Conference tallis::celt

    Joe,
    
    ditto,
    
    Tadhg.
    
    Btw....surely it's gone beyond us merely saying that the IRA dont have
    	our support. Time to show them how little support they have. Time
    	for talking is long gone....

    Joe, Tadgh,
    
    Fully agree with everything you say.
    
    The 12 year old boy, whose face was blown off died today.
    
    What can a person say, but God help those poor families of these
    innocent children, who died so tragically.
    
    
    
    Bernie
    

    And the blood flows on in an endless stream,
    Spilled in the name of "god" and "country".
    A red river in a streetside gutter,
    Shed in the name of the "righteous cause."
    "God is on our side." goes the cry,
    And the hammer rings once more;
    Sinking deeper into the ageless wood,
    And the King, once more, dies.
    
    Peace be with us all.
    
    Andrew
    

    Last Saturday another blow was struck for a united Ireland when an
    active service unit of the I.R.A. placed a number of bombs in a
    shopping centre in the Lancashire city of Warrington. In the great and
    herioc tradition of Pearse and Connolly, one of the bombs succeeded in
    killing a representative of British Imperialism, a three year old named
    Jonathan Ball, as well as destroying most of the face of another enemy
    of Irish nationalism, a twelveyear old boy named Timothy Parry, who
    died yesterday R.I.P.
    
    Senior tacticians of the I.R.A. demonstrated considerable ingenuity in
    planting their bombs on the day before Mother's Day, when the Golden
    Square shopping centre was full of children purchasing Mother's Day
    Cards. The strategic placement of the bombs was another triumph for
    I.R.A. planning, in that the explosion of the first bomb sent
    panic-stricken citizens of Warrington running in the direction of the
    second bomb, thus ensuring that maximum devastation would be caused,
    with the reasonable assumption that loss of life would occur in
    corresponding ratio. Although there were many casulties, it must be
    counted as something of a disappointment that only the death was that
    of a three year old.
    
    Once again the I.R.A. has demonstrated its absolute commitment to a
    united Ireland. These unselfish and heroic individuals are not dismayed
    by the lack of support they have in this country, but continue their
    campaign on our behalf in spite of protests and even outright
    condemnation of their activities. They fully anticipate that their
    lastest blow for freedom will arouse the kind of ignorant criticism
    that met, for example, the Enniskillen Bomb. But experience has taught
    them that within a few weeks people will have started to forget
    Jonathan Ball and Timothy Parry.
    
    And they can begin planning their next successful blow for Irish
    freedom. Brave lads, sure, they know best, don't they?
    

    This note has been open for several days. 
    
    The silence from certain quarters is deafening........
    
    
    
    Tadhg.

    I've just been to the town centre this lunchtime.
    
    In the middle of the street where the litter bins containing the bombs used 
    to be, outside McDonald's, there are thousands of bunches of flowers 
    carpeting the whole surround. Even though there were hundreds of shoppers 
    around, it was very quiet. Many had stopped to read the cards on the 
    flowers and were deep in thought.
    
    Many of my Colleagues had lucky escapes, each has his story to tell,
    including one CSC specialist who was in Pizzaland, not 200 yards away. 
    I myself was working in this office only three miles away.
    
    It certainly brings it home to you......
    
    Huw.                                          
    

 I heard that John Major made a very touching speach
 on thursday to the house of Commons. He took it upon
 himself to extend sympathy of the house to the families
 of those killed or injured as a result of the Warrington
 blast.
 No mention was made of the families of those killed
 and injured in Castlerock. This must have slipped his
 mind, as I'm sure he believes the lives of six Irishmen
 are at least as important as the lives of someone who 
 is British, it must have just been an oversight.
 Well at least the British have been collecting in
 London to sign a sympathy card for these and other 
 Irish folks who have been murdered by either (British
 forces or the information British forces have passed to
 British paramilitaries), what, you mean they haven't.
 Well not to worry, I'm sure it was just an oversight.

 Now the Catholic teenager murdered last night, will
 probably get a touching response from the British
 government.  I'm sure they'll be sending someone to
 the murdered men's, and this young man's funerals.
 The fact that they haven't mentioned it yet, must have
 been another little oversight.

                      Mark

    
    I do not hold myself to be an expert on the problems of Northern
    Ireland but I do have some opinions on whats wrong.  I agree with the
    notes describing the utter horror of the Warrington bombing.  I have
    children myself and am glad they can live in a 'safe' environment.  I
    also agree that I feel the House of Commons puts more value on lives in
    Britain than in Northern Ireland.  It seems that as long as the
    violence is 'contained' in N. Ireland (and outside their
    constituencies) that its in some way acceptable.  Of course this is the
    IRA motive in bombing English cities, to draw attention back to the
    situation and to put pressure on the politicians.  
    
    All the comdemnations in the world, be they from the Pope, John Major,
    Ian Paisley or Albert Reynolds don't make the slightest impact.  They
    are merely preaching to the choir.  If you took 20% of the emotion in
    these speeches and applied it to the true causes of the problems, not
    the symptoms, I think we may see some progress.
    
    I believe the true causes to be unemployment, discrimination in hiring
    and housing policies, segregation, and a general feeling that inequality 
    and injustice are the basis to the system.  Civil rights groups did try to
    address these issues peacefully and strive for change, only to be
    beaten, shot at and largely ignored by the world.  
    
    If the problems are to be solved we must again focus on these issues. 
    You will not solve the problems by shoot-to-kill policies, beating
    confessions out of suspects, or planting bombs.  If the IRA/UFF were to
    announce a one year cease-fire do you think the politicians would
    double their efforts to cease injustice?  Or would the opinion be
    'thank God thats over'.  I think the latter.  When civil rights groups
    try and make progress in N. Ireland all the politicians seem to
    distance themselves from their efforts.  If progress is made will all
    the people who make public statements today stay the course?
    
    America today seems to be undergoing more racial tension than seen for
    many years.  Great progress was made on civil rights here in the
    sixties (when they failed in N. Ireland).  But it seems to me that once
    minorities were allowed to sit where they wanted and drink from 'whites
    only' fountains, that people forgot about the issue and did not stay
    the course.  So today we see race riots in Miami and LA.
    
    I don't know the answers.  Like many I see no end in sight.  However I
    do believe that merely stopping the violence will not make the causes
    go away, and sooner or later they will come back.  Is it necessary to
    stop the IRA before we resolve the underlying issues that created them?
    
    I myself hope for a united Ireland.  I would prefer to see it occur after
    a peaceful solution, that provides justice to all, is found.  It seems
    the politicians cannot get there by themselves.  How many of us have
    written to our representatives (either in the US, UK or Ireland) to 
    express our dismay that the situation has been allowed to drag on so
    long.  Rather than writing in Notes perhaps that is where we should be 
    writing.
    
    Longer than I thought, but my 2 cents for what it worth.
    
    Rick    
    

    What is responsible for these murders and the attempted murders of many
    other innocent civilians, unless perhaps you have good information
    regarding the presence or a platoon of British Army or Unionist
    Paramilitaries in place of all the shoppers in that shopping center, is
    barbarism.  People and I do use the term loosely, who hate so much that
    it has reduced them to sub animalism are responsible for this act. 
    There may, and to be fair, is a reason for contention in NI, but there
    is no reason to direct weapons in such a way as to insure that
    non-combatants will be injured and killed.  There is no justification
    for this.  Redirecting the world's attention to the actions of the
    British Government and Unionist paramilitaries is also inappropriate
    behavior as well since the issue is that the IRA intentionally
    targetted bombs, in a manner intended to provide maximum casualties, at
    a population that offered no threat to them and was likely to contain a
    large percentage of children.  This last is the most unpardonable sin
    of all.  This was not the act of heroic revolutionaries, soldiers in a
    righteous war, or any other sort of rebel with a cause; it was the act
    of terrorist barbarians who when caught, and proven guilty beyond a
    reasonable doubt, in a fair and legal trial, should be punished to the
    full extent of the law.  If the IRA wants to draw attention to its
    cause it is succeeding, but I dont think that it is helping them very
    much since they have painted themselves as cowardly savages.
    
    Andrew
    
    If the IRA wants to fight a war, they should choose military targets
    and they should not complain when they get shot back at.  And if they
    hide in the general civilian populace in this war, they have to know
    that they are endangering that populace in the process and perhaps
    endangering their support.  Wake up and join the human race.
    
    

    Indeed,
    
    So now, we are being presented with the Provos as the defenders of all
    those poor nationalists who are unemployed (unemployment is more
    endemic in Dublin than Belfast) discriminated against ( ask someone
    who lives in Ballymun in Dublin what its like to be discriminated
    against)..what a sick joke....support your local provo...Nirvana for all
    the masses from the end of a barrel. Also compare the Social Welfare
    Schemes in the two "Irelands" and guess who comes off miles ahead.
    
    
    If we are going to talk about 'Cause & Effect' we could be here for the
    *Next* 23 years. This logic of tit for tat reprisal attacks is a never
    ending circle.
    
    	the problem now is that the organisations that claim to be trying
    to seek solutions (from the Barrel of a gun) are actually THE PROBLEM.
    The have built such a wall of fear , hatred and mistrust that each
    community feels the need to hold on to these 'defenders'...and so it
    goes on.
    
    To break this circle requires something much more radical. The
    paramilitaries will not stop on their own, they are caught up in the
    whirl of violence too much.
    
    I have heard worse solutions than Internment....but then we'd have the 
    whingers out moaning about intrusion on Civil Rights. WHat about 
    Those kids rights in Warrington?  What about the Civil Rights of 
    all the people of this Island? Basic Civil rights like being able to 
    walk the streets?? 
    
    The Provos have done so much damage. I realise there are the UFF
    genocidal attacks on Catholics. However , these have mainly been going
    on since 1990. Between about 1976 and 1989, the Provos held the ground
    on shooting , bombing , murder. To get back to "Cause and Effect", do
    you not think the reason why the UFF is on the move now was CAUSED by
    the Provos, and their bloody murder.
    
    The PROVOS **ARE** the real problem now. When they stop, or are
    stopped, there will be some hope for Ireland. 
    
    regards, and PEACE to humans of Good Will everywhere.
    
    Tadhg
    

    Internment is a bit like recession. It seem a good idea until you
    personally are involved and then it becomes like a depression.
    One wit once defined a recession as an economic situation where a lot
    of people are jobless. A depression is when a lot of people, including
    you, are jobless......
    Internment was tried before in NI and led to a huge revival of activity
    in the IRA, the hunger strikes etc. It is not a good idea because it
    leaves the State and the administration of justice open to question and
    in doubt.
    I personally wouldn't like to live uder the threat of long-term
    internment. Remember the old saying:-  "Trade freedom for security; lose
    both."
    Things would want to be pretty chaotic before I'd give that kind of
    power to the Army or the Guards ( Irish police...).
    

    
    I don't claim to know enough about the issues and situation
    in Ireland to have a valid opinion, but taken by itself without
    regard to the political, historical, or economic context there
    was simply no sense to the bombing at Warrington.  It was the act
    of sick, demented, persons.  I wouldn't insult primitive peoples
    by calling it barbaric.  At least barbarians don't know any better.
    The scum who did this are shameless, spineless, cowards without
    any excuse whatsoever.  They deserve to be hunted down, tried,
    and either executed or put away forever.
    
    Steve

    In ref to .4, in case anybody reading this note, thinks it glorifies
    the I.R.A. then i am sorry, because I was trying to show just how
    twisted their minds are and I totally abhor what they did. I think if
    you read the notes carefully you will see what I was trying to get at.
    
    Stephen
    

    Well in a statement this weekend, the IRA declared that it would eschew
    civilian targets for military and political targets in the future.  i
    am skeptical of this as the IRA and all the Paramilitaries of whatever
    affiliation, have shown interesting justifications for classifying
    non-military targets as military or political.  The next thing they
    need to do is adopt a recognizable uniform, stop hiding amongst the
    innocent civilians of NI, and start conforming to the protocols of war
    as laid out in the Hague and Geneva Conventions.  The IRA is unlikely
    to go this far however since it will expose them to accurate reprisals
    by the British Military and police and will remove the main source of
    outrage in the NI mind, the fact that in order to get at the IRA, the
    British Army and Police must work their way through the shield of
    civilians that the IRA hides behind, inevitably and tragically, causing
    undue harm to those the IRA uses as a shield.  Much of this suffering
    would stop if the IRA would grow some guts and try to stand on their
    own in the open light of day without a wall of hostages in front of
    them.  I don't think that the IRA will go for this idea since it will
    show how really weak they are and how little support they truly have. 
    It is far easier to mount a sustained terrorist campaign than it is to
    mount a sustained and successful war.  In a terrorist campaign, you can
    often force the opposition to set fuel to your fire, as the IRA has
    done, by placing innocents in the line of fire.  In a real war, you
    have to stand up and win or lose based on your own skills and
    resources as well as the actual support you have from the populace you
    say you represent.  I do not think the IRA would last very long.
    
    Andrew
    
    A better way to solve this would be for the IRA to renounce all violent
    activities and disband.  Then to start a legitimate political party and
    address the issues of NI in Parliament, where voices can be heard. 
    Much of the silliness of NI reps not taking their seats in protest is
    counterproductive since they tend to remove themselves from a position
    where they could have some real influence over time.  Violence is a
    self-perpetuating cycle, it will not end until someone has the guts to
    put their opinions to the popular test.  If the majority agrees with
    you by way of a vote, then fine, if not, you are then faced with the
    possibility that your interpretation of what should be is not what the
    rest of the populace wants.
    
    

    I find it amazing how people rate killings as if it were some sort
    of event.  Whether or not the victim is a 4 year old boy or an 90
    year old grandmother, and whether the method is an indiscriminate
    IRA bombing or a British soldier shooting a civilian in the back
    - it is all morally wrong.  I wish everyone would refute all violence
    with the same vigor as the tragic events in Warrington.

    I heard that there are only about 150 actual members of the IRA. Ie.
    those that could be used on 'active service'. I wonder how accurate this
    is.
    
    It would make a small army indeed if they put on a uniform, other than
    a black balaclava seen at funerals.
    
    Simon

    I would advocate dialogue before stopping war.  Counter-terror will
    continue unabated, victory is not clear by either side, and prolonging
    the conflict bogs down England and Ireland in many areas (economic,
    tourism, security, human rights, and human life).  I wonder what it
    will take to bring both sides to the table.
    
    Aside from that I really don't understand why NI can't be granted
    semi-independence, having local representatives, yet report to some
    EC body, say in Brussels.    And where foreign affairs are
    handled by a joint Irish/Britain body.  That removes a basic
    source of friction in NI today, the British Army.  Replace it
    with a unbiased EC army, made up of a combined Northern Irish, Irish,
    British, and other Europeans.  It makes common sense.
    
    The British have had their chance in governing the province - it hasn't
    worked out.  I'm not anti-British.  But I am for trying some other
    solution to reduce the violence both in England and Ireland.  There's no
    need for it in today's day & age...
    
    /g            

    
    
    Using terrorist acts to solve a political issue will not work.
    It's a chicken and egg problem.  As long as the IRA continues 
    acts like the Warrington bombing, then the focus of the British
    government will be on the terrorist acts themselves and not on 
    resolving the political problem in Ireland.  Which will lead, of
    course, to more terrorist acts, which will be the focus of time
    and energy which, of course, will ...
    
    Any fool can see the pattern if s/he wants to.
    
    Steve
     

From the Op-Ed page of the New York Times, (4/5/93).

                             IRELAND'S TROUBLED SLEEP
              By Andrew O'Hehir (senior editor of San Francisco Weekly)

    San Francisco -- Twenty thousand people thronged central
 Dublin two Sundays ago, calling on the Irish Republican Army
 to "Stop the Bloody Murder."  They congregated in silence to
 hear Sinead O'Connor, the pop star who tore up a photo of the
 Pope on "Saturday Night Live," sing the Roman Catholic hymn,
 "Make Me a Channel of Your Peace."  The rally made for
 compelling drama on TV news and on the front pages of
 American papers.  But like many Irish-Americans, I was
 ambivalent.  The media's fixation on the event reinforced
 misguided conventional wisdom about the Irish conflict.
 
     The rally represented a repudiation of the shadowy
 organization that claims to represent the Irish soul, that
 proclaims its legacy of bloodshed and martyrdom to be
 entwined with the deepest Irish sense of self.

     But the I.R.A.'s claim, I'm afraid, is not easily dismissed.
 The group is best understood as the product of two forces:
 centuries of British colonial oppression and Irish denial of
 the meaning of that experience.
 
     Respectable Irish opinion has long opposed the I.R.A.
 campaign of violence aimed at ending British rule in Northern
 Ireland.  However, the relationship between the Irish and the
 I.R.A. is a complicated psychological transaction that can't
 be addressed by speeches or captured in opinion polls.  Many
 who oppose I.R.A. terrorism privately admit to half-buried
 feelings of anti-British resentment and to a grudging
 admiration for the group's resolute defiance.

     In this light, the guerillas' brutal acts can be seen as the
 stirrings of a dark medieval unconsciousness behind the
 facade of contemporary respectability.  As long as Ireland
 refuses to confront the post-colonial trauma that distorts
 virtually all aspects of its social, cultural and political
 life, this dysfunctional pattern is unlikely to end.  The
 country's headlong rush to "modernize" has largely been an
 effort to replace its past with an anesthetic sameness of
 European capitalism.  History, to misquote Joyce, is the
 nightmare from which Ireland is pretending to waken.

     In the American media's presentation, the rally bore none of
 this agonized complexity.  Instead, the rally and the bomb
 attack that killed two English children last month have been
 used to support a particular political view of the conflict:
 Those who oppose British rule are fanatics rejected by their
 own people.  And British policy in Northern Ireland is
 inherently reasonable.

     For years, this has been the general tone of American
 newspaper editorials and foreign policy, which has adhered to
 an uncritical special relationship with Britain.  Appropriate
 noises are often made about ending anti-Catholic
 discrimination in Northern Ireland, but evidence of British
 injustice and human rights violations are treated as
 anomalies, never as symptoms of widespread and systematic
 abuse.  Protests in Dublin in response to the killing of
 unarmed I.R.A. suspects by British forces, for instance,
 haven't made the front pages of U.S. newspapers.

     The media's bias stems more from ignorance and hazy
 Anglophilia than from conspiratorial intent.  The result is
 nonetheless to promote an agenda that has less to do with
 furthering peace in Northern Ireland than with salving
 wounded British pride.
 
     Rational British policy would dictate jettisoning Northern
 Ireland.  But nations rarely act on a rational basis alone.
 Perhaps abandoning the final lump of empire is too bitter a
 pill for the British Establishment to swallow.  Instead,
 Britain attempts to keep violence at "acceptable" levels and
 presides over a "peace process" in which the principal
 antagonist -- the I.R.A. -- is not invited.  When such peace
 talks inevitably fail, Britain throws up its hands and hints
 at the ancient notion that the Irish cannot govern themselves.
 This perennial impasse has motivated the I.R.A. -- never
 known for its strategic thinking -- to launch a counter-
 productive campaign on the mainland, which has only stiffened
 British resolve to stay the course, undefinable though that
 may be.

     Irish indignation at I.R.A. atrocities is heartfelt.  And
 Ireland must face its history of violence and victimhood if
 Catholic-Protestant peace is ever to be possible.  But that
 process must not obscure a central fact: British policy
 created and feeds the cycle of hatred and killing in which
 the Irish and British remain trapped.
                              [end of article]

    re.20
    
    An excellent article. The author shows a greater understanding of the
    situation than a lot of Irish and English people.
    
    Please keep the next few entries free so that the usual people can come
    in and accuse the author of being an IRA supporter and/or a regular
    contributor to NORAID.
    

     
     What the author in .20 is saying is that he knows better than the Irish 
     who took part in the procession.
     
     Incidently, "Make Me A Channel Of Your Peace" is not a "Catholic hymn". 
     It is, in fact, a piece written by St. Francis of Assissi (sp?) and is 
     sung by Protestants as well.
     
     
     Mark

    Actually, for once, I am not in bitter contention with Mr. Drotter, the
    author does show some rationality as regards this issue.  He does not
    come right out and try to justify the actions of the IRA, he even comes
    out and admits that they are counter-productive (at least to some
    extent).  The failure of his argument is a classic one however, and
    simple, he blames the actions of one group of individuals upon another
    group.  By the reasoning I perceive in his article, the IRA conduct
    their misguided and destructive operations because the British are
    making them do it.  It is the classic pseudo-psychological
    responsibility dodge, "it is not his fault, the poor boy has been
    forced to it by his environment."   Bulls**t.  Everyone has a choice
    and can control their actions.  Everyone has the choice to confront
    their feelings and their enemies rationally and responsibly, or
    irrationaly and childishly.  The IRA does not confront the situation
    rationally, they choose to act destructively instead of constructively
    and because they do, they fall under the pall of the ancient adage, "he
    who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."  Unfortunately, because the
    IRA hides amongst civilians and claim to speak for all Irish
    nationalists, they draw the reprocussions of their actions down on
    people who would rather be left out of it.  Frankly, the most rational
    thing to do here would probably be finding a leader for the Irish
    nationalists like Martin Luther King who accomplished great things
    without shedding blood, a man who did not try to kill his enemies, but
    to embrace them and teach them.  MLK was one of the most positive
    role models I can think of and should be taken at the heart of any
    movement for civil rights.   
    
    One quibble with the author of the article in discussion, it is not
    obvious that the most rational thing for Britain to do would be to
    jettison Northern Ireland since it is populated by citizens of the
    United Kingdom.  Also, considering the hardship that would spring up in
    the absence of the British economy propping up NI's, the sudden failure
    of services, and the sudden loss of stability would lead to troubles
    much worse than exist now.  I have no argument with phasing NI to home
    rule, even into union with the Republic of Ireland, but not without
    addressing the issue in terms of how it would affect the whole
    population, not just the nationalists and as long as it is done
    carefully so that economic collapse is not the result, or civil war.
    Yugoslavia lost the direction of the Soviet Union and is now in the
    midst of one of the most bitter civil wars in history, the same could
    happen in NI.

    Leaprechauns see the logic.
    
    Re. 24
    
    Yugoslavia was dumped by the USSR so now they are killing each other.
    
    NI would be the same if the UK did likewise.
    
    It takes two to tango.  Yugoslavia is over because it was never an
    entity in the first place.  It has been a shifting sand dune of nations
    going back to the time of the greek republics and beyond.  All
    stability in that region has been imposed by force from without. 
    We now observe the futility of all that "imposed" stability on our TV
    screens each evening.  Despite the horror of the balkans I somehow see
    a more lasting settlement emerging out of this in the next year or so.
    Its a brutal way to negotiate however.
    
    NI has only become a divided community in the last 150 years or so and
    that has been due entirely to UK policy in Ireland.  The sins of the
    past should be consigned to history but they won't.  100 Irish children
    have been killed "accidently" by British forces in the last 25 years.
    There have been few remembrances for those families either, and I am 
    absolutely sure that their grief is no greater or smaller than that of
    the other families who have suffered.
    
    This is an Irish problem first and foremost.  The UK must stop
    pretending that its trying to solve it in a British context.  There is
    a British dimension and it must be considered in the context of an 
    Irish solution in an Irish setting, not visa versa.  The UK should
    declare its interest in that and stop protecting the Unionist veto on
    everything by declaring that part of Ireland is British forever in the
    face of the overwhelming wishes of the vast majority of the Irish
    people.
    
    Snake hopes that some good can come from Warrington and other
    developments.
    

    Mr. Priestley,
    
    One could argue very easily that the British operations in Ireland
    are similarly as misguided and destructive as the IRA's.  Britain is
    maintaining an army to protect and prop up a government which practices
    open discrimination in the areas of jobs, housing, and education
    (churches involved in this latter one too).
    
    In any case if these discriminatory practices were not present, you
    would find less support for the IRA.  Read my previous note about Shorts
    and you will find that the British committment to fair employment in NI
    is poor at best.
    
    Role models are important.  There would be more role models for
    Catholics in NI if there were less discrimination.  The cycle of violence
    and despair *can* be broken with a little effort...
    
    /George                                            

    
    Re: .20
    
    > In the American media's presentation, the rally bore none of
    >this agonized complexity.  Instead, the rally and the bomb
    >attack that killed two English children last month have been
    >used to support a particular political view of the conflict:
    >Those who oppose British rule are fanatics rejected by their
    >own people.  And British policy in Northern Ireland is
    >inherently reasonable.
    
    An interesting article but I had a distinctly different view of 
    the US media coverage.  I came away with no sense that there was
    an intention to paint the British government as blameless in the
    whole affair.
    
    My perception of the rally from that newscast was that the rally was
    not about politics per se, but was simply a plea to stop using violence
    as a method to achieve political aims.
    
    
    Steve
    

    The argument could be made that Britain has not been blameless and made
    well, but that is not really my point; my point is that some people
    seem terribly willing to tsk, tsk, tsk at the IRA's atrocities saying,
    "Sure it was a terrible thing the lads have done, but they couldn't help
    themselves, could they? What with all the oppression thats been brought
    down on 'em by the evil British Imperialists, they can hardly help
    themselves for they've gone half-mad with anger."   Too much people
    have said "They can't help themselves."  Too much people use the excuse
    that others drive them to their crimes.  People make choices for
    themselves for good or ill and must learn to live with those decisions. 
    A person chooses to act in evil or in good, if the person truly has the
    common good in mind, they will always strive to stand the higher
    ground,  If the person's motives are clouded by the less than noble,
    then they will act in a fashion intended to grab attention,
    grandstanding, ranting, raving, and doing whatever it takes to get
    attention for themselves rather than taking productive steps toward
    resolution, regardless of danger.  To stand with arms held out wide,
    hands empty of weapons, despite the animosity of others is ultimate
    courage, Martin Luther King taught that and so did one other whose
    death is commemorated today.   No the British are no innocent lambs,
    but neither are the IRA and no amount of "the devil made me do it,"
    protestations are going to change that.  There have been those whose
    words could have commanded terrible strife or instant death to nations
    or even worlds, but they withheld and stayed on the path of peace,
    because that was the right way.  There are two I have in mind and both
    died for their beliefs, but the contributions of both have lived on in
    the first case for two thousand years, in the second, for twenty-four.
    Think on it.
    
    Andrew
    

    Speaking of international media coverage....Aussie TV covered the service
    in Warrington that the Irish president attended. They didn't mention if
    the Queen was going to pay a visit to Castlerock for a similar service
    for the men killed in the same week.
    

    Anyone in the US see the film about Derry on PBS last night? I believe
    it was entitled "2 Sons of Derry" - and described how 2 men (Paddy and
    Glenn) tried to bring jobs to the youth of Derry.

       It is indeed sad to note that after all these years, and so many
   inclusively bitter moments, we are still at odds over "the size of
   the table".  I had the very personal, and highly disturbing experience
   of witnessing a similar form of "diplomacy" at work during the
   end stages of the Vietnam conflict.  The correctness, or timing of
   a specific 'political initiative' made my friends, or enemies no
   less dead.  Perhaps the most dificult phase of negotiation is that
   which presumes a degree of mutual integrity, respect, and honesty.
   This may well be why, historically, such 'tender ministrations' are
   rarely left to the combattants.  The blunt truth of N.I. is that
   until such time as the 'actual' participants come to terms with the
   necessity of engaging each other in dialogue, we will all be beset
   with the repetitive drumbeat of continued violence, regardless of
   origin, or strategy.  It is not enought to agree to "talks about
   more talks".  It is not enough to practise the "politics of exclusion".
   It is not enough to insist upon the "absolutism of the Unionist Veto".
   These are all nothing more that feeble excuses, crafted only to prevent
   any real conflict resolution.  You MUST speak to your primary, specific 
   antagonist.  Anything less is, at best self-delusion, and at worst
   outright deceit.  Put down your rocks, put down your placards, put
   down your slogans...and for everyone's sake...speak to each other.
    
        It is long past time for HMG to behave in a fashion unlike that
    of a parent attempting to punish a wayward child.  Without respect,
    there can be no dialogue.  Without direct dialogue, there can be
    NO peace.  Remember, it is not necessary to grant approval in order
    to respect the absolute necessity of their participation.
    
    
    \kevin                   

    Hey Kevin, you've been around here long enough to know the rules.....
    making sense is just unacceptable. Now cut it out!!!
    
                              Howard M.
                        

    
    Re: .31
    
    You are, of course, correct, but taking direct action like speaking
    to your antgonist might put an end to the conflict.  It is a mistake
    to assume that any and all persons making statements about wanting to
    end the violence, really want to.  They may well be employing lip
    service to one goal as part of a strategy for pursuing a very different
    one.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

    Fwiw,
    
    Have been read only untill now, but over the weekend I was in Holland
    and read a newspaper article on N.I. The journalist had travelled to
    N.I. and spoke to various victims. It shocked me, to read that
    'anti-social' behavior -as defined by the terrorists on both sides-
                                                            ====
    such as petty theft, joy-riding, hitting a member carries the sentence of 
    knee-capping.
    
    A minor was convicted for stealing lead/copper pipes by a court. On
    leaving the court he was approached and told "we'll call round when you
    turn 16". On the evening of his birthday he was taken out and shot in
    the knees and one ankle. He recovered from that, so he was 'done'
    again. 
    
    Men and woman are told to be somewhere at the certain time to get
    knee-capped; they show up because they know the sentence might
    otherwise be more severe.
    
    The doctors in N.I. are the worlds leading experts on these injuries.
    Often, the ambulance services are called 'in advance' (it takes some
    10-15 minutes to arrive). In one incident, the ambulance was too early;
    it got flagged down and told to wait a second. The ambulance men could
    here the shots and were waived though.
    
    It is done by both sides and it is *SICK*!
    
    Fwiw, just wanted to express my DISGUST.
    Leon

    
    Re: .34
    
    This just goes to show that being the watch-dogs of what is right and
    just is just an excuse that they use to justify these acts and serves
    to hide the real reason why they do it.  They do it because they like
    it.  You are right. They are sick acts being committed by sick people
    for sick reasons.
    
    Steve
    

RALLY CROWD 'SPAT' ON PICTURE OF TEENAGE PLASTIC BULLET VICTIM
by Conor Macauley
Irish Times, Belfast. March 31, 1993

Relatives of children killed by the security forces in Northern
Ireland were abused and spat upon at a peace rally in Dublin, it
emerged yesterday.

A dozen people, whose sons and daughters have died at the hands
of  the RUC and British soldiers went to Sunday's peace protest
outside the GPO.

But s they and about 20 supporters joined the 10,000 strong
demonstration some of the crowd accused them of being IRA
sympathizers whose presence defiled the rally.

They were jostled and a placard bearing the picture of plastic
bullet victim Julie Livingstone--a 14 year old girl killed in
1981--was spat on. 

Mrs. Kathleen Duffy, whose son Seamus was killed by  a plastic
bullet in 1989, said they had been treated with 'contempt'. "We
were abused. We were treated with contempt. They asked us why we
were there on their day; they said we had no right to be there;
they shouted at us that we were IRA; they spat on Julie
Livingstone's photograph."

"Thanks be to God we went with dignity, and we walked away with
dignity."

In a statement issued last night, rally organizer Susan McHugh
expressed 'regret' at any 'unfriendliness' shown towards any
individuals or groups.

The families confirmed that one of the organizers left the
platform on Saturday to apologise. Street traders had given
flowers for their children's graves, they said.

The protest was organized in the wake of  the IRA bombing in
Warrington which killed four year old Jonathan Ball and Timothy
Parry (12). It called for and end to violence in the names of the
121 children killed in the trouble to date.

The Relatives for justice group, representing the families, asked
permission on Saturday for the parents to address the rally.
Spokeswoman Ann Bradley said it was refused on the grounds that
it might be seen as political and cause embarrassment to the
British government. Kathleen Duffy, the other relatives and Ann
Bradley all stressed that they were apolitical and opposed to all
murders.

They have sent sympathy letters to the Warrington bomb victims'
parents.

Mrs. Duffy said that while a lot of reactions had been adverse.
some had been sympathetic and emotional. But she said she could
not comprehend how somebody attending a peace rally could 'spit
on a fellow Irish person.'

While she supported the rally's sentiments, she said she could
not understand why, with chidden dying regularly in Northern
Ireland, it had taken the murder of two English children to
mobilize Irish public opinion.



*******************************************************************************

  Mark Holohan, DEC, USA        "Character is what you are in the dark" - BB
  holohan@mark.enet.dec.com
  
  The opinions expressed are not necessarily the opinions of 
  Digital Equipment Corporation.

*******************************************************************************

    -1
>Ireland, it had taken the murder of two English children to
>mobilize Irish public opinion.
    
    The only other time I've seen people in Dublin care enough about what
    happens in NE Ireland was Bloody Sunday. Since then they just shrug
    their shoulders and seem to say "Not our problem" whenever someone gets
    killed. They don't care as long as it's contained within the 6
    counties. It's only when the 'trouble' spills across to England that
    people sit up and take notice. I think the problem is that to a lot of
    people in the Republic the problems in NI are only as real as the
    problems in, say, Bosnia, i.e. they know it's happening - but it's 
    happening to someone else a long, long way away !
    

    Re Spitting on picture, abuse etc.
    
    This is going to help the peace along isn't it. Let us hope that this
    is a once off incedent. 
    
    Simon

Pulled from usenet:  Entered by Eugene McElroy

Relatives in Peace Rally Assault 'Moved' By Support
(From the Irish People, May 29, 1993)

Eighty thousand signatures have been collected in southern
Ireland is support of a group who were abused and spat upon
at a Dublin peace rally. Books of condolences were opened after
the group from northern Ireland, whose children had been killed
by British forces, were jostled by a section of the 10,000
strong crowd.

The rally, organized by Dubliner Susan McHugh in the wake of
the IRA's Warrington attack, heard calls for an end to the
violence in the names of the 121 child victims of the troubles.
As the 10,000 strong crowd was addressed outside the GPO, however, some
bystanders turned on the families, accusing them
of being IRA sympathizers whose presence defiled the march.

The relatives were assaulted, and a placard bearing a picture
of plastic-bullet victim Julie Livingston--a 14 year old girl
killed in 1981--was spat on. Ms. McHugh later expressed regret
at the incident.

Persons disgusted by the reception of the relatives of victims
of British violence in the north had set up the books of
condolences outside the GPO the following week. The 80,000
signatures were collected in six days. Anne Bradley of Relatives
for Justice, one of  those abuses at the rally, said that she
was "moved and surprised" at the support. "I want to say on
behalf of all the people of the North that I know for a fact
that these signatures will really be appreciated and accepted,
especially by the mothers who were rejected, because the incident made them
feel as if their children didn't count. 
Now I realize that it was a very, very small minority of people
who spat on us and turned their backs on us."

The signatures will now be sent to the families of six Catholics
murdered in Northern Ireland within four days of  the
Warrington attack, but whose deaths were ignored.

At a press conference in Belfast, Nora Comiskey, who helped
collect the signatures, accused some persons of having
a 'hypocritical' attitude to deaths in the North. "If one
person is killed in England it would seem that thirty people
 would have to be killed in northeast Ireland to cause as
much sympathy. We thought the reception the relatives 
received was dreadful."

Bernadette Ni Rodaigh commented, "People were quite right to
have sympathy for the victims in Warrington, but I felt
that people were unaware of what was happening a few miles
up the road from Dublin. I decided to stand at the GPO to
show that we cared for the people of our country as well
as for the victims in another country." 



*******************************************************************************

  Mark Holohan, DEC, USA        "Character is what you are in the dark" - BB
  holohan@mark.enet.dec.com
  
  The opinions expressed are not necessarily the opinions of 
  Digital Equipment Corporation.

*******************************************************************************

                 Creating a Massacre (The Nation, May 1993)

World reaction to Bloody Sunday, when British paratroopers murdered 13
civilians in Derry, forced the British to create and "IRA" massacre to
counterbalance their bad press.  And so we had "Bloody Friday", 21 July
1972, when nine people were killed and some 130 injured by bombs for
which the IRA accepted responsibility.  The British claimed no warnings
had been given.  This was challenged in a London Sunday Times article,
7/30/72, entitled "Mystery of Bloody Friday's Lost Warnings."  The
Public Protection Agency, the Samaritans and the Irish News confirmed
that they had received warnings and had passed them on to the army.
Conflicting claims were made after the Warrington bombs, police saying
that only one vague warning had been given, and the IRA claiming that
coded warnings giving the exact locations and allowing 30 minutes for
clearing the target areas had been sent to two independent sources.  One
must assume that all such calls are taped.  The truth can be ascertained
if the Samaritans made the tape of the warning they received available
for checking by a competent neutral source.

My mother-in-law is a Samaritan volunteer.  They do *not* tape-record 
telephone conversations.   This is because they wish people to feel that they 
are speaking in the strictest confidence with absolutely to fear of 
repercussion.  


As an aside - even if the IRA had given a warning - does that excuse 
their actions and make them any less evil ? I don't think so.


Mark

 re. .41
 Given the facts that the British authorities have
 been caught in the past lying about the warnings,
 do you think it's possible they sat on this one?
 I guess we'll never know.

 As an aside - if the IRA had given an appropriate 
 warning, does that excuse the British police for
 their non-action on the warning, or make the British
 authorities any less evil?  I don't think so.

 Cut's both ways doesn't it.
   
 Mark

S'funny. I could have sworn I asked a question there.  

If indeed tha UK authorities sat on the warning, then yes they are both 
evil and stupid.  Evil cos it results in the IRA causing even more 
heartbreak. and stupid because the IRA are, quite rightly, considered scum
anyway.  Letting them claim another innocent victim doesn't lower their ratings
simply because they cannot get any lower.

I've answered your question Mark - you try mine now.  


Cheers....Mark R.

    If the IRA were that concerned that their warnings are known about,
    they'd warn a third party too, like say, a TV station.
    
    Laurie.

    Let me see if I am following this line of reasoning correctly, is this
    what you are trying to say:
    
    IRA plant bomb
    IRA phone warning - this means they have done nothing wrong because
    they have let somebody know that a bomb will be going off.  If someone
    gets killed by the bomb it is not the IRA's fault because they
    telephoned through a warning.
    
    Warning is vague/warning is accurate (nobody in this notesfile knows
    the truth about the warning), police fail to clear the area before the
    bomb explodes.  All casualties are the fault of the police.
    
    What a load of IRA propaganda.
    
    The bottom line is : If anybody plants a bomb and it injures or kills
    anybody it is solely the fault of the people who planted the bomb.
    
    		Brian

    My previous entry was a reply to .42
    
    
    		Brian

.45>    anybody it is solely the fault of the people who planted the bom
                      ======
    
    So you're saying that if the police know of an impending bombing and
    don't alert civilians then it's ok.
    
    

    No, it is wrong of the police not to alert people IF they know
    something.
    
    However it is solely the fault of the people who planted the bomb if it
    explodes and injures or kills people.  If they didn't plant the bomb
    nobody would be hurt.
    
    		Brian