BS: The Fighting Irish

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 07 Jul 06 - 03:37 AM

If you get the proof. I'm not really sure what it will prove. As that Spycatcher book suggests, the security agencies of England were (and almost certainly still are) well outside of the control and unfriendly towards a democratically elected Labour government.

Cleaning the Augean stables of the the security agencies in England -well - how would you know it was done. you couldn't have a Watergate in England, we are a much too closed and secret society.

I think this should be a separate thread - unless it has something to do with the pleasure some people derive from keeping to keep the 'fighting Irish' fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: GUEST,Paul O'Brien
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 06:32 PM

Senoir members of the security forces in the North allowed a climate to develop in which loyalist subversives believed they could attack Catholic targets "with impunity", The RUC may have kept information from gardaí investigating a bombing in order to hide security force collusion in attacks. British Prime Minister Tony Blair was called upon last night to order the RUC's successor, the PSNI, to cooperate fully with Oireachtas hearings that will be held on the issue later this year.

The findings were contained in an interim report of the commission investigating the bombing of Kay's Tavern in Dundalk on December 19, 1975, in which two people were killed. Later that same night, a gun and bomb attack was carried out at Donnelly's Bar in Silverbridge, Co Armagh, killing three more people. In his report published yesterday, former Supreme Court judge Henry Barron — the sole member of the commission — said the Dundalk bombing was carried out by loyalists, most probably associated with the mid-Ulster UVF. These loyalists were using the farm of an RUC reserve member, James Mitchell, as their centre of operations, although Mr Justice Barron said he accepted the bomb did not originate from the farm, located in Glennane, Co Armagh.


However, he believed the Dundalk and Silverbridge bombings were coordinated by members of the "Glennane group", and therefore "members of that group must at least have known in advance of the plan to attack Dundalk". The judge said allegations of collusion were "impossible to prove or disprove". However, he could say that: nThe Glennane group contained members of the RUC and the British Army's Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), "some of whom probably knew of the plan to attack Dundalk". nSenior members of the security forces "allowed a climate to develop in which loyalist subversives could believe that they could attack with impunity". nSome of those suspected of the bombings, such as well-known loyalists Robin Jackson and brothers James Nelson Young and Joseph Steward Young, had relationships with British intelligence and/or RUC special branch officers. While the commission did not have firm evidence, Mr Justice Barron said he suspected the RUC kept crucial intelligence from the gardaí investigating the Dundalk attack in order to "limit information relating to security forces collusion in terrorist activity from reaching the public domain".

The judge also said that, while forensic evidence was inconclusive, the nature of the explosives used suggested a possible link between the Dundalk attack and the bombings of Dublin and Monaghan in 1974 and Castleblayney in 1976. An Oireachtas sub-committee will begin hearings on Mr Justice Barron's report in September, and issue its own report by mid-November. But families of the victims again expressed disappointment last night that no public inquiry would be held. Sinn Féin said the Taoiseach needed to hold a special summit with Mr Blair to discuss exclusively the issue of collusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 05:58 PM

Bit cooler tonight here Keith, last night was hot, weather cooling down a bit now over here. Think we would all get on well Keith around the table. I don't drink myself,went off it few years back while on long term Morphine, didn't miss it, so stayed off it. Think it would be my singing voice that would clear the table.

Maybe some day we will get that drink, as long as you don't pick on me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 05:47 PM

I do enjoy a Bushmills, but only when it is on special offer.
They put the silly little square bottles in big cardboard tubes to make them look good on the shelf.
I doubt I will get many from my fan.
(I got nothing from Charlotte either but I was content with her nice words.)
I visited the distillery once . Place called Ballymony. They claim it is the oldest anywhere.
A few years ago an Irish American politician poured a load down the drain because they did not employ many Catholics.
I think that it is just not a very mixed area.
I also visited Jameson's in Dublin. very interesting but they don't actually make it there now.
Gnome Dave reckons we would all get on fine if we met up for a drink.
Maybe.
Or maybe we would all wake up in A and E.
Not too hot for you tonight Sweeney I think.
(No offence)
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 04:37 PM

Used to be Bushmills and Powers Al when I was working in a bar ! Bushmills north coast county Antrim and John Powers "Three Swallows" was the Catholic choice. Three Swallows were birds, not swallowing it, if you get the drift !

Right I'll get my coat.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 02:03 PM

Nobody should be allowed to call himself a fan Keith - until he's proved himself worthy, and bought you a drink. Then he can call himself anything - a friend for life, a fan, member of the family, a one night stand.....anything.

As this person seems keen on the protestant cause, I think he should prove his committment by buying you a bottle of Jamesons.

Brendan Behan used to call it 'the protestant whisky'. However it can be acceptable in non-denominational, and multi-faith settings.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 12:00 PM

Keith, You are wrong the UVF were a force for good in N Ireland we only shot the odd R Catholic sure they were only scum, cleared the air getting rid of them.
The Republic of Ireland is still only a banana state, we are living like lords in godd old Northern Ireland, I know you will keepb responding with the truth, I am sure you agree that all of the fenian scum are only manure.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 01:30 AM

you have misjudged my position.
I am not part if the NI sectarian divide.
I regard the paramilitaries, including UVF, as being the problem, not the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: GUEST,Keith fan
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 07:42 PM

The U.V.F. will sort it out !

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: GUEST,Keith fan
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 07:40 PM

Sorry also meant to add it was the Sinn Fein/IRA lot who started the terrorism in Ireland. NI only exists today because of their actions 90 years ago and since that time the two parts of Ireland have grown ever futher apart. I mean, what point was there in the Irish Free State becoming a Republic? What good did that achieve? All it did was to drive an even greate wedge than existed before between North and South!

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: GUEST,Keith fan
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 07:38 PM

So we have established that Irish Republicanism is based-upon a very irrational anti-British hatred and a contempt for our even handed glorious history . So what is there to talk about? It is impossible to try and comprimise with fundamentally irrational people. That means that NI will have to stay part of the United Kingdom for many, many years to come!

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK KEITH

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 06:04 PM

night John Boy....

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 05:12 PM

Night Keith. Sleep well, it's hard to in this heat.
Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 05:10 PM

Fair play to you Sweeney.
I am shutting down now.
Good night,
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 05:01 PM

Anger ? Not at all Keith just a good memory, no need to do research. Always glad to point out your errors of pre-judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 04:45 PM

Just how many times are you going to stick your chin out DS ?
Forget about him, everyone else has. He should been booted off the site for what he said about you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 04:29 PM

Yes Sweeney, you are quite correct.
That was what we discussed.
I'm sorry that it still makes you angry after all this time.
Nearly a year ago?
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 04:16 PM

There was no evidence ! Just remarks made by two police forces who have both been discredited in their history, which you decided to repeat. The only notes from that robbery that were found were in a police social club. That's right you said they were placed there.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 04:03 PM

No, You won't get me to break my resolution so quickly.
No confrontation.
Sweeney, the only piece by I journalist I have used was a film revue.
The other two were by historians, one from the National University of Ireland.
No offence intended.

Also, I regret to say that I could not be expected to provide proof of who robbed a bank across a sea and 500 miles away. Sorry.
All I could reasonably do was ask the question, and discuss the evidence.

Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 03:48 PM

No Keith, just allergic to individuals who ATTEMPT to make slurs against me without proof and have to depend on searching the net to find selective Journalistic articles objectively and colourfully written to suit their cause. As for me, it's no problem I lived it.

As for your remarks about endurance and sensativity. That's no problem to me, probably best defined as professonal against territorial !

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 03:03 PM

I expect you are right WLD.
I can never resist challenging some of the stuff they come out with, but I will make a conscious effort to be less confrontational.

Sweeney, perhaps you are too sensitive and delicate for the rough and tumble of this forum.

Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 02:32 PM

Keith

in all friendship I say this, if there ever was a guy who was going to inform and educate the world on these issues - it needs to be someone with a lighter touch than yourself - a less confrontational style, shall we say.

You're about as good at convincing people as I am at seducing women.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 12:04 PM

Well there you have it, his reply to reason.

Sorry Keith I don't have a GUEST army. Yet another another unwarranted slur upon me.

So what do you mean you "won't give me a free ride" Keith. Is that your way of saying that for example you blame someone on robbing a bank without evidence and I ask for proof, you will go off On tangent about some event which happened in 1972 ?

A lost cause in life here Al. Best to give him a wide berth and just be sympathic and understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 11:24 AM

Read my post again sweeney.
There is no smack there, just a polite request for clarification.
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 11:21 AM

I know that you are right about Divis S, but you must know that there are many people who visit this forum with little or no objective knowledge of some of these issues, but who would like to believe that the issues are clear cut, right and wrong, white hats and black hats. Divis and his Guest army are constantly coming on with a completely one sided viepoint. All I ever do is to give the alternative view.
And doesn't that wind them up?!

Remember when he first arrived he said that he disliked our music, but he was here to speak up for the IRA. Well that is fine but I will not give him a free ride.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 11:08 AM

Yet again Al excellent post.
I offered the olive branch yesterday after your post, even though your post didn't refer to me, thought it was a good time to help resolve his issues. See I got another smack this morning in one of his posts. Well despite all that I was called and wrongly blamed for I was happy to put it behind us.
As a pm I received last night said, Igore, don't appologize for answering or asking questions that's what this forum is all about, nothing you will never say will be enough to please him.

Thanks Al

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 10:22 AM

No Keith I would never suggest anybody bugger off. That would be arrogant.

I just think the starting points in these political threads, are probably emotional allegiances.

Its not a lack of knowledge or cerebration that makes us what we are. take Heydrich, probably a better fiddle player than anybody on mudcat - all the tags of civilisation, probably better table manners - but he was a Nazi.

Lets face it there are unpalatable truths about all our lives, probably about all our beliefs, almost certainly about all our relationships.

Whacking someone over the head with an unpalatable or distessing fact isn't going to persuade them one iota.

As for our good friend DS. And he is genuinely terrific guy in many ways. do you really think that someone who chooses a name like Divis Sweeney isn't aware of the fact that there are differing points of view when it comes to Irish politics. Do you really think that someone living Ireland wouldn't know that a lot of people fought for England in the war - and moreover that their motivations were pretty unselfish.

look at all the shit things our country has stood for - that doesn't make us bad people. we perhaps accept some degree of guilt. DS's emotional allegiances are to another cause - that's all I'm saying.

I bet there's bugger all about the IRA's bad points that haven't occurred to him. Reiterating them to him won't make him join the Young Conservatives and take out a subscription to Majesty.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: GUEST,Mayo Mick
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 08:13 AM

Keith I salute your honesty.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 04:19 AM

For what it is worth Mick, my own honest reply is yes, you are probably right.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: GUEST,Mayo Mick
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 04:16 AM

I love this site in particular those people who seem to be always blabbing away without considering the points that are made, for instance, my suggestion that Ireland all 32 counties would have prospered without the `benevolent` hand of England, well boys whats your verdict.
I might call back later and see if any of the know-alls give an honest reply.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 03:53 AM

Subject: BS: British Rule.The vote
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 02:54 PM

Non Uk folks may not have heard of this.
300 years ago Gibralta was made by force of arms to become a British colony. The catholic population were subjugated to the crown. Remind you of anywhere else?
Recently, some moves have been made to partially restore sovereignty to Spain. The Gibraltarians, unhappy with the progress, organised a referendum.
The result was, out of a 90% turn out, 99% voted to remain under sole British rule.
See. Some people like us.
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 03:28 AM

but you can't really blame someone for not being able to face the facts when they are so horrifying.

If you don't, it only makes it more likely that in future there will be yet more horrifying facts.

The point of starting this thread was to inform our forum of facts they may not be aware of and to alert them to the sacrifice of fine people who died too young. Folk may not be awre of these facts - mainly because the facts do not really suit any side.........

Perhaps blame is not the right word. But it is about taking responsibility to try to ensure that such things are not repeated.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 03:27 AM

WLD, you said "That's the way the guy feels about us English. Get used to it. Live with it. he's not going to change his mind cos you have definitive proof of something or other."

You have previously suggested that I should withdraw from these discussions. Will it really help unite people if we allow one interest group to push its dogma without challenge, and even ignore lies intended to gain influence?

You also said"I suspect the people you are aiming it at, know all the things you are saying, but it is not the emphasis they want to give history." but remember that divis sweeney was incredulous when first told of the level of support for Britain in WW2

I never start these threads.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 03:09 AM

Thread drift

In America, was McClellan's name mud before the Ken Burns series about the Civil War?

Last year year I was talking to an American acquaintance on the net with the name of McClellan, and I asked him if he were related to the little general.

The guy was absolutely outraged at the suggestion. i think we need a statute of limitations for him. After all as Burns said, Lee and Sherman faced up to the arithmetic and got on with the job, but you can't really blame someone for not being able to face the facts when they are so horrifying.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 01:42 AM

Mcgrath, i used that expression once before.
I mean those people who create not just a legitimate Guest name, but a whole fake persona to make some point or other.
However, I see how it looks and will drop it.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: number 6
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 12:23 AM

I'd have to say that General George B. McClellan had a lot to do with the Union's failure in the (first) Bull Run.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 12:18 AM

Little Hawk:

Thanks, I stand corrected, all bedewed with embarassment!

A

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 09:30 PM

Amos, you are quite right about the prowess of the fighting Irish in the American Civil War...but...

The Union lost both Bull Run and Second Bull Run (largely because of Stonewall Jackson's superb leadership).

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: GUEST,sorfingers
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 09:12 PM

Terribus, it's time folks like yourself get a grip, or as they say in blighty 'cop-on mate'

You haven' the slightest idea or notion of what the b****dy hell you are on about.

Good on yer Galway!

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 08:12 PM

So what's with "you people", Keith?
........................

Spangles - now they were great little sweets. And a lovely name for them as well.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 07:48 PM

I prefer to stay away now adays from these threads Al as I attract personal attacks on myself, yes remember Bazooka gum with the small comics inside them. You can get them on ebay. I have a great collection of 1960's and 70's sweets. Yes even Spangles ! Aztec was my favourite

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 07:34 PM

thread drift

there used to be sweets called bazukah, or was it bazookas. Sherbert sort of things.

I wonder if they still do them.

So there wasn't a sign, and he carried something else not a bazooka. That's the way the guy feels about us English. Get used to it. Live with it. he's not going to change his mind cos you have definitive proof of something or other.

Theres a sort of impasse of minds about these threads which we should be able to solve amongst ourselves at least. Cos we're relatively smart.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 06:41 PM

GUEST 04 Jul 06 - 05:41 PM

I can honestly say that I have never heard or read such complete and utter crap in my life before. Please go away and do some reading, do some research, actually find out just what the hell it is that you are talking about - You will find out that it bears no relation whatsoever to what you have posted - but then again I have a slight hunch that truth and honesty do not figure large in your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 06:18 PM

divis sweeney, i do not know what you want from me.
You know that I have no hatred for republicans, only for the paramilitaries of both sides.
Neither of us need to apologise for holding and defending different points of view, only for using dishonesty as a tactic.
I am not clear for what you are saying sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 06:13 PM

Oh, and also there was unlimited well paid work in wartime britain with so many men and women serving against hitler. No Irishman, immune from conscription, would need to join up for " a job"

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 06:06 PM

Guest,
A back person in London in 39 would be a great rarity and an occasion. There were no signs.
The British army did not have bazookas.
It is sad that you people need to resort to dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 05:53 PM

And the point, Guest..?

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 05:41 PM

My father was a Galway man, a middle child amongst twelve children. The eldest son got the farm, the girls married local farmers and the boys scattered to England, Australia, Canada and US.

My father wanting to be close enough to Galway ( it was always 'home' until the day he died) came to London. He was treated like something the cat dragged in. It was the time of NO BLACKS NO IRISH. Renting a room in a 'should have been condemned' house in Brixton was the best on offer.

Walking up Clapham High Street he saw the recruiting office and went in without thinking much about it. It was the promise of a steady wage that he could send 'home' that was the lure. That was 1939. He wasn't fighting for the British, he was fighting for his family.

Six years later he had seen six years of active service. He was a bazookah carrier, as were many of his Irish and other foreign comrades. He remembers the running joke was they sent the non Brits to the front as they were the cannon fodder. Disposable paddies.

He sent money home from every pay packet. The farm was running on empty and every penny counted. His elderly parents and eldest brother tried to hold things together, all the time thinking their boys had made it good in far flung corners of the world because the cash kept coming home.

The truth was those in the far flung corners were facing hardships and bigotry that they daren't mention in the letters home. They all had their own personal battles to fight. My fathers was in a uniform that didn't puff his chest out with pride.

He came back to UK in '45 and never mentioned it again. It was a job.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 01:40 PM

And it's as well to remember that there were soldiers who fought in British uniforms overseas in the Great War who then came home and fought for the Irish Republic againast the British. For example the renowned guerrilla leader Tom Barry.

Trying to draw some hard and fast division between those who fought overseas and those who fought at home is artificial, and is likely to distort the true reality of the times. Troubled times.

Subject: RE: BS: The Fighting Irish
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 11:46 AM

I agree with all Al has said here Keith.

You may well have your reasons for what appears as a public hate for Republicans. I myself have many historic issues with the British, many from personal experience with soldiers.

We have had more than our fair share of verbal battles over the last year. On reflection I see no gain for either of us. Between us both we have put of many members from joining threads as we locked horns publicly.

I am not asking for a date here Keith, just pointing out faults that have been highlighted here and accepting some of the responsibilty myself.

It's twelve months since the PIRA ended it's campaign. I can't keep saying sorry forever. Let's both reflect on our differing viewpoints.