|
24 Aug 10 - 02:45 AM (#2971551) Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Keith A of Hertford This priest was involved in the murder of a little girl, among others, in the same year as Bloody Sunday. His guilt was hidden in a deal between British Government, Church and RUC. Also, the Derry Brigade IRA. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11064647 http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/claudy.htm http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangledwebsquarespace/claudy-37-years-ago.html
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
24 Aug 10 - 02:49 AM (#2971552) Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Keith A of Hertford http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangledwebsquarespace/claudy-37-years-ago.html |
|
24 Aug 10 - 01:18 PM (#2971864) Subject: BS: Another cover up From: Dave Hanson Not only has the Catholic church in Ireland covered up child abuse, it has now admitted, aided by the British Government, shielding a priest who was a suspected IRA murderer in Claudy, how they let this man continue in the priesthood is beyond understanding, I can understand moving him to the Republic to prevent more bloodshed but letting him continue to be a priest is just pissing on the graves of the people he murdered, which several included children. Dave H |
|
24 Aug 10 - 01:48 PM (#2971887) Subject: RE: BS: Another cover up From: Dead Horse To say that it was 'aided by the British Govt' is a wee bit misleading mate. What I 'suspect' actually happened, was that it was 'suggested' to his superiors that he be moved well away before someone took it upon themselves to send him to his maker. That would no doubt have escalated the situation to such a degree that all out war was quite foreseeable. This priest was not the only one (by a long chalk) to aid and abet one side or the other in that benighted province. If it wasnt for our own army padres, I would have given up entirely on the so called 'Christian Church'. |
|
24 Aug 10 - 02:03 PM (#2971899) Subject: RE: BS: Another cover up From: Rapparee I thought the Catholic Church in Ireland excommunicated members of the IRA.... |
|
24 Aug 10 - 02:28 PM (#2971922) Subject: RE: BS: Another cover up From: Q (Frank Staplin) The church has threatened excommunication for some recent actions, but has not followed through. The Church did excommunicate Irish Republicans who were "involved in arson, murder and kidnapping" in the Irish War of Independence (1920), but I don't think anyone was named, nor the IRA specifically cited. |
|
24 Aug 10 - 03:05 PM (#2971952) Subject: RE: BS: Another cover up From: McGrath of Harlow "Suspected" means suspected, no more and no less. |
|
24 Aug 10 - 03:16 PM (#2971963) Subject: RE: BS: Another cover up From: Q (Frank Staplin) Hang him, then hold the trial. Occasional mistakes allowed. |
|
24 Aug 10 - 03:53 PM (#2971991) Subject: RE: BS: 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Joe Offer Well, you do wonder what kind of political hay people can make out of an incident that took place in 1972. According to the BBC report (23 August 2010), it appears that nobody was arrested in connection with the 1972 bombing until 2005 - and those people were released shortly after they were arrested. The priest in question died in 1980. According to the BBC report, "Local priest Father James Chesney rumoured to have been a member of the IRA unit responsible." If I were a bishop and I received rumors but no proof that a priest was somehow connected to criminal activity, I think I'd be likely to transfer that priest away from his suspected connections - to remove him from the "near occasion of sin," as we used to say in the old days. So, was it a cover-up, or was it just preventing the guy from getting himself deeper into the violent activity of the IRA? I wasn't able to find any documentation to support Dave Hanson's allegation that the Roman Catholic Church "has now admitted, aided by the British Government, shielding a priest who was a suspected IRA murderer in Claudy." Dave appears to have done a wee bit of extrapolation beyond the facts of this 38-year-old crime. So, are there documented facts beyond what was reported by the BBC? The Independent has a longer article on the matter, but no additional factual information about the priest other than this: Records showed he provided an alibi for a person suspected of playing a prominent role in the atrocity. -Joe Offer- |
|
24 Aug 10 - 04:06 PM (#2971998) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: RobbieWilson actual report (as opposed to a newspapers selection) |
|
24 Aug 10 - 04:14 PM (#2972008) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: olddude Of more concern to me than something in 1972 where no proof exist and the guy accused is dead is what happens today. I have far more concern with the sexual abuse and the cover up that took place recently and what exactly has been done to punish those responsible and those who covered it up. And what exactly is being done to prevent this from occurring again and again as it has been. And if someone comes along with actual proof of a crime 38 years ago then yes it should be discussed. Right now I see nothing new other than a 38 year old allegation. Lets address the stuff happening now first and punish those responsible all the way up to the Pope if he had knowledge of it. If something new surfaces in the 38 year old allegation, then I sure would like to hear it but now it seems like the same thing rehashed |
|
24 Aug 10 - 04:30 PM (#2972023) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge I was interested in what was a throwaway line, almost a passing comment that in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday the IRA leaders were - what was the word? was it "in the ascendant"? It makes me wonder whether the latest Bloody Sunday report is right - or whether it is a political sop. |
|
24 Aug 10 - 04:32 PM (#2972026) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Joe Offer The Police Ombusdman Report is very helpful, Robbie. Thanks for the link. It does appear that intelligence information gave strong reason to suspect that that Fr. Chesney was a leader in the IRA unit involved, not merely a bystander. Still, I think it would have been irresponsible for the Catholic Church to allow him to remain assigned in a place where he could do harm. If he was moved to the Republic of Ireland, did that mean he was immune from prosecution for a crime committed in Northern Ireland? I see in the Ombudsman report that one person was arrested in 1972 in connection with the bombings, but later released, and that others were arrested and released in 2005. Was anyone ever found to be responsible for this bombing? While it does appear that Chesney may have had some involvement, is there any information about the people who were primarily responsible? -Joe- |
|
24 Aug 10 - 04:41 PM (#2972034) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Leadfingers There was a bit on the radio today , someone was reported as saying Fr Chesney parked a car with a bomb in it outside a shop where the daughter of the shop owner was in the window ! Said he looked at her and walked away ! That was on BBC Radio 4 earlier today ! |
|
24 Aug 10 - 05:50 PM (#2972079) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Q (Frank Staplin) The BBC reported that the mother of the young girl saw "a bomber leave what was the second bomb beside their shop." There was no identification given. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11026426 24 Aug 2010. Another BBC article, also dated 24 Aug 2010, states: "The sudden death of Fr Chesney in 1980 means he is not able to defend himself. The failure to arrest him meant he never got a chance to tell his side of the story. "Although the police had a huge file of intelligence information linking him to terrorism, they did not seem to have much hard evidence. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11071321 The investigation can point to errors in investigation and procedures, but seems not able to unequivocably condemn the priest. Major participants are dead, so their reasoning cannot be definitely determined. |
|
24 Aug 10 - 07:22 PM (#2972144) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: McGrath of Harlow The decision not to prosecute Father Chesney, but to ask the bishop to shift him, was a decision taken by the British authorities. Being suspected does not necessarily mean a person is guilty, especially when there has never been any trial. For that matter, even where people have been tried, found guilty, and served many years in prison, this has not always meant that they are actually guilty - as has been demonstrated many times, and not only in the context of Northern Ireland. |
|
24 Aug 10 - 09:08 PM (#2972197) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge Surely a catholic believes we are all guilty. |
|
24 Aug 10 - 09:47 PM (#2972204) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Rapparee "...For Father Chesney, from the County Derry, Stirs up the news like a mighty wave...." |
|
25 Aug 10 - 02:17 AM (#2972275) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford McGrath, you are willing to condemn Israeli soldiers on much more slender evidence. Of course he was not convicted. That is the point. Despite damning evidence the investigation into him was stopped for political reasons, and covered up. Irish Times yesterday. "The IRA did not admit the attack, although no one has ever seriously questioned that it was responsible. It attempted to issue a warning from nearby Dungiven, but was unable to do so because one of its bombings had damaged the telephone exchanges." http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0824/breaking5.html The bomb was packed with nails for maximum human damage. I tried to start this discussion in the Clerical Abuse thread. He had murdered three children and escaped justice because he was a priest, and allowed to continue his activities for the rest of his mercifully short life.. The priest was known to be active in the local IRA. Irish Times today. "THE LIKELY involvement by a Catholic priest in the killing of nine innocent civilians in Claudy, Co Derry, as part of the Provisional IRA's bombing campaign, represented an appalling moral, social and security prospect in 1972. The response by senior RUC officers, with the cooperation of the British government and members of the Catholic hierarchy, was to "render harmless a dangerous man" by having him transferred out of Northern Ireland." http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0825/1224277541451.html |
|
25 Aug 10 - 02:46 AM (#2972304) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford The "cover up" title invites comparison with Bloody Sunday. First distinction. Those contributors who fell over themselves to express their outrage over BS, are conspicuous by their absence here. Is that because of the nationality of the perpetrators? Next. One cover up prevented the prosecution of British soldiers. (Shame. Outrage.) The other cover up prevented the prosecution of an IRA mass murderer. (....) I suggest that both cover ups were intended to avoid exacerbating the violence that could so easily have led to civil war. Nearly 500 killings that year. You can argue that was misguided, but the motive was good |
|
25 Aug 10 - 04:45 AM (#2972363) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Dave Hanson Of course the motive was good but to allow a known IRA sympathiser and suspected child murderer to carry on being a priest is an outrage to every decent person in the world, for fucks sake even one of Irelands most senior bishops called him a very bad man. Would you want him giving religous instructions to your children ? Dave H |
|
25 Aug 10 - 05:34 AM (#2972381) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "Those contributors who fell over themselves to express their outrage over BS, are conspicuous by their absence here. Is that because of the nationality of the perpetrators?" Have you thought that this might be down to the fact that the op is someone who usually manages to dominate threads with vacuous postings - often two at a time (at least), doesn't listen to what others have to say, fills the thread with his non-comments and uses threads as an ego-tripping display of his ignorance - result = circular discussion ending in op disappearing up his own jaxi. Personally, our kitchen table makes a more satisfying debating partner. As has been pointed out by me and others in the past, religion (of any sort) and politics is a toxic mix that should be avoided at all costs, as proved by this incident and a thousand others involving the church(es) and state pouring their bilious hatred of other religions and political creeds into the ears of the faithful. Jim Carroll |
|
25 Aug 10 - 07:33 AM (#2972438) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Dave Hanson And to Jim Carroll, I originated this thread, how Keith of Hertfords two posts got in front of mine is a question for Joe Offer or some anonymous mudelf. Dave H |
|
25 Aug 10 - 07:52 AM (#2972449) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Dave, Apologies - somewhat bizarrely, Keith's first post was to the Clerical Child Abuse thread - confusing or what? As you say, there appears to be proof suggesting that the priest was involved, just as there was proof the William Whitelaw, the Northern Ireland secretary, and the RUC were aware of the facts of the incident and covered them up - somewhat reminiscent of the duplicity that charaterised much of what was happening at the time. Jim Carroll |
|
25 Aug 10 - 08:13 AM (#2972461) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Dead Horse I am in constant communication with ex-army pals who walked those mean streets of Ulster on Op Banner, and I can assure you all that the involvement of local priests was well known to them all. I submit the following extracts from their own words on the subject: From soldier (A) All you ex Bogside trekkers will remember St Columbs. A sergeant-major was shot in Echo OP which was located on the top of the old Embassy ballroom in the Strand. The shot was fired from the spire of St Columbs. Plus every time you passed the place, the stink of marzipan made your eyes water yet we were never allowed to search the grounds. (Marzipan is what explosive smelled like) From soldier (B) The Sky Pilots were always at it. There was a priest at Holy Cross church in Belfast, who tied pieces of coloured cloth to the railings as a signal to snipers in the Ardoyne when a foot patrol was coming up the Woodvale. Nothing happened to him either. From soldier (C) (following on from previous comment) Not only did this tell the sniper that a patrol was coming, it also told him his wind and variation, enabling him to have a more accurate shot. From soldier (D) Everyone knew it mate but the powers that be chose to ignore it. The church must have known....they hid it like they hide everything else. I wonder how many deaths are at their hand...... From soldier (E) Just saw this news item come up on the BBC news and as usual it went back to Bloody Sunday and intimated that it all started from that day . Bloody typical BBC no mention of the two and a half years of murder and mayhem caused by the IRA from 1969 to 1972 . The message they gave was clear - the Claudy bombing was our fault and a direct result of Bloody Sunday. God i hate the BBC. From soldier (D) (again) Interestingly the 'expert' that Sky news just had on was a Brendon O'Duffy, expert on Irish affairs.........he was an American of Irish decent.....sums it up really. He got his degree from university in Boston....hot bed of NORAID. As a post script to this, 1972 was the bloodiest year of the conflict. There were officially 1,853 bombings 10,564 shootings 129 deaths of serving soldiers 17 deaths of members of the RUC 223 civilians killed 98 proven terrorists killed 9 people, including an 8yr old girl and 2 teenagers were killed and dozens injured when three car bombs were detonated without warning in Claudy, nr Londonderry, on July 31st. The British Army were NOT fought to a standstill, as claimed in a previous post. ---------Refers to a deleted post. JoeClone--------------- The conflict was brought to an end (officially) after 35 years of bloodshed, by the so called Good Friday Agreement, which released dozens of known murderers back onto the streets. That same agreement continues to 'pardon' known criminals even now. |
|
25 Aug 10 - 08:46 AM (#2972477) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford As usual, Jim attacks me but makes no actual contribution to the discussion. I will make no further contribution either. I would be a fool to ignore the threats. I should be flattered that my posts are considered so dangerous. Like when Jim thought they were so good I must be downloading them. He even said he had found where they came from. But that was a lie obviously. Remember when the forum was a nice place? |
|
25 Aug 10 - 08:48 AM (#2972478) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: bubblyrat I well remember 1969 - "shipmates" from Northern Ireland were allowed to grow their hair longer before going home on leave,so as not to stand out so much. And "Irish Rebel Songs" were off the repertoire ,for obvious reasons,and not just as a matter of good taste ; a shame,really,as our Master-At-Arms,Paddy Calnan, from The Republic, was rather partial to them. Let us hope that those days do not return.....As to the RC priest in question, well ; I imagine that if there really IS a God & a Heaven, then Father Chesney will have discovered by now that there really is a Satan & a Hades also. |
|
25 Aug 10 - 08:52 AM (#2972481) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Dead Horse As a footnote, you will notice that the RUC directed civilians away from one of the car bombs towards a 'safe' area, where tragically they became victims of a third car bomb. This is a now well known IRA tactic. The terrorists knew police proceedures by heart, and coldly calculated their placement of explosives on that knowledge, with the intention of causing as many casualties as possible, while at the same time claiming it was RUC incompetence that was to blame. I should also like to add that there is a hell of a lot more to the conflict that is not known by the general public, and much that even now is not realised by even those who were there on the ground. |
|
25 Aug 10 - 09:41 AM (#2972519) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Threats??? Jim Carroll |
|
25 Aug 10 - 11:20 AM (#2972570) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Deleted Jim. |
|
25 Aug 10 - 12:19 PM (#2972603) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll No idea what that means Keith - nothing of mine has ever been deleted from this forum. I responded to your snide suggestion here that some of us who are concerned with Ireland had not joined this thread because we believed it to be started by you. This was a reluctant decision on my part as it does concern me what happens in Ireland and there are some interesting responses to the affair here at the present time. Your present behaviour is a perfect example of why I have decided to steer clear of anything involving you. Would love to see what you believe to have been deleted from my posts though. Jim Carroll |
|
25 Aug 10 - 01:04 PM (#2972627) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: bubblyrat In today's "Times" newspaper, it states quite clearly and unequivocally that , six months before the vile ,despicable,sub-human atrocity at Claudy, Father James Chesney was appointed IRA Director Of Operations for South Derry. So what did he organise then ?? Picnics ?? Old Folks' Outings ?? Ceilidhs ?? Rest this thread ?? No ! It should go on forever !! |
|
25 Aug 10 - 01:20 PM (#2972642) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge You know, I hate saying this, but I agree with Bubblyrat. |
|
25 Aug 10 - 03:19 PM (#2972724) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Joe Offer
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
25 Aug 10 - 05:40 PM (#2972830) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Q (Frank Staplin) Some 38 years ago. Most of the principals are dead. There is nothing to be gained by making accusations at this date. The sole purpose of this thread seems to be to stir up Unionist-Republican strife again. |
|
25 Aug 10 - 06:30 PM (#2972855) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge Why would one do that? The terrorists won. |
|
25 Aug 10 - 06:57 PM (#2972873) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Big Mick The reason the "usual suspects" don't participate in your "discussions", Keith, is that it is pointless. Yourself and Teribus have no inclination to "discuss". You are apologists for a policy of the UK govt. that is thoroughly discredited. As to my own views, the more reasonable and less biased among my British friends have caused me to have a better balanced view of the soldiers, and the everyday British citizen. This does not, however, mean it has changed my view of the history, and the culpability of the British Government, as regards the land of my Grandparents. Mick |
|
25 Aug 10 - 10:07 PM (#2972968) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge A perfectly reasonable point, Mick. The conduct of the British governments over the years in Ireland was quite worthy of condemnation, but I am quite clear that the IRA's war on civilians could never be justified. |
|
26 Aug 10 - 03:31 AM (#2973034) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford To my bullying persecutor. Relax. I am not going to criticise the glorious IRA. To Q. To avoid your criticism I tried to raise this as another example of clerical abuse and immunity. To Mick. When this discussion started, my contribution was just to contrast how differently some Mudcatters treated two crimes and cover ups in the same year. To Jim. "your snide suggestion here that some of us who are concerned with Ireland had not joined this thread because we believed it to be started by you." I did not suggest any such thing. Why can't you just be honest? |
|
26 Aug 10 - 05:28 AM (#2973095) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: banjoman If this priest was involved, then I would love to have heard his sermon at Mass on the Sunday -"Suffer little children etc" or "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord". Its just the same as those priests involved in child abuse preaching a message of love & understanding. It makes me question my own faith at times. However, I realise that my faith is not in the institution of the Catholic Church but in the real message of love peace etc which the church seems to forget at its convenience. |
|
26 Aug 10 - 05:29 AM (#2973096) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Dave Hanson Here is a question for Q, if someone had murdered YOUR child and the authorities were 99% certain who did it, and then conspired with the church to let the person off scot free, wouldn't you be seeking justice, no matter how long it took ? It's not about stirring up trouble, it's about justice. Dave H |
|
26 Aug 10 - 06:01 AM (#2973101) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Dead Horse When that 'justice' comes at the price of hundreds more women children and innocent civilians killed in the name of 'freedom'????? Sorry mate, but what you ask is too much, and would come with further injusticies to a people who deserve peace in their lives. Paisley and McGuinness et al shook hands in Stormont so that the list of those murdered in the name of justice might end. |
|
26 Aug 10 - 06:20 AM (#2973111) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford So, should this enquiry not have been held? And the Bloody Sunday enquiry? |
|
26 Aug 10 - 07:10 AM (#2973135) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Dave Hanson Again I ask, Dead Horse this time, if it was your child would you be so keen to forgive and forget ? Dave H |
|
26 Aug 10 - 08:44 AM (#2973168) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "would you be so keen to forgive and forget?" So what do you suggest Dave, and would it include the soldiers who gunned down unarmed demonstrators on Bloody Sunday? The priest, if he did participate in the bombing was a criminal (now dead) - so were all the others (on both sides), who participated in such actions, (Grey Steel, Monoghan, Dublin, Derry, Belfast, Harrods, Birmingham, Guildford....) the list is awesome. Nobody came out of that period with clean hands, the churches (of all persuasions), politicians, police, soldiers, paramilitaries (again on both sides)... all participated in the slaughter and carried out inhuman acts. What should happen now, public hanging or let the peace process take its course? I know where my vote would go. Jim Carroll |
|
26 Aug 10 - 08:49 AM (#2973171) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll PS And how would you deal with the police and politiciand (including Whitelaw) who deliberately covered the facts up and allowed the priest to continue his activities? Jim Carroll |
|
26 Aug 10 - 10:46 AM (#2973237) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Dave Hanson I don't know Jim, but there is no closure from the families of the dead until someone accepts the responsibility, ie both the church in Ireland and the British Government, at least the church should vow never to cover up anything again, but I won't hold my breath. Anyone who killed innocent people should face the full weight of the law, including the Paras. I can't believe they gave that oaf Willie Whitelaw such a responsible job, the man was such a bungler he once shot his own gunbearer on a grouse shoot. Dave H |
|
26 Aug 10 - 11:10 AM (#2973251) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll At one time I would have totally agreed with you Dave. I confess that when Apartheid collapsed in South Africa, my first thoughts were "Great - now they can get the bastards responsible for the Sharpville and Soweto massacres". I was somewhat outraged when the Peace and Reconcilliation committees were set up - until I tried to think my way through the alternatives. I think in the end that we must be satified with letting history sort out the rights and wrongs - I doubt if any of us would be totally happy at the outcome. Yes - it is tough on the families of the victims, but no one side has a monopoly of those. I think we all have opinions of the causes of the Irish situation and how it was allowed to reach the stage it did in the second half of the 20th century, but short of continuing to slug it out... I honestly can't think of one conflict in my lifetime in which one side or the other could claim to have acted blamelessly throughout. Jim Carroll |
|
26 Aug 10 - 03:17 PM (#2973441) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Dave Hanson In the end I think I would have to agree with that Jim. Dave H |
|
26 Aug 10 - 03:48 PM (#2973465) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford I agree too Jim. If you had said you believed that on the Bloody Sunday thread, we would not have disagreed there. Why the difference? |
|
26 Aug 10 - 11:58 PM (#2973734) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: GUEST Yes, Jim, my opinion is that you have the right of it. As I often point out in my concerts, they are still fighting, but now it is across the table. And that means good things for all the people of the North of Ireland. Richard, I agree. Mick |
|
27 Aug 10 - 12:34 AM (#2973741) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus The sole purpose of this thread seems to be to stir up Unionist-Republican strife again. Q Why would one do that? The terrorists won. Richard Bridge Won what? A United Ireland? The over-throw of the Irish Government? As far as I can see they are no nearer reaching either of those goals. The Constitutional territorial claim to the North has been dropped and the ONLY way a United Ireland will now ever come about is by the declared assent of the majority of people in Northern Ireland which then has to be agreed to by the people of the Republic of Ireland If "the terrorists won" why are the "real" IRA still fighting? Correct me if I am wrong here but the recently passed Northern Ireland Policing Bill established a Police Service in Northern Ireland that reflects the community it serves. Sinn Fein has signed up to this, in fact all parties in Northern Ireland have as well as the Governments in Dublin and in London. So after 35 years 3,500 deaths (A number that would have been far, far greater had the PIRA had its way) and over 36,000 maimed and injured, the PIRA have "won" a Police Service that is predominantly Protestant and Unionist. ALL the paramilitaries in Ireland should have left it to the Civil Rights Movement in 1969, they would have "won" a better deal, a damn sight quicker and for far less bloodshed. Oh and Big Mick I would far prefer to take on the task of defending British Government actions in Ireland than even attempt to defend the US Governments actions against the native tribes of the country you now call home. As with most Irish-Americans nothing is more true than the lines of the song: Raised on songs and stories Unfortunately that all too often is the truth, that is all they ever were. |
|
27 Aug 10 - 04:16 AM (#2973798) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, there was no forgive and forget expressed in your Bloody Sunday posts. You demanded to know if surviving soldiers would be prosecuted. When I said it was unlikely, you cried "Game, set and match." Remember? You also said, more than omce, that senior officers should be held accountable for the actions of their soldiers. But not in Claudy, right? I ask again, why the difference? |
|
27 Aug 10 - 04:23 AM (#2973802) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "ALL the paramilitaries in Ireland should have left it to the Civil Rights Movement in 1969" Pehaps if the NI authorities had listened to the genuine grievences of the Nationalists, rather than allowing the police to baton charge them and then force the C R marches where they could be attacked (all on record - and we watched it from the comfort of our armchairs, on the telly!) none of this would have happened, or at least not to the extent it did. The history of Ireland is one of grievences being met with force by the administration. The situation today has been arrived at by the disputing parties being bombed to the conference table and there are still the "No Surrender" nutters, out on the streets at the present time, who would be happy to see any move towards unification steamrollered out of existance. Jim Carroll |
|
27 Aug 10 - 07:28 AM (#2973882) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford The "nutters" who do not want unification are actually the majority Jim. What about the nutters who want the peace process steamrollered out of existance? |
|
27 Aug 10 - 08:32 AM (#2973912) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: allan con -The "nutters" who do not want unification are actually the majority Jim- To be fair to Jim I think by 'No Surrender' nutters he means people who wouldn't accept unification even if/when the majority wants it. These people of course will exist just as there are currently a small minority of nationalists who won't accept the current wishes of the majority in both parts of Ireland who accepted and voted for the agreement. |
|
27 Aug 10 - 11:57 AM (#2974026) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford You joined Mudcat especially to defend Jim? Nice gesture Allan. (It isn't you is it Jim?) |
|
27 Aug 10 - 01:01 PM (#2974076) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus The situation today has been arrived at by the disputing parties being bombed to the conference table Jim Carroll No Jim no-one was "bombed to the conference table" as you put it. Martin McGuinness has stated that by 1985 the PIRA had been fought to a standstill and the leadership fully realised that they were never going to achieve anything by force of arms, they realised that whatever they wanted to achieve would only be achieved politically. It took him and Gerry Adams a further ten years to convince the rank and file which resulted in what became known as the Good Friday Agreement and a further 12 years before the PIRA decommissioned their weapons and disbanded. Throughout Ireland in the referendum that followed an overwhelming majority of the people in Ireland demonstrated with absolute clarity that violence had no part in politics in the island of Ireland and that killed once and for all time any claim any Republican or Loyalist group had to a mandate from the people to bomb or murder for any political cause. I would be interested to hear from Richard Bridge why if he thinks the IRA won the "Real" IRA are still fighting. That Roman Catholic Priests aided and abetted terrorists and even directed their activities should come as no surprise to anyone who served over there, as someone else has pointed out. |
|
27 Aug 10 - 01:28 PM (#2974090) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll I think there's only one person here who sends fake posts? Jim Carroll |
|
27 Aug 10 - 02:46 PM (#2974140) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "No Jim no-one was "bombed to the conference table" If the British Government or the Northern Ireland administration had any intention of discussing the future of the six counties, they would have done so back in the sixties, instead of standing back and allowing the RUC and then the Loyalsts kick the shit out of the Civil Rights marchers. 'The Troubles' of the seventies and eighties so sickened the British public that they (as has been pointed out here numerous times) would have been more than happy to see the six counties ceceed from the Union. Faced with this situation, the British Government had to do something - hence, it was bombed to the conference table. The Northern Ireland Unionists are so secure in their majority that that majority voted their leader, Peter Robinson or of office at the General Election. Allan (are you sure you're not me?) Thanks for making my point for me. As you rightly point out, there are two types of nutters on the scene nowadays. Those who have re-emerged as a Republican splinter group becuse they have no confidence that the negotiations are getting anywhere (egged on, of course at this time of year when the sectarian belligerents emerge from their rat holes to scream their annual hate and abuse). The other type are those who insisted (as a quaint tradition, of course) on displaying their superiority with aggressively threatening marches, where possible through Catholic area. This latter haven't fallen short of terrorising schoolchildren as young as 4 years old, over two years for being the wrong religion, but I understand we can't talk about that because it happened too long ago. As far as I'm concerned, both of these lots of nutters are potentially dangerous, but it is the long term ones who have displayed their sectarian hatred on at least an annual basis, certainly well beyond my lifetime. Jim Carroll |
|
27 Aug 10 - 02:50 PM (#2974145) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Sorry - hit the button too early Should read "but it is the long term ones who have displayed their sectarian hatred on at least an annual basis, certainly well beyond my lifetime that give me sleepless nights. Jim carroll |
|
27 Aug 10 - 03:21 PM (#2974157) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford "I think there's only one person here who sends fake posts. Jim Carroll " Blimey Jim! I never thought you would admit it. |
|
27 Aug 10 - 03:35 PM (#2974164) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Keith, I have found no bigotry or slurs in your posts. I take it back. I am ashamed. This message appears to have been posted by Keith A of Hertford. That's not allowed, Keith - and you damn well know it. -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- Jim Carroll |
|
27 Aug 10 - 04:34 PM (#2974198) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Yes, that was me. And everyone would have known immediately that it was me. That Guest was hardly likely to post that was he? And yet it was the truth. He could find no bigotry or slurs in my posts. So no attempt to deceive, and nothing but the truth. Honesty Jim. People respect that. |
|
28 Aug 10 - 08:57 AM (#2974528) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus Jim Carroll; Date: 27 Aug 10 - 02:46 PM Mixing things up a bit here aren't you Jim? If the British Government or the Northern Ireland administration had any intention of discussing the future of the six counties, they would have done so back in the sixties, instead of standing back and allowing the RUC and then the Loyalsts kick the shit out of the Civil Rights marchers. None too sure of the constitutional position of the Stormont Parliament are you Jim? Not surprising considering the total bollocks you believe about about the founding of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland itself. There was that extremely short period where the island of Ireland was united and completely independent for as long as it took the political representative from the North to cede from the Irish Free State and the autonomous self governing area known as Northern Ireland came into being. Punch line here Jim is that for much of the 60's the british Government had no say or interest in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. They did however begin to take an interest once the NICRM got under way. It was indeed the very actions of the RUC and the Ulster 'B' Specials that caused the British Government to intervene. My first tour our task was to provide protection for Catholic/Nationalist/Republican areas and to oversee the disbanding and disarming of the Ulster 'B' Specials. We faced street protests, rocks and stones, petrol bombs, crude nail bombs and the like - all came from "Loyalist" paramilitary groups. 'The Troubles' of the seventies and eighties so sickened the British public that they (as has been pointed out here numerous times) would have been more than happy to see the six counties ceceed from the Union. I do not believe that the people of mainland have ever thought much about Ireland period, in the 1960's Paisley was a figure of fun and ridicule as were the IRA as mimicked by Peter Sellars (Aw jaysus we'll blow up the Albert Hall 'n all). The British public by and large well 100% behind the efforts of the NICRM, but that started to recede once the bombings started. The "Official" IRA had taken the right tack on things when they decided to stand clear as the NICRM was making progress, this of course gave birth to the "Provisional" IRA who wished to take up and expand the "so-called" armed struggle (armed struggle in as much as that meant deliberately setting out to kill as many innocent civilians as possible and others by execution who do not shoot back). I agree Jim that if at any time from 1922 onwards if a referendum had ever been conducted on Ireland that included the population of Great Britain the North would have been cut adrift in an instant. Just in exactly the same way today that Scotland would be independent tomorrow if English voters could vote on the matter. In 1972 Harold Wilson attempted to establish an International peacekeeping force in the North of Ireland - The USA; Canada and the other NATO Members quite rightly told him where he could put his proposal. Big change in British attitude came in 1979, not with the arrival of Margaret Thatcher, but with the departure of Lord Louis Mountbatten (Without a shadow of a doubt one of the greatest fuck ups the PIRA made, and they made many). Throughout the 70's, 80's & 90's the Republican paramilitary organisations were riddled with informers right to the highest levels. Ceasefires Jim were generally called by the PIRA, not by the Government Faced with this situation, the British Government had to do something - hence, it - Assumed direct rule of the Province; - Placed security forces at the disposal of the civil power; - Maintained rule of Law & Order; - Took measures to protect the civilian population; - Worked towards a political solution with all parties. Were they successful? I would say so. Oh one last thing Jim if the British Government were ever going to be bombed to the conference table it would have happened a damn sight earlier than 1996, by then there had been how many PIRA requested ceasefires? |
|
28 Aug 10 - 11:59 AM (#2974604) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll I am well aware of your DIY version of Irish history, but whatever one you accept utimately, what happens in NI is the direct responsibility of The British Parliament, and, at least as my history books (and family experience) tells me - they fucked up. Jim Carroll |
|
28 Aug 10 - 01:40 PM (#2974657) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: John MacKenzie New to this thread, been away, but all I will say is this. All Christians are hypocrites! Mainly because it's impossible to be a Christian, and not be a hypocrite. Someone said about the NI debacle, "There are too many Protestants, and too many Catholics, but too few Christians." |
|
28 Aug 10 - 04:17 PM (#2974744) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge "Civil rights" include neither invading a foreign sovereign territory nor bombing civilians. They do include freedom of religion and rights against discrimination. The two are not the same. Sovereign states make war on other sovereign states, and pursuant to declared war civilians get bombed - and history written by the winner judges. When I say "the terrorists won" I mean that they forced the UK government to recognise them and to concede power sharing with them. As I understand it from some who were there, the military view was that internment was working and that there were decreasing numbers of terrorists at liberty and active, but that view did not prevail in government circles. That does nothing to rehabilitate the terrorist murderers, and frankly, I would not believe McGuinness if he said "the sky is blue". This is not to concede that I will agree with Teribus or Keith A on any other topic, nor indeed that I agree with all that they say here. |
|
28 Aug 10 - 04:56 PM (#2974765) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Richard, Sometimes your views on Ireland and the Irish read like a 19th century edition of Punch. Jim Carroll |
|
28 Aug 10 - 06:02 PM (#2974809) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge Do tell me Jim then which IRA/PIRA activities you condone - and what words of McGuinness you believe. |
|
29 Aug 10 - 04:03 AM (#2974993) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll I don't condone the murderous activities of the IRA/PIRA//UVF/British Paratroop Regiment, or any particular group, Richard, I don't make a distinction between them, as you appear to. Nor do I sweep aside evidence of those activities as rigged, as you have done with the Bloody Sunday Massacre enquiry. As far as McGuinness, and anybody who was involved in the Troubles of the 70s and 80s, on either side of the sectarian divide, whatever I might think of their behaviour then, I recognise they are now a part of the move towards a peaceful settlement of Ireland's continuing problems, and ignoring that fact will be a great contribution towards passing on those problems for future generations to sort out with the gun and bomb. Continual demands for your 'pound of flesh' could well work out just as lethal as any car bomb. Jim Carroll |
|
29 Aug 10 - 06:26 AM (#2975037) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus So much for Guests not be allowed to post to this thread. There is/was a marked difference between the activities of the various groups mentioned by Jim Carroll between the years 1968 and 1996. Whereas the Loyalist paramilitaries fought basically a sectarian war, the Republicans conducted a camapign of terror who indiscriminately targeted the civilian population of Northern Ireland irrespective of political belief or religious conviction. The likes of Jim Carroll and US apologists such as Big Mick, continually bring up Bloody Sunday where 14 people died, but never ever mention the 87 people murdered on the orders of Martin McGuinness in the same city, or the bomb attacks such as the one mentioned in this thread or of the planning and execution of what became known as Bloody Friday. The PIRA Jim Carroll not the British Government were the ones responsible for the deaths of 3,500 fellow Irish men, women and children, they were additionally responsible for injuring and maiming 36,000 of their own countrymen. Had it not been for the eforts of the Emergency Services and Security Forces present in Northern Ireland those numbers would have been a great deal higher. The Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland were scum, pure and simple, I would say the same of anyone or any organisation that instructs its members to set bombs knowing that in setting them they will take the lives of completely innocent members of the public who are purely going about their everyday lives doing harm to no-one. |
|
29 Aug 10 - 06:44 AM (#2975045) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Bloody Sunday was an act of State terrorism carried out on our behalf by state employees. Similar acts of terrorism were the Birmingham and Guildford bombings, the trick-or-treat massacre, the killing of three children by loyalis paramilitaries, and all the many hundreds of similar acts committed by both sides. The bombs placed in Monoghan and Dublin by Loyalists fighting their 'sectarian' war, killed and maimed civilians, Catholic and Protestant, just as the ones place in Omagh did. The difference between our attitude and your is that you differentiate, we don't. Whoever did what to whom and when aside, the question should be "where do we go from here?" not "where have we been?" Jim Carroll |
|
29 Aug 10 - 08:35 AM (#2975100) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Teribus, guest posts are indeed not allowed on this thread. They can still be made of course, but they may eventually get deleted. Usually long after sufficient time has elapsed for them to be read and enjoyed by their target audience. If not, they just have to paste them back in again. I have had my personal details on display for hours on end, putting me, my home and my family at great risk. |
|
29 Aug 10 - 08:58 AM (#2975110) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus Bloody Sunday was an act of State terrorism carried out on our behalf by state employees. Complete and utter bullshit, had what you say actually had been the case then a damn sight more than thirteen would have died on the day. "Where do we go from here Jim Carroll?" Onward in our delivery of the prospect of a lasting peace to the people of Northern Ireland and that includes hunting down the scum that fill the ranks of the "Real" IRA, who basically are just killing as a form of blood sport, having neither political goal or popular support. |
|
29 Aug 10 - 11:29 AM (#2975195) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "and that includes hunting down the scum that fill the ranks of the "Real" IRA, who basically are just killing as a form of blood sport, having neither political goal or popular support." Jim Carroll |
|
29 Aug 10 - 12:15 PM (#2975222) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "and that includes hunting down the scum that fill the ranks of the "Real" IRA, who basically are just killing as a form of blood sport, having neither political goal or popular support." Sorry- mis-sent And by the time the people of Derry have extracted their vengeance for the Bloody Sunday massacre, and the people of Monoghan for that bombing, and the people of Omagh for that one, and the people of the Republic have called the Brits into account for partitioning the country and creating the whole bloody mess in the first place..... and so ad infinitum, the death count will be what exactly? Sectarian shit like this has fanned the hatred and killed the people of Northern Ireland for long enough - let history sort out who was responsible. Jim Carroll |
|
29 Aug 10 - 04:49 PM (#2975396) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus Nothing sectarian at all in what I stated in my post. At ptesent the only people running around Ireland hell bent on killing fellow Irishmen are the members of the "Real" IRA - TRUE?? The "Real" IRA have absolutely no support from any sector of the population in either Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland, so perhaps you could tell me on whose behalf they attempt to plant cars, vans and trucks loaded with explosives in streets and towns in Northern Ireland, or like the three bombs set in Claudy do you regard them as being a necessary theraputic for the sick bastards trying to impose a solution that is solely theirs by force. |
|
30 Aug 10 - 06:05 AM (#2975732) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, if you do not approve of going after them, what should be done about RIRA? |
|
30 Aug 10 - 06:08 AM (#2975734) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford To the person sending me intimidating pms, just asking, not criticising. |
|
30 Aug 10 - 07:26 AM (#2975774) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "Jim, if you do not approve of going after them, what should be done about RIRA? " Didn't say I don't approve ofgoing after them - you told me the police had all the trouble in hand and it was all over - make up your mind. Of course the police should, and are dealing with them - they are terrorists, But surely the overall priority should be to settle the root causes of the problem. Dwelling on what you and your friend have pointed out is a criminal matter is a side issue. Jim Carroll |
|
30 Aug 10 - 02:56 PM (#2976085) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge But the problem is that the various republican movements want to conquer a sovereign nation that does not want to be conquered by them. |
|
30 Aug 10 - 03:00 PM (#2976086) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "But the problem is that the various republican movements want to conquer a sovereign nation that does not want to be conquered by them. " Do you know this or is it an assumption? Jim Carroll |
|
30 Aug 10 - 05:41 PM (#2976232) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus "But the problem is that the various republican movements want to conquer a sovereign nation that does not want to be conquered by them. " Do you know this or is it an assumption? We know this Jim because had the North wanted to be united with the South they would never have ceceded in the first place, I believe they were actually "United" for about three days from the 6th December 1922 (Notification of the wish to cecede being sent on the 7th December, 1922). |
|
30 Aug 10 - 06:51 PM (#2976284) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "We know this Jim because had the North wanted to be united with the South they would never have ceceded in the first place," They scecded (at least some of them did -there was a Civil War over it) on the understanding that it was a temporary measure (in writing even - or doesn't your DIY history include that bit - well documented ). One of teh first majoy acts of the new administration was to move the gaolposts of the agreement by abolishing the proportianal representation form of voting because it would have given the Nationalists too much of a say in the province - buy a book. Jim Carroll |
|
30 Aug 10 - 09:00 PM (#2976372) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge Jim, none of that would give any legitimacy to a war of regime change. |
|
31 Aug 10 - 12:21 AM (#2976432) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: MGM·Lion Jim, do not wish to be facetiously distracting regarding a serious topic; but cannot resist pointing out the extreme felicitousness of your typo "to move the gaolposts"! ~Michael~ |
|
31 Aug 10 - 12:44 AM (#2976441) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus It still is a temporary measure Jim, when the majority of the population of Northern Ireland want to unite with the South then they will vote on it and it will happen. One thing that is for certain though, they will not be bombed into doing so by a bunch of murderous cretins who have absolutely no mandate whatsoever from any Irish man or woman. That politicians of any kind once in power will do everyhting they can to hold onto it should come as no bloody surprise to anybody. |
|
31 Aug 10 - 04:10 AM (#2976493) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge "Murderous" is in my view a fair criticism. "Cretin" however is probably not, in that if the accused were truly cretins they might not have been as effective as they were. |
|
31 Aug 10 - 04:11 AM (#2976495) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "Jim, none of that would give any legitimacy to a war of regime change." Richard, there has been a war of regime change since 1922, we've not long come out of one of its bloodiest periods and they are still in the process of picking up the pieces. The chance of settling the situation relatively peacefully was baton-charged out of existance in the late sixties with the short-lived Civil Rights Movement. We still have the threat of a return to the bombings (three this month) and we still have the viciousness of the annual Unionist 'I'm The King of the Castle' displays which plunge the state into open violence around this time of the year. The Northern Counties are still unstable enough as to be thrown into disarray by a senior minister's wife jumping into the wrong bed - it only managed to lose him his Parliamentary seat, but it might well have been a major spanner in the works of the Peace Process. My point has been all along that until the public displays of superiority are stopped and until the border question is settled to the satisfaction of all parties, the violence and the threat of violence will remain and our children's children will still be burying the results long after we've gone. "....have absolutely no mandate whatsoever from any Irish man or woman." I wonder what sort of a mandate is held by the those who terrorised schoolchildren as young as 4 for being the 'wrong' religion and taking the wrong road to school. This type of savagery does as much to keep alive the hatred and violence and will contribute as much to any future slaughter as anything done by the other side - sorry, not a great deal of occupied high moral ground here. "to move the gaolposts"! Thanks Mike - nice to know you're there when I need you. Jim Carroll |
|
31 Aug 10 - 05:36 AM (#2976517) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford " The short lived Civil Rights movement." It was short lived because the British government agreed to all its demands. It continued as the SDLP. Do you really equate the (vicious?!) annual parades, which all passed off without trouble this year, with the detonating of large bombs in public places? |
|
31 Aug 10 - 06:02 AM (#2976530) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge That'll be a fake Teribus then... Don't you just love the way people have learned from the right wing grunts that started that sort of crap? Jim - read my lips. The Republic of Ireland has no right to require a change of regime in Northern Ireland. Nor have its citizens. Subjects of Northern Ireland have the rights to change regime by vote, by peaceful demonstration, and subject to criminal law by attack on emanations of the state. What neither have is any right or justification for bombing shooting kneecapping or otherwise terrorising non-combatants. What the British Army set out to do was neutralise hostile combatants - and there may have been some errors and collateral damage, even prejudice in believing that some non-combatants were armed aggressors, all culpable I'm sure, but nothing like the deliberate targetting of civilians. |
|
31 Aug 10 - 06:03 AM (#2976531) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "Do you really equate the (vicious?!) annual parades, which all passed off without trouble this year, with the detonating of large bombs in public places? " No, I say one causes the other - and I know which is which. Jim Carroll |
|
31 Aug 10 - 06:18 AM (#2976536) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Dead Horse Richard, there were 'cretins' aplenty, but they tended to remove themselves from the gene pool with alarming regularity. Next time we meet I will tell you of a few...... |
|
31 Aug 10 - 07:55 AM (#2976567) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "which all passed off without trouble this year" Sorry - missed a bit - you mean not counting the four days of rioting - (the most violent since the end of the 'troubles') which you misleadingly attributed to unruly schoolchuildren, but which the press reported as being by adults (some carrying guns), with some youths ('as young as 8) taking part. The idea that schoolchildren could riot for four days without being brought under control is a nonsense and an insult to the Northern Ireland police force. Passing these demonstartions off as "singing a few insulting songs' flies in the face of the funtions of these marches, as indicated by the self stated policies of the Lodges (Leon Uris's analysis is not a bad source), and is typical of someone who excuses them without having seen them at their most violent. Even the small number of youngsters who took part in the rioting present us with a hint of the potential future for the Province, and our copy of the Uris's book 'Ireland - a terrible beauty' carries a depressing photograph on its back cover of a boy of 5 or 6 wearing a forage cap and carrying a length of iron pipe, bearing the caption 'Protestant Defender. Jim Carroll |
|
31 Aug 10 - 08:35 AM (#2976599) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Sorry - missed another bit. "The Republic of Ireland has no right to require a change of regime in Northern Ireland. Nor have its citizens." This is what is under dispute at the present time and you, as a British citizen, have no right to proclaim on the rights of any coutnry as to what say it has on the question of parttioning its own territorty - be in Viet Nam, Cyprus, Mainland and offshore China, India and Pakistan..... wherever Eighty eight years ago the British Government imposed partitioning (supposedly temporarily) on the island of Ireland under threat of invasion, and the result was a god-awful sectarian mess - one we are still living with. The Republic has far more right than the UK to say whether that partitioning remains or how the problems that it brought should be resolved. British mis-governance of Ireland has lasted for centuries and its ham-fisted efforts to suppress the effects are still leading to bloodshed and disunity. Jim Carroll |
|
31 Aug 10 - 09:30 AM (#2976632) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge Threat of invasion? No, the English invasion had happened before Cromwell's time. What happened in 1922 was a revolution (well, to be technical, an act of armed insurrection) which partly succeeded in its aims, but which those in the north would not accept. Since then it is the republicans who have been the aggressors, and Northern Ireland has been part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in which other UK-ers have a legitimate interest. The legitimate interest is precisely what the southern republicans have not got. Theirs, even if a war, would be a war of conquest and territorial acquisition - or of regime change in another country. |
|
31 Aug 10 - 09:54 AM (#2976646) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: mayomick The sectarianism in the north gets wound up by the orange marches every year . That's what the orange order was set up to do -it's been going on for two centuries now .Long before cars were invented -let alone the idea of putting bombs into them - the orange orders were deliberately stirring up sectarianism, and then using the outrages committed in response to that deliberately stirred-up sectarianism as excuses for calling for more repressive measures against those they had deliberately been stirring up the sectarianism against -ie catholics . The Orange Order and the protestant ascendancy it is pledged to protect in the north always saw and still see catholics as inferior people to themselves - in the same way as white bigots see black people as inferior or israeli settlers see Palestinians as inferior to themselves . The orange order is racist - its anti-catholicism is essentially the intolerance and racism of a privileged settler caste that does not want to integrate into Irish society - even though the order itself is an all Ireland institution . I can remember hearing Ian Paisley speaking on the television - this wasn't so long ago ,sometime in the nineties (nineteen-nineties) . He said something along the lines of this. >The good lands that we the protestant people now hold in Ulster was once only bog and it was inhabited by the people of the bog. Many years ago our ancestors took this land from the bog people and turned it by their labours into good fertile land . And now the bog people want to take back that good fertile land ,but we will not return that good land to the bog people >. Paisley was coming out with this sort of stuff at a meeting that was being recorded on the TV and would have been well aware of the fact that he was being recorded,but he didn't care. Northern catholics able to recall the sixties will tell you how as they went into church on a Sunday morning there would be a solitary Orangeman standing outside beating a Lambeg drum . As they were inside the church praying the solitary Orange lambeg drummer would still be standing outside banging away - often while his fingers bled onto the huge drum . He was there to deliberately intimidate and provoke people inside the church , and defy anyone inside to come out and tell him to go away . The drummer used to keep it up all through the service . The north's institutionally sectarian police force ,the RUC, would always be close at hand to monitor the situation and come to the aid of the solitary drummer if there was a response from anyone in the congregation . This sort of blatant sectarianism was not only tolerated ,but actively encouraged at the highest institutional levels .The car bombs were misguided responses to the institutional sectarianism in the north ,not the other way around . I really can't see why British territorial army men would want to be involving themselves in Irish political affairs . Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course ,but where are you coming from lads ? Most people I knew when I lived in England didn't see why British soldiers were garrisoned in Ireland. If they didn't recognize the injustice of the northern set-up - which many did - and say that Britain should leave Ireland for that reason ,people would tend to say things like "what has all this got to do with us - let them fight it out between themselves" . What seems to have happened is that, since the Good Friday Agreement,a section of British people who previously took such a consciously ignorant attitude towards Irish politics have suddenly started to take an unhealthy interest in Fermanagh's dreary steeples . |
|
31 Aug 10 - 10:59 AM (#2976693) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Mick, back in those days lots of bad things went on. Why look back? Those days are gone. I have to tell you that the British still take no interest in any of your steeples. Jim, your four days of rioting started before any march. You can not blame the parades for it. The rioters were not locals opposed to a march. They were outside dissidents opposed to the peace process, and the local children they enlisted for cover. The partition was not created under threat of invasion. Britain did not want the North then, anymore than now. The North would not accept Union without a fight. The British army refused to fight them, and the new state had not the muscle to. |
|
31 Aug 10 - 11:10 AM (#2976701) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge 100 |
|
31 Aug 10 - 11:31 AM (#2976716) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: mayomick Well Keith , thanks for acknowledging that they are our dreary steeples and not yours. Haven't you got any dreary steeples in Hertford to argue about ? Richard Bridge -in typical British imperialist manner you stole that 100 spot from me . |
|
31 Aug 10 - 11:44 AM (#2976725) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford We have plenty thanks Mick, and you are welcome to yours. We do not want any of your steeples or counties. As soon as they stop voting to stay British and we can all have a party. |
|
31 Aug 10 - 11:59 AM (#2976731) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: mayomick Definitely agree on the party idea Keith, but you wouldn't say that about the people of Essex would you ? Do you know that the people you refer to as "they" would actually be very offended by what you write. . |
|
31 Aug 10 - 12:17 PM (#2976739) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford No offence intended Mick. Please explain. By "they" I meant the people of the North. The vote is in their hands. Like all my countrymen, I will be glad when they vote to go. Sorry. |
|
31 Aug 10 - 12:20 PM (#2976743) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge Dunno, I quite like the idea of cutting Essex adrift, to the great benefit of the purity of the English language. Maybe we can give VT a passport to the UK though as she speaks American not estuarine. I appreciate the lightness of your touch, mayomick. I was previously given to understand that although the sides in the "troubles" largely line up on religious lines that is a happenstance and the real internal strife is historically based on possession not belief. |
|
31 Aug 10 - 12:54 PM (#2976764) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, "No, I say one (parades) causes the other (bombs)" Do parades feature largely in the dissidents' manifestos Jim? Do you believe that the dissidents give a toss about parades Jim? Would they stop bombing if people stopped marching Jim? Are you a fool Jim? |
|
31 Aug 10 - 12:57 PM (#2976766) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Peter K (Fionn) Amid all the "sectarian shit" as Jim puts it (presumably having the decency to embrace his own contributions in that description) I wonder if Keith et al have noticed that the ombudsman's report criticised primarily and unequivocally the RUC? It also notes, of course, the dubious role of the British government. Not much for Keith to shout about there, I wouldn't hae thought. The Catholic church, for once, seems to have done little wrong. Presented only with unsubstantiated suspicions, what stronger action could it have taken? The church's dilemma was analogous with that of companies whose employees. sometimes working in security-sensitive situations, were interned in the 1971 round-up and subseuently released. In the turmoil of 1972 (through which I lived) tough decisions had to be taken on all sides and no-one got it right all of the time. I don't think anyone would deny that some priests were active in the Provo cause, but it's not reasonable to blame the church for that. On the other hand that same church, through the whole history of irish nationalism, was often too entranced with empire to raise a murmur against the iniquities piled on its own flock. Again I'm in total agreement with John MacK - it's bcoming a habit. As for some of Richard Bridge's comments in this thread,that they come from him I find surprising and depressing. |
|
31 Aug 10 - 01:13 PM (#2976783) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "Threat of invasion? No, the English invasion had happened before Cromwell's time. " Oh dear - not again. The proposed border was first drawn up to include the nine counties of Ulster, until the British realised that this would give the nationalists the majorty vote, so they hastily dropped Monoghan, Cavan and Donegal. After a debate on the terms of the agreement Lloyd George informed the Irish delegation that if it was not signed Britain would invade Ireland within to weeks and impose a settlement. Result = a gerrymandered sectarian state deliberately planned to give the Protestant two-thirds majority overall control. Whatever say the Nationist minority had was almost immediately diluted down by changing the existing voting system from proportional representation to first past the post = result; sectarian anti-Catholic rioting, demands that employers should only employ Loyalists (newspaper cuttings if you care to look them up), Catholics burned out of their houses and forced to flee south - permanent sectarian unrest. Pehaps you should borrow Terrabyte's book, should he ever get round to buying one. Keith: "your four days of rioting started before any march." The marches are an annual event and the build-up towards them is always a tense period - do you think it is a coincidence that the trouble invariably happens at this time of the year, and do you think the abuse on the marches has no effect on the people it is aimed at?The rioters were not locals opposed to a march. "They were outside dissidents opposed to the peace process, and the local children they enlisted for cover." This is as crap a statement as Mrs Thatchers 'rent-a-mob'. The riots were mainly by Belfast people with the support of outsiders; I put up the newspaper quote yonks back - but you appear not to read what others have to offer. The partition was created under threat of invasion - I put up the relevant letter to Michael Collins but you appear to have missed that one as well. Jim Carroll |
|
31 Aug 10 - 01:49 PM (#2976806) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Peter, the only shouting I did was to compare and contrast this and the previously discussed cover up. Jim, From your Irish Times. Some of the rioters were as young as eight. Others travelled all the way from Dublin, to take part in the organised chaos of Belfast's Twelfth of July. Fr Gary Donegan, a local priest, noted how many of the adults at Ardoyne on the Twelfth were not from the area. That was obvious from the Dublin, southern and other non-Belfast accents that were heard. One Dubliner was brazen about it. "We are here to show solidarity with the residents," he said. Local community leaders said it was solidarity Ardoyne could have done without. The trouble continued during the week. On Tuesday night Fr Donegan stopped a youngster with stones in his hands to throw "at the Prods". The priest took his stones; the boy was nine and had walked two and a half kilometres from Oldpark to join in the trouble. Fr Donegan was not alone in wondering about the lack of parental control. Young rioters were drawn by texts and social-networking sites. Young teenage girls dressed up to watch their boyfriends hurl petrol bombs and stones: "Like models on a Milan catwalk," said Fr Donegan. Most locals abhorred the violence and resented the visitors. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2010/0717/1224274875920.html |
|
31 Aug 10 - 01:57 PM (#2976811) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, "do you think it is a coincidence that the trouble invariably happens at this time of the year," The phrase 'recreational rioting' was made in Belfast, to describe the traditional outbreak of street disturbances once the summer school holidays begin. After a third consecutive night of trouble, Fr Donegan said: "I pulled stones out of the hands of children. "It was a bit like a Euro Disney theme park for rioting. It was ludicrous." Most of the young rioters were simply bored kids looking for some excitement in an inner city area where they complain of having nothing else to do. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern+ireland-10642007 |
|
31 Aug 10 - 03:14 PM (#2976863) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: ollaimh well keith some of us don't have the time to look at mudcat more than occasionally, and never have the time to create false posts and other underhanded tactics. i guess you are retired. so am i but i practice music two hours a day(or fix instruments) take an on line course two hours a day and still cook for my sweet wife--she still a wage slave. however three points. first and foremost the english have never used anything but the most brutal and bigoted tactic in their conquest of ireland--or most colonies. they removed the natives of ireland from the good land by military force, failed to feed the population(who at the time were citizens) when famine hit. outlawed the natives from access to the courts or any other institution for hundreds of years and when some legal rights were given they changed the law every time native irish won cases in court, right up to the present abolishment of the principle of the presumption of innocence. now a jugde can infer evidence of guilt from the failure of the accused to testify and can so instruct a jury. this is the empire that fought three wars to force the chinese to allow them to sell opium to their population, a drug war addicting about twenty per cent of the population. this empire and its remants have absolutely no claim to any moral position. it is and has always been a war like and unethical empire right up to the illegal invasion of iraq. two, if they helped a priest in covering up a bombing i hardy see how that goes to the credit of the british government and three gerry adams and his followers took a great and heroic chance in entering the peace process. they risked their lives to find a better way. they deserve some recoginition for that. northern ireland was an artificial military comstruct from the beginning. the british government signed article seven of the league of nations charter and article six of the united nations charter. both of which disallow splitting up countries on decolonialization so as to avoid war. they shoul have obeyed their own international laws but never have, up to and including using torture in ireland and being convicted of torture in the european courts. if you want peace you have to at least try to end the injustice |
|
31 Aug 10 - 05:42 PM (#2976995) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "Some of the rioters were as young as eight. Others travelled all the way from Dublin, to take part in the organised chaos of Belfast's Twelfth of July." All you have been able to produce is what I already know; that SOME young people were involved and SOME came from elsewhere to show support. Once again you appear to be trying to make a point by distorting your own news announcements. The bulk of the rioters were from Belfast - the police said that and the press reported that - your own cut-n-pastes have made my point. "The remarks by Fr Gary Donegan were tongue-in-cheek,...." He refers only to "most of the young rioters..." he does not in any way claim that these were the majority - other news reports say that most were adult and were local and that some carried guns. Stop twisting the facts. You appear to have dropped your claim that the treaty was signed under threat of invasion so I assume that you now accept it as fact; I did make a mistake, Lloyd George threatened invasion within 3 days and not the two weeks I claimed. "The Prime Minister, of course, needed more than this: all must sign. If they did not, he solemnly promised that he would not even give them time to lay the matter before the Dail: it would be "war within three days," and war more terrible by far than any they had yet experienced. At 7:45 P.M., the meeting broke up. Griffith had agreed to sign; Collins appeared to hesitate only over the Oath; Barton, who came to this meeting as a sort of hostis curiae, had not committed himself at all." Perhaps you'd like to point out which of my contributions in particular are 'sectarian shit' Peter - I'm neither Irish not Catholic (atheist and British in fact) and I hold no brief for either Republican nor Loyalist violence. I believe that the trouble in Ireland stems from the setting up of an unbalanced sectarian state and it will not cease until that sectarianism is removed from Northern Irish politics. Jim Carroll |
|
31 Aug 10 - 05:58 PM (#2977008) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford ollaimh and Peter, I acknowledged the role of the Brit govt. in what was made the op of this thread. I suggested that they did it for the same reason as the Bloody Sunday cover up. To try and avoid a civil war. They succeeded. Just. Jim, it is ridiculous that once again you have got us talking about the history of the long dead. The separation of the North had nothing to do with any threat, agreement or treaty. The people of the North demanded it. The Republic had not the means to overpower them. The British govt. wanted to overpower them, but the army refused to do it. Jim, read the Irish Times pieces again. They do not support your view. Your "4 days of rioting" was not about any parade. All the thousands of parades, including the huge Derry event, passed off peacefully. A huge disappointment to you obviously. |
|
31 Aug 10 - 06:50 PM (#2977058) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus ollaimh, Your post of 31 Aug 10 - 03:14 PM, could you please set that to music and FFS give the World what it needs more than anything else - another whinging Irish Ballad. |
|
31 Aug 10 - 07:10 PM (#2977074) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus "Cretin" however is probably not, in that if the accused were truly cretins they might not have been as effective as they were. And after 41 years practice how effective are they? No I think "Cretins" describes them well enough, having gone through the training six months was considered sufficient for most when it comes to making things go "Bang". |
|
31 Aug 10 - 07:17 PM (#2977079) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus After a debate on the terms of the agreement Lloyd George informed the Irish delegation that if it was not signed Britain would invade Ireland within to weeks and impose a settlement. Who ruled Ireland at the time? I believe that it was Britain so can you explain exactly how Britain could invade itself? Could you explain why it would want to considering that the whole object of the exercise was to get shot of Ireland? I mean the conversation is ridiculous: "By God if you don't accept independence from us we will invade you!!!" To accomplish WHAT FFS!!!" I mean you would have to be a complete and utter moron to swallow that line of reasoning. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 04:11 AM (#2977278) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "I mean you would have to be a complete and utter moron to swallow that line of reasoning." Are you claiming that the documented evidence is wrong and this conversation did not take place - what grounds do you have for saying so? Another quote from Robert Barton made at a later date: "At one time he [Lloyd George] particularly addressed himself to me and said very solemnly that those who were not for peace must take full responsibility for the war that would immediately follow refusal by any Delegate to sign the Articles of Agreement." You and your friend here have built you entire case on manipulated facts and now he appears to be putting a sell-by date on what we can and can't discuss once again. "it is ridiculous that once again you have got us talking about the history of the long dead." And he appears once again to be blaming the for days of Belfast riots on children, suggesting that the police were so incometent that they could not control a bunch of schoolkids - as you say FFS Ever thought of setting up as a comedy duo? Jim Carroll |
|
01 Sep 10 - 04:25 AM (#2977283) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford I am not "blaming the four days of Belfast riots on children" Jim. I am blaming it on dissidents from out of the area, who enlisted children for cover. And that is not my opinion. It is what was reported by reliable witnesses like the priest, the police themselves, Sinn Fein officers, and The Irish Times. In what way are you better informed than all them Jim. That bit of ancient history you are determined to bring up. It relates to the kind of independence to be given to the new state, not the status of the North. Both sides were powerless to alter the will of the North to separate, so what would be the point? |
|
01 Sep 10 - 05:31 AM (#2977299) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford No guests used to mean no one post members either. I hope it still does. No one is fooled. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 06:05 AM (#2977317) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll ".....who enlisted children for cover." Make up your mind - they were either bored kids with nothing to do, as you have claimed, or they were employees enlisted by the dissidents - do you know how they were enlisted - I haven't seen any reports anywhere about this - recruiting sergeants maybe, or enlistment centres. Maybe they found a shilling in the bottom of their beer mugs? "I am blaming it on dissidents from out of the area...." If you have any evidence that the roiters were childern and outsiders please produce it. The reports you have put up say only that young people and outsiders took part. The troubles leading up to these marches started much earlier than you have described; it usually starts when the marchers put in applications to The Marches Commission to parade through areas that would cause the maximum mount of disruption (Drumcree). The riots were instigated by the impending marches, as they are every year. In the past this has included parts of the Republic, Monaghan for instance. The aim has always been to display dominance over the Nationalist population. "It relates to the kind of independence to be given to the new state, not the status of the North." "That bit of ancient history you are determined to bring up." Irelands present problems are historically based and are an unbroken continuum that can be traced back to Treaty; a refusal to accept this fact, or even discuss it shows an ignorance on your part - no threat of invasion my arse. "We all have a common identity as human beings....." The above Terribus message is obviously a fake; he would never have written that. Jim Carroll |
|
01 Sep 10 - 06:49 AM (#2977337) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: mayomick "……reliable witnesses like the priest, the police themselves, Sinn Fein officers, and The Irish Times" ………… Keith A parcel of rogues more like it, I'd say ,Keith. The police themselves have always done everything in their considerable powers to stop the truth coming out whenever it doesn't suit them . Twenty years ago the same Sinn Fein officers (as you call them ) would undoubtedly have reliably witnessed the complete opposite of what they witnessed last month . "THE longest-serving editor of the Irish Times, Douglas Gageby, was labelled a "white nigger" by the company Chairman Major Thomas McDowell, because of the newspaper's coverage of the North at the outset of the conflict in 1969." Major McDowell was a retired British army officer and the company chairman of the Irish Times . He contacted the British embassy in 1969 to offer his services to the mother country . The northern reports from the Irish Times were too unreliable the major thought and he asked the British ambassador to help work out how to handle future reporting of the conflict for the Irish paper of record. The ambassador duly obliged . That Father Donegan is pretty cool with the metaphors though, you've got to give him that . He should be writing fiction -or perhaps he's looking for a job with the Irish Times . " Euro Disney theme park for rioting. It was ludicrous."……. Fr Donegan "Young teenage girls dressed up to watch their boyfriends hurl petrol bombs and stones: "Like models on a Milan catwalk," said Fr Donegan. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 06:51 AM (#2977339) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Children as young as eight years old have been involved in the violence. For them it is a chance to stay out late and play with the 'big boys'. The older rioters welcome them, especially when they can push them to the frontline as a human shield. Or as one senior police officer put it, "sandbags made of young children". Waiting in the shadows are the ringleaders - dissident republicans using street violence as the latest vehicle for their attempts to destroy the peace process. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern+ireland-10642007 |
|
01 Sep 10 - 06:56 AM (#2977344) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Sweet, loving, caring guest. I have not attacked the Provos since you first asked me not to. Divis Sweeney and The Curator were real Provos. They would argue against me and support them. They could easily have traced me, but realised such behaviour would repel and alienate American donors. You must be doing real damage to the movement. You should watch your back. They will want to stop you. And you are not even spoiling the thread. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 07:13 AM (#2977355) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Once agian you produce statements only saying children were there, no numbers no percentages, just that they were there. Again you produce statments saying outsiders were there, no numbers, no percentages, just that they were there. You make no effort whatever to refute Mayomick's 'Parcel of Rogues' description of the information coming out of Northern Ireland, can we take that as an indication that you accept it or do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise - one or the other. You seem a little lost without your friend's shoulder to sit on - hadn't you better wait till he comes home from work? And two-at-a-time postings again - oh dear! Jim Carroll |
|
01 Sep 10 - 07:32 AM (#2977367) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Can you think of no reason why I would want to keep separate those two posts Jim? Really? Jim those reports were made by people who were there. They know more about what happened than you, me or Mick. I am sorry if they are not detailed enough for you. Take it up with them. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 08:18 AM (#2977406) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge But none of the past behaviour of the English government or its catspaws justifies the republican bombings. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 08:53 AM (#2977425) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "Jim those reports were made by people who were there." And they don't claim that the rioting was done by children or outsiders, they only say that children and outsiders were there - If this is not the case, please point out where anybody has said that the riots were started or led by children and outsiders - and don't keep putting the BBC report that says nothing of the sort. "Take it up with them" It is you who is twisting the statements to suit your arguments, not them. "But none of the past behaviour of the English government or its catspaws justifies the republican bombings." No it doesn't Richard, nor does it explain the killings by the UDA - 500 according to last night's TV programme. But the behaviour of past and the continuing behaviour of English Governments supplies is with a perfectly clear reason why the violence took, and is still taking place and a possible way out of the mess it has created. Please don't start Keith's "Nuffin' to do with us Guv", line. The present situation in Northern Ireland is directly the result of British policy there, and recognising that fact is going some way towards putting things right. Jim Carroll |
|
01 Sep 10 - 11:08 AM (#2977518) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge Really Jim - 500 alleged UDA killings (which, I may say, were nothing to do with me) and how many republican? Isn't it about 6,500? While the island of Ireland or parts of it might have wanted to be free of English rule they had two legitimate avenues: political action (and even voting) which might have been ineffective, and uprising against the occupying forces, but not burning down the probate registry (really useful that) or bombing non-combatants and non-invaders. Mountbatten was (in my humble opinion) a legitimate target (whatever his age) but shoppers in London or elsewhere were not. Bombing occupying civilians is a less clear-cut area. I have conceded that some past English (and to a lesser extent UK) government actions were wrong. But while they may have killed by force many republicans I suspect that even that number was less than 6,500, and they certainly killed by force fewer non-combatants. The Great Famine probably killed a million, but it appears to me to have been more the product of two things - capitalism and incompetence - than malice and indeed many of the things of which you complain, Jim, had already started to be or had been undone. You have however got me to read more Irish history today than I had ever done before. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 11:28 AM (#2977536) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, every account describes large numbers of very young children, outside agitators and disgusted locals. But they are just a parcel of rogues right? The priest, the police, Sinn Fein, every jornalist including those from BBC, Guardian and Irish times, all conspired to hide the truth. The truth only revealed and known, to Jim. And what is the source of your knowlege, Oh Wise, All Knowing One? Not your Irish Times obviously Jim. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 01:15 PM (#2977645) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "but shoppers in London or elsewhere were not" Richard, couldn't agree more. I'm not defending the killings on any side THEY ARE WRONG, but I am trying to understand what caused them and how the exercise can be avoided in future. These arguments have made me read more on Irish history as well. Suggest you try Mrs Cecil Woodham Smith's Great Hunger on the famine; a lot more complicated than than just capitalism and incompetence. "Jim, every account describes large numbers of very young children," Suggest you read your own BBC report again Keith - it only mentions numbers of young children, doesn't say whether there were a dozen or a thousand - as does my Irish Times, the rest is all in your imagination. "The priest, the police, Sinn Fein, every jornalist including those from BBC, Guardian and Irish times, all conspired to hide the truth." I trust this is supposed to be ironic as the subject of this thread is about the involvement of a priest in a bombing campaign which was covered up by the police, the church and the British Government (Willie Whitelaw) Of course, this MIGHT be an anomoly and the rest of the time they MIGHT all just tell the truth. Jim Carroll |
|
01 Sep 10 - 01:49 PM (#2977671) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge I'm glad we are agreed on that, Jim. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 02:27 PM (#2977702) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, you are making a fool of yourself here. All these reports and statements would not keep on about the kids unless there were significant numbers of them. You can not expect to be given the actual numbers! This BBC piece has quotes from SF Gerry Kelly, another witness SDLP MLA Alban Maginness, and the Children's Commissioner Patricia Lewsley who said she was "concerned" that children and young people are being used and being put at risk. The Childrens Commissioner also said she was worried that many (MANY!) children and young people are unaware of the "consequences" of their actions. "This is not about just about being arrested today but the longer term, looking for employment in the future or even going outside this country and looking for visas and other things. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-10656249 I feel I have produced ample evidence, and you NONE. I am done with this bit. People can decide which of us is right. |
|
01 Sep 10 - 03:48 PM (#2977800) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll You have claimed there were large numbers of children involved in the rioting - "Jim, every account describes LARGE numbers of very young children, outside agitators and disgusted locals." WHERE ARE THESE REPORTS There is no indication whatever that there were any significant number of kids on the riots, as you have been claiming throughout. It is of concern to us all that ANY children should be involved, but to claim that they were there in large numbers in order to give the impression, as you earlier claimed, that the trouble on the marches were only 'skirmishes' by bored childern recruited for the purpose is despicable. It is using children the way you claimed the dissidents did, in order to make a political point - real slimeball stuff. "I feel I have produced ample evidence, and you NONE." And now you appear to be trying to bluster your way out of it WHERE ARE THESE REPORTS OF LARGE NUMBERS OF VERY YOUNG CHILDREN BEING INVOLVED AS YOU CLAIMED??? It is really no surprise to me or anybody, I should guess, that you "are done with this bit" - you appear to have shot your load good and proper Jim Carroll |
|
01 Sep 10 - 04:55 PM (#2977845) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Indeed I have . The reports are there for all to see. |
|
02 Sep 10 - 06:48 AM (#2978307) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford OK Jim. I will humour you. every account describes LARGE numbers of very young children, outside agitators and disgusted locals." WHERE ARE THESE REPORTS Large numbers of very young children? All the reports and witnesses refer to that. So many children that the Northern Ireland Children's Commissioner felt the need to make statements about it. Put up some evidence that there were not large numbers of kids Jim? You can't because they were there. Outside agitators? The Real IRA paramilitary group was behind last night's violence in north Belfast, Sinn Féin said today.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/14/belfast-riots-real-ira-blame Hundreds of people have attended a protest in the Ardoyne area of north Belfast over the recent rioting. They were demanding an end to the violence which began on Monday and broke out again on the next two nights. DCI Little said those organising the riots were using children as "sand bags" and appealed to parents to get their children off the streets at night. "Those hiding behind them in the shadows are not the ones with the petrol bombs in their hands," he said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern+ireland-10652657 You just want a non sectarian peg to hang your hatred of the parades on. The parades caused no trouble or problems. This RIRA orchestrated rioting was not provoked by any parade. You just hate to see the other side enjoying what is their only cultural tradition in your island. |
|
02 Sep 10 - 07:08 AM (#2978320) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "Large numbers of very young children?..... All the reports and witnesses refer to that." Can you direct me to one of them? "Put up some evidence that there were not large numbers of kids Jim?" I don't have to; I am making no claims as to how many there were, you are, so put up your evidence of "every report...." saying there were "large numbers." - you've stated it as a fact; there must be one reference to it, surely. If not, you are the one using children. Jim Carroll |
|
02 Sep 10 - 07:22 AM (#2978332) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford From your own post jim. thread.cfm?threadid=130740&messages=198&page=1&desc=yes#2967779 Police have blamed dissident republicans opposed to the peace process for the violence (not locals opposed to a parade). Yesterday police worked successfully with community representatives in the nationalist Short Strand, Markets and lower Ormeau areas to tackle attempts by youths to spark violence. No one can read all these reports and witness statements, or watch the news videos, and deny that large numbers of children were not involved. Except you obviously Jim. |
|
02 Sep 10 - 07:41 AM (#2978343) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll So we apear to have established that you are lying about 'large numbers of children being reported' Jim Carroll |
|
02 Sep 10 - 08:45 AM (#2978380) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, the reports tell us that large numbers of childen were in the riots. Only you could read them all and not understand that. Because it suits you not to. Make a satement Jim. State that you do not believe that large numbers of children were rioting. |
|
02 Sep 10 - 09:11 AM (#2978401) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Acting Chairman of the Policing Board Brian Rea said they welcomed the arrests of 38 people to date in connection with the disorder but added: "Members are also concerned that children as young as eight were involved in the rioting in Ardoyne and are fully supportive of measures the PSNI, alongside Social Services, plan to put in place to tackle this serious problem." http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/board-backs-matt-baggott-on-ardoyne-riot-tactics-14890487.html There you go Jim. The number of young children involved was large enoughfor it to constitute a "serious problem" to the police. |
|
02 Sep 10 - 10:57 AM (#2978459) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus Certainly qualifies as a report of activities as observed as far as I am concerned Keith. |
|
02 Sep 10 - 11:29 AM (#2978482) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll " Jim, the reports tell us that large numbers of childen were in the riots." Where exactly? This now becomes absurd; there is NO MENTIION OF LARGE NUMBERS OF CHILDREN RIOTING IN ANY OF THE REPORTS I HAVE READ NOR ANY YOU HAVE PUT UP - FACT "State that you do not believe that large numbers of children were rioting" I do not believe that there is any evidence whatsoever of large numbers of children (let alone young people rioting) if this is not the case, produce it. "The number of young children involved was large enough for it to constitute a "serious problem" to the police." One child rioting is cause for concern and would merit attention by the police. Matt Baggott is quoted as saying; " Members are also concerned that children as young as eight were involved in the rioting in Ardoyne and are fully supportive of measures the PSNI, alongside Social Services, plan to put in place to tackle this serious problem." No numbers, no percentages, not even large numbers - just young people. As I said before, you are lying in order to shift the blame for the riots on to children - sewer level I'd say. "Certainly qualifies as a report of activities as observed as far as I am concerned Keith. " The Parrot seems to have acquired a parrot of his own. Jim Carroll |
|
02 Sep 10 - 11:58 AM (#2978509) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Desperation Jim? One child rioting would hardly constitute a "serious problem" requiring the attention of The Policing Board, and Social Services and The Children's Commissioner For Northern Ireland. Only a large number would merit that much concern and that many column inches. And I have never blamed the children. From all the reports the blame clearly lies with dissident Republicans opposed to the peace process. Nothing to do with any parade anyway. You will have to come up with another excuse to hate them. |
|
02 Sep 10 - 01:39 PM (#2978607) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Never suggested only one chiuld rioting - stop twisting my words again. on the other hand, you persistantly have attempted to shift the blame for the troubles (or skirmishes, as you called them) on youths, children and outsiders, instead of where it really belongs, the aggressively sectarian marches. You still have not produced one example of your claim that large numbers of children took part. "Only a large number would merit that much concern and that many column inches." Are you serious? Any number of children, from two to twenty, involved in rioting would not only produce "that many column inches", but would make the headlines - how low are you going to stoop to cover your despicable effort to lay the blame at the door of children? Facts - none of the press reports - and I'm sure you've trawled the net and have been unable to find one -, have mentioned significant numbers of children, youths or outsiders. What we have here is a supporter of violence-provoking sectarian marches attemting to blame children for any trouble. Nothing to do with the threateningly abusive nature of these demonstrations by bowler-hatted thugs who have been known to terrorise schoolchildren as young as 4, of course. Even the NI administration and the police have warned of the provocation cause by some of these marches and have said that it has to be dealt with, but Keith finds it easier to blame the children. Jim Carroll |
|
02 Sep 10 - 02:05 PM (#2978627) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford It is a lie to say I have ever blamed the children. Every report and statement emphasises the presence of children. Why is that? Lets try to agree on a word to describe the numbers of children. You have already rejected "significant" though if they were insignificant we would not be discussing them. How about "a serious number of young children" ? That fits nicely with the police board describing them as a "serious problem." Why did you even bring up the parades in this thread? We just had a thread on parades that died a natural death. Like you have to bring up 1922 in this thread, the parades thread AND the Bloody Sunday thread! And Holy Cross. In every one Why can you never allow anyone to discuss the thread topic? You have to steer it to your pet fetishes every time. |
|
02 Sep 10 - 03:33 PM (#2978702) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "How about "a serious number of young children" We have no idea how many children were involved; if it had been "a serious number" (these are your words, they have not appeared anywhere else), we would have some idea how many, who they were and where they are from. As it is, they are mentioned in passing The main coverage of children being involved emanates from one priest - the reporter describes some of his comments as tongue-in-cheek, which is an indication of how serious it was taken. There were children involved, that is a fact, but no comment has ever been made as to how many, which is an indication of not many. So far, only one 'child' a fifteen year old, has been arrested for throwing stones. Had any significant number of children been involved in a situation where rubber bullets and live ammunition were being fired, this would have been front-page news THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. instead, the reports of children appear only in passing in most reports. You have persistantly claimed that "the reports tell us that large numbers of childen were in the riots." YOU HAVE LIED AND YOU CONTINUE TO LIE in order to shift the blame away from marches which you, in the past have describes as crap, yet have continued to defend their taking place as being harmless days out, or a tradition, or a few songs. Lest we forget exactly what these days out, traditions and songs entail: THE ORANGE ORDER The Orange Order was molded on a pseudo-Masonic structure replete with secret oaths, handshakes, and passwords with an enormity of prayer and a rash of exotic-sounding ranks such as Royal Scarlets, Purple Marksmen, Black Perceptories, Apron and Blue, Link and Chain. The founding principles, quite unchanged, were allegiance to the Crown, upholding the Protestant Ascendancy, and hatred of Catholics. At first there was a cautious and mixed reaction from the gentry. With the coming of the nineteenth century and the drive for Catholic emancipation, the gentry began to find the Orange Order usable. "Gentlemen's Lodges," largely political in char¬acter, sprang up to tangle with the issues. A yearly march and a patronising pat on the head, to the lesser brothers brought these two unlikely ends of the society together in common cause. The grass-roots and universal membership gave the "Gentlemen's Lodges" an outside muscle. An infusion of preachers in the early 1800s served to give the ordinary lodges a semblance of respectability. The preachers could talk directly to the common man, who essentially had banded together for self-protection. The Orange pot was always kept stewing with stories that the Pope and his convincing Jesuits were planning night and day to take over Ulster. Always militant and always ready, the Orangemen have proved to be easily incited. Beginning with the Rev. Dr. Henry Cooke and on through Drew and "Roaring" Hanna, an assembly line of rabble-rousing preachers have often parlayed sermons into anti-Catholic riots. The Orange Order filtered and infected the bloodstream of Ulster until the order became the power base of the province. It was the establishment, with absolute control over the moral ethic, the police, the political machinery, and the courts. The Grandmaster of a lodge was a power who could ensure the job and well-being of a family. Failure to join or bucking the Orange Order by an individual in a given neighborhood, trade, or village was impossible, and the free thought of men who believed themselves to be free was destroyed. The Unionist Party was born out of an Orange Hall in 1885 in response to the first home rule threat. Unionists have since become the political arm of the order, able to apply the kinds of threats and pressure that resulted in a history of British appeasement to Ulster. It is hard to tell where one ended and the other began, but the Orange Order, the Unionist Party, and the Protestant Church formed an unholy trinity that kept the province in a strangle¬hold. Orangeism finds public expression in a series of annual rituals, medieval in character and ugly in concept. It erupts into life during "the marching season." The tune is set by the Lambeg drum, an ancient Scottish weapon of psychological warfare. It is up to four feet thick and five feet in diameter and tattooed by bamboo canes lashed to the wrists of the drummer by leather straps. The sound of it was designed to throw fear into the heart of the foe. It does. When it is carried on long frenzied marches, the drummer's wrists are often slashed open by the leather and his blood spatters against the drumhead. Many a Catholic child was first introduced to terror by the cannonade of the Lambeg drum. The wee province bursts out with hundreds of thousands of Union Jacks and Ulster flags from every loyal house. There is nothing to compare with it in all the Crown's domains. Festive archways are larded with slogans that tell the Ulster story. REMEMBER 1690 (the Boyne); NOT AN INCH (the border dispute); GOD SAVE THE QUEEN, GOD SAVE ULSTER (loyalty); ULSTER WILL FIGHT AND ULSTER WILL BE RIGHT (anti-home rule); IN GLORIOUS REMEMBRANCE (of some vic¬tory or the other over the Catholic); FOR GOD AND ULSTER; and, of course, NO SURRENDER (the eternal siege). Parades are marched from one end of the province to the other, grim, humorless trampings of righteous wrath. The fin of two grand climaxes comes on the twelfth of July to celebration William's victory at the Boyne. Tens of dozens of Loyal Lodges converge on Belfast. Throughout the night bonfires blaze, the Pope is kicked in effigy, prayers are prayed and the old tune cranked up and sung with swelling pride. The standard of the lyrics gives an idea of just how far the people have been manipulated. Among the things the roe of the Orange Order did not bring to their beloved province were literature, music, and art. They are the ones mainly responsible for the place being a cultural desert. CROPPIES LIE DOWN Poor Croppies, ye know that your sentence was come, When you heard the dread sound of the Protestant drum. In memory of William we hoisted his flag, And soon the bright Orange put down the Green rag. THE PROTESTANT BOYS The Protestant boys are loyal and true, Stout-hearted in battle, and stout-handed too: The Protestant boys are true to the last, And faithful and peaceful when danger has passed. DERRY'S WALLS . . . For blood did flow in crimson streams, On many a winter's night. They knew the Lord was on their side, To help them in the fight. . . . At last, at last with one broadside Kind heaven sent them aid. . . . A ROPE, A ROPE TO HANG THE POPE A rope, a rope Tae hang the Pope! A pennyworth o' cheese Tae choke him! A pint o' lamp oil Tae wrench it down And a big hot give Tae roast him! When I was sick, And very, very sick, And very near a-dying, The only thing that raised me up Was to see The old whore frying. Or consider some of the poetry, this one by no means the worst of the lot. Scarlet Church of all uncleanness, Sink thou to deep abyss, To the orgies of obsceneness Where the hell-bound furies hiss; Where thy father Satan's eye May hail thee, blood-stained Papacy! Harlot! Cease thy midnight rambles, Prowling for the life of saints, Henceforth sit in hellish shambles Where the scent of murder taints Every gale that passeth by, Ogre, ghoul of Papacy! Leading his lodge in solemn remembrance, the Grandmaster, white-gloved, sword in hand, walks reverently behind a Bible borne on velvet cushion, encased in glass and topped with a crown. The banners of Loyal Lodge after Loyal Lodge swear temper¬ance, allegiance, and loyalty: CARSON'S TRUE BLUES, DERRY'S DEFENDERS, STEAMFITTERS TOTAL TEMPERANCE, ACT OF COV¬ENANT, LOYAL LADS OF LARNE. . . . Tribal brothers all banded together in black bowlers, black rolled umbrellas, and sashes are piped on through by a hundred bands taunting close to Catholic neighborhoods or through the middle of them, while Shankill and Sandy Row toughs dance headily alongside the marchers, swept up by the wine of might. By the time they reach Finaghy Field they've slowed to a limp, and they sprawl about to hear the old harangues from the old haranguers. The next day at Scarva a mock Battle of the Boyne is re-enacted, and a month later it happens all over again as they go on pilgrimage to Derry to celebrate the siege. If times are bad and passions high and fears of livelihood consuming, it might all be topped off with a bit of rioting against the Catholics. To continue to intimidate and debase one third of their nation, it is entirely necessary to live in the past. They will relive Boyne and Derry until they make their earthly departure, and then their sons will be brought to wear the sash their fathers wore. As the pilot preparing to land at Belfast Airport said over the loudspeaker, "We are about to land in Ulster. Set your watches back three hundred years." These marches are aggressively sectarian by their very nature and by the constitutions of the organisations that hold them and plan them to take place where they will deliver the most insult and threat. The people who organise them are the same ones who have terrorised schoolchildren (which you, so far, had not had the grace to even acknowedge). The marches continue to take place at a time when even an event like a minister's wife hopping into the wrong bed runs the risk of bringing the peace process crashing to the ground. The marches, the treaty, the border, Holy Cross, the Belfast Riots - the Troubles - are all part of what happens in the six counties, are all directly relevant to the situation that exists in Northern Ireland today, and only an idiot or a self-serving bigot would deny that fact. YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN ONE OF THESE ANNUAL BLOODBATHS - WHO THE **** ARE YOU TO SAY THEY ARE HARMLESS DAYS OUT? Jim Carroll |
|
02 Sep 10 - 04:06 PM (#2978736) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Thousnds of parades. Hundreds of thousands of marchers. But no trouble at any of them. You lose the ability to think rationally when this is discussed Jim. |
|
02 Sep 10 - 04:42 PM (#2978772) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "But no trouble at any of them." The Belfast riots were precursors of the marches and took place because of them - acknowledged by all, including the police and the authorities. They are annual events that cause trouble every year - read the reports of the problems the police are now having in financing their presence on these because the Government have refused to provide extra money. Jim Carroll |
|
02 Sep 10 - 06:03 PM (#2978834) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus The Belfast riots were precursors of the marches and took place because of them ah Jim you have surpassed yourself, that even dafter than your "invasion threat" thing (and I paraphrase: Leader of Brit delegation at negotiating table - We agree to the terms for independence that we have mutually worked now you accept them of by God we'll invade!!!" Leader of Irish delegation looks on in wonderment as one of the Brit minions whispers audibly into his bosses ear - "Excuse me Sir you can't, we actually occupy and Govern the place now as it is" Leader of the Brits to minion - "Who are you calling a c**t" |
|
02 Sep 10 - 06:24 PM (#2978843) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Are you claiming that the two conversions I have quoted did not take place and the threat to invade was not made? - Yes or no will do nicely, thank you. I seem to remember reading that a British warship was sent up the Liffey and bombarded the Four Courts during Easter Week - was that not a case of Britain invading itself - or did that not happen either? Maybe when you've slept it off eh? Jim Carroll |
|
02 Sep 10 - 07:13 PM (#2978875) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "British warship was sent up the Liffey and bombarded the Four Courts" Should read - "bombarded the General Post office". Jim Carroll |
|
03 Sep 10 - 01:18 AM (#2979019) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus Ehmm No Jim, Britain did not threaten to invade Ireland in order to impose independence on the country. As to a British warship steaming up the Liffey to shell/bring gunfire to bear on the General Post Office at Easter 1916 does not surprise me one iota and nor should it horrify you seeing as how quite voluntarily armed rebels had occupied the place and were firing on British troops. That is not a case of Britain invading itself, that is a case of a Government putting down an armed insurection, which last time I looked was a perfectly legitimate activity. It is impossible for a Government to "invade" itself or the entity over which it Governs. |
|
03 Sep 10 - 03:16 AM (#2979063) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "Ehmm No Jim, Britain did not threaten to invade Ireland in order to impose independence on the country." What exactly did Lloyd George do when he made his statement and re-iterated it at a later date to a parliamentary collegue? My point was, and remains, that the treaty was signed under threat of violence, it was drawn up on a sectarian basis, it led to continuing repression and violence by the third majority which hade been gerrymandered into leadership by border manipulation, and was made permanent by that majority altering the voting system in its own favour. The promises that partitioning was only a temporary measure were never kept. The treaty was a con, and that is what has led to 80 odd years of permanent unrest, and that remains the cause of today's problems which, if not solved, will continue into the future. Jim Carroll |
|
03 Sep 10 - 04:03 AM (#2979082) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge The treaty was signed under threat of violence by all involved - that's what treaties after violence often do. Doh. It preserved from republican rule a population that did not want republican rule. It would have been wholly wrong (at any time even up to now) to deliver those who did not want republican rule to the republicans. At no time since 1922 has it been part of the English or northern Irish plan to change the government in the republic - whereas the republicans have at all times wished to and still do wish to change the government in northern Ireland. That makes it quite clear who the invader is. |
|
03 Sep 10 - 06:00 AM (#2979124) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Richard It divided Ireland - 32 counties, into 2 parts - it partitioned a whole country, the vast majority of which wanted total independance from Britain, had fought a war on that basis, and went on to fight another war on the question of partition. Surely the wishes of the whole of the country are paramount and not that of those chosen by a manipulated border? The new state created a situation where a substanitial minority of the population had no say in its running and was subjected to constant persecution. Even if the partitioning of any country by another nation could be considered right (do you think it right? Imperialism at it's worst as far as I'm concerned), the well being of ALL the population should be safeguarded, free from any form of oppression, with a guarantee of a voice in the running of the state - it wasn't. They altered the voting sysytem to make sure this didn't happen. Anyway, a treaty forced through under a specific threat of violence cannot be said in any way to have been negotiated fairly - recipe for disaster from the beginning. Jim Carroll |
|
03 Sep 10 - 06:40 AM (#2979142) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Richard Bridge England, coerced by threat of violence let the counties who wanted to go, go. What's your beef with that - unless you want to oppress the majority in the northern counties who would be a minority in the 32 counties? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the UK majority legitimately spoke for Ireland or the northern Irish majority legitimately spoke for northern Ireland. Either way the republican war of acquisition is wrong. |
|
03 Sep 10 - 06:54 AM (#2979148) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll England, coerced by threat of violence let the counties who wanted to go, go. And it hung on to six counties of another country - well done the British Empire. It even partitioned two counties from from the province of Ulster. And I suppose the fate of the third minority was "nuffin to do with me guv" Jim Carroll |
|
03 Sep 10 - 08:40 AM (#2979201) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Parliament had passed the home rule bill before the Easter Rising. Home rule was going to happen anyway. The treaty that came with the threat of war concerned the new state being in or out of the Empire, not the status of the North. Neither side wanted the North to separate, but neither side could stop them, so there was no dispute about that. |
|
03 Sep 10 - 10:24 AM (#2979246) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus The notes taken by one of the Irish Delegates at the meeting are here: Robert Barton's Notes Now remembering that these were negotiations relating to a Peace Treaty it is self evident that if there is agreement there is peace and if not the war will continue. Also remember that these negotiations had been ongoing for two months. Here is what Robert Barton heard Lloyd George say at that meeting, this is what Robert Barton noted down LLOYD GEORGE stated that he had always taken it that Arthur Griffith spoke for the Delegation, that we were all plenipotentiaries and that it was now a matter of peace or war and we must each of us make up our minds (No threat just plain statement of fact). He required that every delegate should sign the document and recommend it, or there was no agreement (Fact). He said that they as a body had hazarded their political future and we must do likewise and take the same risks. At one time he particularly addressed himself to me (Barton) and said very solemnly that those who were not for peace must take full responsibility for the war that would immediately follow refusal by any Delegate to sign the Articles of Agreement. (Again pure statement of fact) He then produced two letters one of which he said he must that night send to Craig. One was a covering letter to H.M. Government's proposals for the future relations of Ireland and Great Britain and stated that the Irish Delegation had agreed to recommend them for acceptance by Dail Eireann. The other stated that the Irish Delegation had failed to come to an agreement with H.M. Government and therefore he had no proposals to send to Craig. LLOYD GEORGE stated that he would have to have our agreement or refusal to the proposals by 10 p.m. that evening. That a special train and destroyer were ready to carry either one letter or the other to Belfast and that he would give us until ten o'clock to decide. We then argued that the twelve months transition period was of the greatest danger to our people. Craig could say 'Yes' at any time; he could say 'No' finally before six months but he need not say 'No' for twelve months, so that for twelve months we might not know whether there was to be unity or not. Meantime life might be made intolerable for our people in Ulster. LLOYD GEORGE argued that that contingency had been apparent from the first, but if it were a serious stumbling block we could shorten the transition period at any time we chose. MICHAEL COLLINS said that the recent occurrences in Tyrone _ the seizure of the County Council books, etc., and the support of the Ulster Government with English troops had shaken our confidence in their fidelity. LLOYD GEORGE answered that they had no jurisdiction on this matter in Ulster. It was a matter over which the Northern Government had complete control under the 1920 Act. He then suggested that they should withdraw in order that we might discuss the duration of the transition period amongst ourselves. They did so. WE decided to reduce the period to one month. Rang for them to return and stated our decision. LLOYD GEORGE said he considered the decision ill advised as a month did not give the Ulster people sufficient time to reflect. He affirmed that Craig was going to refuse the terms and that he (Lloyd George) knew this for certain. However, as we preferred one month, he was prepared to accept the alteration and redraft the Clauses. A month was the least possible that could be given Craig to make a final decision. He then proposed that we dismiss and reassemble again at 10 to give him our final decision. There was a discussion amongst ourselves lasting from 9 to 11.15 at 22, Hans Place, at which a decision was eventually reached to recommend the Treaty to the Dail. So Jim no threats of invasion as you stated, purely a statement of the obvious of a decision not to come to an agreement in negotiations intended to end a conflict. Simply put we are gathered here to end a war if we cannot agree on terms then the war shall continue - A statement of the obvious. No duress reading the above I believe Lloyd George was right in advising that shortening the time for the North to say Yes or No to a united Ireland was a whale of an error, at one month everybody knew what the answer would be - NO. Given time (i.e. the 12 months) individuals in the North could have been brought round and persuaded, but the Irish Delegates got their way and three days later they got Craig's answer - NO. |
|
03 Sep 10 - 11:07 AM (#2979272) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus At what happened in the South when this lot came home. The treaty was passed by 4 votes to 3 and the country erupted in Civil War. This Civil War lasted from 28-06-1922 until 24-05-1923, it involved some 58,500 men on the Government side (i.e. for the Treaty) against 15,000 for the IRA. The number of civilian casualties are not known although the number for Dublin alone was 250. 808 men died on the Government side against around 3,000 on the IRA side. This compares to what went before, the Irish War of Independence as follows: The War of Independence lasted from 21-01-1919 to 11-07-1921 in the South although fighting continued in the North until June 1922. Combatants involved numbered 15,000 on the Republic side and 20,000 British Army + 9,700 Royal Irish Constabulary + 7,000 Black & Tans + 1,400 Auxiliaries + 4,000 Ulster Special Constables (42,100 men in total). In the fighting 550 IRA were killed and on the Government side 261 British Army dead; 413 RIC killed and 43 Ulster Specials killed (714 men killed in total) So both of those were pretty small conflicts in the general scheme of things. Now what would Dev and the boys have faced had they tried to ramrod a united Ireland through in 1922, what would the MarkII Irish Civil War have looked like? Lets lump the IRA in alongside the Irish Government Forces which would have given them some 73,500 men. Now what about the opposition, we will totally disregard the "Forces of the Crown" and take a look solely at the Ulstermen. Now the best indication as to the feelings about unification comes from the petition raised against it which consisted of somewhere between 450,000 and 500,000 signatures written in the signatories own blood. The prospective conflict does not bear thinking about, it would have been absolutely horrendous, you are talking here about something in prospect as great and as destructive as the Spanish Civil War and possibly a damn sight more protracted. God knows what this would have sucked into it. This was the reality that was obvious to all, and this was why an accommodation had to agreed and thankfully it was. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 03:07 AM (#2979708) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Thank you for finally confirming that the treaty WAS signed under duress; "sign it in three days or you will be at war". I trust that you are not going to suggest that, if there had been such a war the British would have stayed neutral and not supplied weapons and even men to to support their newly formed six county state - what WOULD the neigbours say? In those circumstances the outcome would have been a foregone conclusion, especially following the softening up campaign by the military thugs sent in by Britain at the beginning of 1920 to produce a favourable result to the negotiations. Your figures on the casualties of such a war fits in pretty well with the 'might is right' attitude you have displayed from the beginning of these arguments. I'm sure they are correct about the outcome of such a conflict, but that was the hurdle faced by any former colony attempting to shake off British rule - didn't stop them from trying though. They did not include the casualties, dead, maimed and terrorised in the period following the signing of the treaty up to the present day, and any in the future. I can't help but notice that you haven't addressed the question of the manipulative way that the border was drawn up, and the open way in which Unionist domination was consolidated, leaving a third of the population without proper representation - for or against, I wonder? I was interested to see your description of the fight against a military uprising in Spain as 'futile' - does this mean that the elected government should NOT have fought against Franco and his fascists - do tell. Anyway, back to reality. Something for the parrot to consider - please note, no mention of children, as I'm sure there would have been if they had been there in any significant numbers. Jim Carroll PSNI OVERTIME FOR JULY RIOTS TOPS £1M GERRY MORIARTY Northern Editor OVERTIME PAYMENTS to police officers charged with trying to quell or contain rioting in Ardoyne, north Belfast, over the July 12th period cost £1.1 million, PSNI chief constable Matt Baggott revealed at yesterday's meeting of the Policing Board in Belfast. Mr Baggott told members that because of this cost he was forced to abandon plans to set up a neigh¬bourhood policing team for Ardoyne for the next three years. More than 40 people have been arrested so far in connection with the rioting which left more than 80 police officers injured, one of them, a woman officer, seriously injured after a large lump of masonry was dropped on her head. A Spanish national has been charged with attempted murder in connection with this offence. Mr Baggott said money he had earmarked for community policing in Ardoyne was diverted to overtime costs due to the rioting. Dissident republicans were accused of fomenting the violence and also of "bussing" people into the area to cause trouble. "The overwhelming feeling I have about these events is one of great sadness. I would have liked to have spent money on creating neighbourhood policing that wins hearts and minds and improves people's lives. The reality is I don't have £1.1 million now." The chief constable said society in the North must have a debate around these costs and these issues that were undermining the prospects of creating a shared future for everyone in the North. Policing board member Prof Sir. Desmond Rea said there must be some way of learning from the annual experiences of trouble over parading and protesting. He called for politicians and the North's Department of Justice to bring together "all the relevant parties" to try and address the problem. Mr Baggott, referring to the dissident republican threat, also told the board that there had been a three-fold increase in the number of people facing terrorist charges compared to the same period last year. Last year 17 faced charges compared to 54 this year. Board members endorsed the decision by chairman Barry Gilligan to temporarily stand down pending the outcome of a police inquiry into his role in a Belfast land deal. Last month Mr Gilligan, a property developer, went to the PSNI to answer questions about a north Belfast land deal. The board was also told by deputy chief constable Judith Gillespie that investigating past kill¬ings during the Troubles was costing the PSNI £12 million annually. "Twelve million pounds spent on policing the past is not £12 million spent on policing the here and now," she said. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 05:05 AM (#2979751) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus Thank you for finally confirming that the treaty WAS signed under duress; "sign it in three days or you will be at war". - Jim Carroll Jim I seriously doubt that you are capable of reading or looking at anything objectively, so you have to invent things. Please point out where in anything I have written or any of the notes taken at the actual meeting in question Robert Barton recorded anything at all that remotely resembles what you contend above. No threats were made, there was no duress, unless of course you are referring to the duress the Republicans wanted to apply through a reduced timeline for response by the political leaders in the North. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 05:33 AM (#2979755) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "At one time he particularly addressed himself to me (Barton) and said very solemnly that those who were not for peace must take full responsibility for the war that would immediately follow refusal by any Delegate to sign the Articles of Agreement." I ask again, does anyone seriously believe that Britain would not have sided with practical support in any conflict caused by refusing to sign the treaty within the three day ultimatum? What an example such an ommission would have set for the colonies. Britain had proved itself more than capable of using force in Ireland when it sent in the Tans to attempt to quash any effective opposition to the forthcoming negotiations. I really would appreciate an answer to my questions on the gerrymandered border and election rigging tactics of the Unionists - and on your statement on the Spanish Civil War. Jim Carroll |
|
04 Sep 10 - 06:01 AM (#2979766) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus I trust that you are not going to suggest that, if there had been such a war the British would have stayed neutral and not supplied weapons and even men to to support their newly formed six county state. - Jim Carroll Not at all Jim, I merely pointed out what the Civil War in Ireland in 1922 would have looked like if Eamon De Valera had won his vote for rejection and the fighting had continued, of course the British would have been involved in it, backed up by about half a million Irishmen from the North. The devastation throughout Ireland would have been epic, all the delegates at the negotiations realized that, and most who discussed it back in Dublin realized it. While Britain could take on the IRA and fight them until the cows came home, the newly independent Irish Government could never hope in a hundred years to successfully defeat half a million men who did not wish to be ruled from Dublin. The newly created State of Ireland would have been destroyed from within before it even found its legs. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 06:05 AM (#2979767) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, it has taken you days to find the one report on the riots that does not dwell on the children involved. That is simply because it is only concerned with the cost of policing, and the presence of large numbers of children made no difference to the cost. "Members (of the Police Board)are also concerned that children as young as eight were involved in the rioting in Ardoyne and are fully supportive of measures the PSNI, alongside Social Services, plan to put in place to tackle this serious problem." Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/board-backs-matt-baggott-on-ardoyne-riot-tactics-14890487.html#ixzz0yYKCGLoo "THIS SERIOUS PROBLEM" !! What you call the gerrymandered border is just the changes made to include as many as possible who wanted in, and to leave out as many as possible who did not. What is wrong with that Jim? You think that military might should have been used to bludgeon the Unionists into submission and force on them a regime they so vehemently rejected, and which so many would rather die than accept. And yet you pose as antifascist, non sectarian and liberal. You are a charicature of all of those things. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 06:07 AM (#2979769) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus "At one time he particularly addressed himself to me (Barton) and said very solemnly that those who were not for peace must take full responsibility for the war that would immediately follow refusal by any Delegate to sign the Articles of Agreement." (Actual Meeting Notes by Robert Barton - a Member of the Irish Delegation) I ask again, does anyone seriously believe that Britain would not have sided with practical support in any conflict caused by refusing to sign the treaty within the three day ultimatum? (Actual rantings and invention of Jim Carroll) WHAT THREE DAY ULTIMATUM?? - THERE WAS NO THREE DAY ULTIMATIM - YOU PLANK |
|
04 Sep 10 - 06:13 AM (#2979771) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus In those circumstances the outcome would have been a foregone conclusion, especially following the softening up campaign by the military thugs sent in by Britain at the beginning of 1920 to produce a favourable result to the negotiations. - (Jim Carroll) So it was the victory of British arms in the Irish War of Independence that brought the Irish delegation to London to negotiate a peace treaty and agree the creation of an independent Irish State? Now that is a f**kin' odd that take on things, Jim, to the extent that such an occurrence must be unique in the history of nations. I agree the outcome would ultimately not have been in doubt had Dev and the boys tried to force the North to accept rule from Dublin, the Great War had just ended, and although conscription never touched Ireland, far more men from Northern Ireland had volunteered to serve than men from the South. So purely by circumstance a vast majority of those half-million men who signed the petition in the North were trained soldiers. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 06:16 AM (#2979773) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus Your figures on the casualties of such a war fits in pretty well with the 'might is right' attitude you have displayed from the beginning of these arguments. I'm sure they are correct about the outcome of such a conflict, but that was the hurdle faced by any former colony attempting to shake off British rule - didn't stop them from trying though. - (Jim Carroll) Very, very selective here Jim. Another example of your policy of one law for the goose and another for the gander, or your partiality for wanting your cake and eating it: Your view fits in pretty well with the 'might is right' attitude you have displayed from the beginning of these arguments. Conflict was the hurdle faced by any representative group attempting to shake off unwelcomed and undesired enforced rule imposed by others - Wouldn't stop them from trying though. One or the other Jim if Republicans can take up arms and fight for Union, then Loyalists can take up arms and fight against it – Far, far better none fight at all and that was obvious to the "Official" IRA in 1971. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 06:17 AM (#2979776) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus They did not include the casualties, dead, maimed and terrorised in the period following the signing of the treaty up to the present day, and any in the future. - (Jim Carroll) Ehmm No Jim they didn't. After all how could I detail the dead, maimed and terrorised in the future?? Rather difficult, nay impossible to do wouldn't you say?? |
|
04 Sep 10 - 06:22 AM (#2979780) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus I can't help but notice that you haven't addressed the question of the manipulative way that the border was drawn up, and the open way in which Unionist domination was consolidated, leaving a third of the population without proper representation - for or against, I wonder? - (Jim Carroll) I believe we were discussing whether or not the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed under threat of a British Invasion and whether it was signed under duress or not. Barton notes that the Boundary Commission was mentioned, but that played no significant role in the discussions as to whether the treaty should be agreed or not. But note this that Robert barton did take down verbatum in his notes: This might be done by a Boundary Commission which would be directed to adjust the line both by inclusion and exclusion so as to make the Boundary conform as closely as possible to the wishes of the population. Any problem with that? |
|
04 Sep 10 - 06:25 AM (#2979782) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus I was interested to see your description of the fight against a military uprising in Spain as 'futile' - does this mean that the elected government should NOT have fought against Franco and his fascists - do tell. - (Jim Carroll) Again another invention by Jim Carroll, where do I describe "the fight against a military uprising in Spain as 'futile'"?? Having gone through my post I can only find one reference to the Spanish Civil War which reads as follows: "The prospective conflict does not bear thinking about, it would have been absolutely horrendous, you are talking here about something in prospect as great and as destructive as the Spanish Civil War and possibly a damn sight more protracted." Do you see the word "futile" in that sentence Jim? I certainly cannot – do tell. Anyway, back to reality. Says Jim Carroll You Mr. Carroll would not recognize reality if it jumped up and bit you on the arse. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 06:33 AM (#2979787) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll "WHAT THREE DAY ULTIMATUM?? - THERE WAS NO THREE DAY ULTIMATIM - YOU PLANK" The Prime Minister then asked again if the delegation was prepared to stand by the Articles of Agreement, as now amended, Oath and all. Only Griffith promised that he would. The Prime Minister, of course, needed more than this: all must sign they did not, he solemnly promised that he would not even give them time to lay the matter before the Dail: it would be "war within three days," and war more terrible by far than any they had yet experienced. At 7:45 P.M., the meeting broke up. Griffith had agreed to sign; Collins appeared to hesitaiej only over the Oath; Barton, who came to this meeting as a sort of host curiae, had not committed himself at all. Lloyd George knew all too well that liberal British opinion, let alone that of the Empire and the United States, would have rebelled against any further bloodshed in Ireland. What he put forward on the fifth of December was a gigantic bluff; if the Irish were taken in by it, he would retain his power; if they were not he would have to go." The Damnable Question (pp 338-339) Geoge Dangerfield, 1976 That ultimatum, you plank! I repeat, does anybody believe that Britain would have stayed neutral in the event of any conflict "within three days". In the absence of a reply about the Spanish Civil War, I will assume (as I suspected from the beginning) that I am in the esteemed presence of a right-arm-raiser. Keith - the press report was published yesterday - not a child in sight "You are a charicature" Nope - I'm not even a caricature. Jim Carroll |
|
04 Sep 10 - 06:47 AM (#2979792) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, you have finally found one report on the riots that does not dwell on the children involved. That is simply because it is only concerned with the cost of policing, and the presence of large numbers of children made no difference to the cost. "Members (of the Police Board) are also concerned that children as young as eight were involved in the rioting in Ardoyne and are fully supportive of measures the PSNI, alongside Social Services, plan to put in place to tackle this serious problem." "THIS SERIOUS PROBLEM" |
|
04 Sep 10 - 08:39 AM (#2979841) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Oh, and by the way "That is simply because it is only concerned with the cost of policing, and the presence of large numbers of children made no difference to the cost." You have still p=totally and absolutely failed miserably to produce on single itsy bitsy teeny weeny scrap of evidence that there were, as you have consistently claimed "a serious number" of children, young people, or outsiders involved in the four days of rioting - indicating that you made it up in order to blame others for the trouble caused by the marches you yourself described as rubbish. Something or other - pants on fire!! Jim Carroll |
|
04 Sep 10 - 08:52 AM (#2979850) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus In the absence of a reply about the Spanish Civil War I draw your attention to the following: Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus - PM Date: 04 Sep 10 - 06:25 AM I was interested to see your description of the fight against a military uprising in Spain as 'futile' - does this mean that the elected government should NOT have fought against Franco and his fascists - do tell. - (Jim Carroll) Again another invention by Jim Carroll, where do I describe "the fight against a military uprising in Spain as 'futile'"?? Having gone through my post I can only find one reference to the Spanish Civil War which reads as follows: "The prospective conflict does not bear thinking about, it would have been absolutely horrendous, you are talking here about something in prospect as great and as destructive as the Spanish Civil War and possibly a damn sight more protracted." Do you see the word "futile" in that sentence Jim? I certainly cannot – do tell. I ask again WHAT THREE DAY ULTIMATUM?? Where in Robert Barton's Notes is a three day ultimatum mentioned or referred to? Or is it like me refering to the fighting in the Spanish Civil as being futile a pure invention of Jim Carroll's |
|
04 Sep 10 - 08:52 AM (#2979851) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Backwoodsman "We have an honest decent Irish guy who has explained time after time the true facts of the situation in Ireland." Errrrrmmm, I think you'll find he's English by birth (although perhaps of Irish ancestry, if my memory serves me correctly). Not arguing with the rest of your summation though, ositojuianito. But....isn't this thread, and others like it, a perfect illustration of the real problem - people with their heads on backwards, huffing and puffing and bickering interminably ad nauseam about what's past and done and can't be undone no matter how much they'd like it to be, instead of looking towards what's to be done in the days, months and years to come in order to bring about justice for all and a lasting peace? And these entrenched attitudes and pointless arguments are precisely why there isn't real peace in Ireland, and IMHO little hope of it. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 09:40 AM (#2979871) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll Spanish Civil War - my apoliogies, should have double checked - however, "destructive" still leaves the question in place; should or should not the Franco led Fascist uprising have been opposed? "I ask again WHAT THREE DAY ULTIMATUM?? " You have my quote (complete with details) - are you saying the author made it up? Backwoodsman - would agree, but if the problems are ones of history what do you do about it; and how long do you think the partitioning of a sizeable chunk of your country (wherever it is) would continue to be a problem? It isn't a problem to me - but it is enough of one to others to have lasted for 88 years. Jim Carroll |
|
04 Sep 10 - 09:53 AM (#2979876) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus Well Backwoodsman it all depends on whether a discussion is based upon fact or lies, or whether or not you yourself are interested in the truth. "Heads on backwards", "Huffing and Puffing" wouldn't be too bad if that is all it was, but these prats are using such lies and misrepresentations as justification for murdering people and planting bombs today not in the past. For some reason Jim Carroll believes that the Irish Delegegation were threatened with invasion and coerced into signing the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 6th December 1921. Yet when confronted with the actual notes of that meeting that show no such threats were made and that there was no mention of anyone being under duress, who should I believe - Robert Barton who was actually there taking the notes of the meeting or Jim Carroll who just seems to make stuff up as he goes along. The Prime Minister then asked again if the delegation was prepared to stand by the Articles of Agreement, as now amended, Oath and all. Only Griffith promised that he would. The Prime Minister, of course, needed more than this: all must sign they did not, he solemnly promised that he would not even give them time to lay the matter before the Dail: it would be "war within three days," and war more terrible by far than any they had yet experienced. - apparently taken from The Damnable Question (pp 338-339) by Geoge Dangerfield, 1976 Number of things wrong with that, but Backwoodsman if you are prepared to accept inaccuracies and misrepresentations upon which to base any opinions all well and good read no further. 1) Arthur Griffiths was the Leader of the Irish Delegation 2) Now this bit just does not sit right: The Prime Minister, of course, needed more than this: all must sign they did not, he solemnly promised that he would not even give them time to lay the matter before the Dail: it would be "war within three days," and war more terrible by far than any they had yet experienced. What is he talking about of course they all signed it, and here are those signatures: Anglo-Irish Treaty Signatures I think that there is a word missing there it should not read: "all must sign they did not" I think that should read, "all must sign, if they did not" - then it accords with what happened and with what Robert Barton reported. 3) As to laying the matter before the Dail. Griffiths and Collins travelled to these peace negotiations with plenipotentiary powers meaning that they could agree to and sign anything WITHOUT having to refer back to anybody - That is a simple matter of record and Jim Carroll denies this?? I am not at all surprised that ositojuianito should find this boring. Poor thing after years on the Provo payroll being fed drugs in part payment has been left with the intelligence and attention span of a goldfish, evidenced by him having to create a new membership identity everytime he logs on to send threatening or obscene PMs to members of this forum (ositojuianito today; formerly "Teriibus"; formerly "pornstar emilie"; formerly Nuala Massey (Fraud); formerly "Ivor Bell") Poor dear would not know a true fact if he was smacked across the head with it. But hopefully in these recession hit times the portacabin with all those second hand computers won't be locked up so he can continue to type away as the methadone goes to work - don't worry chum you might be "clean" one day, but judging by the crap you come out with I rather fear that pigs have more chance of flying. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 09:58 AM (#2979880) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus You have my quote (complete with details) - are you saying the author made it up? - Jim Carroll You quote an author writing about an historic event. I have supplied the notes taken at the meeting by one of the Irish Delegation. You have been unable to point out anywhere where this supposed three day ultimatum came into any conversation held at Downing Street on the afternoon or evening of the 5th December, 1921. So yes the author made it up. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 11:08 AM (#2979918) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Jim Carroll The details of what the delagates reported back seem to clash somewhat with the official note in several cases - hardly surprising since you are deaing with 'The Welsh Wizard'. You seem to be working on the basis of "let's find a history book that suits me". Still no reply on Spain - sems my instincts were right in the first place. Jim Carroll |
|
04 Sep 10 - 04:09 PM (#2980033) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Keith A of Hertford Briefly back to the 21st century. The Ardoyne riots this summer. There were enough children involved that "Members (of the Police Board) are also concerned that children as young as eight were involved in the rioting in Ardoyne and are fully supportive of measures the PSNI, alongside Social Services, plan to put in place to tackle this serious problem." A few kids would be an issue, but this is a "serious problem" requiring measures to be put in place by PSNI and Social Services. I have posted this 3 times now. If Jim still does not get it, tough. |
|
04 Sep 10 - 06:05 PM (#2980081) Subject: RE: BS: Priest in 1972 IRA bombing: Another cover up From: Teribus Jim as far as your instincts go based on whatever you dream up I can only say dream on, your fantasies are entirely your own. But please do not attribute any on your wilder fantasies to me. It might after all be a futile exercise particulary as that seems to be a favourite word of yours. Myself I would rather rely on substantiated fact. The details of what the delagates reported back seem to clash somewhat with the official note in several cases Hate to point out the obvious BUT "The details of what the delegates reported back" IS the official version of things anything else is merely somebody's opinion of what happened. Or are you too bloody thick to see that? By the bye I am not relying on someones book I am relying on the notes of someone who attended the actual meeeting and was tasked with taking notes. Tell me what better authorative source could one get?? (Now come on Jim I am sure that you are not going to let me down and show what a complete and utter moron you actually are) OK. This thread is closed, and there will be no further IRA-related discussions for at least a week. This thread has caused us far too much trouble - not only in the forum, but also in Personal Messages and other locations. I've tried babysitting this thread for the last two weeks, and it just hadn't worked. The only solution I can see is to temporarily ban all IRA discussion. |
