Ballymena Murder [Archive] - Caithness.Org Forums

weeboyagee

10-May-06, 08:18

Ann

10-May-06, 09:00

I didn't see the news yesterday but what a shocking ugly story indeed. It never fails to horrify me what humans are capable of. If nothing else, I hope this shocks people enough to make sure the perpetrators never have their freedom again; not that it will make the suffering of his family any less but may serve to deter others.

Sickening, just sickening.

Saveman

10-May-06, 15:40

I have been watching and waiting for someone to maybe bring this up but it hasn't happened yet......

...who could not have been moved by this story in the news. What a senseless killing. The act of murder will have achieved nothing for the perpetrators, nothing. Good Lord, he was only 15!!! 15!!! Surely at that age kids can understand what it is to argue or have differences but to murder??? :mad:

The grief that was witnessed on the news reports I am sure is reflected throughout the country - moving some to tears. And so what, he wore a football strip in his photo, and so what, they were seen wearing football strips on them last night on the tele, who cares?? There is nothing in this world that sanctions the actions of those who carried and used the baseball bat and then stamped on his head!

A teenager for crying out loud! I'm absolutely sickened by it, sickened. What a beautiful country, what wonderful people but what trouble they still have,..... don't you wish it would just go away for them? :( Who can't say that when you watched the news last night that your thoughts were immediately of the family, the friends - boy, girl, old, young that were obviously affected by this brutal act - but there were still those who had a cold enough heart to carry out the job. I wonder - did they know that they were going to murder him, did they mean to go too far or are they now living in shock that they are now murderers? Do they feel good about what they did? Do they feel even more power?

And all in the name of what?

Religion. It's not the first and it's not the last. The politians say there's peace but at the grass roots nothing has changed.

weeboyagee

10-May-06, 16:39

Religion????? Is it really, really, really in the name of religion - because he was Catholic? What nut-case belief applies to killing a 15 year old kid because he was a Catholic?

History is probably another pathetic reason - who did what to who and when. The pain of the land is borne out in the grief of the people who have to mourn the loss of a lad who, when it comes down to it, was probably not even at the age where he could (as if there ever is an age where he WOULD) ever understand what the whole reasoning behind the history and the religion "war" thing is.

Senseless loss of life. Absolutely senseless. No justification whatsoever.

I can comprehend - though I may not be able to understand - adults committing such acts being of an understanding, but at that age it makes it all the more heart wrenching that our youth want to do that to each other - or worse still adults wanting to do that to a 15 year old, in the absence of the knowledge of who did it. Same with the Jamie Bulger death........

Is this really not affecting anyone? Is it just another death, murder, killing and we just have to accept it???

The Pepsi Challenge

10-May-06, 16:51

squidge

10-May-06, 17:27

Religion is simply a tool - an excuse if you like to cover up that its actually about power and control.

Its appalling

Sporran

10-May-06, 18:07

I have never understood wars and hatred in the name of religion, especially between Catholics and Protestants, who claim to be Christians. The Christian religion teaches you to "love thy neighbour", not hate your neighbour!

Will there ever be peace in Northern Ireland? Not in my lifetime, I think. The hatred and fighting has gone on far too long. Too many people have been born into it, and known nothing else. It's a way of life over there.

My heartfelt sympathy goes out to the family of poor young Michael McIlveen. He died so senselessly at the hands of a group of brutal thugs who have the nerve to call themselves Christians! I hope justice is served, and that the jury shows them no mercy - just as they showed no mercy to their 15 year old victim! [mad]

Saveman

10-May-06, 18:23

Religion????? Is it really, really, really in the name of religion - because he was Catholic? What nut-case belief applies to killing a 15 year old kid because he was a Catholic?

It's about religion in name. Nothing to do with doctrine of course. Just the name.
It's about kids being programmed to hate the other side.

<snip>
Is this really not affecting anyone? Is it just another death, murder, killing and we just have to accept it???

When you see a 7 year old kid (estimate) walzing down the street, spinning a baton and singing about the gleeful murder of some sub-human enemy that lives in the next street, you realise it's not going to be an easy problem to solve. Do we have to accept it? No. Does it affect every single one of us? Yes.

The other problem is now drugs and the money that accompanies this.

Saveman

10-May-06, 18:34

JAWS

10-May-06, 19:47

How soon we forget. Can anybody really be surprised that "The Troubles" have not gone away in Ireland?

The Terrorists decided they were getting much of what they wanted and the public were getting a bit fed up with the bombings and the shootings so they decided it was time to lay low.
The two Governments have talked the talk,
The Media have pushed it out of sight barely mentioning the odd knee-capping or murder and definitely not mentioning the scams which are still going on.
Red Diesel "cleaned" and sold on at full price.
The cigarette smuggling with three caught in Spain this last fortnight with half a million cigs.
The protection rackets.

Oh yes, and teenagers, I almost forgot about the teenagers.
Teenagers and those a lot younger have always been involved since the 1960s and before. You put them at the front to throw stones and petrol bombs because it's good propaganda should any of them get injured or killed.
And kids made great protection to hide behind when you are a sniper.

Both sets of Terrorists played by certain rules which they had agreed between them and which they all found convenient and at the moment they both find it convenient to keep things fairly low key.
Well, for the time being at least.

dunderheed

11-May-06, 08:56

It wasn't so long ago Catholic schoolgirls and their parents at the Holy Cross school, which stands in a Protestant enclave of the Catholic Ardoyne, had to suffer violent verbal abuse from Protestants as they tried to walk to school. Some were spat at, others had rocks and bottles thrown at them. And this, all directed at children. Won't be going there for summer holidays.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/04/nuls04.xml

i agree that children should not be treated in this manner , however , what wasn't reported in the press at that time was the fact that the protestant pensioners in that area were being abused every week on their way to collect their pensions in the post office which happened to be in the republican area of the ardoyne.these people , some of whom had fought for their country should be treated better. the children did of course have an alternative route to their school but their parents chose to force confrontation with the families on the other side of the interface(peace wall). i think that the reason that things got really out of hand was the fact that the police and army were in fact escorting known members of the ira through the loyalist area .

golach

11-May-06, 09:18

It wasn't so long ago Catholic schoolgirls and their parents at the Holy Cross school, which stands in a Protestant enclave of the Catholic Ardoyne, had to suffer violent verbal abuse from Protestants as they tried to walk to school. Some were spat at, others had rocks and bottles thrown at them. And this, all directed at children. Won't be going there for summer holidays.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/04/nuls04.xml
It is nearer home than that, Pepsi, not too long ago Holy Rood school kids were stopped from marching on Portobello High school in Edinburgh to fight, this was averted by the teachers from both schools by closing the gates of Portobello High and keeping the hooligans sorry brats, no thats not correct (little darlings) apart. Ok both schools are of opposite religions, but we do not have the same sectarianism in Edinburgh as there is in Northern Ireland, in my opinion this was just thuggery by the delinquents that we have raised in todays PC envioronment, (Oh my wee Johnny was only bored when he hit thon laddie wi a baseball bat is the cry today) Kids today are greedy manipulative little and some not so little animals and should be treated as animals.
I will agree there are exceptions to my rule, but I am generalising not picking at any individual. The delinquents come from the best of backgrounds and best of schools, I cite the case a few years ago of the 4 Edinburgh High School thugs kicking to death another High school youth in Currie.
I have no answer to the problem and all I am doing is highlighting that it is happening nearer than N Ireland

fred

11-May-06, 10:20

I have no answer to the problem and all I am doing is highlighting that it is happening nearer than N Ireland

I have a solution to the problem, teach by example.

Just yesterday someone from our government stood up and stated the obvious for the first time, to kidnap people, keep them chained in cages without trial and torture them, is wrong. They've been doing it for over 5 years, what took them so long to notice?

If we expect our children to be law abiding citizens then we as a country should be law abiding citizens of the world. If we expect our children to believe it is wrong to kill then we as a country should stop the killing in our name. If we expect our children to believe it is wrong to just take what you want by force then we as a country should stop mugging the weaker countries of the world. If we expect our children to grow up honest and truthful then we should get rid of leaders that just tell one blatant lie after another.

Society is rotting from the top down not the bottom up. If we'd wanted the children of Northern Ireland to grow up believing in peace and humanity shooting dead unarmed protesters wasn't the way to do it. If we'd wanted to teach the children of Northern Ireland to believe in justice then turning a blind eye to the injustices that suited us wasn't the way to do it. How can the children of Ireland believe in truth and honesty when they read in the papers that the leaders of the IRA were on the British governments payroll?

golach

11-May-06, 12:48

I have a solution to the problem, teach by example.

Society is rotting from the top down not the bottom up. If we'd wanted the children of Northern Ireland to grow up believing in peace and humanity shooting dead unarmed protesters wasn't the way to do it.

What in the name are you on about? This thread is on about 14 and 15 year old thugs knocking lumps out of each other at every opportunity they can.
WBG, pointed out one incedent that happened to be in N Ireland, it could have been anywhere in the UK, as I pointed out.
It has nothing to do with as you suggest the US Governments decision to imprison suspect terrorists in a jail with out trial. Its about thuggery and hooliganism the youth of the UK are into NOW, and have been long before Guantanimo Bay existed. The children on Ulster have been well indoctrinated by their peers, their parents and the Clergy, so once again I say this is nothing to do with your (conspiracy theory) that you say is the cause of all the troubles in the world as we know it today.
It is the fault of do gooders and human rights activists that will not let us parents even chastise or rebuke our offspring, if this was the norm as it was when I was a child, we would not be seeing these gangs of delinquents, terrorising the cities of the UK

brandy

11-May-06, 17:31

hmmm.. i dont know really how to respond to these posts.. its amazing what atrocites can be done in the name of God.
when religion generally in all its forms teach peace and understanding.
even in the old testement that was all about smiting and vengence..
its says Vengence is mine sayeth The Lord.
we are not to take vengence and such but should leave it to a higher power to take care of..
that higher power can come in many forms.. be it divine intervension.. or juditious law..
very very rarely is it in our hands to mete justice out personally.
if someone harms you or yours.. and you retailiate viloently.. does that
make you any better than the one who sinned against you?
an example for you..
say that someone took and hurt my little boy.. i would scream for vengence.. and want that person to suffer all the agonies ever imaginable.. at the same time.. i would never ever wish the same to happen to that persons child or anyone close to that person.
you can not visit the crime of the father onto the son..
as far as religion goes..
my oldest is 3.. i am now teaching him how to pray.
i do not expect him to understand all the ins and outs.. but right now im teaching him about compassion and thankfullness..
at night we say the now i lay me down to sleep prayer for routine.. and then we do .. God bless mommy, daddy sam and ben.. friends and teddies! *G*
then we ask for all the other little boys and girls in the world to be able to have what we have.. and be loved and get lots of cuddles.
very simple.. but helps him to start thinking about others.. and introducing religion in a way.. that when he is old enough and starts asking questions.. then hopefully i will be able to answer them and if not we can have an openness to find the answers together.
i would never ever .. tell him that it is wrong to belive dif from how i belive.
and that we should always look beyond the surface.. and see the person beneath.. and just because there mates may think something that they have to think it as well..
and that it is never ever ok.. or fun to hurt those weaker than them.

fred

11-May-06, 19:31

What in the name are you on about? This thread is on about 14 and 15 year old thugs knocking lumps out of each other at every opportunity they can.
WBG, pointed out one incedent that happened to be in N Ireland, it could have been anywhere in the UK, as I pointed out.
It has nothing to do with as you suggest the US Governments decision to imprison suspect terrorists in a jail with out trial. Its about thuggery and hooliganism the youth of the UK are into NOW, and have been long before Guantanimo Bay existed. The children on Ulster have been well indoctrinated by their peers, their parents and the Clergy, so once again I say this is nothing to do with your (conspiracy theory) that you say is the cause of all the troubles in the world as we know it today.
It is the fault of do gooders and human rights activists that will not let us parents even chastise or rebuke our offspring, if this was the norm as it was when I was a child, we would not be seeing these gangs of delinquents, terrorising the cities of the UK

I wasn't aware we couldn't chastise or rebuke offspring anymore.

So it's the do gooders behind the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland? The human rights activists spreading fear and hatred?

Have you any evidence for your theories? If we were to go round the prisons and ask people locked up for violent crimes about their youth are they all going to say their parents never smacked them? Or are the vast majority going to be telling how their father came home drunk every payday and knocked them and their mothers senseless?

Fear breeds fear, hatred breeds hatred and violence breeds violence. No one is born evil, we are all born innocent, if we grow up in a peaceful environment we we have a better chance of growing up peaceful if we grow up in a violent environment chances are we will grow up violent.

golach

11-May-06, 21:16

I wasn't aware we couldn't chastise or rebuke offspring anymore.

So it's the do gooders behind the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland? The human rights activists spreading fear and hatred?

Fear breeds fear, hatred breeds hatred and violence breeds violence. No one is born evil, we are all born innocent, if we grow up in a peaceful environment we we have a better chance of growing up peaceful if we grow up in a violent environment chances are we will grow up violent.

ref your statement about offspring and the chastising of them see
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950036_en_1.htm

And I never mentioned that do gooders or human rights activists had any thing to do the the so called "Troubles" of N Ireland, but I did say that the children of N Ireland had been well indoctrinated by both sides of the religious spectrum, and their parents before them, long before the Human Rights act of 1951 was ever thought up....look at your history man, Religion!!!! is the cause of most violence since time began, Catholics and Protestants have been stirring up hatred and violence and bigotry in N Ireland since the days of King William of Orange. My proof that you asked for is well documented in the books of History

fred

11-May-06, 22:56

ref your statement about offspring and the chastising of them see
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950036_en_1.htm

I've seen it, a very long doccument and I can't find where it says you can't rebuke or chastise a child anywhere. Perhaps you could direct me to the relevant paragraph.

And I never mentioned that do gooders or human rights activists had any thing to do the the so called "Troubles" of N Ireland, but I did say that the children of N Ireland had been well indoctrinated by both sides of the religious spectrum, and their parents before them, long before the Human Rights act of 1951 was ever thought up....look at your history man, Religion!!!! is the cause of most violence since time began, Catholics and Protestants have been stirring up hatred and violence and bigotry in N Ireland since the days of King William of Orange. My proof that you asked for is well documented in the books of History

If what you say is true then anywhere in the world where there are Catholics and Protestants living together there will be sectarian violence. This is obviously not the case, in most of the Christian world there are Catholics and Protestants and most of them get on very well together, they inter marry, they don't have their own areas, they don't kill each other.

Yet in Ireland and parts of Scotland where many are of Irish descent then there is sectarian violence.

In Basra before we invaded there was no sectarian violence, Shia and Sunni lived side by side, they inter married, they didn't kill each other. Send in the British Army and look at them now.

If you read your history books I think you will find it's all about oppression not religion.

JAWS

12-May-06, 00:13

If what you say is true then anywhere in the world where there are Catholics and Protestants living together there will be sectarian violence. This is obviously not the case, in most of the Christian world there are Catholics and Protestants and most of them get on very well together, they inter marry, they don't have their own areas, they don't kill each other.

Yet in Ireland and parts of Scotland where many are of Irish descent then there is sectarian violence.

In Basra before we invaded there was no sectarian violence, Shia and Sunni lived side by side, they inter married, they didn't kill each other. Send in the British Army and look at them now.

If you read your history books I think you will find it's all about oppression not religion.
Ask the Kurds about Sectarian Violence, ask the Marsh Arabs. Of course there was no Sectarian Violence in Iraq before Our army went and caused it all. It was called other things instead.
I suppose there was no Sectarian Violence in Northern Ireland before the British Army went there.

Shias and Sunnis have never ever fought with one another, honest, promise.
Sikhs and Hindus have never ever fought with one another, honest, promise.
It’s only the nasty Sectarian Irish and Scots. Oh yes, and anywhere the thugs of the nasty, horrible British Army have ever been.

Then, of course, there are the States with Rulers who are determinedly Atheistic, they don't suffer Sectarianism, they just butcher anybody who insists on professing any Religious Belief at all.

Why does Scotland think it is so special when it comes to Sectarian Violence? Does it not happen in England? I suggest a careful and unbiased search of the history books shows a very different story.
As usual, the supportive bits of history are being suggested and those which show differently are being carefully cast aside as inconvenient.

The Pepsi Challenge

12-May-06, 09:20

i agree that children should not be treated in this manner , however , what wasn't reported in the press at that time was the fact that the protestant pensioners in that area were being abused every week on their way to collect their pensions in the post office which happened to be in the republican area of the ardoyne.these people , some of whom had fought for their country should be treated better. the children did of course have an alternative route to their school but their parents chose to force confrontation with the families on the other side of the interface(peace wall). i think that the reason that things got really out of hand was the fact that the police and army were in fact escorting known members of the ira through the loyalist area .

Fair dos. But there is NO excuse for spitting and throwing rocks at children... no matter what the situation.

fred

12-May-06, 10:04

Ask the Kurds about Sectarian Violence, ask the Marsh Arabs. Of course there was no Sectarian Violence in Iraq before Our army went and caused it all. It was called other things instead.
I suppose there was no Sectarian Violence in Northern Ireland before the British Army went there.

In the case of the Kurds it was called other things for a good reason, it was other things. Sunii and Shia are different sects of the Islamic faith much like Protestants and Catholics are different sects of the Christian faith, it is their faith which defines them. The Kurds are a people, like the Scots are a people, it is their ancestry and geography which defines them. Just as a Scot can be Protestant or Catholic a Kurd can be Shia or Sunii, most are Sunii, many are Shia, some are Christian, some are Jews.

The troubles in Northern Ireland are not about religion and never have been, they are about oppression. The English and Scots who stole the people of Irelands lands may have been Protestant and the people of Ireland may have been Catholic but the motivation was greed not faith, they went to enslave the Irish not convert them and enslave them they did.

dunderheed

12-May-06, 12:15

Fair dos. But there is NO excuse for spitting and throwing rocks at children... no matter what the situation.

i agree there is no excuse , however the parents should take a long hard look at themselves, as i said there was an alternative route they could have taken but chose to put their children into the firing line.
i also find it hard to sympathise with these republicans when they constantly harass the loyalist in that area when they are going about their daily business i.e shopping ec t

golach

12-May-06, 14:08

ii also find it hard to sympathise with these republicans when they constantly harass the loyalist in that area when they are going about their daily business i.e shopping ec t

Now I find that a bigoted remark. The both sides of the troubles in N Ireland are no angels and are as bad as each other. I certainly will not take sides with any of the murdering swines

The Pepsi Challenge

12-May-06, 15:16

I think Dunderheid's 'allegiance' was visible from his first post. His last post also gives me the impression that he's defending the people attacking the children. For that I find Dunder's remarks disturbing and out of order. As I said, there is NO excuse for what those adults did to those children.

JAWS

12-May-06, 21:24

In the case of the Kurds it was called other things for a good reason, it was other things. Sunii and Shia are different sects of the Islamic faith much like Protestants and Catholics are different sects of the Christian faith, it is their faith which defines them. The Kurds are a people, like the Scots are a people, it is their ancestry and geography which defines them. Just as a Scot can be Protestant or Catholic a Kurd can be Shia or Sunii, most are Sunii, many are Shia, some are Christian, some are Jews.

The troubles in Northern Ireland are not about religion and never have been, they are about oppression. The English and Scots who stole the people of Irelands lands may have been Protestant and the people of Ireland may have been Catholic but the motivation was greed not faith, they went to enslave the Irish not convert them and enslave them they did.
I take it the Kurds are not Muslims in that case.

As for the excuse of oppression in Ireland, when do I start being a Terrorist because the Norman French or Scandinavians oppressed my people. Or does that not count because they weren't British?

Which parts of Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester or Coventry were the English and Scots "enslaving" as you choose to depict it.

Have they really been so differently treated than anybody else at any particular time in history?

If only you were right, fred and the only places in the world where there was religious and political strife had been caused by the British and/or the Americans the world would be a much better place.
The vast majority of trouble spots have little or no connection with us at all, unless you wish to trace the odd Brit who visited there once, most is of all their own doing.
Everybody likes to have a scape-goat to blame for their own failings, and the bigger the scape-goat the less responsibility they need to take themselves.
That way they don't have to bother justifying their behaviour because they have the ready made invention of, "It was all his fault, I couldn't help it!"

Now, lets see, perhaps England's behaviour is down to the fact that they were once oppressed by the Romans. Yes, that will do, "We are reacting to the oppression and enslavement by the Romans. They made us do it! If it hadn't been for them it would never have happened!"

Great, I like that, when can I start leaving my car-bombs in shopping centres because I have an historical resentment against the Romans? Where should I start? Glevum? Mancunium? Diva?
Perhaps I should start somewhere closer, say Wick or Thurso? Well they did sympathise with the Norse who oppressed my people. Yes, that's a better excuse, it's not so far in the past. That can excuse my behaviour! "I could nae help it, they made me like that! I felt oppressed by my past"

Sorry, their excuses for terrorism has no more validity than mine would. A car bomb or a suicide bomb in a busy town centre does not pick and choose it's victims. It doesn't ask what religion, nationaliity, colour, politics or anything else, it just does what it is intended to do. It is intended to get a small group of thugs their own way, whatever "cause" they wish to use to excuse their behaviour.

fred

12-May-06, 23:33

I take it the Kurds are not Muslims in that case.

A Kurd is someone who comes from Kirdistan, it makes no difference what their faith is some of them are aetheists or agnostics but they are still Kurds.

As for the excuse of oppression in Ireland, when do I start being a Terrorist because the Norman French or Scandinavians oppressed my people. Or does that not count because they weren't British?

Which parts of Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester or Coventry were the English and Scots "enslaving" as you choose to depict it.

Have they really been so differently treated than anybody else at any particular time in history?

Yes.

In the late 60s when the current troubles began Northern Ireland had been a one perty state since 1921, the Unionists had been ruling Northern Ireland for nearly 50 years. They maintained power by constantly changing boundaries so that even areas with a Nationalist majority could not get a representative, they had their own army, the RUC, no Nationalists or Catholics were allowed to join and they had oppressive laws allowing them to arrest and intern people without trial introduced as emergency measures supposedly to combat terrorism (ring a bell?) which were never repealed and which they interpreted as making political opposition to them illegal.

The troubles started in the 60s when inspired by people like Martin Luthor King in America a group of people tried to fight the injustices in Northern Ireland by means of peaceful protest. The RUC tried to stop this with violence which led to rioting and the British Army was brought in. At first the Catholics welcomed the British Army, they thought they were there to protect them from the RUC, they were wrong, they soon found out that the Army was there to reinfoce the RUC and the Catholics armed so they could protect themselves, that is how the Provisional IRA was born.

JAWS

13-May-06, 06:05

A Kurd is someone who comes from Kirdistan, it makes no difference what their faith is some of them are aetheists or agnostics but they are still Kurds.

In the late 60s when the current troubles began Northern Ireland had been a one perty state since 1921, the Unionists had been ruling Northern Ireland for nearly 50 years. They maintained power by constantly changing boundaries so that even areas with a Nationalist majority could not get a representative, they had their own army, the RUC, no Nationalists or Catholics were allowed to join and they had oppressive laws allowing them to arrest and intern people without trial introduced as emergency measures supposedly to combat terrorism (ring a bell?) which were never repealed and which they interpreted as making political opposition to them illegal.

The troubles started in the 60s when inspired by people like Martin Luthor King in America a group of people tried to fight the injustices in Northern Ireland by means of peaceful protest. The RUC tried to stop this with violence which led to rioting and the British Army was brought in. At first the Catholics welcomed the British Army, they thought they were there to protect them from the RUC, they were wrong, they soon found out that the Army was there to reinfoce the RUC and the Catholics armed so they could protect themselves, that is how the Provisional IRA was born.
That might well be the "Official Version" but there are convenient parts missing. You missed that it was the "B Specials" who were used to counter the IRA. The reason Catholics did not join the RUC was it was because would immediately become outcasts in their own communities and would not be accepted should they move into other communities

The original “Peaceful Demonstrations” were manipulated by the Provos into becoming more and more confrontational until there had to be a reaction by those in Authority. That then gave them the excuse to resort to acts violence followed by terrorism.
Who was it who used the war-cry of gaining victory by “The Bullet and the Ballot Box”!
The Provos were armed and active long before the Army had to go to Northern Ireland to stop what was, in effect, an attempt at enforced change by an armed uprising.
.
The army was welcomed, as you said, because the Republicans, as you say, thought they would take their side against the RUC. When they didn't take sides attempts were made to force them to. The Provos let it be known that if they were allowed to set up and run No Go Areas completely under their control then all the “Troubles” could be made to go away. When that was not allowed to happen the Army too became fair game.

The Provos were created by the people who now profess to have had no involvement with violence because the then IRA wished to use political means to gain what they wanted and became re-branded as "I Ran Away" by the next generation who wanted to use violence.

That is without mentioning who supplied the Provos initially with their weapons, but they came from deniable routes via Senior Members of a certain Government.
Neither does it account for the fact that the Provos were quite willing to carry out criminal acts in the Republic in order to get funding.

Internment without trial was introduced long after the "Troubles" re-started as were the Diplock Courts. It was impossible to get Jury Convictions in Terrorist Cases for the simple reason that finding 12 people who were willing to volunteer for a Death Sentence was, quite understandably, quite difficult.

Yes there was injustice in Northern Ireland and yes there was Gerrymandering of Electoral Boundaries but that was not, and still is not, any excuse for the Terror Campaign which followed by any stretch of the imagination.

All is fairly quiet at the present time, but eventually, and it may be some years, the hotheads, the revolutionaries and the men of violence will invent another excuse to terrorise the population because they are not getting what the want, and if Dublin isn’t fully compliant to their wishes then they will turn on them as well as they have done in the past.

The Terrorists on both sides are nothing more than an extreme form of bully and like all bullies they are never happy for very long unless they can find their next victim.
It doesn’t matter what they are given things will not change for long because all they are seeking is another excuse to continue bullying.
Every other demand is simply something to use as an excuse to behave as before.

The original demands of the 1960s were met and surpassed at least a couple of decades or more ago but the violence didn’t stop it continued and continued until it had to pause for breath.

All you are seeing in Ballymena is the same change happening again. The next generation of Terrorists is starting to appear and in a few more years they will ridicule those who have moved on to using Politics as have the previous generations for the last century and a half and more. When they have grown old enough and bold enough to ignore the current leaders they will recruit their own thugs and all will start again.

fred

13-May-06, 11:07

That might well be the "Official Version" but there are convenient parts missing. You missed that it was the "B Specials" who were used to counter the IRA. The reason Catholics did not join the RUC was it was because would immediately become outcasts in their own communities and would not be accepted should they move into other communities

And I suppose the Negros in America wanted to send their children to different schools because one black kid would have looked odd among all those white ones.

There was a similar problem in England about that time with the ethnic minorities being oppressed. They went a long way to solving it by actively recruiting coloured policemen into the force, one of them must have been the first.

In Northern Ireland they decided to kick the Catholics into submission instead, I can only think that it suited the British Government to have trouble in Ireland.

JAWS

13-May-06, 16:00

And I suppose the Negros in America wanted to send their children to different schools because one black kid would have looked odd among all those white ones.

There was a similar problem in England about that time with the ethnic minorities being oppressed. They went a long way to solving it by actively recruiting coloured policemen into the force, one of them must have been the first.

In Northern Ireland they decided to kick the Catholics into submission instead, I can only think that it suited the British Government to have trouble in Ireland.
One of them is now Assistant Commissioner in the Met.
They certainly would not risk joining the Police if they lived in certain areas. If they even considered it they were immediately branded "Babylon", a more severe form of insult than the rather mild "Uncle Tom".
It took changes in attitudes amongst both the communities they came from, the general public and the police to change before it could happen much as it did with any other form of "equality".

As for the situation with Northern Ireland, I remember attempts being made to "burn" Gerry Fitt out by the IRA and he was a very outspoken and well respected Republican Politician.
He refused to be forced out of the Republican Area he lived in. He lived for years in a heavily fortified house, which was fire-bombed on several occassions, risking assassination because he refused to be silenced by the Terrorist thugs.
And the major sin he committed to cause such hatred?
He insisted on speaking out against the Bombers and the Murderers on both sides of the divide and kept on saying so.
He wanted a United Republican Ireland far more than the Men of Terror but refused to engage in encouraging slaughter to obtain it.
He is about the only Politician in Ireland that I have ever had an unreserved admiration for because he was not one who spoke Peace to the cameras and slimed off to support the Terror Groups.

If a well known and outspoken Republican Politician lived under such threats what price would "Mr/s. O'Never-heard-of" from the same area have put on his/her life by "joining the enemy". I certainly would not have been brave enough to do it.

The "oppression" was not as one sided as many would like to pretend.
It takes a very brave person to stay in a Community and to "go over to the Enemy" at the same time. You can very easily find yourself rejected by both sides which can often be a very dangerous thing as many have discovered to their cost!

dunderheed

13-May-06, 17:04

fred

13-May-06, 22:20

The "oppression" was not as one sided as many would like to pretend.
It takes a very brave person to stay in a Community and to "go over to the Enemy" at the same time. You can very easily find yourself rejected by both sides which can often be a very dangerous thing as many have discovered to their cost!

The state oppression would have to be one sided, there was only one state.

Like I said earlier in the thread, rotten from the top down. It is the state which has the authority, it is the state which controls the police force, it is the state which makes the laws and it is the state who must above all be fair and just to every citizen or there is never going to be any chance of a peaceful and stable society.

Cedric Farthsbottom III

13-May-06, 22:34

guys , guys , guys, how wrong you are. how many times must i say that there IS NO EXCUSE for throwing rocks at children. i was merely pointing out that sometimes people let the truth get in the way of a good story.
as for being a bigot, well thats your opinion of someone you have never met so i'm not going to try and change your mind. the people who know me on this site (cedric and obiron) may (i would hope ) put you right on that

A bigot.Naw far from it.

Its one o' those weird things in life.The parents with their kids,its a situation I hope we never have to see.Do you take them down the streets with stones getting thrown or an alternative route to safety.

In my own opinion,the parents took their kids doon that street to say ye can do what ever ye want,but ye're not going to let hatred determine our lives.

JAWS

14-May-06, 00:42

The state oppression would have to be one sided, there was only one state.

Like I said earlier in the thread, rotten from the top down. It is the state which has the authority, it is the state which controls the police force, it is the state which makes the laws and it is the state who must above all be fair and just to every citizen or there is never going to be any chance of a peaceful and stable society.
So the State is to blame for everything. If the State is to blame for the thugs who will burn you out if you try to join the :Police then what is the State not to blame for?
"It was nae me, it was the State to blame!"
That's just another excuse for not accepting responsibility for your own actions.

If the State is to blame for thugs, bombers and murderers then is it to blame if I go and beat up my neighbours and rob their house because it's better than mine?

Well why not, they have more than me and I resent what they have so I want it and I want it now!

Anybody want to agree that I have a right to behave like that?

And fred, I'm talking about people becoming Babylon in Britain if they had joined the Police and lived in certain areas.
Some of the first Afro-Caribbeans to join the police were from Middle Class families who lived in more tolerant areas.
They were not put and could not work in certain inner city areas for their own safety.

Why is it at the present time that there is still a shortage of people from ethnic minorities applying to join the police?
Am I to believe that the reason is that they know that the State is going to make sure they are refused acceptance?
Perhaps you are suggesting that there is still "State Sponsored Racial Prejudice" being operated in this country. Are you suggesting that every Government for the past forty years has intentionally been operating a Race Bar in certain careers?

I think I can safely say that many people on the board will confirm that I am no lover of "The State" when it comes to what powers and information they have but even I have to admit that the State has limits over the control it has on people's behaviour.

"The State" is not the only thing which can cause oppression, it can come in many shapes and forms and from many sources, ask anybody who has lived in an area where "The State" has been over-run by mob rule, even if only at a very local level.

I can tell you all you need to know about State Oppression. I have spent all my life as a minority oppressed by the State.
From the day I was born it has not let me have all my own way.
I have to go now, because as an oppressed minority of one I'm off the make my Molotov Cocktails in readiness for my peaceful demonstration.

I too learned from the civil rights movement in the late sixties. I learned my tactics from the Black Panthers though. Infiltrate a peaceful demonstration to cover your violent intentions.
As a one person demonstration I admit it would be difficult for me to place agitators amongst my crowd to get them all riled up for me to turn things ugly and start crowd violence.
Oh dear, I nearly forgot the most important part. Once I've created the violence and peace has been finally restored I must then scream loudly that it was all the fault of the Authorities because if they hadn't been there to provoke the situation everything would have been blissfully serene!

"It was them, honest! I travelled two hundred miles so they could provoke me and look what they did!"

Those are only the techniques I have published, there are others folks but I didn't include them in the "Peaceful Rioters Handbook".
However, I can provide them covertly via the internet for those interested in overthrowing the Oppressive Fascist State we are being crushed by.
But please don't tell the authorities because they haven't found out how powerful they really are yet! They are daft enough to believe in individual freedoms! :eek:

fred

14-May-06, 08:34

So the State is to blame for everything. If the State is to blame for the thugs who will burn you out if you try to join the :Police then what is the State not to blame for?
"It was nae me, it was the State to blame!"
That's just another excuse for not accepting responsibility for your own actions.

If the State is to blame for thugs, bombers and murderers then is it to blame if I go and beat up my neighbours and rob their house because it's better than mine?

Yes, the state would be to blame. it is the responsibility of the state to protect people, that is why we have a police force and courts. If you were to beat up your neighbours and rob their house they could go to the police, you would be arrested and sent to prison.

In the rest of Britain we have a democracy, the Boundaries Commission sets the electoral boundaries and there are enough floating voters to make sure that a government can't do anything too unpopular or they would get voted out at the next election. In Ireland they had an elected dictatorship, the party which took power in 1921 made sure they could never lose it.

Imagine if in Britain the Conservative government had been in power for 50 years with a vastly greater number of seats than represented their share of the vote, that they could alter the electoral boundaries at will to ensure that in every ward there were more Conservative voters than Labour. Imagine if every last member of the police force, every last Judge was a Conservative. Imagine if a Conservative could beat up his neighbours, rob their house and the police would just ignore it but a Socialist could be arrested and sent to prison without trial just for being a Socialist.

Yes, if you could beat up your neighbours, rob their house and expect to get away with it because you belonged to the right political party and they didn't I'd say that was very much the fault of the state and if the police refused to protect your neighbours I would expect them to buy guns and protect themselves.

golach

14-May-06, 09:56

fred

14-May-06, 10:53

Tell me Fred, where do you live, Utopia perhaps? You lay the blame of society on the "State",

Hey you blamed the state as well, remember those do gooder MPs passing laws to prevent us from chastising or rebuking our children, they're the state you know.

Only difference I can see between what I said and what you said is that what I said is true and you just made what you said up.

gee

14-May-06, 14:13

all the troubles started in ireland because people wanted ireland to be independant. all 32 counties to be one. not split up into eire and northern ireland.
i find it very sad how bitterness rules peoples life in such a beautiful country.
for example how kids respond between one another. lifes too short for all this.

scotsboy

14-May-06, 14:44

The troubles in Northern Ireland are political and not religious.

Unless you are aware of all the facts it is very hard to pass judgment.

The Holy Cross situation is not all that it appeared to be, whilst it was horrific to see the children subjected to such traumatic situations you really have to ask your self why would people react like that to children – you can only arrive at the conclusion that you don’t have all the facts. I actually agree with Pespi’s comment:

As I said, there is NO excuse for what those adults did to those children.

What parent in their right mind would expose their children to that when there was safer alternative route?

There is no moral high ground to be gained here.

JAWS

14-May-06, 18:44

QUOTE=fred]Hey you blamed the state as well, remember those do gooder MPs passing laws to prevent us from chastising or rebuking our children, they're the state you know.

Only difference I can see between what I said and what you said is that what I said is true and you just made what you said up.[/QUOTE]
Man the Barricades! Block the Roads! Burn the Buses. Bomb the Town Centres! Send for the Armalites!

Set up the No Go Areas to keep the Oppressive State from persecuting us from smacking our children!

Well, if I can use the excuse of Oppression by the State to spend 40 years slaughtering people for one excuse then why not for any other.

Not only that but they keep singing the wrong sort of Hymn in the Kirk down the Road and every time I drive down there and stand around outside I feel intimidated.
Who's with me for bombing the congregation to stop the intimidation?

We can only stop the oppression via the Bullet and the Ballot Box because the politicians will not give us all our own way otherwise!

Of course, you will all have to contribute to the cause via me or I won’t be able to pay the Thugs not to pick on your premises and they won’t negotiate with anybody else. :roll:

JAWS

14-May-06, 19:27

Yes, the state would be to blame. it is the responsibility of the state to protect people, that is why we have a police force and courts. If you were to beat up your neighbours and rob their house they could go to the police, you would be arrested and sent to prison.

In the rest of Britain we have a democracy, the Boundaries Commission sets the electoral boundaries and there are enough floating voters to make sure that a government can't do anything too unpopular or they would get voted out at the next election. In Ireland they had an elected dictatorship, the party which took power in 1921 made sure they could never lose it.

Imagine if in Britain the Conservative government had been in power for 50 years with a vastly greater number of seats than represented their share of the vote, that they could alter the electoral boundaries at will to ensure that in every ward there were more Conservative voters than Labour. Imagine if every last member of the police force, every last Judge was a Conservative. Imagine if a Conservative could beat up his neighbours, rob their house and the police would just ignore it but a Socialist could be arrested and sent to prison without trial just for being a Socialist.

Yes, if you could beat up your neighbours, rob their house and expect to get away with it because you belonged to the right political party and they didn't I'd say that was very much the fault of the state and if the police refused to protect your neighbours I would expect them to buy guns and protect themselves.
But would that give the Socialists the right to start blowing city centres up slaughtering innocent bystanders and children. Would that give the Socialists the right to go round torturing other Socialists to death in the most barbaric ways, slicing the skin round the wrists and the ankles so you can slowly peel the skin back in the same manner as you would separate the layer of fat from a piece of roast just because they upset you in some way?
More inventive methods were used but not at Sunday tea-time.

It helps if the Socialists have some nice friendly places near by who set things off by supplying the guns free of charge until you get things going.

In the hope of preventing any party political squabbling over the matter, should anybody wish, please feel free to swapping the names of political parties around.
The particular names of the "Goodies" and the "Baddies" is not the point, the principles would still be the same.

To refer back to the Martin Luther King reference of a previous post, even the Blacks of the Deep South, who suffered from far more atrocious actions than any carried out in these Islands, did not resort to the same barbaric actions using the excuse of "the oppressed minority".
They could well have done because there were groups like the "Black Panthers" and a group run by "The Honourable Elijah Mohammed" who wished to use the same tactics of murder and terror but they were left as a minority.

I wonder if even the less racist States in the Deep South would be as integrated as they are if they to had resorted to the "Bullet and the Ballot Box"?
Fortunately, wiser minds amongst the Civil Rights Movement there prevailed or I'm sure the roads in some areas would still be awash with blood and have cotton wood trees bearing Strange Fruit.
Even the leaders of the Klan are, in many cases, being brought to justice and I can remember a time when such a suggestion would have go you the reputation of living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

The problem with turning the Men of Violence loose is that very soon violence ceases to become a means to an end and turns into an end in itself.
Those who volunteer to physically carry out the violent acts often do not want the acts to stop because they enjoy it far too much.
When the order comes for them to stop they simple splinter off into small groups and continue their violence and when that happens there is only one way to stop them.

fred

14-May-06, 22:09

But would that give the Socialists the right to start blowing city centres up slaughtering innocent bystanders and children. Would that give the Socialists the right to go round torturing other Socialists to death in the most barbaric ways, slicing the skin round the wrists and the ankles so you can slowly peel the skin back in the same manner as you would separate the layer of fat from a piece of roast just because they upset you in some way?
More inventive methods were used but not at Sunday tea-time.

What gave us the right to flatten towns in Iraq with our bombs and missiles?

First they said it was self defence, they were about to attack us so we had to attack them first. Especially their electricity generating stations, water purification plants and hospitals, though I don't understand why, they couldn't have been used as weapons against us.

Then when that turned out to not be true they told us that freedom and democracy was worth fighting for, worth the cost of our soldiers sent to die, worth all the thousands of innocent Iraqi children killed and maimed.

Seems to me that if you live under an oppressive regime which offers you no protection from violence by law then both those reasons would apply, both self defence and freedom.

So just what does give people the right to kill innocent children? Be they the IRA or the British Government? Is there ever any justification? I don't think there is.

So do we agree? The fight for freedom and democracy is not worth the lives of innocents. Will you agree with me that the government should lead by example and stop killing innocents for ideals then we would have a much better chance of convincing others that it is wrong. I mean at the end of the day the government had to sit down with the Rebublicans and work out a compromise, wouldn't it have been better to do that in 1968? At the end of the day all the guns and bombs on both sides did no good whatsoever it was talking that found a solution.

golach

14-May-06, 23:34

The troubles in Northern Ireland are political and not religious.

Unless you are aware of all the facts it is very hard to pass judgment.

The Holy Cross situation is not all that it appeared to be, whilst it was horrific to see the children subjected to such traumatic situations you really have to ask your self why would people react like that to children – you can only arrive at the conclusion that you don’t have all the facts. I actually agree with Pespi’s comment:

What parent in their right mind would expose their children to that when there was safer alternative route?

There is no moral high ground to be gained here.
I think ye are on the "Sadiq" again, your brain is pickled [lol]

JAWS

15-May-06, 01:26

What gave us the right to flatten towns in Iraq with our bombs and missiles?

First they said it was self defence, they were about to attack us so we had to attack them first. Especially their electricity generating stations, water purification plants and hospitals, though I don't understand why, they couldn't have been used as weapons against us.

Then when that turned out to not be true they told us that freedom and democracy was worth fighting for, worth the cost of our soldiers sent to die, worth all the thousands of innocent Iraqi children killed and maimed.

Seems to me that if you live under an oppressive regime which offers you no protection from violence by law then both those reasons would apply, both self defence and freedom.

So just what does give people the right to kill innocent children? Be they the IRA or the British Government? Is there ever any justification? I don't think there is.

So do we agree? The fight for freedom and democracy is not worth the lives of innocents. Will you agree with me that the government should lead by example and stop killing innocents for ideals then we would have a much better chance of convincing others that it is wrong. I mean at the end of the day the government had to sit down with the Rebublicans and work out a compromise, wouldn't it have been better to do that in 1968? At the end of the day all the guns and bombs on both sides did no good whatsoever it was talking that found a solution.
I didn't realise the Northern Ireland Terrorist wre operating in Iraq. So that's why they've gone quiet, I didn't realise.

Oh dear, back mto the baby killers again. When did the RAF bomb London? That's what the bombers in Ireland were doing. I'm sure that car bombs placed in Warrington didn't ask if the people it killed were Catholics or Protestants when it went off or did the IRA make a special type which only killed people of certain beliefs. If they did it's a good trick, I bet they could sell the information for a fortune.

Compronises were tried time and time again since 1968 and what happened every time? The demands were increased until they became intentionally unacceptable. Then the Bombing started again until it was deemed that enough had been done to get a few more concessions. Once they had been agreed, more unacceptable demands would suddenly appear to force a refusal nad the bombings would start again. Sometimes it was so the Terrorists could regroup and re-arm or get some killers or other released, sometimes it was because some sign of weakness was perceived but the end game was still the same. That is another trick which has been used time and time again.
It's a good trick and it works because people who are responsible only to themselves do not need to consider Public Opinion.
The leaders we have at present might not do the things we like. We may be lumbered with them for a time but in the end we have the opportunity to make them go away. People can speak out against them and say they are wrong.
Dictators and self-appointed thugs do not have that problem and as a result see our leaders as weak and indecisive and thus capable of being ignored.

Push your luck to the limit and then, at the last minute, say you want to compromise. Wait until everybody thinks you really might change your mind and then push your luck some more.
I remember a certian World Leader called Nikita calling it, "First the Carrot and then the stick, then the carrot and then the stick, then the carrot etc. etc!
Eventually you have them spinning so fast they don't know if they are coming or going!!" And off he went chuckling to himself.
He too tried it once too ofter and fell flat on his Polit Bureau.
Adolf played the same game for a while until he too pushed his luck once to often.

Sadam played a similar game of I might have, I might not have, I might have, etc.
He too pushed it once to often and, rightly or wrongly, got a result he hadn't expected.

Anti-aircraft missiles fired at random with no particular target have to land somewhere and if you fire on straight up over a city it can very easily come straight down. And placing such weapons in the grounds of hospitals and schools is also a good "sympathy getting method" as well.
The SS and the Gestapo placed their Headquarters in such places as a matter of course and Sadam's Uncle who was an originator of the Ba'ath Party was a well known Nazi sympathiser and visitor to Berlin. Who do you think took Sadam under his wing and trained him as a youth?

The famous cry of if we had negotiated with Sinn-Fein in 1968 all would have been sweetness and light simply doesn’t even reach the starting line. Are you seriously trying to convince me that the Loyalists would have just sat back, smiled and simply let it happen?
All that would have happened was that the Loyalists and not the Republicans would have hit the streets first with the same end result.
Dublin had the sense to realise that as well as London, that’s why they never pushed too hard to force London to give the IRA what they wanted.
Dublin simply paid lip service in their support to the Republicans in order to prevent them getting involved in a confrontation with London which would have escalated the situation out of all proportion.

Perhaps democracy was not worth fighting for in 1939. Perhaps all those who died wasted their lives on a pointless war where women and children died for nothing.
It wasn’t our war, Hitler wasn’t even facing towards us when we poked our unwanted noses in. Nobody asked us to get involved.
How disgraceful that we involved ourselves in a war which was nothing to do with us.
Chamberlain should have been prosecuted as a War Criminal for using weapons of mass destruction on innocent civilians. All those leaflets from our bombers smashing down on poor German Children, we should hang our heads in shame. How dare we do such a thing when all we needed to do was to pass a resolution in Parliament asking Hitler to be nice and not pick on the poor Poles. I’m sure he would have agreed if we had given him enough time.

I'm sure I've heard that idea somewhere recently but I can't quite think where, can anybody help me remember? :roll: [lol]

fred

15-May-06, 08:52

I didn't realise the Northern Ireland Terrorist wre operating in Iraq. So that's why they've gone quiet, I didn't realise.

Oh yes, one of the terrorists groups who were in Northern Ireland are in Iraq now.

Oh dear, back mto the baby killers again. When did the RAF bomb London? That's what the bombers in Ireland were doing. I'm sure that car bombs placed in Warrington didn't ask if the people it killed were Catholics or Protestants when it went off or did the IRA make a special type which only killed people of certain beliefs. If they did it's a good trick, I bet they could sell the information for a fortune.

So now we've found the problem. You don't believe it is wrong to kill innocents, you just think it is wrong for others to kill our innocents but any old lame excuse is good enough for us to kill other peoples innocents. Our cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells are justified when used against a people who never harmed us, never threatened us but the IRA bomb is wrong when used against a people who occupied their country and took away their right of self determination.

The killing will go on, the violence will never end because on both sides there will always be people who say it's alright for us to do it to them but wrong if they do it to us.

Compronises were tried time and time again since 1968 and what happened every time? The demands were increased until they became intentionally unacceptable.

Were they? I thought the British Government refused to negotiate with the IRA and when they did eventually negotiate it had to be in secret. I thought when an agreement was finally reached the Nationalists got very little from it, proportional representation but the Unionists still holding power, a cross border executive with the Unionists having power of veto, an agreement that Ireland would never be reunited without the majority in both North and South agreeing so the Unionists have the last say again.

The Nationalists gained very little at the end of the day, the stumbling block to a peaceful settlement was that the Unionists refused to cede anything at all. They faught hard against a settlement which left them holding all the power and the Nationalists nothing but their pride.

scotsboy

15-May-06, 15:27

Golach wrote:

I think ye are on the "Sadiq" again, your brain is pickled

I assume you disagree that the troubles are a political rather than religion based? Do you consider the Irish "revolution/rebellion" to have been religous or political in nature?

JAWS

15-May-06, 18:33

Oh yes, one of the terrorists groups who were in Northern Ireland are in Iraq now.
So you are saying that the British Army are just a group of Terrorists intent on slaughtering women and babies. Of course, you will either ignore or deny the implication but I'm willing to leave others to judge the meaning of one set of the Terrorists having transferred it's behaviour to Iraq.
I am well versed in the “Gerry Adams Book of Plausible Accusations and Excuses”, I even invented some of them.
“If the officer hadn’t insisted on trying to stop me killing the other guy up I wouldn’t have ended up fighting with him. It’s the policeman’s fault provoked me by his presence. He caused the problem by trying to arrest me so he’s as bad as me and as much to blame!”
I also taught people other fairy stories like Jack the Giant Killer and the Pied Piper of Hamlin.
And the biggest fairy story of all. Hitler was never involved with the with the SS, he was only a politician with no control over them. (Well, the same fairy story works for others)

So now we've found the problem. You don't believe it is wrong to kill innocents, you just think it is wrong for others to kill our innocents but any old lame excuse is good enough for us to kill other peoples innocents. Our cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells are justified when used against a people who never harmed us, never threatened us but the IRA bomb is wrong when used against a people who occupied their country and took away their right of self determination.

The killing will go on, the violence will never end because on both sides there will always be people who say it's alright for us to do it to them but wrong if they do it to us.

Once again, I am willing to let others decide if there is any difference between the rapist and the policeman who blacks his eye whilst arresting him, after all, both are violent acts so each must be equally engaged in violent criminal activity and should be treated the same.

Were they? I thought the British Government refused to negotiate with the IRA and when they did eventually negotiate it had to be in secret. I thought when an agreement was finally reached the Nationalists got very little from it, proportional representation but the Unionists still holding power, a cross border executive with the Unionists having power of veto, an agreement that Ireland would never be reunited without the majority in both North and South agreeing so the Unionists have the last say again.

The Nationalists gained very little at the end of the day, the stumbling block to a peaceful settlement was that the Unionists refused to cede anything at all. They faught hard against a settlement which left them holding all the power and the Nationalists nothing but their pride.
So all Nationalists and Republicans are de facto IRA Terrorists? Yes the Government refused to negotiate with the Terrorists of the IRA who were intent on enforcing their will on everybody in Northern Ireland including other Republicans who were willing to use lawful means to get change. Again,I point to your tying Northern Ireland to Martin Luther King. I do not remember him advocating the use of armed uprisings and the use of the bullet and the bomb. He rightly saw that as hindering the process and not helping it forward. Certainly his methods produced more change than the IRA ever did. The IRA insisted that nothing would change until Westminster negotiated with them because they represented the Republicans and not the elected Republican Politicians, especially those who refused to condone their violence. (See earlier post concerning Gerry Fitt who was an outstanding Republican).

Your suggestion that the Republicans got nothing and the Unionists got everything is exactly the reason the situation has not progressed because I would immediately suggest that the Republicans got everything and the Unionists got very little.
You suggest that the Republicans wish to become a part of Southern Ireland is being ridden over roughshod, I would suggest that by giving the Republicans their wish to involve Dublin in Northern Irelands affairs is riding roughshod over the Unionists.

You say it's unfair that things don't change, I say it's unfair if things do.
You say I'm intransigent, I say you are being too demanding.

It doesn't matter which side each of us represent or what is being discussed each of us will argue that the other is to blame.
For Northern Ireland politics that is called normality.

And as for secret negotiations, more went on that people realise, including between Sinn Fein/IRA and the Loyalist/UVF etc. even though both sets would loudly deny it in public.
How do you think the most prominent mouth-pieces for both sides have survived so long? Perhaps it's just that they have been lucky! :lol:

fred

15-May-06, 23:16

So you are saying that the British Army are just a group of Terrorists intent on slaughtering women and babies. Of course, you will either ignore or deny the implication but I'm willing to leave others to judge the meaning of one set of the Terrorists having transferred it's behaviour to Iraq.

The British Army was very much involved in the terrorist activities in Northern Ireland just as they are involved in the terrorist activities in Iraq. Did you never read the Stevens Report (http://sinnfein.ie/peace/document/107/1), didn't you read in the papers about the British Soldiers arrested in Iraq disguised as Arabs and in a car packed with explosives? The head of IRA security was working for the British Army, they must have known about many of the killings in advance but did nothing to prevent them. The British Army was colluding with Protestant paramilitary organisations, not only did they know about killings in advance they were instigating them. Many British soldiers were also members of the Unionist paramilitary organisations, over 15% of the Ulster Defence Regiment, and the British army was the main source of their arms.

JAWS

16-May-06, 01:30

The British Army was very much involved in the terrorist activities in Northern Ireland just as they are involved in the terrorist activities in Iraq. Did you never read the Stevens Report (http://sinnfein.ie/peace/document/107/1), didn't you read in the papers about the British Soldiers arrested in Iraq disguised as Arabs and in a car packed with explosives? The head of IRA security was working for the British Army, they must have known about many of the killings in advance but did nothing to prevent them. The British Army was colluding with Protestant paramilitary organisations, not only did they know about killings in advance they were instigating them. Many British soldiers were also members of the Unionist paramilitary organisations, over 15% of the Ulster Defence Regiment, and the British army was the main source of their arms.
Protecting your source of information is one of the first rules. Even any two-bit journalist knows that.

From your description of British Soldier in Arab Dress I take it Lawrence of Arabia was involved in Terrorism as well because he went around in Arab dress carrying explosives as well.

I would have hoped the British were providing all the Arms for the Ulster Defence Regiment, I would hate to think Dublin was supplying them also.
And there were no IRA sympathisers in the British Forces?

You offer a very one sided view of a situation which has at least fifty sides.

With respect to the Stevens Report, he makes a very good case for expressing his opinion of “Believing” and “Concluding” there was collusion but not one iota of that pillar of British Justice which goes under the name of "Proof".
The only thing he can definitely say occurred was that there was slip-shod record keeping and that he was met with an attitude which is quite common where I come from which is when questioned or accused of anything you take the attitude, “That’s what you say. Prove it!”
Under the circumstances once I realised that an enquiry was just a an exercise in head hunting at a time chosen for political reasons I would adopt exactly the same attitude,
“You want to know the time? Sorry my watch is stopped!”
“You want to know what day it is? Sorry, I can’t seem to find my calendar! I believe Woollies might still have one, but I can’t guarantee it!”

I note with interest that the report seems to make no mention of the British Army being involved in either of the incidents investigated not that any allegations of official involvement by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The person giving the information about the murders and admitted supplying the weapons was the quartermaster of the Ulster Defence Association, a Terrorist Group, and not the Ulster Defence Regiment.
He was recruited as an agent for the RUC Special Branch, as were some members of the IRA, but I see no indication that he was acting under their instructions.
There are no recommendations or arrests by Stevens of any members of the RUC Special Branch which there would be if Stevens had proof of any such involvement.

I also note with great interest that the site containing the report is that of the publicity agents for the IRA acting under the alias of Sinn Fein.
A very good source for an unbiased view of the "Murderous Terrorists of the Butchering British Army."
(Gerry would be proud of the description, he'll be furious that I got in there first and stole the glory!)

It’s a shame that the enquiry was set up by the British Government when it was willing to agree to anything which would give it the unique place in History of having finally “Solved the Irish Problem!”
What Prime Minister would'nt agree to almost anything to have that on their CV for future generations to marvel at, especially one who is desperately seeking anything at all to have a place in History.

The Pepsi Challenge

16-May-06, 02:10

The troubles in Northern Ireland are political and not religious.

Unless you are aware of all the facts it is very hard to pass judgment.

The Holy Cross situation is not all that it appeared to be, whilst it was horrific to see the children subjected to such traumatic situations you really have to ask your self why would people react like that to children – you can only arrive at the conclusion that you don’t have all the facts. I actually agree with Pespi’s comment:

What parent in their right mind would expose their children to that when there was safer alternative route?

There is no moral high ground to be gained here.

Yeah, the parents were crazy taking their children into that environment. No question. But there's still NO excuse for striking the children. Still sounds like that 'that' is being defended.

golach

16-May-06, 08:56

Golach wrote:
I assume you disagree that the troubles are a political rather than religion based? Do you consider the Irish "revolution/rebellion" to have been religous or political in nature?

I did a little research and from this I would say it was more a religious dispute than a political one, but isnt that what history in the Uk has been since the days of John Knox and the reformation in Scotland?
Covananters were persecuted in Scotland as badly as the two sides in Ulster, because of their religious beliefs. Mix in the Jacobites and the Protestants and you have a volitile mix.
Political greed in the 17th Century was as bad as it is now
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/ni/ulster_crisis_1860.shtml
But this is getting away from the origion of this thread, i.e. the murder of the young lad, and the wanton thuggery that todays teenagers take as the norm. It happens in most citys in the UK, so its not solely a Ulster problem, recently in Saughton Park in Ediburgh approx 20/30 males aged in their 20's were knocking lumps out of each other with baseball bats and machetes on a Sunday evening, they were Chinese.

fred

16-May-06, 10:13

Protecting your source of information is one of the first rules. Even any two-bit journalist knows that.

From your description of British Soldier in Arab Dress I take it Lawrence of Arabia was involved in Terrorism as well because he went around in Arab dress carrying explosives as well.

I would have hoped the British were providing all the Arms for the Ulster Defence Regiment, I would hate to think Dublin was supplying them also.
And there were no IRA sympathisers in the British Forces?

You offer a very one sided view of a situation which has at least fifty sides.

No you offer a very one sided view of the situation. My view is that it is wrong to kill innocent people, your view is that it is wrong for others to kill innocent people but it is perfectly alright when we do it. You make excuses, you say "that's different". Shooting an unarmed protester in the back then shooting them dead as they try to crawl to safety isn't murder, that isn't terrorism, it's only murder or terrorism if it is done to us not done by us as far as you're concerned.

You don't care about a young man killed in Ballymena, if you did you would care about the thousands killed in Iraq instead of making excuses for them, if you did you would care about the circumstances leading to that young mans death instead of making excuses for them, if you did you would care that the exact same circumstances which lead to that young mans death are happening again only this time on a world scale and this time it is Christian and Muslim not Protestant and Catholic, this time it won't be hundreds die as a result it will be millions.

Hundreds of years ago a rich powerful country invaded a poor weak country and stole their lands, a few days ago a young man died as a result. In 2003 a rich powerful country invaded a poor weak country and stole their oil, in a hundred years time will young men still be dying as a result? Will we still be making excuses like we still make excuses about Northern Ireland and blaming anyone but ourselves?

golach

16-May-06, 10:35

Saveman

16-May-06, 11:19

fred

16-May-06, 12:11

So Fred, this is ok in your eyes then?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern_ireland/latest_news/152156.stm
but if an RUC policeman or a British soldier shoots a IRA terrorist they are murderers?
In my opinion the policeman and the soldier are doing their jobs, and do not need all this flak that they are getting, I say support our Police and Military, not knock them. How many RUC were killed by the IRA? We know that over 100 of our military have been killed in Iraq already, they were doing a job too.

Where have I said that was OK?

You are the one who condones murder not me, you are the one making excuses not me. I just say that if we want any chance of putting an end to the senseless killing then those in power should stop doing it themselves.

One hundred of our military killed in Iraq because our government waged an illegal war, because our government decided it wasn't murder if we killed innocent Iraqis to steal their oil. How many Iraqis have died? You haven't mentioned them, you don't seem to care.

I read the news from Iraq every day, I read about every mothers child killed and care about every one of them, British, American, or Iraqi. I care about every mothers child killed in Ireland Protestant or Catholic. I'd like to see an end to the senseless killing but the main obstacle to that is people like you who will always find excuses for it, always justify it just so long as it's us that does the killing.

Here's the list of people killed in Iraq yesterday, which ones will you justify? Which ones will you sit on high and say "that one deserved to die"? Will every one of these get a minutes silence at Stormont or is the life of a young Irishman worth more than the life of a young Iraqi?

RAMADI - Heavy fighting erupted between insurgents and U.S. forces in Ramadi, 110 km (68 miles) west of Baghdad, witnesses said. Doctor Diha al-Hadithi said eight bodies and nine wounded people had been brought to its main hospital.

BASRA - Members of the Garamsha tribe killed three policemen in an attack near Basra, 550 km south of Baghdad, a local official said. Five other policemen went missing. The attack came after a tribal leader was shot dead near Basra.

MOSUL - One policeman was killed and two were wounded when a bomb exploded near a house where gunmen earlier killed six members of the same family, police in the northern city of Mosul said.

MAHAWEEL - A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol exploded in the town of Mahaweel, 75 km south of Baghdad, killing one civilian and wounding three policemen, police said.

*LATIFIYA - The U.S. military said Abu Mustafa, wanted for his role in the downing of a U.S. helicopter in Yusufiya on April 1, and 15 other suspected al Qaeda militants were killed during a series of raids near Latifiya south of Baghdad. Iraq's main Sunni religious group, the Muslim Clerics Association, said U.S. troops killed 25 civilians in Latifiya and denounced it as a "brutal atrocity."

YUSUFIYA - U.S. forces killed more than 25 insurgents, detained four others and destroyed three houses on Sunday during coordinated ground and air attacks in Yusufiya, 15 km south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

YUSUFIYA - Insurgents shot down a U.S. helicopter during fighting in Yusufiya on Sunday, killing two soldiers, the U.S. military said.

KERBALA - The body of Emad al-Massoudi, a policeman who was abducted by gunmen two days ago, was found with gunshot wounds, bearing signs of torture, on the outskirts of Kerbala, 110 km southwest of Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - Iraqi police said they found five bodies from one family near their home in the northern outskirts of the capital. All had been shot dead.

BALAD RUZ - Gunmen killed four primary school teachers as they were heading to work in Balad Ruz, about 50 km southeast of Baquba, police said.

ANBAR PROVINCE - Insurgents killed two U.S. Marines on Sunday in the rebellious western province of Anbar, the U.S. military said in a statement.

MAHAWEEL - One civilian was killed and another wounded when a roadside bomb went off near the police headquarters in Mahaweel, 75 km south of Baghdad, police said.

AMARA - Four British soldiers were wounded when a British military base came under mortar attack near the city of Amara, 365 km southeast of Baghdad, the British military said.

WAJIHIYA - A seven-year-old girl was killed and seven members of her family were wounded when a mortar round landed on their house in the small town of Wajihiya, about 30 km east of Baghdad, police said.

JAWS

16-May-06, 13:37

The average kid on the street cares little for the British claim to Northern Ireland or the Republics claim to Northern Ireland.
They care little about the corruption of democracy or the alledged deals between the RUC or the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the British Army and the IRA. In short they care little about politics.
All they know is that they hate the other side. The other side they identify as being either "fenians" or "proddys" or some other such derogatory pseudo-name for Protestants and Catholics. (And don't tell me "fenian" isn't derogatory...it's become derogatory.)

If they're smart they'll investigate the history of their home to get the bigger picture. A large section just grow up to hate and then in turn to teach their kids to hate. It's a vicious circle which nothing has yet addressed.

Banging on about "1690" or "Soldiers Are We" is not proof of political savvy.
My feelings exactly Saveman. The idiots have no more excuse then me hating the Italians because the Romans invaded the South of England or more likely anybody with certain surnames of Norman-French origin because they are the descendants of the murderous thugs who laid waste the North of England.
How about you Norse Northern Scots rebelling against your Scots Oppressors who invaded from the west and took control of your peoples.
Why stop at three centuries ago when we have several millenina to choose from?

Look hard enough for a reason to be revolting and you can soon find an excuse but most sensible people eventually set about making the best of a bad job and working to improve their lot.
Of course, those without sense continue their tantrums and set about destroying all the toys so nobody can play.

JAWS

16-May-06, 14:11

No you offer a very one sided view of the situation. My view is that it is wrong to kill innocent people, your view is that it is wrong for others to kill innocent people but it is perfectly alright when we do it. You make excuses, you say "that's different". Shooting an unarmed protester in the back then shooting them dead as they try to crawl to safety isn't murder, that isn't terrorism, it's only murder or terrorism if it is done to us not done by us as far as you're concerned.

You don't care about a young man killed in Ballymena, if you did you would care about the thousands killed in Iraq instead of making excuses for them, if you did you would care about the circumstances leading to that young mans death instead of making excuses for them, if you did you would care that the exact same circumstances which lead to that young mans death are happening again only this time on a world scale and this time it is Christian and Muslim not Protestant and Catholic, this time it won't be hundreds die as a result it will be millions.

Hundreds of years ago a rich powerful country invaded a poor weak country and stole their lands, a few days ago a young man died as a result. In 2003 a rich powerful country invaded a poor weak country and stole their oil, in a hundred years time will young men still be dying as a result? Will we still be making excuses like we still make excuses about Northern Ireland and blaming anyone but ourselves?
Now you can see the problem with Ireland, fred. We can both continue to blame the other side
You see the forces of law and order as being as ding exactly the same thing as the revolutionary and I see it as a reasoned response by those which society in general have place in charge.

You see the innocent protester crawling away and being shot, I see bits of bodies being shovelled up and washed away on the streets of Warrington, a town which has no military connections whatsoever, and certainly no more then Wick or Thurso. But that's acceptable because somebody is still upset that their side isn't the one with power and wants to gain the whip handle.

You declare I don't care about the young man in Ballimena when all I have pointed out is that there is no evidence but only a report "Believing" that the Royal Ulster Constabulary may be involved because of a tenuous link by way of an informer belonging to a Loyalist Group.
The man was killed by a Loyalist Terror Group, not by the RUC or the Army.

You link Northern Ireland and Iraq yet you totally ignore my question of earlier about Britain starting a War with Nazi Germany which at the time had nothing whatsoever to do with us at all. We simply decided we didn't like Hitler's methods and decided to make war on him, were we wrong to do that also?
If you wish to link our actions in Ireland to those in Iraq then I wish to link our actions in Iraq to our actions against Nazi Germany.

Why had we any more right to get involved with Germany than we have in Iraq. Despite the "It's nothing to do with us" calls, we have a great deal to do with Iraq in view of the fact that it was Britain which drew lines in the sand to break up the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and pushed all the warring factions together in the first place.
We created the situation originally, shouldn't we clean up the after effect of our own doings?

scotsboy

16-May-06, 14:36

Not defending anything Pepsi - never heard or saw any of the children being physically assualted, but it was horrific. JUst as the intimidation of the local community by the IRA was - and all the "minders" that were with the parents were IRA men.

Answer the question Golach, do you consider that the Irish Revolt/revolution was religous or political? I am on about the events around 1916. There can be only one answer and that is political - the majority of the thinking men in the fenian movement were protestants, so it was far from religous........but why let the facts get in the way of your paradigm.

Terrible what happened to the lad in Ballymena. Many other horrendous acts take place (still) in NI.

golach

16-May-06, 15:11

Why had we any more right to get involved with Germany than we have in Iraq. Despite the "It's nothing to do with us" calls, we have a great deal to do with Iraq in view of the fact that it was Britain which drew lines in the sand to break up the remnants of the Ottoman Empire and pushed all the warring factions together in the first place.
We created the situation originally, shouldn't we clean up the after effect of our own doings?
Again Jaws the voice of reason, the British Governments of the day created the "Middle East Crisis", not the present days government, our government is just reaping what was sowed back in the days of the Ottoman Empire.

Fred I would hang my head in prayer for the dead all over the World if I was at all religious but I am not. I never saw you on your soapbox when Saddam was gassing his fellow countrymen, and sabre rattling with his alleged WMD, from your list of todays headlines how many Iraqis killed fellow Iraqis? And how many were killed by the occupation troops? One thing I will agree with you is that we as Brits should never have been there in the first place, but read my reply to Jaws and maybe we should take some responsability for the mess.

fred

16-May-06, 15:30

Now you can see the problem with Ireland, fred. We can both continue to blame the other side
You see the forces of law and order as being as ding exactly the same thing as the revolutionary and I see it as a reasoned response by those which society in general have place in charge.

I don't blame the other side, I'm not a Catholic, I'm not Irish.

If you want rule of law and order that's fine but it has to be one law for all. A British soldier shooting dead an unarmed civilian and the one who gave the orders must be held accountable just the same as anyone else. The police must investigate crimes against every section of the public equally and those responsible punished as who they are. When the police force are the criminals that is not law and order. If you want law and order then insist that our government obeys international law, that's how law and order works, you make the laws and everyone has to obey them, if they don't then that is not law and order.

If you want law and order then stop making excuses for the injustice commited in our name and give equal justice for all because if we don't the ones we oppress be it in Ireland or Iraq are going to make their own brand of justice.

JAWS

16-May-06, 20:51

I don't blame the other side, I'm not a Catholic, I'm not Irish.

If you want rule of law and order that's fine but it has to be one law for all. A British soldier shooting dead an unarmed civilian and the one who gave the orders must be held accountable just the same as anyone else. The police must investigate crimes against every section of the public equally and those responsible punished as who they are. When the police force are the criminals that is not law and order. If you want law and order then insist that our government obeys international law, that's how law and order works, you make the laws and everyone has to obey them, if they don't then that is not law and order.

If you want law and order then stop making excuses for the injustice commited in our name and give equal justice for all because if we don't the ones we oppress be it in Ireland or Iraq are going to make their own brand of justice.
I wasn't trying to suggest you were either Catholic or Irish, I was simply saying that you have one view and I have an opposing view.
You are never likely to say the Authorities are right in what they did and I will never accept that the Terrorists were right either.
That is exactly the problem with Ireland, one side want Northern Ireland to remain all British whilst the other side wishes it to become all Irish and you can't have both.

You equate the Troubles starting in 1968 with the Civil Rights Movement of Dr Martin Luther King.
You also link it to the "Imperialist Invasion of Iraq", a Third World Country.

I too remember 1968 and what was happening when the current Troubles started.

The Cultural Revolution started by Chairman Mao in 1966, which was at it's height in 1968 when the Student Red Guards were slaughtering all and sundry as Backsliders and Enemies of the Revolution. Even Mao started to panic when the Red Guards ran out of victims and started slaughter amongst themselves. It is known that millions died, but not even the Chinese Government either knows or will admit how many.

I remember the Red Army Faction, more commonly known as the Bader-Meinhof Gang of Terrorists starting to bomb and murder in 1968.

Do you recall Daniel Cohn-Bendit and the Paris Student Riots in 1968 which were so bad that tanks were called to the outskirts of Paris because of the scale to which they had grown.

Then there was the Red Brigade, a group of violent Terrorists in Italy who went round bombing and murdering who were formed at the same time.

Not forgetting the LSE with Tariq Ali and the Student rioters in London.

Even their apologists explain that they were following the Trotskyite belief in changing the World by the instigating Class Warfare at Home and Revolution in the Third World.

Now, which sounds more like Northern Ireland in the last 40 years? The followers of the "Peace Train" of the Civil Rights Movement in America or the Teachings of Trotsky of change by violent struggle followed by almost all the Terror Groups formed in the 1960s. and with whom the IRA had close affiliations and aims?

I too remember the peaceful demonstrations in Grosvenor Square, London in 1968, where the protesters, who were innocently doing nothing when the police charged them with horses, just happened to find loads of Firecrackers and Smoke Bombs conveniently lying round in the gutters for them to hurl at the Police. They also just happened to have pockets full of ball-bearings to roll under the hooves of the Police Horses.

Lots of people I know find Smoke Bombs in the gutters, it happens all the time where I come from.
Doesn't everybody in Wick carry pockets full of ball-bearings just in case they need them. I thought all peaceful people did that all the time but perhaps I'm abnormal in doing that.

Of course, the Terrorists in France, in Germany, in Italy and I nearly forgot Japan, all live under terrible oppressive states where grievances of the public are totally ignored and the IRA had links with all of them and with Libya and the Drug Lords in South America. In fact they have all, at one time or another, carried out or assisted with atrocities for each other when expedient.

I too remember the start of the Troubles in 1968 and all that surrounded them and fed them with ideas and what the Revolutions were meant to create in the end. I also learned the methods of starting violence to provoke a reaction so you could accuse the Authorities of Violent Oppression. The 1960s were a useful time to study such things, especially in learning how to feed people the propaganda that, "It wasn’t us who started it, it was them!" to distract the publics attention from the reality. .

I also learned to spot the methods used by Joseph Goebbels, make the lie big enough and tell it often enough and people will begin to believe it leave it for others to show that you are wrong.
Of course the British Army are Terrorists and the Government is the Fascist Oppressor, I see that every day of my life, I can even hear the Jack-boots marching down the A9 now. I must go and cheer them on!

Perhaps if the would be Revolutionaries of the 1960s had paid a little more attention to their studies and a little less learning the methods of Mao and Trotsky we might have a better and more peaceful World today.

fred

16-May-06, 22:21

I wasn't trying to say you were either Catholic or Irish, I was simply saying that you have one view and I have an oposing view.
You are never likely to say the Authorities are right in what they did and I will never accept that the Terrorists wre right either.

I haven't said the terrorists were right, can't you get it into your head that there are people in the world who don't take sides and say everything their side does is justified and everything the other side does is evil.

If the IRA plants a bomb knowing it is likely to take the lives of innocent civilians then they are guilty of murder and if the British Government starts an illegal war knowing it is likely to take the lives of innocent civillians they are guilty of murder. When British paratroopers shot dead 13 unarmed demonstrators they were guilty of murder, guilty of murdering the people it was their duty to protect.

The point I've been making all along is that when those at the top are guilty of moral barbarism then it trickles down and infests all of society, when our leaders commit murder then how do you explain to a child that murder is wrong? So long as our leaders condone murder and say it is justified when we do it then others will decide it is justified when they do it. You can't take the moral high ground from the gutter, that's where our government is and has been for a long time.

Cedric Farthsbottom III

16-May-06, 22:27

I haven't said the terrorists were right, can't you get it into your head that there are people in the world who don't take sides and say everything their side does is justified and everything the other side does is evil.

If the IRA plants a bomb knowing it is likely to take the lives of innocent civilians then they are guilty of murder and if the British Government starts an illegal war knowing it is likely to take the lives of innocent civillians they are guilty of murder. When British paratroopers shot dead 13 unarmed demonstrators they were guilty of murder, guilty of murdering the people it was their duty to protect.

The point I've been making all along is that when those at the top are guilty of moral barbarism then it trickles down and infests all of society, when our leaders commit murder then how do you explain to a child that murder is wrong? So long as our leaders condone murder and say it is justified when we do it then others will decide it is justified when they do it. You can't take the moral high ground from the gutter, that's where our government is and has been for a long time.

"Our" government just now wisnae in charge at the time Fred.At least the government,under Anthony Blair had the nerve to try and change things.Aye,not everything has been perfect,at least they tried.

fred

16-May-06, 23:24

"Our" government just now wisnae in charge at the time Fred.At least the government,under Anthony Blair had the nerve to try and change things.Aye,not everything has been perfect,at least they tried.

They're doing the same things in Iraq as they did in Northern Ireland with the same results but on a much larger scale.

JAWS

17-May-06, 01:29

If the IRA plants a bomb knowing it is likely to take the lives of innocent civilians then they are guilty of murder and if the British Government starts an illegal war knowing it is likely to take the lives of innocent civillians they are guilty of murder. When British paratroopers shot dead 13 unarmed demonstrators they were guilty of murder, guilty of murdering the people it was their duty to protect.

In answer to the 13 dead demonstrators I will remind you of something I said in a earlier post before Bloody Sunday was raked up again,
"Teenagers and those a lot younger have always been involved since the 1960s and before. You put them at the front to throw stones and petrol bombs because it's good propaganda should any of them get injured or killed. And kids made great protection to hide behind when you are a sniper."
The same method goes for hiding behind women and children also and the younger the child you can put into the firing line the better your chances of gaining a sympathetic version in the Media.
Start trouble but make sure you use innocent people people as cover. It's an age old tactic used by cowards everywhere, they are the ones at the back urging eveybody in front ever onwards. I just love cowards who lead from the back and make sure they never put themselves in danger. Push from the back and keep safe, works everytime, or better still, use others to push whilst you head for the TV Studio to bemoan their fate at the hands of the Authorities.

The facts about Bloody Sunday are very much still in dispute except that a chap by the name of McGuinness has recently admitted he may have been within 100 miles of what went on.
I noticed that Adams and Co wanted an amnesty for all those involved in the troubles, but not for anybody in the Police or Armed Forces.
Amnesty for my side but not for anybody else. Sounds fair to me, it really does.
Remember two off-duty soldiers being murdered in full view in front to the TV cameras? There were no guns there either, it's the same three man trick that is used by pick-pockets at Race Courses.

Were the Troops right to go to Bosnia? Or were they just sent there by murderous leaders to commit acts of terrorism there as well?
Perhaps the people who sent them there are guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

I’m still waiting to find out if out unilateral declaration of war against Hitler was done by murderous leaders and that the British Army was engaged in murder and acts of terrorism, after all, we only declared war because Hitler would not obey our wishes or was there some sort of difference between that and Iraq?
Even the excuse to go to war with Germany was surrounded by lies, the British public and parliament were lied to as to the reason.
We were told that it was because Poland had been invaded by a Dictator and that we were going to War to free Poland. Yet when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was put into operation a couple of weeks later and Stalin invaded the other half of Poland in collusion with the Germans what did we do? Zilch, nothing, not even a murmur.
What happened at the end of the War? “Carry on Comrade Stalin, we’ll ignore the fact that you have put your Stooges in charge of Poland.”

Are you suggesting that the lies told about the war against Hitler are alright yet going to Iraq was wrong? We were under no threat at all from Hitler because he assured our Government he was not interested in a War with us, If we did not interfere with him in Europe then he was quite happy for us to run our Empire in the rest of the world and we didn’t even have the excuse of protecting our oils supplies.
Surely the same rules apply to both Wars, all the complaints about Iraq also apply to the War against Germany. Were all out soldiers who fought in World War 2 in the same category as those soldiers you class as terrorists who went from Northern Ireland to Iraq? Does the same apply to those who went to the Balkans? After all, their actions caused the deaths of far more civilians and children as have died in Iraq, surely their War Crimes are even greater.

Pray do tell me if all these things are the same or if there is a difference because the similarities look as near to identical as makes no difference. They all knew their actions were likely to end up with the deaths of women nd children, so they must all be murderers too.

fred

17-May-06, 09:09

In answer to the 13 dead demonstrators I will remind you of something I said in a earlier post before Bloody Sunday was raked up again,
"Teenagers and those a lot younger have always been involved since the 1960s and before. You put them at the front to throw stones and petrol bombs because it's good propaganda should any of them get injured or killed. And kids made great protection to hide behind when you are a sniper."

I know what you said, you are blackening the names of the victims to make excuses for the murderers. You are turning a group of peaceful protesters into nasty evil people who hide behind children so you can justify murdering them.

Don't you see that it is attitudes like yours which caused a lot of the troubles. If there had been a fair investigation right away and the Catholics of Northern Ireland had seen justice done, seen that the law applies equally to all then maybe they would have trusted the British government, maybe they would have decided they didn't need the IRA because the British government would protect them. Instead they saw fourteen Catholics murdered, thirteen wounded, by government troops and the cowards at Westminster declaring themselves innocent.

Thirteen unarmed people were shot dead on the day, one dying later, no one has been charged with their murder. The soldiers fired into an unarmed crowd then shot those running for their lives and those tending the wounded, if you justify that then you justify the IRA bomb.

* Jackie Duddy (17). Shot in the chest in the car park of Rossville flats. Four witnesses stated Duddy was unarmed and running away from the paratroopers when he was killed. Three of them saw a soldier take deliberate aim at the youth as he ran.
* Patrick Doherty (31). Shot from behind whilst crawling to safety in the forecourt of Rossville flats. Doherty was photographed by French journalist Gilles Peress seconds before he died. Despite the evidence of "Soldier F" at the Widgery Tribunal, the photographs show he was unarmed.
* Bernard McGuigan (41). Shot in the back of the head when he went to help Patrick Doherty. He had been waving a white handkerchief at the soldiers to indicate his peaceful intentions.
* Hugh Gilmour (17). Shot in the chest whilst running away from the paratroopers on Rossville Street. A photograph taken seconds after Gilmour was hit corroborated witness reports that he was unarmed.
* Kevin McElhinney (17). Shot from behind whilst crawling to safety at the front entrance of the Rossville Flats. Two witnesses stated McElhinney was unarmed.
* Michael Kelly (17). Shot in the stomach whilst standing near the rubble barricade in front of Rossville Flats. Widgery accepted Kelly was unarmed.
* John Young (17). Shot in the head whilst standing at the rubble barricade. Two witnesses stated Young was unarmed.
* William Nash (19). Shot in the chest near the barricade. Witnesses stated Nash was unarmed and going to the aid of another when killed.
* Michael McDaid (20). Shot in the face at the barricade whilst walking away from the paratroopers. The trajectory of the bullet indicated he was killed by soldiers positioned on the Derry Walls.
* James Wray (22). Wounded and then shot again at close range whilst lying on the ground. Witnesses who were not called to the Widgery Tribunal stated that Wray was calling that he was unable to move his legs before he was shot the second time.
* Gerald Donaghy (17). Shot in the stomach whilst running to safety between Glenfada Park and Abbey Park. Donaghy was brought to a nearby house by bystanders where he was examined by a doctor. His pockets were turned out in an effort to identify him. A later police photograph of Donaghy's corpse showed nail bombs in his pockets. Neither those who searched his pockets in the house nor the British army medical officer (Soldier 138) who pronounced his death shortly afterwards say they saw any bombs. Donaghy had been a member of Fianna Éireann, an IRA-linked Republican youth movement.
* Gerald McKinney (35). Shot just after Gerald Donaghy. Witnesses stated that McKinney had been running behind Donaghy, and he stopped and held up his arms, shouting "Don't shoot!", when he saw Donaghy fall. He was then shot in the chest.
* William McKinney (26). Shot from behind as he attempted to aid Gerald McKinney (no relation). He had left cover to try to help the older man.
* John Johnston (59). Shot on William Street 15 minutes before the rest of the shooting started. Johnson died of his wounds four months later, the only one not to die immediately or soon after being shot.

JAWS

18-May-06, 01:52

What I see is an attempt to move the blame from the Terrorists to the Army in order to excuse their actions.
When has it ever been the fault of the IRA? Even when they accept responsibility they use the same trick of trying to shift the blame onto the authorities, it's never their responsibility. They, on evry occasion, invent an excuse for their behaviour, usually it's "in response" to some act, real or imagined, carried out against them.

They try to use the same trick as people making the attention seeking suicide threat, "And if I do it will be all your fault." to shift the moral blame from them to others. (Tough, get on with it, I'll still sleep tonight!)

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question that if the soldiers in Iraq are murdering Terrorists as you stated earlier when you said one part of the Terrorists have moved from Northern Ireland to Iraq, are you saying that the soldiers in the Second World War were Terrorists too?

If the current soldiers are nothing more than murderers of innocent womwn and children because of the circumstances surrounding Iraq then the same applies to those in WW2.
The same must apply to Bosnia and the rest of the Balkans.
What is the difference between those conflicts and the supposed "Illegal War" in Iraq? Many of the soldiers have served in Northern Ireland, The Balkans and Iraq so where does the difference lie?

By the way, during the first part of the troubles The RUC Police were being murdered at a faster rate than those in places like Columbia and other South American Countries where there was outright armed rebellion.
You were safer being a Police Officer in South America in the middle of a Civil War than on the streets of a British City. That says rather a lot about the state of violence at the time in Northern Ireland.
Are we still insisting that their murderers be brought to justice or serve the remainder of their prison term?

The poor innocent unarmed civilians killed on Bloody Sunday were the subject of a report by Lord Widgery, the then Lord Chief Justice

After 25 minutes of shooting, 13 civil rights marchers were dead. An inquiry by Lord Widgery reported that the paratroopers’ firing had "bordered on the reckless". It also concluded the soldiers had been fired upon first and some of the victims had handled weapons.

The Republicans, as they do on every such occasion, immediately dismissed the enquiry a Whitewash when their version of events was contradicted.
I notice amongst your list of dead that all are male, there is not one woman mentioned, and all are aged 17 or over, not one child is amongst them.
I would suggest that a number of soldiers who, out of control and with murderous intent, firing indiscriminately into a crowd for a period of twenty five minutes, could only manage to kill fourteen people hardly seems credible. Even more so when all those killed were male and all of what can be described as military age. (I notice one was shot in the chest whilst running away. I can only assume that he was some kind of contortionist. People "Running away" usually get shot in the back, not the chest.
I am fairly sure that, were I in a crowd which came under fire from anybody, twenty-five minutes later I wouldn’t even be a speck in the distance, by then I would probably have cleared Inverness and be well on my way to Perth.
I wonder just exactly why those poor innocent unarmed men were still there hanging around during all this carnage?

Are the Price Sisters going to be returned to Prison to serve their sentences for blowing a Coach up on the M62 just outside Manchester murdering amongst 10 others two children aged five and three who definitely had not handled guns? The bits of the bodies were spread over 250 yards on Motorway. (Pace it out sometime to soo just how big an area that is, a motorway carriageway is about 15 yards wide.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/4/newsid_4148000/4148933.stm makes interesting reading.
The Price sisters were not even released under an amnesty but on health grounds. They were suffering from Anorexia and were going to die within months as a result. They usual apologists and hand-wringers wept their crocodile tears and wailed about the injustice of their plight, poor sweet suffering dears and the then Government appeased the IRA by releasing them as an act of compassion. As soon as they were outside the Prison Gates a miraculous cure took place and the Anorexia immediately disappeared. The last I heard they were alive and well and looking very well fed in Ireland. I only hope that when somebody informs me of my imminent death I am as healthy some thirty years later.
Where is the justice there? Do I hear the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that they got away with it having spent less time in prison than the average persistent shop-lifter?

Is the cost of a couple of meals in an Indian Restaurant a reason for taking somebody’s life? It is in Manchester where a Police Officer was shot and murdered when he was called to an Indian Restaurant where two men were arguing and being abusive with the staff. All they had to do was pay the disputed bill and leave and that would have been an end to the matter. What did they do? One of them pulled a gun from under his jacket and murdered the Officer.
They were wanted IRA Terrorists who, having quite forgotten that they were in Manchester (It was fairly late on a Saturday so there might be a good explanation) decided that paying for a meal would perhaps spoil their IRA “hard-man” image. (After all, they might be expected to pay in every Restaurant they went in) They certainly didn’t want to risk having to explain why they were wandering round Manchester carrying a gun and casually chose murder as an alternative.
The only thing I am grateful for is that, at the cost of that Officer’s life, a far greater loss of life might have been averted. IRA car bombs were all the rage in Manchester from the 1970s until the 1990s and not one was aimed at a military target. .

The IRA and their fellow travellers demand that soldiers be hounded to the ends of the earth to suit them whilst happily demanding that the IRA murderers get a full amnesty and can walk free as if they had been little angels all their lives.

How wonderfully duplicitous of them, how perfectly predictable of them. How do I know when they lie through their teeth? There lips move and sound is issued forth. "Trust me, I'm a Politician, I've never been a Terrorist!" at least, not one with the guts to get dirty hands.

fred

18-May-06, 09:51

What I see is an attempt to move the blame from the Terrorists to the Army in order to excuse their actions.

It was the soldiers that did the shooting, it was the soldiers that killed fourteen people and wounded thirteen others. Not one British soldier was injured on that day, not one weapon was produced in evidence as having been taken from a protester, not one indipendent witness saw a weapon in the hands of a protester or a shot fired at the army, not one photograph or film clip from the many reporters there shows one weapon in the hands of a protester. No weapon was found on any of the victims bodies, not one scrap of indipendent evidence that any of them were armed. The film from cameras in British army helicopters which would show exactly what happened on that day was never produced.

There is no one to blame but the soldiers who did the shooting and their superiors. If someone takes a gun, points it at an unarmed person and pulls the trigger then it is the person who pulls the trigger that is to blame, it defies all logic to say that blaming that person is an attempt to shift the blame from someone else.

Which brings us back to the subject of this thread, a young man murdered in Ballimena and it brings us back to one question, why?

What fuelled the hatred which killed that boy? You did. You and everyone like you who saw injustice in Northern Ireland and added insult to injury by ignoring the evidence and blaming the victim for no other reason than they were not one of yours. You and all those like you who believe what you want to believe not what is infront of your eyes.

Every person who said those protesters deserved to die because they were Catholic had a hand in the killing of a young man in Ballimena, it is they who put the fuel in the hate machine which killed him.

squidge

18-May-06, 10:28

Fred

You still havent replied to JAws' question about WW2 and he has asked it repeatedly.

I would suggest that You also see what you want to see - terrorists where there are soldiers - you hear what you want to hear "every person who said those protesters deserved to die because they were Catholic" - i didnt see Jaws say that actually.

You are very fond of throwing around this accusation that people "beleive what they want to beleive" allowing you to contemptuously disregard their opinions however the more i read your posts the more i see that you also have this "tunnel vision" you accuse others of. You beleive what you want to beleive because it suits your various theories and completely disregard everything else. That's fine by me Fred - as you say most people do the same but its the inference that you are somehow morally superior to the rest of us mere mortals that makes me a bit nauseous. That somehow only if you follow the "teachings according to Fred" can you be compassionate intelligent and morally wholesome. To be honest i think you need to look in the mirror a bit less and at the real world and other people a bit more.

weeboyagee

18-May-06, 13:54

Sorry you guys - been absent for a bit off the boards but have been keeping an eye on this.

When I started the thread it was to ask the question "and in the name of what?" Why exactly did that young lad have to die. I have a few friends that age and to think that anyone would wish to kill one of them (killers being the same age or not) would honestly have to make me think twice of the vengeance I would want to exact.

Which brings us back to the subject of this thread, a young man murdered in Ballimena and it brings us back to one question, why?

What fuelled the hatred which killed that boy? You did. You and everyone like you who saw injustice in Northern Ireland and added insult to injury by ignoring the evidence and blaming the victim for no other reason than they were not one of yours. You and all those like you who believe what you want to believe not what is infront of your eyes.

Every person who said those protesters deserved to die because they were Catholic had a hand in the killing of a young man in Ballimena, it is they who put the fuel in the hate machine which killed him.
Fred, you know this, how can you have compassion in you for one side and not the other? You are so much the victim of a blame culture. I cannot see the sense or reason in the murder of a 15 year old lad at all - it's not the injustice in Northern Ireland at all. Golach said somewhere previously in this thread about the happenings with the schools in Edinburgh.

When I was in Livingston I went to a primary school and my sister (because the school was too full and there was no room for all the pupils) had to go with the overspill and be housed in St Johns RC school. They were quite prepared to meet up and have gang warfare for nothing other than the representation of the school religion - catholics were obvious by the name of their school - St Mary's, St Kentigern's St John's followed by RC - and the rest by the absence of the same. I can't say that I wasn't uncomfortable at the time about my sister going to that school - but didn't know the reason. Now I am older I can look back and see there WAS NO REASON!

Kids were either protestant or catholic in our area and the "society" they lived in deemed that one "hated" the other. Not one more than the other - BOTH! The kids knew not why - they hadn't a clue - they knew that they just DID hate each other. You sit down and ask a young Rangers or Celtic fan (and I mean young!!!) why they "hate" the other side and they will not have a clue. The historic reasoning behind the hate fueled situation in Ireland (both sides) is no justification or rationale for the killing of a 15 year old. I mentioned the fact that they wore football strips - notice that the Celtic top was the strip of the youngs lads pals - a representation of which "side" they are on but to me would be better as a mark of respect than to antagonise the other "side".

Our society has created a bigotted race whether we accept that or not. Deep down in in a lot of people there is an element of somebody or something that we can't accept and it is not for any rational reason other than we just "dont' like" or "can't accept" who or what they are.

There has been plenty examples in this thread of adults who show what exactly is the "soft" version of war without guns, but take it to the limit, give all a gun, mix it up with hatred and you have the mixture that can start snuffing out life at the pull of a trigger because of a belief. I said in my first posts that I can comprehend if not understand adults getting to the point where they can commit such attocities (justified or not, legal or not) but kids?? KIDS??

I've read all these threads and there is nothing that soothes the pain that some kids killed another kid because he was a catholic. Only God almighty will ever know the truth of the matter - because at the end of the day you know the evolution of man is beyond my comprehension - at the risk of starting another heated discussion! :eyes

squidge

18-May-06, 14:21

Sorry you guys - been absent for a bit off the boards but have been keeping an eye on this.

When I started the thread it was to ask the question "and in the name of what?" Why exactly did that young lad have to die. I have a few friends that age and to think that anyone would wish to kill one of them (killers being the same age or not) would honestly have to make me think twice of the vengeance I would want to exact.

When I was in Livingston I went to a primary school and my sister (because the school was too full and there was no room for all the pupils) had to go with the overspill and be housed in St Johns RC school. They were quite prepared to meet up and have gang warfare for nothing other than the representation of the school religion - catholics were obvious by the name of their school - St Mary's, St Kentigern's St John's followed by RC - and the rest by the absence of the same. I can't say that I wasn't uncomfortable at the time about my sister going to that school - but didn't know the reason. Now I am older I can look back and see there WAS NO REASON!

Kids were either protestant or catholic in our area and the "society" they lived in deemed that one "hated" the other. Not one more than they other - BOTH! The kids knew not why - they hadn't a clue - they knew that they just DID hate each other. You sit down and ask a young Rangers or Celtic fan (and I mean young!!!) why they "hate" the other side and they will not have a clue. The historic reasoning behind the hate fueled situation in Ireland (both sides) is no justification or rationale for the killing of a 15 year old. I mentioned the fact that they wore football strips - notice that the Celtic top was the strip of the youngs lads pals - a representation of which "side" they are on but to me would be better as a mark of respect than to antagonise the other "side".

Our society has created a bigotted race whether we accept that or not. Deep down in in a lot of people there is an element of somebody or something that we can't accept and it is not for any rational reason other than we just "dont' like" or "can't accept" who or what they are.

I've read all these threads and there is nothing that soothes the pain that some kids killed another kid because he was a catholic. Only God almighty will ever know the truth of the matter - because at the end of the day you know the evolution of man is beyond my comprehension - at the risk of starting another heated discussion! :eyes

It doesnt need to be religion either WBG - when i was a girl I went to a school just outside oldham - less than a mile away was another secondary school and it was common for the end of term to mean running battles between the two schools - rarely was anyone seriously hurt but there were often battles. Where i grew up there were two groups "gangs" if you like but not in the same way as you would see them now - again fighting between the two groups happened. Reasons for rivalry vary so much - colour, religion, football teams, schools, girls fighting over boys boys fighting over girls, usic - look at mods and rockers - there has been rivalry since hte beginning of time and that will continue. The difference now is the level of viciousness that is involved in these confrontations, knives and guns and battery is terrifying. Some of hte children have no comprehension of the consequences of the acts they carry out and thats where the problem lies i think. They dont understand that they could seriously hurt someone and are almost astounded when that happens. They have never been taught to control their anger - and no golach- thats not cos they are little brats but because often they dont come from an environment where anger is controlled so they have never learnt. Tehy have never learnt repect or even seen it from adults so how on earth can we expect them to show it to others.

Its true what they say you know Cats protection league will visit a home and make sure its suitable for a cat but anyone can have a baby with little or no support

fred

18-May-06, 14:40

Fred, you know this, how can you have compassion in you for one side and not the other? You are so much the victim of a blame culture. I cannot see the sense or reason in the murder of a 15 year old lad at all - it's not the injustice in Northern Ireland at all. Golach said somewhere previously in this thread about the happenings with the schools in Edinburgh.

I don't have compassion in me for one side not the other, I don't know what makes you think I do. If JAWS was condoning the actions of the IRA bombers on the same grounds as he is condoning the murder of Catholics I'd be arguing against him just the same.

What do you not understand about the murder of a 15 year old Catholic lad in Ireland? Six of the Catholics shot dead by British soldiers were only 17 years old, no one was ever punished, no one even accepted what happened was wrong. How can it be wrong to kill a 15 year old Catholic boy, he was Catholic wasn't he? He must have deserved to die, ask JAWS he'll tell you.

squidge

18-May-06, 14:53

He must have deserved to die, ask JAWS he'll tell you. where does Jaws say that Fred? I dont see that so please point it out to me.

Niall Fernie

18-May-06, 15:04

When I was in Livingston I went to a primary school and my sister (because the school was too full and there was no room for all the pupils) had to go with the overspill and be housed in St Johns RC school. They were quite prepared to meet up and have gang warfare for nothing other than the representation of the school religion - catholics were obvious by the name of their school - St Mary's, St Kentigern's St John's followed by RC - and the rest by the absence of the same. I can't say that I wasn't uncomfortable at the time about my sister going to that school - but didn't know the reason. Now I am older I can look back and see there WAS NO REASON!
Had a similar experience at primary school in Glasgow, I attended Cairns Primary (http://www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=73,124184&_dad=slcportal&_schema=SLCPORTAL&CONTENT_ID=456) which was directly next door to St Cadoc's Primary (http://www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=73,124184&_dad=slcportal&_schema=SLCPORTAL&CONTENT_ID=684). The schools are/were seperated by a footpath with a large iron fence on either side. The windows facing the footpath in both schools were covered by metal cages to prevent breakages as with the footpath between, the only contact with the other school was by missile.

It was a very strange experience I can tell you, I did not know personally any kid that went to St Cadoc's, all the Catholics that lived nearby went to other Catholic schools outwith our local area. And we were lucky as we lived a few streets away from both schools. Streets that we never walked alone unless we really had to as they were occupied mainly by kids from St Cadocs. Unfortunately the local shop was just on "the boundary" so many loaf of bread or pint of milk was lost in the battle to get home. The kids who were Catholic near us were never considered to be anything to do with the kids from St Cadocs which looking back I suppose is quite odd as we were all best of pals.

In those days there were only 2 football teams, Rangers and Celtic, which one you supported was question 2 from the local kids when we first moved there, the first being "are you a Catholic?". I was 5 and I had no answer to either question. I guessed Rangers and had to ask Mum whether I was Catholic or not. I really could not say if any other religion were represented at Cairns (a non-denomination school) as we were all proddy scum according to our neighbours. (yes we were equally offensive in return)

I count myself lucky that I was not born in the area or had to endure the place all though my formative years, but it did plant the seeds of confusion for when I got to Wick. During some highbrow primary school discussion at Pulteney Academy I found out that the guy sitting next to me in class was Catholic, "do you not go to a Catholic school?", I asked. Blank expression, "A what?". We ended up best mates all though school and college. Didn't take too long to get used to life without the hatred. It was great to be able to walk along the streets on the way home from school instead of having to take to the woods or doing the over and under run through the back greens (over the fences and under the washing).

Kids of all ages will fight about pretty much anything thats different from themselves (some go a lot further than fighting) and I think that the State paying heavily for these differences to be pointed out is absurd. The sooner they realise that its not just the lessons in the classroom that can stay with you for the rest of your life the better.

So for those of you who have made bigotted comments about the football thinking they will be taken in jest, remember that some of us have had to live through the reality that those types of statements maintain.

Saveman

18-May-06, 15:23

So here we are again, another atrocity, another thread.

All the usual outrage and all the usual smoke and mirrors. Mans inhumanity to man, an old old story. Some would justify violence of one sort or another, some would condemn all violence, some would stamp and shout about how wrong it all is, then turn on the latest Hollywood blood-fest for an evenings entertainment.

I'm not a big fan of Moby, but he did say something sensible once: "Everything is wrong."

He was right.

fred

18-May-06, 18:11

where does Jaws say that Fred? I dont see that so please point it out to me.

The point is that if you are Catholic you are guilty as far as the establishment is concerned. Back in the seventies if you were Catholic you could be arrested, a confession beaten out of you, the police would fabricate evidence against you and suppress evidence proving your innocence, the jury would convict you anyway and the judge would give you the maximum sentence. This was the normal way of doing things, it's only recently when our troops have been needed to oppress people in the Middle East that the government has done anything about it.

squidge

18-May-06, 19:39

Thats not the point you made though is it fred??? I dont doubt that you are right about being Catholic and Irish but in the seventies being arrested, having a confession beaten out of you, and the police fabricating evidence against you and suppressing evidence proving your innocence wasnt the perogative of irish catholics - look at stefan kisko, the luton post office case, the Robert Brown case, Stephen Downing, Andrew Smith it goes on and on.

Jaws at no time said people deserved to die because they were catholic and i am not saying that either - just in case thats not clear. You view his remarks and those made by others through your own single mindedness and take the high moral ground and yet you belittle and patronise those that do the same thing.

In my opinion your views are as dangerous as those who's narrow minded bigotry lead to some of these appalling atrocities because you cannot see further than your own nose - you cannot countenance another opinion, you leave no room for reasoned debate because things are black and white in the world according to fred.

In some ways your compassion for victims is fake and false because it does not extend to all victims just those who meet the criteria of victim according to fred. Where history does not show you the things you want to see - like Jaw's question about world war two you simply ignore the question and refuse to answer.

As i said earlier all this would be immaterial - you are perfectly entitled to your opinions and theories even if they make you look a bit batty at times but the position that you appear to take for yourself is that of someone who is morally superior than the rest of us, more compassionate and better informed and intelligent and thats simply for your own gratification and to uphold your sense of self importance and is simply an illusion.

golach

18-May-06, 19:47

In my opinion your views are as dangerous as those who's narrow minded bigotry lead to some of these appalling atrocities because you cannot see further than your own nose - you cannot countenance another opinion, you leave no room for reasoned debate because things are black and white in the world according to fred.

In some ways your compassion for victims is fake and false because it does not extend to all victims just those who meet the criteria of victim according to fred. Where history does not show you the things you want to see - like Jaw's question about world war two you simply ignore the question and refuse to answer.

As i said earlier all this would be immaterial - you are perfectly entitled to your opinions and theories even if they make you look a bit batty at times but the position that you appear to take for yourself is that of someone who is morally superior than the rest of us, more compassionate and better informed and intelligent and thats simply for your own gratification and to uphold your sense of self importance and is simply an illusion.
Squidge, good on you, I and many other Orgers will be in agreement with you on this issue

fred

18-May-06, 22:07

Thats not the point you made though is it fred??? I dont doubt that you are right about being Catholic and Irish but in the seventies being arrested, having a confession beaten out of you, and the police fabricating evidence against you and suppressing evidence proving your innocence wasnt the perogative of irish catholics - look at stefan kisko, the luton post office case, the Robert Brown case, Stephen Downing, Andrew Smith it goes on and on.

So just because they wern't the only ones being discriminated against makes it right?

The justification for convicting the Birmingham Six, the Guilford Four, the Maguire Seven was that they were Irish Catholics therefore must be guilty. Same justification as JAWS uses to defend the killing of the protesters, they were Irish Catholics, they must have been guilty.

Well we know now that the Birmingham Six, the Guilford Four and the Maguire Seven were not guilty. We know now that the Widgery inquiry was a whitewash, we know that the army lied, we know that evidence was witheld, we know that evidence was fabricated yet JAWS can still say:

The Republicans, as they do on every such occasion, immediately dismissed the enquiry a Whitewash when their version of events was contradicted.

The inquiry was a whitewash, it lasted 11 weeks, ignored the evidence and rubber stamped the army's version of events. We had to wait over 25 years for a propper inquiry, it took six years, finishing in 2004 and they said it would take till the summer of 2005 to type it up and release it. It is now summer 2006, thirty four years since the event and we are still waiting.

In 1992 John Major said:

The Government made clear in 1974 that those who were killed on 'Bloody Sunday' should be regarded as innocent of any allegation that they were shot whilst handling firearms or explosives. I hope that the families of those who died will accept that assurance.

Yet JAWS says:

After 25 minutes of shooting, 13 civil rights marchers were dead. An inquiry by Lord Widgery reported that the paratroopers’ firing had "bordered on the reckless". It also concluded the soldiers had been fired upon first and some of the victims had handled weapons.

Even now all JAWS has to do is say "the soldiers had been fired upon first and some of the victims had handled weapons" and that's it, they were Catholic they must have been guilty.

JAWS

19-May-06, 02:37

Fred, I have not said who fired first, that was the conclusion drawn by Lord Widgery.
I have not said that because they were Catholics they must have been guilty, I don't recall ever mentioning Religion. Perhaps the Army only sent Protestant Soldiers with Loyalist Sympathies to Ireland.

At no stage have I ever made any bigoted or inflammatory remarks about Religion, that is just the sort of attitude I would expect from Adams and Paisley. "If at first you don't succeed, cloud the issue by introducing Bigotry!" Both sides use that tactic when it suits them.

Am I to assume from your quote from John Major that the Government at the time had gone to the extremes of fabricating a Whitewash and publishing that Whitewash in order to say that they didn't believe their own Whitewash?
Now that is a new tactic. I've never come across that technique before, I must learn how that works in case I need it someday.

Now we are to judge the veracity and accuracy of an enquiry by the length of time it takes to complete. Presumably if the results are eventually published in another 35 years it will prove that the enquiry has been very thorough indeed. And throughout the recently completed enquiry the constant demand from Adams and the IRA has been that, guilty or not, the names of the soldiers should be published for they information. Now I wonder why they should be so keen on that?
And these are the people who have turned their backs on violence but still will not tell the families of the people they assassinated where they buried the bodies, and there are quite a few Catholics amongst them, so they can give them a decent Christian Burial.

I notice that you have still not answered my question that, if the Terrorists of the British Army have now moved their Terrorist slaughtering of innocent women and children from Northern Ireland to Iraq as you have previously asserted, were the soldiers who went to the Balkans and those who fought in the Second World War, equally as guilty of Terrorism because of the slaughter of innocent women and children in both those conflicts?

You posed the moral question by asking if the Terrorists who slaughter innocents were any more guilty that the soldiers who did the same on behalf of the State.
All I am asking is if there is a difference between your alleged State Terrorism in Ireland and Iraq and what occurred in The Balkans and in World War 2?
If the deaths of innocents in one is State Terrorism then the same surely must apply to the others. It doesn't seem to difficult a concept to me.

If something is wrong in one place and all the same things occur in another then surely the same conclusion must be drawn.
Were the soldiers who went to the Balkans and fought in World War 2 equally as Guilty of being engaged in State Terrorism and if not, why not?

It is a fairly simple question to my mind. If there is anybody who does not understand the question please post a reply so I can try and simplify it further.

fred

19-May-06, 08:33

If something is wrong in one place and all the same things occur in another then surely the same conclusion must be drawn.
Were the soldiers who went to the Balkans and fought in World War 2 equally as Guilty of being engaged in State Terrorism and if not, why not?

Were the circumstances the same in the Balkans and in WWII?

In WWII I seem to remember that it was Germany invading other countries which were no threat to them, occupying them, oppressing their people, murdering civillians.

JAWS

19-May-06, 13:30

Were the circumstances the same in the Balkans and in WWII?

In WWII I seem to remember that it was Germany invading other countries which were no threat to them, occupying them, oppressing their people, murdering civillians.
They were no threat to us at the time, they were heading in the opposite direction.

It was not our War We just decided to declare War on Germany because Hitler failed to obey out instructions to stop. Simply put, we did not like the German Leader and their Political System so we decided he should be removed.
Stalin invaded the same Country as Germany a fortnight later and took control of the half he had agreed with Hitler and we did nothing.
One Dictator invading is a reason to go to War, yet another one doing exactly the same and we simply do not wish to know.

If we were right to declare War on Hitler then surely, if our leaders did not lie about the reason, we should have declared War on Stalin immediately his troops crossed the Polish Border and occupied the Country by murdering and oppressing it's people.

What was the difference between us getting involved in the Balkans and our getting involved in Iraq?

fred

19-May-06, 21:37

They were no threat to us at the time, they were heading in the opposite direction.

In WWII Germany was the aggressor and invaded countries with which we were allies and oppressed the populations. We had a pact with Poland that if either country were attacked the other would go to their aid. When D Day came and our troops invaded France we were welcomed as an army of liberation from an outside power of oppression and we liberated them and left.

With the Balkans it is debatable as to whether we were part of a peace keeping force in an internal conflict or part of an army of liberation from a foreign aggressor but in either case we didn't go to war with anyone, we were part of a NATO peace keeping force controlled by the UN.

With Iraq we were not attacked, we were under no threat, none of our allies were threatened, we were not liberating Iraq from any outside oppressive power, there was no civil war to require a peace keeping force, we had no UN mandate. We were the aggressors, we invaded to take control of Iraqs natural resources and to form a base in the Middle East, three years later we are still there as an army of occupation, we have caused a civil war and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands people for our own political gains.

All wars are bad, all wars are evil, all wars cause death and destruction, agony and misery on a horrendous scale. Some wars are justified, our war with Iraq was not.

JAWS

20-May-06, 03:05

In WWII Germany was the aggressor and invaded countries with which we were allies and oppressed the populations. We had a pact with Poland that if either country were attacked the other would go to their aid. When D Day came and our troops invaded France we were welcomed as an army of liberation from an outside power of oppression and we liberated them and left.

With the Balkans it is debatable as to whether we were part of a peace keeping force in an internal conflict or part of an army of liberation from a foreign aggressor but in either case we didn't go to war with anyone, we were part of a NATO peace keeping force controlled by the UN.

With Iraq we were not attacked, we were under no threat, none of our allies were threatened, we were not liberating Iraq from any outside oppressive power, there was no civil war to require a peace keeping force, we had no UN mandate. We were the aggressors, we invaded to take control of Iraqs natural resources and to form a base in the Middle East, three years later we are still there as an army of occupation, we have caused a civil war and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands people for our own political gains.

All wars are bad, all wars are evil, all wars cause death and destruction, agony and misery on a horrendous scale. Some wars are justified, our war with Iraq was not.
The Pact with Poland was signed after Hitler had invaded several Countries, at least one of which we had existing treaties with. The Treaty with Poland was signed after it became obvious that Hitler was going to invade Poland. That would appear to me to constitute an excuse for war, not a reason. It was nothing more than placing a bet on a horse just before it passes the Winning Post! No Bookie would accept a bet when to race is already won.

If Hitler’s invasion of Poland was a reason to go to war were did the difference lay between that act and Stalin’s invasion of Poland a fortnight later? Surely we should have declared War on Stalin and Russia as well.
Seems to me that our Treaty with Poland was very carefully worded so that we didn’t care who invaded except for Germany.
Surely we should have gone to war with Stalin in that case because of his oppression of the people of the same ally?
I agree, Hitler had invaded other countries as well, but who invaded Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland? I know it wasn’t Hitler so perhaps somebody might enlighten me on that point. Was there another Dictator intent on conquest who is often conveniently forgotten about? At least by certain groups that is.

It seems to me that it’s fine to let one crocodile gobble up people but not a another crocodile.
"All evil Dictators are equal - But some are more equal than others!" To misquote a very much ignored British Social Commentator.

The Balkans are a different matter, I agree. The UN gave us permission to go there so the slaughter of innocent Women and Children was alright.

If you sign a treaty for the specific reason of giving yourself an excuse to Declare War then it's alright to slaughter innocent women and children.
If the UN says it's alright to march into a Country then you are a liberty to preside over the slaughter of women and children with impunity.
If your own Government sends you to war then you are simply a Terrorist and are going there with the intention of slaughtering innocent women and children.

Once again it would seem "All slaughtered Women and Children are equal - But some are more equal than others!"
I will bear that in mind the next time I want to blow a City Centre up because I can't have everything my own way.
I will make sure I get a piece of paper to say it's alright, I'll get one of my friends to sign it so it looks good.

Why are the protesters who are so against was and the slaughter of women and children not protesting outside the Country which has slaughtered far more women and children in Chechnya as a matter of policy than have died in Iraq? Perhaps that moral repugnance goes blind when certain Countries are involved. After all, the situation there is about Oil. The invaders there, and who are pressurising other small countries in the area, are only concerned about the Oil and Gas in the Caspian Sea Area because they want to take control of all the output of the area which supplies most of Europe with gas.

The situation does not sound so much different to that in Iraq to me, except for the fact that there are not hundreds of thousand Iraqis fleeing in terror to live in refugee camps in the surrounding Countries because the British Army is terrorising them. If we have created such an horrific situation in Iraq why are the people there not fleeing in terror also because, from the picture we are given daily, I would have expected them to be.
Where are the camps full of refugees in desperate need of food, medical care and shelter that we saw in the Balkans and War Zones in Africa and almost every other War Zone? If the situation is so horrific then such camps should be there and on a scale no seen recently. I have never heard of one, not a single one, inside or outside of Iraq.
Something does not add up somewhere. Perhaps we have massacred all the Iraqis and there are none left to flee. What other explanation could there be, unless we are getting a very distorted picture that is.

What a convenient way of deciding the morality of what an Army does. Of course, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the other side's Political Persuasion.
The deaths of countless millions to over-throw a Fascist Dictator like Hitler is to have High Moral Standards.
The deaths of tens of thousands in the Balkans is permitted because the UN said it was fine for it to happen.
The deaths of several tens of thousand to overthrow a Dictator like Sadam Hussein is Morally repugnant and becomes State Terrorism!

Gather for the Protest People! Collect your Moral Repugnance Here! The Stewards will ensure it's all pointing in the "Right" direction!"

fred

20-May-06, 09:08

The Pact with Poland was signed after Hitler had invaded several Countries, at least one of which we had existing treaties with. The Treaty with Poland was signed after it became obvious that Hitler was going to invade Poland. That would appear to me to constitute an excuse for war, not a reason. It was nothing more than placing a bet on a horse just before it passes the Winning Post! No Bookie would accept a bet when to race is already won.

If you want to believe that WWII was unjustified that is up to you, I believe it was. We had nothing to gain from going to war with Germany and an awful lot to lose. We came out of that war a lot worse off than when we went in, we didn't gain territory we lost it, we didn't gain power we lost it and it very near bankrupted us. We lost a lot by winning a war but the alternative was to lose everything.

JAWS

20-May-06, 13:11

If you want to believe that WWII was unjustified that is up to you, I believe it was. We had nothing to gain from going to war with Germany and an awful lot to lose. We came out of that war a lot worse off than when we went in, we didn't gain territory we lost it, we didn't gain power we lost it and it very near bankrupted us. We lost a lot by winning a war but the alternative was to lose everything.
I believe it was perfectly justified, but at what point does a war become unjustified?

Under your description of the British troops in Iraq being the British Governments Terrorists moved from Northern Ireland to Iraq I am enquiring to establish when is a soldier acting as a soldier and when is he acting as a terrorist?

I am trying to establish the rules under which it is right to get involved in another Country’s affairs.

Why are we right to remove one dictator but not another?
Germany was about removing a Dictator and his Political System.
Yugoslavia was about removing a Dictator and his Political System.
Iraq is about removing a Dictator and his Political System.

Why should removing some Dictators be justifiable and not others? What makes the difference?
In all cases innocent people die, so it can’t be that.
In none of the cases do we come out with more territory, so it can’t be that.

I’m sure it can’t be because of the Politics they follow because they are all Dictatorships.
It can't be the Americans because they were involved with us in the Second World War, in The Balkans and in Iraq.
It can't really be oil because all we had to do was lift the sanctions and tell Sadman that he could sell as much oil as he wished and he would have been only too happy to do that.

There is something I seem to be missing somewhere and I can't see what it is.
Somehow it has to be Politics but where does the difference lay?
Nope, sorry, I'm just too dull to work it out.

fred

20-May-06, 20:11

There is something I seem to be missing somewhere and I can't see what it is.

If you went to all that trouble trying to prove that WWII was unjustified because you thought it was justified I have a pretty good idea what is missing and why you can't see it.

JAWS

20-May-06, 22:52

If you went to all that trouble trying to prove that WWII was unjustified because you thought it was justified I have a pretty good idea what is missing and why you can't see it.
What I believe has little to do with it and does not make it right or wrong. The question is, why was WW!! justified? Why was The Balkans justified? And if they were justified why should Iraq not be justified?

The implication was that the soldiers in Iraq were somehow behaving as Terrorists.
I have asked, if that is the case, are the soldier involved in the other two behaving as terrorists as well.
The reason you gave was the deaths of innocent women and children in Iraq.
I have simply pointed out that innocent women and children similarly died in the other two actions.
Why should one set of deaths be acceptable and the other unacceptable.

I am certain that we were right in our actions in both WW11 and the Balkans, but I am being told that our actions in Iraq, a country we created, should be considered to be wrong.

You obviously see a difference somewhere, all I wish to know is what that difference is so I can understand it.

fred

21-May-06, 19:14

What I believe has little to do with it and does not make it right or wrong. The question is, why was WW!! justified? Why was The Balkans justified? And if they were justified why should Iraq not be justified?

The implication was that the soldiers in Iraq were somehow behaving as Terrorists.
I have asked, if that is the case, are the soldier involved in the other two behaving as terrorists as well.
The reason you gave was the deaths of innocent women and children in Iraq.
I have simply pointed out that innocent women and children similarly died in the other two actions.
Why should one set of deaths be acceptable and the other unacceptable.

I am certain that we were right in our actions in both WW11 and the Balkans, but I am being told that our actions in Iraq, a country we created, should be considered to be wrong.

You obviously see a difference somewhere, all I wish to know is what that difference is so I can understand it.

Why not just look back a few posts to where I explained it.

I think it's simple enough, look at it this way. If someone tries to hit you over the head to steal your wallet and you fight them off that is justified.

If someone tries to hit your friend over the head to steal his wallet and you go and help fight them off that is justified.

If you hit someone over the head and steal their wallet that is not justified.

JAWS

21-May-06, 20:16

Why not just look back a few posts to where I explained it.

I think it's simple enough, look at it this way. If someone tries to hit you over the head to steal your wallet and you fight them off that is justified.

If someone tries to hit your friend over the head to steal his wallet and you go and help fight them off that is justified.

If you hit someone over the head and steal their wallet that is not justified.
But what if the guy has previous for stealing Wallets and is making loud suggestions he is about to do it again. What if he has form for murdering people and is ignoring your requests to stop?
How long do you keep talking to him while he carries on doing it?
Do you have to wait whilst somebody discusses what you should do?
Do you watch whilst his mates stop anybody else from stopping him?
Do you wait for somebody else’s permission?
Or do you do something about it?

We are talking about the slaughter of innocent women and children, although I appreciate the use of the "Mugging" analogy.

We went to war with Hitler because, whilst the rest of the World shuffled it's feet muttering "Shame, look what he's doing." and "He might stop so let's keep talking to him." First he used the stick, then he offered the carrot of "I'll not do it again, I promise."
We decided, along with France, that enough was enough and that he had broken one to many promises, somebody should act.
The rest of the world stood idly by, many of them muttering about what we'd done in the hope the problem would go away.
We were left to act alone whilst certain others gleefully waited to gloat, "Told you so!".

With the Balkans, the UN, after a while, were persuaded that somebody should be allowed to do something provided they only watched and kept their hands in our pockets and intevene only to protect themselves. (Ask the Dutch what it was like to follow those rules whilst people were butchered in a supposed "UN Safe Haven" right under their noses.)

To use another misquote, "He also connives who only stands and watches!"

With Iraq, certain "friends" shuffled their feet and ducked and dived and made excuses for broken promise after broken promise. He played the game of Beat them with the stick, offer the carrot to appease them, then the stick, then the carrot, then the stick etc.
The rest of the world, just as they had done with others, averted their eyes from the beatings and grabbed hopefully for the carrot which was always, tantalisingly, just out of reach.

America, along with Britain and several other Countries, decided that one to many promises had been broken and that action should be taken. The UN stood by muttering about what was happening hoping the problem would go away. Some were, and still are, gleefully waiting to gloat, "Told you so!"

"He also connives who only stands and watches!" And a quick glance round at those who are doing that and making most noise about it tells it's own story.

fred

21-May-06, 23:19

But what if the guy has previous for stealing Wallets and is making loud suggestions he is about to do it again. What if he has form for murdering people and is ignoring your requests to stop?

You just live in your own little fantasy world, believe what you want to believe and ignore the facts.

Here is an extract from an official government doccument (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2002/0723downing.htm) dated 23rd July 2002.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

Iraq was no threat and we knew they were no threat, we had no justification for our invasion and occupation of Iraq and we knew we had no justification, the only reason we invaded Iraq was for political gain.

JAWS

22-May-06, 03:51

You just live in your own little fantasy world, believe what you want to believe and ignore the facts.

Here is an extract from an official government doccument (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2002/0723downing.htm) dated 23rd July 2002.

Iraq was no threat and we knew they were no threat, we had no justification for our invasion and occupation of Iraq and we knew we had no justification, the only reason we invaded Iraq was for political gain.
I am more than happy in my own litle fantasy world where I can differentiate between the terrorist and the soldier and I can recognise the politically motivated accusation in order to wring a yet another concession in your benefit. My little fantasy world also means I can recognise the siren voices doing their best to portray the terrorist as the poor victim "left with no other choice!" You would probably be surprised just how many people live in the same little fantasy world as me.

The document you quote describes exactly what I said,

With Iraq, certain "friends" shuffled their feet and ducked and dived and made excuses for broken promise after broken promise. He played the game of Beat them with the stick, offer the carrot to appease them, then the stick, then the carrot, then the stick etc.
The rest of the world, just as they had done with others, averted their eyes from the beatings and grabbed hopefully for the carrot which was always, tantalisingly, just out of reach.

I have never said in any post that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction or that Iraq was threatening anybody. I must confess, I was absolutely astonished that some people were so shocked and horrified by something that they had been totally unaware of. I am astounded that so many politically knowledgeable people had never realised previously that, horror of horrors, politicians actually tell us fibs! Unless, of course, it was a sever case of politically motivate amnesia.

It was decided, whatever reasons given at the time, that the intention was to act. Once too often Sadam offered the carrot and, in view of the fact that he had always snatched it away previously and returned to the stick, several Countries agreed that enough was enough. Seeing that the moribund UN was intent on doing nothing yet again they took action.
That I do not dispute. I am well aware of your version that the US is the Devil Incarnate, the Fount of all Evil and intent on ruling the World.
I am also aware that in order for that to happen the rest of the world has to be so stupid that only the knowledgeable few, which does not include most of the World Leaders, can see that.

A quick look at the Website you were kind enough to point me to shows the thought process, political outlook and aims of Global Policy Forum. It proved very enlightening, very enlightening indeed.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/empireindex.htm

General Analysis
This section examines the Empire concept and provides a general analysis of US empire building and unilateralist agenda.

US Military Expansion and Intervention
Since the war in Afghanistan began in late 2001, the US has launched a war on Iraq and increased its military presence in over a dozen nations, expanding the dimensions of the "war on terrorism." This section looks at the military expansion of the US empire, including US threats on Iran, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea.

US Economic Expansion
This section posts information on US economic expansion, including the role of the large transnational oil companies, dollarization, the US trade deficit and fall of the dollar.

Challenges to the US Empire
This section deals with a range of challenges to the US. The site posts articles on the rise of economic and geopolitical competitors to the US. It also looks at the question, whether the US faces an 'Imperial Overstretch', due to its ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore economic challenges, such as the huge trade deficit, and opposition to US hegemony by civil society is addressed.

US, UN and International Law
This section posts articles on US policy towards the UN, international law and treaties. The section includes special coverage of the torture, prison abuse, rendition and indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and other US-run prisons around the world.

"War on Terrorism"
This site deals with the idea and practice of the "war on terrorism." Materials critically analyze the "war" and its consequences on civil liberties. The site looks at terrorism's history and root causes and how the concept has been used and abused. It includes information on the UN’s involvement in countering terrorism and a section on fundamentalism.

"The Cold War is Dead - Long Live the Cold War against the Imperialist Capitalist Warmongers of America." So sad, so very sad, they really should learn to play a more modern tune.

fred

22-May-06, 10:13

A quick look at the Website you were kind enough to point me to shows the thought process, political outlook and aims of Global Policy Forum. It proved very enlightening, very enlightening indeed.

The doccument I posted a link to was not written by anyone connected to the web site, it was written by Tony Blair's Private Secretary. It shows the thought process, political outlook and aims of the British government, no one else.

There is a bill going through parliament today making the penalty for a soldier refusing to take part in an illegal immoral war on conscientious grounds life imprisonment, you might have missed it, it wasn't on the BBC web site.

Life imprisonment for having a conscience. Makes me wonder how unjust the next war they are planning is going to be that they will need to control our forces with fear, makes me wonder which countries innocent women and children we will slaughter next to satisfy our lust for oil and power.

JAWS

22-May-06, 15:35

The doccument I posted a link to was not written by anyone connected to the web site, it was written by Tony Blair's Private Secretary. It shows the thought process, political outlook and aims of the British government, no one else.

There is a bill going through parliament today making the penalty for a soldier refusing to take part in an illegal immoral war on conscientious grounds life imprisonment, you might have missed it, it wasn't on the BBC web site.

Life imprisonment for having a conscience. Makes me wonder how unjust the next war they are planning is going to be that they will need to control our forces with fear, makes me wonder which countries innocent women and children we will slaughter next to satisfy our lust for oil and power.
I know the Document itself was from a Government Source and I am aware that what the Document said is, to all intents and purposes, true.
Considering the Americans are clever enough and devious enough to run rings round everybody except for the few who are wise enough to see what they are doing, I wonder why it was that they couldn't find any evidence of WMD etc.
If they were all that clever and devious then they would have made sure that they found something. I know that if I were fitting somebody up I certainly would have made sure I "found" the evidence.

It is the rest of the paranoia on the site which is the interesting part, I found it rather interesting, I can see where many of the Conspiracy Theories originate.

Yes, I had missed the "I don't like this War so I'm not going" developement. At least we seem to have stopped putting them in front of a Firing Squad.

One thing which does puzzle me in the case of Iraq, what exactly would have made it a "Legal, Moral War"? I've never heard an explanation of that so far.

fred

23-May-06, 10:01

I know the Document itself was from a Government Source and I am aware that what the Document said is, to all intents and purposes, true.
Considering the Americans are clever enough and devious enough to run rings round everybody except for the few who are wise enough to see what they are doing, I wonder why it was that they couldn't find any evidence of WMD etc.
If they were all that clever and devious then they would have made sure that they found something. I know that if I were fitting somebody up I certainly would have made sure I "found" the evidence.

Sneak in a nuclear weapons program when nobodies looking? Nip out and build a chemical and biological weapons lab one night? The sheer scale of the lies before the invasion made it impossible for them to fake the evidence after the invasion. Even if they had tried they wouldn't have fooled anyone but the masses and they can be fooled into believing anything they want them to believe anytime they want evidence or not.

It is the rest of the paranoia on the site which is the interesting part, I found it rather interesting, I can see where many of the Conspiracy Theories originate.

Yes, most of the conspiracy theories originate in conspiracies, like the conspiracy to fabricate evidence of weapons of mass destruction to provide an excuse to invade a country and steal their oil.

One thing which does puzzle me in the case of Iraq, what exactly would have made it a "Legal, Moral War"? I've never heard an explanation of that so far.

If Iraq actually did have missiles with biological warheads aimed at Saudi, Israel and Turkey like we said they had, if there was real evidence that they were likely to use them in the near future, then the war would have been justified.

But they didn't, the memo I posted a link to shows that our government knew in 2002 that Iraq was not threatening any of their neighbours and that war with them would be illegal. When Blair stood up in parliament and talked of weapons of mass destruction ready to be fired at 45 minutes notice in order to get MPs backing for the war he was lying. That makes it a very illegal and immoral war, those lies led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, ruined countless lives and caused the breakup of a nation.

Which brings me back to the subject of this thread, one young man murdered in Northern Ireland as a result of sectarian violence, a tragedy, the end of the world for his parents and family but it is a tragedy we can comprehend so it is real for us. Iraq is a tragedy so vast we can't begin to comprehend it so we don't even try, we shut it out, it is not real to us or the men responsible would never have been re-elected, they wouldn't have got one vote.

Below is the address of a web site with pictures of the reality of war. I've made it unclickable, to see it you would have to copy it to your browser and replace the commas with dots. Don't go there unless you are prepared to face reality because reality is the stuff nightmares are made of.

www,afterdowningstreet,org/uncensored

JAWS

23-May-06, 14:25

I am aware that the document you indicated says the Government actually knew the reality prior to the War being started. In fact, I don't know anybody who thinks differently at this stage.
Had we and the Americans been so minded it would not have been to difficult to "Arrange" for some suitable material to be found secreted in the dessert to have backed up our claims, but we didn't do so.

I have looked at the site you mention, It is nothing I haven't seen before, and the same applies to any conflict anywhere, the pictures are nothing special or exceptional. It's not the visual part which usually causes the problems, generally it is the smell, which does tend to linger and can, at first be rather nauseating. Yes such things are unfortunate, but no more unfortunate that them happening anywhere else, except that the Media and certain Politically Motivated Groups have no useful purpose for them. Nobody is running round Sudan with their cameras, the UN, once again, sits on it's hands and refuses to do anything because certain Countries find it convenient to block any action. Those who complain loudest about the British Army in Northern Ireland, and what is happening in Iraq do so simply because they wish to make political Capital out of it. If it were not so they would be agitating just as loudly and actively about other areas where the same or far worse is happening.
As far as I can see in Iraq, although the situation is bad, there are not masses of displaced refugees fleeing the Country and being forced to live in refugee camps to escape the violence. There are many other places where that has happened either now or in the recent past.
I ask myself why it is that the people who find Iraq so morally unacceptable didn't find themselves feeling the same about those other people, are they of any less consequence? Perhaps the political motivated moralists found it better in those areas to avert their eyes because they saw no gain in it for themselves. Certainly the Media felt that way because it probably wouldn't improve the Ratings of their News Broadcasts.

With respect to the young man murdered in Northern Ireland, I'm sure his parents and family were devastated, as would the families of those blown to pieces in Warrington. I would consider the families of the people in Iraq who suffer the same from the Sectarian violence there when attacks are made on Mosques and on people simply seeking work suffer much the same. Similarly the families of the people tortured to death by Saddam and his cohorts, including members of his own family who displeased him.

I appreciate the view that it would have been better, in the eyes of the World had Weapons of Mass Destruction been found but would that have made the War "Legal" and if not, what would have made it "Legal"?
What is the difference between Iraq and, for example, Afghanistan?

fred

23-May-06, 23:32

I appreciate the view that it would have been better, in the eyes of the World had Weapons of Mass Destruction been found but would that have made the War "Legal" and if not, what would have made it "Legal"?
What is the difference between Iraq and, for example, Afghanistan?

If having weapons of mass destruction was a legitimate reason to invade a country then anyone could invade Britain and call it legal.

If you subscribe to the official version of events then 9/11 created an excuse of self defence for the invasion of Afghanistan.

If you look at the big picture and not take Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran when it happens as seperate wars but all part of a stategy for America to control the entire Middle East, the oil production and pipelines out it makes a lot more sense and means that the real reason all those people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is oil.

JAWS

24-May-06, 12:45

If having weapons of mass destruction was a legitimate reason to invade a country then anyone could invade Britain and call it legal.

If you subscribe to the official version of events then 9/11 created an excuse of self defence for the invasion of Afghanistan.

If you look at the big picture and not take Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran when it happens as seperate wars but all part of a stategy for America to control the entire Middle East, the oil production and pipelines out it makes a lot more sense and means that the real reason all those people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is oil.

The following article provides some information on the situation if Afghanistan.

James Astill in Islamabad
Sunday December 14, 2003
The Observer

The UN yesterday warned that its agencies will pull out of Afghanistan if American and other Western troops cannot stem a tide of violence that has recently seen 15 aid workers murdered by resurgent Taliban fighters, and most foreign aid workers withdrawn to Kabul.
US military officials in Afghanistan admitted the Taliban had adopted the same devastating roadside bombing technique employed by guerrillas in Iraq, from which the UN has already mostly withdrawn.

'Countries that are committed to supporting Afghanistan cannot kid themselves and go on expecting us to work in unacceptable security conditions,' said the UN's senior representative in Kabul, Lakhdar Brahimi.I sounds from that report that the UN are involved somewhere in Afghanistan, unless you wish to suggest that when the "Illegal Invasion" of Afghanistan took place the UN sent Military Officials to assist the Americans in their devious power grab.
Seems that the UN can tell the difference between a Terrorist and a Soldier even if others have difficulty.

Take the whole of the Middle East by all means, who was it who did try to invade Iraq for it's Oil, Who did in fact invade Kuwait, who was it who was making threats against the Saudis using "Slant Drilling" as an excuse? Who was it who had delusions of creating a Pan Arab State under his personal rule?

Who is it who has huge oil reserves and supplies most of Europe with gas and has a vested interest in a troubled Middle East in order to force the World to turn to them for supplies.
Who was it who disrupted Gas Supplies to Europe and some other Countries last winter as a warning that upsetting them could mean some very cold homes in winter.
Who was suggesting a takeover of British Gas in a European Country which doesn't rely on them for Gas Supply?

I do take a look at the larger picture in both the Middle East And other places and I see the same countries blocking moves in the UN to stop them intervening.
Neither we nor America are involved in the Sudan yet the UN say there have been 200,000 deaths and over two million people displaced from their home villages. And which countries have been stopping the UN from getting involved to end it? A quick check with who is tying the UN's hands in Iran will provide the answer.

I do take a look at the wider picture and that picture involves a lot more than just the Middle East and involves not just America but other major world powers as well.

The most sensible Conspiracy Theory I have heard for 9/11 is that it was carried out by Little Green Men with Antennae on their heads testing the World's Defensive capabilities prior to their invasion.

In a stranger twist to the story, it would appear that Osama Bin Laden had been consiping with George W. in order to set up 9/11 because he has just announce that it was he who personally chose the Hi-jackers.
Osama Bin Laden a CIA Agent acting for Bush? Now that really is a Conspiracy Story worth the front pages of every news broadcast in the World and just as good an invention as every other conspiracy rubbish. Unless Bin Laden has been lying through his teeth all along and nothing he has said can be believed.
"Roll up! Roll up! Bin Laden a CIA Stooge! Bin Laden provides George W. with cover story for Trade Centres! Get the full story here!"
Wow, I can picture it now and it makes better reading than robot powered planes and secret bombs in the buildings.
Now that I will accept as part of my private little fantasy world! No doubt the Conspiracy Theorists will be looking at that now in order to explain it away!

If finding that Saddam did indeed have WMD would not have made the invasion of Iraq "Legal", what would? Who or what is it that makes a War "Legal"? If the lack of something means it is an "Illegal War" what is it that is necessary to make it "Legal"?

fred

24-May-06, 21:50

If finding that Saddam did indeed have WMD would not have made the invasion of Iraq "Legal", what would? Who or what is it that makes a War "Legal"? If the lack of something means it is an "Illegal War" what is it that is necessary to make it "Legal"?

I do keep telling you but you don't listen.

If there had been an imminent threat of Iraq using force then the war would have been legal, Iraq was not threatening anyone. If there had been a UN Security Council resolution authorising the use of force the war would have been legal, there was no resolution. There is no other legal justification for war.

Not only did we do a great deal of damage to Iraq we did a great deal of damage to world peace by undermining the authority of the UN, and ignoring treaties.

golach

24-May-06, 22:24

I have been watching and waiting for someone to maybe bring this up but it hasn't happened yet......

...who could not have been moved by this story in the news. What a senseless killing. The act of murder will have achieved nothing for the perpetrators, nothing. Good Lord, he was only 15!!! 15!!! Surely at that age kids can understand what it is to argue or have differences but to murder???

The grief that was witnessed on the news reports I am sure is reflected throughout the country - moving some to tears. And so what, he wore a football strip in his photo, and so what, they were seen wearing football strips on them last night on the tele, who cares?? There is nothing in this world that sanctions the actions of those who carried and used the baseball bat and then stamped on his head!

A teenager for crying out loud! I'm absolutely sickened by it, sickened. What a beautiful country, what wonderful people but what trouble they still have,..... don't you wish it would just go away for them? Who can't say that when you watched the news last night that your thoughts were immediately of the family, the friends - boy, girl, old, young that were obviously affected by this brutal act - but there were still those who had a cold enough heart to carry out the job. I wonder - did they know that they were going to murder him, did they mean to go too far or are they now living in shock that they are now murderers? Do they feel good about what they did? Do they feel even more power?

And all in the name of what?
Fred & Jaws, I am wondering, what has Iraq or any other country got to do with WBG's origional posting about an incedent in Ballymena? (Corrected on the advice of Fred) many thanks Fred
As interesting as SOME, and I only say some of your posts are, I am now lost, with both of your ongoing arguments, maybe I am just to simple minded, but honestly, I cannot see the direction that you are both heading.
A gang of thugs of one religion beat to death a 15 year old of another religion, has got nothing to do with Global politics, as you pair are debating at the moment. Do not take offence at this genuine enquiry, carry on with your debating the Org is agog with anticipation every day [disgust]

JAWS

24-May-06, 23:01

I do keep telling you but you don't listen.

If there had been an imminent threat of Iraq using force then the war would have been legal, Iraq was not threatening anyone. If there had been a UN Security Council resolution authorising the use of force the war would have been legal, there was no resolution. There is no other legal justification for war.

Not only did we do a great deal of damage to Iraq we did a great deal of damage to world peace by undermining the authority of the UN, and ignoring treaties.
So if there had been a UN Security Council Resolution the War would have been legal and all the poor innocent women and children being slaughtered would have been alright.

Not I understand, if the UN had said it's alright to go to War then that makes it alright for innocent women and children to be killed.

You have evaded explaining that the UN can make war "Legal". The UN in that case is the sole arbiter of the Morality of War.

The UN gave the Sudan Government a thirty day deadline to resolve what was happening in Darfur. The thirty day deadline was set, believe it or not, last year. Since that deadline was set 100,000 more people have been killed. The UN response? They will get involved when the slaughter stops.
I hope I never have need people like that should I need help, you would probably get help faster fron the residents of a graveyard.
Perhaps by next year they will have got round to deciding the wording of another Resolution to wave at the Sudan Government.
Eventually, when there is nobody left to slaughter, the problem in Darfur will cease and the UN will proudly announce that their wonderful Diplomacy had worked.
The UN have form for watching the bolting horse run away whilst discussing if it would have been better to shut the stable door before or after the horse escaped and then claiming they were right to wait because the problem no longer existed. But would you really trust them to look after your horse for you?

I wonder if the UN hand out special bullets for their "Legal" Wars to make dying lass painful, there must be some advantage to it.
I wonder if the UN passed a resolution making the Russian Invasion of Chechnya "Legal" or if the dead there also died without the benefit of Absolution from the UN?

fred

24-May-06, 23:23

Fred & Jaws, I am wondering, what has Iraq or any other country got to do with WBG's origional posting about an incedent in Belfast?
As interesting as SOME, and I only say some of your posts are, I am now lost, with both of your ongoing arguments, maybe I am just to simple minded, but honestly, I cannot see the direction that you are both heading.
A gang of thugs of one religion beat to death a 15 year old of another religion, has got nothing to do with Global politics, as you pair are debating at the moment. Do not take offence at this genuine enquiry, carry on with your debating the Org is agog with anticipation every day [disgust]

It wasn't an incident in belfast, it was the murder of a 15 year old boy in Ballymena.

The reason the murder happened was because the boy grew up in "an atmosphere polluted by sectarian hatred", the same sort of sectarian hatred which has caused the population of Iraq to start killing each other since our invasion, started in the same way for the same reasons.

We can have a world governed by the rule of law where all men are equal under the law and retribution is dealt out fairly by the law. Or we can have a world where the strongest do as they like and retribution is made where you can. It is the latter which bred the hatred which killed a young boy in Ballymena and is breeding the hatred which is killing people in Iraq every day.

JAWS

25-May-06, 15:14

Fred & Jaws, I am wondering, what has Iraq or any other country got to do with WBG's origional posting about an incedent in Ballymena? (Corrected on the advice of Fred) many thanks Fred
As interesting as SOME, and I only say some of your posts are, I am now lost, with both of your ongoing arguments, maybe I am just to simple minded, but honestly, I cannot see the direction that you are both heading.
A gang of thugs of one religion beat to death a 15 year old of another religion, has got nothing to do with Global politics, as you pair are debating at the moment. Do not take offence at this genuine enquiry, carry on with your debating the Org is agog with anticipation every day [disgust]
Sorry about the change but fred's assertion was that one of the Terrorist Organisations had been moved from Northern Ireland to Iraq by the British Government and were acting in Iraq as they wre in Nortrhern Ireland as State Terrorists.
I was trying to establish at what point a soldier in the British Army ceases to be a soldier and when he acts no differently to any other Terrorist in the World.

I would agree Golach theat we are now a considerable distance from the original subject and I, if fred agrees, am willing to let that part lie.
It is obviously something we will never agree on and I suspect everybody else will have formed their own opinion on the subject by now or have dozed off due to boredom.

No offence taken Golach, your question is a fair one to ask.

Saveman

25-May-06, 15:22

It wasn't an incident in belfast, it was the murder of a 15 year old boy in Ballymena.

The reason the murder happened was because the boy grew up in "an atmosphere polluted by sectarian hatred", the same sort of sectarian hatred which has caused the population of Iraq to start killing each other since our invasion, started in the same way for the same reasons.

We can have a world governed by the rule of law where all men are equal under the law and retribution is dealt out fairly by the law. <snip>

And how is that to be achieved Fred?

Rheghead

25-May-06, 15:30

Wasn't Iraq already torn to pieces by sectarian violence before the Iraq invasion?

fred

25-May-06, 21:41

Wasn't Iraq already torn to pieces by sectarian violence before the Iraq invasion?

No, Iraq has never been sectarian, they were a tribal society. Iraq has never had a civil war, Shi'ites and Sunnis inter married freely, worked side by side, lived side by side and never ever blew up each others Mosques.

Saddam Hussein and his predecessors always nurtured a strong sense of national identity, it was in their interests, people were Iraqi first and Shi'ite or Sunni second. After the invasion America worked hard to destroy the Iraqi sense of national identity, that was in their interests, there was no need to destroy a nation just to topple one man.

fred

25-May-06, 23:03

And how is that to be achieved Fred?

By making people aware and hoping they care enough to make it an issue at election time.

Saveman

25-May-06, 23:30

By making people aware and hoping they care enough to make it an issue at election time.

And what political party is really going to start making a difference??

Rheghead

25-May-06, 23:53

No, Iraq has never been sectarian, they were a tribal society. Iraq has never had a civil war.

So there was nothing sectarian about gassing a load of kurds in Halabjah then? :roll:

Another act of unifying the country eh?

JAWS

26-May-06, 00:08

Wasn't Iraq already torn to pieces by sectarian violence before the Iraq invasion?
Yes. It wasn't noticeable because the minority sect held the whip handle and had control of the Country. They therefore controlled Law Enforcement, the Courts and the Military and were therefore untouchable. Anybody who opposed them were eliminated.

As with all people who believe in rule by terror, having had power taken away from them they would rather set about causing as much violence as they can in the hope that people will come to believe that only they can control the Country. For any minority group to grab power they have to use the same tactics.

People running Protection Rackets use the same techniques. It's no accident that the Mosques which were being bombed were the ones of great religious significance to the Shia. Saddam's Clan are from the Sunni minority and are intent on making the Country ungovernable by antagonising the Shia into reacting to the attacks in the hope that everybody shrugs in despair and leaves so they can then regain their former position.

There was much fuss prior the War about Saddam's Special Republican Guard who were made up of trustworthy people from his Sunni Clan. When the War came they disappeared into thin air, there was neither sight nor sound from them.
I wonder where the insurgents, with all their training and weapons came from? The Special Republican Guard disappears and Insurgents appear from nowhere. Seems to be a rather convenient coincidence to me.

That is the cause of the Sectarian Violence, it is the people who previously saw the Country and it's people as simply being there for their own private benefit. They want their power back and don't care how they get it.
You can get some idea of their mind-set from the fact that they treated to whole of the contents of the Country's Central Bank as if they were emptying their own Bank Account.

No matter what you may think of Bush and Blair, can you imagine Bush waking into Fort Knox or Blair walking into the Bank of England and saying, "Load everything up, I'm taking it with me?" and the people there just quietly complying? Even if they were daft enough to try I doubt they would get very far with their Dastardly Deed before somebody put an abrupt halt to it.

Sectarian Violence when created for political reasons is invariably created by one of the sides involved as a means to gain some sort of power over the other. It invariably comes from within the groups involved because the Sectarianism has to already be in existence and festering for it to erupt into violence.

fred

26-May-06, 09:51

Yes. It wasn't noticeable because the minority sect held the whip handle and had control of the Country. They therefore controlled Law Enforcement, the Courts and the Military and were therefore untouchable. Anybody who opposed them were eliminated.

So mosques were being blown up and nobody noticed? Shiia and Sunni militia roamed the streets at night murdering people or ordering them out of their homes to create Shiia and Sunni areas but nobody noticed?

You are making it up as you go along again, Sunnis didn't control the military, three quarters of the military were Shiia including many of the corps commanders, they faught hard against Iran, a Shiia country, with never a hint of mutiny or insurrection because they were Arabs and Iranians were Persians and that was all that mattered. The only Iraqis who did help Iran in the Iran Iraq war were the Kurds the majority of which are Sunnis.

Iraq was ruled by the Baath party, a socialist political organisation and they were ruthless against any political opposition as who they were. When they came to power they were nearly all Sunni because they were formed and recruited out of the educated classes which were then mainly Sunni and from the cities which were in Sunni areas. The ruling classes in Iraq were all Sunni a long time before Saddam Hussein came on the scene. By the late 80s Iraqs highest governing body, the Revolutionary Command Council, comprised of, besides Saddam Hussein, three Arab Sunnis, three Arab Shiias, one Christian and one Kurd, the Shi'ites had far more power than they had ever had in Iraq.

JAWS

26-May-06, 13:05

So mosques were being blown up and nobody noticed? Shiia and Sunni militia roamed the streets at night murdering people or ordering them out of their homes to create Shiia and Sunni areas but nobody noticed?

You are making it up as you go along again, Sunnis didn't control the military, three quarters of the military were Shiia including many of the corps commanders, they faught hard against Iran, a Shiia country, with never a hint of mutiny or insurrection because they were Arabs and Iranians were Persians and that was all that mattered. The only Iraqis who did help Iran in the Iran Iraq war were the Kurds the majority of which are Sunnis.

Iraq was ruled by the Baath party, a socialist political organisation and they were ruthless against any political opposition as who they were. When they came to power they were nearly all Sunni because they were formed and recruited out of the educated classes which were then mainly Sunni and from the cities which were in Sunni areas. The ruling classes in Iraq were all Sunni a long time before Saddam Hussein came on the scene. By the late 80s Iraqs highest governing body, the Revolutionary Command Council, comprised of, besides Saddam Hussein, three Arab Sunnis, three Arab Shiias, one Christian and one Kurd, the Shi'ites had far more power than they had ever had in Iraq.
The Baath Party was founded in 1944 in Syria by Nazi Sympathysers and based on Nazi Party Lines. Syria is mainly Sunni and runs the Baath Party which also ensures it stays in power there as well. One of it's founders was Saddam's Uncle, a great admirer of Hitler, who helped guide him in his youth. The Uncle wrote a pamphlet entitled, "Three whom God should not have created - Persians, Jews and Flies." The Persians (Iranians) are mainly Shia.

Saddam didn't need militia to dominate the Shia when he could order the Army to do it.
"In 1991, after Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait, and with Saddam's authority undermined, al-Majid was appointed Iraq's Interior Minister, to quell growing opposition to the regime. He was once again in charge of dealing with the Kurds; he was also charged with the brutal suppression of the Shia Muslim population of southern Iraq, and the destruction of Shia Muslim life and culture. Iraqi tanks under his command rolled into southern villages bearing the slogan, "no more Shia after today"."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/08/db0801.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/08/ixportal.html

I think "no more Shia after today" sounds fairly Sectarian to me, but then again, that interpretation might just be due to my over active imagination.

When I am told that a Ruling Elite are formed from one group because they were from "The Educated Classes" I ask myself why? Is it that the members of the other groups are so lacking in intelligence that they are incapable of being educated or is it that the Ruling Elite have kept them that way to protect their position. It sounds to me more like a Class Ridden Society where the Underclass have been deliberately kept underfoot in order to more easily control them.

The only Socialist Political Organisation that I know of which believed that "All Animals are equal, but some are more equal than others!" used exactly the same methods as Saddam, but on a much vaster scale. Sounds to me like he followed their example with enthusiasm.

fred

26-May-06, 15:12

The Baath Party was founded in 1944 in Syria by Nazi Sympathysers and based on Nazi Party Lines. Syria is mainly Sunni and runs the Baath Party which also ensures it stays in power there as well. One of it's founders was Saddam's Uncle, a great admirer of Hitler, who helped guide him in his youth. The Uncle wrote a pamphlet entitled, "Three whom God should not have created - Persians, Jews and Flies." The Persians (Iranians) are mainly Shia.

Iranians are totally Iranian. Saddams uncle wasn't the only admirer of Hitlers, George Bush's grandfather was Hitlers banker, financed his rise to power. Most of the world were admirers of Hitlers, it was only after he committed genocide that everyone decided they'd never liked him and the history books were re-written accordingly, Hitler was Time Magazines man of the year for 1938.

Saddam didn't need militia to dominate the Shia when he could order the Army to do it.
"In 1991, after Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait, and with Saddam's authority undermined, al-Majid was appointed Iraq's Interior Minister, to quell growing opposition to the regime. He was once again in charge of dealing with the Kurds; he was also charged with the brutal suppression of the Shia Muslim population of southern Iraq, and the destruction of Shia Muslim life and culture. Iraqi tanks under his command rolled into southern villages bearing the slogan, "no more Shia after today"."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/08/db0801.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/08/ixportal.html

I think "no more Shia after today" sounds fairly Sectarian to me, but then again, that interpretation might just be due to my over active imagination.

The Shiia tribes in the south and the Kurdish tribes in the north were suppressed very brutally because encouraged by America and believing they would get American assistance they launched an uprising against the ruling Baath party while they were still severely weakened from their defeat in Kuwait. There was nothing sectarian about it, there was no reprisal against Shi'ites and Kurds elsewhere in Iraq, they were a threat to Saddams power and he dealt with it.

When I am told that a Ruling Elite are formed from one group because they were from "The Educated Classes" I ask myself why? Is it that the members of the other groups are so lacking in intelligence that they are incapable of being educated or is it that the Ruling Elite have kept them that way to protect their position. It sounds to me more like a Class Ridden Society where the Underclass have been deliberately kept underfoot in order to more easily control them.

Well yes it was a class ridden society where the underclasses were deliberately kept underfoot in order to more easily control them. That is exactly why Britain installed the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq, twice, who were Sunni. It wasn't untill the British installed monarchy was overthrown that the Shiia got equal rights, including education, allowing them to get professional jobs like lawyer, doctor or politician.

JAWS

26-May-06, 16:06

Iranians are totally Iranian. Saddams uncle wasn't the only admirer of Hitlers, George Bush's grandfather was Hitlers banker, financed his rise to power. Most of the world were admirers of Hitlers, it was only after he committed genocide that everyone decided they'd never liked him and the history books were re-written accordingly, Hitler was Time Magazines man of the year for 1938.But did he help found a Political Party based on Nazi Principles. There were people in this country and all over Europe who admired Hitler and they were not all right wing extremists either. Even Stalin was willing to make agreements with Hitler and helped train the German Air Force.
Oh yes, my grand-father was very much a gentleman - I rest my case!

The Shiia tribes in the south and the Kurdish tribes in the north were suppressed very brutally because encouraged by America and believing they would get American assistance they launched an uprising against the ruling Baath party while they were still severely weakened from their defeat in Kuwait. There was nothing sectarian about it, there was no reprisal against Shi'ites and Kurds elsewhere in Iraq, they were a threat to Saddams power and he dealt with it. "no more Shia after today"." - Not no more rebels, or no more traitors, just specifically "No more Shia"!

Well yes it was a class ridden society where the underclasses were deliberately kept underfoot in order to more easily control them. That is exactly why Britain installed the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq, twice, who were Sunni. It wasn't untill the British installed monarchy was overthrown that the Shiia got equal rights, including education, allowing them to get professional jobs like lawyer, doctor or politician.I think you will find a lot of the Shia have a different version. If they were treated so well why did the Sunni's make so much fuss over the Shia being the dominant Party in the new Government? Surely, if they treated them so well they would have nothing to worry about.
Unless they were afraid of some Sectarian Backlash!

Rheghead

26-May-06, 16:38

Hitler was Time Magazines man of the year for 1938

So what? The honour went to Nikita Kruschev, the Russian President in 1957 at the height of the cold war.[lol]

JAWS

26-May-06, 19:27

Hitler was Time Magazines man of the year for 1938.
So was that sweet gentle angel Joseph Stalin, twice, 1940 and 1942.

Even Hitler couldn't match his barbarism, and look at the supporters he had in this Country. Good old Uncle Joe!

fred

26-May-06, 20:21

I think you will find a lot of the Shia have a different version. If they were treated so well why did the Sunni's make so much fuss over the Shia being the dominant Party in the new Government? Surely, if they treated them so well they would have nothing to worry about.
Unless they were afraid of some Sectarian Backlash!

I have read many accounts from Iraqi people and I think you will find that you don't know what sectarian violence is. A military dictatorship using the state army to quell an uprising is not sectarian violence, the uprising would have been quelled as what religion the rebels were, the Kurds in the north were mainly Sunni but were dealt with the same. When we invaded Iraq our soldiers were mainly Christian, the Iraqis were mainly Muslem, does that make it a religious war, is that why we invaded? Discrimination is not sectarian violence.

A 15 year old boy murdered in Ballymena for no other reason than he was Catholic is sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is when neighbour turns against neighbour because they are a different religion.

So lets see what some Iraqis have to say.

"The US military destroyed Falluja, but simply spread the fighters out around the country. They also increased the chance of civil war in Iraq by using their new national guard of Shias to suppress Sunnis. Once, when a foreign journalist, an Irish guy, asked me whether I was Shia or Sunni - the way the Irish do because they have that thing about the IRA - I said I was Sushi. My father is Sunni and my mother is Shia. I never cared about these things. Now, after Falluja, it matters.

Dr. Ali Fadhil

"During the Saddam Hussein regime, we never heard of sectarian violence, despite all the problems that we went through, now we have to be strong to show our children that those committing sectarian violence are doing wrong."

Jamal Jomaa

Every Iraqi has a similar story to tell. We never had sectarian violence before, but Bremer and Bush are successfully heading for a catastrophe when they remain in Iraq. And I’ll tell you why. Let the occupation troops leave and the equilibrium will be restored. Now people can kill without impunity, because they feel protected by the occupation forces.

Majed Hadi al-jubourie

The population is a mixture of Shiite and Sunni Arab tribes, as almost everywhere else in Iraq. It never happened in history that this area witnessed any sectarian conflict whatsoever. Directly after the occupation, and through 2004, news of American raids, arrests, big military operations were regular there. This year however, a new (dimension) was added, horrible stories of arrests, torture, and mass killing news were coming out, not only by the American troops, but also by the Iraqi police and Army units. These news rarely, almost never, find their way into the mainstream media, neither Iraqi nor international.

Sabah Ali

fred

26-May-06, 20:25

So what? The honour went to Nikita Kruschev, the Russian President in 1957 at the height of the cold war.[lol]

So it makes JAWS' statement that Saddam Hussein's uncle admired Hitler irrelevant.

Rheghead

26-May-06, 21:02

So it makes JAWS' statement that Saddam Hussein's uncle admired Hitler irrelevant.

No it doesn't as the Time magazine MotY list is not based on popularity or political bias which you tried to peddle it as.

fred

26-May-06, 21:20

No it doesn't as the Time magazine MotY list is not based on popularity or political bias which you tried to peddle it as.

I was peddling it as based on admiration.

Rheghead

26-May-06, 21:33

I would say it was based on notoriety.

JAWS

26-May-06, 22:10

I have read many accounts from Iraqi people and I think you will find that you don't know what sectarian violence is. A military dictatorship using the state army to quell an uprising is not sectarian violence, the uprising would have been quelled as what religion the rebels were, the Kurds in the north were mainly Sunni but were dealt with the same. When we invaded Iraq our soldiers were mainly Christian, the Iraqis were mainly Muslem, does that make it a religious war, is that why we invaded? Discrimination is not sectarian violence.

A 15 year old boy murdered in Ballymena for no other reason than he was Catholic is sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is when neighbour turns against neighbour because they are a different religion.

So lets see what some Iraqis have to say.
As you were saying, there was no Sectarianism in Saddam's Iraq just a State protecting itself from rebellion.

Ever since the creation of the modern state of Iraq, the Shias, who form the majority of Iraq's population, have been marginalised. The marja'iyya - the highest acknowledged authorities of Shias worldwide - enjoy great influence among the Shias of southern Iraq, and in the Baghdad slums where Shias live in appalling conditions, but play no direct part in the running of government.
This has been the exclusive preserve of the Ba'ath party, through which Saddam rose to power, for the past 35 years. After its successful coup in 1968, the Ba'ath moved quickly to secure sole control of the country and lost no time in putting into practice a well-thought-out plan to weaken the Shia establishment. Some tribal leaders were lured with oil money and the infrastructure of Shia theological schools was destroyed. In the first of many blows to the spiritual leadership, Mehdi al-Hakim, son of Grand Ayatollah Mohsen al-Hakim, was accused of being a spy. In the following years, thousands of clerics said to be of Iranian origin were expelled to Iran.
The regime put its hand on Shi'ism's most significant celebrations. It took vigorous measures to control Ashura, the re-enactment of the martyrdom of the Prophet's grandson Hussein, by setting up roadblocks that interfered with pilgrims and penalising even government employees who visited the shrines.
In the Iraqi media, which is officially controlled, the Shias were conspicuous only by their absence. You could see a whole programme on Najaf - site of one of the two most famous theological colleges in the Shia world - without seeing a turban. Clerics were edited out of every clip unless they were there to praise the government.
In 1973, the Ba'ath broke new ground in its persecution of the Shias by executing five Shia clerics accused of belonging to al-Da'wa, the largest of the Shias' underground political organisations. In 1975, the regime closed the handful of private schools owned by Shias in the name of "nationalisation". Shi'ism has never been recognised in the educational system of Iraq. The national curriculum teaches only Sunni Islam.
Persecution escalated with the Iranian revolution of 1979, reaching a shocking climax with the execution of Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr el-Sadr and his sister, Bint Huda, in 1980. Thousands of Shias were rounded up and any young person going to a mosque was immediately accused of belonging to al-Da'wa. Even Shias who became secular to avoid this persecution were targeted. Some were killed; others were expelled to Iran - among them the virtual entirety of the Shia merchants who dominated Baghdad's central bazaar.http://www.iwpr.net/?p=icr&s=f&o=168481&apc_state=heniicr2003

I seem to be reading from the wrong propaganda sheet, I really should try to get the some of those that are left over.
I now understand where I am going wrong with respect to what constitutes Sectarian Violence.

A military dictatorship using the state army to quell an uprising is not sectarian violence, the uprising would have been quelled as what religion the rebels were But if a Democratic State does exactly the same thing then it is Sectarian Violence.
Violence involving Discrimination against people of a certain Religion is not Sectarian, it is merely Discrimination, provided it is carried out in a Military Dictatorship. I might have to take a little while to study that concept. I must confess that there is a subtle difference somewhere there I have not considered before.
I'm glad you pointed out my lack of knowledge on that point, a failure which I will do my best to remedy.
I have already gone a little way towards a better understanding. The position I have arrived at so far is that if we do it then it is all wrong and cannot be tolerated but if a Military Dictator, or anybody else who disagrees with us, does it then it's perfectly justified.

However, I rather think that the actions of the Baath Party and Saddam speak far louder than any words.

pultneytooner

26-May-06, 22:44

As you were saying, there was no Sectarianism in Saddam's Iraq just a State protecting itself from rebellion.

http://www.iwpr.net/?p=icr&s=f&o=168481&apc_state=heniicr2003

I seem to be reading from the wrong propaganda sheet, I really should try to get the some of those that are left over.
I now understand where I am going wrong with respect to what constitutes Sectarian Violence.
But if a Democratic State does exactly the same thing then it is Sectarian Violence.
Violence involving Discrimination against people of a certain Religion is not Sectarian, it is merely Discrimination, provided it is carried out in a Military Dictatorship. I might have to take a little while to study that concept. I must confess that there is a subtle difference somewhere there I have not considered before.
I'm glad you pointed out my lack of knowledge on that point, a failure which I will do my best to remedy.
I have already gone a little way towards a better understanding. The position I have arrived at so far is that if we do it then it is all wrong and cannot be tolerated but if a Military Dictator, or anybody else who disagrees with us, does it then it's perfectly justified.

However, I rather think that the actions of the Baath Party and Saddam speak far louder than any words. Oil, Oil, oil;)

fred

26-May-06, 23:34

The regime put its hand on Shi'ism's most significant celebrations. It took vigorous measures to control Ashura, the re-enactment of the martyrdom of the Prophet's grandson Hussein, by setting up roadblocks that interfered with pilgrims and penalising even government employees who visited the shrines.

I seem to be reading from the wrong propaganda sheet, I really should try to get the some of those that are left over.

Ashura was never banned, that is pure propaganda of the worst kind.

In “Ashura” Shiites gather in houses (mostly women), reciting the story of Hussein and crying, remembering his martyrdom was also not banned (although my grandmother is Sunni but she was always invited by Shiites neighbors to participate in such occasions until her death which is not a long time ago).

http://www.roadstoiraq.com/?p=219

What Saddam did wasn't sectarian violence, it was the actions of a ruthless despot stamping out any threat to his authority. The ordinary Shi'ite and Sunni lived side by side in peace united by their mutual hate and fear of Saddam.

JAWS

27-May-06, 22:53

Ashura was never banned, that is pure propaganda of the worst kind.

http://www.roadstoiraq.com/?p=219

What Saddam did wasn't sectarian violence, it was the actions of a ruthless despot stamping out any threat to his authority. The ordinary Shi'ite and Sunni lived side by side in peace united by their mutual hate and fear of Saddam.
Many Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland bore no animosity to one another but that did not stop the extremists on either side engaging in Sectarian Violence.
I think Saddam's actions speak loudly enough for most people to see what he was. There are groups in Iraq who are currently willing to use any methods they can to regain the status they once held.

It seems rather difficult to reconcile the fact that we were engaging in "pure propaganda of the worst kind" against Saddam prior to the War with Iran when, at the same time, we were supporting him.

The Iraqis in the south of the Country are Shia as are the majority of Iranians. Saddam's problem with them was that they might be influenced, by their religious beliefs, to wish to come under Iranian influence rather than remain with Iraq. Saddam decided to "remove" anybody who might be in a position to persuade them and to send a message to any who might wish to take their place.

Sounds very familiar to me, a section of a Country being "oppressed" by those in power because they wish to transfer their allegiance to a different Country of the same religion.

When it happens in Northern Ireland it is Sectarian but when it happens in Iraq it is nothing more than "stamping out any threat".
There would appear to be a very subtle difference between the two, so subtle that I seem to be missing it.

JAWS

27-May-06, 22:58

Oil, Oil, oil;)
Saddam was quite happy to sell as much oil as he could. All anybody had to do was to tell him carry on as he wished and the oil would have flowed.
Oil problem solved.

fred

28-May-06, 10:06

Sounds very familiar to me, a section of a Country being "oppressed" by those in power because they wish to transfer their allegiance to a different Country of the same religion.

When it happens in Northern Ireland it is Sectarian but when it happens in Iraq it is nothing more than "stamping out any threat".
There would appear to be a very subtle difference between the two, so subtle that I seem to be missing it.

I don't remember the IRA attacks on British troops ever being described as sectarian violence, I don't remember any of the bombs they planted in mainland Britain being described as sectarian violence, I don't recall British troops murdering 14 Catholic protesters being described as sectarian violence. All around the world there have been revolutions and coups where one set of people attempt to take power from another I don't recall them being described as sectarian violence.

Before America blew up the Shi'ite shrine at Sammara the violence in Iraq was very different. On the one side were the occupying forces and those who collaberated with them, on the other was the insurgents fighting against them. There was no ethnic clensing, all the ordinary Iraqi who had allegance to neither side had to fear was being unlucky and getting caught up in the fighting or criminal activity as a result of the American intigated anarchy.

Now things are completely different, the news reports coming out of Iraq have changed Iraqi is fighting Iraqi Shiia is fighting Sunni. The news reports arn't all about roadside bombs killing American troops or American forces attacking insurgent strongholds.

This is the news from Iraq this week, spot the difference.

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=MAC413372

JAWS

28-May-06, 17:33

I don't remember the IRA attacks on British troops ever being described as sectarian violence, I don't remember any of the bombs they planted in mainland Britain being described as sectarian violence, I don't recall British troops murdering 14 Catholic protesters being described as sectarian violence. All around the world there have been revolutions and coups where one set of people attempt to take power from another I don't recall them being described as sectarian violence.

Before America blew up the Shi'ite shrine at Sammara the violence in Iraq was very different. On the one side were the occupying forces and those who collaberated with them, on the other was the insurgents fighting against them. There was no ethnic clensing, all the ordinary Iraqi who had allegance to neither side had to fear was being unlucky and getting caught up in the fighting or criminal activity as a result of the American intigated anarchy.

Now things are completely different, the news reports coming out of Iraq have changed Iraqi is fighting Iraqi Shiia is fighting Sunni. The news reports arn't all about roadside bombs killing American troops or American forces attacking insurgent strongholds.

This is the news from Iraq this week, spot the difference.

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=MAC413372
So now we have the truth, it is all a big conspiracy.
The problems in Northern Ireland and the wider aspects of them are not in the least part Sectarian. People have been fooled all along about the facts.
Only the Chosen Few are aware it was all a Conspiracy to fool everybody into believing it.

The Shrine at Samara was blown up by the Americans and not as is generally believed by most people. People have been fooled all along about the facts.
Only the Chosen Few are aware it was all a Conspiracy to fool everybody into believing it.

We all know, despite Bin Laden having announced he personally chose those involved, that the destruction of the World Trade Centres was really carried out at by agents of the American Government. People have been fooled all along about the facts.
Only the Chosen Few are aware it was all a Conspiracy to fool everybody into believing it.

No doubt the bombings in Manchester, London and Warrington etc., despite the IRA having claimed responsibility, were really carried out by agents of the British Government in order to prolong the "Troubles". People have been fooled all along about the facts.
Only the Chosen Few are aware it was all a Conspiracy to fool everybody into believing it.

Conspiracies within Conspiracies surrounded by Conspiracies and at the centre, pulling all the strings, is the Great Satan and his acolytes, the NeoCons.

There is a "Great Con" going on but it certainly does not originate in either Washington or London.
It does, however, make more amusing reading than the generally accepted versions. In fact they are almost as believable as "I've seen Elvis" and Moscow failing to spot that Nixon was really talking to "Astronauts" who were on a Hollywood Sound Stage and not on the Moon at all.
They are good for a laugh, but very little else.

squidge

28-May-06, 19:22

As ever - the truth according to Fred!

As he always ends up saying in a certain way "you are all blind and stupid...if you looked further than your noses and saw things the way i see them you would know the truth" Interestingly whenever you google Fred's views there is little or no digging involved - the first hits on a search are always conspiracy theories. One search took me eleven pages to find a viewpoint that WASNT a conspiracy theory. It just makes me wonder who is the gullible one - who never looks further than their own nose and who is taken in by the abundance of information available - funnily enough im not sure its me.

JAWS

28-May-06, 20:50

There can be little doubt that the assassinations of both Abraham Lincoln and John Fitzgerald Kennedy were not only linked but were organized by the same people.
It cannot possibly be chance that there are so many similarities, the same people must have conspired in both assassinations.

http://www.poeticexpressions.co.uk/poems/Lincoln%20versus%20Kennedy.htm

This site provides a list of the similarities which shows conclusively that the two deaths were linked and only a fool could fail to see it!

fred

28-May-06, 22:44

So now we have the truth, it is all a big conspiracy.
The problems in Northern Ireland and the wider aspects of them are not in the least part Sectarian. People have been fooled all along about the facts.
Only the Chosen Few are aware it was all a Conspiracy to fool everybody into believing it.

The Shrine at Samara was blown up by the Americans and not as is generally believed by most people. People have been fooled all along about the facts.
Only the Chosen Few are aware it was all a Conspiracy to fool everybody into believing it.

It's the facts which point to the Americans. The fact that it was a specialist demolition job not a truck bomb or suicide bombers. Holes were drilled into columns, explosives planted and wired together before being detonated remotely, it would have taken 12 hours to set it all up. There is the fact that American soldiers and Iraqi security services cordoned off the area the night before, told everyone in the neighbourhood to stay inside and stay away from the windows, the American soldiers left the area just 10 minutes before the detonation.

JAWS

28-May-06, 23:45

It's the facts which point to the Americans. The fact that it was a specialist demolition job not a truck bomb or suicide bombers. Holes were drilled into columns, explosives planted and wired together before being detonated remotely, it would have taken 12 hours to set it all up. There is the fact that American soldiers and Iraqi security services cordoned off the area the night before, told everyone in the neighbourhood to stay inside and stay away from the windows, the American soldiers left the area just 10 minutes before the detonation.
And only the selected few know about it. Being one of the Holiest Shia Shrines one would assume that the Shia take particular note of what happens there. The Americans turn up, order the local Shia to close their eyes, spend 12 hours setting up demolition charges when one huge explosion would suffice, and the Shia in the area totally ignore what they are doing.

The lie is then put out that it was the Sunnis and the Shia, who sat quietly by whilst the Americans demolished the Shrine, all decide conveniently to go along with it.
Wow, how stupid the Iraqi Shia must be! How insulting to their intelligence!

The way you describe it all the Americans failed to do was invite the World's Media along to watch them and invite Al-Jazeera to make a video. Unless Al-Jazeera are part of the conspiracy as well! Unless, of course, they are waiting fot the right time to release it.

JAWS

29-May-06, 00:18

fred, I'm getting confused keeping up with all the Conspiracy Theories.
To save me searching back through them, remind me of the one about the twelve hours that was spent setting up the wiring and explosives to make the World Trade Centres look like a Terrorist Attack.

That's the one which must have been true because of the pictures of the foundations still being red hot weeks after.

Was that job carried out by the same people who wired up the explosives at the Shia Shrine or do the Americans have a laboratory churning out these clones by the thousand.

fred

29-May-06, 09:20

The way you describe it all the Americans failed to do was invite the World's Media along to watch them and invite Al-Jazeera to make a video. Unless Al-Jazeera are part of the conspiracy as well! Unless, of course, they are waiting fot the right time to release it.

A TV reporter for Al-Arabia did get an interview with the Iraqi construction minister saying how sophisticated the planting of the explosives was which was broadcast live. She also filmed interviews with local residents for a doccumentary but then she became news herself and the film was never recovered.

More recently, Iraqi journalist Atwar Bahjat was murdered while reporting on the bombing of the Al-Askari Mosque in Samarra on February 22 this year. Bahjat was a well known female television reporter working for Bahrain-based Al-Arabiya. She and her news crew, Khalid Mahmoud Al-Falahi and Adnan Khairallah, were interviewing local witnesses who claimed that they had seen what looked like police commandos entering the Mosque prior to the explosion. There were also claims that US military forces had been heavily deployed in the vicinity the previous night.

Bahjat never got to complete her investigation. She and her news crew were apprehended by what appeared to be commandos, shouting: "We want the anchorwoman." The bodies of Bahjat and her two colleagues were found hours later. They had been shot dead.