web analytics

BLOODY MONDAY…

By ATWadmin On June 16th, 2010

Happily, I have not seen the fawning media coverage of the Saville Report. The report itself is a product of the Belfast Agreement (Thanks to Tony Blair) and since that is all about appeasing Irish nationalism there can be no big surprise that Saville was all about creating the “right” outcome.

The topic seemed to create a massive traffic surge here on ATW so I am glad that at least there was a debate on the subject. Some of us reject Saville. But enough has been said about Bloody Sunday.

I want to talk about Bloody Monday. And Bloody Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, These were the thousands of days when the IRA murdered thousands of people. As Andrew pointed out, where has been the campaign for justice for the victims of all those atrocities? 

And when we talk of Londonderry, why has there been a studied silence on the many vicious and savage killings that characterised the IRA in that area under the command of Martin McGuinness? Why have the families of the two young RUC men MURDERED by the McGuinness gang just three days before “Bloody Sunday” been forgotten? Does Justice look one way?

I’ll tell you why. Because here in Northern Ireland we are going through a process of historical revisionism. The barbarism of the IRA is being sanitised as their victims are consigned to history. The forces of law and order are being demonised. Irish republican mythology is being accepted instead of rejected. Those now claiming “justice” for the people killed on that one day in 1972 say nothing about those hundreds killed that same year by the IRA. Just one of those things. In this way, the wicked are being canonised and the innocent damned. What could be more evil than this?

I am old enough to be able to remember Bloody Sunday. I also remember all those other days that ruined so many lives. I take a stand for all those victims, the ones consigned to the memory hole by an immoral disgusting appeasement process. The first victim of the “peace” process is truth and unionists who do not like the burlesque of Saville should remember that they support the current process and so are in no position to complain about it.

Worse is to come – we will see the Butcher Boy as First Minister. We will see Bomber Kelly as Justice Minister. These obscenities are the outworkings of the toxic “process” people reluctantly endorse and are the high price many are prepared to pay to keep certain people “from going back to the old days”. Buying off the IRA means always having to say sorry.

61 Responses to “BLOODY MONDAY…”

  1. I hope these hysterics aren’t echoed in the wider unionist community.

    Yesterday was a good day for all who believe in truth and justice.

    "since that is all about appeasing Irish nationalism there can be no big surprise that Saville was all about creating the "right" outcome"

    It clearly was no such thing. It was about setting out the facts of what happened that day and, in doing so, it righted a dreadful wrong committed by the British state. David Cameron spoke excellently and should be commended.

  2. Reg

    It is not in the least hysterical to posit an alternate view. Do we live in a world where Saville must be accepted? Was Widgery? There has been a dreadful wrong committed by the British State, I agree. It is that the Bogside Butcher is not behind bars for the obscene crimes including murders the IRA committed whilst he was in senior position. Why do nationalists not seek justice here? Is it because they are so myopic that they see being an IRA killer as acceptable, decent even? Are the lives of RUC officers less worthy than those killed on "Bloody Sunday"? If so, how? If not, why are all those crusaders for justice mute on that point? Cameron is appalling but then again I have said so consistently.

  3. As Andrew pointed out, where has been the campaign for justice for the victims of all those atrocities?

    There isn’t one so that would suggest that nobody cares enough to get up off their behinds and start one. Least of all the people who dig up those victims only when Bloody Sunday comes up.

    All those cases were investigated by your beloved RUC and if there is any reason to believe they missed something in any case then by all means raise it. But if you were serious you would raise it on the merits of the case and not just as a shroud-waving exercise to complain abut the justice that has finally come for the Bloody Sunday victims.

    I remember the short-lived campaign for an inquiry into the Claudy bomb. As soon as Sinn Fein said they agreed with it unionists lost interest. If there is an inquiry you want then lay it out for us. What’s the issue, why do we need more that the police investigation and what should be the terms of reference.

    Let’s hope you don’t have to bang the drum for 30 years to get a hearing.

  4. "there can be no big surprise that Saville was all about creating the "right" outcome."

    Unbelievable. So its a conspiracy is it? What sort of a parallel universe do you live in. Bloody Sunday was an atrocity – one of too many atrocities perpetuated in NI.

    "The barbarism of the IRA is being sanitised as their victims are consigned to history. The forces of law and order are being demonised. Irish republican mythology is being accepted instead of rejected. Those now claiming "justice" for the people killed on that one day in 1972 say nothing about those hundreds killed that same year by the IRA. Just one of those things. In this way, the wicked are being canonised and the innocent damned. What could be more evil than this?"

    So Bloody Sunday is mythology? Jesus wept!

    There is a distinct difference between the IRA atrocities and what happenned on, but more importantly after Bloody Sunday. You deliberately fail to accept the difference.

    Accepting that there are two sides to the Troubles is part of the reconsiliation process. The majority in NI are moving on. The Dinosaurs will eventually become extinct.

  5. Jesus may have wept for the hundreds killed by the IRA that year in 1972, but Saville and the rest of the peace process establshment won’t.

    Bloody Sunday was not an atrocity. The Military did not set out to take life, unlike the IRA.

    I am under no obligation to accept Saville, I prefer to accept Widgery.

  6. >>The report itself is a product of the Belfast Agreement (Thanks to Tony Blair) and since that is all about appeasing Irish nationalism<<

    Why then did the British government after receiving the report wait a further six years before publishing it?

    >>And when we talk of Londonderry, why has there been a studied silence on the many vicious and savage killings that characterised the IRA in that area under the command of Martin McGuinness? Why have the families of the two young RUC men MURDERED by the McGuinness gang just three days before "Bloody Sunday" been forgotten? Does Justice look one way?<<

    You’re confusing justice, media and public opinion. The killings of the RUC men were no doubt investigated by the police; the killings of the unarmed demonstrators were not. That’s the point.

    Whether or not the families of the RUC victims have been forgotten is surely something the Unionist community should answer for. Don’t tell me you expect the IRA to do that for you?
    But in any case, these memorials to the RUC dead indicate that all that chat about "memory holes" is a load of baloney

    Your commnet by the way very much suggests you believe this was indeed a two-sided conflict with both sides on the same level.

    >> I take a stand for all those victims, the ones consigned to the memory hole by an immoral disgusting appeasement process.<<

    Oh, come off it! How often have you condemned – or even mentioned – the McGurk’s bar bombing, the first large-scale atrocity in the Troubles, for example?. It was carried out by Loyalists and you never mentioned it once.
    That’s one truly down the "memory hole".

    Like most partisan political commentators, you cite atrocities selectively and for political purpose. Nothing wrong with that, but you should at least admit it.

  7. "I prefer to accept Widgery"

    LOL.

  8. I am under no obligation to accept Saville, I prefer to accept Widgery.

    The creationism of legal opinion.

  9. ‘The creationism of legal opinion.’

    No, a democratic choice. Just like those 12,098 people (many of whom were probably in the crowd yesterday, and could even have been some of the relatives), who put an ‘X’ next to the name of convicted terrorist, Martina Anderson on May 6th.

    The bubble of hypocrisy gets ever bigger………..

  10. "No, a democratic choice."

    The majority in NI have made a democratic choice to accept the Good Friday Agreement and move on so huff and puff away.

  11. ‘The majority in NI have made a democratic choice’

    That same majority also voted to remain in the UK, whilst being bombed and terrorised by the IRA. I don’t recall many on here seeing that contradiction. The difference being, of course, that I don’t kill for my beliefs and have never voted for anyone who has done the same.

    Can the same be said for everyone present in Guildhall Square yesterday?

  12. Andrew

    You expect the state to kill for your beliefs and cheerlead for them when they do so illegally.

  13. Good morning, David.

    You kept your head down yesterday, didn’t you? It must be quite galling to see all your prejudices about the Bloody Sunday dead demolished by a peer of the realm. Where will it end, eh?

    You made this unwise and callous remark yesterday: "The Saville Report is war by other means. "

    I called on you to retract it. Will you?

    BTW you have difficulty with Martin McGuinness being DFM. Fair enough, so do I. But what’s your opinion of Ariel Sharon being made PM of Israel, the man behind the massacre of hundreds of refugees? I don’t recall your ever condemning him.

  14. "That same majority also voted to remain in the UK, whilst being bombed and terrorised by the IRA. I don’t recall many on here seeing that contradiction."

    So what are you saying? The majority who voted to stay in the UK was right but the majority who voted for the Good Friday Agreement is wrong! There is no contradiction at all here only obfuscation on your part.

  15. "I prefer to accept Widgery"

    So if you were in office, David, the electorate could be assured that you would accept complete and accurate reports?

  16. ‘You expect the state to kill for your beliefs and cheerlead for them when they do so illegally.’

    On the second point, please point to my ‘cheerleading’ for the soliders, rather than pointing out the hypocrisy of the Bloody Sunday families and supporters. If you can’t find evidence of my ‘cheerleading’, I suggest you withdraw that remark.

    Secondly, I expect the State to put down those who seek its destruction. In this case those individuals who did just that are rewarded by the State with high office through a process of despicable appeasement, enhaced by the electoral choices of those who stood in Guildhall Square yesterday.

    ‘The majority who voted to stay in the UK was right but the majority who voted for the Good Friday Agreement is wrong!’

    What I am saying is that people have the right to oppose both, but not by terrorism and murder. That’s the part Shinners didn’t apparently understand for three decades.

  17. Ciaran,

    Interesting point. Will we get an answer from David? Probably not. I’ve noticed he isn’t so keen on answering (for him) awkward questions.

    Oh well….

  18. "That’s the part Shinners didn’t apparently understand for three decades."

    I sure the "Shinners" fully understood it!

    "In this case those individuals who did just that are rewarded by the State with high office through a process of despicable appeasement, enhaced by the electoral choices of those who stood in Guildhall Square yesterday."

    Democratically – you apparently don’t understand it!

  19. Don’t rush to judgement too quickly Rabbi, we’re all busy at times and can take time to respond to comments on here.

  20. Anon –

    Unbelievable. So its a conspiracy is it?

    Not quite the right word, but it’s long been rumoured (and never denied) that Blair asked Lord Faulkner to name the "right" judge to head the inquiry. Now we know more details of what the report states below the headlines, there are concerns that Saville was more interested in certain witnesses than others and what they had to say.

    That Blair sold out the Army to appease violent republicanism isn’t disputed, that he would want the "right" judge to lead the inquiry (as he did with Hutton) would be a natural consequence of that.

  21. >>but it’s long been rumoured <<

    >>there are concerns that<<

    The fact, on the other hand, is that Saville didnt act alone, but was part of a team of 3 judges from Canada and Australia.

    Wonder what the rumours and concers say about them.

  22. Ciaran,

    "Don’t rush to judgement too quickly Rabbi, we’re all busy at times and can take time to respond to comments on here."

    Generous of you to say so. Yet busy David still found time for two anti-Islamic posts, one anti-Obama post, and two more anti-Nationalist/Bloody Sunday posts.

    And the morning isn’t even over yet….

  23. Pete,

    "it’s long been rumoured (and never denied) that Blair asked Lord Faulkner to name the "right" judge to head the inquiry."

    It’s long been rumoured (and never denied) that my maternal gran was actually a man.

  24. ‘Democratically – you apparently don’t understand it!’

    I understand democracy, and I also understand terrorism. Shinners supprt the former when it suits and couldn’t recognise the latter if it bit them on the arse.

    That’s the difference.

  25. RB –

    Let’s be clear, it was Faulkner who recommended Saville to head a tribunal that Blair, in the Commons in 1998, said is "expedient". This is Saville (my emph.):

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7148889.ece

    Blair’s appointment of Saville, a law lord, to head the inquiry had been greeted with discreet expressions of surprise in the legal community. Though well respected, Saville had spent most of his career as a contract law specialist. Some legal insiders felt that his lack of experience in the rough-and-tumble world of criminal law, where an ability to conduct robust cross-examinations is highly prized, could work against him in what, even then, was clearly going to be an immensely challenging and controversial assignment calling for formidable organisational skills.

    “I always assumed that Blair was advised that Saville would be a safe pair of hands,” one senior barrister observed, “but, frankly, he would not have been my first choice to handle an inquiry that the government clearly wanted to be carried out with maximum dispatch.”

    It seems that Blair might have got his man for an "expedient" job.

  26. ‘The creationism of legal opinion.’

    No, a democratic choice.

    Andrew,

    One report is fact and one is fiction.

    The fact that you choose to believe Widgery despite its lack of detailed evidence, its obvious flaws and its (ahem) "questionable" objectivity over the painstaking detail and international objectivity of Saville is a great shame.

    On the other hand, your Prime Minister, David Cameron, spoke with great dignity yesterday and did the UK proud.

  27. Pete,

    I appreciate your loyalty to David. But is it necessary to side with him on every issue? I can understand other posters and their herd mentality—I’ll name no names—but thought that you were made of better stuff.

    If you truly care about our country (and I think you do) then you’d be disgusted by the actions of our soldiers on Bloody Sunday and appalled by the shooting dead in cold blood of 14 of our civilians.

    This is a time for looking deep within ourselves in the hope of retrieving some humanity in an increasingly uncaring world. It is not a time for attempting to shoot the messenger. We’ve had enough shooting, thank you.

  28. RB –

    No need to discuss me, someone who Noel Cunningham can tell you said in here long ago that the Queen ought to have recognised the wrongs that had been done in NI (before re-asserting the place of NI in the Kingdom).

    I’m not ready to pile in on our soldiers because we know what they were sent into 38 years ago. It’s odd how NI then was genuinely dreadful, another time and a world away, a place which was so bad hundreds of psychopathic murderers had to be released from prison to appease the psychopathis murderers who would take us back there.

    Yet the people who tell us this act – all of a sudden – as if the Paras just pitched up and started shooting. Well no, there’s a context behind all this, one where soldiers and the RUC daily were spat on, stoned and shot, so Saville says what he says and I’ll just be thankful that it wasn’t me who was sent into the Bogside with a rifle because the dead toll may have been higher if so.

    Yes, we’ve had enough of the shooting but some of us have had enough of the inconvenient bereaved being ignored, insulted and told to shut up and go away. Yes, fourteen lost their lives 39 years ago but thousands of innocents were killed by the human scum which republicans now send into government.

    Martin McGuinness and his pals still won’t tell where some of the tortured bodies are buried, they still won’t allow the bereaved of thousands to know what happened and why their loved ones were butchered, so do excuse me for not hanging out the bunting over Saville.

    Come back and talk about justice when hundreds of terrorists are back in prison with whole life tariffs.

  29. Pete,

    Don’t you get it? The amnesty was the will of the people: you know, those hundreds of thousands of us who don’t know shit and need you to guide us. I realise it’s tough being more or less a lone voice crying in the wilderness.

    But here’s a suggestion. Why don’t David and you approach Jim Allister and have him and his team amass evidence against McGuinness, have him tried, found guilty and given due sentence.

    "I’ll just be thankful that it wasn’t me who was sent into the Bogside with a rifle because the dead toll may have been higher if so."

    Thank you for showing your true colours there. I do appreciate honesty.

  30. RB –

    I’m afraid you don’t get it. Neither you nor any voter had the moral right to open the prison gates and free hundreds of butchers. You did so as pawns. You acquiesced in a shabby political stitch up between Blair and the IRA and in doing so told the bereaved to sod off. Well others have a bit more dignity than that and prefer justive be done for the thousands who people like you prefer to forget.

    And what amnesty did you buy? One where £200 million and twelve years is spent on a show inquiry against the British Army and the DPP is considering whether to prosecute soldiers. So no, there is no amnesty but we do have a hierarchy of victims. A lesson Saville has taught us is that some indeed might be investigated and prosecuted afterall. Some amnesty that is.

    As for me and going into the Bogside with a rifle, why do you think I mentioned the context? Nothing happened that day in a vacuum, so let’s not re-write the history books now.

  31. ‘The fact that you choose to believe Widgery despite its lack of detailed evidence, its obvious flaws and its (ahem) "questionable" objectivity over the painstaking detail and international objectivity of Saville is a great shame.’

    Your directing you comment at the wrong person. I’ve not mentioned Widgery. My gripe is the hierarchy of victims created by nationalist Ireland, the selectivity of justice and the hypocrisy of those Bloody Sunday relatives who shared yesterday’s platform (and embraced) an IRA Godfather.

  32. Pete,

    "You did so as pawns."

    There you go again. Who the fuck do you think you are calling me and hundreds of thousands of others pawns? We knew what we were doing, because unlike you we live here.

    The £200m was spent to get at the truth. Perhaps it’s not your kind of truth but it’s ours.

    Why not arraign McGuinness if you’re so interested in truth? Go on, off you go.

  33. "My gripe is the hierarchy of victims created by nationalist Ireland, the selectivity of justice and the hypocrisy of those Bloody Sunday relatives who shared yesterday’s platform (and embraced) an IRA Godfather."

    Where is the hypocrisy? It wasn’t the IRA who killed their relatives, organised a cover-up and branded them terrorists.

    If there is a hierarchy of victims, it was created by the British establishment, not the IRA.

  34. ‘Where is the hypocrisy?’

    Er, embracing an IRA terrorist. Please keep up!

    ‘It wasn’t the IRA who killed their relatives, organised a cover-up and branded them terrorists.’

    No, but it was the IRA who killed their relatives, organised an omerta of silence, and who was subsequently rewarded by an immoral electorate with masses of votes – long before the so-called ceasefires took place, I may add.

  35. RB –

    I wondered when the old "you don’t live here" line would make an appearance. Newsflash: I do live here, in the UK, my country. I also know the other side pretty well, with the Irish side of the family having fought both with and against the British Army and loyalists in Ireland, so you can look forward to more of my opinions.

    Who the —- do you think you are …?

    I’m someone who thinks for himself.

  36. Pete,

    "I’m someone who thinks for himself."

    Really? Then it’s back to my original remark. It appears that your thinking for yourself bears an eerie resemblance to the thinking of David and a couple of other posters.

    Are you sharing a brain or what? It’s okay if you are. I won’t tell anyone.

  37. Pinky,

    Yes, you should talk about rifles….

  38. ‘IF they had ever had the guts to actually join an army and fight for their beliefs.’ ‘Pinky’ – comment deleted.

    I see the personal attacks are starting. Wondered when it would happen. Take this as your first and last warning.

    As for bravery, me and my father intervened a week last Saturday when a Palestinian crowd of supporters were abusing some pro-Israeli sympathisers on Whitehall, London. Despite the fact we were heavily outnumbered, both of us stood our ground and would have been prepared to engage in good old-fashioned punch-up had it not been for the intervention of Met officers on patrol.

    You can criticise my opinions, but don’t criticise what you understand to be my level of bravery on here again. End of!

  39. Well your removal of my comment speaks for itself, Andrew. It reinforces what I said and what most here know to be true, anyway.

    When you or Pete or anyone else postures about what you WOULD have done to innocent people with a rifle- a comment discovering why you DIDN’T actually do anything is in order.

    So why didn’t you, Pete, David et al, join the security forces?

  40. Rabbi, yes I can see the armchair heroes boasting of what they would have done to innocent people IF they had been *there* armed with a rifle- prancing around their council flats with those rifles alright.

    What a lark!

  41. ‘Well your removal of my comment speaks for itself, Andrew.’

    Yeah, it speaks for the fact I won’t tolerate personal abuse. Don’t pretend to be able to speak for others. Let them speak for themselves.

    ‘So why didn’t you, Pete, David et al, join the security forces?’

    Because everybody has their own calling. We answered ours. It’s a bit like complaining about the striking British Airways staff and being asked why I didn’t want to be an air steward. It has no relevance. I have commented many times on what I would have done to the IRA had I been hypothetically in power. I don’t believe I’ve ever said what I would have done as a Para in the circumstances of Bloody Sunday and it does you no credit to second guess me.

  42. Pfffftttttt !

    Personal abuse to point out that you Pete et al were not in Derry to kill innocents with a rifle for very well-known reasons to all?

    Your removal of my post simply reinforced the content.

  43. It has been noted in America that many of those who are the most hawkish are those who made damned sure that they were never in harms way ( ie Vietnam era people like Cheney who got deferments from the draft )

    I know someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland – and who nearly got blown up in Belfast’s Monagh By Pass there – and he never ever speaks like a super-hawk ( re any of the conflict zones )

    No one hates war more than one who has experienced it first hand.

  44. Pinky,

    There are individuals here whom I never engage with. They’re best steered clear of and I’m sure you know why.

    To be fair to the Troll he actually has a rifle or two. Impressive or what?

    I hear that the USA are drafting new legislation that will limit the sale of firearms to those with an IQ over 149.

  45. Of course there are ‘hawks’ who are actually chickens, we see them here posturing every day on ATW. If they are not out shaking their fists at wee girls who giggle at them on the street, they are shouting racial etc… abuse , from afar, mind you, at all and sundry.

    But there is something realllyyyy *special* about a single middle-aged man who one day talks about how his mammy cooks him his dinner- then the next day he is arming himself ( on a blog only) with rifles to head into conflict to murder innocents.

    Very *special. *

  46. ‘Personal abuse to point out that you Pete et al were not in Derry to kill innocents with a rifle for very well-known reasons to all?’

    Personal abuse to switch from the argument to an attack on your perceptions of my bravery.

    The ‘well-known reasons to all’?

    Indeed, it was 10 months before I was born (LOL).

    As for ‘racial abuse’ I think you need to be directing you ire at the Muslim scum who heckled the Royal Anglians yesterday. But I doubt you’ll do that, will you?

  47. I feel a "Comments Off" moment coming on.

  48. Anonymous,

    That’s a song, right?

  49. You are not 10 months old now, nor were you 10 months old 10 years ago, nor 10 years before that….

    There are wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan currently- plenty of options for the armchair heroes to fight for their beliefs. When are you all going to do that?

    There is also a rising dissident threat in Northern Ireland.

    So?

    Anon, probably- it is par for the course now isn’t it?

  50. "Your directing you comment at the wrong person. I’ve not mentioned Widgery."

    Andrew.

    Apologies. I re-direct my comment to David.

  51. Rabbi Burns/Phantom –

    I’ll explain once more.

    The events that day didn’t happen in a vacuum. The Paras were based in Londonderry where they had been abused, insulted, spat on, stoned, shot at and killed. We know two RUC officers had been murdered 48 hours earlier and tensions were extremely high.

    If I was a 19 year old squaddie sent into the Bogside maze I’d have been very nervous anyway. With it all kicking off, protestors, noise and the hooligans stoning the barricades, rumours of IRA fire, rumours of nail bombs, smoke grenades going off and rubber bullets flying, I’d probably have been extremely jumpy and wishing I was anywhere else.

    In those circumstances there’s no doubt I’d be resorting to firing much sooner and with less control than otherwise.

    Now if that’s gung-ho then my definition of the term is different to yours. If you’d have stood your ground, safety on and without a bead of sweat appearing on your brow, good luck to you.

  52. Pete,

    "In those circumstances there’s no doubt I’d be resorting to firing much sooner and with less control than otherwise."

    You’d have less control than soldiers who shot unarmed civilians in the back and head at point-blank range with high-velocity rounds? Christ.

    I do hope you aren’t in possession of a firearm, legally held or otherwise. Another Derrick Bird is the last thing we need.

  53. Rabbi

    On my posts, comments are always on. Just so you are clear.

  54. RB –

    You hope in vein.

    No, I did not say I’d have had less control than the soldiers in Londonderry 38 years ago, I said I’d have been extremely nervous and jumpy in that environment.

    At least have the grace to accept it and not try to twist my words.

  55. Pete,

    Sorry for twisting your words.

    Silly me, I thought when you wrote, "In those circumstances there’s no doubt I’d be resorting to firing much sooner and with less control than otherwise" you meant that in those circumstances there’s no doubt you’d be resorting to firing much sooner and with less control than otherwise.

    Whether you like it or not, your words excuse terrible crimes.

  56. Bllody Sunday was a terrible and violent blunder by the British Army. It was an unjustified use of deadly force. The acknowledgement by the Prime Minister was akin to the woman who said "I acknowledge the universe" and the wit who said "She’d better."

    That being said, I can fully understand the level of disgust among those in the unionist community in the fact that atrocities by the IRA (which were often more violent and vile) simply do not resonate in the political culture. I understand the fact that the Good Friday Agreement provided a necessary sort of electric shock therapy to end the cycle of violence, but if the British Prime Minister can acknowledge actual wrongdoing by the British Army, isn’t it time for substantive and unqualified acknowledgment of wrongdoing by the IRA?

  57. Mahons,

    I agree. And if Obama can sign an apology to the Native American nations, I think it’s only right that the Cheyenne should acknowledge their role in the Kidder Massacre.

  58. mahons,

    >>British Prime Minister can acknowledge actual wrongdoing by the British Army, isn’t it time for substantive and unqualified acknowledgment of wrongdoing by the IRA?<<

    The IRA doesn’t have a Prime Minister; and their foot soldiers have admitted as much as the foot soldiers of the British PM – i.e. absolutely nothing. After all, Saville found that all the soliders involved (i.e. the 6 or so soldiers who did the actual killings) continue to tell deliberate lies (to the enquiry) and deny their parts in the massacre.

    As far as I remember, Gerry Adams did refer to several – tho certainly not all – IRA attacks as being wrong; he also apologised to the next-of-kin of all the IRA killed. It is, however, as vain to expect the IRA to apologise for its entire campaign as that the BA apologise for its part in the Troubles.

    Ideally of course there would be a Truth+Reconciliation arrangement as in South Africa (but with no Vuvuzelas allowed) with the full truth being volunteered by all sides. Hhowever, after the torturously long proceedings of Saville and the sheer inability of those involved to admit to anything, there is practically no hope of that ever happening or being at all worthwhile if it ever did happen.

  59. LOL Loser

  60. Sean,

    You’re confusing me there. Who’s the loser?

    I do find that ATW—even a couple of hours later—is less interesting now that David has jetted off to Sorrento. (Extraordinary part of the world, though perhaps not in June. In spring it’s paradisal.)

    Let’s hope that the other posters can keep us informed, entertained and challenged on the same level as David always did.

  61. Andy removed my post

    So naturally he is the loser