|
|
Post by leeside on Jul 4, 2010 19:41:34 GMT
..........in the aftermath
The Indo:
Sure what do they expect?’ asked a Belfast teenager visiting Dublin, referring to the fired-upon marchers, writes PETER MURTAGH
IT WAS Sunday evening in a Protestant south Dublin middle-class suburban living room, and the evening news was on.
Knowing my mother, we were probably eating sardine sandwiches and drinking tea. That was our Sunday routine.
But because we had a visitor from the North, a particularly attractive 18-year-old Protestant girl, a sort-of but not really cousin, in whom I had a predictable and probably gauche teenage over- interest, it might have been something better than tinned fish mashed onto bread.
When the television news came on, we Murtaghs sat there in silent disbelief. The RTÉ newsreader was clearly upset.
The scenes were ghastly – a grainy, inner-city urban landscape (our TV then was still black and white) in which something had gone horribly and tragically wrong. I don’t remember anything anyone said, save for the first comment from the good-looking Belfast girl. “Sure what do they expect?” she quipped, referring to the fired-upon marchers.
In one short sentence, there was confirmation that “them up there”, the Northerners, the Northern Ireland Protestants to be precise, the ones many Roman Catholics of my youth equated as essentially the same as us down here, were in fact fundamentally different to us.
In the few generations that had grown up since independence and Partition, the southern Protestants may have lost their place in the scheme of things, or at least seen it altered, but we had not lost our humanity.
We had not carried on living in some sort of cocoon of twisted Britishness (and we never were British in any event) and quietly seething sectarianism.
The next day in school, the atmosphere was electric.
The High School was newly moved to Rathgar from its crumbling original home at No 40 Harcourt Street (now the Garda’s Dublin metropolitan regional headquarters).
It was and is a school like several others in south Dublin: a fee-paying school catering mainly for members of the Church of Ireland community.
On Monday morning, there were fights in the corridors as boys, me among them, debated furiously what had happened the previous day.
They were not serious fights, more pushing and shoving and shouting, but nothing had ever inflamed passions as had the shootings in Derry (it was never Londonderry for us).
Feelings were particularly intense in my class, 6D, the lower of the three streams in the 6th year, the stream of the lower academic performers.
We had a clutch of younger teachers, some of whom put as much store on stimulating debate as exploring Tennyson.
We had fierce rows about Vietnam, the CIA, race relations in the US, the Middle East, consumerism, TV advertising and the morality of the storyline of a TV serial starring Robert Wagner, named It Takes a Thief.
But Bloody Sunday inflamed us like nothing else.
For a few hours, some south Dublin Protestant schoolboys were shoulder to shoulder with Sinn Féin, and we didn’t differentiate between Kevin Street and Gardiner Place.
National anger grew and Wednesday was declared a day of mourning, with schools closed.
My memories of being outside the British Embassy on Merrion Square are much more vivid than those of the rows in school.
About 20,000 people marched through the city centre to the square, the embassy being on Merrion Square East. Some 200 gardaí were on duty, and let through protesters with three coffins and an effigy of a British soldier.
They and a Union Jack flag were set ablaze.
A hardcore of a few thousand people remained as tensions became edgier and edgier. The crowd surged forward, and the gardaí did their best.
Batons were used but they were no match for the hail of stones, bottles and petrol bombs that I remember sweeping over my head from the back of the crowd and raining down on the front of the building.
Wisely, the gardaí withdrew.
Some men managed to shin up drainpipes of adjoining buildings and cross the facade of the Georgian terrace, balcony to balcony, until they reached the embassy.
Using a first-floor balcony as a brace for his back, one man reared up, feet in the air, and launched both with full force at a window.
The reinforced glass didn’t shatter but cracked eventually under his pounding, bent inwards, and the whole frame eventually crumbled into the room.
Petrol followed and then – whoosh! – the embassy went up, to a great cheer from the crowd.
As then minister for justice Des O’Malley said later, “the emotions of the time spent themselves in the flames of that building”.
The poet Thomas Kinsella went to Derry a month after the atrocity and wrote a lengthy poem, Butcher’s Dozen: A Lesson for the Octave of Widgery, which he published in April 1972:
A month had passed. Yet there remained
A murder smell that stung and stained.
On flats and alleys – over all –
It hung; on battered roof and wall,
On wreck and rubbish scattered thick,
On sullen steps and pitted brick.
Maybe after Saville the smell and stain will be lifted. Maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Jul 4, 2010 22:23:29 GMT
My own views are simple on this, while its a tradgedy that anyone lost their lives, isnt it amazing that out of hundreds if not thousands of rioters, shots being fired, nail bombs etc etc the army managed to kill 14 'innocent' ones? That takes some skill especially considering the numerous attacks on the security forces before that particular day.
|
|
|
|
Post by leeside on Jul 4, 2010 23:37:26 GMT
My own views are simple on this, while its a tradgedy that anyone lost their lives, isnt it amazing that out of hundreds if not thousands of rioters, shots being fired, nail bombs etc etc the army managed to kill 14 'innocent' ones? That takes some skill especially considering the numerous attacks on the security forces before that particular day. I wonder... had the army been sent into whiterock or drumcree and they shot and killed 13 protestant rioters there.... Wonder if would be just as sarcastically 'amazed at the skill of the army for shooting only the 'innocent' ones' had an inquiry established that the killings had being unjustified. Somehow I think not. BTW, Wasp, have i hit a nerve? You've posted 4 separate 'us poor persecuted protestant' posts in quick succession after you replied to my thread about how some southern prods felt at the time of Bloody Sunday. |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Jul 5, 2010 0:18:01 GMT
If they had been supporting the killing of British soldiers, took part in the killing of British soldiers, blocked roads to stop victims being ferried to hospital etc etc for several years then my feelings would be the same.
In all honesty not at all, here has been quiet and it has been good to see new posts or replies to posts and that is the only reason I posted what I did, along with the fact I have been checking youtube. If you had hit a nerve then I would say so and knowing me I am sure you would have listened to a long rant from me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Jul 5, 2010 0:50:21 GMT
The Saville inquiry has blamed the Paras for Bloody Sunday. But devastating questions remain about the role of Martin McGuinness that day - and in the slaughter of RUC officers that week.
At around 8am on Thursday, January 27, 1972, a Ford Cortina began to labour up the steep hill in Derry which takes the Creggan Road towards Rosemount police station.
The vehicle was unmarked, but crammed inside were five uniformed officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, just coming off shift.
These were strange, troubling times for the RUC, indeed for everyone in the province.
The rise of the Civil Rights movement, the parallel resurrection of the Irish Republican Army and the British Government's decision to intern suspected terrorists had turned Northern Ireland into a powder keg.
IRA's Derry Brigade had started its campaign of murder the previous August by shooting dead a soldier.
Riots in the Roman Catholic areas were already commonplace. But as January 1972 drew to a close, a police officer had not been killed in the city for half a century.
Inside the Cortina there was plenty to discuss. And not all about The Troubles.
Constable David Montgomery, a 20-year-old Protestant from Belfast, had recently become engaged to be married to a local teenage girl.
A party to mark the event was being held that weekend. An hour before, he had phoned a friend in the force to discuss arrangements.
Sergeant Peter Gilgunn, a 26-year-old Catholic, had other reasons to be cheerful.
Eight months before, his wife had given birth to their first child. Sadly, both their domestic harmonies were about to be shattered in the most brutal fashion.
The police car containing Montgomery, Gilgunn and their three mates was 100 yards from the station when a man stepped out from an alleyway and opened fire.
The Cortina drove through this initial ambush. But 50 yards further on, two other IRA men were waiting. One was reportedly armed with an old American-made Thompson submachine-gun.
At that time, prior to Libyan or more sophisticated American support, the IRA still had to rely on such World War II era weaponry.
'Tommy' guns were notoriously unreliable, inaccurate and prone to jamming after the first few rounds.
That morning, however, the gun in question worked effectively; the Cortina was raked and hit at least 17 times.
Still, the car drove on. A Coldstream Guardsman at the police station was even able to engage the attackers with four aimed rounds.
But when the exchange ended Montgomery and Gilgunn were dead, another officer wounded - and the world had changed.
The Saville inquiry concluded he probably had a Thompson machinegun on Bloody Sunday
Despite being a policeman, Sgt Gilgunn had been a popular figure on the nationalist Creggan estate.
Years later, local Catholic businessman Brendan Duddy recalled how the officer would have a cup of tea in his fish-and-chip shop at the end of his shift.
Mr Duddy, who went on to become one of the most important and brave, if by necessity discreet, peacemakers in Ulster, recalls being 'devastated' by the murder of his local RUC bobby. (In the Nineties, Duddy became a go-between for Martin McGuinness and the British Government.)
No one has ever been charged with, let alone convicted of, the killings.
There is no doubt, though, that they contributed to the febrile atmosphere which gripped Derry that week.
Three days later, Bloody Sunday took place, when 14 unarmed protesters were mortally wounded by members of the 1st Battalion, the Parachute Regiment.
This week, Lord Saville's 5,000-page report on the events of Bloody Sunday was finally delivered. He found that the actions of the Paras were 'unjustifiable'.
However, his conclusions have also raised a number of other questions which have yet to be fully answered.
Several of them centre on the actions of the current deputy first minister of Northern Ireland.
Was the young man wielding the Thompson with such murderous accuracy on the Creggan Road none other than Martin McGuinness? And did he also carry and even use the same weapon during the mayhem three days later?
A substantial tract of Saville's report is addressed to McGuinness's role on Bloody Sunday. It found that McGuinness's own testimony to the inquiry was 'significantly inaccurate', and that he had been unable to account convincingly for his actions during a crucial period of that day.
For his part, McGuinness flatly denied having been armed.
Saville suggests McGuinness's own inconsistencies might in part be a result of his memory playing tricks.
After all, 38 years is a long time ago. But there were a number of witnesses who were prepared to say that during the period in question on Bloody Sunday, McGuinness had a machinegun and did open fire on at least one occasion.
Whom are we to believe?
MARTIN McGUINNESS joined the Provisional IRA when he was a teenager. By his own admission, by January 1972, and still aged only 21, he had risen to become the adjutant, or second in command, of the Derry Brigade.
He was, furthermore, officer commanding the IRA's Bogside Battalion. The latter was a laughably grandiose title, given that the city had only a few dozen Provo gunmen to hand. A battalion in a regular army would after all have a strength of between 600-1,000 men.
But myth-making was all. The Bogside was the almost exclusively Catholic slum on the wrong side of Derry's city walls. As such, it would be the centre of IRA activity - and McGuinness was in charge there.
Saville's evidence is the most detailed we will ever have of this terrible time in Ulster's history. Needless to say, it is contradictory. Many of the witnesses called to the inquiry had reason to lie or conceal.
But there were at least five distinct sources that told of McGuinness being armed and in central Derry during the key events of Bloody Sunday.
A photograph taken that day before the shooting began does indeed place McGuinness in Brandywell Road near the front of the march.
The man himself told the inquiry that he was present merely as a 'civilian' and had ordered his men to refrain from paramilitary action during the march.
McGuinness said that when the march reached a security forces barrier at William Street, it was clear to him that there would be a riot and he left, fearing that he would be arrested and interned.
As he walked away, across the Rossville Flats car park, he said he saw an injured woman - probably Margaret Deery, who had been shot in the thigh - being carried off.
He had almost reached the famous wall with the 'Free Derry' slogan when, he said, he heard shots being fired for the first time.
He claimed that shortly afterwards, he and other senior members of the Derry Brigade met and decided there would be no 'retaliation' against the British Army. No Provos should go into the Bogside with weapons.
Saville points out that there is a ' difficulty' in McGuinness's account because the timings simply don't add up.
The events of his 'two-minute' journey on foot away from the rioting in fact took place over '25-30 minutes'.
His claim to have witnessed Mrs Deery being carried away also placed him in a different location from the one which he claimed to have reached.
The representatives of soldiers who gave evidence to the inquiry say the explanation is simple: McGuinness spent the period 'engaged in paramilitary activity'.
One of the main sources to support this allegation was a Security Service informer inside the IRA, codenamed Infliction. Evidence put before the inquiry included an intelligence services Telex sent in 1984 which summarised what Infliction told his handler.
It read: 'Speaking in confidence, a leading member of the Provisional IRA, who no longer has access to the organisation, commented that Martin-McGuinness personally fired the shot (from a Thompson submachinegun on "single shot") from the Rossville Flats in Bogside that precipitated the "Bloody Sunday" episode.'
Infliction also reportedly told another intelligence officer that McGuinness had spoken several times of firing 'the first shot' and that it had troubled his conscience.
Infliction's former handler - Officer A - told the inquiry that the informer 'was rarely if ever mistaken'. He could not think of any 'credible reason' for Infliction to lie to him when providing the information about Bloody Sunday. To be fair, however, there were other people within the Security Service who 'viewed Infliction's reporting with scepticism'.
The real problem with Infliction's story about the Rossville Flats shooting is that he was the only source.
Saville was inclined therefore not to give it too much weight. It would be 'unfair' to say that it did any more than 'raise the possibility' that McGuinness had fired from the Rossville Flats, he said.
But Saville went on to conclude - and it is worth quoting him at length - that 'someone probably did fire a number of shots at soldiers from . . . the Rossville Flats.
From that position, Margaret Deery could be seen being carried after she had been wounded - a scene McGuinness significantly recalled having witnessed.
'The evidence ... suggests that they were fired from a carbine, but this does not necessarily establish that it could not have been a Thompson submachinegun fired on "single shot",' says the report.
Saville insists, however, that if McGuinness had fired from the Rossville Flats, his shots did not precipitate Bloody Sunday, as has been claimed.
The evidence from several Paras clearly stated that they opened fire in response to threats from elsewhere.
Exonerated: Thousands turned out in Londonderry to celebrate the conclusions of the Bloody Sunday bombings
Saville was also presented with a second, separate episode in which McGuinness was apparently carrying and firing a Thompson submachinegunon the afternoon of Bloody Sunday.
One inquiry witness in this case was a journalist who had co-authored the book Martin McGuinness: From Guns To Government.
In the book - and again at the inquiry - it was alleged that McGuinness had entered a bookmaker's shop close to the British Army-manned barrier on William Street on Bloody Sunday with the intention of planting a bomb there.
When he left the shop, having failed to plant the bomb, he fired one shot into a door from the Thompson he was carrying. After questioning the author, as well as witnesses present in the area at the time, Saville concluded that this story was 'very unlikely'.
Yet separate material gathered by Sunday Times journalists directly after the events of Bloody Sunday also included testimony that McGuinness was in a house in William Street with the intention of firing on the Army.
When soldiers approached, McGuinness and two others allegedly dismantled and hid the Thompsons they were carrying and ran off.
However the original source of this second story denied to Saville ever having given the interview to the journalists and said the events described were a 'fabrication'.
Further evidence of McGuinness being in the William Street area with a Thompson came from an RUC interview conducted in the 1970s. The name of the source was concealed for the purpose of the inquiry.
He said: 'I saw Martin McGuinness had a Thompson smg under his coat ... I didn't see him firing.' This was before the Paras began firing.
Carnage: Father Edward Daly waves a bloodstained handkerchief as he tends the dead and dying on Bloody Sunday
The most controversial testimony - and the most contradicted - was that of a former IRA man called Paddy Ward.
Ward became an agent for British Intelligence and, by his testimony, clearly loathed McGuinness.
He told the inquiry that he had been recruited to the Fianna - the IRA's youth wing - by McGuinness. Ward then said that the Derry adjutant had planned to use the civil rights march as cover for a bomb attack by Fianna members.
Ward said that McGuinness had supplied him and other Fianna youths with detonators for their homemade nail bombs a few hours before the march began.
They were to be thrown at buildings in Guildhall Square after the marchers had dispersed.
Ward said that the operation was abandoned after the shooting began. But IRA men carrying bombs and at least one handgun had, on McGuinness's orders, been mingling with the marchers beforehand.
Taken at face value, Ward's testimony was damning and showed McGuinness to have acted in an utterly cynical way.
But it was also riddled with inconsistencies and contradicted by evidence from Army, IRA and other witnesses.
Saville concluded: 'We do not believe what Patrick Ward told us of the paramilitary activities he ascribed to himself or others on Bloody Sunday.'
AND YET for all the contradictions, obfuscations and obvious untruths surrounding McGuinness, Lord Saville came to a clear view on the role of the then IRA adjutant.
As he says in the conclusion of the section of his report dealing with McGuinness: 'We consider it likely that Martin McGuinness was armed with a Thompson submachine-gun on Bloody Sunday and we cannot eliminate the possibility that he fired this weapon after the soldiers had come into the Bogside.'
What part if any did McGuinness play in the murder of the two policemen three days before? The testimony of one senior IRA man in Derry at the time suggests that in January 1972, the brigade only possessed two Thompson guns, one of which would seem to have been favoured by McGuinness as his personal weapon.
The Saville Inquiry's official condemnation of the Paras has doubtless given some comfort at least to the families of the 14 killed by the soldiers on Bloody Sunday.
Those killed by McGuinness and his men have been less well served.
|
|
|
|
Post by leeside on Jul 5, 2010 9:12:02 GMT
So, you're saying that those that were killed...... supported the killing of british soldiers, took part in the killing of soldiers and blocked roads roads to stop victims being ferried to hospital? Is that what your saying? If not then what the fuck are trying to say?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Jul 5, 2010 12:00:13 GMT
So, you're saying that those that were killed...... supported the killing of british soldiers, took part in the killing of soldiers and blocked roads roads to stop victims being ferried to hospital? Is that what your saying? If not then what the fuck are trying to say? First of all re-read my post. Secondly as you are well aware those that took part in riots were guilty of such things not just back then but right through the troubles right from the very start. Thirdly again out of all the rioters how did the army manage to pick out 14 'innocent' ones in the midst of shots being fired at them, nail bombs, petrol bombs and much ira activity. Why would 14 innocent people be in the middle of a riot, why were they singled out instead of the guilty ones?? I can understand the possibility of someone innocent being caught up in the middle of a riot and being accidentally shot along with those that are guilty but certainly not for a minute do I believe all were 'innocent'. |
|
|
|
Post by leeside on Jul 5, 2010 12:25:27 GMT
So, protestant rioters at whiterock or drumcree werent innocent and had the army opened up and killed some of them you would still question their 'innocence' had their murders subsequently been deemed unjustified by an inquiry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Jul 5, 2010 15:31:22 GMT
So, protestant rioters at whiterock or drumcree werent innocent and had the army opened up and killed some of them you would still question their 'innocence' had their murders subsequently been deemed unjustified by an inquiry. I will reanswer so it covers any situations you may try to create. If anyone acted as republicans did, took part in violent republican terrorist actions, rioted in support of these actions, tried to injure people who did not agree with them to the extent that republican violence was in say Londonderry then I would put my house on it that not all of those killed or injured by the security forces were 'innocent' and my answers to them would be the same as my answers to you. As I have already said it is a tradgedy that anyone lost their lives but if they were acting in a way that threatened the lives of others then its very much a case of live by the sword, die by the sword. Why would someones religion make me think differently? |
|
|
|
Post by leeside on Jul 6, 2010 10:54:31 GMT
So, protestant rioters at whiterock or drumcree werent innocent and had the army opened up and killed some of them you would still question their 'innocence' had their murders subsequently been deemed unjustified by an inquiry. I will reanswer so it covers any situations you may try to create. If anyone acted as republicans did, took part in violent republican terrorist actions, rioted in support of these actions, tried to injure people who did not agree with them to the extent that republican violence was in say Londonderry then I would put my house on it that not all of those killed or injured by the security forces were 'innocent' and my answers to them would be the same as my answers to you. As I have already said it is a tradgedy that anyone lost their lives but if they were acting in a way that threatened the lives of others then its very much a case of live by the sword, die by the sword. Why would someones religion make me think differently? Applying your simplistic black & white, blanket judgement logic, then the overwhelming majority of IRA victims were not 'innocent' including the Shankill Bomb victims. Every security member killed whether he be RUC, B-Special, Army..etc... simply 'died by the sword'. Can you answer my question on the rioters at whiterock & drumcree and stop avoiding it, please.... Had some of them been shot dead by the army.....would you lump all the ones who opened fire at the police, threw rocks and petrol bombs at the police together with those who were simply present like you do with all republicans and nationalists on that day in Derry on bloody sunday....had some of them been randomly shot dead would you think that they wouldn't have been 'innocent' neither? Why would someone's religion make you feel differently? Because you never stop MOPEing about the persecution of protestants. You're beginning to sound like Willie Frazier ffs!! |
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Jul 6, 2010 17:07:49 GMT
Not at all, you are simply putting 2 and 2 together and getting 6million with your exagerations.
I never avoided anything, I answered your question several times and my answer was plain and easily understood.
If you had suffered like Mr Frazier then I think you would certainly be airing your views and rightly so. Basically you have a chip on your shoulder with me because of one reply in one post by myself and you have spread it right through to every single topic now that has been posted. When it comes to moping I think you need no lessons because you are constantly acting like a child throwing the toys out of the pram.
I did indeed answer your question yet you accuse me of avoiding it.
|
|
|
|
Post by leeside on Jul 6, 2010 22:59:13 GMT
You're bitterness is palpable, WASP. It carries through all your posts. One rule for loyalists....another for republicans. You're incapable of taking a step back and looking at a situation rationally. You're one-eyed in the extreme. Thats how your brain clearly works and thats what im pointing out to you.
Answer me this simply.....................Is a whiterock rioter innocent if he is shot dead by the army whilst engaging in the act of rioting?
Its a tragedy alright but his relations weren't all 'innocent' wasp. Whats your excuse by the way?
Its simple, Wasp. I dont like you. I never have. I think you're a bigot. A hypocritical bigot at that. Your response to the Indo article reaffirmed this belief. BTW, you are in no position to suggest that anyone has a chip on their shoulder.
Are you kidding me.....Mr 'persecuted'!!!
Like fuck you did. You washed over it with some irrational bitter excuses. As expected......
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Jul 7, 2010 17:45:10 GMT
Instead of waffling accusations at me please back them up because as far as I can see if I post something you dont like you go off on a rant. People on here can verify that on another forum I said if a member here was barred then I would leave immediately, sticking up for those with differing opinions doesnt sound like a bitter one eyed extremist. So please prove your accusations. No he is not. You can accuse his relations of whatever you want, again you avoid my point that Mr Frazier has everyright to make the stand he is making. All republicans want to do is sidestep his issues and ridicule him at every move to discredit him That is fair enough, it simply proves you have a grudge against me which pours from your posts and shouws how incapable you are of having a debate with someone who disagrees with you. What you think and what I am are two different things, I think it is you who is blinded with bigotry because a loyalist on one single thread says something you do not like and you just go off on a childish tangent. I have not resorted to a childish spat or name calling, I have tried to avoid it and opened threads for debate, if you cannot do that then that is your problem and yours alone.. Oh so because I disagreed with the post, have a different opinion on the post all of a sudden this reaffirms your thoughts on me. Talk about a dictator like attitude where we all must agree and not speak out incase you get offended. I am entitled to my opinion as is anyone else, because I am a loyalist you have no right to spout accusations because you dont like what I have to say. Nope, I think this thread and your replies to other recent posts say different. Irrational, bitter excuses?  What planet are you on, I clearly explained my point, so here it is again and please show me the bitterness especially when I said I would say the same to you if it were loyalists. I will reanswer so it covers any situations you may try to create. If anyone acted as republicans did, took part in violent republican terrorist actions, rioted in support of these actions, tried to injure people who did not agree with them to the extent that republican violence was in say Londonderry then I would put my house on it that not all of those killed or injured by the security forces were 'innocent' and my answers to them would be the same as my answers to you.Now are you going to try and debate as an adult, try to understand me as I am trying to understand you without pointing out splinters in my eyes when you have trees in your own? |
|
|
|
Post by leeside on Jul 8, 2010 21:15:25 GMT
On Calton you're the first to post a ball massaging high-five response to any of the ranting sectarian racist bile that comes out of that bitter loony 'bluesnout's' mouth. Consequently, I would tend to think that ye are cut from the same cloth.
I posted an article about how some prods in the south felt at the time of bloody sunday. Your immediate response was to pour doubt at the 'innocence' of those shot dead on that day. As though to suggest that some of them deserved to die. Then straight after that you started 3 new threads entitled.......
"Protestant homes/children attacked"
"Irish Ethnic Cleansing of Protestants in Northern Ireland"
"The Persecuted Protestants of Ireland"
I mean for fuck sake.....talk about childish MOPEery & whataboutery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Jul 8, 2010 21:40:57 GMT
For starters if I feel I want to add to a thread I will and I do not reply to every post by bluesnout or anything like it, many of his posts are from newspaper articles so that is another false accusation by yourself concerning me. Secondly why are you so interested in calton and why do you join there pretending to be someone else and someone your not?? I have the same username here as on Calton, I know people from here 'visit' Calton which proves further I have nothing to hide. Calton itself is a very informative site and its not to long ago that bluesnout and myself were at loggerheads here. But through time I understand him differently, he words things differently than some but one thing for sure that I do know is the fact I wish I knew one percent of what he knows concerning the bible.
First of all I am entitled to my opinion which I made crystal clear and backed that up with why I feel the way I do about it.
Secondly while I can understand you accusing me of putting up those threads in response I can assure you the only thing I got wrong was my timing as that was in no way my intention or thought process. Also please bear it in mind if that had of been my reasons then I would have backed up why I posted them in response to show my thinking. The fact it wasnt like that is the reason I cannot admit to doing something that I didnt do.
I was searching youtube, I did come across these videos and with a bit of life back on this forum I posted them, it was not in repsonse to your thread. But you can believe as you wish.
Again another false accusation, and again if I did post those videos in response to your thread I would say so and explain why. But I didnt so I can only deny your accusations, whether you or anyone believes me then that is up to everyone. I think you should know by now there is no back doors with me, I have stood by what I said many many times regardless of how many on here were 'attacking' me and I have also apologized on here for any offence that I may have caused by one of my outbursts which I try not to do now, I try not to let my emotions take over my points of view while debating.
Its as simple as that, take it or leave it.
|
|
What planet are you on, I clearly explained my point, so here it is again and please show me the bitterness especially when I said I would say the same to you if it were loyalists.