Danny

Newshound today has an article
by Danny Morrison in which he seems to be preparing the ground for another de facto act of surrender by the Provos. In this he talks of the murder and maiming of people at the Brighton Bombing as putting “manners on the colonial power”.

This offensive triumphalism

  • Panda

    Sounds like an Israeli General or a Hamas godfather sending in young suicide bombers to blow up women and children on buses.
    Nevertheless, I’m delighted to read that Danny will be prepared to accept any apologies from the British government.
    He should be on stage with Billy Connolly.

  • Panda

    Ambrose
    I’m glad you removed your original comment,the Israeli/palestinian situation is like NI – both sides have their evil men.

  • Davros

    I preferred the post as Ambrose’s original.

    The Provos and SF would regard being compared to the illegitemate side of the Palestinian Struggle as a compliment. After all front-men for PLO and ETA are feted at SF Ard Feisanna.

    It’s worth reminding people that armed force republicanism in Danny Morrison’s day showed the same concern for “collateral casualties” as do the Israelis whose actions SF condemn.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    “imagine if the British Government described the slaughter at Loughgall as putting manners on the IRA, or the Loyalists described the killings of various IRA members which drove SF to the negotiating table as “putting manners on Sinn F

  • Davros

    Try this one Pat – When Danny writes of Justified Wrath he is condoning horrors such as the slaughter at Greysteel in response to the Shankill bombing.

    “BTW loyalists didn’t kill that many IRA members to put manners in anyone.”

    Here are 3 in a very short space of time

    Quote
    Other portraits of dead IRA volunteers in Tirghra also contradict claims that several of the victims of loyalist terrorism were not involved in the IRA.
    They include Danny Cassidy, a 40-year-old Sinn Fein election worker shot dead by the UDA in Co Derry on 2 April, 1992.
    In the book Lost Lives, the definitive index of all the Ulster Troubles’ dead, the authors mark Cassidy as a Catholic civilian. It quotes a priest at his funeral who said: ‘[Cassidy] was killed simply because he was a Catholic.’
    But in Tirghra Cassidy is referred to as an ‘oglach’ – the Irish word for soldier and thus a Provisional IRA volunteer.
    In 1991 the UDA shot dead Padraig O’Seanachain, another Sinn Fein election worker in Co Tyrone. At O’Seanachain’s funeral, the parish priest denounced UDA claims that the murdered man was an IRA member.
    However, O’Seanachain, whose murder is the subject of demands for a public inquiry following claims of security force collusion in the killing, is also described as an ‘oglach’.
    Among several other victims of loyalist violence whose families and Sinn Fein denied had IRA involvement was Alan Lundy, 39, who was shot dead in West Belfast on 1 May, 1993. He is also described in Tirghra as ‘oglach’.

  • Beowulf

    “BTW loyalists didn’t kill that many IRA members to put manners in anyone.”

    Meeeaaoow!

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Davros,

    you can act as a quasi apologist for the UDA and UVF if you so wish, it simply makes your attempts to be the liberal unionist all the more pathetic and dishonest.
    The raison d’etre of the unionist paramilitaries was to ‘take the war’ to the IRA. While undoubtedly they killed IRA personnel the overwhelming majority of their victims were ordinary Catholics.
    For every attack on a member of the Republican Movement, there were attacks on bars, bookies and drive by shootings. It was a particular penchant of theirs up around your own turf at Coleraine.

  • Davros

    Ball not Man please Pat 🙂

    If Danny talks of Justifiable Wrath he is condoning the Loyalist “revenge killings” …mind you , remembering the infamous An Phoblacht comment post 9/11 , it’s consistent for republicanism.

  • Millie

    Israel is supposedly a democratic state so to compare them with a paramilitary group is a bit tenous.

    And interestingly the 3 loyalist hits on SF/IRA members mentioned just happened to be around the same time as the collusion scandal. Perhaps it’s an indication that loyalist gunmen were so bad at differentiating between paramilitaries and civilians that they needed help from the security forces to improve their targetting.

  • Davros

    Millie … How would you say the ratio of Loyalist terrorists killed to Civilians Killed stands for the Republican paramilitaries ?

    “Israel is supposedly a democratic state so to compare them with a paramilitary group is a bit tenous.”

    Israel took exactly the same care to avoid civilian casualties when it used a 1000 lb bomb to destroy an appartment block in order to kill one terrorist as the IRA took when it planned to kill Mad Dog in the Shankill bombing.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Davros,

    The original poster indicated that the language used by Morrisson was somehow unique to republicans. Patently false, as gloating language at the time of killings is a forte of unionists and British politicians.

    Your use of the Henry Mc Donald quote has been flogged to death on a previous thread so needs no further response.

    It is a major leap of faith to marry the quotes of Danny Morrisson to anything connected to unionist patramilitaries.

  • Davros

    “Flogged to death “- translates as Pat has to concede.

    And it’s , as ever, dishonest of you to claim that the Original poster said that Morrison’s comments were in a language somehow unique to republicans.

    “leap of Faith” ? Another piece of dissembling from Pat.

    If Morrison claims that Brighton was “justified” by wrath then he IS condoning loyalist revenge killings.

  • slackjaw

    ‘The raison d’etre of the unionist paramilitaries was to ‘take the war’ to the IRA. While undoubtedly they killed IRA personnel the overwhelming majority of their victims were ordinary Catholics.’

    Agreed. Yet the IRA knew this and continued with their campaign of violence. Ordinary Catholics took the hits. These deaths must, at some point have been perceived as justified, or at least an acceptable price to pay, else the IRA would not have continued with its campaign for as long as it did.

  • Davros

    slackjaw… don’t make the mistake of thinking the IRA gave a damn about ‘Catholics’ en masse. That’s why they killed so many of them. After 30 years An Phoblacht carried a sort of apology by the IRA for Killing a 15 year old Catholic Boy they ‘executed’ as an informer. No calls from SF into an inquiry into THAT death. In fact they were happy at Catholic deaths at Loyalist hands as it strengthened their grip on Catholic communities. As Ed Moloney points out, Adams let his area take damage from rampaging prods so as to make the people more militant.

  • Davros

    The Provos claim they defended the Catholic population from loyalists and security forces, that they were fighting for justice and equality and that by their sacrifice and heroism they have brought a United Ireland closer than anyone could have dreamed.
    But it wasn’t like that. The Provos made Ireland worse for everyone, Catholic and Protestant, nationalist and unionist, northerners and southerners, civilians and the uniformed. They even made it worse for themselves. They made it worse, not just because of all those they killed and injured and terrified and corrupted, but because everything they did sowed bitterness and mistrust.
    More than 3,600 people died during the troubles – almost 50 per cent of them at the hands of the Provos. (Other republican groups bring that tally up to almost 60 per cent.) Loyalists killed just under 30 per cent; security forces 10 per cent.
    The Provos weren’t defenders of their people. They killed five times as many republicans (162) as they did loyalists (28). Not only did they kill hundreds of Catholics, both accidentally and on purpose, but they provoked loyalist violence.
    As Malachi O’Doherty, born and brought up in West Belfast, said in The Trouble with Guns, “the Provisionals articulated not defence but defiance, and the cost of that defiance was increased casualties among the Catholic working classes”.
    Of the almost 1,100 killed by loyalists, Catholics bore the brunt. The security forces would not have been killing people had the Provos not been attacking them. The Provos bang on about Bloody Sunday year in, year out and the media exhaustively report that

  • Davros

    That was from a Sunday Independent editorial.

    The Provos weren’t defenders of their people. They killed five times as many republicans (162) as they did loyalists (28). Not only did they kill hundreds of Catholics, both accidentally and on purpose, but they provoked loyalist violence.

    and

    How many of us remember that though during the troubles they killed almost 1,800, they lost fewer than 300? That many of these were killed by their own bombs or shot as informers?

  • slackjaw

    Davros

    ‘slackjaw… don’t make the mistake of thinking the IRA gave a damn about ‘Catholics’ en masse.’

    What makes you think I do?

    By the way, what’s your e-mail address? I have something to send you.

  • Millie

    If anything the IRA’s campaign exposes the limitations of fighting a war of national liberation in a deeply divided society, based on a nationalist ideology. The divisions that had been fostered in Ireland wasn’t the Provos fault, but confined to the northern catholic ghettos militant republicanism was never going to appeal to catholics who did not experience the day-to-day harrasment and repression of the security forces, and it certainly held no appeal to Protestants.

    And loyalist reprisals in response to republican attacks on the security forces are as old as NI itself, this very tactic being widespread during the Troubles of 1920-22, and given the demographics of the north it’s a game the Provos were never going to win. At best they could create a nuisance of themselves and keep the security forces pinned down in a low war of attrition, but it was stalemate from as early as the mid-70’s, and recognised as such by the British Army top brass.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Davros,

    “Flogged to death “- translates as Pat has to concede.

    Translates as has been discussed at length and what is the point of doing so again. Especially when after a while you get cornered, turn to denial and start squealing insults.

    “And it’s , as ever, dishonest of you to claim that the Original poster said that Morrison’s comments were in a language somehow unique to republicans”

    My interpretation of the comments are just that. Re read the original post.

    “If Morrison claims that Brighton was “justified” by wrath then he IS condoning loyalist revenge killings.”

    That is just plain dumb, are you now an expert on mind reading and the thinking of Morrisson.

    “That was from a Sunday Independent editorial.”

    In the course of one thread you quote Mc Donald, O Doherty, Moloney and the Sunday Independent. A bit of pattern there. What is the common denominator?

    Read your 9.05am rant. There was you stating your admiration for Maskey , Mc Laughlin et al on previous threads and waxing lyrical about SF’s excellent policies, then you go and let the mask slip with your turgid little rant. Try and be consistent.

    “How many of us remember that though during the troubles they killed almost 1,800, they lost fewer than 300? That many of these were killed by their own bombs or shot as informers”

    Once again this contradicts one of your earlier posts (7.54 11th Oct). For goodness sake try and follow your own posts. All too reminiscent of your Mossad and CIA ramblings

  • davidbrew

    Davros
    insightful posts as always (except on the US election)

  • Davros

    “If Morrison claims that Brighton was “justified” by wrath then he IS condoning loyalist revenge killings.”

    That is just plain dumb, are you now an expert on mind reading and the thinking of Morrisson.

    It’s logic Pat.
    IF you say that being angry at something justifies counter-attacks then HOW can you condemn the Greysteel Massacre which occurred because of the Wrath of loyalists at the slaughter on the Shankill ? By YOUR logic their wrath justified the slaughter at Greysteel.

    Try and address the issues Pat.

    The IRA took very few Casualties at hands other than their own. They Killed many, many Catholics.
    Do you deny this ?
    They Killed Very, Very few Loyalist Terrorists.
    Do you deny this ?

    Your problem is that you cannot cope with anything except zero-sum thinking and the bigot mentality.

    I won’t concede that the IRA or the INLA or any of the other Republican terrorists protected the Catholic people any more than I would try to justify their equivalents in Loyalism by saying that They somehow have protected protestant people.

    Please address the an phoblacht link I provided.
    “protection” pat ?

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    “It’s logic Pat.
    IF you say that being angry at something justifies counter-attacks then HOW can you condemn the Greysteel Massacre which occurred because of the Wrath of loyalists at the slaughter on the Shankill ? By YOUR logic their wrath justified the slaughter at Greysteel.”

    I have never stated being angry at something justifies counter attacks. Where did I state this? Therefore I cannot have applied any logical argument to Greysteel. Howver on Greysteel you seem to be of the opinion that Unionist violence was somehow retaliatory. I don’t subscribe to that theory.

    “Try and address the issues Pat.”

    I will, there is no need for you to invent issues on my behalf.

    “The IRA took very few Casualties at hands other than their own.”

    I agree completely and that was the basis of my original post of 7.16pm 11/10/04. It seems you now are backtracking (again) and are agreeing with me.

    “They Killed many, many Catholics.”

    They undoubtedly did.

    “They Killed Very, Very few Loyalist Terrorists.”

    There own raison d’etre (as stated by them) was to carry a war to the British forces. Your own figures show that they succeeded in inflicting hundreds of fatalities on Crown Force personnel. They did on occasion kill leading loyalists, Mc Michael, Marchant, Bingham, Bratty. To be cynical one could say they were the lesser ‘enemy’ at that time.

    “Your problem is that you cannot cope with anything except zero-sum thinking and the bigot mentality.”

    Was that a ball or a man?

    “I won’t concede that the IRA or the INLA or any of the other Republican terrorists protected the Catholic people any more than I would try to justify their equivalents in Loyalism by saying that They somehow have protected protestant people.”

    I wasn’t aware anyone had asked you to. Why climb on a soap box to make a statement irrelevant to the thread?

    “Please address the an phoblacht link I provided.
    “protection” pat ?”

    The IRA killed a 15 yr old in 1973, does that not say it all?

  • Davros

    Pat you have been justifying Morrison’s use of the expression Justified Wrath.

    “on Greysteel you seem to be of the opinion that Unionist violence was somehow retaliatory. I don’t subscribe to that theory.”

    That has to be the oddest claim you have made.
    You deny that Greysteel was linked to the Shankill bombing ? Not a lot of point in continuing this then if you are that out of touch with reality.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    “Pat you have been justifying Morrison’s use of the expression Justified Wrath.”

    Not true, please show where I have been doing this. You seem to be inventing a position for me and then arguing from your own invented viewpoint, how strange.

    “That has to be the oddest claim you have made.
    You deny that Greysteel was linked to the Shankill bombing ?”

    To claim that unionist violence is retaliatory is the language of the sneaking regarder and apologist. The violence of unionists is driven by the selfish interests of those groups. The FRU element to unionist violence wasn’t retaliatory or indeed the importation of weapons from S Africa by British soldier Brian Nelson to facilitate that violence.
    Either you choose to kill people or you don’t, pretty basic really.

    “Not a lot of point in continuing this then if you are that out of touch with reality.”

    Translates as Davros has to concede.

  • Davros

    Not in the least Pat. If you deny that Greysteel was a result of the Shankill, I’m not wasting any more time on a fantasist who refuses to see any wrong in an organisation that kills 15 year old boys.
    You should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Davros,
    You are again inventing arguments and not for the first time have run a thread into the ground. I have exposed the fact that you have dishonestly attributed views to me and you seem oblivious to the problem you have of simply following a thread.
    You can attribute Greysteel to the IRAs’ actions. I see it as part of a wider process. To try and take the point further leads to whataboutery, something I suspect you are trying to do.
    Where did I state that there is nothing wrong with killing 15yr olds? Like a lot of other questions I put to you it will of course remain unanswered.
    With your tendency to lie and invent i’m afraid the shame is all yours.

  • Davros

    Pat, you have posted that Greysteel was not a retaliation for the Shankill bombing. Nothing more needs be said .

  • Mick Fealty

    I’m not sure where this conversation is going (though I’m also not suggested that there is a certain place it has to go).

    Can I suggest you both try to crystalise the substance of your opposing positions and see if something more concrete comes out of that?

    Otherwise, as Pat correctly notes, it hard to see the exchange rise above another several doses of serial whataboutery.

  • Davros

    There’s no whataboutery Mick 🙂
    It’s perfectly straightforward.
    I wrote that Greysteel was a result of the Shankill bombing. Pat denies this as he is unwilling to accept ANYTHING negative about the IRA.

  • Mick Fealty

    The point of discussion here is not to get people to agree with each other – but to compete with each other.

    Pat says:

    You can attribute Greysteel to the IRAs’ actions. I see it as part of a wider process.

    That looks like stalemate to me. Unless there is another more substantive point you want to make?

  • Davros

    Mick, a simple question- do YOU think that Greysteel was a direct response to the Shankill bombing?

  • Mick Fealty

    I’m not here to express my views on this or any other topic.

  • Millie

    This whataboutery can go back to the dawn of time. Greysteel was retaliation for the Shankill bombing, which itself was an attempt to wipe out the UDA leadership. In the weeks running up to the Shankill bombing catholics were being picked off left, right and centre, so much so that the Provos were under pressure to hit back in kind. So on the one hand, loyalists have never needed an excuse to kill catholics – we’ve all seen the ‘ATWD’ graffiti – so whether the Provos had bombed an army base or a shop on the Shankill we all know what was going to happen next.

    The point is, the Shankill bombing shouldn’t have happened at all because even if the Provos had suceeded in hitting the UDA, the attendant risk of civilian casualities was too great.

  • Davros

    I agree Millie, especially with your last comment.