IRA 1: Britain 0
Tim Leonhardt
<ra...@god.bless.america.com> wrote:
" In order to make things more easily understandable to the average
" Brit, the title of this post expresses the current Northern
" Ireland situation in terms of the scores of a sport (soccer - not,
" of course, to be confused with real football) which is popular
" among adolescent girls in the U.S. and among grown men - even to
" the point of being inextricably bound up with their sense of
" manhood - in the U.K.
"
" In the lively discussions I have enjoyed on this newsgroup with my
" many British friends, I have frequently observed that the only
" language the British understand is, unfortunately, force. This
" sad fact is not altogether surprising, when one takes into
" consideration their nation's history: a bloody catalog of
" unwarranted aggression against poorly armed foes, of the most
" hideous kinds of colonial exploitation, and even of genocide.
"
" Now, despite the many protestations of Britons on this newsgroup
" and elsewhere, that IRA violence achieves nothing, and that their
" plucky little nation will never give in to such tactics, it seems
" that recent events have born out my observation. In response to
" the suspension of the ceasefire, and the IRA's subsequent
" bombing campaign, John Major has finally seen the error of his
" ways, quit stalling, and committed to a firm date for all party
" talks - at which the IRA may now participate, even if they have
" not disarmed. The peace talks are now back on track; yet before
" the explosion in Wapping, they were, of course, going nowhere.
"
" So couldn't one be forgiven for concluding that violence is a
" very effective way of dealing with the British government, and
" shouldn't we all in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping
" and thus helping the peace process along? For without the return
" to violence, wouldn't the peace talks still be at the same
" stagnant point they were at a few weeks ago?
"
" I take it that all you Brits agree with this analysis?
"
" Rambo.
A fine mess those brits have gotten themselves into. So limies, how do you
plan to get out of this one?
--
Rambo
100142
mirk...@tiac.net (Tim Leonhardt) wrote:
>In article <4h8a35$8...@sun.sirius.com>, Rambo
><ra...@god.bless.america.com> wrote:
>
>A fine mess those brits have gotten themselves into. So limies, how do you
>plan to get out of this one?
>
>--
>
> <http://www.tiac.net/users/mirkwood/>
We entered the peace process to show to misguided people like
yourselves that there is no appeasing the IRA. Do you honestly think
that if we was to leave NI that the bombs would stop.
You people have cooked yourselves up a convienient situation for
yourselves, if UK was to stall peace and try to suppress republican
movement/IRA then you would accuse us of hanging on to "our dear
little empire" , however if we done the decent thing and talked peace
you accuse us of giving in to terrorists.
Thanking people who plant bombs ???? And then in other posts idiots
like yourselves rant on about your country being democratic.
Both of you are sick ! Innocent people died in that bomb blast.
Chris
Gulliver
This is a troll, is is not?
Shit, I can't resist replying.
> I have frequently observed that the only
> language the British understand is, unfortunately, force.
What are you driveling about? I'm sure you know you typed something less
than the whole truth above.
> This
> sad fact is not altogether surprising, when one takes into
> consideration their nation's history: a bloody catalog of
> unwarranted aggression against poorly armed foes, of the most
> hideous kinds of colonial exploitation, and even of genocide.
Ah, and the good old 'Yoo Ess of Aye' never killed anybody ever. No
'Indians', no Iraqis, no Japanese......
> recent events have born out my observation. In response to
> the suspension of the ceasefire, and the IRA's subsequent
> bombing campaign, John Major has finally seen the error of his
> ways,
You know nothing if you think Johnny will ever admit to seeing the error
of his ways. IMO he will never see the error of his ways, he's too
arrogant to believe he might be wrong.
> So couldn't one be forgiven for concluding that violence is a
> very effective way of dealing with the British government,
In case it had escaped your notice, SF/IRA have to declare a proper
ceasefire before they can come to the talks. SF/IRA are not exactly over
the moon with Johnny's latest plans. Neither are the DUP, so it may
create more problems than it solves.
> shouldn't we all in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping
> and thus helping the peace process along?
Rambo, what planet are you from? Have you even visited earth? Are you on
psychadelics? Or do you just enjoy annoying people like me who are daft
enough to reply to your drivel?
--
Angus Gulliver
Gulliver
[quoted entire text of Rambo's original post snipped]
> A fine mess those brits have gotten themselves into. So limies, how do you
> plan to get out of this one?
You are Rambo and I claim..........
Ask and you shall receive. I'm sure many people other than myself will
show you why Rambo is wrong.
--
Angus Gulliver
Tom Beam
Are you flaming here? What exactly is this? Are you saying
something like "You're wrong and I know it but am too stupid to point
out where you're wrong and will leave it to superior minds to tell you
where you are wrong"? So, why is Rambo wrong?
--
METALBAG
This .sig brought to you courtesy of METALBAG's work computer.
Now you know how much I'm fucking off while making money.
Garbage truck driver of the informationsuperhighway.
"Never trust someone who can bleed for five days and not die".
onee...@hooked.net
Matthew Cunliffe
>
> In <Pine.SUN.3.91.96030...@altair.herts.ac.uk> Gulliver
> <kst...@herts.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> >On Fri, 1 Mar 1996, Tim Leonhardt wrote:
> >
> >[quoted entire text of Rambo's original post snipped]
> >
> >> A fine mess those brits have gotten themselves into. So limies, how
> do you
> >> plan to get out of this one?
> >
> >You are Rambo and I claim..........
> >
> >Ask and you shall receive. I'm sure many people other than myself will
>
> >show you why Rambo is wrong.
>
> Are you flaming here? What exactly is this? Are you saying
> something like "You're wrong and I know it but am too stupid to point
> out where you're wrong and will leave it to superior minds to tell you
> where you are wrong"? So, why is Rambo wrong?
No. It's because most of us can't be bothered to respond to a pile of
rubbish that has no basis in fact. The only other similar thread is the
monarchy one, with yet another completely irrational American. The
difference there is that we like to take the piss out of Louis. This
one isn't even worth responding to.
Regards,
Matt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew Cunliffe Ancie...@durham.ac.uk
http://www-ucs.dur.ac.uk/~gradsoc/Foundation/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gulliver
> Tom Beam wrote:
> > In <Pine.SUN.3.91.96030...@altair.herts.ac.uk> Gulliver
> > <kst...@herts.ac.uk> writes:
> > >On Fri, 1 Mar 1996, Tim Leonhardt wrote:
> > Are you flaming here? What exactly is this? Are you saying
> > something like "You're wrong and I know it but am too stupid to point
> > out where you're wrong and will leave it to superior minds to tell you
> > where you are wrong"? So, why is Rambo wrong?
>
> No. It's because most of us can't be bothered to respond to a pile of
Actually, if you take a look at the posts in this thread you will notice
that 10 minutes before I posted the above message I did reply to Rambo's
original post.
I would agree that it probably won't do any good, but I couldn't resist it.
--
Angus Gulliver
apa...@servelan.co.uk
In Article<4h8a35$8...@sun.sirius.com>, <ra...@god.bless.america.com>
wrote:
> among adolescent girls in the U.S. and among grown men - even to
> the point of being inextricably bound up with their sense of
> manhood - in the U.K.
Some men do take the game this seriously but they represent only a
tiny proportion of the male population.
> In the lively discussions I have enjoyed on this newsgroup with my
> many British friends, I have frequently observed that the only
> language the British understand is, unfortunately, force.
Another unjustified generalisation.
> This sad fact is not altogether surprising, when one takes into
> consideration their nation's history: a bloody catalog of
> unwarranted aggression against poorly armed foes, of the most
> hideous kinds of colonial exploitation, and even of genocide.
This is not unique to Britain's history. Over the past two thousand
years, just about every country in Europe has acquired territory
outside their borders for the purpose of exploiting the resources
there; in the past this was considered fair game. Britain does not
do this now. Of course, the more developed countries still exploit
the less developed countries. These countries are forced to produce
crops of things they don't need, e.g. cotton, whilst leaving them
unable to grow enough food to feed their population. They get paid a
pittance for what they do produce. They are encouraged to get up to
their necks in debt. What little income they do create, the
developed countries persuade them to spend on armaments. This is the
form of exploitation that takes place in the modern world and the
U.S. is as guilty of this as any country.
> Now, despite the many protestations of Britons on this newsgroup
> and elsewhere, that IRA violence achieves nothing, and that their
> plucky little nation will never give in to such tactics, it seems
> that recent events have born out my observation. In response to
> the suspension of the ceasefire, and the IRA's subsequent
> bombing campaign, John Major has finally seen the error of his
> ways, quit stalling, and committed to a firm date for all party
> talks - at which the IRA may now participate, even if they have
> not disarmed. The peace talks are now back on track; yet before
> the explosion in Wapping, they were, of course, going nowhere.
>
> So couldn't one be forgiven for concluding that violence is a
> very effective way of dealing with the British government, and
> shouldn't we all in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping
> and thus helping the peace process along? For without the return
> to violence, wouldn't the peace talks still be at the same
> stagnant point they were at a few weeks ago?
Underlying your article is the assumption that Britain is fighting
to retain control over Northern Ireland, yet it is not in Britain's
interest to do this. As you point out yourself, colonialism exists
for the purpose of exploitation.
Also underlying your article is the belief that all Britons share
the same view and back the government in office. In reality, the
opinions of British people vary greatly and at the present time, the
overwhelming majority of the population do not support the political
party in office. The peace process has been a casualty of this; the
government has a majority in parliament of just two and so it is
appeasing the Unionist parties in order to stay in office.
The best solution to this is an early general election. One would
think that the Irish government would also prefer this, but no! It
has recently been reported that John Bruton, the Irish premier,
tried to persuade one of the nationalist parties in Northern Ireland
to abstain in a recent vote that the government was in danger of
losing. This illustrates well how your all Britain vs. all Ireland
view of the peace process is an oversimplification.
--------------------------------------------------------
Alan Pascoe apa...@servelan.co.uk England
David Boothroyd
In article <4h8a35$8...@sun.sirius.com>, Rambo writes:
>
> In order to make things more easily understandable to the average
> Brit, the title of this post expresses the current Northern
> Ireland situation in terms of the scores of a sport (soccer - not,
How about a world referendum on which is the real football? I think
with Africa, Europe, South America and parts of Asia on our side, and
Australia doing its own thing, our version would win easily.
In any respect how has the IRA won anything by resuming violence? The
Government accepted the Mitchell report and therefore that decommissioning
would not happen before all-party talks; the IRA did not accept the
Mitchell report in respect of punishment shooting and then repudiated the
whole process entirely by resuming violence.
> In the lively discussions I have enjoyed on this newsgroup with my
> many British friends, I have frequently observed that the only
> language the British understand is, unfortunately, force. This
> sad fact is not altogether surprising, when one takes into
> consideration their nation's history: a bloody catalog of
> unwarranted aggression against poorly armed foes, of the most
> hideous kinds of colonial exploitation, and even of genocide.
I think you have been looking in the mirror. Wars of aggression are
much more a characteristic of your nation and not ours.
> Now, despite the many protestations of Britons on this newsgroup
> and elsewhere, that IRA violence achieves nothing, and that their
> plucky little nation will never give in to such tactics, it seems
> that recent events have born out my observation.
IRA violence does achieve something - it kills people who have absolutely
nothing to do with the struggle it proclaims it is connected to.
> The peace talks are now back on track; yet before the explosion in
> Wapping, they were, of course, going nowhere.
There has been no explosion at Wapping recently. There have been explosions
at South Quay, Isle of Dogs, and at Aldwych, but Wapping is quite seperate
from both.
--
\/ David "electionibo" Boothroyd (Associate Editor PMS Parliamentary Companion)
I wish I was in North Dakota. * http://nyx10.cs.du.edu:8001/~dboothro/home.html
The House of Commons now : C 324, Lab 271, L Dem 25, UU 9, PC 4, SDLP 4, SNP 4,
UDUP 3, Ind 1, Ind UU 1, Vac 1, Spkrs 4. Government majority 2. Tel. Tate 6125.
Tim Geary
>In article <4h8a35$8...@sun.sirius.com>, Rambo
><ra...@god.bless.america.com> wrote:
>
snip 'adolescent crap'
>A fine mess those brits have gotten themselves into. So limies, how do you
>plan to get out of this one?
>
>--
>
> <http://www.tiac.net/users/mirkwood/>
The word 'Redneck' seems to leap from my screen when I read this
garbage.
Get a LIFE, get a Personality,EARN a NAME of your own, you poor
pathetic WANNABE.
Tim Geary
<Nothing Succeeds like a Budgie with no teeth>
Hugh Davies
>
>I take it that all you Brits agree with this analysis?
>
Actually, I think you're a piece of shit.
--
Regards,
Huge.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh Davies, Bedfordshire, England.
"The British are subtle, but nasty when provoked." --spaf
El Scotto
> >
> snip 'adolescent crap'
> >A fine mess those brits have gotten themselves into. So limies, how do you
> >plan to get out of this one?
> >
> >--
> >
> > <http://www.tiac.net/users/mirkwood/>
> The word 'Redneck' seems to leap from my screen when I read this
> garbage.
>
> Get a LIFE, get a Personality,EARN a NAME of your own, you poor
> pathetic WANNABE.
> Tim Geary
>
> postm...@toddarch.thegap.com
>
> <Nothing Succeeds like a Budgie with no teeth>
But you've got to admit, Tim, the British really
are screwed over by their incompetent government.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright 1996 El Scotto. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten, or redistributed.
Tim Leonhardt
(Tim Geary) wrote:
" mirk...@tiac.net (Tim Leonhardt) wrote:
"
" >In article <4h8a35$8...@sun.sirius.com>, Rambo
" ><ra...@god.bless.america.com> wrote:
" >
" snip 'adolescent crap'
" >A fine mess those brits have gotten themselves into. So limies, how do you
" >plan to get out of this one?
" >
" >--
" >
" > <http://www.tiac.net/users/mirkwood/>
" The word 'Redneck' seems to leap from my screen when I read this
" garbage.
"
" Get a LIFE, get a Personality,EARN a NAME of your own, you poor
" pathetic WANNABE.
And just what do you think I wannabe? A brit who is now whaching his
empire come back for revenge or an irish man still living in the middle
ages. How about a webmaster; oh wait I already have a web page.
" Tim Geary
--
Gulliver
>
> In Article<4h8a35$8...@sun.sirius.com>, <ra...@god.bless.america.com>
> wrote:
>
> > among adolescent girls in the U.S. and among grown men - even to
> > the point of being inextricably bound up with their sense of
> > manhood - in the U.K.
> Some men do take the game this seriously but they represent only a
> tiny proportion of the male population.
Once, in a pub, I announced that I do not like football and I was accused
of being a woman! This tells me that those presant who did like the
wretched game had more problems than I.
> > many British friends, I have frequently observed that the only
> > language the British understand is, unfortunately, force.
>
> Another unjustified generalisation.
I would have thought the world had learned by now that bombimg the
british into submission is a mighty task. Hitler never quite managed it,
so how do the IRA reckon on achieving it? More to the point how can Rambo
(or anyone) reckon they have achieved it? I know, Rambo is Gerry Adams
and I claim my 10 quid!
> The best solution to this is an early general election. One would
> think that the Irish government would also prefer this, but no! It
> has recently been reported that John Bruton, the Irish premier,
> tried to persuade one of the nationalist parties in Northern Ireland
> to abstain in a recent vote that the government was in danger of
> losing. This illustrates well how your all Britain vs. all Ireland
> view of the peace process is an oversimplification.
What good (or indeed harm) would an early British election do? Since the
opposition are entirely in agreement with the gvt on this issue I see no
advantage or disadvantage for NI or ROI if there were a change.
--
Angus Gulliver
Rambo
>In case it had escaped your notice, SF/IRA have to declare a proper
>ceasefire before they can come to the talks. SF/IRA are not exactly over
>the moon with Johnny's latest plans.
Just as before, the IRA will doubtless declare a "complete" cessation
of hostilities. Now, however, a firm date has been set for
the commencement of all-party talks, and Major is no longer
insisting that Sinn Fein's participation is contingent upon the
IRA disarming before the talks begin.
In other words, the IRA's bombing campaign has persuaded Major to
desist from his stalling tactics, and, as a result, the peace process
is once more underway. Which is why it seems that we should "all
in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping and thus helping
the peace process along."
Regards,
Rambo.
100142
>In article <4haip3$2...@errigle.gpl.net>, postm...@toddarch.thegap.com
>(Tim Geary) wrote:
>
>" mirk...@tiac.net (Tim Leonhardt) wrote:
>"
>" >In article <4h8a35$8...@sun.sirius.com>, Rambo
>" ><ra...@god.bless.america.com> wrote:
>" >
>" snip 'adolescent crap'
>" >A fine mess those brits have gotten themselves into. So limies, how do you
>" >plan to get out of this one?
>" >
>" >--
>" >
>" > <http://www.tiac.net/users/mirkwood/>
>" The word 'Redneck' seems to leap from my screen when I read this
>" garbage.
>"
>" Get a LIFE, get a Personality,EARN a NAME of your own, you poor
>" pathetic WANNABE.
>
>And just what do you think I wannabe? A brit who is now whaching his
>empire come back for revenge or an irish man still living in the middle
>ages. How about a webmaster; oh wait I already have a web page.
>
>" Tim Geary
>
>--
>
> <http://www.tiac.net/users/mirkwood/>
If there is one thing that shows somone of ignorance is someone who
has preconsceptions about the thoughts and aspirations of another
individual.
Chris.
100142
Tut tut tut , my dear fruitcake , how many times to you people need to
be told. Wapping is on the North side of the River. Canary Wharf , or
more to the point South Quays station (Where the bomb went off) is on
the Isle of Dogs.
So much for your research into these matters.
Chris
Leo
>In the lively discussions I have enjoyed on this newsgroup with my
>many British friends, I have frequently observed that the only
>language the British understand is, unfortunately, force.
Not the only language. But certainly one of the languages.
>This
>sad fact is not altogether surprising, when one takes into
>consideration their nation's history: a bloody catalog of
>unwarranted aggression against poorly armed foes, of the most
>hideous kinds of colonial exploitation, and even of genocide.
>
Not unlike the U.S.A., then?
>Now, despite the many protestations of Britons on this newsgroup
>and elsewhere, that IRA violence achieves nothing, and that their
>plucky little nation will never give in to such tactics, it seems
>that recent events have born out my observation. In response to
>the suspension of the ceasefire, and the IRA's subsequent
>bombing campaign, John Major has finally seen the error of his
>ways, quit stalling, and committed to a firm date for all party
>talks - at which the IRA may now participate, even if they have
>not disarmed. The peace talks are now back on track; yet before
>the explosion in Wapping, they were, of course, going nowhere.
>
Although put in a way that is meant to be offensive, the analysis
seems to contain more than a grain of truth. Anyway, whatever the
reason, it is good to see the peace process moving forwards.
>So couldn't one be forgiven for concluding that violence is a
>very effective way of dealing with the British government, and
>shouldn't we all in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping
>and thus helping the peace process along?
Is this what they call a troll?
>For without the return
>to violence, wouldn't the peace talks still be at the same
>stagnant point they were at a few weeks ago?
>
Possibly. Realpolitik is a grim business.
>I take it that all you Brits agree with this analysis?
>
The analysis may have some truth in it, but the glee is kinda
sinister. The way I would look at it is in awed mystification at the
passions patriotism or nationalism can arouse, and relief that things
seem to be moving in a direction that should in the long run see those
passions defused. Rather than exploding a la Bosnia.
--
Leo
Gulliver
> Rambo <ra...@god.bless.america.com> wrote:
> >
> >Just as before, the IRA will doubtless declare a "complete" cessation
>
> Tut tut tut , my dear fruitcake , how many times to you people need to
> be told. Wapping is on the North side of the River. Canary Wharf , or
> more to the point South Quays station (Where the bomb went off) is on
> the Isle of Dogs.
I'd like to know from where he got the idea that the recent IRA ceasefire
was a complete cesation!
'Rambo', clearly an argument in favour of abortion :)
--
Angus Gulliver
Andy D
>shouldn't we all in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping
>and thus helping the peace process along? For without the return
>to violence, wouldn't the peace talks still be at the same
>stagnant point they were at a few weeks ago?
>
>I take it that all you Brits agree with this analysis?
Rambo, I agree that all Brits should be grateful for the steps taken
by the IRA to decomission the members of it's ASUs on London buses.
This is truly an imaginitive way forward. IRA 1/2 Britain 0 perhaps?
p.s. Challenger -> 7UP -> oops, Oklahoma, Savings and Loans, Obesity,
Trailer Park QVC addicts, Ricki Lake 'I'm OK, You're OK', Marine
Barracks in the Lebanon -> 'gee that must be the Stay-Puft marshmallow
truck. Neat.', etc etc etc HTH HAND.
--
an...@troas.demon.co.uk
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Vernon Erasmus
america.com> writes
>
>
>In other words, the IRA's bombing campaign has persuaded Major to
>desist from his stalling tactics, and, as a result, the peace process
>
>
Does that "all" include the relatives of those who died or were
injured?
--
Vernon Erasmus
The opnions contained herein are mine alone.
They are not the views of my employers.
James Hammerton
> Gulliver <kst...@herts.ac.uk> wrote:
> >In case it had escaped your notice, SF/IRA have to declare a proper
> >ceasefire before they can come to the talks. SF/IRA are not exactly over
> >the moon with Johnny's latest plans.
> Just as before, the IRA will doubtless declare a "complete" cessation
> of hostilities. Now, however, a firm date has been set for
> the commencement of all-party talks, and Major is no longer
> insisting that Sinn Fein's participation is contingent upon the
> IRA disarming before the talks begin.
I think you'll find that they have to sign up to the principles
proposed by the Mitchell commission, or they don't get in. I believe
one of the proposals made was for parallel decomissioning to take
place.
> In other words, the IRA's bombing campaign has persuaded Major to
> desist from his stalling tactics, and, as a result, the peace process
> is once more underway. Which is why it seems that we should "all
> in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping and thus helping
> the peace process along."
When did the IRA bomb Wapping btw? I must have missed it, with all the
publicity over the bombing of Canary Wharf and the London bus bomb.
Cheers,
James
--
James Hammerton, PhD Student, School of Computer Science,
University of Birmingham | Email: J.A.Ha...@cs.bham.ac.uk
WWW Home Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah
Connectionist NLP WWW Page: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~jah/CNLP/cnlp.html
James Hammerton
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this for real? If not I have to salute the courage of this man for
posting under a pseudonym. :-/
> In order to make things more easily understandable to the average
> Brit, the title of this post expresses the current Northern
> Ireland situation in terms of the scores of a sport (soccer - not,
> of course, to be confused with real football) which is popular
> among adolescent girls in the U.S. and among grown men - even to
> the point of being inextricably bound up with their sense of
> manhood - in the U.K.
> In the lively discussions I have enjoyed on this newsgroup with my
> many British friends, I have frequently observed that the only
> language the British understand is, unfortunately, force. This
> sad fact is not altogether surprising, when one takes into
> consideration their nation's history: a bloody catalog of
> unwarranted aggression against poorly armed foes, of the most
> hideous kinds of colonial exploitation, and even of genocide.
> Now, despite the many protestations of Britons on this newsgroup
> and elsewhere, that IRA violence achieves nothing, and that their
> plucky little nation will never give in to such tactics, it seems
> that recent events have born out my observation. In response to
> the suspension of the ceasefire, and the IRA's subsequent
> bombing campaign, John Major has finally seen the error of his
> ways, quit stalling, and committed to a firm date for all party
> talks - at which the IRA may now participate, even if they have
> not disarmed. The peace talks are now back on track; yet before
> the explosion in Wapping, they were, of course, going nowhere.
On the other hand the IRA have to restore their ceasefire and commit
themselves to the principles identified in the Mitchell report if
they are to participate.
> So couldn't one be forgiven for concluding that violence is a
> very effective way of dealing with the British government, and
> shouldn't we all in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping
> and thus helping the peace process along? For without the return
No.
> to violence, wouldn't the peace talks still be at the same
> stagnant point they were at a few weeks ago?
Maybe, but then hundreds of people would not have been injured, no one
would have been killed, and people would still be talking to Sinn
Fein/the IRA and not demanding that they restore the ceasefire before
any further dialogue takes place. The peace process will go ahead
without them if they do not restore the ceasefire, which is hardly in
their favour.
James Hammerton
> In order to make things more easily understandable to the average
> Brit, the title of this post expresses the current Northern
> Ireland situation in terms of the scores of a sport (soccer - not,
> of course, to be confused with real football) which is popular
> among adolescent girls in the U.S. and among grown men - even to
> the point of being inextricably bound up with their sense of
> manhood - in the U.K.
At least football players aren't complete wusses and don't wear
protective clothing in case they get hurt. Football isn't something
that interests me anyway. I prefer rugby, where the players fling
themselves at each other and wrestle each other without any protection
whatsoever. There's no poncing about with helmets and the all over
padding that the wimps playing American so called football use(if it's
meant to be *foot*ball why do they carry the ball and throw
it?). Rugby players take the rough and tumble of their game like men,
American footballers have to wrap themselves up so they don't get hurt
and run home crying to mommie.
;-) ;-) ;-)
James (just stoking up the temperature a bit)
Steven Silvester
In article <4h8a35$8...@sun.sirius.com>, Rambo (ra...@god.bless.america.com) writes:
>In order to make things more easily understandable to the average
>Brit, the title of this post expresses the current Northern
>Ireland situation in terms of the scores of a sport (soccer - not,
>of course, to be confused with real football) which is popular
>among adolescent girls in the U.S. and among grown men - even to
>the point of being inextricably bound up with their sense of
>manhood - in the U.K.
Rambo......its all a dream....please,see your analyst before you
hurt yourself.....the drugs are not working anymore.
Chris Eastland
>Gulliver <kst...@herts.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In case it had escaped your notice, SF/IRA have to declare a proper
>>ceasefire before they can come to the talks. SF/IRA are not exactly over
>>the moon with Johnny's latest plans.
>Just as before, the IRA will doubtless declare a "complete" cessation
>of hostilities. Now, however, a firm date has been set for
>the commencement of all-party talks, and Major is no longer
>insisting that Sinn Fein's participation is contingent upon the
>IRA disarming before the talks begin.
>In other words, the IRA's bombing campaign has persuaded Major to
>desist from his stalling tactics, and, as a result, the peace process
>is once more underway. Which is why it seems that we should "all
>in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping and thus helping
>the peace process along."
You know, er .. rambo, what you say contains a grain of truth.
The Bruteish govt have been persuaded by the bombing to set a date
for all-party talks, but only to include Sinn Fein if the IRA announces
another ceasefire. Presumably then at the peace table, there will be
more bombings, cheered on by anglopohobes such as yourself, until the
peace process is truly broken, and then not just by the IRA, but by
the bombers on the other side. This is bound to happen if misguided people
such as yourself and those you egg on, think that the Unionists can be
bombed into surrender. You always seem to forget it isn't just the British
in the equation.
Oh I know you're just a kid having fun rabble-rousing and making a lot
of impish outrageous statements and as I say there is a grain of truth in
what you say, but unless you can get beyond this to consideration of
a solution, rather than mistaking this situation for a repeat of the
end of British rule in say, Aden, then you're just going to remain an imp
with nothing to contribute except a sick sense of humor. Needless to say
if any of your kin had been blown up while sitting on a bus in Peoria
or wherever, you'd be rather saddened at having idiots such as yourself
cheer it all on. Not even the IRA publicly cheer this, which makes me think
you are indeed delighting in behaving like a serial killer. One was just
gassed recently. He smiled when he told the parents what he did to their kids
before they died.
Needless to say this is wasted on you. You'll just come back with some
breezy bs. But we know about you, er rambo. We know that you're a coward,
like your heroes and nothing like the real Rambo. We know you know
little of the situation and merely want to see the British get kicked in the
teeth, to make them atone for the assumed historical sins of their fathers.
And we know you are a hypocrite in your cheering of the bombings when if it
were your own family, you'd be crying like everyone else. I therefore
assume you are a child.
Mike Lacey
>
> In order to make things more easily understandable to the average
> Brit,
> In the lively discussions I have enjoyed on this newsgroup with my
> many British friends, I have frequently observed that the only
> language the British understand is, unfortunately, force.
Hmmm
> This
> sad fact is not altogether surprising, when one takes into
> consideration their nation's history: a bloody catalog of
> unwarranted aggression against poorly armed foes, of the most
> hideous kinds of colonial exploitation, and even of genocide.
Sounds familiar, ah - you're talking about the UK - for a minute there I
thought it was the US you were railing against. Think a moment - it's
regretable but true. Violence *does* "solve" things from time to time. *All*
of the major states use violence from time to time when it suits their
purposes.
> Now, despite the many protestations of Britons on this newsgroup
> and elsewhere, that IRA violence achieves nothing, and that their
> plucky little nation will never give in to such tactics, it seems
> that recent events have born out my observation. In response to
> the suspension of the ceasefire, and the IRA's subsequent
> bombing campaign, John Major has finally seen the error of his
> ways, quit stalling, and committed to a firm date for all party
> talks - at which the IRA may now participate, even if they have
> not disarmed. The peace talks are now back on track; yet before
> the explosion in Wapping, they were, of course, going nowhere.
I very much hope that the peace process is in fact going somewhere other than
to hell in a handcart. If I'm honest I doubt it very much. My impression
is that the IRA's return to violence has sabotaged the process quite
effectively. They've said over and over again that they don't support the
principle of self determination for the people of Northen Ireland. So they
will, presumably, use force whenever they see things aren't going their way.
Time will tell.
> So couldn't one be forgiven for concluding that violence is a
> very effective way of dealing with the British government, and
> shouldn't we all in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping
> and thus helping the peace process along? For without the return
> to violence, wouldn't the peace talks still be at the same
> stagnant point they were at a few weeks ago?
I'm an ex-seviceman and not opposed to the use of force to achieve political
and moral ends. There are times when this is obviously needed. However: The
use of force against civilians, and in this case civilians with no stake in
the "discussion", is despicable.
> I take it that all you Brits agree with this analysis?
Not me.
> Rambo.
Thank you for your thoughtful and incisive analysis. It's tone and
intelectual level match how you sign yourself. We need more political comment
of this calibre.
Regards.
Mike.
--
Mike Lacey
apa...@servelan.co.uk
In
Article<Pine.SUN.3.91.960302...@altair.herts.ac.uk>,
<kst...@herts.ac.uk> wrote:
> What good (or indeed harm) would an early British election do?
Since the
> opposition are entirely in agreement with the gvt on this issue I
see no
> advantage or disadvantage for NI or ROI if there were a change.
The Tories are having to do deals with minority Northern Irish
political parties in order to stay in office. This is bad news for
the peace process.
Gulliver
> The Tories are having to do deals with minority Northern Irish
> political parties in order to stay in office. This is bad news for
> the peace process.
In case you hadn't noticed, AFAIK the tory party's full title is
'Conservative and Unionist Party'. They have always been interested in
keeping the other unionist parties happy, but as I believe I said they
are not always successful.
--
Angus Gulliver
Gulliver
> Gulliver <kst...@herts.ac.uk> wrote:
> >In case it had escaped your notice, SF/IRA have to declare a proper
> >ceasefire before they can come to the talks. SF/IRA are not exactly over
> >the moon with Johnny's latest plans.
>
> Just as before, the IRA will doubtless declare a "complete" cessation
> of hostilities.
Jesus, Rambo you really are a completely ignorant prat. When did the IRA
declare a complete cesation of hostilities?
That's right, they never did.
> In other words, the IRA's bombing campaign has persuaded Major to
> desist from his stalling tactics, and, as a result, the peace process
> is once more underway.
Oh for a truly world class psychiatrist (Kryten, Red Dwarf)
--
Angus Gulliver
Gulliver
> When did the IRA bomb Wapping btw? I must have missed it, with all the
> publicity over the bombing of Canary Wharf and the London bus bomb.
Rambo is (alegedly) from the Good Ol' Yoo Ess of Aye, so he obviously
knows better than us limies where the bombs wnt off. I was under the
impression that Canary Wharf was the site of the first and that the
second went off at one end of the Aldwich D, but I'm just in ignorant
Englishman.
--
Angus Gulliver
Stephen Horgan
process has been peace, not necessarily a political settlement. From a
British perspective the key thing is to stop IRA and Loyalist
violence, permanently. Given that Loyalist violence is generally
reactive, than the focus has been on the IRA.
The IRA is a terrorist group integrated into a small, but concentrated
part of the Catholic population in Northern Ireland. Such groups are
very difficult to beat in purely military terms. Political action is
also required. The strategy of the British government has been to
change the political climate in the North so that support for IRA
violence is diminished so that eventually it becomes politically
counter-productive. In this they have largely succeeded.
Though there has been much talk about 'the IRA bombing their way back
to the negotiating table' the reality is that the recent bombs have
been a disaster for ther Nationalist position in Northern Ireland.
Prior to the Docklands bomb the situation was that the Nationalists
presented a united front. The IRA, Sinn Fein, the SDLP, and the Irish
government wanted all-party talks and they all opposed the Unionist
and British government position of elections first. There was a
stalemate and the first murmurings from the Labour party that John
Major was sticking to the Unionist line for party political advantage
due to his small majority. Given another month the British Government
would probably have faced a political crisis.
As it was, the IRA bombed docklands. The Nationalists moral and
political position was shattered. John Bruton and John Hume were
furious at being lied to and the standing of Gerry Adams was done
enormous damage. Now the Unionists will have their elections and that
will mean that their political majority will dominate any talks. Most
importantly, the Nationalists will be represented largely by the SDLP,
with Sinn Fein marginalised to a degree.
The credibility of Sinn Fein as the voice of militant republicanism
has also been damaged. The agendas of the armed and political wings of
the movement appear to be diverging.
John Major is succeeding in his aim of bringing peace to Ulster. That
he may be able to do it without the major concessions aspired to by
the Republicans is a testimony to their failure to adapt to the new
situation.
--
Stephen Horgan, Basildon, Essex, England
"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
Hayek
Gavin Bailey
[superb rant deleted]
Too narrow to break the seven barrier, generally, but the intensity was quite good,
but the sporting metaphor was poorly developed (no mention of hooliganism). No,
that's too harsh, after all, it was quite imaginative,
7 out of 10.
Gavin Bailey
Jill Baker PJbakerT-SP
: and if other SF/IRA/TOM supporters share your views
^^^^^^^^^^
Erratum:
The Troops Out Movement has no connection whatsoever with either Sinn Fein
or the IRA. The Troops Out Movement are an independent British organisation.
The Troops Out Movement does not support Sinn Fein or any other political
party. The Troops Out Movement does not support the IRA or any other armed
faction.
The Troops Out Movement support Peace through British Withdrawal from Ireland.
Troops Out Movement, BM TOM, London WC1N 3XX, England.
Phone - (0)171 609 1743.
Email - t...@mail.serve.com.
Web - http://www.serve.com/tom.
--
Jill (my opinions are my own, not my employers')
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ / /
Ni bheidh aon siochain gan saoirse!
Jon Livesey
Richard Buttrey <ric...@buttrey.u-net.com> wrote:
>liv...@pirate.engr.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) wrote:
>
>> In the first place, although the British certainly understand the
>> language of force, the real question is whether they will
>> actually *do* anything at its command. Try as I may, I really
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> cannot see what Major has done that counts as a concession. He
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> had scheduled the talks for mid-June, which is several months
>> *after* they were originally due. He says that there has to be
>> another ceasefire to get SF in, and there's going to be that very
>> same election to which Gerry Adams was so implacably opposed.
>
> Apart from all the earlier concessions during the 17 months the major (no
> pun intended) concession this last week was in the Major/Bruton joint
> statement where they said that 'decommissioning need only be *addressed*
> during the talks'. Prior to this the statement was that 'decommissioning
> must be in parallel' with the talks.
>
> A small but very significant change in words.
But a change in words only, IMHO, and therefore not significant
in practice. I didn't see any guarantee that the IRA were
actually signed up to surrender weapons in predefined
consignments as talks proceeded. All I saw was that the Mitchell
Report said that " the arms issue could not be resolved until the
parties abandoned 'their vast inventories of historical
recrimination'" and further that "Mr Mitchell's group proposes a
middle way. Instead of disarming before or after talks, it
suggests weapons should be given up during negotiations."
In other words, the idea that weapons would be given up
concurrently with talks was Mitchell's rather vague suggestion,
without a concrete timetable, not something the IRA were
guaranteed to accede to.
I don't think anything has changed. The IRA was always going to
"dicusss" giving up some weapons depending on how well the talks
went for them, and so recognizing that this is as far as they
will be prepared to go now concedes nothing.
jon.
E.G.Engelbrecht
>In order to make things more easily understandable to the average
>Ireland situation in terms of the scores of a sport (soccer - not,
>of course, to be confused with real football) which is popular
>among adolescent girls in the U.S. and among grown men - even to
>the point of being inextricably bound up with their sense of
>manhood - in the U.K.
.. and just about everywhere else in the world ...
>In the lively discussions I have enjoyed on this newsgroup with my
>many British friends, I have frequently observed that the only
>language the British understand is, unfortunately, force. This
>sad fact is not altogether surprising, when one takes into
>consideration their nation's history: a bloody catalog of
>unwarranted aggression against poorly armed foes, of the most
>hideous kinds of colonial exploitation, and even of genocide.
Yah I guess the US ought to take better notice of the KKK given they hold
even more popular support in the US than the IRA has in Northern Ireland.
Quite frankly I'd rather see the Brits less effected by a violent minority
and more by the peaceful majority that voted for them in the first place.
As for you being an American whose country has a long history of
violently suppressing minorities - isn't hypocracy sweet.
>Now, despite the many protestations of Britons on this newsgroup
>and elsewhere, that IRA violence achieves nothing, and that their
>plucky little nation will never give in to such tactics, it seems
>that recent events have born out my observation. In response to
>the suspension of the ceasefire, and the IRA's subsequent
>bombing campaign, John Major has finally seen the error of his
>ways, quit stalling, and committed to a firm date for all party
>talks - at which the IRA may now participate, even if they have
>not disarmed. The peace talks are now back on track; yet before
>the explosion in Wapping, they were, of course, going nowhere.
Of course this relies on them reinstating the cease fire. Given the
British have basically done everything they said they were going to do
prior to the new IRA bombing campaign I'm not sure what the IRA has achieved
except to bomb themselves out of the negotiations.
>So couldn't one be forgiven for concluding that violence is a
>very effective way of dealing with the British government, and
>shouldn't we all in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping
>and thus helping the peace process along? For without the return
>to violence, wouldn't the peace talks still be at the same
>stagnant point they were at a few weeks ago?
I don't agree that the IRA have achieved anything substantial at all.
The Brits are going ahead with their election concept which is what the
IRA broke the cease fire over. Nothing has changed in British policy
with regards to the talks.
The British government haven't punished the IRA so the IRA also
hasn't lost anything. This is where I see the weakness in
the British government as all the IRA need do now is reinstate the cease
fire and they're back at the bargaining table. And of course when things
don't go their way as things won't given how little actual support they have
in Northern Ireland they'll simply go back to bombing. I'm afraid the Brits
are treating the IRA as they did Hitler prior to WWII and it didn't work
then so I'm not sure why they think it will work now.
>I take it that all you Brits agree with this analysis?
>Rambo.
Well Rambo can't say about the Brits but this is one Canuck in the UK
who doesn't.
Geoff
--
E.G. Engelbrecht School of Mechanical Engineering
E-Mail: E.G.Eng...@cranfield.ac.uk Cranfield University, U.K.
| ______ __ _____________________________________________
|__\ O|\ O ___/ \ / WWW Home Page: |
( ** \=|-\='CG-EGE/---| http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/public/me/me946/ |
|-=__\|__\__==-\' \_____________________________________________|
| | / o
(o)
Doug
Rambo <ra...@god.bless.america.com> wrote:
>:In the lively discussions I have enjoyed on this newsgroup with my
>:many British friends, I have frequently observed that the only
>:language the British understand is, unfortunately, force.
Not all of us. Mainly the Brit Government and residual imperialists.
Unfortunately they are the ones in power who make all the decisions on NI
without a mandate from the UK or RoI electorate.
>:This
>:sad fact is not altogether surprising, when one takes into
>:consideration their nation's history: a bloody catalog of
>:unwarranted aggression against poorly armed foes, of the most
>:hideous kinds of colonial exploitation, and even of genocide.
True, and this is not a lot different to the US.
>:Now, despite the many protestations of Britons on this newsgroup
>:and elsewhere, that IRA violence achieves nothing, and that their
>:plucky little nation will never give in to such tactics, it seems
>:that recent events have born out my observation. In response to
>:the suspension of the ceasefire, and the IRA's subsequent
>:bombing campaign, John Major has finally seen the error of his
>:ways, quit stalling, and committed to a firm date for all party
>:talks - at which the IRA may now participate, even if they have
>:not disarmed. The peace talks are now back on track; yet before
>:the explosion in Wapping, they were, of course, going nowhere.
No you are wrong. In order to qualify for talks the first hoop the IRA have
to jump through is a ceasefire, then at a later stage they will have to
agree to elections in a gerrymandered province, and eventually they must
unilaterally decommission their weapons. Major has not removed his
preconditions, merely dressed them up differently.
>:So couldn't one be forgiven for concluding that violence is a
>:very effective way of dealing with the British government, and
>:shouldn't we all in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping
>:and thus helping the peace process along? For without the return
>:to violence, wouldn't the peace talks still be at the same
>:stagnant point they were at a few weeks ago?
>:
Yes, but the problem is that they are still stagnant but minus a ceasefire.
If Major had not procrastinated and imposed ridiculous preconditions during
the ceasefire we would probably be holding peace talks right now, except
that Paisley's lot have sworn never to talk to Sinn Fein under any
circumstances.
>:I take it that all you Brits agree with this analysis?
Not really because you are not that well informed. The reality is tha Major
is obdurate and like many others seeks peace on his terms alone. The only
IRA bomb likely ever to have an effect on Major is one placed directly
under his arse.
Doug
100142,2...@compuserve.com (Chris Barnett) wrote:
>:Tut tut tut , my dear fruitcake , how many times to you people need to
>:be told. Wapping is on the North side of the River. Canary Wharf , or
>:more to the point South Quays station (Where the bomb went off) is on
>:the Isle of Dogs.
>:
>:So much for your research into these matters.
>:
Point of accuracy. Isle of Dogs is also on the North side of the river and
about two miles downstream of Wapping.
Kim Niendorf
>
> In order to make things more easily understandable to the average
> Brit, the title of this post expresses the current Northern
> Ireland situation in terms of the scores of a sport (soccer - not,
> of course, to be confused with real football) which is popular
> among adolescent girls in the U.S. and among grown men - even to
> the point of being inextricably bound up with their sense of
> manhood - in the U.K.
A baseball score for you to reflect on. This thread is subtitled
***Fidel's Fuerza Aerea sticks two fingers up Uncle Sam's mercinaries***
Rambling Sid Rambo;
You seem to have a lot to say about Northern Ireland but from
this side of the pond things look a little unstable over on your
side. War with Cuba looming, Sandinistas re-arming, opposition
gathering against USA's puppet government in Peru; Terrorists and
Militias dictating government policy. Time for another
war? so who will you invade this time? Grenada again? Just your
size I think. Haiti? No you did that last year. What about trying
to capture Swan Island back off the Hondurans, that should be an
equal match for you.
A peace loving Brit. Sometimes.
Matthew Huntbach
: Tut tut tut , my dear fruitcake , how many times to you people need to
: be told. Wapping is on the North side of the River. Canary Wharf , or
: more to the point South Quays station (Where the bomb went off) is on
: the Isle of Dogs.
Which is also on the North side of the river. But further East.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
: So couldn't one be forgiven for concluding that violence is a
: very effective way of dealing with the British government, and
: shouldn't we all in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping
: and thus helping the peace process along? For without the return
: to violence, wouldn't the peace talks still be at the same
: stagnant point they were at a few weeks ago?
The explosion was in the Isle of Dogs, not Wapping.
Matthew Huntbach
apa...@servelan.co.uk
In
Article<Pine.SUN.3.91.960303...@altair.herts.ac.uk>,
<kst...@herts.ac.uk> write:
> In case you hadn't noticed, AFAIK the tory party's full title is
> 'Conservative and Unionist Party'. They have always been
interested in
> keeping the other unionist parties happy, but as I believe I said
they
> are not always successful.
Nevertheless, there is evidence that the Tories are doing deals that
they would not make if they had a larger majority. Prior to the
Scott Report vote, the DUP made public their decision to abstain,
yet their voting record until suggested that they would vote against
the government. It was this decision that led to the last minute
talks between the government and the UUP and the accusations and
counter-accusations that followed the vote.
Jon Livesey
Rambo <ra...@god.bless.america.com> wrote:
>
> In the lively discussions I have enjoyed on this newsgroup with my
> many British friends, I have frequently observed that the only
> language the British understand is, unfortunately, force.
I'll try not to bore readers by repeating the comments about how
this reflects on you as a person, comments with which I agree.
However, I will point out that what you say here is seriously
misguided, and if other SF/IRA/TOM supporters share your views
they need to understand why.
The main weakness in the way that you express yourself in your
recent postings is the way that you mix inflamatory material with
what purport to be serious points. It's clear, I think that you
adopt a calm tone of voice while mouthing triumphalist bigotry in
order to arouse as much outcry as possible, but it's also clear
that you aren't thinking very clearly.
In the first place, although the British certainly understand the
language of force, the real question is whether they will
actually *do* anything at its command. Try as I may, I really
cannot see what Major has done that counts as a concession. He
had scheduled the talks for mid-June, which is several months
*after* they were originally due. He says that there has to be
another ceasefire to get SF in, and there's going to be that very
same election to which Gerry Adams was so implacably opposed.
The big loser here is Adams, who's been exposed as a puppet, and
then the IRA, who've now been forced yet again to watch
themselves being denounced from the pulpit and by yet more peace
demonstrations. The embarrassed smirks on the faces of the
gormless IRA bombers who showed up as uninvited guests at the
last funeral spoke volumes. Only a complete fool goes where
no-one will speak to him, and where everyone knows that the pain
of a parent is ample reason to shun the representives of the
goon-squad that couldn't even train their son well enough to avoid
killing him. It's not Major who is losing credibility.
What we are watching is the last shreds of the IRA's claim to
represent anything except the threadbare tatters of their violent
myth gradually slip away.
The IRA have made a very basic mistake. They have taken an
action that has defined them even more firmly in terms of force
and violence. They can no longer claim that violence is an
unfortunate side-effect of a nobler goal, because this time they
went out of their way to re-insert violence where it had no
function, simply to flout those who don't think violence is
needed. The IRA have not won a debate; they have shown that they
have no argument *except* force. They have no discourse bar
violence, which puts them with the animals, and, as they showed
so elequently by screwing up in such a hapless and amateurish
way, their force does not correlate with intelligence.
Now, if you think that's a win for the IRA, or that the language
of force has uttered some epic poem that future generations will
sit and listen to, I think you ought to stop for a moment and ask
what future generations will have to say about people like you,
who were too stupid to distinguish between the goals they were
pursuing, and the boasting about the unreasoning violence with
which they were pursued.
The IRA doubtless fondly imagine that they will be remembered as
a kind of French resistance. I think it much more likely that
they will be remembered as a cross between the Cheka and the
Italian Army.
jon.
Rambo
>
>In any respect how has the IRA won anything by resuming violence? The
>Government accepted the Mitchell report and therefore that decommissioning
>would not happen before all-party talks;
The IRA achieved:
1) A firm date for the commencement of all-party talks
2) Major's and Bruton's concession that decommissioning will now only
be "addressed" in the talks, as opposed to being "parallel" with or prior to
the talks.
3) A realization on the part of the British government of the difference
between the terms "ceasefire" and "surrender", and thus a renewed enthusiasm
for pursuing the peace process.
>I think you have been looking in the mirror. Wars of aggression are
>much more a characteristic of your nation and not ours.
Of course! All those Africans and Indians volunteered to become part of
the British Empire.
Rambo.
Rambo
>Too narrow to break the seven barrier, generally, but the intensity was
quite good,
>but the sporting metaphor was poorly developed (no mention of
hooliganism). No,
>that's too harsh, after all, it was quite imaginative,
>
>7 out of 10.
Thank you. It is so refreshing for once to come across a Briton who has
*valid* criticism of the points I've been making.
Regards,
Rambo.
Rambo
>There was a
>stalemate and the first murmurings from the Labour party that John
>Major was sticking to the Unionist line for party political advantage
>due to his small majority. Given another month the British Government
>would probably have faced a political crisis.
If nothing else, John Major has a great talent for surviving
parliamentry political crises. It was most likely this instinct for his
own political survival that caused him "to stick to the Unionist line",
and announce the NI elections in the first place. With the
Unionists' parliamentry votes, and, discounting a highly unlikely
Tory back-bench revolt, he would have survived any vote of no confidence
that his waffling on the Mitchell report and his call for elections might
have inspired. The murmurings of the Labour party do not a political
crisis make.
>As it was, the IRA bombed docklands. The Nationalists moral and
>political position was shattered. John Bruton and John Hume were
>furious at being lied to and the standing of Gerry Adams was done
>enormous damage.
Bruton and Hume may well have been furious at what transpired. I expect
that they were never fond of Gerry Adams, Sinn Fein and the IRA in the
first place. However, both men are pragmatists and both realize that there
will be no peace in NI without the consent of the IRA - and that Sinn Fein
and particularly Adams are essential to any effort to gain the latter. Nor
is Adams' standing substantially damaged. The lifting of the cease fire
simply proved that Sinn Fein is what it has always claimed to be: not that
term so familiar to us from British propaganda, "the political wing of the
IRA", but rather a separate entity with sympathies and ties to the IRA. As
far as the US is concerned, Adams' standing is pretty much the same as
before: he will receive a travel visa, and, though he won't be invited to
tea at the Whitehouse for a while or allowed to be too obviously raising
funds for Sinn Fein, he is still recognized here as a key player in the
peace process.
>Now the Unionists will have their elections and that
>will mean that their political majority will dominate any talks. Most
>importantly, the Nationalists will be represented largely by the SDLP,
>with Sinn Fein marginalised to a degree.
The Unionists were going to have their elections anyway, and the very purpose
of those elections has always been to ensure that "their political majority
will dominate any talks". Doubtless, too, a majority of nationalists will
vote for the SDLP. This is simply the status quo that existed before
the ceasefire was lifted, and is not, as you seem to be implying, a state
of affairs that the lifting of the ceasefire has brought about.
However you neglect to mention the most obvious change in the status quo:
the IRA's brief bombing campaign has persuaded John Major to set a firm date
for all-party talks. Previously, he was unwilling to do so.
We can also expect that if these elections result in a
protestant-dominated talk-fest where the Catholics (including Sinn Fein) are
not treated as equal negotiating partners, the IRA will remedy the
situation with more bombs on the British mainland. If Major has any sense
(and it is encouraging that he has finally understood the difference between
the terms "ceasefire" and "surrender"), he will work to make sure
that mechanisms are put in place at these talks to counterbalance the
built-in numerical advantage of the protestant delegates.
It is truly tragic that the only thing that seems to render the British
willing to compromise is the threat of violence.
Rambo.
William Sheldon Simms
Kim Niendorf <KIM.NI...@HRI.AC.UK> wrote:
>
>opposition gathering against USA's puppet government in Peru;
Are you a spokesman for the Sendero Luminoso?
-Sheldon
--
W. Sheldon Simms III
gt8...@prism.gatech.edu
Newt's Friend / Vote Republican / End the welfare state now!
Tim Leonhardt
" You seem to have a lot to say about Northern Ireland but from
" this side of the pond things look a little unstable over on your
" side. War with Cuba looming, Sandinistas re-arming, opposition
" gathering against USA's puppet government in Peru; Terrorists and
" Militias dictating government policy. Time for another
" war? so who will you invade this time? Grenada again? Just your
" size I think. Haiti? No you did that last year. What about trying
" to capture Swan Island back off the Hondurans, that should be an
" equal match for you.
How about britain
" A peace loving Brit. Sometimes.
--
Gareth Evans
In article <mirkwood-010...@mirkwood.tiac.net> mirk...@tiac.net (Tim Leonhardt) writes:
[snip]
Tim> " In the lively discussions I have enjoyed on this newsgroup with my
Tim> " many British friends, I have frequently observed that the only
Tim> " language the British understand is, unfortunately, force. This
Tim> " sad fact is not altogether surprising, when one takes into
Tim> " consideration their nation's history: a bloody catalog of
Tim> " unwarranted aggression against poorly armed foes, of the most
Tim> " hideous kinds of colonial exploitation, and even of genocide.
Panama, Grenada, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Korea....
Before you get on your high moral horses.
Tim> A fine mess those brits have gotten themselves into. So limies, how do you
Tim> plan to get out of this one?
We'll get out of it a damn sight better if pillocks like yourselves butt out
and stop stirring the poo.
G
--
Disclaimer: I'm making this up as I go along
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Gareth M. Evans Software Engineer, SDH Transmission Software Group -
- Nokia Telecommunications Ltd, 6 Cambridge Business Park -
- Milton Rd, Cambridge, CB4 4WZ, UK. Tel: +44 1223 432445 (DDI) -
- Fax: +44 1223 423139 -
- Email: Gareth...@ntc.nokia.com -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
j...@wave.sheridan.wy.us
solution to stop the violence in Northern Ireland : Have the British
go back to their own damn island, and stay the hell out of The Emerald
Isle.
>Trollbo <ra...@god.bless.america.com> wrote:
>[superb rant deleted]
>Too narrow to break the seven barrier, generally, but the intensity was quite good,
>but the sporting metaphor was poorly developed (no mention of hooliganism). No,
>that's too harsh, after all, it was quite imaginative,
>7 out of 10.
>Gavin Bailey
Tom Beam
<Ancie...@durham.ac.uk> writes:
>
>Tom Beam wrote:
>> Are you flaming here? What exactly is this? Are you saying
>> something like "You're wrong and I know it but am too stupid to
>>point out where you're wrong and will leave it to superior minds to
>>tell you where you are wrong"? So, why is Rambo wrong?
>
>No. It's because most of us can't be bothered to respond to a pile of
>rubbish that has no basis in fact.
Then no one would post here!
>The only other similar thread is the
>monarchy one, with yet another completely irrational American. The
>difference there is that we like to take the piss out of Louis. This
>one isn't even worth responding to.
Still, how was rambo wrong?
--
METALBAG
This .sig brought to you courtesy of METALBAG's work computer.
Now you know how much I'm fucking off while making money.
Garbage truck driver of the informationsuperhighway.
"Never trust someone who can bleed for five days and not die".
onee...@hooked.net
Jon Livesey
Rambo <ra...@god.bless.america.com> wrote:
>Gulliver <kst...@herts.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Jesus, Rambo you really are a completely ignorant prat. When did the IRA
>>declare a complete cesation of hostilities?
>>
>>That's right, they never did.
>
>remember the controversy over whether the ceasefire was "permanent" or
>"complete", the IRA having declared the latter, but not the former?
You have exemplified perfectly the complete and utter failure of
SF/IRA/TOM to communicate with or gain the trust of the ordinary
citizen.
You may think that the jesuitical logic-chopping that goes on
inside these groups as they try to figure out how to slip a fast
one past us should also control our everyday speech. Well, it
doesn't. People aren't taken in by this kind of thing any more
than they are taken in by slippery theological arguments.
jon.
Steve Glover
>You have exemplified perfectly the complete and utter failure of
>SF/IRA/TOM to communicate with or gain the trust of the ordinary
>citizen.
Isn't claiming that there exists an entity "SF/IRA/TOM" Jesuitical logic
chopping of a sort? The Troops Out crowd share a few goals with both Sinn Fein
and the IRA, but don't they have different means of expressing them?
Oh, sorry? You were just trying to upset Jill again? Why am I not surprised?
Steve, thinking that even "Jesuitical" is unfair (in my youth I occasionally
carried the clubs for a Father someone-or-other SJ (two, in fact) and found
them to be most entertaining to talk with).
steve....@ukonline.co.uk, using Free Agent
No longer kur...@tardis.ed.ac.uk or steve_...@hicom.lut.ac.uk
and soon not even ss...@festival.ed.ac.uk...
Steve Glover
<snipped>
See, you *can* write reasonably when you try. Your mask is slipping.
Steve, unsurprised (after all, there was a certain mismatch between your
spectacular degree of ignorance and your level of literacy).
Steve Glover
>Gavin Bailey <g...@scms.rgu.ac.uk> wrote: I think I have the perfect
>solution to stop the violence in Northern Ireland : Have the British
>go back to their own damn island, and stay the hell out of The Emerald
>Isle.
He didn't, you know. Please learn to use your posting software (or was there
no room for a manual in the cereal packet?)
Steve
E.G.Engelbrecht
>Gavin Bailey <g...@scms.rgu.ac.uk> wrote: I think I have the perfect
>solution to stop the violence in Northern Ireland : Have the British
>go back to their own damn island, and stay the hell out of The Emerald
>Isle.
Given the fact that the British Army went in to stop the Protestants of
Northern Ireland from conducting violence on the minority of Catholics
I think that your solution might end the troubles but I thought ethnic
cleansing was not considered a moral option in the world today.
Matthew Huntbach
: m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
: >: shouldn't we all in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping
: >: and thus helping the peace process along? For without the return
: >: to violence, wouldn't the peace talks still be at the same
: >: stagnant point they were at a few weeks ago?
: >The explosion was in the Isle of Dogs, not Wapping.
: Yes, but doesn't he have a point?
No, hence the only reply appropriate was the facetious quibbling over
geography.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
: m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
: >The explosion was in the Isle of Dogs, not Wapping.
: >
: inhabitant of your fair isle, one neighborhood of miserable,
: under-heated, under-sized tenements and rowhouses, populated by
: unwashed, rotten-toothed, palid, drunken soccer-hooligans, is very much
: like another. I guess you British are a little like Eskimos, whose
: languages make distinctions between various kinds of snow, distinctions
: which are completely lost on the rest of us. You are thus able to
: distinguish between Wapping, the Isle of Dogs, Lewisham, Croyden and so
: forth - yet to the rest of us, these places appear simply as
: one undifferentiated, dreary mass.
Whereas your country is so differentiated that anyone travelling in it has
to worry about this idea of "bad parts of town" which have to be treated as
no-go areas.
Matthew Huntbach
Mike Slocombe
>
>>
> drunken soccer-hooligans,
Rambo <chortle!> - you really are an sad, onbnoxious, ignorant oaf.
Apart from having a name that celebrates *dumbness* you also are clearly
clueless in your adolescent rants.
You've bandied this bit about about soccer hooligans around several
times, so let's see you present some *facts* to back this up.
Last season 22,000,000 watched the world's greatest game in the UK, so
by your reckoning, there must have been at least hundreds of thousands
of arrests for fighting, as we're all violent hooligans, right?
So, care to enlighten us with some *facts* about how many of these
'hooligans' were arrested for violent acts?
Care to have a guess? A percentage?
Then we'll have fun comparing these figures with the rate of violent
crimes in the good ol' US of A.
And while we're at it, we'll have a peek at the murder rates in both
countries, and heck, we can also have a little look see at the rate of
crime in both societies!
And then we can wrap it all up with a little comparison between the
prison populations and then we'll see which country is full of violent
nutters...
Mike
***************> Mike Slocombe (Brixton, London) <*******************
****Co-ordinator: Football Fans Against the Criminal Justice Act****
Walter Gray
>Rambo (ra...@god.bless.america.com) wrote:
>> In order to make things more easily understandable to the average
>> Brit, the title of this post expresses the current Northern
>> Ireland situation in terms of the scores of a sport (soccer - not,
>> of course, to be confused with real football) which is popular
>> among adolescent girls in the U.S. and among grown men - even to
>> the point of being inextricably bound up with their sense of
>> manhood - in the U.K.
>
>protective clothing in case they get hurt. Football isn't something
>that interests me anyway. I prefer rugby, where the players fling
>themselves at each other and wrestle each other without any protection
>whatsoever. There's no poncing about with helmets and the all over
>padding that the wimps playing American so called football use(if it's
>meant to be *foot*ball why do they carry the ball and throw
>it?). Rugby players take the rough and tumble of their game like men,
>American footballers have to wrap themselves up so they don't get hurt
>and run home crying to mommie.
>
I read that many of the injuries in American "football" are actually
caused or made worse by the protective gear. Perhaps they think that
a few broken bones give them a macho image.
Walter
------
Jon Livesey
Steve Glover <steve....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>liv...@pirate.engr.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) wrote:
>
>>>> You have exemplified perfectly the complete and utter failure of
>>>> SF/IRA/TOM to communicate with or gain the trust of the ordinary
>>>> citizen.
>
>>> Isn't claiming that there exists an entity "SF/IRA/TOM" Jesuitical logic
>>> chopping of a sort? The Troops Out crowd share a few goals with both Sinn Fein
>>> and the IRA, but don't they have different means of expressing them?
>
>
> Not _per_se_, but you strongly imply they are one above by implying that all
> three have failed to communicate or gain trust in the exact way.
And where did I say that all three have failed to communicate or
gain trust in the *exact* way?
jon.
Jill Baker PJbakerT-SP
: I believe I've even seen Jill claim to speak authoritatively for
: these other groups, and to say she can "guarantee" what they will
: or will not do in given circumstances.
: What does Jill say? Am I wrong about that?
My opinions are MY OWN. No-one else's.
They are not neccessarily the opinions of the Troops Out Movement;
They are not neccessarily the opinions of Sinn Fein;
They are not neccessarily the opinions of the IRA.
As a member of TOM, I know their collective position quite well.
It differs from mine in some respects. (eg. TOM don't support SF. I do).
I speak to members of SF occasionally. When that happens I am sometimes
able to pass on information to you folk.
I have not thus far ever knowingly spoken with operational members of the
IRA. I cannot speak for them in any capacity whatsoever. I sometimes get
a feel for the "mood" of the IRA through indirect contacts (former prisoners,
serving prisoners, people who know other people, etc.) and of course
through IRA statments which I usually read in full.
If I "guarantee" something it's because I have been led to belive it.
For instance, I _guarantee_ that the IRA will not decommission any weapons
before talks. This is not quite the same thing as speaking authoritatively
"for" any group, however, as it remains entirely my own opinion.
--
Jill (my opinions are my own, not my employers')
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ / /
Ni bheidh aon siochain gan saoirse!
Gulliver
> Gerry Adams just got turned away from the talks at Stormont yesterday.
>
> The only bozo who'll talk to him is Clinton, and only to keep Kennedy and the
> other professional Paddy-Yanks happy.
Hear, hear.
Is it true that Garry Adams said today that the IRA will never hand over
it's weapons? That is what Sky News is saying but the BBC did not go so far.
--
Angus Gulliver
Pj...@axp1.pmddata.no
>Rambo (ra...@god.bless.america.com) wrote:
Which is why it seems that we should "all
>> in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping and thus helping
>> the peace process along."
james wrote in reply;
>When did the IRA bomb Wapping btw? I must have missed it, with all the
>publicity over the bombing of Canary Wharf and the London bus bomb.
James, you are wasting your time with this guy. If you give him the
dignity of a reasoned reply he goes into a sulk. His aim is to reduce
the 'debate' to his own level. He sees himself as a street fighter -
all cut and run, whereas he is just piss and wind, believe me.
John Crawford
Please E-mail when replying.
David Thomas
>
> >>>>> "Rambo" == Rambo <ra...@god.bless.america.com> writes:
>
> Rambo> In other words, the IRA's bombing campaign has persuaded Major to
> Rambo> desist from his stalling tactics, and, as a result, the peace process
> Rambo> is once more underway. Which is why it seems that we should "all
> Rambo> in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping and thus helping
> Rambo> the peace process along."
>
>
>don't think so, sunshine.
>
>
Excuse me, we should thsnk the IRA for killing inncoent people. In my
view SF ordered other people to comproise not him. The only people who
ares stopping the peace are the IRA and no one else. They are the only
people to blame. They are murding thugs. Support the SDLP if you want
peace. I do not care what happens, but think the people of the north
should choose what happens to them
> Gerry Adams just got turned away from the talks at Stormont yesterday.
>
> The only bozo who'll talk to him is Clinton, and only to keep Kennedy and the
> other professional Paddy-Yanks happy.
>
> G
> Interesting he is promising to help crack down on Hamas but not the IRA. He sends help ot deal with them in Isreal but invites Mr.Adams to the whitehouse. Could this be to the election and he wants the Jewish and Irish vote.
Steve Glover
>> By extending Rambo's brief comment on the IRA and the ceasefire to include
>> both SF (marginally acceptable if you believe SF are merely the "mouthpiece")
>> and TOM (which contains a number of people who see no reason why "English"
>> soldiers should be dying for a bunch of "Paddies" who don't seem to want them
>> anyway).
>That doesn't make sense even as English. If I try to guess what
>you are saying, all I come up with is something that is dead
>wrong, and pretty dishonest.
Yes it does. Try reading it again. Or say what you think I am saying that is
dead wrong and pretty dishonest and I'll clarify for you.
>I'm not limited to discussing what a creep like Rambo chooses
>to set before us, and if I choose to extend his comments in
>a way that suits me, that still doesn't mean you can use words
>like "exact" in decribing a claim about what I have written
>if you can't produce the quote.
You were replying to his posting. He was discussing the IRA, and *you* chose
to apply those remarks inaccurately to SF and TOM as well. Now, some people
(purport to) believe that SF are merely a mouthpiece for the IRA ( and others
don't), BUT the Troops Out Movement has many members of the "peace at any
price" persuasion: Quakers, families of murdered soldiers, pacifists, etc. You
are slandering them by (at best) regarding them as the dupes of terrorists.
>I repeat, where did I say that there was anything at all
>"exact"?
So someone else said:
>"You have exemplified perfectly the complete and utter failure of
>"SF/IRA/TOM to communicate with or gain the trust of the ordinary
>"citizen.
then?
By saying that the same thing *perfectly exemplifies* three different things,
you ARE saying that they are the same. All else is weaseling, and pretty
despicable at that.
Still, what else can I expect from an expat Brit who sees the whole thing
(murders, bombs, the lot) as an excuse to play word games and work off his
transatlantic inferiority complex?
Iain McCord
Steve Glover <steve....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>By saying that the same thing *perfectly exemplifies* three different things,
>you ARE saying that they are the same. All else is weaseling, and pretty
>despicable at that.
to Jill's anoying habit of switching hats to suit herself, and on occasion
in mid-article. If, for instance, someone begins an article expressing one
viewpoint, and ends it with an advert for the TOM with a one line summary
that could be expanded in the context of that article to be the same as
that viewpoint, then confusion can follow.
I'd be interested to know if the aims are the removal of the BA from the
streets of NI, or from NI in general. The first is a laudable aim, the
second raises a couple of sticky points concerning the troops raised in
NI, do they all get shiped out of Ireland, or should they no longer be
eligible to join, and be demobbed en-masse.
Jon Livesey
>
> By saying that the same thing *perfectly exemplifies* three different things,
> you ARE saying that they are the same. All else is weaseling, and pretty
> despicable at that.
I see, so if I say that the Gulf War perfectly exemplifies the
way France/UK/US treat Arab countries, I am saying that France,
the UK and US are actually a single entity; which is news to me.
I would have *thought* I was saying that I see one particular
bit of behaviour they have in common.
But thank you for pointing out that this distinction is just
dishonest weaseling.
I am sure that we are all suitably impressed by your powers
of logic. Or is it perhaps jesuitical logic-chopping?
jon.
Jon Livesey
Gareth Evans <gev...@mvagusta.uk.tele.nokia.fi> wrote:
>>>>>> "Rambo" == Rambo <ra...@god.bless.america.com> writes:
>
>Rambo> In other words, the IRA's bombing campaign has persuaded Major to
>Rambo> desist from his stalling tactics, and, as a result, the peace process
>Rambo> is once more underway. Which is why it seems that we should "all
>Rambo> in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping and thus helping
>Rambo> the peace process along."
>
>
>Gerry Adams just got turned away from the talks at Stormont yesterday.
But you notice he didn't get handcuffed, stuffed into a police car
and driven around town away from the Press, like Alan Keyes.
jon.
Gulliver
> Such an act would become the stuff of legend. It would seal the peace
> in Ulster. It would also do no damage the peaceful progression of the
> Republican agenda. Why is it such an anathema?
Methinks that there is a disturbingly large element within SF/IRA that is
involved soley becuase it likes the killing and violence.
Think about it, any organization that plants bombs and knee-caps people
is bound to attract more than its fair share of psychopaths.
--
Angus Gulliver
Steve Glover
>In article <4hkk3m$d...@morse.ukonline.co.uk>,
>Steve Glover <steve....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>By saying that the same thing *perfectly exemplifies* three different things,
>>you ARE saying that they are the same. All else is weaseling, and pretty
>>despicable at that.
> You are correct in part. However the reference to logic chopping is due
>to Jill's anoying habit of switching hats to suit herself, and on occasion
>in mid-article. If, for instance, someone begins an article expressing one
>viewpoint, and ends it with an advert for the TOM with a one line summary
>that could be expanded in the context of that article to be the same as
>that viewpoint, then confusion can follow.
Thanks -- it's easy to lose sight of the swamp when dealing with some of the
alligators here.
> I'd be interested to know if the aims are the removal of the BA from the
>streets of NI, or from NI in general. The first is a laudable aim, the
>second raises a couple of sticky points concerning the troops raised in
>NI, do they all get shiped out of Ireland, or should they no longer be
>eligible to join, and be demobbed en-masse.
And given Joe Squaddy's propensity to keep "souvenirs", I'm not sure I'd want
a mass of demobbed troops on my family's doorsteps...
Cheers
Michael Paris
While I do think that the Cuban Exile pilots and their
organization are nothing but trouble makers and the Cuban embargo is
hipocritical seeing the US does trade with Communist and Right Wing
oppresive regimes on a regular basis. But it dosn't take alot of
courage to shoot down two Cessna's with a Mig 29 inside or outside of
their airspace. Could you imaging the uproar if the USAF shot down
tow Cuban non-military airlplane or military ones for that matter if
they entered US Airspace. The postings alone on this conference would
fill my 1.2GB hard drive! Remember this is an election year and
rhetoric flies all over the place, we American's aren't the only one's
with this problem.
Look it this way, we finally got over the Vietnam war and opened
up with Hanoi, maybe there will be hope for Cuba.
Gareth Evans
Rambo> Gavin Bailey <g...@scms.rgu.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Too narrow to break the seven barrier, generally, but the intensity was
Rambo> quite good,
>> but the sporting metaphor was poorly developed (no mention of
Rambo> hooliganism). No,
>> that's too harsh, after all, it was quite imaginative,
>>
>> 7 out of 10.
Rambo> Thank you. It is so refreshing for once to come across a Briton who has
Rambo> *valid* criticism of the points I've been making.
No, sonny. You scored 7 out of 10 on the Livesey scale, a scale visible at
http://www.netbox.com/barry for "Amazingly trite, ignorant and generally
outrageously incorrect statements/questions/pure invective launched at
s.c.british.
More marks would have been scored if you'd brought up the fact that you saved
our butts in 1918 and 1945 and whooped our asses in 17whenever.
Let the donkey-beating fest begin.
G
Timothy Watson
gev...@mvagusta.uk.tele.nokia.fi (Gareth Evans) writes:
> More marks would have been scored if you'd brought up the fact that you saved
> our butts in 1918 and 1945 and whooped our asses in 17whenever.
Three words about 1918: Ford, truck, mobility
It can also often be demonstrated that the British seem to err on the
side of minimizing the American influence. I just read, when looking
at a President's "Open Door" policy speech, it as initially a
complaint about the British recognition of exclusive German rights to
a section of China. The US gets everyone to change their mind, and
Britain gets rewritten as a first proponent of free trade in China all
along.
--
________________________________________________________________________
T i m o t h y W a t s o n
tmwa...@umich.edu
__/| Something there is that doesn't love a wall, that wants it down
Steve Glover
>Two hundred men in fatigues, masks, and black berets armed with rifles
>and marching behind the tricolour. The come to a halt, turn smartly to
>the left, sing 'A Soldier's Song', and then stack their arms in an
>orderly fashion. Then a minutes silence and the parade is dismissed.
I love it! It'll never happen, of course.
It's right up there with the Harvard Lampoon's description (in "Bored of the
Rings") of the SS Titanic's triumphant entry into New York Harbour...
Steve, remembering that one of the the things the British used to do well was
the "Handover Ceremony" when the flag of the WhiteKolonialistOppressor would
go down, the flag of the new nation rise and a be-uniformed elderly ex-pat
would shake the hand of someone who six weeks ago was the principal resident
of his jail... (Was it Norman Macrae, by the way, who described the
post-colonial history of the commonwealth as a series of running battles
between Sandhurst and the LSE?)
Fred Winterer
>
>
> In article <4h8a35$8...@sun.sirius.com>, Rambo (ra...@god.bless.america.com) writes:
> >In order to make things more easily understandable to the average
> >Brit, the title of this post expresses the current Northern
> >Ireland situation in terms of the scores of a sport (soccer - not,
> >of course, to be confused with real football) which is popular
> >among adolescent girls in the U.S. and among grown men - even to
> >the point of being inextricably bound up with their sense of
> >manhood - in the U.K.
>
> Rambo......its all a dream....please,see your analyst before you
> hurt yourself.....the drugs are not working anymore.
>
>
>
>
--
Let's face it, all the jerk wants to do is pick a fight. The best thing for
all of us (on both sides of the pond) to do is to ignore him. If you insist
on responding to him, simply say *PLONK* to be *plonked* is to be ignored).
What I find particularly humerous is his choice of nickname. Talk about
having delusions of adequacy.
--
===========================================================
Fred Winterer bank...@ais.net
"Protect our constitution -- it keeps us free!"
"Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here!"
===========================================================
Leo
>Pilar Quezzaire (quez...@husc7.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: Rambo (ra...@god.bless.america.com) wrote:
>
>: : It is truly tragic that the only thing that seems to render the British
>: : willing to compromise is the threat of violence.
>
>: Sounds like the '16. The Brits got so tired of violence they said uncle.
>
>Rubbish. The Irish issue had been a major issue in British politics for >years beforehand, with many British politicians supporting Irish Home Rule. >It is nonsense to suggest that no-one in Britain had considered it until >1916. It probably would have occurred in much the same way as it did had the >1916 Easter rising never occurred.
>
I don't see what there is to be so defensive about, Matthew. It's a
general characteristic of nation states that they compromise on some
things (e.g. their territorial boundaries) only under threat of
violence. Rambo's accusation is actually a banal commonplace, that
applies to all countries, not just Britain.
What's really surprising is how little violence it has taken to get
Britain to the table. If you can expect to sow what you reap, Britain
has got off very lightly, as IRA violence is insignificant compared
with the consistent policy of massive violence inflicted by the
British on Ireland over several centuries.
As for 1916, you are right in saying that Home Rule had been a major
issue for years beforehand, but wrong in your assumption as to what
that implied by way of compromise.
Firstly, Home Rule is not independence. Home Rule is what we nowdays
call devolution, or subsidiarity, *within* the United Kingdom. The
compromise was on Ireland's part in framing its demand initially in
terms of Home Rule rather than independence, from 1885 to 1916. Home
Rule was supposed to be the 'realistic' option, but the Brits weren't
having any of it. The 1916 rebellion represented the demise of the
Home Rule movement, discredited by 31 years of British intransigence,
stalling and general deviousness. From 1916 the Irish gave up on any
idea of compromise with a British establishment obviously incapable of
keeping its word, and within 6 years, virtual independence had been
achieved for the bulk of Ireland.
What intransigence, you may ask? What stalling? What deviousness?
The Home Rule Party first won a majority of Irish seats at Westminster
(85 out of 103) in 1885, when the franchise was extended to working
men. Gladstone, the Liberal PM, made Home Rule a personal policy
commitment, at the cost of violent disagreement within his own ranks
(but the Tories were united against any concessions). In 1893, he
managed to force a Home Rule Bill through the Commons, but the Tories
defeated it using their permanent majority in the Lords. The Irish
Home Rulers, who not surprisingly felt cheated, resorted to a strategy
of disrupting Parliament, with great success. It was in response to
this disruption that the guillotine and government control of
parliamentary time were introduced, evils which plague our
constitution to this day. It was from that time that Britain ceased to
be in any meaningful sense a parliamentary democracy and became an
elective (prime ministerial) monarchy. This constitutional armageddon
was preferred over any compromise with the national aspirations of the
Irish.
Because Home Rule split the Liberal Party, the Tories, who now renamed
themselves the Unionists (i.e. opposing Home Rule was their principal
unifying issue) and welcomed many Liberal dissidents, gained 10 years
of easy ascendancy. The Liberals won the 1906 election, but only
because they healed their internal rift by agreeing to postpone the
Home Rule issue. They could not even make any progress on the much
more modest Irish Council Bill.
In 1910 however, they were reduced to a minority, dependent on the
Home Rule Party's MPs to keep them in power. So a Home Rule Bill was
once again passed by the Commons, and once again defeated by the
permanent Unionist majority in the Lords.
By then the Lords could no longer kill legislation outright, but in
order to force it through against the Lords' veto, the Commons had to
pass it again, twice, in two successive years. This they did in 1913
and 1914. And then what happened? Because the First World War broke
out, even though it was a very low intensity conflict at first, the
Speaker(!) decided that Home Rule must be delayed until the War was
over. Then in 1915, the Liberal Party really terminally split and one
of its halves joined the Unionists in government. The Lloyd George
Liberals decided they would rather be in the pocket of the likes of
F.E. Smith (the leading Tory whose role in inciting the Ulster
Unionists, and generally increasing the level of tension of Ireland,
equalled Carson's) than depend on the Home Rule Party.
Let us summarise the outlook for Home Rule in 1916: the Commons had
passed Home Rule no less than four times, yet the intransigence,
stalling and deviousness I mentioned above meant that still there was
no chance of achieving it in the foreseeable future. If the 1910
Parliament, ideal for the purpose, with its Liberal minority
government dependent on Home Ruler support, could not achieve it, then
it could not be achieved. Moreover the Liberals were so badly split
that it was obvious there would now be a Unionist majority for decades
(and, with two brief, unstable, interludes, so there was until 1945).
So the Irish gave up trying to compromise with a nation as
congenitally perfidious as Albion. This is how the British nursed a
situation where compromise was offered us on a plate, but with no
threat of violence, into the outright violence of 1916-1925, the
echoes of which are still with us, and deservedly so.
--
Leo
Tim Cutting
Firstly: are you for or against violence? Simple question, really. If
you're for it, who cares if the British (like every other nation) use
force in the pursuit of their affairs? If you're against violence, then
that should apply to everyone (inluding the MINORITY which is the IRA),
not just to the evil protestant British.
Secondly: It's probably worth making the point that the IRA is a terrorist
organisation, Britain is a (fairly) democratic state. In terms of the
legitimation of force, I think the UK has the upper hand here.
Thirdly: Get a grip. I though the first posting was a joke: your
follow-ups seem to suggest that it wasn't. Fact: people are KILLED in the
name of some idiotic territorial struggle.
Even in Machiavellian, amoral, terms, terrorism is totally stupid. It
doesn't target the enemy, makes people utterly unwilling to back down
(because of the lethal precedent that this would set - you CAN see that,
can't you?) and actually turns opinion AGAINST the terrorist group. This
is a proven fact. In the end, terrorism is a small group of people using
some kind of political issue as a EXCUSE TO KILL. There is no other
rationale. The IRA cannot surrender: the reason the ceasefire has failed
is because they cannot bear to stop killing people. Tragic: but true.
Just try to remember the old maxim: force ultimately can only generate
resistance. Maybe force is the only language some people do understand:
but call me a dreamer - I think some kind of RATIONAL solution must be
possible, even if it involves, for example, the dissolution of the modern
concept of nationality. Maybe in Gaia people won't feel the need to kill,
nor to dress it up in some kind of hypocritical ideaological mask.
Tim Cutting
--
|This moment of pleasure | "Words mean what I want them to mean, no|
|was brought to you by | more, no less." |
|Tim Cutting.(tc10005@ | |
|hermes.cam.ac.uk) | Humpty Dumpty. What a dude. |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Watson
tmwa...@umich.edu (Timothy Watson) writes:
me:
> gev...@mvagusta.uk.tele.nokia.fi (Gareth Evans) writes:
> > More marks would have been scored if you'd brought up the fact that you saved
> > our butts in 1918 and 1945 and whooped our asses in 17whenever.
>
> Three words about 1918: Ford, truck, mobility
*so as to head out followups*
Of course, the British invention of the tank worked in
synergy. Initially tank advances were not followed up as quickly as
they ought to, but eventually mobile tank warfare came into embryonic
being. Patton and/or Bradley led tank stuff, while Eisenhower was a
low-level flunky who did tank-related training back in the States and
never actually fuoght.
Jon Livesey
Timothy Watson <tmwa...@umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <4hnugn$9...@fido.asd.sgi.com> liv...@pirate.engr.sgi.com
>(Jon Livesey) writes:
>>
>> Well, it's reet gradely of you to give us credit for the tank.
>> You seem to have forgotten a couple of other little First World
>> War innovations, though.
>
> Well, there was the invention of the machine gun and trench warfare
> and positions staked out by barbed wire by the Americans, and lots of
> good aircraft, that were probably more incidental in the whole scheme
> of things, by the Euros, and a good Martin seaplane bought by the
> British off the Americans, and an aircraft carrier by the Brits. The
> submarine came into its own.
Personally, I'm less interested in "things" and more in techniques.
I'd nominate the extensive use of convoys, the conversion of the
fleet to oil, the blockade, the dredging up of all enemy
telegraph cables, the organized use of intelligence, and the
extensive use of decryption.
It's a fairly shattering comment on the comparitive levels of
sophistication even within the allied camp, that while the
British were already decrypting German codes on a regular basis,
the Russians were busily losing the battles of Tannenburg and the
Massurian Lakes - and the dredibility of their High Command - by
broadcasting their orders in clear on the radio.
jon.
Stephen Horgan
wrote:
>In article <TMWATSON.9...@rhodium.umich.edu>
>tmwa...@umich.edu (Timothy Watson) writes:
>me:
>> gev...@mvagusta.uk.tele.nokia.fi (Gareth Evans) writes:
>> > More marks would have been scored if you'd brought up the fact that you saved
>> > our butts in 1918 and 1945 and whooped our asses in 17whenever.
>>
>> Three words about 1918: Ford, truck, mobility
>
>*so as to head out followups*
>
>Of course, the British invention of the tank worked in
>synergy. Initially tank advances were not followed up as quickly as
>they ought to, but eventually mobile tank warfare came into embryonic
>being. Patton and/or Bradley led tank stuff, while Eisenhower was a
>low-level flunky who did tank-related training back in the States and
>never actually fuoght.
>
If I understand you correctly, you are trying to suggest that the
return to mobile warfare in 1918 was due in part to US-built motorised
transport. This is, of course, nonsense. Horse-drawn armies are
capable of rates of advance much greater than those achieved by the
allies in 1918. A good example would be the German army in 1914 or in
their last great offensive of 1918 or the German army in numerous
campaigns in WW2.
The decisive factor in 1918 was that armies had finally learned to
concentrate enough fighting power in attack to break through defences
in depth. This was true of all the combatants in the Western front.
--
Stephen Horgan, Basildon, Essex, England
"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
Hayek
Please Email if replying
Sergey Fokin
>It's a fairly shattering comment on the comparitive levels of
>sophistication even within the allied camp, that while the
>British were already decrypting German codes on a regular basis,
>the Russians were busily losing the battles of Tannenburg and the
>Massurian Lakes - and the dredibility of their High Command - by
>broadcasting their orders in clear on the radio.
I suppose it is the time then to mention the gas-mask (invented and put
into mass-production in Russia; exported to several allied countries during
WWI) and "Iliya Muromets" - rather successful bomber plane - no one had better
one in WWI.. (we are talking orders of magnitude here - in bomb load and
surviability too - during the whole of the war Germans managed to down
only one of those - the first flying fortress). First hydroplane was made
in russia too (not that it had any bearing on the war - but since we were
talking sophistication).
Now High Command is quite another story of course - as any
self-respecting Empire, Russia did take care to keep it dredible
Serge
Dara Gallagher
> : >Rubbish. The Irish issue had been a major issue in British politics for
> : >It is nonsense to suggest that no-one in Britain had considered it until
> : >1916. It probably would have occurred in much the same way as it did had the
> : >1916 Easter rising never occurred.
> : I don't see what there is to be so defensive about, Matthew. It's a
> : general characteristic of nation states that they compromise on some
> : things (e.g. their territorial boundaries) only under threat of
> : violence. Rambo's accusation is actually a banal commonplace, that
> : applies to all countries, not just Britain.
> But it is plain wrong, and even the history you repeat below shows that it is
> plain wrong. "Rambo" clearly wants us to believe that no-one at all in
> Britain was interested in any way in Irish self-determination until there was
> this violence in 1916.
Correct, but pedantically so; yes there was (via the usual
political machinations) interest in implementing Home Rule
pre 1916, but in reality there was little chance of it
actually happening.
> He uses this bogus argument in support of violence
> which could kill me and my fellow citizens tomorrow if we happen to be in the
> wrong place when another IRA bomb goes up. Isn't there something here to be
> a little argumentative about, or are we just supposed to accept silently
> idiots like "Rambo" putting forward bogus arguments that could mean our
> deaths?
I agree.
> : As for 1916, you are right in saying that Home Rule had been a major
> : issue for years beforehand, but wrong in your assumption as to what
> : that implied by way of compromise.
> : Firstly, Home Rule is not independence. Home Rule is what we nowdays
> : call devolution, or subsidiarity, *within* the United Kingdom. The
> : compromise was on Ireland's part in framing its demand initially in
> : terms of Home Rule rather than independence, from 1885 to 1916. Home
> : Rule was supposed to be the 'realistic' option, but the Brits weren't
> : having any of it.
> What do you mean by "the Brits" here? The phrase is obviously used so that
> in the casual reader's mind it strikes up the idea of the British people as
> a whole fiercely stamping on the Irish call for self-determination, but what
> you actually mean is a few aristocrats who then had a lot of power as Britain's
> constitution wasn't so democratic then as it is now (and it still has a long
> way to go to be properly democratic IMHO).
This is true. But you must accept that there was some justification
at the time for violence as democratic means achieved nothing.
In fact, this is how the IRA justifies to its actions today.
> And, yes, I am well aware that
> Home Rule does not mean independence. As others have pointed out, Ireland
> was not fully independent till it became a Republic in the 1930s. However, I
1940s.
> would certainly see the call for Home Rule in the 19th century as the precursor
> for independence (as indeed was Home Rule in 1922)
The support for Home Rule died before 1922 - probably at the start
of WWI. What happened in 1922 was not Home Rule; it represented
the partition of Ireland and a greater degree of autonomy than
Home Rule would have admitted.
> : The Home Rule Party first won a majority of Irish seats at Westminster
> : (85 out of 103) in 1885, when the franchise was extended to working
> : men. Gladstone, the Liberal PM, made Home Rule a personal policy
> : commitment, at the cost of violent disagreement within his own ranks
> : (but the Tories were united against any concessions). In 1893, he
> : managed to force a Home Rule Bill through the Commons, but the Tories
> : defeated it using their permanent majority in the Lords.
> Exactly - the leader of "the Brits" in the shape of the Prime Minister made
> a personal commitment to Irish self-determination. That in itself proves me
Not really, it was more due to political expediency in the Commons.
> right and the person I was arguing against wrong - "the Brits" meaning the
> British as a whole were not opposed to Irish self-determination. What stopped
Fair point in that `the British as a whole' is not valid.
> it was the undemocratic House of Lords. It did not require violence to
> achieve Irish self-determination - it required a common fight for democracy
> to end the entrenched power of the House of Lords, and a sense of decency
> and feeling for natural rights, both of which were what the Liberal Party was
> fighting for at the turn of the century.
Very debatable, Home Rule was really only an issue when the
IPP held the balance of power in the Commons. Your point is
hypothetical; regarding Irish self-determination, fundamentally
peaceful methods failed and violence worked.
> : In 1910 however, they were reduced to a minority, dependent on the
> : Home Rule Party's MPs to keep them in power. So a Home Rule Bill was
> : once again passed by the Commons, and once again defeated by the
> : permanent Unionist majority in the Lords.
> : By then the Lords could no longer kill legislation outright, but in
> : order to force it through against the Lords' veto, the Commons had to
> : pass it again, twice, in two successive years. This they did in 1913
> : and 1914.
> Yes - the fight for democracy had won a triumph, and the Liberal Party had
> turned the House of Lords into nothing but an impotent talking-shop which
> could at most impose a couple of years of delay. The democratic representatives
> of the British people passed a bill for Irish Home Rule, and insisted on it
> by repeatedly passing it and refusing to accept the delaying techniques
> of the aristocrats. None of this required any violence - it was achieved
> because decent people thought it was right.
That's not the point; it was never implemented, nor did at any
stage did it look like it was going to be implemented. And anyway
the situation in Ireland in 1916 had progressed behond the
point where peaceful methods could be effective. The Ulster
Volunteers had mobilised as had the IRB. `Decency' was not
an issue, as Lloyd Georges handling of the `Irish question'
illustrates. Irish nationalists simply could not depend on
Westminister to implement Home Rule and whether that was
due to the UK's political system is mute; violence worked
and political means didn't.
> Why condemn or ignore the decent
> people who fought for democracy using peaceful means, and make out that only
> violence achieves anything?
There is no condemnation of all British people; just a statement
of the fact that, at the time, three years of violent insurgency
achieved more than democratic peaceful political actions.
> It is these weasel words and rubbishy attitudes
> that I argue against constantly in this newsgroup. When I say I support peace
No Matthew, you start off with valid points and then you seem
to get carried away with indignation and self-rightousness.
The `weasel words' are simply historical facts.
> Matthew Huntbach
--
_______________________________________________________________
Dara Gallagher. http://www.cs.tcd.ie/www/jgllgher/jgllgher.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Jones
>
>Rambo <ra...@god.bless.america.com> wrote:
>
snip
(rambo's ravings)
>>So couldn't one be forgiven for concluding that violence is a
>>very effective way of dealing with the British government, and
>>shouldn't we all in fact be thanking the IRA for bombing Wapping
>>and thus helping the peace process along? For without the return
>>to violence, wouldn't the peace talks still be at the same
>>stagnant point they were at a few weeks ago?
>
Danny
>I presume that you are also speaking for all the people of Ireland
>who, having tasted peace for the first time in 25 years yearned for
>the return of violence and fear. No! I did'nt think so.
>
>The peace talks will continue with or without the presence of the
>IRA's campaign of unilateral violence. It is a pity that these adult
>men and women have not the conviction nor the courage to persue talks
>without resorting to the bomb. Their campaign of 25 years failed.
>They simply could not wait for 1 years talks to bring about some
>direction and, eventually, results. Shame on them.
What rambo and other like -minded biggotts fail to grasp is
that the IRA do not actually want peace. They currently have
a tidy income from mafia style protection rackets, drug smuggling,
gun running etc which they operated with guns obtained under the
pretence that they represent the legitimate strugle of the
nationalist community. Bollox they do: the nationalist
community want jobs and economic prosperity, the same as
everyone else, prospects which were far greater during the
year's peace. Now all this is threatend because the IRA mobsters
could see that a political settlement would remove any justification
they ever hads for possessing weapons, and with that their criminal
influence. They would have to get jobs- even Gerry Adams,who has been
claiming benefit off the British Government for the last 2 years as
an "unemployed barman"". Tell me, you biggotted yanks, when did a
repressive colonial governemnt ever pay dole to known terrorist
representatives?
Marcus
redrick
> Could you imaging the uproar if the USAF shot down
>tow Cuban non-military airlplane or military ones for that matter if
>they entered US Airspace.
Could you imagine if an American missile cruiser shot down an Iranian
airliner?
--
red...@az.com
/ // /// ///// /////// /////////// ///////////// / // ///
Anthony Potts
On Mon, 4 Mar 1996, Tim Leonhardt wrote:
>
> How about britain
>
> " A peace loving Brit. Sometimes.
>
I am afraid that no matter what the USA want to think about their prowess
in battle (they crtainly managed to kill a lot of us in the gulf), they
could not ever defeat Britain. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any
real or supposed superior skill of British troops, but is a direct result
of our fleet of nuclear submarines. It would do the USA absolutely no
good to know that we were deader than they were.
Anthony Potts
Anthony Potts
On Sun, 3 Mar 1996, Gulliver wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 1996, James Hammerton wrote:
>
> > When did the IRA bomb Wapping btw? I must have missed it, with all the
> > publicity over the bombing of Canary Wharf and the London bus bomb.
>
> Rambo is (alegedly) from the Good Ol' Yoo Ess of Aye, so he obviously
> knows better than us limies where the bombs wnt off. I was under the
> impression that Canary Wharf was the site of the first and that the
> second went off at one end of the Aldwich D, but I'm just in ignorant
> Englishman.
>
> --
> Angus Gulliver
>
the first bomb was about 800 yards from my house. It was not in Canary
wharf, it was in South Quay. The second bomb was 100 yards from my
fiancee's office, at the junction of The Alwych, and the Strand.
The first bomb hit no military targets, It blew the windows out of people
living on the Barkantine council estate in Dicklands, it killed my
newsagent, and destroyed my public transport (the Docklands Light Railway).
Wapping is somewhere else.
Anthony Potts
A Clune
>I am afraid that no matter what the USA want to think about their prowess
>in battle (they crtainly managed to kill a lot of us in the gulf), they
>could not ever defeat Britain. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any
>real or supposed superior skill of British troops, but is a direct result
>of our fleet of nuclear submarines. It would do the USA absolutely no
>good to know that we were deader than they were.
These would be those _US_ made submarines then, with the )_US_
designed warheads, cos we were unable to design our own.....
Independant deterrents, don't you just love them!
Arthur
**************************************************************************
** Arthur Clune ** Dept. of Maths and Stats, **
** email cl...@maths.ed.ac.uk ** University of Edinburgh, UK **
**************************************************************************
Anthony Potts
On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Gulliver wrote:
> On 6 Mar 1996, Gareth Evans wrote:
>
> > Gerry Adams just got turned away from the talks at Stormont yesterday.
> >
> > The only bozo who'll talk to him is Clinton, and only to keep Kennedy and the
> > other professional Paddy-Yanks happy.
>
> Hear, hear.
>
> Is it true that Garry Adams said today that the IRA will never hand over
> it's weapons? That is what Sky News is saying but the BBC did not go so far.
>
> --
> Angus Gulliver
>
I suspect that even the people at the BBC get sick of hearing some man
who is both a fool and a terrorist spout his dogma. There are so many
cases where Adams has spoken for the IRA, then pretended that he is not a
member that most of us do not really care what he says anymore.
ANthony Potts
Iain McCord
Doug <p...@noid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>No they just get posted overseas.
What do you think the phrase 'shipped overseas' means ?
Do you mean that the home baracks of those regiments should no longer
be in the country of their birth? I'll assume that you'll let them
back in when the're on leave?
Patrick O'Shea
> that the IRA do not actually want peace. They currently have
> a tidy income from mafia style protection rackets, drug smuggling,
> gun running etc which they operated with guns obtained under the
> pretence that they represent the legitimate strugle of the
> nationalist community.
Without dignifying Rambo's admittedly superficial and inflammatory
comments, I would point out that you cannot effectively generalize by
saying that "the IRA do not actually want peace." Perhaps it is more
accurate to state that the IRA will not accept a peaceful division of
Ireland into North and South. As for protection rackets and other
illegal activities, I would be surprised if you could point out a
guerilla force anywhere in the world that has not resorted to such
activities for income. This, of course, does not excuse it.
> Bollox they do: the nationalist
> community want jobs and economic prosperity, the same as
> everyone else, prospects which were far greater during the
> year's peace.
Quite so.
> Now all this is threatend because the IRA mobsters
> could see that a political settlement would remove any justification
> they ever hads for possessing weapons, and with that their criminal
> influence.
This view is tremendously cynical, and somewhat simplistic. I can't
defend the ideological "purity" of the IRA, nor can I condone their use
of terrorism. However, painting them as a band of mobsters, with
absolutely no real interest in the cause of Republicanism, is going a
bit far in the other direction.
> They would have to get jobs- even Gerry Adams,who has been
> claiming benefit off the British Government for the last 2 years as
> an "unemployed barman"". Tell me, you biggotted yanks, when did a
> repressive colonial governemnt ever pay dole to known terrorist
> representatives?
Please stop the name-calling. It is both unproductive and unnecessary,
and it undermines your position considerably (one is always more likely
to consider points made during a discussion than during a rant).
If you want to consider narcotics dealers and racketeers as domestic
terrorists, then the US government makes monthly payments to thousands
of them.
Patrick O'Shea
Stephen F Austin State University
Nacogdoches, Texas, USA
Gulliver
> On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Gulliver wrote:
>
> > Is it true that Garry Adams said today that the IRA will never hand over
> > it's weapons? That is what Sky News is saying but the BBC did not go so far.
> >
> I suspect that even the people at the BBC get sick of hearing some man
> who is both a fool and a terrorist spout his dogma.
He certainly appears to be a fool. He's no politician, so I have to ask
the question. What is he then?
> There are so many
> cases where Adams has spoken for the IRA, then pretended that he is not a
> member that most of us do not really care what he says anymore.
I always bear in mind the very courageous Irishman who said in a T.V.
interview that Adams was presant when he received a punishment beating at
Sinn Feinn (sp?) headquarters. The implication was that many more people
were beaten at the SF HQ, sometimes with Adams presant but that none of them
dared speak out.
And he claims to be a peacemaker. Bollocks.
--
Angus Gulliver
Gulliver
> the first bomb was about 800 yards from my house. It was not in Canary
> wharf, it was in South Quay.
yes, I stand corrected. But it was nearer Canary Wharf than Wapping. The
media still refer to it as the 'Canary Wharf bomb'. Perhaps they are
hoping somebody will bomb it, that stupid light on the top of it must
annoy you poor people who live within sight of it.
> The first bomb hit no military targets, It blew the windows out of people
> living on the Barkantine council estate in Dicklands, it killed my
> newsagent, and destroyed my public transport (the Docklands Light Railway).
Nicely put. Perhaps the SF/IRA supporters on the 'net can tell us why
blowing up your newsagent will make a united Ireland more likely than not
blowing him up?
--
Angus Gulliver
Patrick O'Shea
> Why won't the IRA decommission weapons before talks? That position
> does not seem to make any sense.
You must remember that the IRA views the British presence in Ulster as an
occupation by a hostile force. They are fighting a guerilla war against this
occupation by whatever means necessary. This is not to say that I agree with
the horrible violence, but simply giving up arms as a precondition to
negotiation is, in the minds of the IRA, putting the cart before the horse.
They likely ask the question, "If we decommission arms before the talks, what
guarantee do we have that there will be any talks at all, and what assurance
can we have that those talks will lead to a fair and lasting peace?"
> The IRA could almost certainly get immunity from prosecution for the
> actual act of handing over weapons. Picture the scene...
Again, how can one be so sure?
> Two hundred men in fatigues, masks, and black berets armed with rifles
> and marching behind the tricolour. The come to a halt, turn smartly to
> the left, sing 'A Soldier's Song', and then stack their arms in an
> orderly fashion. Then a minutes silence and the parade is dismissed.
Will this be accompanied by a similar event for the UVF or for the British
Army?
> Such an act would become the stuff of legend. It would seal the peace
> in Ulster. It would also do no damage the peaceful progression of the
> Republican agenda. Why is it such an anathema?
It would not "seal" anything. The only thing it would accomplish is the
(partial) disarming of the IRA. The recent bombings are an indication that
the most recent round of peace talks have accomplished absolutely nothing.
While I despise terrorism, I cannot say that I am surprised that the IRA has
resumed its terror campaign. In their minds, they must feel that the
ceasefire accomplished virtually nothing, except giving a number of
politicians a soap box for promoting hollow optimism. When the IRA perceived
that no progress was being made, they simply reverted to their old methods.
Your vision of a pompous decommissioning ceremony is fanciful, at best. More
realistically, the IRA would certainly consider it insulting. You are naive
to think that turning in weapons, along with some flag waving and singing the
Irish National Anthem, will fix everything. Please continue to dream your
dreams, but know that the situation is far more complex than you imagine.
Patrick O'Shea
Stephen F. Austin State University
Nacogdoches, Texas, USA
Jon Livesey
>> What rambo and other like -minded biggotts fail to grasp is
>> that the IRA do not actually want peace. They currently have
>> a tidy income from mafia style protection rackets, drug smuggling,
>> gun running etc which they operated with guns obtained under the
>> pretence that they represent the legitimate strugle of the
>> nationalist community.
>
> Without dignifying Rambo's admittedly superficial and inflammatory
> comments, I would point out that you cannot effectively generalize by
> saying that "the IRA do not actually want peace."
No, I think that you *can* effectively generalize in this way.
The IRA, as a terrorist organization simply will not accept the
kind of peace settlement that the voters will accept, and which
would represent a compromise both side can live with.
The IRA can define a "peace" for you that they would accept, but
it would be a Roman Peace in which unionists would be faced with
a stark choice between submission and emigration.
jon.
Jon Livesey
A Clune <cl...@festival.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Anthony Potts <po...@afsmail.cern.ch> writes:
>
>>I am afraid that no matter what the USA want to think about their prowess
>>in battle (they crtainly managed to kill a lot of us in the gulf), they
>>could not ever defeat Britain. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any
>>real or supposed superior skill of British troops, but is a direct result
>>of our fleet of nuclear submarines. It would do the USA absolutely no
>>good to know that we were deader than they were.
>
> These would be those _US_ made submarines then, with the )_US_
> designed warheads, cos we were unable to design our own.....
No, they are British-made submarines and British-made warheads.
Only the missiles are US.
>
> Independant deterrents, don't you just love them!
Ignorant posters, don't you just love them!
jon.
Dave Healy
>
>In article <AD68344A...@noid.demon.co.uk>, p...@noid.demon.co.uk (Doug) says:
>>
>>In article <4hn4je$p...@tabloid.amoco.com>,
>>david_...@amoco.com (Dave Healy) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>:As I understand it, Adams gave an interview to an "Irish-American" paper
>>>:detailing a meeting that he had with the IRA Army Council some time ago.
>>>:They said "We sued for peace, the British wanted war. If that's what they
>>>:want we will give them another 25 years of war" or something similar. However,
>>>:the meeting was held before the all-party talks date was announced.
>>
>>Was it really?
>
>According to the article, yes.
>
>>>:What you're referring to is the quote that there will be no surrender of
>>>:weapons "under any circumstances and to anyone". Oh, and I understand
>>>:they've warned loyalists not to break the ceasefire.
>>>:
>>
>>I think what they *actually* said was that they would not hand over weapons
>>*prior* to a settlement.
>
>I don't have a problem with this, I was merely quoting the article I read
>
>>>:What's that smell? Ah, yes, the ripe tang of cant and hypocrisy
>>>:
>>
>>Yes, your posting stinks of it.
>
>Why exactly? What have I said that's hypocritical? Rather than coming
>in with pointless kneejerk reactions, would you actually add something
>constructive?
>
Two days later and I'm still waiting for a reply, Doug. Or are you simply
too fuelled by anger and resentment to eat some humble pie? I ask again
"What have I said that's hypocritical?" If you can't come up with anything
I'd like an apology.
Dave
"Baldrick. Are the words "I have a cunning plan" | The opinions expressed herein
marching with ill-deserved confidence towards | are solely mine and not those
this conversation?" - Edmund Blackadder | of my employers
Jon Livesey
>(Jon Livesey) writes:
>> I'd nominate the extensive use of convoys, the conversion of the
>> fleet to oil, the blockade, the dredging up of all enemy
>> telegraph cables, the organized use of intelligence, and the
>> extensive use of decryption.
>
> spy on the battlefield made as a duplicate of one left
> standing. Covertly the real one was removed, and the fake one had a
> spy inside.
>
> Actually, planes and balloons were important observor platforms. I'm a
> bit fuzzy, but I think balloons on the battlefield were also
> occasionally used in the Civil War (American one, can't forget this is
> s.c.b)
>
> I'm not sure cutting telegraph cables started with world war 1.
No, no. You're still stuck on *things*. There are any number
of countries out there that can lay claim to this or that *thing*
connected to some military weapons or to intelligence.
What I am talking about with the list above is the way that the
British in 1914-18 systematically set out to fight a war of
intelligence, starting from cutting the German telegraph cables
and taking it from there.
There's a very interesting parallel history of the war, if you
take the trouble to read it, but must people argue about machine
guns and battleships, adn so miss it.
jon.
Gulliver
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.96031...@altair.herts.ac.uk>,
> Gulliver <kst...@herts.ac.uk> wrote:
> >On 12 Mar 1996, Jon Livesey wrote:
>
>
> In other words, you were saying that the date for "all-party"
> talks should be a function of IRA violence. And when I object
> that I don't see why the people and by implication their
> political parties out to be under a penalty controlled by IRA
> violence, you add that "some other kind of talks" can take
> place.
OK, I'll alter it slightly. Talks can take polace without SF/IRA. That is
likely to happen anyway. When the conditions I suggested have been met,
then perhaps SF/IRA could be allowed to join. They would have gone some
way to showing that they understand violence is not a necessary part of
campaigning for a united Ireland. On the other hand, if they prove unable
to stop the violence then we will have "smoked them out". The fact that
they are more interested in blowing people to pieces than in any
political solution would be there for all to see, and they would be
further away from the talks that they *say* they want than ever.
In other words, if they want *any* influence on the talks they must stop
commiting acts of violence. Furthermore, the more violint acts they
commit the further away the date of SF/IRA admittance to talks becomes.
Hope that clears it up. As I said, it was just an idea that came into my
head yesterday and I've not done much thinking about it but it has some
attractions IMO.
--
Angus Gulliver