Could someone post the latest results in the election.
Godfrey Nolan
Is there any chance of getting more election results. The last
I heard was Labour still doing well, the PDs gaining and FF
and FG doing miserably.
Any information would be excellent. Especially if anyone knows
results in Dublin.
Thanks,
Godfrey Nolan.
David Wilkins
Here are the results as given on the news at 11pm on Friday night
(nearly an hour ago), after the second day of counting:
Fianna Fail: 66
Fine Gael: 42
Labour: 32
Progressive Democrats: 9
Democratic Left: 4
Independents: 6
Still to be declared: 7
There will be three recounts. One of these is in Dublin South,
where the initial count had Ben Briscoe (FF) squeezing in to the
last place 9 votes ahead of the Democratic Left candidate.
The eventual labour tally was predicted to be 33-34 seats. RTE
did not give predictions on the news at that time for the other
parties.
Thus the only coalitions feasable on arithmetic grounds would seem
to be:
FF + Lab,
FG + Lab + PD (the `rainbow coalition')
FF + FG (`unthinkable'?)
Overall, the Labour vote went up by around 10%, and both FF and FG
votes went down by around 5%.
Prominent losers include: Jim Tunney (FF, Dublin something),
Michael O'Kennedy (FF, Tipp. North), Brendan Daly (FF, Clare).
Sean Doherty (remember GUBU) is coming back as the only FF
elected with Albert Reynolds in the new Longford-Roscommon
constituency.
In the abortion referenda, the voting was
`substantive issue', or `right to life': No
`right to travel': Yes
`right to information': Yes
I was out all evening, so I don't know the final percentages,
but the earlier results seemed to suggest voting was about
2:1 on each of these.
The `right to life' amendment was opposed by `pro-life' activists,
`pro-choice' activists, and all parties with the exception of
Fianna Fail. Des Hanafin was claiming the `no' vote on this
issure as a victory of the pro-lifers, and is demanding another
referendum with wording more to their taste; he dismissed the
other referenda on the grounds that the `pro-lifers' had not
campaigned as intensively for a `no' vote on these, on account
of lack of time and the general election campaign, and that
voters on these were `confused'. Needless to say, others are
interpreting these votes in an entirely different matter.
Austin Currie (FG) made a surprising intervention in the middle
of the afternoon, emerging from the count, suggesting that Dick
Spring should be chosen as Taoiseach, with John Bruton as Tanaiste.
His has since withdrawn this suggestion, but it seems to have
caused quite a rumpus. It was denounced as treachery by a
FG person on the discussion panel in the studio, Peter Barry
was forthright in his condemnation, and John Bruton did not
take kindly to the suggestion in a television interview.
Alan Dukes though fenced, not saying that he agreed with
Austin Currie, not condemning Austin Currie, and not saying
anything at all about John Bruton and his claim to be Taoiseach.
Well this seems enough for now, particularly as many will be
getting their weekly newsletter with all the details.
DRW
Eamonn McManus
dwil...@maths.tcd.ie (David Wilkins) writes:
>Overall, the Labour vote went up by around 10%, and both FF and FG
>votes went down by around 5%.
Do you mean that Labour got 10% more of the total vote than last time,
or that the number of votes they got went up by 10%? The vast
increase in the number of seats would be hard to explain in the latter
case.
>Sean Doherty (remember GUBU) is coming back as the only FF
>elected with Albert Reynolds in the new Longford-Roscommon
>constituency.
Rats.
>Des Hanafin was claiming the `no' vote on this
>issure as a victory of the pro-lifers, and is demanding another
>referendum with wording more to their taste [...]
Oh, perhaps I will have to rethink my statement that I despised
Doherty more than any other Irish politician. Hanafin is definitely
in the running too, now that I think about it.
,
Eamonn
finl...@spcvxb.spc.edu
> In article <1992Nov27....@gdr.bath.ac.uk> ma...@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Godfrey Nolan) writes:
>
> Here are the results as given on the news at 11pm on Friday night
> (nearly an hour ago), after the second day of counting:
>
> Fianna Fail: 66
> Fine Gael: 42
> Labour: 32
> Progressive Democrats: 9
> Democratic Left: 4
> Independents: 6
>
> Still to be declared: 7
>
> votes went down by around 5%.
>
the GUBU affair in reference to Haughey's Attorney General of the time, and
hasn't S.D. changed his stance a bit since the Bowra debacle?), it does
seem as though the days of Brendan Corish are wel{ and truly laid to
rest.
Jeff
Carl M. Kadie
dwil...@maths.tcd.ie (David Wilkins) writes:
[...]
>In the abortion referenda, the voting was
>
> `substantive issue', or `right to life': No
> `right to travel': Yes
> `right to information': Yes
[...]
Will this last result mean an end to the bans on the talk.abortion
newsgroup at Irish universities?
- Carl
ANNOTATED REFERENCES
(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)
=================
banned.1992
=================
* Computer material that was banned/challenged in academia in 1992
A list of computer material that was banned or challenged in academia
in 1992. The institutions mentioned are:
Ball State U., Boston U. (2), Carnegie Mellon U., German universities,
Iowa State U. (3), Irish universities, James Madison U., Middle East
Technical U., North Dakota State U., Pennsylvania State U., Princeton,
Simon Fraser U., U. of British Columbia, U. of California at Berkeley
*, U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, U. of Manitoba, U. of
Massachusetts at Boston, U. of Nebraska at Lincoln, U. of Newcastle,
U. of Ottawa, U. of Texas, U. of Toledo, U. of Toronto *, U. of
Wyoming, United Kingdom Net, Virginia Public Education Network,
Virginia Tech, Western Washington U. (& U. of Washington), Wilfrid
Laurier U. (2), Williams College **
========
* Site of an unsuccessful challenge
** College not directly involved.
=================
=================
If you have gopher, you can browse the CAF archive with the command
gopher gopher.eff.org
These document(s) are also available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):
pub/academic/banned.1992
To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive...@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):
send acad-freedom banned.1992
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =
David Wilkins
Fianna Fail: 67
Fine Gael: 45
Labour: 33
Progressive Democrats: 10
Democratic Left: 4
Greens: 1
Others: 5
There is one seat still undecided: a mammoth recount is still in
progress in the Dublin South constituency to determine whether the
final seat goes to Ben Briscoe (FF) or a Democratic Left candidate.
This recount commenced Saturday morning, and a final result is now
expected at around 1am. (I had hung back on posting this in the
hopes of including the final result, but I don't intend to sit up
till the result is declared.) If Ben Briscoe wins, then this will
obviously bring the Fianna Fail tally of seats up to 68; at the
original count he was 9 votes ahead of the DL candidate.
The Green TD is not Roger Garland, who lost his seat, but was
elected in Dublin North.
It seems that the `rainbow coalition' (FG + Lab + PD) is the
most favoured option for the next government. Both John Bruton
and Dick Spring have laid claim to the position of Taoiseach.
However John Bruton seems to generate little enthusiasm. (His
most memorable exploit so far seems to have been to precipitate
the downfall of a previous coalition government when, as Minister
of Finance, he sought to impose VAT on children's shoes.)
In article <do...@kaa.gr.osf.org> emcm...@gr.osf.org (Eamonn McManus) writes:
>dwil...@maths.tcd.ie (David Wilkins) writes:
>>Overall, the Labour vote went up by around 10%, and both FF and FG
>>votes went down by around 5%.
>
>Do you mean that Labour got 10% more of the total vote than last time,
>or that the number of votes they got went up by 10%? The vast
>increase in the number of seats would be hard to explain in the latter
>case.
>
I referred to percentages of total first preference votes. I haven't
looked at a weekend paper, but the first preferences nationwide
and in Dublin were given in Friday's Irish Times as follows
(excluding Carlow-Kilkenny and Laois-Offaly where the first count
had not been declared when the paper went to press):
Nationwide | Dublin
-----------------------------------------------------------
FF: 38.6 down 5.5 | FF: 32.9 down 7.8
FG: 24.4 down 4.9 | FG: 17.0 down 6.0
Lab: 19.3 up 9.8 | Lab: 26.1 up 16.6
PD: 4.8 down 0.7 | PD: 5.5 up 0.1
DL: 3.0 | DL: 5.4
WP: 0.7 down 4.3 | WP: 1.3 down 10.1
Green: 1.5 | Green: 3.5
Sinn Fein: 1.7 up 0.5 | Sinn Fein: 1.9 no change
Others: 6.1 up 0.7 | Others: 6.4 down 1.7
The national poll-topper on the first count was Eithne FitzGerald
(Labour, Dublin South) with 17,256 first preference votes. (The
quota for that constituency was 9,940 votes.) The Labour party
had only put up one candidate in most constituences, with the
result that many Labour TDs in Dublin constituencies were elected
on the first count with sizeable surpluses. The Labour party were
targetting 25 Dail seats before the election, and ended up with 33.
They obviously put up to few candidates. Fianna Fail on the other
hand seem to have put up too many candidates in a number of
constituencies, such as Dun Laoghaire, where FF only obtained one
seat (David Andrews).
Democratic Left, for those who have forgotten, was formed when
all but one of the Workers' Party TDs walked out to form a new party.
The one remaining Workers' Party TD, Tomas Mac Giolla, narrowly lost
his seat in this election.
>>Sean Doherty (remember GUBU) is coming back as the only FF
>>elected with Albert Reynolds in the new Longford-Roscommon
>>constituency.
>
>Rats.
I can't help feeling that Sean Doherty is perhaps the most
appropriate constituency colleague for Albert: after all it
was Sean Doherty's claims concerning the phone-tapping business
that engineered the final downfall of CJ, thus paving the way
for Reynolds to realise his ambition of becoming Taoiseach.
DRW
Ulick Stafford
>Thanks for this information. Whatever about the likes of Sean Doherty (wasn't
>the GUBU affair in reference to Haughey's Attorney General of the time, and
>hasn't S.D. changed his stance a bit since the Bowra debacle?), it does
>seem as though the days of Brendan Corish are wel{ and truly laid to
>rest.
Eh? What does Brendan Corish have to do with this?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ 'There was a master come unto the earth, + Ulick Stafford, PP-ASEL +
+ born in the holy land of Indiana, + Dept of Chemical Engineering, +
+ in the mystical hills east of Fort Wayne'.+ Notre Dame, IN 46556 +
+ B'fhearr liom bheith ag eitilt. + ul...@bach.helios.nd.edu +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
James McCloskey
Thanks to all of you in Ireland for posting this election
information. It's been great. Does anyone know what the Sinn
Fein vote was in percentage terms? I assume there are no
Sinn Fein TD's among the "Others"?
Jim McCloskey
Liam Marnane
|> I referred to percentages of total first preference votes. I haven't
|> looked at a weekend paper, but the first preferences nationwide
|> and in Dublin were given in Friday's Irish Times as follows
|> (excluding Carlow-Kilkenny and Laois-Offaly where the first count
|> had not been declared when the paper went to press):
|>
|> Nationwide | Dublin
|> -----------------------------------------------------------
|> FF: 38.6 down 5.5 | FF: 32.9 down 7.8
|> FG: 24.4 down 4.9 | FG: 17.0 down 6.0
|> Lab: 19.3 up 9.8 | Lab: 26.1 up 16.6
|> PD: 4.8 down 0.7 | PD: 5.5 up 0.1
|> DL: 3.0 | DL: 5.4
|> WP: 0.7 down 4.3 | WP: 1.3 down 10.1
|> Green: 1.5 | Green: 3.5
|> Sinn Fein: 1.7 up 0.5 | Sinn Fein: 1.9 no change <----**********************
|> Others: 6.1 up 0.7 | Others: 6.4 down 1.7
|>
I hope the British see this figure. Pleas Take note and stop claiming that the Republic
of Ireland is a Hotbed of support for the IRA and Sinn Fein.
Liam Marnane
sp...@galvia.enet.dec.com
They are generally grouped with the others as they are not a significant factor in the election. They got 27,396 votes and if my arithmetic is correct
the total number of votes cast was 1,725,003. That makes Sinn Fein's share of
the vote 1.5%. This is a drop of .01% despite the fact they fielded more
candidates this time.
Gary Spain, DEC, Galway, Ireland - sp...@galvia.enet.dec.com
On being a football fan: "I am aware of the downside to this wonderful
facility that men have: they become repressed, they fail in their
relationships with women,their conversation is trivial and boorish, they
find themselves unable to express their emotional needs, they cannot relate
to their children, and die lonely and miserable. But you know, what the hell?"
Nick Hornby
Adrian Waterworth
[ Poll figures deleted to save space. ]
>I hope the British see this figure. Pleas Take note and stop claiming that the
>Republic of Ireland is a Hotbed of support for the IRA and Sinn Fein.
>Liam Marnane
No, no, anyone in the UK who has either been to Ireland or who
has any sort of sense already _knows_ that the Republic of Ireland
isn't a hotbed of support for the IRA and Sinn Fein.
It's the supporters over in the US who get to be a bit of a
pain in the bum. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)
Still, maybe one day they'll realise that quite a number of the
places that get bombed in terrorist attacks on the British mainland are
usually more full of American tourists than anything else...
Ade.
(For the sake of s.c.b - no strange collections of punctuation included.)
\----------------------------------------/
| Adrian.W...@newcastle.ac.uk |
/ ---------------------------------------\
David Wilkins
>--
>In article <1fcol2...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, mcc...@cats.ucsc.edu (James McCloskey) writes:
>
>|>Thanks to all of you in Ireland for posting this election
>|>information. It's been great. Does anyone know what the Sinn
>|>Fein vote was in percentage terms? I assume there are no
>|>Sinn Fein TD's among the "Others"?
>|>
>|>Jim McCloskey
>|>
>|>
>
>They are generally grouped with the others as they are not a significant
>factor in the election.
There are no SF TDs. (At least, if there were, there would have been
enough fuss made about it in the media that one could not help being
aware of their existence.
As to the identity of the others, I would guess offhand that they
would be
Sean Tracy (outgoing Ceann Comhairle)
Tony Gregory (Independent, Dublin North)
Tom Foxe (Independent, Roscommon)
Johnnie Foxe(?) (ex-FF, Wicklow, ran as independent after deselection)
Neil Blaney (Independent FF, Donegal; assuming he has not retired)
(I haven't checked the above though - simply tried to reconstruct
the list from my memory of the election coverage, so there may
well be mistakes. I am sure of the first three though.)
DRW
i2...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
> information. It's been great.
I'll second that- thanks a million! Would anyone like to post or e-mail
the results of the Dun Laoghaire constituency? Just who got in,
parties and approximate order. Also any news on negotiations for
coalitions. Thanks! Fiona
(I2LY@(I2...@CORNELLA.CIT.CORNELL.EDU)
sp...@galvia.enet.dec.com
In article <1992Nov30.1...@maths.tcd.ie>, dwil...@maths.tcd.ie (David Wilkins) writes:
|>As to the identity of the others, I would guess offhand that they
|>would be
|>
|> Sean Tracy (outgoing Ceann Comhairle)
|> Tony Gregory (Independent, Dublin North)
|> Tom Foxe (Independent, Roscommon)
|> Johnnie Foxe(?) (ex-FF, Wicklow, ran as independent after deselection)
|> Neil Blaney (Independent FF, Donegal; assuming he has not retired)
|>
|>(I haven't checked the above though - simply tried to reconstruct
|>the list from my memory of the election coverage, so there may
|>well be mistakes. I am sure of the first three though.)
They're correct although I think John Fox doesn't have an e in his name.
Trevor Sargeant took a seat for the Greens in Dublin North.
sp...@galvia.enet.dec.com
In article <1992Nov30.1...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, i2...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
|>I'll second that- thanks a million! Would anyone like to post or e-mail
|>the results of the Dun Laoghaire constituency? Just who got in,
|>parties and approximate order. Also any news on negotiations for
|>coalitions. Thanks! Fiona
|> (I2LY@(I2...@CORNELLA.CIT.CORNELL.EDU)
OK from memory which is a little dangerous.
Dun Laoghaire went 1-1-1-1-1
David Andrews FF, Niamh Breathnach Lab, Sean Barrett FG, Eamon Gilmore DL
and I think Helen Keogh was the PD elected.
Brian Hillery FF and Monica Barnes FG were fighting for the last seat
with Keogh but it wasn't close and the radio pundits called it 1-1-1-1-1
well before the result was announced.
Adrian Waterworth
>Adrian.W...@newcastle.ac.uk (Adrian Waterworth) writes:
>>
>> No, no, anyone in the UK who has either been to Ireland or who
>>has any sort of sense already _knows_ that the Republic of Ireland
>>isn't a hotbed of support for the IRA and Sinn Fein.
>>
>> It's the supporters over in the US who get to be a bit of a
>>pain in the bum. (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)
>>
>> Still, maybe one day they'll realise that quite a number of the
>>places that get bombed in terrorist attacks on the British mainland are
>>usually more full of American tourists than anything else...
> Ah, grand, this horseshit yet again. Noraid manages to glean
>~$500,000 US each year from the Irish-Americans, who number upwards of 35
>million. Looks like we're just pouring funds into their coffers, eh?
>The US isn't a hotbed of of support for the IRA. Most Americans think you'
>re talking about retirement plans if you begin to speak to them of IRA-
>anything. And most of the few who do contribute to 'the Cause' are
>recent emigres like Mr. Mark Hollowheart -- a man who lived in the
>UK for the first 14 years of his life, a man whose sick attitude toward
>the troubles in NI was clearly 'Made in the UK'.
Hang about, hang about! I didn't say that there were a lot of
IRA/Sinn Fein supporters in the US. I only said that the ones that do
exist tend to be a bit of a pain in the bum. Something on which we seem
to agree.
I also didn't say that the people in question were American. In
fact, I deliberately said "supporters in the US" rather than "American
supporters" or "Americans".
> A more fair and realistic question perhaps, is, why do the
>Irish and British feel comfortable shunting their sickos off to
>America, and why do they immediately begin viewing such people as
>Americans?
I don't know the answer to the first question, however I always
regard ex-pat loonies of any persuasion as being the product of their
country of origin.
> I've another question that's never been adequately answered
>concerning this issue and it's one that surely belongs here: why do the
>majority of middle-of-the-road, middle class educated Britons believe
>that the US is a hotbed of Republicanism, despite the numbers to the
>contrary? Why does your newsmedia present it that way (esp. the less
>reputable papers)? Given you're so much closer to the issue, and so
>much more at risk that we are, it would seem as though you ought to
>have a better grasp of the details than any American does. Unless,
>of course, you really don't want to know truth from comfy fiction.
Well...I don't believe that the US is a hotbed of Republicanism
either. Although I don't suppose that I count as middle-of-the-road or
middle class. More sort of walking along the footpath as far from the
road as possible and working class, really.
Ade.
\----------------------------------------/
| Adrian.W...@newcastle.ac.uk |
/ ---------------------------------------\
Morna J Findlay
> I've another question that's never been adequately answered
>concerning this issue and it's one that surely belongs here: why do the
>majority of middle-of-the-road, middle class educated Britons believe
>that the US is a hotbed of Republicanism, despite the numbers to the
>contrary? Why does your newsmedia present it that way (esp. the less
>reputable papers)? Given you're so much closer to the issue, and so
>much more at risk that we are, it would seem as though you ought to
>have a better grasp of the details than any American does. Unless,
>of course, you really don't want to know truth from comfy fiction.
I don't know if I can adequately answer your question or not :-)
Most papers obviously prefer to give their readers what they want ot
hear and in the 80's it's probably true that the US was depicted as
a country veering to the right, with Ronald Reagan at it's head. But
this would suit the majority of the UK press as most papers over here
are right-wing too, we had ( and still have) a right-wing government
ourselves, with Thatcher cosying up to Reagan at every opportunity.
The impression that most media outlets - papers and TV - gave, was that
the whole of the west was turing away from socialism ( Europe) and
liberalism ( the US) and that this was the will of the people and the
natural result of the superiority of democratic capitalism.
I don't think, as you seem to imply, that this was because of any
attempt to smear the US. I don't understand why you think the majority
of British middle-class people would see this as a smear? Many of them
voted for the Tories and their filthy nation-dividing bankrupt policies
( here she reveals he own :-)).
To be Tory ( or a republican) in the 80s was *not* in the British media
seen to be extreme in any way at all - it was depicted in the papers
as perfectly "middle of the road" and sensible. See any of Thatchers
"There is no alternative" type speeches. It was the opposition to the
right wing that was depicted as "the loony left", with both he Labour
Party and the Democrats in the US depicted *continuously* as being
unelectable.
I sense a vague sea-change in the air now, which has come too Late for
the Labour Party here, who lost the election to that bunch of
incompetent lying BetcS in April.
Anyway - papers only report what looks newsworthy. I'm sure I'm not the
only person who found it hard to believe that a politburo of left-wing
stalinists apparently controls all the universities while the rest of
the US apparently bombs abortion clincs.
Is your News media any better? Were you ever told that Thatcher was
elected by a landslide?
What's your point exactly?
M
--
Morna Findlay JANET:mo...@uk.ac.ed.dcs
Thanksgiving For a National Victory (Robert Burns)
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for murther.
Pat Murphy
sp...@galvia.enet.dec.com (Gary Spain) writes:
In article <1992Nov30.1...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, i2...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
|>I'll second that- thanks a million! Would anyone like to post or e-mail
|>the results of the Dun Laoghaire constituency? Just who got in,
(details omitted to avoid repetition)
Liam Ferrie just today mailed a special edition of the "Irish
Emigrant" via e-mail; it contains a long (594 lines) list of exactly
who got elected in all constituencies, how many first preference votes
they got and what the quota was. Would it be inappropriate to post
that here?
- Pat
--
==========================================================================
| Patrick P. Murphy, Ph.D. Scientific Programming Analyst |
| National Radio Astronomy Observatory Net: pmu...@nrao.edu |
| 520 Edgemont Road or: uunet!nrao.edu!pmurphy |
| Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 Phone: (804) 296-0372 |
| "I don't believe in the no-win scenario" --- James T. Kirk |
==========================================================================
Aengus Lawlor
Silva) says:
> I've another question that's never been adequately answered
>concerning this issue and it's one that surely belongs here: why do the
>majority of middle-of-the-road, middle class educated Britons believe
>that the US is a hotbed of Republicanism, despite the numbers to the
>contrary? Why does your newsmedia present it that way (esp. the less
>reputable papers)? Given you're so much closer to the issue, and so
>much more at risk that we are, it would seem as though you ought to
>have a better grasp of the details than any American does. Unless,
>of course, you really don't want to know truth from comfy fiction.
of 10 cats prefer it". At some stage they had to amend it to say "of
those who expressed a preference, .......".
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Irish Americans WHO
EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE MATTER are supportive of the more extreme
elements of republicanism. The British government oppose the MacBride
principles, yet a large numebr of state legislatures have passed laws
supporting them. From the British press/publics point of view, this is
at the very least anti-British, if not exactly pro-IRA.
0.1% of 35 million people is a very significant number of people. (Probably
more than the population of most towns in Northen Ireland). The recent
request for "further reading material" is a prime example of how out of
touch with the realities many Americans are. In other circumstances, it might
be considered a "touching example" of concern for an other societies
problems, but not here.
>
>--
>======================================================================
>|| Holly Silva I have nothing terribly clever to say||
>|| Applied Earth Sciences today. You're in luck. ||
>|| Stanford University ||
Aengus
--
RBY...@ROHMHAAS.COM Aengus Lawlor
RBY...@ROHVM1.BITNET (who used to be ALA...@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"
Michael Helm
about this: it was true that a lot of support for Irish revolutionary
groups came from America -- a hundred years ago. So this "truth"
entered Irish & British popular memory, & functions as an urban
myth today. The other, is that it is so much easier to push off
the blame on outside agitators stirring up trouble; that way it's
easier to rationalize why you're not doing anything about the real
problems.
Michael Helm
>The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Irish Americans WHO
>EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE MATTER are supportive of the more extreme
>elements of republicanism. The British government oppose the MacBride
>principles, yet a large numebr of state legislatures have passed laws
I was unaware of that -- which ones?
>0.1% of 35 million people is a very significant number of people. (Probably
What's this number in reference to?
>request for "further reading material" is a prime example of how out of
Oi -- request reading info, & find yourself enrolled in the IRA, is
that it? Look, you would be hard-pressed to extract what you did
from what the poster wrote. This is a leap on your part into the
wild blue yonder.
Aengus Lawlor
>~$500,000 US each year from the Irish-Americans, who number upwards of 35
>million. Looks like we're just pouring funds into their coffers, eh?
>The US isn't a hotbed of of support for the IRA. Most Americans think you'
>re talking about retirement plans if you begin to speak to them of IRA-
>anything. And most of the few who do contribute to 'the Cause' are
>recent emigres like Mr. Mark Hollowheart -- a man who lived in the
>UK for the first 14 years of his life, a man whose sick attitude toward
>the troubles in NI was clearly 'Made in the UK'.
>Irish and British feel comfortable shunting their sickos off to
>America, and why do they immediately begin viewing such people as
>Americans?
After all, he's the one who described himself as an American. And we
aren't exactly in the business of "shunting our sickos off to America",
but I'm sure I'll be flamed for pointing out that a lot of these "sickos"
feel much more at home in the States than they did "at home".
Mark Holohan
|> Ah, grand, this horseshit yet again. Noraid manages to glean
|>~$500,000 US each year from the Irish-Americans, who number upwards of 35
|>million. Looks like we're just pouring funds into their coffers, eh?
|>The US isn't a hotbed of of support for the IRA.
The US is a hotbed of support for the causes of Justice and Liberty, and
this is what really frightens the British, because they practice neither.
|>Most Americans think you'
|>re talking about retirement plans if you begin to speak to them of IRA-
|>anything. And most of the few who do contribute to 'the Cause' are
|>recent emigres like Mr. Mark Hollowheart -- a man who lived in the
|>UK for the first 14 years of his life, a man whose sick attitude toward
|>the troubles in NI was clearly 'Made in the UK'.
If posting news articles that inform netters of some of the crimes the
British are practicing is "contributing to the Cause" then so be it,
because that cause is one of truth.
If posting news articles that inform netters of British economic espionage
against U.S. corporations is "contributing to the Cause" then so be it,
because that cause is one of American Jobs. (And that cause won't die in
the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing held in April).
|> A more fair and realistic question perhaps, is, why do the
|>Irish and British feel comfortable shunting their sickos off to
|>America, and why do they immediately begin viewing such people as
|>Americans?
|> I've another question that's never been adequately answered
|>concerning this issue and it's one that surely belongs here: why do the
|>majority of middle-of-the-road, middle class educated Britons believe
|>that the US is a hotbed of Republicanism, despite the numbers to the
|>contrary? Why does your newsmedia present it that way (esp. the less
|>reputable papers)? Given you're so much closer to the issue, and so
|>much more at risk that we are, it would seem as though you ought to
|>have a better grasp of the details than any American does. Unless,
|>of course, you really don't want to know truth from comfy fiction.
|>
The British government is scared. We now have a President who supports
the fair employment practices known as the MacBride principles. We
now have a President who has plans to send a special envoy to northern
Ireland. They're going to have a hard time justifying to the British
public, the enormous expenses of occupying north-east Ireland, when
their county sits mired in it's worst depression since the 1930's.
Mark
--
*******************************************************************************
Mark Holohan, DEC, USA "Character is what you are in the dark" - BB
hol...@epik.enet.dec.com
The opinions expressed are not necessarily the opinions of
Digital Equipment Corporation.
*******************************************************************************
Ulick Stafford
>
>The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Irish Americans WHO
>EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE MATTER are supportive of the more extreme
>elements of republicanism. The British government oppose the MacBride
>principles, yet a large numebr of state legislatures have passed laws
>supporting them. From the British press/publics point of view, this is
>at the very least anti-British, if not exactly pro-IRA.
>
And exactly what was NORAID money raised for? Mostly for humanitarian or
equivalent aid to raise money to try and fight all those evil perversions
of justice perpetrated by the US and UK governments. But, but of course,
because the British and US government say money is being spent on guns for
the IRA, it must be true (although they could do much worse with it).
All British laws and governence of NI is totally angelic and
there is no reason to raise money to fight all those alleged civil rightsabuses.
Allegations of such abuses as shoot to kill policies, Police giving files
to loyalist butcher squads, planted evidence, supergrass allegations , unfair
hiring practices are all totally untrue.
Aengus Lawlor
>
>Aengus Lawlor writes:
>>The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Irish Americans WHO
> ????
>>EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE MATTER are supportive of the more extreme
>
>>elements of republicanism. The British government oppose the MacBride
>>principles, yet a large numebr of state legislatures have passed laws
>
>I was unaware of that -- which ones?
>>0.1% of 35 million people is a very significant number of people. (Probably
>
>What's this number in reference to?
Holly referrred to 35 Million Irish Americans. I picked 0.1% to imply a
small part of that. But the vast majority of that number don't have any
opinion on the matter.
>
>>request for "further reading material" is a prime example of how out of
>
>Oi -- request reading info, & find yourself enrolled in the IRA, is
>that it? Look, you would be hard-pressed to extract what you did
>from what the poster wrote. This is a leap on your part into the
>wild blue yonder.
The poster asked for further reading matter that would back up the impression
he had already formed by reading Bobby Sands writings. As we have seen here,
there is no end of material available to support either side of the issue
in Northern Ireland. Sympathy and support for the IRA _can_ result from this
type of one-sided view of a situation. I never said he'd be "enrolled in the
IRA".
Pat Murphy
Emigrant" so here it is.
- Pat
- ---------------------- Begin included material -------------------
=================================================================
Nov., 30, 1992 THE IRISH EMIGRANT - ELECTION SUPPLEMENT No.304A
_________________________________________________________________
Editor: Liam Ferrie Circulation: 1435
=================================================================
Below you will find the details of the first counts from all the
constituencies in the General Election. All the successful
candidates are identified for you.
RESULTS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION - November 25, 1992
Compiled by Donal & Eoghan Ferrie, Menlo, Galway
Members of the 26th Dail have an asterisk before their name. The
following abbreviations are used: FF - Fianna Fail; FG - Fine
Gael; L - Labour; PD - Progressive Democrats; WP - Workers'
Party; DL - Democratic Left; Ind - Independent; Ind FF -
Independent Fianna Fail; SF - Sinn Fein; GP - Green Party; CCP -
Christian Centrist Party.
Carlow/Kilkenny - 5 Seats (Quota = 9,294)
*Seamus Pattison (L) 13,713 Elected 1st count
*Liam Aylward (FF) 11,331 Elected 1st count
*M.J. Nolan (FF) 7,195 Elected 6th count
*Phil Hogan (FG) 6,573 Elected 5th count
*John Browne (FG) 6,471 Elected 6th count
Kevin Fennelly (FF) 4,059
Dr Miriam Hogan (Ind) 2,596
Andy Cotterell (FG) 2,358
Evelyn White (FF) 1,462
Cavan/Monaghan - 5 Seats (Quota = 9,149)
*Rory O'Hanlon (FF) 7,125 Elected 8th count
Brendan Smith (FF) 7,063 Elected 5th count
*Jimmy Leonard (FF) 6,555 Elected 8th count
*Bill Cotter (FG) 5,291
Seymour Crawford (FG) 5,192 Elected 8th count
*Andrew Boylan (FG) 4,763 Elected 8th count
Ann Gallagher (L) 4,543
Caoimhghin O Caolain (SF) 4,197
Joe O'Reilly (FG) 3,942
Michael Smith (FF) 3,551
Winston Turner (Ind) 1,825
Mary Smith (Ind) 686
Jimmy Finnegan (WP) 157
Clare - 4 Seats (Quota = 8,922)
Tony Killeen (FF) 6,814 Elected 8th count
*Sile de Valera (FF) 6,752 Elected 9th count
*Donal Carey (FG) 6,567 Elected 7th count
*Brendan Daly (FF) 5,940
Dr Mossajee Bhamjee (L) 5,113 Elected 9th count
*Madeleine Taylor-Quinn (FG) 4,873
Colm Wiley (FF) 3,582
Mary Mannion (PD) 3,112
Frankie Neylon (Ind) 977
Mickey McKee (SF) 459
Michael McInerney (Ind) 419
Cork East - 4 Seats (Quota = 8,298)
*Ned O'Keeffe (FF) 8,380 Elected 1st count
*Michael Ahern (FF) 7,418 Elected 7th count
*Paul Bradford (FG) 6,750 Elected 7th count
John Mulvihill (L) 5,703 Elected 7th count
*Joe Sherlock (DL) 5,351
Paddy Hegarty (FG) 4,594
Michael Hegarty (FG) 2,562
Kieran McCarthy (SF) 366
Maurice Herbert Quinlan (Ind) 212
Sandra Doyle-Condon (WP) 153
Cork North-Central - 5 Seats (Quota = 7,493)
*Gerry O'Sullivan (L) 10,009 Elected 1st count
Dan Wallace (FF) 6,465 Elected 12th count
*Bernard Allen (FG) 5,271 Elected 14th count
*Mairin Quill (PD) 5,200 Elected 16th count
Liam Burke (FG) 4,051 Elected 16th count
Billy Kelleher (FF) 3,020
*Denis Lyons (FF) 2,461
John Kelleher (DL) 1,809
Con O'Leary (Ind) 1,038
Michael O'Leary (FG) 898
Donagh McCarthy Morogh (GP) 820
Gene McCarthy (FF) 756
Jim Homan (WP) 735
Don O'Leary (SF) 617
Donie O'Leary (Ind) 485
Gerry Duffy (CCP) 449
Ted Tynan (WP) 448
John O'Mahony (Ind) 425
Cork North-West - 3 Seats (Quota = 8,335)
*Michael Creed (FG) 8,034 Elected 4th count
*Frank Crowley (FG) 6,642 Elected 4th count
Donal Moynihan (FF) 6,375 Elected 4th count
William Cashin (L) 4,729
*Laurence Kelly (FF) 4,201
Dan Fleming (FF) 3,176
Barbara Hyland (Ind) 180
Cork South-Central - 5 Seats (Quota = 8,933)
*Toddy O'Sullivan (L) 9,662 Elected 1st count
*Michael Martin (FF) 7,939 Elected 13th count
Pat Cox (PD) 6,720 Elected 15th count
Batt O'Keeffe (FF) 5,532 Elected 15th count
*Peter Barry (FG) 5,020 Elected 15th count
*John Dennehy (FF) 3,925
Dino Cregan (FG) 2,925
Kathleen Lynch (DL) 2,539
Liam Hurley (Ind) 2,239
Barry Cogan (FF) 1,941
Jim Corr (FG) 1,828
Dan Boyle (GP) 1,166
John Weldon (Ind) 697
Liam Burke (SF) 592
Con O'Connell (Ind) 526
Jerry McCarthy (WP) 172
Sean P Twomey (Ind) 87
Nora Anne Luck (Ind) 85
Cork South-West - 3 Seats (Quota = 8,326)
*Joe Walsh (FF) 9,376 Elected 1st count
*P.J. Sheehan (FG) 7,113 Elected 8th count
*Jim O'Keeffe (FG) 6,345 Elected 8th count
Denis O'Donovan (FF) 4,268
Michael Calnan (L) 3,757
Mary O'Donnell (GP) 1,424
Rev Timothy O'Donovan (Ind) 379
Anne O'Leary (SF) 330
Kathleen Dwyer (Ind) 158
Andrew Dillon (Ind) 149
Donegal North-East - 3 Seats (Quota = 7,803)
*Dr James McDaid (FF) 6,927 Elected 7th count
*Neil Blaney (Ind FF) 5,248 Elected 7th count
Hugh Conaghan (FF) 4,538
*Paddy Harte (FG) 4,292 Elected 7th count
Sean Moloney (L) 3,538
Bernard McGuinness (FG) 2,667
Jim Devenney (Ind) 2,082
Jim Ferry (SF) 819
Brigid McGonagle (GP) 611
Patrick Doherty (CCP) 487
Donegal South-West - 3 Seats (Quota = 7,453)
*Pat "The Cope" Gallagher (FF) 7,870 Elected 1st count
*Mary Coughlan (FF) 6,639 Elected 7th count
Jim White (FG) 5,745
*Dinny McGinley (FG) 5,504 Elected 7th count
Seamus Rodgers (DL) 1,825
Danny Mooney (Ind) 700
Anna Rose Doherty (SF) 577
Fred Coll (Ind) 539
John McClusky (SF) 409
Dublin Central - 4 Seats (Quota = 7,281)
*Bertie Ahern (FF) 11,374 Elected 1st count
Joe Costello (L) 7,308 Elected 1st count
*Tony Gregory (Ind) 5,809 Elected 7th count
*Jim Mitchell (FG) 5,125 Elected 10th count
*Dermot Fitzpatrick (FF) 1,838
Christy Burke (SF) 1,362
Olga Bennett (FF) 1,087
Patricia McKenna (GP) 927
Niamh Nic Mhathuna (Ind) 514
Mike Jennings (DL) 467
Linda Kavanagh (WP) 368
Des Early (WP) 221
Dublin North - 4 Seats (Quota = 8,636)
*Sean Ryan (L) 14,693 Elected 1st count
*Ray Burke (FF) 8,745 Elected 1st count
*Nora Owen (FG) 5,355 Elected 6th count
*G.V. Wright (FF) 4,862
Trevor Sargent (PD) 3,788 Elected 8th count
Marian McGennis (FF) 2,157
Cathal Boland (FG) 1,818
Betty Carr (Ind) 707
Marie Blake (Ind) 639
Martha Ellis (DL) 411
Dublin North-Central - 4 Seats (Quota = 9,178)
Derek McDowell (L) 10,609 Elected 1st count
Sean Haughey (FF) 8,202 Elected 12th count
*Richard Bruton (FG) 7,657 Elected 10th count
*Ivor Callely (FF) 5,917 Elected 13th count
*John Stafford (FF) 3,759
Sean Dublin Bay Loftus (Ind) 3,551
*Pat Lee (FG) 2,620
Helen Lahert (DL) 1,376
Finian McGrath (Ind) 764
Nick McBennett (SF) 644
Noel O'Hanrahan (Ind) 363
Tony O'Byrne (Ind) 156
Mary Margaret Doyle Dunne (Ind) 143
Rosemary Burns (Ind) 122
Dublin North-East - 4 Seats (Quota = 8,003)
Sean Kenny (L) 8,873 Elected 1st count
*Michael Woods (FF) 6,850 Elected 9th count
*Liam Fitzpatrick (FF) 4,011 Elected 12th count
*Pat McCartan (DL) 3,743
*M.J. Cosgrave (FG) 3,311
Tommy Broughan (L) 3,162 Elected 12th count
Martin Brady (FF) 2,673
Joan Maher (FG) 2,181
Stephen O'Byrnes (PD) 2,034
*Larry O'Toole (SF) 1,088
Saidhbh O'Neill (GP) 931
David Healy (GP) 795
Marian Donnelly (WP) 239
John Burns (Ind) 118
Dublin North-West - 4 Seats (Quota = 7,489)
Roisin Shortall (L) 8,634 Elected 1st count
Noel Ahern (FF) 5,748 Elected 11th count
*Mary Flaherty (FG) 4,615 Elected 12th count
*Proinsias de Rossa (DL) 4,562 Elected 12TH count
Pat Carey (FF) 3,693
*Jim Tunney (FF) 3,054
Bill Tormey (Ind) 2,515
John Murphy (GP) 897
Eamonn O'Brien (WP) 801
Joe MacDonough (CCP) 741
Harry Fleming (SF) 694
Eileen Murphy (SF) 508
Lucia O'Neill (WP) 432
Desmond O'Malley (Ind) 358
Gerard Doolan (Ind) 161
John Olohan (Ind) 25
Dublin South - 5 Seats (Quota = 9,940 )
Eithne Fitzgerald (L) 17,256 Elected 1st count
*Seamus Brennan (FF) 9,074 Elected 7th count
*Tom Kitt (FF) 7,304 Elected 8th count
*Alan Shatter (FG) 6,244 Elected 12th count
Liz O'Donnell (PD) 5,162 Elected 12th count
Ann Ormonde (FF) 3,085
Maurice Manning (FG) 3,065
Olivia Mitchell (FG) 2,764
*Roger Garland (GP) 2,258
Richard Greene (Ind) 1,671
Marian White (DL) 640
Owen Connolly (Ind) 506
George Keegan (SF) 486
Kevin Stewart Blair (Ind) 119
Dublin South-Central - 4 Seats (Quota = 8,068)
Pat Upton (L) 11,934 Elected 1st count
*Gay Mitchell (FG) 6,690 Elected 7th count
*John O'Connell (FF) 5,832 Elected 12th count
*Ben Briscoe (FF) 4,395
*Eric Byrne (DL) 2,996 Elected 13th count
Cait Keane (PD) 1,892
Michael Mulcahy (FF) 1,688
Mary Bowers (GP) 1,311
Edith Wynne (FG) 1,007
Eamonn Murphy (CCP) 831
Rita Whelan (WP) 719
Martina Gibney (SF) 676
David Weinkel Johnston (Ind) 236
Mary Daly (Ind) 129
Assumes recheck does not find in favour of Briscoe over Byrne
Dublin South-East - 4 Seats (Quota = 8,051)
*Ruairi Quinn (L) 10,381 Elected 1st count
Eoin Ryan (FF) 4,566 Elected 12th count
Michael McDowell (PD) 4,504 Elected 12th count
*Joe Doyle (FG) 4,438
Frances Fitzgerald (FG) 4,332 Elected 11th count
*Gerard Brady (FF) 4,238
John Gormley (GP) 2,476
Mary Mooney (FF) 2,123
Jim Allen (DL) 874
Michael O Muireagain (SF) 851
John Gallagher (Ind) 620
Andy Smith (WP) 573
Ian Murray (Ind) 194
Thomas Joseph Mullins (Ind) 84
Dublin South-West - 5 Seats (Quota = 7,109)
*Mervyn Taylor (L) 10,871 Elected 1st count
*Chris Flood (FF) 6,596 Elected 9th count
*Mary Harney (PD) 4,964 Elected 13th count
*Pat Rabbitte (DL) 3,743 Elected 13th count
Eamonn Walsh (L) 3,594 Elected 11th count
Michael Keating (FG) 2,614
Colm McGrath (FF) 2,288
John Hannon (FF) 1,832
Charles O'Connor (FF) 1,701
Dr Peter Keogh (Ind) 1,511
David Cotter (GP) 871
Sean Crowe (SF) 846
Bob Byrne (Ind) 581
Esther Kelly (WP) 293
Anthony John Hubbard (Ind) 184
Harry Richards (Ind) 159
Dublin West - 4 Seats (Quota = 7,431)
Joan Burton (L) 8,398 Elected 1st count
*Brian Lenihan (FF) 5,171 Elected 13th count
*Liam Lawlor (FF) 3,736 Elected 14th count
*Austin Currie (FG) 3,360 Elected 14th count
Finbar Hanrahan (FF) 2,727
*Tomas Mac Giolla (WP) 2,726
V. Ballyfermot Jackson (Ind) 2,171
Shiela Terry (PD) 1,498
Joe Higgins (Ind L) 1,407
Tom Morrisey (FG) 1,179
John McCann (SF) 1,032
Sean Lyons (Ind) 1,027
Marie Blake (Ind) 916
Paul Nicholas Gogarty (GP) 906
Therese Ridge (FG) 799
Dr Liam Lynch (Ind) 99
Dun Laoghaire - 5 Seats (Quota = 9,896)
*David Andrews (FF) 13,418 Elected 1st count
Niamh Bhreathnach (L) 10,074 Elected 1st count
Eamon Gilmore (DL) 7,045 Elected 12th count
Helen Keogh (PD) 6,497 Elected 12th count
*Sean Barrett (FG) 4,852 Elected 11th count
*Monica Barnes (FG) 4,261
Liam Cosgrave (FG) 3,683
*Brian Hillery (FF) 2,973
Betty Coffey (FF) 2,119
Vincent McDowell (GP) 1,784
Michael Quinn (IND) 1,705
Kevin Fitzpatrick (SF) 801
Eamonn Murdoch (WP) 110
Martin Joseph McAneny (IND) 48
Galway East - 3 Seats (Quota = 7,268)
*Paul Connaughton (FG) 6,339 Elected 5th count
*Michael Kitt (FF) 6,062 Elected 4th count
*Noel Treacy (FF) 5,834 Elected 6th count
Joe Burke (PD) 3,882
Michael Mullins (FG) 2,864
Patrick Finnegan (FF) 2,198
Pat Hynes (L) 1,586
Dermot Connolly (SF) 306
Galway West - 5 Seats (Quota = 8,398)
*Michael D. Higgins (L) 8,910 Elected 1st count
Eamon O Cuiv (FF) 8,430 Elected 1st count
*Maire Geoghegan-Quinn (FF) 6,844 Elected 10th count
*Frank Fahey (FF) 6,782
*Bobby Molloy (PD) 6,749 Elected 10th count
*Padraig McCormack (FG) 5,776 Elected 10th count
Fintan Coogan (FG) 2,747
Darina Costelloe (Ind) 1,308
Paddy Lally (Ind) 1,151
Pol O Foighil (Ind) 750
Jacqui O'Dowd (DL) 392
Mike Egan (SF) 349
John Barry Finnegan (Ind) 138
Jim Walsh (Ind) 60
Kerry North - 3 Seats (Quota = 8,484)
*Dick Spring (L) 11,515 Elected 1st count
*Jimmy Deenihan (FG) 8,120 Elected 2nd count
Denis Foley (FF) 4,974 Elected 6th count
*Tom McEllistrem (FF) 4,619
Ned O'Sullivan (FF) 2,781
Michael Reidy (Ind) 1,122
Billy Leen (SF) 802
Kerry South - 3 Seats (Quota = 7,836)
*John O'Donoghue (FF) 8,263 Elected 1st count
Breeda Moynihan-Cronin (L) 7,537 Elected 5th count
*John O'Leary (FF) 6,113 Elected 6th count
Michael Connor-Scarteen (FG) 3,576
Paul Coughlan (FG) 2,658
P.J. Cronin (Ind) 2,481
Dan Daly (SF) 331
Pol O Criochain (Ind) 267
Liam West (Ind) 112
Kildare - 5 Seats (Quota = 8,400)
*Emmet Stagg (L) 10,656 Elected 1st count
*Charlie McCreevy (FF) 10,208 Elected 1st count
*Alan Dukes (FG) 6,705 Elected 11th count
*Bernard Durkan (FG) 4,604 Elected 12th count
*Sean Power (FF) 3,809 Elected 11th count
John Dardis (PD) 3,529
Jack Wall (L) 2,859
Sean O'Fearghill (FF) 2,858
Catherine Murphy (DL) 1,613
Sean English (GP) 1,064
Nick Hegarty (Ind) 853
Patsey Lawlor (Ind) 745
Paddy Wright (SF) 719
Liz Garrett (Ind) 177
Laois/Offaly - 5 Seats (Quota = 8,946)
*Brian Cowan (FF) 10,117 Elected 1st count
*Liam Hyland (FF) 8,361 Elected 8th count
Pat Gallagher (L) 6,966 Elected 10th count
*Charles Flanagan (FG) 5,876 Elected 10th count
*Tom Enright (FG) 5,742
John Moloney (FF) 5,018
*Ger Connolly (FF) 4,316 Elected 10th count
Cathy Honan (PD) 3,560
John Butterfield (Ind) 1,508
Mollie Buckley (FG) 1,165
John Carroll (SF) 665
Joe McCormack (Ind) 244
Edward Delaney (Ind) 132
Limerick East - 5 Seats (Quota = 8,062)
*Willie O'Dea (FF) 11,002 Elected 1st count
*Desmond O'Malley (PD) 8,303 Elected 1st count
*Jim Kemmy (L) 8,270 Elected 1st count
*Michael Noonan (FG) 5,435 Elected 11th count
*Peadar Clohessy (PD) 4,337 Elected 12th count
Eddie Wade (FF) 3,635
Jan O'Sullivan (L) 3,090
Mary Jackman (FG) 2,110
John Ryan (DL) 835
Dr Augustine Moore (Ind) 463
Tom Clancy (SF) 398
Joe Harrington (Ind) 369
Jude Williams (Ind) 119
Limerick West - 3 Seats (Quota = 7,955)
*Gerry Collins (FF) 10,913 Elected 1st count
*Michael Finucane (FG) 5,164 Elected 7th count
Dan Neville (FG) 4,657
*Michael Noonan (FF) 4,173 Elected 7th count
Mary Kelly (L) 3,447
Sean Liston (PD) 2,343
Bridget Randles (Ind) 645
Coireall McCurtain (SF) 346
John Basil Fitzgibbon (Ind) 129
Longford/Roscommon - 4 Seats (Quota = 9,062)
*Albert Reynolds (FF) 10,307 Elected 1st count
Sean Doherty (FF) 5,788 Elected 9th count
*Tom Foxe (Ind) 5,585 Elected 9th count
*John Connor (FG) 5,154 Elected 8th count
*Louis Belton (FG) 4,769
*Terry Leyden (FF) 4,331
Liam Naughten (FG) 3,633
Michael Finneran (FF) 3,261
Mae Sexton (Ind) 1,160
Jim Nolan (L) 595
Martin Hogan (Ind) 459
Tena O'Leary (SF) 160
Peter Sweetman (GP) 103
Louth - 4 Seats (Quota = 8,695)
*Michael Bell (L) 9,608 Elected 1st count
*Dermot Ahern (FF) 7,704 Elected 8th count
*Brendan McGahon (FG) 6,672 Elected 9th count
*Seamus Kirk (FF) 6,602 Elected 9th count
Henry Mountcharles (FG) 4,161
Tommy Murphy (FF) 3,853
Tom Bellew (Ind) 1,603
Sean Kenna (SF) 1,289
Maimie Ahern (Ind) 1,017
Thomas Murtagh (SF) 416
Dessie Taaffe (Ind) 296
Peter Short (WP) 249
Mayo East - 3 Seats (Quota = 7,325)
*Jim Higgins (FG) 7,631 Elected 1st count
Tom Moffatt (FF) 6,639 Elected 3rd count
Ernie Caffrey (FG) 5,733
*P.J. Morley (FF) 5,693 Elected 3rd count
Paddy Oliver (FF) 2,514
Mary Reilly (Ind) 1,089
Mayo West - 3 Seats (Quota = 7,415)
*Padraig Flynn (FF) 9,629 Elected 1st count
*Enda Kenny (FG) 6,210 Elected 4th count
Michael Ring (FG) 5,136
Seamus Hughes (FF) 4,401 Elected 4th count
Padraic Cosgrove (Ind) 3,478
Michael Goonan (FF) 803
Meath - 5 Seats (Quota = 8,514)
*Noel Dempsey (FF) 9,196 Elected 1st count
Brian Fitzgerald (L) 8,967 Elected 1st count
*John Bruton (FG) 8,402 Elected 3rd count
*Mary Wallace (FF) 6,132 Elected 11th count
*Colm Hilliard (FF) 5,813 Elected 11th count
*John Farrelly (FG) 5,124
Francis Monaghan (FF) 1,885
Jack Fitzsimons (Ind) 1,477
Caroline Mhic Dhaeid (PD) 1,135
Brendan Cleary (Ind) 852
Christy Gorman (WP) 809
Anne McCormack (GP) 650
Joe Reilly (SF) 641
Sligo/Leitrim - 4 Seats (Quota = 8,547)
*John Ellis (FF) 7,430 Elected 5th count
*Declan Bree (L) 7,328 Elected 4th count
*Mattie Brennan (FF) 6,761 Elected 4th count
*Ted Nealon (FG) 6,622 Elected 6th count
*Gerry Reynolds (FG) 6,348
Gerry Healy (FF) 5,270
John McGettrick (Ind) 1,560
Sean MacManus (SF) 1,311
Patrick Denis Melly (Ind) 73
Tipperary North - 3 Seats (Quota = 7,957)
*Michael Smith (FF) 8,156 Elected 1st count
*Michael Lowry (FG) 7,401 Elected 3rd count
John Ryan (L) 7,240 Elected 4th count
*Michael O' Kennedy (FF) 7,113
Tom Ryan (FG) 1,533
Jimmy Nolan (SF) 382
Tipperary South - 4 Seats (Quota = 9,918)
*Sean Treacy (Ceann Comhairle) Automatically elected
*Michael Ferris (L) 8,306 Elected 5th count
*Therese Ahern (FG) 8,103 Elected 3rd count
*Noel Davern (FF) 7,463 Elected 5th count
Seamus Healy (Ind) 4,023
Sean Byrne (FF) 3,851
Sean McCarthy (FF) 3,849
Brendan Griffin (FG) 2,854
Joe O'Gorman (Ind) 1,016
Terry Crowe (SF) 205
Waterford - 4 Seats (Quota = 8,598)
*Brian O'Shea (L) 11,235 Elected 1st count
*Austin Deasy (FG) 7,723 Elected 4th count
*Brendan Kenneally (FF) 6,793 Elected 7th count
*Jackie Fahey (FF) 5,410
Martin Cullen (PD) 4,015 Elected 7th count
Martin O'Regan (WP) 3,000
Maurice Cummins (FG) 1,788
Anthony Scott (Ind) 1,312
Paddy Gallagher (DL) 1,039
Dennis O'Brien (SF) 511
Breda Hayden (Ind) 161
Westmeath - 3 Seats (Quota = 7,676)
*Mary O'Rourke (FF) 7,396 Elected 7th count
Henry Abbott (FF) 6,598
Willie Penrose (L) 6,182 Elected 9th count
*Paul McGrath (FG) 5,347 Elected 9th count
Brendan McFadden (FG) 2,849
Stephen Price (Ind) 747
Mary Humphries (Ind) 735
Peter Rogers (SF) 323
John Dunne (Ind) 242
Declan Geraghty (Ind) 198
Benny Cooney (Ind) 86
Wexford - 5 Seats (Quota = 8,696)
*Brendan Howlin (L) 10,338 Elected 1st count
*John Browne (FF) 8,407 Elected 5th count
Hugh Byrne (FF) 7,299 Elected 8th count
*Ivan Yates (FG) 7,043 Elected 5th count
*Seamus Cullimore (FF) 6,436
*Michael D'Arcy (FG) 5,626
Avril Doyle (FG) 5,314 Elected 6th count
Mick Enright (DL) 797
Michael O'Connor (Ind) 502
Oliver Murray (SF) 410
Wicklow - 5 Seats (Quota = 8,649 )
*Liam Kavanagh (L) 11,843 Elected 1st count
*Joe Jacobs (FF) 6,475 Elected 11th count
Liz McManus (DL) 5,510 Elected 12th count
*Dick Roche (FF) 5,250
Johnny Fox (Ind) 4,749 Elected 14th count
*Godfrey Timmins (FG) 4,612 Elected 12th count
Shane Ross (FG) 2,903
Vincent McElheron (Ind) 1,806
Tom Honan (FG) 1,676
Eamon Kane (FF) 1,376
Liam Nolan (PD) 1,367
Nuala Ahern (GP) 1,346
Pat Dunlea (Ind) 1,311
John Harnett (Ind) 906
Ken O'Connell (SF) 299
Gerry O'Neill (SF) 179
Frank Hayes (WP) 139
Barbara Hyland (Ind) 87
Leo Armstong (Ind) 57
- ---------------------- End included material -------------------
Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,
>
> The US is a hotbed of support for the causes of Justice and Liberty, and
> this is what really frightens the British, because they practice neither.
> If posting news articles that inform netters of some of the crimes
> the British are practicing is "contributing to the Cause" then so be it,
> Mark
>
The British:
a) the British government,
b) those who live in britain and support "unjust and illiberal" policies
and governing actions in NI, or
c) everyone who holds a British passport?
If it is (c) the statement is not completely true; if (a) and/or (b),
what do you call the people who do not fall under either (a) or (b). Or,
does (c) imply (a) and (b)?
finl...@spcvxb.spc.edu
> In article <1992Nov28....@spcvxb.spc.edu> finl...@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>>Thanks for this information. Whatever about the likes of Sean Doherty (wasn't
>>the GUBU affair in reference to Haughey's Attorney General of the time, and
>>hasn't S.D. changed his stance a bit since the Bowra debacle?), it does
>>seem as though the days of Brendan Corish are wel{ and truly laid to
>>rest.
>
> Eh? What does Brendan Corish have to do with this?
My point exactly!
Jeff Finlay
Mark Holohan
In article <92336.095...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>, Aengus Lawlor <RBY...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
|>A more fair an realistic person to ask would be Mr. Holohan himself.
|>After all, he's the one who described himself as an American. And we
|>aren't exactly in the business of "shunting our sickos off to America",
|>but I'm sure I'll be flamed for pointing out that a lot of these "sickos"
|>feel much more at home in the States than they did "at home".
More Dublin wit Aengus? Speaking of Dublin, how is the rape capital of
Europe these days? Spare me your comments about sickos feeling at home
in the States.
|>
|>Aengus
|>--
|>RBY...@ROHMHAAS.COM Aengus Lawlor
|>RBY...@ROHVM1.BITNET (who used to be ALA...@DIT.IE)
|>"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
|>"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"
|>
Holly Silva
>mi...@fionn.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) says:
>>
>>Aengus Lawlor writes:
>>>The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Irish Americans WHO
>>>elements of republicanism.
Not. The vast majority of mainstream irish-american organizations
represent people who are strongly Roman Catholic, anti-terrorist,
almost rabidly anti-communist, and quite rabidly anti-Lybian. The
stance of these organizations regarding NI terrorism reflects these
facts. While mainstream irish-americans are _not_ inclined to support
every word and deed of the British government in matters pertaining to
NI, they are thoroughly against the (until recently) Lybian and
and Palestinian-trained, Eastern Bloc-funded Republican terrorists.
I'm not up on the names of all the major irish-american
organizations and their political view, but I've seen this general
condemnation of NI terrorists in the US Catholic church, in the
the universities run by the US Catholic church and in the active
opposition of Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neill. These two old Democratic
scumbags were instrumental in reducing US donations to 'the Cause'
in the mid- to late 70's. The Catholic church in the US is top-heavy
with irish-americans, especially at the top of the heirarchy, and they
tend to accurately reflect the attitudes of the middle-to-working
class irish-american masses in this matter. (Birth control is another
matter entirely). As for the pols, Kennedy and O'Neill never did a good
deed in their lives if it wouldn't buy them votes. Rest assured, when
these two spoke out against Noraid and other 'humanitarian' fund-raisers
for 'the Cause', they did so with the knowledge that their constituencies
approved.
>>>0.1% of 35 million people is a very significant number of people.
>>
>>What's this number in reference to?
>Holly referrred to 35 Million Irish Americans. I picked 0.1% to imply a
>small part of that. But the vast majority of that number don't have any
>opinion on the matter.
The vast majority are solidly anti-terrorist, but not versed
in the particulars of the NI conflict. All the acronyms might confuse
them, but the matter of right and wrong _does not_.
Holly Silva
>si...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
> The US is a hotbed of support for the causes of Justice and Liberty, and
> this is what really frightens the British, because they practice neither.
>
Oh, bullshit. This is patently not true for non-Europeans.
Justice and liberty are here aplenty for irish emigres, both legal
and illegal, but absent for non-whites from similarly bankrupt
economies.
The pampering that contemporary irish immigrants receive in
this country is nothing short of obscene. The Morisson visa (aka,
the Irish Sweepstakes) is a blatantly racist vehicle. 40% of the
lottery slots are reserved for the Irish and another large chunk
go to Poles. Pretty white folk that they are, Irish illegals are
rarely harassed; I've heard quite a few stories of Irish who're
living here on expired tourist visas being ignored by La Migra;
they are too busy hauling Mexican or Korean illegals off to jail
to trouble with educated white folk.
That this should be is an indictment of our society; that
so many Irish should ignore it and continue to make use of such
racist program is likewise an indictment of their own.
As for you personally Holohan, when you obtained US citizen
ship, you swore an oath of fealty to this country. But, all your
shrill jingoism to the contrary, it's abundantly clearly that your
true allegiance is to some non-existent Hy Brazil Republic of Ireland.
You are, in essence, forsworn. I wonder what the INS would make of
that, eh? It's uncommon for anyone's citizenship to be revoked in
this day an age for such a tenuous cause, but you've certainly left
an 'electronic trail' which supports this view.
America is full of foreigners with home-bound minds and
political agendas, but I'm damned if I know why we should welcome
such people, or consider them to be Americans in any full sense of
the word.
You're a waste of space man. You're one of the people we
should never have taken in, and would likely not have taken in
if it were not for your 'acceptable' race. You are not an American,
irrespective of what your passport may say.
>
>|> A fair and realistic question perhaps, is, why do the
>|>Irish and British feel comfortable shunting their sickos off to
>|>America, and why do they immediately begin viewing such people as
>|>Americans?
Holly Silva
>si...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
>
>>Adrian.W...@newcastle.ac.uk (Adrian Waterworth) writes:
>
> Hang about, hang about! I didn't say that there were a lot of
>IRA/Sinn Fein supporters in the US. I only said that the ones that do
>exist tend to be a bit of a pain in the bum. Something on which we seem
>to agree.
>
> I also didn't say that the people in question were American. In
>fact, I deliberately said "supporters in the US" rather than "American
>supporters" or "Americans".
>
This is true. My apologies. It was the bit about American tourists
that made me think otherwise. By and large republican terrorists aren't
going to give a damn about whom they kill, esp. not Yanks if they aren't
Yanks to begin with.
Ulick Stafford
>
> This is true. My apologies. It was the bit about American tourists
>that made me think otherwise. By and large republican terrorists aren't
>going to give a damn about whom they kill, esp. not Yanks if they aren't
>Yanks to begin with.
I am becoming highly amused at the way the 'inate evil' of the IRA is
mentioned by everyone on every side of every arguement. While the IRA members
are hardly angels, it is propagandistic hyperbole to say that they do not care
who they kill. It`s not like the behaviour of the `forces of law and order'
is much better, despite the fact that they have the power of the British
empire behind them, while the IRA are a raggedy bunch with, maybe, 150 active
members. I mean just last week the RUC shot an IRA member who they had
stopped who was 'attempting to escape'. At least when the IRA kill
someone they are honest enough to admit it and their reasons. But how can
150 people with relatively poor upbringing combat the propaganda might of the
British empire and allies?
Matthew Huntbach
>concerning this issue and it's one that surely belongs here: why do the
>majority of middle-of-the-road, middle class educated Britons believe
>that the US is a hotbed of Republicanism, despite the numbers to the
>contrary? Why does your newsmedia present it that way (esp. the less
>reputable papers)? Given you're so much closer to the issue, and so
>much more at risk that we are, it would seem as though you ought to
>have a better grasp of the details than any American does. Unless,
>of course, you really don't want to know truth from comfy fiction.
>
think most people here accept that the vast majority of
Americans neither know nor care much about the situation in
Northern Ireland. British newsmedia coverage of the IRA is not
full of accusations of American support, contrary to what you
seem to be thinking.
However, it is a function of usenet that it provides something
of a direct interface between the USA and the UK, and it does
seem that whenever the subject is raised from the USA, it is
generally in terms which accept the Republican case and are
often entirely ignorant of the Unionist case. For instance, I
don't think I have ever read a request from an American on the
lines of "give me more information about Ian Paisley and his
fight for freedom against the domination of the Roman Catholic
Church", but I fairly often find myself fielding requests on
the lines of "give me more information about the IRA and their
fight for freedom against the domination of the British". Both
are valid, if extreme, interpretations of the situation there,
so if people in the USA genuinely were neutral on the subject,
we would expect to hear both in equal numbers.
I think you should be aware, however, that symbolic acts, such as
inviting IRA supporters to lead St.Patrick's day parades in the
USA do have a damaging effect, just as symbolic anti-American
acts in Europe seem to have a disproportionately upsetting
effect in the USA. I also remember an occasion when an American
politician (Cuomo? - someone from New York anyway), visited
Northern Ireland and came back making some rather mild comments
on the lines of "it's not quite as simple as you think, and
there is a case on both sides", he had to quickly retract it,
and replace it with a ritual show of support for Republicanism.
So I don't think the problem is a feeling that the IRA exists
because of financial support from the USA. But there is some
annoyance in Britain among those who take an interest in the
subject that what opinion on it exists in the USA is generally
biased to one side, and a feeling that this may give moral
support to the IRA and encourage them to continue with their
terrorist campaign.
Matthew Huntbach
Trevor Kirby
In article <1992Dec1.1...@e2big.mko.dec.com>, hol...@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan) writes:
>
> The US is a hotbed of support for the causes of Justice and Liberty, and
> this is what really frightens the British, because they practice neither.
>
Trev
Simon Patience
> In article <1feil1...@morrow.stanford.edu> si...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
> > I've another question that's never been adequately answered
> >concerning this issue and it's one that surely belongs here: why do the
> >majority of middle-of-the-road, middle class educated Britons believe
> >that the US is a hotbed of Republicanism, despite the numbers to the
> >contrary? Why does your newsmedia present it that way (esp. the less
> >reputable papers)? Given you're so much closer to the issue, and so
> >much more at risk that we are, it would seem as though you ought to
> >have a better grasp of the details than any American does. Unless,
> >of course, you really don't want to know truth from comfy fiction.
> >
> I think this is another case of generalising from usenet. I
> think most people here accept that the vast majority of
> Americans neither know nor care much about the situation in
> Northern Ireland.
The same could be said of the majority of Britons living on the mainland.
Simon.
--
Simon Patience
Open Software Foundation Phone: +33-76-63-48-72
Research Institute FAX: +33-76-51-05-32
2 Avenue De Vignate Email: s...@gr.osf.org
38610 Gieres, France uunet!gr.osf.org!sp
ja...@cas.org
>
>In article <1feil1...@morrow.stanford.edu>, si...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
>
>|> Ah, grand, this horseshit yet again.
Ah, indeed, Hollers is back. He and Trellers Pinkers should
make at least two votes for the creation of rec.anglophobia.
>
> The US is a hotbed of support for the causes of Justice and Liberty.
This is open to interpretation...
> If posting news articles that inform netters of British economic espionage
> against U.S. corporations is "contributing to the Cause" then so be it,
> because that cause is one of American Jobs. (And that cause won't die in
> the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing held in April).
You posted an unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiatable, claim that
British Intelligence had been caught spying in the U.S. This
claim was based on a report that the NSA had read an encrypted
message. The imponderables in this claim include:
1. Official U.S. claims that they have never spied on the
U.K. (or Canada or Australia).
2. The presence of an NSA counterintelligence function. It
doesn't have one. If you don't believe me, read "Informing
Statecraft" by Angelo Codevilla.
3. The possibility that the NSA would admit to:
a. existing
b. listening to British communications
c. having read the encrypted message. This is the
gravest transgression of NSA policy. Seeing as
you claim to be so knowledgeable about British
espionage you should be familiar with the terms
"Zinoviev letter" and "Zimmermann Telegram" in
this context.
>|> A more fair and realistic question perhaps, is, why do the
>|>Irish and British feel comfortable shunting their sickos off to
>|>America, and why do they immediately begin viewing such people as
>|>Americans?
What's the frequency of rape in Dublin compared to a similar
city in the U.S.?
> They're going to have a hard time justifying to the British
> public, the enormous expenses of occupying north-east Ireland, when
> their county sits mired in it's worst depression since the 1930's.
Here's a story I heard from a U.S. source so it must be true.
During WWI, the Cabinet were planning on giving independence to
the whole of Ireland (no partition). Unfortunately, an American
called Eamonn de-something (Andrews?) decided he didn't want to wait
and organized an uprising. The uprising was, of course, suppressed.
This did however scare the Protestant community who demanded the
separation of the predominantly Protestant north-eastern region.
The rest, as they say, is history and an American is to blame.
Alec Chambers
Ulick Stafford
>
> Here's a story I heard from a U.S. source so it must be true.
>
> During WWI, the Cabinet were planning on giving independence to
> the whole of Ireland (no partition). Unfortunately, an American
> called Eamonn de-something (Andrews?) decided he didn't want to wait
> and organized an uprising. The uprising was, of course, suppressed.
> This did however scare the Protestant community who demanded the
> separation of the predominantly Protestant north-eastern region.
> The rest, as they say, is history and an American is to blame.
Total bullshit. The UVA were gunrunning in 1914 getting ready for trouble
(and getting little official opposition, I might add, which contrasted with
Republican gunrunners. The more things change the more they stay the same).
The Unionist position was not affected in any way by the 1916 rising. Also,
De Valera role in the rising, one of the leaders sentenced to death, was not
all that significent when compared to the signers of the proclamation of
Independence. Total independence was not on the table either. Home Rule had
finally been approved in 1914, but was put on hold (supposedly) till after
the war, and of course when the Brits did their usual reneging on the deal
using the 1916 rising as an excuse, despite the fact that they were
bullshitting about the rights of other small countries, the war of Independence
started.
Guy Barry
>For instance, I
>don't think I have ever read a request from an American on the
>lines of "give me more information about Ian Paisley and his
>fight for freedom against the domination of the Roman Catholic
>Church",
They can probably all hear him over there anyway.
--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757
Computer Laboratory | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street | JANET: Guy....@uk.ac.cam.cl
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK | Internet: Guy....@cl.cam.ac.uk
Tim Oldham
> this is what really frightens the British, because they practice neither.
Oh yeah. Right. How do you spell ``capital punishment'', then? How about
``of juveniles and mentally retarded people''?
> We now have a President who has plans to send a special envoy to northern
> Ireland.
Those plans will go nowhere. We don't send envoys to the US to investigate
loss of civil liberties (like the one above, or property seizure and sale
before trial), and if the US starts sending them abroad they'll get a
very poor reception.
> They're going to have a hard time justifying to the British
> public, the enormous expenses of occupying north-east Ireland, when
> their county [sic] sits mired in it's [sic] worst depression since the
> 1930's.
No they won't, because the Government doesn't occupy NI. British people
occupy NI.
US Imperialism. It gets on my wick.
Tim.
--
Tim Oldham, BT Group Computing Services. t...@its.bt.co.uk
``Sounds good to me''
David George
|> In article <1992Dec1.1...@e2big.mko.dec.com> hol...@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan) writes:
|> > They're going to have a hard time justifying to the British
|> > public, the enormous expenses of occupying north-east Ireland, when
|> > their county [sic] sits mired in it's [sic] worst depression since the
|> > 1930's.
|>
|> No they won't, because the Government doesn't occupy NI. British people
|> occupy NI.
Well I don't know how they will justify it (maybe give the occupation a fancy
name like "occupation Just Cause") but during the worst depression since the
30s and the reduced threat from the East it's certainly keeping a few soldiers
employed and the arms industry ticking over.
Nice of Mr. Clinton to send an ambassador to Northern Ireland but if he's so
concerned why doesn't he just invade in the name of Justice and Liberty ? We've
certainly got a few recent precedents for U.S. action on these grounds. No need
to worry about Britain being an ally of the U.S., so was Iraq until recently,
times change.
David.
Gary L. Newell
> aren't exactly in the business of "shunting our sickos off to America",
> but I'm sure I'll be flamed for pointing out that a lot of these "sickos"
> feel much more at home in the States than they did "at home".
That's because they're not pompous, self-righteous sickos or they'd
still be there...
gln
Gary L. Newell
> I'm not up on the names of all the major irish-american
> organizations and their political view, but I've seen this general
> condemnation of NI terrorists in the US Catholic church, in the
> the universities run by the US Catholic church and in the active
> opposition of Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neill. These two old Democratic
> scumbags were instrumental in reducing US donations to 'the Cause'
> in the mid- to late 70's. The Catholic church in the US is top-heavy
> with irish-americans, especially at the top of the heirarchy, and they
> tend to accurately reflect the attitudes of the middle-to-working
> class irish-american masses in this matter.
I'm curious - you say these things with a tone of authority but I have yet
to see any stats to back it up. Exactly who are these mainstream
irish americans you speak of? When I lived in the Boston
area I think it was safe to say that the majority of informed irish
americans were strongly in support of republican causes and
reluctantly accepting of some of the methods used by the IRA. I
assumed it was just a Boston/New York kind of thing until I moved
to this little hole in the wall and found a NORAID chapter listed in
the phone book.
This is only my opinion and I have no stats to back it up but my guess
is that the average Irish American probably couldn't find
IReland on a map never mind give you any educated view on the topic
of NI.
As for the church representing anything but itself - spare me...
> The vast majority are solidly anti-terrorist, but not versed
> in the particulars of the NI conflict.
Hmmm... I wonder if there is a connection there????
Mark Holohan
In article <1992Dec2.1...@cas.org>, ja...@cas.org () writes:
|>In article <1992Dec1.1...@e2big.mko.dec.com> hol...@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan) writes:
|>> If posting news articles that inform netters of British economic espionage
|>> against U.S. corporations is "contributing to the Cause" then so be it,
|>> because that cause is one of American Jobs. (And that cause won't die in
|>> the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing held in April).
|>
|> You posted an unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiatable, claim that
|> British Intelligence had been caught spying in the U.S. This
|> claim was based on a report that the NSA had read an encrypted
|> message. The imponderables in this claim include:
|> Alec Chamberpot
|>
You just don't get it, do you? The British have been caught stealing U.S.
corporate technology.
"National Security Agency officials reportedly suspect British Intelligence
of monitoring overseas phone calls by U.S. companies"
"The report said foreign intelligence agencies also are using computers and
modems to spy on U.S. businesses."
Source: United Press International article, <spyingU...@clarinet.com>
posted on 26 Apr, 1992
"We're finding intelligence organizations from countries we've never looked
at before who are active in the U.S.", says the FBI's R. Patrick Watson.
"Foreign intelligence agencies traditionally thought friendly to the United
States are tyring to plant moles in American high-tech companies and search
the briefcases of American businessmen traveling overseas," warns CIA
director Robert Gates"
"NSA officials suspect British intelligence of monitoring the overseas
phone calls of American firms"
Source: Newsweek Magazine, May 4th, 1992
I also have additional background information from the House hearing held on
April 29th (complements of Congressman Dick Swett). It includes articles
from Reuters (April 29, 1992, The Reuter Business Report, by Robert Green),
Fiber Optics News (May 11, 1992, Phillips Publishing Inc.),
New York Times Company (April 30, 1992, Thursday, Late Edition, U.S Warns
on Threats To Wiretaps), The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, April 30,
1992, U.S. firms face economic espionage Foreign nations called culprits,
and Communications Daily (May 4, 1992, Monday, Debate Escalating; House
Judiciary Unit Skeptical of FBI WIRETAP proposal).
Mark Holohan
Ulick Stafford
> May a little patience not have saved a lot of strife?
There is a big difference between home rule and independence. As it is the
treaty result - Irish Free State, a member of the commonwealth, with retention
of British bases and partition was a compromise, which many Irish Nationalists
found unacceptable. The perpetraters of the Easter Rising wanted a far, far,
greater degree of autonomy than homerule, with I suppose, Westminster
retaining control of defense, foreign affairs, and other major issues.
Most Irish people would have been content with home rule after it had been
refused on so many occasions in the past turning Dublin from the Second
city of the Empire in 1800 to only the Second city in Ireland in 1900.
But once the Rising leaders were executed in Kilmainham jail in 1916, the
populace became very anti British.
Gary L. Newell
> hol...@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan) writes:
> >si...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
> > The US is a hotbed of support for the causes of Justice and Liberty, and
> > this is what really frightens the British, because they practice neither.
>
> Oh, bullshit. This is patently not true for non-Europeans.
> Justice and liberty are here aplenty for irish emigres, both legal
> and illegal, but absent for non-whites from similarly bankrupt
> economies.
An old European tradition....
> As for you personally Holohan, when you obtained US citizen
> ship, you swore an oath of fealty to this country. But, all your
> shrill jingoism to the contrary, it's abundantly clearly that your
> true allegiance is to some non-existent Hy Brazil Republic of Ireland.
Oh bullshit. He disagrees with you so he's unamerican. Geezuz christ
get off the high horse will ya? The guy supports republican causes and
feels strongly about the issue to imply that this is unamerican
indicates to me that you're either a Nazi or have been irreversibly
damaged by the Catholic church...
> You are, in essence, forsworn. I wonder what the INS would make of
> that, eh? It's uncommon for anyone's citizenship to be revoked in
> this day an age for such a tenuous cause, but you've certainly left
> an 'electronic trail' which supports this view.
Screw you you nazi scumbag.... shove that in your electronic trail...
> America is full of foreigners with home-bound minds and
> political agendas, but I'm damned if I know why we should welcome
> such people, or consider them to be Americans in any full sense of
> the word.
Amazing how your "I'm a nice middle of the road god-fearing american"
line suddenly went down the toilet and your true pompous, high and
mighty, holier-than-thou rhetoric kicked in. The audacity of
implying a threat like this because somebody doesn't agree with
you and states his minority opinion is disgusting...
> You're a waste of space man. You're one of the people we
> should never have taken in, and would likely not have taken in
> if it were not for your 'acceptable' race. You are not an American,
> irrespective of what your passport may say.
and the sad part is - you think you are - I can only hope that
people see you for what you are - who the f**k died and left you
in charge of determining who is american and who is not?
gln
Gary L. Newell
> that made me think otherwise. By and large republican terrorists aren't
> going to give a damn about whom they kill, esp. not Yanks if they aren't
> Yanks to begin with.
You know - you continue to spew this crap article after article and yet
you seem totally incapable of supporting it with any facts what-so-ever.
You're a pompous windbag who thinks that if you say something often
enough and with enough authority then people will believe it and
consider you an expert - get a clue - you don't know jack-shit
about Irish americans - your aspouting your personal opinion and
bias and nothing more. You have no idea at all what policies the IRA
has or doesn't have with respect to bombings so just shut up will ya?
gln
Dr A. N. Walker
ul...@trudeau.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) writes:
> it is propagandistic hyperbole to say that [the IRA] do not care
>who they kill.
You mean that when they blow up, or attempt to blow up, memorial
services, shops, restaurants, pubs, motorways, tower blocks, etc., the
people who are or could have been killed were carefully targetted? Come
off it, it's a terror campaign pure and simple, and anyone who gets in
the way is "unlucky". Such bombings can't be classified as "mistakes",
and the most that can be said for them is that the victims are less likely
to be IRA sympathisers than otherwise. That's as near to "don't care who
they kill" as you are ever likely to see in real life.
> I mean just last week the RUC shot an IRA member who they had
>stopped who was 'attempting to escape'. At least when the IRA kill
>someone they are honest enough to admit it and their reasons.
As in "Yes, we planted the bomb, and we're sorry that innocent
people were killed", or "Yes, we shot the milkman and it was a mistake",
or "Yes, we shot that man, it was because he was a soldier, or a former
soldier, or someone who worked for someone who worked for the RUC, or
a Protestant"? Why is that somehow better than "Yes, we shot that man,
he was an IRA member and we thought he was trying to escape", or are the
RUC denying all knowledge? Or does your "At least" carry some other
connotation? It would be nice if the RUC and the army were whiter than
white, but this is real life, and at least they are *trying* to keep some
sort of peace.
--
Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
Colin Morris
>>
>> This is true. My apologies. It was the bit about American tourists
>>that made me think otherwise. By and large republican terrorists aren't
>>going to give a damn about whom they kill, esp. not Yanks if they aren't
>>Yanks to begin with.
>
>I am becoming highly amused at the way the 'inate evil' of the IRA is
>mentioned by everyone on every side of every arguement. While the IRA members
>are hardly angels, it is propagandistic hyperbole to say that they do not care
>who they kill. It`s not like the behaviour of the `forces of law and order'
>is much better, despite the fact that they have the power of the British
>empire behind them, while the IRA are a raggedy bunch with, maybe, 150 active
>members. I mean just last week the RUC shot an IRA member who they had
>stopped who was 'attempting to escape'. At least when the IRA kill
>someone they are honest enough to admit it and their reasons. But how can
>150 people with relatively poor upbringing combat the propaganda might of the
>British empire and allies?
>
people that leaving around large quantities of explosives in
potentially crowded public places is likely to cause indiscriminate killing
to occur. Perhaps the best way to combat the purported propaganda
would be to behave in a less irresponsible manner, rather than
providing such easy pickings with which to criticize the IRA
with. And if, indeed, the `forces of law and order' are as you claim
they are, there seems to be plenty of scope for claiming the "moral
high ground" of public opinion. Whilst the IRA continues in its
current vein, that's unlikely to happen, and it can be used as a
convenient (but clearly not justifiable) excuse for the kind of
incident you describe.
--
Colin Morris Ingres, an ASK Group company cmo...@ws2s.ingres.com
"If you kick or use your hand and the referee does nothing, that is not the
player's fault. Anything goes if the referee doesn't see it" - D. Maradona
ja...@cas.org
>
>In article <1992Dec2.1...@cas.org>, ja...@cas.org () writes:
>|>In article <1992Dec1.1...@e2big.mko.dec.com> hol...@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan) writes:
>|>> If posting news articles that inform netters of British economic espionage
>|>> against U.S. corporations is "contributing to the Cause" then so be it,
>|>> because that cause is one of American Jobs. (And that cause won't die in
>|>> the House Judiciary subcommittee hearing held in April).
>|>
>|> You posted an unsubstantiated, and unsubstantiatable, claim that
>|> British Intelligence had been caught spying in the U.S. This
>|> claim was based on a report that the NSA had read an encrypted
>|> message. The imponderables in this claim include:
>[deleted ... a list of items I did not claim, along with some half-truths
There were no half truths in anything I said, what I pointed out
were imponderables that make your claim dubious.
>|> Alec Chamberpot
>|>
Reduced to calling me names I see.
>
> You just don't get it, do you? The British have been caught stealing U.S.
> corporate technology.
>
> "National Security Agency officials reportedly suspect British Intelligence
> of monitoring overseas phone calls by U.S. companies"
Well, why not? The NSA monitors all phone calls that enter
the U.S. from other countries and under certain circumstances
will monitor calls leaving the U.S. to other countries. Your
statement means nothing unless you concede that the NSA
monitoring of overseas phone calls also means that the U.S.
is spying on the corporate technology of other countries.
> "The report said foreign intelligence agencies also are using computers and
> modems to spy on U.S. businesses."
> Source: United Press International article, <spyingU...@clarinet.com>
> posted on 26 Apr, 1992
Yes, very conclusive. Does the term "Chaos Computer Club of
Hamburg" mean anything to you? Surely you have read the
works of Clifford Stohl?
> "We're finding intelligence organizations from countries we've never looked
> at before who are active in the U.S.", says the FBI's R. Patrick Watson.
> "Foreign intelligence agencies traditionally thought friendly to the United
> States are tyring to plant moles in American high-tech companies and search
> the briefcases of American businessmen traveling overseas," warns CIA
> director Robert Gates"
Okay, why does this specifically include the British and exclude
everybody else in Europe with a foreign intelligence service?
(The only countries left out would be Sweden, and perhaps a couple
of other Scandinavian countries)
> "NSA officials suspect British intelligence of monitoring the overseas
> phone calls of American firms"
> Source: Newsweek Magazine, May 4th, 1992
vide supra
>
> I also have additional background information from the House hearing held on
> April 29th (complements of Congressman Dick Swett). It includes articles
> from Reuters (April 29, 1992, The Reuter Business Report, by Robert Green),
> Fiber Optics News (May 11, 1992, Phillips Publishing Inc.),
> New York Times Company (April 30, 1992, Thursday, Late Edition, U.S Warns
> on Threats To Wiretaps), The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, April 30,
> 1992, U.S. firms face economic espionage Foreign nations called culprits,
> and Communications Daily (May 4, 1992, Monday, Debate Escalating; House
> Judiciary Unit Skeptical of FBI WIRETAP proposal).
None of which specifically implicates British intelligence services.
This argument seems to have more to do with your Anglophobia than the
facts.
Alec Chambers.
ja...@cas.org
>In article <1992Dec2.1...@cas.org> ja...@cas.org () writes:
>>
>> So why start the uprising when Home Rule had been approved?
>> May a little patience not have saved a lot of strife?
>
>There is a big difference between home rule and independence. As it is the
>treaty result - Irish Free State, a member of the commonwealth, with retention
>of British bases and partition was a compromise, which many Irish Nationalists
>found unacceptable. The perpetraters of the Easter Rising wanted a far, far,
>greater degree of autonomy than homerule, with I suppose, Westminster
>retaining control of defense, foreign affairs, and other major issues.
>Most Irish people would have been content with home rule after it had been
>refused on so many occasions in the past turning Dublin from the Second
>city of the Empire in 1800 to only the Second city in Ireland in 1900.
>But once the Rising leaders were executed in Kilmainham jail in 1916, the
>populace became very anti British.
>
of strife? Home rule was a very substantial end of a
wedge and patient work could surely have achieved independence
of the island without the intolerance and polarization
that has resulted.
Alec Chambers
Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,
the right-wingedness of the press in the US and UK. Well over the last
few weeks the press in the US (including the supposed pinko NPR) has
been doing its best to link the anarchist movement with right wing
(Fascist) violence against foreigners(sp?).
A particular example was in the NY Times on the sunday after the pelting
of politicians with eggs (etc) by anarchists in Germany. In the report
in question they were discussing the "most recent peaceful
demonstration" which was not marred by the demonstations of the previous
week because right wing extremists were not present (i.e. the
demonstators of the pevious week (anarchist) are the people who are
attacking aliens (I can't spell for...)).
Also, on NPR they talked with a potestant pastor about the booing and
egg throwing when the politicians when the politicians got on the stage,
and how the right wing were trying to disrupt peacful meetings
(fortunately the pastor pointed out the "those people (the anarchist)
were correct and that the politicians were being hypocritical).
Any similar news distortions in the UK? Or am I just being paranoid?
Why doesn't the US government have the same immigration policy as the
Germans have at present? Are they to afraid that too many poor workers
might start to aggitate for better working conditions, and act against
the "better interests of the Rep-Dem single party state".
GW
Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,
> In article <1fh3c6...@morrow.stanford.edu>, si...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
>> I'm not up on the names of all the major irish-american
>> organizations and their political view, but I've seen this general
>> condemnation of NI terrorists in the US Catholic church, in the
>> the universities run by the US Catholic church and in the active
>> opposition of Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neill. These two old Democratic
>> scumbags were instrumental in reducing US donations to 'the Cause'
>> in the mid- to late 70's. The Catholic church in the US is top-heavy
>> with irish-americans, especially at the top of the heirarchy, and they
>> tend to accurately reflect the attitudes of the middle-to-working
>> class irish-american masses in this matter.
>
> I'm curious - you say these things with a tone of authority but I have yet
> to see any stats to back it up. Exactly who are these mainstream
> irish americans you speak of?
>
Irish American (4 or 5 generations back) certainly supports the
republican idea (I don't think she would use the work "cause"), but,
abhores(sp?) the tactics of the IRA (the police and army may be ligitamate
targets but by-standers are not). The idea that we are all guilty of
supporting ........... (name appropriate target) and therefore are all
legitimate targets, has been shown many times to be idiotic (I would
imagine that the Baader-Meinhoff group were the last left wing group in
europe to buy into this one; anarchists never had this idea and any
targets of anarchist attacks were aimed at royalty, politicians, or
industrial magnates, and even these cases were few and far between).
GW
Holly Silva
>> As for you personally Holohan, when you obtained US citizen
>> ship, you swore an oath of fealty to this country. But, all your
>> shrill jingoism to the contrary, it's abundantly clearly that your
>> true allegiance is to some non-existent Hy Brazil Republic of Ireland.
>
> Oh bullshit. He disagrees with you so he's unamerican. Geezuz christ
>get off the high horse will ya? The guy supports republican causes and
>feels strongly about the issue to imply that this is unamerican
>indicates to me that you're either a Nazi or have been irreversibly
>damaged by the Catholic church...
Oh bullshit yourself Garrolous Newell. I'd say the man's
displayed an allegiance not to the United States, but to another
entity entirely. In support of his beloved republican cause he
indulges in rabid 'American' jingoism though, perhaps in order to
curry favor with us, perhaps in order to promote the view that his
rabid brand of republicanism is somehow 'sanctified' by being part
of mainstream American thought. It isn't.
I see no reason why this fucker should be able to go about
unchallenged, proclaiming himself a Yankee Doodle Dandy and real
live nephew of my Uncle Sam. He regularly massacrees the truth in
support of his views and he breeds ill-will against this country and
this people while busily defending his own people, his republican brethren.
But it's Nazism to fight this sort of propaganda crap, eh?
Stuff. You're one of these anarcho-libertarian net.wankers who believes
that you and every other crank in Christendom has the uninalienable
right to spew offensive belligerence in support of your every wacked-
out view without fear of censure. No one can condemn you or even get
you to mind your language, because that would be an infringement of
your sacred right to freedom of speech, eh? Neither you nor
Holohan have any sacred right to be assholes Gary, but that's what
your trying to get -- the right to say anything you bloody well
please without fear of condemnation. It won't work buddy.
Neither you nor Holohan have a sacred, Constitutional right to be
an asshole.
[bit about invalidity of Holohan's US citizenship deleted]
>
> Amazing how your "I'm a nice middle of the road god-fearing american"
>line suddenly went down the toilet and your true pompous, high and
>mighty, holier-than-thou rhetoric kicked in. The audacity of
>implying a threat like this because somebody doesn't agree with
>you and states his minority opinion is disgusting...
>
1) I'm not a nice, middle-of-the-road god-fearing American,
though I've a damn sight more respect for such people than you do.
2) We don't owe the whole fucking world a nice warm cozy
place to live, and what we do owe in the way of succor we owe _not_
to venomous little shits like Holohan, but to people whose lives
have been measureably damaged by US actions (ie. Vietnamese boat
people, Haitian boat people, Guatemalan political refugees.)
America has a general responsibility IN CONCERT WITH THE
REST OF THE WORLD to promote the welfare of those least able to
protect themselves. It does _not_ have a responsibility to provide a
haven for people like Holohan, who advocates violence, propagandizes
and fucks the truth in pursuit of his feeble cause, and feeds off the
fat of _this_ land, in order to carve a niche for himself in another.
Sean Kelley
had shot in the back and killed several persons turning around from a road block.
But, according to British "justice", the soldiers were not required by law to defend
themselves in person at the trial, nor face cross-examination by the defense. Further,
in the Gulf War several British APC (Armored Personnel Carriers) were inadvertently
attacked and destroyed, resulting in loss of life to crew, by American A-10 pilots.
At a hearing in London (? I'm not sure) next of kin were outraged that the American
pilots refused to give testimony in person. How often does this double standard in
British policy (read "attitude") towards NI prevail?
In addition, on the issue of "Irish-Americans", there is very little press about NI or Ireland
in Kansas City. But, since moving to the Boston area, of course, I'm glad to find occasional
articles in the Globe. First you must ask what are the sources of information that shape
a perhaps biased "Republic" opinion. Well it's certainly not addressed in public schools,
where the only reference to Ireland is usually limited to JFK, geography, or St. Pat's.
Then, you have the local parish priest, but homilies, from my experience growing up, rarely
touched on NI other than occasional "intentions for an end to violence." Next, I suppose
you have your family and friends. But, seeing as how my family emigrated from Uladh (ulster) and
gallimh (spel. galway) more than 100 years ago, it stretches the imagination as to how a family can continue memories of the hunger and deprivation over such a great time span. But, injustice continues
in NI, and that perhaps sparks an interest in what happened before. Classes in Irish history and language
at the University level help fill the gaps and slowly a recognition or awareness develops. Perhaps
a grandmother suggests a book like _The_Tenants _Time_ by Thomas Flanagan and you learn more.
I guess I'm rambling. ....But, most of my friends from the University of Kansas no next to nothing about
Ireland and I only learned more because I took an active interest with encouragement from my family.
Slainte,
Sean
---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sean Kelley INTERNET: kel...@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com
Mission Computers,
Avionics Division,
Lockheed-Sanders, Inc.
Nashua, NH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rock-Chalk JayHawk KU!!!!!!!!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Guy Barry
>In article <1992Dec2.1...@its.bt.co.uk>, t...@its.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec1.1...@e2big.mko.dec.com> hol...@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan) writes:
>|> > They're going to have a hard time justifying to the British
>|> > public, the enormous expenses of occupying north-east Ireland, when
>|> > their county [sic] sits mired in it's [sic] worst depression since the
>|> > 1930's.
>|>
>|> No they won't, because the Government doesn't occupy NI. British people
>|> occupy NI.
>
>Well I don't know how they will justify it (maybe give the occupation a fancy
>name like "occupation Just Cause") but during the worst depression since the
>30s and the reduced threat from the East it's certainly keeping a few soldiers
>employed and the arms industry ticking over.
Why don't you read the statement you're replying to? Most of the
population of NI consider themselves British.
Michael Helm
>has or doesn't have with respect to bombings so just shut up will ya?
Why is it that most everytime people disagree around here, they
end up demanding that the other party shut up or be silenced?
Aengus Lawlor
>
>In article <92336.095...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>, Aengus Lawlor
><RBY...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
>|>A more fair an realistic person to ask would be Mr. Holohan himself.
>|>After all, he's the one who described himself as an American. And we
>|>aren't exactly in the business of "shunting our sickos off to America",
>|>but I'm sure I'll be flamed for pointing out that a lot of these "sickos"
>|>feel much more at home in the States than they did "at home".
>
> Europe these days? Spare me your comments about sickos feeling at home
> in the States.
Touchy, touchy! "Sickos" is Holly's word. Flame her if you don't like it.
Innuendo aside, do you actually have any arguments with the preceding
paragraph? If you can point out any mistakes I made, I'll be more than happy
to retract.
And what's this "rape capital of Europe" bit, anyway? Are you sure it's
not British propoganda?
>******************************************************************************
> Mark Holohan, DEC, USA "Character is what you are in the dark" - BB
> hol...@epik.enet.dec.com
Aengus
--
RBY...@ROHMHAAS.COM Aengus Lawlor
RBY...@ROHVM1.BITNET (who used to be ALA...@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"
Ulick Stafford
> I repeat: may a little patience not have saved a lot
> of strife? Home rule was a very substantial end of a
> wedge and patient work could surely have achieved independence
> of the island without the intolerance and polarization
> that has resulted.
This would have occurred in any case. Th War of Independence and the
Free State Civil War that followed did cause major divisions amounst
republican groups that remain to this day, but the antipathy between
the unionist and republicans would have been there anyway. Even under
the homerule bill the unionists would have demanded a seperate parliament,
eventully granted at Stormont, and it is likely that this wish would have
been acceded too. It is likely that the same course would have been
followed after that with the free state gradually cutting the links to
the mainland, and the unionists depriving Northern nationalists of rights.
The only difference may have been that the South wouldn't have escaped the UK
before WWII., but the Northern situation might even be worse, except that
there would be no organisation called Sinn Fein (but another very similar).
But all this is speculative, but the polarization had exhibited itself
prior to the great war when Carson was using No Surrender type language,
and the Ulster Volunteers were gunrunning.
Michael Helm
>In a posting a couple days back Morna stumbled into a discussion about
This posting completely eludes me -- what are you trying to say?
Timothy Murphy
>I'll second that- thanks a million! Would anyone like to post or e-mail
>the results of the Dun Laoghaire constituency? Just who got in,
>parties and approximate order.
Dun Laoghaire result:
elected on first count:
David Andrews (Minister for Foreign Affairs), FF
Niamh Breathnach, Lab
3 others elected:
Sean Barrett (FG), 11th count
Helen Keogh (PD), 12th count ) without reaching
Eamonn Gilmore (DL), 12th count ) the quota
Monica Barnes (feminist, fat and FG -- sorry!) lost her seat.
As did Brian Hillery (FF).
Dun Laoghaire was the only constituency with more than 80%
for Right to Travel referendum.
Pity ... I would like to have seen
Pregnancy Testing areas set up at the Ferry entrance.
The tests could be carried out on the boat,
and pregnant women turned back at Holyhead.
It would give the Minister for Women's Affairs something to look after.
My milkman, the SF (Sinn Fein) candidate got 800 votes
(out of 60,000).
He is the local leader of Concerned Parents against Drugs,
and became well-known by picketing a supposed drug baron
who lives on my road.
I never heard him mention Northern Ireland
in this (or any) election.
Nor did any of the other candidates, in my hearing.
I canvassed a little for Niamh Breathnach.
My main impression was the universally high opinion of Dick Spring.
I agree with this opinion,
but don't understand how it became so universal!
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: t...@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Phill Hallam-Baker
(Mark Holohan) writes:
If the CIA didn't know that we were tapping US companies they would be
exceedingly dim. They finance GCHQ jointly with the UK.
Who do you think is most interested in what US companies are up to? Look to CIA
and FBI. They are clever enough to get someone else to do their dirty work for
them.
Espionage is hardly the sort of business where pretending that you are white as
the driven snow is credible.
Holohan is as ever trying to whip up anti-British feelings, now some may take
offense at my occasional prods at the US psyche. However I do not and would not
support a terrorist organisation. Holohan's agenda is support for murder,
extorsion and violence. This in support of a political movement that gets the
votes of less than 5% of the Irish people.
It is one thing to say that the US policies in central America are disgusting.
It is quite another to say that this justifies planting bombs in crowded high
streets with the intention of murder.
The santimonious self justifying claptrap that Holohan spouts is no more
credible than that of appologists for the Red Army Faction or any other
terrorist group. The people of Ireland have voted against violence, against the
killing. They know that the greatest impediment to any political reform
including unification is the IRA and it's NORAID and Sinn Feinn supporters.
The people of the USA support democracy, they do not support Holohan, the IRA,
nor come to that do they on the whole trust their government so holding them
responsible for its central America actions would not be such a great idea.
--
Phill Hallam-Baker
Michael Helm
#>The santimonious self justifying claptrap that Holohan spouts is no more
#>credible than that of appologists for the Red Army Faction or any other
Or "appologists" for British industrial espionage, for that matter.
Catherine Beckstead
> Is your News media any better? Were you ever told that Thatcher was
> elected by a landslide?
>
>
> What's your point exactly?
>
No it isn't any better. Although most of our media is on the liberal side.
I did, however get the impression that Thatcher was a very popular/good
PM. She was liked by the media over here and shown it a good light. I
suppose they liked showing Thatcher and Reagan together. So friendly and
supportive of each other. I only understood that she wasn't like for her
economic policies after talking to a few Britons. And I'm still not all that
clear on what she did/didn't do. Although I imagine it is similar to what
Reagan did in the 80's, and now we have a screwed up economy. And I was
never a Reagan fan anyway. (very liberal democrat here) But anyway, yes
the US media did seem to like Maggie a lot and did put her in a good light.
I don't remember any reports of a landslide, though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Beckstead a...@kryton.uucp
"Do you want to argue with a can of deodorant that registers
NINE on the Richter scale?" --Ace, in "Dragonfire"
Chris Lee
Why don't cats shave?
Because 9 out of 10 prefer whiskas (groan).
Chris (on behalf of Cleocatra and Samuel Kittenmog) Lee
sp...@galvia.enet.dec.com
In article <1992Dec3.0...@maths.tcd.ie>, t...@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes:
|>Monica Barnes (feminist, fat and FG -- sorry!) lost her seat.
|>As did Brian Hillery (FF).
Monica Barnes will bve a sad loss. She did a lot more than campaign for
Women's Rights (which are very important). She is one of the TDs that
should be in Dail Eireann irrespective of party loyalty.
|>Dun Laoghaire was the only constituency with more than 80%
|>for Right to Travel referendum.
That's something to be proud of.
|>Pity ... I would like to have seen
|>Pregnancy Testing areas set up at the Ferry entrance.
|>The tests could be carried out on the boat,
|>and pregnant women turned back at Holyhead.
|>It would give the Minister for Women's Affairs something to look after.
I take it you've got your tongue stuck firmly in your cheek here. However
unfortunately there is quite a large minority that believe this.
Gary Spain, DEC, Galway, Ireland - sp...@galvia.enet.dec.com
On being a football fan: "I am aware of the downside to this wonderful
facility that men have: they become repressed, they fail in their
relationships with women,their conversation is trivial and boorish, they
find themselves unable to express their emotional needs, they cannot relate
to their children, and die lonely and miserable. But you know, what the hell?"
Nick Hornby
Matthew Huntbach
>People are denied access to republican analyses by the policies of censorship
>practiced on both sides of the Irish Sea. We are bombarded with pro-British
>propaganda by the news media, so it is only by accessing republican sources
>that one is able to arrive at a balanced and informed opinion on the Irish
>question.
>
Well, it may be that usenet is atypical, but if what you say is
true, how come that whenever the subject of Northern Ireland is
mentioned in usenet by someone who doesn't know much about the
situation, they are almost invariably extremely biased towards
a republican interpretation of the situation? Where *are* all
those messages from people misled by all this "British propaganda"
wanting to know about "brave Ian Paisley's fight for freedom
and self-determination against Irish Catholic tyranny?"
Matthew Huntbach
Aengus Lawlor
N. Walker) says:
>
>In article <1992Dec2.0...@news.nd.edu>
>ul...@trudeau.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) writes:
>> it is propagandistic hyperbole to say that [the IRA] do not care
>>who they kill.
>
> You mean that when they blow up, or attempt to blow up, memorial
>services, shops, restaurants, pubs, motorways, tower blocks, etc., the
>people who are or could have been killed were carefully targetted? Come
>off it, it's a terror campaign pure and simple, and anyone who gets in
>the way is "unlucky". Such bombings can't be classified as "mistakes",
>and the most that can be said for them is that the victims are less likely
>to be IRA sympathisers than otherwise. That's as near to "don't care who
>they kill" as you are ever likely to see in real life.
dead. Remember the bomb in the financial district of London just after the
British Election? Remember the Police saying that if it had gone off a
couple of hours earlier there might be hundreds dead? Do you know how many
bombs have gone off in London in the last few months? Do you really think
that the death toll would be so low if the IRA were intent solely on
killing innocent people?
None of this excuses any of the IRA's actions, but you don't have to be
an IRA sympathiser to recognize that their strategy doesn't include
random mass murder.
>
>--
>Andy Walker, Maths Dept., Nott'm Univ., UK.
>a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
Aengus Lawlor
have been more patient 70 years ago? The fact that Sinn Fein got over 70%
of the vote in the 26 counties in the 1918 election would tend to imply that
the public back then didn't consider the Rising to be overly hasty.
(If your first post in this thread is really your understanding of the
history of Irish Home Rule at the turn of the century, Ulick and I are
probably wating our time arguing with you. If the "I heard it from an
American, so it must be true" comment was an indication that you know that
"history" to be highly distorted, why didn't you say so).
>
> Alec Chambers
Graham Walker, 227 West Old Main,268-3847,
As I remember I was asking a question.
GW
Ulick Stafford
>
>The santimonious self justifying claptrap that Holohan spouts is no more
>credible than that of appologists for the Red Army Faction or any other
>terrorist group. The people of Ireland have voted against violence, against the
>killing. They know that the greatest impediment to any political reform
>including unification is the IRA and it's NORAID and Sinn Feinn supporters.
What a load of poppycock! Are you taking lessons in Yalladean? The
greatest impediment to any political reform is the British Guarantee. And
as far as I know Holohan only highlights British injustices. I have never
seen a posting of his advocate support for the IRA campaign of violence.
Ulick Stafford
>I agree with this opinion,
>but don't understand how it became so universal!
Sure the cute Kerry hoor has been careful not to be in government for a long
time. It is very easy to oppose. And, sure, didn't he play Rugby for
Ireland. Therefore he has support from the Dublin set, and being from Kerry
gives him rural support!!! Or maybe it's his uncle Joe moustache :-), or
American wife!
Paul Moloney
>> The US is a hotbed of support for the causes of Justice and Liberty, and
>> this is what really frightens the British, because they practice neither.
>>
[jingoistic rant deleted for aesthetic reasons]
'Silva'. Hmm. That's not a Native American name by any chance?
Thought not.
P.
--
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l M o l o n e y "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty pe
james Trinity College, Dublin And isn't it a pity the city can't see? vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Gary L. Newell
> Oh bullshit yourself Garrolous Newell. I'd say the man's
> displayed an allegiance not to the United States, but to another
> entity entirely.
thought we learned a lesson from that - or better yet, something that might
hit closer to home, I heard the same crap about JFK - after all he
was Catholic right? He must have an allegiance to Rome and not to
the US or its constitution... this paranoid bullshit should have no
place in America (or anywhere else for that matter) questioning
someone's allegience to his country because he has views that do not
agree with your own is absurd and frankly unbelievable to me...
> In support of his beloved republican cause he
> indulges in rabid 'American' jingoism though, perhaps in order to
> curry favor with us, perhaps in order to promote the view that his
> rabid brand of republicanism is somehow 'sanctified' by being part
> of mainstream American thought. It isn't.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, because lo and behold he is an american and as
such he expects that he can state his views on issues pertaining not only
to this country but to the world as a whole without being branded a
traitor by the likes of you and other petty-minded individuals.
> I see no reason why this fucker should be able to go about
> unchallenged, proclaiming himself a Yankee Doodle Dandy and real
> live nephew of my Uncle Sam. He regularly massacrees the truth in
> support of his views and he breeds ill-will against this country and
> this people while busily defending his own people, his republican brethren.
I see one very big reason - he's an american - he can state whatever
views he likes - he is free after all. The day someone has to meet
your litmus test before they can speak out is the day I ship out
of this country...
> But it's Nazism to fight this sort of propaganda crap, eh?
No - its "Nazism" when you threaten someone's citizenship because you
do not agree with their views or how they choose to state them.
> Stuff. You're one of these anarcho-libertarian net.wankers who believes
> that you and every other crank in Christendom has the uninalienable
> right to spew offensive belligerence in support of your every wacked-
> out view without fear of censure.
Yes I am. I certainly would not run away from the label of supporting
free expression and speech. To allow people to hear ideas and
make a judgement based on argument and counter-argument is essential -
the idea that we should "censure" those we disagree with is a crime in
my mind.
> No one can condemn you or even get
> you to mind your language, because that would be an infringement of
> your sacred right to freedom of speech, eh? Neither you nor
OF course not - that is not what I have a problem with. You can argue the
point all you want - you can counter argue all you want - that is far from
implying that someone is unamerican because he/she does not agree with
your bias. You implied clearly that Mark should fear for his
citizenship because he pissed you off - screw you - go after my
citizenship numbnuts - I know I piss you off and frankly I am glad,
the idea that anyone with views from the dark ages like yourself might
agree with me is frightening....
> Holohan have any sacred right to be assholes Gary, but that's what
> your trying to get -- the right to say anything you bloody well
> please without fear of condemnation. It won't work buddy.
Not at all. Threats and labels of unamerican are the weapons of the
feeble-minded - our history (as well as that of many other countries)
should clearly indicate what can happen when people accuse others of
"un-american" activities simply because they either do not understand
or do not agree with the philosophy being presented.
> Neither you nor Holohan have a sacred, Constitutional right to be
> an asshole.
I certainly do and I try my best to exercise that right ;-) Also,
have you noticed that "being an asshole" has somehow become equivalent to
"disagreeing with me" in your rhetoric?
> 1) I'm not a nice, middle-of-the-road god-fearing American,
> though I've a damn sight more respect for such people than you do.
Probably.
> 2) We don't owe the whole fucking world a nice warm cozy
> place to live, and what we do owe in the way of succor we owe _not_
> to venomous little shits like Holohan, but to people whose lives
> have been measureably damaged by US actions (ie. Vietnamese boat
> people, Haitian boat people, Guatemalan political refugees.)
Who said anything about owing anyone anything? I would think that good
God fearing souls would want a nice cozy place for all simply because it
is the right thing for the world's richest country to do - no other
reason really - just that it is right. You seem to be saying that
somehow Irish Republicans are less worthy of a "nice warm cozy place"
than are the Vietnamese and Haitians - strange concept.
gln
Colin Morris
>
>In article <1992Dec2.1...@cas.org>, ja...@cas.org () writes:
>|>>
>|>> You just don't get it, do you? The British have been caught stealing U.S.
>|>> corporate technology.
>|>>
>|>> "National Security Agency officials reportedly suspect British Intelligence
>|>> of monitoring overseas phone calls by U.S. companies"
>|>
>|> Well, why not? The NSA monitors all phone calls that enter
>
> Or how about this, it's wrong to steal technology from your allies.
> Or how about, it's wrong for the British intelligence community to
> put Americans out of work in these difficult recessionary times.
>
Oh Mark, you're breaking my heart. I just don't know how I'm going to
carry on reading your posting. The very thought that other countries
might be involved in the same tricks the NSA has been involved in for
years. The mind boggles at the unfairness of it all...
--
Colin Morris Ingres, an ASK Group company cmo...@ws2s.ingres.com
"If you kick or use your hand and the referee does nothing, that is not the
player's fault. Anything goes if the referee doesn't see it" - D. Maradona
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> I am becoming highly amused at the way the 'inate evil' of the IRA is
> mentioned by everyone on every side of every arguement. While the IRA members
> are hardly angels, it is propagandistic hyperbole to say that they do not care
> who they kill.
No it isn't: to the average British citizen it is the truth. In the last few
weeks there have been two large IRA van-bombs in very busy parts of London,
the second near to large tourist hotels, both of which thankfully did not go
off. (And by large I mean a transit van full of Semtex) Now the IRA cannot
possibly know who these bombs are going to kill. That is: they do not care who
they kill, they just want to kill.
> It`s not like the behaviour of the `forces of law and order'
> is much better, despite the fact that they have the power of the British
> empire behind them, while the IRA are a raggedy bunch with, maybe, 150 active
> members. I mean just last week the RUC shot an IRA member who they had
> stopped who was 'attempting to escape'. At least when the IRA kill
> someone they are honest enough to admit it and their reasons. But how can
> 150 people with relatively poor upbringing combat the propaganda might of the
> British empire and allies?
>
Is it not possible to see the IRA *and* the British security forces as
dangerous lunatics? I certainly would describe the IRA as evil, and I would
grant that they do often admit their murders (though I doubt theit motives.)
But I also find the British security forces' policies, especially
shoot-to-kill, absolutely morally repugnant. It is British government and Irish
Republican propaganda of the worst kind that my sort of position is
impopssible. It is also, alas, something that goes back an awfully long way and
has resurfaced whenever this country, and I dare say others, has gone to war.
--
Stephen Wilcox | For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk | outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Sinead
ulick>( ul...@bernini.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) )さん:
ulick>> Total bullshit. The UVA were gunrunning in 1914 getting ready for trouble
ulick>> (and getting little official opposition, I might add, which contrasted with
ulick>> Republican gunrunners. The more things change the more they stay the same).
ulick>> The Unionist position was not affected in any way by the 1916 rising. Also,
ulick>> De Valera role in the rising, one of the leaders sentenced to death, was not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
... but was the only signer of the proclamation of independance not
executed
because of his US citizenship.
ulick>> all that significent when compared to the signers of the proclamation of
ulick>> Independence. Total independence was not on the table either. Home Rule had
ulick>> finally been approved in 1914, but was put on hold (supposedly) till after
ulick>> the war, and of course when the Brits did their usual reneging on the deal
ulick>> using the 1916 rising as an excuse, despite the fact that they were
ulick>> bullshitting about the rights of other small countries, the war of Independence
ulick>> started.
ulick>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ulick>> + 'There was a master come unto the earth, + Ulick Stafford, PP-ASEL +
ulick>> + born in the holy land of Indiana, + Dept of Chemical Engineering, +
ulick>> + in the mystical hills east of Fort Wayne'.+ Notre Dame, IN 46556 +
ulick>> + B'fhearr liom bheith ag eitilt. + ul...@bach.helios.nd.edu +
ulick>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A VERY HAPPY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE..........
_
sinead.
Sinead
メッセージ <1992Dec2.1...@infodev.cam.ac.uk> で,
Guyさん:
Guy> In article <1992Dec2....@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> m...@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>For instance, I
>don't think I have ever read a request from an American on the
>lines of "give me more information about Ian Paisley and his
>fight for freedom against the domination of the Roman Catholic
>Church",
Guy> They can probably all hear him over there anyway.
.......... haaaaaaaaaa (that`s a classic :-))
_
sinead.
David Morning
>In article <92337.235...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
>RBY...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com (Aengus Lawlor) writes:
>>If the IRA really didn't care who they killed, there'd be a lot more people
>>dead.
> "Don't care *who*" is different from "don't care *how many*",
>and they were accused of the former rather than the latter. On the
>other hand, given how many bombs *have* gone off in reasonably crowded
>places, or have luckily failed to do so, I think the onus is on the IRA
>to prove that they *have* tried to minimise the number of random deaths
>caused.
Well, after the 4 bombs that went off in Manchester yesterday and particularly
the placement of the 4th bomb, I doubt they tried too hard on this occasion
to minimise casualties.
Dave
--
Dr A. N. Walker
>dead.
"Don't care *who*" is different from "don't care *how many*",
and they were accused of the former rather than the latter. On the
other hand, given how many bombs *have* gone off in reasonably crowded
places, or have luckily failed to do so, I think the onus is on the IRA
to prove that they *have* tried to minimise the number of random deaths
caused.
--
David Brooks
| I think the onus is on the IRA
| to prove that they *have* tried to minimise the number of random deaths
| caused.
There seems to be some inconsistency, which is probably not surprising
in a group apparently organized as independent cells. Some of the
terrorists give clear and adequate warnings, which in no way justifies
the crime (and, really, the onus must clearly remain on them if there
*are* still casualties, not on the authorities). Some really don't
care: like the bombers who drove a 6-inch nail through a 60-year-old
woman's heart, just because she had the bad judgement to be walking past
a barracks at the same time as a truckload of squaddies went by (the
bombers had a clear view of what they were doing).
--
David Brooks dbr...@osf.org
Open Software Foundation uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
Allüberall und ewig blauen licht die Fernen! Ewig... ewig... ewig...
Morna J Findlay
>I once read a news article referring to a trial of several British soldiers in NI who
>had shot in the back and killed several persons turning around from a road block.
>But, according to British "justice", the soldiers were not required by law to defend
>themselves in person at the trial, nor face cross-examination by the defense. Further,
>in the Gulf War several British APC (Armored Personnel Carriers) were inadvertently
>attacked and destroyed, resulting in loss of life to crew, by American A-10 pilots.
>At a hearing in London (? I'm not sure) next of kin were outraged that the American
>pilots refused to give testimony in person. How often does this double standard in
>British policy (read "attitude") towards NI prevail?
With respect - I see no double standard here at all. I think you
may be looking for one though.
Case 1.
Soldiers kill civilians. Government protects soldiers. Distraught relatives
claim injustice.
Case 2.
Pilots Kill Soldiers. Government protects Pilots. Distraught relatives
claim injustice.
Of course in case I the govt in the British Govt. In case 2 the govt is
the US govt.
The British Govt did NOT make any demands of the US govt over the deaths
of the "friendly" fire soldiers.
Where is the double standard??
Unless you are implying that the US govt demanded the British soldiers in
Case 1 were made to testify?
M
--
Morna Findlay JANET:mo...@uk.ac.ed.dcs
Thanksgiving For a National Victory (Robert Burns)
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for murther.
ja...@cas.org
>
>In article <1992Dec2.1...@cas.org>, ja...@cas.org () writes:
>|> were imponderables that make your claim dubious.
>
> I guess "imponderables" is the British word for lies.
Rather than try and counter my objections by more detailed
information, you find the best approach to call me a liar
without producing evidence.
>
>|>
>|>>|> Alec Chamberpot
>|>>|>
>|> Reduced to calling me names I see.
>
> If it isn't the Chamberpot calling the kettle black.
> My name is not Hollers, it's Holohan.
You should pay attention to the postings of the sage Francis
of Stanford. This is an example of the Oxford '-er', e.g.
rugger, soccer, brekker. It is a usage that indicates familiarity,
a sort of "Hail fellow" expression. It's used a lot in
Britain... Oh yes, I forget...
>
>|>
>|>>
>|>> You just don't get it, do you? The British have been caught stealing U.S.
>|>> corporate technology.
>|>>
>|>> "National Security Agency officials reportedly suspect British Intelligence
>|>> of monitoring overseas phone calls by U.S. companies"
>|>
>|> Well, why not? The NSA monitors all phone calls that enter
>
> Well, why not indeed. How about this, it's morally wrong to steal.
Indeed, but you have not proven theft. You have reported suspicions
of listening to overseas phone calls. I'm curious about how the
NSA came to these conclusions
> Or how about this, it's wrong to steal technology from your allies.
I don't think that ever stopped anybody. Including the U.S.
> Or how about, it's wrong for the British intelligence community to
> put Americans out of work in these difficult recessionary times.
In the unlikely event that this is the case, I doubt that it is
significant in comparison to the number of jobs lost by incompetent
management, or competent management cutting its labour costs by
moving the labour-intensive operations to Mexico.
>
>
> I must be talking to a british brick wall, cause you still don't
> get it.
What is it I'm supposed to get?
>|> the U.S. from other countries and under certain circumstances
>|> will monitor calls leaving the U.S. to other countries. Your
>|> statement means nothing unless you concede that the NSA
>|> monitoring of overseas phone calls also means that the U.S.
>|> is spying on the corporate technology of other countries.
>|>
>|>
>[ ... deleted my list of references ]
>|> ...and my counter arguments...
>|>
>|> None of which specifically implicates British intelligence services.
>|> This argument seems to have more to do with your Anglophobia than the
>|> facts.
>
> You are either a lier, or you have not read the articles I referenced.
> Which is it?
Lying about what? I expressed my opinions, opinions are not lies
just because they are not the same as yours.
I did not have time to trace the references you cited. I wonder
if you are trying to say that I said that I read the articles and
that I didn't or that I didn't read the articles. Working from
the headers you gave, I saw nothing remarkable.
My apologies to Cliff Stoll for mis-spelling his name yesterday.
>
>|>
>|> Alec Chambers.
>|>
Matthew Huntbach
>In article <1992Dec3.1...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> m...@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec2.1...@samba.oit.unc.edu> Gerry.M...@launchpad.unc.edu (Gerry Mulvenna) writes:
>>>People are denied access to republican analyses by the policies of
>>>censorship practiced on both sides of the Irish Sea. We are bombarded
>>>with pro-British propaganda by the news media, so it is only by
>>>accessing republican sources that one is able to arrive at a balanced
>>>and informed opinion on the Irish question.
>>>
>>Well, it may be that usenet is atypical, but if what you say is
>>true, how come that whenever the subject of Northern Ireland is
>>mentioned in usenet by someone who doesn't know much about the
>>situation, they are almost invariably extremely biased towards
>>a republican interpretation of the situation?
>
>really only affects those of us who live in Ireland, Scotland, England
>and Wales. Most people who live elsewhere in the world would tend to
>be sympathetic to the aims of Irish Republicanism once they start to
>read any Irish history.
>
I took it that you were also referring to the USA, the supposed
Republican bias of people in the USA being the matter under
discussion. Certainly there have been other postings which have
suggested that views on NI are heavily influenced by
pro-British propaganda; if that is not your belief I apologise.
However, I disagree that we are bombarded with pro-British
propaganda by the news media, even in Britain. The quality
press in Britain does give a fair amount of space to the
legitimate grievances of the nationalist people in Northern
Ireland; the tabloid press doesn't, but then it doesn't give
any space to the Unionist case either, leaving most people in
Britain knowing only that there's a lot of trouble there, and
often drawing the conculsion from this that the best thing to
do would be to get rid of the problem by dumping it on someone
else's doorstep (essentially agreeing with the IRA). Believe it
or not, the British news media is not full of "brave Ian
Paisley defending British rule, and religious freedom against
Irish Catholic bigots". In practice no distinction is drawn
between trouble in NI when it comes from Unionists and when it
comes from Republicans - opinion polls in Britain have shown
that most people can't even distinguish between the two, and
have no feeling whatsover on the subject except for a general
dislike of violence.
I reject your suggestion that the history of the place should
have any bearing on what is done today. That is like saying
that I should be put in prison because of a crime my father
committed, or I should have two votes in an election because my
grandfather had none. I have always most strongly opposed such
notions in any circumstances (it leads me, for example, to be a
strong supporter of high inheritance taxes). Yes - for
historical reasons Catholics in Northern Ireland tend to be
poorer than Protestants (which is not to say that there are not
a lot of poor Protestants there, or quite a few rich
Catholics). But what do you suppose could be done about it -
confiscation of assets held by Protestants in order to give
handouts to Catholics?
The idea that the situation where a small minority of people
owned nearly all the land was unique to Ireland is total
nonsense. Do you suppose that the bulk of British peasants and
workers were much better treated? Were not my ancestors
dispossessed of their land rights by the Enclosure Acts like
most other English people? I would say with Lloyd George,
quoted in yesterday's "Guardian", speaking about the situation
in England immediately prior to World War I - how does it come
about that the whole of the land is in the ownership of ten
thousand people, and the bulk of the population find themselves
trespassers in their own country (L-G put it better, but I
can't remember the exact words).
Really, to suppose that I must run the risk of being blown to
bits by an IRA bomb because of the wrongdoings of a few toffs
who also oppressed my ancestors a century or more ago, is
beyond belief.
Matthew Huntbach
Gerry Mulvenna
Point taken, Matthew, but the British propaganda I was referring to
really only affects those of us who live in Ireland, Scotland, England
and Wales. Most people who live elsewhere in the world would tend to
be sympathetic to the aims of Irish Republicanism once they start to
read any Irish history.
Gerry
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Michael Helm
>Irish Catholic bigots". In practice no distinction is drawn
>between trouble in NI when it comes from Unionists and when it
>comes from Republicans - opinion polls in Britain have shown
There is certainly a difference in the major news media in the US--
IRA-related bombings get plenty of press coverage, but one would
be hard-pressed to dig up any info on protestant extremist
assassination jobs or the like. As far as the aspirations or whatever
of either of the 4+ sides? Forget it. There's an occaisional
burp on the "mechanics" but gar nicht on the substance.
>I reject your suggestion that the history of the place should
>have any bearing on what is done today. That is like saying
>that I should be put in prison because of a crime my father
>committed, or I should have two votes in an election because my
>grandfather had none. I have always most strongly opposed such
>notions in any circumstances (it leads me, for example, to be a
This reminds me a lot of the objections made in the US over eg
affirmative action. I expect it probably can be subjected to the same
sort of rebuttal, tho I don't have the time (or the knowledge, really)
to do it now. Even if one doesn't accept the arguments of the
rebuttors, tho, it is absurd to think that one can escape the
consequences of the bad decisions of one's "forefathers" by pleading
lack of personal culpability. Social movements never seem to take
that into account. It is also absurd to reject the history of a place
in deciding how to deal with its problems. It's dangerous (see
"Thinking In Time" by Neustadt & May for some examples). In fact,
it's not your policy at all:
>most other English people? I would say with Lloyd George,
>quoted in yesterday's "Guardian", speaking about the situation
>in England immediately prior to World War I - how does it come
&c. What I suspect, Matthew, is that you would like to throw out
all the history that you don't like, & just keep the part that
pleases you or supports your particular argument of the moment.
Not that this is all that unusual, even among professional historians,
but it's you who now claim it as a virtue.
>Really, to suppose that I must run the risk of being blown to
>bits by an IRA bomb because of the wrongdoings of a few toffs
I sympathize -- I live & work in a place that is _much_ more
dangerous. I agree that this is a terrible thing. The meaning
of "must", tho, remains a problem.
Morna J Findlay
>si...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
>>hol...@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan) writes:
>>>si...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
>
>>> The US is a hotbed of support for the causes of Justice and Liberty, and
>>> this is what really frightens the British, because they practice neither.
>>>
>
>[jingoistic rant deleted for aesthetic reasons]
>
>'Silva'. Hmm. That's not a Native American name by any chance?
>
>Thought not.
>
It wasn't Holly that said that.
Suzanne Barrett
>> Allegations of such abuses as shoot to kill policies, Police giving files
>> to loyalist butcher squads, planted evidence, supergrass allegations , unfair
>> hiring practices are all totally untrue.
> Yeah - what he said....
> gln
Interesting. News I get in Dublin, Galway, East Coast US Irish American
papers, etc. often give eyewitness accounts of all of the above. Of course
they're all lying....
sjb
-----
suz...@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com
Darragh Stokes
>
>Sure the cute Kerry hoor has been careful not to be in government for a long
>time. It is very easy to oppose. And, sure, didn't he play Rugby for
>Ireland. Therefore he has support from the Dublin set, and being from Kerry
>gives him rural support!!! Or maybe it's his uncle Joe moustache :-), or
>American wife!
>
I think it was his brother DONAL SPRING who played for Ireland. The only thing I remember was D. Spring catching a Garryowen close to the Irish line,
attempting a Fly Kick, making a bollix of it and the opposition running it down for a try.
[ Just coz its friday I'll try that in American Football prose .... ]
"Spring unwinds" ( UPI )
4th and fifty, the offense, being outside field goal range, decided to go for
the punt. Spring, the safety, ( A safety Spring ?? ) received an easy ball, and the offensive tackles provided a great defense for Spring to spring into action. However, instead of running the punt return, Spring, tried to confuse the oposition, with a Punt of his own. This was easily blocked by the oncoming tackle, and was easily recovered for a touch down.
Ulick Stafford
>
>I take it you've got your tongue stuck firmly in your cheek here. However
>unfortunately there is quite a large minority that believe this.
It's so terrible when people have the wrong opinion, i.e. an opinion other
than yours. God save us from tyranny of the majority!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ 'There was a master come unto the earth, + Ulick Stafford, PP-ASEL +
+ born in the holy land of Indiana, + Dept of Chemical Engineering, +
+ in the mystical hills east of Fort Wayne'.+ Notre Dame, IN 46556 +
+ B'fhearr liom bheith ag eitilt. + ul...@bach.helios.nd.edu +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ulick Stafford
>a...@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N. Walker) writes:
>| I think the onus is on the IRA
>| to prove that they *have* tried to minimise the number of random deaths
>| caused.
>
not supposed to be a harmless exercise, and even if they gave 3 hour
warnings of a specific nature, they weould still be damned for putting
people at risk. Hell, I put people at risk everytime I drive home.
>*are* still casualties, not on the authorities). Some really don't
>care: like the bombers who drove a 6-inch nail through a 60-year-old
>woman's heart, just because she had the bad judgement to be walking past
>a barracks at the same time as a truckload of squaddies went by (the
>bombers had a clear view of what they were doing).
Killing with schrapnel is not nice, but dragging up unnecessary gory details
like this is to cloud the real arguement. We could start discussin the
details of war deaths in recent conflicts like the brutal pigeon shoot of
retreating Iraqi soldiers, or Gurkhas cutting Argie necks in the Malvinas,
and would that change the rights or wrongs of the conflict in the first
place? The IRA's campaign of violence is not nice, but nor are the causes
of it. But it is not too surprising that posters who want to damn the IRA
ignore the history, and try and portray the IRA as psychopaths who have no
good reason to be doing what they are doing.
Colin Morris
> I think
>that the present IRA campaign is one of their smarter ones. It is widely
>accepted that a bomb in London is worth 50 in the North in terms of publicity
>although I have heard about blasts in Belfast, as well as the huge one in
>Colraine on the US media, but coverage of these is not as major as coverage
>of, say, the blasts in Manchester today. The campaign seems to be to
>maximise disruption with minimum injury. So set small bombs, give a very
>general, relatively short warning. Then a bomb goes off with minimal damage
>and injuries, but it means that future warning true or false cannot be
>ignored. Obviously the point is to be a real pain without being too
>barbarous in the hopes of accelerating a pullout without hardening hearts
>too much.
>
So, Ulick, it's somehow "smarter" to be less "barbaric" than some past
bombing campaigns? I hope you're going to tell that to the relatives
of those who have been injured and of those who may, sooner or later, be
killed. "Too bad your kid got killed, but, after all, this is actually
a smarter IRA bombing campaign."
Associating the word "smart" with any degree of terrorism is a rather
sick premise, especially from someone I thought had a little more
commonsense. Go back to r.s.s.
Aengus Lawlor
Huntbach) says:
>
>In article <1992Dec2.0...@news.nd.edu> ul...@trudeau.helios.nd.edu
>(Ulick Stafford) writes:
>>I am becoming highly amused at the way the 'inate evil' of the IRA is
>>mentioned by everyone on every side of every arguement. While the IRA
>>members are hardly angels, it is propagandistic hyperbole to say that they
>>do not care who they kill.
>
>subject, and have often been the only one who has explained the
>Unionist case, I don't think I have ever suggested the IRA is
>innately evil. I don't believe this at all, and I don't like it
>when I see it in the British media. My line has always been
>that they have a legitimate case, but there is no need to
>resort to violence to promote it, and that this violence is
>indeed counterproductive.
I'd just like to second this point. People used to this forum might
find it unusual that Matthew, Ulick and I are broadly in agreement on
this aspect of the situation. S.C.C flame wars aren't all heat without
light after all!
>
>The fact that coverage of IRA terrorism now routinely centres
>on its "evil nature", rather than on the case they are trying
>to publicise indicates that it is not working. Of course, the
>alternative explanation is that what they are really trying to
>do is to get people so sick of it, that they'll say "just let's
>get rid of NI" irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the
>arguments. If it were the UFF letting off bombs in London to
>promote *their* case, people would be saying much the same.
>
>Matthew Huntbach
Phill Hallam-Baker
(Ulick Stafford) writes:
|>In article <BynvF...@dscomsa.desy.de> Hal...@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>>
|>>The santimonious self justifying claptrap that Holohan spouts is no more
|>>credible than that of appologists for the Red Army Faction or any other
|>>terrorist group. The people of Ireland have voted against violence, against
|>the
|>>killing. They know that the greatest impediment to any political reform
|>>including unification is the IRA and it's NORAID and Sinn Feinn supporters.
|>>Phill Hallam-Baker
|>
|>What a load of poppycock! Are you taking lessons in Yalladean? The
|>greatest impediment to any political reform is the British Guarantee. And
|>as far as I know Holohan only highlights British injustices. I have never
|>seen a posting of his advocate support for the IRA campaign of violence.
Ahh the other one comes out of the woodwork.
Like Sinn Fein, Ulick and Holohan are careful not to openly support IRA violence
however they are very keen to show that this is where their sympathies lie. The
vicious stream of hatred that they produce is done with the intention of
furthering the purposes of the IRA. Like Sinn Fein they might just manage to say
that they "condem violence", but what they will refuse to say is that they
condem violence as a means to an end. This is a familiar pattern of deceit.
Let us hear it unequivocaly, a denunciation of the IRA practice of "knee
capping", juveniles considered guilty of joy ridding in cars.
Let us hear it unequivocaly, a denunciation of the IRA practice of planting
bombs in crowded shopping centers.
Let us hear it unequivocaly, a denunciation of the IRA practice of murdering
it's political oponents.
Mark and Ulick may make as many other denunciations in parallel as they like.
But if they want an appology for being tainted by an alegation of support for
the IRA they must make clear the confusion that they have deliberately created.
Mark and Ulick have an advantage in this argument. They are free to speak their
mind without the fear of reprisal. I have the ever present knowlege that the IRA
may attack me for what I say in the same way that they have attempted to murder
a member of my family.
It is no surprize that neither Ulick nor Mark have a word of condemnation for
the cowardly attack on innocent civilians by the IRA in Manchester this week.
Planting a bomb in a shopping center during the Christmass shopping period could
only have been done with the intention of murdering a large number of people.
Let us see if either of them can manage a condemnation of this attrocity without
equivocation.
FACT: Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA gained only 1.6% of the vote in
the last election in Northern Ireland. Of the 44 seats they contested, they lost
their deposits (got less than 5% of the vote) in 40 of them [source: Hansard 3rd
Dec].
--
Phill Hallam-Baker
Holly Silva
> si...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
>> Oh bullshit yourself Garrolous Newell. I'd say the man's
>> displayed an allegiance not to the United States, but to another
>> entity entirely.
>.... this paranoid bullshit should have no
>place in America (or anywhere else for that matter) questioning
>someone's allegience to his country because he has views that do not
>agree with your own is absurd and frankly unbelievable to me...
>
This is the second time you've said I questioned his allegiance
soley because his views differ from mine -- and for a second time I'll
state that I question it because he has clearly demonstrated by the manner
and content of his postings that he cares quite a bit more about
some place else and some other people that he does about this place,
the United States, and the people who live _here_.
>> In support of his beloved republican cause he
>> indulges in rabid 'American' jingoism though, perhaps in order to
>> curry favor with us, perhaps in order to promote the view that his
>> rabid brand of republicanism is somehow 'sanctified' by being part
>> of mainstream American thought. It isn't.
>
> Or perhaps, just perhaps, because lo and behold he is an american and as
>such he expects that he can state his views on issues pertaining not only
>to this country but to the world as a whole without being branded a
>traitor by the likes of you and other petty-minded individuals.
>
Possibly he deeply believes every word he writes in reference to
the Unites States. But he sure does use his stated beliefs in the manner
in which I've described above: to put a shine on his continuous barage
of republican propaganda with some Yankee polish. And I didn't mean to
imply that I thought him a traitor; I'd need to regard him as one of
us to begin with before I could do that, now wouldn't I?
>> I see no reason why this fucker should be able to go about
>> unchallenged, proclaiming himself a Yankee Doodle Dandy and real
>> live nephew of my Uncle Sam. He regularly massacrees the truth in
>> support of his views and he breeds ill-will against this country and
>> this people while busily defending his own people, his republican brethren.
>
> I see one very big reason - he's an american - he can state whatever
>views he likes - he is free after all. The day someone has to meet
>your litmus test before they can speak out is the day I ship out
>of this country...
We should be so lucky. You adhere to the view that has grown up
during the past 3 decades that being an american sanctifies all and
every form of public speech --- no matter where or what is said. Aye,
and you have the letter of the law behind you, you have a legal right
to be an public asshole, though it's a morally bankrupt way of engaging
in public discourse. You've taken advantage of this right in
s.c.c. on a regular basis.
Both you and Holohan are arrogant loud-mouthed bully-boys
Gary, and now you are squealing bloody murder because someone has
had the temerity to give each of you back some of what you've dished
out to the net this past year or more.
Holohan has been beating his little war drum, implicitly and
explicitly accusing the entire British people of participating in a
terrorist state because of the failings of their security forces, and
their Foreign Office's faltering attempt to secure itself a post-Cold War
existence by engaging in industrial espionage. Never mind that we've
more to fear from the much more effective, state-funded industrial
espionage efforts of the Japanese and the French.
And now you're all in a righteous rage because I've turned the
table on him, played dirty and tossed this aggressive, ugly shit right
back at him? Oh, weeellll Gary, life is hard. If you merely want me
to acknowledge that my post regarding his true allegiance
constituted dirty pool, sure I will, and have already done so
right above. It was dirty for the threat implicit in it, but
I think you believe, really, that I hadn't the right to even bring
up the question. And with that, I disagree. I disagree because he
regularly uses his over-stated patriotism to bolster himself in
this venue, where he posts on an issue that doesn't have right fuck
all to do with this country.
> No - its "Nazism" when you threaten someone's citizenship because you
>do not agree with their views or how they choose to state them.
>
Oh, what a tender flower you are all of the sudden Gary. You've
shit all over the net with belligerent abandon and total disregard for
the desires of the other users. But now you're the righteous wounded
one, crying Nazi because I've decided to play rough? And attributing
to me views that I've never stated?
I disagree with Holohan's bloody methods more than his views.
Ulick for instance, is quite republican in his sympathies, but he
defends them like man should -- with reason, with replies and rebuttals
that actually address the issues others have contested, rather than
throwing out red herring accusations in response to criticisms. The
latter method is a favorite with Holohan.
>> You're one of these anarcho-libertarian net.wankers who believes
>> that you and every other crank in Christendom has the uninalienable
>> right to spew offensive belligerence in support of your every wacked-
>> out view without fear of censure.
>
> Yes I am. I certainly would not run away from the label of supporting
>free expression and speech. To allow people to hear ideas and
>make a judgement based on argument and counter-argument is essential -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See above. Holohan has never troubled to really do this.
>point all you want - you can counter argue all you want - that is far from
>implying that someone is unamerican because he/she does not agree with
>your bias. You implied clearly that Mark should fear for his
>citizenship because he pissed you off - screw you - go after my
>
See above. The two paragraphs where I suggest that if you're
gonna dish it out boyos, you'd better be able to take it.
>Threats and labels of unamerican are the weapons of the
>feeble-minded - our history (as well as that of many other countries)
>should clearly indicate what can happen when people accuse others of
>"un-american" activities simply because they either do not understand
>or do not agree with the philosophy being presented.
>
You're quite pompous Gary for a man who regularly runs rough-
shod over other net.users. And you're spending a lot of time talking
about the history of oppression of free speech --- and no time at
discussing the contemporary effects of unrestrained, tribalistic
propangandizing. Mark Holohan has a lot more in common with Slobodan
Milosevic than he does with Thomas Paine.
>> You and Holohan have no sacred, Constitutional right to be assholes
>> Gary.
> I certainly do and I try my best to exercise that right ;-)
Oh, really, dear? But that would mean I have a similar 'right'
protecting my ability to call a man unamerican. Somehow, you seem
to think this is not the case. Maybe if you want others to refrain
from threats and verbal violence you will likewise, have to accept
some restraints upon your boundless freedom of speech?
Otherwise, you'll just have to deal with the fact that this
civilized little newsgroup contains people who are willing and able
to dish out more ugliness than even you can contenance in the name
of free speech.
--
======================================================================
|| Holly Silva I have nothing terribly clever to say||
|| Applied Earth Sciences today. You're in luck. ||
|| Stanford University ||
Colin Morris
>
>Killing with schrapnel is not nice, but dragging up unnecessary gory details
>like this is to cloud the real arguement. We could start discussin the
>details of war deaths in recent conflicts like the brutal pigeon shoot of
>retreating Iraqi soldiers, or Gurkhas cutting Argie necks in the Malvinas,
>and would that change the rights or wrongs of the conflict in the first
>place? The IRA's campaign of violence is not nice, but nor are the causes
>of it. But it is not too surprising that posters who want to damn the IRA
>ignore the history, and try and portray the IRA as psychopaths who have no
>good reason to be doing what they are doing.
>
unacceptable and counterproductive method of furthering one's cause,
whatever the history of the situation. That doesn't mean that I'm not
sympathetic with some of what they purport to stand to be fighting
for, or that I condone the behaviour of some so-called "security"
forces in Northern Ireland. All such behaviour, regardless of who it's
perpetrated by, should be clearly condemned. By evading such a
condemnation of the IRA share of that terrorism you're painting a
somewhat ugly picture of yourself.
Guy Barry
>
>FACT: Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA gained only 1.6% of the vote in
>the last election in Northern Ireland. Of the 44 seats they contested, they lost
>their deposits (got less than 5% of the vote) in 40 of them [source: Hansard 3rd
>Dec].
No, I'm sorry; this information refers to the last week's election in the
Republic of Ireland, *not* Northern Ireland. At the Westminster General
Election in April, Sinn Fein got 10.0% of the Northern Irish vote, compared
with 34.5% for the UUP, 23.5% for the SDLP, 13.1% for the DUP,
8.7% for the Alliance Party and 5.7% for the Conservative Party [source:
Butler and Kavanagh 1992, "The British General Election of 1992"].
--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757
Computer Laboratory | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street | JANET: Guy....@uk.ac.cam.cl
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK | Internet: Guy....@cl.cam.ac.uk
wil...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> If the IRA really didn't care who they killed, there'd be a lot more people
> British Election? Remember the Police saying that if it had gone off a
> couple of hours earlier there might be hundreds dead? Do you know how many
> bombs have gone off in London in the last few months? Do you really think
> that the death toll would be so low if the IRA were intent solely on
> killing innocent people?
>
Are you trying to tell us that the IRA *deliberately* planted van-loads of
semtex in central London last week in order not to kill people? Did they
*deliberately* make sure that the semtex didn't explode? If you think so, I'm
afraid you're living in cloud-cuckoo-land. THe death toll is low because the
IRA are either incompetent at planting bombs or are infiltrated by the security
forces. The death toll is low because the police are good at finding bombs
after being given vague warnings about where they are.
> None of this excuses any of the IRA's actions, but you don't have to be
> an IRA sympathiser to recognize that their strategy doesn't include
> random mass murder.
No. You have to be blind, deaf or, it seems, living in the USA to believe that
their strategy doen't include random mass murder. Planting a bomb outside
Harrods isn't random mass murder? Planting a bomb in central Manchester isn't
attempted random mass murder? Bombing the Central Hotel in Brighton wasn't
random mass murder as well as carefully targetted murder?
Ulick Stafford
>>
>So, Ulick, it's somehow "smarter" to be less "barbaric" than some past
>bombing campaigns? I hope you're going to tell that to the relatives
>of those who have been injured and of those who may, sooner or later, be
>killed. "Too bad your kid got killed, but, after all, this is actually
>a smarter IRA bombing campaign."
>
>Associating the word "smart" with any degree of terrorism is a rather
>sick premise, especially from someone I thought had a little more
>commonsense. Go back to r.s.s.
What does r.s.s have to do with this? This is a posting to soc.culture.
celtic, which happens to be crossposted to soc.culture.british. This
kind of discussion is not unusual in s.c.c. They occur on a regular basis.
I think that it would be extremely rude for me to tamper with the
Newsgroups line aafter the discussion has already included people from
both groups as well as those who post in both. I have noticed that
some attacks on my positions have been confined to soc.culture.british.
I assume that posters do this for a reason, and seeing as I only lurk in
that group occasionally, I will not respond.
I said it was smarter - I never said it was smart to begin with. Why do
people never pay attention to actual words used and base a rebuttal on
assumed opinions. I don't think IRA bombing campaigns in Britain are
especially astute from a propaganda point of view, but they are much
'smarter' than the Continantal campaign of a few years ago with such highlights
(lowlights) as the assassination of Australian soldiers, and in general,
pissing off the Germans, Belgians, Dutch, etc. excessively. I also, think it
is smarter than the campaign from years back that included the butchery of
horses (never did hear too much in the British press about the riders).
Accepting the fact that the IRA are going to remain active until there is
an aduquate settlement, isn't this campaign a little smarter than those of
the past? Expecting the IRA campaign to cease with nothing in return is
naive.
Phill Hallam-Baker
(Ulick Stafford) writes:
|>In article <1992Dec3.1...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> m...@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew
|>Huntbach) writes:
|>>
|>>The fact that coverage of IRA terrorism now routinely centres
|>>on its "evil nature", rather than on the case they are trying
|>>to publicise indicates that it is not working. Of course, the
|>>alternative explanation is that what they are really trying to
|>>do is to get people so sick of it, that they'll say "just let's
|>>get rid of NI" irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the
|>
|>I am not sure if you were partially agreeing with my arguement, but it isn`t
|>too surprising that British and allied propagandist want to paint the IRA in
|>the worst possible light. Rather than attacking the message, attack the
|>messenger.
The IRA is not the messenger. There are plenty of people who have been
peacefully persuing the republican cause.
|> The trouble is then you get an acceptable level of violence so
|>more and more outragous action is necessary to attract attention.
The outrageous violence is not only unnecessary but as you yourself admit
conceals the message. The British Government does not intend to surrender to
terroism.
|> I think
|>that the present IRA campaign is one of their smarter ones.
Ulick will find it hard to make such statements and deny allegations that he
supports the IRA.
|> but coverage of these is not as major as coverage
|>of, say, the blasts in Manchester today.
|> The campaign seems to be to
|>maximise disruption with minimum injury.
For those who need a reality check, this is a bomb planted in the middle of one
of the busyest high streets in Europe during the christmass shopping period.
This in Ulick's terms is designed to minimize injury. Consider the US equivalent
of planting a bomb in Tiffanys or WallMart.
|> So set small bombs, give a very
|>general, relatively short warning. Then a bomb goes off with minimal damage
|>and injuries,
No not minimal injuries, minimal injuries would be none at all, do not plant the
bomb, behave like civilized human beings instead of filth.
|> it means that future warning true or false cannot be
|>ignored. Obviously the point is to be a real pain without being too
|>barbarous in the hopes of accelerating a pullout without hardening hearts
|>too much.
If the IRA had not begun it's terrorist campaign the forces would have pulled
out years ago. They were only brought in in response to the Protestant terrorist
outrages which were pretty soon brought to heel.
|>Your point in another post, re no publicity for Loyalist paramilitary, is
|>correct. No regular shooting in NI is ever news in the US, but even
|>relatively minor bomb blasts with no fatalities seem to be. This could be
|>due to a slight anti-IRA bias, but is more likely because shootings are no
|>novelty here. There have been over 900 homicides already this year in
|>Chicago. Bombs are unusual and so newsworthy.
Like the Lockerbie bombing, perhaps our bomb loving, murderous friend would
support that too?
--
Phill Hallam-Baker