Monday, February 25, 2008
McCann, Donaldson, Farrell and the SAS
I have blogged previously about the attempt by Sinn Fein MLA Jennifer McCann to have an event to commemorate / celebrate Mairead Farrell under the disguise of International Women’s Day. Jeffrey Donaldson has proposed an event at Stormont to honour the SAS. On the DUP website he criticises the planned SF event and says of the planned DUP event:
“However it is right and proper that we should celebrate and commemorate our armed forces who stood against terrorists such as Farrell. Many of these men and women gave their life to defend our democratic rights and oppose those who sought to take our rights away. I personally was inspired by our soldiers who stood against terrorism to the extent where I joined the Ulster Defence Regiment.
This initial event will be an opportunity to pay tribute to those SAS men and women who protected Northern Ireland from the evil hands of terrorists. But, over the coming months the DUP will be seeking to invite other representatives of the armed forces to Stormont where we can make presentations to former soldiers in admiration of their sacrifice for our Province.”
Dr. Paisley himself led a party delegation to see the speaker in order to try to stop the planned SF event which is now (according to the BBC) to be considered by the commission which runs events at Stormont.
Somewhat surprisingly, however, in the Belfast Telegraph it has been suggested that Jeffrey Donaldson will not proceed with his plan if SF calls off the Farrell celebration. This seems extremely foolish from the former UDR man as he could easily be perceived to be equating SF’s celebration of a convicted terrorist with that of an event to thank those who helped prevent terrorism. This possibility of some sort of “tit for tat” event and “tit for tat” withdrawal of events seems degrading to the memory and sacrifice of the security forces in their attempts to stop terrorists.
Turgon @ 03:18 PM
Pancho
Maybe you could give a definition of terrorism that includes a States operation within its own territory (Northern Ireland if you please) as terrorist activity?
Whether you regard the ‘brits’ as occupiers is neither here nor there. Northern Ireland is part of the UK and as such the army cannot be classed as terrorists. Unfortunately when a states forces are operating in counter-terrorism innocent lives will be lost - especially if you are talking about a 30 year conflict. Its good to see that you mentioned court decisions - because unlike terrorist organisations such as the PIRA or UVF the British Army can be held to account for their actions.
The war against Hitler and the blanket bombing of Dresden cannot be compared in any way to the Northern Ireland situation. First and most importantly it is because the war was fought between states and Dresden was in response to blanket bombings of mainland Britain; this doesn’t make it justified but it was viewed as necessary.
Unfortunately your “view” is not based on legal context or facts. At best it is based on emotive reaction; at worst on sheer ignorance.
Posted by on Feb 26, 2008 @ 09:31 PMIgnited, my definition of terrorism is one group putting terror into the heart of another group. Now should those putting the terror be Nazis (a legitimate state) or Al Qaeda (a stateless group)the terror is no less real.It is especially distasteful when the terror emanates from the state ‘to it’s own citizens’!Northern Ireland is part of the UK only by dint of superior force and it is not my intention to disagree with you except on one point. The war against the Nazis was right, the bombing of Dresden was wrong.I only mentioned the court decision to demonstrate the kind of treatment that all occupied people can expect from their occupiers.
Posted by on Feb 26, 2008 @ 10:01 PMAll I’m asking you to accept,Ignited, is that some people hold different views to you and that they are entitled to hold these views. In your opinion, these views are wrong and are emotion-based and ignorant but other people don’t share YOUR views. Oíche mhaith.
Posted by on Feb 26, 2008 @ 10:28 PMPH
There is a difference between what happened to Patrick McElhone and Gibraltar - those who carried out the interrogation and killing of Patrick McElhone for which no-one has ever been convicted but which despite the protestations of it havin been accidental certainly has more than a whiff of murder about it - were members of the security forces who with notable but particularly relatively speaking a very small number of exceptions operated within the law of the land and international law. Undoubtedly some were terrorists and frankly Patrick McElhone’s case is not the best example of this - as an Ahoghill resident and long time poltical adversary of the PUP expecially in Ballymena I am more inclined to cite William Strathearn Lost Lives 1918. But the fact is that only a relatively small number of memebers of the security forces were involved in a relatively small number of incidents and that the ethos of the security forces was to operate within the rule of law and many of those who ignored this were caught and tried.
By contrast the whole raison d’etre of Republican and Loyalist terrorist was to overthrow the rule of law they didn;t even oberve the rules of war when doing so - you can’t compare the few rotten apples in the barrel with the barrels of rotten oranges although it has to be accepted that there were some rotten apples.
Posted by on Feb 26, 2008 @ 11:04 PMGood Grief
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BOW20050923&articleId=990
If there was nothing to the claims then why were they sprung from jail, Wild West style?
As English friends have pointed out to me, if the historical roles between the two islands were reversed the Irish would have been up to the same tricks, and in truth I have been unable to get up on a high horse on that one.
DM
Not covered in mainstream media? This is the same mainstream media that claimed there were WMD in Iraq? Still waiting for those to surface.
Posted by on Feb 26, 2008 @ 11:28 PMIt was well predicted that relations between the DUP and SF would sour in the run-up to the May target for justice devolution.
And right on cue, Marty McG recalls wanting to kill soldiers while one of the drones decides to poke the DUPes with a stick in the shape of Farrell’s commemoration in Stormont.
After the worrisome anti-Chuckle Brother vote in Dromore, some in the DUP were seen raising their eyes to Heaven and quietly mouthing ‘Thank you Mairead’ when they heard Jennifer McCann’s statement. It must have been like manna for the DUP.
Maybe this is the new collusion?! “Here Marty, the party’s a bit worried about us getting to close. You couldn’t organise something we can have a kneejerk reaction to?”
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 12:55 AMWilde Rover - sprung from jail because they were special forces troops caught and handed over from the police to the local militia - their lives were clearly in danger.
Wilde Rover - I was simply quoting two independent news sources, neither of which mentioned explosives in the car. Indeed Al Jazeera broadcast footage of the car´s captured contents, minus the explosives you mention. Indeed the link you proved again provides no credible evidence to support this claim - simply ´according to reports´.
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 05:34 AMIgnited
You talk rot. Have you see taxi to the dark Side? it won an Oscar for a documentary this year. All about the brits and Yanks torturing and killing Muslims in the name of Jesus and democracy. What you don’t get is the so called UK and US are terrorist states, rogue regimes run by psychos for psychos. History bears that out.
The SAS is a terrorist institution, the armed wing of ther Labour Party. Maybe they whacked Diana too. Farrell lived like a dog and died like one. Nothing to remember there. Maybe commemorate her with a urinal.Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 06:40 AMPancho’s Horse
The soldiers who murdered Patrick McElhone were terrorists.
Even if that were so, it doesn’t justify Mairead Farrell’s attempt at mass murder, nor turn her into a hero.
… in illegal occupation of other people’s land.
There was no “illegal occupation”.
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 09:25 AMDM
“Indeed the link you proved again provides no credible evidence to support this claim - simply ´according to reports´”.
Maybe you’re right. Maybe these guys are noble and true and the Arabs have just taken to blowing the crap out of each others markets and mosques because they are just plain nuts.
Shame on Jeffrey Donaldson for not being more patriotic.
Perhaps there should be a thread on how he should be compelled by his constituents to go out to Basra and demand the locals erect a statue to these noble defenders of freedom so that they may redeem themselves from the insane islamofascism that they find themselves mired in.
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 10:47 AMWhat on earth has this got to do with Iraq?
Clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to defend the would-be Gibraltar bombers?
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 11:08 AMWas reading Deveport there. He reckons unionists have the numbers on the Assembly Commission to kick this out tomorrow.
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 11:43 AMWilde Rover - I doubt it. More likely they were on their way to top some insurgent or other. A whole other can of worms of course, but there’s a world of a difference between that and blowing up a market full of civilians.
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 11:53 AMWillowfield,
Perhaps you’re right. How about a reference to Omagh?
No attempt to defend anyone by the way. The move by the Shinners seems bizarre more than anything else.
Both celebrations could be described as morbid glorification of death squads.
DM
An insurgent is someone who rises in forcible opposition to a lawful authority. I wasn’t aware that imperial storm troopers were a lawful authority in the region, unless you’re referring to the “Might is Right” kind of law.
Still, a very petty, horrible part of me is quite glad that the Circus of Death has moved from the Emerald Isle to more distant shores.
Whenever people bemoan the lack of resources on the island I always think of Kruger’s warning when gold was discovered in the Transvaal: “this gold will cause our land to be soaked in blood.”
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 01:15 PMPerhaps you’re right. How about a reference to Omagh?
I’m afraid the above makes no sense to me. What about a reference to Omagh??
Both celebrations could be described as morbid glorification of death squads.
With the rather significant difference between the two being that the SAS was and is a lawful and legitimate unit of the legitimate armed forces of a democratic and legitimate state; whereas the PIRA was an illegal and illegitimate terrorist organisation.
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 01:18 PMWilde Rover - the term was used for want of a better one. Perhaps ‘local militia commander’ would suit you better. Semantics aside, the point remains.
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 01:41 PMas i said in my last post, i wouldnt be surprised if this is 2 hardline parties helping each other out to try and save face in front of thier supporters!
it is as simple as that!
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 01:56 PMWillowfield
With the rather significant difference between the two being that the SAS was and is a lawful and legitimate unit of the legitimate armed forces of a democratic and legitimate state;When they willfully commit murder both of parts of your statements become false and they become terrorists working for a rogue state. Just like the KGB under Stalin
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 01:56 PMWhen they willfully commit murder both of parts of your statements become false and they become terrorists working for a rogue state.
No they don’t. If a member of the SAS committed murder it would not make the SAS either unlawful or illegitimate, nor would the SAS cease to be a unit of the legitimate armed forces of a democratic and legitimate state.
Just like the KGB under Stalin
It wouldn’t: the KGB was not part of a legitimate democratic state: on the contrary, it was an instrument of an illegitimate terror state.
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 02:00 PMMy statement stands by your own measure then Willow
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 02:19 PMIt doesn’t: read my 3.00pm again.
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 02:33 PMread my 3:19 it does
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 02:40 PMYour 3.19 is simply a restatement of your 2.56, which was refuted by my 3.00.
If you can’t argue your point, just say so.
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 02:42 PMyour 3:00
It wouldn’t: the KGB was not part of a legitimate democratic state: on the contrary, it was an instrument of an illegitimate terror statemy 3:19
My statement stands by your own measure then WillowPosted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 02:50 PMYou’ve just restated your 3.19: that didn’t amount to an argument.
If you want to engage in discussion, you need to make arguments and back them up.
Posted by on Feb 27, 2008 @ 02:58 PM
