Thursday, November 01, 2007
“will carry a black wreath with nine white lilies to remember the dead..”
The Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams may have been explaining last night why, although he was “of the view that no military solution was possible”, he felt “armed struggle” was “necessary” when he met with the Foundation4Peace, and in particular Colin Parry, as Nick Robinson records he couldn’t, or wouldn’t, answer the question - “Why Warrington?” Tomorrow will bring a reminder of other questions about elements of the struggle employed by the Provisional IRA. This time it will be the acknowledged “human rights violation” which was the deliberate abduction, murder, and secret burials of the ‘disappeared’ - for which immunity was sought, and granted, during The Process™. Relatives of those abducted and murdered will carry a black wreath with nine white lilies to Stormont to remember the dead on All Souls Day. The first step, after all.. before it’s too late..
Pete Baker @ 09:26 PM
Is today not all souls day? Nov 1st?
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 12:35 AMIf anyone knows or thinks he/she knows where peoples bodies are they should tell the relatives. as for bombings in England, Didnt the IRA try their best to avoid death and injury. Thus the warnings. If they had wanted to kill then there wouldnt have been any warnings.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 12:41 AMOf all the points to pick up on..
No. Today, 1st November, is All Saints Day/All Hallows day/Hallowmas.
Alternatively the Day of The Dead
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 12:42 AMKisdo
“Didnt the IRA try their best to avoid death and injury..”
Wrong post to posit that argument, I’d suggest..
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 12:44 AMI sincerely dont want to offend anyone Pete but there were two issues here. The apology in England and the Dissappeared. Depends on your quarter but the London bombings could be considered as a military success. The wicked killing of civilians and the secret burials was wrong and a military disaster.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 01:08 AMkisdo
And the “wicked killing of civilians and the secret burials” disproves your contention that “Didnt the IRA try their best to avoid death and injury”.
That’s where your “two issues” conflict.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 01:15 AMDidnt the IRA try their best to avoid death and injury.
Kisdo
Is that a sick joke?
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 01:15 AMI accept that there is a blatant contradiction. Again I dont want to diminish the hurt anyone felt. As a military conflict, the actions are separate. the IRA deliberately tried to kill (what they considered) specific enemy targets. They called them “legitimate targets”. A carte blanche for apologists around the world of course. Non the less That was WAR. Those civilians who were killed for whatever reason whether “legitimate” or not should never have been secretly burried, Those cililians were deliberately murdered. I believe their horrible killings were wrong. But at the time the IRA probably had no other alternative given the situation. Again I emphasis that their bodies should be found for the relatives.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 01:39 AMkisdo
“the actions are separate.”
Well, that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
The actions of the Provisional IRA - the various elements of that struggle - are not, in fact, separate.
They are different elements in a continuous campaign..
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 01:48 AMKidso
IRA gunmen board a bus, ask all Protestants to get off it, ten are gunned down and killed. Justify this.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 01:53 AMYes Pete thats right. The actions were separate . distinct. Two separate elements of the same military campaign in a war against brutal british occupation. If they are different elements then they are separate elements. Thats logic.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 01:56 AMI cant justify something that was inherently wrong Outsider. Didnt the IRA deny that massacre? Doesnt matter, most people think they did it. If they did they were wrong to do so. Whoever did it (maybe directed by MI5 or something) may have thought it would put a stop to the brutal British war campaign here. You know the indiscriminate killing of Nationalists / Catholics / Republicans.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 02:02 AM“Two separate elements of the same military campaign”, kisdo.
Work that logic through.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 02:04 AMPete You are a human,... I am a human…. we are both human living in a world of humanity. ...You are not me and I am not you. One military campaign. two SEPARATE elements. two issues two discussions.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 02:12 AMAs you said, kisdo..
“the same military campaign..”
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 02:24 AM“Didnt the IRA try their best to avoid death and injury”
The best way to avoid death and injury would have been not to plant bombs. “Why Warrington?” is the most simply put and important question Colin Parry could have chosen to start with. Of course, the base answer is straightforward—terror—Boots and Argos are, by no stretch of the imagination, military targets.
The sad conclusion that takes the shine off the Peace Process is that all the killing and maiming and terror over all those years, from all sides, really was for nothing.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 04:00 AMKisdo,
You’re making too much sense, perhaps that’s what some on this board have a problem with.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 04:15 AMThe provos normally like to make an issue about lilies at Stormont.On this occasion it is one lily for each victim.I guess they would like to forget about the victims.I wonder if they had to wear a lily for each victim that they murdered-they probably could not fit them all on to those nice armani suits.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 08:01 AMKisdo -they din’t want the bodies found because a post mortem would have shown how brutally these men were tortured to get a taped confession of their so called informer status-prior to murdering these men,if I was getting my hands nailed to a floor I would probably confess to anything.But now we know who at least some of the informers were and they were members of these , wnat the provos called “nutting squads”
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 08:10 AMNow, now, let’s not argue with Kidso. His hermeneutical musings are, after all, watertight: ‘the bad stuff the Provos did was bad, but the good stuff the Provos did was good’. That he sees their, uh, ‘good’ deeds as including murders conducted in pursuit of that valiant war of theirs, well, who’s to disagree with him? Other than them - the Provos - obviously - given that they whined and cried at every turn, if anyone waged ‘war’ right back at them (which generally isn’t the behaviour of an ‘army’ engaged in a ‘war’, but there we are). Oh and then there’s the Catholic church, which has had quite a long history of pronoucing on what’s ‘war’ and what’s not (hint Kidso, the silly old Pope in Rome, and his sundry agents over here, thought that it was ‘murder’, not ‘war’, but there we go). And then there was the British government, and the Irish government, and the American, and every European one you could name, and the protestant churches, and the Unionist parties, and the Alliance, and the SDLP, and all the Southern political parties, and by strange, conspiratorial ‘coincidence’, whadya know Kidso, they *all* said it was ‘murder’, not ‘war’ too. In fact, the only people who said that the Provos were engaged in ‘war’ rather ‘murder’ were the Provos and their weird, deluded supporters. So there we have it: bad people doing bad things and fibbing about them vs. Everyone Else. Who can possibly be right?
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 10:34 AM“That was WAR.”
Adams and co. should thank their lucky stars that it was never defined as a “war” by anybody who mattered.
The war crimes tribunals would still be going, if it had - now that’s the sort of “truth process” most people would like to see.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 10:44 AMexcellent point penguin.
gerry adams’ comments expose the pointlessness of the ira ‘campaign’ yet again. it fed merely on pure hatred of all things british, rather than any longing for a better ireland. now it is confirmed, if we didn’t know it already, that ira men and women obviously didn’t even believe a better ireland could be acheived through violence but hey, why let that stand in the way of the bloodthirst?
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 11:44 AMGrowing up in West Belfast pre-troubles, I experienced state discrimination. I expected change given all the signs, but was horrified at the Provos campaign. To me it was a force in opposition to what the civil rights campaign was about. I like to think that as sensitivities return to ‘normal’ in NI, and as the walking wounded find their voices, those responsible will feel some sense of shame.
On a related matter, am I alone in feeling sickened at images of the Parrys and Adams in Warrington…despite the positive spin?Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 11:44 AMGranni Trixie
No you’re certainly not alone, by any stretch.
Looking at that cold-eyed reptile posing with those decent people, for me it was as though EXPLOITATION was flashing above their heads in bright neon lights.
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 11:55 AM“two SEPARATE elements. two issues two discussions.”
Hmmmmm…
My right hand doesn’t know what my left hand does.
But I know what both of them get up to.
Now imagine my left hand is the ‘bad’ IRA, and my right hand is the ‘good’ IRA, and I’m the Army Council…...
Posted by on Nov 02, 2007 @ 12:02 PM
