Bobby Sands

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Dec 99 - 07:49 PM

I have, I hope, a great deal of sympathy for the oppressed.

I have, I hope, a great deal of sympathy for those who wish to defend themselves.

I have little sympathy for those who visit themselves upon the innocent. I have little sympathy for the demagogues who ride upon debating tricks. I have been a debater. I have won cups for it.

The link to the findings of the US courts as to whether the IRA was a terrorist organisation are not supplied. If you wish us to evaluate those findings please supply them. If you wish to surf upon the US courts please explain how you adopt them at one turn and reject them at another (Docherty). The link to the RUC affidavit terminated at an early stage and the full affidavit was not to be found.

I use my real name to post (unlike many) and I am of the preliminary view that a terrorist organisation is one using a military or quasi-military structure militarily to attack non-military targets. The IRA attack on Mountbatten - fine! He may have been old and retired, but he did not have to join the army. He could even have chosen to refuse orders (spot the sarcasm). But bombs on London buses - please!

Cromwell conquered Ireland. A historian can supply the date. Constitutional Lawyers (my field is copyright and new technology) can confirm that domain confers jurisdiction and legitimacy after a reasonable period. But we have hundreds of years since then. After the "Rising of the Green" this century England ceded the South. The Northern States (I prefer to coin a new name to avoid old baggage) voted not to secede (choice of word to illuminate Americans).

I should be grateful if those who would prefer to conquer the Northern States of Ireland do not pretend to legitimate attacks on civilians as military action.

I am entirely happy for Southern propagandists to write songs and to perform them. When will they afford the same civility to others?

I am open to rational debate but I am inclined to the view that Bobby Sands was as much a terrorist, criminal and murderer (whatever wrongs had been done him) as Ali la Gioconde. His songs may live on their merit - as do those of Leadbelly, who, if my memory serves me, was convicted of murder (likewise the guitarist Lee from the band Love but not Puff Daddy (yet))- but they do not justify his politics or his acts.

By some kind of aside but also by way of mirror image a Jewish (it is relevant) friend of mine was wrong to refuse to sing "Die Lindenbaum") despite the fact that it was adopted (well after being written) by the Nazis. He should have reclaimed it.

I therefore do not accept that Sands was a political prisoner or that he was entitled to refuse normal orders to prisoners.

I do accept that by choosing to die from his hunger strike he achieved propaganda valuable to his preferred cause aand showed great courage.

I hesitate to salute a brave murderer and terrorist more, even, than I hesitate to salute a brave fighting dog, a brave fighting cock or a brave toreador or foxhunter. What they do is wrong, whether or not they do it bravely. Cromwell's invasion of Ireland may have been wrong (as may the Norman invasion of England) but that does not justify Sands' responses other than his hunger strike, and of course his hunger strike was not about that invasion but rather about things somewhat later in time.

Would a native American planting a bomb in a shopping mall to protest the confinement of native Americans to reservations be a murderer or a political protester entiteld to exoneration?

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Big Mick
Date: 31 Dec 99 - 09:11 PM

Ahhhh, the old shift the premise to move away from the facts.......neat trick, Richard. But your prejudices creep through. I note that you make no mention of any "terrorists" other than the ones that fought against your position. Neat little bit of clouding of the facts, Barrister. But transparent.

I will accept your assertion that one man's terrorist is another man's patriot. No problem with that. And I will also accept that Cromwell was victorious. He may have conquered, but the Irish were never totally subjugated. They rose time and again against the crown. Never stopped the quest for some form of either Home Rule or independence. Again and again they hurled themselves. As for your assertion with regard to the 'vote', well of course the unionist position won. They had been planted there to make it so.

The tactics of the Republicans have been a response to the tactics of the Crown forces from the very beginning. We all know that both sides of this issue have used propaganda for their own ends throughout. Far too many of my own countrymen have succumbed to it. My feeling is that they have caused this conflict to be lengthened in their blindly buying the bullshit. But that does not take away from the legitimacy of the struggle. The majority of your countrymen do not even buy into your governments policies in the North of Ireland. Amnesty International has concluded that the actions of the British Army and the RUC have violated the civil rights of the citizens of the north on untold occasions. They have even taken part in political assassination.

But at this point it is all a moot point. This peace process is going to work. It is my feeling that in the end reunification is inevitable. It will happen because it makes sense. It will happen because your own government knows that the economics of the current situation don't work. They need to get the economic millstone of the North of Ireland off their neck. And it will happen because like it or not, the people that live there are Irish.

And by the way Councillor, perhaps you could cite the parts of the consitution of Northern Ireland that give the British government its rights in the North? Oh, there is none.......

By the way, most of us that watch these things in our country have already supported Native Americans in this fight. Check out the archives for stories of Russell Means, Wounded Knee, AIM, and the FBI attacks on reservations.

Mick

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Dec 99 - 09:42 PM

Mick

If I were that hostile I would not have used my real name. But stick to track. I'm not a barrister. I'm a solicitor. Where are those citations on which you rely? Perhaps they do not really support you - or perhaps you are laying traps. Is the person who tries to shade reality you, not me?

Did I suggest the Amerindians should be oppressed? I think not.

Did I suggest that the conquered (or otherwise) Irish should not strike back at military targets? Likewise.

Did I say that one man's terrorist was another's patriot? Not a lot.

Did I support the UK's concentration camps for Boers? No. Were the Irish part of the UK at the time? Is this relevant?

I would like to see peace in Ireland. Once it was a leading centre of education and civilisation. It has suffered much. But pacification out of the barrel of a gun is no better than Cromwell offered. I think that the process will eventually fail. Let's wait and see. The economies may be more persuasive than bombs.

Forget my government. Even the present one is a right wing capitalist conspiracy. I didn't vote for them even on the principle of the lesser evil. But don't pretend that bombing civilians advances the cause of peace.

Bedtime!

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Big Mick
Date: 31 Dec 99 - 11:53 PM

You raise interesting points, Richard. I was stirring a bit, because I thought you were. I thought I sensed a bit of smugness. If I read your last post correctly, I don't think that is the case. You have given me a bit to chew on. I will and respond a bit later.

And I sincerely wish a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year to you and all of our UK 'Catters.

Mick

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Brendy
Date: 01 Jan 00 - 12:55 AM

I don't think that anybody condones the taking of innocent life. I certainly don't.
What I understand and accept as an unalienable truth is that innocent people do get killed in a war situation. Nobody likes the fact, but there you go!
When I did my 'A' Levels (final exams from High School), there were 12 puils in my class. That was 1978. Today there are four of us living.
I know of the killing of innocents.
Unfortunately it is one of those war things that happens from time to time.
That does not make the perpetrator a terrorist. To do that would be then to brand your own government as one too.
But as our Councillor knows the law can suit one purpose one time, and another one the next.
Read my Lips. There is no such thing as a 'terrorist' in the context of like insurgencies.
The main spoilers of democracy are the elected officials. The gun is ALWAYS the last resort of any peoples resisting oppression. When all the talking is done, and still there is no concession, what options are there open to vent the frustration and anger.
The men and women in such organisations are not "cold blooded' anything. They are a heavily wronged part of the community. They experience discrimination for discriminations sake. They have had enough. Because they are fallible; because their target rate is never 100%, it gives the PR guys a much better stick to beat them with.
Please don't use the terminology of an ignorant when you describe these people. They are not all psychopaths, and the loss of innocent lives effects them as it would affect any other human being.
The emergence of civil disobedience in any society should be met by the rulers with dialog and reform.
There were those who said at the time that John Hume and David Trimble would never have received the Nobel Peace Prize had it not been for the efforts of Gerry Adams.
As the Big Fella' said in a post further up there somewhere that most of this talk is superfluous anyway, because there is a new will there at the minute to make it work.
I saw the New Year celebrations report from Belfast tonight on Sky News, and Gary Hunniford said that there was a sense of togetherness among the people. This is good.
But do remember who started the fight in the first place. All we ever wanted was to be left alone. The Irish never invaded anyone. Again I ask for the definition of 'terrorism'. Maybe I should ask some spin-doctor in Washington or Whitehall, or whatever wag coined the phrase and applied it to soldiers of conscience. For that is what they are.

HNY2K Brendan McKeever. (Somebody who thinks that it's not such a big deal to give your whole name)

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Áine
Date: 01 Jan 00 - 01:33 AM

May the poor boy rest in peace. Let's start the new year in peace also.

Slan agus beannachtai d'achan duine anseo agus suaimhneas san bhlian ur seo.

Health and blessings to every person here and peace in this new year.

Le meas, Áine

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: InOBU
Date: 01 Jan 00 - 02:41 AM

My Dear Brother Bridge: As you know we dont have the distinction between solisitor and barrister, here in the US, however, as a Juris Doctor who is not a litigator, I supose you and I are in similar trades. My field, funny enough, is Federal Indian law, and I sit as a judge in a Native American court, an Algonquin nation, which retains criminal and civil jurisdiction over tribal lands.
As far as taking one US court finding and rejecting another, I would point out that extradition from our nation to yours of political detainees was impossible until the US - due to NATO concerns, rewrote our extradition treaty with Britain, after the Doherty case. As - unlike in your nation, I belive, ex post facto law is not allowed, Joe Doherty could not be extradicted as the law was change in responce to his case. That change made it possible that the government of Britain would not have to show that the IRA was a terrorist organization in order to extradict.
Think about what this means. In every instance where, US courts, as an independant forum, wieghed the issue, we found that the inserection in Ireland was not different that that which we fought, and the tactics were within the articals of war. I remember a particuarly poinent moment when a federal prosicutor asked Joe Doherty if he was trained to kill. He said no, a soldier is trained to do damage to the enimy until resistance seaces and that to kill an injured enimy is agains the articals of war, that the only ones he encountered who were trained to kill, where the SAS, who assasinated wounded combatants, as happened in Gibralter. Our courts were not swayed by rhetoric alone, our judges looked at the facts, and just as thouse facts where so feared in Ireland that the speacial powers act brought about courts without juries, that accepted evidence cooerced under torture, our legislative and executive brance, both political branches, changed the law to avoid examining the facts. This is a great shame on our democracy as the special powers act was a great shame and limit on yours.
As we are both dedicated to law, and law is only law when it deels with facts and rights separate from politcal winds and whims, I urge you to think about the implication of, for example, the surpression of the Stalker report and what it means to the realization of justice in your system.
It is late, 2:30 on the first morning of a new century. I think we both agree the last one made a piss poor attempt at justice and peace. By way of this note, I extend to you a hand accross the pond and a hope we can do better next hundred.
By the way, the earilier post about Mountbattan, he was killed by the INLA, not the IRA, and I and a number of republicans, believe it was a wrongful and terrible act. The unfortuate thing about war is that no side comes out without fault, and my prayers go out to his family and all the families who lost members in this much too long a struggle. I also feel the Manchester bombing was stupid, ill concieved and not within the tradition of the Republican movement. However, when looking at the policies of both the leadership of the IRA and the direction of the war by the British governemnt, a clear policy of war against a civilian population, with a clear policy of dicrimination against one portion of the population is clear.
Well anyway, it is late, speak to you all soon, and hope to sing a bit with you all one day, maybe in Wiltshire, Devises has some good music pubs last time I was there.
Peace and justice
Larry Otway

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Jan 00 - 09:19 AM

Mick

Yes, I was stirring a bit.

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Hasek
Date: 01 Jan 00 - 09:24 AM

There are indeed some tremendous minds out there. Complements to all !!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Jan 00 - 09:26 AM

InoBU

I am sorry but I don't follow your argument at all.

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: InOBU
Date: 01 Jan 00 - 11:22 AM

Too early perhaps, or without spell check, I may not be completely literate ...
For the sake of making suer we are speaking about the same things, I have numbered the points I believe you are refereing to and answer them in order below,(I hope)

1.The link to the findings of the US courts as to whether the IRA was a terrorist organisation are not supplied. If you wish us to evaluate those findings please supply them. 2.If you wish to surf upon the US courts please explain how you adopt them at one turn and reject them at another (Docherty). 3. The link to the RUC affidavit terminated at an early stage and the full affidavit was not to be found.

1. US Court cases are found in most university law librarys in common law nations such as England. I offered that one might look up the Doherty cases, and add one should even read the Supreme Court case he lost, as you will see it does not contradict my point, he was not extradicted, he was deported, and the supreme court case was structured to avoid all the facts. In fact the Executive Branch of governemnt refused to the end to even disclose the nation interest in his deportation. So much for democracy. If any out there are as challenged by legal reasearch as I am with spelling, I will be happy to supply actual cites, however, if you use the name Doherty in the name indexes, in the mid nineteen eighties to early nineties in federal reporters, you will find all the cases. I am not kidding when I say get you to a law library, you learn more than if you live by your computor alone.

2. I thought I was quite clear about how I reject one case and accept another. When the defense is precluded from raising the issue of is the respondant a political offender (a legal term of art for some one involved in a recognised inserection) then that case has not looked at the question we are speaking of, is the IRA a terrorist organization. What US court cases - in particular, do you feel I overlook? By setting aside the Political offence exeption to extradition in our treaty with England, the US does what England does, states the IRA is a terrorist organizaiotn because we define it as such, and keep the historical details away from judges, it will only confuse them.

3. I am not sure I understand your use of the word termanated, is it equivelant to our term excluded, as the affidavit was excluded for being flawed? I am not sure of the affidavit you reffer to and will speak with the lawyer on Dohertys case and see if she knows what you reference. In my recolection, no British evidence was ruled inadmissable, rather it was countered by fact before a judge (Sprizzo) who began the preceedings with the following ... Let me get this straight, you are telling me I cant send this murderous son of a bitch back? and ended, after Judge Sprizzo was presented the facts with, I find that Mr. Dohertys case presents the polical exemption in the most classic form.
You may also wish to look at the case of Sean Mackin, who the US executive branch of government droped their deportation case against when it was clear that the courts were about to grant him polical asylum in his claim against Britain.
Now Brother Richard, dont make me do all the foot work and scut work for you. I think you will find some of our cases in the US as inspiring as we find yours. I do, in fact, often quote from Dudley and Stephens v. Regina. (your dear old canable case, which we should nail to the sampson post on the dear old schooner Mudcat!
One last point, and then an e-glass of new years cheer... Mary Pike (our own US version of Garith Pierce) in her arguemnet to the supreme court, said that individuals should not be pawns in governments internation polical policies. It was a sad day in this nation when our Supreme Court said she was wrong, that they should be so used. Shortly there after the same nine judges said that it was not a violation of the US constitution to exicute an innocent man. I prefer lower courts which are courts of fact to the political institution which is mistakenly refered to as a court in the naming of the supreme court.
Peace in the new year, and as to close with a quote from my late and dear friend Bill M. Kunstler, when Judge Sweat told him that he hoped justice would be done (as bill waited for a jury to return) and Bill replied, Yes judge thank you and if it is we will appeal!
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Brendy
Date: 01 Jan 00 - 04:38 PM

I think the reference to the RUC affidavit is the link I provided in one of my earlier posts
The link is to an affidavit made by an RUC officer, Oliver Weir who in an interview connected with Michael McPhilemy's book "The Committee", which deals with RUC collusion with the UVF and UFF among others, in the County Armagh area (my home) in the 1970's
It is not related directly with the Docherty case, and I only referred to the document as testimony to the existence of a 'Dirty Tricks Brigade'.
The link works when I click it, although there's quite a lot of those infernal adverts that keep popping up.
What is on the front page is only the first of 15 or 16.
Plus the fact that I'm new to the clicky things Love to all.

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Jan 00 - 05:56 PM

InOBU

You say "If any out there are as challenged by legal reasearch as I am with spelling". If you want to trade insults I can do that too, but it is not the best tradition of the Mudcat.

I did not start to cite US cases with a view (seemingly) to defending Sands or the IRA. If someone wants me or anyone else to consider a case it is common courtesy to supply it not to ask me to go and look it up.

We were asked to consider an affidavit. It seemed to be impossible to read all of it with a view to evaluating it, for not all of it would read through from the link. It started but ended prematurely. No legal terms of art. I just could not read it all.

However I think I now understand you to say that Doherty is not relevant to the question of whether the US courts have ruled the IRA to be a terrorist organisation, because (a) although DOherty was sent back to ENgland it was not an extradition but a deportation and (b) by jiggery-pokery, the possibility of arguing that the IRA served only political ends and was thereby protected from criminal liability was prevented from arising.

I think that your fundamental thrust is that the IRA is a political organisation and that killing indiscriminately (and beating and crippling in the name of discipline or some internal "law" not, so far as I can see, sanctioned by any proper legal process) is therefore prevented from being criminous.

Is this really what you as a lawyer are saying?

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: InOBU
Date: 01 Jan 00 - 11:10 PM

Dear Richard:
I did not mean the comment about legal research as an insult at all, but rather was enguaging in a bit of self deprivation at the fact that I will always spell as I did as a boat builder and coal miners son, no matter how many years I spend getting letters added to my name, and missunderstanding your comment - believing you meant to hot link to a cite with US court opinions. In fact, I am sure it is as costly in England as here to do on-line legal reasearch, and because of that, American law schools are doing everything possible to produce law students who become lawyers addicted to on-line research on Westlaw or Lexis.
I will, as I seem not to be making to point adiquately, provide you with the cites in Doherty and some of the earlier extradition cases. The point I am attempting to make is that extradition, before the removal of the Politcal Exemption clause, was a fact driven process. And, Doherty WAS argued in the time before that exemption was removed. Therefore, in all the Doherty extradition cases - the initial hearing and the appeals by the US government, on behest of the crown, the aligations that the IRA enguaged in terrorism were weighed in detail, with England having every opportunity to present experts on terrorism and the history of the conflict in Ireland to prove to Americna courts that the IRA was involved in terrorism. In that battle of history and experts, England lost. The jiggery pokery came as a method around that loss. To give more detail, as you may know, many of the leading US rocket scientists were Nazi war criminals. A law was quietly passed to assure that if they were to be deported, they would not be able to choose to go to Russia. That law was never used until the Doherty case was lost by the US executive branch of government. As such, the then secritary of state, Meese, provided an affidavit to the court, saying that it was in the US national interest to send Joe back to England, nothing else was stated, including what the national interest was. That is what the supreme court case was about, can a non spesific claim of national interest justify the sending of an individual to a country where US courts have ruled to which he may not be extradicted and would face discrimination. As you can see if Britain where to have proved that as you say, the IRA is involved in killing indiscriminately (and beating and crippling in the name of discipline or some internal "law" he would have been extradicted, as those actions are would have defeted a claim of political offence exemption.
A word about democracy censorship. One of the problems I find in discussing the North with many is the spin placed on Irish news stories by British Intelligence. As I said in an earlier post, I had occation to meet Frank Holroyd, an ex-British Intellengence agent, who worked on redirecting news reporting to distort that news that was not censored. An example was the reporting on the killing of Pat Campbell - head of the Shankill butchers. The Shankill Butchers would indescrimiatly take Catholics into the romper room, as they called their den, and torture them to death. When RUC and Army failed for years to act against them, the IRA killed Pat Campbell when an opportunity arose. It was reported in the New York Times, as Pat Campbell, a ShankelL Butcher, was killed in sectarian violence in Ireland by the IRA. Now, all that was true, but so out of context as to continue the belief that the IRA was involved in indescriminate killing. That is the kind of thing that in the press carries a lot of wieght, but in court is meaning less in light of the presentation of fact which put events in context.
Should you not, as a British voter ask, if English policies and tactics are justified, why is there censorship of the press about Ireland?
I truely hope you were not offended by the comment about research, and that much of what we are discussing will someday just be the historical background to our musical traditions. However, history not understood is as likely to be repeted as history forgoten.
Best wishes for peace in the New Year
Larry Otway

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Bev Lawton
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 12:37 AM

I have tried very hard not to get involved in this thread but somehow the ignorance displayed by what appears to me American's of Irish extraction draws me reluctantly like a moth to a flame. In the distant past I did respond to a post on a similar subject and I got responses from (I think) Big Mick spitting venom - for various reason's I felt unwilling to respond - the venue for one - but mostly the horrific memories it brings back to me.

The original start of this thread was about Bobby Sands a man I admire for his beliefs and personal courage but degenerated into the usual ill-informed debate - usually from people far removed from the hard realities of thier rhetoric.

I love Ireland, her people and music and I have lived there - my experiences of twenty odd years ago have haunted me ever since - hardly a week sometimes every day goes by without a nightmare.

The thing that strikes me about most of the posts that seek to glorify or justify actions of the IRA is that you wern't there - it's different when you are in the bars singing songs to the hero's to when you are shovelling up the intestines of men, women and children.

I'm English and as it happens I really don't give a shit whether Northern Ireland stays part of the UK or Eire but we are supposed to be a democracy and we have a system to change our government.

I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of a re-united Ireland, it makes a logical sense to me - I just take issue with the methods of the IRA (to name but one organization)to achieve or prevent it.

Let me try to explain - it is hard for me as normally I'm a rational articulate individual - but this subject ties me in knots and it doesn't always come out well.

I'm English but did live in Ireland on several occasions I have never actually served in the Armed Forces but for a while worked with both Armed Forces, RUC, GARDA and the other emergency services.

I attended the scene of 132 bomb and "other" incidents caused by IRA UDF UVF and the Army - each and every one etched on my memory - I can still smell them as if I was still there twenty odd years ago. The resulting 30+ years of carnage was never worth the candle. The general population of Ireland North and South didn't believe it was worth it and still don't - bigots and zealots from both sides of the divide would argue against me - but don't try and tell me that the mass of the people do I won't believe you.

The people of Ireland have long memories and are patient - demographics would have achieved the same aim's in the same timetable.

I draw no distinction between the IRA, UDA, UVF or whatever set of initials you care to have - they were terrorist organizations - pure and simple - I understand the principle of "One man's terrorist another's freedom fighter" ie. if he's on thier side he's a terrorist - but to claim that ANY of these organizations was not terrorist in nature defies both logic and fact. The AIM of these organizations was to TERRORIZE - pure and simple - the IRA at least attacked the British Army regularily as well but they DID bomb pubs, clubs, shops in both N.Ireland and England purely to terrorise. I have seen the reaction of men & women shitting and pissing themselves with fear and aborting thier babies, rooted to the spot, not knowing where to turn in case they had been deliberately led into and ambush with a second bomb - it did happen on many occasions - I was there and I saw it many times caused from both sides IRA/UDA/UVF - it wasn't all propoganda - try telling me these people weren't terrorised I won't belive you.

Explain what military objective was achieved by such actions?

The aim was to make the British Government and people so sickened and fed up with N.Ireland as to achieve the IRA's aims - I have no problem or misunderstanding of the intention, why can you not at least admit it? - I simply take issue with the methods and results.

Big Mick and the others are correct on several points though regarding deeds on both sides of the line. Torture did take place on both the government side and IRA/UDA/UVF factions but you appear to have selective memories - OBU as you like to quote documented cases go and look in your records and tell me that the IRA did not torture Robert Nairac and then shoot him - one of the men involved later said that he was the bravest man he had ever met - please deny this.

Yes the Army did make mistakes and did kill innocent men and women - as did the other side - but an Army is a blunt instrument for this type of situation and many were young frightened soldiers ill-equipped and trained at first for the task given them - most of the regretable incidents happened early on.

I am no bleeding heart liberal - I believe there are times that war and fighting are justified - I just don't think the situation in Ireland justified the carnage and pain - all the bombs and bullets achieved nothing - ultimately, as in any war the talking achieved the aims not the bullets.

I have no religion and after seeing what the religious of either persuasion were capable of never will. I don't care what God you worship or what politics you subscribe too - the sight of a severed little girl's hand with fingers crossed lying on the sidetable - cannot be justified by any arguments I have yet seen put forward.

You can have you point of view but at least have the honesty to admit what really happened - don't give us your drivel from a bar stool in a "Shamrock Bar" in Boston or where ever - believe me It's real different when you are slipping in the spilled blood rather than the black stuff.

Sorry if I have offended anyone with the tone - I much prefer to talk about music here really - but Christmas is a bad time with too many memories.

Peace to you all with the coming of the Millennium. Bev Lawton

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Brendy
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 12:48 AM

I never read such a load of crap in my life!
And what do you know of Niarac?
This thread was an intelligent pondering of some fairly serious subjects; it has turned into "Who has got the worst memories" competition.
Indeed, no one side has the monopoly on pain and suffering, but I wonder, Bev, if you really have read this post, or if you read it carefully enough.

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Brendy
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 12:50 AM

Last line should read, 'these posts'
B.

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 01:00 AM

You know Bev, I am not sure what the hell the point of that was. Your story touches me. Mostly because I have seen the same horrors. Shall I recount the faces of the dead and living children that still wake me in the night from my time in Vietnam? I won't because it isn't relevant to what we are DISCUSSING. The tone has remained relatively civil, and the reading has been very interesting. You see, Bev, what will get the "Shamrocks" in the right position is understanding. That comes with discussion. That was going really well. Had you simply stated the horrific stories so these people could see the true cost of war, I would have posted a complimentary post to say thanks. Because if you do a name search on my name you will find that I have posted time and again about not dehumanizing the sides. That plays into the propaganda. What really upsets me about people like you is your insistence on pointing out what is wrong with Shamrock Yanks. But if you did a bit more reading than one post, you would find out that is not what I am. You would find out that I have expressed time and again that if Irish Americans care about the North of Ireland, and peace as much as they say they do, they will respect the wishes of the people that live there in this matter. In short, what I want is to cause 'Catters to understand that the victims here are the people, and the combatants. I don't think you would have a problem with that, but you want me to do so without expressing the legitimacy of the Nationalist position and struggle.

So thanks for relating your experiences. They are horrific and they serve a purpose. And I know they are accurate because I have seen, felt, smelled and have nightmares about the same experiences.

Big Mick

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Áine
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 02:22 AM

Dear Bev,

As Big Mick has said, your experiences are horrific and they do serve a purpose; however, I see a fatal flaw in your argument. Although you said that you love Ireland, her people and her music, how can you hate the children of her Diaspora? Isn't stereotyping all Irish Americans as uninformed, beer swilling idiots just slurring the people of Ireland, only one step removed?

I agree with Mick when he says that understanding will only come through discussion and education. That surely applies to all people in all countries, does it not?

Bev, you cannot know us if you will not understand us. Do you really think that our elders left prejudice, bigotry, hatred, and violence behind them in Ireland? If you do, you know nothing, nothing at all, about the Irish in America.

Do you think that the problems in Ireland do not still reach across the sea to us here in America, with the same threat of fear, hatred and violence? If you do, you know nothing.

Bev, you have seen the result of violence in the remains of the dead. So have we here. We have also seen the result in the eyes of the living. In the eyes of old people and the eyes of children. And we weren't sitting on bar stools when we saw it.

We know where we are and who we are. We also know what we are. I beg you to learn about us and understand us; not to pass judgement on us. We are of as many minds as there are leaves on all the trees of God's earth. And we are luckier than most; we have a country, but we also have a homeland.

Le meas (respectfully), Áine

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: InOBU
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 08:54 AM

Dear Bev.
I have been there, I do not sit on a bar stool in Boston, nor do I deny the horrors of war. I have lost many close friends in the conflict and prayed that others horribly wounded would live. I agonised over the descriptions family members provided of the sesicrated courpses of family members of close friends - Patsy O Hara, for example, burned by cigarette butts, the bones of his face broken by being stomped by British Soldiers, post humously, - but as I have not responded to others with personal invective, I have also tried to deel with facts more devoid of the pain we have all felt who have been involved int that terrible conflict, which no one I know who has been forced into its horror and pain, either conciders glorious or anything but the only way to respond to a situation that Republicans did not choose to make. I remind you, England came to us with guns and suspention of due process of law to re-enforce bigotry and discrimination.
I can address many of the individual points, and at the risk of some at Mudcat accusing us of politisizing the environment, I will. As in South Africa, these wounds can only heal after reconciliaiton, and that takes shedding light on the truth. I do so, in hopes that we can embrace as a community of Peoples Musicians, understand our different perspectives so our songs dont divide us any more than Yankee Doodle divided the US and Britain.
Bombs. I had a criminal Law prfessor who once said, it is always depraved heart killing when you use a bomb. I agree with him. I am in favor of humanity endeding the institution of war as barbaric and waistful. However, once a war begins, one side cannot claime the other must lay down and wait for destruction, and the weapons one uses are often determined by the reaction to the tactics of the other. The IRA, representatives of a small nation fighting a huge one, used weapons which caused a lot of damage, as Britain and the US did, in BOMBING North africa, a few years ago. The IRA developed a radio controled bomb to attempt to reduced civilian deaths. The British began to broadcast up and down the radio frequencies to prematurely explode IRA bombs, there by forceing the IRA to return to timered explosives. This increased the danger that military targets would not be the victems of the attack and there was a rise in civilian deaths, It was a horrible by product of the stupidity of war, but I wont accept that we bend to heartless will of a large uncaring power which as part of its cold war plans, wishes to continue unemployement, and ruination of lives of one portion of the population, killing them when they non-violently protest those conditions, remember Burntollet and Bloody Sunday, Republicans did not start the violence. Republicans also had an offer of a sease fire from the start.
Bev, I have to make breakfast for the wife, so I must run, but, we have to try and look beyond the pain we caused each other in order to live together in the future. I dont live in some dusty library far removed from the issues. I went into law, because I had seen so much harm being done on the streets in social conflict, and that was a better way of dealing with the issues than war. Maybe one day we need a Mudcat silent convention, of sitting and thinking together about each others pain, before we go to the next step of really listening to each others story of how we came to think as we do. One side or the other does not hold a monopoly on truth or pain.
Peace in the New Year Bev, and best wishes
Larry
PS I am not avoiding the issue of torture by IRA, I will get back to that after Genie and I have our wee bit of sunday morning

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 10:24 AM

Bev, I guess what is so offensive about the post is that it implies that all yanks are the Shamrock Irish that you refer too. That is as offensive to me as me saying that all English support the murder and persecution of Irish people would be to you. Or all Brits. (note to others: if you don't understand the distinction, you should.)

Big Mick

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: InOBU
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 11:12 AM

PS Dear Bev: I hit the wrong key in spelling desicrated corpses, for those who are reaching for the dictionary, wondering what Larry was talking about. I just had a moment to do a little catch up, and read Big Micks post. One of the most meaningful things I witnessed in the past few years was a meeting between the Viet Nam Veterins against War and a similiar group of Russians. I worked for a Vet member of that organisation, and helped him with the Peace Convoy to Nicaragua. At several times Veit Cong vets met with American Vets, embraced and appologised, (though they certainly felt justified in defending their country, as US soldiers felt they were doing their duty in V N) and cried together for each others pain. But they talked, most importantly they talked. As a result other extrodinary things happened, for example, American Vets, against the instructions of the state department, went back to Viet Nam to help remove land mines they had placed. Their government refused to give them maps that would have made the work safer, but they did it to undo the horrors of war. I saw, on tape I believe, or from a description from Steve Sommerstien, my boss at the time, an incident where an American vet who lost legs to a russian land mine in Viet Nam embraced and cried with a Russian vet who lost his legs to an American land mine in Afganistan.
Bev, we are pawns in a game wherein we never had control. As to the witnessing of horrors, my father, when I was in my teens was stabbed 11 times in the back and the neck, and came within moments of bleeding to death. He could bearly talk, and I was in a blind rage. I had been away for a day or two and came back to find him swathed in bandages and unable to move. He had me bend down to hear him say, dont let my injuries hurt you more than me, dont let this thing change who you are, and how you think in your politics. My old dad, with all the rough edges and flaws was a remarkable fellow, and I have tried to live by his strenth of conviction. If we are blinded by our pain we will all never heal.
With love and conciliation
Larry

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Dave
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 01:32 PM

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands >From: InOBU >Date: 30-Dec-99 - 04:30 PM > >Hi Dave: Can you give cites for the facts you allege? >The plane fact is I can give cite to my facts.

Oh? where?

On to some facts of my own:

Fay, Morrisey and Smith give the total number of people killed in the troubles as 3601. Oh, and Big Mick, Republican paramilitaires were responsible for 2001 of these deaths. The IRA were responsbile for 85% (1684) of these. Loyalist Paramilitaries were responsible for 983 deaths. The rest were miscellaneous or are attributed to the various security forces. The amount of civilians killed by the IRA was 713, or nearly half of their total, and almost as many as the loyalists. Some freedom fighters eh? Not to mention the case of Patrick Gillespie, a catholic civilian, who in 1990 was strapped into a bomb laden vehicle and forced to drive to an army checkpoint, where the Provos detonated it via remote control, with Mr Gillespie still strapped into the car, blowing him and five soldiers to bits.

The facts of the matter are that the IRA, other republican paramilitaries, and the loyalist paramilitaries are scum, and no amount of glorification of it by their apologists can change this. It is they who have plagued and oppressed the people of Ireland and Britain over the last thirty years.

>Please be so good as to get to a law library and >look up the first decision in the extradition case of IRA Volunteer Joseph Doherty. You will >find that the facts you allege were raised by the British government who held that he could be >extradicted to Britain in violation of the Political Offense Exemption to Extradition, on the >grounds that he was a member of a terrorist organisation. Judge Sprizzo, a concervative >American judge, after a lenthy factual inquest, found that the British aligation that the IRA >is a terrorist organization could not be up held in light of the facts, presented by two >American lawyers, (neither of them Irish by the way). That decision was appealed and apealed >again and was upheld in every court. In fact he never was extradicted. Rudolph Juliani, the >present mayor of NY, then a prosicutor, used a cold war act giving special power to the >executive branch of governemnt (president) to deport in the national interst. As with many >cold war acts, he could do so without defining that interest, so Dohertys deportation was >accomplished in spite of a prima facie showing for political asylum had been accepted and >stood up to apeals. No reason was ever given why it was in Americas interest. In short, in >every weighing of fact, IN COURT, the IRA was seen by an independant judicery to be NOT A >TERRORIST organisation.

Oh come on. If the IRA are not a terrorist organisation then please tell me why they are illegal in both the ROI and the UK? Or tell us about the terrorists that *have* been deported from the US.

> I dont falt the British people for not knowing this in light of >extrodinary powers to censor the press. But, if you have an interst in the truth, to almost >quote Hamlet, Get thee to a law library.

Oh right. So that's it. So your good self who lives thousands of miles away knows the truth, whereas our poor selves who actually live in the British Isles are the ones who are

I think you are the one who is delusional. After all, it is people like you who are indirectly and directly responsible for years of violence in *my* country.

The facts of the matter is that republicanism has pratically NO mandate from the people of ireland, north and south, something like 95% of the people of Ireland, North and South, have rejected terrorism, and that they have also decided that it is up to the people of NI alone to decide their future.

>All the best, Dave, Happy and PEACEFUL! New Year, >your friend in controversy >Larry

How do you square wishing me a peaceful new year with your support of illegal terrorist organisations? Ones who committed atrocities like Enniskillen, The Shankill, Warrenpoint, and many others?

Anyway, I do hope you have a happy festive season (or what's left of it), and in the coming year you devote your energies into purely *peaceful* areas which do good for all the people of NI, GB and the ROI.

Regards, Dave

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Barry Finn
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 02:42 PM

Hi Bev & Dave & thanks. Bev I fully understand your point & do not feel offended by your veiws of "Shamrock Yanks", sometimes it seems that way to me too. I do come from Boston but sadly I have no more politics that follows what seems to be the norm. today. I refused to fight in Veit Nam when my draft # was pulled & I refuse to support any cause where an innocent child is look upon as a casualty of war & so being, is excepted. My view of death came young & for no reason & ever since I can find no logic in it. Barry

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: InOBU
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 03:54 PM

Hi Dave
Much better quality of responce, giving some fact to support your contentions - though you go a wee tad overboard in a few presumptions and ad homminum statements.
To begin with, as I have said on several occations, I have lived in Ireland and spent time in the north, not that this is the only way to understand a complex historical and political history.
When you ask - If the IRA are not a terrorist organisation then please tell me why they are illegal in both the ROI and the UK?
the simple historical answer is, that the same revolution which brought about the ROI, was equally illegle, but by the conventions of war, was not terrorism. Terrorism and inserection are two separate concepts. (and of cource the same ROI that calls the present inserectionists terrorists, strapped IRA men to a landmine in Kerry, at Ballyseedy.)
Or tell us about the terrorists that *have* been deported from the US.
Again, it is possible that you are overlooking the difference between extradition and deportation. Extradition is based on a much more complete fact finding process, which after the Doherty case was abriviated ONLY in extradition requests by the government of Britain, so as not to embarass a NATO member, after Britain lost every attempt to convince American fact finders that the IRA was a terrorist organisation. Now, either Britain is completely incomptetant to make its case or Britain has a dirty secret to hide in Ireland.
Now one thing overlooked in my posts is my statements that war is not an acceptable way to solve social and political problems, however the war in Ireland was not started or continued by the IRA. As Sean MacBride, the founder of Amnesty International and deputy Sec Gen of the UN pointed out, time and again, England had opportunities to end the war in the North of Ireland, however, as a non-aligned nation a reunited Ireland would mean an end to NATO presence in Ireland, and guarding the Scapa flow against Soviet sub movements would be greatly harder if not impossible. Do you not find it odd that the secret talks with the IRA started the year the Soveit Union broke up and Ireland allowed NATO to use Irish air fields as staging points for bombing of North Africa?
as far as wishing you peace, at the hieght of the war, I have never met an IRA or INLA volunteer, who given the oppertunity would not have chosen peaceful solutions to the war in the north. Read again what drove Bobby Sands to join the republican movement and ask what you would have done. In his situation there were two opptions, after being stabbed and his home burned he could leave or fight.
Personaly I dont blame anyone who left, and I cant blame anyone for fighting. As to the incident with the death of Gillespie, I agree that it sounds, on the face of the facts you present, to be an inhuman act, and one that is not within the articals of war. I will acknowlege that who ever is responcible, there should be an inquest into the event as a war crime. On the other hand, will you demand that the English soldier who pressed his gun to the head of 12 year old Carol Anne Kelly and blew her brains out, should also be tried for war crimes?
Do you feel the British officer who ordered live rounds to be fired at unarmed civilians should at least have his meddal taken away, if not be tried?
If you chose not to wish me peace and whatever, that is within the tradition of those who opposed civil rights in Ireland for generations, and I dont fault you for it. I continue to wish you well, and even though I feel the presnet treaty was cooreced, I hope it brings about peace and justice. A far as living in the past, as Big Mick and a few of us are accused, it seems we are quicker to say forgive the past, though we also say dont forget the past, as there is a great chance of repeteing it, in other Viet Nams, other Afganistans, other Nicarauguas, and other Northern Irelands.
Do let us know over here, when the political censorship is lifted, so we can send you books, banned in the UK and Ireland, which offer facts not available to you at present. Even close up - in Belfast for example, one cant see everything, and experince is actually a part of the equation, study works also as a good adjunct.
I would offer that getting over your hate is a good first step towards listening to the other. Anyway Dave, the practice of law is generaly seen as a peaceful undertaking, however, I have been seeking even more peaceful undertakings, and mostly involved with my band, though keeping up a small bit of my Native American advocacy.
Again best wishes
Larry

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Mbo
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 04:05 PM

"Long live all of us crazy soldiers who were born under calico skies
May we never be called to handle
All the weapons of war we despise
And I'll hold you for as long as you like
I'll hold you for the rest of my life."
--from "Calico Skies" by Paul McCartney

--Mbo

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Dave
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 06:55 PM

>Hi Dave >Much better quality of responce, giving some fact to support your contentions - though you go a wee tad overboard in a few presumptions and ad homminum statements.

They are not contentions I propose - they are facts, whither you or anyone else like it or not Larry.

>as far as wishing you peace, at the hieght of the war, I have never met an IRA or INLA volunteer, who given the oppertunity would not have chosen peaceful solutions to the war in the north. Read again what drove Bobby Sands to join the republican movement and ask what you would have done. In his situation there were two opptions, after being stabbed and his home burned he could leave or fight.

Don't forget that there were thousands of protestants driven from their homes as well. Yet I don't try and justify the actions of the loyalist paramilitaries.

>Personaly I dont blame anyone who left, and I cant blame anyone for fighting. As to the incident with the death of Gillespie, I agree that it sounds, on the face of the facts you present, to be an inhuman act, and one that is not within the articals of war.

It is what actually happened. Then of course there's Andrew Kearney, a catholic shot simply because he disagreed with an IRA man in a pub. This happened only a couple of years ago. There are hundreds of these incidents, commited by both sets of terrorists.

>I will acknowlege that who ever is responcible, there should be an inquest into the event as a war crime. On the other hand, will you demand that the English soldier who pressed his gun to the head of 12 year old Carol Anne Kelly and blew her brains out, should also be tried for war crimes?

If he committed a criminal act then I support a criminal prosecution of the person concerned. BTW it's criminal acts, not war crimes. The situation in NI was never a war. It was simply illegal criminal activity. By your logic then the actions of Timothy McVeigh are part of a war as well...

>Do you feel the British officer who ordered live rounds to be fired at unarmed civilians should at least have his meddal taken away, if not be tried?

Once again, if a crime was committed then I fully support a criminal prosectution.

>If you chose not to wish me peace and whatever, that is within the tradition of those who opposed civil rights in Ireland for generations, and I dont fault you for it.

What are you talking about? I have wished you well.

> I continue to wish you well, and even though I feel the presnet treaty was cooreced,

Tell that to the 95% of people who voted for it.

>I hope it brings about peace and justice.

With it there is NO excuse for any terrorist group to commit violence.

>A far as living in the past, as Big Mick and a few of us are accused, it seems we are quicker to say forgive the past, though we also say dont forget the past, as there is a great chance of repeteing it, in other Viet Nams, other Afganistans, other Nicarauguas, and other Northern Irelands. >Do let us know over here, when the political censorship is lifted, so we can send you books, banned in the UK and Ireland, which offer facts not available to you at present.

Don't be so stupid Larry. The only book that I know of not available over here is the Commitee, because there are libel actions currently going on against it and the author. It also happens to be a spectacular fairy story as well, and I've read portions of it...

> Even close up - in Belfast for example, one cant see everything, and experince is actually a part of the equation, study works also as a good adjunct.

I lived in NI for the first 22 years of my life (I'm 24), I have quite an extensive library on the subject. I know what I'm talking about. >I would offer that getting over your hate is a good first step towards listening to the other.

What hate? What are you gabbling about? Where have I expressed hate towards you or anyone here. Where do you get the idea that I hate you.

Regards, Dave

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Brendy
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 07:20 PM

Like it or not, lads and lassies, cause and effect plays a big part in what has gone on in the past.
If there was no England, there would be no IRA. That might be called simplistic.... but it is true. Also true is that it was England who named tose collection of islands The British Isles.
Now, when I hear people referring to Ireland as a part of said collective, it doesn't necessarily piss me off, it just makes me able to predict the rest of his/her argument.
When your definition of history has been formulated by an education system designed to instil into the young mind that Britannia still indeed rule the waves, then ones whole definition of reality has also to be flawed.
The trick about the Irish education system was that we didt really have all that much to cover up; it is strange to hear English people giving me lectures on on what a bunch of murderers we are, when the whole woes of the world, most of them anyway, can be traced to London.
Anybody want a few cited examples? I've got loads of them.
Let us get on with our peace, because you didn't do a hell of a lot before. 'The Irish Problem'?.....don' make me laugh.

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 07:26 PM

Nice bit of diatribe, Dave, but it shows once again how people of your persuasion deal with surface BS to attempt to shift the premise of the debate. Neither Larry or I said that we find war to be acceptable. On a personal level I detest it as only a person who has had to practice it can. That is not to take away from folks like my friend, Barry Finn. While our views on this matter may not jibe, I find people who stood on their principles and risked jail to be very brave. I cannot argue with his courage and morals. Actually, I thank God for people like him. They are warriors in the truest sense. But back to you and your post. I do congratulate you on your posting of facts and I will square them with my own sources. I will then respond. Thanks for posting them. I would also like to thank you for including all sides in your post. One of the "hot buttons" of mine is when people post about IRA violence as if it was the only violence being committed.

Now let me tell you why I consider your post to be a self serving diatribe. Once again you, like others, post without reading the entire thread. Either that or you chose to ignore what I have said on any number of occasions. And that is........are you listening Dave, Bev and others?.........that it is a moot point because the people of the North and the South, the Orange and the Green, Unionist and Nationalists, have spoken. I have said repeatedly, going back at least 15 months, that if we care about the land of parents and grandparents as much as we say we do, then we will support the peace process with the same vigor that we supported the armed struggle. The children, all the children, of the North and of the South of Ireland deserve this. Please CLICK HERE and HERE. If those links don't work, then go to the Forum search and enter [Back Home In Derry] and go to my posts of 98Sept22 at 11:30 and 98Sept29 at 9:47. My position has always been clear, but people like you don't seem to want to reference that. And most troubling is that you don't want to see an informed discussion. You would rather turn it into a finger pointing session. And that has got more to do with the troubles lasting as long as they have than all the "Shamrock Yanks" in the world. Peace will come because people of honorable intentions and differing views will attempt to sit down and understand one another. Not because pompous people, from the power side of the equation, sit in judgement of the tactics of the other side. I would point out to you that the IRA, despite intense provocation from the Unionists, has been the party responsible for both starting the cease fire, and maintaining it. And I am betting that THIS peace process will work..............because the people of that island have said it must be so.

Big Mick

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Brendy
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 11:22 PM

Here Here!

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: alison
Date: 02 Jan 00 - 11:43 PM

The problem with the situation is that it is not clear cut... there is no black and white. One side is not the 'goodies" and one side the "baddies"... it all merges in a murky grey area......

Neither side has the whole truth.... maybe we'll never know exactly what went on...... and the media doesn't help... it gives the story it is paid to give....and that coverage will vary.... the Irish, British and USA media will all have a different slant on events.

but this is a very emotive subject, and people have been brave enough (brave... because it is a difficult thing to do when it dredges up such deep feelings, and often, the opinion gets ridiculed because it is different to the majority..) to express their views......

Talking about the media... I remember at the time being told that Bobby Sands and the others were forced to go on hunger strike, (the threat being that their families would be hurt if they didn't comply,).... and when one of them died then the next name on the list was picked to replace him..... if this was true then I pity them for being forced through that ordeal. Gillespie's family were held too while he drove the bomb into the check point.

slainte

alison

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Barry Finn
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 12:35 AM

Am I missing something here? Is it OK that kids get killed by all those discussed here & get tossed aside as if they were yesterday's byproduct of eating. Is it OK that whatever the reason some poor parent loses the whole of their heart & it lasts until they too lose their life. Bobby Sands is dead but if he were my son I want to trade my life for one more hour with him to hold him & tell him how much he was loved & damn all the causes that took him away if only he'd still be alive. I'd trade my life for one more day with my kids if they were taken from me & how could I ever visit that pain on another. After a bloody 1000 years we're still fighting turf wars the whole world round & finding good reason & cause to continue doing so, doesn't look to me as if we've progressed very far, hope we do better in the next 1000. St. Vlad or Vlad the Impaler was a prince, hero, doctor, saint, warrior, a politician, a soldier & mostly a terrorist & a VAMPIRE. He's (in all his forms) what I see as my vision of violent death, he just needs more blood to keep existing & more people to feed into his doctrine of death to feed the frenzy, he doesn't care about sides or who's right or wrong, what's just or unjust only that he feeds his blood lust from the innocent souls that either got lost on their way or were sacrificed in his honour. Is it too hard to love life to much? Barry

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: paddymac
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 12:50 AM

We had a rational and basically well considered thread running here most of the way, but it seems to have degraded a bit in its later stages with Bev's emotive post and then with Dave's diatribes. But even with that, I believe that the thread, though it quickly crept beyond the original question, has a productive and worthwhile endeavor. I would even call it the best that I've been privileged to engage in.

It might be worth reflecting on the make-up of the present NI statelet at the time of its excission from what became the republic. It consists of only six of the nine counties in the traditional province of Ulster. Of those six, only two (Down and Antrim) had majority protestant populations. The majorities in those two were sufficient to outweigh the catholic and republican majorities in the other four ultimately included, but not the other seven of the traditional province. I don't recall there having been a vote by the people of the six, the nine, the 26, the 32, or any other subset of counties in advance of the decision to partition the island by the "Welsh Wizard", but if there were, could we fairly place credence in it in the face of such gerrymandering?. There was, however, a bitter civil war caused by the arbitrary partition. Yes, I fully recognize that gerrymandering voting districts is a wide-spread practice and probably occurs wherever voting occurs, but it always taints the result of any vote taken.

My humble suggestion is this thread now be allowed to find its place in Mudcat history before it degrades further.

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 06:11 AM

Yes, Paddymac, I concur. I came on this morning to say that it appears to have reached the point of rehash. While there are things that I would like to respond to, I am afraid that it will turn into a mudslinging mess if it goes on. Overall it has been a very good thread.

Mick

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: InOBU
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 08:26 AM

Alison:
I know many of the close family members of the hungerstrikers - brothers sisters, fathers, mothers, and what you were told about being forced to be on the hunger strike is the kind of propaganda which colors peoples misinformation about the events of the past few decades. In point of fact, the only cooersion happened when two developed kidney or liver trouble and were ordered off the strike, the purpose of a hunger strike is not to die.
It is very clear that the next step in Irelands interest would be the kind of truth and reconclilation process that went on in South Africa, but as Enland is still involved in covering up the past, I would be surprised if England would agree to such an undertaking. I have been surprised in the past however, and would urge that this be proposed. Issues left undisscussed fester.
Dave, the expressions of dislike are found in such statments as how can you wish us peace etc... If those statements were missinterpreted, my appologies. I accept fully that you wish well, and send back the same.
I feel Breny and others have addressed many of the issues well, Dave, but one last note about democracy. Americas cities are filled with tens of thousands of exiles from the Northern troubles, who have left within the past several decades because of staggering unemployment and arrest without trial or charge, torture and other discrimination at the hands of British athorities. Many have made new lives here, and a few, in spite of these new lives went home to vote against the treaty, as absentee ballots were not accepted. They were not in favor of continuing the war, but were against terms which, for example, withdrew the constitutional recognition of Irelands unity, or did not give adiquate protection to the minority in the north. In fact, there would have been a nationalist majority in the north decades ago, by the birth rate alone, but for the extrodinary discrimination, so democracy has not occured in a vacume - both censorship (I am shocked that you dont accept that there is censorship in England and Ireland! Did you read the Stalker Report yet?) and forced migration has played a role. This forced migration is one reason why the political difference between the Irish community in England and the US - victems of British prejudice came here.
Well, two days into the new millenium and the system seems to still be working, so lets be a little hopeful that progress is possible. As Lawrence Olivier said to aspire to our tallents and work with our failures, lets be inspired by our shared musical traditions and use our disscussion of our differences to grow.
All the best
Larry

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: InOBU
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 09:36 AM

Dave, ol man:
You bring up some very good points, I was in the shower getting out to work and remembered your statement about McViegh. Good point, becasue it shows the difference between war and the criminialization process in Ireland.
McViegh and his codefendants were given free and open trials with juries of their peers, in spite of the likelyhood that they would put the government of the US on trial for the event at Waco. They are members of organizations, who should be carefuly watched by the police, and yet, because we value our freedoms, we are not allowed to inflitrate the politcal aspects of those organizaitons, but rather put on trial the spesific illegal acts of individuals, and do not enguage in mass arrests of members of the Militias. As such, such actions as the bombing of government buildings is rare here, and was never common, other that when the Cointell program under Nixon, nearly brought us to war by beginging to place us on the road to war that England went down in Ireland.
The militias do not recieve huge endorcement from the American public, as, even though there is a likely cover up of mistakes or bad acts at WACO by the FBI and ATF, thre is not only an on going government investigation, but there is also no prior restraint of our press to report on that investigation, and after the Pentigon Papers case, our papers may even print stolen papers without fear of Prior restraint of the press, if in that investigation a whistle blower feels there is a cover up as with the Stalker report.
Not to say things are perfect over here, by any means, but to illustrate the difference between war and crime. War happens in the void created by suspention of due process of law and politics. You may be aware that Lincoln suspended Habia Corpus, an intrigal part of due process in the middle of the American Civil War, and that is still being debated today as an act of tyrony and threat to American democracy.
Thanks again for the well thought out responce.
Must go to work...
All the best
Larry

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 12:17 PM

InOBU,

My holiday is over and I have to stop play and get back to work, but there are things I find odd. I will certainly have to get to the Doherty case (other than the Supreme court decision) because it seems to me that that is the core of the matter. I cannot understand how the IRA can be thought to be other than a terrorist organisation. I can see how some would say that its acts of terrorism were justified (although I would disagree). I can see that some acts of the British Army and some acts of the loyalists could be thought unjustified (although I confess that firing at an unidentified car speeding through a roadblock strikes me as more justified than the act of a guard at the US embassy who drew a revolver on me when I ducked under a rope (dividing two lines of a potential queue) simply to avoid walking round the end of the rope).

I am surprised that you seem to have been so close to personal protagonists in the troubles, given your judicial status.

However you seem to stand, principally, on the thesis that the US courts held Doherty not to have been a terrorist. There may well be room for a thousand angels to dance on the head of that pin. I am not going to start the hare of US extra-territorial jurisdiction right now! You leave us to make the unspoken assumption that the US courts would have decided justly. I may come back to that (and any good conspiracy theorist could construct some scenarios for the difference between the opening quote you gave (was it from judge Rizzo? - I'm too lazy to re-scan the thread jut now) and the colsing views you attribute to him).

However there are well known examples of cases which turned on legal expertise (or lack of it). Ruth Ellis (perhaps the most famous client of Victor Mishcon, now Lord Mishcon, the solicitor, and Melford Stevenson (later Mr Justice Melford Stevenson, of whom I think it was once said "My Lord, this is an appeal from a judgment of Mr Justice Melford Stevenson, nut there are other grounds too") might be argued to be one. Lord HaHa was executed for treason partly because it was just after the war, and partly because his barrister unwittingly led himself to an argument which he belatedly realised he was afraid to put to the court because of the effect it could have had on his case overall and indeed his own position as barrister. There are others which turn on inhibition in advancing a case. I can well imagine the UK government refusing to allow evidence which would have helped them win the Doherty case to emerge in open court - if only to satisfy their obsession with secrecy. That obsession lead them to a very expensive defeat in the Australian courts (Spycatcher) - but that loss could also have been ascribed to having a poor case on established confidentiality principles, or to taking English barristers (who the Australian courts hate) up against a very competent Australian Solicitor-advocate. However the fact that they are obsessed with it does not always mean that they are wrong. There are times when the enforcement and protection of state secrets is right.

The armed insurrection of or about 1922 in what is now the Republic of Ireland was without doubt an illegal act at the time. But it has been solemnised by success. The armed acts of the IRA are largely carried out against non-combatants, and against persons who are not in occupation of any disputed territory. I do not see how those things can be part of a legitimate insurrection. I also do not see how the IRA could claim to be fighting a war, for no war has been declared by the English government or indeed the government of the Republic of Ireland.

The legitimate methods of by force compelling the independence of Northern Ireland from England and/or its union with Southern Ireland could have been (I am at a loss for another legitimate route): -(a) insurrection of the Northern Irish against their Northern Irish government (followed, if you like, by that government requesting assistance from the UK and the insurrectionists seeking volunteer support (Spain is the precedent) or official Southern Irish government support, or (b) invasion by the Southern Irish Government.

I won't have much time to continue this debate after today, but it was interesting to talk to someone with some jurisprudential basis for asserting the non-criminal status of the IRA.

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: InOBU
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 01:02 PM

Dear Robert:
Good luck back at the grind of the work day, and best hopes of justice, and as Bill Kunstler said, in the earlier quote an appeal when it happens! An excellent point about official secrecy, and in fact much of what passes for far flung conspiracy is just the knee jerk reaction to secrecy among governments today. The judge is Sprizzo, rather that Rizzo, and offered me one of the greatest comments I ever recieved off the record in a court room I approached the bench to tell him that a fiddler I played with, was his roomate in law school. He replied, Oh yes, Jim. A wonderful musician, but much to intelligent to practice law!
The paranoia of Americans with guns is becoming indemic. On behalf of many Americans who shrink into the shadows in pubs and restraunts in Europe when fellow contry folk enter, and who always takes the advice of an old anarchist friend when in an American security que, take your time and be obstructionist, let me appologise. 99 per cent of US military and police training is the development of hightened paranoia, which is why we have over a million Americans in prison at present.
I ran across an interesting quote from Father Des Wilson, of Ballymurphy about a conversation he had with a British Army officer which he offered when giving a summery of the outcome of the 1981 hunger strike.
I... remember a conversation I had with a very high ranking British Army officer in the the days when people still thought it was a good idea to argue with them.

I said, "You will never help to solve a problem if you do not speak the truth about it. You tell the people that the people who have taken up arms here, the IRA, the UDA, the UVF and others, are nothing but thugs and gangsters. But you know as well as I do that among the military groups there are men and women who are sensitive and highly intelligent political thinkers and strategists. You tell the public lies."

He replied, "but we know this is so."

"Then why do you tell the public that they are only thugs?"

"We do not tell the public that; the government does. We know differently," was his response.

When reading this quote from Father Des, I remembered a morning early in the cease fire when a spokes person was sitting rather uncomfortably in the green room at WBAI in New York. I was there to speak about the rights of Gypsies, and noticed that no one quite knew what to do about him. I thought that he looked very uncomfortable and that he had reacted to the same political assassinations and staged incidents by British Intelligence that Republicans had. I poured two cups of tea and sat down next to him, commenting how we had arrange a cold wet day, to make him feel at home. In only a few words someone whose political acts and beliefs were an anathema to me was an acquaintance rather than an enemy. We had a lot to talk about that we did not agree in any way with, but in the right environment peace is easily done. Part of the equation is to remove the instigation of governments who divide people for geo-political political gain.
All the best
Larry

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: InOBU
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 01:08 PM

PS:
Re my aquaintence with memembers of the IRA, and INLA, and my status as a judge. You would find not greater mix of politics then the membership of the National American Indian Court Judges Association. It is truely a model for world peace when we have our conventions. You find your self at dinner with Apache traditionals - concervative judges from the IRA courts (Indian Reorganisation Act!)and Senica peacemakers from concenses courts. The sharing of wisdom is extrodinary. One of the most tresured peices of advise was delivered by Justice Mary Winn, of the Colville nation, who said, there is no greater excersise of judicial power than the power to pause.
Best wishes in your work, (from a John Mortimer fan)
Larry

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: InOBU
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 01:36 PM

One more PS... After signing off, I recalled the last time I faced an American police officers gun. It is a rather funny story. Have you heard of William Kunstler? He was the lawyer for Dr. M L King, one of the negotiators for the Attica Prison Uprising, lawyer for and friend of Dylan Thomas, and the Chicago 7. The head of the Russian communist part had him admitted to the Moscow bar to defend him against charges brought by Boris Yeltzin. He was an old and dear friend of mine, and one day I found myself driving to a native reservation with him that was surrounded by State Troopers, due to a dispute over cigarette taxes (the thanks we give for being given tobacco I suppose.) There was a ring of state troopers with M 16s around the reservation, which as a tributary of the Iroquois confederacy, was being defended by Mohawk warriors armed with AK's. I was strongly reminded of the feeling in Belfast.
A trooper stopped us as we drove up to the entrance to the reserve. I had a canoe on top of my van, having no where else to keep it, and long braided hair. Bill, was sitting beside me, with his long white locks. To remind the troopers where they were, I greeting him in Western Nantic, the language of this particular nation.
"Askoway Kawasin" I said.
"What are you guys, Indians?" the trooper replied.
"No, we're lawyers, " came Bills sonorous voice from the inside of the van.
"Where do you practice?"
"I am William Kunstler" came the reply.
"Ugh huh, I'll ask again, where do you practice?"
Bill looked thunder struck and whipped his head around in a staged double take.
"I said, I'm William MOSES KUNSTLER! I practice in all 50 States and quite a few foreign nations!"
"Got any guns" the officer asked, unimpressed.
"I don't have any guns, " I said. However, I knew that although a famous radical, Bill was also an ex- Marine captain, and a bit of a gun nut, and sometimes went about the town with a gat.
"Hey Bill, you packing heat?" I asked.
"I don't have a gun, " Bill huffed.
"Nothing sharper in here than our wits," I told the officer.
Bill suddenly roared out the window, "Young man, we have something far more dangerous than guns!"
The officer took a step back and unsnapped the cover of his side arm. Across no man's land there came the sound of numerous AK's being locked and loaded, and instantly a like response from the troopers.
Bill shouted, as if nothing was amiss, "WE HAVE THE SWORD OF JUSTICE!!!"
There was a palpable relaxing sigh, all around. Bill then motioned the officer over with his index finger...
"Tell me sonny, You really never heard of William M. Kunstler?" he asked like an old grandfather.
Taken in the officer smiled sheepishly and said, "No, Sir, I never have." "ROOKIE!!!" Bill yelled! Then turned to me and said, "Drive on Larry, my boy! " thereby dismissing the police and we drove onto the res.
Sorry for the thread drift, however, Bill was the soul of American People's law, and his presence here would certainly cause him to smile
. All the best
Larry

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 09:43 PM

Sounds like just you and me interested now. Kunstler - sounds familiar. What was his firm? I know a few.

Send me the cites for the Doherty case. I have a friend who used to lecture at Queen Mary and Westfield (she and I wrote a lot of stuff about an arguable area of copyright - called "format rights" which my oldish acquaintances Bud Brylawski (the father, not the son) and Mel Nimmer (the father not the son) and indeed the surviving (happily) Dennis Angel have asserted are likely to be protectable under US law. She may be able to get copies free for me. She is now sitting in immigration tribunals and laughs when I call her right wing on the ground that she thinks most of the other adjudicators are right wing. So if you think that I am right wing....

If all else fails her husband is a parliamentary draftsman and may have sources......

Your remark about the sword of justice sounds a sour note over here. Have you followed libel developments in ths jurisdiction? One Jonathan Aitken made a similar remark and is now regretting it, and a certain Al Fayed has adopted a part of it and I pray (I don't, 'cos the history of organised religion is black with sin - sorry if the phrase is politically incorrect but I searched my heart for one with the same resonance and it was not there) that it causes him the same pain.

I do not accept that the practice of law is dissociated with intelligence. I find that it demands much. I regret that it requires (or seems to) more dissimulation these days. But I have had a couple of recent successes which cause me to ask what my opponents were doing - they missed easy routes to rout me.

You say: - (of a conversation) "I said, "You will never help to solve a problem if you do not speak the truth about it. You tell the people that the people who have taken up arms here, the IRA, the UDA, the UVF and others, are nothing but thugs and gangsters. But you know as well as I do that among the military groups there are men and women who are sensitive and highly intelligent political thinkers and strategists. You tell the public lies." "

It is a good speech, but that is all. Problems domestic local and international are often solved without truth. Look at WIPO and emergent nations and the collision with producer rights both agricultural and intellectual - cf the EU. No-one says that the paramilitaries are nothing but thugs (do I detect an impermissible bias against an accredited former religious group (BG)). They may say that they are thugs etc, but never that that is all they are. What they do say is that they are discredited by acting as thugs etc.

If I may suggest it you should not confuse debating (for which I also have cups) with law (velvet paws).

In passing I ponder your reference to Gipsy issues. I was unaware that true Romanies had reached America.

There are so many issues lawyers ought to debate. I submitted 120 points to the UK govt before the passage of our 1988 Copyright (etc) act, and they adopted only one. I had a fairly heated exchange of letters with Lord Denning after he retired about rights of way - he was anti four wheel drive, I for them. But mostly the exigencies of making a living prevail.

A thought occurs however. Do you have a series of anecdotes about native rights lawyers? It is about time there was a film more intelligent than the recent "mob" inspired ones about a lawyer fighting for right. The last one I can think of starred James Stewart!!! I might (no promises) be able to source a producer, some finance, and a scriptwriter. One such story or more might have legs. Message me.

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: InOBU
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 10:36 PM

What timing, Genie has just arrived with dinner, so I will respond a bit now and a bit latter.
The first Roma arrived here in 1620, deported from Scandinavia to Maryland. The biggest migration came during the 1850s - 1906 or so. There are about one million here, and they live a completely separate existence, having their own language and courts, and are more of a cultural isolate than in most other places. There is potentialy 90 per cent illiteracy among them, though it is imposible to come up with an accurate number as they do not answer surveys. My work was to provide a road in to main stream society without forced assimilation under the legal device, that they had been denyed citizenship by both de jure and de facto law until recently (several counties in the varrious states still outlaw the presence of even US born Roma, though this is clearly unconstitutional)- that they are an encapsulated nation, like Natives and we should recognise their very complex formal government and then help provide them with what they need to come out of the margins...
Genie is getting impatient!
The quote is about thugs, is from Father Des Wilson
Och... time to eat... Ill be back later... and dig out the Doherty brief for the cites...
all the best
Larry

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Brendy
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 10:41 PM

You haven't really just got it to yourselves Richard, and truth be known you did say earlier on that you were going to be too busy to continue this discussion.
But WIPO and emergent nations notwithstanding, this thread was about Bobby Sands.
Debating, and the posession of awards for it does not make your argument any more valid.
Further up this page - way up there somewhere, you said that you didn't hold up much hope for the Peace process, and we know that you do not recognise the legitimacy of the IRA.
Give us your solution Richard. Tell us how you would manage it.
There is one fundemental weakness in your argument. You believe it too much. I'm sure you're an intelligent bloke (and I'm not being condescending here), you speak and think, for the most part, intelligently.
But sometimes black is white, and conditioning to one point of view makes it even more difficult to accept the arguments of others.
Too many English people feel that they have to support the actions of their govts. In these days of compensation being paid to survivors of the Haulocaust, The German and Japanese govts. apologising for their conduct in WW2, I think the psychological damage that would be done to ones sense of patriotism and country would be a very deep one if the English govt. had to make similar compensation to India, for example. Or Bangladesh maybe, where the overcultivation of the tea plant is one of the main reasons why the country is gradually washing out into the Bay of Bengal
Don't judge us Richard, Dave, Bev, and others. We are only playing by the rules that were laid down for us, not by you personally, but by Kings and govts. down through the centuries.
Please don't feel as if you have to defend something which you had no part in instigating. But tell me one thing. Do you think it was right that England had such a progressive foreign policy?. If you answer yes to that, well, we don't have too much to talk about then on issues such as these.
If on the other hand you disagree, well then lets take that a bit further. If England had not converted God into a bullet and shot him into the hearts of men and women, maybe we wouldn't have half the wars in the world as it is. Don't you see that the IRA is England's legacy. You (metaphorically) gave birth to that monster.
Live with it. No. Do something about it. Saying that England never 'declared' war on the North must be one of the most ill-informed statements so far this millenium.
What have the SAS been doing then crawling aroung our back garden then?. Why did the RUC beat the shit out of the folks at Burntollet, the Paras kill them in Derry, the 'death squads' of the RUC/UVF set up 'road blocks' dressed as policemen. Come on Richard what were they doing?
The difference between the IRA and the likes of the UVF etc. is that the UVF etc. are committed to the extermination of the Catholic population. The IRA have made no such targets of the Protestants, nor the English peole in general people. Imagine if the IRA adopted those tactics as an integral part of their cause.
Try and look it a wee bit from our side. I want peace there like everyone else who has been touched by our 'normality', but I also want justice.
Please let this one go, because any other discussion on this matter will not solve anything, as long as an un-willingness to accept that the other's argument has some validity exists. I hope I have enticed you into the idea of re-evaluating your angle on all of this. Is there any possibility that your government, and their masters, have been feeding the English people dis-information for years? If you accept that, then there are grounds for reasonable doubt. Breandán

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 11:17 PM

Richard, I have been lurking because I have enjoyed the fascinating discussion between yourself and Larry. As I read Brendy's post I believe the central theme of it is correct. There is no need for further debate between us on this thread as our relative positions are fairly well laid out. But let me add this. Some time back I reacted to a UK 'Catter whose nom de guerre was Sapper. And he and another UK 'Catter by the name of Penny caused me to reflect and realize that righteous indignation is a huge impediment to understanding. And lack of interest in and understanding of the other side's position leads to continued conflict. And in this case, that means more bodies. The time has come for that to end. And for that to happen, the finger pointing must stop. We could all sit here using the classic tactics of a demogogue and tell stories to justify our positions. But in the end, that will not serve the cause of peace. The thread started as a discussion of Bobby Sands and the circumstances that spawned his, and the others, act of supreme committment to a cause. It has served its purpose and you have been an important part of that. Thanks.

Big Mick

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Ringer
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 07:53 AM

Brendy:
I'm afraid that you can't argue on the grounds that "conditioning to one point of view makes it even more difficult to accept the arguments of others". Because, of course, you, too, are conditioned, albeit differently (as am I). So that argument destroys the validity of all argument, and so must be rejected.

The discussion must be about the relevant merits of different points of view.

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Blackcat2
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 10:09 AM

Greetings all

I've continued to read the conversation in this thread, though because I have a limited knowledge of the issues that have been discussed in the past few days, I've not added anything myself.

I'm all for thread creep - certainly most of what has been discussed here is fascinating and important - just outside my knowledge base. I'm learning though. Thank you all for your comments.

I realize that the issues discussed are far more personal to others on this list than they ever could be to me. I am an American of most English and German ancestry but that ancestry goes back to Europe 250 - 350 years ago. Consequently my ancestors have been "American" for many generations and I have no "blood" ties with Europe. I look to England and Germany without much difference than I do Peru or Kenya. I do have a connection to Ireland - I fell in love with it's music years ago and because music is such an expression of culture - I fell in love with it's people as well. So I've learned a lot in 20 years. But, because of my non-personal connection and also because of my educational background I feel as though I am able to stay away from the personal reactions so many fall into (as do I on other issues such as religious freedom & civil rights in the U.S.)

I added my comments to this thread because of the original posting - basically musing over Bobby Sands and the other hunger strikers attempts to gain the last bit of freedom allowed them.

Thank you for this discussion. It has been very enlightening. It is scary though, that so many (not just on this list) feel that the many people in Northern Ireland who have committed acts of violence have done so "gleefully"(my word) instead of because they saw it as a last resort. To assume that a group of people who are different from you, happily take the lives of your bretheren without any significant reason. is an act of dehumanization, and as far as I'm concerned, actually contributes to the continuance of violence.

If I am treated like an animal, I will eventually act like one. If I am treated as a human being - with any luck I'll rise to the challenge.

To me, one of the worse things about war - any war - even as Studs Turkel named WWII, "The Good War" is the dehumanization of the enemy. One of the only ways to get people to kill is to make them believe that their enemy is sub-human. I don't know if anyone on the list is of Japanese heritage and was or has family who were interned in the U.S. during WWII, but if there is, I'm sure they could certainly speak from that perspective.

Peace to all and here's to equal rights for all in Northern Ireland as well as everywhere else (my own neighborhood included).

pax yall

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Hasek
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 01:47 PM

To all a thread worthy of the communication it brought to individuals like myself. It truly opened my mind to issues and dialogue amongst passionate people the world over. Though , I am not a religious individual " , God Bless ALL of you , your views , and in the Voice of William Kunstler " Let the world know that tolerance of injustice is wrong ". Regards, Mike Strobel

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: JedMarum
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 02:59 PM

Seems to me Kuntsler was intollerant of justice ... he made a career of fighting against those who enforce justice. He was an extreme egotist, as OBU's story points out, and seemed to believe that any fight against the state was a good fight, as long as it was against the 'powers that be' - a self styled 'freedom fighter' who knew that those in power are always wrong, and that they are always deceitful. He was a bigot, not the kind we usually think of when we hear that word, but equally intollerant. Intollerant of social systems and methods of our modern Western civilizations and the people who support those systems. As you can guess; he was/is not one of my favorites!

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From:
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 03:23 PM

>Dave, the expressions of dislike are found in such statments as how can you wish us peace etc... If those statements were missinterpreted, my appologies. I accept fully that you wish well, and send back the same.

I was simply asking you a question, how can you wish me peace if you support or have supported a terrorist organisation. If you do not support the terrorists then fair enough. I'll wish you peace anyway, whatever the circumstances.

>In fact, there would have been a nationalist majority in the north decades ago, by the birth rate alone, but for the extrodinary discrimination, so democracy has not occured in a vacume -

Oh? That's an interesting statement. Prove it. Protestant migration out of NI has been quite high as well. Indeed, I left NI two years ago myself - I now work in Bournemouth on the south coast of England. I will go back to NI at some point, but not for a while.

BTW I remember reading an article in the Belfast Telegraph a while back. It said that the latest demographic figures show a large decline in the catholic birthrate in NI. So much so that it is reckoned that catholics may actually never reach a majority. NI will probably end up evenly balanced between Protestants and Catholics. Having said that, support for a United Ireland is actually only about 35% or so in Northern Ireland.

>both censorship (I am shocked that you dont accept that there is censorship in England and Ireland! Did you read the Stalker Report yet?) and forced migration has played a role. This forced migration is one reason why the political difference between the Irish community in England and the US - victems of British prejudice came here.

And the million and a half Irish citizens living on the mainland UK? Don't forget that last numbers of Irish emigrated to the UK mainland after the famine.

>Well, two days into the new millenium and the system seems to still be working, so lets be a little hopeful that progress is possible. As Lawrence Olivier said to aspire to our tallents and work with our failures, lets be inspired by our shared musical traditions and use our disscussion of our differences to grow. All the best Larry

Progress has been made. The people of NI are governing themselves for the good of all the people in NI (the words of David Trimble spring to mind: "A pluralist parliment for a pluralist people"). The ROI has dropped its offensive and immoral claim on NI, and soon the terrorists will start disarming.

However, on to another point re The Stalker Report: if there was really a shoot-to-kill policy, do you think that there would be a lot more dead terrorists about? NB Stalker never found any evidence of a shoot-to-kill poilicy (source Jack Holland: Hope Against History, The Ulster Conflict, Hodder & Stoughton, 1999).

Anyway, this thread seems to be drawing to a course (perhaps fortunately, as mudcat is not a place for a political discussion like this). So unless someone has a question or anything I consider this to be my last post on the subject.

Regards, Dave

Subject: RE: Bobby Sands
From: Brendy
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 03:29 PM

Hold on there Bald Eagle!
My conditioning is based on what I experienced, yours is purely by what you were told. That's my point.
Like it or not I, now, have grown out of my bias to some degree, so I'm not as prejudiced as I was, say 20 - 25 years ago. I can see now how we were all fooled.
We were kept away from our working class comrades on the other side of the political divide to suit a more sinister purpose of the English govt. in general and NATO in particular, to keep BOTH sides down and play on their fears while they got on with manning the North Eastern approaches.
As I say, my conditioning is different, and as a result I am much more aware about such things. Things that you never see in the newspapers or on TV.
B.