what they get. 
    

  Did the 24 state terrorists who flew into the ground
  deserve what they got?  Probably.

                  Mark

    
    Not too many people think every RUC officer is a state terrorist, Mark.
    We know you do, and we know the IRA are trying to kill them. 
    

 : Irish history has glorified violence as a means of achieving change, and

 : there is a real risk of violence escalating in Northern Ireland and
   spreading into the Republic of Ireland (where I live) and the U.K..

	In this context, the question of whether to allow people to
	advocate violence is a critically sensitive one in Ireland.

    It may sound "draconian" or "anti-liberal" to have laws punishing incitement
    to violence or incitement to hatred but the need for them is very real and
    was decided on democratically.

/Peter

PS I wonder how long someone would be allowed to buy televion time in the USA to
   advocate killing of all ______'s in the USA (insert a racial minority here)
   before they got arrested for doing it.

> Irish history has glorified violence as a means of achieving change, and

 I don't advocate violence, but I can understand why it
 is sometimes a necessary means for achieving a positive
 change.  Indeed in the U.S. we annually celebrate the
 violent removal of the British crown influence on their
 former colony.  The results of that violent removal
 led to the Bill of Rights.

> there is a real risk of violence escalating in Northern Ireland and
> spreading into the Republic of Ireland (where I live) and the U.K..

 I certainly hope not, I don't want to see people in
 Ireland, or in Britain hurt.  I have family in both
 nations.  Unfortunately I believe you might be right,
 since British policy in north east Ireland appears to
 be one of continuing to use violent means to divide
 those who live there.  Those means being censorship,
 collusion, draconian laws mainly targeted at Nationalist,
 and the continued use of jury-less trials.
 Whether you see it or not, violence has already been
 advocated, by the British government.

>I wonder how long someone would be allowed to buy televion time in the USA to
>advocate killing of all ______'s in the USA (insert a racial minority here)
>before they got arrested for doing it.

 Well let's put it this way.  If it was T.V. time that
 advocated the removal of state-sponsored terrorists
 by whatever means necessary, I think we'd make it a
 movie called Navy Seals, and sell lots of tickets.
 Of we'd call it the Desert Storm, and watch it every
 night on the news.


 If you are looking for sympathy over the flight of
 29 state terrorist into the ground, you won't find it
 in the people they hurt, or in someone whose read
 the Human Rights reports on what they've done.

                     Mark
 
 

                         <<< Note 1390.10 by KOALA::HOLOHAN >>>
    
    >>  If you are looking for sympathy over the flight of
    >>  29 state terrorist into the ground, you won't find it
    
    Quick question for all you truckers out there :
    
    Would you seek sympathy, or any other trait normally associated with
    decent human beings, from the author of 1390.10 ?
    
    
    Mark  

                            COPTER CRASH QUESTIONS
                     from 'The Irish People' June 14, 1994
                             by Father Des Wilson

                                  **********

The death in an air disaster of 29 members of British secret services in
Ireland raises important issues. Democratic Irish people have said they would
not wish such a fate on anyone, even those they see as opponents of democracy.

This has underlined the fundamentally different attitudes of Irish democrats
and the British establishment.

TRUTH

The aftermath of the disaster also showed that even people who are normally
pro-government do not really believe what government agencies tell them any
more, recognizing that the British government hid a good deal of the truth
about it. It is not at all certain that the 28 men and one woman were going to
a conference in Scotland. They may have been coming from one in Ireland. No one
knows how many gardai were involved in the conference, wherever it was. It was
said to be a routine conference, but showed all the signs of haste in the
arrangements made for the journey, so it was either a hastily arranged
conference for Scotland or a hastily - and perhaps unofficially - arranged
get-away-from-it-all weekend after a conference in Ireland.

We shall not know the answers to such uncertainties for a long time, perhaps
until some more members of the British spying services write their books, as
they eventually will.

OPINION
One theory is that these people were gong to a conference to examine all the
options open to them when the Major/Reynolds proposals are published in a few
weeks time. The two civil services, in Dublin and London, are at present
working on plans for the future government of the northeast. These plans will
not please everyone, they may please no one. Westminster thinking, then, is
that a sudden internment swoop on all potential opponents of the proposals
would be helpful to both Dublin and London, if the two government brought in
internment simultaneously.

It would not, of course, he helpful to anybody but British government officials
think in this way - put your proposals (or some of them) on the table and jail
all those likely to oppose them. It never works, but that does not prevent lazy
and intellectually dull civil servants in Dublin, London and Belfast thinking
it just might this time round.

This theory would account for the haste with which these people were gathered
and dispatched to Inverness. Plans for an internment swoop would need to be in
place in time for the appearance of this Reynolds/Major document in a few weeks
time.

CLUBS

However, the theory does not explain why among the scattered wreckage there
were the remains of sets of golf clubs.

Another theory is that civil servants, constabulary, military, spying services
and gardai had their conference somewhere in northeast Ireland and immediately
afterwards a number of high ranking spying service people decided to get away
from it all, for a weekend of the kind of celebration and relaxation spying
people do. And that they persuaded - without great difficulty - the British air
force to turn a blind eye to the borrowing of a helicopter. And off they went.

The reason they were all in one helicopter then was that this was considered it
to be all they could reasonably expect the British government to turn a blind
eye to, especially in times of financial cutbacks. This is the reason, so runs
the theory, that so many colleagues were bunched together in one aircraft.

That is the theory, but like all other theories about this incident, we shall
never know until some civil servant or spying person contacts the "News of the
World," the British newspaper which before all others specializes in reporting
intrigues.

DAMAGED

It has been acknowledged by British officials and commentators that the British
government's fight against its political opponents in Ireland has been
seriously damaged.

What has not been admitted or even discussed is that this disaster has cut off
the authors and handlers of British loyalist assassination squads in Ireland as
well. Whether the assassination campaign against the nationalist population
will be able to continue with the same vigor as in recent months is
questionable. It is doubtful if, with the heads gone, other personnel in the
civil service, army police and spying services will be able to continue it
efficiently for some time to come. British loyalist death squads are created
and controlled by British agents.

One commentator said, The damage done to the British government's work in
Ireland will take from 3 to 5 years to mend.

This, from the British point of view, may be an over-optimistic forecast.

                                ***************

                        subscribe to IRL-NEWS listserv
                                 send message:
                    suscribe IRL-NEWS first name last name

                                   send to:
                          [email protected]

                              ******************

                                 subscribe to:
                               The Irish People
                 'The Voice of Irish Republicanism in America'
                                363 Seventh Ave
                                   Suite 405
                             New York, NY   10001

                               tel: 212-736-1916

                            sub: $30 for 50 issues

    
    29 people dead and the so called Human Rights Activists are paranoid
    about what they were doing together...
    
    They COULD have been...
    They MIGHT have been...
    ONE THEORY is....
    So the THEORY goes...
    
    	What was all that crap about.....

> I don't advocate violence, but I can understand why it
> is sometimes a necessary means for achieving a positive
> change.  

Casting your eye across North and South America, what conflicts
would you identify, Mark, where you would believe that "violence   
is a necessary means for achieving a positive change" ?.

/Peter

  I can name a few Peter, especially after you get
  below the U.S. border, but this conference isn't
  the place to describe North and South America.

                   Mark

> I don't advocate violence, but I can understand why it
> is sometimes a necessary means for achieving a positive
> change.  

Let me put my question differently, Mark, as I don't understand
what you mean by "a necessary means for acheieving a positive change".

Is this, roughly, what you see happening in Northern Ireland:

Catholic Republicans have of necessity resorted to violence to rid themselves 
of the authority of the British government and replace it with an all-Ireland 
government. Legitimate targets of that violence are the British armed forces 
and those Loyalists who assist or collude with the British armed forces.

/Peter

    I very occasionally dip into this note. As an Irish person born here,
    living here, paying taxes here and voting here it mystifies me as to
    why the many noters claiming the right to tell us what is right for this
    country: (a) don't live here (b)haven't lived here and (c) never will
    live here.
    
    There can be no doubt that the decisions made in 1921 (partition) and
    the results (a squalid little racist regime in Northern Ireland and a
    priest ridden "republic" in the South) were
    tragic. They were, but they are also history. There is no going back to
    the type of Republican vision painted by Pearse et al. It has been
    tarnished permanently by the very people who claimed to uphold it.
    
    The Irish people, North and South, will ultimately resolve their own
    problems. Commentators who speak from a safe distance, from poor
    information and who blithely assert when it's o.k. to kill contribute n
    their own way to the continuing troubles. 
    
    Isn't it clear from watching news programmes just how horrible and
    damaging the cancer of Nationalism without conscience is? Look at the
    Balkans, look at Africa. People are killing people because their skin
    or their language or their religion or their political beliefs or a
    combination of these differ from theirs.
    
    Why? Don't these people on either side ever read their bibles or ask
    themselves what Christ would do in this situation?
    
    
    Paul

    So Mr. Holohan, are you saying that the Loyalists are equally justified
    in their murdering?
    
    Laurie.

 re. .17

  Not quite Peter.  I believe it is up to the Irish
  people (all of those who live on the Island) to 
  determine what form that government should take.

  I believe that the Irish people will not have a fair
  chance to make that determination, with the under-handed
  influence of the British government, and their
  security forces.

  What I know for certain though, is that the British
  are playing a game in north east Ireland.  A game 
  that includes collusion with loyalist death squads,
  and the removal of basic civil liberties.  In light
  of this, I can understand why those who value freedom
  and liberty might resort to violent means to remove
  the British presence.


 re. .18
  No, I don't live in Ireland.  I also don't live in
  South Africa.  Even though I don't live in South
  Africa, I could understand why apartheid was wrong.
  Now, I did live in Britain, so by your kind of logic
  do I have a right to speak on north east Ireland?

  Quite frankly, I consider myself a citizen of the 
  world, and as such have a right to speak out against
  things like censorship, jury-less trials, and British
  collusion with loyalist death squads.
  I've never said it's ok to kill.  I've only said that
  I can understand why a man who is persecuted, imprisoned,
  or has his family murdered by British forces or their
  loyalist death squads, might resort to that route.

  Read your Bible if it gives you comfort.  But how dare
  you sit and hide behind Christianity, when your fellow
  country men are being murdered with the help of the
  British security forces.  International Human Rights
  organizations are condeming the actions of the
  British, and asking for outside support in stopping
  those actions.

                          Mark

 re. .20

  No, I'd say the Loyalist are about as dead wrong as
  you can get.  They tend to murder innocent soft targets
  whose only crime is being Catholic.  They aren't 
  fighting to end censorship, or jury-less trials.
  They aren't fighting to stop foreign troops from
  occupying their land. Worst of all, I believe they 
  are being played as pawns against their own countrymen,
  by the British forces, and don't even realize it.

                           Mark

    Right, so it's ok for the IRA to do it, but not the Loyalists?
    
    Laurie.

    The IRA often murder innocent soft targets whose only crime is to be
    Protestant or British, or to work for the security forces.
    
    So where does that leave us??

    Mark,
    
    What about Warrington? What about the fish shop on the Shankill road?
    What about blowing up a school janitor and his three year old daughter?
    What precisely do you mean by "hiding behind Christianity"?  If you're
    so immune to the horror that goes on in Northern Ireland that you can
    explain away these as resistance against British Imperialism then
    obviously Christianity probably makes you nervous.
    
    Of course some people are lucky enough not to need to hide behind
    anything. It takes some courage to justify an atrocity from a distance of
    3000 miles.
    
    My point remains the same. You are not part of the solution here. You
    are a (small) part of the problem. Sitting on the fringe and maybe
    feeling like a real patriot?  Does it matter to you that the IRA does
    not recognise the Southern Government? The same government is elected
    by 98% of the electorate in the 26 counties.
    
    Does is matter to you that the IRA has killed (unarmed) Irish
    policemen. They are our policemen, not British soldiers, not RUC men,
    not even Loyalists.
    
    Why don't you take some time out to read some history. Read about the
    development of the Irish Republic since 1921. Inform yourself as to how
    and why the overwhelming majority of people reject the IRA. Why don't
    they do better in elections? 
    
    Paul

    
    Aye, well the proper order is that I am due to start a new contract
    in a bit, though I will be on net for a while for some support duties.
    Good to talk to y'all in here, even our friend Holohan who at least
    livened things up with his non-unique line of neo_Maoist, safe-at-a
    -distance codswallop. Lucky there are a bunch just like him still
    hovering around soc.culture.celt/brit et al. 
    

 re. .25
  Sure I agree that Warrington was tragic.   Does your
  littany of concern only cover lost British lives?
  Will you stand up and condemn British collusion with 
  loyalist death squads?  Will you condemn jury-less
  trials, and censorship?  Or you a member of the
  crowd who can march for the Warrington tragedy, and
  then turn around and spit on the Nationalists mothers
  from the north who had their children murdered by
  British forces?

  People who sit on their duff, and equate people
  who complain about human rights violations as being
  part of the problem, are the problem.

  Does it matter to you that the British forces have
  killed Irish children?  Does it matter to you that
  the British forces have killed members of the 
  nationalist political opposition?

>Inform yourself as to how
>and why the overwhelming majority of people reject the IRA. Why don't
>they do better in elections? 

  This is a stupid question and you know it.  The IRA
  does not run in elections.  Sinn Fein is not the IRA.
  They may have similiar end goals, but they obviously
  have different means of achieving it.

  Sinn Fein capture a significant portion of the vote
  in the occupied counties.  As to why it's not higher,
  well censorship, and murder of those who represent
  the party, might have something to do with damaging
  the party.

              Mark

  re. .26
  Aye, well I'll miss you too Eastland.  You are a
  perfect example of pompous self-impressed British 
  attitudes, and as such held a significant role
  in representing British opinion in this notes
  conference.

  By the way, where are you off to next?  North
  Korea for a little R&R?

                  Mark

    
    Thanks, Mark. It's nice to be loved. I'm glad you recognize my role.
    Oh, and by the way, you might like to check out s.c.b. lately. I left a
    little gift for you there :-)
    

    re .27
    
    %>Inform yourself as to how
    %>and why the overwhelming majority of people reject the IRA. Why don't
    %>they do better in elections?
    
    >  This is a stupid question and you know it.  The IRA
    >  does not run in elections.  Sinn Fein is not the IRA.
    >  They may have similiar end goals, but they obviously
    >  have different means of achieving it.
    
    This is not a stupid question. Sinn Fein IS the political wing of the
    IRA. They do not control the IRA, but voting for them is certainly a
    vote for the IRA. So there voting history is in direct proportion to 
    the amount of sympathy to the IRA. Their end goals are THE SAME.
    
   >   Sinn Fein capture a significant portion of the vote
   >   in the occupied counties.  As to why it's not higher,
   >   well censorship, and murder of those who represent
   >   the party, might have something to do with damaging
   >   the party.
    About 10% at the last count. SDLP gets about 30% and put up with the
    same kind of harassment (as well as that from Sinn Fein supporters). So
    stop telling half-truths.
    
    Joe.

re. .21 from KOALA::HOLOHAN
    
>  Not quite Peter.  I believe it is up to the Irish
>  people (all of those who live on the Island) to 
>  determine what form that government should take.

    Mark, I am preparing a note responding to you're understanding why
    people in Northern Ireland are justified in resorting to violence.  
    One question first, which sounds simple but is critical to the issue. 
    
    	Why exactly do you believe that all the people who live in Ireland 
    	should decide the form of Government for Northern Ireland ?.
    								   /Peter
    

    Mark,
    
    I "stood up" and was counted in print, in a bigger forum than this to
    condemn the whitewashing of the Stalker enquiry, the manner of the
    shooting of the Gibralter 3, and the shoot to kill policy of the RUC
    against Catholics. And I am not now revising my opinions on these.
    There WAS shoot to kill, the Stalker report WAS suppressed and the SAS
    did NOT have to shoot those three people in Gibralter the way they did.
    
    When I expressed these opinions in the forum I did I paid a price.
    Don't assign credentials or an agenda to me that aren't true. I'm
    Irish, republican (small r) and a nationalist. The point is that the
    IRA campaign TODAY serves no purpose other than to increase bitterness
    and resentment.
    
    1m people in the North consider themselves British. In 1994 it doesn't
    matter how this came about because we can't rewrite history. The Norman
    invasion, the flight of Earls, 1690, 1921 are all past. As a former
    colony the South has had to confront the fact that you can only bitch
    and moan about the past for so long. Eventually you play the hand
    that's dealt you. The IRA will never convince 1m people to join the
    type of united Ireland depicted by  them: A MARXIST REPUBLIC. Would you
    live in a Marxist republic? Would your friends?
    
    It's just possible that in 30 or 40 years time a combination of
    prosperity, demographics and the blurring of borders by European union
    might mean that the two parts of Ireland will get together again but it
    won't be like the IRA want it, it won't be like Paraic Pearse or De
    Valera envisioned it. It will be pluralist, tolerant, probably rather
    timid and bland but that's because that's what people want. People want
    jobs, homes, family, the right to vote, freedom. Nationalism and the
    type of Republicanism promoted by the IRA does not deliver this.
    
    The North is changing for the better slowly but steadily. There are
    more Catholics in University now  than ever before. Fair employment in
    the public and private sectors is coming closer every year. It will
    continue but murdering Protestants doesn't help.
    
    cheers,
    
    Paul
    
    

>This is not a stupid question. Sinn Fein IS the political wing of the
>IRA. They do not control the IRA, but voting for them is certainly a
>vote for the IRA. 

 I want to go bonkers every time I here someone 
 reiterate this crap.  From now on I'm going to refer
 to the British government as the political wing of
 the British forces in north east Ireland.  Unlike
 Sinn Fein, they do control their army, and as such
 a vote for almost all the reps in the British government,
 is the same as a vote for the occupying British forces.

 Chew on that for a while.

            Mark

re. .31


>Why exactly do you believe that all the people who live in Ireland 
>should decide the form of Government for Northern Ireland ?.

 I didn't say that.  All the people that live on the
 Island should decide the form of government for the
 Island.

 Why?  That's easy, the folks in charge of the six
 counties now, are making a mess of the place.  Time
 for a change, one that represents the democratic  
 wishes of all the people on the Island.

                 Mark

 re. .32

  Paul,

    I like most of what you had to say.  But I believe
 that your opinion on the North changing slowly and
 steadily is misled.  Did you read the January Amnesty
 International report on north east Ireland?  You'll
 find that collusion is pervasive and still on going.

 Have things improved when a Catholic man is murdered
 in cold blood at Harland & Wolfe last week?  Have things
 improved when 6 Catholics are butchered watching the
 World Cup match last week?  Have things improved when
 a man with a home made flame thrower walks into a
 class of kiddies and burns six of them?  Have things
 improved when the British soldiers who murderd Fergal
 Caraher are let off scot free?  Have things improved
 when the British continue to censor legal political
 opposition?


                   Mark

re. .34
    > All the people that live on the Island should decide the form of 
    > government for the Island. Time for a change, one that represents 
    > the democratic wishes of all the people on the Island.
    
    If you believe that all people who live on the island of Ireland are 
    entitled to decide the form of government for the island, am I right
    to assume, Mark, that you believe violence is justified if they are 
    denied that right ?.                                  /Peter  
    
     

    re  .33  I want to go bonkers every time I here someone
    
    Mark, you went bonkers years ago...
    
    
    :-) :-) :-)
    
    
    
    
    But then so did most of us.
    
    :-)
    
    Simon

 re. .36

  Nope, I won't ever make a blanket statement that violence
  is justified.  I can however understand that it might
  be necessary when combatting things like jury-less
  trials, government censorship of legal political
  opposition, government collusion with death squads,
  government forces assasination of political opposition,
  and basic government denial of human rights.

                      Mark

 re. .38 	KOALA:HOLOHAN

>  		I can however understand that it might
>  be necessary when combatting things like jury-less
>  trials, government censorship of legal political
>  opposition, government collusion with death squads,
>  government forces assasination of political opposition,
>  and basic government denial of human rights.

Mark, what makes you believe these things are happening TODAY 
and not what was was happening a few years ago. Specific examples
of each of them (what incident and when did it happen) please ?.	
                                                     
/Peter

 re. .39

 Peter,
   I believe these things are happening today, because
 they are being reported by Human rights organizations,
 and the media.

 I refer you to George Darcy's note 1328, Evidence of Collusion
 I've added a few of the multitude of AI reported 
 incidents to this note.  If you send for the Amnesty
 International report on the United Kingdom, Political
 Killings in Northern Ireland (February 1994, AI index
 EUR 45/01/94), address 
        Amnesty International
        322 Eighth Ave.
        New York, N.Y. 10001

 Note 1108, Human Rights Watch on Northern Ireland.

 Note 1252.50, Diplock Frame-Ups.  Contains a list of
 recent cases.

 Note 1032, Update on the Caraher Shooting, Particularly
 .3 and .5 for Irish Times article on incident.

 Witness the recent murders of Sinn Fein candidates,
 by loyalist death squads.  Add to that the evidence
 the British forces are actively colluding with these
 death squads, and you have the British government 
 behind these assasinations.

                  Mark

    Mark,
    
    I for one don't doubt for one minute that this is true. The trouble is
    that another list can be combined of IRA atrocities against civilian
    and military targets in both Ireland, Britain and Europe.
    
    Both these lists can be as long as you like and even if they could be
    traced back to a common event which triggered them (1169, 1603, 1690,
    1798, 1916, 1921, 1968) who cares? It doesn't matter. The reality is
    that Britain captured and subdued Ireland over a long period from 1169
    to the Act of Union. The partial freedom obtained in 1921 has gradually
    satisfied to a greater or lesser extent most of the 26 counties.
    
    The regime in the South is democratic but not perfect. The biggest
    parties differ from each other only slightly in their policy on the
    North. The differ more seriously when they speak in private but only
    slightly. They are elected to deliver certain things to the electorate.
    A military assault is not one of them. They view Britain as a friendly
    neighbour and trading partner. The Sellafield nuclear plant and its
    risks is of FAR more interest to most Irish people than the border.
    
     
    Most people want fair and equitable treatment for Catholics
    and would like to see the border go but not through violence. Some
    (more than you think) couldn't give a toss if the border stays for the
    next 1000 years. Some ( a tiny number) wish we were still part of
    Britain. Some (fair number) are pissed of with everything that
    goes on in the North and wish it would float off into the North
    Atlantic complete with Catholics, Protestants, etc..
     Some (less than 2%) believe that the problems in the North
    can be solved by doing what's been done for the last 25 years.
    
    
    This is the reality. No one questions that your list is wrong but it's
    only one list of a couple. What is also reality is that the majority of
    Irish people want progress on these issues to be gradual and done
    through diplomacy. They will not fight a war for it and they do not
    want one waged on their behalf because they haven't asked for it.
    
    I'll leave you with the last word on this as I'm sure you'll have it
    but just remember who votes here and what we vote for.
    
    cheers,
    
    Paul

Re: .40 from KOALA::HOLOHAN 

You clearly believe the British Government has acted and is acting violently 
in Northern Ireland. I agree with you that, to a limited extent, they have.

But what real choice is there. The British army went into Northern Ireland
to protect Catholics. If they left there would be a civil war in which
the majority Unionists would massacre the Nationalists. The U.N./NATO did not 
intervene in Bosnia-Croatia-Serbia and they wouldn't intervene in N.I. The
Republic of Ireland's army would be subjected to a reign of terror from 
Unionists just as the IRA inflicts one on the British Army. 

The realistic answer is to continue to have the British Government police N.I.
while working to minimise abuses by the British Army. In a terrorist enviroment
abuses by individual Army/ Police officers is never fully eliminated.

    Last thought for you: 
    
    The majority of people in Northern Ireland want to stay in the U.K and
    the majority of people in Ireland don't want a United Ireland unless
    the majority of people in Northern Ireland want it.
    
/Peter

PS Thanks for agreeing to send me a copy of the Amnesty Int'l Report of Feb 
   1994. I admit (as should other Noters) not to having read it.  It's sold 
   out in Ireland (!) and they are not expecting any more in until July. 

	If the British Gov't really wanted peace in NI then they could invite
	the UN to deploy a peace keeping force. Even if the British Gov't
	had to pay the UN for this force it would probably cost less than
	the current �53 which it costs each tax payer in mainland Britain
	to keep NI British.

	The presence of the British forces in NI exacerbates the problems
	there. Even if half of the evidence offered by Amnesty International
	is correct then the British Gov't is as much at fault as all the
	"other" terrorists.
    

    >The majority of people in Northern Ireland want to stay in the U.K and
    >the majority of people in Ireland don't want a United Ireland unless
    >the majority of people in Northern Ireland want it.
    
    I would alter it slightly Peter by adding #2...
    
    1. The majority of people in Northern Ireland want to stay in the U.K and
    2. the majority of people in Ireland would prefer a United Ireland and
    3. the majority of people in Ireland don't want a United Ireland unless
       the majority of people in Northern Ireland want it.
    
    I am *not* an advocate of violence in NI, but as Eddie has pointed out,
    the British could be a bit more imaginative and creative in runnning
    the 6 counties like
    
    	jointly policing NI with the Irish Garda
    	removing the big British military presense in NI
        removing all border posts
        allowing people in the border areas to live normal lives
    
    In general, just playing a more low key role in NI...
    
    /george
                       

    
    Re .43, so you came out of hiding at last? Holohan needs the help.
    I guess you live off mental reruns of the battle of Bannockburn and
    imagine AI (who this week told off the US for supporting terror govts)
    actually did say that British 'collusion' with paramils caused as many
    deaths as the IRA?
    
    Really wanting peace, so call in the UN. How utterly pathetic. Did you
    check out Somalia, pal?
    

    
    By the way, "eddie" - the Bruteish govt are occupying Scotland as an
    occupation army, aren't they? Own up.
    

    
>    Really wanting peace, so call in the UN. How utterly pathetic. Did you
>    check out Somalia, pal?
 

did you?

The UN made some tactical blunders trying to capture one of the clan
leaders. However, people were starving to death before the UN intervention,
law and order had completely broken down. If you view the totality of
the Somalian situation, before and after intervention, haven't things
improved significantly?

The UN is having some success in the former Yugoslavia (well not much!).

The UN is holding the line in Cyprus, the same between Syria and Israel.
Didn't they bring some measure of democracy back to Cambodia?

I don't know if the UN are the right people to broker peace for Ireland but
fresh faces might be able to make progress? Anything's better than leaving
things the way they are.

M

 

    
    Yes, I 'did', certainly more than you did anyway. Somalia situation
    deteriorated precisely at the time Bhoutros Bhoutros Gali became the
    CinC, which position Slick handed him. A humanitarian mission organized
    by the US, with the US in command (forget the UN figleaf - was a US
    mission), degenerated into a hunt-Aidid fiasco. "Made some tactical
    blunders" of the UN is a farce. They politicized the whole thing, and
    wrongly, which is no doubt what you would like to see anyway, hence
    your support. Of course the UN won't get involved anyway. They know a
    real drain when they see it, as opposed to empire building in Africa.
    Britain, for its own security reasons viz a viz the USSR in the 80s
    (and perhaps again in the 90s), won;t allow the security situation in
    Ireland to degenerate to the point that it would with the UN in charge.
    I guess you'd have Turkish and Swedish bluehelmets separating the
    combatants? You would start by disbanding the RUC as an arm of 'prejudice'
    and right there the Protestants would know whose side the UN were on.
    It's a pipe dream anyway. Got to get real.
    
    As for the "UN is having some success in Bosnia", that is a joke.
    The UN probably makes things worse there, and while they are there, no one
    will arm the Moslems.
    
    And Cyprus is a looong time ago...
    
    Britain spends 1/3rd of the entire budget of the Republic in NI. The
    Republic doesn't want it. All the Republic wants is to keep the war out
    of its current borders, which the paramils are challenging. UN isn't
    a magical solution that will change the intractability of the problem. 
    

    RE: .46  by NOVA::EASTLAND 
    
    >By the way, "eddie" - the Bruteish govt are occupying Scotland as an
    >occupation army, aren't they? Own up.
    
    And let's not forget Wales, shall we.
    

    
    That too, since the brave freedom fighter (who really was a freedom
    fighter), Own Glndwr, and perhaps before. And the biggest insult was to
    make the King's eldest son the Prince of Wales, given what twerps have
    had that role. 
    

    RE: .50  by NOVA::EASTLAND 
    
    >And the biggest insult was to make the King's eldest son the Prince of
    >Wales, given what twerps have had that role. 
    
    Ahh, but that shows how wonderfully devious the English can be in their
    peace negotiations.  Did not the English King (Edward n?) promise them
    as Prince of Wales, one born in Wales who could not even speak English? 
    The trick was that he gave them his own infant son, born in Wales, who
    could not, in fact, speak English, except for maybe "goo-goo".
    

Re .45
    
>    Re .43, so you came out of hiding at last? Holohan needs the help.

Just because you don't like what Mark Holohan says soesn't make it
wrong.

>    I guess you live off mental reruns of the battle of Bannockburn and
>    imagine AI (who this week told off the US for supporting terror govts)
>    actually did say that British 'collusion' with paramils caused as many
>    deaths as the IRA?

I don't know if AI said that "British 'collusion'" caused as many deaths
as the IRA but if you are into sick score-keeping then you should realise
that the loyalist murder squads are now killing more people per year than
the IRA. I am not defending any murders by either side.
    
>    Really wanting peace, so call in the UN. How utterly pathetic. Did you
>    check out Somalia, pal?
    
Tut-tut. I say ! calm down old bean ! Where's you British stiff upper lip, 
old boy ! Have I ruffled your feathers by showing you too much reality. Oh
do pardon me ;-)

Re .46

>    By the way, "eddie" - the Bruteish govt are occupying Scotland as an
>    occupation army, aren't they? Own up.

It is you who say it and I bow to your "superior" English Imperialist 
"knowledge".
              

    
    Dear Mr Eastland,
    
    It seems you don't like anyone to challenge your anglo-imperialistic
    viewpoint and you respond with your usual vitriolic rantings when anyone
    dares pour doubt on your narrow-minded and blinkered view on life.
    
    I take heart in the sure knowledge that there are hundreds of
    "reasonable" "read-only noters" in this conference who can see you for
    what you are and who realise that the continuation of the troubles in
    NI are mainly due to the hard-line attitudes (on both sides) of people
    like you.
    
    What exactly have you got against a UN presence in NI ?
    
    Don't you want to see peace over there ? (Silly question, I know but
    humour me).
                      

    
    Another content free note eh Eddie? And no reply to our little question
    reegarding the IRA. We already discussed the UN, without you. When you
    think you can add something that you might care to support from one
    note to the next, do let us know, won't you, Eddie..
    

    Sorry to disillusion you Eddie, but my tricorder shows higher blinkered 
    view and rant levels from you than from Chris Eastland. Never mind, I'm
    not a read-only noter. Reasonable? I guess you would say not.
    
    Dave

 re. .57

  Wrong, Eddie was right on the money.  Our recently departed 
  Eastland was a prime example of British narrow minded imperialistic
  bombastic viewpoint.

                       Mark

    
    Oh say it isn't so, Mark dear heart! An imperialist and bombastic to
    boot. It warms the cockles of my heart to hear you speak of me so.
    Why it's been nigh on a year since the Drotterish one called us all
    boot-licking Brit neo-imperialistic toadies. Are you sure you didn't
    mean neo- instead of narrow-minded, or perhaps in addition to?
    

    How come I don't get compliments like that?
    
    Dave

    Seeing Holohan calling Eastie narrow-minded brings a phrase involving
    pots and kettles to mind.
    
    Laurie.

    
    Markie has a one lane superhighway from the great revolutionary slogan 
    factory beaming into his befuddled head.
    

    Drugs,  It just has to be drugs.