Tim Brannigan’s life story to date certainly makes fascinating reading. From the ‘elaborate, tearful lie’ (his words) that concealed his conception and birth to growing up a black man in Belfast in the 1970s/80s to his time as a republican prisoner in the 1990s and beyond, Brannigan’s life is one being retold as part of a BBC Radio 4 series entitled ‘It’s My Story.’
With perhaps the longest title of any book I’ve read this year, The Media Relations Department of Hizbollah Wishes You a Happy Birthday: Unexpected Encounters in the Changing Middle East gives an insight into the lives of people living in Middle East through the eyes of journalist Neil MacFarquhar. MacFarquhar’s father was a chemical engineer [...] read our review »
Hang on, let’s get real here! The Provos did not simply turn up at his house at random and ask him to look after the weapons they used to murder Protestants – he was IN the PIRA and he served his time on their wing in the Maze! His colour is neither here nor there to that issue.
It’s staggering that this programme was allowed to go out without any questioning of his version of events. Questions need to be asked.
It is also balls for this man to claim he was a GMTV reporter. Total nonsense. The Walter Mitty of local journalism, more like.
“observer, if you read the story, the man was asked by the local IRA to hold onto some guns. It does not take much effort to imagine what might happen to someone who refused.”
I don’t think it was the threat of direct retaliation that was a particularly overriding factor. However, take my example above. If you had have refused and allowed Johnty’s da to go to jail, that would be know all over the area. There would be serious social consequences to that – this is a small tight knit area and everyone else knows Johnty’s da. Ans his wife. And his ma. And his sister. And his second cousin.
Lots of people will stand up to the threat of violence. This is comparatively easy compared to the threat of social exclusion.
Turgon,
CAIN supports the fact that at the outset it was targeting of members of the security forces of the British Establishment, but as things unfolded and the loyalists only managed to kill 1 in 20 .. that’s 5% republicans, the rest were innocent, I suppose renegade IRA squads took revenge.
according to the figures, the IRA managed to kill 1 out of every 2 who were security forces.
Parcifal,
“I suppose renegade IRA squads took revenge.”
I cannot remember the IRA distancing themselves from Douglas Derring’s murder.
Kingsmills, Darkley and Douglas Derring’s murders were all quite early in the troubles. Even Enniskillen was 20 years ago. The idea of a noble struggle corrupted may please you (actually I know it does not as you have in your more sensible moments condemned all murders) but it is nonsesne.
Even if these events were revenge for loyalsits crimes (something you know I unreservedly condemn) that would not make RG Cuan’s claim – “IRA’s target was British rule in Ireland – which is a political, not a religious, issue” -any less of an untruth.
Turgon
trouble is though the facts on CAIN don’t support your idea that the IRA went out randomly on a prod killing spree, they wanted to bring the British Gov’t to its knees and force a complete military and legislative withdrawl from Ireland.
The idea is clearly supported that for the IRA any ” brit soldier, policeman will do”…for loyalism “any taig will do” is supported by CAIN.
Hence sectarianism is proven to be from loyalists, They were the foot-soldiers of a very ugly beast, and they’re still marching in triumphalism.
Surely once a year, is enough?
Turgon
trouble is though the facts on CAIN don’t support your idea that the IRA went out randomly on a prod killing spree, -
If you were a prod, british or unionist you were a target and this was proved time and time agian.
Its sickening to see catholic apologists still excuse IRA murder.
gees and I thought I was a troll
>> By the way I saw a no travelers sign on a pub door two months >> ago.
> Care`to elaborate on this mick? You know, town, jurisdiction,
> hemisphere? Because it really doesn’t sound very plausible.
I’ll back Mick up here, with a vivid memory of seeing the same thing (“No Travellers”) on a pub in the Garston area of Liverpool about 5 years ago, following some aggrevation related to a travellers’ camp in St Michaels, Liverpool.
Whilst I don’t recall seeing any photographs of discriminatory signs on London boarding houses in the 1960s, I accept the testimonies of many of the people who state that they saw such signs. I simply don’t believe they are all making it up, and I don’t think it is a so-called “urban myth”.
The thing that annoys me about the photo on this thread is that Tim’s head obscures some pretty important text. The full mural can be seen here:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/mccormick/photos/no2610.htm#photo
Its good to see a historical persepective of the recent period of conflict from a Black Irish perspective.
Flashman’s point may stem from his belief that racism was never an issue in Britain. We were welcomed with open arms and minds….!
Racism in the six counties from my personal experience never reached the levels of England. I was surprised however to see racist graffiti in east Belfast in the 80′s in areas where there were never ever people of colour.
Ther were obvious links between loyalist terror groups and racist terror groups in Britain..however I found that many Protestants were horrified to be associated with the racist attitudes of the English.
From a Crown forces perspective, I encountered open racism from both the British and the RUC
given the sectarian campaign by the IRA, listening to catholics talk about bigotry is a bit like Hitler lecturing on building good international relations
The first person to mention Hitler loses the arguement.
knock knock
good morning sir, we happen to be representatatives of your local branch of kalishnikovs r us. I happen to notice that you havent previously contributed to our neighbourhood storage plan. I would like to offer you a once in a lifetime oportunity to subscribe to this aMAZEing deal! The fact that we would trust these valuable items of sectarian slaughter to you is in recognition of our brotherly struggle against the imperial foe.
cheers mate we’re off
PS If anyone asks play the race card!
Gilbert- correct on last comment.
btw I see Clinton denied your lot a victory today….
Parcifal,
I entirely accept that the loyalist terrorists were sectarian.
I do however submit that murdering policemen and UDR men was sectarian. Can you seriously accept killing off duty RUC and UDR men as non sectarian. even if you do tell me which of the following were non sectarian.
Douglas Derring’s murder
Enniskillen poppy day
Kingsmill
Darkley
All the above seem a pretty random “prod killing sprees”
Yes the IRA did murder RUC and UDR men and claimed non sectarian motives. The thing is I do not accept that, I personally doubt you really accept it and even if it were true there were a lot of other blatantly sectarian murders by the IRA of people who were killed because they were Prods.
You are usually a fairly decent republican debater, I humbly submit the above posts are below your usual standard.
Branigan would be better off shuting his gob.
What a moper, his line is basically “is it because I is black and a former republican terrorist gun handler”.
From my own experiences of racial prejudice, which came from both sides, perhaps I should have stored a few weapons ended up in jail then say “I fucked up” and then try to carve out a media carreer.
His story stinks of hypocrisy, mopery and is one boring cliched yawn.
Turgon
I would respectively submit that the IRA were not responsible for all of the atrocities that you quote, as you probably know.
>>Yes the IRA did murder RUC and UDR men and claimed non sectarian motives. The thing is I do not accept that<<
Any members of these militia’s who were Catholic, and who happened to be killed was either incidental or accidental if we are following your flawed narrative?
I know my point does not sit comfortably with you Turgon, but we all have to face up to the fact that isolated incidents cannot define a whole campaign. Hence we do not confine Britain’s role to be defined solely upon bloody sunday, internment, shoot to kill, collusion etc. Likewise it is patently wrong to do so with the IRA.
On other threads in recent days we have seen the often quoted nonsense about genocide conclusively destroyed. There was no ethnic cleansing in Fermanagh or anywhere else. Sure we could all quote dozens of individual stories, but they don’t stand up if stated in the terms quoted above. No-one is arguing that the IRA did not indulge/stoop to killing innocent Protestants at rare times. These were almost entirely confined to the madness that was the early 70′s, thankfully this was not a defining feature of their campaign, nor would they have received worldwide support had it been.
To further the points made above:
No one involved in suppressing the armed struggle ever accused the Irish Republican Army of a sectarian war or of genocide. The British Army and its government would of loved the IRA to of resort to tit for tat sectarian conflict, it would of made their job of occupation easier.
Another point, what about the international support for Irish freedom? Would the ANC, sections of irish America, countless support organisations internationally of given their support, if the IRA were bent on a policy of genocidae or sectarianism?
Prince Eoghan,
Which of the murders were the IRA not responsible for, Kingsmills – was it the Catholic Reaction Force or some other cover name I cannot remember.
Darkley same story
Enniskillen IRA and 1987 from memory
Douglas Derring 1977 IRA
Especially with the last two do not try to play that game with me.
I will accept the IRA campaign was not wholly sectarian whereas I accept the loyalist one was almost entirely sectarian.
The IRA’s particular perchant for murdering catholic RUC men was, however, I submit sectarian in that it was designed to ensure RCs did not join or left.
I still regard the murder of an RUC officer as essentially sectarian. Many were murdered whilst off duty or doing policing totally unrelated to the troubles.
In terms of genocide I accept there was no genocide. I would suggest there was ethnic cleansing. Very many Prods in South Fermanagh were in the UDR or RUC and were killed. There was a great deal of intimidation and people felt it better to move to the likes of Lisbellaw, Maguiresbridge, Ballinamallard. That is ethnic cleansing. Okay less gross than in the likes of Bosnia but ethnic cleansing none the less just like in certain areas of Belfast where catholics were cleansed from mixed / Protestant areas.
On the four areas you have quoted re the British army
Bloody Sunday. We can argue forever about that as we all know but basically a disaster from all points of view and yes I have no doubt innocent people were shot and killed.
Internment. Again my traditional defence (I was a toddler) but inept, foolish, and yes wrong in principle. Was in fairness used to effect on both sides of the border during the 1950s/60s border campaign.
Shoot to kill. We have previously discussed the difficulties in “shooting to not kill” but I am pleased by no death during the troubles and am glad that for example the IRA sniper was arrested and not shot by the SAS.
Collusion. I have said repeatedly that any collusion (and yes there seems to have been some, again we can argue about amount) was totally wrong and immoral.
Even if you do regard only the murder of completely non security related Protestants as sectarian the IRA committed a lot of sectarian murders, too many to be dismissed as aberrations.
>>Especially with the last two do not try to play that game with me.< <
I as you do try to approach these matters honestly. I will concede that I do try to tread carefully when discussing this kind of topic as your anger shows through, I can respect that. I will try to assuage it but will not sacrifice what I understand will be an uncomfortable truth.
>>Bloody Sunday. We can argue forever about that as we all know but basically a disaster from all points of view and yes I have no doubt innocent people were shot and killed.<<
No doubt???? Perhaps this is something that we shouldn’t discuss if it is going the way I think it is.
As the discussion goes your numbers don’t add up. And without the clutching of straws over the RUC/UDR you really wouldn’t have a case at all. As Gilbert states above the Brits didn’t consider that the IRA carried out a sectarian campaign, it just suited their propaganda needs at the time. Like everything else it seems, the Brits have left you guys on ‘facts’ built on sand. They seem to have done a lot of that.
Goodnight.
PE,
Goodnight and no offence taken
Turgon
as always I appreciate your good courtesy; have been a bit off lately its true.
What I don’t like is the way some prods try to hide behind IRA mis-deeds in order to cover their own, as say with observer.
Its that dishonesty that needs straightening out; but you’re always worth chatting to.
g’nite
It might have made things simpler if all those who rushed to prejudgement had listened to the Radio 4 programme last evening as I did.
But never mind, it always entirely possible to “listen again” on that facility on the BBC Radio 4 website, where I am assured they do not have any warning signs reading “No Closed Minds!”
Brannigan told his story simply and with a ring of truth and was open and entirely undefensive about his Republican involvement and impressed most by his quiet geniality, total lack of bitterness or blame and gratitude towards his mother and community and simple joy in life. I would say that I liked him but that would surely be the kiss of death for the poor man on this site.
**I’ll back Mick up here, with a vivid memory of seeing the same thing (“No Travellers”) on a pub in the Garston area of Liverpool about 5 years ago, following some aggrevation related to a travellers’ camp in St Michaels, Liverpool.**
Timing is everything, mick says he saw this sign about travellers two months ago, now quite simply any publican who wished to remain in business would never dream of putting such a sign up, he knows he would be sued into bankruptcy unfortunately my anodyne attempt at eliciting further information is described as provocation, methinks he doth protest too much.
Anyway on to the subject of this Brannigan character, in classic Beeb tradition a criminal’s actions are painted as the fault not of the criminal but of “society”.
Thus it we are told that if it wasn’t for all those white racist bigots he would never have had such a hard life. First and foremost the British, of course, especially the Scottish soldiers (it’s always Scottish soldiers isn’t it?) but also the British in general, especially in that hotspot of British racism, Liverpool. Of course he doesn’t acknowledge the good things the British did for him; a free university education and a nice job with a TV station. No he got those by himself, whitey is only responsible for the bad stuff.
The next white racists are his own fellow Irish catholics among whom he grew up and whose principal criminal organisation he chose to join.
But hang on a moment aren’t we missing someone? You know the real villain of the whole story? A man who abused the hospitality of the society among whom he was a guest? A married, educated man who seduced a poor girl who had been decent enough to extend the hand of friendship to him and who was used sexually and then thrown on to the trash heap along with their baby son when it all got too difficult.
Isn’t Dr Michael the real nasty piece of goods in this whole tawdry tale? So how come no blame is attached to him? Well coz he’s black see, and black people are always the victims aren’t they?
Much safer to stick to the BBC script and blame whitey, eh?
**I’ll back Mick up here, with a vivid memory of seeing the same thing (“No Travellers”) on a pub in the Garston area of Liverpool about 5 years ago, following some aggrevation related to a travellers’ camp in St Michaels, Liverpool.**
Timing is everything, mick says he saw this sign about travellers two months ago, now quite simply any publican who wished to remain in business would never dream of putting such a sign up, he knows he would be sued into bankruptcy unfortunately my anodyne attempt at eliciting further information is described as provocation, methinks he doth protest too much
But Harry the Travellers are reviled by both sides of the community that I dare say the publicn was risking nothing
Isn’t a publican putting up a sign simply the “right of association” thing we talked about in another discussion?
“I entirely accept that the loyalist terrorists were sectarian. I do however submit that murdering policemen and UDR men was sectarian. Can you seriously accept killing off duty RUC and UDR men as non sectarian.” – Turgon
Just a few points about this:
Shinner apologists apply a self-serving definition of sectarian which restricts its meaning to ‘hatred of those who practice a particular religion’ because it allows them to imply that their sect’s dedicated murderers are morally superior to the other sect’s dedicated murderers. That definition is itself sectarian. Essentially, sectarianism is when one social group seeks to promote its own interests at the direct expense of another, leading to (often violent) social discord between the groups (it can be nationalism, cultural, etc – rather than simply religious).
They claim that their sect have selected victims by a criterion that identifies them as either military, economic or political; whereas, they claim, the other sect has applied a criterion that is exclusively religion-based. Ergo, the other sect is sectarian and their sect is not. The word sectarian is used as pejorative, becoming a sectarian blunt implement to beat the other sect with.
As you point out, it is an outright lie to claim that Shinners did not deliberately target their victims by religion. The apologists ignore this reality, only addressing it when their preferred narrative is challenged. They excuse their acts of deliberate sectarian murder as being sporadic aberrations that were committed by rogue elements in response to provocation and done with the noblest of motives (to deter the Loyalist attacking Catholics). The fact is, however, that such murders were a regular and consistent feature of their campaign and were done with the full approval of their leadership. They deliberately and persistently murdered protestant citizens because they were Protestants; and they are, even by their own restrictive logic, sectarian murderers. To not label themselves as such is the same as a serial rapist insisting that people call him “Casanova” because he successfully seduced 70 of his 100 conquests and only raped the other 30. He raped, so he’s a rapist. PIRA deliberately and consistently murdered people because of their religion, so they’re sectarian murderers. This is irrefutable.
I would contend that the claim that Loyalist murder was exclusively religion-based is false on the grounds that their murders also had a constitutional aim that was the opposite constitutional aim of the Shinners, i.e. they used violence to maintain the link with the UK just as the Shinners used violence to sever it. They were pro-state murder gangs and their counterparts where anti-State murder gangs. The Loyalists didn’t have the luxury of enemy “military, economic or political” targets to aim at that the Shinners had, since the Shinners didn’t wear uniforms but hid among the civilian population. Ergo, the only targets that Loyalists had were of the “catholic citizen” variety from that population. Loyalists operated in ‘defence of country’ and were not biblical scholars involved in violent ‘debate’ about obscure points of Christian theology. They are in the same demented ilk as their Shinner counterparts.
So, the Shinners, being innately sectarian and supremacist, love feeling superior to the other sect. Instead of seeing themselves for what they are (a lowly murder gang that attracted disenfranchised sociopaths who inflicted misery of their society in a campaign of pointless violence), they have absolved themselves of all responsibility for their futile actions and see the other sect as being the ignoble cause of it all. It is the problem seeing itself as the solution. To the Shinners, their murderers are great patriots whilst Loyalist murderers are vile sectarian murderers who were puppets on strings held by the entire Unionist society. The restrictive definition they apply to ‘sectarian’ allows them to carry banners of their murderers aloft during parades while condemning any similar gesture from Loyalists as “sectarian.” They just love it when they can flaunt that double standard.
The equation is simple: Shinner murderers equal patriots; and loyalist murderers equal “catholic-haters.” Although why “patriots” harmed their country; murdered their own countrymen; and retarded Irish unity by several generations, perhaps permanently, is best explained by another one of those self-serving definition quirks. Anyway, all of it was sectarian since none of it was covered by traditional “freedom-fighting.” The north already had self-determination and the south made it clear it would only countenance unity by constitutional means, just as the British government could never dishonour its obligations by abandoning the north to the bloody civil war that would have followed any lunatic decision to surrender the fate of the majority to a deranged minority. They’ve de facto accepted they were wrong all along by desisting from their madness. Being bloody-minded sociopaths, they still need their little hatemongering episodes to promote the sectarian separatism that sustains them; hence, the wedge they place between the communities by insisting that they are honourable patriots when the evidence shows that they are fascist thugs.
And by the way, members of murder gangs arguing with members of other murder gangs about which one of them is “sectarian” and which one isn’t is like two midgets arguing over which one of them has the biggest dick.
Dubliner – u having a bad day ?
Interestingly, I spotted Mr Brannigan in Maggie May’s yesterday evening. He left before I had a chance to say hello to him. It’s strange hearing a black guy with a full on Belfast accent.
What I don’t like is the way some prods try to hide behind IRA mis-deeds in order to cover their own, as say with observer.
- hardly, i have no misdeeds to hide. Neither do i apologise for the misdeeds of loyalists. Unlike catholics i hold no candle for terrorists , all should be hung unitl dead.
The ira are murderous scum bags, the are filth, rodents which need to be exterminated.
Its great to see catholics foam at the mouth in admiration of their terrorists, people who take great joy in murdering men , women and children.
No harm to ye observer, but you’re full of shite.
Whatever the past (and it’s important) what is happening now is more relevant snd I have to say that An Phoblacht publishing articles glorifying IRA actions during the troubles seems to me to be not helpful.
If republicans accept that there is a peaceful route to a United Ireland then suggest that along with their noble efforts to present their side of the split in a positive manner(Feilte thing, trying to prevent nationalist bonfires, seeking Unionist engagement) a toning down of such articles would be wise.
P.S. I saw a “No Travellers” sign in a pub in a village called Llanwern a month ago…
2 Well coz he’s black see, and black people are always the victims aren’t they?”
How dare you patronise black people with your innane homespun wisdom.
You deny the existance of no blacks no irish signs, yet when challenged cannot back your arguement up.
its easy to hide behind a computer screen with a false name, spourting redneck rhethoric.
Sorry for playing the person.
Gilbert – I agree with your sentiment, but on the geeky subject of “No Blacks or Irish need apply” signs which untill this morning I took as absolute fact I can’t find proof anywhere.
Are you still in the Armed Services ? – what do u think of the Army’s approach to racism – didn’t they just sack someone for calling Black people lazy ?
Dub
>>To not label themselves as such is the same as a serial rapist insisting that people call him “Casanova†because he successfully seduced 70 of his 100 conquests and only raped the other 30. He raped, so he’s a rapist. PIRA deliberately and consistently murdered people because of their religion, so they’re sectarian murderers. This is irrefutable.< <
Great analogy! Only thing is no-one is denying that the IRA were involved in sectarian murders. I won't re-tread my argument about defining campaigns as I am sure you know it off by heart. Going by your narrative then the Republic was borne out of Prod blood, and your beloved FF are complicit in their subsequent ethnic cleansing.
BTW Hypocrisy becomes you. Considering that you were a supporter of the armed struggle not so long ago. Your hatred for the actions of SF of late(like policing) should not have you joining the RDE or CCo'B fan clubs, or becoming a Loyalist pin-up. Best of British!
>>is like two midgets arguing over which one of them has the biggest dick.< <
Man, you ought to see some of the stuff that is on line lately.
Dewi.
>>I have to say that An Phoblacht publishing articles glorifying IRA actions during the troubles seems to me to be not helpful.<<
Too late! That particular genie is out of the bottle. The croppies have no need to lie down anymore. Someone like yourself must see the way SF , and other Nationalists and Republicans bend over backwards to placate and accommodate recalcitrant Unionism. Must we revise history as well?
I’m not in the Crown forces Dewi, quite the opposite..my experience of the crown forces racism was on the streets of Belfast.
I don’t think that a person should be sacked for calling Black people lazy.
Not promoting Black people because you hold those sentiments yes.
Words don’t offend, its the prejudice which stops people being treated as equals which gets me angry.
Prince – not revise it but no need to glorify or celebrate individual actions. – I understand how that can upset Unionists. It’s time now for peaceful engagement and that’s where the focus should be. What happened to Gerry Adams’s plan to open an office on the Shankhill Road fr’instance ?
(And you’ll get me into trouble with Turgon’s missus !!)
I’m sorry Gilbert I must have misread one of your posts.
“From a Crown forces perspective, I encountered open racism from both the British and the RUC”
You meant from your perspective not the Crown forces – got it sorry
LOL Dewi! You don’t need any help from me on that matter.
Also how far into the background do Republicans have to shrink. As a regular here you should know the answer to that, bearing in mind that mainstream Unionism had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the current successful resolution.
Prince – not shrink into the background – precisely the opposite, which generally is happening.
Again from afar, which is easy, I still get the impression that violence is not far away – Seriously (deadly I suppose) vital that all actions taken and things written don’t encourage in any fashion it’s return and glorifying IRA actions (justifiable or not) is not helpful in this context.
**How dare you patronise black people with your innane homespun wisdom.**
I am patronising nobody my friend, on the contrary I believe all individuals, black or white, should face up to the responsibility of their own actions. What this story is doing is patronising black people, as if somehow Brannigan and his deadbeat father should get free passes because of the particular pigmentation of their complexion.
He blames everybody for his predicament except the two people actually most responsible ie himself and somewhat more pertinently his sleazy, adulterous wastrel of a father.
So tell me, do you agree with me when I say that first and foremost the person who is the principal villain in Brannigan’s life story is his obnoxious father?
By the way I was not challenged regarding the “No Blacks No Dogs No Irish” signs, on the contrary it was I who put out the challenge that no one could provide evidence they existed, so far I have been proven correct.
Try harder.
**Isn’t a publican putting up a sign simply the “right of association†thing we talked about in another discussion?**
It is exactly the same thing Pounder, but my point is that such signs are for better or worse illegal and I very much doubt that any publican who wished to remain in business would display one.
As yet, once again, no evidence has been produced to prove the existence of such a sign. It’s much easier to shout “Nya nya Harry is a bigot!” than actually contradict my arguments.
But hey I’m used to it by now.
“By the way I was not challenged regarding the “No Blacks No Dogs No Irish†signs, on the contrary it was I who put out the challenge that no one could provide evidence they existed, so far I have been proven correct.”
I’ve been trying all blasted morning…..
Harry- my post @ 09:34 AM on the first page. I have a book by George Rosie titled Curious Scotland that states they did exist. I have read it in other works of non-fiction also. Are you seriously suggesting because there is no photographic evidence that they didn’t exist? C’mon!
Dewi
What you are suggesting is dangerous, I am not sure that you understand that shrinking back from those ‘not an inch’ people would not work.
>>glorifying IRA actions<<
Don’t others remember and praise their fallen/deeds?
Anyway I am aff doon the Gallagate tae watch the tic!
http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm
There is this in the American context – bit of a read but quotes
“An electronic search of all the text of the several hundred thousand pages of magazines and books online at Library of Congress, Cornell University Library and the University of Michigan Library, and complete runs of The New York Times and The Nation, turned up about a dozen uses of NINA.”
Where NINA means No Irish Need Apply.
There is a sign in the Claghagh inn (I am sure spelt wrongly) near Glen Coe which has no Campbells presumably in relation to the Glen Coe massacre. I am unclear how seriously this sign is meant ot be taken. And no this does not mean I am not taking no blacks / no Irish type signs seriously.
It’s funny Turgon – I just took it as read that they existed. One hell of an Urban myth if not true – but I can’t find proof.
The IRA’s target was British rule in Ireland – why else was it established?
Of course I recognise however that some atrocities were committed against completely innocent Protestants. This is a truth that cannot be denied.
From this however it cannot be equated that Republicanism = hatred of Protestants. It means that some in the IRA were stupid and sectarian. Does Loyalism = hatred of Catholics…? That’s another issue.
TURGON
Saw the same sign in Gà idhlig, ‘Caimbeil sam bith’. The sign is meant as a joke but the massacre is still in local folk memory.
Anybody ever been in the Kilmore pub in West Glasgow?
Written on the urinals are the names of those Anglo landlords who instigated the Highland Clearances. You have to piss on them!