Ballymena Murder

[fred]

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]

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

[JAWS]

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?

[fred]

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]

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]

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!

[fred]

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, 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]

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, 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]

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]

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/timelin...sis_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]

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]

So Fred, this is ok in your eyes then?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/no...ews/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.

[Saveman]

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.

[fred]

So Fred, this is ok in your eyes then?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/no...ews/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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.