Conference tallis::celt

    this `do you condemn?' mantra is getting very, very boring. We all know
    where everyone stands on this issue. Why is it so important? Will one
    life be saved? Will the peace process live or die on Mark's answer? I
    could come back with a million and one `but do you condemn HMG's
    actions in 19xx and 19xx?...' type-questions but what's the point???? it 
    gets us nowhere and creates ill-feeling in the process. We should be doing
    the opposite...agree to differ on some issues but get on with the
    process of rebuilding the peace thru discussion....
    
    Ray....

    RE: .1
    
    Well said. Give us a break from the 'do you condemn' stuff and have
    some constructive debate.
    
    Gerry

 Sorry, but I feel ( and I guess some others do ), that it is important.
 I consider some of Mark's replies to be ambivalent, therefore I 
 find it difficult to understand some of his arguments. I'm prepared to
 listen and debate.

 Stuart

re .1, .2

even more tiresome (again, the usual disclaimer, not necessarilty in this 
conference) is the continually repeated, over and over and over again, opinion 
that `well actually the bomb was rather unpleasant - but the British this, and 
the British that, and the British the other'; it's bloody irritating that 
people are passively condoning the murder or innocent people, saying pretty 
much, to read between the lines, `they deserved it.  They were British.'

Rumour has it that some sections of the Boston community celebrated when they 
heard the news.

Chris.

re: .0 ambivalent replies

I heard an editorial on a Boston TV station a few years back and I think
it introduces a concept that may help explain the apparent ambivalence.

The news feature was on the two English soldiers that were attacked when
they ran into a large funeral (that should date it well!).
At the end of the show the station, at least at the time, would feature
an editorial where they gave their opinion of the news [The American media
culture is that you separate news and editorial and make that separation clear]
They condemmed the events that day, but the parting line was...

 "It's high time the British Govt. got to the root cause of this situation"

The notion of a 'root cause' is popular amongst some groups in America. This
usually refers to the idea that Protestant and Catholic would live peacefully
together [as they do the length and breadth of America] were it not for
British insistance on maintaining a colony in Ireland. 

People that hold this view despair at the murderous atrocities such
as those in docklands. Their condemnation extends to all those they
perceive as culpable, which is why no single group is condemned.

Personally I don't know whether this point of view is valid or not but
it is a useful concept if you wish to understand some of the postings
in here.

M 
    

>Rumour has it that some sections of the Boston community celebrated when they 
>heard the news.
    
    What section was that Chris? I'm a member of many Irish cultural
    groups around Boston (Cumann na Gaeilge, Ceoltas Ceoltoiri Eireann,
    etc.) and I CANNOT recall a *single* acquaintance among hundreds
    that "celebrated" upon hearing the news.
    
    What good are rumours to the peace process?
    
    George

Sorry George, I picked up on that from the Usenet (which as I said, should be 
taken with the utmost caution!)  I wasn't trying to make a particular point 
about Boston, just that some people seem to be, for some reason, cheering on 
the latest atrocities.  If you like, I'll dig out the appropriate posts.

I'd like to point out that as far as I'm concerned, and also as far as the 
poster of the article appears to be concerned, this isn't representative of 
the people of Boston.

Chris.

    No need to dig out the post Chris. I believe you. There
    will always be a few wankers (to use keVin's term) everywhere.
    I'm sure we have our share of them. But in all honesty, there
    is no celebration in Boston. If anything, there was a mood of
    despair. And compared with the general "lot" of the 50 Million
    Irish Americans, the Boston crowd (generally speaking) is a
    lot more informed about the issues than most give us credit.
    
    Slan,
    Geo

re .8,

you're right, and I hope I haven't apparently managed to slate Boston in this, 
there are gits everywhere.  Just as likely here, too.

Chris.

    The more I think about certain things, the more they make me annoyed.
    Take for example the much-used phrase "The bombing was sad but the
    british.....etc". Now lets really think about this, Northern Ireland
    was conquered and then colonized along with southern Ireland around the
    1100's. The only major change in 900 years was partition in the
    1920's. The need for partition was brought about by the civil war that
    Ireland experienced just after independance. The majority of the
    northen irish people do not want to be part of a republic of ireland
    but prefer to stay in union with Great Britain.
    
    The problem is that partition entrapped a number of people who aspired
    to a nationalist agenda. These people, predominately catholic, felt
    more at home with a Republic of Ireland than a six-county province of
    the UK. The extremeist elements of these people have refused to
    recognise British Rule since the begining.
    
    Since partition, Northern Ireland was governed by a loyalist regime.
    Untill 1967, England paid little attention to NI, prefering instead to
    let it sort things out for itself. The presence of the IRA was very
    minor by today's standards thus Northern Irish affairs remaind fairly
    low on the British Government priorities. Unfortunately, perhapps due
    to the British neglect, the government of NI began creating a 'Loyalist
    State', a state that claimed 'A protestant state for a protestant people'
    and consequently became heavily descriminated towards catholics.
    
    The discrimination was such that in the mid sixties, and influenced by
    the human rights and civil liberty movements that were sweeping
    europe and america, people began to protest against the unfairness of
    the loyalist state. The resulting civil unrest and consequent media
    attention began to move NI up the British Government's political
    agenda. The catholic poulation were interested in improving their lot
    with regards to housing and jobs (being heavily discriminated against
    by the protestant machine) whilst the unionists saw the catholics as
    unloyal to the state and thus effectively trying to destableise the
    state with their protesting actions. It was as a result of the
    following feuds that the IRA was reincarnated in 1969 (being virtually
    extinct since 1963). With NI bordering upon civil war, the police
    unable to efficiently control the unrest and the loyalist politicians
    failing to introduce reforms fast enough, the Stormont Loyalist
    Regime was disolved and direct rule introduced.
    
    The situation is still very much the same today.
    
    Now back to the point of my note. Why do people keep insisting opon the
    intransience of the British, the guilt of the British, the
    oppresiveness of the British...etc. Direct rule was introduced to avoid
    a civil war that would have all but wiped out the catholic communities
    of NI. The IRA's eventual attempt to protect their nationalist communities
    from the Special B's and Loyalist Gangs (both elements of the Loyalist state
    and not the British State) was very commendable but their reaction to
    the British deployment of troops to sustain order was totaly over the
    top. They started a campaign of terror and violence which had as its
    objective the goal of getting the British to withdraw from Ireland, not
    just the troops, but every crown force in the province - that means the
    police, the fire-brigade, all government institutions.....effectively
    the IRA had a goal of creating an anarchistic state or the
    reunification of the six counties with the republic even though that
    such a reunification would be against the wishes of the majority that
    live, and have lived for generations, in NI.
    
    It is evident that the British Government would never give into the
    IRAs demands. Faced now with a continued campaigne of terror the
    British Government became locked in a 25 year struggle to counter that
    terror - the orriginal calls for equal rights between catholics and
    protestants being lost in the bloody following.
    
    The British may have been wrong in invading and colonizing Ireland in
    the 1100s, it may have been wrong by creating a history of oppression
    throughout the years but is it really the root of all evil in NI. Can
    it be blamed because it respected the democratic wish of the majority,
    can it be blamed because it does not want to be seen to allow terrorism
    to win, can it be blamed if it heeds the interests of all parties and
    not just those with the gun ?
    
    I don't think Britain's record is clean...I'm aware of certain security
    service personnel involvement in the Republic Bombings, collusion,
    shoot to kill and several other Human Rights abuses....but it is a few,
    not the entirety of Britain and its populous, that have stained hands.
    
    What makes me mad is that we are often judged by this alone and not for
    the fact that we have spent 25odd years fighting against a terrorist
    regime that has no democratic mandate and does not represent the wishes
    of the majority, that has continued to mame our country folk and
    destroy our institutions, that has continued to refuse to adopt a
    non-violent path regardless of the sacrifices we have made.
    
    There will never be winners in this conflict. If the IRA could show
    just 10% of the tolerance and diplomacy that Britain has showed of late
    then peace would be here tommorow.
    
    Shaun.
    
    
    

    Sense at last, thankyou Shaunus.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    .10
    Shaun, I'll just comment on one or two paras....
    
>>> Direct rule was introduced to avoid
>>> a civil war that would have all but wiped out the catholic communities
>>> of NI. 

    If a civil war had broken out the Irish government at that time wouldn't 
    have stood idly by while catholics were being wiped out....I have no
    doubt that they would have intervened to protect the catholic
    community. A friend of mine was in the Irish army at that time and he
    assures me that they had prepared for this eventuality.
    
>>> The British may have been wrong in invading and colonizing Ireland in
>>> the 1100s, it may have been wrong by creating a history of oppression
>>> throughout the years but is it really the root of all evil in NI. 
    
    `may have been wrong'???? Shouldn't this read `were totally wrong' in
    both instances? 
    
>>> Can it be blamed because it respected the democratic wish of the
>>> majority?
    
    Are we talking about 1920's here? If so, the democratic wish of the 32
    counties was not that a 6 county mini state be created....
    
>>>     There will never be winners in this conflict. If the IRA could show
>>> just 10% of the tolerance and diplomacy that Britain has showed of late
>>> then peace would be here tommorow.
   
    Is this the same Britain that dumped the Mitchell report and introduced
    a brand new precondition to all party talks? Very tolerant, very
    diplomatic....
    
    Shaun, your note and this reply highlights the difficulties that lie 
    ahead for the peace process....different, opposing views, all of which 
    need to be accomodated in any future settlement. We will all need to be 
    flexible in our attitudes to the North....
    
    Ray....

    .12
    
    Some more than others.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Re .10
    
    Shaun,
    
    Your presentation of Irish history is very selective. I will not
    attempt to address and correct every point in it. I'll leave that to
    some of the other noters in here who are more knowledgeable than I am
    on this subject.
    
    I will, however, raise just two points:-
    
    The Nation which invaded Ireland in the 1100s was "England". The UK
    didn't come in to existence until 1707.
    
    Your assertion that the UK was ever democratic concerning NI is
    laughable. If they were so democratic then why did they have to redraw
    the border several times to ensure a protestant/loyalist majority in
    NI?
    
    (Er can I make that 3 points?)
    You neglected to mention the plantation of Scottish protestants in NI.
    
    Eddie.

    .14
    
    
    You are never selective are you Eddie?
    
    
    CHARLEY

So what if the border was redrawn several times?  Borders throught Europe and 
the rest of the world have continually been drawn and redrawn over the 
centuries.  What makes the NI border special?

Chris.

    Eddie, your points are fair enough. My own comprehension of Irish
    History is still in the making. The UK is in fact the United Kingdom of
    Great Britain and Northern Ireland and only came about in the 1920s....I
    would therefore assume that it was Great Britain that came into effect in
    1707.
    
    I fully accept that Scottish Protestants were implanted in NI and, by
    todays standards, that would be considered as 'ethnic charging'. I dont
    think it was moraly right and I accept that there wouldn't be a
    protestant majority in NI if it were not for such ethnic charging - or
    indeed for Oliver Cromwell's violent ethnic cleansing of catholics to
    Connault (he also gave the English Crown a bit of a bad time as well) but
    it happened and should be confined to history. The fact remains that
    for the most part, the populus of NI now born and bred in NI and have
    done so for a few generations. Accepting the fact that we cannot now
    tell them they are in fact Scottish and should all go home, you will
    have to accomodate them.
    
    I don't think its productive to reconcilliation to be drawn out into
    the past.
    
    Border redrawing, or gerrymandering, may have been a british trait at
    the start of partition but it is the Stormont Regime, not the British,
    who have abused it (eg Derry Council Elections).
    
    Personaly, I believe all party talks should have started after the
    release of the Mitchell report. The British Government chose the loop
    hole of Elections, and I think they made a mistake but that does not,
    as i'm sure we'll all agree, excuse the killing of two British
    Citizens. Opposing views are tantamount to racism.
    
    Shaun.

    re .10
    
   > Now back to the point of my note. Why do people keep insisting opon the
   > intransience of the British, the guilt of the British, the
   > oppresiveness of the British...etc. Direct rule was introduced to avoid
   > a civil war that would have all but wiped out the catholic
   > communities of NI.
    
    Well I keep going on about the intransigence of the Unionists, which is
    not quite the same thing. 
    
    The main reason is because the way to peace is to create a consensus
    amoung the 99% who reject violence and also remove as far as possible
    the ideological justification for the violence. The main group blocking
    this at the moment, IMHO are lead by messrs Trimble and Taylor. Thus I
    criticise them. The major issue blocking consensus is the border as it
    is presently defined. I think it is true to say that the majority of
    Irish people regard the Border as an abomination, an opressive division
    of the country which blights it economically and part of a system of
    economic domination of the Republic through the UKOGBANI which only
    loosened when we both joined the EC. Thus we need to redefine this in
    order to achieve consensus and isolate the terrorists.(I would like to
    give just one example of the problem of the Border, which has been
    adressed during recent negociations: women in Donegal with breast
    cancer have to take an arduous bus journey to Dublin to get
    chemotherapy instead of going to the next nearest city: (London)Derry.)
    
    The history is important, as we need to understand how the knot got
    tied in order to untie it. That is why I waffle on about home rule
    bills, Gladstone etc. I would much prefer to talk about more important
    subjects, like the next Ireland v. England rugby match, but when things
    like Canary Wharf happen the priorities change.
    
    The ideology of the IRA is important, because if we do not adress it we
    will never manage to persuade them to leave it out, or reduce them to a
    size which makes them unable to sustain a campaign, such as O'Brady's
    lot at the moment. 
    
    To get back to the base note: Stuart, I can only give you the advice
    that was given me when I embarked on a very long argument with Mark.
    You are wasting your time, you won't get a straight answer from him and
    I have already explained to you what the answer is anyway. Gerry Adams
    carried the coffin of the teenager who took the badly made bomb into
    the Shankill chip shop, when that young man was given a hero's burial.
    What more do you want? 
    
    There is also the point that there have been objections, from me and
    others, that a public expression of support for terrorist murder aimed
    at the civilian population, part of which are Digital employees, is not
    something which Digital employees have to put up with. That is to say,
    it is bad enough having to step round IRA bombs on your way in to work
    without finding someone there cheering on the bombers. For my part it
    is certainly not covered by free speech if it is combined with
    sarcastic taunting aimed at "Brits" and fellow employees. 
    This has been raised several times in this conference. It may be why
    Mark is reticent to answer your question.  
      
    Kevin

    A very good note Kevin. I agree there is a need to understand the
    history in order to console the grievences, I also feel that these
    grievences would be better consoled without a gun against my head. I
    abhor violence thus I abhor terrorism. It is a sad man who would rather
    take up the armalite than employ political tact and patience to
    negociate his goals.
    
    Just compare the giantesque work of John Hume against the rhetorical clap
    trap of Adams and supporters.
    
    Shaun.
     

    re .12, .14 etc.. How about forgetting history and dealing with the
    present politcal reality of NI. That's why this damn conflict has
    dragged on so long, every time some change is suggested the cry goes up
    from some faction "what about 11xx, 15xx,16xx 19xx etc". History is a
    moderately good teacher but a very poor master.
    
                            Dennis

 re: history

History is all important in this situation, nobody is going to forget it.

I don't think it goes back as far as you suggest though.

Protestants were the first to take up the Republican Cause. When the 
American Revolution was under way this inspired their own independence
movement. A couple of contemporaneous quotes:
 
    "The presbyterians in the north are in there hearts Americans"

	- Simon Harcourt

    "We're all Americans here except such as attached to the castle
      or papists".

        - anonymous Cork correspondant

At that time the Catholics were the 'Loyalists' (to the crown).

During the 19th Century Catholics were won over to the Protestant cause,
adopting all the organization from the protestants (Republican politics,
The Volunteer movement etc..). 
Both communities wanted an Irish Republic.

This all changed in the 1880's when Churchill saw an opportunity to
rescue Tory political fortunes by making an issue of the concerns of
some protestants that didn't like the momentum of change. Ulster Unionism
did not arise spontaneously, it was an issue manufactured in Westminster.

Now it seems to be Deja vu all over again, the Tories are in trouble
electorily and ...

If the Irish were left to work this out on their own I'm sure they
could come to an amicable and peaceful settlement.

M 

    SILENCE, PERFECT SILENCE for two days.
    
    Were yez all on the 171?
    
    

                   <<< Note 1553.22 by CHEFS::MCGETTRICKS >>>
                            -< Where are you all? >-

>    SILENCE, PERFECT SILENCE for two days.
    
>    Were yez all on the 171?
    
 

Not on Sunday, but sometimes I catch it from Camberwell.


Stuart

BTW It terminates outside the Oarsman pub.. 1 minute from the Digital 
Office.   

    It's over 16 years ago since I was on one. Can you remind me of the
    route please?
    
    There is a half-page picture of the bus in the Irish Times today.
    
    I think I'll cut it out and put it up on my desk.
    
    Was that pub always called that? I can't remember it
    
    Do they stil have bus conducters?
    
    Kevin
    
    

                   <<< Note 1553.24 by MKTCRV::KMANNERINGS >>>
                      -< Oh maybe its because I'm a ... >-

>    It's over 16 years ago since I was on one. Can you remind me of the
>    route please?
    
      Catford - Camberwell - Elephant - Waterloo - Holborn ( and a 
      few places inbetween. 

>   There is a half-page picture of the bus in the Irish Times today.
    
>    I think I'll cut it out and put it up on my desk.
 
     Its even more "impressive" in the flesh.
   
>    Was that pub always called that? I can't remember it
 
     Apparently years ago, it was known as the Oxford and Cambridge.

>    Do they stil have bus conducters?

     Not on many routes ( including the 171 ), the protective barrier
     around the driver, probably saved his life.

     Stuart    
    

    >  Its even more "impressive" in the flesh.
    
    Yes, even with the picture I think it is really beyond the imagination
    to comprehend the horror of it.

    The Oxford and Cambridge.. it has come back to me. It had a nice sign
    with light and dark blue oars. Now, isn't there a TSB branch aross the
    road and a bus depot near by? Was that the depot where it was heading
    for? 
    
    Kevin 

                   <<< Note 1553.27 by MKTCRV::KMANNERINGS >>>
                                -< memory lane >-

>    The Oxford and Cambridge.. it has come back to me. It had a nice sign
>    with light and dark blue oars. Now, isn't there a TSB branch aross the
>    road and a bus depot near by? Was that the depot where it was heading
>    for? 
    
     Kevin,

     The sign has gone, the TSB has gone, and the bus stand is where
     route 171 has a little rest.

     Stuart

 

re various from Mark Holohan.

Mark, 

   you bemoan HMG's intransigence in not initiating all party talks as soon
after the cease fire as practical. As you may have gathered from notes that I
have entered from time to time I, along with many people of my aquaintance in
the U.K. would agree that to put obstacles put in the way of all party talks
was a mistake. Certainly pressure was building on the Government from portions
of the media to move more quickly towards talks, and latterly the Labour party
had been making sympathetic noises towards the idea of proximity talks, further
increasing the pressure. The resumption of the IRA's campaign of violence and
murder has destroyed that, all pre-conditions such as the requirement for
decommissioning can be said to have been justified.
   You say that it is imperative that talks be resumed and I agree with you, 
however that will not be possible, as both British and Irish Governments have
stated that there will no inclusion of Sinn Fein in talks without a resumption
of the cease fire. Strongly voiced condemnation of violence by all parts of the
the Irish American community would, I am sure, have influence upon the IRA
command structure. If you have any influence, either formal or informal in this
community would you be prepared to exert it to bring about such a condemnation,
thus making all party talks again a possibility and hastening a solution.

                             Dennis    

>   You say that it is imperative that talks be resumed and I agree with you, 
> however that will not be possible,

 Dennis,

 Everything is possible, when enemies sit down at the peace table and talk
 with one another.  Look at the middle east, and at south africa.  When
 adversaries sit down and agree to talk without preconditions, then solutions
 can be found.

>If you have any influence, either formal or informal in this
>community would you be prepared to exert it to bring about such a condemnation,
>thus making all party talks again a possibility and hastening a solution.
  

 As an American, I shall write my congressmen, and my President, asking that
 they exert pressure on the British government to talk with their adversaries.
 I suspect however, that Irish Republican Army bombs in London will have
 more influence on the British government, than words from my congressman
 or my President.  Contrary to some of the more radical British noters in
 here, or the self-proclaimed Irish Communist, Karl, I do not take any glee
 in that.  I'm sadened that British government intransigence has put my
 family members, and friends in London, in jeopardy.

 After 17 months there were no all party talks, because the British government
 refused to sit down and talk with their enemy.  Why would a reinstatement of
 the cease-fire bring about all party talks?  Answer, it won't. The world
 community has already seen that the British government had no intention
 of talking with it's enemy. On the other hand, all party talks would bring
 about a reinstatement of the cease-fire.


                             Mark
 

    Stuck record.
    
    
    CHARLEY

Open your eyes Mark, you're talking bollocks.  Not only that, you managed to 
slip a couple of character attacks in there, too.  Good one.

Chris.

    As a normaly restrained noter and one who can't stand personnal
    attacks, I have to say, mark, that I agree.....you are indeed talking
    bollocks. I find little interest in your arguments as they are so
    '1st Grade'; prefering rather to discuss with the maturer element of
    this conference.
    
    Please think-out your arguments if you wish to ascertain any
    credibility in this conference.
    
    Shaun.

    Actually, reading .30 again, I am forced to agree that the note and its
    content is utter crap.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Well, we have IRA propaganda in support of the Canary Wharf murders,
    and now in .30 we have a relapse into the hate mode with an ethnic
    slur. It seems obvious from the context that the remark about a
    self-proclaimed Irish person is a reference to myself, and of course,
    given Mr Holohan's racial interpretation of the history of these
    islands, the fact that I consider myself part English and part Irish
    and 'fraternise' with English noters in this conference is an anathema to
    him. It simply doesn't suit the hatred he is trying to stir up, which
    shows itself in the way he has related to the other noters in this
    conference. 
    
    I take the view that all Mr Holohan's entries since the Canary Wharf
    bombing should be set hidden, and that the moderator should take these
    issues up with Mr Holohan with a view to warning him about his notes
    and banning him from this conference in future if this continues. 
    
    I would appreciate it if other noters here would either state their
    opinion here or mail me privately, as I would not like to take this
    step without consulting with others. 
    
    Could someone please also point me at the relevant P&P documentation on
    this. I am basing my present opinion on the usual way trade unionists
    deal with racist shit-stirrers and the civil law, but it would be best
    to check out what our employer thinks wouldn't it. 
    
    Kevin Mannerings
     

    Kevin,
    
    I've decided that Holohan does so much damage to his cause, and to his
    personal standing that his notes should be let stand. In other
    conferences, which I no longer follow, he has made statements and
    slighted individuals in such an appalling manner that I have
    "escalated". However, he seems to have some kind of guardian angel in
    the Corporation, because nothing ever happens. Time and time again he
    demonstrates that he supports and encourages terrorism, and that he is
    either unwilling or simply incapable of seeing and accepting that there
    are many facets to this problem that need to be catered for.
    
    Although I have learnt that intelligent and constructive debate is a
    flight of fancy in this instance, the one thing I do believe in
    strongly, and now that I have access to the Electronic Telegraph it is
    becoming easier, is that the one-sided posting of IRA propaganda must no
    longer go unchallenged. US readers particularly seem to have quite a
    diet of this stuff, with no counter reference at all. By posting the ET
    articles, I believe two things happen. Firstly they can see that there
    is a counter-culture with a valid point of view, and that there are
    real people at the other end of this problem. Secondly, they can
    begin to see that the fare they have seen thus far is one-sided,
    biased, and quite often simply untrue or at best, heavily distorted.
    
    I may be wrong, and people may dislike the ET articles, but I believe
    that they give the readers of this conference a view they would
    otherwise not have, and one that will help them to begin to understand
    the issues, and how this affects the everyday lives of English and
    Irish people. It is not a game, it is real: it kills, maims, injures
    and destroys lives and property.
    
    Lastly, I too am half-English and half-Irish, and I too have been
    insulted by Holohan in a similar manner. I'm proud of my heritage, and
    pleased to have Irish blood in me, so his insults don't hurt me. What
    does hurt me is to see the salt of bigotry and hatred rubbed into the
    wounds when I feel anger, embarrassment and shame at my fellow Irishmen
    blowing up small children, and to see their apologist crowing about it,
    signing notes "Semtextly yours". Fortunately George would never allow
    that in this conference, and I don't read those where such things are
    tolerated.
    
    Regards, Laurie.

	Re last few notes

	Is this a proposal to only talk to Mark Holohan if he agrees not
	not slag off anyone or voice support for a cause in which he 
	believes ? - Sounds like preconditions to me.

	Is any conflict only solved by talking to people whose views agree
	with your own? I don't think so.

	I agree that Mark sometimes crosses the line with some of his 
	comments but surely censorship is not the answer. I have received
	quite a few insults from people in this conference but I am not
	baying for censorship.

	It seems that all of you who advocate not "noting" with Mark are
	following the same "head in the sand" attitude as John Major is
	over the peace talks and look where that has lead. If you need to
	follow someone's example then please choose someone who is clearly
	interested in peace like John Hume, for example, and not a 
	warmonger like John Major.
	
Eddie.
    

    Laurie,
    
    I don't agree. We have the right, and the need to discuss these issues
    in an atmosphere which is not polluted with hatred. We have a situation
    where colleagues working in England are intimately affected on a daily
    basis by a campaign of terror which is emanating in part from the 
    communitieswhich those of us in Ireland live in. In one case the relative 
    of a Digital employee lost his life in the conflict. Many of us communicate
    daily with one another in the course of our work. It is intolerable
    that our communication has to take place in an atmosphere in which
    expressions of gutter hatred are tolerated.
    
    This position should not be confused with the question of whether Sinn
    Fein should be allowed to talks, Section 31 debates or the like. I
    think many Sinn Feiners and Republicans would support me in rejecting the 
    expressions of hate we have seen here. 
    
    Kevin

    That was a really intelligent note Eddie, well done.
    
    As a special treat, I'll let you do some potato printing now.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Eddie, 
    
    the logic of what you say is than any IRA supporter is allowed to say
    whatever they want, and we have to put up with it because we want
    peace. It is also a misrepresentation of my position that I am
    following John Major. I am in favour of immediate talks with SF. You
    must know that. But that is not the point. We are not in Parliament
    here and not at Hyde Park Corner. Each and every employee is entitled
    to respect and to be protected against ethnic slurs by his employer.
    
    That is not being observed by Mr Holohan in this conference and that
    for me is not only a condition of his being allowed to note here, it is
    an obligation which he has as a result of his employment at Digital. If
    he does not want to work with people of other origins, he can leave the
    company. I reject his right to stir up hatred in the workplace. That is
    what he is doing, and that is the issue.
    
    Kevin 

    Thank you Kevin.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Yeah, I can buy into that Kevin.
    
    Laurie.

Kevin,

I was in the middle of composing an answer to your .35 more or less agreeing
with Laurie's original reply, but having read your further notes I believe 
you are right.
      
Dave

    As one who normally is utterly opposed to censorship I'm inclined to
    let the lamb bleet, however, I have to accept that we are discussing in
    a working environment and, whereas I may have the thick skin to dismiss
    mark's romantic attempts at propogating a cause he obviously knows
    little about, I am aware that there are others who exist that might be
    more prone to his empty but insultive comments.
    
    It is for these reasons that I would like to see some moderation of his
    behaviour....and soon.
    
    
    Shaun.

    As said before I will set hidden any notes that are personal
    attacks, racist in nature, threats, libelous, or compromise
    the security of our fellow Digital employees, wherever they
    may reside. If there are notes which I have overlooked let
    me know and I'll address each one.
    
    From a idealogical (and to some extent a practical) viewpoint,
    I am adamantly opposed to censorship in any form.
    
    Personally I think we have run the gamut in the NI issue. We all
    have quite differing viewpoints. Hopefully we can agree to disagree.
    I suggest we focus on constructive notes, instead of slagging matches.
    
    Slan,
    George

    George,
    
    I have already made it clear that I am not criticising you.
    
    However,
    
    setting notes hidden IS censorship. I am loath even to apply for it,
    but I feel there ARE limits, which are being transgressed,
    systematically. 
    
    I shall get back to you privately with my reasons.
    
    Kevin

    RE .40
    
    Kevin,
    
    I agree with everything you said in your notes regarding hatred and
    censorship. I also take your point that we are not at Hyde Park corner
    or protected by Parliamentary privilege and that each of us has the
    right not to suffer hatred and abuse in our place of work.
    
    I do not condone the stirring of hatred but particular attention should
    be paid its source which is not always Mark Holohan. The hatred notes
    and inflammed response often comes as a reaction to something which he
    has posted. There is also a great deal of childish noting which should
    be avoided too.
    
    Eddie.

    The question about Mark's notes (I bet he's loving all of this) is that
    most of us can see it is propaganda for an illegal terrorist group.
    
    This for one contradicts Digital's P&P.
    
    Secondly, racial attacks must not be tolerated. The slagging off of nations
    and all who live there has been posted on numerous occasions in this 
    notesfile.
    
    This contradicts Digital's P&P as well.
    
    I can't be arsed to carry on.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Re -.1
    
    "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."

    I'm begining to get annoyed with all this. As much as the moderator
    hates censorship (probably as much as me) he has to also recognise the
    Dec p&p. Mark's notes have crossed way over the line quite a few times.
    I request, nicely in the first instance, that the moderator pays more
    attention to the material being entered in this conference.
    
    Shaun.

    I am shocked by the suggestion to gag Holohan.
    
    The only reason I log into this notes file is to hear diverse views and
    I do regard files such as this one (and, for example, UK_Digital) as Hyde
    Park style mediums.
     
    In contrast, technical notes files ought to be tightly controlled and
    regulated.
    
    To put this in context; I am an Irishman living in the UK and working
    in Entrprise House, London. I am well aware of the impact of IRA
    activities in the UK on myself and on my local community in which we live.
     
    Whether we like it or not, Holohan's views constitute the driving force
    that has sustained IRA violence for a lot longer than the 25 year
    period everybody seems to focus on. They motivated that man to get on
    the 171 on Sunday night! We ignore them at our peril.
    
    I also make it my business to understand the British point of view on
    the Irish issue. My mother-in-law sees to that!!
    
    No gagging orders here, please.
    
    Sean

    RE .51
    
    I agree. We're actually *lucky* to have Mark here to contribute.
    Without him and other like-minded (though admittedly less extreme)
    people here to put forward their views, many topics in here would be
    much less interesting.
    
    I know Mark can be blinkered, insensitive and sometimes insulting but 
    that's simply representative of the organisation he supports. And I've
    seen plenty of remarks directed AT Mark that are just as close to the
    bone P&P-wise as some of his comments.
    
    Jamie.

    .51 .52
    
    I'll have to add my e-voice to the no-gag campaign. Suppressing a view
    doesn't make it go away and, like George, I'm fundamentally opposed to
    censorship....                                                 
    
    Ray....

    .49
    
    I can hold my hands up and say I have been over the top with my notes
    in the past...in the face of lies, racism, bigotry and justification of
    the murder of children who wouldn't be????
    
    
    CHARLEY

    
    re: 51,52,53
    
    > The only reason I log into this notes file is to hear diverse views
    >and I do regard files such as this one (and, for example, UK_Digital)
    >as Hyde Park style mediums.
    
    Thanks for the opinions, which I respect but disagree with.
    
    First, we are not at Hyde Park, we are at work. We have contracts,
    duties and rights. Noone has to go to Hyde Park. But when you are at
    work there should be no nogo areas where racists can abuse people they
    hate.
    
    Sean, let me try this on you:
    
    In Belfast the Loyalist Workers Association, a trade union, campaigns
    for the sacking of all Catholic workers. Newsheets from groups
    associated with Loyalist extremists have published the following views:
    
    People like yourself, Sean, Irish born people, are genetically
    defective, they are less intelligent, more prone to mental illness and
    alchoholism. 
    
    There is also a group of academics who provide the fuel for this, I
    even remember Prof. Eyesenk on the Late Late Show a few years ago
    explaining why he believed that Irish people are less intelligent.
    
    Around the 12. July at Shorts in Belfast thing become unbearable for
    many Catholic workers are subjected to this kind of abuse. 
    
    Would you be happy if fellow Digital employees were using Digital
    resources to propagate such views?
    
    Do you think such views are covered by free speech when they accompany
    apologias for Loyalist murders?
    
    My answer is clear. The views expressed above are racist crap. I
    support the Protestant and Catholic trade unionists in the North who
    have campaigned to have all posters flags etc supporting such views
    removed, censored, taken down etc. I supoport in the same way the trade
    unionists in Germany who have campaigned to stop the daubing of "Turks
    out!" slogans in the car factories, because they no it leads to
    Solingen and Rostock.
    
    Where do you stand Sean?
    
    Kevin

    RE .55
    
    I take your point, but the way I see it is in order to understand and
    unravel issues it's nice to have an insight into the mentality of the
    people who hold the extreme views. I'd like to know what makes a racist
    movement tick and why supporters of organisations like this and like
    the IRA are so blinkered. The best way to do this is to speak to them.
    
    Mark is extreme in his views. He believes in what the IRA are doing. He
    supports them to the hilt and in mentality at least, he is one of them.
    He appears blinkered and selective yet he is undoubtedly very
    intelligent. I'd like to continue to read what he says so that I can
    understand him and his kind. To me, that's the most important thing.
    
    Jamie.

    Kevin,  you make some fair points but censorship isn't the answer in 
    my opinion so we'll agree to disagree on that one.
    
>>> First, we are not at Hyde Park, we are at work. We have contracts,
>>> duties and rights. Noone has to go to Hyde Park. But when you are at
>>> work there should be no nogo areas where racists can abuse people they
>>> hate.
   
    No-one HAS to read this notes file either. Whether the notes in
    question are racist is, again in my opinion, questionable. They are
    without doubt insensitive, they represent a more extreme point of view
    than the rest of the conference but we're all intelligent enough to
    make up our own mind. I don't think anyone has changed their views as a
    result of any number of Sinn Fein postings or, for that matter, ET
    postings.
    
    Ray....

.56 expresses better than I can my reservations about stopping Mark.
It's a fine call between doing that and allowing racial stereotyping and 
racist propaganda to pervade this conference.

Mark's postings used to frustrate me, annoy me, whatever. These days I just 
find them pathetic. That's due in no small part to people like Kevin who are
prepared to spend time and effort in showing up his views for what they are.

Dave

    RE: .58
    
    Wot he said.
    
    Laurie.

    I think an air of confusion exists. No one wants to gag Mark's views,
    or anyone else's for that matter. All views, no matter how diverse, are
    instrumental to debate. But lets be quite clear here, Digital P&P is
    totaly against racism....as are most of the noters in this conference.
    It is for this reason that racist slurs should not be tolerated and the
    moderator should exercise his powers in such matters.
    
    By their very nature, the issues being discussed will raise
    temperatures and it is perhapps understandable that certain notes will
    contain a directed snub of sorts....*BUT* the buck stops here! No more
    racist remarks.....OK!
    
    Shaun.

    re .57
    
    > No-one HAS to read this notes file either.
    
    No, but if they do they should not be subjected to hate notes and ethnic
    slurs. That is allowing Mr Holohan to decide who should be allowed to
    discuss here in peace and quiet and who should be abused, taunted, and
    placed under intolerable provocation.
    
    What I am saying is that the large amount of time we spend at work
    means that the sensitivities of others require extra respect, in this
    case he sensitivities of those whose communities are under terrorist
    attack. 
    
    The bottom line of what you are saying is that this conference is
    reserved for IRA supporters and those who wish to discuss with them,
    and those who don't care. Those who would like to have the discussion
    free of the hate can f off. That is discrimination and censorship in
    its own way.
    
    And you are saying that those who find that apologias for terrorist
    murders are not what they want to see their employer publishing have to
    give way to free speech. 
    
    Would it be okay if I said, "Catholics don't have to work here, these
    jobs are for loyalists."
    
    If people want to find out about what nutcase IRA supporters think they 
    can do it in their private life. I have no objection to that or the 
    posting of SF correspondence. But Mr Holohan is into far more than that. 
    He can publish his views outside the gate if he wishes. I don't believe the
    law would protect him if he did.
    
    My feeling is the issue and the reality of what we are witnessing here
    is being ignored. That people feel it is not that important. So the IRA
    blew up a few people in London. So what. What's new ? Who cares. why
    won't the Brits negotiate? Small bomb, not many killed. And a few Brits
    in London get upset about it. So what ? What about the potatoe famine?
    
    I stay by it, each and every Digital employee has the right to read
    this notes file without finding statements which are obviously designed
    to cause some the greatest of offence, to humiliate and denigrate them.
    
    It is not acceptable to me that my employer is providing the resources to
    support propaganda for a terror campaign against civilians which
    directly affects some of my fellow workers.
    
    Just to say "FREE SPEECH" is to bury your head in the sand and ignore
    it. It is perfectly possible to debate the issue from a SF standpoint
    without the hate.
     
    Kevin

    Kev wins the note of the year award.
    
    Thankyou Kev.
    
    
    CHARLEY

Seconded.  A very thought provoking note.

Chris.

Mark,

> As an American, I shall write my congressmen, and my President, asking that
> they exert pressure on the British government to talk with their 
adversaries.
> I suspect however, that Irish Republican Army bombs in London will have
> more influence on the British government, than words from my congressman
> or my President.  Contrary to some of the more radical British noters in
> here, or the self-proclaimed Irish Communist, Karl, I do not take any gl
> in that.  I'm sadened that British government intransigence has put my
> family members, and friends in London, in jeopardy.

  Out of curiosity, what ideological stance would you proclaim?

  Just wonderin'

  Pat

    re .55
    
    This is a relatively private medium and certainly I do not feel forced
    to log on as a result of being at work.
    
    Even if I found the contents of one message disagreeable, I can choose
    to ignore it - as I am doing with the notes on hurling and football
    which follow this note.                                               

    re .65
    
    I feel this answer is a cop out, because it does not address the
    question of whether those who do chose to log on should be subjected to
    abuse or not, depending on their views and origin. It should not be a 
    private medium, it is open to all employees. 
    
    Secondly it does not adress the question of whether there are ANY
    limits to free speech here.
    
    Thirdly it ignores the gravity of what is happening. We are not talking
    about hurling, we are talking about terrorist murder.
    
    Kevin 

 Pat,

> Out of curiosity, what ideological stance would you proclaim?

  I'll continue to ask my congressman, and my President to support the
  peace process, and to press for immediate all party talks.

  The only ideological stance I take, is that we must have peace talks,
  if we are going to have peace.  It is then up to the people who live
  on the Island of Ireland to determine the course of that peace.


                          Mark

Just to re-state my position before entering this note. I am not or ever have
been a supporter of SF or the IRA or any paramilitary organisation,

Ray....


1553.61
>>> re .57
    
>>> > No-one HAS to read this notes file either.
    
>>> No, but if they do they should not be subjected to hate notes and ethnic
>>> slurs. That is allowing Mr Holohan to decide who should be allowed to
>>> discuss here in peace and quiet and who should be abused, taunted, and
>>> placed under intolerable provocation.

    If there are `hate notes and ethnic slurs' contained in any notes there are
procedures for setting them hidden or deleting them. That is the moderator's
job. The moderator has not taken any action here and I happen to agree with
him. 
    
>>> The bottom line of what you are saying is that this conference is
>>> reserved for IRA supporters and those who wish to discuss with them,
>>> and those who don't care. Those who would like to have the discussion
>>> free of the hate can f off. That is discrimination and censorship in
>>> its own way.
   
    My bottom line says nothing of the sort. I'm sorry but I can't let this
paragraph go unchallenged. You accuse me of `discrimination and censorship'. I
assume you're referring to my `no-one HAS to read these notes' statement. How
do you equate this with telling ANYONE to `f off'?? Not true and not fair.
 
    I don't have time to go into the rest of your note at this time. Maybe
    later. Suffice to say that we have an ideological difference here....
    
    Ray....                             

    re .68
    
    I take your point that it is the moderator's job to watch over these
    things, and my understanding of George's position is that he is
    interrupt driven.
    
    In the meantime I have read the P&P's on this issue, which are quite
    coprehensive:
    
        Harassment of employees by coworkers, supervisors, managers,
         customers or vendors will not be permitted, regardless of their
         working relationship.  Reprisals for reporting harassment are
         also prohibited.  Harassment and reprisals for reporting
         harassment are serious offenses of Digital's work rules and
         will be subject to discipline up to and including termination.
    
    
    Definitions
    
         Harassment refers to conduct or behavior which is personally
         offensive or threatening, impairs morale or interferes with the
         work effectiveness of employees.  Harassment may be illegal and
         may subject the company and the individuals who engage in the
         harassment to significant liability.  However, behavior does
         not have to rise to the level of illegal conduct to violate
         this policy.
    
         This policy refers, but is not limited, to harassment in the
         following areas: (1) age, (2) race, (3) color, (4) national
         origin, (5) religion, (6) sex, (7) sexual orientation, (8)
         disability
         status and (9) veterans status.  Examples of such
         harassment include, but are not limited to: conduct or comment
         that threatens physical violence; offensive, unsolicited
         remarks, unwelcome gestures or physical contact; display or
         circulation of written materials or pictures degrading to any
         gender, racial, ethnic, religious or other group listed above
         and verbal abuse or insults about, or directed at, any employee
         or group of employees because of their membership in any of the
         groups listed above.
    
    	 Kevin

    1549.190
    
     >I personally think it would be a mistake for the IRA to immediately 
    resume the cease-fire.
    
    I wonder what the relatives of the victims would think if they knew the 
    Digital Equipment Corporation is publishing such statements?
    
    I wonder at those who think that incitement to murder is covered by
    free speech.
    
    Kevin Mannerings  
                

    .70
    
    I agree Kev, Mark's really outdone himself this time.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    No he hasn't, it's the same as ever, support and encouragement for
    terrorism.
    
    Laurie.

so the IRA would be wrong to call off its ceasefire?  One of Digital's offices 
is right slap bang in the epicentre of the IRA's latest indiscriminate 
campaign against the people of London, an office which I myself will be 
visiting tomorrow.  I obviously can't claim to speak for everyone, but I am 
f***ing furious that you, from the safety of a location several thousand miles 
away, can smugly comment that people like me should have to endure the risk of 
death from these murderous scumbags.  You have really gone too far this time.

Chris.

 I'll begin this note with the obligatory statement:  I do not now, nor
 have I ever supported the British Government of John Major, the British
 Army, or their loyalist death squad allies.

 Someone in here asked what might drive a young man to fight the way he
 did.  Here is the Republican perspective, for those interested in it.

                              Mark


          An Phoblacht/Republican News � Thursday February 29 1996

                       [An Phoblacht/Republican News]

                           Volunteer Eddie O'Brien
                    A thoughtful, strong-willed young man

-------------------------
   * Quiet tribute amidst media hysteria
   * Stolen memories
-------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Volunteer Eddie O'Brien was killed in a premature explosion in
     Wellington Street in the centre of London on Sunday 18 February.
     He was on active service for Oglaigh na hEireann.

     Eddie O'Brien was 21 years old and came from Gorey, County
     Wexford. He was the eldest of a family of three. His home was in
     Allenwood Drive where he lived up to two years ago with his
     brother Gary (14) and sister Lorraine (20) and their mother and
     father Margo and Miley O'Brien. He attended the local national
     school and Gorey Vocational School. He was a member of St Enda's
     Gaelic football and hurling club and of Gorey Rangers Soccer Club.
     He was a bakery worker up to the time he left for England.

     Here two comrades and friends of Eddie O'Brien pay tribute to the
     man they knew.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over two years ago, while the IRA campaign in England was at its height
Eddie O'Brien slipped into London unnoticed. He remained anonymous, but his
daring and courage in assisting his comrades in carrying about a variety of
attacks in the heartland of Britain's war machine did not go unnoticed.

Eddie was a likeable mischievous, young man, similar to any other young man
from Gorey, Dublin or any other Irish village, town or city. Yet, he was
different - Eddie had made a commitment, a commitment to end Britain's rule
in Ireland. Eddie joined Oglaigh na h�ireann in 1992 in the full knowledge
that his life would no longer be that of an ordinary young Gorey man, but
that of an IRA Volunteer. Like everything he undertook, Eddie was very
serious about his decision and his commitment.

While planning or carrying out operations he showed the same seriousness,
and attention to detail. He was always concerned about civilian safety and
several operations were cancelled because the possibility of civilian
casualties could not be ruled out 100%.

Though young Eddie O'Brien was determined to join the Republican Movement.
He often spoke to republicans he met in Gorey and as a result a local
Special Branchman visited his parents house. He also arrested Eddie and
attempted to intimidate him. This, as republicans well know, is a common
tactic. The hope is that by putting pressure on families they can intimidate
the son or daughter. This tactic didn't impress Eddie and when asked about
the arrest he just said ``no problem''. His instructions were to keep a low
profile and pretend that the intimidation worked. In this he succeeded.

A thoughtful, strong-willed young man, he impressed his comrades in Wexford
with his determination. He would often travel many miles to meetings and was
always searching for work to do. He spoke of his frustration at not playing
a more active role and it came as no surprise to his O/C that he volunteered
for active service in England.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Eddie joined Oglaigh na h�ireann in 1992 in the full knowledge
     that his life would no longer be that of an ordinary young Gorey
     man, but that of an IRA Volunteer. Like everything he undertook,
     Eddie was very serious about his decision and his commitment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any Volunteer operating on foreign soil is left in no doubt what hardships
they face. He was told of the inhumane conditions that exist in English
jails, the long suffering of prisoners like the Balcome Street Volunteers,
and that arrest or death faced him if he volunteered.

Eddie had already thought out his position. His reasoning was that attacking
the enemy on their soil was the role for him and the only thing England
would listen to.

The hardest thing Eddie had to except was that his comrades would be told
that he had resigned from the IRA; he worried that they would believe that
he had let them down but accepted the security reasons behind the decision.
``Sure someday they'll know''.

Another comrade says:

``I met Eddie in a hotel and we discussed what ever business we had. He
asked about his comrades and how each of them were getting on. Also how they
took the news of his resignation. I told him that they were shocked and
surprised but that I didn't think he fooled them all. He laughed at that and
as I got up to leave he put his hand out and I shook it. He gave me that
smile we have come to know and love - a smile that spoke volumes and I left.

``Eddie, your comrades were shocked at your death but they judge you as one
of the best.''

In London, Eddie blended in with his surroundings. Like thousands of other
young Irishmen, he worked as a labourer. He lived in a small bedsit, played
football with the local pub team and made friends of different ages and
races with many around him, at work, socialising or at his bedsits.

His own security precautions meant nobody around him had any indication that
he was a Volunteer operating in London. His own family believed him to be
working in Scotland.

Eddie's red hair defied all attempts by his unit to disguise it and he was
the butt of much light-hearted banter for it - not that he took it sitting
down. He always had an answer for his would-be tormentors. He didn't have an
answer for his culinary skills or lack of them. He was the worst cook in the
unit.

While the war was at its height Eddie rarely left his flat, reading and
listening to music. He refused to buy or rent a television, feeling that the
unit's money would be put to better use carrying out operations or buying
much-needed equipment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A thoughtful, strong-willed man, he impressed his comrades in
     Wexford with his determination. It came as no surprise to his O/C
     that he volunteered for active service in England.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the IRA called their ceasefire of 1 September 1994, he was in total
agreement with the leadership. He believed that it was his and others'
efforts coming to fruition. But, as time went on, and as the British
continually dragged their heels, he came to the conclusion that the British
would not leave Ireland unless the IRA went on the offensive again, that no
other option was left. He made these points forcefully to his comrades who
met him in London before Christmas and when he returned to Ireland at
Christmas time.

While at home at Christmas, Eddie enjoyed himself renewing family contacts
and mixing with his many friends in Gorey. While away he always maintained
contact with his family. Whenever he talked about his family, he always
hoped that down the road, the rift between himself and his father could be
healed because he loved and respected him. He wished that his father would
understand that he was an Irish republican.

He talked about others of his age group in Gorey and County Wexford and what
role they could play in building a new Ireland. He always believed that deep
down most Irish people were republicans who wished to see Ireland free from
British occupation and interference.

His friends and comrades in England and at home were saddened at his tragic
death, but the memory of his courage and determination inspires them. They
will continue to work for the free and peaceful Ireland which he desired so
much.

I measc laochra na nGael go raibh a anam d�lis. N� dh�anfaidh muid dearmad
ort Eddie. Sl�n a chara.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Contents Page for this Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Reply to: An Phoblacht/Republican News

 It would be interesting to read the eulogies this brave freedom fighter
 would have received should he had not only scored an own goal , but
 managed to have taken many innocent victims with him ( maybe even a 
 handful of American tourists).?

 Stuart

Interesting that members of the Sinn Fein leadership were seen present at his 
funeral.  Where were they at the funerals of the victims of people like him?

Chris.

    I've heard a lot of parallels in here to the peace process in Israel.
    Yesterday Hamas exploded another suicide bomb in Israel, and I heard
    Yasser Arafat condemn the bombing, the people who did it, and denounce
    them as spoilers of the peace process. He did it on world-wide
    television.
    
    When I hear Gerry Adams do the same, and act as if he means it, I'll
    accept that parallel as valid. Until then, despite all McGuinness'
    protests about SF's exclusion from talks until the IRA call another
    ceasefire, a permanent one this time, (rich coming from a convicted
    terrorist), as far as I'm concerned, SF = IRA.
    
    Poetic bollocks such as that crap Holohan posted about a cowardly
    murdering bastard who got blown up by his own bomb, is simply
    propaganda, trying to gloss over the fact that he was going to kill
    innocent men, women and children, deliberately, cold-bloodedly, and
    premeditatedly.
    
    Laurie.

    Re: .77
    
    Well said that man!
    
    John

    .74
    
    Shame. 
    
    
    CHARLEY

``The historical and contemporary existence of the Irish nation
  has never been in dispute. For centuries, Britain has sought to
  conquer, dominate and rule Ireland. For centuries, the Irish
  people have sought to free Ireland from British rule.

  Britain, a large, powerful and ruthless colonial power, was able
  to defeat the numerous and sustained efforts of the Irish people
  to liberate themselves. In the course of the 19th century, as a
  result of British oppression and famine, the population of Ireland
  was halved.'' 

    S�an MacBride S. C, recipient of the 1983 Nobel and Lenin peace prizes. 

    "Peace, not terrorism is the answer"
    
    
    Nelson Mandela (Also a Nobel Peace prize recipient)