Truth and Reconciliation?
NI Ombudsman to publish Claudy findings
Tuesday, 24 August 2010 10:14
The Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman will today publish the results of his investigation into the IRA bombing of Claudy, Co Derry, in July 1972 in which nine local people were killed.
Al Hutchinson is expected to produce significant new evidence about claims that a Catholic priest, who was a suspect in the police investigation, was moved out of the area and never questioned.
The priest, Fr James Chesney, who was transferred to a parish in Co Donegal soon after the Claudy murders, died from cancer in 1980.
AdvertisementTwo months ago, new British Prime Minister David Cameron made an effort to deal with one of the most controversial days of the Troubles, Bloody Sunday.
Mr Hutchinson will produce new evidence about the three, no-warning, IRA car bombs that went off 16km from Derry city, just six months after Bloody Sunday, killing nine innocent civilians.
Nobody has ever been charged or convicted in relation to those murders and the issue remains extremely sensitive territory.
Mr Hutchinson has examined official police, Northern Ireland Office and Catholic Church material.
His report will detail the different roles played by the RUC, the then Secretary of State William Whitelaw, and the Catholic Church authorities in Fr Chesney's transfer.
will be interesting to see if anyone is named or arrested arising out of this.
Esp since the authorities and police have known the identities of the culprits immediately after this happening !
Claudy bomb: conspiracy allowed IRA priest to go free
The report found Fr James Chesney was an IRA leader and was involved in the bombing The police, the Catholic Church and the government conspired to cover up a priest's role in one of the worst atrocities of the Northern Ireland Troubles, an investigation has found.
Nine people died in bombings in Claudy, County Londonderry on 31 July 1972.
The NI Police Ombudsman's probe found that high-level talks led to Fr James Chesney, a suspect in the attack, being moved to the Irish Republic.
No action was ever taken against Fr Chesney, who died in 1980.
In 2002, the Ombudsman, Al Hutchinson, began a probe into the original investigation.
His report, published on Tuesday, found that detectives in 1972 had concluded that Fr Chesney was an IRA leader and had been involved in the bombing.
He added that by acquiescing to a deal between the government and the Catholic Church to move Fr Chesney to a parish in the Irish republic, the Royal Ulster Constabulary was guilty of a "collusive act".
He said this had compromised the investigation and the decision "failed those who were murdered, injured or bereaved" in the bombing.
He said that if officers involved were still alive, "their actions would have demanded explanation, which would have been the subject of further investigation".
As well as investigating complaints made against the Police Service of NI, the Police Ombudsman also has the authority to look at investigations carried out by their predecessors, the RUC.
'Never arrested'
Mr Hutchinson said some detectives' attempts to pursue Fr Chesney were frustrated ahead of a meeting between Northern Ireland Secretary William Whitelaw and the leader of Ireland's Catholics, Cardinal Conway.
There, it was agreed that the priest would be moved to a parish in the Irish Republic.
The Ombudsman found that the Chief Constable, Sir Graham Shillington, was made aware of this decision.
Mr Shillington said he would "prefer a move to Tipperary".
Fr Chesney, who denied involvement in terrorist activities to his superiors, was never arrested.
On Tuesday the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, said the church was not involved in a cover up over the role of Fr Chesney.
Continue reading the main story
Claudy bombings
Claudy is a small village, with a mixed Protestant and Catholic population, six miles south-east of Londonderry
Nine people were killed in the three blasts, which happened on 31 July 1972
No warnings were given by the bombers
The IRA never claimed involvement, but were assumed to be behind them
Local priest Father James Chesney rumoured to have been a member of the IRA unit responsible
He was transferred by the Catholic Church across the border to Co Donegal
He died in 1980 without ever being questioned by the police over the atrocity
"The Church was approached by the secretary of state at the instigation of senior members of the RUC," he said.
"Furthermore, the Church subsequently reported back to the secretary of state the outcome of its questioning of Fr Chesney into his alleged activities.
"The actions of Cardinal Conway or any other Church authority did not prevent the possibility of future arrest and questioning of Fr Chesney."
Sinn Fein, the political party closely indentified with the IRA, said the deaths in Claudy were "wrong and should not have happened." The party repeated its call for an independent international truth commission.
BBC Ireland correspondent Mark Simpson said that the report lacks any explanation from Cardinal Conway or Mr Whitelaw about how they came to their decision to move Chesney.
"As both are now dead, we can only speculate as to their motives," our correspondent added.
"The most generous theory is that they felt that protecting the priest was the lesser of two evils.
"During that turbulent period in 1972, many believed that Northern Ireland was on the brink of a sectarian civil war. Almost 500 people were killed that year.
"If a priest had been arrested in connection with the Claudy bomb, it could have pushed community relations over the edge."
Both Protestants and Catholics were killed in the blasts.
The youngest victim was eight-year-old Kathryn Eakin who was cleaning the windows of her family's grocery store when the first bomb exploded.
The other people killed were Joseph McCluskey 39, David Miller aged 60, James McClelland 65, William Temple 16, Elizabeth McElhinney 59, Rose McLaughlin aged 51, Patrick Connolly, 15, and 38-year-old Arthur Hone.
Mr Hutchinson said that he accepted some of the decisions taken "must be considered in the context of the time" but added that the conspiracy still amounted to collusion.
"I accept that 1972 was one of the worst years of the Troubles and that the arrest of a priest might well have aggravated the security situation.
"Equally I consider that the police failure to investigate someone they suspected of involvement in acts of terrorism could, in itself, have had serious consequences."
He said he had found no evidence of criminal intent by anyone in the government or the Catholic Church.
I'll tell you what, whatever about Chesney, it's a total joke that all of the focus is on a dead priest, when other KNOWN culprits (I'm sure you know who I mean lynchbhoy) are walking around un-mentioned.
I wonder do Nally Stand and paper seller extraordinaire glens abu think those bombs were "justified"? No doubt we will get the usual weasel words.
Quote from: Trout on August 24, 2010, 01:59:47 PM
I wonder do Nally Stand and paper seller extraordinaire glens abu think those bombs were "justified"? No doubt we will get the usual weasel words.
I dig out an old copy of An Phoblacht and send it up to you for the truth ;)
Quote from: glens abu on August 24, 2010, 02:14:14 PM
Quote from: Trout on August 24, 2010, 01:59:47 PM
I wonder do Nally Stand and paper seller extraordinaire glens abu think those bombs were "justified"? No doubt we will get the usual weasel words.
I dig out an old copy of An Phoblacht and send it up to you for the truth ;)
Well instead of doing that why don't you answer the question, or are uou waiting for a press release from Sinn Fein?
Quote from: Trout on August 24, 2010, 02:22:26 PM
Quote from: glens abu on August 24, 2010, 02:14:14 PM
Quote from: Trout on August 24, 2010, 01:59:47 PM
I wonder do Nally Stand and paper seller extraordinaire glens abu think those bombs were "justified"? No doubt we will get the usual weasel words.
I dig out an old copy of An Phoblacht and send it up to you for the truth ;)
Well instead of doing that why don't you answer the question, or are uou waiting for a press release from Sinn Fein?
Dont really need to answer to someone who runs away from other discussions but will answer you this once.Totally wrong and cannot be justified.
Quote from: Trout on August 24, 2010, 02:22:26 PM
Quote from: glens abu on August 24, 2010, 02:14:14 PM
Quote from: Trout on August 24, 2010, 01:59:47 PM
I wonder do Nally Stand and paper seller extraordinaire glens abu think those bombs were "justified"? No doubt we will get the usual weasel words.
I dig out an old copy of An Phoblacht and send it up to you for the truth ;)
Well instead of doing that why don't you answer the question, or are uou waiting for a press release from Sinn Fein?
sinn fein were not even around at that stage, what are you talking about.
this bombing was completely and utterly wrong.
it smacks of Omagh that the culprits were 'allowed' to carry out this while the authorities knew about it from its planning until it was carried out.
the priest is a complete red herring and despite the culprits being known, there were hundreds lifted and dozens accused of planting and collaborating with this bomb and the culprits (imo most obv police informers) were allowed run away round the place scot free.
'findings ' like this are an insult to the people that died (and all other deaths in the north of Ireland).
Wouldn't completely agree. I think the priest is one hundred percent guilty, and I'm one hundred percent sure ther was indeed a cover up involving the upper echelons of the church.
I would however agree that there are people out there who everyone knows had a hand in this. Some of whom have been fairly f**king bare faced over the years.
Quote from: mc_grens on August 24, 2010, 03:07:17 PM
Wouldn't completely agree. I think the priest is one hundred percent guilty, and I'm one hundred percent sure ther was indeed a cover up involving the upper echelons of the church.
I would however agree that there are people out there who everyone knows had a hand in this. Some of whom have been fairly f**king bare faced over the years.
he (the priest) is not guilty of what he is being accused of. he is guilty of being (at least) friendly with some of this gang.
this report and I suspect the aftermath will have him as the planner, brains and operative that carried it all out !
Disagree fella. And have reason to do so.
Quote from: Trout on August 24, 2010, 01:59:47 PM
I wonder do Nally Stand and paper seller extraordinaire glens abu think those bombs were "justified"? No doubt we will get the usual weasel words.
Were you about during the early seventies? I reckon probably not. Therefore you have no idea how much support the IRA had then, and the environment that drove so many to do things they would not do now.
That was a different era, so to start pouring over old justifications is irrelevant and unhelpful.
To be quite frank I wouldn't want to hang my hat on anything either the catholic church or the british government had to say.
To label either of them as having 'form' in relation to peddling lies and covering up the truth would be a massive understatement ffs
What exactly would you have to do to get banished from the Catholic Church?
Quote from: Minder on August 24, 2010, 04:17:45 PM
What exactly would you have to do to get banished from the Catholic Church?
Tell the truth.
Quote from: Minder on August 24, 2010, 04:17:45 PM
What exactly would you have to do to get banished from the Catholic Church?
Obtain an abortion for your nine year old rape victim daughter, or be one of the doctors who carried it out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7930380.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7930380.stm)
Sweet fu*k did you read those details, he was abusing her since she was 6, i didn't even think it was possible for a 9 year old to get pregnant and he was abusing the handicapped older sister, words fail me, castration would be too good for the b*stard
Bit of a joke for the RUC to think they had to keep the Catholic Church sweet and on the side of "moderate nationalism" by allowing Conway to get Chesney offside ... what were the chances of the Catholic Church supporting "militant nationalism", considering its record of spinelessness during the struggle for independence? People shouldn't be surprised by the church's actions ... these are the same boyos who helped Nazi war criminals escape after the war and blessed the murderous deeds of any number of South American dictators over the years
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 05:04:25 PM
Bit of a joke for the RUC to think they had to keep the Catholic Church sweet and on the side of "moderate nationalism" by allowing Conway to get Chesney offside ... what were the chances of the Catholic Church supporting "militant nationalism", considering its record of spinelessness during the struggle for independence? People shouldn't be surprised by the church's actions ... these are the same boyos who helped Nazi war criminals escape after the war and blessed the murderous deeds of any number of South American dictators over the years
Think you'll find it was Sean Russell and the IRA who were helping the Nazis. ;)
Quote from: Trout on August 24, 2010, 01:59:47 PM
I wonder do Nally Stand and paper seller extraordinaire glens abu think those bombs were "justified"? No doubt we will get the usual weasel words.
Up on your moral high horse? What's the view like up there looking down on the big evil republicans?
I don't ever recall claiming that every IRA action was totally justified and this one certainly was not. To me therefor, your post is a typically cynical cheap shot at people of a republican persuasion on this board and hence are the true "weasel words".
I would imagine that no matter what reply I gave to your post, it would be simply not good enough. I would be accused of being "cold hearted" if I defended the bombing, or accused of "SF press release repeating" if I criticised it. ::)
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 06:18:23 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 05:04:25 PM
Bit of a joke for the RUC to think they had to keep the Catholic Church sweet and on the side of "moderate nationalism" by allowing Conway to get Chesney offside ... what were the chances of the Catholic Church supporting "militant nationalism", considering its record of spinelessness during the struggle for independence? People shouldn't be surprised by the church's actions ... these are the same boyos who helped Nazi war criminals escape after the war and blessed the murderous deeds of any number of South American dictators over the years
Think you'll find it was Sean Russell and the IRA who were helping the Nazis. ;)
So, let me get this right Mr Myers, are you telling me the Catholic Church didn't help Nazi war criminals escape after the war, it was Sean Russell and the IRA? While we're on the subject of your favourite subject, i.e moving away from the subject to suit your own agenda, what's your stance on the Duke of Hamilton and Edward VIII?
Can anyone remind me who planted the bombs?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 24, 2010, 07:18:30 PM
Can anyone remind me who planted the bombs?
I believe members of the provisional ira organised and planted the bomb. The issue is why did the catholic church cover up the actions of one of the ira members, a priest, with the help of the ruc and British authorities. Interesting when u consider there were priests elsewhere writing books on British collusion with loyalist death squads.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on August 24, 2010, 07:33:58 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 24, 2010, 07:18:30 PM
Can anyone remind me who planted the bombs?
I believe members of the provisional ira organised and planted the bomb. The issue is why did the catholic church cover up the actions of one of the ira members, a priest, with the help of the ruc and British authorities. Interesting when u consider there were priests elsewhere writing books on British collusion with loyalist death squads.
Oh I get the bit about collusion ok. My point is that the bombings seem to be glossed over for this sexy story and what the victims' families want is being missed over a priest who can't tell the world his version of events. Meanwhile, the families are still looking justice. If the full story behind Claudy never becomes public they will never get what they want regardless of what a priest is alleged to have done
Cover ups were the order of the day back then - whatever the circumstances, a good old cover up was drawn up to protect the church and the individuals in it - scary stuff.
In response to this correspondence the NIO wrote to Police Officer 3 on 6
December 1972;
'Many thanks for your note on Father Chesney. You will be relieved to hear
that Secretary of State saw the Cardinal privately on 5 December and gave
him a full account of his disgust at Chesney's behaviour. The Cardinal said
that he knew that the priest was a very bad man and would see what could
be done. The Cardinal mentioned the possibility of transferring him to
Donegal.'
Quote from: mylestheslasher on August 24, 2010, 07:33:58 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 24, 2010, 07:18:30 PM
Can anyone remind me who planted the bombs?
I believe members of the provisional ira organised and planted the bomb. The issue is why did the catholic church cover up the actions of one of the ira members, a priest, with the help of the ruc and British authorities. Interesting when u consider there were priests elsewhere writing books on British collusion with loyalist death squads.
In the interests of avoiding history from being distorted and misrepresented, it would be worth noting that priests are not suspected of involvement several hundred murders, where as the british "security" forces are. Hardly a suitable parallel.
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 06:18:23 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 05:04:25 PM
Bit of a joke for the RUC to think they had to keep the Catholic Church sweet and on the side of "moderate nationalism" by allowing Conway to get Chesney offside ... what were the chances of the Catholic Church supporting "militant nationalism", considering its record of spinelessness during the struggle for independence? People shouldn't be surprised by the church's actions ... these are the same boyos who helped Nazi war criminals escape after the war and blessed the murderous deeds of any number of South American dictators over the years
Think you'll find it was Sean Russell and the IRA who were helping the Nazis. ;)
So, let me get this right Mr Myers, are you telling me the Catholic Church didn't help Nazi war criminals escape after the war, it was Sean Russell and the IRA? While we're on the subject of your favourite subject, i.e moving away from the subject to suit your own agenda, what's your stance on the Duke of Hamilton and Edward VIII?
1. The Catholic Church did indeed assist Nazi war criminals after the war.
2. Members of the British Royal family and establishment were indeed Nazi sympathisers.
Any more really tricky questions you'd like me to answer?
None of which, btw, excuses the fact that it was Sean Russell and his fellow Irish patriots (sic) in the IRA who actively collaborated with the Germans.
Can someone explain to me if this priest has been found guilty or even likely to be the culpable for the Claudy bombs? Whether he was or wasn't, it's clear that the church did nothing to act upon this until pressed by the RUC, who were perhaps better placed arresting the man rather than hiding him.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 08:27:31 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 06:18:23 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 05:04:25 PM
Bit of a joke for the RUC to think they had to keep the Catholic Church sweet and on the side of "moderate nationalism" by allowing Conway to get Chesney offside ... what were the chances of the Catholic Church supporting "militant nationalism", considering its record of spinelessness during the struggle for independence? People shouldn't be surprised by the church's actions ... these are the same boyos who helped Nazi war criminals escape after the war and blessed the murderous deeds of any number of South American dictators over the years
Think you'll find it was Sean Russell and the IRA who were helping the Nazis. ;)
So, let me get this right Mr Myers, are you telling me the Catholic Church didn't help Nazi war criminals escape after the war, it was Sean Russell and the IRA? While we're on the subject of your favourite subject, i.e moving away from the subject to suit your own agenda, what's your stance on the Duke of Hamilton and Edward VIII?
1. The Catholic Church did indeed assist Nazi war criminals after the war.
2. Members of the British Royal family and establishment were indeed Nazi sympathisers.
Any more really tricky questions you'd like me to answer?
None of which, btw, excuses the fact that it was Sean Russell and his fellow Irish patriots (sic) in the IRA who actively collaborated with the Germans.
You really will have to try and get over your obsession with Sean Russell ... and please include that wee winking smiley in all future replies, I really miss it when it's not there as I'd hate to think of you not giving yourself a wee smug celebratory pat on the back when you think you've made a razor sharp contribution
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 08:27:31 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 06:49:52 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 06:18:23 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 05:04:25 PM
Bit of a joke for the RUC to think they had to keep the Catholic Church sweet and on the side of "moderate nationalism" by allowing Conway to get Chesney offside ... what were the chances of the Catholic Church supporting "militant nationalism", considering its record of spinelessness during the struggle for independence? People shouldn't be surprised by the church's actions ... these are the same boyos who helped Nazi war criminals escape after the war and blessed the murderous deeds of any number of South American dictators over the years
Think you'll find it was Sean Russell and the IRA who were helping the Nazis. ;)
So, let me get this right Mr Myers, are you telling me the Catholic Church didn't help Nazi war criminals escape after the war, it was Sean Russell and the IRA? While we're on the subject of your favourite subject, i.e moving away from the subject to suit your own agenda, what's your stance on the Duke of Hamilton and Edward VIII?
1. The Catholic Church did indeed assist Nazi war criminals after the war.
2. Members of the British Royal family and establishment were indeed Nazi sympathisers.
Any more really tricky questions you'd like me to answer?
None of which, btw, excuses the fact that it was Sean Russell and his fellow Irish patriots (sic) in the IRA who actively collaborated with the Germans.
"I am not a Nazi. I am not even Pro German. I am an Irishman fighting for the independence of Ireland. The British have been our Enemies for hundreds of years. They are the enemy of Germany today. If it suits Germany to give us help to achieve independence, I am willing to accept it, but no more, and there must be no strings attached."--the sentiments of Sean Russell, your supposed Nazi.
Russell and Frank Ryan were both 'co-operating' with the Nazis, but were both obviously fearful of a potential invasion of Ireland by British Forces and used the Republican maxim of 'England's difficulty'. They did not collaborate with the 'Final Solution', and indeed the general population of Europe had no idea about the extent of it until 1945--Russell hardly can be considered a bonafide Nazi; Frank Ryan even less so. Individual church member's positions were less clear, and in any case it isn't too difficult to realise that the IRA had not anything resembling the general influence of the Catholic Church within Germany or Ireland. Russell may have been aware of Nazi Germany's 'position' on Jews but given that he died in 1940 it is somewhat churlish to suggest that he was either cognisant of a desire on Adolf's part to enact the system of destruction which he did or, indeed, the full extent of that enaction.
Unless you're going to properly review your sources, do not attempt amateur and anachronistic historiography in future.
'Unless you're going to properly review your sources, do not attempt amateur and anachronistic historiography in future'
Too late for that stibhan ... just read ANY of his previous posts
For historiography, read 'history'. Too much doggerel in my head.
Russell and his fellow travellers in the IRA sought aid from the Nazis at a time when the Nazis were occupying most of Europe and attempting to invade Britain. The fact that he died in 1940 doesn't spare him and his friends from the judgement that they were prepared to side with one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen, in order to strike a blow against their 'enemies' the English. Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island. Who would Russell have run to for help then? Like all Irish republicans, he was incapable of viewing things with anything other than a Little Irelander mentality. He was prepared to act immorally in order to further his Little Irelander cause, just like those who bombed and murdered their fellow country men and women decades after his death, just like Fr James Chesney. All your big words can't put a gloss on that.
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 09:54:28 PM
For historiography, read 'history'. Too much doggerel in my head.
Too many wee sweetie mice in your head.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 09:55:28 PM
Russell and his fellow travellers in the IRA sought aid from the Nazis at a time when the Nazis were occupying most of Europe and attempting to invade Britain. The fact that he died in 1940 doesn't spare him and his friends from the judgement that they were prepared to side with one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen, in order to strike a blow against their 'enemies' the English. Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island. Who would Russell have run to for help then? Like all Irish republicans, he was incapable of viewing things with anything other than a Little Irelander mentality. He was prepared to act immorally in order to further his Little Irelander cause, just like those who bombed and murdered their fellow country men and women decades after his death, just like Fr James Chesney. All your big words can't put a gloss on that.
Do you hold all governments to these high standards. I mean loads of them out there are doing trade deals with any amount of dictatorships, selling them weapons etc etc.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 09:55:28 PM
Russell and his fellow travellers in the IRA sought aid from the Nazis at a time when the Nazis were occupying most of Europe and attempting to invade Britain. The fact that he died in 1940 doesn't spare him and his friends from the judgement that they were prepared to side with one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen, in order to strike a blow against their 'enemies' the English.
So do you believe the same about the Finns a too as they fought against their ancient enemy the Russians/Soviets at the same time the Nazis were foghting against them.
P S why the commas around enemies?
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 08:32:10 PM
Can someone explain to me if this priest has been found guilty or even likely to be the culpable for the Claudy bombs? Whether he was or wasn't, it's clear that the church did nothing to act upon this until pressed by the RUC, who were perhaps better placed arresting the man rather than hiding him.
The priest died 20 odd years ago. It is extremely common knowledge at this stage in the Claudy area who exactly was cuplable for the Claudy bombings. The fact that he was involved is beyond argument at this stage.
'Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island'
Aye, and if your grannie had balls she would be your granda ... any historian with a titter of wit knows the Nazis had NO chance of invading Britain, let alone Ireland, but you're no historian and you haven't any wit.
The British behaved like facists in their empire and the way they treated their 'subject' people was no different than the Nazis. Holocaust I hear you say ... why don't you read up on your country's history around the period 1841-1849, if you can read...
Quote from: mylestheslasher on August 24, 2010, 09:58:40 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 09:55:28 PM
Russell and his fellow travellers in the IRA sought aid from the Nazis at a time when the Nazis were occupying most of Europe and attempting to invade Britain. The fact that he died in 1940 doesn't spare him and his friends from the judgement that they were prepared to side with one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen, in order to strike a blow against their 'enemies' the English. Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island. Who would Russell have run to for help then? Like all Irish republicans, he was incapable of viewing things with anything other than a Little Irelander mentality. He was prepared to act immorally in order to further his Little Irelander cause, just like those who bombed and murdered their fellow country men and women decades after his death, just like Fr James Chesney. All your big words can't put a gloss on that.
Do you hold all governments to these high standards. I mean loads of them out there are doing trade deals with any amount of dictatorships, selling them weapons etc etc.
If I'd wanted to talk about governments, I'd have mentioned De Valera and his conduct during the war. I was talking about the IRA, a bunch of murderous intellectual pygmies (sorry, pygmies) hell bent on creating Little Ireland.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 09:55:28 PM
Russell and his fellow travellers in the IRA sought aid from the Nazis at a time when the Nazis were occupying most of Europe and attempting to invade Britain. The fact that he died in 1940 doesn't spare him and his friends from the judgement that they were prepared to side with one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen, in order to strike a blow against their 'enemies' the English. Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island. Who would Russell have run to for help then? Like all Irish republicans, he was incapable of viewing things with anything other than a Little Irelander mentality. He was prepared to act immorally in order to further his Little Irelander cause, just like those who bombed and murdered their fellow country men and women decades after his death, just like Fr James Chesney. All your big words can't put a gloss on that.
They were prepared to side with 'one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen' against 'one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen'. Documents released in recent months have no bearing upon the moral or political actions of a man with no cognisance of those documents. Russell was undoubtedly short-sighted and wholly wrong in his decision to pursue a link with Nazi Germany, but to suggest that he knew the full extent of the Nazi's regime is incorrect, and the fact that he died in 1940
does spare him complicity with the greatest of the Nazi's crimes and the enduring act(s) of their legacy. De Valera, Churchill and even Roosevelt all acted 'immorally' during the war to protect their own countries--this is the general attitude of leaders in wartime, not the sole preserve of your pantheon of supposed republican/Nazi/'Little Irelander' lunatics.
My 'big' words aren't trying to put a gloss on anything, and at no stage have I attempted to do so with either the Provisional IRA or Chesney. As for the priest in question, the enduring legacy of this report is not necessarily the guilt which he possessed for the bombings but the lack of a proper investigation into his guilt. There is no credible evidence save what seems a very vague body of British intelligence which suggests his seniority in the Provisionals.
That lack of evidence is the result of the cover-up by all three organisations. Which isn't to condemn the initial act--the people with the most culpability are obviously those who planted the bomb, and I'm in agreement with Sinn Fein that a truth/reconciliation commission is probably the only way in which the truth will be ascertained.
Quote from: Rossfan on August 24, 2010, 10:01:00 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 09:55:28 PM
Russell and his fellow travellers in the IRA sought aid from the Nazis at a time when the Nazis were occupying most of Europe and attempting to invade Britain. The fact that he died in 1940 doesn't spare him and his friends from the judgement that they were prepared to side with one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen, in order to strike a blow against their 'enemies' the English.
So do you believe the same about the Finns a too as they fought against their ancient enemy the Russians/Soviets at the same time the Nazis were foghting against them.
P S why the commas around enemies?
Russia invaded Finland in 1939. Operation Barbarossa didn't start until half way through 1941. Your comparison is plain daft.
Not all Irish people regarded - or regard - England as their enemy. Many millions of Irish have chosen to live there down through the decades, many hundreds of thousands have chosen to serve in the ranks of British forces - far, far more than ever chose to be in one of the IRA's murder gangs.
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 10:20:44 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 09:55:28 PM
Russell and his fellow travellers in the IRA sought aid from the Nazis at a time when the Nazis were occupying most of Europe and attempting to invade Britain. The fact that he died in 1940 doesn't spare him and his friends from the judgement that they were prepared to side with one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen, in order to strike a blow against their 'enemies' the English. Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island. Who would Russell have run to for help then? Like all Irish republicans, he was incapable of viewing things with anything other than a Little Irelander mentality. He was prepared to act immorally in order to further his Little Irelander cause, just like those who bombed and murdered their fellow country men and women decades after his death, just like Fr James Chesney. All your big words can't put a gloss on that.
They were prepared to side with 'one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen' against 'one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen'. Documents released in recent months have no bearing upon the moral or political actions of a man with no cognisance of those documents. Russell was undoubtedly short-sighted and wholly wrong in his decision to pursue a link with Nazi Germany, but to suggest that he knew the full extent of the Nazi's regime is incorrect, and the fact that he died in 1940 does spare him complicity with the greatest of the Nazi's crimes and the enduring act(s) of their legacy. De Valera, Churchill and even Roosevelt all acted 'immorally' during the war to protect their own countries--this is the general attitude of leaders in wartime, not the sole preserve of your pantheon of supposed republican/Nazi/'Little Irelander' lunatics.
My 'big' words aren't trying to put a gloss on anything, and at no stage have I attempted to do so with either the Provisional IRA or Chesney. As for the priest in question, the enduring legacy of this report is not necessarily the guilt which he possessed for the bombings but the lack of a proper investigation into his guilt. There is no credible evidence save what seems a very vague body of British intelligence which suggests his seniority in the Provisionals.
That lack of evidence is the result of the cover-up by all three organisations. Which isn't to condemn the initial act--the people with the most culpability are obviously those who planted the bomb, and I'm in agreement with Sinn Fein that a truth/reconciliation commission is probably the only way in which the truth will be ascertained.
He knew that the Germans had invaded Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, etc etc. What do you think he thought about that? And your point about 'leaders' is irrelevant, since neither Russell or any other IRA man at that time had the right to claim that mantle.
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 10:15:06 PM
'Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island'
Aye, and if your grannie had balls she would be your granda ... any historian with a titter of wit knows the Nazis had NO chance of invading Britain, let alone Ireland, but you're no historian and you haven't any wit.
The British behaved like facists in their empire and the way they treated their 'subject' people was no different than the Nazis. Holocaust I hear you say ... why don't you read up on your country's history around the period 1841-1849, if you can read...
Many distinguished historians would have a different opinion. I look forward to reading your book in which you carefully dismantle their research and put forward a completely new perspective on the 2nd world war.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 10:33:20 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 10:15:06 PM
'Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island'
Aye, and if your grannie had balls she would be your granda ... any historian with a titter of wit knows the Nazis had NO chance of invading Britain, let alone Ireland, but you're no historian and you haven't any wit.
The British behaved like facists in their empire and the way they treated their 'subject' people was no different than the Nazis. Holocaust I hear you say ... why don't you read up on your country's history around the period 1841-1849, if you can read...
Many distinguished historians would have a different opinion. I look forward to reading your book in which you carefully dismantle their research and put forward a completely new perspective on the 2nd world war.
Hitler was NEVER keen on invading ... he wanted a negotiated agreement, something he was led to believe was possible with the feedback his agents were getting from the British establishment/royal flunkies, who by the very fact they were expressing their pro-Nazi views were actually committing treason ... how many of those c***ts were hanged by your beloved British?.
And re: De Valera, if the British were so pissed off about his 'conduct' during the war then why did Churchill offer him the six countiies on a plate (f**k the loyal Ulster Prods) after the war if he allowed the royal navy back into the treaty ports to take on the submarine threat? Your blindness to the atrocities perpetrated over 800 years in Ireland by your beloved British is as pathetic as your hatred of the Irish people who were brave enough over those 800 years to stand up to those atrocities.
PS, I told you, don't forget the wee winking smiley ... its absence seriously damages your gravitas
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 10:29:31 PM
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 10:20:44 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 09:55:28 PM
Russell and his fellow travellers in the IRA sought aid from the Nazis at a time when the Nazis were occupying most of Europe and attempting to invade Britain. The fact that he died in 1940 doesn't spare him and his friends from the judgement that they were prepared to side with one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen, in order to strike a blow against their 'enemies' the English. Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island. Who would Russell have run to for help then? Like all Irish republicans, he was incapable of viewing things with anything other than a Little Irelander mentality. He was prepared to act immorally in order to further his Little Irelander cause, just like those who bombed and murdered their fellow country men and women decades after his death, just like Fr James Chesney. All your big words can't put a gloss on that.
They were prepared to side with 'one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen' against 'one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen'. Documents released in recent months have no bearing upon the moral or political actions of a man with no cognisance of those documents. Russell was undoubtedly short-sighted and wholly wrong in his decision to pursue a link with Nazi Germany, but to suggest that he knew the full extent of the Nazi's regime is incorrect, and the fact that he died in 1940 does spare him complicity with the greatest of the Nazi's crimes and the enduring act(s) of their legacy. De Valera, Churchill and even Roosevelt all acted 'immorally' during the war to protect their own countries--this is the general attitude of leaders in wartime, not the sole preserve of your pantheon of supposed republican/Nazi/'Little Irelander' lunatics.
My 'big' words aren't trying to put a gloss on anything, and at no stage have I attempted to do so with either the Provisional IRA or Chesney. As for the priest in question, the enduring legacy of this report is not necessarily the guilt which he possessed for the bombings but the lack of a proper investigation into his guilt. There is no credible evidence save what seems a very vague body of British intelligence which suggests his seniority in the Provisionals.
That lack of evidence is the result of the cover-up by all three organisations. Which isn't to condemn the initial act--the people with the most culpability are obviously those who planted the bomb, and I'm in agreement with Sinn Fein that a truth/reconciliation commission is probably the only way in which the truth will be ascertained.
He knew that the Germans had invaded Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, etc etc. What do you think he thought about that? And your point about 'leaders' is irrelevant, since neither Russell or any other IRA man at that time had the right to claim that mantle.
The invasion of Poland, Czechoslovakia and France alone are hardly tantamount to the actions of the 'greatest tyranny the world has ever seen': if they are, they can certainly leave room for comparison with the actions of Britain over the course of its colonial conquests.
I didn't clarify the word 'leaders' in my post but if you're suggesting that the actions of Russell were as an individual rather than the head of any collective then the discussion of his actions is moot. He most certainly was a 'leader' who held seniority in the IRA. I did not and do not suggest that this amounted to popular support, but just because De Valera and the others mentioned had such support does not excuse any of his or their actions. In any case, since you have vested your support in De Valera (at least over Russell in respect to 'popularity'), a quote from him illuminates a general Irish stance:
Quote
I would like to put a hypothetical question-it is a question I have put to many Englishmen since the last war. Suppose Germany had won the war, had invaded and occupied England, and that after a long lapse of time and many bitter struggles, she was finally brought to acquiesce in admitting England's right to freedom, and let England go, but not the whole of England, all but, let us say, the six southern counties.
These six southern counties, those, let us suppose, commanding the entrance to the narrow seas, Germany had singled out and insisted on holding herself with a view to weakening England as a whole, and maintaining the securing of her own communications through the Straits of Dover.
Let us suppose further, that after all this had happened, Germany was engaged in a great war in which she could show that she was on the side of freedom of a number of small nations, would Mr. Churchill as an Englishman who believed that his own nation had as good a right to freedom as any other, not freedom for a part merely, but freedom for the whole-would he, whilst Germany still maintained the partition of his country and occupied six counties of it, would he lead this partitioned England to join with Germany in a crusade? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.
Would he think the people of partitioned England an object of shame if they stood neutral in such circumstances? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.
Whilst this riposte (which is completely bare without the remainder of what is considered De Valera's finest, and most 'popular' speech) is in defence of Ireland's stance of neutrality (or lack of action), it can certainly go a long way towards explaining the non-neutral 'actions' of Russell. He knew that the Germans invaded Poland et al but he hardly considered that an atrocity equal or commensurate to the 300/700 year colonial subjugation of Ireland, which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 10:52:44 PM
which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.
crap!
Some interesting, if not vitriolic, comments on this thread.
Does anyone hear remember The Third Force, early to mid-1980s? If my memory serves me correctly, it was a "cleric" a former "first minister" for the 6-counties "government" who stood on a wet and windy hill in Co. Antrim and in full view of several hundred gun licence-toting "volunteers" declared on camera that he would sooner fight than be subjected to more "Irish" influence.
Convince me that he has less blood on his hands than the alleged IRA member/clergy man. And convince me that there was absolutely never any collusion between him, his terrorist gang and the RUC/British Authorities.
Quote from: Nally Stand on August 24, 2010, 06:32:17 PM
Quote from: Trout on August 24, 2010, 01:59:47 PM
I wonder do Nally Stand and paper seller extraordinaire glens abu think those bombs were "justified"? No doubt we will get the usual weasel words.
Up on your moral high horse? What's the view like up there looking down on the big evil republicans?
I don't ever recall claiming that every IRA action was totally justified and this one certainly was not. To me therefor, your post is a typically cynical cheap shot at people of a republican persuasion on this board and hence are the true "weasel words".
I would imagine that no matter what reply I gave to your post, it would be simply not good enough. I would be accused of being "cold hearted" if I defended the bombing, or accused of "SF press release repeating" if I criticised it. ::)
Fair play.
Quote from: Nally Stand on August 24, 2010, 08:13:22 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on August 24, 2010, 07:33:58 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 24, 2010, 07:18:30 PM
Can anyone remind me who planted the bombs?
I believe members of the provisional ira organised and planted the bomb. The issue is why did the catholic church cover up the actions of one of the ira members, a priest, with the help of the ruc and British authorities. Interesting when u consider there were priests elsewhere writing books on British collusion with loyalist death squads.
In the interests of avoiding history from being distorted and misrepresented, it would be worth noting that priests are not suspected of involvement several hundred murders, where as the british "security" forces are. Hardly a suitable parallel.
Whereasaboutery
Quote from: Aerlik on August 25, 2010, 05:04:48 AM
Some interesting, if not vitriolic, comments on this thread.
Does anyone hear remember The Third Force, early to mid-1980s? If my memory serves me correctly, it was a "cleric" a former "first minister" for the 6-counties "government" who stood on a wet and windy hill in Co. Antrim and in full view of several hundred gun licence-toting "volunteers" declared on camera that he would sooner fight than be subjected to more "Irish" influence.
Convince me that he has less blood on his hands than the alleged IRA member/clergy man. And convince me that there was absolutely never any collusion between him, his terrorist gang and the RUC/British Authorities.
Whataboutery.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on August 24, 2010, 07:33:58 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 24, 2010, 07:18:30 PM
Can anyone remind me who planted the bombs?
I believe members of the provisional ira organised and planted the bomb. The issue is why did the catholic church cover up the actions of one of the ira members, a priest, with the help of the ruc and British authorities. Interesting when u consider there were priests elsewhere writing books on British collusion with loyalist death squads.
not sure why delboy felt he had to post that as some kind of reply...bad and all as it is, its not quite relevant here.
mylestheslasher - the priest was being blamed for 'carrying ' the bomb to its final location by the ruc/army at the time. This was communicated back to the church and they were told to get the priest out of there. A nice little plan that would make it look like the priest was indeed guilty. Esp when the church moved him !
However the priest was guilty of colluding with the Ira, and while many clerics of both sides helped out or even lead miliraty groups (I'd agree with aerlik there) , I personally have a belief that they should not be doing so given their 'position'.
So the priest was a collaborator and thus guilty.
There have been people in the area that have been tarnished by this as also being guilty. However the culprits were not from the area at all. Its common knowledge as when all the local men folk were dragged into interrogations in their hundreds, the names of the culprits were mentioned to a lot of them. These culrprits were let go. There must have been some local involvement but the fingers have been pointing at too many for them all to have been involved.
This whole thing stinks and why Claudy was targetted and allowed to be targetted is beyond me, as that neck of the woods was reasonably happy and contented and more or less devoid of the problems elsewhere in the six counties.
Sad event, tragic event. Poor families having this dragged up again with stil no proper answers. Its an insult.
Also its insulting for myles the clown to be peddling more BS and digressing the thread. mylesnagab - youve been slapped down here by historical facts. stop digging.
Quote from: delboy on August 25, 2010, 12:36:02 AM
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 10:52:44 PM
which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.
crap!
Who are you disagreeing with, me or Sean Russell? Given that there's an ongoing historian's debate about whether or not it amounted to genocide, I'm not sure your contribution will be considered useful anyway.
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 10:27:39 AM
Quote from: delboy on August 25, 2010, 12:36:02 AM
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 10:52:44 PM
which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.
crap!
Who are you disagreeing with, me or Sean Russell? Given that there's an ongoing historian's debate about whether or not it amounted to genocide, I'm not sure your contribution will be considered useful anyway.
Well it wasn't final and it certainly didn't solve anything so to call it a 'final solution' is revionist post holocaust bollox. A cursory glance at the net grain imports/exports around the time would show you that the whig government of the day eased their laissez-faire non-interventionist policy and did start to provide some humanitarian aid why would they do that if they wanted a 'final solution'. Even if it was to little to late (which any right minded person now would accept) to call non-intervention genocide (the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group) is incorrect, lets not forget they applied the same principles to the poor of england, does that mean they were conducing genocide on their own lower classes.
But that aside to put this into context you are using the policies of a long dead british government in the 1840s to justify the actions of someone colluding with the nazis in the 1940s, i find that sort of regressive thinking purely pathetic.
Quote from: delboy on August 25, 2010, 11:11:58 AM
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 10:27:39 AM
Quote from: delboy on August 25, 2010, 12:36:02 AM
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 10:52:44 PM
which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.
crap!
Who are you disagreeing with, me or Sean Russell? Given that there's an ongoing historian's debate about whether or not it amounted to genocide, I'm not sure your contribution will be considered useful anyway.
Well it wasn't final and it certainly didn't solve anything so to call it a 'final solution' is revionist post holocaust bollox. A cursory glance at the net grain imports/exports around the time would show you that the whig government of the day eased their laissez-faire non-interventionist policy and did start to provide some humanitarian aid why would they do that if they wanted a 'final solution'. Even if it was to little to late (which any right minded person now would accept) to call non-intervention genocide (the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group) is incorrect, lets not forget they applied the same principles to the poor of england, does that mean they were conducing genocide on their own lower classes.
But that aside to put this into context you are using the policies of a long dead british government in the 1840s to justify the actions of someone colluding with the nazis in the 1940s, i find that sort of regressive thinking purely pathetic.
Your use of quotation marks to imply doubt as to whether it was a 'Final Solution' mirror my own. However, if you're going to talk about revisionism, perhaps a quote from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at the time might give you an idea of how committed the British were towards 'humanitarian aid': 'I do not think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering as now exists in the west of Ireland, or coldly persist in a policy of extermination.'
A 'policy of extermination' as described not by a nationalist but a member of the British Government; perhaps this doesn't suffice as to your own definition of 'genocide'. However, if Lord Clarendon's phrase is not tantamount to 'genocide', then neither is your wikipedia-borrowed one. In 1996, a Professor of International Law with prior knowledge and application of the codified
legal definition of 'genocide', opined that
'clearly, during the years 1845 to 1850, the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical, and racial group commonly known as the Irish People, as such. In addition, this British policy of mass starvation in Ireland clearly caused serious bodily and mental harm to members of the Irish People within the meaning of Genocide Convention Article II (b). Furthermore, this British policy of mass starvation in Ireland deliberately inflicted on the Irish People conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in substantial part within the meaning of Article 11(c) of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Therefore, during the years 1845 to 1850 the British government knowingly pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland that constituted acts of genocide against the Irish People.'
Trevelyan, the famous administrator of the famine era, came to justify his actions, or lack thereof, as a Malthusian act of providence in a throwback to various explanations for British atrocity throughout the globe. However, if, as you say, the government applied the 'same principles' to people in England then show me the numbers which point to a parity of suffering. Furthermore, you would do well to bear in mind I used famine in the plural rather than the singular, and that you've failed to mention either the various drouts spanning 1600-1800 or Lord Mountjoy's engineered famine in Ulster which lead to cannibalism in places like Newry--all of these suggest that, rather than the British being stunned by an absolutely unique and unprecedented phenomenon, they implemented a system of land seizure and 'Ascendancy' for one religion at the expense of another which led at various points to famine, the most unparalleled in number being the 19th Century one.
In spite of all of that, I don't necessarily believe that it was genocide--I'm unsure. As I indicated in my previous post, it was Sean Russell's view of the English colonial subjugation which I was trying to explain, not my own. I don't believe that any view of history justifies Sean Russell's actions; I don't believe either that any view justifies
revisionist criticism of them either.
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 01:12:23 PM
Quote from: delboy on August 25, 2010, 11:11:58 AM
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 10:27:39 AM
Quote from: delboy on August 25, 2010, 12:36:02 AM
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 10:52:44 PM
which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.
crap!
Who are you disagreeing with, me or Sean Russell? Given that there's an ongoing historian's debate about whether or not it amounted to genocide, I'm not sure your contribution will be considered useful anyway.
Well it wasn't final and it certainly didn't solve anything so to call it a 'final solution' is revionist post holocaust bollox. A cursory glance at the net grain imports/exports around the time would show you that the whig government of the day eased their laissez-faire non-interventionist policy and did start to provide some humanitarian aid why would they do that if they wanted a 'final solution'. Even if it was to little to late (which any right minded person now would accept) to call non-intervention genocide (the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group) is incorrect, lets not forget they applied the same principles to the poor of england, does that mean they were conducing genocide on their own lower classes.
But that aside to put this into context you are using the policies of a long dead british government in the 1840s to justify the actions of someone colluding with the nazis in the 1940s, i find that sort of regressive thinking purely pathetic.
Your use of quotation marks to imply doubt as to whether it was a 'Final Solution' mirror my own. However, if you're going to talk about revisionism, perhaps a quote from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at the time might give you an idea of how committed the British were towards 'humanitarian aid': 'I do not think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering as now exists in the west of Ireland, or coldly persist in a policy of extermination.'
A 'policy of extermination' as described not by a nationalist but a member of the British Government; perhaps this doesn't suffice as to your own definition of 'genocide'. However, if Lord Clarendon's phrase is not tantamount to 'genocide', then neither is your wikipedia-borrowed one. In 1996, a Professor of International Law with prior knowledge and application of the codified legal definition of 'genocide', opined that
'clearly, during the years 1845 to 1850, the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical, and racial group commonly known as the Irish People, as such. In addition, this British policy of mass starvation in Ireland clearly caused serious bodily and mental harm to members of the Irish People within the meaning of Genocide Convention Article II (b). Furthermore, this British policy of mass starvation in Ireland deliberately inflicted on the Irish People conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in substantial part within the meaning of Article 11(c) of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Therefore, during the years 1845 to 1850 the British government knowingly pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland that constituted acts of genocide against the Irish People.'
Trevelyan, the famous administrator of the famine era, came to justify his actions, or lack thereof, as a Malthusian act of providence in a throwback to various explanations for British atrocity throughout the globe. However, if, as you say, the government applied the 'same principles' to people in England then show me the numbers which point to a parity of suffering. Furthermore, you would do well to bear in mind I used famine in the plural rather than the singular, and that you've failed to mention either the various drouts spanning 1600-1800 or Lord Mountjoy's engineered famine in Ulster which lead to cannibalism in places like Newry--all of these suggest that, rather than the British being stunned by an absolutely unique and unprecedented phenomenon, they implemented a system of land seizure and 'Ascendancy' for one religion at the expense of another which led at various points to famine, the most unparalleled in number being the 19th Century one.
In spite of all of that, I don't necessarily believe that it was genocide--I'm unsure. As I indicated in my previous post, it was Sean Russell's view of the English colonial subjugation which I was trying to explain, not my own. I don't believe that any view of history justifies Sean Russell's actions; I don't believe either that any view justifies revisionist criticism of them either.
The genocide definition is actually the shorter oxford dictionary definition, im assuming from your comment that its one that wiki uses also, so what? One of your own quotes from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is knocking about wiki as well does that mean it some how now has less significance.
All sorts of people can opine all sorts of things, lets look at some of the figures though.
Year Exports Imports Net Export
------- ------- ----------
1844 424 30 +394
1845 513 28 +485
1846 284 197 +87
1847 146 889 -743
1848 314 439 -125
I think its pretty obvious that something happened between the years of 1845 and 1848 to the whigs non-interventionist policy, more grain was coming into the country than leaving in these latter years, obviously those who thought that the non-interventionist policy needed changing were beginning to win the argument, hardly the mark of a 'final solution'. Obviously this help came too little too late and was stopped too early but I don't think that is the same as saying it was genocide, indeed you yourself seem to reservations labelling it as such.
You ask me to show you an example of the same parity of suffering as proof that the whigs practised non-interventionist policies, I can't really in terms of the scale of the suffering however there is no doubt that the individuals amongst the poor would have suffered and died due to these policies. Its well chronicled that the poor could expect virtually no help from the state and that they had to fend for themselves or depend on charitable organisations for any aid. The same principle was applied to the irish famine, Ireland was expected to get itself out of trouble with the meagre help of charitable organisations. The Scottish highlands also had a potato famine around the same time they also suffered the same non-intervention policies that saw the population of places like the Hebrides plummet and the highlands as a whole depopulate by almost 2 million people.
Trevelyan, yes he did come of with his malthusian nonsense, although if you read what he said you'll find he was holding the big man in the sky responsible for Irelands depopulation. But im not here to defend the indefensible, i've no love for god bothers who use religion to justify all sorts of morally bankrupt decisions such as this one.
Well, I have no bother labelling it genocide ... c'mon, the Brits have form here, and if you don't accept that then you're blind ... the Nazis learnt a lot of their tactics from the British ... for the Plantation read Lebensraum ... and don't forget who invented concentration camps, and I'll give you a clue, it wasn't a useless Austrian painter with a Charlie Chaplin fetish
Quote from: red hander on August 25, 2010, 04:23:13 PM
Well, I have no bother labelling it genocide ... c'mon, the Brits have form here, and if you don't accept that then you're blind ... the Nazis learnt a lot of their tactics from the British ... for the Plantation read Lebensraum ... and don't forget who invented concentration camps, and I'll give you a clue, it wasn't a useless Austrian painter with a Charlie Chaplin fetish
Stretching things a bit. Colonialism took many different shapes and forms.
Quote from: red hander on August 25, 2010, 04:23:13 PM
Well, I have no bother labelling it genocide ... c'mon, the Brits have form here, and if you don't accept that then you're blind ... the Nazis learnt a lot of their tactics from the British ... for the Plantation read Lebensraum ... and don't forget who invented concentration camps, and I'll give you a clue, it wasn't a useless Austrian painter with a Charlie Chaplin fetish
They did indeed create concentration camps during the boer war as a way of combating the boers particular brand of gureilla warfare and yes people died in them because of cholera and other diseases which run rampant through people when kept it close quarters with poor sanitation, and yes they were adopted by many other countries as well but the major and most significant difference is that they were not set up as death camps like the nazis. Actually the incidicence of deaths by disease in the concentration camps was virtually identical to that for for the enlisted men dying from disease so the conditions were pretty much on a par. If you're interested I can't recommend 'The boer war' by thomas packenham enough, an excellent book about the boer war which happens to go into the setting up of concentration camps in quite some depth.
BTW am I the only one that finds all these numerous comparisons with the nazis a tad tiresome, its lazy thinking to be honest.
'am I the only one that finds all these numerous comparisons with the nazis a tad tiresome, its lazy thinking to be honest'
They do say the truth hurts ... and it was MnaG who started the Nazi theme by throwing Sean Russell into an argument Sean Russell had nothing to do with ... of course you can't compare the excesses of the Nazis and their industrialisation of murder to what the British did in Ireland, but you can't ignore the excesses of the British in Ireland by blaming everything that happened here on republican 'terrorists', as MnaG does
... as I've said before, the British behaved like fascists in their empire, but while it was all right to support armed resistance against the German fascists, it's not all right to support armed resistance against British colonial rule, whatever part of the empire it occurred in
Quote from: delboy on August 25, 2010, 02:46:28 PM
The genocide definition is actually the shorter oxford dictionary definition, im assuming from your comment that its one that wiki uses also, so what? One of your own quotes from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is knocking about wiki as well does that mean it some how now has less significance.
All sorts of people can opine all sorts of things, lets look at some of the figures though.
If we're taking the etymological definition, then the OED entry is not as you say, but as follows: '1944 R. LEMKIN Axis Rule in Occupied Europe ix. 79 By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group.' The 'destruction of a nation or ethnic group' is precisely what happened during the famine: whether it was deliberate or not is a moot point unless you take a later and anachronistic definition. If you are going to take that later definition, which is the 'systematic' one, then you could arguably supplant it with an even later entry which states: '1969 Peace News 13 June 4/1 The government are..conducting cultural genocide by destroying this Scottish (Gaidhlig) community.' Interestingly, cultures as well as races can be subject to genocide, and there is no deliberate intention implied in either of the above definitions. Even more importantly, both definitions are appropriate descriptions of what happened in Ireland throughout its occupation and colonial subjugation by British forces and settlers to native races and cultures. Your earlier implication that the lack of 'finality' to the famine makes 'genocide' an unsuitable definition perhaps fails to notice that the Jewish race, thankfully and heroically, was saved from that terrible and final fate by the Allied Forces.
QuoteYear Exports Imports Net Export
------- ------- ----------
1844 424 30 +394
1845 513 28 +485
1846 284 197 +87
1847 146 889 -743
1848 314 439 -125
I think its pretty obvious that something happened between the years of 1845 and 1848 to the whigs non-interventionist policy, more grain was coming into the country than leaving in these latter years, obviously those who thought that the non-interventionist policy needed changing were beginning to win the argument, hardly the mark of a 'final solution'. Obviously this help came too little too late and was stopped too early but I don't think that is the same as saying it was genocide, indeed you yourself seem to reservations labelling it as such.
There was, quite markedly, an decrease in the exportation of grain, as you point out. However, this was only after the initial onset of a man-made and Malthusian famine was 'achieved'.
QuoteYou ask me to show you an example of the same parity of suffering as proof that the whigs practised non-interventionist policies, I can't really in terms of the scale of the suffering however there is no doubt that the individuals amongst the poor would have suffered and died due to these policies. Its well chronicled that the poor could expect virtually no help from the state and that they had to fend for themselves or depend on charitable organisations for any aid.
People suffered starvation quite obviously--what isn't obvious is that they starved solely because they were either Catholic or Irish, or that they were historically oppressed by their state for being either. That the poor would have suffered is not in question; that there was a famine in a similar climate is beyond question. That failed to occur as a result of differing British trade policy within Ireland, which exacerbated the structure put in place by British settlers for the 200 years previous. "We do not propose to interfere with the regular mode by which Indian corn and other kinds of grain may be brought into Ireland"- The Prime Minister of Great Britain and, supposedly, Ireland.
QuoteThe same principle was applied to the irish famine, Ireland was expected to get itself out of trouble with the meagre help of charitable organisations.
No it wasn't, and even if the 'same principle' had been applied, the colonial situation enabled England's peasantry much better equipped than Ireland to cope with it. Religious differences, potato-based diets, national resentment and the system of Protestant Ascendancy were all colonial imports. Their combined effects married with a non-interventionist policy (which amounted to one of the few times Britain left Ireland alone) were the elements of famine in 19th Century Ireland. As to the charitable organisations, have you recognised the fact that Protestants held the wealth and therefore the bulk of grain in Ireland, and that accordingly their charity was often subject to either religious conversion or horribly inept methods, as was the case with Elizabeth Bowen's grandmother in Cork?
QuoteThe Scottish highlands also had a potato famine around the same time they also suffered the same non-intervention policies that saw the population of places like the Hebrides plummet and the highlands as a whole depopulate by almost 2 million people.
What's your point?
QuoteTrevelyan, yes he did come of with his malthusian nonsense, although if you read what he said you'll find he was holding the big man in the sky responsible for Irelands depopulation. But im not here to defend the indefensible, i've no love for god bothers who use religion to justify all sorts of morally bankrupt decisions such as this one.
What do you think 'Act of Providence' means?
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 10:49:23 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 10:33:20 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 10:15:06 PM
'Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island'
Aye, and if your grannie had balls she would be your granda ... any historian with a titter of wit knows the Nazis had NO chance of invading Britain, let alone Ireland, but you're no historian and you haven't any wit.
The British behaved like facists in their empire and the way they treated their 'subject' people was no different than the Nazis. Holocaust I hear you say ... why don't you read up on your country's history around the period 1841-1849, if you can read...
Many distinguished historians would have a different opinion. I look forward to reading your book in which you carefully dismantle their research and put forward a completely new perspective on the 2nd world war.
Hitler was NEVER keen on invading ... he wanted a negotiated agreement, something he was led to believe was possible with the feedback his agents were getting from the British establishment/royal flunkies, who by the very fact they were expressing their pro-Nazi views were actually committing treason ... how many of those c***ts were hanged by your beloved British?.
And re: De Valera, if the British were so pissed off about his 'conduct' during the war then why did Churchill offer him the six countiies on a plate (f**k the loyal Ulster Prods) after the war if he allowed the royal navy back into the treaty ports to take on the submarine threat? Your blindness to the atrocities perpetrated over 800 years in Ireland by your beloved British is as pathetic as your hatred of the Irish people who were brave enough over those 800 years to stand up to those atrocities.
PS, I told you, don't forget the wee winking smiley ... its absence seriously damages your gravitas
That 'offer' was sent by Churchill by telegram when he was pissed. De Valera was canny enough to recognise it as bogus and never gave it serious consideration.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 25, 2010, 05:59:57 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 10:49:23 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 10:33:20 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 24, 2010, 10:15:06 PM
'Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island'
Aye, and if your grannie had balls she would be your granda ... any historian with a titter of wit knows the Nazis had NO chance of invading Britain, let alone Ireland, but you're no historian and you haven't any wit.
The British behaved like facists in their empire and the way they treated their 'subject' people was no different than the Nazis. Holocaust I hear you say ... why don't you read up on your country's history around the period 1841-1849, if you can read...
Many distinguished historians would have a different opinion. I look forward to reading your book in which you carefully dismantle their research and put forward a completely new perspective on the 2nd world war.
Hitler was NEVER keen on invading ... he wanted a negotiated agreement, something he was led to believe was possible with the feedback his agents were getting from the British establishment/royal flunkies, who by the very fact they were expressing their pro-Nazi views were actually committing treason ... how many of those c***ts were hanged by your beloved British?.
And re: De Valera, if the British were so pissed off about his 'conduct' during the war then why did Churchill offer him the six countiies on a plate (f**k the loyal Ulster Prods) after the war if he allowed the royal navy back into the treaty ports to take on the submarine threat? Your blindness to the atrocities perpetrated over 800 years in Ireland by your beloved British is as pathetic as your hatred of the Irish people who were brave enough over those 800 years to stand up to those atrocities.
PS, I told you, don't forget the wee winking smiley ... its absence seriously damages your gravitas
That 'offer' was sent by Churchill by telegram when he was pissed. De Valera was canny enough to recognise it as bogus and never gave it serious consideration.
Tsk, tsk, tsk ... for someone who purports to know his history that's a very shabby answer ... Churchill spent the whole of WWII inebriated (no rationing of alcohol - or food for that matter - for him, unlike the ordinary Briton), but that constant state of piss didn't stop him functioning or being rational, if it had have he would have been replaced in a heartbeat
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 10:52:44 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 10:29:31 PM
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 10:20:44 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 09:55:28 PM
Russell and his fellow travellers in the IRA sought aid from the Nazis at a time when the Nazis were occupying most of Europe and attempting to invade Britain. The fact that he died in 1940 doesn't spare him and his friends from the judgement that they were prepared to side with one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen, in order to strike a blow against their 'enemies' the English. Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island. Who would Russell have run to for help then? Like all Irish republicans, he was incapable of viewing things with anything other than a Little Irelander mentality. He was prepared to act immorally in order to further his Little Irelander cause, just like those who bombed and murdered their fellow country men and women decades after his death, just like Fr James Chesney. All your big words can't put a gloss on that.
They were prepared to side with 'one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen' against 'one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen'. Documents released in recent months have no bearing upon the moral or political actions of a man with no cognisance of those documents. Russell was undoubtedly short-sighted and wholly wrong in his decision to pursue a link with Nazi Germany, but to suggest that he knew the full extent of the Nazi's regime is incorrect, and the fact that he died in 1940 does spare him complicity with the greatest of the Nazi's crimes and the enduring act(s) of their legacy. De Valera, Churchill and even Roosevelt all acted 'immorally' during the war to protect their own countries--this is the general attitude of leaders in wartime, not the sole preserve of your pantheon of supposed republican/Nazi/'Little Irelander' lunatics.
My 'big' words aren't trying to put a gloss on anything, and at no stage have I attempted to do so with either the Provisional IRA or Chesney. As for the priest in question, the enduring legacy of this report is not necessarily the guilt which he possessed for the bombings but the lack of a proper investigation into his guilt. There is no credible evidence save what seems a very vague body of British intelligence which suggests his seniority in the Provisionals.
That lack of evidence is the result of the cover-up by all three organisations. Which isn't to condemn the initial act--the people with the most culpability are obviously those who planted the bomb, and I'm in agreement with Sinn Fein that a truth/reconciliation commission is probably the only way in which the truth will be ascertained.
He knew that the Germans had invaded Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, etc etc. What do you think he thought about that? And your point about 'leaders' is irrelevant, since neither Russell or any other IRA man at that time had the right to claim that mantle.
The invasion of Poland, Czechoslovakia and France alone are hardly tantamount to the actions of the 'greatest tyranny the world has ever seen': if they are, they can certainly leave room for comparison with the actions of Britain over the course of its colonial conquests.
I didn't clarify the word 'leaders' in my post but if you're suggesting that the actions of Russell were as an individual rather than the head of any collective then the discussion of his actions is moot. He most certainly was a 'leader' who held seniority in the IRA. I did not and do not suggest that this amounted to popular support, but just because De Valera and the others mentioned had such support does not excuse any of his or their actions. In any case, since you have vested your support in De Valera (at least over Russell in respect to 'popularity'), a quote from him illuminates a general Irish stance:
Quote
I would like to put a hypothetical question-it is a question I have put to many Englishmen since the last war. Suppose Germany had won the war, had invaded and occupied England, and that after a long lapse of time and many bitter struggles, she was finally brought to acquiesce in admitting England's right to freedom, and let England go, but not the whole of England, all but, let us say, the six southern counties.
These six southern counties, those, let us suppose, commanding the entrance to the narrow seas, Germany had singled out and insisted on holding herself with a view to weakening England as a whole, and maintaining the securing of her own communications through the Straits of Dover.
Let us suppose further, that after all this had happened, Germany was engaged in a great war in which she could show that she was on the side of freedom of a number of small nations, would Mr. Churchill as an Englishman who believed that his own nation had as good a right to freedom as any other, not freedom for a part merely, but freedom for the whole-would he, whilst Germany still maintained the partition of his country and occupied six counties of it, would he lead this partitioned England to join with Germany in a crusade? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.
Would he think the people of partitioned England an object of shame if they stood neutral in such circumstances? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.
Whilst this riposte (which is completely bare without the remainder of what is considered De Valera's finest, and most 'popular' speech) is in defence of Ireland's stance of neutrality (or lack of action), it can certainly go a long way towards explaining the non-neutral 'actions' of Russell. He knew that the Germans invaded Poland et al but he hardly considered that an atrocity equal or commensurate to the 300/700 year colonial subjugation of Ireland, which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.
Forget what De Valera said. What did he do? His government executed 6 IRA men during the war and allowed 2 more to die on hunger strike. Nothing equivocal about that.
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 05:53:59 PM
Quote from: delboy on August 25, 2010, 02:46:28 PM
The genocide definition is actually the shorter oxford dictionary definition, im assuming from your comment that its one that wiki uses also, so what? One of your own quotes from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is knocking about wiki as well does that mean it some how now has less significance.
All sorts of people can opine all sorts of things, lets look at some of the figures though.
If we're taking the etymological definition, then the OED entry is not as you say, but as follows: '1944 R. LEMKIN Axis Rule in Occupied Europe ix. 79 By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group.' The 'destruction of a nation or ethnic group' is precisely what happened during the famine: whether it was deliberate or not is a moot point unless you take a later and anachronistic definition. If you are going to take that later definition, which is the 'systematic' one, then you could arguably supplant it with an even later entry which states: '1969 Peace News 13 June 4/1 The government are..conducting cultural genocide by destroying this Scottish (Gaidhlig) community.' Interestingly, cultures as well as races can be subject to genocide, and there is no deliberate intention implied in either of the above definitions. Even more importantly, both definitions are appropriate descriptions of what happened in Ireland throughout its occupation and colonial subjugation by British forces and settlers to native races and cultures. Your earlier implication that the lack of 'finality' to the famine makes 'genocide' an unsuitable definition perhaps fails to notice that the Jewish race, thankfully and heroically, was saved from that terrible and final fate by the Allied Forces.
QuoteYear Exports Imports Net Export
------- ------- ----------
1844 424 30 +394
1845 513 28 +485
1846 284 197 +87
1847 146 889 -743
1848 314 439 -125
I think its pretty obvious that something happened between the years of 1845 and 1848 to the whigs non-interventionist policy, more grain was coming into the country than leaving in these latter years, obviously those who thought that the non-interventionist policy needed changing were beginning to win the argument, hardly the mark of a 'final solution'. Obviously this help came too little too late and was stopped too early but I don't think that is the same as saying it was genocide, indeed you yourself seem to reservations labelling it as such.
There was, quite markedly, an decrease in the exportation of grain, as you point out. However, this was only after the initial onset of a man-made and Malthusian famine was 'achieved'.
QuoteYou ask me to show you an example of the same parity of suffering as proof that the whigs practised non-interventionist policies, I can't really in terms of the scale of the suffering however there is no doubt that the individuals amongst the poor would have suffered and died due to these policies. Its well chronicled that the poor could expect virtually no help from the state and that they had to fend for themselves or depend on charitable organisations for any aid.
People suffered starvation quite obviously--what isn't obvious is that they starved solely because they were either Catholic or Irish, or that they were historically oppressed by their state for being either. That the poor would have suffered is not in question; that there was a famine in a similar climate is beyond question. That failed to occur as a result of differing British trade policy within Ireland, which exacerbated the structure put in place by British settlers for the 200 years previous. "We do not propose to interfere with the regular mode by which Indian corn and other kinds of grain may be brought into Ireland"- The Prime Minister of Great Britain and, supposedly, Ireland.
QuoteThe same principle was applied to the irish famine, Ireland was expected to get itself out of trouble with the meagre help of charitable organisations.
No it wasn't, and even if the 'same principle' had been applied, the colonial situation enabled England's peasantry much better equipped than Ireland to cope with it. Religious differences, potato-based diets, national resentment and the system of Protestant Ascendancy were all colonial imports. Their combined effects married with a non-interventionist policy (which amounted to one of the few times Britain left Ireland alone) were the elements of famine in 19th Century Ireland. As to the charitable organisations, have you recognised the fact that Protestants held the wealth and therefore the bulk of grain in Ireland, and that accordingly their charity was often subject to either religious conversion or horribly inept methods, as was the case with Elizabeth Bowen's grandmother in Cork?
QuoteThe Scottish highlands also had a potato famine around the same time they also suffered the same non-intervention policies that saw the population of places like the Hebrides plummet and the highlands as a whole depopulate by almost 2 million people.
What's your point?
QuoteTrevelyan, yes he did come of with his malthusian nonsense, although if you read what he said you'll find he was holding the big man in the sky responsible for Irelands depopulation. But im not here to defend the indefensible, i've no love for god bothers who use religion to justify all sorts of morally bankrupt decisions such as this one.
What do you think 'Act of Providence' means?
To many quotes going on so i'll do my best just in point form.
I see you are rowing further and further and further away from the 'final solution' stuff which was what you were called on initially, at least something positive has come of it then.
Its very much not a moot point as to whether it was deliberate or not, lemkin himself takes about a 'coordinated plan' if cooridnated plans doesn't suggest deliberation that i don't know what does.
My lack of finality statement that you refer to was in regard to your rather crass use of the term 'final solution'.
So you accept that grain/aid was coming in, makes a mockery of your 'final solution' comment yet again.
Your quote
"We do not propose to interfere with the regular mode by which Indian corn and other kinds of grain may be brought into Ireland"- The Prime Minister of Great Britain and, supposedly, Ireland.And yet it did come in which backs up my assertion that those making the argument for intervention were winning, which again doesn't back up the 'final solution' comment.
So you can't see the relevance of the scottish highland potato famine to a discussion about the role of the whig non-intervention policy towards social problems, i really do despair.
Fair enough on the act of providence it didn't need spelling out again but i just wanted to put it in my own words.
All in all i'd say my initial comment about "'final solution' famines" being crap and my following one that it was revionist post holocaust bollox are pretty much on the money.
Quote from: Aerlik on August 25, 2010, 05:04:48 AM
Some interesting, if not vitriolic, comments on this thread.
Does anyone hear remember The Third Force, early to mid-1980s? If my memory serves me correctly, it was a "cleric" a former "first minister" for the 6-counties "government" who stood on a wet and windy hill in Co. Antrim and in full view of several hundred gun licence-toting "volunteers" declared on camera that he would sooner fight than be subjected to more "Irish" influence.
Convince me that he has less blood on his hands than the alleged IRA member/clergy man. And convince me that there was absolutely never any collusion between him, his terrorist gang and the RUC/British Authorities.
I believe the current 'first minister' was there as well. Unlke certain shinners the DUP were always cute enough to back off from the hard men when things started "getting out of control"
I wouldn't attempt to say that he doesn't have blood on his hands, I think that a lot of politicians these days in the north have blood on their hands. The only possible exceptions would be the SDLP and Alliance. I also think there was collusion between British authorities and the Provos
[OFFTOPIC]
For those of you talking about the Famine go to Doagh Island to the famine commemoration centre to get your eyes opened
[/OFFTOPIC]
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 25, 2010, 07:50:59 PM
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 10:52:44 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 10:29:31 PM
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 10:20:44 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 24, 2010, 09:55:28 PM
Russell and his fellow travellers in the IRA sought aid from the Nazis at a time when the Nazis were occupying most of Europe and attempting to invade Britain. The fact that he died in 1940 doesn't spare him and his friends from the judgement that they were prepared to side with one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen, in order to strike a blow against their 'enemies' the English. Yet documents released in recent months show that the Germans already had detailed plans to invade this island. Who would Russell have run to for help then? Like all Irish republicans, he was incapable of viewing things with anything other than a Little Irelander mentality. He was prepared to act immorally in order to further his Little Irelander cause, just like those who bombed and murdered their fellow country men and women decades after his death, just like Fr James Chesney. All your big words can't put a gloss on that.
They were prepared to side with 'one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen' against 'one of the greatest tyrannies the world had ever seen'. Documents released in recent months have no bearing upon the moral or political actions of a man with no cognisance of those documents. Russell was undoubtedly short-sighted and wholly wrong in his decision to pursue a link with Nazi Germany, but to suggest that he knew the full extent of the Nazi's regime is incorrect, and the fact that he died in 1940 does spare him complicity with the greatest of the Nazi's crimes and the enduring act(s) of their legacy. De Valera, Churchill and even Roosevelt all acted 'immorally' during the war to protect their own countries--this is the general attitude of leaders in wartime, not the sole preserve of your pantheon of supposed republican/Nazi/'Little Irelander' lunatics.
My 'big' words aren't trying to put a gloss on anything, and at no stage have I attempted to do so with either the Provisional IRA or Chesney. As for the priest in question, the enduring legacy of this report is not necessarily the guilt which he possessed for the bombings but the lack of a proper investigation into his guilt. There is no credible evidence save what seems a very vague body of British intelligence which suggests his seniority in the Provisionals.
That lack of evidence is the result of the cover-up by all three organisations. Which isn't to condemn the initial act--the people with the most culpability are obviously those who planted the bomb, and I'm in agreement with Sinn Fein that a truth/reconciliation commission is probably the only way in which the truth will be ascertained.
He knew that the Germans had invaded Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, etc etc. What do you think he thought about that? And your point about 'leaders' is irrelevant, since neither Russell or any other IRA man at that time had the right to claim that mantle.
The invasion of Poland, Czechoslovakia and France alone are hardly tantamount to the actions of the 'greatest tyranny the world has ever seen': if they are, they can certainly leave room for comparison with the actions of Britain over the course of its colonial conquests.
I didn't clarify the word 'leaders' in my post but if you're suggesting that the actions of Russell were as an individual rather than the head of any collective then the discussion of his actions is moot. He most certainly was a 'leader' who held seniority in the IRA. I did not and do not suggest that this amounted to popular support, but just because De Valera and the others mentioned had such support does not excuse any of his or their actions. In any case, since you have vested your support in De Valera (at least over Russell in respect to 'popularity'), a quote from him illuminates a general Irish stance:
Quote
I would like to put a hypothetical question-it is a question I have put to many Englishmen since the last war. Suppose Germany had won the war, had invaded and occupied England, and that after a long lapse of time and many bitter struggles, she was finally brought to acquiesce in admitting England's right to freedom, and let England go, but not the whole of England, all but, let us say, the six southern counties.
These six southern counties, those, let us suppose, commanding the entrance to the narrow seas, Germany had singled out and insisted on holding herself with a view to weakening England as a whole, and maintaining the securing of her own communications through the Straits of Dover.
Let us suppose further, that after all this had happened, Germany was engaged in a great war in which she could show that she was on the side of freedom of a number of small nations, would Mr. Churchill as an Englishman who believed that his own nation had as good a right to freedom as any other, not freedom for a part merely, but freedom for the whole-would he, whilst Germany still maintained the partition of his country and occupied six counties of it, would he lead this partitioned England to join with Germany in a crusade? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.
Would he think the people of partitioned England an object of shame if they stood neutral in such circumstances? I do not think Mr. Churchill would.
Whilst this riposte (which is completely bare without the remainder of what is considered De Valera's finest, and most 'popular' speech) is in defence of Ireland's stance of neutrality (or lack of action), it can certainly go a long way towards explaining the non-neutral 'actions' of Russell. He knew that the Germans invaded Poland et al but he hardly considered that an atrocity equal or commensurate to the 300/700 year colonial subjugation of Ireland, which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.
Forget what De Valera said. What did he do? His government executed 6 IRA men during the war and allowed 2 more to die on hunger strike. Nothing equivocal about that.
If you're not going to engage in serious debate and engage in characteristic 'whataboutery' then you can forget about it. I will answer your point once you answer several of mine.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 07:55:25 PM
[OFFTOPIC]
For those of you talking about the Famine go to Doagh Island to the famine commemoration centre to get your eyes opened
[/OFFTOPIC]
I've been! Nobody here is denying the famine or the suffering.
Im wondering what the famine and the Nazis have to do with the Claudy bombing...
Quote from: delboy on August 25, 2010, 08:05:53 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 07:55:25 PM
[OFFTOPIC]
For those of you talking about the Famine go to Doagh Island to the famine commemoration centre to get your eyes opened
[/OFFTOPIC]
I've been! Nobody here is denying the famine or the suffering.
I suppose it depends who does the tour with whatever group you are in. The times I have been a local who used to live in one of the houses they use for display purposes was the person speaking. His historical knowledge about the famine, the series of circumstances which led up to it and its impact on local communities is second to none, imo.
To put it in simple terms, the Irish 'famine' in 1840s is comparable to the Ethiopian 'famine' in the 1980s
Quote from: delboy on August 25, 2010, 07:53:26 PM
I see you are rowing further and further and further away from the 'final solution' stuff which was what you were called on initially, at least something positive has come of it then.
I don't see any difference between a final solution and Genocide except for one being a pro-active destruction and one being a callous and racist disregard for the hunger of a territory and people they had pro-actively and systematically subjugated to the lower margins of their colonial power structure. The former and the latter are the root of racist and supremacist conceptions of nationhood against a perceived inferior group, and to suggest that England didn't systematically destroy the Irish race and culture within the famine ignores the history of starvation, armed campaigns, intervention and Anglicisation before the event. You still haven't addressed the plural nature of 'famine' in Ireland rather than it being a single event or 'Act of Providence':
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Irish_Famine_%281740%E2%80%931741%29#9.
Furthermore, given that the English 'viewed the blight as a heaven-sent 'blessing' that would finally provide an opportunity to transform Ireland, ending the cycle of poverty resulting from the people's mistaken dependence on the potato' (a dependence which was provided by colonisation, no less), this indeed seems to suggest an 'end' or 'solution' to the 'problem of Ireland'—a problem which, like the Nazis, they debated and implemented various means of solving before settling on genocide.
QuoteIts very much not a moot point as to whether it was deliberate or not, lemkin himself takes about a 'coordinated plan' if cooridnated plans doesn't suggest deliberation that i don't know what does.
Co-ordination entails intent quite obviously, but then so does a deliberate attempt to 'educate' the Irish in free-market economy, co-ordinated ironically by a lack of action.
QuoteMy lack of finality statement that you refer to was in regard to your rather crass use of the term 'final solution'.
As above.
QuoteSo you accept that grain/aid was coming in, makes a mockery of your 'final solution' comment yet again.
I think everyone knows that during the famine, Ireland didn't need any imports because it produced enough food and clothes for a country twice its size. The fact is that the administration of Ireland, as overran by an avowedly and Malthusian anti-Irish tyrant who visited the country once during the disaster, was an absolute farce, and any purchase and import of grain obviously failed to address an underlying problem of discrimination towards those who asked or begged for that aid. Perhaps a better question would be to ascertain why there was
any exports? Such a question was asked by the other commander of English interest in Ireland, whom I've already quoted.
QuoteYour quote "We do not propose to interfere with the regular mode by which Indian corn and other kinds of grain may be brought into Ireland"- The Prime Minister of Great Britain and, supposedly, Ireland.
And yet it did come in which backs up my assertion that those making the argument for intervention were winning, which again doesn't back up the 'final solution' comment.
Intervention did win out eventually, but only after a considerable amount of 'Malthusian' pruning of Ireland had been done, with international pressure coming to a breaking point on top of that. The effects of the famine on the Irish race and culture have been documented—it was certainly a 'final solution' for the millions of people who died or fled from Ireland, and a final solution for a country still reeling from its effects in terms of population and stature.
QuoteSo you can't see the relevance of the scottish highland potato famine to a discussion about the role of the whig non-intervention policy towards social problems, i really do despair.
I don't think it illuminates your point very well, given that nowhere near as many people died under the same 'jurisdiction' as the English Prime Minister.
stibhan, what has any of that got to do with Claudy?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 08:35:05 PM
stibhan, what has any of that got to do with Claudy?
Why are you asking me? Everyone else in this thread, including you, is posting off-topic because of Myles' whataboutery.
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 08:47:00 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 08:35:05 PM
stibhan, what has any of that got to do with Claudy?
Why are you asking me? Everyone else in this thread, including you, is posting off-topic because of Myles' whataboutery.
It seems to me you are one of the main culprits. Why shouldn't I ask you? I did the OFFTOPIC thing in mentioning Doagh Island in order to give you and others the hint
Now I am asking you straight what it has to do with Claudy
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 07:55:25 PM
Quote from: Aerlik on August 25, 2010, 05:04:48 AM
Some interesting, if not vitriolic, comments on this thread.
Does anyone hear remember The Third Force, early to mid-1980s? If my memory serves me correctly, it was a "cleric" a former "first minister" for the 6-counties "government" who stood on a wet and windy hill in Co. Antrim and in full view of several hundred gun licence-toting "volunteers" declared on camera that he would sooner fight than be subjected to more "Irish" influence.
Convince me that he has less blood on his hands than the alleged IRA member/clergy man. And convince me that there was absolutely never any collusion between him, his terrorist gang and the RUC/British Authorities.
I believe the current 'first minister' was there as well. Unlke certain shinners the DUP were always cute enough to back off from the hard men when things started "getting out of control"
I wouldn't attempt to say that he doesn't have blood on his hands, I think that a lot of politicians these days in the north have blood on their hands. The only possible exceptions would be the SDLP and Alliance. I also think there was collusion between British authorities and the Provos
Cute enough to back away from the hard men? Or was it that there was no Section 31 and general blanket bigotry towards unionism in the media to highlight links between the DUP and loyalist paramilitaries which causes people like yourself to blindly believe such links were actually wound back? Such as it's membership of the North and West parades forum with the UVF and UDA? Such as it's support for the UDA backed 'Love Ulster' Rally? Such as the Third Force, formed by Ian Paisley in the 70's? Or the DUP formed Ulster Resistance in the 80's? Or the South African Guns imported by Ulster Resistance? Or the links between Willie McCrea and LVF leader Billy Wright - a man with who he has shared a stage with and with whom he met in secret regularly in the early ninties, at the hight of Wright's murder spree (despite not talking to IRA for being "terrorists"?) Or the convicted murderer of Sinn Féin member Malachy Carey, who holds a senior position within the DUP organisation in North Antrim? Or the other DUP members, whom I shall not name, highly suspected in numerous high profile murders?
(http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/images/2009/02/05/billy-wright-willie-McCrea.jpg)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 08:52:50 PM
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 08:47:00 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 08:35:05 PM
stibhan, what has any of that got to do with Claudy?
Why are you asking me? Everyone else in this thread, including you, is posting off-topic because of Myles' whataboutery.
It seems to me you are one of the main culprits. Why shouldn't I ask you? I did the OFFTOPIC thing in mentioning Doagh Island in order to give you and others the hint
Now I am asking you straight what it has to do with Claudy
Firstly, it isn't for you to tell me what to discuss. Secondly, you know the answer to that question. You shouldn't ask me because the original tenor of the discussion was changed not by me but by Myles, whether you think I'm one of the 'main culprits' or not. I have not engaged in any kind of whataboutery in this thread but have discussed Claudy and answered those who are trying to distract the conversation away from that topic.
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 09:15:28 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 08:52:50 PM
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 08:47:00 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 08:35:05 PM
stibhan, what has any of that got to do with Claudy?
Why are you asking me? Everyone else in this thread, including you, is posting off-topic because of Myles' whataboutery.
It seems to me you are one of the main culprits. Why shouldn't I ask you? I did the OFFTOPIC thing in mentioning Doagh Island in order to give you and others the hint
Now I am asking you straight what it has to do with Claudy
Firstly, it isn't for you to tell me what to discuss. Secondly, you know the answer to that question. You shouldn't ask me because the original tenor of the discussion was changed not by me but by Myles, whether you think I'm one of the 'main culprits' or not. I have not engaged in any kind of whataboutery in this thread but have discussed Claudy and answered those who are trying to distract the conversation away from that topic.
Why shouldn't I ask you?
Is that against the rules of the forum? Do you think you are above reproach? You seem to think a lot of yourself ::)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 09:19:45 PM
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 09:15:28 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 08:52:50 PM
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 08:47:00 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 08:35:05 PM
stibhan, what has any of that got to do with Claudy?
Why are you asking me? Everyone else in this thread, including you, is posting off-topic because of Myles' whataboutery.
It seems to me you are one of the main culprits. Why shouldn't I ask you? I did the OFFTOPIC thing in mentioning Doagh Island in order to give you and others the hint
Now I am asking you straight what it has to do with Claudy
Firstly, it isn't for you to tell me what to discuss. Secondly, you know the answer to that question. You shouldn't ask me because the original tenor of the discussion was changed not by me but by Myles, whether you think I'm one of the 'main culprits' or not. I have not engaged in any kind of whataboutery in this thread but have discussed Claudy and answered those who are trying to distract the conversation away from that topic.
Why shouldn't I ask you?
Is that against the rules of the forum? Do you think you are above reproach? You seem to think a lot of yourself ::)
Is it against the rules of this forum to stray from the topic?! If so, then why are you, and not the mods, enforcing those rules?
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 09:15:28 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 08:52:50 PM
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 08:47:00 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 08:35:05 PM
stibhan, what has any of that got to do with Claudy?
Why are you asking me? Everyone else in this thread, including you, is posting off-topic because of Myles' whataboutery.
It seems to me you are one of the main culprits. Why shouldn't I ask you? I did the OFFTOPIC thing in mentioning Doagh Island in order to give you and others the hint
Now I am asking you straight what it has to do with Claudy
Firstly, it isn't for you to tell me what to discuss. Secondly, you know the answer to that question. You shouldn't ask me because the original tenor of the discussion was changed not by me but by Myles, whether you think I'm one of the 'main culprits' or not. I have not engaged in any kind of whataboutery in this thread but have discussed Claudy and answered those who are trying to distract the conversation away from that topic.
Okay, okay, it's a fair cop, it was me wot did it. I'm guilty but society's to blame.
:D
I was trying to get the thread back to Claudy. I think it deserves the discussion and not a series of erroneous and biased history lessons
I would say some would prefer not to take the topic back to Claudy.
Quote from: stibhan on August 24, 2010, 10:52:44 PM
colonial subjugation of Ireland, which included its own Malthusian 'final solution' in the various Famines.
Quote from: stibhanYour use of quotation marks to imply doubt as to whether it was a 'Final Solution' mirror my own.
Quote from: stibhanIn spite of all of that, I don't necessarily believe that it was genocide--I'm unsure.
Quote from: stibhanI don't see any difference between a final solution and Genocide except for one being a pro-active destruction and one being a callous and racist disregard for the hunger of a territory
A man that knows his own mind, BTW that looks like a pretty big difference to me.
When you're finished flip flopping and making outrageous comparisons I think it has to be said that we have stunk up the thread a bit with the famine/final solution stuff we should really let it get back on track, if you want to carry on a proper discussion, PM your last post and I'll take the time to properly address it via PM.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 09:51:30 PM
I was trying to get the thread back to Claudy. I think it deserves the discussion and not a series of erroneous and biased history lessons
Right you are GAAboard Mod, I'll accept your critique of my 'history lessons' when you engage in and with them.
Just wondering how much of all this regarding Fr.Chesney is fact.If we remember 1972 it was a year when our world here was turning upside down with all sorts of rumours, speculation and dirty tricks form Special branch and the British army Intelligence unit at Holywood.Their intelligence regarding who was actually active in the IRA was badly flawed as was proved by the many lifted during internment who had no connections with the movement.There was not a week passed without lies coming from their dirty tricks department to try and discredit the Nationalist people,either through the GAA,Catholic Church,or just the community in general.So it was interesting to read in todays Irish News the chief explosives officer for the Provisionals in Derry and Donegal from 1971-1975 Shane Paul O'Doherty say he had never heard Fr.Chesneys name mentioned at any time.I would be inclined to put more faith in what he is saying than some Special Branch officer who operated out of Magherafelt in the 70's.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 09:19:45 PM
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 09:15:28 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 08:52:50 PM
Quote from: stibhan on August 25, 2010, 08:47:00 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 25, 2010, 08:35:05 PM
stibhan, what has any of that got to do with Claudy?
Why are you asking me? Everyone else in this thread, including you, is posting off-topic because of Myles' whataboutery.
It seems to me you are one of the main culprits. Why shouldn't I ask you? I did the OFFTOPIC thing in mentioning Doagh Island in order to give you and others the hint
Now I am asking you straight what it has to do with Claudy
Firstly, it isn't for you to tell me what to discuss. Secondly, you know the answer to that question. You shouldn't ask me because the original tenor of the discussion was changed not by me but by Myles, whether you think I'm one of the 'main culprits' or not. I have not engaged in any kind of whataboutery in this thread but have discussed Claudy and answered those who are trying to distract the conversation away from that topic.
Why shouldn't I ask you?
Is that against the rules of the forum? Do you think you are above reproach? You seem to think a lot of yourself ::)
No harm but the same could be directed at you if you think he has to explain his posts to you!!
Quote from: glens abu on August 26, 2010, 02:11:51 PM
Just wondering how much of all this regarding Fr.Chesney is fact.If we remember 1972 it was a year when our world here was turning upside down with all sorts of rumours, speculation and dirty tricks form Special branch and the British army Intelligence unit at Holywood.Their intelligence regarding who was actually active in the IRA was badly flawed as was proved by the many lifted during internment who had no connections with the movement.There was not a week passed without lies coming from their dirty tricks department to try and discredit the Nationalist people,either through the GAA,Catholic Church,or just the community in general.So it was interesting to read in todays Irish News the chief explosives officer for the Provisionals in Derry and Donegal from 1971-1975 Shane Paul O'Doherty say he had never heard Fr.Chesneys name mentioned at any time.I would be inclined to put more faith in what he is saying than some Special Branch officer who operated out of Magherafelt in the 70's.
As would I, but one of the main tragedies of this enquiry is the lack of a proper investigation of what happened. In that the police, supposedly fearing a public backlash, decided that they'd request a move for a Catholic Priest to the relevant authorities in order to prevent his arrest. On the one hand, if it was bad information that the priest was a member of the IRA then it would have been exposed; on t'other, if it wasn't, the clergy would have been a(n even more) legitimate target. Why they let him go, and the church agreed, is still clear as mud though.
Quote from: glens abu on August 26, 2010, 02:11:51 PM
Just wondering how much of all this regarding Fr.Chesney is fact.If we remember 1972 it was a year when our world here was turning upside down with all sorts of rumours, speculation and dirty tricks form Special branch and the British army Intelligence unit at Holywood.Their intelligence regarding who was actually active in the IRA was badly flawed as was proved by the many lifted during internment who had no connections with the movement.There was not a week passed without lies coming from their dirty tricks department to try and discredit the Nationalist people,either through the GAA,Catholic Church,or just the community in general.So it was interesting to read in todays Irish News the chief explosives officer for the Provisionals in Derry and Donegal from 1971-1975 Shane Paul O'Doherty say he had never heard Fr.Chesneys name mentioned at any time.I would be inclined to put more faith in what he is saying than some Special Branch officer who operated out of Magherafelt in the 70's.
I am inclined to agree with this glens abu, this was at a time when the brits were locking people up for nothing. I find it hard to believe they were letting provo's go who they knew were guilty
Quote from: Cde on August 26, 2010, 03:40:27 PM
Quote from: glens abu on August 26, 2010, 02:11:51 PM
Just wondering how much of all this regarding Fr.Chesney is fact.If we remember 1972 it was a year when our world here was turning upside down with all sorts of rumours, speculation and dirty tricks form Special branch and the British army Intelligence unit at Holywood.Their intelligence regarding who was actually active in the IRA was badly flawed as was proved by the many lifted during internment who had no connections with the movement.There was not a week passed without lies coming from their dirty tricks department to try and discredit the Nationalist people,either through the GAA,Catholic Church,or just the community in general.So it was interesting to read in todays Irish News the chief explosives officer for the Provisionals in Derry and Donegal from 1971-1975 Shane Paul O'Doherty say he had never heard Fr.Chesneys name mentioned at any time.I would be inclined to put more faith in what he is saying than some Special Branch officer who operated out of Magherafelt in the 70's.
I am inclined to agree with this glens abu, this was at a time when the brits were locking people up for nothing. I find it hard to believe they were letting provo's go who they knew were guilty
I would agree also and I thought it was notable in the Irish News on Tues(?) that Bishop Daly (hardly a big fan of the IRA) also stated that he has always doubted, and continues to doubt that Fr Chesney was involved.
Glens Abu and Nally Stand in agreement :o
Quote from: Minder on August 26, 2010, 08:29:53 PM
Glens Abu and Nally Stand in agreement :o
What a valuable contribution to the discussions. Thank You indeed.
::)
Quote from: Nally Stand on August 26, 2010, 08:27:11 PM
Quote from: Cde on August 26, 2010, 03:40:27 PM
Quote from: glens abu on August 26, 2010, 02:11:51 PM
Just wondering how much of all this regarding Fr.Chesney is fact.If we remember 1972 it was a year when our world here was turning upside down with all sorts of rumours, speculation and dirty tricks form Special branch and the British army Intelligence unit at Holywood.Their intelligence regarding who was actually active in the IRA was badly flawed as was proved by the many lifted during internment who had no connections with the movement.There was not a week passed without lies coming from their dirty tricks department to try and discredit the Nationalist people,either through the GAA,Catholic Church,or just the community in general.So it was interesting to read in todays Irish News the chief explosives officer for the Provisionals in Derry and Donegal from 1971-1975 Shane Paul O'Doherty say he had never heard Fr.Chesneys name mentioned at any time.I would be inclined to put more faith in what he is saying than some Special Branch officer who operated out of Magherafelt in the 70's.
I am inclined to agree with this glens abu, this was at a time when the brits were locking people up for nothing. I find it hard to believe they were letting provo's go who they knew were guilty
I would agree also and I thought it was notable in the Irish News on Tues(?) that Bishop Daly (hardly a big fan of the IRA) also stated that he has always doubted, and continues to doubt that Fr Chesney was involved.
Im as sure as anyone can be that Fr Chesney was invloved in the Claudy bombing.
Quote from: oakleafgael on August 26, 2010, 08:35:56 PM
Im as sure as anyone can be that Fr Chesney was invloved in the Claudy bombing.
Why's that?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on August 26, 2010, 08:50:44 PM
Quote from: oakleafgael on August 26, 2010, 08:35:56 PM
Im as sure as anyone can be that Fr Chesney was invloved in the Claudy bombing.
Why's that?
I'm sure as anyone can be that he was.
Quote from: red hander on August 25, 2010, 05:52:24 PM
'am I the only one that finds all these numerous comparisons with the nazis a tad tiresome, its lazy thinking to be honest'
They do say the truth hurts ... and it was MnaG who started the Nazi theme by throwing Sean Russell into an argument Sean Russell had nothing to do with ... of course you can't compare the excesses of the Nazis and their industrialisation of murder to what the British did in Ireland, but you can't ignore the excesses of the British in Ireland by blaming everything that happened here on republican 'terrorists', as MnaG does
... as I've said before, the British behaved like fascists in their empire, but while it was all right to support armed resistance against the German fascists, it's not all right to support armed resistance against British colonial rule, whatever part of the empire it occurred in
I've just noticed that, ya cheeky gett. First mention of Nazis on this thread comes in post 18. Who posted that? Oh, it was Red Hander!
Quote from: hardstation on August 26, 2010, 09:52:45 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 26, 2010, 09:51:03 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 25, 2010, 05:52:24 PM
'am I the only one that finds all these numerous comparisons with the nazis a tad tiresome, its lazy thinking to be honest'
They do say the truth hurts ... and it was MnaG who started the Nazi theme by throwing Sean Russell into an argument Sean Russell had nothing to do with ... of course you can't compare the excesses of the Nazis and their industrialisation of murder to what the British did in Ireland, but you can't ignore the excesses of the British in Ireland by blaming everything that happened here on republican 'terrorists', as MnaG does
... as I've said before, the British behaved like fascists in their empire, but while it was all right to support armed resistance against the German fascists, it's not all right to support armed resistance against British colonial rule, whatever part of the empire it occurred in
I've just noticed that, ya cheeky gett. First mention of Nazis on this thread comes in post 18. Who posted that? Oh, it was Red Hander!
That's scary.
More than mere coincidence?
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 26, 2010, 09:51:03 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 25, 2010, 05:52:24 PM
'am I the only one that finds all these numerous comparisons with the nazis a tad tiresome, its lazy thinking to be honest'
They do say the truth hurts ... and it was MnaG who started the Nazi theme by throwing Sean Russell into an argument Sean Russell had nothing to do with ... of course you can't compare the excesses of the Nazis and their industrialisation of murder to what the British did in Ireland, but you can't ignore the excesses of the British in Ireland by blaming everything that happened here on republican 'terrorists', as MnaG does
... as I've said before, the British behaved like fascists in their empire, but while it was all right to support armed resistance against the German fascists, it's not all right to support armed resistance against British colonial rule, whatever part of the empire it occurred in
I've just noticed that, ya cheeky gett. First mention of Nazis on this thread comes in post 18. Who posted that? Oh, it was Red Hander!
I was criticising the Catholic Church and asking why people should be surprised about the actions of an organisation that helped Nazi war criminals escape after WWII and supported murderous South American dictators ... it was YOU MnaG who took the thread completely off tangent (your raison d'etre after all) by throwing your bete noir, aka Sean Russell, into the mix to score pathetic political points
Quote from: red hander on August 27, 2010, 04:35:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 26, 2010, 09:51:03 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 25, 2010, 05:52:24 PM
'am I the only one that finds all these numerous comparisons with the nazis a tad tiresome, its lazy thinking to be honest'
They do say the truth hurts ... and it was MnaG who started the Nazi theme by throwing Sean Russell into an argument Sean Russell had nothing to do with ... of course you can't compare the excesses of the Nazis and their industrialisation of murder to what the British did in Ireland, but you can't ignore the excesses of the British in Ireland by blaming everything that happened here on republican 'terrorists', as MnaG does
... as I've said before, the British behaved like fascists in their empire, but while it was all right to support armed resistance against the German fascists, it's not all right to support armed resistance against British colonial rule, whatever part of the empire it occurred in
I've just noticed that, ya cheeky gett. First mention of Nazis on this thread comes in post 18. Who posted that? Oh, it was Red Hander!
I was criticising the Catholic Church and asking why people should be surprised about the actions of an organisation that helped Nazi war criminals escape after WWII and supported murderous South American dictators ... it was YOU MnaG who took the thread completely off tangent (your raison d'etre after all) by throwing your bete noir, aka Sean Russell, into the mix to score pathetic political points
Put the shovel down and walk away.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 27, 2010, 05:29:39 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 27, 2010, 04:35:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on August 26, 2010, 09:51:03 PM
Quote from: red hander on August 25, 2010, 05:52:24 PM
'am I the only one that finds all these numerous comparisons with the nazis a tad tiresome, its lazy thinking to be honest'
They do say the truth hurts ... and it was MnaG who started the Nazi theme by throwing Sean Russell into an argument Sean Russell had nothing to do with ... of course you can't compare the excesses of the Nazis and their industrialisation of murder to what the British did in Ireland, but you can't ignore the excesses of the British in Ireland by blaming everything that happened here on republican 'terrorists', as MnaG does
... as I've said before, the British behaved like fascists in their empire, but while it was all right to support armed resistance against the German fascists, it's not all right to support armed resistance against British colonial rule, whatever part of the empire it occurred in
I've just noticed that, ya cheeky gett. First mention of Nazis on this thread comes in post 18. Who posted that? Oh, it was Red Hander!
I was criticising the Catholic Church and asking why people should be surprised about the actions of an organisation that helped Nazi war criminals escape after WWII and supported murderous South American dictators ... it was YOU MnaG who took the thread completely off tangent (your raison d'etre after all) by throwing your bete noir, aka Sean Russell, into the mix to score pathetic political points
Put the shovel down and walk away.
Get your own material ... there's bound to be a wikipedia entry for one liners you can steal and present as your own opinions - you're an expert at that
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11124363 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11124363)
Wonder why Marty lied in 2002 and is now admitting to have met Fr Chesney? More to come I take it.
Quote from: Minder on September 08, 2010, 04:41:02 PM
Wonder why Marty lied in 2002 and is now admitting to have met Fr Chesney? More to come I take it.
Wee Marty lied? You have to be careful Minder, you will have the shinners on here in palpitations. You aren't allowed to criticise shinners
Quote from: Minder on September 08, 2010, 04:41:02 PM
Wonder why Marty lied in 2002 and is now admitting to have met Fr Chesney? More to come I take it.
[/b]
Timing is strange alright.
Why would Marty drive to Donegal and visit a terminally ill man who he said he had never met before and knew nothing about in 2002 ?.
Nolan giving it large at the minute. Gregory is on giving out. But the SF / DUP alliance stays strong.
McGuinness suffering from Charlie Haughey syndrome :D
Hmmm. Whilst the thread on a woman getting knocked down at a Loyalist Parade (reprehensible as that may be) manages 9 pages, this thread, involving collusion by HMG/RUC in the premeditated murder of nine entirely innocent men, women and children, barely manages to limp along to seven pages.
Where is the fulsome outrage and condemnation etc which has invariably accompanied other allegations of HMG/RUC collusion, even when they were constructed on the flimsiest of evidence [sic]?
Oh well, perhaps this latest development will provoke more of a response...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11241603
McGuinness 'forgot deathbed talk' with Claudy suspect
9 September 2010 Last updated at 13:27
Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness has said he forgot a deathbed conversation he had with the priest suspected of being involved in the 1972 Claudy bombing.
Mr McGuinness told the BBC in 2002 he had never met Fr James Chesney, but on Wednesday he revealed they had met.
He said on Thursday there was no suspicion about Fr Chesney at that time and only recalled the meeting in recent years when further allegations emerged.
"It was an omission on my part and it was a mistake," he said.
Also on Thursday, Mr McGuinness said he was willing to meet the families of victims of the bombings.
The Police Ombudsman said last month that the police, the Catholic Church and the state conspired to cover up Fr Chesney's suspected role in the no-warning car bomb, one of the worst atrocities of the Troubles.
Mr McGuinness said he became aware of "justified" complaints that he did not make a public statement at the time of the Police Ombudsman report.
"I wasn't in the country when the Police Ombudsman's report was issued, but I had decided that the families were entitled to the truth," he said
"This wasn't something forced out of me by a journalist, this was something I could have quite easily kept hidden for the rest of my life, but I chose not to."
In 2002, Mr McGuinness issued a statement to BBC Northern Ireland current affairs programme Spotlight, saying: "I have never met Father Chesney, nor do I have any knowledge of him other than from media reports."
The deputy first minister said on Thursday the meeting had not stood out, as there was no controversy about Fr Chesney at the time.
"A friend of mine who was aware I had met with Fr Chesney reminded me of that, and it was only then that I recalled the meeting had happened," he said.
Mr McGuinness echoed comments by the former Bishop of Derry, Edward Daly, who said he was sceptical about the allegations made about Fr Chesney.
"Fr Chesney's reputation has been hung, drawn and quartered by the media and by those with vested interests, including the RUC," said Mr McGuinness.
"In the meeting, there was absolutely no mention of anything to do with the IRA. It was only in 2002 when allegations were made, on foot of put into the public domain by the RUC, that we have this situation.
"People need to question who put these allegations into the public domain - the same people who wouldn't put the names of the British soldiers who murdered 14 people in Derry into the public domain."
Mark Eakin, whose eight-year-old sister Kathryn was among the nine people killed, said he could not understand how Mr McGuinness could forget his meeting with Fr Chesney.
"I know a lot of ministers on both sides of the community, and if I was sitting with one of them on their deathbed, I would remember it until the day I die," he said.
The Police Ombudsman's investigation found high-level talks led to Fr Chesney, a suspect in the attack, being moved to the Irish Republic.
No action was ever taken against Fr Chesney, who detectives believed was the IRA's 'director of operations' in south County Londonderry. He died of cancer in 1980 at the age of 46.
No paramilitary group has ever claimed responsibility for the Claudy bombings, and no-one has been convicted of them.
You're contradicting your argument by the completely incorrect use of the word 'fulsome'
Spotlight bbc1 now.