Re: Scenic areas in England
boris spider
"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-95B8DA.0...@news.newsguy.com...
> Hi everyone;
>
> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
> London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
> I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
> shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
> everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
> there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
> Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.
The most Central high point in London is the London Eye or Millenium
Wheel right on the river Thames. Although it costs �17 per adult.
http://www.londoneye.com/TicketsAndPrices/Flights/Default.aspx?promoType=fb
From there you could travel on a waterbus on the Thames to Greenwich which
not only has the Naval Hospital buildings but the Observatory with the
Greenwich meridian at the top of the hill and the view across London.
Plus shots on the river itself from the bus.
Parliament Hill which is part of Hampstead Heath is a recognised high point
and free.
The viewing galley at the top of the tower of Westminster Cathedral
(a 20th century Byzantine style redbrick Catholic Cathedral in Victoria not
to be confused with the Abbey) is quite high and pretty central and is
free AFAIAA and is open daily from 9.30am to 12.30pm, and from 1.00pm to 5.00pm.
http://www.westminstercathedral.org.uk/vinfo/vinfo_times.html
Access to many other tall vantage points in Central London has been ended
for reasons of "security".
For general enquiries about travelling in London and other information
you could try
uk.transport.london
boris
Deep Reset
"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-95B8DA.0...@news.newsguy.com...
> Hi everyone;
>
> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
> London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
> I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
> shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
> everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
> there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
> Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.
I think you should still be able to ascend St Paul's Cathedral in the City
of London. (stairs only)
Not far away is the somewhat shorter Monument (to the Great Fire of London),
near London Bridge.
Tate Modern Gallery on the South Bank opposite St Paul's has pretty good
views over the City and towards Westminster, though probably behind glass.
Tony Gartshore
sr...@comcast.net says...
> Hi everyone;
>
> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
> London, two days in Norwich,
This link should give you some idea of the city of Norwich..
http://www.tournorfolk.co.uk/norwich.html
I'd suggest wandering along the riverside paths..
The Norman cathedral is well worth a visit, you'll need a photography
permit but it only costs a couple of quid ( from memory). I don't know
if the tower is open to visitors but a quick email will find out..
BTW, the refectory is a great place for lunch.
The university campus is notable for it's brutalist style of concrete
architecture, but I don't know how random photographers would be
welcomed. If you are interested in art in general try the Sainsbury
Centre which is based at the Uni campus..
There is a regular bus service from the town centre.
Wherever you go an whatever you see I hope you enjoy your stay in the UK
and that the weather is in benevolent mood !
--
Tony.
Giovanni Drogo
> The viewing galley at the top of the tower of Westminster Cathedral
^^^^^^
can one cook there ? :-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nos...@mi.iasf.cnr.it is a newsreading account used by more persons to
avoid unwanted spam. Any mail returning to this address will be rejected.
Users can disclose their e-mail address in the article if they wish so.
Timmo
>
> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
> I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
> shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
> everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
> there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
> Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.
Maybe worth looking around TrekEarth and Flickr. You may get some ideas.
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Europe/United_Kingdom/England/London/
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Europe/United_Kingdom/England/Norfolk/
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Europe/United_Kingdom/England/Merseyside/
Paul Bartram
> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
> London...
> For example, are there any tall buildings where I can get access to the
> roof legally
> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
I haven't been back to England since I migrated to the South Seas in 1973,
but one place I remember in London that isn't on the main tourist route is
'The Monument' http://www.themonument.info/ near London Bridge. Only 61
metres high, but back in the 70's that was enough to give you a great view*,
plus a fair old work-out, as there is no lift, just a lot of stairs! I see
there is now a �3 admission fee, back then it was something like 5p, and
popular with city workers wanting to raise a sweat in their lunch hour.
* Still pretty good, judging from the panoramic camera shots on the site.
> Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.
Probably wise, given the traffic, price of petrol and the congestion
charges...
Paul
Chris H
<sr...@comcast.net> writes
>Hi everyone;
>
>I will be visiting England on a very brief stay.
From where? "Interesting" depends one what you used to.
> I will have two days in
>London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
All interesting cites photographically speaking
>I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
>newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
>shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
>everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot.
All of those cities have been photographed. However there is lots of
interesting stuff.
> For example, is
>there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
>where I can shoot some interesting photos,
"Everyone" does that.
> or some unique parks, etc.?
The buildings are unique too
>Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.
OK for London not so good for Norwich better in Liverpool
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
congokid
<bori...@gmail.com> writes
>Access to many other tall vantage points in Central London has been ended
>for reasons of "security".
Yet the observation decks on the Empire State building managed to remain
open to the public, even in the aftermath of 9/11 when feelings about
'security' were probably at an all time high.
I think the reasons in London are more to do with 'couldn't be arsed'.
A couple more central but not particularly high points here - Monument
(steps only) and Tower Bridge walkway (there's a lift). You can get a
ticket that covers entry to both of them.
--
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com
Martin Brown
> Hi everyone;
>
> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
> shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
I would second "Monument" as a slightly off the beaten track high
vantage point in London (bit of a climb). London Eye is fun too.
Nobody seems to have put in a good word for Liverpool so here goes:
http://www.albertdock.com/
Is a bit touristy, but has some good exhibits and the nearby waterfront
is a heritage site. You can get a ferry across the Mersey to see it too.
They also have two very impressive modern cathedrals and various
museums, and a fair number of impressive old buildings...
London's Kew gardens is worth a visit if you are interested in plant
photography (although a bit of a trek out of London). There are lots of
small museums off the beaten track so if you give some idea of what your
photographic interests are then other suggestions are possible.
If coming from abroad and intending to use UK rail travel check out the
best open train ticket deals for overseas visitors to make sure you
don't get stuffed by out privatised disconnected railway non-service.
You will pay a lot more to buy a ticket on the day than by prebooking.
As a tourist you probably want some flexibility *and* a decent price.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember "boris spider"
<bori...@gmail.com> saying something like:
>Access to many other tall vantage points in Central London has been ended
>for reasons of "security".
Indeed. When I was a lad I was up the Post Office Tower, but it was shut
to the public just a few years later because of the fucking IRA.
What a waste.
Chris H
Curmudgeon <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> writes
You mean there was terrorism before 9/11/2001?
I will not say If I have been up the PO Tower as it would date me
somewhat :-)
There is a lot of paranoia about terrorism. Most of it unfounded.
I think V for Vendetta and 1984 may become mainstream rather than cult
films.
John McWilliams
> In message <o1c0059k4js2a9fii...@4ax.com>, Grimly
> Curmudgeon <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> writes
>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>> drugs began to take hold. I remember "boris spider"
>> <bori...@gmail.com> saying something like:
>>
>>> Access to many other tall vantage points in Central London has been ended
>>> for reasons of "security".
>>
>> Indeed. When I was a lad I was up the Post Office Tower, but it was shut
>> to the public just a few years later because of the fucking IRA.
>> What a waste.
>
> You mean there was terrorism before 9/11/2001?
>
> I will not say If I have been up the PO Tower as it would date me
> somewhat :-)
>
> There is a lot of paranoia about terrorism. Most of it unfounded.
I am curious as to what might constitute founded paranoia! Can you give
an example or two?
--
John McWilliams
Chris Malcolm
I used to spend hours up there with a pair of big binoculars. I recall
that the high speed accelerating lifts were quite exciting too :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> Hi everyone;
> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
> London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
> I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
> shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
> everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
> there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
> Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.
Most people go to high places to shoot views. If you want something
different walk along the shores of the sea/rivers, or take boat
trips. Both scenic plus lots of interesting close detail, old dying
buildings alongside some of the most modern architecture.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris H
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>In rec.photo.digital Grimly Curmudgeon <grimly...@removegmail.com> wrote:
>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>> drugs began to take hold. I remember "boris spider"
>> <bori...@gmail.com> saying something like:
>
>>>Access to many other tall vantage points in Central London has been ended
>>>for reasons of "security".
>
>> Indeed. When I was a lad I was up the Post Office Tower, but it was shut
>> to the public just a few years later because of the fucking IRA.
>> What a waste.
>
>I used to spend hours up there with a pair of big binoculars.
Clearly a terrorist :-)
> I recall
>that the high speed accelerating lifts were quite exciting too :-)
Hmmmm... so did I but then I discovered girls :-)))))
John Geddes
% on public transportation.
>
> Most people go to high places to shoot views. If you want something
> different walk along the shores of the sea/rivers, or take boat
> trips.
Eg Manchester Ship Canal Cruise (Liverpool to Salford nr Manchester or
vv; return bus included) - only a few trips each month, but could be
interesting if your dates did fit.
John Geddes
Jack Campin - bogus address
> London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
> I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
> shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
> everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
> there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
In London:
- inside Fortnum & Mason's
- Petticoat Lane market
- the Olympic construction site
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
****** I killfile Google posts - email me if you want to be whitelisted ******
Alan S
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> There is a lot of paranoia about terrorism. Most of it unfounded.
>
>I am curious as to what might constitute founded paranoia! Can you give
>an example or two?
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvs4bOMv5Xw
Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com
Latest: Jordan, City and Country
Paul Bartram
"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote
> Indeed. When I was a lad I was up the Post Office Tower, but it was shut
> to the public just a few years later...
I did a charity run up that thing when I was a teenager. Talk about
knackered!
Wikipedia mentions that there was an IRA bomb in the restaurant in 1971, but
it was finally closed to the public in 1981, with the end of the lease by
Butlins (the holiday camp people.) Amazing that the whole thing only cost
�2.5 million - you couldn't build a decent sized mansion for that today!
Paul
Paul Bartram
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote
> I used to spend hours up there with a pair of big binoculars. I recall
> that the high speed accelerating lifts were quite exciting too :-)
Not half a scary as the lifts in the World Trade Centre, which each went
about half way up the 100 stories (you had to get out at 50 and change to
another lift). They bounced up and down when they stopped, quite unsettling.
Paul
John McWilliams
> On Tue, 05 May 2009 06:59:26 -0700, John McWilliams
> <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> There is a lot of paranoia about terrorism. Most of it unfounded.
>> I am curious as to what might constitute founded paranoia! Can you give
>> an example or two?
>
> Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvs4bOMv5Xw
>
Ooooomph.... rim shot, ta daa!
Nice one.
--
john mcwilliams
bar...@barnabypage.com
> Hi everyone;
>
> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
> London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
> I am an avid amateur photographer. I am wondering if anyone on this
> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
> shoot some interesting photographs, but that are not like the ones
> everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
> there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
I'm not sure what the highest point open to the public is in Norwich
but you can get pretty good views from around the castle. I don't know
offhand if you can go on the roof, which probably is the highest point
in the city. There are also very good streetscape/roofscape views over
the market place - try the bike racks next to St. Peter Mancroft or
maybe the steps of City Hall as a vantage point.
Check out Heigham Park and the wilder Mousehold Heath.
The University of East Anglia, as someone else has mentioned, has an
eclectic array of interesting buildings from the 60s onwards. You can
roam the campus freely.
If you're into interiors, you must visit the Edwardian Norwich Union
building on Surrey Street with its "marble hall", one of the best-kept
secrets of Norwich. They welcome visitors and I imagine photography is
okay if you ask.
For industrial dereliction mixed with medieval remnants, wander along
King Street away from the city centre. The river in the other
direction (the other side of Prince of Wales Road) is also photogenic
in a much prettier way.
You won't really need much in the way of public transport in Norwich -
the centre is entirely walkable. The university is a bit of a trek out
but there's a regular bus service.
Chris Malcolm
Martin Luther King thinking assassins were plotting to kill him.
--
Chris Malcolm
Mike
wrote:
> I am wondering if anyone on this
>newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
>shoot some interesting photographs,
try some of the street markets, Borough is the trendy one. The balcony
of Tate Modern is a good viewpoint, the London Eye isn't as its all
glazed in.
--
Mike
Mike
>>Indeed. When I was a lad I was up the Post Office Tower, but it was shut
>>to the public just a few years later because of the fucking IRA.
>>What a waste.
>
>You mean there was terrorism before 9/11/2001?
yes, on 11/9/2001 and many dates before that outside of US, much of
the London attacks being funded by Americans via NORAID. AS London
bombs have tended to be set off by individuals carrying them in, its
not so surprising some places like major communications centres have
security issues.
--
Mike
Chris H
<rub...@live.com> writes
>On Tue, 5 May 2009 13:38:51 +0100, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>>>Indeed. When I was a lad I was up the Post Office Tower, but it was shut
>>>to the public just a few years later because of the fucking IRA.
>>>What a waste.
>>
>>You mean there was terrorism before 9/11/2001?
>
>yes, on 11/9/2001 and many dates before that
Really? Was that WW2?
> outside of US,
I see so it wasn't REAL Terrorism (Tm) that threatens civilisation and
American Voters.
>much of
>the London attacks being funded by Americans via NORAID.
Clearly a doubleplusungood untruth as the Americans are our friends.
>AS London
>bombs have tended to be set off by individuals carrying them in, its
>not so surprising some places like major communications centres have
>security issues.
They are easy to spot though as all terrorists have beards, turbans,
brown skin and sandals
John McWilliams
I submit, then, that that's not paranoia.
--
john mcwilliams
bar...@barnabypage.com
> Hi everyone;
>
> I will be visiting England on a very brief stay. I will have two days in
> London, two days in Norwich, and two days in Liverpool early next month.
> newsgroup can suggest areas of those three cities where I can go to
> everyone else who visits those areas is likely to shoot. For example, is
> there any tall buildings where I can get access to the roof legally
> where I can shoot some interesting photos, or some unique parks, etc.?
> Note that I will be relying 100% on public transportation.
Just thought - another interesting choice in Norwich would be the
Plantation Garden. http://www.plantationgarden.co.uk/
Grimly Curmudgeon
NEAR lizzy.com.au> saying something like:
> Amazing that the whole thing only cost
>�2.5 million - you couldn't build a decent sized mansion for that today!
Puts it in perspective somewhat. A Great Train Robber today would have
to heist the equivalent of putting up another PO tower - about what,
half a billion?
Alan S
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>They are easy to spot though as all terrorists have beards, turbans,
>brown skin and sandals
and speak with Belfast accents...
indecent conduct and unnatural acts
> On Wed, 6 May 2009 13:59:15 +0100, Chris H
>
> <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
> >They are easy to spot though as all terrorists have beards, turbans,
> >brown skin and sandals
>
> and speak with Belfast accents...
>
> Cheers, Alan, Australia
> Latest: Jordan, City and Country
*real* terrorists blow themselves up......
Chris Malcolm
Ah! So like most psychiatrists, your diagnosis of paranoia can change
when the state of mind does not change but the world changes. I find
that a very unsatisfactory definition, despite its popularity. It
means that a secure diagnosis requires not only a psychiatrist but a
detective.
--
Chris Malcolm
Paul Bartram
"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote
> You mean there was terrorism before 9/11/2001?
I was nearby when an IRA car bomb went off outside The Old Bailey in central
London - it rattled the windows of our building nearly a mile away. That was
1973.
http://prints.paphotos.com/pictures_675862/OLD-BAILEY-BOMB-LONDON-1973.html
I vividly remember the green-tinted gouges in the sandstone wall of the
court building (the car was green) and -as you can see in the photo on that
page - ALL the windows on the office block opposite were blown out, even the
ones on the other side. Casualties were light because the police had a
warning, and were able to evacuate the area.
Paul
Chris H
Bartram <paul.b...@AT.OR.invalid> writes
>
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote
>
>> You mean there was terrorism before 9/11/2001?
>
>I was nearby when an IRA car bomb
Is that a Branch of Al-qeada? (All terrorists ultimately belong to Al-
Queda.)
>went off outside The Old Bailey in central
>London - it rattled the windows of our building nearly a mile away. That was
>1973.
>http://prints.paphotos.com/pictures_675862/OLD-BAILEY-BOMB-LONDON-1973.html
Ironically this was about the time when the USA were not only permitting
NORAID to fund these terrorists but also funding anti-Russian Islamic
groups like the Taliban and Al-Qeada.... despite SIS and SAS warnings
that it would backfire on the west.
>I vividly remember the green-tinted gouges in the sandstone wall of the
>court building (the car was green) and -as you can see in the photo on that
>page - ALL the windows on the office block opposite were blown out, even the
>ones on the other side. Casualties were light because the police had a
>warning, and were able to evacuate the area.
I recall a day in London where there were 4 bomb alerts in one day. I
forget how many were real. I think only one went off and the others
were dismantled.
Mike Lane
Surely the term 'paranoia' implies that the belief is irrational and has no
foundation in reality. A totally rational belief based on evidence, that
people are trying to kill you, cannot be regarded as paranoia. Can it?
--
Mike Lane
UK North Yorkshire
Chris H
Lane <inv...@mac.com> writes
>Chris Malcolm wrote on May 7, 2009:
>
>> In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>> In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> I am curious as to what might constitute founded paranoia! Can you give
>>>>> an example or two?
>>>>
>>>> Martin Luther King thinking assassins were plotting to kill him.
>>
>>> I submit, then, that that's not paranoia.
>>
>> Ah! So like most psychiatrists, your diagnosis of paranoia can change
>> when the state of mind does not change but the world changes. I find
>> that a very unsatisfactory definition, despite its popularity. It
>> means that a secure diagnosis requires not only a psychiatrist but a
>> detective.
>>
>Surely the term 'paranoia' implies that the belief is irrational and has no
>foundation in reality.
Yes.
> A totally rational belief based on evidence, that
>people are trying to kill you, cannot be regarded as paranoia. Can it?
Yes.
To the paranoid whilst no one is out to get them they can create
"rational" evidence that some one is. Define "rational".... (and
"reasonable" whilst you are at it. I have had experience of this with
some one who is bi-polar.
People who really are being stalked when presenting real factual
evidence can sound paranoid and may not be believed.
A paranoid person may, based on some irrational evidence, think people
are out to kill them when in fact people are out to kill them but for a
different completely rational set of motives.
What the target feels and believes is very different to what the killer
feels and believes.
This can also be very different to
a What the government/establishment feels and believes
b What the government/establisment tells the public.
A and b may be mutually exclusive points of view.
John McWilliams
In short, you're admitting that the example of Dr. King being paranoid
was wrong.
--
lsmft
tony cooper
>Ironically this was about the time when the USA were not only permitting
>NORAID to fund these terrorists but also funding anti-Russian Islamic
>groups like the Taliban and Al-Qeada.... despite SIS and SAS warnings
>that it would backfire on the west.
>
The Americans who donated to NORAID were doing so as private
individuals. I remember the can-shakers in the Irish bars in Chicago.
The east coast cities with a high population of Americans of Irish
descent were the prime areas for donation collection, though.
There were no government controls over private individual donations to
charities, but it wasn't a matter of the US government "permitting"
donations. There wasn't the concept, then, of a ban on supporting
organizations with ties to terrorist organizations. It wasn't until
1981 that the government even became involved, and that was when they
pushed a court case requiring the Provisional IRA to register as a
foreign principal. That was about the same time that the UK got
around to banning Martin Galvin from the country.
Americans were very naive about the IRA and the Provos. They thought
that their donations went to families of Irish victims of the troubles
and to families of Irish political prisoners. That was true to some
extent, but what was not recognized was that the money was funneled to
the terrorist splinter groups for arms purchases. It also allowed the
IRA to use the funds they raised for arms purchases. Without the
donations, the IRA would have had to deplete their own budget. The
American donations, then, went to arms purchases ipso facto even when
the money wasn't actually spent on arms. And, some was.
Americans never understood the IRA. The IRA maintained that they were
a political organization and not a terrorist organization. They
denied all ties to the various splinter groups (PIRA, NIRA, and the
like) that were the terrorists. Patently not true, of course, but we
didn't know any better. Americans were led to believe that the SAS
were terrorists because of their tactics.
While the conclusion that "the US" supported the terrorists through
donations to NORAID is undeniably true in some respects, do try to
understand that - in this case - it is a statement about private
individuals and not the government.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Keith Anderson
> A totally rational belief based on evidence, that
>people are trying to kill you, cannot be regarded as paranoia. Can it?
Hey, Mike, you werry rational person. No, we no try to keel you. No,
not at all. We know you have werry nice car an' you no like using bus.
Ees werry true. You no want notting bad to happen to your car? OK, ees
good. We unnerstand. Send us da money to usual place, an' notting
happen to car. Werry seemple, my fren'. But no money, denn maybe de
car explode one day by acceedent, an' maybe denn we keel you. Maybe.
Or re-arrange face. Or someteeng.
In meantime, don' worry.
Keith (formerly of Bristol UK)
now moved to Berlin/nach Berlin umgezogen
J. Clarke
I believe that this has been expressed more succinctly as "Just because I'm
paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get me".
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Thu, 7 May 2009 09:04:05 +0100, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>>Ironically this was about the time when the USA were not only permitting
>>NORAID to fund these terrorists but also funding anti-Russian Islamic
>>groups like the Taliban and Al-Qeada.... despite SIS and SAS warnings
>>that it would backfire on the west.
>>
>
>The Americans who donated to NORAID were doing so as private
>individuals.
And the organisation was permitted to fund raise by the US authorities.
I bet you don't let Al-Qeada do it.
>There were no government controls over private individual donations to
>charities, but it wasn't a matter of the US government "permitting"
>donations. There wasn't the concept, then, of a ban on supporting
>organizations with ties to terrorist organizations.
Yes there was.
>Americans were very naive about the IRA and the Provos.
Yes. VERY. Though American understanding of any culture than their own
has not improved.
> They thought
>that their donations went to families of Irish victims of the troubles
>and to families of Irish political prisoners.
Yeah right..
> That was true to some
>extent, but what was not recognized was that the money was funneled to
>the terrorist splinter groups for arms purchases. It also allowed the
>IRA to use the funds they raised for arms purchases. Without the
>donations, the IRA would have had to deplete their own budget. The
>American donations, then, went to arms purchases ipso facto even when
>the money wasn't actually spent on arms. And, some was.
Yes. I Know as did the US administration
>Americans never understood the IRA.
Still don't
> The IRA maintained that they were
>a political organization and not a terrorist organization.
The US seems to have trouble with reality in general
> They
>denied all ties to the various splinter groups (PIRA,
The IRA were not around in the time you are discussing they went away a
long time before. It was the PIRA that was active in the 70's -90's.
Most poorly informed people refer to the IAR when they mean PIRA
> NIRA, and the
>like) that were the terrorists. Patently not true, of course, but we
>didn't know any better. Americans were led to believe that the SAS
>were terrorists because of their tactics.
I can't seem much has changed in the Average American's understanding of
anywhere outside the USA. I have just got back from dinner with some one
who has just done 4 years in Iraq. His view of the US makes mine look
charitable.
>While the conclusion that "the US" supported the terrorists through
>donations to NORAID is undeniably true in some respects,
Most respects.
> do try to
>understand that - in this case - it is a statement about private
>individuals and not the government.
Made by individuals and permitted by the government.
tony cooper
>In message <q8p5059gdaqo2a3qp...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Thu, 7 May 2009 09:04:05 +0100, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Ironically this was about the time when the USA were not only permitting
>>>NORAID to fund these terrorists but also funding anti-Russian Islamic
>>>groups like the Taliban and Al-Qeada.... despite SIS and SAS warnings
>>>that it would backfire on the west.
>>>
>>
>>The Americans who donated to NORAID were doing so as private
>>individuals.
>
>And the organisation was permitted to fund raise by the US authorities.
>I bet you don't let Al-Qeada do it.
"Permitted" is really not a good word here. Anything is permissible
unless it is unlawful. The authorities could not do anything unless
there was a law involved.
Also, it was a different time. In the 70s and 80s, we allowed any
group to fund raise. Still do, for the most part. We have laws and
controls against active participation in terrorist organizations, but
little control over fund raising. The legal point is whether or not
the solicitation of funds can be proven to be active participation.
What laws were there in the UK in the 70s and 80s that prohibited fund
raising by organizations with ties to terrorism? If you are going to
claim laxity on our part, then show how you did better.
>
>>There were no government controls over private individual donations to
>>charities, but it wasn't a matter of the US government "permitting"
>>donations. There wasn't the concept, then, of a ban on supporting
>>organizations with ties to terrorist organizations.
>
>Yes there was.
Can you support your statement?
>
>>Americans never understood the IRA.
>
>Still don't
Y'all didn't manage that well either. How many years were you at it?
>Yes. VERY. Though American understanding of any culture than their own
>has not improved.
And the UK has done so well in Northern Ireland, India, Palestine,
Africa...
>> do try to
>>understand that - in this case - it is a statement about private
>>individuals and not the government.
>
>Made by individuals and permitted by the government.
And your government did it differently how?
Stormin Mormon
rights there, unless they decide you do. Please ask the
local folks what is permitted, so you don't get in trouble
with the law.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Shawn Hirn" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-95B8DA.0...@news.newsguy.com...
tony cooper
>> They
>>denied all ties to the various splinter groups (PIRA,
>
>The IRA were not around in the time you are discussing they went away a
>long time before. It was the PIRA that was active in the 70's -90's.
>Most poorly informed people refer to the IAR when they mean PIRA
The IRA never "went away". The Provos, The Real IRA, the Continuity
IRA, and the others are/were splinter groups that felt that the old
guard in the IRA were not militant enough. The major split was in
1969 when the Provisional IRA split from the "Official" IRA because
the "Official" IRA recognized the Parliament of Northern Ireland. The
"Official" IRA remained, though. Some members just wore new name
tags.
If you think the Stickies went away, read the CAIN report.
>I can't seem much has changed in the Average American's understanding of
>anywhere outside the USA. I have just got back from dinner with some one
>who has just done 4 years in Iraq. His view of the US makes mine look
>charitable.
Unless your friend was a tourist or summat, he went to Iraq because
his government sent him there. Just like our government sent those
average Americans that your friend dislikes so much. Doesn't seem
like your government understands things any better than ours.
Chris Malcolm
There's no problem distinguishing between people who are totally
rational and people who are completely deluded. The problem is that
most cases arise in an uncertain world of which we have imperfect
information, in which everyone is partly rational and partly deluded.
--
Chris Malcolm
tony cooper
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>The IRA were not around in the time you are discussing they went away a
>>long time before. It was the PIRA that was active in the 70's -90's.
>>Most poorly informed people refer to the IAR when they mean PIRA
>
>The IRA never "went away". The Provos, The Real IRA, the Continuity
>IRA, and the others are/were splinter groups that felt that the old
>guard in the IRA were not militant enough. The major split was in
>1969 when the Provisional IRA split from the "Official" IRA because
>the "Official" IRA recognized the Parliament of Northern Ireland. The
>"Official" IRA remained, though. Some members just wore new name
>tags.
>
>If you think the Stickies went away, read the CAIN report.
I should have provided a reference. Unlike Chris, I like to back-up
what I write. The CAIN report is at:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/csc/reports/facets.htm
In the CAIN report is the Sutton Index of Deaths. If you go to 1972,
for example, you'll see deaths caused by the OIRA (Official Irish
Republican Army). (Joan Lunn, Gerry Weston, etc.) Deaths caused by
members of an organization Chris says "went away" before that year.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1972.html
Mike
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Please remember that England is socialist.
ROFL
>You don't have
>rights there, unless they decide you do. Please ask the
>local folks what is permitted, so you don't get in trouble
>with the law.
idiot
>Learn more about Jesus
complete idiot!
--
Mike
Chris H
<rub...@live.com> writes
>On Thu, 7 May 2009 18:57:03 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
><cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Please remember that England is socialist.
>
>ROFL
I agree ROFL It has not been socialist in the last 20 years.
>>You don't have
>>rights there, unless they decide you do. Please ask the
>>local folks what is permitted, so you don't get in trouble
>>with the law.
>
>idiot
Quite so.
As I said Americans have absolutely no comprehension of anything outside
the USA In fact over 505 of their Representatives and Senators don't
have a passport and the majority that do have not got of the N American
Continent.
>>Learn more about Jesus
>complete idiot!
It is the three middle eastern religions that cause all the trouble in
the world.
Mike
>>>Please remember that England is socialist.
>>
>>ROFL
>
>I agree ROFL It has not been socialist in the last 20 years.
and has never had other than one party believing in socialist
principles and even then, more social democrat than communist,
something that seems to terrify Americans into not thinking.
>>>Learn more about Jesus
>>complete idiot!
>
>It is the three middle eastern religions that cause all the trouble in
>the world.
yep.
--
Mike
mikeos
>
>> Indeed. When I was a lad I was up the Post Office Tower, but it was shut
>> to the public just a few years later because of the fucking IRA.
>> What a waste.
>
Yes, largely funded from the USA.
Jack Campin - bogus address
>
> the London attacks being funded by Americans via NORAID.
Very little of the IRA's funding came from North America - about 10%,
of which only a fraction would have had anything to do with NORAID
(being a charity, they were audited). Most of their funds were raised
in Northern Ireland itself by protection racketeering.
The myth of American funding for the IRA was really convenient for
all sides. The IRA could claim they were getting international
backing and conceal the sleaziness of what they were actually doing
for money, the British government could claim this showed they didn't
have much domestic support, the green-beer-drinking American Plastic
Paddies could feel good about doing their bit when in fact they were
too stingy to make any difference at all, and the Orangemen could
blame it all on an international conspiracy coordinated by Old Red
Socks. Truth didn't get a look in.
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
****** I killfile Google posts - email me if you want to be whitelisted ******
Ron Hunter
> In message <s0s705dbn72ct5ij3...@4ax.com>, Mike
> <rub...@live.com> writes
>> On Thu, 7 May 2009 18:57:03 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
>> <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Please remember that England is socialist.
>> ROFL
>
> I agree ROFL It has not been socialist in the last 20 years.
>
>>> You don't have
>>> rights there, unless they decide you do. Please ask the
>>> local folks what is permitted, so you don't get in trouble
>>> with the law.
>> idiot
> Quite so.
> As I said Americans have absolutely no comprehension of anything outside
> the USA In fact over 505 of their Representatives and Senators don't
> have a passport and the majority that do have not got of the N American
> Continent.
>
I think you need to document that statement. I suspect you have it
reversed.
>>> Learn more about Jesus
>> complete idiot!
>
> It is the three middle eastern religions that cause all the trouble in
> the world.
>
Very largely true, and completely illogical, given that all three are
basically so similar.
Bob Larter
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> In message <o1c0059k4js2a9fii...@4ax.com>, Grimly
>>>> Curmudgeon <grimly...@REMOVEgmail.com> writes
>>>>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>>>>> drugs began to take hold. I remember "boris spider"
>>>>> <bori...@gmail.com> saying something like:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Access to many other tall vantage points in Central London has
>>>>>> been ended
>>>>>> for reasons of "security".
>>>>> shut
>>>>> to the public just a few years later because of the fucking IRA.
>>>>> What a waste.
>>>>
>>>> somewhat :-)
>>>>
>>>> There is a lot of paranoia about terrorism. Most of it unfounded.
>>
>>> give an example or two?
>>
>> Martin Luther King thinking assassins were plotting to kill him.
>
> I submit, then, that that's not paranoia.
"It's not paranoia if they really *are* out to get you!"
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
William Black
"Jack Campin - bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bogus-F1EE70....@news.albasani.net...
> Very little of the IRA's funding came from North America - about 10%,
> of which only a fraction would have had anything to do with NORAID
> (being a charity, they were audited). Most of their funds were raised
> in Northern Ireland itself by protection racketeering.
Almost all the guns came from the USA.
Almost all the explosives came from Libya.
Talk about an unholy alliance...
--
William Black
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.
Chris H
<rphu...@charter.net> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>> In message <s0s705dbn72ct5ij3...@4ax.com>, Mike
>> <rub...@live.com> writes
>>> On Thu, 7 May 2009 18:57:03 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
>>> <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please remember that England is socialist.
>>> ROFL
>> I agree ROFL It has not been socialist in the last 20 years.
>>
>>>> You don't have
>>>> rights there, unless they decide you do. Please ask the
>>>> local folks what is permitted, so you don't get in trouble
>>>> with the law.
>>> idiot
>> Quite so.
>> As I said Americans have absolutely no comprehension of anything outside
>> the USA In fact over 505 of their Representatives and Senators don't
>> have a passport and the majority that do have not got of the N American
>> Continent.
>>
>
>I think you need to document that statement. I suspect you have it
>reversed.
another NG and al the links and proofs were posted.
The number for the Senate was only marginally better. However the
majority of those passport holders had only been as far as Canada or
Mexico.
>
>>>> Learn more about Jesus
>>> complete idiot!
>> It is the three middle eastern religions that cause all the trouble
>>in
>> the world.
>>
>
>Very largely true, and completely illogical, given that all three are
>basically so similar.
And from the same root.
Bob Larter
> Please remember that England is socialist. You don't have
> rights there, unless they decide you do. Please ask the
> local folks what is permitted, so you don't get in trouble
> with the law.
Are you kidding? I can tell that you've never been to England!
J. Clarke
> In message <s0s705dbn72ct5ij3...@4ax.com>, Mike
> <rub...@live.com> writes
>> On Thu, 7 May 2009 18:57:03 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
>> <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Please remember that England is socialist.
>>
>> ROFL
>
> I agree ROFL It has not been socialist in the last 20 years.
>
>>> You don't have
>>> rights there, unless they decide you do. Please ask the
>>> local folks what is permitted, so you don't get in trouble
>>> with the law.
>>
>> idiot
> Quite so.
> As I said Americans have absolutely no comprehension of anything
> outside the USA In fact over 505 of their Representatives and
> Senators don't have a passport and the majority that do have not got
> of the N American Continent.
>
>>> Learn more about Jesus
>> complete idiot!
>
> It is the three middle eastern religions that cause all the trouble in
> the world.
So which one caused North Korea? Which one caused Darfur? Which one caused
the Somali pirates?
Chris H
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Jack Campin - bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bogus-F1EE70....@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Very little of the IRA's funding came from North America - about 10%,
>> of which only a fraction would have had anything to do with NORAID
>> (being a charity, they were audited). Most of their funds were raised
>> in Northern Ireland itself by protection racketeering.
>
>Almost all the guns came from the USA.
Not all.
>Almost all the explosives came from Libya.
Again not all..... but then again Libya was even handed and trained both
sides PIRA and UDA
>Talk about an unholy alliance...
The US trained the Taliban and AL-Qeada (despite being told at the time
by SIS it was a bad idea) Now that was an unholy alliance. It has since
backfired.
J. Clarke
> "Jack Campin - bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:bogus-F1EE70....@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Very little of the IRA's funding came from North America - about 10%,
>> of which only a fraction would have had anything to do with NORAID
>> (being a charity, they were audited). Most of their funds were
>> raised in Northern Ireland itself by protection racketeering.
>
> Almost all the guns came from the USA.
It's my understanding that most of the firearms owned by the IRA were
Kalashnikovs, which were not made in the US until after the "assault weapon"
ban prohibited imports in 1986. The American made versions are quite
expensive when compared to the Russian and Chinese versions (you used to be
able to get a Chinese AK for under a hundred bucks, retail--buying a case
lot from the wholesaler would be a lot cheaper). While there might have
been some US involvement, to say that almost all the guns originated in the
US requires more evidence than I've seen.
Mike
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>> It is the three middle eastern religions that cause all the trouble in
>> the world.
>
>So which one caused North Korea? Which one caused Darfur? Which one caused
>the Somali pirates?
not all trouble is caused by religion, but of the trouble caused by
religion, they are putting up a good show. All religions cause trouble
of course, as it gives people an extra reason to hate others.
--
Mike
Mike
wrote:
>> Please remember that England is socialist. You don't have
>> rights there, unless they decide you do. Please ask the
>> local folks what is permitted, so you don't get in trouble
>> with the law.
>
>Are you kidding? I can tell that you've never been to England!
He is probably thinking about his Christian need to bear arms, but you
are right, especially as he does not realize there is no such thing as
an "English" government to be socialist in the first place.
He probably say the word "socialist" attached to the Labour party and
panicked, it is of course as socialist as the German democratic
republic was democratic.
--
Mike
Ian F.
news:M90VZ8CGi$AKF...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> It is the three middle eastern religions that cause all the trouble in
> the world.
Basically, religious wars are just a load of people arguing over who has the
best imaginary friend.
Ian
tony cooper
>As I said Americans have absolutely no comprehension of anything outside
>the USA In fact over 505 of their Representatives and Senators don't
>have a passport and the majority that do have not got of the N American
>Continent.
Bullshit. There are a total of 100 US Senators and 435 US
Representatives, so your figure would mean that only 30 have a
passport and only 15 have been out of North America. All you have to
do is read a newspaper and see how many congressmen are on some sort
of fact-finding junket to know there are more than that. Common sense
would make you doubt the figure.
Here's an article reporting that 20 congressmen are visiting Egypt and
Syria on just one junket:
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=463407&publicationSubCategoryId=63
Since passports are good for 10 years, it's likely that your "source"
found that 30 *applied* for new passports during one year and the rest
were not counted because they *renewed" old passports. That would
make your 30 a reasonable figure.
There is no findable official source, but most sources claim that
something like 20 to 25% of all Americans have a passport. Since we
don't live in a little island where it requires a passport to travel
200 miles to some place it isn't raining, we have less interest in
having a passport.
You read some figure in a newsgroup, like it, and repeat it even
though there's no basis of truth to it. You have no credibility.
The problem is that some of your basic premises are spot on, but you
try to shore them up with false data and hyperbole.
Chris H
<wowfab...@googlemail.com> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:M90VZ8CGi$AKFAR0@p
>haedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
>> It is the three middle eastern religions that cause all the trouble in
>> the world.
>
>Basically, religious wars are just a load of people arguing over who
>has the best imaginary friend.
>
>Ian
Well the rest of them are.
Naturally I am in DIRECT contact with God (the only true God) and all
the others are completely wrong and it is a conspiracy of lies. God
told me so.
As a Real Man(Tm) in Contact with God only I can interpret his holy
words and any one else is WRONG and going to Purgatory/ Hell/ Disney
World etc.
To be loved by The One True God send your offerings in the form of
currency to........
William Black
> In message <gu11dc$dgp$1...@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>
>>"Jack Campin - bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:bogus-F1EE70....@news.albasani.net...
>>
>>> Very little of the IRA's funding came from North America - about 10%,
>>> of which only a fraction would have had anything to do with NORAID
>>> (being a charity, they were audited). Most of their funds were raised
>>> in Northern Ireland itself by protection racketeering.
>>
>>Almost all the guns came from the USA.
>
> Not all.
True.
But the .50 Barrat Rifles that did the killing came from the USA.
>>Almost all the explosives came from Libya.
>
> Again not all..... but then again Libya was even handed and trained both
> sides PIRA and UDA
Libya always was an equal oportunity trainer of murderous bastards.
> The US trained the Taliban and AL-Qeada (despite being told at the time
> by SIS it was a bad idea) Now that was an unholy alliance. It has since
> backfired.
Well no.
The Taliban is well post any US involvement.
William Black
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gu154...@news1.newsguy.com...
> William Black wrote:
>> "Jack Campin - bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:bogus-F1EE70....@news.albasani.net...
>>
>>> Very little of the IRA's funding came from North America - about 10%,
>>> of which only a fraction would have had anything to do with NORAID
>>> (being a charity, they were audited). Most of their funds were
>>> raised in Northern Ireland itself by protection racketeering.
>>
>> Almost all the guns came from the USA.
>
> It's my understanding that most of the firearms owned by the IRA were
> Kalashnikovs,
The guns that did the killing were almost all .50 cal specialist rifles of
US manufacture.
They were also very keen on CAR 15 rifles made by Colt.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
S Viemeister
> On Fri, 8 May 2009 10:16:54 +0100, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>> As I said Americans have absolutely no comprehension of anything outside
>> the USA In fact over 505 of their Representatives and Senators don't
>> have a passport and the majority that do have not got of the N American
>> Continent.
>
> Bullshit. There are a total of 100 US Senators and 435 US
> Representatives, so your figure would mean that only 30 have a
> passport and only 15 have been out of North America. All you have to
> do is read a newspaper and see how many congressmen are on some sort
> of fact-finding junket to know there are more than that. Common sense
> would make you doubt the figure.
>
>
write 50%, rather than 505? Easy to do, with both '5' and '%' on the
same key.
Chris H
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:5woIaXIx...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <gu11dc$dgp$1...@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>"Jack Campin - bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:bogus-F1EE70....@news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>>> Very little of the IRA's funding came from North America - about 10%,
>>>> of which only a fraction would have had anything to do with NORAID
>>>> (being a charity, they were audited). Most of their funds were raised
>>>> in Northern Ireland itself by protection racketeering.
>>>
>>>Almost all the guns came from the USA.
>>
>> Not all.
>
>True.
>
>But the .50 Barrat Rifles that did the killing came from the USA.
>
>>>Almost all the explosives came from Libya.
>>
>> Again not all..... but then again Libya was even handed and trained both
>> sides PIRA and UDA
>
>Libya always was an equal oportunity trainer of murderous bastards.
>
>> The US trained the Taliban and AL-Qeada (despite being told at the time
>> by SIS it was a bad idea) Now that was an unholy alliance. It has since
>> backfired.
>
>Well no.
Actually yes.
>The Taliban is well post any US involvement.
They and other groups were trained by the US and UK (in Scotland near
the old commando school)
The UK, AT THE TIME, did not want to train certain groups and they were
seen as too unstable. The SIS warned the US about some of them the US
went a head anyway.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/099.html
Chris H
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:gu154...@news1.newsguy.com...
>> William Black wrote:
>>> "Jack Campin - bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>> message news:bogus-F1EE70....@news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>>> Very little of the IRA's funding came from North America - about 10%,
>>>> of which only a fraction would have had anything to do with NORAID
>>>> (being a charity, they were audited). Most of their funds were
>>>> raised in Northern Ireland itself by protection racketeering.
>>>
>>> Almost all the guns came from the USA.
>>
>> It's my understanding that most of the firearms owned by the IRA were
>> Kalashnikovs,
Only in Hollywood films. Though they did have a range of weapons
including Russian and Chinese a lot of it was American.
>The guns that did the killing were almost all .50 cal specialist rifles of
>US manufacture.
>
>They were also very keen on CAR 15 rifles made by Colt.
Next you will tell me Colt are American... :-)
Chris H
<fore...@surname.oc.ku> writes
I did, but don't let that stop them getting their point across :-0
We could go for the figures for the US pollution as a whole (very low
and most of them only get to Canada and Mexico) but the people who run
the country should be a bit more educated and worldly wise.
Though clearly GWB and Palin screw that theory.
William Black
Your reference doesn't detail any of that.
In fact it doesn't mention SIS or Scotland at all.
William Black
> In message <gu1ci8$alv$1...@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>
>>"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:gu154...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>> William Black wrote:
>>>> "Jack Campin - bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>>> message news:bogus-F1EE70....@news.albasani.net...
>>>>
>>>>> Very little of the IRA's funding came from North America - about 10%,
>>>>> of which only a fraction would have had anything to do with NORAID
>>>>> (being a charity, they were audited). Most of their funds were
>>>>> raised in Northern Ireland itself by protection racketeering.
>>>>
>>>> Almost all the guns came from the USA.
>>>
>>> It's my understanding that most of the firearms owned by the IRA were
>>> Kalashnikovs,
>
> Only in Hollywood films. Though they did have a range of weapons
> including Russian and Chinese a lot of it was American.
>
>>The guns that did the killing were almost all .50 cal specialist rifles of
>>US manufacture.
>>
>>They were also very keen on CAR 15 rifles made by Colt.
>
> Next you will tell me Colt are American... :-)
I have a suspicion that you don't know how to read a Usenet post in standard
format...
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog
John McWilliams
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am curious as to what might constitute founded paranoia! Can you
>>>> give an example or two?
>>>
>>> Martin Luther King thinking assassins were plotting to kill him.
>>
>> I submit, then, that that's not paranoia.
>
> "It's not paranoia if they really *are* out to get you!"
'Zackly.
But even paranoids may have enemies.....
--
John McWilliams
John McWilliams
> We could go for the figures for the US pollution as a whole (very low
> and most of them only get to Canada and Mexico) but the people who run
> the country should be a bit more educated and worldly wise.
Yes, many perfect examples in the U.K.
Pollution in North America is indeed lower now than 20 years ago.
--
John McWilliams
tony cooper
Could be, but Chris throws so much shit up on the wall that you don't
know when he's wrong and when he makes a typo.
He's constantly referring to things that the SIS and the SAS have
warned the US about. He'd like you to believe he's in the pipeline of
what the top people in his government agencies are telling our top
people in our government agencies.
I can see Sir John Scarlett calling Chris and briefing him on his
recent communications with our State Department. The phone line
between Credenhill and Chris is always busy because the regimental
commander of the 22nd SAS is having his communiques to the Pentagon
vetted by Chris.
Chris talks about things like the American government "permitting"
Americans to donate to NORAID, but doesn't understand that most of the
money raised by NORAID in the US was from can-shakers working the bars
in Irish-American neighborhoods or Knights of Columbus bars or
meetings of organizations like the Emerald Society. Hardly something
the government could become involved in anymore than the UK government
can regulate can-shakers for the RSPCA.
Many of Chris's basic complaints are well-founded. Americans should
not have fallen for the NORAID pitch. Americans in general are not as
well-versed on world politics and customs as they should be. The US
military has not successfully adapted to modern warfare conditions.
The US government is intrusive and arrogant in our foreign relations.
We are in many places where we don't belong and not doing things the
way we should be.
Chris, though, ignores that the UK has made many of the same mistakes
and is hardly an example of how to do things right. The bully-boys of
the SAS spent years in NI thinking that crashing in doors and rifle
butt interrogations would quell insurrection. UK colonialism was
never known for understanding the customs of the people they had a
parasitic relationship with. They felt proud that the nig-nogs could
be trained to bring them tea. They have failed and withdrawn from
many countries. The UK economy had problems before our recent
financial melt-down. "I'm all right, Jack" goes 'way back.
I have a great deal of respect for the UK. I see flaws in their
system, but I also see flaws in ours. Seeing flaws does not mean that
the entire system is irreversibly flawed, though.
Chris comes across as someone who had his sparkly-white trainers
stepped on and scuffed by some American tourist a few years ago, and
he still holds a grudge. He also comes across as someone who has
peripheral knowledge of some things, but a desparate need to sound
more important than he is. This results in irritating hyperbolic
statements that need correction.
Allen
.
"S Viemeister" <fore...@surname.oc.ku> wrote in message
news:4a043d43$0$5381$607e...@cv.net...
That would still be a wrong statement. People flinging bullshit numbers
around are one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in.
Mike
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Since we
>don't live in a little island where it requires a passport to travel
>200 miles to some place it isn't raining, we have less interest in
>having a passport.
is that Americans only reason for traveling, sunshine? I live on a
little archipelago where I can go from world class city to mountain
wilderness, French naturist beach or Spanish fiesta in a days drive,
why do you think that's bad exactly?
--
Mike
Mike
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Chris talks about things like the American government "permitting"
>Americans to donate to NORAID, but doesn't understand that most of the
>money raised by NORAID in the US was from can-shakers working the bars
>in Irish-American neighborhoods or Knights of Columbus bars or
>meetings of organizations like the Emerald Society. Hardly something
>the government could become involved in anymore than the UK government
>can regulate can-shakers for the RSPCA.
why not if you establish its aiding terrorism? (not the RSPCA,
although we have animal rights terrorists)
>Many of Chris's basic complaints are well-founded. Americans should
>not have fallen for the NORAID pitch. Americans in general are not as
>well-versed on world politics and customs as they should be. The US
>military has not successfully adapted to modern warfare conditions.
>The US government is intrusive and arrogant in our foreign relations.
>We are in many places where we don't belong and not doing things the
>way we should be.
but now you elected a sensible president.
--
Mike
J�rgen Exner
> Since we
>don't live in a little island where it requires a passport to travel
>200 miles to some place it isn't raining, we have less interest in
>having a passport.
I wonder which island you are talking about. Can't be GB or Ireland or
any of those 'cause for the past 40-50 years you didn't need a passport
to travel within Western Europe and since about 20 years with very few
exceptions you don't need a passport to travel anywhere in Europe.
Amazing that on the other hand the US now(!) requires a passport even
for their own citizen just to return from a trip from their immediate
neighbours.
jue
S Viemeister
> tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Since we
>> don't live in a little island where it requires a passport to travel
>> 200 miles to some place it isn't raining, we have less interest in
>> having a passport.
>
> I wonder which island you are talking about. Can't be GB or Ireland or
> any of those 'cause for the past 40-50 years you didn't need a passport
> to travel within Western Europe and since about 20 years with very few
> exceptions you don't need a passport to travel anywhere in Europe.
>
J�rgen Exner
>J�rgen Exner wrote:
>> tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Since we
>>> don't live in a little island where it requires a passport to travel
>>> 200 miles to some place it isn't raining, we have less interest in
>>> having a passport.
>>
>> I wonder which island you are talking about. Can't be GB or Ireland or
>> any of those 'cause for the past 40-50 years you didn't need a passport
>> to travel within Western Europe and since about 20 years with very few
>> exceptions you don't need a passport to travel anywhere in Europe.
>>
>The UK isn't part of the Schengen group.
True, but you don't need (as a 'European') a passport to travel between
the UK and the rest of Europe, a simple ID will do.
jue
Chris H
Chris H
No it doesn't but it does corroborate the fact the US was training the
Taliban and AQ groups.
MI6 have released things since but not directly . Scotland will not be
mentioned for a few years yet. 50 year rule.
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>He's constantly referring to things that the SIS and the SAS have
>warned the US about.
That has been public knowledge for some time
>Many of Chris's basic complaints are well-founded. Americans should
>not have fallen for the NORAID pitch.
FINALLY!
> Americans in general are not as
>well-versed on world politics and customs as they should be.
That was what I said
>The US
>military has not successfully adapted to modern warfare conditions.
Said that too.
>The US government is intrusive and arrogant in our foreign relations.
>We are in many places where we don't belong and not doing things the
>way we should be.
Yepp.
>Chris, though, ignores that the UK has made many of the same mistakes
>and is hardly an example of how to do things right.
Yes we made the mistakes and learn... pass the information on and
because of US arrogance and stupidity the US repeats them all again
> The bully-boys of
>the SAS spent
Now there is biased thinking... any evidence?
>years in NI thinking that crashing in doors and rifle
>butt interrogations would quell insurrection.
Now they never thought that any yes I do know people who served in 22
and 23 SAS
> UK colonialism was
>never known for understanding the customs of the people they had a
>parasitic relationship with. They felt proud that the nig-nogs could
>be trained to bring them tea. They have failed and withdrawn from
>many countries. The UK economy had problems before our recent
>financial melt-down. "I'm all right, Jack" goes 'way back.
That was a century and a half a go.. So you are suggesting the US is a
century behind?
>I have a great deal of respect for the UK. I see flaws in their
>system, but I also see flaws in ours.
Ours is creaking of late...
>Seeing flaws does not mean that
>the entire system is irreversibly flawed, though.
We shall see Obama has a steep mountain to climb. I wish him luck
Though asking for Dijon Mustard on his burger and saying no Ketchup will
not go down well with many.
>Chris comes across as someone who had his sparkly-white trainers
>stepped on and scuffed by some American tourist a few years ago, and
>he still holds a grudge.
Actually ALL the men in my family (going back 3 generations) have been
shot at by American forces whilst supposedly on the same side... so far
6 dead.
J. Clarke
Uh, he didn't say it was bad, he said that Americans don't need a passport
to do the same, of course the naturist beach, world class city, Spanish
fiesta, and mountain wilderness are all in the same country here . . .
J. Clarke
> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:5woIaXIx...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <gu11dc$dgp$1...@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>> "Jack Campin - bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>> message news:bogus-F1EE70....@news.albasani.net...
>>>
>>>> Very little of the IRA's funding came from North America - about
>>>> 10%, of which only a fraction would have had anything to do with
>>>> NORAID (being a charity, they were audited). Most of their funds
>>>> were raised in Northern Ireland itself by protection racketeering.
>>>
>>> Almost all the guns came from the USA.
>>
>> Not all.
>
> True.
>
> But the .50 Barrat Rifles that did the killing came from the USA.
Which "killing"? The Barrett is 5 feet long and weighs 30 pounds and is not
exactly concealable. Yes, the IRA did use it for sniping, but they did more
killing with bombs than with sniper rifles and they used many other kinds of
rifle as well.
You're making the mistake of assuming that because they had a particular
type of highly specialized weapon that it was the only kind of weapon that
they ever used.
tony cooper
>On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:34:09 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Chris talks about things like the American government "permitting"
>>Americans to donate to NORAID, but doesn't understand that most of the
>>money raised by NORAID in the US was from can-shakers working the bars
>>in Irish-American neighborhoods or Knights of Columbus bars or
>>meetings of organizations like the Emerald Society. Hardly something
>>the government could become involved in anymore than the UK government
>>can regulate can-shakers for the RSPCA.
>
>why not if you establish its aiding terrorism? (not the RSPCA,
>although we have animal rights terrorists)
It would have been easy if it was connected with domestic terrorism,
but this was terrorism in another country, so - frankly - US
legislators were not all that interested in passing laws on the
subject. Also, legislators are elected, and the Catholic and
Irish-American vote were important to them. There were rumors about
NORAID money going to arms purchases, but they weren't substantiated
until much later. By then, NORAID was all but out of the picture.
I'm not saying that we should not have stepped in, but - at the time -
the US was sympathetic to the republicans and didn't consider it to be
something we should take steps in.
The problem in an issue like this is that we can be critical in
hindsight, but we have to understand the conditions at the time. It
doesn't make the conditions acceptable, but it does make them more
understandable.
Savageduck
A 45 man!
Since you say carried, might I ask, civilian use, military or Law enforcement?
My current favorite piece is a 1911 design, Kimber PRO CDP II Custom.
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/G-Kimber-CDP-RAc.jpg
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
>In message <7dh805lm4qlci7mlj...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>He's constantly referring to things that the SIS and the SAS have
>>warned the US about.
>
>That has been public knowledge for some time
>
>>Many of Chris's basic complaints are well-founded. Americans should
>>not have fallen for the NORAID pitch.
>
>FINALLY!
Finally? You don't read well, Chris. I've not held out otherwise.
You wouldn't know it, but I have history of being critical of the
American naivety about NORAID.
>> The bully-boys of
>>the SAS spent
>Now there is biased thinking... any evidence?
As I said, read the CAIN report. Pay particular attention to the
Boyle and Taylor section on the SAS "shoot-don�t question" policy.
>>years in NI thinking that crashing in doors and rifle
>>butt interrogations would quell insurrection.
>
>Now they never thought that any yes I do know people who served in 22
>and 23 SAS
I know, I know. Your mates were all gentlemen soldiers who said
"Please" and "Thank you" while on duty in The Falls Road...or so they
told you. You have a remarkable capacity for knowing people who are
completely unlike their cohorts. One could almost think you are a bit
naive.
tony cooper
It's not bad, but it's not necessary to have a passport to do the same
in the US.
S Viemeister
J�rgen Exner
Different problem.
You still don't need a passport to travel between the UK and almost all
the rest of Europe (as a 'European'). If you do not have an ID card,
well, then obviously you have to fall back to some other means of
identification/authentication like a passport.
But I personally have been to the UK numerous times without presenting a
passport, my ID card was entirely sufficient.
jue
William Black
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7dh805lm4qlci7mlj...@4ax.com...
The bully-boys of
> the SAS spent years in NI thinking that crashing in doors and rifle
> butt interrogations would quell insurrection.
The SAS neither crash through doors, nor do they interrogate people.
The former would be considered crass by them and the latter is a job for
experts.
UK colonialism was
> never known for understanding the customs of the people they had a
> parasitic relationship with.
Really?
I assume you have examples outside Ireland.
As a general rule the British spent a lot of time and money learning the
local language and customs in order to try and get the local people to
exploit themselves for British profit.
> They felt proud that the nig-nogs could
> be trained to bring them tea.
Oh dear.
> They have failed and withdrawn from
> many countries.
The primary function of the British Empire was making money.
When it stopped doing that the British got out as quickly as possible.
Or did you think they were there to train people how to serve tea?
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
S Viemeister
passport is required, until the ID card becomes widespread (assuming it
does).
William Black
It doesn't prove anything of the sort. It's the usual Internet rubbish from
a miinor figure with a couple of odd connections with Pakistani intelligence
who is saying what they want the world to hear, and in this case what they
want the world to hear is
"I wasn't me sir, some big kids came and done it and ran away".
> MI6 have released things since but not directly . Scotland will not be
> mentioned for a few years yet. 50 year rule.
Do you honestly think a British intelligence training camp in Scotland full
of Islamic terrorists in any location could possibly remain a secret?
The Highlands is alive with tourists for much of the year.
But...
There were, in WWII, three major Commando training bases in Scotland, all
of which are well known, all of which are now closed and all of which are
now used as tourist attractions because of their WWII associations.
See http://www.publicservantlifestyle.co.uk/2184 for some more details.
Bands of blokes in bed sheets with Kalashnikovs dashing about the place
would have discommoded the Highland Tourist Board to an extent that would
not be considered acceptable in peace time.
You really must do better when you spout your utter bollocks.
tony cooper
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:7dh805lm4qlci7mlj...@4ax.com...
>
> The bully-boys of
>> the SAS spent years in NI thinking that crashing in doors and rifle
>> butt interrogations would quell insurrection.
>
>The SAS neither crash through doors, nor do they interrogate people.
>
>The former would be considered crass by them and the latter is a job for
>experts.
You are using the present tense. I was referring to the troubles in
NI in the 70s along with the progress of the thread.
William Black
In the 'seventies the SAS was concentrating on strategic deep penetration
missions against the USSR.
They didn't deploy to Northern Ireland until after 'The Det' was formed.
--
William Black
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.
Jack Campin - bogus address
> in Scotland full of Islamic terrorists in any location could
> possibly remain a secret?
>
> The Highlands is alive with tourists for much of the year.
Depends on what they were training them to do. Some things (like
torture) can be best taught in a quiet room deep inside a barracks.
A few years ago Dalkeith High School was boarded up by Midlothian
Council after they opened a new school a mile away. It's still
boarded up. A couple of years ago, it was used by the army for
somethign or other. Army vehicles would drive up, soldiers would
go into the school, come out at the end of the day, place still
boarded up. Presumably they were using it for training in how to
fight inside buildings, as in the Fallujah massacre (though this
was after Fallujah). In that situation, they could have been
training absolutely anybody - the public had no way of knowing
who the trainees were. And this was in the middle of a town.
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
****** I killfile Google posts - email me if you want to be whitelisted ******
Keith Willshaw
>> Do you honestly think a British intelligence training camp
>> in Scotland full of Islamic terrorists in any location could
>> possibly remain a secret?
>>
>> The Highlands is alive with tourists for much of the year.
>
> Depends on what they were training them to do. Some things (like
> torture) can be best taught in a quiet room deep inside a barracks.
>
> A few years ago Dalkeith High School was boarded up by Midlothian
> Council after they opened a new school a mile away. It's still
> boarded up. A couple of years ago, it was used by the army for
> somethign or other. Army vehicles would drive up, soldiers would
> go into the school, come out at the end of the day, place still
> boarded up. Presumably they were using it for training in how to
> fight inside buildings, as in the Fallujah massacre (though this
> was after Fallujah). In that situation, they could have been
> training absolutely anybody - the public had no way of knowing
> who the trainees were. And this was in the middle of a town.
>
>
Setting conspiracy theories aside the British Army has a number
of training establishments where troops are trained to fight in
urban surroundings. In Norfolk there is a replica of an Afghan
village staffed by retired Gurkha's. Lydd Camp used to have a
replica of a village in Northern Ireland for the same purpose.
A derelict school in Dalkeith seems an inadequate substitute but
in any event there is nothing wrong with training troops to handle
the sort of situations that they me required to face.
Note the action in Fallujah was fought by US troops who do not
typically train in Midlothian.
Keith