Apartheid in Northern Ireland?
Neil Alasdair McEwan
sion (si...@cia.com.au) wrote:
: British Brits and Apartheid in Northern Ireland?
: Why "British" ?
: Spare a thought for the Welsh and even the Scots!
: Any real Welsh Celt hates the unthoughtful use of this word.
: My cousin refused to go into the "British" army because he would have
: been sent to Northern Ireland - againts his brother celts.
Plenty of "real... Celts" from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
*have* joined the British Army. Trying to reduce this to some kind of
racial matter, as if it were possible to begin with, won't help you or
anyone else to understand what is going on in NI.
le meas
Neil
--
"tėr nan craobh, 's nam beanntan ārd"
Doktor Ünkinstein
sion wrote:
> Any real Welsh Celt hates the unthoughtful use of this word.
> My cousin refused to go into the "British" army because he would have
> been sent to Northern Ireland - againts his brother celts.
At what point was National Service reintroduced in the UK? I am not
aware of any Welshman man being drafted in the British Army since the
early 1950's.
Secondly, my experience as an Irish person is that Welsh are extremely
anti-Irish. The only time in my life I remember being called a "stupid
fucking Paddy" was while I was siting in a bar in Cardiff in 1989 and I
quite innocently tried to make converstaion with a gentlemen beside me.
I was reading in an Irish newspaper last year how drunken Welsh
day-trippers taking the boat to Rosslare and after disembarking going
around the town calling local people "fucking stupid Paddies" and
urinating and vomiting in the streets. One incident involed a group of
Welsh males pissing on the glass windows of a cafe in broad daylight
while children and French tourists were sitting at the tables inside. I
know this is not typical of the vast majority of Welsh people, but you
would have a hard time convincing me that there is some form of
pan-Keltic kinship between the Irish and the Welsh. There seems to be a
culture among the Welsh that they believe the Irish are inferior
sub-humans which is a joke when you compare the Republic of Ireland in
1998 to present day Wales.
Secondly, we got rid of the English in 1922 without any help from your
lot, so I don't think we feel any obligation to return a favor our
"Welsh Celtic Brothers" never extended to us. You were willing pit
ponies and industrial slaves for your English masters and just because
you are now finding out what the "thick Paddies" knew years ago won't
get you any sympathy from me.
unki
Terry Heath
>British Brits and Apartheid in Northern Ireland?
>Why "British" ?
>
>Spare a thought for the Welsh and even the Scots!
>Any real Welsh Celt hates the unthoughtful use of this word.
How old are you ? If you're under 16 I'll understand, but why is the use of
"British" unthoughtful ?
If you look at NI surnames, you'll find that most of them are Scottish. The
army is the British army and not the English one, the Government is British
and not English, the protestants want to be part of Britain and not part of
England.
>The English have been practising ethnic cleansing by stealth in Wales for
ages - the pain and the struggle still go on. The world does not see this
for what it is because the process is so devious - and "legal" and also
because the Welsh have not resorted to killing.
Can you expand on the ethnic cleansing of Wales ?
>We are celts. We have our own national heritage and well loved language -
our own ways of thinking and feeling. We hate the takeover by the English.
By "we", am I correct to assume that you speak on behalf of the Welsh
national as a whole, or just you and your mates ?
Matthew M. Huntbach
sion (si...@cia.com.au) wrote:
> The English have been practising ethnic cleansing by stealth in Wales
> for ages - the pain and the struggle still go on. The world does not
> see this for what it is because the process is so devious - and
> "legal" and also because the Welsh have not resorted to killing.
You mean because there is no law to stop English people buying a house in
Wales?
If you wish to apply this sort of racist thinking, you might as well argue that
the Irish have been practising ethnic cleansing against the English in Kilburn,
the Jamaicans have been practising ethnic cleansing against the English in
Brixton, the Indians have been practising ethnic cleansing against the English
in East Ham, the Greeks have been practising ethnic cleansing against the
English in Finsbury Park, the Australians have been practising ethnic cleansing
against the English in Earls Court, the Bangladeshis have been practising ethnic
cleansing against the English in Stepney, the Jews have been practising ethnic
cleansing against the English in Golders Green, etc etc.
We live in a multi-racial society, mate. Get used to it.
Matthew Huntbach
Jerry Martín
>
>>British Brits and Apartheid in Northern Ireland?
>>Why "British" ?
>>
>>Spare a thought for the Welsh and even the Scots!
>>Any real Welsh Celt hates the unthoughtful use of this word.
>
>How old are you ? If you're under 16 I'll understand, but why is the use of
>"British" unthoughtful ?
>If you look at NI surnames, you'll find that most of them are Scottish. The
>army is the British army and not the English one, the Government is British
>and not English, the protestants want to be part of Britain and not part of
>England.
As do 33% of the catholics in NI. Recent poll by the Belfast
Telegraph.
Jer Guevara
*******************************************
Babykillers are heroes in west Belfast.
Terry Heath
>
>Secondly, my experience as an Irish person is that Welsh are extremely
>anti-Irish. The only time in my life I remember being called a "stupid
>fucking Paddy" was while I was siting in a bar in Cardiff in 1989
I doubt that any "indigenous" English DON'T have any Irish ancestory,
especially in the North West, whereas no one settled in Wales, probably due
to the kind of reception they'd get. The English may have an "island
mentality" but at least it's not as limited as our Welsh friend.
>Secondly, we got rid of the English in 1922 without any help from your
>lot, so I don't think we feel any obligation to return a favor our
>"Welsh Celtic Brothers" never extended to us. You were willing pit
>ponies and industrial slaves for your English masters and just because
>you are now finding out what the "thick Paddies" knew years ago won't
>get you any sympathy from me.
Oh for Christ's sake ! You too are confusing the British Govt with the
English. In 1922 a certain minister threatened the Irish with an un-veiled
threat of all out war if they didn't accept partition and he happened to be
half American...ie W.Churchill.
Flashy
What kind of fool are you. Your ancestors must have been pretty incestuous if you really
are such a Celt. The Welsh have been inter shagging with the English for 900 years. No
doubt you're not a complete celt: Just a sad inadequate who can only find self worth in
some long extinct people.
So what can you tell me about the Celts. You have obviously studied welsh history, so this
should not be a problem. Of course you'll have to learn to read first.
Incidentally a great number of Irishmen have served in the BRITISH army; in this last
century one can think of the time when we started an unjustified, racist and colonising war
against those lovely Nazi types. And a serious point; the British army was very unfortunate
in losing the superb Connaught Rangers, among others, who had served the BRITISH army
so bravely and well .
Also, thicky, British is a technical term. These are the British Isles. And bugger me but
guess where the word Britain comes from.
You're clearly very young, very silly and probably impotent.
Flashy (mostly Celt blood, but not a silly twat)
sion wrote:
> British Brits and Apartheid in Northern Ireland?
> Why "British" ?
>
> Spare a thought for the Welsh and even the Scots!
> Any real Welsh Celt hates the unthoughtful use of this word.
> My cousin refused to go into the "British" army because he would have been sent to Northern Ireland - againts his brother celts.
>
> Is it not obvious to you that whenever England does anything that might be seen to be in any way be controversial or down right wicked, it hides behind the veil of "Britain"? Whenever England does anything that it can be proud of "England" or "English" is used.
>
> The English have been practising ethnic cleansing by stealth in Wales for ages - the pain and the struggle still go on. The world does not see this for what it is because the process is so devious - and "legal" and also because the Welsh have not resorted to killing.
>
> We are celts. We have our own national heritage and well loved language - our own ways of thinking and feeling. We hate the takeover by the English.
> The indiscriminate use of the terms, "Britain" and "Brits" does not help the Welsh cause.
> Regards
> Siôn
sion wrote:
> British Brits and Apartheid in Northern Ireland?
> Why "British" ?
>
> Spare a thought for the Welsh and even the Scots!
> Any real Welsh Celt hates the unthoughtful use of this word.
> My cousin refused to go into the "British" army because he would have been sent to Northern Ireland - againts his brother celts.
>
> Is it not obvious to you that whenever England does anything that might be seen to be in any way be controversial or down right wicked, it hides behind the veil of "Britain"? Whenever England does anything that it can be proud of "England" or "English" is used.
>
> The English have been practising ethnic cleansing by stealth in Wales for ages - the pain and the struggle still go on. The world does not see this for what it is because the process is so devious - and "legal" and also because the Welsh have not resorted to killing.
>
> We are celts. We have our own national heritage and well loved language - our own ways of thinking and feeling. We hate the takeover by the English.
> The indiscriminate use of the terms, "Britain" and "Brits" does not help the Welsh cause.
> Regards
> Siôn
Neil Alasdair McEwan
Matthew M. Huntbach (m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk) wrote:
: You mean because there is no law to stop English people buying a house in
: Wales? [...]
I've already responded to the sillier parts of Sion's post but I think
this too is worth saying: it's understandable that some Welsh-speakers
feel that their language is threatened by incoming settlers who refuse to
learn it; feel-good liberal platitudes about the "multi-racial society"
fail to disguise the fact that indigeneous minority cultures in the UK are
threatened if they are regarded as being no more important than those of
new immigrants.
: We live in a multi-racial society, mate. Get used to it.
Even to doubt is a sin.
le meas
Neil
--
followups trimmed
Doktor Ünkinstein
>Secondly, we got rid of the English in 1922 without any help from your
>lot, so I don't think we feel any obligation to return a favor our
>"Welsh Celtic Brothers" never extended to us. You were willing pit
>ponies and industrial slaves for your English masters and just because
>you are now finding out what the "thick Paddies" knew years ago won't
>get you any sympathy from me.
:Oh for Christ's sake ! You too are confusing the British Govt with the
:English. In 1922 a certain minister threatened the Irish with an un-veiled
:threat of all out war if they didn't accept partition and he happened to be
:half American...ie W.Churchill.
I am sorry I should both have said 'British' as I have found the English to be a lot
more respectful to the Irish than the Welsh (I am generalizing here, of course). I guess
the Welsh were just being good house niggers with Lloyd George being "Massas Most
Trusted" But as an Irish person I am sick of this "Celtic Brotherhood" shite from the
increasingly isolated and forgotton Welsh grasping for straws in their pre-Britanica
condition. The Welsh have no (i.e., NONE) history of helping or even being respectful
towards the Irish.
The Republic of Ireland has a good future that belongs with our European neighbours in
the EU who really did help us out. We own the Welsh nothing at all. We went our way, and
they went theirs and now that they find themselves in the shitter they want to be our
"Celtic Brothers". Fuck em. Times have changed and lets toss this Pan Celtic farce to
the rubbish bin and get back to the real world. The southern Irish do not want to be
even united with Northern Ireland.
Funny about Churchill being a Yank, our own arsehole Devalera was a Yank too and he gave
us the war old Winston only promised and he killed Michael Collins as well.
unki - Southern Irish and Loving Europe
Alan Smaill
"sion" <si...@cia.com.au> writes:
> British Brits and Apartheid in Northern Ireland?
>
> Why "British" ?
>
>
> Spare a thought for the Welsh and even the Scots!
Personally, I'm Scottish, and British.
And the state that has sovereignty in NI now involves the Scots
just as much as the English (and in some ways, more).
I hope to see things change, but the terminology is right for now.
--
Alan Smaill, email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
Department of AI tel: 44-131-650-2710
Edinburgh University.
Dogs bollox
Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> We live in a multi-racial society, mate. Get used to it.
>
> Matthew Huntbach
It is not possible to get used to what your State has done and is
unwilling to fix.
Greig
Matthew M. Huntbach
Doktor Ünkinstein (kfuz...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> The Welsh have no (i.e., NONE) history of helping or even being respectful
> towards the Irish.
Ian Paisley has recently established a branch of his Church in Wales, judging
it the part of Britain most likely to be sympathetic to him. And the only
time I have ever encountered serious old-fashioned anti-Catholicism in
Britain (as opposed to modern liberal anti-Catholicism) is on holiday in
Wales once (a group of Catholic hikers I was with was abused by a bunch of
Welsh kids once they found out our religion).
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> : You mean because there is no law to stop English people buying a house in
> : Wales? [...]
> I've already responded to the sillier parts of Sion's post but I think
> this too is worth saying: it's understandable that some Welsh-speakers
> feel that their language is threatened by incoming settlers who refuse to
> learn it; feel-good liberal platitudes about the "multi-racial society"
> fail to disguise the fact that indigeneous minority cultures in the UK are
> threatened if they are regarded as being no more important than those of
> new immigrants.
What if the indigenous minority culture is East End Cockney? If anyone
*dared* to say anything even approaching what Sion said regarding the
destruction of East End Cockney culture by immigration, they'd be accused
right away of being Nazis.
Matthew Huntbach
paul_m...@hotmail.com
kfuz...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Secondly, my experience as an Irish person is that Welsh are extremely
> anti-Irish. The only time in my life I remember being called a "stupid
> fucking Paddy" was while I was siting in a bar in Cardiff in 1989 and I
> quite innocently tried to make converstaion with a gentlemen beside me.
You too? A couple of us were at a club last week and one guy started
talking to a Welsh guy, over for the rugby match. They chatted for
a bit but then the guy suddenly made some abusive remarks. There were
also a lot of reports that the Welsh fans were pretty abusive to people,
especially to women. The same thing hasn't happened recently with
Scottish or English fans; is there a bigger strain of anti-Irishism
in Wales than in the other UK countries?
P.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Don Whitehead
Neil Alasdair McEwan wrote:
>
> sion (si...@cia.com.au) wrote:
> : British Brits and Apartheid in Northern Ireland?
> : Why "British" ?
> : Spare a thought for the Welsh and even the Scots!
>
SNIP
> Plenty of "real... Celts" from Scotland, Wales and Northern >Ireland *have* joined the British Army. Trying to reduce this to some >kind of racial matter, as if it were possible to begin with, won't help >you or anyone else to understand what is going on in NI.
>
often, and find the people friendly, obliging, and cheerful, and
the country beautiful. In twenty years of visits, the only rudeness
I have met there has come from english "incomers", who having
bought a house, think they have bought the country.
My wife and I love Wales and the Welsh [except Brains Bitter],
and do not want to see the local culture destroyed by english
incomers.
On Northern Ireland, there must be some way they could agree,
both the UK and Ireland are in the EU, and so the border is of
diminishing importance, so why not let NI elect MPs and TDs, and
set up a joint committee to run the place until the local people
can agree what they want. Direct rule has let locals, nationalist
and unionist avoid responsibility for their own future.
They should realise the "British" are getting sick of the problem,
and the endless repetition of legends that serve Ulster as facts.
Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley are a dead heat for the most unpopular
politicians in the UK.
=================================
My opinions are my own,
no other person or organisation
is responsible for them
Don JW
=================================
Des Higgins
In article <6fvss8$8v0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
<paul_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>kfuz...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Secondly, my experience as an Irish person is that Welsh are extremely
>> anti-Irish. The only time in my life I remember being called a "stupid
>> fucking Paddy" was while I was siting in a bar in Cardiff in 1989 and I
>> quite innocently tried to make converstaion with a gentlemen beside me.
>
>You too? A couple of us were at a club last week and one guy started
>talking to a Welsh guy, over for the rugby match. They chatted for
>a bit but then the guy suddenly made some abusive remarks. There were
>also a lot of reports that the Welsh fans were pretty abusive to people,
>especially to women. The same thing hasn't happened recently with
>Scottish or English fans; is there a bigger strain of anti-Irishism
>in Wales than in the other UK countries?
>
>P.
>
I have had mixed reactions but mainly friendly, to be fair. It has happened
me that people assumed I was English and then suddenly became much more
friendly when they realised I was Irish. The reverse also happened me once
and I have heard of a couple of nasty stories from others. Apparently, in
the last century, there was vicious anti-irish feeling in cities as Irish
emmigrants came to Wales looking for work (and food).
Any Welsh people I met in Ireland seemed fine but I suppose you would not
come to Ireland if you did not like paddies (surely).
In general, compared to times past, anti-Irishness in the UK has almost
disappeared except among drunks and some of the weirdos who post to this
newsgroup occasionally.
Des "paddies with attitude" Higgins
Gavin....@ed.ac.uk
In article <1d6u0fe.1jn...@pm1-225.dial.nildram.co.uk>,
ta...@nildram.co.uk (Dogs bollox) wrote:
>
> Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> > We live in a multi-racial society, mate. Get used to it.
> It is not possible to get used to what your State has done and is
> unwilling to fix.
Equally, it is not possible to get used to what your paramilitaries have done
and your community is unwilling to fix. Cue the next generation of violence
and terror.
Gavin Bailey
kfuz...@hotmail.com
> You too? A couple of us were at a club last week and one guy started
> talking to a Welsh guy, over for the rugby match. They chatted for
> a bit but then the guy suddenly made some abusive remarks. There were
> also a lot of reports that the Welsh fans were pretty abusive to people,
> especially to women. The same thing hasn't happened recently with
> Scottish or English fans; is there a bigger strain of anti-Irishism
> in Wales than in the other UK countries?
Yes there is some real truth to this. I think the Welsh have an anti-Irish
embedded culture in the same way the Austrians have a problem with Jews. I
lived in Austria and although I like Austrian people and their country, I had
come across that element as well. The Welsh are burdened by a deep inferiorty
complex driven by anti-Catholic hatred and a need to look down on somebody
else (sound familiar?). The are a funny race, their country contains much
natural beauty and wealth and yet much of it in the south and west looks like
Eastren Europe. The country of Wales really has no future other than to be a
isolated outpost, they have a lot in common with the Ulster Loyalist in the
sense that they are always destined to be loosers and failures becuase of
their own inability to aspire to be nothing more that British House Niggers
which is excatly what people like Paisley, Trimble, Jerry Martin, Ozy are and
about all they deserve to be.
I found that in north Wales where their economy is heavily dependent upon
trade and movement between Dublin and London they are not so bad, but in
places like Newport, Swansea and Cardiff it is not very pleasent at all.
I was reading a Child's Christmas in Wales a few years ago and there is a
section were Dylan Thomas talks about atacking local catholic children. So
their must be something to it.
I cannot say I ever met one who was nice.
unki
Enda Rice
Des Higgins wrote:
>
> In article <6fvss8$8v0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <paul_m...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snipped stuff about anti-Irishness in Wales]
Would it have anything to do with the recent protests at the ports
in Wales?
(Welsh cattle farmers struggling to make money who were
fed up watching lorryloads of beef imports from Ireland rolling
off the boats at Hollyhead and Fishguard? )
Enda
--
E-mail to e.r...@qub.ac.uk
Dogs bollox
<Gavin....@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <1d6u0fe.1jn...@pm1-225.dial.nildram.co.uk>,
> ta...@nildram.co.uk (Dogs bollox) wrote:
> >
> > Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > We live in a multi-racial society, mate. Get used to it.
>
> > It is not possible to get used to what your State has done and is
> > unwilling to fix.
>
> Equally, it is not possible to get used to what your paramilitaries have done
> and your community is unwilling to fix. Cue the next generation of violence
> and terror.
>
> Gavin Bailey
IRA were pacifistic when we were attacked, nor did they keep the war
going the vast majority of civilian casualties were the product of
Protestant Supremacists. We were the victims.
Ulster's
White
Negroes:
From Civil Rights
to Insurrection
by Fionnbarra "
Dochartaigh (1994)
ISBN 1 873176 67 8
Paperback 131pp
Price: £5.95
Greig
Andrew Brian Hickman
Dogs bollox <ta...@nildram.co.uk> wrote in article
<1d6u0fe.1jn...@pm1-225.dial.nildram.co.uk>...
> Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> > We live in a multi-racial society, mate. Get used to it.
> It is not possible to get used to what
> your State has done and is unwilling to fix.
Eventually everone hopes their children will grow up and leave
home, without blaming every failure in future life on the parent.
It is about time the Irish grew up and got on with dealing with each other
as adults, rather than petulant children screaming it is his fault, he started
it.
John McCormack
Andrew Brian Hickman wrote:
> It is about time the Irish grew up and got on with dealing with each other
> as adults, rather than petulant children screaming it is his fault, he started
> it.
I think you mean some of the Republicans and some of the Unionists, not the
Irish. You're showing quite a lot of ignorance on your part by making such a
broad generalisation.
k_e_d...@hotmail.com
In article <6g0dbp$usf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Unki (kfuz...@hotmail.com)
wrote:
>
> paul_m...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > You too? A couple of us were at a club last week and one guy started
> > talking to a Welsh guy, over for the rugby match. They chatted for
> > a bit but then the guy suddenly made some abusive remarks. There were
> > also a lot of reports that the Welsh fans were pretty abusive to people,
> > especially to women. The same thing hasn't happened recently with
> > Scottish or English fans; is there a bigger strain of anti-Irishism
> > in Wales than in the other UK countries?
>
> Yes there is some real truth to this. I think the Welsh have an anti-Irish
> embedded culture in the same way the Austrians have a problem with Jews. I
> lived in Austria and although I like Austrian people and their country, I
had
> come across that element as well. The Welsh are burdened by a deep
inferiorty
> complex driven by anti-Catholic hatred and a need to look down on somebody
> else (sound familiar?). The are a funny race, their country contains much
> natural beauty and wealth and yet much of it in the south and west looks
like
Amazing tho it may seem, there is in fact a poem on the subjecy of Irish/Welsh
relations. Proving yet again, should any of ye ever have doubted it, that
there is nothing under the sun about which the Irish have failed to write
poetry.
respectfully submitted,
|K.E. Dennis den...@mail.montclair.edu
|My employer is not responsible for my opinions,
|regardless of how sensible they are.
_______________________________________________
I’r Hen Iaith A’i Chaneuon / To the Old Tongue & Its Songs
Ian Duhig
Modern Irish Poetry: An Anthology
Patrick Crotty, editor [see note below]
pub. 1995, The Blackstaff Press
I’r Hen Iaith A’i Chaneuon
When I go down to Wales for the long bank holiday
to visit my wife’s grandfather who is teetotal,
who is a non-smoker, who does not approve
of anyone who is not teetotal and a non-smoker,
when I go down to Wales for the long. long bank holiday
with my second wife to visit her grandfather
who deserted Methodism for the Red Flag,
who won’t hear a word against Stalin,
who despite my oft-professed socialism
secretly believes I am still with the Pope’s legions,
receiving coded telegrams from the Vatican
specifying the dates, times and positions I should adopt
for political activity and sexual activity,
who in his ninetieth year took against boxing
which was the only thing I could ever talk to him about,
when I visit my second wife’s surviving grandfather,
and when he listens to the football results in Welsh
I will sometimes slip out to the pub.
I will sometimes slip out to the pub
and drink pint upon pint of that bilious whey
they serve there, where the muzak will invariably be
The Best of the Rhosllanerchrugog Male Voice Choir
and I will get trapped by some brain donor from up the valley
who will really talk about ‘the language so strong and so beautiful
that has grown out of the ageless mountains,
that speech of wondrous beauty that our fathers wrought’,
who will chant to me in Welsh his epileptic verses
about Gruffudd ap Llywellyn and Daffydd ap Llywellyn,
and who will give me two solid hours of slaver
because I don’t speak Irish and who will then bring up religion,
then I will tell him I know one Irish prayer about a Welsh king
on that very subject, and I will recite for him as follows:
‘Ná thrácht ar an mhinistéir Ghallda
Nár ar a chreideimh gan bheann gan bhrí,
Mar ní’l mar bhuan-chloch dá theampuill
Ach magairle Annraoi Rí.’ ‘Beautiful,’
he will say, as they all do, “It sounds quite beautiful.’
________________
Patrick Crotty writes, in an editorial introduction: “An author’s note on
‘I’r Hen Iaith A’i Chaneuon’ reads: ‘The title is Welsh and means ‘To the Old
Tongue & Its Songs.’ The Irish translates roughly as: Speak not to me of the
foreign prelate/ Nor of his creed with neither truth nor faith/ For the
foundation stone of its temple/ Is the bollocks of King Henry the Eighth.”
_______________________________________
Neil Alasdair McEwan
Andrew Brian Hickman (tcli...@hotmail.my_brain.com) wrote:
: Eventually everone hopes their children will grow up and leave
: home, without blaming every failure in future life on the parent.
If the relationship between Ireland and England/GB were to be
explained as one of parent and child as you suggest, it would be more
accurate to say that Ireland was kidnapped by England at an early age,
encouraged to forget his previous life and background, molested a few
times, left to starve on one occasion, and then kicked out the door when
he grew up and started to fight back.
slainte
Neil
--
Gavin....@ed.ac.uk
In article <1d6veua.mze...@pm1-219.dial.nildram.co.uk>,
ta...@nildram.co.uk (Dogs bollox) wrote:
> IRA were pacifistic when we were attacked,
I don't think anybody can deny that the initial months of violence and mob
anarchy in 1969 had nothing to do with the actions of anybody in the
republican movement, let alone the IRA. I would even accept that until
1971 the IRA was acting in in what could objectively be recognised as
defence of the cathlic and nationalist minority in NI.
> nor did they keep the war
> going the vast majority of civilian casualties were the product of
> Protestant Supremacists. We were the victims.
"The vast majority"? Scarcely. As Gareth Davis has pointed out before,
even in the first three years of the troubles since 1969, when many like to
characterise the action of the IRA as essentially defensive, they were killing
nearly 60% of the total killed, and between 1969 and 1994 as a whole they
murdered one hundred civilians for every 116 killed by the loyalist murderers.
As Gareth has pointed out before, this is a ridiculous statistical margin to
base some sort of republican moral superiority on.
Apart from maybe the Short Strand twenty-six years ago, the IRA have been
unable to defend nationalist communities from sectarian assault, and in fact
have dedicated themselves to the "long war", a war of attrition otherwise
known as "Stiffing Brits".
Gavin Bailey
Dogs bollox
<Gavin....@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <1d6veua.mze...@pm1-219.dial.nildram.co.uk>,
> ta...@nildram.co.uk (Dogs bollox) wrote:
>
> > IRA were pacifistic when we were attacked,
>
> I don't think anybody can deny that the initial months of violence and mob
> anarchy in 1969 had nothing to do with the actions of anybody in the
> republican movement, let alone the IRA. I would even accept that until
> 1971 the IRA was acting in in what could objectively be recognised as
> defence of the cathlic and nationalist minority in NI.
The Brits got into bed with the death squads as well also actions
involving thousands of catholic arrests and wrecking thousands of
catholic homes and then driving the Apartheid Junta ministers through
the ruins were described as 'cheering up the protestants" in what was a
proxy pogrom or pogroms designed to compensate for the failed one in the
East. The war progressed from one anti-catholic outrage to another those
are the ONLY initial milestones. At some point the war was past
stopping, say 1976.
Please note the "Rape of the Falls" was directed at an IRA that had
hitherto stood and clapped Police Officers in a hall lined with the
photographs of catholics murdered in the 20s. I am as far as I know the
only person EVER to post the precise analysis of the new IRA on SCI at
this time.
They understood SEVERAL things were happening, the IRA therefore decided
that it would put a lot of effort into validating it's existence.
However it was toe in the water stuff, they didn't start a war they
merely retaliated, that really was all they did or needed to do.
Protestants would simply not accept ANY reform of the Apartheid State,
none whatsoever even the most moderate Unionists looked at housing
reform and said "over my dead body" and that is the truth of it. Tens of
thousands of weapons were allowed to fall into protestant hands by
measures that EXCEEDED 1912. The latter is ENTIRELY factual.
>
> > nor did they keep the war
> > going the vast majority of civilian casualties were the product of
> > Protestant Supremacists. We were the victims.
>
> "The vast majority"? Scarcely. As Gareth Davis has pointed out before,
> even in the first three years of the troubles since 1969, when many like to
> characterise the action of the IRA as essentially defensive, they were killing
> nearly 60% of the total killed, and between 1969 and 1994 as a whole they
> murdered one hundred civilians for every 116 killed by the loyalist murderers.
> As Gareth has pointed out before, this is a ridiculous statistical margin to
> base some sort of republican moral superiority on.
My figures are accurate I can put it no clearer than that and I am not
in any error, my figures are in complete conformity with all the
indexes. I have made several attempts to devine why Gareth is suggesting
this and the only way I have managed to arrive at statistics with the
"70" figure for protestant civilians is by subtracting the UK mainland
military and adding in all the other military on top of the protestant
civilians.
Therefore the following is 100 percent accurate and anything not in
loose conformity is not correct. I have several times tried to clear
this up and even introduced a thread with "Gareth's figures" etcetera
and my advice is to regard the following as factual. Therefore you'll
find that IRA men themselves died in equal numbers to civilians in
premature and short warning explosions and that the civilian victims
were mixed.
The IRA killings are as follows utilising the Mother Index (Sutton)
102 IRA men in premature explosions
274 Accidental civilian killings
133 Sectarian civilian Killings
1,006 Crown Forces
59 Informers
24 Loyalist paramilitaries
9 Loyalist Politicals
33 Civilian Security Force employees
48 British VIPs etcetera
67 Feuds, Magistrates, OIRA, IPLO, NI.Prison Service etcetera
Garda Siochana and Southern military.
Therefore the Military killings of the IRA are a major feature and the
"military killings of the loyalists less than one percent of the total
the vast majority of killings being purely on the basis of the catholic
faith and a good many featuring sado-recreational killings and sexual
mutilation. Loyalist killings also feature rape, the deliberate killing
of children, in one case in front of the mother before she was sexually
assaulted and shot, the loyalists NEVER give bomb warnings. The
loyalists have also killed military personnel in one case with a red hot
poker and loyalists started the shooting and bombing even shooting the
first 14 brit soldiers.
>
> Apart from maybe the Short Strand twenty-six years ago, the IRA have been
> unable to defend nationalist communities from sectarian assault, and in fact
> have dedicated themselves to the "long war", a war of attrition otherwise
> known as "Stiffing Brits".
>
>
I might also add that half the 133 sectarian victims were the product of
a relentless multi-agency slaughter of catholics, Kingsmills having two
massacres of catholics the day before in an area where the brit military
and death squads were indistinguishable because they were the SAME
people. The study of Kingsmills reveals a lot about the sheer struggle
to survive of catholics who had exhausted ideology and goodwill when
confronted with unrestrained persecution. Kingsmills was inevitable as a
point of human nature, the catholics would eventually sink to the same
level as their tormentors.
Might I also add the "Rape of the Falls", "Internment" and the 1972
Brit/UDA attack on catholic refugees fleeing Rathcoole they rammed their
trucks with their armour and the UDA and Brits were lined up together
the UDA had decided to over ride the housing authority therefore the
brits attacked the catholic refugees it was on TV all over the world. It
was a very major battle, probably the biggest we've had since the 20s
and indeed bigger than most of the Anglo-irish war ones. The Rape of the
Falls has been compared to the suppression of the Kasbah in the Algerian
war by the film maker Franco Biancicci "it was the same thing exactly"
his comparison not mine.
Greig
Concerned Ulsterman
On Fri, 3 Apr 1998 15:21:49 +0000, ta...@nildram.co.uk (Dogs bollox)
wrote:
><Gavin....@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> In article <1d6veua.mze...@pm1-219.dial.nildram.co.uk>,
>> ta...@nildram.co.uk (Dogs bollox) wrote:
>>
>> > IRA were pacifistic when we were attacked,
>>
>> I don't think anybody can deny that the initial months of violence and mob
>> anarchy in 1969 had nothing to do with the actions of anybody in the
>> republican movement, let alone the IRA. I would even accept that until
>> 1971 the IRA was acting in in what could objectively be recognised as
>> defence of the cathlic and nationalist minority in NI.
>
>The Brits got into bed with the death squads as well also actions
>involving thousands of catholic arrests and wrecking thousands of
>catholic homes and then driving the Apartheid Junta ministers through
>the ruins were described as 'cheering up the protestants" in what was a
>proxy pogrom or pogroms designed to compensate for the failed one in the
>East. The war progressed from one anti-catholic outrage to another those
>are the ONLY initial milestones. At some point the war was past
>stopping, say 1976.
>
>Please note the "Rape of the Falls" was directed at an IRA that had
>hitherto stood and clapped Police Officers in a hall lined with the
>photographs of catholics murdered in the 20s. I am as far as I know the
>only person EVER to post the precise analysis of the new IRA on SCI at
>this time.
It is important to remember that the so-called "rape of the Falls"
(July 1970) produced over one hundred guna and well over 25000 rounds
of ammunition as a result of information received - accurtae
information.
The damage which was claimed to have been done by the Army was grossly
exaggerated. I was in the area immediately after the weekend and
despite a tour around visiting people failed to find any significant
damage or indeed anyone who knew of anyone who suffered significant
damage to their homes......with the exception of those houses from
which weapons and/or ammunition was recovered
>
>They understood SEVERAL things were happening, the IRA therefore decided
>that it would put a lot of effort into validating it's existence.
>However it was toe in the water stuff, they didn't start a war they
>merely retaliated, that really was all they did or needed to do.
>
>Protestants would simply not accept ANY reform of the Apartheid State,
>none whatsoever even the most moderate Unionists looked at housing
>reform and said "over my dead body" and that is the truth of it. Tens of
>thousands of weapons were allowed to fall into protestant hands by
>measures that EXCEEDED 1912. The latter is ENTIRELY factual.
>
>I would be interested in the supporting evidence for any of these assertions. For example the tens of thousands of weapons....form wher did they come and to where did they go?
I think this is a very inaccurate refernce to Suffolk, at the other
side of the City. The UDA did not take over the housing authority.
There was a battle, though much smaller than claimed...there were no
daeths and no serious injuries, which most republican writers would
accept was rather LESS than the "Anglo_Irish war battles...
>
>Greig
Bollox Inc.
Concerned Ulsterman <may...@enterprise.net> wrote:
>
> I think this is a very inaccurate refernce to Suffolk, at the other
> side of the City. The UDA did not take over the housing authority.
> There was a battle, though much smaller than claimed...there were no
> daeths and no serious injuries, which most republican writers would
> accept was rather LESS than the "Anglo_Irish war battles...
>
>
> >
> >Greig
Maybe your view was obscured by the Brit soldier you might have been
standing behind. I was there at that time.
The 1972 situation we did have 7000 refugees in the South, we also in
theory had hotline communication with HMG. We DID have anti-catholic
clearances at Rathcoole etcetera and the Brit Army was cuddling up to
the UDA who had guns at Suffolk, that is the UDA, legal ones as well I
think. The refugee trucks WERE rammed by the brits some of which was
seen on television around the world and the UDA as a point of fact DID
negate the decision of the housing authority with the Brits enforcing
THEIR decision rather than the government agency.
Despite the fact these poor bastards had already been intimidated out of
their homes in Rathcoole by the Protestant Supremacists they were being
told that they were to experience the SAME thing again and the Brit
Military regarded this as a perfectly reasonable Death Squad position,
actually from the perspective of Protestant Supremacism even I have to
admit it is perfectly in keeping with their ideology. The point being
the Protestant Death Squads were NOT supposed to be in CHARGE. Not
during a ceasefire in anycase.
I think Twomey intervened with the Army to stop the UDA Death Squad
people from waving guns as this was annoying the catholic refugees who
had suffered enough at the hands of the depraved scum. At this point a
Brit tank rammed the refugee trucks making the refugees VERY angry as
the brits and the anti-catholic death squads were having a "love in"
with each other.
I think the Brits contacted O'Connail or vice versa and at that point
said that the brits were under attack but they NOT and O'Connail pointed
out that at that point we'd had a truck rammed and the Death Squads were
being cuddled by the brits but that no shots were being directed at the
brits, the TV coverage confirmed this, as it WAS on TV. The brits were
attacked AFTER the conversation with Whitelaw's lot as a consequence of
THEM breaking the truce by attacking defencless refugees.
>The UDA did not take over the housing authority.
> There was a battle, though much smaller than claimed...there were no
> daeths and no serious injuries
The death toll for the month was 95 killed I think mostly catholics with
about 20 or so soldiers etcetera. Therefore it WAS a rough time, in fact
Lenadoon was possibly THE biggest gun battle in the history of the war
if not the century, certainly there was a LOT of lead in the air. Lieut.
Colonel Tomlinson was the Brit Capo in charge and he was in cahoots with
the Death Squads they were calling the shots. They were running the
show. Even Tom Cromey the head of the Public Protection Authority got
nowhere with him as far as I know.
>there were no
> daeths and no serious injuries
95 dead immediately thereafter, mostly catholic so maybe you didn't
notice them. There was a GREAT deal of fighting in Lenadoon thereafter
it was as bad as it was to get. A high water mark in violence. The brits
and Death Squads had joint patrols elsewhere and it was pretty
miserable.
Greig
Gavin....@ed.ac.uk
In article <1d6wxew.hf...@pm1-236.dial.nildram.co.uk>,
ta...@nildram.co.uk (Dogs bollox) wrote:
>The Brits got into bed with the death squads as well also actions
>involving thousands of catholic arrests and wrecking thousands of
>catholic homes and then driving the Apartheid Junta ministers through
>the ruins were described as 'cheering up the protestants" in what was a
>proxy pogrom or pogroms designed to compensate for the failed one in the
>East.
So the Falls Curfew was designed to compensate for a "failed pogrom in the
East"? What are you talking about?
>The war progressed from one anti-catholic outrage to another those
>are the ONLY initial milestones.
For you maybe. Somebody apparently unable to see significance beyond your own
community.
> At some point the war was past
>stopping, say 1976.
>Please note the "Rape of the Falls" was directed at an IRA that had
>hitherto stood and clapped Police Officers in a hall lined with the
>photographs of catholics murdered in the 20s.
As far as I can see this refers to the applause that greeted Chief Constable
Sir Arthur Young when he met the Central Citizens Defence Committee in
Belfast, partly at the invitation of Jim Sullivan. Now are you claiming that
Sullivan had controlled the CCDC to the point where all it's members were IRA
stooges? Equally, Frank Lagan in Bishop & Mallie refers to the McMahons
(photographs of whom were hung in the staircase of the Long Bar where Young
met the CCDC) as "allegedly murdered by the RUC". Can you prove that they
were? Equally, not all republican sources are prepared to ignore the fact
that the Provisionals provoked the rioting and then grenade-throwing that
precipitated the Falls Curfew.
> I am as far as I know the
>only person EVER to post the precise analysis of the new IRA on SCI at
>this time.
I think precise would be the wrong adjective.
>They understood SEVERAL things were happening, the IRA therefore decided
>that it would put a lot of effort into validating it's existence.
>However it was toe in the water stuff, they didn't start a war they
>merely retaliated, that really was all they did or needed to do.
Yes, but MacStiofan's idea of retaliation (completely in line with his later
strategy after the Provisional split) could clearly be seen when he attempted
to grenade Crossmaglen police station on 17 August 1969. Fat lot of good that
did to drive off the Loyalist mobs.
>My figures are accurate I can put it no clearer than that and I am not
>in any error, my figures are in complete conformity with all the
>indexes. I have made several attempts to devine why Gareth is suggesting
>this and the only way I have managed to arrive at statistics with the
>"70" figure for protestant civilians is by subtracting the UK mainland
>military and adding in all the other military on top of the protestant
>civilians.
There are numerous significant discrepancies between the breakdown of IRA
killings you provide (apparently from Sutton) and that which Gareth provides
from the same source. For instance, why do your figures differ over the
number of suspected informants murdered by the IRA?
>Therefore the following is 100 percent accurate and anything not in
>loose conformity is not correct. I have several times tried to clear
>this up and even introduced a thread with "Gareth's figures" etcetera
>and my advice is to regard the following as factual. Therefore you'll
>find that IRA men themselves died in equal numbers to civilians in
>premature and short warning explosions and that the civilian victims
>were mixed.
Are you seriously alledging that 102 IRA members you claim to have killed
themselves in premature explosions have some sort of equality with the 274
Accidental and 133 Sectarian killings? We are talking an order of magnitude
of 4:1 here - even your partisan basis can't be that distorted. Equally, why
are Loyalist Politicals, Civilian security service employees, British VIPs,
etc considered other than civilian?
>Therefore the Military killings of the IRA are a major feature and the
>"military killings of the loyalists less than one percent of the total
>the vast majority of killings being purely on the basis of the catholic
>faith and a good many featuring sado-recreational killings and sexual
>mutilation. Loyalist killings also feature rape, the deliberate killing
>of children, in one case in front of the mother before she was sexually
>assaulted and shot, the loyalists NEVER give bomb warnings. The
>loyalists have also killed military personnel in one case with a red hot
>poker and loyalists started the shooting and bombing even shooting the
>first 14 brit soldiers.
I suggest you read my previous characterisation of loyalist terrorists before
indulging your spleen. You certainly won't hear any defence of them from me,
because their actions have no rational defence.
>I might also add that half the 133 sectarian victims were the product of
>a relentless multi-agency slaughter of catholics, Kingsmills having two
>massacres of catholics the day before in an area where the brit military
>and death squads were indistinguishable because they were the SAME
>people.
Hmm - and the evidence (other than the Miami showband murders)?
> The study of Kingsmills reveals a lot about the sheer struggle
>to survive of catholics who had exhausted ideology and goodwill when
>confronted with unrestrained persecution.
How does butchering innocent civilians because of their religion redress
persecution? The number of catholics murdered by loyalist terrorists in the
20 years since Kingsmills can show what a wonderfully successful tactic
sectarian murder in retaliation for sectarian murder really is.
>Kingsmills was inevitable as a
>point of human nature, the catholics would eventually sink to the same
>level as their tormentors.
How many Protestant civilians had been killed by the IRA before Kingsmills,
Greg?
>Might I also add the "Rape of the Falls",
All planted by the British Army, I suppose? Over a hundred weapons turned up
in that incident after army searches. Were the Provisionals planning their
ultimate confrontation with the army then, Greg?
>"Internment"
"..but then you realised that to be effective you must stiff more Brits... -
to the point where the Brits leave." An IRA terrorist quoted in Bishop &
Mallie. Months before internment, by the way. The Provisional campaign of
violence had been underway for nearly a year by the time internment arrived -
once more you resort to temporal distortion to deny republican agency.
>and the 1972
>Brit/UDA attack on catholic refugees fleeing Rathcoole they rammed their
>trucks with their armour and the UDA and Brits were lined up together
>the UDA had decided to over ride the housing authority therefore the
>brits attacked the catholic refugees it was on TV all over the world.
At Rathcoole? Don't you mean Lenadoon, where the housing authority attempts
to resettle the Rathcoole refugees were met by UDA threats, PIRA ultimatums
and when the first delivery van was turned back by the army, a republican mob
rioted? We've seen plenty of TV pictures of riots over the years, and even
the occasional murder of plainclothes soldiers at the hands of a republican
mob. Shown all over the world. On TV.
>It
>was a very major battle, probably the biggest we've had since the 20s
>and indeed bigger than most of the Anglo-irish war ones.
Biggest in terms of rioters involved maybe - not in fatalities. Go back to
Barry's autobiography, Coogan or Lawlor and check out some of the real battles
in 1921.
>The Rape of the
>Falls has been compared to the suppression of the Kasbah in the Algerian
>war by the film maker Franco Biancicci "it was the same thing exactly"
>his comparison not mine.
Terrorism does tend to provoke a counter-reaction, doesn't it. Something the
FLN knew more than a little about before 1 REP arrived for the "Battle of
Algiers". Nice to see you attempting to move back towards leftie
anti-colonial analysis. How long before your xenophobia wins out this time?
Concerned Ulsterman
><Gavin....@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> In article <1d6veua.mze...@pm1-219.dial.nildram.co.uk>,
>> ta...@nildram.co.uk (Dogs bollox) wrote:
>>
>> > IRA were pacifistic when we were attacked,
>>
>> I don't think anybody can deny that the initial months of violence and mob
>> anarchy in 1969 had nothing to do with the actions of anybody in the
>> republican movement, let alone the IRA. I would even accept that until
>> 1971 the IRA was acting in in what could objectively be recognised as
>> defence of the cathlic and nationalist minority in NI.
>
>The Brits got into bed with the death squads as well also actions
>involving thousands of catholic arrests and wrecking thousands of
>catholic homes and then driving the Apartheid Junta ministers through
>the ruins were described as 'cheering up the protestants" in what was a
>proxy pogrom or pogroms designed to compensate for the failed one in the
>East. The war progressed from one anti-catholic outrage to another those
>are the ONLY initial milestones. At some point the war was past
>stopping, say 1976.
>
>Please note the "Rape of the Falls" was directed at an IRA that had
>hitherto stood and clapped Police Officers in a hall lined with the
>photographs of catholics murdered in the 20s. I am as far as I know the
>only person EVER to post the precise analysis of the new IRA on SCI at
>this time.
It is important to remember that the so-called "rape of the Falls"
(July 1970) produced over one hundred guna and well over 25000 rounds
of ammunition as a result of information received - accurtae
information.
The damage which was claimed to have been done by the Army was grossly
exaggerated. I was in the area immediately after the weekend and
despite a tour around visiting people failed to find any significant
damage or indeed anyone who knew of anyone who suffered significant
damage to their homes......with the exception of those houses from
which weapons and/or ammunition was recovered
>
>They understood SEVERAL things were happening, the IRA therefore decided
>that it would put a lot of effort into validating it's existence.
>However it was toe in the water stuff, they didn't start a war they
>merely retaliated, that really was all they did or needed to do.
>
>Protestants would simply not accept ANY reform of the Apartheid State,
>none whatsoever even the most moderate Unionists looked at housing
>reform and said "over my dead body" and that is the truth of it. Tens of
>thousands of weapons were allowed to fall into protestant hands by
>measures that EXCEEDED 1912. The latter is ENTIRELY factual.
>
>I would be interested in the supporting evidence for any of these assertions. For example the tens of thousands of weapons....form wher did they come and to where did they go?
>
I think this is a very inaccurate refernce to Suffolk, at the other
Robin Popplestone
Oor Greig is fond of referring to
>"Internment"
It's an interesting thought that I can only interpret Uncle Sam's pressure on
Arafat to "do something about Hamas" as being a request that they be
interned....
Robin
Bollox Inc.
<Gavin....@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >and the 1972
> >Brit/UDA attack on catholic refugees fleeing Rathcoole they rammed their
> >trucks with their armour and the UDA and Brits were lined up together
> >the UDA had decided to over ride the housing authority therefore the
> >brits attacked the catholic refugees it was on TV all over the world.
>
> At Rathcoole? Don't you mean Lenadoon, where the housing authority attempts
> to resettle the Rathcoole refugees were met by UDA threats, PIRA ultimatums
> and when the first delivery van was turned back by the army, a republican mob
> rioted? We've seen plenty of TV pictures of riots over the years, and even
> the occasional murder of plainclothes soldiers at the hands of a republican
> mob. Shown all over the world. On TV.
The refugees were from Rathcoole and we had 7,000 more in the south the
UDA Death Squads were lined up WITH the brits and the UDA Death Squad
Organisation vetoed a decision made by the housing authority, they
suggested to the brits that they implement this policy and the brits did
by driving a tank into the trucks carry the catholic pogrom victims bits
and pieces. At the same precise time the IRA were asking the Brits to
persuade their "friends" to stop threatening the refugees with their
pistols.
The IRA kept records of their desperate pleas to the Westminster Regime
asking what it was that was going on. Well we now know the Brit Army and
the Death Squads were given the ball and they were going to put it in
the basket the Brits did not NEED an IRA ceasefire.
>
> >It
> >was a very major battle, probably the biggest we've had since the 20s
> >and indeed bigger than most of the Anglo-irish war ones.
>
> Biggest in terms of rioters involved maybe - not in fatalities. Go back to
> Barry's autobiography, Coogan or Lawlor and check out some of the real battles
> in 1921.
We had 95 dead people in the immediate days thereafter and I think the
1920s IRA would have been amazed at how quickly modern weapons could
squirt out tens of thousands of rounds if one was really trying hard. I
think the only comparable event was the 1920s pogroms in Belfast when
some regimental expenditures might have been circa 20 or 30 thousand
rounds a night. I have the ordnance records somewhere.
The Brits allowed the Death Squads to extend roadblocks and patrols into
West Belfast the Death Squads were obviously already progressing
anti-catholic killing in reaction to the IRA ceasefire and the best the
brits could come up with was to get into bed with the Protestant
Supremacists and join in.
Greig
Bollox Inc.
<Gavin....@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
?
>
> >"Internment"
>
> "..but then you realised that to be effective you must stiff more Brits... -
> to the point where the Brits leave." An IRA terrorist quoted in Bishop &
> Mallie. Months before internment, by the way. The Provisional campaign of
> violence had been underway for nearly a year by the time internment arrived -
> once more you resort to temporal distortion to deny republican agency.
But they had not been killing anybody in any great numbers. In fact the
first soldier was killed the same year and it was the brits who started
killing people first during the 'Rape of the Falls". We had a total of
18 people or so before 71 but after the Rape of the Falls, the
Anti-catholic pogroms in 70/71 and the formation of the Brit Death Squad
coalition and the mass arrest of catholics without trial at the same
time as the brits were HELPING the Death Squads openly such as in 72
then we had a REAL war. I think 95 people were killed in the DAYS after
the Brits attacked catholic refugees at Lenadoon and effectively told
the IRA to stuff their ceasefire up their arse in effect.
The IRA started fighting back we all know they didn't stick their hands
up and surrender, the point being they neither started the war or kept
it going. Whether or not the IRA would have looked at a realistic set of
proposals and decided to continue the war at that time is something
we'll never know. The Brits decided on more oppression, a death squad
alliance and random killing of catholics to intimidate the victim
community into settling for a "nigger agreement" wherein the only
benefit was that the terrorists would stop killing us for a while. The
war before these events was not really a war, the brits were not being
attacked at all in effect and afterwards they were being attacked as a
consequence of events they engineered and planned and carried out.
The Brits openly carried out massacres of catholics including priests
and children, the message they were sending was clear they WANTED to
resolve the problem by WINNING. That suited the IRA perfectly they could
therefore try as two could play at that game, that is probably three if
we count the death squads on the brits side.
Greig
Bollox Inc.
<Gavin....@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> So the Falls Curfew was designed to compensate for a "failed pogrom in the
> East"? What are you talking about?
You said it.
>
> >The war progressed from one anti-catholic outrage to another those
> >are the ONLY initial milestones.
>
> For you maybe. Somebody apparently unable to see significance beyond your own
> community.
There was not much else happening we were the people who were suffering
pogroms.
>
> > At some point the war was past
> >stopping, say 1976.
>
> >Please note the "Rape of the Falls" was directed at an IRA that had
> >hitherto stood and clapped Police Officers in a hall lined with the
> >photographs of catholics murdered in the 20s.
>
> As far as I can see this refers to the applause that greeted Chief Constable
> Sir Arthur Young when he met the Central Citizens Defence Committee in
> Belfast, partly at the invitation of Jim Sullivan. Now are you claiming that
> Sullivan had controlled the CCDC to the point where all it's members were IRA
> stooges?
I wouldn't want to suggest they were unionists.
> Equally, Frank Lagan in Bishop & Mallie refers to the McMahons
> (photographs of whom were hung in the staircase of the Long Bar where Young
> met the CCDC) as "allegedly murdered by the RUC".
The police were seen doing it. I'll make a post on it. The police were
openly slaughtering catholics at that point in time. Usual sort of thing
there were a great many atrocities. This is the 1920s for the McMahon
murders not last week BTW NG members please note.
> Can you prove that they
> were? Equally, not all republican sources are prepared to ignore the fact
> that the Provisionals provoked the rioting and then grenade-throwing that
> precipitated the Falls Curfew.
This is WRONG the decision was taken BEFORE in a meeting with furious
Stormont Ministers who wanted REPRESSION of catholics and who insisted
on strong action against this already victimised community being
attacked on all fronts by Protestant mobs. Chichester Clarke was
confronted by anti-catholic extremists within his own party who were
insisting on strong measures.
There was a meeting with the GOC and the Chief Constable which comprised
the Joint Security Committee, they decided the NEXT opportunity was when
the gloves came off and the victim community would be taught a lesson
they wouldn't forget. Thereinafter the events, two Stormont Junta
ministers would be driven through the ruins and the Italian Film Maker
Franco Biancicci when comparing the attack by the British on the
catholic community compared it to General Massu's attack on the Kasbah
in the Algerian war he said "it was the same thing exactly" quote
unquote.
Hardly a measured response to rioting. Besides it was OIRA being
attacked not PIRA. Therefore why attack the likes of the people
seemingly described above, hardly a threat to the Brits and in your own
words NOT rioting or chucking fireworks or nail bombs. Why focus on them
at all? The point being they were attacking the WRONG people surely?
Therefore we need to look for the commonality in respect to the actual
target with the more understandable target and we are presented with
"catholic" and that was the bottom line.
Also why bother about a teeny wee riot when just a few days previously
we had an attempt to clear the East of the City of Catholics and indeed
further attempts thereafter. When the Brits withdrew to the river and
left the protestants to get on with their pogrom. In fact at this
PRECISE time we were were looking at a wider arc of anti-catholic
activity including shipyard expulsions etcetera as a consequence of the
failure to reduce the East End Catholic Enclave. The brits were
therefore attacking the LEAST troublesome community and the WRONG
faction of the IRA.
In addition despite the fact that the Protestants were engaged in
anti-catholic pogroms they were also responsible for the first bombs and
for shooting the first 14 soldiers and they were being completely
ignored. In fact tens of thousands of weapons were being made available
topped up by the destruction of the police firearms records for ordnance
issues.
>
> > I am as far as I know the
> >only person EVER to post the precise analysis of the new IRA on SCI at
> >this time.
>
> I think precise would be the wrong adjective.
Whatever.
>
> >They understood SEVERAL things were happening, the IRA therefore decided
> >that it would put a lot of effort into validating it's existence.
> >However it was toe in the water stuff, they didn't start a war they
> >merely retaliated, that really was all they did or needed to do.
>
> Yes, but MacStiofan's idea of retaliation (completely in line with his later
> strategy after the Provisional split) could clearly be seen when he attempted
> to grenade Crossmaglen police station on 17 August 1969. Fat lot of good that
> did to drive off the Loyalist mobs.
The police were murdering catholics before then, they were looting
catholic bars before then, they were murdering children in their beds
before then, they were burning our streets before then. So AFTER that he
threw a grenade whats the big deal?
>
> >My figures are accurate I can put it no clearer than that and I am not
> >in any error, my figures are in complete conformity with all the
> >indexes. I have made several attempts to devine why Gareth is suggesting
> >this and the only way I have managed to arrive at statistics with the
> >"70" figure for protestant civilians is by subtracting the UK mainland
> >military and adding in all the other military on top of the protestant
> >civilians.
>
> There are numerous significant discrepancies between the breakdown of IRA
> killings you provide (apparently from Sutton) and that which Gareth provides
> from the same source. For instance, why do your figures differ over the
> number of suspected informants murdered by the IRA?
The IRA killed 59 as of 93 thats the total. Ask Gareth is the rest of my
answer, my figures are accurate to that time with reference to that
index. The sutton index misses out a killing by PIRA of a former PIRA
and this is assigned to the OIRA also a PIRA killed by PIRA is assigned
to the BA and 2 INLA killings in Derry are left pointing at PIRA wherein
this was not the case. Also a British Army Captain is listed as "UVF"
which is not entirely the best way to describe this loyalist killing but
other than these corrections of my own it is accurate enough. 59 is the
figure.
>
> >Therefore the following is 100 percent accurate and anything not in
> >loose conformity is not correct. I have several times tried to clear
> >this up and even introduced a thread with "Gareth's figures" etcetera
> >and my advice is to regard the following as factual. Therefore you'll
> >find that IRA men themselves died in equal numbers to civilians in
> >premature and short warning explosions and that the civilian victims
> >were mixed.
>
> Are you seriously alledging that 102 IRA members you claim to have killed
> themselves in premature explosions have some sort of equality with the 274
> Accidental and 133 Sectarian killings? We are talking an order of magnitude
> of 4:1 here - even your partisan basis can't be that distorted. Equally, why
> are Loyalist Politicals, Civilian security service employees, British VIPs,
> etc considered other than civilian?
No I am merely stating that they are the same more or less in number to
the civilians of both faiths killed in the same or similar events that
is prematures and short warnings. It was suggested that there was a
sectarian motivation for this and I was illustrating that the victims
were not only mixed but were equal to the number of IRA people who died
at the same time in the same circumstances or similar.
The statistical differences are for people involved in the war as
opposed to uninvolved civilians. Therefore a political officer within
the Death Squad organisation is a target as is a Sinn Fein Republican
etcetera and the Prime Minister of England a target and so on. They are
fairly internationalised criteria.
The same criteria is used for ALL factions. Your 4/1 analogy doesn't
work as we were only regarding IRA men killed in similar circumstances
to a similar number of civilians killed by them in the same or similar
events. Therefore more IRA people died in other events as well,
shootings etcetera.
>
> >Therefore the Military killings of the IRA are a major feature and the
> >"military killings of the loyalists less than one percent of the total
> >the vast majority of killings being purely on the basis of the catholic
> >faith and a good many featuring sado-recreational killings and sexual
> >mutilation. Loyalist killings also feature rape, the deliberate killing
> >of children, in one case in front of the mother before she was sexually
> >assaulted and shot, the loyalists NEVER give bomb warnings. The
> >loyalists have also killed military personnel in one case with a red hot
> >poker and loyalists started the shooting and bombing even shooting the
> >first 14 brit soldiers.
>
> I suggest you read my previous characterisation of loyalist terrorists before
> indulging your spleen. You certainly won't hear any defence of them from me,
> because their actions have no rational defence.
>
> >I might also add that half the 133 sectarian victims were the product of
> >a relentless multi-agency slaughter of catholics, Kingsmills having two
> >massacres of catholics the day before in an area where the brit military
> >and death squads were indistinguishable because they were the SAME
> >people.
>
> Hmm - and the evidence (other than the Miami showband murders)?
The local military were indistinguishable from the death squads this is
accepted due to the sheer numbers involved. I think in the Stevens
investigation he wanted to arrest 100 or 200 from ONE unit in Holywood
and Lurgan nearer our crime scene was MUCH worse. I am not completely au
fait with the Showband thing but I would suspect ALL of them were either
brit military or ex-brit military.
Similarly the recent killings that have come to light in the last few
weeks I think we are looking at 7 soldiers or ex-soldiers at least
involved or arrested on suspicion of being involved in anti-catholic
killing. The brits recruited death squad people into the forces in very
high numbers and we know that these military/death squad people were
VERY busy at this time. Even the regular police got in on the act with a
train derailment and bomb at Kilwilkie I think and Keady was bombed by
them as well etcetera.
>
> > The study of Kingsmills reveals a lot about the sheer struggle
> >to survive of catholics who had exhausted ideology and goodwill when
> >confronted with unrestrained persecution.
>
> How does butchering innocent civilians because of their religion redress
> persecution? The number of catholics murdered by loyalist terrorists in the
> 20 years since Kingsmills can show what a wonderfully successful tactic
> sectarian murder in retaliation for sectarian murder really is.
It DID stop the anti-catholic slaughter in that area in that time. We're
discussing a seemingly inflexible part of human nature and therefore
there is nothing I can really add it was an analysis I noticed by an
academic.
I also gather that the Roman Catholic reaction in general over 200 years
or so had failed to conform with the norm in that Kingsmill while
inevitable as an expected or anticipated product of human nature was
also unusual. I've never understood why catholics very rarely engaged in
sectarian retaliation and almost never initiate it in Ireland. I presume
the threat of pogroms effected this plus a more rigid and tightly
controlled religion.
One would therefore at some point with the diminishing nature of the
Churches hold, and the lack of fear of the protestant "threat" due to
the weakness of the latter in the present day, expect that ideology and
goodwill alone constitute the remaining restraints and that therefore
these are not the barriers they once were.
I'd suggest that it is possible that in future catholics might not be so
reluctant to lower themselves to the level of their tormentors. It is a
dreadful vista.
>
> >Kingsmills was inevitable as a
> >point of human nature, the catholics would eventually sink to the same
> >level as their tormentors.
>
> How many Protestant civilians had been killed by the IRA before Kingsmills,
> Greg?
I am not 100 percent sure I think it is 99 last time I counted to the
start of the 75/76 "tribal war" this is all causes and events out of a
total killed I imagine of about 1228 adding it up in my head. I think
all the IRA factions killed about 650 to that time. In 74 there was a
handful and the ratio was I think was almost maybe 20 times more
sectarian killing by Protestants than catholics in 1974. Thats a quick
guess. The IRA killed 85 during the "reaction" period" or tribal war
episode and thereinafter largely stopped "reacting" as it might be
regarded.
Before the multi-agency anti-catholic slaughter they hadn't bothered
much by way of policy in that direction and their record was a lot
better than te brit army in respect to deliberate murder on an ethnic
basis. They ceased it after the 75/76 period. Protestants WERE certainly
SURPRISED to see the IRA living up to their propaganda for a short
period.
Therefore I think that it was always appreciated within the protestant
community that sectarian killing was a one sided tool. The Vanguard
sppeches are a useful resource in this respect and give a clear insight
into how normal it was for unionists to deliberate on large scale
catholic slaughter as a normal and historical device by way of policy.
>
> >Might I also add the "Rape of the Falls",
>
> All planted by the British Army, I suppose? Over a hundred weapons turned up
> in that incident after army searches. Were the Provisionals planning their
> ultimate confrontation with the army then, Greg?
The Provisionals didn't lose ANY weapons it was the pacifists who were
attacked for reasons best explained by the brits themselves. Having
weapons was regarded as essential otherwise my community would have
ceased to exist. The few bits and pieces we had would fit in a small
van.
The protestants were being armed with tens of thousand of weapons and
they were implementing pogrom and would do so for years to come AFTER
the West Belfast pogrom of 69. But as I've said the PIRA did not lose
ANY weapons during the "Rape of the Falls" the brits were trying to
destry the pacifistic OIRA as it was presumably easier and still
constituted a proxy pogrom so the protestants would be happy enough, the
same thing as the 1920s one IRA was as good as another.
Greig
Bollox Inc.
Concerned Ulsterman <may...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> >
> >Please note the "Rape of the Falls" was directed at an IRA that had
> >hitherto stood and clapped Police Officers in a hall lined with the
> >photographs of catholics murdered in the 20s. I am as far as I know the
> >only person EVER to post the precise analysis of the new IRA on SCI at
> >this time.
>
> It is important to remember that the so-called "rape of the Falls"
> (July 1970) produced over one hundred guna and well over 25000 rounds
> of ammunition as a result of information received - accurtae
> information.
>
This at a time the Army was conniving at massive ethnic cleansing and
the protestants were still happily progressing anti-catholic pogroms and
the catholics without a defender in the world other than one IRA or the
other. At the SAME time the Protestants were being provided with tens of
thousands of weapons.
They still attacked the pacifistic wing of the IRA who were attacking
NOBODY and ignored the supremacists who were pogromising catholics at
that very moment. It was a proxy pogrom.
An anti-catholic State.
Greig
Bollox Inc.
Concerned Ulsterman <may...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> The damage which was claimed to have been done by the Army was grossly
> exaggerated. I was in the area immediately after the weekend and
> despite a tour around visiting people failed to find any significant
> damage or indeed anyone who knew of anyone who suffered significant
> damage to their homes......with the exception of those houses from
> which weapons and/or ammunition was recovered
> >
It has been compared to the Algerian war, you must have been somwhere
else, I was there as well. The brits wrecked the place and even killed a
photographer trying to take pictures.
Greig
Paul Linehan
p...@cs.umass.edu ( Robin Popplestone ) wrote:
> >"Internment"
> It's an interesting thought that I can only interpret Uncle Sam's pressure on
> Arafat to "do something about Hamas" as being a request that they be
> interned....
I doubt if they'd demand the same thing about countries where white
people live, particularly ones which are "close" friends - what do you
think?
Paul...
> Robin
Email replies to my posts appreciated
Send to plin...@yahoo.com and/or plin...@tinet.ie
Alcohol, when consumed in sufficient quantity, can produce
all the symptoms of drunkenness - O. Wilde.
pecker@play
Paul Linehan <plin...@tinet.ie> wrote:
> p...@cs.umass.edu ( Robin Popplestone ) wrote:
>
>
> > >"Internment"
>
> > It's an interesting thought that I can only interpret Uncle Sam's
> > pressure on Arafat to "do something about Hamas" as being a request that
> > they be interned....
>
> I doubt if they'd demand the same thing about countries where white people
> live, particularly ones which are "close" friends - what do you think?
>
> Paul...
There is no such thing as civilised internment if it's televised and
speaks English. Also Irish wives and mothers have this distressing for
the British habit of making a violent arrest seem like the Sack of
Nanking. My favourite being:-
"He was sittin' atin' his dinner and they came in and kilt him with
sticks and they throw him drippin' blood in the back of the tank like a
sack of spuds"
The reality of that was they came in bashed him, dragged him through the
house, beat him in the street wherein somebody [a lady] trying to hit
the soldier actually hit the internee with a 3 Kg. lump hammer.
When the press arrives the guy is fucked up and the brit is holding the
hammer. The brits then arrest the photographer. It can't be done as even
the quiet pickups can turn into a riot. The mother was cryin' when she
described her son being "kilt", as it happens they were after his daddy
I think.
He was watching TV at the time IN the same room but he only had one leg
so they presumed it was the other fella they needed. Does internment
look like a good idea or a bad idea?
Greig
--
Assassination is the extreme form of censorship.
Kenneth S.
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 01:40:05 +0000, ta...@nildram.co.uk (pecker@play)
wrote:
Why should we believe this account of what supposedly
happened? Is it perhaps possible that there might be some slight
exaggeration of the events that occurred? What you might call the
Rape of Nanking syndrome? Or could it be that Greig just invented the
whole thing?
Too bad that we don't have an Italian film-maker to tell us
what it all means. I know how much store Greig sets on the views of
Italian film-makers. They're much more important in the overall
scheme of things than elections and public opinion surveys -- at any
rate in Northern Ireland they are. How much their views count in
Italy, I don't know.
By the way, you have to be very careful about making
comparisons between Northern Ireland and the Middle East. My
observation is that many members of the U.S. Congress who are terribly
critical of the measures used to control terrorism in Northern Ireland
don't mind at all when the same thing, and much worse, is done to
control Arab terrorists. Can you imagine the reaction if British
troops moved into the Falls Road and blew up the houses of IRA
bombers, rendering their families homeless? And a year or so back, we
had the delicious spectacle of Rep. Peter King (R-NY), the most
outspoken backer of Sinn Fein, (a) complaining about Louis Farrakan's
ties to terrorist supporters in Libya, and (b) denouncing militias in
the U.S. as crackpot terrorists who should be taken firmly in hand.
Even the U.S. newspapers managed to notice the strange inconsistency!
pecker@play
Kenneth S. <nim...@erols.com> wrote:
> Why should we believe this account of what supposedly
> happened? Is it perhaps possible that there might be some slight
> exaggeration of the events that occurred? What you might call the
> Rape of Nanking syndrome? Or could it be that Greig just invented the
> whole thing?
Thousands of people were arrested without trial and thereinafter
thousands of people were arrested and tortured. It hardly matters what
you accept or don't accept.
It affects only you not reality.
pecker@play
Kenneth S. <nim...@erols.com> wrote:
> Too bad that we don't have an Italian film-maker to tell us
> what it all means. I know how much store Greig sets on the views of
> Italian film-makers. They're much more important in the overall
> scheme of things than elections and public opinion surveys -- at any
> rate in Northern Ireland they are. How much their views count in
> Italy, I don't know.
This is a reference to an attack on the OIRA by the Brits. There were
hundreds of TV and press in Belfast at the time. It happened at the same
time as the British permitted anti-catholic clearances in a wide arc in
the East and followed from the East Belfast Pogrom and was a proxy
pogrom to compensate for that failure.
About 50 streets of people were put under house arrest there was a lot
of shooting with a great many houses wrecked by the brits it has as you
point out been recorded as similar to the Algerian War in respect to the
Kasbah operation by film maker Franco Biancicci.
A press photographer was also murdered by the brits who had 3,000 troops
attacking us with helicopters etcetera. Afterwards they drove two of the
Apartheid Junta Ministers through the ruins. You should find ALL of that
in academic texts. I was there at the time but I DO challenge you to
describe it otherwise.
pecker@play
Kenneth S. <nim...@erols.com> wrote:
> Can you imagine the reaction if British
> troops moved into the Falls Road and blew up the houses of IRA
> bombers, rendering their families homeless?
They've done MUCH worse.
Big Mac
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 15:05:43 +0000, ta...@nildram.co.uk (pecker@play)
wrote:
>A press photographer was also murdered by the brits who had 3,000 troops
>attacking us with helicopters etcetera. Afterwards they drove two of the
>Apartheid Junta Ministers through the ruins. You should find ALL of that
>in academic texts. I was there at the time but I DO challenge you to
>describe it otherwise.
I reckon a good reply to all the British ignoramuses who deny this and
have never heard of that and find it really hard to believe the other
is to ask them why their governments and broadcasters have kept them
in the dark over what has happened in the Six Counties.
If they weren't living under a dictatorship that has run the most
sophisticated "news management" (ie. censorship) in the world, they'd
probably be better informed of the truth, wouldn't they?
(Got to hand it to that Liz Curtis, eh Greig? :)
Big Mac
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 15:05:49 +0000, ta...@nildram.co.uk (pecker@play)
wrote:
>Kenneth S. <nim...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> Can you imagine the reaction if British
>> troops moved into the Falls Road and blew up the houses of IRA
>> bombers, rendering their families homeless?
>
>
>They've done MUCH worse.
You see Greig - this is what I mean about British ignorance of the
actions of their own government.
Everyone who has studied a little of the history of the British Empire
knows that this kind of action - the punitive demolition of houses in
rebellious areas - is a Brit speciality. So much so that it has been
regularly practiced by the Israelis in the occupied territories -
under the very same emergency regulations the British introduced when
they possessed the Palestinian mandate.
pecker@play
Big Mac <macdo...@ferengi.co.uk> wrote:
The place was pock marked with bullets the smell of gas and vinegar
everywhere and the place was wrecked. The noise was like a Stockhausen
concert performed by animals from George Orwell's Novel it was surreal.
It was a battle fought by two sides who were not very good at urban
warfare they were each learning new tricks.
The pacifistic OIRA were AMAZED at being attacked. When anti-catholic
clearances were being allowed to proceed unimpeded in the East of the
City by the people who STARTED the war.
They regarded it as a betrayal. The PIRA had not the slightest intention
of throwing themselves under the wheels of such crude repression and
were drunk on a propaganda victory they'd acquired and could not have
planned in their wildest dreams they were telling the population that
the time was not right for unrestricted war and the PEOPLE were
screaming for REVENGE.
They merely required toleration, they wanted support, the population was
INSISTING on revenge. They wanted the State destroyed. Sadly the only
PIRA OC to help the communists was later killed by them soon after these
events.
Of course as Matthew says if it isn't on a web site it didn't happen.
Censorship does work but better than censorship is MANAGEMENT of the
media, that way there is no black hole but a grey part of popular mass
knowledge and awareness.
pecker@play
Big Mac <macdo...@ferengi.co.uk> wrote:
They WERE wrecking 1500 houses a day as a NORMAL part of the submission
process. Not in a campaign but as ATTRITION. Old ladies abused holy
pictures trashed [Scots were good for that] even girls trying to give
warning of brit wreckers were murdered in the Street.
They were depraved cunts.
Neil Alasdair McEwan
Matthew M. Huntbach (m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk) wrote:
: Neil Alasdair McEwan (ap...@chebucto.ns.ca) wrote:
: > I've already responded to the sillier parts of Sion's post but I think
: > this too is worth saying: it's understandable that some Welsh-speakers
: > feel that their language is threatened by incoming settlers who refuse to
: > learn it; feel-good liberal platitudes about the "multi-racial society"
: > fail to disguise the fact that indigeneous minority cultures in the UK are
: > threatened if they are regarded as being no more important than those of
: > new immigrants.
: What if the indigenous minority culture is East End Cockney? If anyone
: *dared* to say anything even approaching what Sion said regarding the
: destruction of East End Cockney culture by immigration, they'd be accused
: right away of being Nazis.
Sorry for the late response, I've been getting lots of posts a week
late and by now you seem to have buggered off anyway. But to answer your
question yes, I think that all people sharing a culture have the right to
to decide to act collectively to ensure the continuity of that culture if
they want to, and if they feel that keeping to themselves is the only way
to do it then so be it -- it's desperate (and often futile) but it's not
immoral. You're right, there *is* a lot of hypocrisy and pious cant
surrounding this kind of thing, if the Welsh or the Mohawks are permitted
to close ranks against outsiders to defend their traditions then there's
no reason why others can't do so as well, given legitimate cause. All
people should be free to associate or not associate with others, just as
they wish.
slainte
Neil
--
Big Mac
On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 03:50:38 GMT, nim...@erols.com (Kenneth S.) wrote:
>control Arab terrorists. Can you imagine the reaction if British
>troops moved into the Falls Road and blew up the houses of IRA
>bombers, rendering their families homeless?
The British have not been noted in history for sparing the use of
repression against the Irish. Perhaps the only thing staying their
hand are the millions of Irish people who live within Britain?
Greagoir
Doktor Ünkinstein <kfuz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One incident involed a group of
> Welsh males pissing on the glass windows of a cafe in broad daylight
> while children and French tourists were sitting at the tables inside. I
> know this is not typical of the vast majority of Welsh people, but you
> would have a hard time convincing me that there is some form of
> pan-Keltic kinship between the Irish and the Welsh.
I can buy that Unkli.
Greig
--