Thursday, June 07, 2007
Bypassing the 20th Century - redux
In contrast to those of us who want to see with greater clarity what has gone on here some, in this case the Sinn Féin MLA, and member of the Policing Board, Martina Anderson [and SF’s Director of Unionist Outreach - Ed] would prefer us to not just ignore what we already know.. but to, in effect, forget it ever happened. As I said before - The 20th Century risks being a closed, and sealed, book with only précises of selected chapters being made available.
Pete Baker @ 09:50 AM
Turgon - “There must be some jobs etc. that people with a tendancy to violence should be kept away from e.g. I would not want them teaching my children.”
Exactly. However, the Irish Republic had no problem allowing Owen Carron (Sinn Fein-IRA) to teach in a state school. Even though he had been arrested in NI and had jumped bail. Can you imagine the reaction if a Loyalist had jumped bail in Eire and was given a job in a NI school.
So there is another one to add to the enquiry list: Why was a terrorist on the run given a job teaching school children in Eire? How many children did he incite to carry out terrorist crimes? We need answers from the Government of Eire.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 09:17 PMBilly Pilgrim- “They do, and they were all given police inquiries. Largely unsuccessful enquiries, admittedly, but enquiries nonetheless. A kind of truth came out. “It was the Ra did it.” The hard fact is that a public inquiry would be unlikely to dig up anything beyond that.”
Exactly there was an enquiry into Bloody Sunday which was deemed as unsucessful and unsatisfactory so a further one has been held after endless demands.
Well what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander what about an enquiry into Enniskillen. The IRA are not the only ones who could tell us. If Special Branch were allowed to tell us what they thought about who ordered it planned it etc. they could tell us. There was never enough evidence to charge or convict anyone but in a public enquiry they could be named and shamed. After all is that not what is going to happen in the Bloody Sunday enquiry. Yes some will believe the IRA and not Special Branch but we can all probably work out who we will believe beforehand.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 09:36 PMTurgon
“Exactly there was an enquiry into Bloody Sunday which was deemed as unsucessful and unsatisfactory so a further one has been held after endless demands.”
The difference is that the Widgery Inquiry incriminated the victims. If the police inquiry into the Enniskillen atrocity had found that the Remembrance Day observers had been terrorists and that the IRA’s actions had been proportionate, reasonable and unavoidable, then I’d agree that that should be a reckoning that deserved to be revisited, and an inquiry that deserved to be rerun.
The thing with Bloody Sunday was that innocent people were assassinated twice over - first literally, secondly in terms of their character. They were murdered by the state, then the state pissed on their graves. That makes them different from the IRA’s victims, who at least received official dignity.
“Well what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander what about an enquiry into Enniskillen. The IRA are not the only ones who could tell us. If Special Branch were allowed to tell us what they thought about who ordered it planned it etc. they could tell us.”
So you think the state was involved with Enniskillen? That indeed would be new evidence.
Posted by on Jun 08, 2007 @ 02:40 AMUI
“How would it work?”
Absolutely no idea.”
Then think about it. You think the Bloody Sunday tribunal came from nowhere? The families campaigned for three decades ffs. They knew exactly the kind of tribunal they thought appropriate. They did their feckin’ homework. If you want an inquiry into whatever atrocity you have in mind, do yours!
“How about a unilateral submission from the Unionist Outreach Officer to get the ball rolling.”
Good luck. You think life is about presents? You think the Bloody Sunday tribunal came about as a result of British government munificence? Dream on! You earn what you get in this life! You want Martina et al to fess up? I wish you luck. Stop whinging and start working.
“You mean well Billy but this is a problem of perspective and you’re being unusually one-eyed.”
No, I’m just coming from a different perspective from your own. The state should have different standards from the IRA. Even if it doesn’t, the state has records.
“We are simply demanding equality and fairness from each other.”
Bullshit. We’ve all known for the last forty years that the IRA were villains. And yes, they were. But we’ve also been hearing that the state forces were heroes. Well no, they weren’t. From a moderate, non-violent republican perspective, they were feckin’ Nazis. I want that to be recorded in the history of the last forty years.
“Straight forward blood-to-the-head incompetent fuck-up as an explanation for Enniskillen is one understandable and even forgiveable (given some sense of remorse) thing. Psuedo-progressive, 1st class honours Martina Anderson / Mick Hall, class war bullshit justifications for strapping petrol tanks to windows to burn the Collie Club alive is perhaps more than any reasonable person should be asked to swallow.”
Fair enough. But I don’t buy this notion that the hypocrisy of SF gives unionism an alibi for realising that the history of the last forty years (actually, 85 years) is more complex than mainstream unionism is prepared to accept.
Posted by on Jun 08, 2007 @ 02:53 AMBilly Pilgrim- “they were feckin’ Nazis”.
I take it you do not actually mean that or maybe you (like Alex Reid etc.) are so daft you do. Are you deliberately trying to antagonise unionists? Lets remember the Nazis systematically murdered 6-8 million jews (and lots of gypsies, homosexuals, jehovah’s witnesses, communists) in gas chambers multiple firing squads, gas vans, by systematic deliberate starvation, death marches (I could go on for several pages). You did not like the police and army - fine. But I cannot remember the gas chambers (maybe Bob McGowan and Trowbridge H Ford (where has he gone) have seen them in their extensive travels through the occupied six counties). All calling the security forces Nazi’s does is antagonise unionists (and possibly quite a few nationalists), insult the memory of those who died under the Nazis and of course demonstrate your ignorance (probably willful) of history.Turning back to the main point there is actually a fundemental similarity between Bloody Sunday and Enniskillen - a lot of people died and some feel that what happened has not been fully investigated.
Posted by on Jun 08, 2007 @ 09:05 AMTurgon
“Billy Pilgrim- “they were feckin’ Nazis”.
I take it you do not actually mean that or maybe you (like Alex Reid etc.) are so daft you do.”Just a little poetic licence. Of course they weren’t literally Nazis. But you get my point.
“Are you deliberately trying to antagonise unionists?”
I’m expressing my feelings - feelings that would be quite commonplace within the nationalist community. And I, unlike most nationalists, had a relative in the police.
“Turning back to the main point there is actually a fundemental similarity between Bloody Sunday and Enniskillen - a lot of people died and some feel that what happened has not been fully investigated.”
Oh ffs, you can find “fundamental similarities” between virtually anything. A cat and a table both have four legs. So? The important point isn’t that there might be similarities - it’s that there are loads of dissimilarities.
However, if people want an inquiry into Enniskillen then let them campaign for one. I’d be prepared to look at their proposals with an open mind. (I’d have to warn though, that going by the experience of the Bloody Sunday families, it’ll be around the year 2025 before they get their inquiry.)
But don’t tell me how people feel. Tell me what they’re proposing.
Posted by on Jun 08, 2007 @ 05:50 PMBilly Pilgrim “Just a little poetic licence. Of course they weren’t literally Nazis. But you get my point.”
No I do not get your point. I am sorry but the concept of invoking poetic licence and calling people Nazis is a little difficult for me to grasp. So now the police and army were not Nazis but you still did not like them. How about watching that poetic licence you have effortlessly antagonised this unionist but I bet you do not care.
Posted by on Jun 08, 2007 @ 09:31 PMBilly Pilgrim - “if people want an inquiry into Enniskillen then let them campaign for one.”
What you are missing is that SF-IRA say they want to reach out the hand of friendship to Unionists. Therefore, Unionists shouldn’t have to have a long campaign to get to the truth. SF-IRA knows what happened as they were the ones doing the killing, destroying families etc. We need generosity from SF-IRA. We have to accept SF-IRA people with blood dripping from their hands in positions of power in Stormont. That’s why we need SF-IRA to be sincere and open if there is to be healing in society. The question is - do the leaders of the SF-IRA death squads really want true peace? Or do they just want an absence of ‘war’ - for now?
Posted by on Jun 08, 2007 @ 10:32 PM>>We have to accept SF-IRA people with blood dripping from their hands in positions of power in Stormont.<<
Funny not a peep is to be heard about the blood on Unionists politicians hands. If it wasn’t for the double standards you might be taken seriously. Oh and believing your own nonsense doesn’t make it so.
Posted by on Jun 08, 2007 @ 10:51 PMThe double standards are yours Prince and this wriggling whataboutery is pathetic. It’s late on a Friday night. Are you pissed?
On another thread you’re demanding that unionists enter into a “healthy” relationship with republicans. You conveniently ignore the reality of police reform, positive discrimination, the withdrawl of British troops, the saville inquiry, power sharing in place in Stormont, the release of republican prisoners, accomodations that unionists and more importantly the wider protestant community have supported.
You scoff at the very simple request that SF might offer what they demand from others; that the people who ordered, planned and executed the Enniskillen bomb might reveal and explain themselves so that, for example, the 11 children maimed by it might see who hurt them, understand their motives and maybe get some peace of mind. Those people had no interest in the release of loyalist prisoners or unionists getting ministries at Stormont - they’ve taken nothing from this process. They don’t deserve cheap quips. Why do you want to continue to persecute them?
Just what kind of “healthy” relationship do you have in mind?
Posted by on Jun 08, 2007 @ 11:19 PM>>On another thread you’re demanding that unionists enter into a “healthy” relationship with republicans. You conveniently ignore the reality of police reform, positive discrimination, the withdrawl of British troops, the saville inquiry, power sharing in place in Stormont, the release of republican prisoners, accomodations that unionists and more importantly the wider protestant community have supported.<<
Aye! when did they ever support any of this?
>>You scoff at the very simple request that SF might offer what they demand from others;<<
Sorry, but where did I scoff at anything? I’ve no problems with anyone seeking the truth about anything. Is highlighting Unionist hypocrisy on ‘bloody hands’ tantamount to being guilty of the silly accusations you are levelling at me? Your name is apt, I’m sure it is one of many!
Posted by on Jun 08, 2007 @ 11:34 PM>>On another thread you’re demanding that unionists enter into a “healthy” relationship with republicans.<<
You are not very good at explaining yourself or understanding my points, I did not and would not demand anything. I’m sure all reasonable people would agree that all sides need to re-evaluate their positions and attempt to reconcile by using various methods. In this way healthy relationships will develop, this is what I believe SF are attempting to do. Thus far there seems to be gey few Unionists willing to even accept that it’s not some underhanded fenian plot. Never mind indulge in reciprocal bridge-building.
Posted by on Jun 08, 2007 @ 11:43 PM“Is highlighting Unionist hypocrisy on ‘bloody hands’ tantamount to being guilty of the silly accusations you are levelling at me?”
Yes. You’re deliberately dragging the thread off topic and you havn’t explained your haughty “healthy relationship” line. What is the basis for this relationship? Clearly not mutual respect.
“Aye! when did they ever support any of this?”
23 May 1998? The DUP was the only main opposition and they were the minority party. They only increased their position thorugh IRA stalling on decommisioning and still they knew they had to accept power sharing to maintain the electoral support they’ve been lent in recent years.
Posted by on Jun 08, 2007 @ 11:45 PMUseless Idiot you have just couched paisleys demand for sack cloth and ashes into a less shrill and by your standards perfectly reasonable demand but get over it.
If you want an enquiry into Enniskillen then by all means demand one from your MP. It will get you exactly no where except you will hear the same bleating from the securocrats about every thing they “know”
Some how every thing they “know” is not based on hard evidence but on conjecture and here say.
Just like the Norhtern Bank robbery the securocrats will attempt to hand the IRA the shitty end of the stick with out the benefit of evidence and you will believe them because you want to believe them.The difference between Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday is that Bloody Sunday is murder by government officials, sanctioned belatedly by virtue of the most blatant of cover ups. The men who participated in the murder of the Derry teenagers can be compelled to testify by virtue of their position in power and their duty to queen and country. Every soldier has the duty to disobey any order that he knows to be illegal, so how exactly did the chain of command convince a group of squaddies to murder unarmed teenagers? Were they told their actions were sanctioned? Who set an armed group of soldiers to kill civil rights marchers? Why? You talk of Blood on hands, everybody from the lowest squaddie up the chain of command right to the prime ministers office has blood on their hands. and its their unwillingness to admit it that has turned the blood to a stain that will not wash out
The same could be said for the Enniskillen bomb, but how do you compel any one to testify against them selves. Would any evidence be reliable or would it just be conjecture? If the securocrats supplied you with a rat how could you voir dire their veracity? Would you end up confering immunity onto the guilty parties in exchange for their testimony? How would that affect their testimony?
The only way you could possibly have a fair and honest enquiry is to confer immunity on any one and every one that the IRA proposes as witnesses would this be an acceptable proposal to you?
What if the IRA demanded blanket immunity for any and all crimes they may have committed in exchange for their testimony? And would the government and loyalists really want all their skeletons revealed?
Would you really be happier knowing just how involved your own government was with the activities of the IRA and that they chose to not act on information for “security reasons”
There really is no equating Bloody Sunday with Enniskillen except to say both resulted in the murder of innocents
Posted by on Jun 08, 2007 @ 11:51 PM“get over it”.
republican outreach?
and there’s the cheap “paisley said something like it and he’s an evil bigot so you must be one too” syllogism again.
“What if the IRA demanded blanket immunity for any and all crimes they may have committed in exchange for their testimony? And would the government and loyalists really want all their skeletons revealed?”
Did you miss the GFA?? Sean Kelly is walking around free. What do the Enniskillen bombers have to fear?
SF are happy to champion restorative justice when they’re running it. What’s different here?
“There really is no equating Bloody Sunday with Enniskillen except to say both resulted in the murder of innocents”
Both the actions of armies fighting in a civil war?
Posted by on Jun 09, 2007 @ 12:12 AMand there’s the cheap “paisley said something like it and he’s an evil bigot so you must be one too” syllogism again.
Did I say that ? NO What I said was paisley said it and it didn’t work for him either so get over it
“What if the IRA demanded blanket immunity for any and all crimes they may have committed in exchange for their testimony? And would the government and loyalists really want all their skeletons revealed?”
Did you miss the GFA?? Sean Kelly is walking around free. What do the Enniskillen bombers have to fear?
Theres a big difference between those already convicted and those never indicted, you would have to confer on them the right to never be arrested or incarcerated for even 1 minute.
Both the actions of armies fighting in a civil war?
No the british never recognized it as a war or they would have treated the prisoners according to the Geneva conventions… unless you are saying that thatchers and her cabinet are war criminals? lets call Brussels, maybe she can get the same cell as MilosevichPosted by on Jun 09, 2007 @ 01:47 AM“...maybe she can get the same cell as Milosevich.”
and be joined soon by Blair and Bush? The world is changing fast and the grand old British Army tactic of shooting unarmed civilians is going out of style.
Mind you they never seem to do well when the civilians get armed and start returning fire so it’s a tactic which doesn’t even have the merit of longterm success.
The British are globally regarded as tyrants and murderers. Even a diplomat like Kofi Annan felt forced to point out in his retirement address that the Iraq adventure was a warcrime.
Bloody Sunday will go down with previous massacres by the British. The current Enquiry is simply an attempt to prevent a free Irish government from having it’s own public enquiry in a few years.
As for British inspired Holocausts? The British were more inclined to use (misuse?) natural forces whether giving blankets harbouring disease to Native Americans or causing famine in India. The Nazis were more efficient but didn’t differ in intent. They were merely modernising the methods of the British Empire as they had earlier modernised it’s racist philosophy.
Posted by on Jun 09, 2007 @ 01:49 PMIt’s clear by the comments from Sinn Fein-IRA supporters on this site that they are not interested in real peace with their Unionist neighbours. Their so-called Unionist outreach is just another game in their long and dirty little war. Sinn Fein-IRA death squads have been involved in murder, torture and ethnic cleansing. Yet, their is no humility from Sinn Fein-IRA. The Sinn Fein-IRA terrorist Deputy FM Martin ‘The Butcher’ McGuinness is not sorry about his past in the Sinn Fein-IRA death squads. No apologies to the families left behind after Sinn Fein-IRA had kicked down their doors and murdered their loved ones in front of the family. If it was a ‘war’, then Sinn Fein-IRA are ‘war’ criminals. When will Unionists get justice?
Posted by on Jun 12, 2007 @ 01:30 AM
