[Artical] 'Irish have taken the point': British envoy on Dublin bombs

monument

'Irish have taken the point': British envoy on Dublin bombs

02 January 2005 By Rory Rapple

“I think the Irish have taken the point.” That was how the then British Ambassador to Ireland, Sir Arthur Galsworthy, responded to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of May 17, 1974.

Analysing the Irish reaction to the atrocity, he noted that “there is no sign of any general anti-Northern Protestant reaction'‘, adding that “the predictable attempt by the IRA to pin the blame on the British (British agents, the SAS, etc) has made no headway at all'‘.

....

The ambassador later wrote: “It is only now that the South has experienced violence that they are reacting in the way that the North has sought for so long.”

Despite these feelings of schadenfreude, he told the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) that “it would be. . . a psychological mistake for us to rub this point in . . . I think the Irish have taken the point'‘.

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS%20FEATURES-qqqs=news-qqqid=1281-qqqx=1.asp

It was awful nice of them to make the point, wasn’t it?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Trojan

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

"point" apparently. Six times, just so we don't miss it. I wish he made one though.

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I presume that the British were involved (in some guise) with the Dublin & Monaghan bombings. This is a well known rumour/conspiracy/fact/point (delete as appropriate).

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I presume that the British were involved (in some guise) with the Dublin & Monaghan bombings. This is a well known rumour/conspiracy/fact/point (delete as appropriate).

A loyalist terror group / individual could well describe themselves as British.
Well done, Dub in Glasgow. However, unlike the Dublin Govt. in that era
( Haughey, Blaney, the arms trial etc smuggling guns to the IRA ), there is absolutely no proof or indication that the British government had anything to do with the Dublin + Monaghan bombings.

arcadegame2004

Quite a sinister thing for the Ambassador to say, methinks. Highly suggestive too. Don't bet on every finding out the truth behind this in our lifetime though. The truth is probably hidden in some files concealed under the 75 year, 100 year or whatever rules.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

A loyalist terror group / individual could well describe themselves as British.
Well done, Dub in Glasgow. However, unlike the Dublin Govt. in that era
( Haughey, Blaney, the arms trial etc smuggling guns to the IRA ), there is absolutely no proof or indication that the British government had anything to do with the Dublin + Monaghan bombings.

You must have been asleep with all the speculation and allegations of British military collusion into the bombings.

Article by Don Mullin

Looks like we will never truely know.

true

No, I was not asleep, but this is all it was , quote " speculation and allegations ". We have come to expect quite a lot of speculation and allegations from Sinn Fein and their supporters over the years. It is a bit predictable, and sad when they never offer up "speculation and allegations" on incidents which do not suit them e.g. certain republican terrorist attrocities.

Big Ears

Thier obviously not going to go out and link themselves to terrorist activities that people weren't aware they were involved in , or to admit to terrorist activities that people were suspicious about . It dosen't exactly game supporters .

true

Big Ears wrote:

Thier obviously not going to go out and link themselves to terrorist activities that people weren't aware they were involved in , or to admit to terrorist activities that people were suspicious about . It dosen't exactly game supporters .

Exactly. Sinn Fein would not be half as quick to speculate and allege collusion in incidents they or their members may have been involved in , such as the Stormont spying incident , the break in at Gough barracks, the murder of the RUC men returning north after a meeting with the Gardai in Dundalk, the murder of the Northern judge and his wife returning north from the Republic etc. No, No, the only collusion that could ever have happened is by the British. They are to blame for everything.

monument

No, I don’t think so, as far as I know a lot of republicans don’t like the "Free State" (sic), most of the political parties, the Irish Army, Ireland’s police force etc… so I cant see how “they are to blame for everything” could stand.

Old British goverments are to blame for a lot of problems in the world today, but that’s to be expected with the kind of empire they built and ran – not something you can exactly blame the current UK government for.

However, their current so-called “liberation” attempt, along with the clamp down on civil liberties on their own people, doesn’t really inspire confidence that they’ve changed their ways.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

No, I was not asleep, but this is all it was , quote " speculation and allegations ".

No indication of it then ???

We have come to expect quite a lot of speculation and allegations from Sinn Fein and their supporters over the years.

Have you really? What if it was not from a Republican source? Would you believe it or would you dismiss it as you normally do??

It is a bit predictable, and sad when they never offer up "speculation and allegations" on incidents which do not suit them e.g. certain republican terrorist attrocities.

I find it very predicable and sad that people like you never offer anything other than the British official side.

true

Sorry Sunshine, I do not just offer "anything but the British official side", I offer the Irish side. Unlike you, I live in Ireland. If anyone is likely to have a British side ( not that there is anything wrong with that ), it is someone who lives there like you, now that you mention it.

Just because I tell the truth as well and you do not like it, that is your problem.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Sorry Sunshine, I do not just offer "anything but the British official side", I offer the Irish side. Unlike you, I live in Ireland. If anyone is likely to have a British side ( not that there is anything wrong with that ), it is someone who lives there like you, now that you mention it.

Just because I tell the truth as well and you do not like it, that is your problem.

Here we go again, have you got some sort of problem with me currently living in the UK as you seem to mention it each time the discussion is not going your way

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Here we go again, have you got some sort of problem with me currently living in the UK as you seem to mention it each time the discussion is not going your way

No on both counts. I do not have a problem with you currently living in the UK
Regarding your assesement of the direction of the discussion, I disagree with you there also.

You said that I offer nothing but the British official side : this is a bit rich as I am Irish and relatively neutral. You, on the other side, seem to offer nothing but the IRA official side.

A Dub in Glasgo

I find it strange that a neutral, with an obvious interest in NI, would not have heard about the strong rumours/suggestions/indications/speculation/evidence that the British military were involved in the Dublin & Monaghan bombings. Then when that neutral person hears for the first time that there is a possibility of involvement ignores it and claims the people raising the issue are trying to smear the good name of the British Government!!

true

You have twisted what I said yet again. You say I have not heard about the rumours and speculation re the Dublin and Monaghan bombings....if you take the time to read the above posts you will read that I am aware of these rumours and speculation. However, there are a lot stronger rumours and speculation about other matters , rumours and speculation which Sinn Fein / IRA dismiss out of hand. Which do you believe ? Do you believe all the rumours and speculation ? Only if its peddled by nationalists ? Do you not treat every speculation with a question mark until there is evidence? Mr. Dub in Glasgow, I think you have green tinted glasses. Janey Mac !

A Dub in Glasgo

there is absolutely no proof or indication that the British government had anything to do with the Dublin + Monaghan bombings.

There are plenty of questions to be answered about who was really behind the bombings. Plenty to indicate British military involvement. You have stated there is no proof or indication which pointed, to me, that you were not familiar with the speculation.

true

Eleven posts ago I wrote I was aware of the speculation. That is all it is : speculation from certain quarters. There is no proof of British military involvement. There is nothing to indicate British Military were definitely involved. As you say, there are plenty of questions. At one stage, there was some speculation it was republicans who were behind it, in order to up the temperature in the North a bit and help recruit more "volunteers". Who knows for sure? I do not , and unless you have inside information, neither do you. All I know is that planting ALL bombs is barbaric, would you not agree? Or would you have to rule out Warrington , Le Mons, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, etc etc.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Who knows for sure? I do not , and unless you have inside information, neither do you.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2238193&postcount=7

The last sentence

true

Well, Dub in Glasgow, your link is post no. 7. That, combined with my post no. 8, just go to reinforce everything I just said. At the bootom of your link, you say "Looks like we will never truly know" ( presumably who carried out these particular bombings ).

Perhaps you would answer the question at the bottom of my last post:

All I know is that planting ALL bombs is barbaric, would you not agree? Or would you have to rule out Warrington , Le Mons, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, etc etc.

A Dub in Glasgo

I would agree. If you were here during the blood lust of Falluja, you will have seen many people on here justify bombings and killings.

The problem is that the majority of people agree with bombings and killlings when it suits their political outlook. There are very few people who are pacifists. This makes the ranting and raving of people who are trying to take a moral high ground about violence from one source but agree with it from another source hard to stomach.

true

So I take it you would condemn the likes of the Warrington, Le Mons, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen just as much as any other bombs ? Good.

Re your comment regarding pacifists , it is important to understand a person can condemn terrorist bombs as above and yet reserve the right to support governments to use bombs via its soldiers / airmen in uniform, behaving according to the rules of the geneva convention, during war,when war is declared by one country upon another. Not a bunch of terrorists upon a country. No ifs or buts.

A Dub in Glasgo

There is always an if or a but

I do not agree with violence but.......

true

There may always be an if or a but from you , Dub in Glasgow, but not from someone who abide by the rules of the Geneva convention.

There is a difference between violence ( as in terrorist bombs by minority terror groups ) and bombs in wartime between countries at war.

cdebru

true wrote:

There may always be an if or a but from you , Dub in Glasgow, but not from someone who abide by the rules of the Geneva convention.

There is a difference between violence ( as in terrorist bombs by minority terror groups ) and bombs in wartime between countries at war.

yes I'm sure the people killed by them feel much better knowing it was between countries

cdebru

I think it was pure coincidence that the loyalist discovered how to make massive car bombs plant them in dublin and monaghan
and then promptly forgot how they had achieved this and never managed to repeat this or anything like this again.
of course maybe we had gotten the point

monument

true wrote:

There may always be an if or a but from you , Dub in Glasgow, but not from someone who abide by the rules of the Geneva convention.

“of the Geneva convention”… so that excludes the British government. Unless you have the twisted version where you can lock people up indefinitely with out a proper trial, as they are currently doing in the UK?

true wrote:

There is a difference between violence ( as in terrorist bombs by minority terror groups ) and bombs in wartime between countries at war.

No, there is not when both kill innocent civilians.

Actually, sometimes there is a difference, in your “wartime between countries at war” option of butchering a lot more innocent civilians are usually killed – often for reasons like money, oil, and revenge.

And before you ask I have no problem condemning the killing of innocent civilians by the IRA, or any republican group as well as the killing of innocent civilians by any state – both are equally unacceptable.

true

"of the Geneva convention”… so that excludes the British government. Unless you have the twisted version where you can lock people up indefinitely with out a proper trial, as they are currently doing in the UK? [/I]

The British government has an excellent record with regard to the Geneva convention - just ask the millions of people ( Germans, Argentinians etc ) who were fairly treated by Britain under it.



Quote by Monument No, there is not when both kill innocent civilians.

Actually, sometimes there is a difference, in your “wartime between countries at war” option of butchering a lot more innocent civilians are usually killed – often for reasons like money, oil, and revenge.

And before you ask I have no problem condemning the killing of innocent civilians by the IRA, or any republican group as well as the killing of innocent civilians by any state – both are equally unacceptable.

What about when the IRA planted a bomb under a retired RUC mans car - do you condemn that?

What about bombings by the Luftwaffe and RAF of each others military installations during WW2 - do you put this on a lower moral plane ( no pun intended ) than bombs planted against RUC and UDR ?

monument

true wrote:

The British government has an excellent record with regard to the Geneva convention - just ask the millions of people ( Germans, Argentinians etc ) who were fairly treated by Britain under it.

Alternatively, I’ll just take the current governments actions (and their allies actions) into account, and with out even digging into history, rubbish your claim they respect the Geneva convention.

true wrote:

What about when the IRA planted a bomb under a retired RUC mans car - do you condemn that?

Yes.

true wrote:

"What about bombings by the Luftwaffe and RAF of each others military installations during WW2 - do you put this on a lower moral plane ( no pun intended ) than bombs planted against RUC and UDR ?

When there is blatant disregard for innocent civilians, it’s all the same. But before you start, bombing a military airbase/base/port/factory or infrastructure isn’t the same as bombing a heavily populated area.

Sand

yes I'm sure the people killed by them feel much better knowing it was between countries

Ah another re-run of the "accidentially hitting someone with a car=running them down in a car" moral debate.
Ill save us some time - your position is bollocks:)

“of the Geneva convention”… so that excludes the British government. Unless you have the twisted version where you can lock people up indefinitely with out a proper trial, as they are currently doing in the UK?

Theres two cases here....

A) It was a war between two recognised parties in Northern Ireland...Then they can lock up people as long as the war is in effect -I.E. until the IRA admits the war is over and they lost.

It wasnt a war, but a terrorist campaign....then crinimal law applies so the geneva convention isnt called into account.

A doesnt count because the IRA etc etc didnt match the requirements of being a recognised participant in a war.

No, there is not when both kill innocent civilians.

Ah, a similar logic to the end justifies the means. The end damns the means. Can you honestly believe that the IRA and the British followed the same standards? The IRA *routinely* murdered civillians. This did not breach any of their standards. It was their SOP.

republicans on the other hand kick up a stink over isolated incidents of British wrongdoing - which standout so much because they were definitly not routine, but breaches of expected standards. Even republicans admit this - Warrington was acceptable, but Bloody Sunday was not because republicans accept that the British hold to higher standards than they do.

Alternatively, I’ll just take the current governments actions (and their allies actions) into account, and with out even digging into history, rubbish your claim they respect the Geneva convention.

Ah right, retroactive condemnation of British adherence to the Geneva Convention in Northern Ireland over the past 40 years based on what? Some acts of their allies in a seperate conflict and theatre in 2004-5? Do we get to condemn the IRAs respect for human rights based on say Colonel Ghadaffis actions? Or can we talk about their involvement via Sean Russell, feted by the SF crowd for his plotting with the Nazis for a - (Nationalist Socialist Workers?) - United Ireland? Poor Sean's looking a bit shorter these days. Sure by your standards we can use the Nazi atrocities to condemn the IRA. I love these new rules.

monument

Sand wrote:

Theres two cases here....

A) It was a war between two recognised parties in Northern Ireland...Then they can lock up people as long as the war is in effect -I.E. until the IRA admits the war is over and they lost.

It wasnt a war, but a terrorist campaign....then crinimal law applies so the geneva convention isnt called into account.

A doesnt count because the IRA etc etc didnt match the requirements of being a recognised participant in a war.

I don’t remember using the Geneva Convention in the same context of the IRA, another poster brought it up as a way of saying the British were all good and nice in general.

But a war is “armed fighting between two or more countries or groups” (- Cambridge). No matter what emotive name you what to call paramilitaries.

Sand wrote:

Ah, a similar logic to the end justifies the means.

I don’t believe the end justifies the means.

Sand wrote:

The end damns the means. Can you honestly believe that the IRA and the British followed the same standards? The IRA *routinely* murdered civillians. This did not breach any of their standards. It was their SOP.

republicans on the other hand kick up a stink over isolated incidents of British wrongdoing -

I’m not a republican, but not all republicans agree with the IRA, PIRA etc, not all of them agree with killing innocent people.

Sand wrote:

Ah right, retroactive condemnation of British adherence to the Geneva Convention in Northern Ireland over the past 40 years based on what? Some acts of their allies in a seperate conflict and theatre in 2004-5? Do we get to condemn the IRAs respect for human rights based on say Colonel Ghadaffis actions? Or can we talk about their involvement via Sean Russell, feted by the SF crowd for his plotting with the Nazis for a - (Nationalist Socialist Workers?) - United Ireland? Poor Sean's looking a bit shorter these days. Sure by your standards we can use the Nazi atrocities to condemn the IRA. I love these new rules.

Funny of you to bring up Northern Ireland over the past 40 years, I was talking about what they’re doing in the UK right now. They still like to lock people up with out trial, or reason. Something that is against their own laws – until they change them, that is.

“Alternatively, I’ll just take the current governments actions (and their allies actions) into account, and with out even digging into history, rubbish your claim they respect the Geneva convention.”

…This, along with talking about their so-called “liberation” of Iraq, was brought up to show that they haven’t changed from the ways of past UK governments. I would even find it hard to blame the current UK government any passed action of past governments, but they haven’t changed much.

elivsvonchiaing

I expressed this opinion in a pub - once - wasn't quite applauded - shook hands with a few people - it doesn't matter what they call themselves - if they find drugs they all need a rope - see previous post.

If they are serious about the Irish- British thing - think they need to be gaoled tbh. They may be proven to be valuable citizens in fight against terrorism (the irony :eek: ) (THey do have the knowlege!)

FTA69

If you expressed that in my local people would probably ask you what exactly are you on about, a bit like I'm going to do now;

What exactly are you on about?

elivsvonchiaing

the point I was trying to make - what validity the IRA had. It all evaporated in 1997 with Omagh bombing! Gerry Adam's is the face of Sinn Fein - I would imagine he feels they way I do! - Gene McConvlille needs to be mourned - disgusting and critically offensive mistakes!

While I hate these bastards ; lost for words -Christ I really hate these bastards -GS - I am willing do a "sting" on these bastards ! Know nothing locally - :-( Can only applud bader haceh - no sub 16 y/os travelling - this should be exteded to former soviet republics!)
I really think paedophiles operating in tzunamii - zone - deserve - I was going to suggest merely me -

FTA69

Are you on cocaine or speed? I'm not being smart now either, seriously?

Whatever legitimacy the IRA had still remains today to be honest, Omagh was not an IRA action and as such they are not responsible for it, politically or morally.

A Dub in Glasgo

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

the point I was trying to make - what validity the IRA had. It all evaporated in 1997 with Omagh bombing! Gerry Adam's is the face of Sinn Fein - I would imagine he feels they way I do! - Gene McConvlille needs to be mourned - disgusting and critically offensive mistakes!

While I hate these bastards ; lost for words -Christ I really hate these bastards -GS - I am willing do a "sting" on these bastards ! Know nothing locally - :-( Can only applud bader haceh - no sub 16 y/os travelling - this should be exteded to former soviet republics!)
I really think paedophiles operating in tzunamii - zone - deserve - I was going to suggest merely me -

Good attempt at trying to get the thread closed by talking gibberish!

Hobbes

Erm, ignoring you strange use of the English language.. Omagh bombing was done by the Real IRA not the IRA (which SF are tied to)

true

I think the point Elivsvonchiaing was trying to make was that even though Omagh bombing was done by the real IRA and not the PIRA, if it were not for the IRA campaign it would not have happened. Some people have claimed the real IRA and / or other splinter groups had knowledge of IRA arms dumps locations, and stole / borrowed from there. The people in the splinter groups gained much of their expertise in the original movement , no ? Also, Elivs. made the point the "movement" lost credidibility after Omagh, but all polls in the 26 counties showed condemnation of the IRA down through the decades. All political parties condemned the IRA except Sinn Fein. What about Enniskillen, was there not massive revulsion then also. I remember every country in the world condemning the IRA then , even Russia.

cdebru

i think the point true is making is it doesn't matter who did what everything is slways the IRAs fault

monument

if it were not for the IRA campaign it would not have happened.

And if it was not for a feeling for a need for such there would never have been an "IRA campaign".

true

monument wrote:

And if it was not for a feeling for a need for such there would never have been an "IRA campaign".

A feeling for a need to blow up and main dozens of people at Omagh?
Obviously some people felt the need for this, and obviously the vast, vast majority are abhored by such action. There is no point in continuing this debate if you have sympathy for the people who placed this bomb, and others like it.

monument

Oh, please don’t twist my words. I was quoting you in the context where you said "if it were not for the IRA campaign it would not have happened"

The IRA who had nothing to do with the Real IRA's actions in Omagh.

So, by what you said can I take it if there was never a civil rights movement in the north, Omagh would have never have happened?

You must be so stuck up you head to believe I even agree with the way the IRA ran their campaign, never mind with Real IRA’s campaign, just because I gave a reason to why the IRA’s campaign started.

I think I understand why republicans want a united Ireland, and why Unionist/Loyalists want to stay a part of the UK.

So I must be a republican, and a unionist/loyalist? I don’t think so.




But if you want to talk about Omagh, you should be more concerned about police incompetence, both the PSNI and the Garda… incompetence that could have stop the bomb at one level or saved people’s lives at another…

Special Branch link to Omagh atrocity
December 24, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1379532,00.html

Omagh relatives call for inquiry as transcript 'proves police ignored warning'
October 20, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,1066784,00.html

true

Quote by Monument : The IRA who had nothing to do with the Real IRA's actions in Omagh.
Did the real IRA not use the expertise gain in the IRA , and munitions from IRA arms dumps?


Quote : So, by what you said can I take it if there was never a civil rights movement in the north, Omagh would have never have happened?

I did not mention the civil rights campaign. There was entitled to be a civil rights campaign in the North due to injustices there. However , there were injustices to a greater or lesser amount in practically all countries in the world. I have no problem with a civil rights movement, but there did not have to be a terrorist IRA campaign. If there was not an IRA campaign, Omagh would not have happed , or thousands dead.


I think I understand why republicans want a united Ireland, and why Unionist/Loyalists want to stay a part of the UK.

Fair dues, so do I.


But if you want to talk about Omagh, you should be more concerned about police incompetence, both the PSNI and the Garda… incompetence that could have stop the bomb at one level or saved people’s lives at another…

The police anywhere in the world are just a group of people, and people are human beings, and not perfect. It is easy to say in hindsight that this should have been done, or that should hav been done, but if a bomb warning comes through thats not very clear, what do you do. You make a judgement at the time. I blame the people who left the car where it was, and gave the warnings. The police often got false / hoax bomb warnings. Sometimes the warning they got was a trap to get them to go somewhere else. Both police forces have detected terrorist activity in the past : you cannot blame them if they are not successful 100% of the time. If the RIRA wanted to avoid casulties, why did they choose a busy Saturday afternoon ? Or why plant bombs at all for that matter ? In these islands, and specifically on this island, we all all in it together against the rest of the world to build an economic future for ourselves. Destroying things does no help anyone.


In Monuments post no 32, he / she claims that the UK still likes to lock people up without trial or reason. I do not think the UK does that. You have hundreds of thousands of illegial immegrants trying to get there from all over the world, as it is known as a just and fair society. How many people does it lock up without trial or reason ? I agree people are innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps if a few terrorists were locked up now and again, for a short period of time until their trial, the world may be a safer place.
He / she says the UK goes not respect the Geneva convention - can you please show me an example of a country anywhere in he world where the geneva convention is more restected ? Out of the millions of people that UK forces have fought / captured, how many / what percentage were not treated in accordance with he Geneva Convention ?

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Did the real IRA not use the expertise gain in the IRA , and munitions from IRA arms dumps?

Quite a few members of the IRA in the '70s got their training and expertise from the British and Irish Armies... are those armies to blame for the actions of their members when they left the army??

I did not mention the civil rights campaign. There was entitled to be a civil rights campaign in the North due to injustices there. However , there were injustices to a greater or lesser amount in practically all countries in the world. I have no problem with a civil rights movement, but there did not have to be a terrorist IRA campaign. If there was not an IRA campaign, Omagh would not have happed , or thousands dead.

Very nice of you to think that the people involved with the Civil Rights movement had no right to take it any further even though they were faced down with the full force of the state. If the NI was not such an un-democratic state and inherently sectarian, there would have been no need for the CRA or later on the IRA (which really only started because of the actions of the UK during the CRA campaign). If civil rights were granted in the late '60s/early '70s, the IRA campaign would have been nipped in the bud.

In Monuments post no 32, he / she claims that the UK still likes to lock people up without trial or reason. I do not think the UK does that. You have hundreds of thousands of illegial immegrants trying to get there from all over the world, as it is known as a just and fair society. How many people does it lock up without trial or reason ? I agree people are innocent until proven guilty.

There is a place about 15 miles from me that detains hundreds of people without trial including women and children

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=873172003

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3365035.stm

The UK are currently holding 'suspects' without trial or even charge

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/15817.shtml

and we all know how successful Interment was in the '70s (which gave the IRA a huge helping hand in recruiting members)

monument

true wrote:

But if you want to talk about Omagh, you should be more concerned about police incompetence, both the PSNI and the Garda… incompetence that could have stop the bomb at one level or saved people’s lives at another…

The police anywhere in the world are just a group of people, and people are human beings, and not perfect. It is easy to say in hindsight that this should have been done, or that should hav been done, but if a bomb warning comes through thats not very clear, what do you do. You make a judgement at the time. I blame the people who left the car where it was, and gave the warnings. The police often got false / hoax bomb warnings. Sometimes the warning they got was a trap to get them to go somewhere else. Both police forces have detected terrorist activity in the past : you cannot blame them if they are not successful 100% of the time. If the RIRA wanted to avoid casulties, why did they choose a busy Saturday afternoon ? Or why plant bombs at all for that matter ? In these islands, and specifically on this island, we all all in it together against the rest of the world to build an economic future for ourselves. Destroying things does no help anyone.

This isn’t a case of “oh, woops”, it’s a case of police on both sides blatantly not doing their jobs right, and people getting killed because of such.

More on this….

Omagh agent claims Garda let bomb pass

Observer reveals tape which shows that Irish police chose to protect its Real IRA informant

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1066399,00.html

true wrote:

In Monuments post no 32, he / she claims that the UK still likes to lock people up without trial or reason. I do not think the UK does that.

….I agree people are innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps if a few terrorists were locked up now and again, for a short period of time until their trial, the world may be a safer place.

Like the Christy Moore short period of time? Or like the in last link in ‘A Dub in Glasgo’ above post? - It’s for an undefined period of time, for an undefined reason – there is no being proven guilty here.

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Quite a few members of the IRA in the '70s got their training and expertise from the British and Irish Armies... are those armies to blame for the actions of their members when they left the army??
How many is " quite a few " - two or three? Can you name them ? Those armies are not to blame for the actions of perhaps 0.05 % of their members when they left the army, as (A) they are legitimate armies, backing up legitimate governments and ( they did not allow provide the ex members with semtex, intentionally or unintentionally. I remember when the IRA killed an Irish soldier without mercy when he stumbled accross their hide in Co. Leitrim, during one of the kidnap searches in the early eighties - any Irish soldier I ever met hate the IRA.

Quote Very nice of you to think that the people involved with the Civil Rights movement had no right to take it any further even though they were faced down with the full force of the state. If the NI was not such an un-democratic state and inherently sectarian, there would have been no need for the CRA or later on the IRA (which really only started because of the actions of the UK during the CRA campaign).

There was no need for violence, this only made things worse, even from those isolated IRA incidents in the forties onwards. Violence made both sides worse, and caused the deaths of thousands of people. I know many Catholics in the North in the sixties who had the same civil rights and liberties as if they were living in Dublin or Manchester or Glasgow or Paris. In fact, they were perfectly happy as as they had more opportunities and a better standard of living than many in the "free state ".




Quote There is a place about 15 miles from me that detains hundreds of people without trial including women and children
The UK does not lock people up without trial or reason.

I was answering the allegation that " The UK still likes to lock people up without trial or reason ". That is rubbish.


The UK are currently holding 'suspects' without trial or even charge

Perhaps you are referring to some Muslim terrorists ? There may be a handful of these still in custody, I do not know or care too much as I know some were caught plotting an outrage in London. I think they will and should be deported back to their original countries before too long, if they have other countries. If not, do you think they should be charged with treason ? That is a seperate matter : if the UK "liked" to lock up people, there would be a hell of a lot more locked up.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

How many is " quite a few " - two or three? Can you name them ? Those armies are not to blame for the actions of perhaps 0.05 % of their members when they left the army, as (A) they are legitimate armies, backing up legitimate governments and ( they did not allow provide the ex members with semtex, intentionally or unintentionally.

More than those who are now in the RIRA or CIRA. The fact of the matter is you blame the IRA because those break-aways got their experience in the IRA therefore the IRA is responsible for all further actions of ex-members. I merely asked you to confirm the logic of your stance by asking if the British or Irish Armies are responsible for the actions of their ex-members when they joined the IRA. I assume you say No which I agree with. You are now using inconsistant logic by stating that the IRA is responsible for all the actions of ex-members because they trained them!!

There was no need for violence, this only made things worse, even from those isolated IRA incidents in the forties onwards. Violence made both sides worse, and caused the deaths of thousands of people. I know many Catholics in the North in the sixties who had the same civil rights and liberties as if they were living in Dublin or Manchester or Glasgow or Paris. In fact, they were perfectly happy as as they had more opportunities and a better standard of living than many in the "free state ".

Your opinion was there was no need for violence yet you seem to ignore the fact that the state repressed people campaigning on a non-violent platform. I will leave it to the people who lived through the late '60s/early '70 to confirm in their own minds if there was no need for violence. I certainly do not know what I would have done if I was subjected to a terror campaign from the state!

You talk absolute rubbish when you try and state that the CRA had no basis for complaining about the discrimination and violence from the un--democratic state that is NI.

The UK does not lock people up without trial or reason.

The key here is reason eh? Those women and children are locked up without trial or charge but the reason given is they might drift into the wider community to hide whilest their case is being reviewed by the UK Home Office. That is a good enough reason for you to lock up people, including women and children, without trial or charge?

The facts are:The UK does lock up people, including women and children, without trial or charge

You appear to have a difficulty accepting that.

Perhaps you are referring to some Muslim terrorists ? There may be a handful of these still in custody, I do not know or care too much as I know some were caught plotting an outrage in London. I think they will and should be deported back to their original countries before too long, if they have other countries. If not, do you think they should be charged with treason ? That is a seperate matter : if the UK "liked" to lock up people, there would be a hell of a lot more locked up.

I am referring to the people the UK are currently imprisioning without trial or charge. They should be either charged or released. Not a difficult democratic concept to grasp

The facts are:The UK does lock up people, including women and children, without trial or charge