Conference tallis::celt

    Disgusting verdict.
    
    
    CHARLEY

  The SAS murderers should be put on trial.
              Mark

.2, wow, I'm surprised.

    .2
    
    YOU should be put on trial.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    RE .2
    
    Only the government can be put on trial for this. The individuals were
    no doubt 'only following orders'.

    Why give the soldiers or the British Government the benefit of a
    trial ?
    
    They didn't give the murder victims a trial.

    I expect the soldiers and civilians in the Garrison they were about to 
    blow up would have got one though.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Well wouldn't they????
    
    
    CHARLEY

>    They didn't give the murder victims a trial.

`murder victims'?!!  Twisted logic, man.  I think it's a jolly good
show that our chaps sorted out those dastardly low life.  Since so
many IRA supporters are Yanks, I'd have thought they'd fully understand
the adoption of the American strategy of `shoot first, ask questions
later', and they don't put up with all this sort of shit.

Chris.

>  YOU should be put on trial.

  What kind of a trial were Mairead Farrell, Daniel McCann, and Sean Savage
  given.  Since the SAS murdered them, there was no trial.  Eye-witnesses to
  the assasination contradicted the British governments lies.  

  Try real hard to concentrate your mind on why the European Court of Justice
  found that the SAS paramilitaries acted with undue force when they murdered
  these unarmed Irish people.


>  Since so
>  many IRA supporters are Yanks, I'd have thought they'd fully understand
>  the adoption of the American strategy of `shoot first,  

  You don't understand what it means to have a Bill of Rights.  We've had
  our 'shoot first' clowns do their thing at Ruby Ridge.  I'd like to see
  them go to trial for murder also.


                           Mark

  
 
   

    Well, the real problem I have with the events on the Rock
    is that that witness Carmen (I-forget-her-last-name) who
    said the 2 of the people were lying on the ground trying to give
    up to the authorities (SAS) when they were shot. That is a bit much.
    
    I understand British concerns about safety. And we all probably
    agree that the people were up to no good. But shooting them after
    capturing them just doesn't sit well with me.
    
    Shooting those 3 people probably produced 30 more IRA members
    instantly. It does no good.
    
    George

    Put another way - would the British UN use the shoot-first policy
    when capturing a suspected Bosnian Serb terrorist near Sareyevo(sp?)?

>    Put another way - would the British UN use the shoot-first policy
>    when capturing a suspected Bosnian Serb terrorist near Sareyevo(sp?)?

(Sarajevo; I think, anyway!)  I don't see why not, unless they desperately
needed information.  Same goes for muslims or any others, too.  In a war,
a terrorist probably gets grouped in with spies etc, so shooting is an
accepted policy (even under the Geneva convention I think, although I'm
not absolutely certain)

Chris.

as an interesting aside, I see that Gerry Adams is yet again making thinly
veiled threats about the resumption of violence if he doesn't get his own
way.  It must *surely* be time that he and Sinn Fein are taken to the court
of human rights to account for their appalling record of continued human
rights violations and atrocities over the years.  Then, perhaps, we may
see a chance of Adams and Macguinness being tried for their war crimes.

Chris.

    Lets have a nice clean decent justified war shall we? And if anyone
    doesn't keep to the rules we can shoot them! 
    
    Ever since I watched the Archbishop of Canterbury explaining that the
    bombing of Bagdad with its appalling toll on civilian life was morally
    justified I have no time for such hypocrisy. And when over three
    hundred women and children huddling in a bunker were turned to boiling fat
    in seconds by a computer directed bomb, Douglas Hurd made a speech in
    the House of Commons regretting it all which he cribbed off Gerry 
    Adams. 
    
    The tragedy of Gibraltar for me was that three IRA volunteers thought
    that individualist terrorist methods would change things and free their
    communities from the terror and oppression they have been subjected to. 
    I regret too that so many young men from Britain have been sucked into
    fighting a dirty war in the North of Ireland with promises of sunshine
    and skis.
    
    I can't undestand why people are surprised at the shoot to kill policy,
    it was not new. Who killed Seamus Grew and Roddy Carroll ? When will
    thr truth about John Stalker's investigations be published?
    
    Kevin 

    .9
    
    As written elsewhere..
    
    I'm sure the family of the grandfather that was blown to smithereens
    whilst his Granddaughter had both her legs blown off would agree with
    your "People who shoot to kill do not obey civil and HUMAN rights"
    argument.
    
    What sort of war do you think the I.R.A. are fighting??
    They blow up Banks with civilians in, Post offices with civilians in,
    Shops, Stations, cars, all with INNOCENT civilians in.
    
    And then you argue that the SAS are wrong for shooting three KNOWN
    terrorists, when it was KNOWN they were there to plant a bomb, when it
    was UNKNOWN whether they were armed or not.
    
    You can't have it both ways.
    
    
    CHARLEY
    
    
    

Re .15
    
>    I'm sure the family of the grandfather that was blown to smithereens
>    whilst his Granddaughter had both her legs blown off would agree with
>    your "People who shoot to kill do not obey civil and HUMAN rights"
>    argument.

I'm sure the people of Dublin and Monaghan feel exactly the same way.
    
>    What sort of war do you think the I.R.A. are fighting??
>    They blow up Banks with civilians in, Post offices with civilians in,
>    Shops, Stations, cars, all with INNOCENT civilians in.

    Of course, when it came to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings all of
    the people who were killed and maimed were guilty. Guilty of being
    Irish that is.
    
    What sort of war do you think the B.A. are fighting??
    They blow up Banks with civilians in, Post offices with civilians in,
    Shops, Stations, cars, all with INNOCENT civilians in. They supply
    names and addresses of republican sympathisers to UDA death squads who
    then enter the homes of these people and murder them in front of their
    families. They murder innocent people and only serve three years while
    they lock away IRA personnel for "attempted" murder.

>    And then you argue that the SAS are wrong for shooting three KNOWN
>    terrorists, when it was KNOWN they were there to plant a bomb, when it
>    was UNKNOWN whether they were armed or not.
    
     When the British army bombed Dublin and Monaghan they knew that the
     INNOCENT civilians were DEFINITELY UNARMED.

>    You can't have it both ways.

     Neither can you or the British army. Thankfully 10 of the 19 senior
     European judges agree with me.
    

    I'll tell you what.
    
    There are some very, very interesting fantasies in note.16.
    
    Where did you get that information? The Gerry Adams version of "Mein
    Kampf?"
    
    
    CHARLEY

    >And then you argue that the SAS are wrong for shooting three KNOWN
    >terrorists, when it was KNOWN they were there to plant a bomb, when it
    >was UNKNOWN whether they were armed or not.
    
    Charlie, you might add...
    
    and when it was viewed they were trying to surrender. When at that
    time they were shot in cold blood. Without trial, nor jury, nor
    questioning, simply shot in the back. I'm glad I wasn't visiting
    Gilbralter as a tourist that day and wearing a shamrock jersey...
    

>    There are some very, very interesting fantasies in note.16.
    
>    Where did you get that information? The Gerry Adams version of "Mein
>    Kampf?"
    

     Ever read an Amnesty International report on human rights violations
     in north east Ireland?  Don't like Amnesty International?  How about
     Helsinki Watch?  Don't believe in Helsinki Watch?  How about the 20 or
     so other human rights organizations reporting on north east Ireland.

                            Mark

    Elaborate.
    

 
 Amnesty International - United Kingdom 
 Political Killings in Northern Ireland February 1994 AI index: EUR 45/01/94

 Amnesty International - United Kingdom
 Human Rights Concerns June 1991. AI index: EUR 45/04/91

 Amnesty International - April 1989
 Investigating Lethal Shootings: The Gibralter Inquest (AI Index: EUR 45/02/89)

 Amnesty International - United Kingdom
 Northern Ireland: Killings by Security Forces and "Supergrass" Trials
 (AI Index: EUR 45/08/88)

 Relatives for Justice: (They also have a wide collection of documents)
 1 Westend Park, Derry BT489JF

    While I do not for one second wish to take the side of CHARLEY in this 
    argument, I do not recall any amnesty or helsinki watch report which
    pins the liberty hall, Dawson St  or Monaghan bombings on the British
    army. If I remember rightly a car connected with the Dawson St atrocity was
    later found in a loyalist area of Belfast and the question arose as to
    how the terrorists were able to go in and out through the green
    channel while the entire RUC and British army were having a Kit-e-cat
    break. There have been persistent rumours and allegations about this,
    and about the bombing of the Miami Showband, but the facts have been
    well covered up. 
    
    What is the relevance of this though? The British forces have always
    fought dirty if they feel like it, just as their US allies have. 
    They believe the ends justify the means. So they flatten Bagdad, sink
    the Belgrano, send the navy to shell Suez, atom bomb Nagasaki, cause a
    firestorm in Dresden, send the Black and Tans in with an official
    policy of terror, etc etc. Nor have they ever been short of lawyers,
    bishops and assorted stooges who insist it was all fair play, we didn't
    start it, bla bla bla. Why suddenly be surprised when they shoot a
    couple of people lying on the ground in the back ? It is the front end
    of capitalism Mark, and they didn't care about the starving people
    during the famine any more than the white man cared about the Indians
    on the great plains of Noth America.
    
    The point is, the terrorist methods of the IRA won't stop them and nor
    will any number of judges in the European Court.
    
    And by the way: regarding the Monaghan bombings etc: although these are
    the greatest criminal acts  in the history of the Irish Republic, the
    government of the Republic has consistently done sweet fa about finding
    out who did it.
    
    Kevin     
      

    Re .17
    
    There is a discussion on this topic in note 1236.* in this conference.
    Caution : Don't read that note if you want to keep your blinkered
    Anglo-phile view point. Reading that note could seriously damage your
    ignorance.

    1236.42
    
    
    CHARLEY

re .23,

ah, a paragon of unbiased intelligence speaks out!

Chris.

    You know that Chris.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    RE: .25
    
    That's a fairly difficult observation to make with any degree
    of authority.. in your case.
    
    John

RE: Shoot first, ask questions later, US vs UK

In both Countries the law is much the same, i.e. "Lethal force is only 
justified if your own life or the lives of others are at risk" This is
a very limited protection for the public, police and Army (in both Countries).

So shooting the three in Gibralter ought to have been a crime even in
English Law.

As the law is worded in this manner, when a policeman or soldier does shoot
somebody there is a strong temptation to overstate the risk to which they
were exposed. E,g, in Hudson, NH, a few years back police shot and killed
an innocent citizen when they went on a drugs raid. However, it turned
out that they went to the wrong address. Nevertheless the police claimed
that he "went for his gun" and they had to shoot in self-defense. Quite
why  the victim would do that is a bit of a mystery but
the policeman had to claim that because it was his only chance of avoiding
a murder trial.

Similarly in the case of three in Gibralter. They were not committing
any crime at the time. There was no bomb, they had no remote detonator. 
Those accusations are probably just fantasy created to give the soldiers a legal
defense. 

It's true that bombing the band was the sort of action the IRA were
conducting at the time but I've never seen any claim of evidence that that
is what they were planning at the time.

M

>    That's a fairly difficult observation to make with any degree
>    of authority.. in your case.
    
meaning?  Oh superior one...

Chris.

  The European Court has once again critized Britain for violations of
  Human Rights.  A Judge has criticised on the British government's
  policy of delaying  parole applications by Irish Republican Army 
  prisoners as "unreasonable and unlawful."

  Meanwhile, Britain considers ignoring a Court that doesn't always find
  in it's favor.  Talk about hypocrisy.

    Re Your Fairy tale heading.
    
    
    Grow up.
    
    
    CHARLEY

>     Re Your Fairy tale heading.   
>     Grow up.
>     CHARLEY

  From the man who said I should be put on trial.
  It might interest you to know that the European Court of Human Rights has
  had to rule against Britain on 35 occasions, because of their medieval
  policies towards their fellow human beings.

                     Mark

>  It might interest you to know that the European Court of Human Rights has
>  had to rule against Britain on 35 occasions,

tell us something we don't know, even our allegedly government controlled
news agency told us that.  Maybe Britain has been taken to court on so
many occasions is due to the fact that they're less likely than some other
countries to accept back-handers to drop the case, which lends a slightly
different perspective to the above fact.

Chris.

    Or the fact that every nation in Europe is jealous of us. You tell me
    about human rights in Ireland violated by the Irish. France by the
    French. Germany by the Germans. Italy by the Italians. etc. etc.
    
    The story goes a lot deeper than a few catholics whingeing about
    getting shot 3 days after blowing a few children up.
    
    
    CHARLEY

>  It might interest you to know that the European Court of Human Rights has
>  had to rule against Britain on 35 occasions,


Just an innocent question, but have/can the IRA be 'taken' to the European 
Court of Human Rights?

Al

 re. .34
>   Or the fact that every nation in Europe is jealous of us.

    Well, at least you have a sense of humor.


>     The story goes a lot deeper than a few catholics whingeing about
>     getting shot 3 days after blowing a few children up.    
>    CHARLEY

  
     "a few catholics whingeing", and from a previous note of yours,
     "The "Sunday Bloody Sunday" massacre was instigated by Catholics firing
      ball bearings out of catapults and opening fire first."

     This just about sums you and your biggoted views up, doesn't it.
     You know, you'd be funny if it wasn't for the fact that I've met
     others of your ilk in British bars, as they dish out their 
     stupid "Paddy jokes" and anti-Catholic remarks.  I thank God that
     I've met some intelligent British people, so I know that they are
     not all like you.


                            Mark

    
    
    No need to really .35
    
    Just take them down to Castlreagh, beat the shite out of them, frame
    them up, lock them up in Long Kesh.
    
    And then wonder why they won't lie down.
    
    Bobby Sands and Francis Hughes were both quiet non-political youths
    with no great interest in the IRA until the got picked up and turned
    over by the RUC Specials.
    
    Dirty business really, time to go.
    
    Kevin                

Re .37

Oh come on please. Can't you give me a civil answer to what was a simple, 
civil question, the answer to which, I would be interested to know.

Al

    My sense of humor is not as imaginative as yours.
    
    I know a bloke that was hit in the face by a ball bearing on that day.
    
    I am not unintelligent, unlike yourself - when I said the story goes
    alot deeper than a few catholics whingeing - you disagreed with me!
    
    You indeed have the brains of a rocking horse.
    
    
    CHARLEY

>Just an innocent question, but have/can the IRA be 'taken' to the European 
>Court of Human Rights?

I don't believe so, they are subject to the courts of whatever Country's
police force arrest them.

These transnational Courts exist because, under the concept of Sovereignty,
a Country can do pretty much what it likes and these represent an attempt
to give citizens at least minimal rights. This court is often accused
of 'European interference in British matters', however it pre-dates the EU
and Britain was a founding member.


M

    Re .39
    
    Charley
    
    I don't contribute to this conference very often for reasons of my
    own...
    
    however can you just clarify what you are saying in .39...
    
    Are you saying that as someone got hit in the face by a ball bearing
    that it was alright to shoot dead 13 innocent people?
    
    Tom.                              

    My sincere apologies .38. I misunderstood your question as a polemic
    and did not realise it was meant seriously. 
    
    The IRA is an illegal paramilitary organisation, I think. If they had
    an address you could send them a court summons I suppose but they might
    send it back wrapped in Semtex.
    
    When individual IRA volunteers were arrested by the British authorities
    I guess they would have been only too happy to say, "No no, never mind
    the Diplock courts, send me to Strasbourg please!" 
    
    But as I pointed out rather flippantly in .37, that is not what the
    agenda was for IRA prisoners who were caught but not shot on the spot.
    
    Kevin   

    Both sides will always say the other opened fire first.
    
    So, I can't be arsed to argue>
    
    
    CHARLEY

                      <<< Note 1511.36 by GYRO::HOLOHAN >>>
 ( loads deleted)

>     This just about sums you and your biggoted views up, doesn't it.
>     You know, you'd be funny if it wasn't for the fact that I've met
>     others of your ilk in British bars, as they dish out their 
>     stupid "Paddy jokes" and anti-Catholic remarks.  I thank God that
>     I've met some intelligent British people, so I know that they are
>     not all like you.


      Mark,

      Where were these "British bars"?

      Stuart

>      Where were these "British bars"?

       Sorry to have confused you.  In the American language a bar is a place
       that serves drinks containing alcohol.
       I'd be hard pressed for exact directions.  One of the worst was near
       Trafalgar (I think it was called Checkers).    
       
                           Mark
          

London and the rest of Britain are two completely separate entities, as
proven by the views of their inhabitants (you don't have to go far in
London to find an inhabitant who, after grudgingly admitting that the
rest of Britain exists, will claim that it is irrelevant and parasitic.
It is not wise to use the views of such people to broadbrush the entire
British populace)

Chris.

    'ere, don't knock London like that! I fink 'e went in the wrong pubs.
    
    Having lived there for a few years, I would say London is a marvellous
    cosmopolitan place with an honourable record of opposition to all kinds
    of racism. The large Irish community there gets on well with the rest
    of the place and was never held responsible for the civilian terror to
    any significant extent. You'll find some pubs in the East End with
    signs up against travellers, but you'll get that in Glenamaddy.
    
    Kevin

>    'ere, don't knock London like that! I fink 'e went in the wrong pubs.
    
fair point, probably, being in the wrong place is usually my trick...

Chris.

    .45
    
    But saying that Mark, no English or British person has ever been in a
    pub were the clients are predominantly Irish Catholics and heard 
    Anti-British remarks have thery?????
    
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Well i stumbled into a predominately catholic bar in Colerane (sp?)
    and, after being asked and then assuring I wasn't a soldier, had a
    bloody good time and got totaly pissed at the expense of the bar-owner
    and his mistress......although it was a bit hairy when his actual wife
    popped in!!
    
    I've also popped into a remote bar in west Eire where Galic was the first
    language.....the locals took nearly fell of their chairs when I tried
    to ask for a Whiskey in Galic (the only bit of galic I know)....still
    it got me about five free 'water of life's!
    
    Shaun

> It is not wise to use the views of such people to broadbrush the entire
> British populace)

  Certainly.  But it wasn't limited to one pub, and some of the worst
  folks were in suits, and worked for some law offices nearby.

                         Mark

    Biggots come in all shapes and sizes....even suits.
    
    Shaun

>    Biggots come in all shapes and sizes....even suits.
    
especially the ones that get so drunk at lunchtimes that they're barely
able to even stand up come the afternoon... (no, I'm not in this category,
oddly enough!)

Chris.

    Chris, that was cryptic.......care to share ?
    
    Shaun

Just going on about the plebs who're out for a lunchtime drink, then get
plastered and start putting the world to rights (ie everybody else is to
blame), then getting on, still in this state, with a worryingly responsible
job...

Chris.

    I know the type....