Irish mercenaries, unionist coat trailers and the Bard of Dunclug

[Evil Genius]

Evil Genius. Your understanding of the events leading up to and after Sep 11th are not clear enough for me. Firstly, it is not so simple to talk about "US Foreign Policy" without defining exactly what it was up to this point. US policy included the backing of Israel in their illegal incursions into Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. These brutal attacks resulted in the murder of 1000's of innocent muslim in these countries. Indeed, the Israelis watched on as Christian militias butchered all around them in refugee camps in lebanon. Most of Israels weapons and support and funding comes from the USA. Extreme muslims make the link that the US is equally responsible for their plight as israel are. The US helps dictators to susceed in countries like Iraq and saudi because the play ball. The dictator gets rich, the people stay poor. It is these people that Bin Laden fights for - muslims that are hard done by. I am not excusing the horrendous attacks of 9/11 but these are the reasons that they happened.
The Taliban are no more than a smattering of tribal war lords that couldn't have done anything about Bin Laden even if they wanted to. Afghanistan was already a wasteland destroyed by Saudi sponsored wars most recently and by Russian invasions before that (where the good old US trained Bin Laden holy warriors - knowing full well what his end objectives were). So the US, who forced the UN to obey by the way by threatening to go it alone anyway, blow the crap out of the wasteland that is Afghanistan dropping Cluster bombs on villages, torturing civilians - all the usual stuff they claim never happened. Of course Bin Laden is never caught.
Then suddenly, Bin Laden leaves the TV screen to be replaced by Sadam. Osama Bin Laden is on record as stating his total hatred for Sadam - the puppet of the west. Yet George W and Tony Blair ILLEGALLY invade Iraq, make up LIES about weapons of mass destruction and the rest is a bloody mess. BTW, both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been lost by the allies. Both countries are totally out of control. If you want evidence I suggest you read the last couple of chapters of Robert Fisks - The Great War for Civilisation and there you will find exactly what your british and US governments are. Murdering scum, just like Bin Laden.

Believe it or not, there are elements of what you post with which I don't disagree. It's just that right or wrong, I do not see any of it as justifying 9/11, nor preventing the USA from pursuing the 9/11 attackers into Afghanistan, when the Taliban refused to co-operate in doing so.

Sadly, however, I get the clear impression from your post that you must feel that prior US policy in Israel etc in some way did justify Bin Laden's attack, or at least removed the moral justification of the USA in pursuing him and his allies (as well as being an implied condemnation of the United Nations when they authorised at the very highest level the invasion of Afghanistan)

Back to you.

[ziggysego]

He's not saying there was justification for 9/11, just that the USA aren't totally innocent.

[Evil Genius]

He's not saying there was justification for 9/11, just that the USA aren't totally innocent.

I agree the US aren't wholly innocent when it comes to their foreign policy etc (far from it, imo). But when he replies to a clear condemnation of the 9/11 attack with a rant about what the USA is doing in Israel etc, indeed refuses to condemn 9/11 unequivocally, the inference is clear. Namely, that he is less than sympathetic to the 3,000 entirely innocent victims of that atrocity, as well as unsympathetic to the actions of the USA in trying to bring the perpetrators to justice. Worse still he appear less than condemnatory of Al Quaida and the Taliban, who I personally think are some of the most odious barbarians on earth.

But hey, one man's terrorist...

[Evil Genius]

Meanwhile, back on the subject of the parade itself, here is this Board's favourite columnist's take from last week.  I must say, I particularly appreciated his closing lines (emboldened) and look forward with fond anticipation to reading Donagh et als forensic, line-by-line rebuttal of the piece ("Load of Sh1te", "Myer's a bollox", "Stopped reading after the first sentence" etc)

Enjoy! 
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnis...ts-1505001.html

Shinners again show they are bitter infants

By Kevin Myers


Wednesday October 22 2008


All good men and women should rejoice at the decision of the Shinners to have counter-marches in Belfast to greet the return of the Royal Irish Regiment from active service in Afghanistan. I'm only sorry that I can't be there on the street, applauding them for their honesty and their decency in revealing, yet again, what a shower of pitiful and bitter infants they actually are.

And dear God, to think these people, not so long ago, were killing left, right and centre, and using the same moral compass that now causes them to protest at the return of Irish soldiers from UN-authorised duties fighting Islamo-fascists.

I imagine the debate preceding the decision to have counter-marches against the Royal Irish was probably conducted with the same intellectual gravity that the Shinners' forefathers had shown before throwing in their lot with Hitler.

If something is Brit, it's bad. Hence the Nazi agents being smuggled into Ireland with IRA assistance: hence the IRA lighting fires on the Black Mountain to guide Nazi bombers to Belfast; hence IRA U-boat missions to Ireland -- all in all, the Shinners' contribution to the Final Solution. And the Shinners can't say that all this was just part of a confused and ignorant past, because until recently, before someone cut it down, they continued to have annual commemorations at the statue of Sean Russell, the Nazi stooge who died in on his way to further the aims of the Third Reich in Ireland.

Grateful

Now, I confess, I'm profoundly grateful to the Shinner leadership that they've stopped killing people, even though I really don't know why they've done that, any more than I understand why they thought they had the right to start killing people in the first place. But there you are: having Shinners about the place is rather like having a demented uncle in the attic. You've no idea when he's going to stop knitting tea-cosies and instead, reach for the carving knife and resume his feud with the neighbours.

The timing and the reason are for him to decide, though not to explain; for no explanation is possible. And I have to say, that if the mad uncle in the attic is going to expend his energies complaining about Irish soldiers serving in Afghanistan, that's a considerable improvement on what he was doing before, which was murdering them in their homes.

Of course, it is irrelevant that in my lifetime there has barely been a more lawful war than that in Afghanistan: it is being fought on a UN mandate against an enemy which is an active ally of al-Qai'da. We know the calibre of this enemy; we know his project; it was encapsulated by the murder of Gayle Williams, the British aid worker who was assassinated the other day in Kabul, and by the regular murder of little girls in Talmand province who are guilty of the heinous crime of being able to spell. And of course, to remind you all, these were the fine people behind 9/11.

What I'd really, really like to do is to put some Afghan women democrats in the same room as a group of Shinners, and to get the latter to outline their position on Afghanistan to the former. Similarly, I'd love to have got the Shinners of yesteryear to sit down with a train-load of Jews bound for Auschwitz and explain to them why they supported the Nazis.

Or equally, I would love to have heard Mary Lou McDonald, MEP for Dublin, get up in the European Parliament and explain why three years ago she gave the annual oration at the statue to Sean Russell, the Nazi collaborator.

Ah well. It is not to be: alas, life is full of such little disappointments. And another little disappointment is that the general furore over the US presidential election means the US media are unlikely to notice that Sinn Fein is now taking an effectively pro-Taliban, pro-al-Qai'da stance. At least, the Shinners have sought permission from the Parades Commission to have their anti-Royal Irish march. Dissident republicans (who actually are visitors from the planet Zog) have announced that since they don't recognise the Parades Commission, they're not going to seek permission to have their Royal Irish counter-marches, and they're just going to go ahead with them anyway.

Which of course makes their marches illegal: and you can be reasonably sure that if the peelers enforce the law against the loonies from Zog, then the other Shinners, their slightly less demented cousins from Xog, will revert to type and start complaining about police brutality. But I suppose, at one level, one can understand the position the mad Zog-Xog family are in. The Provisional IRA has largely disarmed, though it prides itself on being an undefeated army: yet here the Shinners will see the British army marching through the streets of Belfast, thereby reminding people what an undefeated army really looks like, and worse, how utterly pointless the IRA war really was.

[Main Street]

I greatly regret, however, that other Western nations, whose interests are equally threatened by Al Quaida, have declined to join the coalition in Afghanistan, since this means that the battle is so much harder to win. And one of the worst consequences of the present military stalemate is that it has allowed the heroin trade to flourish, thereby poisoning (mostly young) people throughout the world with addiction etc.
Of course, I don't expect people like Main Street, who are so clearly blinded by anti-British hatred, to see it that way. After all, such hatred is no different from e.g. that which saw other Irish people side with the Nazis against the Allies during the Second World War, two generations ago.

But just as the Nazis used anti-Semitism to further their cause, then the Taliban is using Heroin to further theirs. Or would Main Street deny that it is this latter who are controlling the heroin trade in Afghanistan and by extension, throughout the rest of the world?

I suppose that's what years of EG getting his arse kicked and ridiculed on this Board does to him.
Disagree with EG and you are similar to a Nazi supporter

Drug Trafficking
It was the CIA  backed Mujahideen who raised funds through Opium trade. It was called the US sponsored Drug trade.
Richard Davenport-Hines, an expert in the history of narcotics. eminent prize winning historian, author of
"The Pursuit of Oblivion: A Global History of Narcotics"
states
"US government agencies have been crucial in escalating this supply of heroin to the western world".

on UK claims that Al Quaida profiteering from the drug trade
"This  may be overstated, for drug trafficking does not seem to be a major source of money for his al-Qaeda network"
rather it is their opponents who are into the production.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1590827.stm

Gen. James L. Jones, the supreme allied commander for NATO,
Washington Post]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101654.html]Washington Post
"It is truly the Achilles' heel of Afghanistan,"  said in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. Afghanistan is NATO's biggest operation, with more than 30,000 troops. Drug cartels with their own armies engage in regular combat with NATO forces deployed in Afghanistan, he said. "It would be wrong to say that this is just the Taliban. I think I need to set that record straight," he added.

[red hander]

'Al Quaida launched a vicious terrorist attack on 9/11.'

So, that was year zero?  Nothing happened before that date involving America or American foreign policy?  It was bin Laden who started it?  The Israelis aren't c***ts?  It's those nasty Arabs?

Bin Laden launched a murderous attack on the USA, killing over 3,000 innocent people, of every race and creed, from every part of the world.

Do you consider that he was justified in doing so, on account of US foreign policy?

Do you not accept the US had the right to pursue him for this?

Do you consider that the Taliban was justified in protecting him?

These are simple questions, which may be answered by a simple "Yes" or "No" and without recourse to idiotic and abhorrent "whataboutery"...

Sorry, but it's not as SIMPLE as that ... nowhere do I say US policy justified 9/11 - it was a despicable attack - but it certainly helps to explain why those boyos crashed those planes into the buildings, killing 3000 innocent people

[mylestheslasher]

He's not saying there was justification for 9/11, just that the USA aren't totally innocent.

I agree the US aren't wholly innocent when it comes to their foreign policy etc (far from it, imo). But when he replies to a clear condemnation of the 9/11 attack with a rant about what the USA is doing in Israel etc, indeed refuses to condemn 9/11 unequivocally, the inference is clear. Namely, that he is less than sympathetic to the 3,000 entirely innocent victims of that atrocity, as well as unsympathetic to the actions of the USA in trying to bring the perpetrators to justice. Worse still he appear less than condemnatory of Al Quaida and the Taliban, who I personally think are some of the most odious barbarians on earth.

But hey, one man's terrorist...

Well I called Bin Laden a murdering scum. I of course condemn the murder of 3000 innocents. Unlike you however, I don't think that the 3000 in the twin towers were more important than the 10's of thousands murder by the US, British and Israeli. I tried to show you why these things happen becasue if you don't understand the cause it can never be fixed. Since you state that I didn't unequivalently condemn the 9/11 killings may I ask you if you are willing to condemn the following...

- Israel incursion and murder of Palestinian Contrary to UN resolutions calling this act illegal
- Britain and US illegal invasion of Iraq.
- Britain and US torture of prisoners, as listed numerously on Amnesty Internationals website, contrary to the Geneva convention.
- Quantanamo Bay - Holding of men without trial or representation contrary to Geneva Convention.
- Britain and US use of depleted uranium in their weapons during Iraq war which has more than quadrupled cancer in Iraq.
- Britain and US use of cluster bomb in residential areas in both Iraq and Afghanistan contrary to the Geneva convention.
- Britain and US sponsor sanctions against Iraq preventing the sale of food and medicine and the net effect of the deaths of 500,000 children during the length of those sanctions (which did nothing to get rid of Sadam)
- Britain, US and German sale of poison gas to Iraq for use against Iran which was also used against their own people (Kurds)

I could go one but my fingers are soar!

[ludermor]

well take them down then!

[Zapatista]

well take them down then!

[lynchbhoy]

The Provisional IRA has largely disarmed, though it prides itself on being an undefeated army: yet here the Shinners will see the British army marching through the streets of Belfast, thereby reminding people what an undefeated army really looks like, and worse, how utterly pointless the IRA war really was.

dear God , while the start of it was meaningless diatribe, the end above in bold really turns this around and instead of the shinners looking like the bitter infants which is the obv reason for this poor article, he shows himself up for being one.

why would sf or anyone with human compassion like a public commemoration of pre-meditated cold blooded killers parading through streets anywhere in an unbrainwashed world to celebrate their 'being' (if not their killing).


as for the bigot of dunclug
any further development on the unionist party at least trying to hide themselves when they come onto 'fenian' websites in future?
that is if they cant contain themselves and feel obliged to disgracefully sectarianly rant at ordinary GAA folk !

[Bacon]

Does Ziggylego ever post an opinion of his own? Just a question. His hole must be awful sore sitting on that fence all day long.

The Shinners have got this one badly wrong IMO.

In an attempt to take over leadership of the protests from Eirrigi (Sp) they risk destroying a lot of what they have achieved in the last 10 years. Sometimes preception is the reality and the preception in unionist areas is that this is a direct attack on them. They will react the way they always have done and we'll end up with a riot that will set relationships in the city back years. I work with lads from East Belfast. They are all going to the city centre on Sunday and one of them told me feelings in his area are now running as high as they were at the hight of Drumcree.

Sinn Fein leadership should do the right thing and call it off but unfortuantly they now find themselves unable to call of their protest without being seen to cave into pressure from unionists and Protestant church leaders.

So we all drift towards the waterfall in our little raft arguing over whos fault it is. I used to think the Shinners had a clever plan but now I know they just react to situations and have learned nothing from the Peace Process.

So why don't MoD call of the match? I don't know why they agreed to it in the first and I don't know why they won't call it off.

[Donagh]

Hard to estimate stupidity of unionist councillors
Brian Feeney
By Brian Feeney The Wednesday Column
29/10/08

In Liverpool in November 2006, a group of marines were asked to leave a bar because they were in uniform. They'd been attending the funeral of a colleague killed in Basra.

At Birmingham airport earlier this year, 200 soldiers returning from Afghanistan were asked to change into civilian clothes after their flight had been diverted from RAF Brize Norton.

In March this year, it emerged that the commanding officer at RAF Wittering had an order in force banning air force personnel from wearing uniform in nearby Peterborough.

In each of these examples an angry reaction from local people to the role of the British armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan was the reason the soldiers were advised not to wear uniform.

Soldiers in uniform and their wives have been subjected to a torrent of abuse. In one case in Peterborough two men kicked the car of the wife of a RAF officer because they saw his mess uniform hanging in the back of the car.

It's not just in Belfast that people object to the British army. The deployment of British forces in an illegal invasion of Iraq and the questionable motives for supporting the Americans in Afghanistan have raised hackles all over the world.

In Belfast however there's the added dimension of the legacy of British forces in the north.

Unionist councillors in Belfast knew full well what they were doing when they proposed a parade through the city centre.

Past experience shows it's impossible to underestimate the stupidity and sheer bloody-mindedness of unionist councillors. Their real motivation in demanding such a parade is only made more obvious in every specious, dishonest and disingenuous interview you listen to.

They knew perfectly well that insisting on such a parade against the wishes of half the population of Belfast meant making a political football out of the men and women marching. They knew perfectly well that it is a divisive proposal and proposed it because it is.

They knew that there would be protest demonstrations. They knew there would be counter-demonstrations leading to potential trouble. Some unionist councillors are now actively encouraging such counter-demonstrations.

There are posters all over loyalist districts in east, west and north Belfast urging people to 'Support our Troops'. It is widely believed that the UDA are involved in this poster campaign.

You might think that before the motion got to council someone in authority in the DUP would have had a word with one of his eejits in Belfast city council and said "don't even think about this. You're going to cause trouble on the streets and in the city centre".

No chance. That might have been acting responsibly. Unionist councillors of all shades are only too delighted to have a chance to claim ownership of the British army and reinforce its identification with loyalism.

The insistence on a march past in Belfast and the poster campaign are open invitations for every loyalist yahoo in Belfast to come out and strike a blow in the name of loyalty.

Unionists who pressed ahead in the full knowledge of these consequences also knew that such a provocative parade in a divided city would inevitably produce an outraged response from groups like Eirigi who see a glorious opportunity to bring out any fenian yahoo available to strike a blow for republicanism.

Some guys will travel a good distance to have their chance. Better still, they have a chance to upstage Sinn Fein who intend to obey the law in their parade.

Unionist councillors have succeeded in creating the circumstances for potentially the most serious confrontation in Belfast for years. They must be delighted because that was exactly what they had in mind.

Voting through a march past was like what you do with a firework – light the blue touch paper and retire. Nothing to do with me guv. The yahoos on each side will do the job for you.

Sit back now and listen to the nauseating excuses and pretexts from these same unionists who set the scene for what will happen at the weekend.

Bear in mind that major cities across Britain have deemed it too controversial to have parades and the soldiers really are 'their' soldiers instead of being identified with one community.

[Hardy]

They knew that there would be protest demonstrations. They knew there would be counter-demonstrations leading to potential trouble.

The "look what you made me do" argument.

I agree with Feeney's main point about the bloody-mindedness of those who are insisting on having this parade. But do the other side have to facilitate them and fulfill their agenda with the Pavlovian response that's required - a protest parade/demonstration? Is that not just about the stupidest response imaginable, on every level? Doesn't it portray those organising the protest as mere puppets of the malign forces behind the original parade, doing exactly as they are required, expected and programmed to do?

Wouldn't the most sensible, sophisticated and devastatingly effective response on just about every conceivable level have been to deny the parade its only purpose by ignoring it. That would also have scored propaganda points for the side of the argument that not only refuses to initiate provocative taunting, but is also sophisticated and advanced enough to ignore it or laugh at it. But no, the programmed response is too powerful.

What, very precisely please, is the counter demonstration expected to achieve?

[Bacon]

They knew that there would be protest demonstrations. They knew there would be counter-demonstrations leading to potential trouble.

The "look what you made me do" argument.

I agree with Feeney's main point about the bloody-mindedness of those who are insisting on having this parade. But do the other side have to facilitate them and fulfill their agenda with the Pavlovian response that's required - a protest parade/demonstration? Is that not just about the stupidest response imaginable, on every level? Doesn't it portray those organising the protest as mere puppets of the malign forces behind the original parade, doing exactly as they are required, expected and programmed to do?

Wouldn't the most sensible, sophisticated and devastatingly effective response on just about every conceivable level have been to deny the parade its only purpose by ignoring it. That would also have scored propaganda points for the side of the argument that not only refuses to initiate provocative taunting, but is also sophisticated and advanced enough to ignore it or laugh at it. But no, the programmed response is too powerful.

What, very precisely please, is the counter demonstration expected to achieve?

I agree with you Hardy but Sinn Fein only organised their parade when they found out Eirigi were organising one. They are reacting to them rather than the unionists. The Shinners are more worried about Eirigi being seen to lead a "republican protest" than they are about how things pan out on the streets on Sunday.

[Donagh]

They knew that there would be protest demonstrations. They knew there would be counter-demonstrations leading to potential trouble.

The "look what you made me do" argument.

I agree with Feeney's main point about the bloody-mindedness of those who are insisting on having this parade. But do the other side have to facilitate them and fulfill their agenda with the Pavlovian response that's required - a protest parade/demonstration? Is that not just about the stupidest response imaginable, on every level? Doesn't it portray those organising the protest as mere puppets of the malign forces behind the original parade, doing exactly as they are required, expected and programmed to do?

Wouldn't the most sensible, sophisticated and devastatingly effective response on just about every conceivable level have been to deny the parade its only purpose by ignoring it. That would also have scored propaganda points for the side of the argument that not only refuses to initiate provocative taunting, but is also sophisticated and advanced enough to ignore it or laugh at it. But no, the programmed response is too powerful.

What, very precisely please, is the counter demonstration expected to achieve?

Hardy you're missing the point that I outlined 46 pages ago. As the proposed route of this parade passes by two nationalist enclaves it will be impossible to ignore it due to the security operation which will be put in place before and after. The proposed protest is an attempt to keep a lid on the inevitable unrest and channel the protest in a more peaceful direction. However the Shinners were too late on the ball this time as the pace had already be set by Éirígí. They may keep their own protest peaceful, but while the SF heavy hitters are concentrating on keeping their own in line in the city centre, the real potential for trouble lies in the Markets and Short Strand where the IRSP and 32CSM will be organising the counter demonstrations