Samaritans - Omagh
Der Irische Fuchs
I've just been told that the Samaritans have admitted at the inquest, that the
Omagh bomb was according to a RIRA warning they were given by RIRA - two hundred
yards from the court on the main street. That was seemingly the location the
bomb exploded at and was also the location that many people were herded towards.
Has anybody got the full text?
Fabian a un manteau de fourrure
Lilly Langtree
"Der Irische Fuchs" <lait@café> wrote in message
news:8p63sj$23...@edrn.newsguy.com...
Not the full text but this is article from the "breaking news" section of
Irish Times:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2000/0906/breaking38.htm
Omagh inquest told of conflicting warnings
Last updated: 20:21
Police handling of the terrorist warning calls about the Omagh bombing were
put under intense scrutiny by lawyers today as the inquest into the atrocity
opened.
Questions were raised about how the messages were relayed and acted on by
officers on the ground before the explosion happened killing 29 people,
among them a woman heavily pregnant with twins.
A picture also emerged of conflicting warnings coming through from the Real
IRA about exactly where in the Co Tyrone town the bomb had been planted and
how long police had been given to clear the area.
One RUC officer described the warning he passed on as "totally inaccurate".
The inquest opened with the coroner Mr John Leckey acknowledging it would be
a harrowing time, resurrecting many sad and unpleasant memories for those
bereaved by the catastrophe.
The inquest is being held at Omagh leisure complex, which was the emergency
incident centre in the days following the blast on August 15 1998, the worst
single episode in 30 years of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Mr Leckey is not likely to start examining any of the deaths until late next
week with hearings, before that examining the events leading up to the
lethal blast.
Inquests in the north have no powers to reach a verdict, unlike those in
England and Wales. They can only establish the circumstances surrounding a
death.
The first witness today left the witness box in tears after recounting how
she took two of the three warning calls made that day.
A programme assistant in the Belfast newsroom of Ulster Television, Ms
Margaret Hall said she received the first call some time around 2.30pm - 40
minutes before the device detonated.
It warned of a bomb which was due to go off in 30 minutes. The second call
came less than three minutes later - as she was still passing on the first
message to the police - and claimed it would detonate in 15 minutes.
Her notes recorded him saying, "Courthouse, Omagh Main Street, 500lbs
explosion". He announced himself as representing Oghlaigh na hEireann - the
official name of the IRA, also used by the so-called Real IRA - and gave a
code-word, Martha Pope.
The third call went to the Samaritans in Coleraine, Co Londonderry, at
2.34pm, warning the bomb would explode 30 minutes later.
The volunteer who received the warning, identified as Hilary Unknown and
allowed to give evidence from behind a screen to protect her anonymity, said
the caller claimed the device was in Omagh town centre 200 yards from the
courthouse.
The bomb went off at the junction of High Street and Dublin Road, around 500
yards from the courthouse.
Lawyers for some of the families questioned two police constables, who dealt
with the first warning received by UTV - with one suggesting that crowds
should have been moved to a point much further away.
Constable William Hall was manning the inquiry room of Omagh RUC station
when he was given the warning from a colleague staffing emergency lines in
Belfast and said he immediately telephoned it over to colleagues in the
station's communications room.
He said he understood that the warning referred to a bomb at Omagh
courthouse.
Asked by Michael Mansfield QC that a warning about a 500lb bomb - which
would cause "devastation" - should prompt police to clear the entire "main
street" of High Street and Market Street, the officer replied: "That wasn't
my job."
Constable George Mullan, who received the first 999 call from Ms Hall, told
how he passed it on to Omagh RUC station and then logged it into the forces'
computer network.
He recognised the code-word as the same one used in a Real IRA bomb attack
on Banbridge, Co Down, two weeks earlier.
The inquest was adjourned until tomorrow.
PA
Lilly Langtree
"Lilly Langtree" <L_Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:68yt5.24825$p5.8...@newsread03.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2000/0906/breaking38.htm
> Omagh inquest told of conflicting warnings
P.S.
There is no one to blame for the deaths of those innocent people other than
the savages who planted that bomb. No bomb planted, no screwed up warnings,
no deaths. The only reason to analyze it, in my opinion, is to insure that
if the beasts strike again, the police will not repeat whatever mistakes
they may have made in clearing the area etc.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
>There is no one to blame for the deaths of those innocent people other than
>the savages who planted that bomb.
The blame lies with the savages who herded civilians toward the bomb - i.e.
the RUC. Ask yourself why no RUC personnel were killed - they obviously knew
where not to be standing.
*******
Danielle Ni Dhighe
Puget Sound Chapter, Irish Republican Socialist Committees of North America
puge...@mindspring.com - http://www.irsm.org/irscna/
"Organize now, tomorrow may be too late." - Vol. Patsy O'Hara, INLA
Lilly Langtree
"Danielle Ni Dhighe" <puge...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39b6d3dd...@news.mindspring.com...
> "Lilly Langtree" <L_Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >There is no one to blame for the deaths of those innocent people other
than
> >the savages who planted that bomb.
>
> The blame lies with the savages who herded civilians toward the bomb -
i.e.
> the RUC. Ask yourself why no RUC personnel were killed - they obviously
knew
> where not to be standing.
There is a difference between murder and a horrible, tragic mistake.
The bomb blew those people to bits. They were murdered by the planters of
the bomb. No bomb, no dead people.
If the RUC *deliberately* herded those innocent people to the known location
of the bomb, then there are two sets of murderers involved.
First and foremost... no bomb, noone in Omagh murdered.
Der Irische Fuchs
says...
>
>"Lilly Langtree" <L_Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>There is no one to blame for the deaths of those innocent people other than
>>the savages who planted that bomb.
>
>The blame lies with the savages who herded civilians toward the bomb - i.e.
>the RUC. Ask yourself why no RUC personnel were killed - they obviously knew
>where not to be standing.
>
I think the RIRA were telling the truth about the warnings. In fact the
Samaritan account clearly indicates that they were.
The RUC version of events was at the outset very difficult to accept. This is a
discredited police force that breeds incompetence. They are no longer able to
torture suspects so they can't get convictions.
However the people responsible for Omagh are the people who shifted 500 pounds
of high explosive into a busy nationalist town and who blew it apart. The RUC
did not do that, the RIRA did that. It is Enniskillen re-visted.
The RUC seemingly evacuated people in the directon of a bomb after being told
where it was. That is not the action of a police agency that has very much
credibility.
The RUC is a force with a dreadful track record. However it didn't blow Omagh
apart, it took other people to do that.
Der Irische Fuchs
says...
>
>There is no one to blame for the deaths of those innocent people other than
>the savages who planted that bomb. No bomb planted, no screwed up warnings,
>no deaths. The only reason to analyze it, in my opinion, is to insure that
>if the beasts strike again, the police will not repeat whatever mistakes
>they may have made in clearing the area etc.
>
>
People would have told the boys doing it there were to be three warnings. The
people who left it are not the worst offenders, the people who ordered it are
the insane people.
Enniskillen or La Mon should have been enough. The RIRA bomb was no more
unethical or evil than the other earlier mistakes.
They were all equally wrong. I suppose blowing up Omagh during a peace process
adds an additional chill factor of horror. It is very upsetting. I'd hate to
have their nightmares.
westprog 2000
> >There is no one to blame for the deaths of those innocent people
> >other than the savages who planted that bomb.
> The blame lies with the savages who herded civilians toward the bomb
- i.e.
> the RUC. Ask yourself why no RUC personnel were killed - they
> obviously knew where not to be standing.
Obviously. They probably planted the bomb themselves.
This kind of thing isn't even worth being angry about. It is so
obviously insane that there is no point even rebutting it.
What the inquest has clearly shown is that the warnings were so
misleading that they were either deliberately designed to cause the
deaths, or they simply didn't care. They gave three different times,
and two different locations, all of which were wrong. I would be more
careful telling people where to catch a bus. This was not a mistake.
This was not an accident. This was deliberate mass murder.
It may turn out that the RUC were not as efficient as they might have
been - but they were set an impossible task. Their greatest error might
have been their failure to believe, even after thirty years, just how
evil terrorists could be.
--
J/ (Looking Backward)
SOTW: "New Rose" - The Damned
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Der Irische Fuchs
>
>Obviously. They probably planted the bomb themselves.
>
>This kind of thing isn't even worth being angry about. It is so
>obviously insane that there is no point even rebutting it.
Danielle didn't say the RUC planted the Omagh bomb. The RIRA planted it. The RUC
however did plant bombs in sectarian murder bids and did often try to murder
Catholics. The RUC are notorious for collusion and sectarianism.
I am not saying that it is applicable to Omagh because it probably isn't.
However the RUC are what they are and did what they did. It is silly pretending
that the RUC are anything other than what they are, which is a thoroughly
discredited sectarian paramilitary force.
>
>What the inquest has clearly shown is that the warnings were so
>misleading that they were either deliberately designed to cause the
>deaths, or they simply didn't care.
The RUC were (twice) told the bomb was on the exact street it was in fact on by
*two* sets of people and one of the warnings delivered via the Samaritans
clearly had the bomb at more or less the exact location it was at. The RUC
seemingly lied about the warnings at the time.
Why the people were herded towards the bomb's location is something the RUC
should be allowed to tell us. The bombers phoned three warnings and there is no
reason to presume that their version is not true given the inherent dishonesty
of the RUC and the supporting evidence from the Samaritans who at least have a
reputation for integrity.
The Smaritan version closely matches the bombers version. The people who are
responsible for the bombing are the bombers but the issue with respect to
herding people towards a bomb despite being told exactly where it was, is
something that needs to be addressed.
Der Irische Fuchs
says...
>
>"Lilly Langtree" <L_Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>There is a difference between murder and a horrible, tragic mistake.
>
>I don't believe the Real IRA intended to kill those people. However the RUC
>clearly was hoping for deaths or they wouldn't have herded the people toward
>the bomb.
Why the RIRA should want to blow a nationalist town to pieces is open to
speculation. The idea of blowing Omagh to bits was their idea and planting the
bomb was their deed. The existence of the bomb is down to the RIRA.
The RUC in Omagh are country bumpkins and the speculative premise that they
might be that evil and devious on the spur of the moment is not a plan with four
wheels in my personal opinion.
However it is a very strange affair. They seemingly lied about the warnings and
the RIRA version is harmonious with the only third party witness testimony which
has any credibility.
I'd like to know why people were herded towards a huge bomb after the RUC were
informed of more or less exactly where it was. It is not unreasonable to wonder
why such a thing happened. The kill zone of the bomb was considerable and
people needed to be sent in the opposite direction.
Sending them to the actual location of the bomb was to say the very least the
worst possible thing the RUC could have possibly done.
Der Irische Fuchs
>
>>There is a difference between murder and a horrible, tragic mistake.
>
>I don't believe the Real IRA intended to kill those people. However the RUC
>clearly was hoping for deaths or they wouldn't have herded the people toward
>the bomb.
Why the RIRA should want to blow a nationalist town to pieces is open to
speculation. The idea of blowing Omagh to bits was their idea and planting the
bomb was their deed. The existence of the bomb is down to the RIRA.
The RUC in Omagh are country bumpkins and the speculative premise that they
might be that evil and devious on the spur of the moment is not a plan with four
wheels in my personal opinion.
However it is a very strange affair. They seemingly lied about the warnings and
the RIRA version is harmonious with the only third party witness testimony which
has any credibility.
I'd like to know why people were herded towards a huge bomb after the RUC were
informed of more or less exactly where it was. It is not unreasonable to wonder
why such a thing happened. The kill zone of the bomb was considerable and
people needed to be sent in the opposite direction.
Sending them to the actual location of the bomb was to say the very least the
worst possible thing the RUC could have possibly done.
Fabian a un manteau de fourrure
westprog 2000
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2000/0907/breaking1.htm
"Warnings about the bomb were received at around 2.30 p.m., it then
exploded at 3.10 p.m."
"The caller was reported as claiming that it was at or near the
courthouse or alternatively 200 yards from the building. In the event
it exploded 500 yards away, scything through a large crowd."
IOW, the warning to the Samaritans was very inaccurate - it was just
less inaccurate than the other warning. The warnings as to time were
equally inaccurate. Any statement that the Samaritans recieved an
accurate warning which the RUC ignored is flat wrong.
Either the Real IRA didn't know where they left the bomb, or for when
they set the timer, or they deliberately misinformed to cause
casualties and discredit the RUC.
"Mr Stanley McCombe, whose wife Ann was killed in the blast, said: 'The
police are not on trial here.' "
Danielle Ni Dhighe
>>obviously knew where not to be standing.
>
>Obviously. They probably planted the bomb themselves.
You don't find it strange that not a single cop was standing in the vicinity
of the bomb?
I still don't believe the RIRA intended for all those people to be blown up.
Paul Linehan
westprog 2000 <west...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> What the inquest has clearly shown is that the warnings were so
> misleading that they were either deliberately designed to cause the
> deaths, or they simply didn't care.
Incompetence? Far more likely IMHO.
Paul...
> J/ (Looking Backward)
westprog 2000
"Danielle Ni Dhighe" <puge...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>Ask yourself why no RUC personnel were killed - they
> >>obviously knew where not to be standing.
> >Obviously. They probably planted the bomb themselves.
> You don't find it strange that not a single cop was standing in the
> vicinity of the bomb?
The bomb was 300-500 yards away from where they had been told. If they
were doing their duty, they wouldn't have been near where the bomb
actually was.
> I still don't believe the RIRA intended for all those people to be
> blown up.
Planting a big bomb in a crowded town centre and giving inaccurate
warnings is not what you do in order to avoid hurting people.
This was in fact discussed right here on SCI _before_ the Omagh bomb,
in discussions about the RIRA campaign. Some posters claimed that the
RIRA were on the verge of killing large numbers of people; others said
that they were issuing warnings and it was the loyalists we should be
worrying about.
Lilly Langtree
news:8p8aqc$899$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> You don't find it strange that not a single cop was standing in the
vicinity
> of the bomb?
I don't, for what it is worth. I think the poor bastards were frantically
trying to get people to safety. The statement made by the one officer that
it "wasn't his job" to clear the street is troublesome, admittedly, but
pales by comparison to the ruthlessness of the terrorists. That officer
didn't set the bomb there, Danielle. No bomb, no dead people.
> I still don't believe the RIRA intended for all those people to be blown
up.
Right. They meant to leave a bundt cake for the ladies and kids to enjoy on
their shopping spree in Omagh and must have picked up the wrong box on the
way to town.
Danielle, no one on the face of this earth with any sense of decency can in
any way EVER justify for any reason whatsoever what the RIRA did in Omagh.
I don't care how intricately your political ideas about violence and the
Irish struggle or *whatever* might be woven but that was evil, deliberate
murder in the midst of a peace process full of ceasefires and hope.
Scants
> "Danielle Ni Dhighe" <puge...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:8p8aqc$899$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > You don't find it strange that not a single cop was standing in the
> vicinity
> > of the bomb?
>
> I don't, for what it is worth. I think the poor bastards were frantically
> trying to get people to safety. The statement made by the one officer
that
> it "wasn't his job" to clear the street is troublesome, admittedly, but
> pales by comparison to the ruthlessness of the terrorists. That officer
> didn't set the bomb there, Danielle. No bomb, no dead people.
>
> > I still don't believe the RIRA intended for all those people to be blown
> up.
>
> Right. They meant to leave a bundt cake for the ladies and kids to enjoy
on
> their shopping spree in Omagh and must have picked up the wrong box on the
> way to town.
>
> Danielle, no one on the face of this earth with any sense of decency can
in
> any way EVER justify for any reason whatsoever what the RIRA did in Omagh.
Very well said. But I think you've hit the nail on the head with your
'decency' remark. Danielle has none. Aparently the bomb was actually in
*neither* place given in the warnings. It was 180 yards further on from the
original samaritans warning.
--
Regards,
Scants
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://homepage.eircom.net/~scants
Steve The Sausage
>I'd like to know why people were herded towards a huge bomb after the RUC were
>informed of more or less exactly where it was. It is not unreasonable to wonder
>why such a thing happened. The kill zone of the bomb was considerable and
>people needed to be sent in the opposite direction.
>
>Sending them to the actual location of the bomb was to say the very least the
>worst possible thing the RUC could have possibly done.
You'll try to make political profit out of any situation, no matter
how tragic.
You really are an evil, sick person Greig. Hang your head in shame.
Scants
news:39b7a093.279487147@nrchh45...
If some of these wankers (Danielle and Grieg) actually thought about what
they write they'd realise that BOTH warnings were inaccurate. The actual
location of the bomb was 180 yards beyond where the Samaritans bomb warning
stated. That was on RTE this evening.
BTW if you change just one letter in Greig's name you can make the word
Grief. How appropriate.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
>any way EVER justify for any reason whatsoever what the RIRA did in Omagh.
I'm not justifying their choice of targets, but I also don't believe they
were looking to kill innocent people. The bomb was intended to disrupt the
peace process by destroying property and causing panic. I don't believe the
RIRA set out that day to kill people.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
> 'decency' remark. Danielle has none.
I don't hear you condemning British collusion in ethnic cleansing or
Loyalist killings. Where's your decency?
Tony Cooper
> Very well said. But I think you've hit the nail on the head with your
> 'decency' remark. Danielle has none.
Danielle doesn't need to worry about decency. She doesn't live anywhere
near any danger from the people she supports.
There's the story about the guy that died and was on the conveyor belt to
the station where the souls are sent to either heaven or hell. St. Peter
was directing some of them to heaven for their good deeds on earth.
The devil was directing others to the fiery pit of hell, but he was stacking
a few in separate pile. The man asked the devil why these souls were being
treated differently, and was told "They're from Seattle. They're too wet to
burn."
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
Scants
That's because it doesn't generally come up in discussions and if anyone DID
condone it then I would certainly argue with them. I unreservedly condemn
all violence and if it's genuinely proved that there was collusion then I
certainly condemn it. Unlike you who only condemn violence if it comes from
the other side.
Der Irische Fuchs
>
>You'll try to make political profit out of any situation, no matter
>how tragic.
>
>You really are an evil, sick person Greig. Hang your head in shame.
I am asking the *same* questions as the relatives of the dead. Why are people
defending the RUC and using this atrocity on this forum for that purpose? Why
use it for sectarian attacks on Catholics?
We need less orange bigots participating on this NG is what I think. It is one
sectarian attack after another. Catholics are tormented non stop on SCI by one
bigot after another.
The RUC are widely seen as a sectarian and discredit police force and the bomb
was not at the place they pretended it was. The Samaritan warning which is the
only trustworthy evidence offered stated that it was far away from the Court
House. Both warnings mentioned the street the bomb was in fact in.
The RUC it might be pointed out are bitterly resentful of the relatives of the
victims asking questions directed at finding out why the RUC did not evacuate
the area and why people were herded towards the bomb. They are *very* resonable
questions.
Der Irische Fuchs
>
>In article <8p8aqc$899$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Danielle Ni Dhighe" <puge...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >>Ask yourself why no RUC personnel were killed - they
>> >>obviously knew where not to be standing.
>
>> >Obviously. They probably planted the bomb themselves.
>
>> You don't find it strange that not a single cop was standing in the
>> vicinity of the bomb?
>
>The bomb was 300-500 yards away from where they had been told. If they
>were doing their duty, they wouldn't have been near where the bomb
>actually was.
Look this RUC propaganda has went on long enough. There are clearly people who
will let them get away with anything. They are a discredited organization. They
were given a *clear* warning that put the device well past Scarrfes entry. Well
past Bridge Street.
The bomb was a little way up from that if one accepts the 200 yard figure. All
the warnings had the correct street.
It was *not* evacuated. The RUC herded people to the very location of the bomb.
The RUC have been telling lies from the very beginning. Show me one press
release issued at the time of the blast that revealed that the samaritans had
given a warning placing the bomb hundreds of yards up from the court house in
the direction of Campsie Road! The RUC have been lying from the beginning.
I knew that from the beginning because the RUC are a pack of liars. They are a
discredited incompetent paramilitary gang stuffed with Protestants. They were
always a loyalist formation, they think they are above the law and they think
they can lie and have it accepted as fact.
From Bridge Street in front of the court house to the bomb location it is about
200 metres. The RUC made no effort to clear the area. It was a 500 pound bomb!
They herded people *towards* the bomb instead.
Mark Devlin
> The RUC have been tolerated for far too long and they bitterly resent anybody
> picking holes in their lies. The RUC have been lying about the warnings from
> the first instant. The community they are supposed to serve deserves much
> better than that.
Immediately after Omagh, Greig was very quickly online and posting as to how
the deaths were obviously for the RUC's account. However, he had the grace at
that time to back off from all that very quickly.
Here he is now again, once more trying (amazingly, to anybody of sound mind)
to make it all the fault of the polis. Whether this is because the
deterioration of his mental state is accelerating, or because he has been
drinking heavily, or simply because he would have liked always to do this but
showed some rudimentary prudence in the days after his heroes set off their
bomb, I cannot say. I can say only this: sad wee miserable man.
--
Mark Devlin
<ma...@TURN.ocixot.SMALL_LETTERS.ed.ROUND>
Der Irische Fuchs
says...
>
>Greig Carlin and Ian Paisley
>
>Both religious fanatics.
>Both obsessed with sectarianism
>Both support terrorism
>Both demand being the centre of attention constantly
>Both are going to burn in hell according to criteria laid out by their
>chosen dogma
>Both are intolerant of opposing opinions
>Both manufacture nothing but misery around them
>Both claimed to be defenders of civil and human rights
>Both have big mouths
>Both of them believe they are defenders of cultures that does not want
>them
>Both constantly demand pay-back and vengeance
>Both are deeply paranoid
>Both use name calling to drown out criticism
>Both of them are a joke
>Both are fucking gobshites
>
>Ian Paisley and Greig Carlin - Perfect Together.
>
I gather you are not planning ever again to be in the same room as me? You were
not so brave when you were standing next to me, you are a fat coward. You may
as well do your next SCI-CON by webcam is what I am thinking. You have a yellow
streak from your toes to your dandruff.
Alan Smaill
> >>Ask yourself why no RUC personnel were killed - they
> >>obviously knew where not to be standing.
> >
> >Obviously. They probably planted the bomb themselves.
>
> You don't find it strange that not a single cop was standing in the vicinity
> of the bomb?
I do find that strange.
If such a large scale bomb goes off, you expect to see
a representative section of the community suffering.
> I still don't believe the RIRA intended for all those people to be blown up.
What did they intend, in your view?
> *******
> Danielle Ni Dhighe
> Puget Sound Chapter, Irish Republican Socialist Committees of North America
> puge...@mindspring.com - http://www.irsm.org/irscna/
> "Organize now, tomorrow may be too late." - Vol. Patsy O'Hara, INLA
>
>
--
Alan Smaill email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
Division of Informatics tel: 44-131-650-2710
Edinburgh University
Alan Smaill
> >Danielle, no one on the face of this earth with any sense of decency can in
> >any way EVER justify for any reason whatsoever what the RIRA did in Omagh.
>
> I'm not justifying their choice of targets, but I also don't believe they
> were looking to kill innocent people. The bomb was intended to disrupt the
> peace process by destroying property and causing panic. I don't believe the
> RIRA set out that day to kill people.
You place a bomb with that power in the centre of a town;
it'll caused panic all right.
The outcome was always on the cards, even if it wasn't intended.
They should have understood that this was all too likely how
it was going to end up.
You would have seen the risk, wouldn't you?
>
> *******
> Danielle Ni Dhighe
> Puget Sound Chapter, Irish Republican Socialist Committees of North America
> puge...@mindspring.com - http://www.irsm.org/irscna/
> "Organize now, tomorrow may be too late." - Vol. Patsy O'Hara, INLA
>
>
--
Nasty Headcold
>
> Immediately after Omagh, Greig was very quickly online and posting as
to how
> the deaths were obviously for the RUC's account. However, he had the
grace at
> that time to back off from all that very quickly.
>
> Here he is now again, once more trying (amazingly, to anybody of
sound mind)
> to make it all the fault of the polis. Whether this is because the
> deterioration of his mental state is accelerating, or because he has
been
> drinking heavily, or simply because he would have liked always to do
this but
> showed some rudimentary prudence in the days after his heroes set off
their
> bomb, I cannot say. I can say only this: sad wee miserable man.
>
> --
> Mark Devlin
> <ma...@TURN.ocixot.SMALL_LETTERS.ed.ROUND>
>
Kicking tobacco or male menopause?
Nasty Headcold
--
__________________________________________________
The posh Englishman was arrested by O'Toole,
an Irish policeman, for speeding. The Englishman
said, "I come from one of England's finest
families. O'Toole said, "Sure that's okay,
we don't want you for breeding purposes!"
Scants
news:8p90la$c...@edrn.newsguy.com...
> In article <39b7a093.279487147@nrchh45>, new...@hotmailremovethis.com
says...
>
> >
> >You'll try to make political profit out of any situation, no matter
> >how tragic.
> >
> >You really are an evil, sick person Greig. Hang your head in shame.
>
> I am asking the *same* questions as the relatives of the dead. Why are
people
> defending the RUC and using this atrocity on this forum for that purpose?
Why
> use it for sectarian attacks on Catholics?
You're fucking losing it big time. I'm sorry for you Grieg. You are a
bitter, sad, bigoted individual. Can you not see how loopy the rest of the
world thinks you sound? The fucking bomb was 180 yards further on than the
location given in the Samaritans warning that was on RTE. R U ignoring my
posts on this?
westprog 2000
"Danielle Ni Dhighe" <puge...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Planting a big bomb in a crowded town centre and giving inaccurate
> > warnings is not what you do in order to avoid hurting people.
>
> warnings.
If your purpose is to kill people, and continue to pretend that you
didn't mean it, then you give warnings. However, you make sure that
they are contradictory and misleading.
I wonder how the police were supposed to know that the Samaritan's
warning was more accurate than the other two? Ah well, they had plenty
of time to evaluate the relative merits, didn't they? Three warnings,
two of which said the bomb was _at_ the courthouse. Another which said
it was 200 yards away. The bomb was actually 500 yards away (going by
the IT report). Why give such hugely misleading information? Why not
give the exact location of the bomb?
We already had the debate about whether the RIRA intended to kill
people. We had it _before_ the Omagh bomb. It was asserted then that
RIRA were acting with such recklessness that they would inevitably kill
someone.
westprog 2000
pa...@home.ie (Paul Linehan) wrote:
>
>
> westprog 2000 <west...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > What the inquest has clearly shown is that the warnings were so
> > misleading that they were either deliberately designed to cause the
> > deaths, or they simply didn't care.
>
> Incompetence? Far more likely IMHO.
They knew exactly where they left the bomb. If they gave two different
locations for it, both of which were wrong, it was intentional. People
make these arrangements every day - if I were to say "Meet you at the
Four Courts at 2.30" and I actually turned up at O'Connell Bridge at
3.00, it would be because I didn't want to meet up at all.
If the RIRA are capable of building a bomb, setting a timer and
planting it, they are capable of noting where they left it and saying
accurately when it is due to go off. Why say "at the courthouse" and
"two hundred yards from the courthouse" - why not say "Outside
McDuffy's Haberdashery" or "At number 203 Belfast Road" so that the
police would know exactly where it was? The warning was deliberately
vague. That is not incompetence, that is total indifference to human
life.
westprog 2000
Alan Smaill <sma...@dai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> "Danielle Ni Dhighe" <puge...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> > >Danielle, no one on the face of this earth with any sense of
decency can in
> > >any way EVER justify for any reason whatsoever what the RIRA did
in Omagh.
> > I'm not justifying their choice of targets, but I also don't
believe they
> > were looking to kill innocent people. The bomb was intended to
disrupt the
> > peace process by destroying property and causing panic. I don't
believe the
> > RIRA set out that day to kill people.
> You place a bomb with that power in the centre of a town;
> it'll caused panic all right.
> The outcome was always on the cards, even if it wasn't intended.
The outcome was not only predicatable, it was predicted. The RIRA could
not have seriously thought for a moment that their campaign could have
any other outcome than killing civilians.
> They should have understood that this was all too likely how
> it was going to end up.
> You would have seen the risk, wouldn't you?
Just because totally absurd allegations are being made about the Omagh
bomb doesn't mean that the RUC may not have made mistakes. It may be
shown during the course of the inquest that some things could have been
done better. However, it has already been clearly shown that the RIRA
acted in such a way as to hinder and prevent the safe evacuation of the
civilians by giving misleading and contradictory warnings.
westprog 2000
> The inquest heard that
> the bomb exploded 200 yards away from the place indicated by
> the bombers in telephone warnings.
> The inquest earlier heard recordings of two women relaying the warning
> calls for the explosion to the RUC in the minutes leading up
> to the blast.
> Coroner, John Leckey, heard the tapes of 999 calls made by an Ulster
> Television newsroom assistant and a Samaritans volunteer. Shortly
> afterwards, the bomb exploded, killing 29 people.
> Police handling of terrorist warnings for the Omagh bomb atrocity was
> expected to come under renewed focus today as the inquests
> into the deaths
> enters its second day. More RUC officers are to enter the
> witness box at
> the hearing in Omagh, County Tyrone, to detail how they
> responded to three
> telephoned statements that gave conflicting information about
> where the bomb was planted and when it was due to explode.
...
> Warnings about the bomb were received at around 2.30pm, and
> it exploded at
> approximately 3.10pm. The terrorist caller was reported as
> claiming that it
> was at or near the courthouse, or alternatively, 200 yards from the
> building.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0907/newsatone/news1pm2A.ram
http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0907/1News/1News3A.ram
All the calls mentioned the courthouse - only one placed the bomb any
distance away - and that call minimised the distance.If the RUC
mistakenly assumed that the courthouse was the target, it was because
of the warnings, not in spite of them.
Questions remain about whether the RUC was as efficient as possible -
no doubt that will be reveled during the course of the inquest.
--
J/ (Looking Backward)
SOTW: "New Rose" - The Damned
Derek Bell
: Both are fucking gobshites
Both are hypocrytes.
: Ian Paisley and Greig Carlin - Perfect Together.
Mirror images, in fact.
Derek
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie | Socrates would have loved
WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| usenet.
PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
Derek Bell
: In article <8p7olv$36h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, westprog says...
:>Obviously. They probably planted the bomb themselves.
:>
:>This kind of thing isn't even worth being angry about. It is so
:>obviously insane that there is no point even rebutting it.
: Danielle didn't say the RUC planted the Omagh bomb.
Whose turn is it to explain sarcasm to the trolls?
Derek Bell
:> Very well said. But I think you've hit the nail on the head with your
:> 'decency' remark. Danielle has none.
: I don't hear you condemning British collusion in ethnic cleansing or
: Loyalist killings. Where's your decency?
I don't hear you condemning the lynching of James Byrd Jr. Where's
your decency?
Der Irische Fuchs
>
>All the calls mentioned the courthouse - only one placed the bomb any
>distance away - and that call minimised the distance.If the RUC
>mistakenly assumed that the courthouse was the target, it was because
>of the warnings, not in spite of them.
All the warnings had the bomb in the very same street the bomb was actually on
and one of the warnings had the bomb up from both Bridge Street and Scarffes
Entry and below the interchange, that is the place it actually exploded, the
only reliable witness testimony had the bomb hundreds of yards up the main
street. The area was not evacuated and the people were actually herded towards
that area.
It was a 500 pound bomb! It needed zone clearance. The RUC didn't evacuate the
Street the bomb was on and they were told in all the warmings which street that
was.
I defy you to find me one press release from the RUC stating at the time of the
atrocity that they had a warning placing the bomb hundreds of yards up the very
street it was in. You won't be able to find me an example of that because the
RUC are compulsive liars and the only coherent accounts are the Samaritan
account and the RIRA account. Both are cohesive and coherent between
themselves.
The RUC are a discredited paramilitary force that is comprised almost entirely
of Protestants. They were never hired on the basis of their competence. The
shipyard is facing ruin because of a similar recruitment policy. The RUC never
recruited Catholics before or during the troubles. It was always an incompetent
Protestant militia.
>
>Questions remain about whether the RUC was as efficient as possible -
>no doubt that will be reveled during the course of the inquest.
>
They seemingly knew the exact street and general position of a 500 pound bomb
for at least thirty minutes and they herded people towards it. They have been
dishonest from the very beginning and are furious at being put under pressure by
the relatives of the victims. The RUC have made incompetence a trademark.
Der Irische Fuchs
>
>This was in fact discussed right here on SCI _before_ the Omagh bomb,
>in discussions about the RIRA campaign. Some posters claimed that the
>RIRA were on the verge of killing large numbers of people; others said
>that they were issuing warnings and it was the loyalists we should be
>worrying about.
>
Why did they tell the Samaritans that it was hundreds of yards up the Main
Street away from the court house?
Your theory doesn't make sense, if I have to take a choice between a colluding
sectarian inherently incompetent Protestant police agency and a respected
voluntary organization I know which choice I will be making.
The RUC have colluded and bombed and murdered and they have threatened human
rights lawyers and are deeply implicated in the murders of two of those lawyers.
Even the UN has condemned the RUC.
Der Irische Fuchs
>
>In article <8p8qc7$snb$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Danielle Ni Dhighe" <puge...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > Planting a big bomb in a crowded town centre and giving inaccurate
>> > warnings is not what you do in order to avoid hurting people.
>>
>> And if your purpose is to simply kill people, you don't bother with
>> warnings.
>
>If your purpose is to kill people, and continue to pretend that you
>didn't mean it, then you give warnings. However, you make sure that
>they are contradictory and misleading.
The only reliable testimony relates the bomb as being hundreds of yards up the
main street, both up from Bridge Street and up from Scarffes Entry but down from
the interchange, the RUC seemingly lied about the warnings from beginning to
end. They are outraged at being taken to task by the relatives of the victims.
I defy you to find a single press release from the RUC describing the Samaritan
testimony *before* the inquest. If they were lying then, they were probably
lying throughout. They were hiding the samaritan testimony because it revealed
the horrendous mistake the RUC had made.
The Samaritans are recruiting volunteers at the moment and they don't care if
they are nationalist, republican or indifferent. The RUC are a single religioned
loyalist paramilitary and they were never recruited on the basis of ability. You
are missing the entire point of the criticism.
One of the inherent risks of having an incompetent Protestant militia is that
they will often get things very wrong. If we had a proper police force they'd
be able to deal with situations such as this bombing. The RUC are hopeless, they
are a Protestant police force for a Protestant people.
The same thing applies to the shipyard, in this day and age if you only
recruited red haired or green eyes or one narrow type of people you will not end
up with the best people.
The RUC recruited Protestants. They are discredited and have been involved in
murders, torture and bombings and endemic collusion. They were always a
sectarian paramilitary. They never recruited Catholics, be it before or during
the conflict.
>
>I wonder how the police were supposed to know that the Samaritan's
>warning was more accurate than the other two?
Because unlike them the Samaritans can be trusted. Unlike them the Samaritans
have no track history of telling one blatant lie after another.
The RUC lied from beginning to end and the obvious conclusion is that the
Samaritan version of the warning is the actual one the RUC were given. There is
no credible evidence to suggest that a different version was forwarded. All the
warnings mentioned the *same* street. It was *always* obvious that the RUC were
lying.
Der Irische Fuchs
>
>Just because totally absurd allegations are being made about the Omagh
>bomb doesn't mean that the RUC may not have made mistakes. It may be
>shown during the course of the inquest that some things could have been
>done better. However, it has already been clearly shown that the RIRA
>acted in such a way as to hinder and prevent the safe evacuation of the
>civilians by giving misleading and contradictory warnings.
The RUC are notorious for collusion and murder. The United Nations have
coondemned them. They were never the basis for a competent police force. They
recruited Protestants and didn't recruit nationalists.
They were told in *all* the warnings which street the bomb was in and the most
reliable testimony informs us that the RUC knew the bomb was hundreds of yards
up the main street thirty minutes before it exploded..
They herded civilians towards it. The RIRA account is largely cohesive with the
reliable witness testimony. We can say that for sure. You are grasping at
straws. The RUC herded civilians towards the area the Samaritans said the bomb
was placed. That is a strange thing to be doing.
Der Irische Fuchs
>
>Just because totally absurd allegations are being made about the Omagh
>bomb doesn't mean that the RUC may not have made mistakes. It may be
>shown during the course of the inquest that some things could have been
>done better. However, it has already been clearly shown that the RIRA
>acted in such a way as to hinder and prevent the safe evacuation of the
>civilians by giving misleading and contradictory warnings.
Der Irische Fuchs
>
>In article <8p9116$d...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Der Irische Fuchs <lait@café> wrote:
>
>> The RUC have been tolerated for far too long and they bitterly resent anybody
>> picking holes in their lies. The RUC have been lying about the warnings from
>> the first instant. The community they are supposed to serve deserves much
>> better than that.
>
>Immediately after Omagh, Greig was very quickly online and posting as to how
>the deaths were obviously for the RUC's account. However, he had the grace at
>that time to back off from all that very quickly.
That is hardly the truth, I was merely asking the very same questions then that
the relatives of the victims are asking now and the RUC do not like it very
much. It was obvious *then* that the RUC was lying and I wanted to know why. The
RUC are a discredited paramilitary agency.
"Yesterday there were suggestions from lawyers for some of the bereaved families
that the crowds of people in the town centre should have been moved much further
out of the danger zone.
They repeatedly challenged police witnesses on how they recorded and passed on
the messages down the line. Warnings about the bomb were received at around 2.30
p.m., it then exploded at 3.10 p.m."
These issues were commonly discussed in Omagh at the time and this is SCI an
irish news group and it is okay to discuss things that are being widely
discussed in Omagh or Ireland. I never retracted my criticism of the RUC at the
time. Why should I? They were obviously lying through their teeth as usual.
The RUC have been condemned by the UN and are widely suspected of being involved
in the murders of two human rights lawyers. They have bombed, murdered and
colluded and were never the basis of a competent police agency. They were
always a Protestant militia, before the troubles and during the troubles.
>
>Here he is now again, once more trying (amazingly, to anybody of sound mind)
>to make it all the fault of the polis. Whether this is because the
>deterioration of his mental state is accelerating, or because he has been
>drinking heavily
I am asking the very same questions that the relatives of the victims are asking
and you are just posting smears because you were caught red handed trying to
mislead the news group with repect to the US prison issues.
In the USA it is often perfectly legal to use female inmates for sex and the
major human rights agencies in the USA and outside were saying the *ecact* same
thing as I was saying. You are just angry because you made a fool out of
yourself and dented your reputation. You are posting sick smears for reasons
only you know.
Paul Linehan
westprog 2000 <west...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> pa...@home.ie (Paul Linehan) wrote:
> > Incompetence? Far more likely IMHO.
> They knew exactly where they left the bomb. If they gave two different
> locations for it, both of which were wrong, it was intentional. People
> make these arrangements every day - if I were to say "Meet you at the
> Four Courts at 2.30" and I actually turned up at O'Connell Bridge at
> 3.00, it would be because I didn't want to meet up at all.
You are assuming that those who planted the bomb also gave the warning
- something I doubt very much.
AIUI, the bomb planters get the hell out ASAP and have nothing more to
do with the operation - maybe they were meant to park nearer the
courthouse or whatever - also the fact that the warning was given for
(again AIUI) "Main street" when there isn't one in Omagh would plead
in favour of ignorance.
> If the RIRA are capable of building a bomb, setting a timer and
> planting it, they are capable of noting where they left it and saying
> accurately when it is due to go off. Why say "at the courthouse" and
> "two hundred yards from the courthouse" - why not say "Outside
> McDuffy's Haberdashery" or "At number 203 Belfast Road" so that the
> police would know exactly where it was? The warning was deliberately
> vague. That is not incompetence, that is total indifference to human
> life.
From a paramilitary perspective, I believe that warnings are
deliberately vague in order to prevent bomb disposal teams from
locating and neutralising the device.
Anyway, if total carnage is what you want, why give a warning at all?
Paul...
> J/ (Looking Backward)
veritas
>
>Immediately after Omagh, Greig was very quickly online and posting as to how
>the deaths were obviously for the RUC's account. However, he had the grace at
>that time to back off from all that very quickly.
I was sufficiently familiar with the RUC to spot them telling lies wasn't I?
Did you make one post suggesting that the RUC version of events looked like a
pack of lies? No as usual it took somebody else. The RUC have been condemned by
the UN for death threats directed at human rights lawyers who oddly enough were
killed either later or in one case previously to the condemnation. As a lawyer
how does that make you feel?
>
>Here he is now again, once more trying (amazingly, to anybody of sound mind)
>to make it all the fault of the polis. Whether this is because the
>deterioration of his mental state is accelerating, or because he has been
>drinking heavily.
The UN have also condemned the USA for the state sanctioned sexual abuses of
female inmates. The Christian fellowship that I work for has a much bigger
database of sexual injury involving female inmates in the USA than the versions
used by the DOJ, GAO and FBI. What does that tell you? We can spend a few
thousand dollars and come up with many more female victims than the US agencies
can find in the entire history of their flawed republic.
What did you say about these prison abuses? You tried to pretend they were
fantasy didn't you? What I was saying was the *exact* same as the US domestic
human rights agencies and the other interested agencies, including Amnesty
International and the Helsinki Federation in Vienna and the United Nations.
Post as many smears as you like Mark, each one is better than anything I can say
about your lack of charcacter.
Die Wahrheit kann verletzen.
Danielle Ni Dhighe
>your decency?
I condemn his lynching, which was done by people who would be right at home
in the Loyalist community of NI.
Tommy Murphy
<puge...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>I don't hear you condemning the lynching of James Byrd Jr. Where's
>>your decency?
>
>I condemn his lynching, which was done by people who would be right at home
>in the Loyalist community of NI.
Never see the footage of the "Milltown Three" funeral then?
Cheers
Tommy Murphy
______________________________________________
| Phil wrote in message <83m7vu$20...@drn.newsguy.com>
| And this guy, he IS funny
veritas
>
>Der Irische Fuchs <lait@café> wrote:
>: In article <8p7olv$36h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, westprog says...
>:>Obviously. They probably planted the bomb themselves.
>:>
>:>This kind of thing isn't even worth being angry about. It is so
>:>obviously insane that there is no point even rebutting it.
>: Danielle didn't say the RUC planted the Omagh bomb.
>
> Whose turn is it to explain sarcasm to the trolls?
>
> Derek
Sticks and stones, you can't seem to get very far without name calling. Can't
you use whatever intellect you are blessed with?
I tell you what you can do for me, you find one little example of the RUC making
a reference to the fact that they had a warning from the Samaritans thirty
minutes before the blast placing the bomb between Scarffe Entry and the
junction. Can you find a press release at the time of the atrocity?
The RUC were pretending that the warning gave the location as somewhere else.
The real warning gave the location as very near the actual explosion. I
suspected as much at the time. The RUC are what they are.
We are talking about 500 pounds of explosives and the RUC herded people in the
direction of the location revealed in the warning.
Die Wahrheit kann verletzen.
veritas
>
> Both are hypocrytes.
>
>: Ian Paisley and Greig Carlin - Perfect Together.
>
> Mirror images, in fact.
>
> Derek
Ian Paisley does not play cricket, did not go to a Catholic school (the reverse
of my position) nor is he an orthodox Catholic or indeed even an orthodox
Protestant. He has very few Catholic relatives if any and I have lots of
Protestant relatives.
I didn't go to Bob Jones College either. I vote for the biggest party in
Belfast and Paisley in the leader of something very different. I have nothing in
common with the person I am being ludicrously compared to. I work for a human
rights agency.
My first campaign was during the Franco tyranny. I have demonstrated against
Nazism all over Europe for thirty years. I am a much more reliable person than
you or Unki. My problem is that I am a Northern Catholic and the problem that
we have on SCI is akin to naked racism or anti-semitism.
Die Wahrheit kann verletzen.
veritas
>>
>> I don't hear you condemning British collusion in ethnic cleansing or
>> Loyalist killings. Where's your decency?
>
>
>That's because it doesn't generally come up in discussions and if anyone DID
>condone it then I would certainly argue with them. I unreservedly condemn
>all violence and if it's genuinely proved that there was collusion then I
>certainly condemn it.
I bet you would argue with them. Your posts on the topic are garbage and worthy
only of the utter contempt of decent people. I think 'genuinely proved' is the
key phrase we need to deliberate on to get an insight into your head.
The security forces have had hundreds of it's members convicted of terrorist
crime in British courts and that has not been 'genuinely proven' to your
satisfacton by my reading of your lauhgable posts.
You have never condemned the endemic collusion or terrorism of the security
forces. Explain why the UDA were recruited in huge numbers into British
regiments, can you do that?
The UDA are a death squad organization which killed and kills Catholics. The
British *boasted* of recruiting them! It was obvious they'd bomb and kill
Catholic civilians in huge numbers.
Die Wahrheit kann verletzen.
veritas
>
>AIUI, the bomb planters get the hell out ASAP and have nothing more to
>do with the operation - maybe they were meant to park nearer the
>courthouse or whatever - also the fact that the warning was given for
>(again AIUI) "Main street" when there isn't one in Omagh would plead
>in favour of ignorance.
The 'main street' is obviously the High Street, it is a contiguous street
including the High Street and Market street, thereafter it becomes Campsie Road
and the locals cease to regard it as the same street.
The people who left the bomb were probably very familiar with Omagh. The
Samaritan warning placed the bomb past Scarffes Entry and below the junction
after which Campsie Road starts.
Die Wahrheit kann verletzen.
veritas
>
>You're fucking losing it big time. I'm sorry for you Grieg. You are a
>bitter, sad, bigoted individual. Can you not see how loopy the rest of the
>world thinks you sound? The fucking bomb was 180 yards further on than the
>location given in the Samaritans warning that was on RTE. R U ignoring my
>posts on this?
>
>--
>Regards,
>Scants
I'll ignore your customary abuse and deal with the actual issues. I am asking
the *same* questions as the lawyers representing the relatives of the people
killed and injured at Omagh.
The bomb was placed up from Scarffes Entry and down from the junction which is
*precisely* where the people were herded by the RUC. The only credible
testimony that can be trusted tells us that the RUC were informed thirty minutes
*before* the explosion that the bomb was in this area.
The bomb *was* between Scarffes Entry and the junction. have you ever been to
Omagh? The RUC are a discredited agency and are widely suspected of being
involved in the murder of human rights lawyers and a host of other crimes. They
are not particularly competent.
The only reliable testimony has the bomb in the general area it did explode and
the RUC did not evacuate people from there, but instead evacuated people in that
direction despite having thirty minutes to get it right. They are being quizzed
by lawyers as to why they did what they did and they are furious at that line of
questioning.
They are rushing their own lawyers in. I defy you to get me one press release
from the RUC that states at the time of the outrage that they had a warning from
the Samaritans placing the bomb hundreds of yards up the main street. They
didn't want anybody to know that did they?
Die Wahrheit kann verletzen.
Baz Beetle
>
>>I don't hear you condemning the lynching of James Byrd Jr. Where's
>>your decency?
>
>I condemn his lynching, which was done by people who would be right at home
>in the Loyalist community of NI.
>
The recreational killing of Catholics featuring very large numbers of spectators
was a feature of this war. The 'romper room' killings and so on. Even British
soldiers who were Irish and Catholic were used in these perverted events which
have a very long history.
At one time in Belfast if a person was earing a British uniform he was apt to be
murdered *because* the military was seen as a 'welfare system' for Catholics.
The Protestants got the first pickings when it came to jobs.
Crippled heroes from the Somme were thrown out of the military hospitals if they
were Catholic. One of the most decorated soldiers from WWI with a personal
reference from the Prince of Wales was sacked from his job by Orangemen too
cowardly to fight in WWI. None of the UVF guns seen a French battlefield.
Baz Beetle
Baz Beetle
>
>They knew exactly where they left the bomb. If they gave two different
>locations for it, both of which were wrong, it was intentional. People
>make these arrangements every day - if I were to say "Meet you at the
>Four Courts at 2.30" and I actually turned up at O'Connell Bridge at
>3.00, it would be because I didn't want to meet up at all.
The location revealed at the inquest by the only trustworthy testimony stated
that the bomb was left above Scarffes Entry and below the junction. The RUC had
at least thirty minutes warning. This is indeed the area in which the bomb
exploded.
The RUC herded people towards the very area they had been warned about. It was
a 500 pound device. The lawyers representing the relatives of the victims are
interested in knowing why the RUC did not clear the zone mentioned in the
Samaritan warning. This is a resonable thing for them to want to know.
Baz Beetle
Baz Beetle
>
>You place a bomb with that power in the centre of a town;
>it'll caused panic all right.
>
>The outcome was always on the cards, even if it wasn't intended.
>
>They should have understood that this was all too likely how
>it was going to end up.
>
>You would have seen the risk, wouldn't you?
>
That is absolutely correct. The people doing X need to guarantee that they get
X rather than a massacre. It is not up to the shoppers to use telepathy. It is
not even up to the RUC or the security forces. If it is not foolproof it is a
crime against humanity.
Baz Beetle
Mark Devlin
> veritas wrote:
>
> >Die Wahrheit kann verletzen
>
> Dead Man Posting.
>
>
> *ploink*
You know, Ger, I've never been much of a one for killfiles. 'Don't have to
*read* them, I always told myself. But I think I'll give this a try; 'Don't
even have to *see* them' starts to sound better and better.
Let's see:
*ploink*
Ah. Much better now.
--
Mark Devlin
<ma...@TURN.ocixot.SMALL_LETTERS.ed.ROUND>
flower@lisieux
>
>You know, Ger, I've never been much of a one for killfiles. 'Don't have to
>*read* them, I always told myself. But I think I'll give this a try; 'Don't
>even have to *see* them' starts to sound better and better.
>
>Let's see:
>
>*ploink*
>
>Ah. Much better now.
>
>--
>Mark Devlin
><ma...@TURN.ocixot.SMALL_LETTERS.ed.ROUND>
In the USA it is often perfectly legal to use female inmates for sex, isn't it
Mark? Did you have a previous view on this? I am laughing at you running away!
You can't cut the mustard and are sticking your head in the sand.
Ger never recovered when he took that route. He has been 'B' league ever since.
Of course he is only five foot tall I gather, with green teeth so I can
understand shyness.
flower@lisieux
yak...@my-deja.com
>
> In the USA it is often perfectly legal to use female inmates for sex,
isn't it
> Mark?
Yet again, no Greggy. And continuing to make the same non-factual
claim will not change that. But then, you are not one to let facts get
in your way are you?
> Did you have a previous view on this?
Anyone who has posted on Usenet in any of around a hundred various, and
unrelated NG's, has been subjected to your continued claims without any
facts to support them, and your continued denial of facts presented to
show your claims incorrect and mere falicies.
> I am laughing at you running away!
> You can't cut the mustard and are sticking your head in the sand.
Much like you stated you were going to do when you could not respond to
the questions you were being asked on your UN claims. Shame your C&R
is so terrible, you really could have the potential to effect some real
changes, if only you would not have this odd need to try and make
yourself out to be all knowing.
>
> Ger never recovered when he took that route. He has been 'B' league
ever since.
> Of course he is only five foot tall I gather, with green teeth so I
can
> understand shyness.
Still using that crystal ball to determine what others look like? You
never did explain how a minority is supposed to post, care to now?
--
International Coalition for Honest and Accurate Reporting of Human
Rights Events.
http://icfhaarohre1.tripod.com/icfhaarohre1
Steve The Sausage
>In article <8p9116$d...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Der Irische Fuchs <lait@café> wrote:
>
>> The RUC have been tolerated for far too long and they bitterly resent anybody
>> picking holes in their lies. The RUC have been lying about the warnings from
>> the first instant. The community they are supposed to serve deserves much
>> better than that.
>
>Immediately after Omagh, Greig was very quickly online and posting as to how
>the deaths were obviously for the RUC's account. However, he had the grace at
>that time to back off from all that very quickly.
>
>Here he is now again, once more trying (amazingly, to anybody of sound mind)
>to make it all the fault of the polis. Whether this is because the
>deterioration of his mental state is accelerating, or because he has been
>drinking heavily, or simply because he would have liked always to do this but
>showed some rudimentary prudence in the days after his heroes set off their
>bomb, I cannot say. I can say only this: sad wee miserable man.
I seriously believe that he was born with 666 on his forehead.
Lilly Langtree
"Tony Cooper" <tony-...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8p8sf3$sh0$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> Snip Seattle Purgatory Story<
The man asked the devil why these souls were being
> treated differently, and was told "They're from Seattle. They're too wet
to burn."
..ain't it the truth?
In all fairness, Danielle and I are *both* posting from a good safe
distance, and we are at polar ends in our views of it.
People understandably don't like comments from folks who don't have to
endure the violence, but I think there is *something* to be said for the way
all situations look when you step away from them a bit. (I know when I
travel, things at home look different - sort of the "looking at it from the
moon" phenomenon. You sort of see a broader picture.)
I think insights from Irish folks who are living away from Ireland are
sometimes the most enlightening. I read books, articles and listen to folks
here, and realize I have not got the whole picture. I certainly have never
faced the results of terrorism personally, nor have I been treated as a
second class citizen due to some external factor. But empathy is not too
difficult to develop if one pays attention to the experiences described by
others.
I hope no one else has posted this article, and wondered what you guys
thought about it. I'm particularly curious about why Catholics would find
it patronizing to have an opportunity to see senior Catholic officers
serving in the force.
Is it simply that what most NI Catholics want is an end to the RUC &
something entirely new in it's place? I'm trying to pay attention, but this
gets awfully complicated.
Unionists Slam Garda Proposal For Police Service
PA 09/08/00 02:58
Copyright 2000 PA News
By Rosie Cowan, Ireland Political Editor, PA News
An Ulster Unionist MP today dismissed as "patronizing" Peter Mandelson's
suggestion that members of the Republic's police force should be allowed to
join Northern Ireland's new police service.
Mr Mandelson is to put forward an amendment to the Police Bill, due in
the Lords next month, to let serving Garda Siochana officers work in
Northern Ireland.
"In theory it's possible that such lateral entry could come
about but precisely how and on what terms would remain to be considered," he
said.
Recruitment of members of the Garda Siochana could help even up the
balance of senior Catholic officers in Northern Ireland's overwhelming
Protestant force.
But Ulster Unionist Fermanagh/South Tyrone MP Ken Maginnis, the party's
security spokesman, said: "I think this is slightly patronizing to Catholics
and aggravating to Protestants.
"If we're in the position where the posturing of Sinn Fein and the SDLP
deters Catholics within Northern Ireland from joining the police then how on
earth are we going to attract people who have a good career structure in the
Irish Republic?
"This is not something that in the practical sense is going to make a
huge difference."
The Policing Bill has continued to cause controversy with
nationalists and republicans highly critical of what they feel is too much
divergence from former Hong Kong Governor Chris Patten's recommendations on
reform.
Yesterday, members of the US Congress International Relations Committee
said moving away from Patten would undermine the Good Friday Agreement.
But Mr Mandelson, in an interview with the Irish Times, insisted the Bill
would command widespread support.
"It's not by chance that we have legislation which commands remarkable
acceptance," he said. "That's a very big progression, one that many would
have thought unimaginable a year ago.
"Whatever form the legislation takes, our position on Patten is very
simple and remains unchanged. There will be a new police service, it will be
called the Police Service of Northern Ireland and it will be one that grows
out of the RUC.
"That's the spirit and letter of Patten and it is reflected in
the Bill."
He also hinted the vexed matter of flags and emblems would probably not
be sorted out until the new Policing Board was set up.
"That's my present intention and I think it's difficult to
gainsay the view that when it comes to designing insignia and deciding what
the police flag should look like and what emblems should be and it shouldn't
simply be left to the Secretary of State."
Brendan Heading
<puge...@mindspring.com> writes
>The blame lies with the savages who herded civilians toward the bomb - i.e.
>the RUC.
Sick. If there'd been no bomb, no herding. You're going down the wrong
road trying to use the Omagh bomb against the RUC.
Among the casualties were a number of Protestants, one of whom was a
close relative of a unionist councillor. Are the RUC into herding
Protestants into bombs now ?
--
Brendan Heading, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Tús maith leath na hoibre...
Brendan Heading
<lait@café.?> writes
>>You really are an evil, sick person Greig. Hang your head in shame.
>
>I am asking the *same* questions as the relatives of the dead.
Was that the relative (whose daughter died) who objected to the strong
questioning of the RUC officers saying "the RUC are not on trial here" ?
Brendan Heading
<puge...@mindspring.com> writes
>>>Ask yourself why no RUC personnel were killed - they
>>>obviously knew where not to be standing.
>>
>>Obviously. They probably planted the bomb themselves.
>
>of the bomb?
Do you mean to say that the RUC knew exactly where the bomb was ? How
could the RUC have known this ?
Brendan Heading
<puge...@mindspring.com> writes
>"Lilly Langtree" <L_Lan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>There is a difference between murder and a horrible, tragic mistake.
>
>I don't believe the Real IRA intended to kill those people.
It depends on the reason why the bomb was planted. Markethill for
instance is a unionist town so you can sort of see where the twisted
logic lies. Omagh is a nationalist town, even a republican town. You can
see why some of the Provo conspiracy theorists believe the bomb was
intended to hurt *them*.
Brendan Heading
<puge...@mindspring.com> writes
>And if your purpose is to simply kill people, you don't bother with
>warnings.
No seriously sane person can argue that planting a bomb in a town centre
is not going to result in casualties.
If the warning had said "the bomb is in a red cavalier outside the
courthouse" then you would at least have a starting point for an
argument. Why did the RIRA choose not to be specific and go so far as to
provide three warnings giving different information ? How were the cops
supposed to work out which warning was correct ?
To me there are two possibilities; one is that the RIRA organization and
internal communication is poor and inefficient and that they weren't
given the right information by the person who planted it. The other
possibility is that they deliberately confused the cops and made their
job in possible. At the very *least* the lives of those people were not
significant enough to the RIRA for them to spend time planning their
operation properly. In anyone's book that makes them a bunch of very
callous and very sick people.
Brendan Heading
<puge...@mindspring.com> writes
>>Danielle, no one on the face of this earth with any sense of decency can in
>>any way EVER justify for any reason whatsoever what the RIRA did in Omagh.
>
> I'm not justifying their choice of targets, but I also don't believe they
>were looking to kill innocent people.
Why don't you believe that Danielle ? Is it because they fly a tricolour
over their heads ?
Why is it easier for you to believe that the RUC deliberately sent them
into the bomb ?
Brendan Heading
<pa...@home.ie> writes
>From a paramilitary perspective, I believe that warnings are
>deliberately vague in order to prevent bomb disposal teams from
>locating and neutralising the device.
In other words, human lives are an acceptable risk when it comes to
achieving the objective of the bomb exploding unhindered - yes ?
>Anyway, if total carnage is what you want, why give a warning at all?
Why plant a bomb at all in a place like Omagh ? What *was* the objective
here ?
Derek Bell
: My first campaign was during the Franco tyranny. I have demonstrated against
: Nazism all over Europe for thirty years. I am a much more reliable person
: than you or Unki. My problem is that I am a Northern Catholic and the
: problem that we have on SCI is akin to naked racism or anti-semitism.
You want to see anti-Catholic prejudice? Go to
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vat7b.htm
to see a campaign to strip the Vatican of its' current status at the UN.
Would anyone do the same to Israel, Iran or Saudi Arabia? Oh no, too
Politically Incorrect, but go ahead, rant and rail against the Vatican,
try and remove its' status, despite it qualifying on the grounds that it
is a country in its' own right.
Before anyone accuses me of being anti-athiest, I *am* an atheist
who is sick and tired of the Politically Correct militant organisations
like American Athiests who do nothing more than bash other peoples' faiths.
I am critical of the Catholic Church where I believe it needs it
(e.g. beatification of Pius IX), but I am also critical of other hypocrytes.
Derek
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie | Socrates would have loved
WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| usenet.
PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
Derek Bell
:>your decency?
: I condemn his lynching, which was done by people who would be right at home
: in the Loyalist community of NI.
Thus missing my point - that as soon as someone condemns one thing
in Northern Ireland a bout of "whataboutism" starts listing atrocities by
other groups. There is an assumption that somone who criticises, say,
Republican groups is a Loyalist sympathiser or pro-British and vica versa.
Derek Bell
: The outcome was not only predicatable, it was predicted. The RIRA could
: not have seriously thought for a moment that their campaign could have
: any other outcome than killing civilians.
Ah, but I doubt the bombers had thought much about that - among other
things they chose to bomb on a market day, when it was crowded. In planning,
they seem to overlooked that, even though a non-market day would have
reduced casualties. Seems like they didn't put much forethought into it at
all - on those grounds alone, they should be stopped before they kill more.
Derek Bell
: westprog 2000 <west...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:> What the inquest has clearly shown is that the warnings were so
:> misleading that they were either deliberately designed to cause the
:> deaths, or they simply didn't care.
: Incompetence? Far more likely IMHO.
Very true.
Derek Bell
: It depends on the reason why the bomb was planted. Markethill for
: instance is a unionist town so you can sort of see where the twisted
: logic lies. Omagh is a nationalist town, even a republican town. You can
: see why some of the Provo conspiracy theorists believe the bomb was
: intended to hurt *them*.
Some suggested that the RIRA was trying to tweak the PIRAs' nose by
carrying out an operation on the latters' turf.
Tony Cooper
> You want to see anti-Catholic prejudice? Go to
> http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vat7b.htm
> to see a campaign to strip the Vatican of its' current status at the UN.
I read the article, but I didn't really see it as anti-Catholic bashing. It
was critical of the existence of the Vatican State, yes. That, however, is
not being prejudicial to Catholicism. No more than being critical of
Israel's actions as a state would be being critical of Judeism.
I'm really at a loss to defend Vatican City's status in the U.N. Why should
they have it?
> Would anyone do the same to Israel, Iran or Saudi Arabia? Oh no, too
> Politically Incorrect, but go ahead, rant and rail against the Vatican,
> try and remove its' status, despite it qualifying on the grounds that it
> is a country in its' own right.
Yeah it is, but is it? Is it a functioning member of the nations? I guess
your point is that they are all mostly of one dominant religion, but it's
still a weak comparison.
The comparison to Israel, etc is not - to me - valid. Those are regular
countries that should have a voice in world scheme of things.
> Before anyone accuses me of being anti-athiest, I *am* an atheist
> who is sick and tired of the Politically Correct militant organisations
> like American Athiests who do nothing more than bash other peoples'
faiths.
I didn't see any bashing of faith in what you posted. Only bashing of
political organization.
Oh, and I am Catholic so I suppose I should be offended. But, I'm not.
Is this Atheist organization the same one that Madyln Murray O'Hair (sp?)
disappeared from?
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
Derek Bell
: Derek said:
:> You want to see anti-Catholic prejudice? Go to
:> http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vat7b.htm
:> to see a campaign to strip the Vatican of its' current status at the UN.
: I read the article, but I didn't really see it as anti-Catholic bashing. It
: was critical of the existence of the Vatican State, yes. That, however, is
: not being prejudicial to Catholicism. No more than being critical of
: Israel's actions as a state would be being critical of Judeism.
But if the criticism of the Vatican is about, say, mysogyny, then
there are states that are much worse - Iran or Saudi Arabia.
: I'm really at a loss to defend Vatican City's status in the U.N. Why should
: they have it?
Same goes for Saudi Arabia. Both are states that are authoritarian,
with dominant religious authorities.
: Oh, and I am Catholic so I suppose I should be offended. But, I'm not.
Your call, I suppose. I wouldn't be surprised if Ian Paisley
supported it, though and he's a notorious anti-Catholic.
: Is this Atheist organization the same one that Madyln Murray O'Hair (sp?)
: disappeared from?
Yes - it looks like foul play was involved:
http://www.auschron.com/issues/dispatch/2000-06-09/pols_feature3.html
http://www.austin360.com/statesman/editions/thursday/metro_state_5.html
One of the suspects pleaded guilty to stealing $54,000 from the
organisation.
I wouldn't call myself a fan of O'Hair seeing as she said things such
as accusing agnostics of being "gutless".
Hugh Ferrin
"Crapola" <breast@feeding> wrote in message news:8pjkl8$k...@edrn.newsguy.com...
> In article <8pjade$15bu$1...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>, Derek says...
>
> >
> > Very true.
> >
> > Derek
> >--
> >Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie | Socrates would have loved
> >WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| usenet.
> >PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
>
>
> placed the bomb between Scarffes Entry and the junction? That is the place
they
> evacuated the people to. The only trustworthy testimony had the bomb hundreds
> of yards up the main Street. The RUC lied about that at the time of the
blast.
Probably though it is more likely that it was done to cover a huge terrible
mistake. I have no love for the RUC but it stretches the conspiracy theory to
the limit to suggest that they deliberately sent people to their deaths on that
awful day. To give any credence to that theory surely you would have to assume
that the RUC knew in advance that the bomb was coming and were quite happy to
allow the possibility of the deaths of RUC men and potentially members of their
own families.
If the RUC fucked up on the day then they should of course be held responsible
but the bombers killed those people. They were following an already proven to be
failed strategy - why? I don't think they did their best to ensure no
casualties; I think the people of Omagh were deemed 'expendable' and I don't
think any 'bleeding heart' excuses or blame shifting will fool anyone.
--
Regards,
Shug
'You guys are so unhip it's a wonder your bums don't fall off!'
>
> Crapola
>
Derek Bell
: That assumption is almost inevitably correct. Take yourself for example. When
: was your last post about the British death squads or their murder campaigns?
Look you sick fuck - just because you didn't hear me condemn them
doesn't mean I support them. That is called the argument from ignorance and it
is used to support all kinds of spurious reasoning.
Personally, I think Loyalist paramilitaries are a twisted bunch and
that there are serious questions about the British military. No doubt some
Loyalist fuck will try to smear me as a result.
Last year, a crackpot accused me of being an IRA apologist partly
because I diagreed with him and partly because he thought (correctly, as it
turned out) I was Irish. Now he had never heard me condemn the IRA, so by your
standards he was right. I have condemned the IRA on many occasions, but
by your logic he was right. Mind you, his politics on Ireland can be summed
up by his claim that he fantasised about nuking Dublin.
One of my complaints about Northern Ireland politics is that it's damn
near impossible to comment on it without being pigeonholed.
westprog 2000
Derek Bell <db...@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
> westprog 2000 <west...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> : The outcome was not only predicatable, it was predicted. The RIRA
> : could
> : not have seriously thought for a moment that their campaign could
> : have any other outcome than killing civilians.
> Ah, but I doubt the bombers had thought much about that - among
> other
> things they chose to bomb on a market day, when it was crowded. In
> planning,
> they seem to overlooked that, even though a non-market day would have
> reduced casualties. Seems like they didn't put much forethought into
> it at
> all - on those grounds alone, they should be stopped before they kill
> more.
I'm sure that they knew that it would be a market day, and that it
would therefore be difficult to clear the streets. That was the idea.
Couple that with the incorrect warnings, and they must have wanted
people to get hurt. I expect that they didn't plan on killing 41
people; they would have been satisfied with one or two, with a few
blindings or lost limbs.
What it certainly was not was an "economic attack". They wanted to
endanger people, in a big way. When you deliberately expose people to
enormous danger, and they die, that is exactly equivalent to deliberate
murder. No accident involved.
--
J/ (Looking Backward)
SOTW: "Prairie Rose" - Roxy Music
Tony Cooper
> One of my complaints about Northern Ireland politics is that it's damn
> near impossible to comment on it without being pigeonholed.
>
Let's not bring bestiality into it. We'll have the animal rights people in.
Tony Cooper
> : I'm really at a loss to defend Vatican City's status in the U.N. Why
should
> : they have it?
>
> Same goes for Saudi Arabia. Both are states that are authoritarian,
> with dominant religious authorities.
True, but Saudi Arabia has a large population of citizens that are not
connected with "church" activities. I see Vatican City as simply a big
office complex with a bunch of worker bees for the corporation.
The concept of the U.N. is to give nations a common place for discussion. I
don't see the concept including excluding nations that are authoritarian or
religiously dominated. I would exclude Vatican City because there is no
population of ordinary citizens to speak of.
Derek Bell
: True, but Saudi Arabia has a large population of citizens that are not
: connected with "church" activities. I see Vatican City as simply a big
: office complex with a bunch of worker bees for the corporation.
Fair enough.
: The concept of the U.N. is to give nations a common place for discussion. I
: don't see the concept including excluding nations that are authoritarian or
: religiously dominated. I would exclude Vatican City because there is no
: population of ordinary citizens to speak of.
But it is a soverign state, no matter how few ordinary citizens there
are - otherwise other small states might be in danger of losing their status
with the UN.
Monaco would have very few ordinary citizens; it's mostly a playground
for the rich. I don't see anyone trying to revoke its' status (if any) with the
UN.
westprog 2000
" Meanwhile, the most dramatic event of the hearing yesterday was the
tape recording replay of the actual RUC radio communications traffic in
Omagh in the 20 minutes before the devastating explosion. A transcript
of the messages exchanged between the RUC control room and the
policemen who were attempting to clear the shops and streets was
displayed simultaneously on screens in the inquest hall, and this
indicated the time - to the nearest second - at which each message was
sent or received.
At the outset a "Constable Millar" (actually Sgt Martin Millar) is
heard relaying the warning to a Constable Doherty on the street
somewhere in central Omagh. Constable Doherty acknowledges at 14.36.27:
"Roger, I take it we're going to start evacuating now".
Constable Millar: "Aye. Roger. You may start evacuating from roughly
Bridge Street down the way, it's given for about 150 yards from the
courthouse".
Constable Doherty: "Roger. Is there any time? Over".
Constable Millar: "Aye, roger, that's the problem, you only have about
15 minutes. Over".
Numerous "tasking messages" follow, with various units reporting in to
Control or being assigned locations.
At 14.45.32, a Constable Stewart requests: "Could you scrape up another
mobile (unit), we could do with one at John Street?"
At 14.48.52 Control inquires if the premises "up there" are cleared,
and Constable Stewart replies: "Clearing them as quick as we can but
we'll do another quick run through once we're happy that we have most
of them out".
At 14.51.13 Constable Stewart inquires: "If there's any more additional
resources coming here, we need police at the back of the Royal Arms.
Over".
At 14.53.08 a Sgt Marshall tells another unit: "You need to detail
somebody to check all the vehicles from your point up to the
Courthouse".
At 14.56.21 Sgt Marshall asks for a mobile support unit (MSU) to be
sent to Sally O'Brien's pub: "We've got a very large crowd here who
don't want to play".
At 14.58.10 the sergeant reports having some crowd control problems at
the junction of High Street/Bridge Street. At 15.00.19 he reports that
he is preparing to compile a list of the cars at the top of High Street
adjacent to the Courthouse and suggests that they can start checking
(the registered owners).
At 15.02.13 Constable Stewart reports: "We've just got told that
there's somebody still in a flat above the Abbey National and
(inaudible) to get them out".
The transcript announces: "There is a sound of an explosion at
15.04.20". It has been difficult, however, to distinguish any distinct
detonation from the loud bursts of static on the tape.
Seven seconds later, Constable Stewart's voice, full of excitement and
alarm, comes over the radio, partly inaudible but one phrase is clear:
". . .this has exploded. . .". Almost simultaneously a Sgt. Thompson
calls in: "Oscar, need assistance to the bottom of the town. . ."
The very intense radio message traffic indicated that a determined
police effort was being carried out, with the resources available, to
clear the central Omagh area. Both Mr Stanley McCombe and Mr Michael
Gallagher, who lost relatives in the bombing, said afterwards that it
appeared from the tapes that RUC had done their level best. "
Doc Aay
>
> The very intense radio message traffic indicated that a determined
> police effort was being carried out, with the resources available, to
> clear the central Omagh area. Both Mr Stanley McCombe and Mr Michael
> Gallagher, who lost relatives in the bombing, said afterwards that it
> appeared from the tapes that RUC had done their level best. "
>
> --
> J/ (Looking Backward)
>
> SOTW: "Prairie Rose" - Roxy Music
Very very chilling. It must be truly horrible to be one of the men
trying to do crowd control, knowing there is death and destruction
waiting for you and that lives depend on your actions. Say what you
may, I feel for those men.
Doc
--
"When someone loves you, the way she says your name is different. You
know that your name is safe in her mouth."
****************
www.angelfire.com/journal/wilsonscat
Derek Bell
: Derek Bell wrote:
:> One of my complaints about Northern Ireland politics is that it's damn
:> near impossible to comment on it without being pigeonholed.
: Let's not bring bestiality into it. We'll have the animal rights people in.
Sado-necro-bestiality* is a fine Usenet tradition.
Derek
*Flogging a dead horse
Derek Bell
: That assumption is almost inevitably correct. Take yourself for example.
I've condemned the murder of the Quinn brothers, the cheap joke about
Rosemary Nelson made by Dave Moore and I've stated before that there are
serious questions about actions of the British military.
However, your statement ("That assumption is almost inevitably
correct.") is the same line of reasoning used by those who condemn all
Catholics as IRA members.
Sweeney the Wanderer
I'm with you on this one. No doubt Devlin will explain to us the error
of our ways.
Sweeney
Derek Bell
: They knew exactly where they left the bomb. If they gave two different
: locations for it, both of which were wrong, it was intentional. People
: make these arrangements every day - if I were to say "Meet you at the
: Four Courts at 2.30" and I actually turned up at O'Connell Bridge at
: 3.00, it would be because I didn't want to meet up at all.
Much as I loath the bombers, I suspect that the inaccuracies
were a result of the lack of coordination between the callers and
planters.
Sweeney the Wanderer
>
> Tony Cooper <tony-...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> : Derek Bell wrote:
> :> One of my complaints about Northern Ireland politics is that it's damn
> :> near impossible to comment on it without being pigeonholed.
> : Let's not bring bestiality into it. We'll have the animal rights people in.
>
> Sado-necro-bestiality* is a fine Usenet tradition.
>
Sweeney
Derek Bell
falling all over each other to denounce it as a Paisleyite anti-Catholic
trick. Because it was started in the USA, people are not willing to criticise
it, which is strange. After all, the USA is traditionally very anti-Catholic;
JFKs' religion was made an issue of in the 1960 election.
Tony Cooper
>
> But it (Vatican City) is a soverign state, no matter how few ordinary
citizens there
> are - otherwise other small states might be in danger of losing their
status
> with the UN.
I hope you understand that I am not deeply involved in any organization
intent on stripping Vatican City of its' UN membership. I hadn't even given
their status any thought until the URL and post came up.
Your point is good, though, about "how small does a nation have to be to be
excluded?".
I do - I want you to know - see your personal interest in Vatican City. You
are the one that is strangely attracted to pigeonholes, are you not?
That was you wandering around St. Peter's Square luring pigeons?
Tony Cooper
> After all, the USA is traditionally very anti-Catholic;
> JFKs' religion was made an issue of in the 1960 election.
I would argue this with you. Both from today's standpoint and from the
standpoint of 1960. There is some anti- just about anything here to some
degree. I think, though, that you would have a difficult time - with one
exception - of finding many Americans that have had a problem with bias
against Catholics.
The major exception is mixed marriages. We'll elect a politician, hire an
employee, or live next door to a Catholic and no one thinks much about it.
But, let a Catholic try to marry a Jewish or Baptist or B.A. Christian and
the mothers-in-law (on both sides) threaten to cut their wrists.
My daughter - a product of Catholic schooling - attended a college in
Georgia. Ninty some percent of her friends there were Southern Baptists.
There was curiousity both ways, but no problems.
As to 1960, I commented on this in an earlier post. I voted for JFK, and
followed that election. There were some fears in those days that the White
House would be an annex of Vatican City. There was some opposition to a
Catholic President on the East Coast from WASPs. They generally seemed to
think that JFK simply wasn't the right sort to lead the country. It was
not, in my personal memory, a very intense problem.
You would have to go back to Al Smith's run for the Presidency in the 1920's
to find a strong anti-Catholic bias in a Presidential election.
Séimí mac Liam
Gerard <Ger@r.d> wrote in message
news:3sbtrssad0t1nq4l6...@4ax.com...
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> >You would have to go back to Al Smith's run for the Presidency in
the 1920's
> >to find a strong anti-Catholic bias in a Presidential election.
>
>
Do five foot Irish men have big ears? I hope so, cause I think you're
going to get an earful.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
My eyes are hazel as well as my nuts"
Canonized December '99
Alun
"Séimí mac Liam" wrote:
>
> Gerard <Ger@r.d> wrote in message
> news:3sbtrssad0t1nq4l6...@4ax.com...
> > Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> > >You would have to go back to Al Smith's run for the Presidency in
> the 1920's
> > >to find a strong anti-Catholic bias in a Presidential election.
> >
> > Tony, you really should read up on the 1960 campaign.
> >
> Do five foot Irish men have big ears? I hope so, cause I think you're
> going to get an earful.
>
I have big ears but I don't hear any more than those with littler ears,
do you think that is a problem?
Alun
Séimí mac Liam
Alun <"Alun Docherty"@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39BEBEE9...@netscapeonline.co.uk...
difference if you're more than 5 feet tall. Effects of ground wave
propagation or sumthin.
Mark Devlin
> >I'm with you on this one. No doubt Devlin will explain to us the error
> >of our ways.
>
> Nah. Play by the rules. If you don't like the Pope as a head of
> state, canvas to have the Vatican State reincorporated into Italy.
Ger's quite right. You might well find it rather tawdry that the Vatican has
nation-state status as the result of a bribe given it by Mussolini in
exchange for recognition of his fascist regime. If so, lobby the Italian
parliament to reject Musso's Concordat and reclaim the papally occupied
territories, ideally by force. But until that happens, and so long as the
Vatican is recognised under international law as a sovereign state, it's the
pope's good right to send men in dresses to the UN.
Of course, given that the Vatican is a sovereign state, one would expect
other sovereign states to require that RC bishops and priests formally
declare themselves the agents of a foreign power.
--
Mark Devlin
<ma...@TURN.ocixot.SMALL_LETTERS.ed.ROUND>
Sweeney the Wanderer
>
> In article <ph9trss5flhhgjtk5...@4ax.com>, Ger@r.d wrote:
>
> > >I'm with you on this one. No doubt Devlin will explain to us the error
> > >of our ways.
> >
> > Nah. Play by the rules. If you don't like the Pope as a head of
> > state, canvas to have the Vatican State reincorporated into Italy.
>
> Ger's quite right. You might well find it rather tawdry that the Vatican has
> nation-state status as the result of a bribe given it by Mussolini in
> exchange for recognition of his fascist regime. If so, lobby the Italian
> parliament to reject Musso's Concordat and reclaim the papally occupied
> territories, ideally by force. But until that happens, and so long as the
> Vatican is recognised under international law as a sovereign state, it's the
> pope's good right to send men in dresses to the UN.
Are you seriously proposing that an American meddle in the internal
affairs of sovereign European nations? Shame on you! The big problem is
that yis are not practicing realpolitik over there. If the bishop of
Rome gets too annoying, we Americans cut off the funds (most of 'em are
American, and the rest is German and Dutch). [And the rest of you,
boycott the yearly collection this year..and next year...and the year
after that....] It doesn't matter so much that they're _there_; it
matters that they are prevented from assuming any of the secular powers
that they had in the middle ages. Never again!
>
> Of course, given that the Vatican is a sovereign state, one would expect
> other sovereign states to require that RC bishops and priests formally
> declare themselves the agents of a foreign power.
They're not his reps unless they're in the Vatican diplomatic service.
First among equals, remember?
Sweeney
Brother Adrian O'Hagan
Mark Devlin wrote:
My good man, the bishops and priests are indeed agents of a foreign power and
that foreign power is located in heaven.
Jesus was a foreigner and oh how he was treated like one too.
Brother Adrian O'Hagan
Tony Cooper
> >You would have to go back to Al Smith's run for the Presidency in the
1920's
> >to find a strong anti-Catholic bias in a Presidential election.
>
> Tony, you really should read up on the 1960 campaign.
>
I offered that dreaded thing in SCI ... personal anecdote. I was in Chicago
in 1960, and what I said is what I saw. What went on in Greenwich CT I
dunno. If I research it, I'll find instance after instance. Partly,
because the instances are reported and the general tone isn't reported.
Is a "short pants" reference allowable? Or, a "foot in USA (at the time)"
allowable? If not, consider the requests withdrawn.
Alan Smaill
> Tristement et obscurité
The puir wee Gregger manages to tell us of his preference
for obscurantism, and mangle French grammar at the same time.
--
Alan Smaill email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
Division of Informatics tel: 44-131-650-2710
Edinburgh University
Sweeney the Wanderer
>
> Sweeney the Wanderer wrote:
>
> >Are you seriously proposing that an American meddle in the internal
> >affairs of sovereign European nations? Shame on you! The big problem is
> >that yis are not practicing realpolitik over there. If the bishop of
> >Rome gets too annoying, we Americans cut off the funds (most of 'em are
> >American, and the rest is German and Dutch). [And the rest of you,
> >boycott the yearly collection this year..and next year...and the year
> >after that....] It doesn't matter so much that they're _there_; it
> >matters that they are prevented from assuming any of the secular powers
> >that they had in the middle ages. Never again!
>
> likely to end their speeches with the wish that God bless their
> country?
Whazzat got to do with the Vatican?
Sweeney, besides, its the prods that do that..