jmg@sftig.UUCP (J.McGhee) (11/16/85)
Adrian Kent writes: > Your article, to which J.P. was replying, described (inter alia) the Maze > prison as a concentration camp. Was this propaganda? My Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary says: "concentration camp n : a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined." The Maze prison, also known as Long Kesh, houses only political prisoners. It was built by the British Army, not civil authorities, to contain people **> SUSPECTED <** of being members of the IRA or INLA or other persons who are **> SUSPECTED <** of being opposed to British Rule in Ireland according to the provisions of the Special Powers Act, which, if briefly examined, can be shown to abolish all the human rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution or under the United Nations conventions concerning human rights. Most persons held there have never been tried in a court of law for their **> SUSPECTED <** transgressions of the infamous Special Powers Act. Aside from that, it and other "prisons" in northern Ireland bear a strong physical resemblance to Auswitz or Buchenwald. There are no gas chambers or ovens there that we know of, but if loyalists like George Seawright have their way it won't be long before they're installed. >> The world has come a long way since the time when a bill was >> introduced in the "mother of parliaments" in London calling for the >> **> CASTRATION <** of all Catholic priests, but we still have a long way >> to go. > Yes, we have come a long way since this time, if it ever existed. Did it? Yes, according to the BBC-TV documentary entitled "The Troubles" it did. You find it on page 23 of the transcript of that program which can be obtained by writing to BBC-TV. It also describes a portable gallows which was the size of a small cart and could be set up in less than a minute for instant hangings. These were typically used for British Army lynchings of any person who showed any sign of resistance to British Rule. Many other hangings were carried out by the loyalist "yeomanry" (i.e. loyalist subjects). It was also a "crime" for a Catholic priest to celebrate the Mass. The penalty for that "crime" was that the "criminal" was hanged, drawn and quartered. I assume you know what hanging is. Drawing and quartering meant that you stretched a person out on the ground and hacked his or her body into four roughly equal but extremely bloody pieces. This was meant to **> TERRORIZE <** the audience. I guess that makes the executioners TERRORISTS. Bishop Oliver Plunkett was executed by this method for the above-mentioned crime of the practice of his religion. He was recently declared a saint by the Church. > Does it have any relevance at all to Ireland in 1985? Yes, it is only a single thread of the fabric of British Rule in Ireland, but it demonstrates that the British Army and government were the original terrorists in Ireland; that their history of terror extends over centuries and over many countries which they colonized and still continues today in spite of what historical revisionists and media controllers may say. This use of terror and genocide is one of the chief reasons why the Irish people cannot accept a British Rule - the Irish people are literally fighting for their own self-preservation. On October 29 at 2:30 pm the British Army intentionally provoked a riot in Derry when a British soldier tripped a six-year-old boy and stood on him. When the boy's mother complained she was told: "We do what we want. We are the law!" In Dungannon John Sheridan who has been constantly harassed by the British Army was told by the Army: "You'll be dead by Christmas." Unfortunately these incidents are not unusual but typical of what goes on every day under British Rule in Ireland. >> I can tell you that an American Police Chief who recently travelled >>to northern Ireland, speaking from a podium outside the UN in Dag Hammerskjold >>Plaza, denounced the Royal Ulster Constabulary as being a completely sectarian >>force of repression which did not deserve to be described by the word >>"police" because they could not measure of to the standards of any police >>force in America. > Which police chief? > What does he or she know about Ireland? I've been trying to find out the name of the police chief I mentioned but I haven't had any luck. Next time I'll bring my tape recorder! If that disappoints you, consider this: This past summer a conference of more than 100 lawyers met in Paris to consider the totality of the problem in Ireland. The lawyers were from France, Britain, Belgium, the US and Ireland. Their conclusions were: 1. The Irish government must "assert vigorously" the right of self-determination of the the people of all of Ireland and ensure that the enforcement of this right is placed on the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly and other appropriate international institutions. 2. The British government was cited for fueling political violence by the use of "special" courts and laws. 3. The continued reliance of the authorities on special courts in Ireland and emergency legislation in all parts of Ireland and Britain runs counter to the rule of law, alienates the police from judicial institutions and contributes to political violence. 4. Excessive powers of arrest and seizure are allowed to military units being used as police forces. 5. The Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) which "operates as a sectarian unit within the British Army" must be disbanded. 6. The power of detaining suspects without charges for seven days is contrary to the basic rights of a suspect and is frequently abused, allowing unacceptable forms of pressure to be used against suspects and these powers are widely used for motives other than the investigation of offenses. 7. The use of plastic bullets against the civilian population is denounced as a serious violation of human rights. 8. The use of plastic bullets must be banned in accordance with the resolutions of the European Parliament in May, 1982 and October 1984. 9. The cases of 150 innocent civilians killed by British government forces require investigation by an international tribunal. 10. Diplock juryless courts violate the principle of common law and should be banned. 11. The strip-searching of women prisoners in Armagh Prison should be ended. > I don't want to suggest that all is well with the RUC - in particular they > are certainly overwhelmingly (not completely) sectarian (Protestant). Would > you agree that one reason - not by any means the only one - for this is that > the Irish Republican Army (military wing of Sinn Fein) make a special point > of killing Catholics who join the R.U.C.? I don't want to suggest that only Catholics can police other Catholics. There are many Protestants who do not agree with the actions of the RUC and the British Army who wouldn't dare to state it to their own people. A few years ago, a loyalist leader was dragged down off a speaking platform and beaten to death in front of his wife and literally thousands of people for suggesting that the people of northern Ireland should live together in peace. There were no witnesses to that murder, none would say what they saw. The IRA makes a special point of killing any RUC or British Army personnel, whether Catholic or Protestant, who are involved in torturing and killing Irish people in order to perpetuate British Rule. One Catholic RUC man who was recently killed by the IRA had tortured prisoners, according to victims interviewed by Sinn Fein. >> In the 1700's Protestants were not only participants in the Irish >> independence movement, they were its founders and principal leaders. These >> facts have been purged from the British histories of Ireland and a >> mythological doomsday scenario has been promoted by the British government >> whenever it refers to a United Ireland in order to promote a Chicken-Little >> "the sky is falling!" mentality among them. >> You ought to be more careful about what you say, John. Some people >> may begin to suspect you of being a "Fenian plant" for feeding me "just >> the right questions". >> >> J. M. McGhee > At the risk of falling under similar suspicion, let me ask you a few > more. > Firstly, can we agree on a few basic facts about Ireland: > Northern Ireland - the part which is presently part of the United Kingdom - > has a population which is sharply divided on religious lines. Northern Ireland is sharply divided over the question of whether it will be governed by the English system of The Ascendancy in which, as George Orwell stated in the "Animal Farm": - "some animals are more equal than others" or whether it will be an egalitarian community in which every person is born with the same rights and privileges and every person is judged by their actions and accomplishments. > The majority ( roughly 60% ) are Protestant, the minority Catholic. The loyalist "majority" was artificially created by the most contrived gerrymandering the world has ever seen. Not only are towns cut by the border, but even individual farms are cut by it, so that half a farmer's land is under British control and half is under the control of the Dublin government. This loyalist "majority" can only be maintained by constant pressure of violence and denial of rights to drive out members of the "minority" to preclude them from becoming becoming a "majority" even in that contrived gerrymandered artificial state as they most certainly will be if they are ever left in peace. Since the loyalist "majority" cannot be maintained without this pressure of violence and human rights denial, these evils must forever continue in order to maintain British Rule. > Nearly all the Protestant community wants to remain part of the U.K., > while most of the Catholic community would like the north to become part > of a united Ireland, ruled by the parliamentin Dublin which presently > governs the south. The partitioning of Ireland in 1922 violates the United Nations conventions on colonialism. By these conventions, authored by all the nations of the world, an imperial power (such as England) may not partition or subdivide any of its colonies. An imperial power may not withdraw from only part of a colony and maintain an occupied enclave within that colony. These actions are violations of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the former colony. The so-called "loyalist" community is only loyal to its continued dominance in that artificial state. Many "loyalists" dislike the British government almost as much as the Nationalists/Republicans do. They have said so quite often and there is considerable support among "loyalists" for the concept of an "independent Ulster" which is controlled by neither London nor Dublin. "Loyalists", using automatic weapons, have fought pitched street battles agaist the British Army in the Shankill district of Belfast. This is described by Captain Anthony F.N. Clarke of the British Parachute Regiment in his book entitled "Contact". > Sinn Fein recognises neither the British nor the Irish parliaments, Sinn Fein recognizes both of these governing bodies to the extent that it participates in elections and now accounts for about 98 elected representatives both north and south. It considers both governments fundamentally flawed by their structure and operating procedures. By American standards, the Prime Ministers of both of these states are chosen in a "smoke-filled room" of professional politicians rather than being elected by direct choice of the people through primary elections and the runoff national elections as we have in the U.S. Neither of these states has implemented the principal of "one-man, one-vote" (i.e., proportional representation) nor have they implemented the independent drawing of electoral district boundaries which make gerrymandering practically impossible. Sinn Fein fully participates in local governing bodies such as town councils to the great consternation of the loyalists who have tried to prevent Sinn Fein representatives from participating. A large number of northern town councils are now adjourned indefinitely in order to prevent Sinn Fein representatives from participating in government. The town councils which remain in operation at present are the ones controlled by Nationalist/ Republican representatives so that the loyalists are the abstentionists at the town council level. The Republicans in town councils are attempting to accomplish the practical business of these bodies in a spirit of brotherhood and cooperation with loyalists while cleaning out, as much as possible, the decaying and useless artifacts of British colonialism. On the national level Sinn Fein does not participate in the London or Dublin governments. This matter was the subject of long debate at the Sinn Fein convention in Dublin in the past few weeks. Those voting for the abstentionist principle won out over those favoring participation by a narrow margin. As Sinn Fein strength continues to grow in elections, this will probably be discarded. > and in particular aims to overthrow the Dublin parliament and establish > a socialist state governing all Ireland. This is totally untrue if by "overthrow" you mean an armed coup or military seizure of the reins of government. They actually intend to "overthrow" the Dublin government by gaining the support of the majority of Irish voters or at least by becoming an indispensible minority in a coalition government and forcing the Dublin government to make reforms. > Given this situation, what do you propose should happen to northern Ireland? The British government should stop torturing, harassing, murdering and illegally imprisoning people. It should adhere to the judgements of the United Nations on the status of former colonies. It should adhere to the clearly demonstrated wishes of the majority of the British people who want to their troops out of Ireland. It should forever and immediately withdraw its troops from all Irish soil. Areas which have a Nationalist/Republican majority should immediately be transferred to the control of the government of Ireland. Areas having a loyalist "majority" should be allowed to operate autonomously for a period of time until these people sort out their loyalties without the presence of British troops. In the event of disorder in loyalist "majority" areas, the security forces of the Irish government should exercise their right of sovereignty in these areas, but only in the case of disorder. At the same time a new government should be formed which represents all the people of Ireland on a "one-man, one-vote" basis with a special emphasis on the respect of the human rights of all individuals within the country. The Prime Minister should be chosen directly by the people of Ireland. Laws concerning marriage and divorce and control of the education system should be tranferred to the local county governments to assure that these laws are in accordance with the standards of the local community. > Would you support attempts to have it governed from Dublin, against the wishes > of the majority of its inhabitants? If so, why? No. As stated above, the Dublin government should be responsible for national security, but should not interfere in the delegated powers of local government unless the local government violates the basic human rights of individuals. At the same time the Dublin government should BE GOVERNED by the wishes of all the people of Ireland as one nation. > Why do you dismiss as British propaganda the view that withdrawing British > troops and British rule from N.I. would lead to civil war? Because there was no civil war between nationalists and loyalists in the 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland after the establishment of that government. There WAS a civil war between Republican factions because the British Army and government did not fully withdraw in 1922. It is the British presence which was then and continues to be the cause of violence. > (There is, as you ought to know, significant support in mainland Britain for > precisely this course of action. How do you explain an article by a former > southern Irish foreign minister (*) warning the British government that > withdrawing troops could result in chaos engulfing the whole island?) > (*) Conor Cruse O'Brien, writing in The Observer, circa August 1984.) This is the first time in years that I have seen mention of the name of Conor Cruise O'Brien (laughingly referred to as "the Cruiser" in Ireland). This man has as much following in Ireland as Benedict Arnold has in America and like Benedict Arnold he has sold out and defected to England to live out the rest of his days. > There is some hope that the London and Dublin governments will soon agree > on measures designed to reduce inter-communal tension in N.I. - such as a > joint parliamentary commission to investigate minority grievances. Sinn Fein > and the I.R.A. will denounce any such agreement as a sham organised by two > bodies which have no role in Ireland. Which side will you be on? I am on the side of logic. Logic tells me that the only good thing that the British government has ever done in Ireland is withdraw its troops and get out. This is the only possible good thing that they can do now. J. M. McGhee
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (11/18/85)
> It was also a "crime" for a Catholic priest to celebrate the Mass. > The penalty for that "crime" was that the "criminal" was hanged, drawn and > quartered. I assume you know what hanging is. Drawing and quartering meant > that you stretched a person out on the ground and hacked his or her body > into four roughly equal but extremely bloody pieces. This was meant to > **> TERRORIZE <** the audience. It's worse than that. "Drawing" is a term that butchers and hunters well know - it refers to the evisceration of an animal, or in this case, a human being. The person was laid out, cut open while alive and had their intestines withdrawn from the abdominal cavity and usually thrown in the dirt. The quartering was often done by tying a person's four limbs to four horses in a cross-roads, and then driving the horses apart such that the victim was rent asunder. -- jcpatilla
squires@csd2.UUCP (Charles S Squires Jr) (11/19/85)
J. M. McGhee writes: > My Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary says: > > "concentration camp n : a camp where persons (as prisoners > of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined." > Most persons held there have never been tried in a court of law for >their **> SUSPECTED <** transgressions of the infamous Special Powers Act. >Aside from that, it and other "prisons" in northern Ireland bear a strong >physical resemblance to Auswitz or Buchenwald. There are no gas chambers or >ovens there that we know of, but if loyalists like George Seawright have their >way it won't be long before they're installed. By using Webster's definition, you can really stretch the term Concentration Camp. Therefore, I suggest people call Long Kesh a Concentration Camp as a propaganda technique. I also must laugh when you hint that anyone would possible install gas chambers and ovens there. But then again, maybe the British could get them installed by hiring the same people who plant car bombs and send letter bombs killing hundreds of innocents. > Yes, according to the BBC-TV documentary entitled "The Troubles" it > did. You find it on page 23 of the transcript of that program which can be > obtained by writing to BBC-TV. It also describes a portable gallows which > was the size of a small cart and could be set up in less than a minute for > instant hangings. These were typically used for British Army lynchings of > any person who showed any sign of resistance to British Rule. Many other > hangings were carried out by the loyalist "yeomanry" (i.e. loyalist subjects). > It was also a "crime" for a Catholic priest to celebrate the Mass. > The penalty for that "crime" was that the "criminal" was hanged, drawn and > quartered. I assume you know what hanging is. Drawing and quartering meant > that you stretched a person out on the ground and hacked his or her body > into four roughly equal but extremely bloody pieces. This was meant to > **> TERRORIZE <** the audience. I guess that makes the executioners TERRORISTS. This argument is no more pertinent to a discussion of the present day climate in Northern Ireland than would be an analysis of the Inquisition thrust upon Europe for over a century, killing many thousands. > but I haven't had any luck. Next time I'll bring my tape recorder! If that > disappoints you, consider this: This past summer a conference of more than > 100 lawyers met in Paris to consider the totality of the problem in Ireland. > The lawyers were from France, Britain, Belgium, the US and Ireland. Their > conclusions were: > > 1. The Irish government must "assert vigorously" the right of > self-determination of the the people of all of Ireland and ensure > that the enforcement of this right is placed on the agenda of the > United Nations General Assembly and other appropriate international > institutions. Northern Ireland was retained as a part of the United Kingdom simply becuase of the right of self-determination. Self-determination is done by Nations, and the protestants of Northern Ireland constitute a nation separate from the Irish nation. Protestants of the North call themselves BRITISH. THey are not Irish. As British subjects, they are entitled to a self- determination apart from that of the Irish people. The Irish have no more right to impose an island-wide government than the Chinese have to impose a world government. > 2. The British government was cited for fueling political violence by > the use of "special" courts and laws. Desperate times, you know. Things have not always been this way. This episode began in 1969, due to wholesale slaughter and outright war. Belfast 1969 was like recent Beirut. It would be nice for a climate to be restored under which these courts and laws could be abolished. This was the aim of both the legitimate governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in their recent agreement. > 3. The continued reliance of the authorities on special courts in Ireland > and emergency legislation in all parts of Ireland and Britain runs > counter to the rule of law, alienates the police from judicial > institutions and contributes to political violence. So does the kangaroo courts of the IRA. > 4. Excessive powers of arrest and seizure are allowed to military units > being used as police forces. > 5. The Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) which "operates as a sectarian unit > within the British Army" must be disbanded. Now, wait a minute. Lawyers from France, the US, and Ireland have no right to impose this judgement on the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. The fact remains that this unit is necessary to protect the lives of Catholics living in the north as well as the Protestants. > 6. The power of detaining suspects without charges for seven days is > contrary to the basic rights of a suspect and is frequently abused, > allowing unacceptable forms of pressure to be used against suspects > and these powers are widely used for motives other than the > investigation of offenses. Under conditions of massive strife and terrorism, which can be found in Northern Ireland, the middle east, and Central America, governments are forced to take a "shoot first and ask questions later" stance. To expect a model system of American-style justice under conditions of virtual civil war is a bit unreasonable. > 7. The use of plastic bullets against the civilian population is > denounced as a serious violation of human rights. > 8. The use of plastic bullets must be banned in accordance with the > resolutions of the European Parliament in May, 1982 and October 1984. I think they decided to use plastic bullets to replace the older policy of using real ones. > I don't want to suggest that only Catholics can police other > Catholics. There are many Protestants who do not agree with the actions of > the RUC and the British Army who wouldn't dare to state it to their own people. > A few years ago, a loyalist leader was dragged down off a speaking platform > and beaten to death in front of his wife and literally thousands of people > for suggesting that the people of northern Ireland should live together in > peace. There were no witnesses to that murder, none would say what they saw. (sarcastic mode on) Really now? Give me a break. I'm sure the alleged perpetrators here got so infuriated when they heard the man wish for peace! (sarcastic mode off) > The IRA makes a special point of killing any RUC or British Army > personnel, whether Catholic or Protestant, who are involved in torturing > and killing Irish people in order to perpetuate British Rule. One Catholic > RUC man who was recently killed by the IRA had tortured prisoners, according > to victims interviewed by Sinn Fein. My point exactly. > Northern Ireland is sharply divided over the question of whether > it will be governed by the English system of The Ascendancy in which, as > George Orwell stated in the "Animal Farm": - "some animals are more equal > than others" or whether it will be an egalitarian community in which every > person is born with the same rights and privileges and every person is judged > by their actions and accomplishments. The monarchy (I assume you're referring to the monarchy) is just symbolic. Worldwide, the parliamentary system of government is lauded as one of the most democratic forms of government in existence. One might even argue that it is even more democratic than our own form of government with its electoral college. > The loyalist "majority" was artificially created by the most contrived > gerrymandering the world has ever seen. Not only are towns cut by the border, > but even individual farms are cut by it, so that half a farmer's land is under > British control and half is under the control of the Dublin government. > This loyalist "majority" can only be maintained by constant pressure > of violence and denial of rights to drive out members of the "minority" to > preclude them from becoming becoming a "majority" even in that contrived > gerrymandered artificial state as they most certainly will be if they are > ever left in peace. > Since the loyalist "majority" cannot be maintained without this > pressure of violence and human rights denial, these evils must forever > continue in order to maintain British Rule. Sorry, but gerrymandering doesn't create people. It is true that the British have drawn artificial borders between electoral districts, but the national border between the south and north was drawn along COUNTY lines. Counties with a protestant majority voted to remain under British rule. It is interesting to note that not ALL counties of Ulster remained with Britain; however, the majority of protestants in the north is great enough for gerrymandering not to have altered the original partition. It is also true that the Catholic minority of the north is becoming less of a minority all the time. This is because the population growth rate of the Catholic community is greater, and becuase Britain does not restrict immigration from the south, from where many youth come to find good work. > The partitioning of Ireland in 1922 violates the United Nations > conventions on colonialism. By these conventions, authored by all the nations > of the world, an imperial power (such as England) may not partition or > subdivide any of its colonies. An imperial power may not withdraw from only > part of a colony and maintain an occupied enclave within that colony. > These actions are violations of the national sovereignty and territorial > integrity of the former colony. Ireland was a PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (not a colony) for over 100 years before the partitioning. In addition, I think the argument that Ireland was a British COLONY is not air-tight in light of the geographical proximity of the islands of Great Britain and Ireland. Moreover, Northern Ireland is inhabited by BRITISH folks, and is not merely governed by them. The era of the indigents is as long gone as the days when Massachusetts was inhabited by American Indians. In the partition of Ireland, no nation was divided in two. Rather, each nation was given the right to choose its own government. > The so-called "loyalist" community is only loyal to its continued > dominance in that artificial state. Many "loyalists" dislike the British > government almost as much as the Nationalists/Republicans do. They have said > so quite often and there is considerable support among "loyalists" for the > concept of an "independent Ulster" which is controlled by neither London > nor Dublin. Perhaps, but only in VERY isolated cases. The Northern-Irish are some of the most loyal British subjects around. No groups is without its splinter groups, though. > "Loyalists", using automatic weapons, have fought pitched street > battles agaist the British Army in the Shankill district of Belfast. This > is described by Captain Anthony F.N. Clarke of the British Parachute > Regiment in his book entitled "Contact". On occasion, people do fight against their own governments. Even in the US, the coal miners of WV fought their government with arms for quite some time. The fact that this occurred points out that the presence of the British troops in Northern Ireland is as much of an imposition on the desires of the Loyalists to impose their own local brand of justice as it is an imposition on the IRA. In fact, the military presence amounts to a police action to keep bigots from lynching each other. > Sinn Fein recognizes both of these governing bodies to the extent > that it participates in elections and now accounts for about 98 elected > representatives both north and south. It considers both governments > fundamentally flawed by their structure and operating procedures. Aha! You see, these folks are out to replace the whole system. This is why the IRA has been outlawed in BOTH the UK and Ireland. > Neither of these states has implemented the principal of "one-man, > one-vote" (i.e., proportional representation) nor have they implemented the > independent drawing of electoral district boundaries which make gerrymandering > practically impossible. True. In fact, it IS pretty bad in the Republic of Ireland, with a 5% protestant minority WITHOUT ANY prepresentation in parliament, while the Catholic Church gets a number of seats out of its status as the National Religion. > or military seizure of the reins of government. They actually intend to > "overthrow" the Dublin government by gaining the support of the majority > of Irish voters or at least by becoming an indispensible minority in a > coalition government and forcing the Dublin government to make reforms. Reforms for socialism.. (the context of this reply was in defending the Socialist stance of Sinn Fein. Who needs it. Ireland has enough problems right now. > The British government should stop torturing, harassing, murdering > and illegally imprisoning people. It should adhere to the judgements of the > United Nations on the status of former colonies. It should adhere to the > clearly demonstrated wishes of the majority of the British people who want > to their troops out of Ireland. It should forever and immediately withdraw > its troops from all Irish soil. Areas which have a Nationalist/Republican > majority should immediately be transferred to the control of the government > of Ireland. The UN is not always gospel. Sometimes, the Warsaw pact nations and the 3rd world nations impose unreasonable judgements on the world. Besides, you are stretching the interpretation of UN resolutions to apply here. > Areas having a loyalist "majority" should be allowed to operate > autonomously for a period of time until these people sort out their loyalties > without the presence of British troops. In the event of disorder in loyalist > "majority" areas, the security forces of the Irish government should exercise > their right of sovereignty in these areas, but only in the case of disorder. Why? Their loyalties are already "sorted out." And they are not about to change their minds. Of course, the loyalists would LOVE to live without British troops, but the IRA terrorists would go unchecked, and deaths would mount on BOTH sides rapidly. > Because there was no civil war between nationalists and loyalists > in the 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland after the establishment of > that government. There WAS a civil war between Republican factions because the > British Army and government did not fully withdraw in 1922. It is the British > presence which was then and continues to be the cause of violence. Au contraire. British military presence was minimal in 1968. This allowed the current episode of troubles to flare. > I am on the side of logic. Logic tells me that the only good thing > that the British government has ever done in Ireland is withdraw its troops > and get out. This is the only possible good thing that they can do now. > J. M. McGhee Sir, Logic tells me that the governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom have sovereignty over their own territories. That the inhabitants of the British Isles have the right to govern themselves. ANd I think that the recent agreement between Dublin and London is one, which while nobody is totally happy with it (neither the radicals of the IRA or the UDL), we must respect is as the concordance of ALL of the legitimate governments of the area. Britain has recognized Irish interests, but Dublin has recognized London's sovereignty. The issue is being settled by the parties involved. Perhaps Americans should keep out of it. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Charles Squires, Rm 619 WWH, | ARPA: squires@nyu-csd2.ARPA | | Courant Institute of Mathematical | UUCP: ...cmcl2!csd2!squires | | Sciences, New York University | CSNET: squires@nyu-csd2@csnet-relay | | 251 Mercer St, NY, NY, 10012 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
reid@dciem.UUCP (David Brake c/o Reid Ellis) (11/23/85)
I was just reading through net.politics, looking for cheap laughs (at Don
Black's expense) when I suddenly came across something that shocked me even
more. It astonishes me that the supporters of Sinn Fein (sp?), and, by
extension (don't fool yourselves) the I.R.A. would dredge up the gross
details of atrocities committed by the English in Ireland just to whip
themselves into a frenzy of hatred. The comparisons of the Maze Prisons
to Auschwitz are so totally ridiculous and hateful that they hardly
bear discussion.
I'm afraid that terrorism can breed in ordinarily decent people occaisionally
brutality. This does not mean that the British are "butchers". The past
treatment of the Irish may have been harsh, but the cycle of violence MUST
end.
What offended me most was an incident in a peace march here. I was standing
around, minding my own business, when a woman came up to me with a leaflet.
I read it, and it was talking about donations to help prevent brutalities
in prisons. I assumed that these were in a banana republic somewhere- imagine
my shock when these were purported to be prisons in Ireland, and the money
was to be given to an Irish group with a rather suspicious title. It horrified
me that some of these marchers for peace would give money to these people, and
that I felt sure that at least some of this money would be used to build
bombs to kill women and children.
Sorry, but clutching your hatred close to you is not a solution. The sooner
one side or the other stops, the better, and since the British are essentially
reacting to the violence they find all around them, it had better be the I.R.A.
--
--
Reid Ellis "Roads? Where we're going, who needs _roads_?"
{{allegra,decvax,duke,floyd,linus}!utzoo,{ihnp4,utzoo}!utcsri}!dciem!reid
This message brought to you courtesy of the Poslfit Committee