Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Enniskillen and appeasement
Peter Taylor’s programme on the Eskund and Enniskillen has just been aired on the BBC. I will not go over the events in detail save to say that it made this grown man, who is not unacquainted with death, cry. What I found interesting and disgusting in equal measure is the way in which this programme propagated the revisionist narrative which is now prominent regarding the IRA and the Troubles.
Taylor, an experienced journalist regarding Northern Ireland made some claims which can only be seen as lies. He commented on his surprise at the Enniskillen massacre stating that the “IRA did not target civilians”. Such a falsehood cannot be allowed to stand. I could spend the rest of the night blogging on the civilians the IRA had murdered before this event, let us mention merely the La Mon, Kingsmills and Darkley massacres and move on. It is also worth mentioning that Taylor discusses the attempted murders of the BB and GB at Tullyhommon and his interviewee states that the IRA regarded them as legitimate targets as they were part of the “community in Fermanagh” and we all know that that is true and exactly what it means. Mention is also made that that was a command wire device which would have meant that an IRA “volunteer” would have stood and pressed a button whilst watching to see the BB and GB children die.
To try to justify the moral surrender to murderers that has subsequently happened here in Northern Ireland there is a need to justify the revisionist narrative. That narrative is that the IRA leaders and specifically Gerry Adams (and possibly to a lesser extent) Martin McGuinness realised after Enniskillen that there was a need for peace and then began a process to bring that about.
Of course we know that this was abject nonsense, though of course it is not merely nonsense it is actually a monstrous lie. Enniskillen was a terrible embarrassment but it did not stop extremely frequent murders of civilians subsequently. So why this need to have the narrative? A few reasons come quickly to mind; I am sure others will add more.
Firstly the need to excuse those who later entreated with the leaders of these murderers, let the murderers out of prison and essentially ensured that no one will ever be pursued for the Enniskillen atrocity or the very many other unsolved crimes.
Secondly to make people feel that the perpetrators of that act and their leaders were jolted into some sort of decency, helping to justify the moral gymnastics of their appeasers above.
Thirdly to try to make some good come out of evil. There was good as I have said before: That was Gordon Wilson’s appeal for no retaliation, Noreen Hill’s devotion to the oft forgotten 12th murder victim Ronnie Hill. People want to see some good: it helps with the two issues above.
Fourthly I would suggest that this is in part people saying that the IRA were different to the like of current so called Muslim terrorists as they (the IRA) would not have done the likes of 9/11 and the July London bombings. We know of course that the IRA would have and did relatively similar things. It is important, however, for the appeasers to feel that the IRA were somehow different terrorists to the Al Qaeda terrorists as that explains giving Adams and co some of what they wanted and not doing so with Bin laden.
Finally of course some of the appeasers may be quietly preparing for the day (it may already be happening) when the likes of Bin Laden or his successors are entreated with, welcomed and their rehabilitation begun.
Those who died at Enniskillen died to satisfy the bigoted murderous blood lust of Adams and McGuinness coupled with their warped sense of a revolution and the same perversions in their friends and helpers. Those who died at 9/11 did so to satisfy the same emotions from Bin Laden and his cohorts. Both groups of victims are equally blameless, both groups of perpetrators equally guilty. The only question is how long the appeasers will pretend that they see a difference.
Turgon @ 09:38 PM
Small correction to your rant, O Turgon. La Mon was a mistake in the sense that the bomb was set on the wrong night and the Provisional Alliance have never accepted/claimed responsibility for Kingsmills or Darkley. I know this doesn’t alter the thrust of your argument but try to stick to facts.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 09:50 PMOh the wrong night Pancho’s Horse. Indeed and who told us that and what credence should we give to them? And they did not accept / claim responsibility: so who did it then? Oh yes the Catholic Reaction Force or whoever.
I have often given you (and will continue to give you) the credit of not being a mindless cheerleader. If you want to keep such credit, I counsel that you avoid the most perverse of spinning weasel words and lies.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 09:55 PMPancho’s Horse-
Stalin never claimed responsibility for the purges. I suppose by your estimation he was a great lad then :s
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 09:56 PMPancho’s Horse,
In what sense what the La Mon bomb set on the wrong night? I’ve never heard that before. What night was it supposed to be set and who were the targets? If a military or police one, why the warning?
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 09:58 PMEl Mat,
No need to drag Uncle Joe into such bad company. Especially when he gave numerous statements explaining the need for purging Trotskyist and other subversive groups.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:01 PMThe Tullyhommon bomb wasnt meant for the rememberance day. It was meant for a british army patrol and had been in place for some time (days, maybe as long as a week) beforehand but failed to explode. It was the security operation before the rememberance day ceremony that discovered the device
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:05 PMThank you, O Turgon, for your kind remarks but suffice it to say that ‘all will out’ someday.Why do you believe that a device was found at Tullyhommon or that Enniskillen was not a radio device set off in an army ‘sweep’? Both sides are capable of telling lies and double bluffs and both sides have done it. So you pick your liars and I’ll pick mine.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:09 PMGaribaldy, RUC were targets and bomb was day early ....... allegedly.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:13 PMThanks for the info.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:15 PMEnniskillen and other brutal and unforgivable acts litter our history. None of them truly understood by anyone but the victims. But this partial, though heart-felt blog, is still just hate filled and spittle flecked anger over one kind of victimhood and absolutely ignoring what the programme was saying/revealing about causes
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:17 PMTurgon - “Those who died at Enniskillen died to satisfy the bigoted murderous blood lust of Adams and McGuinness coupled with their warped sense of a revolution and the same perversions in their friends and helpers.”
Well said Turgon. As shown in the programme, McGuinness said in 1985:
“We don’t believe that winning elections and winning any amount of votes will bring freedom to Ireland - at the end of the day it will be the cutting edge of the IRA that will bring freedom”.It would be nice if the Deputy First Minister of a UK Assembly had it in him to apologise for his role in the Sinn Fein PIRA death squads. However, this appears not to be the case.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:19 PMbtw: I couldn’t call you a liar in the comment section and I wouldn’t do it in the top line but notice how you get away with calling Taylor a liar in your blog. You get away with stuff none of the rest of us would consider. Stuff that would be deleted if it was a comment.......
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:31 PMPH,
Surely the significance of the Enniskillen bomb is where it was placed, who placed it and destruction it wrought, rather what actually triggered it?
Intriguing contribution from PL.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:32 PMMr. McGregor,
Did the IRA target civilians before Enniskillen? Did they do so afterwards? Simple questions.Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:38 PMI think Mick is right to say that it doesn’t matter what triggered the explosion. The facts are that it was placed there with a callous disregard for civilian - and in the context obviously protestant and unionist - lives. In other words, even if the civilians were not the targets, they were seen as acceptable losses given their religion. The same mindset led to the casulties of the Shankill bombing in 1993, and other deaths before and after Enniskillen. And in this willingness to sacrifice protestant lives to get at the RUC in a way that would never have been done with catholic ones, the inherent sectarianism of Provisionalism, and the futility of their campaign in terms of uniting the people of Ireland, stands naked.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:38 PMIt seems that Sinn Fein/IRA apologists will say and blog anything to rewrite history.
No doubt the next thing they will try and tell us is that Robert McCartney committed suicide by falling onto the knife and disembowelling himself and they cleaned up the mess in case of blood infection of the investigating police officers!!!
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:57 PMIt seems that Sinn Fein/IRA apologists will say and blog anything to rewrite history.
No doubt the next thing they will try and tell us is that Robert McCartney committed suicide by falling onto the knife and disembowelling himself and they cleaned up the mess in case of blood infection of the investigating police officers!!!
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:57 PMI think Mick is right to say that it doesn’t matter what triggered the explosion. The facts are that it was placed there with a callous disregard for civilian - and in the context obviously protestant and unionist - lives. In other words, even if the civilians were not the targets, they were seen as acceptable losses given their religion. The same mindset led to the casulties of the Shankill bombing in 1993, and other deaths before and after Enniskillen. And in this willingness to sacrifice protestant lives to get at the RUC in a way that would never have been done with catholic ones, the inherent sectarianism of Provisionalism, and the futility of their campaign in terms of uniting the people of Ireland, stands naked.
A big part of the difference in the rates of civilians killed by Republicans versus Loyalists was opportunity. I’m sure in the context of a united Ireland without consent the UVF / UFF would have had a much higher proportion of Gardai and Irish Defence Force soldiers on their Sutton rota of death, oh, and with a few civilian taigs as a “collateral” side dish like the IRA. Better for propaganda purposes and if they’re there then why not?
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:58 PMPancho’s horse,
The technology of the time ,electronic counter measures ,did not work in a way that would set anything off -it would be too dangerous for the operator of the ECM.There were two basic types of ECM ,detectors and jammers that operated against remote control IEDs(improvised explosive devices),different pieces of equipment worked on different bandwidths.The detectors(stripe,tonic and joker)detected minute amounts of radiation from the antenna of a device,a series of template drills were then used to triangulate the position of a device.The jammers (chimp and sifter)jammed every signal within a certain radius.
I’m afraid you probably wont believe this ,but it is the truth.The IRA achieved exactly what it set out to achieve and created it’s very own bloody Sunday.Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 10:58 PM‘Kingsmills and Darkley massacres and move on’
Turgon it seems if anything can readily be blamed on the IRA you are more than willing to do so. I suppose you think it is just a coincidence of astronomical proportions that the leader of the Miami showband massacre spoke with an english accent, as, funnily enough, did the leader of Kingsmill, as was reported by the respective survivors of each atrocity. Now do me a favour, go away and read about your beloved british Army and thier tactics employed inother colonial wars, paying particular close attention to General Kitson and the tactics he developed (psuedo gangs etc). Do not cod yourself Turgon into thinking the britis would never employ such tactics in Ireland. Wise up man.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 11:12 PMRS,
Never heard anything about an English accent at Kingsmill, and I’ve seen an interview with a survivor. Can you say where you heard or read that? It seems more naive to me to suggest that the Provos did not have the capacity to carry out Kingsmill given the large number of sectarian murders they were carrying out in 1974-5 across NI.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 11:19 PMGari, its well documented, and it seems naive to me for people to believe the British are not capable of such things. I remember reading a report a while ago of two SAS men arrested somewhere in Iraq in traditional dress and a bagful of explosives. So they might still be at it. it seems to have worked for them in the north, why stop.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 11:30 PMWell documented where?
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 11:37 PMI have no problem believing in dirty tricks, especially in the early days of the Troubles (or for that matter in Iraq). After all, the Provisionals themselves emerged partly as a FF-sponsored counter-gang. However, there is more than enough evidence that the Provos were capable of such sectarian barbarity, and they were providing frequent evidence of it around that time. And as I say, I’ve never read or heard that version, and certainly don’t remember that survivor (one of the Catholics told to run off) mentioning it. Regardless of that point about the accent, on what grounds should we assume it is more likely that it was the British that carried out Kingsmill rather than the Provos? There are several examples of people with English accents being in the Provos - not least their first chief of staff - who was himself a bitter sectarian extremist.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 11:41 PMso you like Turgon believe in astronomical coincidences. Fair enough.
‘However, there is more than enough evidence that the Provos were capable of such sectarian barbarity’
Ditto for the ‘noble’ British army.
Posted by on Apr 22, 2008 @ 11:45 PM
