Conference tallis::celt

    A woman aged 60 and a man aged 36 have been charged with possessing a
    large number of fire arms and explosives.  The man has also been
    charged with causing explosions in Soho, London 10 days ago.  They have
    been remanded in custody following a short court hearing in East London
    yesterday.  Both are thought to be connected to Irish terrorist
    organisations.
    
    Following their arrest earlier this week a large number of firearms and
    explosives were found in Northolt, West London.  I hope this is the
    start of cracking the IRA/INLA on mainland UK, because it will be great
    to use the trains/underground again without fear of being killed by a
    terrorist bomb.
    
    Re -1
    
    I wonder what crime the 15 year old girl committed, who was one of those
    killed in the City bombing, which the terrorists thought was punishable
    by death.  The three killed were random targets - I fail to see how
    this will further the terrorists cause.  Maybe somebody can explain.
    
    		Brian.
    

    Brian, you are inviting trouble by asking for explainations. There are
    some people who 'Note' in this conference that will try to justify this
    as being casualties of war. It is just another example of the
    frustrations of the IRA to get worldwide attention (as if they haven't
    already achieved that, for all the wrong reasons) for their 'Cause'.
    All that they are achieving is to blacken the name of Irish people in
    all parts of the world.
    
    How sad for Ireland and Irish people everywhere.
    
    Gerry

 re. .0
   It's sad when innocent people are killed.  I wonder
   how long the British authorities decided to sit
   on the phone warning, before trying to evacuate
   the area?

   By the way, this is a serious question, so save your
   "terrorist supporter" rhetoric.
                      Mark

 re. .1
   Another serious question.
   Was this the same young man who was brought into
   court with his face severely beaten? (read off the
   UPI news wire) Were the British authorities working
   on another Birmingham six type confession?
                              Mark

		Intercepted IRA Telephone Warning


	Brring-brring...brring-brring...brr.."Metropolitan Police
	hyeah.  Wot the bloody hell do you want?!"

	"Hel-lo, this is your local branch of the ubiquitous Irish
	Republican Army calling, I..."

	"Get the Hell off the line, Paddy, we only accept serious
	calls!"

	"I only wished to inform you, kind sir, that we have
	inadvertantly lost 10,000 kilos of Semtex somewhere around
	Clapham Junction and..."

	"Look!  I don't know how to put this to you, you silly Irish
	git!  We have no bloody interest in your childish games.  Now
	s*d-off!"

	"But please officer, think of all of the innocent men, women
	and children who will be killed and horribly mutilated if you
	do not act now to find our explosives.  Oh yes, I almost
	forgot.  One of our playful lads put a timed detonator on the
	device and set it for 5 minutes from now.  Nothing personal,
	of course, but he does get up to mischief occasionally.
	Furth..."

	"You dumb Irish clod-hopper!  Do you think we really care what the
	bloody hell you're up to, eh?!  I can have your telly licence
	revoked, you know.  Now, p**s off!"

	"I implore you, officer!  The bomb is set to blow at any
	moment, wreaking havoc, death and destruction along the
	busiest rail junction in the world!  You have trained
	personnel to remove that device, we only set them.  Can you
	not see our dilemma?!  Hello...hello.  Is there anyone there?"

	"Right, mate!  That's it!  I was just about to head out for
	a pint when you just had to ring up, didn't you?  Now, just
	leave your name and telephone number and we'll ring you back
	after tea.  Ta-ta."

	"But wait, wait!  I was going to add that the lads could help
	you find and dismantle it, if you need our assistance.  We
	find this very distasteful work, we prefer social teas and
	organizing group outings rather than destroying life and
	property.  Surely, you understand that?  Hello...hello....."

    The reason for the IRA bombings is relevance.  Bombings keep them
    in the public's eye, and from their perspective puts pressure on
    the British to deal with them.
    
    In Thomas Friedman's book "From Beirut to Jerusalem", he describes
    the PLO in great depth and states that the PLO under Yassir Arafat
    had four attributes, namely independance, unity, relevance, and
    theatrics.  One could argue that the IRA have some of the these same
    attributes.  There are more similarities between Middle Eastern
    organizations and the IRA than there are differences.
    
    In the Middle East, problems with groups like the IRA would be dealt
    with very severely and successfully.  In Western democracies it is
    essentially impossible to effectively deal with such groups.  So the
    problem just festers. 
    
    Note I am *not* defending them in any way.  I personally think that
    violence by either the IRA or the British Army is morally repugnant.
    
    /George
                                    

    re .2 - inviting trouble
    
    	I take your point Gerry, it wasn't intentional.
    
    re .3 or .4
    
    	the guy with the black eye and cut face was a brother of Joe Magee
    who is wanted in connection with the recent terrorist activity.  The
    police are being accused of harrassing all Joe Magee's relatives.  They
    showed his brother on the news outside his home.
    
    He had obviously been beaten and they showed inside the house.  It had
    been ransacked and furniture/doors had been damaged/smashed/kicked. 
    This all went on while the brother's wife and daughter were in bed.
    
    It remains to be seen whether the police will be prosecuted or whether
    there will be an "independent enquiry".
    
    re the telephone warning
    
    the police were clearing the area at the time.  Apparently the police
    were not given a specific location for the bomb but were just told it
    was in the City district.  Anyway if you want to plant bombs for
    publicity but not to kill and maim why not put them in the middle of
    100 acres of deserted farm land rather than in the centre of the
    capital city.
    
    		Brian

    
    
    Bombs that do one billion in damage are very effective.  With premiums
    expected to rise 30% next year for insurance the IRA definately can
    cause more than terrorism.
    
    Gary

    I'll agree with you that IRA bombing campaign could cost Britain
    in the billions of dollars annually (not to mention the more important
    civilian loss).  But it would take a far more concerted effort for
    the IRA to push Britain into ceding NI under its (the IRA's) terms. 
    It just won't happen.
    
    First off, you're talking about a nation that endured Hitler's buzz
    bombs - which leveled London.  Secondly, if Britain withdrew from NI,
    it would encourage Spain to push for Gilbrater, Argentina the Malvinas,
    and on and on...
    
    The current British government has no plans for withdrawing from NI.
    If anything they are fortifying their position in NI.
    
    /George 

> From VNS 04/22/92:
>     Minutes of a police meeting have been leaked which reveal that police
>     feel they have little knowledge of IRA activity. This comes at a time
>     when MI5 are bidding for the job of intelligance gathering within
>     mainland Britain.

    This is an interesting tidbit of info.  Has British intelligence
    gathering gone privatized now?  Is there a chance that MI5 may lose
    out to a lower bid?
   

    The IRA sick statement after the failed bomb attempts in London over
    the weekend:
    
    "It was sheer ill-luck that the bombing of central London was thwarted"
    
    ill-luck - now that is sick.
    
    Just to balance this entry up - the killing of three men in a betting
    shop by the UFF after their gun man burst in and fired randomly before
    exiting the building and throwing a grenade back into the bookies was
    an atrocious act - what do these people think they will gain with this
    sort of attack.
    
    This was claimed to be in retaliation to the IRA's destruction of
    Coleraine town centre with a massive bomb last week.  When will these
    guys realise that this mindless terrorism is getting NI nowhere ???
    
    The talks came to an end this week with no major
    announcements/agreements.
    
    		Brian.

  Brian,
    It's your statements that are sick.  How can you even
  compare the disgusting murders of those old men in
  the betting shop, with a military action by the Irish
  Republican Army against one of the last countries in
  the world that still practices colonialism.  There is a 
  key difference here, the IRA phone in a warning so they 
  minimize the chances of innocent folks being hurt.  Their
  goals here were one of economic damage.
    You know Brian, if some of your fellow Britains opened
  their eyes they would get a clue that your country can't
  go on with it's current disgusting policies.
                          Mark

  P.S.
   By the way, better luck next time, eh!

    For "military action" read "act of mindless terrorism" in previous
    note.  Both acts by the UFF and IRA are comparable and are sick so
    don't try and convince anybody of anything else Mr. Holohan.
    
    I am not going to get into a slanging match, so if you feel personal
    attacks are in order Mr Holohan and ::Drotter go ahead have a free
    shot. 
    		Brian.
    
    p.s I suggest you visit a doctor soon Mr Holohan.  ::Drotter haven't
    they made you redundant yet ??

  Mr. House,
    Don't wet yourself, I've no intention of personally
    attacking you.

    Do you respect a man named Nelson Mandella? 

    I'll leave you with a recent quote from Nelson Mandela,
    "the Irish Republican Army are fighting a war against
     British colonialism".
    Many white South Africans call this man a mindless
    kaffir terrorist.  

                              Mark

    re:  Note .13 by Brian House.
    
    
    Did I miss something here???? I mean, someone tell me: did I enter any 
    replies in this note, (Note 1033), or "get into a slanging match", or 
    personally attack House anywhere in this note????
    
    Brian, what on earth  are you talking about in 1033.13???!
    
    As for that malevolent inquiry about whether I've been made redundant
    yet: I mean, really Brian. whatever invoked such a response in you??
    
    I'd say off-hand that, similar to your government's behaviour in
    Ireland, you're trying to drag me into this note simply to stir up
    trouble again. I have no quarrel with you, Brian. 
    
    Really Brian: a rather tawdry attempt to start a slanging match.
    Well, no one is falling for it, House, so push off.

    No slanging match...... good, just thought I'd check though.
    
    King rgds,
    Brian.

    I was looking for the note on tit for tat killings but couldn't find it
    so I'll enter it here.
    
    Yesterday evening an off duty part time soldier was shot and killed in
    Northern Ireland.  A few hours later the UVF opened fire on a country
    pub near Kilcool (?) killing one man and injuring three.  This suggests
    to me tit for tat killings exist in NI.  If the soldier had not been
    shot would the guy been shot in the pub ???
    
    		Brian.

    re. -1
    >Yesterday evening an off duty part time soldier was shot and killed in
    >Northern Ireland.  A few hours later the UVF opened fire on a country
    >pub near Kilcool (?) killing one man and injuring three.  This suggests
    
    For UVF read "his mates when they finished their shift"
    
    
    Tony.

     re: .16
    
    No, Brian, I don't think you were "just checking."  I'd say you were
    just trying to stir up trouble in this conference. In the same way your 
    barbaric government can't leave well enough alone in Ireland, by getting 
    out of Ireland, or by constantly provoking trouble there under 
    the guise of "just checking the Paddies."
    
    British people of your ilk Brian, whose racist disdain for the Irish 
    is superficially  hidden under a thin veneer of *civility*,  are 
    really just venomous little Brit toads underneath - who take delight
    in tormenting or provoking trouble amongst the Irish.  
    
    Nice try, pity that your mask slipped.
                                                        

    Racist disdain for the Irish.
    
    Do me a favour I've got more Irish blood in me than your great
    grandparents.  Do you think I'd be racist towards my mother ???
    
    Anyway as you said yourself - no slanging match now.
    
    Kind Rgds,
    Brian.
    
    
    	

        Since I can't reply to Note 1062.xx "Coalisland Incident",
    I shall enter this note in here.
    
        Awhile ago, a Brit sent this mail message to me, shortly before
    s/he left the company. Apparently this person was a Read-Only noter 
    of the CELTFILE, and sent me personal mail requesting info on the
    situation there. Copious information was sent to this person, including
    specific references as to where in Britain literature could be
    obtained. 
    
        I stand vindicated: not only is what I have written about NI correct,
    but what is more important, there are Brits that know the truth about
    what's going on in the north of Ireland - despite the crap that the 
    resident shoneen apologists/neocolonialist Brits/and half-Oirish Brits 
    (that infest this file) keep trying to choke this conference with.
        
        Name and identity have been withheld for obvious reasons.
    

       "Hi Joe,

	Thanks for getting back with the info, much appreciated. I plan
	to visit the south [ed. note: time reference] with an Irish friend 
        of mine so I will endeavour to make the trip north. As a Scottish 
        nationalist it should be interesting to see what lies around the 
        corner for Scotland if the nationalist movement here gathers pace.

	The point you mentioned about ex-soldiers is quite interesting. I
	have a cousin who served a tour of "duty" in NI during the hunger 
	strikes, he left the army shortly afterwards. 

	Its interesting to hear him talk about his preconceived ideas about 
	what was going on in NI, mostly gathered from the British press. 
	However once there he saw for himself what it was really like for
	the republican community. 

	He found it typical after the Coalisland "incident", that it was put 
	down to a few "over zealous" squadies acting under the pressures of 
	being in NI. He has always maintained that the bigotry in the Brit army 
	stretches right to the top, this being borne out by some of the stories
	he's told me about their orders prior to house searches ie "smash
	everything you see". Incidentally, my cousin was one of only two 
	Catholics in his regiment, they also experienced hatred from within
	the regiment itself.

	Anyway, I return to Scotland next week, not to work for DEC, so I
	won't have access to this conference anymore but thanks again for 
	the info, and keep plugging away, I'm sure your educating more people
	on whats really happening in NI than you realise.


	Cheers,"  
                   

    
    
    60 something people injured in Manchester, some seriously.
    
    Well, it looks like the IRA scum are bored again. I wonder how long it
    will be before they realise that they can't solve the current problem
    by murdering innocent people. But then again, they obviously don't have 
    the intelligence to do it any other way. Whatever the problems are in
    NI, this isn't the answer because as long as the IRA continue to do
    this, they won't win anything other than the hatred of the very people
    they claim to represent.
    
    I would imagine that half the people that murder under the pathetic banner 
    of "The IRA" don't care about the original cause anyway, they're just in 
    it as a business venture making revenue from gulable, stupid donators
    and are nothing more than paid killers working for fat businessmen.
    
    I have more respect for the Mafia than the IRA.

    My cousin is visting me from Galway this week.  She had travelled to
    Manchester to see her brother and was shopping in Manchester city
    centre yesterday morning when the bombings took place.  She was with
    her brothers wife - a native of Ballina.
    
    If they had taken a different route or visited a different shop who's
    to say they would not have been injured/murdered.
    
    Anybody like to explain how injury/death of either of these two would
    further the IRA cause ??? Anybody care to explain why they deserved to
    be caught up in an IRA bombing campaign ???  Joe, do you want to send
    these people your info on the North, I'm sure they would be prepared to
    discuss their thoughts on the situation with you.
    
    		Brian.

re. .23
  Looks pretty clear to me Brian, I wouldn't do my
  vacationing, shopping, or any travelling in that
  war zone, known as Britain.

                Mark

re: .23
    
    <Joe, do you want to send these people your info on the North, I'm sure 
    <they would be prepared to discuss their thoughts on the situation with you.
    
    
    I'd be glad to Brian! Here, why don't you give them the following list
    of publications to pick up and read before we get together to discuss
    the situation in NI.
    
  List of papers concerning UK terrorism in Ireland is published by Amnesty
International. That address for Amnesty International is:

                        Amnesty International
                        International Secretariat
                        1 Easton St.
                        London, WC1X 8D5


1.) ILL-TREATMENT

  A) UK - Northern Ireland: Recent Cases of Alleged Ill-Treatment
     (AI Index: EUR45/13/88)

  B) Allegations of ill-treatment in Northern Ireland (in "Concerns in Western
     Europe", June 1988 - Feb 1989, AI Index: EUR 03/01/89

2.) FAIR TRIAL

  A) UK - Northern Ireland: Killings by Security Forces and "Supergrass" Trials
     (AI Index: EUR 45/08/88)

  B) UK - Alleged Forced Admissions During Incomunicado Detention
     (AI Index: EUR 45/01/88)

  C) UK - Alleged Forced Admissions During Incomunicado Detention: Update
     (AI Index: EUR 45/01/89)
     
  D) People Convicted for Bombings in Guilford and Woolwich in 1975 (in
     "Concerns in Western Europe", June 1988 - Feb 1989, AI Index: EUR 03/01/89

  E) UK - Appeal Hearing of Six Men Convicted of Bombings in Birmingham
     (AI Index: EUR 45/14/88)

  F) UK - Update on the Case of the Six Men Convicted of Bombings in Birmingham
     (AI Index: EUR 45/14/90)

3.) ARRESTS and DETENTIONS ON NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS

  A) UK - Amnesty International Challanges National Security Detention
     Procedures, Investigates Possible Prisoners of Conscience
     (AI Index: EUR: 45/02/91)

4.) KILLINGS

  A) UK - Northern Ireland: Killings by Security Forces in Northern Ireland:
     Update
     (AI Index: EUR 45/02/90)

  B) UK - Investigating Leathal Shootings: The Gibraltar Inquest
     (AI Index: EUR: 45/02/89

  re: .23
    
    Brian, here is some more literature that I've forwarded to many CELT
    and Brit noters - seeing as how the movement stems from Britain.
    
    
                              The 'TIME TO GO' Movement


   As for the 'TIME TO GO!' Movement, they certainly are brave citizens to
stand up and propose a new way of approaching a very old problem.
Considering the unbelieveable social, governmental, legal, psychological, and 
historical pressures to regard the "Oirish" as a sub-human species, at
worse to be dominated and at best to be vilified (just as blacks have in the 
U.S.), I see the TIME TO GO Movement as Britain's "Declaration of Independence"
from old-styled jingoistic, colonial thinking about the Irish. And as such,
is an intoxicating breath of fresh air.

Below is the information in their pamphlet. While you're reading it, bear in
mind, this pamphlet was NOT written by me, or an Irishman, or even someone
from the north of Ireland.
It was written by BRITS. It is a group movement by citizens of Great Britain
to see to it that justice and peace are finally served - after how many
centuries now?  
 
                                     -*-

   "ALMOST TWENTY YEARS since British troops were sent to Northern Ireland
to 'keep the peace', peace seems further away than ever. Deaths by sectarian
assassination, deaths by Army shoot-to-kill, deaths by explosion. An endless
cycle of pain and tragedy.

In 1969, ordinary people in the north of Ireland marched for self-respect,
civil rights and justice. Today, religious discrimination, legal injustice
and official brutality are a stark reminder that reform has not proved 
possible.

     "The basic cause of the Irish problem is the presence of the 
      British in Ireland and always has been. As long as British
      forces remain in Northern Ireland, the situation is frozen.
      Nothing decisive can happen until they go.
      
      My own view has never changed: British troops should be withdrawn,
      if not immediately, then at some stated date in the near future.
      Their presence is not helping helping towards a solution, rather
      prolongs the deadlock and even strengthens it."
                                  
                                               A J P Taylor (historian)


Instead of justice, British presence brought 'emergency' legislation
and 'special' powers. The powers have been used for internment and torture,
supergrass trials and no jury courts, strip searching and assassination.
They have done nothing to end inequality or poverty.

There is a new language of counter-insurgency: non-stop surveillance,
dirty tricks departments, plastic bullets, and 'security' forces.
The sectarian "B" specials have been disbanded, but the sectarian
composition of the Ulster Defence Regiment and RUC remain intact.

     "If it were happening in Sunderland or London, the nightmare 
      would have ended long ago. The six counties of Ireland can never
      be part of a 'United Kingdom'. There is no alternative to withdrawal."
                             
                                               Bob Clay MP


As each political initiative from Westminster failed, another took
its place. After the Stormont parliament was brought down, there
have been conventions, power sharing, assemblies and agreements.
The prisons are full, but the problems remain.

Today, there is a vacuum in the political agenda where Ireland should be.
The 'troubles', have been described as one of the greatest moral
and political challanges facing the government in this country.
Yet as an issue, Ireland is surrounded by an uneasy silence made
worse by official censorship.

The 'TIME TO GO' charter tries to break that silence and stimulate
discussion around British withdrawal. More and more people are coming
to the conclusion that there is no military solution to the problem.
British withdrawal is not only feasible,but necessary for a political
settlement that can lead to an end to violence.

     "We believe that the Time To Go movement will draw in thousands
      of new people to an active debate on Ireland. We hope that
      the discussion will move on from 'withdrawal or not' to how
      withdrawal might be achieved. As we begin to canvass detailed
      proposals for withdrawal, I think the aim will become more realisable."

                                               Clare Short MP


'Time To Go' works with activists from labour and student movements,
from women's, Black and Irish groups and from a range of voluntary
organisations to promote discussions and increase awareness.

     "If we support a unified Ireland, then British withdrawal must
      be a catalyst and a consequence. The debate must now centre
      on how we achieve unity."

                                              Derek Fatchett MP

     "As a British person, I feel responsible for Britain's role
      in Northern Ireland. We MUST raise, discusss, and solve this issue
      before more deaths occur." 
                            
                                              Emma Thompson (actress)


All around the country, we are putting on meetings, rallies and a
wide variety of events leading up to an enormous march and carnival
planned for 12 August, 1989, the twentieth anniversary of British troops
being sent into the streets of Belfast and Derry.

     "The key thing is for us to push the discussions onto our
      agenda. We want peace between ourselves and the Irish nation.
      In that context, withdrawal is totally rational."

                                                   Ken Livingstone MP

...

TIME TO GO!

The Charter.

ISN"T IT TIME Britain left Northern Ireland?

It will soon be 20 years since British troops went onto the streets
of Belfast and Derry in August 1969.

Twenty wasted years. Amost 3,000 dead. Tens of thousands injured.
Countless lives scarred. Discrimination and injustice rife. Civil
liberties and equality of treatment denied in both Britain and Ireland.

And yet we are no nearer a solution. Successive British policies have
all failed.

There is a huge drain on resources. Resources which could be invested
in a new future instead of wasted on a military strategy which even
the Generals admit cannot succeed.

The vast majority of people in Ireland and Britain want peace and good-
neighbourliness between these islands. Britain has a responsibility
to make possible the process of reconciliation. This cannot begin while
Britain insists on staying in Northern Ireland.

British presence is unquestionably part of the problem. It remains the
major obstacle to negotiating a peaceful settlement.

Surely it's time to look for a lasting solution. We must recognize that there
will never be peace while Britain remains in Ireland. This is our starting
point. Let's develop debate about how British withdrawal is to be accomplished."

                             [End of article]


For more info:

Clare Short MP (TTG), House of Commons, Westminster, London SW1A 0AA 

	::Holohan, you're sick. Tell us, do you support the Islamic
	fundamentalists who support bombing of American airliners
	in the name of "freedom", and consider themselves "at war"
	with the West?

	JJ.

  re: .23
    
    Brian, I'm sure your cousin from Galway has never been to Northern
    Ireland to see first-hand the institutionalized terrorism that the
    British government is practicing there. 
    
    Perhaps you'd like to showe them this excerpt from the TROOPS OUT 
    Movement. The organizationis made up mostly of former British Army 
    soldiers who, similar to the one in note 1033.21, who now know the truth 
    about the war in the north of Ireland.
    
                              The TROOPS OUT MOVEMENT


   How typical of a spineless army, like the British Army, that shoots little
kids in the back with doctored plastic bullets, and terrorizes housewives by
recking their homes.


The following excerpt is from "Without Consent - Britain's abuse
of human rights in Ireland."  It is published by the Troops Out Movement
(PO Box 353 London NW5 4NH Tel: 071 609 1743) about house raids.


   "OCCUPYING ARMIES down the centuries, faced with insurrection,
have resorted to attacking people's homes at random to try and
deter the local community from helping the insurgents. A major
recent example is the bulldozing of Palestinian homes by Israeli
forces in the "Intafada" from 1988 onwards.

   In Northern Ireland nearly 300,000 homes were searched by
"security" forces between 1973 and 1988. Recent years have seen a
shift towards raids which are apparently more targeted - 8500 in
1988 according to official (understated) figures - and more
deliberately punitive.

   In the typical raid, [British Army] soldiers and RUC officers
enter fully armed and confine the family for several hours to the
house, even to one room. They ransack the belongings; smash
furniture, even permanent fixtures; often break into walls and
ceilings. In some cases floors are dug up with pneumatic drills.

   The vast majority of homes raided belog to [Irish] nationalists.

TRAUMA
   Deepening the trauma such raids inflict - on children
especially - families may also face verbal or physical abuse, and
see members of their household arrested and driven away in
aroured vehicles, with no reason given.

   Generally, women bear the brunt of house raids: putting the
home together afterwards, coping with children's distress. Many
suffer psychological damage from this assault on their homes.

PURPOSE
   Britain claims house searches are conducted to "protect lives
and property". But fewer than one percent of these searches
reveal any arms or explosives. In a joint protest statement
after an intense spate of house raids in 1988 - including 1500 in
just three weeks during November - 90 Belfast commumity
organisations gave a different view of their fundamental purpose:

    "These raids are part of a deliberate policy designed to
intimidate, brutalise and collectively punish the nationalist
community. They are part of the continuing 'nationalist
nightmare'..."

NOVEMBER 1989: Creggan, Derry.
   Raid on the home of Eithne Barker, aged 62 years. Her daughter
was present and recalls,

   "My mother is an old age pensioner and she was very distressed
at the house being raided. While for no apparent reason she was
arrested, I asked why and was immediately arrested myself. We
were both taken to Castlereagh Interrogation Centre and held for
24 hours."

NOVEMBER 1988: Turf Lodge, Belfast.
   For 29 hours, British soldiers took over the home of Andrew
and Janet Donnelly and their three children aged between one and
nine years old. Working in shifts, some sleeping in the family's
beds, the raiding party rendered the house uninhabitable.

   The kitchen was gutted, furnishings and equipment being torn
out and thrown into the garden. Its floor was excavated to a
depth of two feet. in other rooms, all floor boards were lifted,
holes knocked in walls and furniture smashed. Clothing was pulled
from wardrobes and flung through windows into the back garden.

   It was the second raid on the Donnelly's home in a month.

   Janet Donnelly: "We are homeless...The dreadful thing is, they
could come back at any time and do it again..."

JULY 1990: Lenadoon, Belfast.
   Three-and-a-half hour raid by Parachute Regiment and RUC on
Bennett family's home. Keeping the family under house arrest,
they pulled cupboards off walls, ripped up floor boards, cut a
hole in a bedroom ceiling, destroyed electric sockets, vandalised
religious pictures and statues.

   Jean Bennett: "The British Army and RUC have wrecked my home
and terrorised my family. My husband is an invalid who suffers
severe kidney problems. The soldiers smashed a shower unit
especially installed for him. They spat on all our food, emptying
the contents of the frodge on to the floor. My husband is on a
special diet but they destroyed everything. They allowed a
sniffer dog to...kill one of our chickens and then British
soldiers smeared blood from the chicken on to bed linen."

  re: .23

   Brian, you know, I was just thinking: hmmmm, let see...your
cousin from Ireland is over in Manchester. There is a bombing in
Manchester. Your cousin is in Manchester at the time of the
bombing... I hate to say it Brian but, it does look suspicious.
Better have them read this following article.

   You never know: they could be spending the next 17 years, as
'guests' of HMG. Just like the Birminham Six, the Guilford Four,
the Maguires, Judith Ward, etc, etc.

The following excerpt is from "Without Consent - Britain's abuse
of human rights in Ireland."  It is published by the Troops Out Movement
(PO Box 353 London NW5 4NH Tel: 071 609 1743) about the PTA:

   "Every week in England, Scotland and Wales at least 1,000
people on average are stopped, questioned and computer-checked by
police under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). The Act makes
it an offence to "withhold information" in reply to any police
question.

   Most of these people are Irish.

Detention
   The number actually taken into custody under the PTA totals
nearly 7,000 since it was introduced in 1974 - around 200
annually in recent years. They are subject to some of the most
draconian rules ever approved by Parliament. The PTA empowers
police to arrest and detain any person on "reasonable suspicion"
for up to seven days without charge.

   In 1988, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that this
seven-day detention, without a hearing before a judge or court
violated the European Convention on Human Rights to which Britain
is a signatory. The Government's reply was to "derogate" from the
ruling - that is, ignore it.

   Extended custody gives interrogators ample scope to extract
false confessions. The Guilford Four, Birmingham Six, Judith
Ward, and the Maguire family were all held and framed under the
PTA.

Internal exile
   The PTA also empowers the Home Secretary to "exclude" from
Britain to Ireland any person supposedly linked to terrorism,
without stating the case against them. This is the power of
internal exile bitterly criticised by British politicians when
applied to Soviet dissidents.

Intimidation
   Typically in recent years, only about one percent of PTA arrests lead
to any charge being made under the Act. (The percentage was even
lower in earlier years.) PTA arrests and exclusion orders have
often lost people their jobs, broken up families, destroyed
mental health - and the vast majority have no bearing on any
alleged IRA activity.

   Targetted largely on the Irish community in Britain, the Act's
real functions are to gather information on anyone who might
oppose Britain's occupation of Ireland; and, above all, to
intimidate them into keeping such views quiet.

  "The Prevention of Terrorism Acts have severely undermined
   the principles of natural justice and the rule of law. Their
   provisions violate international standards of human rights
   accepted by the British Government itself."

                                     - National Council for Civil
                                       Liberties (now Liberty)

                  [End of article]

    Anybody care to answer the questions posed in .23, rather than side
    stepping the issue.
    
    To start,
    
    How would the murder of my cousin (or anybody for that matter)
    further the IRA cause ???
    
    Joe - don't go on about my cousin not having been to NI because:
    
    1) it doesn't really matter
    2) she has
    
    		Brian. 

::DROTTER do you think injustices carried out by British authorities in
Northern Ireland justify the IRA killing British civilians?

I'm all in favour of the withdrawal of troops from Northern Ireland if that's
what the people want. What evidence is there that the people of Northern Ireland
do in fact want British troops withdrawn?

Dave.

    Mr Drotter,
    
    A direct question to you, and I would expect an answer - I have also
    mailed you this same question :-
    
    Q: Are you a supporter of the tactics of the IRA ?

    
    Re .24, Mark. Let's try here instead. This note of yours reads to me as
    strongly implying support for the IRA bombing campaign. Is that true?
    I won't try to disavow you of the notion that the IRA don't try to kill
    people in these attacks, that their warnings are always quite adequate,
    that deaths are the result of tardiness in the reactions of the
    authorities, deliberately so the deaths can be pinned on the IRA, and
    so forth. Those views are preposterous when the evidence is considered,
    as many have tried to point out to you. I am only concerned here to
    express my view that you should reconsider notes like .24, one of your
    milder ones actually. Others make any implication quite clear.
    
    You should consider how you would feel if terrorist bombs killed shoppers 
    in Pheasant Lane Mall here in Nashua, New Hampshire. If such an event
    occurred how would you like to read a note such as .24, with the word
    "Britain" replaced with "Nashua"? 
    
    You are entitled to believe the IRA are a group of freedom loving
    patriots and drool over your heroes to your heart's content. I have no
    intention to engage you in time wasting disputes as to whether the
    Provisonal IRA are akin to the Lexington minutemen. I am simply
    concerned to try to point out to you that notes such as .24 after
    bombing atacks to which friends and families of fellow noters may be 
    exposed are uncalled for. I do this with respect and with hope that you
    will reconsider such replies in the future.
        

    re: .33  My impression is that Mark Holohan is condoning murder as
    well, based on both his most recent note and past notes of his, but if
    you read .24 literally you won't find anything which violates Digital's
    PP&P.  If it did, I'd ask the moderator to remove it.  I wouldn't be
    surprised if Mark knows exactly where the line is and is very careful
    not to cross it.
    
    Since I have lots of friends in England and all parts of Ireland, I
    find Mark's attitude distressing, even more so because he is a Digital
    employee.  I too would like to see him stop promoting killing, even if
    just for a week or two around Christmas.  Is this too much to hope for? 
    
    Tom

    re: .31
    
    <::DROTTER do you think injustices carried out by British authorities in
    <Northern Ireland justify the IRA killing British civilians?
     
    C'mon Dave, give me a break. I've noted with you since 1988. And in all
    that time, I must say, you've been one of the few Brits that doesn't go 
    flying off half-cocked, shooting from the lip, casting aspersions and 
    making libelous remarks that that the literature I put in Notes from
    Amnesty International, TROOPS OUT Movement, TIME TO GO! movement, etc.
    shows that I "support IRA tactics or terrorism."
    
    So why start now, Dave?  You already know my answer. Why do so many
    Brits slander with innuendo that anyone who speaks out against the WAR 
    your government is waging in Ireland or, who puts literature in here 
    from Amnesty International, etc. is a "terrorist supporter." Cut the
    crap Dave, it's DISHONEST.
                                           
    You know Dave, I didn't join Amnesty International until I went over to 
    NI and saw what homicidal madness your government is is doing to Irish 
    people over there. Have you ever been to the nationalist area of NI Dave??
    
    As for your brilliant rehetorical question,
    
    <I'm all in favour of the withdrawal of troops from Northern Ireland if
    <that's what the people want. What evidence is there that the people of
    <Northern Ireland do in fact want British troops withdrawn? 
    
    Why is it just the "people of NI" have to decide? Since that island is
    IRELAND, and none of the English government's business, why not let the
    people of all of Ireland decide. I mean, 61% of your own people don't
    want to be there, (see article below) - so WHY STAY???????
    
    
                          British Favor Pulling Out of Ireland
    
                           William Miller Globe Correspondent
                             Boston Sunday Globe (10/27/91)
    
    
       LONDON - More than 60% of the British people favor withdrawal
    of British troops from Northern Ireland, according to an
    independent television station.
    
       Channel Four, in its weekly investigative program "Critical
    Eye," reported Thursday that an opinion poll conducted in
    mainland Britain showed 61 percent of those questioned favored
    withdrawal of troops from the province either immediately or
    within a set period.
    
       In the poll, 73 percent said the presence of troops had made
    no difference to settlement of problems in the strife-torn
    province; only 17 percent said it had helped.
    
       The survey was conducted by Market and Opinion Research
    International, a polling company used by British newspapers,
    television stations and political parties.
    
       The poll results indicated that the percentage of British in
    favor of troop withdrawal has not changed appreciably over the
    last 10 years. In 1981, the figure was 59 percent, falling to 53
    percent in 1984 but reaching 61 percent in 1987.
    
       Prominently featured in the television program was Rep. Joseph
    Kennedy 2d of Massachusetts, campaigner for the unification of
    Ireland, who said British troops were sent to Northern Ireland
    20 years ago to protect Roman Catholics "who don't want to be
    defended."
    
       Kennedy said, "Go to a Catholic community and ask, 'Do you
    want the British troops here?' Not a single catholic says, 'Oh
    yeah. We want the British troops.'"
    
       Kennedy said that while human rights are a concern throughout
    he world, "when we get to Northern Ireland many of these issues
    are not put in the same light."
    
       Kennedy also said he found no evidence that the British were
    going to defeat the IRA or that the IRA was going to defeat the
    British.
    
       Channel Four's opinion poll also reported that 51 percent of
    the British people believe that Sinn Fein, the political arm
    of the IRA, should be included in all-party talks on the future
    of Northern Ireland.
    
       At a news conference in Westminster, Tony Benn, a Labor member
    of Parliament, called on the Conservative governmnt to withdraw
    the military, saying, "Without British troops, the Protestant and
    Catholic communities would have to learn to live together. The
    presence of the troops has been an excuse that both sides have
    been happy to have because while they are there, they can always
    blame the British."
                           [End of article]

    re: .32
    
    Well cheps, what have we here??!! Another Brit over from EF92, trying to
    stir up trouble by yet again, following the same predictable, tired, 
    hackneyed British formula: ITEM #2 below.
    
     As I've always made very clear in my notes, whenever one brings up
the topic about the homicidal mess the British government has made in
Ireland, most British people:

    1.) Don't have the foggiest idea about NI, (or where it is for that fact).
    2.) Assault the inquirer with name-calling, immediately charge the
        questioner of being a *terrorist* or supporter thereof, or attack
        their inquirer with innuendo about some nonsense such as their
        race or sexual preference.
    3.) Throw out red herrings, DIS-information, rathole the discussion
        with inane comparisons, or pursuit of a nit.
    4.) Start talking gibberish. 

    
    Unlike one of your cronies, who is about to find himself in serious hot
    water with Personnel, you've stopped short of making libelous
    accusations with your dirty little innuendo, Mr. Dallison. Good for
    you.
    
    And while we're at it, Mr. Dallison, why don't you give me, and all the
    other Irish noters in this conference a direct answer (and I would
    expect an answer): are you a direct supporter of British government
    institutionalized terrorism? That is, are you a direct supporter of the 
    British armed forces in Ireland, including support of their shoot-to-kill
    policy?
    
    I really think we should be told, Mr. Dallison.
    

    ::Dallison (Sorry, don't know your first name)
    
    In an effort to help you understand why the IRA still exist and why
    they do what they do, re-read note .28 by Joe Drotter. It goes some way
    towards describing the day-to-day life of a nationalist in Northern
    Ireland. The constant harassing by British Army troops, the road
    blocks, the arrests for questioning, the house wrecking, the name
    calling, the guns pointed at you as you walk, the list is endless. (The
    sense of violation after your home in broken into is extreme,
    psychologists liken it to being raped). Try to put yourself in that 
    situation. A 20-year old person would have grown up completly under those 
    conditions. What can he do ? How does he fight back ? The legal system 
    - that's a joke. The police - they're responsible also. European court of 
    human rights - ignored by the British. The only avenue they see open is 
    the IRA. If you want to stop the IRA get rid of their recruiting reasons.
    
    Tony.
    
    P.S. I'll be interested in your reply to the question posed in the
    previous note.

    .36
    
    Drotter,
    
    No, I do not support or agree with terrorism in any way shape or form.
    The Briitsh Army are just that - the British Army - they do not, as you
    quite rightly pointed out, represent the British people. 
    
    I'm curious as to why you have not answered my question though and
    please stop bleating with the libel cr*p. If you can't discuss this
    like an adult then maybe you should hit next unseen.
    
    Tony (-1)
    
    Thats a very weak argument. Whatever problems the British army are
    causing over in NI (which, I would again like to say I do not
    support) doesn't justify taking the law into your own hands and
    killing people which probably don't even know WHY the troops are there.
    Do you think a four year old girl out shopping with her mother is
    aware of the political implications ? B*llocks, she'a laying there dead
    with fragments of steel having just split her skull in two. Anybody who
    thinks that this is 'poetic justice' or 'What the British deserve'
    are... well, the word I would really like to put here is not allowed un
    PP&P so use your imagination.
    
    -Tony 

I accept the British Government, the police, the army and other authorities have
contributed to the pressures on the people of Northern Ireland, and thus must
take their share of the responsibility for the damage done. My voice of protest
is added to all those who cry out against all acts of injustice by the
authorities. At the same time I applaud the courage of members of those same
security forces who face bullets, bombs, and other weapons daily, in their
attempts to keep the peace and enforce law. 

I applaud the courage of the people of Northern Ireland, the vast majority who
are peace loving people, who live in difficult times under appauling pressure
yet maintain their warmth, friendliness, and above all love of life.

I utterly condemn those who support the IRA as freedom fighters or heroes, for
they are totally without courage or compassion. The IRA kills and maims men,
women, and children, who have no influence on what's happening in Northern
Ireland.

Dave.

   I subscribe to the following completely. If the following is
    "pro-terrorist propaganda" (as one of your cronies would try to smear
    with innuendo), then I suggest Dallison, you call the Confidential Line
    and have Bob Rowthorn and Naomi Wayne arrested under the P.T.A.
    Then again, the two authors are not Irish, so the P.T.A. doesn't apply.
    
The credentials of the two authors (of the article below) are 
as follows:

"Bob Rowthorn is reader in Economics at Cambridge and Naomi Wayne is a trade
 union official who has worked for the Equal Opportunities Commission of
 Northern Ireland. This article is adapted from their book, 'Northern Ireland:
 The Political Economy Of Conflict.'"
 
 
				GETTING OUT
                       by Bob Rowthorn and Naomi Wayne   
                          (New Statesman 9/9/88)

                  
      Britain has the economic clout to impose peace in Northern Ireland,
	argue Bob Rowthorn and Naomi Wayne.  Why doesn't it use it?

        The conflict in Northern Ireland won't be resolved by military means.  
After nearly 20 years, the IRA has not been defeated nor, in spite of 
fluctuations in its level of support and occasional SAS coups, it is going 
to be.  Hostility to British rule remains widespread in the Catholic 
community and will continue to provide support for the armed struggle.

	Reform within the present framework is also played out.  The 
Anglo-Irish Agreement has posed a bigger challenge to the Protestant and 
Catholic communities than any previous initiative, but to win the 
long-term commitment of the Catholic community, the agreement must deliver 
substantial material benefits - most notably, the creation of more and 
better jobs.  But realistically that depends on an economic recovery which 
cannot itself be achieved as long as the present conflict continues.  
Moreover, questions of national identity and political control have been 
high on the political agenda of Catholics for two decades.  This is too 
long for them to go away.  They now have a life of their own.  

	Given that nothing else will work, it is surely time to re-examine 
the traditional solution to the Northern Ireland conflict.  Should not 
Britain withdraw from the province, re-unite Ireland and reverse the 
historic mistake of partition?  Nowadays, this course receives no serious 
consideration at all from the political establishment, even though opinion 
polls show that it commands consistent majority support among the British 
electorate.  If it is raised at all, it is usually to be dismissed out of 
hand as utterly impractical, morally irresponsible, and politically 
unacceptable.  

	In fact, the outcome of withdrawal isn't pre-determined, but would 
depend crucially on the way the decision was carried through. The key is 
not military by economic. Northern Ireland's economy is overwhelmingly 
dependent on Britain. Without Britain's economic support, the province 
could not survive on it own for more than a few weeks. So if Britain were, 
in Pontius Pilate fashion, simply to wash its hands and abandon Northern 
Ireland altogether, the result would be catastrophic. Its already bankrupt 
economy would finally disintegrate and civil war would be a real 
possibility.

	But Britain could put its economic power over Northern Ireland to 
use in a constructive two-pronged strategy: actively using this power to 
undermine and divide resistance to reunification among the Protestant 
community, while simultaneously offering to deploy its economic resources 
to shore up the new re-unified state.  Britain would have to make absolutely 
clear its willingness to use economic sanctions against a large-scale 
Protestant state or any group resisting re-unification.  Such a firm 
approach would be enough to deter resistance from all but a handful of 
Protestants. At the same time, Britain would promise to continue external 
aid, following re-unification, until the North's economy had been rebuilt.  
Britain should insist that the money was spent on the North and demand 
satisfactory arrangements for the future employment of Protestants in the 
new state.  This would allow living standards in the North, including those 
of most Protestants, to be broadly maintained, without imposing an 
unacceptable burden on the Southern population.  

	The economy of the North is in severe crisis.  In the 1950s and 
1960s, the province was transformed as local industry was run down and 
multinationals moved in to dominate its economy,  But in the last 20 years 
this process has gone into reverse, with multinationals reducing their 
activities or pulling out altogether.  Only huge subsidies from the British 
government keep the province afloat: in 1985, some #1,700 million in all, 
now something approaching #2,700 million.

	Despite its numerous problems and high unemployment - around 18 per 
cent - the Republic has a much stronger economy than Northern Ireland and 
it long-term prospects much better(though they are by no means a certainty.  
Protestants fear that re-unification would bring improverishment; but if 
they cooperated in the re-unification, then peace would come rapidly, and 
with it the benefits of economic recovery.  If they were to fight a 
rearguard action, the benefits of peace would take longer to materialise.
Even so, it could take some 15 to 20 years for the economy of the North to be 
long enough to stand on its own feet.  Continued aid would therefore 
involve a significant commitment from Britain, even counting the savings
from military withdrawal.  In the longer run,  the cost would be, of course,
much less than that of continued involvement and would eventually come
to an end.

        [Ed. note: The first part of the last sentence of page 1 was lost in 
photocopying, of approx 6 words. The sentence continues on page 2 as follows] 

(with?)drawal is the fear that the Protestant community would take to arms 
to preserve and independent state, thus precipitating a bloodbath in which 
large numbers of Catholics and Protestants would be killed.  This danger is 
taken so much for granted, even among people who would otherwise advocate 
re-unifying Ireland, that it is rarely subjected to any scrutiny, but how 
wellfounded is it in reality?

	If Britain simply pulled out, this sort of scenario is quite 
possible.  But a planned and responsible withdrawal, founded upon a firm 
and unequivocal decision to leave and buttressed by the economic strategy 
we have outlined, would entirely different results.  The decision would 
have to be clearly irreversible and the timetable for withdrawal fairly 
short to minimise the time available for resistance to be mobilised.  The 
certain knowledge of British withdrawal would produce confusion and 
disunity within the Protestant community which already knows that to 
destroy a rebellion would require no military campaign to Britain, but 
merely a few weeks' economic sanctions.

	Many Protestants fear that they would oppressed by the Catholic 
majority in the united Ireland.  This fear is greatly exaggerated.  Leading 
nationalist politicians of all kinds have frequently made it clear that 
they would guarantee Protestant religious and political freedoms in a 
united Ireland.  But Britain and the Republic should at once take positive 
measures to reassure Protestants about the kind of future they could expect.  
They would have to be welcomed into the new state and given specific 
guarantees over employment rights, civil and religious liberties, and so on. 
Britain's continued aid would underpin these assurances and Britain could 
make it clear that its continuing economic power in Ireland would be used, 
if need be, further to protect their rights and liberties.

	In any event, the gap between Catholic and Protestant moral values 
is nowhere near as large as often assumed.  It should by no means be 
unbridgeable in a united Ireland.  Thus, contraception is now legal and  
available in the Republic.  Abortions are banned north and south of the 
border, and all Irish women, Protestant and Catholic, have to come Britain 
for terminations.  Divorce remains the main area of apparent difference, 
but even here the gulf should not be insurmountable.  While divorce remains 
prohibited under the constitution of the Republic (whereas the province's 
divorce laws parallel Britain's), new laws being introduced will soon give 
much the same entitlements as divorce, save the right to remarry.

	These positive measures should do much to minimise the risk and 
extent of inter-community violence.  But Britain would also have to act 
immediately to take all practicable measures to disarm Protestants. There 
are around 6,000 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and a further 
13,000 in the RUC.  Most of them carry personal arms for self-defence and 
also have access to official arsenals containing more destructive weapons 
(high-velocity rifles, submachine guns, etc).  The UDR should be disbanded 
thus greatly reducing Protestant access to official arsenals.  It may also 
be necessary to disband the RUC, but much would depend on how the RUC'S
loyalty and discipline held.

	This would be far more likely if the British and Irish governments 
guaranteed the future employment and pension rights of those who obeyed 
orders.

	Apart from the UDR and RUC, the Protestants own most of the 100,000 
or so guns - mostly shotguns - which are legally held in the province.  
There are also an unknown quantity of revolvers, rifles and machine guns 
held illegally by Protestants in self-defence and of course, by the 
paramilitaries.  There is no way Britain can do anything about these 
weapons.

	But regardless of how well-armed the Protestants are, would they 
actually fight?  Most Protestants are opposed to British withdrawal, and 
they know that the threat of massive bloodshed is a formidable deterrent.  
But to threaten is one thing, to deliver is another.  More relevant here 
than their armed strength are two quite different factors:  war-weariness 
and economic self-interest. The majority of Protestants are heartily sick of 
the violence.  If they were genuinely convinced that Britain was going and 
would crush resistance by strong economic sanctions, and were at the same 
time fully reassured about their future, most Protestants would accept 
re-unification as a *fait accompli*, some would emigrate, and the few who 
would wanted to take to arms would be likely to find only minimal support. 

	The risk of widespread bloodshed could thus be reduced to almost 
negligible proportions.  There's no question of convention warfare, given 
the quality of the arms at the disposal of militant Protestants, but 
however intensively, Northern Ireland were policed, there would almost 
certainly be a burst of sectarian killings during the process of 
transition.  But this risk has to be weighed against the absolute certainty 
that thousands will die if Britain remains in Northern Ireland, and 
countless more will suffer in other ways.

	Finally there is the moral dimension.  Britain presents itself as 
an honest broker in Ireland, desperately trying to establish peace between 
two hostile communities.  But its involvement is partisan simple because 
the Northern Ireland state is itself a partisan creation.  Discrimination 
against Catholics is built into its very being; Britain is upholding a state 
which represents the victory of one community  over another.  Equally, the 
usual argument put against the course we advocate - that it's undemocratic 
to force re-unification upon the majority against their wishes - ignores 
the artificial nature of that majority.  Prior to partition, the 
Protestants themselves were very much the minority.

	For 20 years Britain has fought an unwinnable war in Northern 
Ireland to save a state which cannot be saved.  Only a resolute and 
well-planned withdrawal can bring peace to trouble province.  For once in 
its long and unhappy relationship with Ireland, Britain should do the right 
thing at the right time.  And that time is now.

    
    I really don't have the time or the inclination to read through .40.
    Why is it so difficult to give a simple yes/no answer ?
    
    -Tony (still waiting)

    Accusations and questions about supporting organizations
    such as the IRA/SAS/whatever are probably not healthy for
    you, the individual you are addressing, and me as the
    moderator.  So why don't we move on to another topic.
    
    Everybody in their heart knows that IRA bombings such as
    in the recent ones in Manchester further no Irish cause,
    nor do the shootings of civilians by the British Army.