Crime Statistics - Persons Charged 2002
Nik O'Kiwi
DOT com> wrote:
>The facts. The PSNI prosecute paramilitary crime without favour.
>
>Type of charge*
>Murder: Loyalist 0 Republican 0
>Att.Murder: Loyalist 14 Republican 5
>Firearms offences: Loyalist 45 Republican 9
>Explosives offences: Loyalist 3 Republican 6
>Armed robbery: Loyalist 5 Republican 2
>Other** : Loyalist 97 Republican 72
>
>Total: Loyalist 164 Republican 94
>
>* Where an individual has been charged for a number of offences, only the
>most serious offence is shown.
>
>** e.g. petrol bombing and hijacking offences.
Could you give a further breakdown on the basis of particular group
that the aforementioned perps represent?
Nik
Telmey_AT_ntlworld.com
posting this;
HA ha you really are in a pickle with your republican movement aren't
you nik the break down is specific enough loyalists and republicans
are you asking for all the different loyalist groups or just
evading the truth
Beacon
"Nik O'Kiwi" <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
news:44s9bvoi6232s8vik...@4ax.com...
I do not doubt the assertion you give in your "without favour" comment that
in the region of 50 to 100 per cent more crimes of this type are committed
by loyalists ( mainly due to "political" affiliations particularly in
organisations not abiding by a ceasefire) but...
Might you also have a conviction rate?
Gummo
Whitewolf
One question: How are the PSNI defining the terms "Republican" and
"Loyalist"?
Ray
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Around 55% of two thirds of Ulster says NO!" - Gav
Email: r...@eirefirst.com
Irish culture/interest site: http://www.eirefirst.com
King James Bible: http://www.iol.ie/~rayh/kjv
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Telmey_AT_ntlworld.com
If they were caught wearing Celtic tops they were.....
Whitewolf
Republicans? But if they offense takes place on the Shankhill is it
automatically a "Loyalist" crime?
Whitewolf
com> wrote:
>"Whitewolf" <r...@eirefirst.com> wrote in message
>news:o0tabvc4or0r7ubct...@4ax.com...
>[..]
>
>> >>On 4 May 2003 11:43:33 +0200, Falcon <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress
>> >>DOT com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>The facts. The PSNI prosecute paramilitary crime without favour.
>> >>>
>> >>>Type of charge*
>> >>>Murder: Loyalist 0 Republican 0
>> >>>Att.Murder: Loyalist 14 Republican 5
>> >>>Firearms offences: Loyalist 45 Republican 9
>> >>>Explosives offences: Loyalist 3 Republican 6
>> >>>Armed robbery: Loyalist 5 Republican 2
>> >>>Other** : Loyalist 97 Republican 72
>> >>>
>> >>>Total: Loyalist 164 Republican 94
>[..]
>
>> One question: How are the PSNI defining the terms "Republican" and
>> "Loyalist"?
>
>I thought the figures would attract some interest. As you know Ray, I don't
>speak for the PSNI,
Yes I do know that...
> but it's clear from the prosecution statistics that
>Republican claims, echoed in these newsgroups, that the police take no
>action against Loyalists simply not true. In fact the figures for the last
>*three years* are most revealing:
>
>2000
>Type of charge*
>Murder: Loyalist 7: Republican 1
>Att. Murder: Loyalist 13: Republican 2
>Firearms offences: Loyalist 34: Republican 21
>Explosives offences :Loyalist 3: Republican 13
>Armed robbery: Loyalist 8: Republican 8
>Other**: Loyalist 142: Republican 51
>
>Total: Loyalist 207: Republican: 96
>
>2001
>Type of charge*
>Murder: Loyalist 4: Republican: 2
>Att. Murder:Loyalist 4: Republican: 2
>Firearms offences: Loyalist 33: Republican: 16
>Explosives offences: Loyalist 11: Republican: 4
>Armed robbery: Loyalist 0: Republican: 3
>Other**: Loyalist 114: Republican: 66
>
>Total: Loyalist 166: Republican: 93
>
>[Figures for 2003 are reproduced above]
>
>* Where an individual has been charged for a number of offences, only the
>most serious offence is shown.
>** e.g. petrol bombing and hijacking offences.
>
>If you care to take a look at the number of offences committed during the
>same period, the number of prosecutions consistently mirrors the number of
>offences committed by each grouping. Let me be clear. Republican claims,
>echoed in these newsgroups, that the police take no action against
>Loyalists simply not true.
>
It's not broken down enough... For "Republican" why can't it say "RIRA,
CIRA, PIRA, "Unknown - suspected Republican" And do the same with
Loyalists...
Also, who compiles the statistics and are they monitered by an independent
authority that allows for us to accept them on face value?
Cadiz
Republican 6 Which proves that the average UDA bomber has virtually no
chance or possibility of ever being prosecuted for that sort of thing.
"Falcon" <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
news:8FVVQURX3774...@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
> The facts. The PSNI prosecute paramilitary crime without favour.
>
> Type of charge*
> Murder: Loyalist 0 Republican 0
> Att.Murder: Loyalist 14 Republican 5
> Firearms offences: Loyalist 45 Republican 9
> Explosives offences: Loyalist 3 Republican 6
> Armed robbery: Loyalist 5 Republican 2
> Other** : Loyalist 97 Republican 72
>
> Total: Loyalist 164 Republican 94
>
> * Where an individual has been charged for a number of offences, only the
> most serious offence is shown.
>
> ** e.g. petrol bombing and hijacking offences.
>
>
>
>
>
> -------
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
>
>
>
Beacon
"Falcon" <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
news:OWAAKY0D3774...@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
> In article <Q6eta.11816$pK2....@news.indigo.ie>
> "Beacon" <openm...@mydeja.com> wrote:
> [..]
>
> > Thanks for that Falcon.
> > I do not doubt the assertion you give in your "without favour" comment
that
> > in the region of 50 to 100 per cent more crimes of this type are
committed
> > by loyalists ( mainly due to "political" affiliations particularly in
> > organisations not abiding by a ceasefire) but...
> > Might you also have a conviction rate?
>
No. Never looked for one. would be interesting I thought.
>I don't wish to sound flippant, I'm asking seriously Beacon.
> For if you, or I, or Nik, or Ray, or Adams, or O'Brien don't have the
> figures, how can we be expected to draw conclusions about conviction
rates?
True.
> Of course, I'm aware that Republicans* also allege that Loyalists less
> likely to be convicted of serious crimes, so it's perhaps predictable that
> when one part of their propaganda is refuted, they either pedantically
> squabble about the statistics, or turn vaguely to another aspect of
> criminal justice about which they can lie. It's very important to realise
> however, that they never back up their claims, nor are they able to.
I do not believe I have made claims about convictions. I did commnet on the
stats you supplied though. I am not trying by the way to claim that
Loyalists must be "one and a half times worse" than Republicans. I do think
the level is too high but also believe Republican terrorists are and were
more organised and disciplined than loyalists. Also it is not likely for
loyalists to wish to attack metropolitian Britian. Consequently if they were
intent on doing serious damage the stats for Republicans would be of a
different order to the loyalist ones. That does suggest that the "ceasefire"
is something to be welcomed.
However back to my question what is and acceptable level of violence? It is
like a trick question since any amount of answers may be given and many
might betray the bias of the answerer.
>
> [* No personal criticism intended]
No personal offence taken.
Harry Merrick
> "Falcon" <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
> news:OWAAKY0D3774...@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
> > In article <Q6eta.11816$pK2....@news.indigo.ie>
> > "Beacon" <openm...@mydeja.com> wrote:
> > [..]
> >
> > > Thanks for that Falcon.
> > > I do not doubt the assertion you give in your "without favour" comment
> that
> > > in the region of 50 to 100 per cent more crimes of this type are
> committed
> > > by loyalists ( mainly due to "political" affiliations particularly in
> > > organisations not abiding by a ceasefire) but...
> > > Might you also have a conviction rate?
> >
> > No. Have you?
>
> No. Never looked for one. would be interesting I thought.
All merely semantics which don't make any difference to the overall scheme of
things.
>
>
> >I don't wish to sound flippant, I'm asking seriously Beacon.
> > For if you, or I, or Nik, or Ray, or Adams, or O'Brien don't have the
> > figures, how can we be expected to draw conclusions about conviction
> rates?
>
> True.
The conviction rates all depend on the amount of support from either side for
the PSNI. This means that convictions should actually be far more against
Loyalists than Republican's or Sinn Féin/IRA, since Republicans and Sinn
Féin/IRA profess NOT to support the PSNI and therefore would not give any
information that would convict.
>
>
> > Of course, I'm aware that Republicans* also allege that Loyalists less
> > likely to be convicted of serious crimes, so it's perhaps predictable that
> > when one part of their propaganda is refuted, they either pedantically
> > squabble about the statistics, or turn vaguely to another aspect of
> > criminal justice about which they can lie. It's very important to realise
> > however, that they never back up their claims, nor are they able to.
>
> I do not believe I have made claims about convictions. I did commnet on the
> stats you supplied though. I am not trying by the way to claim that
> Loyalists must be "one and a half times worse" than Republicans. I do think
> the level is too high but also believe Republican terrorists are and were
> more organised and disciplined than loyalists. Also it is not likely for
> loyalists to wish to attack metropolitian Britian.
No, hardly.
> Consequently if they were
> intent on doing serious damage the stats for Republicans would be of a
> different order to the loyalist ones. That does suggest that the "ceasefire"
> is something to be welcomed.
In general terms, yes. But the ceasefire is not really a ceasefire until all the
punishment shootings and beatings stop.
>
>
> However back to my question what is and acceptable level of violence? It is
> like a trick question since any amount of answers may be given and many
> might betray the bias of the answerer.
There is NO "acceptable" level of violence from any side. There simply should be
NO violence whatsoever. In a Democratic society, the Police Service should be
given every support from every faction and ordinary people should NOT have to
suffer the indignity of threats, intimidation or violence.
Your question is NOT a trick question at all, it is merely a prevarication upon
what should be the case.
Harry Merrick.
Nik O'Kiwi
No. I'm wanting to know which groups, both Republican and Loyalists
that are doing the violence. The information is useful to know.
For example, it seems to me that the UVF is relatively quiet these
days...I'd like to know if that is true. I'd also like to know which
Republican groups are active...according to the PSNI anyway.
Nik
Nik O'Kiwi
DOT com> wrote:
>"Whitewolf" <r...@eirefirst.com> wrote in message
>news:o0tabvc4or0r7ubct...@4ax.com...
>[..]
>
>> >>On 4 May 2003 11:43:33 +0200, Falcon <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress
>> >>DOT com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>The facts. The PSNI prosecute paramilitary crime without favour.
>> >>>
>> >>>Type of charge*
>> >>>Murder: Loyalist 0 Republican 0
>> >>>Att.Murder: Loyalist 14 Republican 5
>> >>>Firearms offences: Loyalist 45 Republican 9
>> >>>Explosives offences: Loyalist 3 Republican 6
>> >>>Armed robbery: Loyalist 5 Republican 2
>> >>>Other** : Loyalist 97 Republican 72
>> >>>
>> >>>Total: Loyalist 164 Republican 94
>[..]
>
>> One question: How are the PSNI defining the terms "Republican" and
>> "Loyalist"?
>
>I thought the figures would attract some interest. As you know Ray, I don't
>speak for the PSNI, but it's clear from the prosecution statistics that
>Republican claims, echoed in these newsgroups, that the police take no
>action against Loyalists simply not true.
I don't think that I said "no" prosecutions of Loyalists but I have
suggested that, on occasion, when it suits the British Securocracy to
have certain people outside prison that this is arranged...
> In fact the figures for the last
>*three years* are most revealing:
>
>2000
>Type of charge*
>Murder: Loyalist 7: Republican 1
>Att. Murder: Loyalist 13: Republican 2
>Firearms offences: Loyalist 34: Republican 21
>Explosives offences :Loyalist 3: Republican 13
>Armed robbery: Loyalist 8: Republican 8
>Other**: Loyalist 142: Republican 51
>
>Total: Loyalist 207: Republican: 96
I know that there have been Loyalists imprisoned in the six counties.
I've seen them on TV leaving the Maze...
Why wasn't Stobie charged with all the offences he could have been?
Because he was useful to the British Army FRU and PSNI Special
Branch...of course, now he's dead...
>2001
>Type of charge*
>Murder: Loyalist 4: Republican: 2
>Att. Murder:Loyalist 4: Republican: 2
>Firearms offences: Loyalist 33: Republican: 16
>Explosives offences: Loyalist 11: Republican: 4
>Armed robbery: Loyalist 0: Republican: 3
>Other**: Loyalist 114: Republican: 66
>
>Total: Loyalist 166: Republican: 93
>
>[Figures for 2003 are reproduced above]
>
>* Where an individual has been charged for a number of offences, only the
>most serious offence is shown.
>** e.g. petrol bombing and hijacking offences.
>
>If you care to take a look at the number of offences committed during the
>same period, the number of prosecutions consistently mirrors the number of
>offences committed by each grouping. Let me be clear. Republican claims,
>echoed in these newsgroups, that the police take no action against
>Loyalists simply not true.
How about police are preferential to Loyalists over Republicans?
Nik
Nik O'Kiwi
DOT com> wrote:
>"Nik O'Kiwi" <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:idtdbvsnc08it8jsb...@4ax.com...
>> On 5 May 2003 03:11:01 +0200, Falcon <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress
>> DOT com> wrote:
>
>> >I thought the figures would attract some interest. As you know Ray, I don't
>> >speak for the PSNI, but it's clear from the prosecution statistics that
>> >Republican claims, echoed in these newsgroups, that the police take no
>> >action against Loyalists simply not true.
>>
>> I don't think that I said "no" prosecutions of Loyalists but I have
>> suggested that, on occasion, when it suits the British Securocracy to
>> have certain people outside prison that this is arranged...
>
>There is no such thing as the "British Securocracy" Nik. It's a SF/IRA
>invention designed to keep impressionable Catholic kids awake at night.
Alright then, I mean MI5, MI6, British Army Force Research Unit and
the PSNI/RUC Special Branch and doubtless other
groupings/organisations that I am unaware of.
Is that explicit enough for you?
>It's true that some people have been more useful outside, rather than
>inside prison. For example the Irish security forces preferred some people
>to remain within the IRA feeding back intelligence to their handlers,
>rather than languishing where they belonged, in prison. Especially if the
>agent happened to be the OC PIRA 'Southern Command' for example. If you
>think he was the only active PIRA man the Irish authorities allowed to
>operate freely, then you're sadly mistaken.
I haven't said anything about this at all, neither do I know anything
about it. Please provide more information to support what you're
saying.
> And if you think I'm criticising the Irish Special Branch for keeping him in place, you're also
>well wide of the mark.
Tell me, where is the mark then.
>[..]
>
>> Why wasn't Stobie charged with all the offences he could have been?
>> Because he was useful to the British Army FRU and PSNI Special
>> Branch...of course, now he's dead...
>
>Evidence leading to a prosecution is submitted by the police to the DPP,
>who apply the 'prosecution test' referred to by Stevens in his report. The
>DPP will only permit prosecutions which pass this 'test' and therefore have
>a reasonable chance of leading to a conviction. In Stobie's case, even this
>evidence was insufficient to gain a conviction on the matters he was
>charged with. It helps no-one if prosecutions fail repeatedly, or if
>attempts to charge a person with murder, for example, fail because of lack
>of quality evidence. The standard of evidence required is high.
Not, it would seem, for Republicans though, c.f. shoot to kill and the
Gibraltar 3.
> You will have read that Stevens suspects several others of complicity in Finucane's
>murder, but as he said in his report, the evidence available does not pass
>the 'prosecution test' and he cannot lay charges.
>
>You can't just bandy this stuff around in public either Nik. Stevens cannot
>reveal what he has, once the DPP has rejected the chances of obtaining a
>conviction. There are libel laws which are particularly effective if your
>evidence isn't strong enough to convict someone suspected of an offence.
It doesn't mean that they aren't nonetheless guilty...
>As for Stobie's death, what of it? His evidence had all been available to
>the security forces for some time and he had plenty of opportunity to
>embarrass his handlers in court. He chose not to do so, and was highly
>unlikely to do so once free. But his prosecution did reveal that he was a
>long-term 'informer'. Just as the PIRA rarely let an 'informer' walk the
>streets for long, neither did the UDA/UVF. Why anyone should think that
>they [loyalists] should be any different in that way to their republican
>counterparts is beyond me. Unless they want to invoke the 'British
>Securocracy' boogy-man of course.
The Loyalists, whilst certain of their activities might be regarded
with disdain by the British "higher ups", still have utility to the
British Oligarchy and they are kept on somewhat of a long lead so that
if and when their utility is required they can be called in c.f.
Stobie, Brian Nelson and others...
If the shit really hits the fan in the six counties and a civil war
emerges those self same Loyalists would be some of the most effective
fighters for the British Hegemony in the six counties.
>[..]
>
>> >If you care to take a look at the number of offences committed during the
>> >same period, the number of prosecutions consistently mirrors the number of
>> >offences committed by each grouping. Let me be clear. Republican claims,
>> >echoed in these newsgroups, that the police take no action against
>> >Loyalists simply not true.
>>
>> How about police are preferential to Loyalists over Republicans?
>
>If you can provide any convincing evidence of preferential treatment,
>please present it. Anything less is mere speculation and scare-mongering.
>It's handy being a republican or loyalist terrorist Nik. You don't need to
>apply a 'prosecution test', or present evidence, or apply any of the rules
>imposed by a normal civilised society. You just go out and blow their
>fucking ankles apart. That doesn't make them big, or rightious. It makes
>them fucking terrorists.
So the SAS when they shot up the Gibraltar 3 are also "Terrorists"
then...
The RAF were terrorists when they carpet bombed Dresden in January
13th 1945 as well....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RAF Bomber Command despatched 796 Lancaster bombers and 9 Mosquitoes
from the UK. These attacked Dresden in two waves three hours apart,
dropping 1,478 tons of high explosive bombs and 1,182 tons of
incendiaries which started a firestorm. Such was the weakness of the
air defences that only six Lancasters were shot down, although a
further three crashed on friendly territory on the way home. The
following day, 311 US B17 bombers also struck the city, adding to the
extensive damage caused by the RAF. In all, some 50,000 people,
including many refugees, are reckoned to have lost their lives and
much of the city was devastated.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sounds like terrorism to me and, just checking is about 20 times more
death was caused then than in the entire time of IRA activity...
Who's the terrorist again?
Nik
Telmey_AT_ntlworld.com
Suggested
on occasion
when it suits
arranged
Yea Gods! talk about Grasping the smallest straw
Nik O'Kiwi
DOT com> wrote:
>"Nik O'Kiwi" <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:6qkebv05nts6toqqa...@4ax.com...
>> On 6 May 2003 05:56:07 +0200, Falcon <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress
>> DOT com> wrote:
>[..]
>
>> >It's true that some people have been more useful outside, rather than
>> >inside prison. For example the Irish security forces preferred some people
>> >to remain within the IRA feeding back intelligence to their handlers,
>> >rather than languishing where they belonged, in prison. Especially if the
>> >agent happened to be the OC PIRA 'Southern Command' for example. If you
>> >think he was the only active PIRA man the Irish authorities allowed to
>> >operate freely, then you're sadly mistaken.
>>
>> I haven't said anything about this at all, neither do I know anything
>> about it. Please provide more information to support what you're
>> saying.
>
>[...]
>
>Did you say elsewhere that you were a former SF/IRA Press Officer? If
>that's true, you leave me absolutely speechless.
Its true.
> Are you totally unaware of
>agents (or 'informers' in republican-speak) being run by the Irish Special
>Branch within the PIRA?
I am. It wouldn't suprise me in the slightest though if it were true.
> I wonder sometimes if there is any limit to your
>ignorance of the conflict Nik. You'll have to forgive my bluntness, but I'm
>not going to waste any time responding to ignorant rhetoric, especially
>nonsensical statements containing the words "Securocracy", "Oligarchy", or
>"Hegemony", or fatuous claims of British 'terrorism'.
You have to respond to the question about whether the RAF are
terrorists or not re: Dresden. If you don't respond meaningfully then
any accusation that you might make of "terrorism" against the IRA just
looks sickly hypocritical...
> (So much for "I am trying to get beyond the 'whataboutery'", eh Nik?).
Quite honestly, I am.
> Nor am I going to spend
>time filling the gaps in your tenuous knowledge, only to have you ignore
>the facts or strike off at a tangent when faced with logical argument or
>factual explanations in response to your questions.
Which is *exactly* what you are doing with respect to my comment about
the RAF and Dresden.
Nik
Telmey®
Did you ask Falcon that too, ?
Your Diversion tactics simply don't work anymore nik
>> (So much for "I am trying to get beyond the 'whataboutery'", eh Nik?).
>
>Quite honestly, I am.
>
>> Nor am I going to spend
>>time filling the gaps in your tenuous knowledge, only to have you ignore
>>the facts or strike off at a tangent when faced with logical argument or
>>factual explanations in response to your questions.
>
>Which is *exactly* what you are doing with respect to my comment about
>the RAF and Dresden.
If he has any sense he will not respond to your diversion tactics
I take it you have not replied to my long post because you have not
had time and are simply not ignoring it and not going to snip
large parts out of it in your evasion tactics , I guess I have to give
you the benefit of doubt unless you prove differently then of
course I understand and you concede all my points
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
wrote:
>The RAF were terrorists when they carpet bombed Dresden in January
>13th 1945 as well....
[snip]
>Sounds like terrorism to me
It might do, but then you're a clueless git, so I wouldn't be overly
concerned about your moral myopia.
>and, just checking is about 20 times more
>death was caused then than in the entire time of IRA activity...
You're talking about the combatants of nation states (wearing uniform,
in marked military aircraft) bombing a defended city in war, at the
order of a democratically-accountable government and in order to
defeat a genocidal tyranny. Remind me of the last time the IRA
actually managed that outside of your wet dreams.
>Who's the terrorist again?
People who claim to soldiers while bombing and shooting civilians, and
then claim the rights and protections of civilians when caught, and
who do it all on behalf of a group of self-selected, self-legitimised
fascist gangsters.
The republic your lot of thugs claims to act on behalf of actually
exists, and regards your lot as criminal murderers.
Gavin Bailey
--
"Blackmail is such an ugly word. I prefer extortion.
The 'x' makes it sound cool." - Bender
michael adams
"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" <occu...@bonkers.net> wrote in
message news:3eb7d2c...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Tue, 06 May 2003 18:25:41 +1200, Nik O'Kiwi <repub...@email.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The RAF were terrorists when they carpet bombed Dresden in January
> >13th 1945 as well....
>
> [snip]
>
> >Sounds like terrorism to me
>
> It might do, but then you're a clueless git, so I wouldn't be overly
> concerned about your moral myopia.
>
> >and, just checking is about 20 times more
> >death was caused then than in the entire time of IRA activity...
>
> You're talking about the combatants of nation states (wearing uniform,
> in marked military aircraft) bombing a defended city in war,
...
Wrong!
start quote:
8. The lack of defenses
What made the Dresden attack so extraordinarily destructive was
an unusual combination of circumstances. There was virtually no opposition;
the city's antiaircraft guns had been removed the previous month and sent
to the Russian front, and though a unit of Me - 110 night fighters was based
only five miles away, the fuel shortage was now so acute that the pilots
were forbidden to take off without authorization from division headquarters.
The authorization came too late, and the pilots had to sit in their planes
on the runway and watch Dresden burn.
7. A "routine" attack
The manner in which the attack on Dresden was delivered was, by this late
stage of the air war, distinctly routine. On the night of February 13,
the British sent two separate waves of Lancasters. The first wave, 234
planes, bombed for 17 minutes. The second wave, 538 planes, arrived three
hours later and aimed at the fringes of the spreading flames below.
Altogether,
the British dropped 2,656 tons of bombs, a load now regarded as
unexceptional.
About 75 percent of the bombs were incendiaries, standard procedure for an
old city whose wooden buildings were so flammable. Some 10 hours after the
last British bombs fell, the Americans arrived. It was Ash Wednesday, and
shortly after noon the 311 Flying Fortresses bombed by radar, aiming 771
tons at the city's railway stations and marshaling yards.
:end quote
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x18/xr1846.html
...
> at the
> order of a democratically-accountable government and in order to
> defeat a genocidal tyranny. Remind me of the last time the IRA
> actually managed that outside of your wet dreams.
>
> >Who's the terrorist again?
>
> People who claim to soldiers while bombing and shooting civilians, and
> then claim the rights and protections of civilians when caught, and
> who do it all on behalf of a group of self-selected, self-legitimised
> fascist gangsters.
...
How exactly would you characterise this type of behaviour then Gavin?
This is just some of what happened at the end of the Rising of
1798.
start quote:
The officer who pursued the fugitives from Kilcomney Hill into Meath
and beyond reported the King's troops the crown’s forces never gave
quarter in the rebellion...hundreds and thousands of wretches were butchered
while unarmed on their knees begging mercy; and it is difficult to say
whether [regular] soldiers, yeomen or militia men took most delight in
their bloody work. In such actions as he saw, all the male inhabitants
of any house in which the rebels took refuge were put to death and the
German contingent in the king’s army, Hessians commanded by a Count Hompech,
won fame for their rape and slaughter of women. The same officer reckons
that
altogether 25,000 rebels and peaceable inhabitants were killed in this way,
‘by the lowest calculation,’ and the Protestant historian, Gordon, in trying
to assess the total number of people killed on both sides in the whole
rebellion and reaching the tentative figure of 50,000, says he ‘has
reason to think that more men than fell in battle were killed in cold blood.
’
:end quote
Robert Kee The Green Flag Chapter 11 p 123
reproduced in part on
http://www.hudsonfalls.k12.ny.us/hs/fac/marozell/ireland/Father%20John%20Mur
phy.htm
...
> The republic your lot of thugs claims to act on behalf of actually
> exists, and regards your lot as criminal murderers.
...
Without wishing to be pedantic here Gavin what most Republicans
claim to act on behalf of is the 32 county Republic, which they claim
rightly or wrongly was given legitimacy by the last General Election
to have covered the Island as a whole in 1918. And in which 73 out
of the 105 seats were won by Sinn Fein.
The subsequent Irish Civil War was fought on the principal that the
Third Dail of 1922 based on the 26 counties alone had no right to
accept a Treaty which flew in the face of the expressed electoral
wishes of of the electorate in last whole island election in 1918.
Start quote:
Constituted from the successful Sinn Fein candidates for the UK General
Election of December 1918 (voting took place in most constituencies on
14 December). Of the 105 seats in Ireland, 73 were won by SF (25 unopposed),
22 Unionists, 6 Nationalists, 3 "Labour Unionists", 1 Independent Unionist.
:end quote
This is taken from Nicholas Whyte's Website @
http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/gdala.htm
And is the basis of the Republican's claim to legitimacy.
Some actual knowledge of history - of the actual facts - mightn't
go amiss before pontificating in so forthright a manner methinks.
michael adams
Beacon
"Falcon" <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
news:QHYOL9X93774...@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
> "Nik O'Kiwi" <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:idtdbvsnc08it8jsb...@4ax.com...
> > On 5 May 2003 03:11:01 +0200, Falcon <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress
> > DOT com> wrote:
>
> > >I thought the figures would attract some interest. As you know Ray, I
don't
> > >speak for the PSNI, but it's clear from the prosecution statistics that
> > >Republican claims, echoed in these newsgroups, that the police take no
> > >action against Loyalists simply not true.
> >
> > I don't think that I said "no" prosecutions of Loyalists but I have
> > suggested that, on occasion, when it suits the British Securocracy to
> > have certain people outside prison that this is arranged...
>
> It's a SF/IRA
> invention designed to keep impressionable Catholic kids awake at night.
> It's true that some people have been more useful outside, rather than
> inside prison. For example the Irish security forces preferred some people
> to remain within the IRA feeding back intelligence to their handlers,
> rather than languishing where they belonged, in prison. Especially if the
> agent happened to be the OC PIRA 'Southern Command' for example. If you
> think he was the only active PIRA man the Irish authorities allowed to
> operate freely, then you're sadly mistaken. And if you think I'm
> criticising the Irish Special Branch for keeping him in place, you're also
> well wide of the mark.
Which is very spooky stuff. And the SB etc. in ireland are not nearly as
financed equipped or manned as MI5 MI6 etc are.
You can not really be serious about no securocrats in the UK and then argue
for this on the basis of a smaller securocracy in Ireland who can thwart the
law.
>[snip]
Beacon
"Falcon" <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in message
news:GKBHO0C03774...@Gilgamesh-frog.org...> news:ej7fbvgv11ooaaoev...@4ax.com...
> > On 6 May 2003 11:48:03 +0200, Falcon <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress
> > DOT com> wrote:
>
> > > Nor am I going to spend
> > >time filling the gaps in your tenuous knowledge, only to have you
ignore
> > >the facts or strike off at a tangent when faced with logical argument
or
> > >factual explanations in response to your questions.
> >
> > Which is *exactly* what you are doing with respect to my comment about
> > the RAF and Dresden.
>
> situation is concerned Nik, and you have consistently and pedantically
> failed to take any notice of anything which has been written in response
to
> your personal opinions of Dresden. You might as well argue about the
> morality of the Zulu Wars or the 100 Years War against the French for all
> the relevance they have to Northern Ireland, and a response from me to
your
> absurd opinions would be just as irrelevant and equally futile.
>
This is indeed a valid point. One could ask about the morality of the Zulu
war or WWII or incidents that happened in any war. One might ask what a
"just War" is. Why people go to war is a political question which must be
viewed in the context in which it occured. That is not to say that a present
day context can have no light shed on it by the lens of history.
And please do not claim ther is not a war if you are going to claim the IRA
(who I do not support by the way) must state "the War is over". How about
"there is no War" maybe that would suit the IRA (Press?) officers as well?
Beacon
"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" <occu...@bonkers.net> wrote in
message news:3eb7d2c...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> wrote:
>
> >The RAF were terrorists when they carpet bombed Dresden in January
> >13th 1945 as well....
>
> [snip]
>
> >Sounds like terrorism to me
>
> It might do, but then you're a clueless git, so I wouldn't be overly
> concerned about your moral myopia.
>
> >and, just checking is about 20 times more
> >death was caused then than in the entire time of IRA activity...
>
> You're talking about the combatants of nation states (wearing uniform,
> in marked military aircraft) bombing a defended city in war, at the
> order of a democratically-accountable government and in order to
> defeat a genocidal tyranny. Remind me of the last time the IRA
> actually managed that outside of your wet dreams.
Eh. Dublin 1916?
[snip]
Nik O'Kiwi
news:GKBHO0C03774...@Gilgamesh-frog.org:
> "Nik O'Kiwi" <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:ej7fbvgv11ooaaoev...@4ax.com...
>> On 6 May 2003 11:48:03 +0200, Falcon <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress
>> DOT com> wrote:
> [..]
>
>> > Nor am I going to spend
>> >time filling the gaps in your tenuous knowledge, only to have you
>> >ignore the facts or strike off at a tangent when faced with logical
>> >argument or factual explanations in response to your questions.
>>
>> Which is *exactly* what you are doing with respect to my comment about
>> the RAF and Dresden.
>
> The Second World War is totally and utterly irrelevant as far as the
> Irish situation is concerned Nik, and you have consistently and
> pedantically failed to take any notice of anything which has been
> written in response to your personal opinions of Dresden. You might as
> well argue about the morality of the Zulu Wars or the 100 Years War
> against the French for all the relevance they have to Northern Ireland,
> and a response from me to your absurd opinions would be just as
> irrelevant and equally futile.
>
> -------
> Falcon:
> fide, sed cui vide. (L)
>
Bullshit! the Irish helped the Nazis, which is why I love Ireland!
Nik
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
wrote:
>> You're talking about the combatants of nation states (wearing uniform,
>> in marked military aircraft) bombing a defended city in war, at the
>> order of a democratically-accountable government and in order to
>> defeat a genocidal tyranny. Remind me of the last time the IRA
>> actually managed that outside of your wet dreams.
>
>Eh. Dublin 1916?
Lloyd George did many things, but running a genocidal tyranny
unaccountable to some form of democracy wasn't one of them. Unless
your name was Herbert Asquith.
Telmey®
Are you saying your are a Nazi ? surely you are not saying that you
are a member if the pressman for the Nazi/SF/IRA party
Beacon
"Nik O'Kiwi" <x...@x.com> wrote in message news:b99hr4$mf6$3...@pita.alt.net...
[snip]
> >
>
> Bullshit! the Irish helped the Nazis, which is why I love Ireland!
Not so funny how all the Shinn Féin people were protesting st Heiders right
to speak then eh?
And your evidence we helped the Nazis is?
Beacon
> On Tue, 6 May 2003 23:36:19 +0100, "Beacon" <openm...@mydeja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> You're talking about the combatants of nation states (wearing uniform,
> >> in marked military aircraft) bombing a defended city in war, at the
> >> order of a democratically-accountable government and in order to
> >> defeat a genocidal tyranny. Remind me of the last time the IRA
> >> actually managed that outside of your wet dreams.
> >
> >Eh. Dublin 1916?
>
> Lloyd George did many things, but running a genocidal tyranny
> unaccountable to some form of democracy wasn't one of them. Unless
> your name was Herbert Asquith.
>
> Gavin Bailey
One can easily argue that Plantation was genocide. And how was Bismark a
genocidal tyrant? Yet a War was fought against the Germany he built up. One
I might add mirrored on the Britian of that time.
michael adams
"Telmey®" <Telmey_AT_ntlworld.com@> wrote in message
news:dvihbv0qoasetq2dq...@4ax.com...
> An anon jury found "Nik O'Kiwi" <x...@x.com> guilty of posting this;
> >Falcon <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in
> >
> >
>
> Are you saying your are a Nazi ? surely you are not saying that you
> are a member if the pressman for the Nazi/SF/IRA party
>
...
That's Nik's stalker posting under Nik's name. If you checked the
headers as assiduously as you claim to do, you'd know that already.
So either you already knew, in which case you really are as unpleasant
a character as you sometimes appear, or an apology would be in order
I believe.
As you've cross posted this slur all over, I have no choice
but to follow suit.
michael adams
...
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
wrote:
>One can easily argue that Plantation was genocide.
One might, but it wouldn't be a particularly credible argument in
comparison with the deliberately industrialised slaughter the Nazis
engaged in. It would, however, be a very useful tool for allowing you
to discredit criticism of the plantation by indulging in such rampant
and obvious hyperbole as comparing it to Adolf's approach to
displacing population with suspect loyalties, so feel free if that's
your inclination.
>And how was Bismark a
>genocidal tyrant? Yet a War was fought against the Germany he built up.
It might have escaped your notice, but Otto wasn't actually running
Germany in 1933-45, although he may have been lurking unnoticed in a
geriatric torpor in the East Prussian senile asylum that Willi would
have liked to bang him up in while the Russians rolled past.
> One
>I might add mirrored on the Britian of that time.
You might, and yet still this inaccurate anachronism would say nothing
about dealing with the situation as it existed in 1916 or 1945,
instead of yibbling on about things beyond living memory and which
should have no mandate to enforce misery on the present.
ITOUT @ntlworld.com Telmey®
of posting this;
>
>"TelmeyŽ" <Telmey_AT_ntlworld.com@> wrote in message
So you really do speak ?
Well I must admit I missed that stalker, I never realised Nik
had a Stalker, Such laughable idea
Still it makes no Difference to my post as it was DIRECTED at the orig
poster... whom ever it was. So you really can wind your unpleasant
character's head in again,
PS
If you really want to complain about the 'orig poster' then
Ab...@altopia.com might help you.
Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - www.altopia.com
Message-ID: <b99hr4$mf6$3...@pita.alt.net>
michael adams
"Telmey®" <Telmey ITOUT @ ntlworld.com > wrote in message
news:ds3ibv09r1g017tqb...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Are you saying your are a Nazi ? surely you are not saying that you
> >> are a member if the pressman for the Nazi/SF/IRA party
> >>
> >
> >...
> >
> >That's Nik's stalker posting under Nik's name. If you checked the
> >headers as assiduously as you claim to do, you'd know that already.
> >
> >So either you already knew, in which case you really are as unpleasant
> >a character as you sometimes appear, or an apology would be in order
> >I believe.
>
>
> >As you've cross posted this slur all over, I have no choice
> >but to follow suit.
>
> So you really do speak ?
>
> Well I must admit I missed that stalker, I never realised Nik
> had a Stalker, Such laughable idea
...
Its not a laughable idea at all. This creep has been following Nik
around all over the place for over a year now, so I believe.
That's why he uses loads of different nyms. You simply don't seem to
appreciate what sort of creeps you can sometimes come across on the Net.
This is in no way funny, I can assure you.
...
> Still it makes no Difference to my post as it was DIRECTED at the orig
> poster... whom ever it was. So you really can wind your unpleasant
> character's head in again,
...
You really *know* that isn't true! You specfically referred to SF\IRA
and so you really did think you were posting to Nik. And yet despite
having been on the same Ng's as him for years, you still thought he
regard himself as a Nazi. Even as a joke. You never thought to check
the header did you? Simply being so full of yourself as usual, to make
your "clever" reply.
Well you got it badly wrong and you owe Nik an apaology for even thinking
he'd regard himself as a Nazi. Or maybe the Kiwis fought on the side
of the Axis Powers in WWII?
...
> PS
> If you really want to complain about the 'orig poster' then
> Ab...@altopia.com might help you.
>
>
> Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - www.altopia.com
> Message-ID: <b99hr4$mf6$3...@pita.alt.net>
>
...
Never mind posting links. If you had an idea of what you were talking
about you'd already know that altopia are a notorious haven for Trolls
and Stalkers. Why do you think this creep choses to pay an extra
$12 a month just to post from there?
read their FAQ!
start quote:
Q: What if I don't like one of your customers or what they are
saying on Usenet? Will you delete them for me if I complain enough?
A: No. Also, if you feel one of our customers is using the service
for illegal purposes, please contact law enforcement and not us.
:end quote
The only thing they'll ever, ever, knock you off for is spamming!
http://www.altopia.com/polfaq.htm
That's the page you should read.
As per usual its been proved you know nothing!
For once in your life, why not act like a real man?
Admit you were wrong and apologise to Nik.
michael adams
...
ITOUT @ntlworld.com Telmey®
>news:ds3ibv09r1g017tqb...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Are you saying your are a Nazi ? surely you are not saying that you
>> >> are a member if the pressman for the Nazi/SF/IRA party
>> >>
>> >
>> >...
>> >
>> >That's Nik's stalker posting under Nik's name. If you checked the
>> >headers as assiduously as you claim to do, you'd know that already.
>> >
>> >So either you already knew, in which case you really are as unpleasant
>> >a character as you sometimes appear, or an apology would be in order
>> >I believe.
>>
>>
>> >As you've cross posted this slur all over, I have no choice
>> >but to follow suit.
>>
>> So you really do speak ?
>>
>> Well I must admit I missed that stalker, I never realised Nik
>> had a Stalker, Such laughable idea
>
>...
>
>Its not a laughable idea at all. This creep has been following Nik
>around all over the place for over a year now, so I believe.
Are you Nik's bodyguard?
>That's why he uses loads of different nyms. You simply don't seem to
>appreciate what sort of creeps you can sometimes come across on the Net.
Oh, I do you tried to stalk me a while back
>This is in no way funny, I can assure you.
Funny ha ha, I have never seen nor have I heard Nik mention
stalker, still a google search shows that he has not had someone use
the same name before.
>> Still it makes no Difference to my post as it was DIRECTED at the orig
>> poster... whom ever it was. So you really can wind your unpleasant
>> character's head in again,
>
>...
>
>You really *know* that isn't true!
Your telling me what I *know* you would not have a clue to what
anyone thinks, you live an illusion if you think you *know* what
other people think, you should try the illusion on the following
web site http://home.mn.rr.com/t1camp1/Focus.swf.
>You specfically referred to SF\IRA
>and so you really did think you were posting to Nik. And yet despite
>having been on the same Ng's as him for years, you still thought he
>regard himself as a Nazi. Even as a joke. You never thought to check
>the header did you? Simply being so full of yourself as usual, to make
>your "clever" reply.
We are a clever clogs, 'Bertie' has not used this tactic of jumping
in with the "Nik O'Kiwi" name, ( I just googled it)
Frankly, I don't give a damn. If there is a problem then it is not
with me or you that argument is for Nik to take up.
Did Nik ask you to take this up for him?
>Well you got it badly wrong and you owe Nik an apaology for even thinking
>he'd regard himself as a Nazi. Or maybe the Kiwis fought on the side
>of the Axis Powers in WWII?
Funny how you and the other come to Nik's rescue and try to take the
heat off him, I find this 'Collusion' trick amazing and this is
not the first time Nik does a disappearing trick while you and
your/his fellow republicans posters appear to take the diversionary
tactics. You have not posted to me for ages completely ignoring my
posts but when the heat builds up it would seem you try these
diversion tactics. Are you trying to tell me Nik can't fight for
himself ? I thought he was quite capable and might not even like you
butting in on his kill.
>> PS
>> If you really want to complain about the 'orig poster' then
>> Ab...@altopia.com might help you.
>>
>>
>> Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - www.altopia.com
>> Message-ID: <b99hr4$mf6$3...@pita.alt.net>
>>
>
>...
>
>
>Never mind posting links. If you had an idea of what you were talking
>about you'd already know that altopia are a notorious haven for Trolls
>and Stalkers. Why do you think this creep choses to pay an extra
>$12 a month just to post from there?
>
>read their FAQ!
>
>start quote:
>
>Q: What if I don't like one of your customers or what they are
>saying on Usenet? Will you delete them for me if I complain enough?
>
>A: No. Also, if you feel one of our customers is using the service
>for illegal purposes, please contact law enforcement and not us.
>
>:end quote
>
>The only thing they'll ever, ever, knock you off for is spamming!
>
>http://www.altopia.com/polfaq.htm
>
>
>That's the page you should read.
>As per usual its been proved you know nothing!
Sorry.....no I'm really sorry, I fell asleep there, you bored me,
Who gives a rats Ar*e
>For once in your life, why not act like a real man?
Who the hell said I was real? , as far as you know I'm just
a plastic IBM keyboard.
>Admit you were wrong and apologise to Nik.
you can apologise if you wish but me... well... you
mistake me for someone who gives a sh*t what you
think, no matter how far you wind your neck out,
now if you don't mind I'm going back to sleep while
I wait for my boyfriend Nik to recover. Good nite
or should that be Toodle Pip!
michael adams
> >> Well I must admit I missed that stalker, I never realised Nik
> >> had a Stalker, Such laughable idea
> >
> >...
> >
> >Its not a laughable idea at all. This creep has been following Nik
> >around all over the place for over a year now, so I believe.
>
> Are you Nik's bodyguard?
>
> >That's why he uses loads of different nyms. You simply don't seem to
> >appreciate what sort of creeps you can sometimes come across on the Net.
>
> Oh, I do you tried to stalk me a while back
...
Yup thought so! Doesn't take you more than two posts does it, before
you start coming out with the slurs and attempts at character
assassination! I wouldn't even think of asking you to prove it,
because I already know you can't.
...
>
> >This is in no way funny, I can assure you.
>
>
> Funny ha ha, I have never seen nor have I heard Nik mention
> stalker, still a google search shows that he has not had someone use
> the same name before.
...
He mentioned the fact to me in a post a while ago I can assure you.
As you've taken the trouble to look it up. Admittedly you couldn't
be expected to know.
...
>
> >> Still it makes no Difference to my post as it was DIRECTED at the orig
> >> poster... whom ever it was. So you really can wind your unpleasant
> >> character's head in again,
> >
> >...
> >
> >You really *know* that isn't true!
>
> Your telling me what I *know* you would not have a clue to what
> anyone thinks, you live an illusion if you think you *know* what
> other people think, you should try the illusion on the following
> web site http://home.mn.rr.com/t1camp1/Focus.swf.
...
Very good! Thanx for that.
I used to do paintings like that 30 plus years ago. There was a famous
woman artist called Brigid Riley who started it all off. Still alive
and painting in colour now.
...
>
> >You specfically referred to SF\IRA
> >and so you really did think you were posting to Nik. And yet despite
> >having been on the same Ng's as him for years, you still thought he
> >regard himself as a Nazi. Even as a joke. You never thought to check
> >the header did you? Simply being so full of yourself as usual, to make
> >your "clever" reply.
>
> We are a clever clogs, 'Bertie' has not used this tactic of jumping
> in with the "Nik O'Kiwi" name, ( I just googled it)
> Frankly, I don't give a damn. If there is a problem then it is not
> with me or you that argument is for Nik to take up.
> Did Nik ask you to take this up for him?
...
Actually if people start posting using other peoples names, never
mind the *stalking*, we *should* all give a damn! Unless everyone checks
the headers every time which they don't it could be going on far more than
you'd think.
...
>
> >Well you got it badly wrong and you owe Nik an apaology for even thinking
> >he'd regard himself as a Nazi. Or maybe the Kiwis fought on the side
> >of the Axis Powers in WWII?
>
> Funny how you and the other come to Nik's rescue and try to take the
> heat off him, I find this 'Collusion' trick amazing
...
Lot of it about it isn't there? But it works best I believe when
its financed by taxpayers money with lots of resources behind it.
...
> and this is
> not the first time Nik does a disappearing trick while you and
> your/his fellow republicans posters appear to take the diversionary
> tactics. You have not posted to me for ages completely ignoring my
> posts but when the heat builds up it would seem you try these
> diversion tactics.
...
What heat? Mr O'Brien took one of his increasingly frequent holidays
and so just like the mountain to the mountaineer, you just happened
to be there!
...
>
> Sorry.....no I'm really sorry, I fell asleep there, you bored me,
> Who gives a rats Ar*e
...
You shouldn't be falling asleep at your age. A youngster born
long after Dresden.
...
> >For once in your life, why not act like a real man?
>
> Who the hell said I was real? , as far as you know I'm just
> a plastic IBM keyboard.
...
Well lately you've been claiming to be a plastic keyboard that
installs fruit machines then haven't you? You don't see too many of
those around do you ?
Anyway if you're not going to apologise, then instead would you please
just answer these two questions, you've ran away from previously.
a) How did you know that John Reddy\TG wore glasses? You let that slip
in the thread about people with glasses firing rifles if you remember.
b) Why would Loyalists paint We'll never forget you Jimmy Sands" on a
gable-end as a joke, if Jimmy Sands was his real name, as you claim?
And answers came there none?
michael adams
I'm only posting this on SCI by the way.
Just thought I'd mention it, as some of us don't always
check the headers :-)
...
Nik O'Kiwi
DOT com> wrote:
>"Nik O'Kiwi" <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:ej7fbvgv11ooaaoev...@4ax.com...
>> On 6 May 2003 11:48:03 +0200, Falcon <falcon AT nym DOT cryptofortress
>> DOT com> wrote:
>[..]
>
>> > Nor am I going to spend
>> >time filling the gaps in your tenuous knowledge, only to have you ignore
>> >the facts or strike off at a tangent when faced with logical argument or
>> >factual explanations in response to your questions.
>>
>> Which is *exactly* what you are doing with respect to my comment about
>> the RAF and Dresden.
>
>The Second World War is totally and utterly irrelevant as far as the Irish
>situation is concerned Nik, and you have consistently and pedantically
>failed to take any notice of anything which has been written in response to
>your personal opinions of Dresden.
I disagree.
The behaviour of the RAF in WWII is entirely relevant if you wish to
claim that the IRA are wrong in their killing of civillians but yet
the RAF are right in their past killing of civillians.
What is it that makes the RAF killing of civillians in Dresden, not
terrorism?
> You might as well argue about the
>morality of the Zulu Wars or the 100 Years War against the French for all
>the relevance they have to Northern Ireland,
Did the British forces involved commit atrocities against the
civillian populations of their enemies? If so then this behaviour is
relevant to.
So, I can infer from you, that its "Do as I say rather than do as I
do" then?
Good one...I hope you don't lie awake at night wondering why you/your
brother's in arms get attacked by Irish republicans...
> and a response from me to your
>absurd opinions would be just as irrelevant and equally futile.
To someone who wishes to deny the wrong doing of British Armed forces
in history but remain hypercritical of Irish Republican activities,
yes.
To me, its just pathetic and evil hypocrisy.
Nik
ITOUT @ntlworld.com Telmey®
Couple of things you might have forget Nik, Not only was Ireland was
Part of the British Empire, but many Irish people did the fighting
one of the Biggest Losses in WWII was of proud Irishmen, and some of
the Pilots who flew those bombers to Dresden were Irish, I was just
reading of how one Irish pilot says the heat was unbearable even in
his bomber and the River through the town it's self was actually
boiling. ( yes I know, about Dresden, but was using your very own
tactic of 'gimme proof'..... Bloody annoying ain't it) I know of and
have spoken to 3 Pilots; one from Belfast, Cavan & Cork.
The Irish who fought in WWII are Brave men even more so because the
did it of their own free will and volunteered, not conscripted.
So TELL ME Nik, In your books does that make Irishmen more Blood
thirsty or more of heros in your book? it certainly... on the lines
you are arguing make them a very big part of it , doesn't it!
michael adams
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:YPBQ3R5L377...@anonymous.poster...
> "michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:3eb9...@212.67.96.135...
> [...]
> > Actually if people start posting using other peoples names, never
>
> As someone who throws silly accusations around about Nik's alleged 'dual
> identity', your concern has a certain hollow ring about it. I was under
the
> impression you rather liked trying to confuse people about newsgroup
> identities.
...
There's a fundamental distinction to be drawn between -
a) One person posting under two or more different identities, claiming
to be two or more different people. As this of itself, doesn't seek to
misrepresent and thus potentially injure a third party's reputation in
any way.
b) A person deliberately seeking to misrepreasnt themselves as a
third party, - to the unwary at least - when by so doing they are
potentially able to gravely injure that third party's reputation by
putting words in their mouths. In the eyes of the group at least.
Are you seriously suggesting that you are unable to see
this distinction ?
And are you further suggesting, that my suggesting that you and Nik
are indeed the same person, is something which could be taken seriously
by anyone. Because if so, that very fact speaks volumes does it not?
And are you further suggesting, that my suggesting that Nik and you may
indeed by the same person, is in any way as harmful to Nik's reputation as
was the misrepresentation which painted him as a Nazi? Most illuminating
I must say! You must really dislike this Falcon character you've invented
for yourself. Mustn't you eh Nik ?
michael adams
...
Formal Apology to William A. T. Clark
Because both yourself and this poster Falcon\Budgie shared an apparent
interest in Rigby and grammar flames, I assumed at one point that you
were indeed one and the same person.
As a result of which I was unessarily aggressive and rude in responding
to your posts. I now realise that this wasn't in fact the case. Please
accept my humblest apologies for this.
michael adams
(homework delayed Mr O'Brien. As you can see. The poorhouse beckons)
...
ITOUT @ntlworld.com Telmey®
>news:b98jbvo7jc1oo5op9...@4ax.com...
>
>> >> Well I must admit I missed that stalker, I never realised Nik
>> >> had a Stalker, Such laughable idea
>> >
>> >...
>> >
>> >Its not a laughable idea at all. This creep has been following Nik
>> >around all over the place for over a year now, so I believe.
>>
>> Are you Nik's bodyguard?
>>
>> >That's why he uses loads of different nyms. You simply don't seem to
>> >appreciate what sort of creeps you can sometimes come across on the Net.
>>
>> Oh, I do you tried to stalk me a while back
>
>...
>
>Yup thought so! Doesn't take you more than two posts does it, before
>you start coming out with the slurs and attempts at character
>assassination! I wouldn't even think of asking you to prove it,
>because I already know you can't.
Are you saying you did not ? and that your 'Bet post was not such a
post, you hammered it for some time!
it is also that series of posts, why you will not get apologies
on the group
>...
>
>>
>> >This is in no way funny, I can assure you.
>>
>>
>> Funny ha ha, I have never seen nor have I heard Nik mention
>> stalker, still a google search shows that he has not had someone use
>> the same name before.
>
>...
>
>He mentioned the fact to me in a post a while ago I can assure you.
>As you've taken the trouble to look it up. Admittedly you couldn't
>be expected to know.
You admit I could not expected to know these things yet you are
using the fact I should have know as you basis for your argument
that is stupid.
thank you for that, at least you understand that if we are used to a
poster's name we do not expect it to be used by someone else,
and do not 'normally' need to check to see if it is genuine or not
But we all know that it does happen at times
>
>>
>> >Well you got it badly wrong and you owe Nik an apaology for even thinking
>> >he'd regard himself as a Nazi. Or maybe the Kiwis fought on the side
>> >of the Axis Powers in WWII?
>>
>> Funny how you and the other come to Nik's rescue and try to take the
>> heat off him, I find this 'Collusion' trick amazing
>
>...
>
>Lot of it about it isn't there?
I thought so ?
>But it works best I believe when
>its financed by taxpayers money with lots of resources behind it.
DON'T mention those B*^&^$'s
>> and this is
>> not the first time Nik does a disappearing trick while you and
>> your/his fellow republicans posters appear to take the diversionary
>> tactics. You have not posted to me for ages completely ignoring my
>> posts but when the heat builds up it would seem you try these
>> diversion tactics.
>
>...
>
>What heat? Mr O'Brien took one of his increasingly frequent holidays
>and so just like the mountain to the mountaineer, you just happened
>to be there!
>...
>
>>
>> Sorry.....no I'm really sorry, I fell asleep there, you bored me,
>> Who gives a rats Ar*e
>
>...
>
>You shouldn't be falling asleep at your age. A youngster born
>long after Dresden.
>...
>
>> >For once in your life, why not act like a real man?
>>
>> Who the hell said I was real? , as far as you know I'm just
>> a plastic IBM keyboard.
>...
>
>Well lately you've been claiming to be a plastic keyboard that
>installs fruit machines then haven't you? You don't see too many of
>those around do you ?
No... 'used' too
>Anyway if you're not going to apologise, then instead would you please
>just answer these two questions, you've ran away from previously.
Oh bloody hell more diversions, (non-working ones) but ok just so you
can't say I am not obliging;- besides it will only take a second.....
>a) How did you know that J*o*h*n R*e*d*d*y\T*G wore glasses? You let that slip
>in the thread about people with glasses firing rifles if you remember.
diversions! diversions! Diversions
, but as I'm still waiting for nik...
No ?? what are you on about? I never let slip at all.
You are simply not very good at comprehending posts are you...
1st, you/T*G said that GAdams could not murder anyone
'You' claimed that "You can't even aim a gun properly if you have to
wear glasses can you?. " (We know that is just complete bollox)
T*G Claimed that Trimble murdered people
In response and on the back of YOUR same argument ("You can't even aim
a gun properly if you have to wear glasses can you?. ") that I claimed
that Trimble could not, as "he wears glasses then he can't be a Top
G un, can he?"
I did not say that GiT wore glasses
READ this again...SLOWLY.
HE (Trimble) wears glasses ergo he (Trimble) cannot be *a* T op Gun
No, no, read it slower than that, so you u.n.d.e.r.s.t.a.n.d
So by asking (again) you have proven just how clever you really
aren't. Besides you have not keeping up todate with posts otherwise
you would know if I have met GiT, thus know if he wears glasses or
not.
ok that's your So obvious diversion dealt with have you seen Nik?
>b) Why would Loyalists paint We'll never forget you Jimmy Sands" on a
>gable-end as a joke, if Jimmy Sands was his real name, as you claim?
You answered that yourself, he was 'known' as 'Bobby'
and it annoys Republicans when he was referred to in his real name
as your own words say......
"Anyway, what matters is the name they're known by!"
Not really a joke, simply a matter of fact, that Republicans do not
like. and is why the "Joke" came about.
Ok that's your second irrelevant diversion dealt with Where's Nik?
>And answers came there none?
ooops wrong again, is that another diversion
>michael adams
>
>
>I'm only posting this on SCI by the way.
>
>Just thought I'd mention it, as some of us don't always
>check the headers :-)
That's true but as you Claimed it on the other Groups I thought I'd
do the Follow ups so all can see my reply, and what a fool you are
making of yourself.
Next!
Sweeney the Wanderer
>
>On Tue, 6 May 2003 23:36:19 +0100, "Beacon" <openm...@mydeja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> You're talking about the combatants of nation states (wearing uniform,
>>> in marked military aircraft) bombing a defended city in war, at the
>>> order of a democratically-accountable government and in order to
>>> defeat a genocidal tyranny. Remind me of the last time the IRA
>>> actually managed that outside of your wet dreams.
>>
>>Eh. Dublin 1916?
>
>Lloyd George did many things, but running a genocidal tyranny
>unaccountable to some form of democracy wasn't one of them. Unless
>your name was Herbert Asquith.
You is a bad boy..
Sweeney
Beacon
> On Wed, 7 May 2003 11:17:29 +0100, "Beacon" <openm...@mydeja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >One can easily argue that Plantation was genocide.
>
> One might, but it wouldn't be a particularly credible argument in
> comparison with the deliberately industrialised slaughter the Nazis
> engaged in.
How so? The Plantation of Munster could be compared with the annexation of
Poland. Local people who lived generations were forceably removed and either
driven off or pursued hunted down and killed. The word "Tory" actually comes
form the Irish for pursuit and originates from that period.
> It would, however, be a very useful tool for allowing you
> to discredit criticism of the plantation by indulging in such rampant
> and obvious hyperbole as comparing it to Adolf's approach to
> displacing population with suspect loyalties, so feel free if that's
> your inclination.
>
> >And how was Bismark a
> >genocidal tyrant? Yet a War was fought against the Germany he built up.
>
> It might have escaped your notice, but Otto wasn't actually running
> Germany in 1933-45,
Ir efer you to the comments I made regarding the IRA of 1916 (in the middle
of WWI and not WWII).
>although he may have been lurking unnoticed in a
> geriatric torpor in the East Prussian senile asylum that Willi would
> have liked to bang him up in while the Russians rolled past.
>
> > One
> >I might add mirrored on the Britian of that time.
>
> You might, and yet still this inaccurate anachronism would say nothing
> about dealing with the situation as it existed in 1916 or 1945,
> instead of yibbling on about things beyond living memory and which
> should have no mandate to enforce misery on the present.
Was it Winston Churchill who said "the further back one looks the further
forward one can see"? I think he was around in the 1939-1945 period wasn't
he? And who was voted the greatest British person of all times?
Beacon
That is your opinion. Mine is :
Yes other historical "wars" are important.
Was what was done a "just war"?
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm
http://www.questia.com/Index.jsp?CRID=just_war_doctrine&OFFID=se1
Thomas Acquinas held that three requirements are necessary to morally
justify the resort to force: legitimate authority, just cause, and right
intention. By legitimate authority he insisted, in line with the Biblical
witness (citing Romans 13:1-6) and medieval thought, that force was to be
employed as a public act by a sovereign political authority.
http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$595
http://commhum.mccneb.edu/dweber/CLASS/CR/Editorials/Iraq%20War/Iraq%20War.h
tm
a.. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options
must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
b.. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just
causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not
constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to
the society deem legitimate.
c.. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For
example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a
just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point
#4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the
only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
d.. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of
success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally
justifiable.
e.. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More
specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the
peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
f.. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury
suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the
limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
g.. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and
non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every
effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are
justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a
military target.
Beacon
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>
> You can 'infer' nothing Nik. Don't put words into my mouth or twist what
> I've said. The Second World War is totally and utterly irrelevant as far
as
> the Irish situation is concerned.
Then why did Churchill ask Dev Valera to enter the War on the Allies side?
Were there strings attached? Like ports for instance? Or "Come into the war.
A Nation once again"?
michael adams
"Telmey®" <Tel...@ntlworld.com > wrote in message
(Good try but you'll have to go a long way....)
news:v2dkbv4vcf4uvpqdi...@4ax.com...
> >> Oh, I do you tried to stalk me a while back
> >
> >...
> >
> >Yup thought so! Doesn't take you more than two posts does it, before
> >you start coming out with the slurs and attempts at character
> >assassination! I wouldn't even think of asking you to prove it,
> >because I already know you can't.
>
> Are you saying you did not ? and that your 'Bet post was not such a
> post, you hammered it for some time!
...
That was not stalking. That was a proper exchange of opinions!
And what's more I strongly suspect you of cheating - of
getting "special help" from another poster from this group!
It's funny how hundreds of these posts turn up after a week of you
looking everywhere for them. isn't it?
Like somebody had then saved on their hard disk or something
all along and decided to repost them as a favour to a friend!
Oh yes and by the way I've noticed how you've started up the name
calling on the other thread. Hoping I'd not notice no doubt.
Is this really what you want?
...
> it is also that series of posts, why you will not get apologies
> on the group
>
...
Its you who should be apaologising to me for cheating, if nothing else!
...
>
> You admit I could not expected to know these things yet you are
> using the fact I should have know as you basis for your argument
> that is stupid.
>
> >...
Yes and no. On the one hand I thought I was being a bit hard on you. But
on the other hand if you borrow a car to take somebody to a hospital
in an emegency and you run somebody down because the car's got defective
brakes...should you have checked them thoroughly beforehand?
That's the best I can do really.
...
> >...
> >
> >Actually if people start posting using other peoples names, never
> >mind the *stalking*, we *should* all give a damn! Unless everyone checks
> >the headers every time which they don't it could be going on far more
than
> >you'd think.
>
> thank you for that, at least you understand that if we are used to a
> poster's name we do not expect it to be used by someone else,
> and do not 'normally' need to check to see if it is genuine or not
> But we all know that it does happen at times
> >>
> >> >Well you got it badly wrong and you owe Nik an apaology for even
thinking
> >> >he'd regard himself as a Nazi. Or maybe the Kiwis fought on the side
> >> >of the Axis Powers in WWII?
> >>
> >> Funny how you and the other come to Nik's rescue and try to take the
> >> heat off him, I find this 'Collusion' trick amazing
> >
> >...
> >
> >Lot of it about it isn't there?
>
> I thought so ?
>
>
> >But it works best I believe when
> >its financed by taxpayers money with lots of resources behind it.
>
> DON'T mention those B*^&^$'s
>
>
>
>
> >...
> >
> >> >For once in your life, why not act like a real man?
> >>
> >> Who the hell said I was real? , as far as you know I'm just
> >> a plastic IBM keyboard.
> >...
> >
> >Well lately you've been claiming to be a plastic keyboard that
> >installs fruit machines then haven't you? You don't see too many of
> >those around do you ?
>
> No... 'used' too
..
Ah! So you've only changed into a plastic keyboard of late!
Is this correct? And so what do your family think of this situation?
...
>
> In response and on the back of YOUR same argument ("You can't even aim
> a gun properly if you have to wear glasses can you?. ") that I claimed
> that Trimble could not, as "he wears glasses then he can't be a Top
> G un, can he?"
> I did not say that GiT wore glasses
>
> READ this again...SLOWLY.
> HE (Trimble) wears glasses ergo
...
"ergo" eh ? Very impressive I must say! OK I'll take your word for it.
But "ergo" -- I am impressed I really am! You really did let that one slip
out didn't you? Just like that Sir Thomas Browne quote.
...
he (Trimble) cannot be *a* T op Gun
> No, no, read it slower than that, so you u.n.d.e.r.s.t.a.n.d
>
>
> So by asking (again) you have proven just how clever you really
> aren't. Besides you have not keeping up todate with posts otherwise
> you would know if I have met GiT, thus know if he wears glasses or
> not.
...
You've claimed to have met\not met him on numerous occasions I believe.
But only just now you were claiming to be a plastic keyboard weren't you?
So who's to say?
...
>
> ok that's your So obvious diversion dealt with have you seen Nik?
>
..
he comes and goes in bursts.
...
> >b) Why would Loyalists paint We'll never forget you Jimmy Sands" on a
> >gable-end as a joke, if Jimmy Sands was his real name, as you claim?
>
> You answered that yourself, he was 'known' as 'Bobby'
> and it annoys Republicans when he was referred to in his real name
> as your own words say......
> "Anyway, what matters is the name they're known by!"
>
...
As a matter of interest can you point me towards any reputable i.e non
Loyalist link that would confirm what you say? How come you or anyone
else for that matter, outside of his immediate family, knows what was
actually on his birth or death certificate? Did his family deliberately
make this information public? As this is unnecessary surely, and could
only cause possible confusion. And so if they did - then why?
michael adams
...
ITOUT @ntlworld.com Telmey®
of posting this;
>
>
>Never mind posting links.
ooops!! Poor mickey another dual standard hypocrite,
do as I say... not as I dooooooooooo...
>The only thing they'll ever, ever, knock you off for is spamming!
>
>http://www.altopia.com/polfaq.htm
>
>That's the page you should read.
Quote "Never mind posting links."
ITOUT @ntlworld.com Telmey®
Well, that Really was a complete and utter bloody waste of
bandwidth, I really have no Idea why you bothered to reply.
michael adams
> "michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk>
>
> Well, that Really was a complete and utter bloody waste of
> bandwidth, I really have no Idea why you bothered to reply.
>
Yeah well, my best friend's back now. So I don't need to play
with you any more now do I? So there!
Nur nur nur nur nur!
atb
michael :-)
ITOUT @ntlworld.com Telmey®
Why thank you kind Sir!
Toodle pip!
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
wrote:
>> One might, but it wouldn't be a particularly credible argument in
>> comparison with the deliberately industrialised slaughter the Nazis
>> engaged in.
>
>How so? The Plantation of Munster could be compared with the annexation of
>Poland. Local people who lived generations were forceably removed and either
>driven off or pursued hunted down and killed.
Because Nazi behaviour in Poland exceeded by far the brutality and
injustice of the plantation. If that is not self-evident to you, you
either know too little about the historical reality of both events, or
you are resorting to irrational hyperbole to distort the reality to
service your own agenda. Either way, there's nothing to be gained
from discussing it with you if the views you have posted really
represent your understanding of Nazi behaviour.
> The word "Tory" actually comes
>form the Irish for pursuit and originates from that period.
I am well aware of the origins of the terms "Whig" and "Tory", thank
you very much.
>> It might have escaped your notice, but Otto wasn't actually running
>> Germany in 1933-45,
>
>Ir efer you to the comments I made regarding the IRA of 1916 (in the middle
>of WWI and not WWII).
And I refer you then to the fact that Bismarck wasn't running Germany
in 1916, but the Kaiser and the General Staff were, and I also refer
your elastic concept of chronology to the fact that Dresden was bombed
in 1945, not 1916.
>> You might, and yet still this inaccurate anachronism would say nothing
>> about dealing with the situation as it existed in 1916 or 1945,
>> instead of yibbling on about things beyond living memory and which
>> should have no mandate to enforce misery on the present.
>
>Was it Winston Churchill who said "the further back one looks the further
>forward one can see"?
"History will be harsh to [Neville Chamberlain]. I know, for I will
write it."
I suspect that if you really want to embark on a war of selective
Churchillian quotation with me you're going to come off second best.
Either way, such contextless trivia say nothing about the points at
issue unless it's a direct quote from Churchill regarding the subject
at hand.
>I think he was around in the 1939-1945 period wasn't
>he?
He was also around in 1916, trying to end the German occupation of a
small neutral nation by military force.
>And who was voted the greatest British person of all times?
If you think TV opinion polls are a realistic historical determinant,
this exchange is even more futile than I anticipated.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
<ban...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Lloyd George did many things, but running a genocidal tyranny
>>unaccountable to some form of democracy wasn't one of them. Unless
>>your name was Herbert Asquith.
>
>You is a bad boy..
Worse than Beacon might know - I got them the wrong way round for
Easter '16, but it works either way.
Gavin Bailey
--
"Blackmail is such an ugly word. I prefer extortion.
Beacon
> On Thu, 8 May 2003 15:22:12 +0100, "Beacon" <openm...@mydeja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> One might, but it wouldn't be a particularly credible argument in
> >> comparison with the deliberately industrialised slaughter the Nazis
> >> engaged in.
> >
> >How so? The Plantation of Munster could be compared with the annexation
of
> >Poland. Local people who lived generations were forceably removed and
either
> >driven off or pursued hunted down and killed.
>
> Because Nazi behaviour in Poland exceeded by far the brutality and
> injustice of the plantation. If that is not self-evident to you, you
> either know too little about the historical reality of both events, or
> you are resorting to irrational hyperbole to distort the reality to
> service your own agenda.
But now you are discussing matters of scale. The Pol Pot killing fields
witnessed less deaths than the WWII Nazis also but it can be compared to it.
Similarly the Communist dictatorship in Russia killed more than the Nazis
but can also be compared. One can not argue that the comparison is invalid
on matters of scale alson.
> Either way, there's nothing to be gained
> from discussing it with you if the views you have posted really
> represent your understanding of Nazi behaviour.
I will leave the readers to make that decision based on the case I make
rather than have them assume my opinion is right and I suggest you do the
same.
>
> > The word "Tory" actually comes
> >form the Irish for pursuit and originates from that period.
>
> I am well aware of the origins of the terms "Whig" and "Tory", thank
> you very much.
So the comparison of those who were hunted down rounded up and exterminated
is valid.
>
> >> It might have escaped your notice, but Otto wasn't actually running
> >> Germany in 1933-45,
> >
> >Ir efer you to the comments I made regarding the IRA of 1916 (in the
middle
> >of WWI and not WWII).
>
> And I refer you then to the fact that Bismarck wasn't running Germany
> in 1916,
And I refer you to the remark that I made about the German Empire (and
indeed the British Empire) being built in the decades prior to WWI and how
the German and British Imperialism were similar. Indeed I have argued before
that WWI and WWII were fought for and against imperial expansion by
basically the same sides. Only the side that fought for in one case fought
against in the other one.
>but the Kaiser and the General Staff were, and I also refer
> your elastic concept of chronology to the fact that Dresden was bombed
> in 1945, not 1916.
The remark I made about 1916 was connected to Dresden because the question
was posed about people in uniform attacking a foreign force and when had the
IRA ever done that. In 1916 a uniformed IRA attacked a British force.
>
> >> You might, and yet still this inaccurate anachronism would say nothing
> >> about dealing with the situation as it existed in 1916 or 1945,
> >> instead of yibbling on about things beyond living memory and which
> >> should have no mandate to enforce misery on the present.
I wonder if you will apply this principle when the most recent thuggery in N
Ireland is by far weighted on the Loyalist Paramilitary side?
Oddly I do respect the input of Irish veterans into WWI and WWII and 1916
even when others like you say they should not have any affect on how we
presently act just because you do not remember them. There was a certain
person who desided that it would be great to wipe the slate clean and start
today at "Year Zero" His name was Pol Pot. Do you know where your
reccomendation of the past becoming irrelevant got the people of Cambodia?
> >
> >Was it Winston Churchill who said "the further back one looks the further
> >forward one can see"?
>
> "History will be harsh to [Neville Chamberlain]. I know, for I will
> write it."
A "yes " will suffice. And please do not write your history on white paper.
> I suspect that if you really want to embark on a war of selective
> Churchillian quotation with me you're going to come off second best.
Oh I suppose you are going to supply me with a litany of "non selective"
quotations? Feel free to do so. I for one invite you to supplying ANY
quotation from Churchill where he said history beyond living memory is
pointless in making present day decisions. Go on! Make me second best and
produce that quotation.
> Either way, such contextless trivia say nothing about the points at
> issue unless it's a direct quote from Churchill regarding the subject
> at hand.
The subject at hand being - things beyond living memory which should have no
mandate to enforce misery on the present - versus -the further back we look
into history the further forward we can plan for the future-.
[snip]
I agree with Msrs Churchill and Bonaparte on this in that history is the
version of past events that people have decided to agree upon. But the past
did exist. What we make of it IS important for today. Originality is very
rare.
Nik Warrensson
I can imagine that it might be but the difference between, say,
comments like "The IRA opened fire first on Bloody Sunday" is a lot
more contentious than the idea that what happened at Dresden was an
attrocity.
> I know of and have spoken to 3 Pilots; one from Belfast, Cavan & Cork.
>The Irish who fought in WWII are Brave men even more so because the
>did it of their own free will and volunteered, not conscripted.
They were and I too would have fought against the Nazis, were I alive
at the time.
>So TELL ME Nik, In your books does that make Irishmen more Blood
>thirsty or more of heros in your book?
Myself, I would have preferred that Ireland fought in Europe in WWII.
Were you aware that, of the Allies, New Zealand had the highest per
capita casualty rate?
>it certainly... on the lines
>you are arguing make them a very big part of it , doesn't it!
I myself, had Irish relatives that fought in WWII for the British
Army. The one I am thinking of was aggreived at Churchill for not
living up to his, "A nation once again", telegram.
Nik
Nik Warrensson
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>"Nik O'Kiwi" <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:qkmjbvk270e9idr4e...@4ax.com...
>> do" then? [...]
>
>You can 'infer' nothing Nik. Don't put words into my mouth or twist what
>I've said. The Second World War is totally and utterly irrelevant as far as
>the Irish situation is concerned.
So its alright for the RAF to carpet bomb Dresden then and kill who
knows how many thousands of people in one day but its wrong for the
Irish to resist the soldiers of a nation thats been predatory on
Ireland for centuries?
Is that what you're asking me to believe?
I be more inclined to believe you if the British Army Soldiers could
be accompanied, soldier for soldier, by members of military.ie and
likewise Gardai with PSNI.
Nik
michael adams
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>
> Frankly, I've gave up any hope of you, Ray, FreeIreland, Mike Adams and
> Conor Booze O'Bully believing anything but your own jaundiced views long
> ago.
...
Well we certainly didn't believe Sean O'Callaghan when he identified
Shergars skull!* Credulous dupes such as yoursef and your Paymasters
in the British Establishment did! The DNA evidence proved he was
lying didn't it? So who was being made the monkey of there?
...
You're so wrapped up your deeply ingrained fantasies, that if any of
> you faced up to a glimmer of reality #
...
What, that the skull wasn't Shergar's and that O'Callaghan was lying?
...
it would probably cause irreparable
> psychological damage. I'm betting the average lurker reads your convoluted
> irrelevancies and comes to a reasonable conclusion about who is making a
> sensible contribution (and telling the truth), and who is not.
>
...
What that the skull really was Shergar's, and that O'Callaghan
wasn't lying?
...
> No you wouldn't. You'll always refuse to believe anything which taints
your
> Romantic-Irish-Freedom-Fighters delusion.
>
...
What that the skull really was Shergar's after all and that O'Callaghan
wasn't lying?
> [Hey - a new acronym, "IBSOC". I Believe Sean O'Callaghan (© Falcon
Enterprises).
Think it will catch
> on?]
>
> -------
> Falcon:
> growing more desperate by the minute
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This message was posted from one of the Wards in this Institution.
> The original sender is becoming increasingly confused. Any address shown
> in the From header should be verified by the Matron
>
____________________________________________________________________
*
Episode One
Seán O'Callaghan and Shergar! The truth!
----------------------------------------
Start Quote:
He was the local connection that Councillor Tommy Foley was talking
about when he suggested the skull of the horse that he found was that
of Shergar. It was O'Callaghan who managed to furnish the gardaí with
the names of those responsible for stealing the horse. He was also able
to tell gardaí that the horse had been shot because kidnappers could not
control him.
There never had been any suggestion that Shergar was taken to Kerry.
Bringing a horse that was out of control all the way to Kerry was
most unlikely.
:end quote
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2000/04/19/current/opinionpage_2.htm
I don't know if you're aware of the fact Budgie but the Insurance
claim on Shergar has never been paid out.
start quote:
Having been retired to stud with a syndicated value of 10 million
pounds, Shergar's owners refused to give into the ransom demands
for fear of setting a precedent.
To this day, his demise has not stopped people trying to make
money out of Shergar. A woman claiming to be able to produce
Shergar's bones contacted a bloodstock consultant in the 1990s
offering them for use in an insurance claim. But negotiations
petered out when she demanded a large sum of money in return.
More recently, scientists examined a skull containing two bullet
holes, which had been discovered wrapped in cloth on a footpath a
few hours' drive from Ballymany.
However, the skull was found to belong to a much younger horse
http://www.vets-at-work.com/news_article.jsp?news_storyID=2528
:end quote
I don't want to blind you with science here Budgie but Shergar
was a thoroughbred race horse with known parents and known brothers
and sisters. So you can rest assured Budgie that just like the
Duke of Edinbrough and the Czar and Anastasia if there was any
posibilty that DNA from this skull, vouched for by the "British
Asset" Sean O'Callaghan no less! had matched DNA from any of
Shergar's living relatives, the syndiacate that owned Shergar
woud have been down to the Insurance Ofice the very next morning
to collect their £10m in a flash.
>
ITOUT @ntlworld.com Telmey®
of posting this;
>
>> I know of and have spoken to 3 Pilots; one from Belfast, Cavan & Cork.
>>The Irish who fought in WWII are Brave men even more so because the
>>did it of their own free will and volunteered, not conscripted.
>
>They were and I too would have fought against the Nazis, were I alive
>at the time.
You Fought the Nazis ?? yea yea yea, what have you a time machine
or what? When was the last time the Nazis were at war?
Maybe you are thinking of Unit 88. (Neo-Nazi) and maybe you fought
them in a sports event, certainly you were never fighting them in
war, you are incredible Nik, I would have thought that are closer
to your ideals after all their flag is a black Celtic cross
>>So TELL ME Nik, In your books does that make Irishmen more Blood
>>thirsty or more of heros in your book?
>
>Myself, I would have preferred that Ireland fought in Europe in WWII.
On whose side?
>Were you aware that, of the Allies, New Zealand had the highest per
>capita casualty rate?
>
>>it certainly... on the lines
>>you are arguing make them a very big part of it , doesn't it!
>
>I myself, had Irish relatives that fought in WWII for the British
>Army. The one I am thinking of was aggreived
De Valera... a relation of yours ha ha
I'll say this for you , you've got some spit.
>at Churchill for not
>living up to his, "A nation once again", telegram.
what was that about then?
Mr Winston Churchill痴 telegram to De Valera in the depths of World
War II, offering to swap neutrality for Irish unity: 鮮ow or Never!
Now and Forever! A Nation Once Again!着
Devious dev messed that up too.
Tel.
ITOUT @ntlworld.com Telmey®
>Were you aware that, of the Allies, New Zealand had the highest per
>capita casualty rate?
Where did you get those figures from ?
I do not want to take anything away from the Brave REAL soldiers whom
fought in WW II, but your figures are wrong. the only way to make it
out as you say is to be selective about which battles, and in that
case you could make the Isle of White look good.
please fee free to expand on your statement.
(fatalities /inhabitants)
Poland (220 / 1 000 ) 6 028 000 killed
(including 2.9 million Jews and 3.1 million ethnic Poles)
U.S.S.R. (116 / 1 000 ) 20,000,000 killed
(inc 1.6 million Jews, mostly murdered civilians and killed
prisoners-of-war)
Yugoslavia (108 / 1 000 ) 1 706 000 killed
Greece (70 / 1 000) 558 000 killed
Czechoslovakia (25 / 1 000) 360 000 killed
Albania (24 / 1 000) 28 000 killed
Netherlands (17 / 1 000) 156 600 killed
Luxemburg (17 / 1 000) 5 000 killed
France (15 / 1 000) 653 000 killed
Belgium (10 / 1 000) 88 000 killed
U.K. (8 / 1 000) 375 000 killed
New Zealand (6 / 1 000) 10 000 killed
Beacon
> On 8 May 2003 05:20:39 -0700, Sweeney the Wanderer
> <ban...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Lloyd George did many things, but running a genocidal tyranny
> >>unaccountable to some form of democracy wasn't one of them. Unless
> >>your name was Herbert Asquith.
> >
> >You is a bad boy..
>
> Worse than Beacon might know - I got them the wrong way round for
> Easter '16, but it works either way.
>
Sometimes poets also do not intend the meanings read into what they write.
But the meaning of my "piece of white paper remark" was intended to refer to
Chamberlains famous speech and to Paisleys "third Force" speech about
holding up pieces of white paper.
ITOUT @ntlworld.com Telmey®
that idea was 'played with' but neither community would have it
unionists because they did not want a foreign (and enemy) on the
streets, and republicans because they had no cause to moan, SF/IRA
issued a threat to the Garda and their families for working with the
British. stating they would also be legit targets .
ITOUT @ntlworld.com Telmey®
>news:8OU8E85737750.8152083333@anonymous.poster...
>>
>> Frankly, I've gave up any hope of you, Ray, FreeIreland, Mike Adams and
>> Conor Booze O'Bully believing anything but your own jaundiced views long
>> ago.
>...
>
>Well we certainly didn't believe Sean O'Callaghan when he identified
>Shergars skull!* Credulous dupes such as yoursef and your Paymasters
>in the British Establishment did! The DNA evidence proved he was
>lying didn't it? So who was being made the monkey of there?
Are you saying that the 'Skull' was a monkey's Skull or that
shergar was made into a monkey?
Whitewolf
wrote:
Snip
>Frankly, I've gave up any hope of you, Ray, FreeIreland, Mike Adams and
>Conor Booze O'Bully believing anything but your own jaundiced views long
>ago. You're so wrapped up your deeply ingrained fantasies, that if any of
>you faced up to a glimmer of reality it would probably cause irreparable
>psychological damage. I'm betting the average lurker reads your convoluted
>irrelevancies and comes to a reasonable conclusion about who is making a
>sensible contribution (and telling the truth), and who is not.
Since I was mentioned above - and almost missed it... I'm going to reply...
I don't like being called a liar, or not telling the truth... I don't lie
Falcon, I may have different opinions than you about certain things, but I
do not post something or write something that I know to be false... I'm
surprised at you using such a big brush there...
Ray
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Around 55% of two thirds of Ulster says NO!" - Gav
Email: r...@eirefirst.com
Irish culture/interest site: http://www.eirefirst.com
King James Bible: http://www.iol.ie/~rayh/kjv
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nik O'Kiwi
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>"Nik Warrensson" <warre...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:qpinbv02q1pk14vpq...@4ax.com...
>> On 8 May 2003 11:56:03 -0000, Falcon
>> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>[..]
>> >You can 'infer' nothing Nik. Don't put words into my mouth or twist what
>> >I've said. The Second World War is totally and utterly irrelevant as far as
>> >the Irish situation is concerned.
>>
>> So its alright for the RAF to carpet bomb Dresden then and kill who
>> knows how many thousands of people in one day but its wrong for the
>> Irish to resist the soldiers of a nation thats been predatory on
>> Ireland for centuries?
>
>Can't you firkin read Nik? Don't put words into my mouth and don't presume
>to tell me what I think.
Err...nowhere did I tell you what to think.
Tell me though, Falcon, was the bombing of Dresden terrorism or not?
> And don't start indulging in malicious speculation
>as a tool to bully people: leave that kind of schoolyard behaviour to the
>hypno-ductile black hole theorists.
And the RUC Special Branch eh? UDA? MI5?
> I've given you my view that the Second
>World War is totally and utterly irrelevant as far as the Irish situation
>is concerned,
Yeah and you'd be being hyporcritical by doing so.
> and to try draw me into a debate by comparing Irish terrorism
>with allied military operations in a global war is utterly bizarre.
Explain to me please, what is the difference between a bombing a
German house with people inside and bombing an Irish home with people
inside is.
> Not to mention futile.
Well, yeah, someone who wanted to avoid answering the question might
try to suggest that its futile.
>> Is that what you're asking me to believe?
>
>Frankly, I've gave up any hope of you, Ray, FreeIreland, Mike Adams and
>Conor Booze O'Bully believing anything but your own jaundiced views long
>ago. You're so wrapped up your deeply ingrained fantasies, that if any of
>you faced up to a glimmer of reality it would probably cause irreparable
>psychological damage.
Who is it thats avoiding the question again?
> I'm betting the average lurker reads your convoluted
>irrelevancies and comes to a reasonable conclusion about who is making a
>sensible contribution (and telling the truth), and who is not.
Now thats an interesting idea. An issue that immediately pops up
though, is that the truth about the six counties is rather, well, mad,
and a reasonable person who had not studied the situation in depth
just might not believe what they were told by people from the North...
>> I be more inclined to believe you if the British Army Soldiers could
>> be accompanied, soldier for soldier, by members of military.ie and
>> likewise Gardai with PSNI.
>
>No you wouldn't.
Yes I would.
Who was it that was telling me not to put words in your mouth above?
even though I wasn't.
> You'll always refuse to believe anything which taints your
>Romantic-Irish-Freedom-Fighters delusion.
Thats quite false.
>[Hey - a new acronym, "RIFF". (Š Falcon Enterprises). Think it will catch
>on?]
I doubt it.
Nik
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
wrote:
>Sometimes poets also do not intend the meanings read into what they write.
Sometimes poets should pull their nozzle's out of the vino long enough
to know what they intended to write in the first place.
>But the meaning of my "piece of white paper remark" was intended to refer to
>Chamberlains famous speech and to Paisleys "third Force" speech about
>holding up pieces of white paper.
I didn't read it. I think Billy Connolly had the ridiculous comic
potential of thousands of unionists marching about beating up
rebellious taigs with their firearms certificates summarized decades
ago.
Beacon
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> "Whitewolf" <r...@eirefirst.com> wrote in message
> news:fs8obvcm8v4sn6jmq...@4ax.com...
> > On 9 May 2003 17:33:54 -0000, Falcon <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
> > wrote:
> >
>
> I didn't call you a liar. But don't let that stop you from expressing your
> doubts about the veractiy of what I post, will you?
Now let us be fair here. You (Falcon) referred to the way in which other
people wrote as "convoluted" (although whether the "your" referred to is
plural is unclear.
But Ray was mentioned as one of the "you".
What is clear is that you referred to people coming to a reasonable
conclusion when comparing you to "these people" about who is telling the
truth and who is not.
Isn't this is a convoluted way of suggesting "those who do not tell the
truth are lying "? What do you call people who do not tell the truth and go
into "convoluted irrelevancies" to avoid doing so?
Beacon
> On 9 May 2003 17:33:54 -0000, Falcon
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
> >"Nik Warrensson" <warre...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:qpinbv02q1pk14vpq...@4ax.com...
> >> On 8 May 2003 11:56:03 -0000, Falcon
> >> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> >[..]
> >> >You can 'infer' nothing Nik. Don't put words into my mouth or twist
what
> >> >I've said. The Second World War is totally and utterly irrelevant as
far as
> >> >the Irish situation is concerned.
> >>
> >> So its alright for the RAF to carpet bomb Dresden then and kill who
> >> knows how many thousands of people in one day but its wrong for the
> >> Irish to resist the soldiers of a nation thats been predatory on
> >> Ireland for centuries?
> >
> >Can't you firkin read Nik? Don't put words into my mouth and don't
presume
> >to tell me what I think.
>
> Err...nowhere did I tell you what to think.
>
> Tell me though, Falcon, was the bombing of Dresden terrorism or not?
My opinion is that while the actual bombing (by those who actually dropped
them) might not be considered so even by todays standards but certainly not
by those doing it at the time. Those who ordered the bombing however could
well be considered war criminals by modern standards (and indeed are
considered so by people).
>
> > And don't start indulging in malicious speculation
> >as a tool to bully people: leave that kind of schoolyard behaviour to the
> >hypno-ductile black hole theorists.
>
> And the RUC Special Branch eh? UDA? MI5?
An the IRA supporter types who try to bully extreme right wing politicians
from speaking in public?
>
> > I've given you my view that the Second
> >World War is totally and utterly irrelevant as far as the Irish situation
> >is concerned,
>
> Yeah and you'd be being hyporcritical by doing so.
He would if he did in the past say it was relevant? Did he?
And your evidence is?
>
> > and to try draw me into a debate by comparing Irish terrorism
> >with allied military operations in a global war is utterly bizarre.
>
> Explain to me please, what is the difference between a bombing a
> German house with people inside and bombing an Irish home with people
> inside is.
Eh? One is not in Germany? Falcons argument seems to be (and please correct
me if you think I am putting words in your mouth since I am ) "It is not in
living memory so it does not matter"
I disagree with this. Magna Carta. The French Revolution. Tralfagar. The
Transit of Venus (yes ther is one next year). All are not in living memory
but all matter.
>
> > Not to mention futile.
While I agree that it might be futile to get all het up about whether Marie
Antionette was beheaded and to start a "free Marie" campaign, I do not agree
that The French Revolution was a futile and unimportant event.
> Well, yeah, someone who wanted to avoid answering the question might
> try to suggest that its futile.
That is true. But it would be illogical to assume that it proves Falcon was
trying to avoid answering it based on the suggestion that others who wanted
to avoid it would do the same.
>
> >> Is that what you're asking me to believe?
> >
> >Frankly, I've gave up any hope of you, Ray, FreeIreland, Mike Adams and
> >Conor Booze O'Bully believing anything but your own jaundiced views long
> >ago. You're so wrapped up your deeply ingrained fantasies, that if any of
> >you faced up to a glimmer of reality it would probably cause irreparable
> >psychological damage.
>
> Who is it thats avoiding the question again?
>
> > I'm betting the average lurker reads your convoluted
> >irrelevancies and comes to a reasonable conclusion about who is making a
> >sensible contribution (and telling the truth), and who is not.
>
[snip]
Beacon
> On Fri, 9 May 2003 22:03:59 +0100, "Beacon" <openm...@mydeja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Sometimes poets also do not intend the meanings read into what they
write.
>
> Sometimes poets should pull their nozzle's out of the vino long enough
> to know what they intended to write in the first place.
As the "poet not realising what other meaning was there" remark was based on
your admission of mixing things up bt being able to read it the other way
around I will give you the credit of telling yourself off for over indulging
in the wine.
>
> >But the meaning of my "piece of white paper remark" was intended to refer
to
> >Chamberlains famous speech and to Paisleys "third Force" speech about
> >holding up pieces of white paper.
>
> I didn't read it.
[snip]
I am sure you are aware of the event. In 1974 (i think) Ian stood on a hill
in Antrim and referred to firearm certificates when he asked people to "hold
up your pieces of white paper". All who attended had been asked to bring
them. It was similar to asking them to hold up their weapons or fire a
volley ionto the air. He was making the case that his unionist supporters
had guns enough to take out any oppositin even without the Army in NI. Many
Republicans have been making this case for him since then. It is not a
widely publicised event though and it is assumed Paisley never supported
armed violence.
michael adams
"Beacon" <openm...@mydeja.com> wrote in message
news:4l4va.12706$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
>
>
> [snip]
> I am sure you are aware of the event. In 1974 (i think) Ian stood on a
hill
> in Antrim and referred to firearm certificates when he asked people to
"hold
> up your pieces of white paper". All who attended had been asked to bring
> them. It was similar to asking them to hold up their weapons or fire a
> volley ionto the air.
....
start quote:
Memories run deep of gun clubs being set up at the start of the Troubles
by disgruntled former "B Specials" and photographs of the DUP leader, Ian
Paisley, marshalling 500 gun-licence-waving supporters on the slopes of
Slemish mountain in Co. Antrim.
http://www.iauc.org/unionistguns.html
:end quote
...
> He was making the case that his unionist supporters
> had guns enough to take out any oppositin even without the Army in NI.
Many
> Republicans have been making this case for him since then. It is not a
> widely publicised event though and it is assumed Paisley never supported
> armed violence.
>
>
michael adams
whataboutery central hq
...
Beacon
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> [...]
[snip]
>
>
> They do 'matter', but not in the context of the current debate, unless it
> can be shown that those events had a bearing on British policy in Northern
> Ireland. I'm sure Gavin and others have argued this for some time, but
> obviously the penny hasn't dropped with Nik.
Okay I accept that. But while they might not directly relate to each other
(like the Killing fields The WWII holocaust the French "Terror") the
principle of what is wrong for the state to do and what terrorism is does
relate to the issue of "just wars" etc.
>
> > > > Not to mention futile.
> >
> > While I agree that it might be futile to get all het up about whether
Marie
> > Antionette was beheaded and to start a "free Marie" campaign, I do not
agree
> > that The French Revolution was a futile and unimportant event.
>
> My intention here was to tell Nik that attempting to draw me into a
> protracted debate on the subject (of Dresden) would be futile.
> Paradoxically the fact that I've responded to your contribution on the
> subject would seem to refute that, wouldn't it ... ;-) I'll try to be more
> consistent in future .. ;-)
I am not the sort to resort to a "when did you last stop beating your wife"
argument. there are no traps intended in my remark. And I respect the
frankness of your reply (in contrast to convoluted explanations - which I do
indulge in myself)
>
> > > Well, yeah, someone who wanted to avoid answering the question might
> > > try to suggest that its futile.
> >
> > That is true. But it would be illogical to assume that it proves Falcon
was
> > trying to avoid answering it based on the suggestion that others who
wanted
> > to avoid it would do the same.
>
> Indeed.
Of course niether does it prove the contrary. i.e. that you were NOT trying
to avoid answering. But I am not making a case for either side in that.
michael adams
Legal arms have that escaped decommissioning
(by Anne Cadwallader, Ireland on Sunday)
http://www.iauc.org/unionistguns.html
January 30, 2000
selected quotes begin:
In the sustained debate over paramilitary arsenals that has raged
in the North, virtually since the first IRA ceasefire was called in
1994, the issue of legally-held weapons has barely broken the surface.
Yet the North is the most tooled-up society in Europe, with over a
hundred thousand weapons in the hands of its ordinary citizens -
it's believed the vast majority in the hands of the unionist population.
The irony is that, although there are obvious arguments to support the
North having the tightest regulations on the possession of firearms within
the British jurisdiction, there was no strengthening in the law after the
Dunblane tragedy.
On April 2nd 1998, the then Northern Secretary, Mo Mowlam, announced
that she was not "convinced of the need to prohibit the possession and
use" of handguns, bearing in mind the "clear commitment to maintaining
the highest standards of personal behaviour" of firearms holders.
This affirmation by Labour of the Conservative government's decision,
giving a unique exemption to the North, only came after a long campaign
by the gun lobby that resulted in the Ulster Unionist leader, David Trimble,
claiming he had won the argument in talks with the then British prime
minister, John Major.
The unspoken fear in the minds of many nationalists is that those guns,
somewhere "out there", have been obtained for the event of a "doomsday".
More significantly, on the deterrent principle, their existence exerts
a powerful influence.
This has all been factored into the political equation by nationalists as
representing the hidden fist behind the respectable face of unionism, an
implicit threat of violence to assert their will by force of arms if
necessary.
Memories run deep of gun clubs being set up at the start of the Troubles
by disgruntled former "B Specials" and photographs of the DUP leader, Ian
Paisley, marshalling 500 gun-licence-waving supporters on the slopes of
Slemish mountain in Co. Antrim.
According to the 1997 RUC Chief Constable's report, there are gun licences
for 138,727 firearms in the North - working out at one known gun held for
every eleven members of the population, men, women and children (if you take
into account RUC and British Army guns, that figure becomes more stark at
one in five).
In 1997, there were 83,500 firearms certificates current in the North. If
you add together the number of personal-issue protection weapons (9,800);
the estimated number of farmers in the North (5,060 in the telephone
directory); and the number of gun club members (3,350), it gives a combined
total of 18,210.
That leaves a massive total of 65,290 certificates held for undisclosed
personal use. Statistically, there are over 1.5 guns held per certificate,
which means there is a total of 97,975 legally-held weapons in the North -
which serve no apparent utilitarian purpose.
And that amount is not decreasing. The RUC Chief Constable's annual report
for 1998/9 shows there are 139,588 firearms currently held legally in the
North (nearly two thousand more than the previous year). There are now 51
registered firearms clubs (up ten from 1996 - an increase of 25% over two
years),
48 approved ranges (up six from 1996) and 161 firearms dealers.
Of the 1997 total, 111,014 were shotguns and airguns, 13,736 were small bore
rifles, 326 were full bore rifles, 12,771 were handguns and 880 were
"miscellaneous firearms".
Because most of the guns are .22 calibre weapons, arguments are made that
the guns are used mainly for sporting purposes, on gun ranges, for hunting
and target shooting, and to control vermin on and around farms, but the
above figures, again, do not bear that out.
The question of the North's 51 authorised gun clubs has also become
controversial. This paper revealed last year that one prestigious club
included amongst its members two loyalists who, while members, were
convicted of manufacturing weapons for the UDA and UVF.
This paper also revealed last year that ammunition seized by the police
from South African-supplied loyalist arms dumps, along with police-issue
bullets and NATO-issue target boards, were being routinely stolen from RUC
stores and used at registered gun clubs.
Top-of-the-range ammunition, for example, taken from Ballykinlar British
Army firing range in Co. Down and Garnerville RUC training college in east
Belfast, was sold-on at gun clubs throughout the North, according to gun
club sources to whom we spoke.
"There are also deeply worrying links between a minority of gun club
members and loyalism, which need to be exposed and dealt with. The
fear is that they are preparing for some "doomsday" situation".
The two members of the club, found guilty of gun manufacture while
they were members of the URA, were Samuel McCoubry and Denis Lindop,
convicted separately in two high-profile gun-manufacturing cases.
Lindop (49), described at his trial as a "UVF quarter-master" was convicted
in 1997 (two years after its ceasefire) of making sophisticated guns, some
inscribed "UFF Avenger 1995" at his home in Holywood, Co. Down.
At his trial, Lindop was described as cutting a "Rambo" like figure
during target practice, regularly wearing unnecessary camouflage fatigues,
dispensing with the usual ear-protection muffs and shouting loudly how
much he loved to hear the noise of gunfire.
Mr. Justice McDermott, at the trial, said the home-made arsenal at
his home amounted to an "Aladdin's cave". The haul included more than
40 weapons including 24 handguns, 20 rifles (one an assault rifle),
10 sub-machine guns, three shotguns, cartridges, rifle ammunition and
magazines.
Samuel McCoubry (53), a former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment,
was jailed in 1990 for 14 years for running what was described in court
as the "largest arms factory then found" in the North.
The RUC uncovered over 30 Sten guns and parts for over 1,000 Uzi-type
rapid-fire machine guns at his home in Spa, Ballynahinch, Co. Down.
McCoubry had been manufacturing guns for nearly 20 years from his
home-made factory.
:end quotes
Beacon
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> >
> > "Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> > news:WGTB1E3D3775...@anonymous.poster...
> > > "Whitewolf" <r...@eirefirst.com> wrote in message
> > > news:fs8obvcm8v4sn6jmq...@4ax.com...
> > > > On 9 May 2003 17:33:54 -0000, Falcon
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > >
> > > I didn't call you a liar. But don't let that stop you from expressing
your
> > > doubts about the veractiy of what I post, will you?
> >
> > Now let us be fair here.
[snip]
>
> Let me clarify the statement.
>
[snip]
> What I intended to convey in my final sentence was my belief that a) I'm
> betting the average lurker reads Nik's convoluted irrelevancies and comes
> to a reasonable conclusion about who is making a sensible contribution to
a
> debate,
If that is what you meant you should hav stated it. Anyway thank you for
that clarification
It is different to coming to a conclusion about who is telling the truth and
who isn't.
>and b) where conflicting accounts exist between Nik and I, for
> example where only one of us can be giving an accurate and truthful
account
> of an event or action, readers would also tend to conclude that it would
be
> more reasonable to accept my account. I may of course be wrong, and accept
> that these are simply assumptions on my part.
Well now you assume that there are only two mutually exculsives involved
here? Are you certain that there are?
Nik O'Kiwi
The question that needs to be addressed is:
"What will those weapons be used for if the IRA has completely
disarmed?"
Nik
David H
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2003 16:00:43 +0100, "michael adams"
><mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Legal arms have that escaped decommissioning
>>(by Anne Cadwallader, Ireland on Sunday)
[cuts]
>>
>>Samuel McCoubry (53), a former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment,
>>was jailed in 1990 for 14 years for running what was described in court
>>as the "largest arms factory then found" in the North.
>>
>>The RUC uncovered over 30 Sten guns and parts for over 1,000 Uzi-type
>>rapid-fire machine guns at his home in Spa, Ballynahinch, Co. Down.
>>McCoubry had been manufacturing guns for nearly 20 years from his
>>home-made factory.
>
>The question that needs to be addressed is:
>
>"What will those weapons be used for if the IRA has completely
>disarmed?"
I think you need to clarify the question. Do you mean the
legally held weapons, or the illegal weapons?
Presumably they will both be used as before. IRA weapons
never really made any difference to the use of illegally
held loyalist weapons anyway, and legally held weapons,
whether held by Prods or Catholics, were never any of
the IRA's business.
David H
--
abend
michael adams
"David H" <swe...@btinternet.comspam> wrote in message
news:3ebe140c...@news.btopenworld.com...
> I think you need to clarify the question. Do you mean the
> legally held weapons, or the illegal weapons?
...
If you read the thread heading again, possibly a bit slower
this time, I think you'll find the fifth word along - the one
after "Army?" if you're also having trouble with your counting,
definitely says "Legal".
If you're still having problems with your reading, try running
your fingers along under the words on the screen.
But don't forget to tell Mummy, as she can clean the screen
afterwards. So it will be all nice and clean again for
you to use again tomorrow.
And good luck with that reading, eh?
hope this helps
michael adams
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
wrote:
>As the "poet not realising what other meaning was there" remark was based on
>your admission of mixing things up bt being able to read it the other way
>around I will give you the credit of telling yourself off for over indulging
>in the wine.
?
As it happens, the analogy it works either way round as both DLG and
Asquith continued to manufacture rationales for undermining each
other's authority as Liberal leader and Liberal leader-in-waiting into
the 1920's. Still, this would require a certain understanding of the
intricacies of Liberal party machinations and British politics in
general to appreciate.
>[snip]
> I am sure you are aware of the event.
Indeed, which is why I'm aware of appropriate ridicule in Connolly's
response to it at the time.
> It is not a
>widely publicised event though and it is assumed Paisley never supported
>armed violence.
He likes to dictate the tune but tries to avoid paying the band or
taking responsibility for the dance. Fairly average for an NI
politician.
Nik O'Kiwi
(David H) wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2003 20:50:49 +1200, Nik O'Kiwi <repub...@email.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 May 2003 16:00:43 +0100, "michael adams"
>><mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Legal arms have that escaped decommissioning
>>>(by Anne Cadwallader, Ireland on Sunday)
>
>[cuts]
>>>
>>>Samuel McCoubry (53), a former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment,
>>>was jailed in 1990 for 14 years for running what was described in court
>>>as the "largest arms factory then found" in the North.
>>>
>>>The RUC uncovered over 30 Sten guns and parts for over 1,000 Uzi-type
>>>rapid-fire machine guns at his home in Spa, Ballynahinch, Co. Down.
>>>McCoubry had been manufacturing guns for nearly 20 years from his
>>>home-made factory.
>>
>>The question that needs to be addressed is:
>>
>>"What will those weapons be used for if the IRA has completely
>>disarmed?"
>
>I think you need to clarify the question. Do you mean the
>legally held weapons, or the illegal weapons?
I'm asking about the legally held weapons...answer my question...
>Presumably they will both be used as before. IRA weapons
>never really made any difference to the use of illegally
>held loyalist weapons anyway, and legally held weapons,
>whether held by Prods or Catholics, were never any of
>the IRA's business.
Tell me, if you will, within which community in the north do you think
owns the "legally" held weapons for the most part?
And they most certainly *would* be the IRA's business if, after a
border poll that abolishes the border, if they were taken out and used
by Unionist/Loyalists against their Nationalist neighbours.
Nik
David H
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>"David H" <swe...@btinternet.comspam> wrote in message
>news:3ebe140c...@news.btopenworld.com...
>> I think you need to clarify the question. Do you mean the
>> legally held weapons, or the illegal weapons?
>If you read the thread heading again, possibly a bit slower
>this time, I think you'll find the fifth word along - the one
>after "Army?" if you're also having trouble with your counting,
>definitely says "Legal".
But I regard the thread heading as your fault. Anne
Cadwallader's article covered both legally held and
illegal arms. Presumably she made a clearer distinction
between them than your selected quotes did. Also,
Nik's reply - and question - was directly under a paragraph
relating to illegal weapons - Stens and Uzis. Those were not
legal weapons, as I'm sure you realise.
>If you're still having problems with your reading, try running
>your fingers along under the words on the screen.
I expect you manage the words just fine, one at a time.
But the thread title was inappropriate for the quotes you
selected, and Nik seemed particularly interested
in the Stens and Uzis. And I was replying to him - not
you or Anne. Nice try with the red herrings though.
>But don't forget to tell Mummy, as she can clean the screen
>afterwards. So it will be all nice and clean again for
>you to use again tomorrow.
>And good luck with that reading, eh?
>hope this helps
You seem to be having a bit of a problem controlling
your temper this week. You should get a bit of
fresh air, play with the kids, snuggle down with your
wife. It's what the weekend is for.
David H
--
abend
michael adams
"David H" <swe...@btinternet.comspam> wrote in message
>
> >> I think you need to clarify the question. Do you mean the
> >> legally held weapons, or the illegal weapons?
>
> >If you read the thread heading again, possibly a bit slower
> >this time, I think you'll find the fifth word along - the one
> >after "Army?" if you're also having trouble with your counting,
> >definitely says "Legal".
>
> But I regard the thread heading as your fault. Anne
> Cadwallader's article covered both legally held and
> illegal arms.
> Presumably she made a clearer distinction
> between them than your selected quotes did.
...
I deliberately left a link to the article so that readers who
were sufficently interested in the topic could read it for
themselves before passing any judgement. So that as far as I'm
concerned those who choose not to avail themselves of this
facility really only have themselves to blame for any possible
misapprehensions on their part. Although IMO as it happens
the quoted extracts neatly summarised the facts.
http://www.iauc.org/unionistguns.html
Start first extract:
Yet the North is the most tooled-up society in Europe, with
over a hundred thousand weapons in the hands of its ordinary citizens -
it's believed the vast majority in the hands of the unionist population.
According to the 1997 RUC Chief Constable's report, there are gun
licences for 138,727 firearms in the North - working out at one known gun
held for every eleven members of the population, men, women and children
(if you take into account RUC and British Army guns, that figure becomes
more stark at one in five).
That leaves a massive total of 65,290 certificates held for
undisclosed personal use. Statistically, there are over 1.5 guns held
per certificate,which means there is a total of 97,975 legally-held weapons
in the North -which serve no apparent utilitarian purpose.
:end first extract
All right so far David? So thats 97,975 legally-held weapons
in the North -which serve no apparent utilitarian purpose.
Ninety seven thousand, nine hundred and seventy five of them.
start second quote
Mr. Justice McDermott, at the trial, said the home-made arsenal at
his home amounted to an "Aladdin's cave". The haul included more than
40 weapons including 24 handguns, 20 rifles (one an assault rifle),
10 sub-machine guns, three shotguns, cartridges, rifle ammunition and
magazines.
Samuel McCoubry (53), a former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment,
was jailed in 1990 for 14 years for running what was described in court
as the "largest arms factory then found" in the North.
The RUC uncovered over 30 Sten guns and parts for over 1,000 Uzi-type
rapid-fire machine guns at his home in Spa, Ballynahinch, Co. Down.
McCoubry had been manufacturing guns for nearly 20 years from his
home-made factory.
:end second quote
Now altogether here we're talking about around 87 complete weapons which
were impounded by the police. (57 plus 30) The 1000 odd parts can mean
anything from magazines to bolts or barrels presumably. However if we
assume that a Uzi is made up of 20 parts we can say that 1000 parts
represent say 50 guns. Giving us a grand total of illegal weapons
impounded by the police of 137.
So that we're talking here David about 137 impounded illegal weapons
in the hands of the police. And 97,975 legally-held weapons in the
hands of Unionists which serve no apparent utilitarian purpose.
Now is there anything in these figure which you don't quite
understand David? Is there any possible reason why you should think
the thread header was wrong?
Are you unable to comprehend simple English David? The 137 illegal
weapons impounded by the Police can hardly be in Unionist or Loyalist
hands right now. Can they David? So why should they have been included in
the thread heading? We're talking solely about the 97,975 legally-held
weapons in the hands of Unionists which serve no apparent utilitarian
purpose.
Aren't we David? All Ninety Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Five
of them. So what precisely is it, that you don't understand?
And what do you think the intended purpose of those Ninety Seven
Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Five legally held weapons might
be David? Given that they serve no apparent utilitarian purpose?
Apart that is from arming the Unionist's Private Army of course.
The one none of you claim to know anything about. With a few
left over presumably, to arm your Loyalist Murder Gangs.
So what precisely is it that you don't understand David?
Shall I give you a clue?
They're all intended to shoot Catholics David.
And they're all in the hands of half-wits like you!
michael adams
...
David H
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2003 09:18:42 +0000 (UTC), swe...@btinternet.comspam
>(David H) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 May 2003 20:50:49 +1200, Nik O'Kiwi <repub...@email.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 May 2003 16:00:43 +0100, "michael adams"
>>><mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>>>>The RUC uncovered over 30 Sten guns and parts for over 1,000 Uzi-type
>>>>rapid-fire machine guns at his home in Spa, Ballynahinch, Co. Down.
>>>>McCoubry had been manufacturing guns for nearly 20 years from his
>>>>home-made factory.
>>>
>>>The question that needs to be addressed is:
>>>
>>>"What will those weapons be used for if the IRA has completely
>>>disarmed?"
>>
>>I think you need to clarify the question. Do you mean the
>>legally held weapons, or the illegal weapons?
>
>I'm asking about the legally held weapons...answer my question...
Same as before - shooting clay pigeons, wild animals,
and targets.
>>Presumably they will both be used as before. IRA weapons
>>never really made any difference to the use of illegally
>>held loyalist weapons anyway, and legally held weapons,
>>whether held by Prods or Catholics, were never any of
>>the IRA's business.
>Tell me, if you will, within which community in the north do you think
>owns the "legally" held weapons for the most part?
I don't know. Go on tell me what you think. We do know
this though: "According to the 1997 RUC Chief Constable's
report, there are gun licences for 138,727 firearms in the North"
As for how they are divided, I don't know, and neither do you.
Do you think there is a space on the gun licence application
form for religion?
>And they most certainly *would* be the IRA's business if, after a
>border poll that abolishes the border, if they were taken out and used
>by Unionist/Loyalists against their Nationalist neighbours.
And they wouldn't be the IRA's business even then - they would
be the Garda's business.
They weren't used after Bloody Friday, Kingsmills, Teebane, or
the Enniskillen bomb. So they aren't going to be used after a
referendum. Illegal weapons are the killers over here. That's
why the terrorists have imported or manufactured so many of
them. And that's why legally held weapons weren't banned in
GFA.
David H
--
abend
David H
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>"David H" <swe...@btinternet.comspam> wrote in message
>news:3ebe9bbd...@news.btopenworld.com...
>>
>> >> I think you need to clarify the question. Do you mean the
>> >> legally held weapons, or the illegal weapons?
>> >If you read the thread heading again, possibly a bit slower
>> >this time, I think you'll find the fifth word along - the one
>> >after "Army?" if you're also having trouble with your counting,
>> >definitely says "Legal".
>> But I regard the thread heading as your fault. Anne
>> Cadwallader's article covered both legally held and
>> illegal arms.
>> Presumably she made a clearer distinction
>> between them than your selected quotes did.
>I deliberately left a link to the article so that readers who
>were sufficently interested in the topic could read it for
>themselves before passing any judgement. So that as far as I'm
>concerned those who choose not to avail themselves of this
>facility really only have themselves to blame for any possible
>misapprehensions on their part. Although IMO as it happens
>the quoted extracts neatly summarised the facts.
The facts were rather overshadowed by the speculation,
though. Your contributions below don't help, either.
>http://www.iauc.org/unionistguns.html
>Start first extract:
>Yet the North is the most tooled-up society in Europe, with
>over a hundred thousand weapons in the hands of its ordinary citizens -
>it's believed the vast majority in the hands of the unionist population.
>According to the 1997 RUC Chief Constable's report, there are gun
>licences for 138,727 firearms in the North - working out at one known gun
>held for every eleven members of the population, men, women and children
>(if you take into account RUC and British Army guns, that figure becomes
>more stark at one in five).
>
>That leaves a massive total of 65,290 certificates held for
>undisclosed personal use. Statistically, there are over 1.5 guns held
>per certificate,which means there is a total of 97,975 legally-held weapons
>in the North -which serve no apparent utilitarian purpose.
>
>:end first extract
>All right so far David? So thats 97,975 legally-held weapons
>in the North -which serve no apparent utilitarian purpose.
>Ninety seven thousand, nine hundred and seventy five of them.
Drivel. A large fraction of the guns are shotguns, which *only*
have a utilitarian purpose.
>start second quote
>Mr. Justice McDermott, at the trial, said the home-made arsenal at
>his home amounted to an "Aladdin's cave". The haul included more than
>40 weapons including 24 handguns, 20 rifles (one an assault rifle),
>10 sub-machine guns, three shotguns, cartridges, rifle ammunition and
>magazines.
>
>Samuel McCoubry (53), a former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment,
>was jailed in 1990 for 14 years for running what was described in court
>as the "largest arms factory then found" in the North.
>
>The RUC uncovered over 30 Sten guns and parts for over 1,000 Uzi-type
>rapid-fire machine guns at his home in Spa, Ballynahinch, Co. Down.
>McCoubry had been manufacturing guns for nearly 20 years from his
>home-made factory.
>
>:end second quote
>Now altogether here we're talking about around 87 complete weapons which
>were impounded by the police. (57 plus 30) The 1000 odd parts can mean
>anything from magazines to bolts or barrels presumably. However if we
>assume that a Uzi is made up of 20 parts we can say that 1000 parts
>represent say 50 guns. Giving us a grand total of illegal weapons
>impounded by the police of 137.
What it actually said was "parts for over 1,000 ... guns", not
"over 1000 parts for guns". So it's 1000 barrels, or 1000
magazines, or whatever, not 50 kits.
>So that we're talking here David about 137 impounded illegal weapons
>in the hands of the police. And 97,975 legally-held weapons in the
>hands of Unionists
and Nationalists, since you're being so precise.
>which serve no apparent utilitarian purpose.
wrong.
By the way, you forgot to congratulate the RUC for the arrest.
>Now is there anything in these figure which you don't quite
>understand David? Is there any possible reason why you should think
>the thread header was wrong?
Because the original author was desperate to link legally
held guns to wrong-doing, and did so by connecting them,
through several steps, to illegal weapons. If the illegal weapons
weren't important to you and Anne - why mention them at all?
>Are you unable to comprehend simple English David? The 137 illegal
>weapons impounded by the Police can hardly be in Unionist or Loyalist
>hands right now. Can they David? So why should they have been included in
>the thread heading? We're talking solely about the 97,975 legally-held
>weapons in the hands of Unionists which serve no apparent utilitarian
>purpose.
"solely"? Untrue - you mentioned, by choice, illegal weapons,
which Anne had mentioned, by choice. Why did they suddenly
become irrelevant when I mentioned them?
>Aren't we David? All Ninety Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Five
>of them. So what precisely is it, that you don't understand?
I understand the situation. I just don't see the problem.
>And what do you think the intended purpose of those Ninety Seven
>Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Five legally held weapons might
>be David? Given that they serve no apparent utilitarian purpose?
I reckon they are used for clay pigeon shooting, target shooting,
pest control, hunting and suicide. You reckon they have been lying
idle for decades awaiting doomsday, then?
>Apart that is from arming the Unionist's Private Army of course.
>The one none of you claim to know anything about.
Time to put on the tinfoil hat, Michael. Or tell us
much more about this UPA, or whatever it's called. Is
there a corresponding NPA for the rest of the legally
held weapons?
>With a few
>left over presumably, to arm your Loyalist Murder Gangs.
They seem to prefer proper weapons, like the IRA do, in
fact.
>So what precisely is it that you don't understand David?
>Shall I give you a clue?
[You are now entering the twilight zone]
>They're all intended to shoot Catholics David.
So why haven't they all been used before now?
Also - are the ones held by Catholics all intended
for shooting Prods? Or can you think of adequate reasons
for Catholics, Americans, Frenchmen etc. to have
guns?
>And they're all in the hands of half-wits like you!
Not me. I haven't handled a gun since I left school
25 years ago.
David H
--
abend
michael adams
"David H" <swe...@btinternet.comspam> wrote in message
>
> Drivel. A large fraction of the guns are shotguns, which *only*
> have a utilitarian purpose.
>
...
Try telling that to a bank clerk who's had one shoved in their face.
You really are a half-wit, aren't you David?
Bye bye!
michael adams
michael adams
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> > >Aren't we David? All Ninety Seven Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy
Five
> > >of them. So what precisely is it, that you don't understand?
> >
> > I understand the situation. I just don't see the problem.
>
> It might be interesting to step back at this point David, and ask Ray to
> debate the subject of legally held firearms with both Nik and Michael. It
> would also be interesting to ask both Nik and Michael to provide some
facts
> and figures for us - like how many firearms certificates are held by
> Catholics.
Oh dear me Budgie. Your reading and comprehension skills seem to
have let you down yet again haven't they? David has already explained
that to you hasn't he? He's already explained -
start quote:
"As for how they are divided, I don't know, and neither do you.
Do you think there is a space on the gun licence application
form for religion?"
:end quote
So what do we do in that situation, Budgie? We use our common sense,
don't we? That's right, we use our common sense.
Or are you now going to insist that when Sir Edward Carson visited
Kaiser Wilhelm II just prior to the oubreak of WW1, to facilitate
the purchase of some 24,700 odd German Rifles, theres no proof that he
didn't
do so, simply in order to be able to distribute them to Catholic farmers?
Or that the police in West Belfast are regularly in the habit of
issuing firearms certificates to Catholics?
...
Maybe a figure for the number of shotguns held by Catholic
> farmers in Armagh, Tyrone, Fermanagh or County Londonderry might help too.
...
Obviously we've got another one like David here, another one who's
a bit slow with his reading ...a bit slow on the uptake.... I can only
presume Budgie that like our David here you too are having difficulty
with your words. David was having problems with the word "Legal",
while you Budgie, appear to be having problems with the word
"utilitarian".
You see Budgie if you actually read the article -
http://www.iauc.org/unionistguns.html
you'd see the lady was talking about
start quote:
That leaves a massive total of 65,290 certificates held for
undisclosed personal use. Statistically, there are over 1.5 guns held
per certificate,which means there is a total of 97,975 legally-held weapons
in the North -which serve *no apparent utilitarian purpose*.
:end quote
Alright Budgie, got that? *No apparent utilitarian purpose*? All the
shotguns you are talking about Budgie which are held by Catholic Farmers
are used for useful things like shooting crows and foxes, rabbit and hares.
You know what I mean Budgie......"Vermin"! A word that springs readily
to mind for some reason.
As to your other suggestion Budgie, exactly how many firearms
certificates do you think have been issued to residents of the largest
Catholic Population Centres in the North - West Belfast, Derry, South A
rmagh etc - in the past 80 years ? Lets just have a guess shall we?
Please put you tick in the box please.
Is it -
a) between 1 and 10 [ ] b) between 97,965 and 97,975 [ ]
...
> I won't stay up waiting for an answer:
No. School starts early on a Monday doesn't it? That's right. So why
don't you tuck up in bed early for the night and make a start on page
3 of "The Informer"? Mummy says you can even have an extra hours reading
time tonight, so you should at least get half way down.
> -------
> Falcon:
> social secretary of the sean o'callaghan appreciation society
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For sale. A Book of Latin Mottos, one barely read copy of "The Informer"
> and a framed picture of Shergar. Going cheep....cheep....cheep
I promised myself that the next time you engaged in frivolous, pedantic
baiting, indulged in supercilious one-upmanship, or used the word 'hoot'
I'd kill-file you for good..Tweet........ Falcon\Budgie March 19th 2003
I presume that with all the sh*t hitting the fan at the moment,
Britplot HQ have have told you that you've simply got to hang in there.
Like the wimp you truly are! It's a shame they can't put up anyone better
really, but I suppose its all hands to the pumps right now. Still I
suppose that extra 85p Postal Order through the letterbox each week
must come in handy. Hoot!!!
michael adams
...
michael adams
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> "michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:3ebe...@212.67.96.135...
> >
> > "David H" <swe...@btinternet.comspam> wrote in message
> > news:3ebec58c...@news.btopenworld.com...
> >
> > >
> > > Drivel. A large fraction of the guns are shotguns, which *only*
> > > have a utilitarian purpose.
> >
>
> see, the last time I remember a legally held firearm (a shotgun - no less)
> being discharged in at anyone, it was in the hands of a Catholic resident
> of Shantallow fighting off a PIRA 'punishment squad'.
>
...
Not a punishment squad made up of British agents by any chance was it?
Anyway so you disagree with David then, do you? Shotguns do indeed
have a ultilitarian purpose after all? Thank you very much!
As to Bank Robberies themselves I can personlly recommend -
Cops and Robbers - An investigation into Armed Bank Robbery
John Ball, Lewis Chester, and Roy Perrott
penguin books 1979
Possibly when you've finally finished reading "the informer", by
around the end of august say, you might like to give that one a try.
And if you're really that interested there are also numerous books
containing details of the Littlejohn Brothers. That's the pair of
petty criminal who were supplied with shotguns and information by
their MI6 handler, named in court as Douglas Smythe aka John Wyman.
These being for the purpose of carrying out bank raids in the Irish
Republic at the behest of MI6. All of which could then subsequently
be blamed on the IRA.
glad to be of help
michael adams
> -------
> Falcon:
> social secretary of the sean o'callaghan appreciation society
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> for sale: one book of Latin mottos, a slightly used copy of "The Informer"
> and a framed copy of Shergar. Going cheep....cheep....cheep
I promised myself that the next time you engaged in frivolous, pedantic
baiting, indulged in supercilious one-upmanship, or used the word 'hoot'
I'd kill-file you for good..Tweet........ Falcon\Budgie March 19th 2003
...
>
michael adams
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>
> Well apparently, "we" feel free to make assumptions which suit our
> political agenda: assumptions which include the unquestioning acceptance
of
> any newspaper stories which seem support our agenda, no matter how biased
> or incomplete the reporting may be.
>
...
What you mean all those accounts of Edward Carson having private
audiences with the Kaiser were all simply newspaper stories then
Budgie? I think not somehow ! The matter was first raised
in the House of Commons in 1914 under Parliamentary Privilege
and is recorded as such in Hansard. When challenged by Carson,
exactly the same charge was then laid outside of the House of Commons.
As a result of which Carson was finally forced to admit that he'd
indeed had tea, with the Kaiser. But that under no possible circumstances
had he dined with him as charged!
It was the intelligence gained from Carson's surreptitious journeys
to buy arms - the likelihood that the 4 NE Counties of Ulster were
about to stage an armed insurrection against the British Crown, that
helped decide on the Kaiser on moblising for a land war - confident
that the British would stay out, having their hands too tied up elsewhere.
start quote:
Of the diverse causes which led the Kaiser into action the Irish
situation was one. He had an agent, Baron von Kuhlmann, in Belfast,
lured there by the talk of Orange sympathizers. For, although the
American Ambassador at Berlin declared the threats of Carson" the
most successful bluff in history," the German General Staff thought
otherwise. So did the Austrians. Some princelings of Austria were
then visiting Scotland under an Irish tutor, and, hurrying homewards,
visited London to call at their Embassy. There they were assured
that England, owing to the Irish situation, dared not enter the war.
end quote:
http://indigo.ie/~kfinlay/Tim%20Healy/healy41.htm
As a direct result of which
THE 36th (ULSTER) DIVISION, AND THE BATTLE OF THE SOMME, 1916
For their attack the Ulster Division was composed of ten battalions
with about 730 men per battalion...At no time while they had fought
did the soldiers from the old Province of Ulster receive help from the
Divisions of either flank. Over 2,000 of them died at Thiepval and
over 2,700 were wounded. As an indication of the fierceness of the
combat only 165 were taken prisoner.
http://users.tibus.com/the-great-war/sommewww.htm
What is it, tells me you're a bit out of your depth here?
Eh Budgie?
michael adams
...
> -------
> Falcon:
> social secretary of the sean o'callaghan appreciation society
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> For sale. A Book of Latin Mottos, one barely read copy of "The Informer"
> and a framed picture of Shergar. Going cheep....cheep....cheep
I promised myself that the next time you engaged in frivolous, pedantic
baiting, indulged in supercilious one-upmanship, or used the word 'hoot'
I'd kill-file you for good..Tweet........ Falcon\Budgie March 19th 2003
...
michael adams
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
> No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
> --------------------------------------------------------> news:3ebf...@212.67.96.135...
> [..]
>
> > What you mean all those accounts of Edward Carson having private
> > audiences with the Kaiser were all simply newspaper stories then
> > Budgie? I think not somehow ! The matter was first raised
> > in the House of Commons in 1914 under Parliamentary Privilege
>
> > What is it, tells me you're a bit out of your depth here?
>
> irrelevancies. When challenged about your unquestioning attitude to Anne
> Cadwallader's 'masterpiece', you quote Edward Carson and Hansard from
1914?
> I may be out of my depth Michael, (although I seriously doubt it), but I
am
> convinced that you're out of your tiny mind. You simply can't produce
> anything relevant to support either Cadwallader's assumptions, or your
> propaganda, can you?
>
> -------
No you're right Budgie. The queue of applicants for firearms
certificates at the West Belfast Office of the PSNI stretches
round the block most mornings. Same in Derry and Crossmaglen
I believe. In the latter they usually pass them out through
a hole in the wall I understand.
Oh and how's freddie and kevin by the way? Have you introduced
them to sean yet? Maybe he could give them a signed picture
of shergar.
michael adams
> Falcon:
> obviously on overtime - if nothing else
michael adams
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
> No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Once again, when challenged, you evade the question and introduce
> irrelevancies .You simply can't produce anything relevant to support
> either Cadwallader's assumptions, or your propaganda, can you?
start quote:
This affirmation by Labour of the Conservative government's decision,
giving a unique exemption to the North, only came after a long campaign
by the gun lobby that resulted in the Ulster Unionist leader, David Trimble,
claiming he had won the argument in talks with the then British prime
minister, John Major.
:end quote
http://www.iauc.org/unionistguns.html
to repeat -
"a long campaign by the gun lobby that resulted in the Ulster Unionist
leader, David Trimble, claiming he had won the argument...."
I think if you do some in depth research here Budgie, I think you'll
find that Ulster Unionist leader, David Trimble, is indeed as Anne
Cadwallader claims, the Leader of the Ulster Unionists.
Or am I simply jumping to conclusions here?
michael adams
I promised myself that the next time you engaged in frivolous, pedantic
baiting, indulged in supercilious one-upmanship, or used the word 'hoot'
I'd kill-file you for good..Tweet........ Falcon\Budgie March 19th 2003
...
>
> -------
> Falcon:
> blah, blah, blah
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> blah, blah, bah,blah, blah, bah,blah, blah, bah,
> blah, blah, bah,blah, blah, bah,blah, blah, bah,
> blah, blah, bah,blah, blah, bah,blah, blah, bah,
michael adams
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>
> The "Republican Full House":
> 1. Introduce vague accusations;
> 2. evade the following questions;
> 3. introduce irrelevancies;
> 4. ridicule when cornered, and
> 5. change the subject.
> Any more cards up your sleeve?
>
...
Oh dear me Budgie, you've left two out -
6. extensive quotations from AP\RN
7. an infuriating air of moral superiority
And you've had a whole i hour and 11 minutes to
work out your list as well!
Its just not fair really, is it eh ?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Isn't there somebody else on your Ward who could give you a hand?
michael adams
nice dinner was it? Matron says you always have something
nice on a Monday
> -------
> Falcon:
> Yes, yes , blah, blah, blah, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb
> rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb
> rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
michael adams
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
> No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > irrelevancies .You simply can't produce anything relevant to support
> > > either Cadwallader's assumptions, or your propaganda, can you?
> >
> >
> > start quote:
> >
> > This affirmation by Labour of the Conservative government's decision,
> > giving a unique exemption to the North, only came after a long campaign
> > by the gun lobby that resulted in the Ulster Unionist leader, David
Trimble,
> > claiming he had won the argument in talks with the then British prime
> > minister, John Major.
> >
> > :end quote
> >
> > http://www.iauc.org/unionistguns.html
> >
> > to repeat -
> >
> > "a long campaign by the gun lobby that resulted in the Ulster Unionist
> > leader, David Trimble, claiming he had won the argument...."
> >
> >
> > I think if you do some in depth research here Budgie, I think you'll
> > find that Ulster Unionist leader, David Trimble, is indeed as Anne
> > Cadwallader claims, the Leader of the Ulster Unionists.
> >
> >
> > Or am I simply jumping to conclusions here?
>
> or Protestants?
The point is Budgie, David Trimble would hardly be lobbying for
exemption from firearms legislation if he though it would in any way
benefit Catholics, now would he? It would hardly do his chances of
re-election in the Pary any good now would it?
Because Trimble's well aware, even if your are not, that the ownership
of weapons has long been a tradition among Protestants in NI, dating back
well before Carson's armimg of the UVF. AFAIA none of those weapons were
ever handed in - not that they'd necessarily be that much good - but
there again stored in oiled cloth who's to know.? The point is that despite
what you may wish to believe, Protestants have never been accountable for
their weaponry in the way as Catholics. Simply because the latter alone have
always been viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a threat to the stability
of the NI State.
Just as the existence of legally held Protestant Weapons is regarded as
a fallback, should Westminster ever attempt to impose their will against
the wishes of the Protestsnt People of NI. You may well think this is
nonsense but no British Govenment, from Carson's time onwards, has ever
been willing to call this "Unionist bluff".
Any more, and I'll be sure that you're Trolling.
michael adams
...
Whitewolf
wrote:
>"Whitewolf" <r...@eirefirst.com> wrote in message
>news:fs8obvcm8v4sn6jmq...@4ax.com...
>> On 9 May 2003 17:33:54 -0000, Falcon <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Snip
>> >Frankly, I've gave up any hope of you, Ray, FreeIreland, Mike Adams and
>> >Conor Booze O'Bully believing anything but your own jaundiced views long
>> >ago. You're so wrapped up your deeply ingrained fantasies, that if any of
>> >you faced up to a glimmer of reality it would probably cause irreparable
>> >psychological damage. I'm betting the average lurker reads your convoluted
>> >irrelevancies and comes to a reasonable conclusion about who is making a
>> >sensible contribution (and telling the truth), and who is not.
>>
>> Since I was mentioned above - and almost missed it... I'm going to reply...
>> I don't like being called a liar, or not telling the truth... I don't lie
>> Falcon, I may have different opinions than you about certain things, but I
>> do not post something or write something that I know to be false... I'm
>> surprised at you using such a big brush there...
>
>I didn't call you a liar. But don't let that stop you from expressing your
>doubts about the veractiy of what I post, will you?
>
>-------
>Falcon:
Falcon, calm down... I didn't call you a liar either, calling into question
the statistics you provided is just that... I'm not implying in any way
that you misrepresented the information or even worse that you altered it
before posting it... I took issue with the source of the information,
not your post... I hope you can see the difference...
Ray
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Around 55% of two thirds of Ulster says NO!" - Gav
Email: r...@eirefirst.com
Irish culture/interest site: http://www.eirefirst.com
King James Bible: http://www.iol.ie/~rayh/kjv
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whitewolf
wrote:
>"Beacon" <openm...@mydeja.com> wrote in message
>news:uX3va.12699$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
>>
>Let me clarify the statement.
>
>I was replying to a post from Nik. I said : "Frankly, I've gave up any hope
>of you, Ray, FreeIreland, Mike Adams and Conor Booze O'Bully believing
>anything but your own jaundiced views long ago. You're so wrapped up your
>deeply ingrained fantasies, that if any of you faced up to a glimmer of
>reality it would probably cause irreparable psychological damage." The
>first two sentences were a general comment which applied to all those
>mentioned.
>
>I then went on to say: "I'm betting the average lurker reads your
>convoluted irrelevancies and comes to a reasonable conclusion about who is
>making a sensible contribution (and telling the truth), and who is not."
>The final sentence applied to Nik, to whom I was replying at the time. In
>retrospect it may have been better to include a paragraph break, but I
>admit that may not have prevented Ray from coming to the wrong conclusion
>about what I was saying.
>
>What I intended to convey in my final sentence was my belief that a) I'm
>betting the average lurker reads Nik's convoluted irrelevancies and comes
>to a reasonable conclusion about who is making a sensible contribution to a
>debate, and b) where conflicting accounts exist between Nik and I, for
>example where only one of us can be giving an accurate and truthful account
>of an event or action, readers would also tend to conclude that it would be
>more reasonable to accept my account. I may of course be wrong, and accept
>that these are simply assumptions on my part.
>
>I hope this clarifies the paragraph for both you and Ray.
>
I could be awkward and say that I'm more confused now and demand further
clarification - but then I'd be acting Trimble like and that would not do..
:-)
I do understand what you were trying to say now and I no longer feel that
you were calling me a liar... ok?
David H
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>"David H" <swe...@btinternet.comspam> wrote in message
>news:3ebec58c...@news.btopenworld.com...
>> Drivel. A large fraction of the guns are shotguns, which *only*
>> have a utilitarian purpose.
>Try telling that to a bank clerk who's had one shoved in their face.
I doubt there are many licensed sawn-off shotguns. What do you
reckon?
If you actually wanted to score a point off me there you should
have mentioned clay-pigeon shooting.
>You really are a half-wit, aren't you David?
Only for trying to have a sensible discussion with you. My
biggest worry at the moment is that the more typical
nationalists are going to KF me for popping you out
of their killfiles.
David H
--
abend
michael adams
"David H" <swe...@btinternet.comspam> wrote in message
...
So why should I care?
That's your problem!
And you really are a half-wit, aren't you David?
You just keep coming back for more!
Hoot!!!
michael adams
...
Nik O'Kiwi
(David H) wrote:
>On Mon, 12 May 2003 06:52:55 +1200, Nik O'Kiwi <repub...@email.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 May 2003 09:18:42 +0000 (UTC), swe...@btinternet.comspam
>>(David H) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 May 2003 20:50:49 +1200, Nik O'Kiwi <repub...@email.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 10 May 2003 16:00:43 +0100, "michael adams"
>>>><mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>The RUC uncovered over 30 Sten guns and parts for over 1,000 Uzi-type
>>>>>rapid-fire machine guns at his home in Spa, Ballynahinch, Co. Down.
>>>>>McCoubry had been manufacturing guns for nearly 20 years from his
>>>>>home-made factory.
>>>>
>>>>The question that needs to be addressed is:
>>>>
>>>>"What will those weapons be used for if the IRA has completely
>>>>disarmed?"
>>>
>>>I think you need to clarify the question. Do you mean the
>>>legally held weapons, or the illegal weapons?
>>
>>I'm asking about the legally held weapons...answer my question...
>
>Same as before - shooting clay pigeons, wild animals,
>and targets.
By "wild animals" do you mean, potentially, members of the Irish
Nationalist population?
>>>Presumably they will both be used as before. IRA weapons
>>>never really made any difference to the use of illegally
>>>held loyalist weapons anyway, and legally held weapons,
>>>whether held by Prods or Catholics, were never any of
>>>the IRA's business.
>
>>Tell me, if you will, within which community in the north do you think
>>owns the "legally" held weapons for the most part?
>
>I don't know. Go on tell me what you think.
I'd only be guessing. You already know what my guess would be.
> We do know this though: "According to the 1997 RUC Chief Constable's
>report, there are gun licences for 138,727 firearms in the North"
>
>As for how they are divided, I don't know, and neither do you.
>Do you think there is a space on the gun licence application
>form for religion?
There could be but I doubt that there is.
>>And they most certainly *would* be the IRA's business if, after a
>>border poll that abolishes the border, if they were taken out and used
>>by Unionist/Loyalists against their Nationalist neighbours.
>
>And they wouldn't be the IRA's business even then - they would
>be the Garda's business.
Alright.
>They weren't used after Bloody Friday, Kingsmills, Teebane, or
>the Enniskillen bomb. So they aren't going to be used after a
>referendum. Illegal weapons are the killers over here. That's
>why the terrorists have imported or manufactured so many of
>them. And that's why legally held weapons weren't banned in
>GFA.
I don't know, at all, why you are so confident that they aren't going
to be used after the passing of the event that Unionists fear the
most.
Nik
Nik O'Kiwi
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
>No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>"michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>news:3ebf...@212.67.96.135...
>
>> > Once again, when challenged, you evade the question and introduce
>> > irrelevancies .You simply can't produce anything relevant to support
>> > either Cadwallader's assumptions, or your propaganda, can you?
>>
>>
>> start quote:
>>
>> This affirmation by Labour of the Conservative government's decision,
>> giving a unique exemption to the North, only came after a long campaign
>> by the gun lobby that resulted in the Ulster Unionist leader, David Trimble,
>> claiming he had won the argument in talks with the then British prime
>> minister, John Major.
>>
>> :end quote
>>
>> http://www.iauc.org/unionistguns.html
>>
>> to repeat -
>>
>> "a long campaign by the gun lobby that resulted in the Ulster Unionist
>> leader, David Trimble, claiming he had won the argument...."
>>
>>
>> I think if you do some in depth research here Budgie, I think you'll
>> find that Ulster Unionist leader, David Trimble, is indeed as Anne
>> Cadwallader claims, the Leader of the Ulster Unionists.
>>
>>
>> Or am I simply jumping to conclusions here?
>
>Are the firearms (handguns) exemptions in NI. only applicable to Unionists
>or Protestants? Which part of the Statutes or Regulations would lead you to
>believe that?
Statutes can be created till the cows come home. What matters is the
actual practice...
> The article also refers to "anecdotal evidence" that
>Catholics find it more difficult to obtain firearms licences. Is there
>anything more than "anecdotal evidence" to go on? (Examples involving Sinn
>Féin members can be probelmatical for obvious reasons, although as we can
>see, at least one member does have one.) The article also states that "The
>high incidence of gun ownership *is seen by many Catholics as a largely
>Protestant phenomenon*," (my emphasis), but there's nothing to show that
>this is actually the case. The questions I posed, therefore, remain
>unanswered.
>
>I have no particular axe to grind here. I would maintain that Catholics
>should receive exactly the same consideration, undergo the same checks and
>receive the same treatment as Protestants when applying for firearms
>licences, as proveded for by law.
As would I.
> But apart from Cadwallader's article,
>(based on "anecdotal evidence" and unsupported assumptions) there seems to
>be little to indicated that they are not receiving *exactly* the same
>consideration as their Protestant neighbours.
>
>Furthermore, referring to the incidence of private gun ownership in
>Northern Ireland as an "arsenal", is both incorrect and misleading. Nor has
>the legal possession of firearms ever been referred to in the Belfast
>Agreement. Or am *I* simply jumping to conclusions here?
>
>[My only intention here is to prepare you for the onslaught sure to be
>visited upon you by Ray, you understand.....]
I doubt that.
Nik
Nik O'Kiwi
There is, of course, a precedent for laws existing in Ireland that
banned Catholics from owning weaponry...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
7 Will III c.5 (1695):
An Act for the better securing the government, by disarming papists
Sec. 1. All papists within this kingdom of Ireland shall before the
1st day of March, 1696, deliver up to some justice of the peace or
corporation officer where such papist shall dwell, all their arms and
ammunition, notwithstanding any licence for keeping the same
heretofore granted. Justices of the peace, mayors, sheriffs, and chief
officers of cities and towns and persons under their warrants, may
search and seize all arms and ammunition of papists, or in the hands
of any persons in trust for them, wherever they shall suspect they may
be concealed. And such arms shall be preserved for the use of his
Majesty.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The mindset that wrote these laws still exists...
Nik
Nik O'Kiwi
cryptofortress DOT com> wrote:
>"Nik O'Kiwi" <repub...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:em01cvotrcfo4alta...@4ax.com...
>
>> There is, of course, a precedent for laws existing in Ireland that
>> banned Catholics from owning weaponry...
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 7 Will III c.5 (1695):
>
>Here we go again!! This thread has lurched from a simple question of fact,
>through Carson and 1914 all the way back to 16-bloody-95. The law doesn't
>exist anymore Nik. [Just thought I'd point that out] It seems however, that
>a need to keep the idea of 'down-trodden Catholics suffering at the hands
>of evil Brit-Protestants' alive in the hearts of the Irish does. No matter
>what today's reality is.
>
>> The mindset that wrote these laws still exists...
>
>As does the chip on the Irish shoulder. But what also *doesn't* exist it
>seems, is any indication that there is anything of substance in the
>original scare-mongering article.
Principally because it is difficult to prove. That fact, however,
doesn't mean that the suggestion isn't, nevertheless, accurate.
Nik
David H
wrote:
Sheesh - that's about as funny as Ray's poster. Or are you
making a rather optimistic bid for victim status?
>>>>Presumably they will both be used as before. IRA weapons
>>>>never really made any difference to the use of illegally
>>>>held loyalist weapons anyway, and legally held weapons,
>>>>whether held by Prods or Catholics, were never any of
>>>>the IRA's business.
>>>Tell me, if you will, within which community in the north do you think
>>>owns the "legally" held weapons for the most part?
>>I don't know. Go on tell me what you think.
>I'd only be guessing. You already know what my guess would be.
Then the entire argument is circular. There's no actual evidence
for discrimination in the issuing of certificates, or in the actual
numbers of weapons. Each guess is being used to prop up
the other.
The application process doesn't seem to be discriminatory, though:
http://www.psni.police.uk/farms/index.shtml
[two relatively uncontroversial sets of paragraphs snipped]
>>They weren't used after Bloody Friday, Kingsmills, Teebane, or
>>the Enniskillen bomb. So they aren't going to be used after a
>>referendum. Illegal weapons are the killers over here. That's
>>why the terrorists have imported or manufactured so many of
>>them. And that's why legally held weapons weren't banned in
>>GFA.
>I don't know, at all, why you are so confident that they aren't going
>to be used after the passing of the event that Unionists fear the
>most.
Actually, what unionists fear the most is just the same as what
nationalists fear the most - death, harm to their family and
friends, ruin and disgrace. That is part of the reason why the
great majority of both communities stayed out of serious trouble
for the 25 years of the troubles. The events I mentioned
above may only score as 'regrettable' in your world view,
but for a lot of people in my community they represented
the IRA indulging in mindless destruction, sectarian massacre
and murderous intolerance of unionism and the British
connection respectively. Yet most people didn't sign up
to the UDA and UVF. Nor did they take out their legally
held weapons and start killing people.
So, when the referendum finally happens, and is phrased
symmetrically, and conducted properly, the only people
who are going to go bonkers over the result are the
usual suspects. And probably not all of them - because,
after all - what could possibly be gained?
But if your lot win, what about IRA weapons? After all - I
have already given a list of the type of things the IRA
have done, when their leaders allow it.
David H
But, if the issue bothers you, there is something that
could be done in preparation
--
abend
Nik O'Kiwi
(David H) wrote:
Well there is that occasion when Ian Paisley led a bunch of his fellow
co-religionists whilst they all had Firearms Permits in their
hands....
Its not to difficult, with a bit of intuition, to work out what the
truth is now...
Nik
Nik O'Kiwi
>http://www.psni.police.uk/farms/index.shtml
Just because it doesn't "seem" to be discriminatory, on the surface,
does not mean that the actual practice is in fact quite
discriminatory.
>[two relatively uncontroversial sets of paragraphs snipped]
>
>>>They weren't used after Bloody Friday, Kingsmills, Teebane, or
>>>the Enniskillen bomb. So they aren't going to be used after a
>>>referendum. Illegal weapons are the killers over here. That's
>>>why the terrorists have imported or manufactured so many of
>>>them. And that's why legally held weapons weren't banned in
>>>GFA.
>
>>I don't know, at all, why you are so confident that they aren't going
>>to be used after the passing of the event that Unionists fear the
>>most.
>
>Actually, what unionists fear the most is just the same as what
>nationalists fear the most - death, harm to their family and
>friends, ruin and disgrace.
Reunification of Ireland is probably less scary to most Unionists than
death, agreed. You have to admit though, that Unionists do seem to
fear a United Ireland. In my opinion the reaction to this fear is
waaay out of proportion.
> That is part of the reason why the great majority of both communities stayed out of serious trouble
>for the 25 years of the troubles. The events I mentioned
>above may only score as 'regrettable' in your world view,
I am sorry for every single non-combatant that died, was hurt or lost
loved ones due to the troubles.
>but for a lot of people in my community they represented
>the IRA indulging in mindless destruction,
destructive yes, mindless no. There was most definitely thought and
planning behind the vast majority of actions carried out by the IRA.
> sectarian massacre
Can you prove that the IRA killed someone simply *because* they
happened to be Protestant? There have been Protestants who have not
only voted Sinn Fein but some who have actually been IRA Volunteers.
>and murderous intolerance of unionism
When there's murder directed at you that has a political motive it is
reasonable enough to be intolerant of that particular political
belief.
> and the British connection respectively. Yet most people didn't sign up
>to the UDA and UVF. Nor did they take out their legally
>held weapons and start killing people.
Granted, but what would happen if the border was abolished tomorrow?
>So, when the referendum finally happens, and is phrased
>symmetrically, and conducted properly, the only people
>who are going to go bonkers over the result are the
>usual suspects.
I'm not so certain.
> And probably not all of them - because,
>after all - what could possibly be gained?
Chaos...
>But if your lot win, what about IRA weapons?
In 1968 IRA weapons had all but rusted away...they will again.
> After all - I have already given a list of the type of things the IRA
>have done, when their leaders allow it.
No, you've given your biased appraisal of IRA actions...
>But, if the issue bothers you, there is something that
>could be done in preparation
Whats that then? Disarm all the owners of legally owned firearms?
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Nik
David H
wrote:
I've recently seen the number of participants as 500 - was
that you? So, if they were indeed waving firearms certificates,
then you have established to my satisfaction that at least 500
out of 83,500 firearms certificates are held by Prods. I
assume you realise you still have some way to go.
>Its not to difficult, with a bit of intuition, to work out what the
>truth is now...
My intuition tells me the firearms certificates are divided
55%/45%, ignoring those people who refuse to be
categorised along sectarian lines.
I have seen no evidence to contradict this figure.
David H
--
abend
David H
wrote:
>>The application process doesn't seem to be discriminatory, though:
>>http://www.psni.police.uk/farms/index.shtml
>Just because it doesn't "seem" to be discriminatory, on the surface,
>does not mean that the actual practice is in fact quite
>discriminatory.
You are correct. Although the complete lack of evidence to
back up the suggestion that the rules are applied in a
discriminatory fashion is fatal to your argument.
>>[two relatively uncontroversial sets of paragraphs snipped]
>>
>>>>They weren't used after Bloody Friday, Kingsmills, Teebane, or
>>>>the Enniskillen bomb. So they aren't going to be used after a
>>>>referendum. Illegal weapons are the killers over here. That's
>>>>why the terrorists have imported or manufactured so many of
>>>>them. And that's why legally held weapons weren't banned in
>>>>GFA.
>>
>>>I don't know, at all, why you are so confident that they aren't going
>>>to be used after the passing of the event that Unionists fear the
>>>most.
>>
>>Actually, what unionists fear the most is just the same as what
>>nationalists fear the most - death, harm to their family and
>>friends, ruin and disgrace.
>
>Reunification of Ireland is probably less scary to most Unionists than
>death, agreed. You have to admit though, that Unionists do seem to
>fear a United Ireland. In my opinion the reaction to this fear is
>waaay out of proportion.
Sooo much more extreme than the nationalist reaction to
partition, you mean?
>> That is part of the reason why the great majority of both communities stayed out of serious trouble
>>for the 25 years of the troubles. The events I mentioned
>>above may only score as 'regrettable' in your world view,
>I am sorry for every single non-combatant that died, was hurt or lost
>loved ones due to the troubles.
The IRA has had a problem accepting the usual definition
of non-combatant. I went onto the IRA target list when I
got my first proper job in 1987. We had vast numbers
of customers, including the Ministry of Defence...
>>but for a lot of people in my community they represented
>>the IRA indulging in mindless destruction,
>destructive yes, mindless no. There was most definitely thought and
>planning behind the vast majority of actions carried out by the IRA.
The first item on my list was Bloody Friday.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bfriday/sum.htm
Which do you prefer - 'mindless destruction', or that the carnage
was the result of the IRA's 'thought and planning'?
>> sectarian massacre
>Can you prove that the IRA killed someone simply *because* they
>happened to be Protestant? There have been Protestants who have not
>only voted Sinn Fein but some who have actually been IRA Volunteers.
I doubt many joined after Kingsmills:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/5/newsid_2500000/2500393.stm
http://www.radley.org.uk/OR/OldRadleian/2001/brits.html
A few years ago I had an inconclusive discussion with Greig on
this newsgroup - he posts as Lisieux now. He is a long
term fan of the republican cause and incorrigible namedropper.
He settled on 200 IRA sectarian murders as an absolute upper
bound. I'm fairly sure he would have left out events like
the Enniskillen and laMon bombs, and was therefore
undercounting. You seem to be suggesting the figure is
actually zero. I suggest a visit to the Sutton index of deaths.
It's always a rewarding experience for ideologues. Kingsmills
is in the vey early section of 1976, but it was a busy year.
>>and murderous intolerance of unionism
>When there's murder directed at you that has a political motive it is
>reasonable enough to be intolerant of that particular political
>belief.
So when you consider IRA sectarian murders of Protestants,
what beliefs should *I* not tolerate?
>> and the British connection respectively. Yet most people didn't sign up
>>to the UDA and UVF. Nor did they take out their legally
>>held weapons and start killing people.
>Granted, but what would happen if the border was abolished tomorrow?
That can't happen - it contradicts the Good Friday Agreement.
You might as well ask what happens if the British Government
re-asserts control over the 26 counties - ridiculously
hypothetical, and the answer is the same.
>>So, when the referendum finally happens, and is phrased
>>symmetrically, and conducted properly, the only people
>>who are going to go bonkers over the result are the
>>usual suspects.
>I'm not so certain.
>> And probably not all of them - because,
>>after all - what could possibly be gained?
>Chaos...
Who expects to benefit from chaos? Apart of course from
those people I have already noted as 'the usual suspects'
>>But if your lot win, what about IRA weapons?
>In 1968 IRA weapons had all but rusted away...they will again.
I thought they had been sold. Check with Greig, he's
very entertaining on the official/provo split, if you
can ignore what the provisionals went on to do
next.
>> After all - I have already given a list of the type of things the IRA
>>have done, when their leaders allow it.
>No, you've given your biased appraisal of IRA actions...
I have listed four specific events. Feel free to start spinning.
Maybe you could start a new thread for each of them, to
explain how the goodies came to do such things.
It's only fair to warn you that it will not go down well
in this group. Most of the group are instinctively
nationalist, but very, very few inhabit your Republican
Dreamland.
>>But, if the issue bothers you, there is something that
>>could be done in preparation
>Whats that then? Disarm all the owners of legally owned firearms?
>Sounds like a good idea to me.
It makes much more sense to get rid of the illegal firearms,
doesn't it? After all - they are the ones that have done most
of the killing.
David H
--
abend
Nik Warrensson
(David H) wrote:
>On Wed, 14 May 2003 17:05:33 +1200, Nik O'Kiwi <repub...@email.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>The application process doesn't seem to be discriminatory, though:
>>>http://www.psni.police.uk/farms/index.shtml
>
>>Just because it doesn't "seem" to be discriminatory, on the surface,
>>does not mean that the actual practice is in fact quite
>>discriminatory.
>
>You are correct. Although the complete lack of evidence to
>back up the suggestion that the rules are applied in a
>discriminatory fashion is fatal to your argument.
The fact that I cannot provide definitive evidence still does not
necessarily imply that I am not speaking the truth.
Nik
michael adams
"Falcon" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
> You are trying to convince us that the article is factually correct. Fact
> can be corroborated.
...
What you mean the DNA tests which proved that the skull which
Sean O'Callaghan claimed to be definitely that of Shergar, in
fact wasn't? That sort of corroboration?
You never know though. Maybe old stakenife may be able to help
us all out on that one too. Maybe that's how he got his name.
More steak and kidney pie Vicar?
michael adams
> -------
> Falcon:
> busy, busy, busy
Nik Warrensson
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
>No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>"Nik Warrensson" <warre...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:0un6cvokttesd2cbg...@4ax.com...
>You are trying to convince us that the article is factually correct. Fact
>can be corroborated. This article cannot. Rumour and innuendo? ...... a
>sound basis for argument if ever I saw one.
I am making a perfectly valid general point of logic, that is, just
because something cannot be objectively "proven" to be the case it
doesn't mean that that thing actually isn't, in fact, the case just
that it is unprovable with current resources...
Nik