On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:29:26 +0100, "Falcon"
 wrote:

>
>Nik wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:46:19 +0100, "Falcon"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nik wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:38:10 +0100, "Westprog" 
>>>> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> Now that the thirty year war to establish a police omsbudsman is at an
>>>>> end,
>>>>
>>>> Tell me please, Westie, what you would have done if you were one of
>>>> the Bombay Street residents in 1969.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> He's British at heart. He would have bombed Dresden.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
>No fucking kidding!

Tell me please, Falcon, what you would have done if you were one of
the Bombay Street residents in 1969.

Nik

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Nik wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:29:26 +0100, "Falcon"
>  wrote:
[...]

> Tell me please, Falcon, what you would have done if you were one of
> the Bombay Street residents in 1969.

I would have found somewhere else to live. Tell me Nik, I'm really
interested. What are you suggesting the residents did? Are you suggesting
they joined the IRA?

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:34:40 +0100, "Falcon"
 wrote:

>
>Nik wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:29:26 +0100, "Falcon"
>>  wrote:
>[...]
>
>> Tell me please, Falcon, what you would have done if you were one of
>> the Bombay Street residents in 1969.
>
>I would have found somewhere else to live. 

By inaction you would allow it to continue and happen to others.

>Tell me Nik, I'm really interested. What are you suggesting the residents did? Are you suggesting
>they joined the IRA?

I don't know with assuredness but I would venture a guess that some of
them did exactly that, or similar.

Nik

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Nik wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:34:40 +0100, "Falcon"
>  wrote:
>
>> Nik wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:29:26 +0100, "Falcon"
>>>  wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Tell me please, Falcon, what you would have done if you were one of
>>> the Bombay Street residents in 1969.
>>
>> I would have found somewhere else to live.
>
> By inaction you would allow it to continue and happen to others.

Ah, that's where you're wrong. I was far from inactive and later I played an 
admittedly small part in preventing similar outrages. Tell me Nik, what did 
you do?

>> Tell me Nik, I'm really interested. What are you suggesting the
>> residents did? Are you suggesting they joined the IRA?
>
> I don't know with assuredness but I would venture a guess that some of
> them did exactly that, or similar.

"I don't know"... "I would venture a guess"... Well, that's impressive.


So please tell me Nik, what *did* the residents of Bombay Street do in 1969?

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:24:44 +0100, "Falcon"
 wrote:

>"I don't know"... "I would venture a guess"... Well, that's impressive.

>So please tell me Nik, what *did* the residents of Bombay Street do in 1969?

Be fair. His regular Bombay Street question is *meant* to remain
hypothetical.

Otherwise, it might seem that he chooses to despise the actual
residents for not doing what he would surely have done. Whatever
that might have been...

I expect him to be similarly vague about what South Armagh Prods
ought to have done after Kingsmills.

David H

-- 
abend

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:24:44 +0100, "Falcon"
 wrote:

>
>Nik wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:34:40 +0100, "Falcon"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Nik wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:29:26 +0100, "Falcon"
>>>>  wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Tell me please, Falcon, what you would have done if you were one of
>>>> the Bombay Street residents in 1969.
>>>
>>> I would have found somewhere else to live.
>>
>> By inaction you would allow it to continue and happen to others.
>
>Ah, that's where you're wrong. I was far from inactive and later I played an 
>admittedly small part in preventing similar outrages.

Ok. You've never said this much before not that it comes as no
suprise.

> Tell me Nik, what did you do?

No comment.

>>> Tell me Nik, I'm really interested. What are you suggesting the
>>> residents did? Are you suggesting they joined the IRA?
>>
>> I don't know with assuredness but I would venture a guess that some of
>> them did exactly that, or similar.
>
>"I don't know"... "I would venture a guess"... Well, that's impressive.

FFS.

<rolls eyes and casts a pained look at the clown being flagrantly and
deliberately ignorant>

>So please tell me Nik, what *did* the residents of Bombay Street do in 1969?

As I understand it, some were quite aggreived at the perceived lack of
action by the IRA at the time.

Nik

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:03:39 GMT, swelter@btinternet.com (David H)
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:24:44 +0100, "Falcon"
> wrote:
>
>>"I don't know"... "I would venture a guess"... Well, that's impressive.
>
>>So please tell me Nik, what *did* the residents of Bombay Street do in 1969?
>
>Be fair. His regular Bombay Street question is *meant* to remain
>hypothetical.

That isn't necessarily so.

>Otherwise, it might seem that he chooses to despise the actual
>residents for not doing what he would surely have done. Whatever
>that might have been...
>
>I expect him to be similarly vague about what South Armagh Prods
>ought to have done after Kingsmills.

I quite understand that some from the 'Loyalist' community felt the
need to take up arms.

Isn't it a good thing that the Peace Process is forging ahead despite
the Loyalist refusal to disarm?

Nik

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Nik wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:24:44 +0100, "Falcon"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>> Nik wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:34:40 +0100, "Falcon"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:29:26 +0100, "Falcon"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Tell me please, Falcon, what you would have done if you were one of
>>>>> the Bombay Street residents in 1969.
>>>>
>>>> I would have found somewhere else to live.
>>>
>>> By inaction you would allow it to continue and happen to others.
>>
>> Ah, that's where you're wrong. I was far from inactive and later I
>> played an admittedly small part in preventing similar outrages.
>
> Ok. You've never said this much before not that it comes as no
> suprise.
>
>> Tell me Nik, what did you do?
>
> No comment.
>
>>>> Tell me Nik, I'm really interested. What are you suggesting the
>>>> residents did? Are you suggesting they joined the IRA?
>>>
>>> I don't know with assuredness but I would venture a guess that some of
>>> them did exactly that, or similar.
>>
>> "I don't know"... "I would venture a guess"... Well, that's impressive.
>
> FFS.
>
> <rolls eyes and casts a pained look at the clown being flagrantly and
> deliberately ignorant>

I'm not the one displaying his ignorance.
The clues are in the words "I don't know" and "a guess".

>> So please tell me Nik, what *did* the residents of Bombay Street do in
>> 1969?
>
> As I understand it, some were quite aggreived at the perceived lack of
> action by the IRA at the time.

Let's get one thing clear. The presence of the British Army could have 
ensured that nothing like Bombay Street would ever happen again; the IRA 
spent the next thirty years making sure that people were still angry (and 
threatened) enough to try. The anger only started to fade as the bombers and 
gunmen realised the futility of terrorism. That is the republican legacy.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Armed Forces Memorial. Alrewas, Staffordshire.
http://xrl.us/AFMemorial (Link to news.bbc.co.uk)

"Falcon"  wrote in message
news:fenjm2$je1$1@aioe.org...
...
> > As I understand it, some were quite aggreived at the perceived lack of
> > action by the IRA at the time.

> Let's get one thing clear. The presence of the British Army could have
> ensured that nothing like Bombay Street would ever happen again; the IRA
> spent the next thirty years making sure that people were still angry (and
> threatened) enough to try. The anger only started to fade as the bombers
and
> gunmen realised the futility of terrorism. That is the republican legacy.

I'm not quite clear - did they want the IRA to defend their homes from being
attacked, or plant bombs outside Gibraltar schools and shoot up babies in
Germany?

-- 



J/

SOTW: "When Under Ether" - P.J.Harvey

Westprog wrote:

> "Falcon"  wrote in message
> news:fenjm2$je1$1@aioe.org...
> ...
>>> As I understand it, some were quite aggreived at the perceived lack of
>>> action by the IRA at the time.
>
>> Let's get one thing clear. The presence of the British Army could have
>> ensured that nothing like Bombay Street would ever happen again; the IRA
>> spent the next thirty years making sure that people were still angry (and
>> threatened) enough to try. The anger only started to fade as the bombers
>> and gunmen realised the futility of terrorism. That is the republican
>> legacy.
>
> I'm not quite clear - did they want the IRA to defend their homes from
> being attacked, or plant bombs outside Gibraltar schools and shoot up
> babies in Germany?

The IRA lead people to believe that the authorities couldn't defend them by
attacking every patrol that passed by. Far from having the time to stop and
chat, or accept the odd cup of tea, soldiers found themselves having to scan
the crowds and bedroom windows for gunmen. Patrols either ceased completely,
or spent their time fending off attacks in vulnerable areas - or raiding
them in search of the gunmen and weapons they concealed.

In short, the army were no longer defending Catholic areas; when they dared 
to enter at all, they were defending themselves.  Mission accomplished.

Paradoxically, there is absolutely no evidence that the presence of gunmen
protected anyone. Quite the opposite; they acted as a focus for loyalist
hatred and bigotry. Every bomb and bullet they fired exacerbated the
problem.

The IRA never intended to destroy schools or kill babies of course. Although
the reality is that on a number of occasions that was the consequence of
their actions.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Armed Forces Memorial. Alrewas, Staffordshire.
http://xrl.us/AFMemorial (Link to news.bbc.co.uk)

"Falcon"  wrote in message
news:fenm0g$ptm$1@aioe.org...
...
> The IRA never intended to destroy schools or kill babies of course.
Although
> the reality is that on a number of occasions that was the consequence of
> their actions.

In fact I consider that in many cases the collateral damage was the real
intention. Shooting one soldier wouldn't have the same impact as killing a
civilian standing next to him, or members of his family.

-- 



J/

SOTW: "When Under Ether" - P.J.Harvey

Westprog wrote:

> "Falcon"  wrote in message
> news:fenm0g$ptm$1@aioe.org...
> ...
>> The IRA never intended to destroy schools or kill babies of course.
>> Although the reality is that on a number of occasions that was the
>> consequence of their actions.
>
> In fact I consider that in many cases the collateral damage was the real
> intention. Shooting one soldier wouldn't have the same impact as killing a
> civilian standing next to him, or members of his family.

You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Armed Forces Memorial. Alrewas, Staffordshire.
http://xrl.us/AFMemorial (Link to news.bbc.co.uk)

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:03:32 +1300, Nik  wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:03:39 GMT, swelter@btinternet.com (David H)
>wrote:

>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:24:44 +0100, "Falcon"
>> wrote:

>>>"I don't know"... "I would venture a guess"... Well, that's impressive.

>>>So please tell me Nik, what *did* the residents of Bombay Street do in 1969?

>>Be fair. His regular Bombay Street question is *meant* to remain
>>hypothetical.

>That isn't necessarily so.

>>Otherwise, it might seem that he chooses to despise the actual
>>residents for not doing what he would surely have done. Whatever
>>that might have been...

>>I expect him to be similarly vague about what South Armagh Prods
>>ought to have done after Kingsmills.

>I quite understand that some from the 'Loyalist' community felt the
>need to take up arms.

Ah yes; idiots. Do you respect their decision? And if so,
can you recognise the sort of people you respect by their desire
to kill each other for 25 years?

>Isn't it a good thing that the Peace Process is forging ahead despite
>the Loyalist refusal to disarm?

Difficult to say - in what sense is it still a 'Process', let alone
'forging ahead'? We have a Power sharing Executive. In
10 years, all being well, we will still have a Power sharing
Executive. In 20 years, still power sharing, still in Stormont.

David H

-- 
abend

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:50:44 +0100, "Falcon"
 wrote:

>
>Nik wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:24:44 +0100, "Falcon"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nik wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:34:40 +0100, "Falcon"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:29:26 +0100, "Falcon"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell me please, Falcon, what you would have done if you were one of
>>>>>> the Bombay Street residents in 1969.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have found somewhere else to live.
>>>>
>>>> By inaction you would allow it to continue and happen to others.
>>>
>>> Ah, that's where you're wrong. I was far from inactive and later I
>>> played an admittedly small part in preventing similar outrages.
>>
>> Ok. You've never said this much before not that it comes as no
>> suprise.
>>
>>> Tell me Nik, what did you do?
>>
>> No comment.
>>
>>>>> Tell me Nik, I'm really interested. What are you suggesting the
>>>>> residents did? Are you suggesting they joined the IRA?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know with assuredness but I would venture a guess that some of
>>>> them did exactly that, or similar.
>>>
>>> "I don't know"... "I would venture a guess"... Well, that's impressive.
>>
>> FFS.
>>
>> <rolls eyes and casts a pained look at the clown being flagrantly and
>> deliberately ignorant>
>
>I'm not the one displaying his ignorance.
>The clues are in the words "I don't know" and "a guess".
>
>>> So please tell me Nik, what *did* the residents of Bombay Street do in
>>> 1969?
>>
>> As I understand it, some were quite aggreived at the perceived lack of
>> action by the IRA at the time.
>
>Let's get one thing clear. The presence of the British Army could have 
>ensured that nothing like Bombay Street would ever happen again;

Could have, shmould have...it didn't, plain and simple. Not only that
but the BA contained individuals who would have rejoiced at the news
of Bombay Street, if not actively participating in it.

> the IRA spent the next thirty years making sure that people were still angry (and 
>threatened) enough to try.

Consider the following comment from Eugene, "The IRA in Derry were
having to turn people away in the wake of Bloody Sunday"....makes your
comment look as silly as it is.

> The anger only started to fade as the bombers and 
>gunmen realised the futility of terrorism.

We would be nowhere near where we are now had the violent campaign not
occurred since the very late 60's.

> That is the republican legacy.

Our day will come

...and its getting closer everyday.

Nik

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:00:07 +0100, "Westprog" 
wrote:

>"Falcon"  wrote in message
>news:fenjm2$je1$1@aioe.org...
>...
>> > As I understand it, some were quite aggreived at the perceived lack of
>> > action by the IRA at the time.
>
>> Let's get one thing clear. The presence of the British Army could have
>> ensured that nothing like Bombay Street would ever happen again; the IRA
>> spent the next thirty years making sure that people were still angry (and
>> threatened) enough to try. The anger only started to fade as the bombers
>and
>> gunmen realised the futility of terrorism. That is the republican legacy.
>
>I'm not quite clear - did they want the IRA to defend their homes from being
>attacked, or plant bombs outside Gibraltar schools and shoot up babies in
>Germany?

Quite probably not. 

I certainly wouldn't. 

Things happened in the 'Troubles' that shouldn't have...as I have
mentioned many many times...there has been an official apology from
the Irish Republican movement but, to date, there has been none from
the British Government nor indeed the Anglican church for their
complicity in the oppression of Ireland.

Tell me though, would you have wanted Paratroopers to shoot 13 unarmed
civillians dead for the simple act of marching for civil rights that
you take for granted?

Nik

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Falcon wrote:
> Nik wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:24:44 +0100, "Falcon"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nik wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:34:40 +0100, "Falcon"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:29:26 +0100, "Falcon"
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tell me please, Falcon, what you would have done if you were one of
>>>>>>the Bombay Street residents in 1969.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would have found somewhere else to live.
>>>>
>>>>By inaction you would allow it to continue and happen to others.
>>>
>>>Ah, that's where you're wrong. I was far from inactive and later I
>>>played an admittedly small part in preventing similar outrages.
>>
>>Ok. You've never said this much before not that it comes as no
>>suprise.
>>
>>
>>>Tell me Nik, what did you do?
>>
>>No comment.
>>
>>
>>>>>Tell me Nik, I'm really interested. What are you suggesting the
>>>>>residents did? Are you suggesting they joined the IRA?
>>>>
>>>>I don't know with assuredness but I would venture a guess that some of
>>>>them did exactly that, or similar.
>>>
>>>"I don't know"... "I would venture a guess"... Well, that's impressive.
>>
>>FFS.
>>
>><rolls eyes and casts a pained look at the clown being flagrantly and
>>deliberately ignorant>
> 
> 
> I'm not the one displaying his ignorance.
> The clues are in the words "I don't know" and "a guess".
> 
> 
>>>So please tell me Nik, what *did* the residents of Bombay Street do in
>>>1969?
>>
>>As I understand it, some were quite aggreived at the perceived lack of
>>action by the IRA at the time.
> 
> 
> Let's get one thing clear. The presence of the British Army could have 
> ensured that nothing like Bombay Street would ever happen again; the IRA 
> spent the next thirty years making sure that people were still angry (and 
> threatened) enough to try. The anger only started to fade as the bombers and 
> gunmen realised the futility of terrorism. That is the republican legacy.
> 


The British Army watched Catholic streets being set on fire in 1969.

The myth of the Brit Army as protector of troubled fenians, is just 
that, it is a myth.

The IRA used the resulting cycle of sectarianism as an excuse to plan 
for war, the Brit Army decided to attack first.

The BA attacked the OIRA (Falls curfew), it didn't really matter which 
fenians they battered, the Brits got the shooting match rolling before 
the PIRA received the guns from Philly.

The PIRA, ultimately took the view that NICRA allowed the opportunity 
for orthodox republicanism via mayhem and chaos. The non-militant civil 
rights agenda was not (as it turned out) just for pacifists.

Falcon wrote:
> Westprog wrote:
> 
> 
>>"Falcon"  wrote in message
>>news:fenjm2$je1$1@aioe.org...
>>...
>>
>>>>As I understand it, some were quite aggreived at the perceived lack of
>>>>action by the IRA at the time.
>>
>>>Let's get one thing clear. The presence of the British Army could have
>>>ensured that nothing like Bombay Street would ever happen again; the IRA
>>>spent the next thirty years making sure that people were still angry (and
>>>threatened) enough to try. The anger only started to fade as the bombers
>>>and gunmen realised the futility of terrorism. That is the republican
>>>legacy.
>>
>>I'm not quite clear - did they want the IRA to defend their homes from
>>being attacked, or plant bombs outside Gibraltar schools and shoot up
>>babies in Germany?
> 
> 
> The IRA lead people to believe that the authorities couldn't defend them by
> attacking every patrol that passed by. Far from having the time to stop and
> chat, or accept the odd cup of tea, soldiers found themselves having to scan
> the crowds and bedroom windows for gunmen. Patrols either ceased completely,
> or spent their time fending off attacks in vulnerable areas - or raiding
> them in search of the gunmen and weapons they concealed.


The Brit Army made themselves hated by being obnoxious etc. They did not 
defend Catholics from anything, that is a myth.

The Catholics in 1969 were defended by ad hoc committee. The competition 
amongst the two strains of the IRA was ultimately to get weapons and to 
take over the committees. The IRA ( both sets) told the committees they 
could get guns and that was their leverage. The IRA had not as it turned 
out made much of a case for themselves as defenders thus far.

The Catholics wanted to get guns - to defend themselves. If the IRA (O 
or P) could come up with the material the IRA could be part of the 
set-up.  The P variety were able to get the remaining 56/62 campaign 
weapons sent over from the US. The PIRA types were able to eventually 
take over the committees such as CESA etc. The PIRA version organized 
the modern weapons (armalites) from Philly.

David H wrote:

> 
> I expect him to be similarly vague about what South Armagh Prods
> ought to have done after Kingsmills.
> 
> David H
> 

The Kingsmills victims were taken to the same hospital and morgue as the 
similarly dead and dying Catholics,

it is the nature of the thing.

J.

Nik wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:00:07 +0100, "Westprog" 
> wrote:
>
>> "Falcon"  wrote in message
>> news:fenjm2$je1$1@aioe.org...
>> ...
>>>> As I understand it, some were quite aggreived at the perceived lack of
>>>> action by the IRA at the time.
>>
>>> Let's get one thing clear. The presence of the British Army could have
>>> ensured that nothing like Bombay Street would ever happen again; the IRA
>>> spent the next thirty years making sure that people were still angry
>>> (and threatened) enough to try. The anger only started to fade as the
>>> bombers and gunmen realised the futility of terrorism. That is the 
>>> republican
>>> legacy.
>>
>> I'm not quite clear - did they want the IRA to defend their homes from
>> being attacked, or plant bombs outside Gibraltar schools and shoot up
>> babies in Germany?
>
> Quite probably not.
>
> I certainly wouldn't.
>
> Things happened in the 'Troubles' that shouldn't have...as I have
> mentioned many many times...there has been an official apology from
> the Irish Republican movement but, to date, there has been none from
> the British Government nor indeed the Anglican church for their
> complicity in the oppression of Ireland.

It has been pointed out many times that the IRA's qualified apology means as
little to most people as the qualified apology from their loyalist
counterparts. Both are cynical attempts to legitimise murder. They certainly
don't excuse thirty years of terror and destruction. On the other hand,
despite inept propaganda claims to the contrary, absolutely no evidence
exists that either the British government or the Anglican church played any
part in bombing or assassination campaigns.

But as you're someone who doesn't know and guesses a lot, I suppose that's
all right with you.

> Tell me though, would you have wanted Paratroopers to shoot 13 unarmed
> civillians dead for the simple act of marching for civil rights that
> you take for granted?

It's been pointed out to you many times that although individual
circumstances are disputed, no-one was shot "for the simple act of marching
for civil rights". Trouble only flared when the main body of the march had
passed the containment barriers and large crowds of hooligans *attacked the
soldiers manning them*. Your continued misrepresentation of the events
leading up to the shooting is typical of a republican mentality that
embraces obfuscation, misrepresentation and downright lies.

Are there any more fatuous questions we can deal with?

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Armed Forces Memorial. Alrewas, Staffordshire.
http://xrl.us/AFMemorial (Link to news.bbc.co.uk)

Falcon wrote:
> Nik wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:00:07 +0100, "Westprog" 
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Falcon"  wrote in message
>>>news:fenjm2$je1$1@aioe.org...
>>>...
>>>
>>>>>As I understand it, some were quite aggreived at the perceived lack of
>>>>>action by the IRA at the time.
>>>
>>>>Let's get one thing clear. The presence of the British Army could have
>>>>ensured that nothing like Bombay Street would ever happen again; the IRA
>>>>spent the next thirty years making sure that people were still angry
>>>>(and threatened) enough to try. The anger only started to fade as the
>>>>bombers and gunmen realised the futility of terrorism. That is the 
>>>>republican
>>>>legacy.
>>>
>>>I'm not quite clear - did they want the IRA to defend their homes from
>>>being attacked, or plant bombs outside Gibraltar schools and shoot up
>>>babies in Germany?
>>
>>Quite probably not.
>>
>>I certainly wouldn't.
>>
>>Things happened in the 'Troubles' that shouldn't have...as I have
>>mentioned many many times...there has been an official apology from
>>the Irish Republican movement but, to date, there has been none from
>>the British Government nor indeed the Anglican church for their
>>complicity in the oppression of Ireland.
> 
> 
> It has been pointed out many times that the IRA's qualified apology means as
> little to most people as the qualified apology from their loyalist
> counterparts. Both are cynical attempts to legitimise murder. They certainly
> don't excuse thirty years of terror and destruction. On the other hand,
> despite inept propaganda claims to the contrary, absolutely no evidence
> exists that either the British government or the Anglican church played any
> part in bombing or assassination campaigns.
> 
> But as you're someone who doesn't know and guesses a lot, I suppose that's
> all right with you.
> 
> 
>>Tell me though, would you have wanted Paratroopers to shoot 13 unarmed
>>civillians dead for the simple act of marching for civil rights that
>>you take for granted?
> 
> 
> It's been pointed out to you many times that although individual
> circumstances are disputed, no-one was shot "for the simple act of marching
> for civil rights". Trouble only flared when the main body of the march had
> passed the containment barriers and large crowds of hooligans *attacked the
> soldiers manning them*. Your continued misrepresentation of the events
> leading up to the shooting is typical of a republican mentality that
> embraces obfuscation, misrepresentation and downright lies.
> 
> Are there any more fatuous questions we can deal with?
> 


I think the paras were going to murder civilians, it was what they did, 
what they were for, they already had a track record in Belfast.

Westprog wrote:
> "Falcon"  wrote in message
> news:fenjm2$je1$1@aioe.org...
> ...
> 
>>>As I understand it, some were quite aggreived at the perceived lack of
>>>action by the IRA at the time.
> 
> 
>>Let's get one thing clear. The presence of the British Army could have
>>ensured that nothing like Bombay Street would ever happen again; the IRA
>>spent the next thirty years making sure that people were still angry (and
>>threatened) enough to try. The anger only started to fade as the bombers
> 
> and
> 
>>gunmen realised the futility of terrorism. That is the republican legacy.
> 
> 
> I'm not quite clear - did they want the IRA to defend their homes from being
> attacked, or plant bombs outside Gibraltar schools and shoot up babies in
> Germany?
> 


What bomb in Gib?

Jürs wrote:
...
>> I'm not quite clear - did they want the IRA to defend their homes
>> from being attacked, or plant bombs outside Gibraltar schools and
>> shoot up babies in Germany?

> What bomb in Gib?


The one planted by British Intelligence to make the IRA look bad.

-- 



J/

SOTW: "When Under Ether" - P.J.Harvey

Westprog wrote:
> Jürs wrote:
> ...
> 
>>>I'm not quite clear - did they want the IRA to defend their homes
>>>from being attacked, or plant bombs outside Gibraltar schools and
>>>shoot up babies in Germany?
> 
> 
>>What bomb in Gib?
> 
> 
> 
> The one planted by British Intelligence to make the IRA look bad.
> 

When was this?

Jürs wrote:
...
> The British Army watched Catholic streets being set on fire in 1969.


> The myth of the Brit Army as protector of troubled fenians, is just
> that, it is a myth.

The myth that the BA stood by and let the loyalists do whatever they liked
throughout the troubles is just that, it is a myth.

It's also a myth that the IRA were ever capable of defending the catholic
community.

> The IRA used the resulting cycle of sectarianism as an excuse to plan
> for war, the Brit Army decided to attack first.

> The BA attacked the OIRA (Falls curfew), it didn't really matter which
> fenians they battered, the Brits got the shooting match rolling before
> the PIRA received the guns from Philly.

> The PIRA, ultimately took the view that NICRA allowed the opportunity
> for orthodox republicanism via mayhem and chaos. The non-militant
> civil rights agenda was not (as it turned out) just for pacifists.


The war started when PIRA shot a soldier after no catholics had been killed
for several months. Check the timeline.

-- 



J/

SOTW: "When Under Ether" - P.J.Harvey

That's funny. I can't see posts from "Jürs"

Westprog wrote:

> Jürs wrote:
> ...
>> The British Army watched Catholic streets being set on fire in 1969.
>
>> The myth of the Brit Army as protector of troubled fenians, is just
>> that, it is a myth.
>
> The myth that the BA stood by and let the loyalists do whatever they liked
> throughout the troubles is just that, it is a myth.
>
> It's also a myth that the IRA were ever capable of defending the catholic
> community.
>
>> The IRA used the resulting cycle of sectarianism as an excuse to plan
>> for war, the Brit Army decided to attack first.
>
>> The BA attacked the OIRA (Falls curfew), it didn't really matter which
>> fenians they battered, the Brits got the shooting match rolling before
>> the PIRA received the guns from Philly.
>
>> The PIRA, ultimately took the view that NICRA allowed the opportunity
>> for orthodox republicanism via mayhem and chaos. The non-militant
>> civil rights agenda was not (as it turned out) just for pacifists.
>
> The war started when PIRA shot a soldier after no catholics had been
> killed for several months. Check the timeline.

When they were interviewed years later the leadership was quite open about 
the IRA's conflict creation strategy and the tactics which successfully lead 
to the alienation of northern Catholics from the Army. It takes a kind of 
ostrich mentality to deny things that are a matter of public record.

-- 
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Armed Forces Memorial. Alrewas, Staffordshire.
http://xrl.us/AFMemorial (Link to news.bbc.co.uk)

Falcon wrote:
> That's funny. I can't see posts from "Jürs"
> 
> Westprog wrote:
> 
> 
>>Jürs wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>The British Army watched Catholic streets being set on fire in 1969.
>>
>>>The myth of the Brit Army as protector of troubled fenians, is just
>>>that, it is a myth.
>>
>>The myth that the BA stood by and let the loyalists do whatever they liked
>>throughout the troubles is just that, it is a myth.
>>
>>It's also a myth that the IRA were ever capable of defending the catholic
>>community.
>>
>>
>>>The IRA used the resulting cycle of sectarianism as an excuse to plan
>>>for war, the Brit Army decided to attack first.
>>
>>>The BA attacked the OIRA (Falls curfew), it didn't really matter which
>>>fenians they battered, the Brits got the shooting match rolling before
>>>the PIRA received the guns from Philly.
>>
>>>The PIRA, ultimately took the view that NICRA allowed the opportunity
>>>for orthodox republicanism via mayhem and chaos. The non-militant
>>>civil rights agenda was not (as it turned out) just for pacifists.
>>
>>The war started when PIRA shot a soldier after no catholics had been
>>killed for several months. Check the timeline.
> 
> 
> When they were interviewed years later the leadership was quite open about 
> the IRA's conflict creation strategy and the tactics which successfully lead 
> to the alienation of northern Catholics from the Army. It takes a kind of 
> ostrich mentality to deny things that are a matter of public record.
> 

I was part of that record.

Westprog wrote:
> Jürs wrote:
> ...
> 
>>The British Army watched Catholic streets being set on fire in 1969.
> 
> 
> 
>>The myth of the Brit Army as protector of troubled fenians, is just
>>that, it is a myth.
> 
> 
> The myth that the BA stood by and let the loyalists do whatever they liked
> throughout the troubles is just that, it is a myth.
> 
> It's also a myth that the IRA were ever capable of defending the catholic
> community.
> 
> 
>>The IRA used the resulting cycle of sectarianism as an excuse to plan
>>for war, the Brit Army decided to attack first.
> 
> 
>>The BA attacked the OIRA (Falls curfew), it didn't really matter which
>>fenians they battered, the Brits got the shooting match rolling before
>>the PIRA received the guns from Philly.
> 
> 
>>The PIRA, ultimately took the view that NICRA allowed the opportunity
>>for orthodox republicanism via mayhem and chaos. The non-militant
>>civil rights agenda was not (as it turned out) just for pacifists.
> 
> 
> 
> The war started when PIRA shot a soldier after no catholics had been killed
> for several months. Check the timeline.
> 


I don't think any soldiers had actually been killed by the IRA at the 
time of the Falls Curfew.

Loyalist gunmen were certainly shooting members of the security forces 
before the IRA were in the same 'killing' position.

As a point of fact the British Army did not defend Catholics, they 
attacked the Catholics, that is the case.

Scríobh Jürs :
>Falcon wrote:
>> That's funny. I can't see posts from "Jürs"
>> 
>> Westprog wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Jürs wrote:
>>>...
>>>
>>>>The British Army watched Catholic streets being set on fire in 1969.
>>>
>>>>The myth of the Brit Army as protector of troubled fenians, is just
>>>>that, it is a myth.
>>>
>>>The myth that the BA stood by and let the loyalists do whatever they liked
>>>throughout the troubles is just that, it is a myth.
>>>
>>>It's also a myth that the IRA were ever capable of defending the catholic
>>>community.
>>>
>>>
>>>>The IRA used the resulting cycle of sectarianism as an excuse to plan
>>>>for war, the Brit Army decided to attack first.
>>>
>>>>The BA attacked the OIRA (Falls curfew), it didn't really matter which
>>>>fenians they battered, the Brits got the shooting match rolling before
>>>>the PIRA received the guns from Philly.
>>>
>>>>The PIRA, ultimately took the view that NICRA allowed the opportunity
>>>>for orthodox republicanism via mayhem and chaos. The non-militant
>>>>civil rights agenda was not (as it turned out) just for pacifists.
>>>
>>>The war started when PIRA shot a soldier after no catholics had been
>>>killed for several months. Check the timeline.
>> 
>> 
>> When they were interviewed years later the leadership was quite open about 
>> the IRA's conflict creation strategy and the tactics which successfully lead 
>> to the alienation of northern Catholics from the Army. It takes a kind of 
>> ostrich mentality to deny things that are a matter of public record.
>> 
>
>I was part of that record.

And you are...?

-- 
'Donegal:  Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Féachadóir wrote:
> Scríobh Jürs Jürs@giantscr.ie:
...
>> I was part of that record.

> And you are...?

Style seems vaguely familiar.


-- 



J/

SOTW: "When Under Ether" - P.J.Harvey

Féachadóir wrote:
> Scríobh Jürs :
> 
>>Falcon wrote:
>>
>>>That's funny. I can't see posts from "Jürs"
>>>
>>>Westprog wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jürs wrote:
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The British Army watched Catholic streets being set on fire in 1969.
>>>>
>>>>>The myth of the Brit Army as protector of troubled fenians, is just
>>>>>that, it is a myth.
>>>>
>>>>The myth that the BA stood by and let the loyalists do whatever they liked
>>>>throughout the troubles is just that, it is a myth.
>>>>
>>>>It's also a myth that the IRA were ever capable of defending the catholic
>>>>community.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The IRA used the resulting cycle of sectarianism as an excuse to plan
>>>>>for war, the Brit Army decided to attack first.
>>>>
>>>>>The BA attacked the OIRA (Falls curfew), it didn't really matter which
>>>>>fenians they battered, the Brits got the shooting match rolling before
>>>>>the PIRA received the guns from Philly.
>>>>
>>>>>The PIRA, ultimately took the view that NICRA allowed the opportunity
>>>>>for orthodox republicanism via mayhem and chaos. The non-militant
>>>>>civil rights agenda was not (as it turned out) just for pacifists.
>>>>
>>>>The war started when PIRA shot a soldier after no catholics had been
>>>>killed for several months. Check the timeline.
>>>
>>>
>>>When they were interviewed years later the leadership was quite open about 
>>>the IRA's conflict creation strategy and the tactics which successfully lead 
>>>to the alienation of northern Catholics from the Army. It takes a kind of 
>>>ostrich mentality to deny things that are a matter of public record.
>>>
>>
>>I was part of that record.
> 
> 
> And you are...?
> 


Not important. I was part of suckerdom. The Wolfe Tone society was 
created in June 64 and the debacle of the late 50s early 60s border 
campaign was a watershed issue for active republicans.

The NICRA campaigns created the circumstances, the hitherto marginalized 
republicans, were able to use as an anchor for a valid military 
strategy. In that mindset, valid simply equals doable.

A lack of savvy on the part of the British military should not be 
confused with machiavellian genius on the part of the IRA. Tarring and 
feathering 16 year old girls does not Che Guevara make.

Westprog wrote:
> Féachadóir wrote:
> 
>>Scríobh Jürs Jürs@giantscr.ie:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>I was part of that record.
> 
> 
>>And you are...?
> 
> 
> Style seems vaguely familiar.
> 
> 

vaguely?

Nik wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:29:26 +0100, "Falcon"
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>Nik wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:46:19 +0100, "Falcon"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 10:38:10 +0100, "Westprog" 
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>>Now that the thirty year war to establish a police omsbudsman is at an
>>>>>>end,
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell me please, Westie, what you would have done if you were one of
>>>>>the Bombay Street residents in 1969.
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>He's British at heart. He would have bombed Dresden.
>>>
>>>Irrelevant.
>>
>>No fucking kidding!
> 
> 
> Tell me please, Falcon, what you would have done if you were one of
> the Bombay Street residents in 1969.
> 
> Nik


Find somewhere to live.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:15:35 GMT, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrs?=
 wrote:

>Féachadóir wrote:

>> And you are...?

>Not important. I was part of suckerdom. The Wolfe Tone society was 
>created in June 64 and the debacle of the late 50s early 60s border 
>campaign was a watershed issue for active republicans.
>
>The NICRA campaigns created the circumstances, the hitherto marginalized 
>republicans, were able to use as an anchor for a valid military 
>strategy. In that mindset, valid simply equals doable.
>
>A lack of savvy on the part of the British military should not be 
>confused with machiavellian genius on the part of the IRA. Tarring and 
>feathering 16 year old girls does not Che Guevara make.

Depends on just how literal you want to be:

http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/hearts-and-minds-on-the-legacy-of-che/

David H

-- 
abend

"Jürs"  wrote in message
news:f7eQi.10738$8c4.911@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> Westprog wrote:
> > Féachadóir wrote:

> >>>I was part of that record.

> >>And you are...?

> > Style seems vaguely familiar.

> vaguely?

Well, it's not James Joyce, but I know what my guess is.

-- 



J/

SOTW: "When Under Ether" - P.J.Harvey