Claudy report to be published by Ombudsman

[Myles Na G.]

'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.

[red hander]

'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

[Myles Na G.]

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:

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.

[delboy]

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

What's your point?

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.

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.

[ardmhachaabu]

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]

[updown9194]

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:

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.

[delboy]

[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.

[mc_grens]

Im wondering what the famine and the Nazis have to do with the Claudy bombing...

[ardmhachaabu]

[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

[updown9194]

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.

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.

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.

My lack of finality statement that you refer to was in regard to your rather crass use of the term 'final solution'.

As above.

So 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[ardmhachaabu]

stibhan, what has any of that got to do with Claudy?

[updown9194]

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.

[ardmhachaabu]

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

[Nally Stand]

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?

[updown9194]

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.