|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 10, 2007 10:49:23 GMT
The fact is that Chesney was in the ira, he had his maps and proof of these will come out unless someone from the ira comes clean on them first. Chesney was known by many as the provo priest and he was able to move safely to the south after the British tipped off the church to save them from embarrassement. BTW what did he die of again???
See answer above.
This is not a game of whataboutery or point scoring or anything like it. Republicans like to point the finger, demand enquirys, look for people to be sacked, alledge this and that etc so me pointing out facts about this outrage is exactly facts. Can you not bring yourself either to condemn this bomb or is that a move to far for you when even you admit 2 minutes would not be enough. It is funny how the post has been twisted round to point scoring or whataboutery rather than be adults and condemn it or not. Perhaps being straight, honest and not condemning it is too much for republicans because it will show those who can't condemn it for the sectarian bigots they are. Facts are facts and if any republican has the neck on them to call any loyalist a bigot then surely they on there moral highground be able to condemn such a sectarian outrage. If not then they should call themselves hate filled sectarian bigots. Afterall this was a deliberate sectarian outrage against the Protestant community on the Shankhill. The 11 SECOND FUSE PROVES IT.
Again see answer above.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Sept 10, 2007 13:54:53 GMT
So basically they were both Sectarian, but the Anti-Treaty brigade were more Sectarian than the other outfit. Just about sums up your hate-filled and Sectarian State. If Sinn Fein/IRA have gained more votes at the last election it just proves once again that the nature of the beast has not changed, not in the least. I am an unashamed Ulster Protestant, but the Irish people have not changed, so there is no point in pretending that things are any different, there is no 'parity of esteem' from within your Sectarian nation. Until the Sectarian Bastion of Hatred changes we in Ulster remain as resolute as ever and our Warcry stays the same, 'No Surrender
And it requires me to have a 'neck' on me to say Blueman is a bigot does it WASP when he makes statements like that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Sept 10, 2007 14:01:59 GMT
WASP what you are looking for seems to be a bit of selective condemnation you can bask in . BOTH sides committed sectarian murders and trying to establish one as more morally correct than the other is a lost cause. Also asking anyone from either side to start selectively condeming any act is counter-productive and pointless and could go on all day long. You for example would see the killing of British troops as murder I would see it as justifiable attacks on enemy forces.
As to Father Chesney, whether he was an IRA member or not is debatable, you can present proof showing that he was and was not. Once again though the point seems to be less to do with Father Chesney himself than establishing that the old wicked Roman Church was behind everything. Surely we have moved beyond this sort of anyalsis by this time?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 10, 2007 18:43:22 GMT
Keep avoiding the issue all you want but I will keeep reminding you. Why are you avoiding condemning this outrage, how am I being selective because we are talking about the Shankhill bombing are we not, why are you trying to brush it aside and add the rest of the mix??? Basically you cannot condemn such a sectarian outrage which proves you are sectarian yourself and you can add the word bigot if you like. You can rant about blueman all you want but tell me where did he not condemn a sectarian outrage which was aimed at ordinary Catholics?? Now what's worse his opinion of the republic or anyone refusing to condemn the sectarian outrage on the Shankhill???
Bollocks
Nice try to avoid the issue but we are talking about ordinary Protestants here not the British army or security forces so stop trying to brush it all aside. Leave the security forces and paramilitaries out of it, we are talking about the shankhill bomb in which ordinary people were butchered in a sectarian outrage.
I don't care about the Roman church, the fact is Chesney showed maps of areas that could be targeted and areas that were not to be touched regardless of his other job. He could have been a teacher for all that that has to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 10, 2007 18:44:07 GMT
says me setanta, that's who says it me me me me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Sept 10, 2007 18:52:09 GMT
If you don't care about the Roman Church why the big concern about the British govt. *supposedly* hiding evidence to avoid emberassment. It's not a matter of whether I refuse to condemn the Shankhill bomb or not which I think personally was as fine a piece of barabaric inhumanity as anything else in the 30 odd years of the troubles it's the point of what does it achieve for me to condemn it.Does it afford you a degree of moral one umpmanship? And I would say the attitudes Blueman manifests here are what produces these kind of situations ultimately as there are Greenmen as well as Bluemen who are equally unflattering to Britain and equally incapable of discrimination in their critiques of the Uk.
I could ask you to condemn a number of massacres from the loyalist side but I would feel it to be pointless, what would be gained? Besides me trying to assert a view that one side was more 'moral' than the other.
As to these maps can we have some proof of their existence beyond urban myth please?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 10, 2007 19:40:48 GMT
First of all concerning the maps, did you ever hear of them before, if not then it is hardly an urban myth. Perhaps you should ask an ex provo about these maps as I am sure enough were shown them but then again it ishardly something they are going to admit when they still deny there campaign was sectarian.
On the condemnation we look at it very differently, if any republican could condemn it then I see it as progress, acknowledgement that they now condemn such outrages and in turn this helps the healing process. The same goes for both sides, acknowledgement and condemnation (if sincere) can go along way in buildiong bridges and gaining trust. Who can really live side by side at peace when there are those who refuse to condemn some of this countries worst outrages? Now you can keep side stepping the issue, all I asked was do you condemn such an outrage and going by your replies I have got my answer along with the replies from others.
This shows the kind of people that Unionists are supposed to get on with things with. Not me and as long as this sectarian attitude remains by mainstream republicans then not ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Sept 10, 2007 19:54:45 GMT
i've heard of the maps before in other circumstances WASP. I could equally well ask you to condemn the miami showband killings or the greysteel massacre or similar - it would turn into a game of tit for tat condemnation - i think better to accept these things have happened and try and move towards a future where they can't again. Also I don't socialise with ex-provos btw and the only person I know online who might fit that distinction is AFD who i have known here and elsewhere and he would hardly strike me as sectarian.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 10, 2007 19:56:32 GMT
BTW did I say hiding evidence to avoid embarrassement to the catholic church?
Ivan Cooper on Chesney.
"At the time, many priests were very active in running large social events, but Father Chesney was in a different league. He organised big dances and massive bingo events, where all the little towns and villages round about could join in by radio link for what were huge prizes in those days."
But there was a disturbing pattern. Mr Cooper said some of Father Chesney's parishioners began to point out the alarming regularity with which these events would be robbed. They suspected the takings were going straight to the IRA's coffers, with the priest's connivance.
At first, Mr Cooper dismissed the claims out of hand, but he changed his mind. He said: "It became obvious that Father Chesney was south Derry's answer to Bonnie and Clyde."
Mr Cooper and others again heard Father Chesney's name linked to the Claudy atrocity, and, in time, the MP was convinced by reliable sources of the veracity of the allegations.
William Houston, a local historian and community activist, did not know Father Chesney personally, but claimed he was notorious as the Provo Priest, and is adamant he planned the Claudy bombing.
"I've heard it from members of his own church," said Mr Houston.
From the news.
The British Government and the Catholic Church were involved in an astonishing cover-up to shield a priest suspected of heading-up the IRA team responsible for one of NI's worst ever bomb atrocities, police claimed today. Just months after the July 1972 attack on the village of Claudy, Co Londonderry, which left nine people dead, including three children, it has been alleged that the then Northern Ireland Secretary William Whitelaw and Cardinal William Conway, the Catholic Primate of all-Ireland, discussed the outrage and the activities of the priest.
The priest, who was never questioned about the murders, was later transferred across the Irish border to Co Donegal before dying of cancer in 1980.
Papers obtained by detectives who reviewed the original police investigation have revealed that a unnamed senior officers and the Northern Ireland Office were also aware of the priest`s identity, according to Assistant Chief Contable Sam Kinkaid.
As he made today`s dramatic new disclosures, he refused to name the priest.
But the identity of the cleric has already been revealed as Father Jim Chesney, who at the time was based in south Derry, not far from Claudy, where three car bombs exploded without warning.
The Provisionals consistently denied any part in the attack, but the emergence of papers and letters exchanged between the Government and Church have left security chiefs and victims` relatives in no doubt that Chesney and the IRA were definitely involved, and that he was allowed to go free even though he was clearly a prime suspect.
Mr Whitelaw and Cardinal Conway held a private meeting on December 5, 1972, to discuss issues relating to the troubles.
The following day, a briefing letter was sent from a senior Northern Ireland Office official to police headquarters indicating the private matter related to the activities of the priest.
Mr Kinkaid said today: ``The letter of 6 December indicates that the then Secretary of State gave the Cardinal a full account of his disgust at the priest`s behaviour, and also indicates that the Cardinal knew that the priest was behaving improperly.
``The letter then states that the Cardinal mentioned the possibility of transferring the priest to Donegal. By January 1973 police reports show that the priest was not being seen in the south Derry area. Intelligence suggested he was working in Donegal.
Mr Kinkaid said a search of 1972 intelligence papers clearly indicated that a parish priest in the south Derry area was a member of the Provisionals and actively involved in terrorism as well as the Claudy bomb.
Records showed he provided an alibi for a person suspected of playing a prominent role in the atrocity.
October 2006 The sdlp said The IRA has never even had the decency to admit to the bombings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 10, 2007 20:01:27 GMT
So if loyalists carried out 30 years of carnage in the republic and these same loyalists who not only supported the violence but were also part of it and were leaders of the men of violence would you not like to hear loyalists condemn some of the outrages at least? Especially when all you here is loyalists gurn about collusion, alledgedly wanting to reach out etc etc.
Anyway you have proven you are not capable of coming out and condemning such an outrage, says alot for your sectarian viewpoints while pointing the finger at others.
BTW I know a relative of greysteel and they know I would condemn it no problem because I don't condone sectarian attacks, I condemn them unlike many republicans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Sept 10, 2007 20:10:21 GMT
loyalists and republicans have both carried out 30 years of attacks in what i regard as my country WASP - to me Ireland is all 32 counties not just the republic or NI. What is to be gained from me asking say Harry to condemn loyalist attacks - very little. I condemn the fact that civilians were killed (although all armies kill civilians -there are no such things as 'wars with honour' in reality) due to poor planning and idioitic execution of the operation. But since the original intent was to kill leaders of then main loyalist groups you won't hear me condemn it on those grounds any more than i would expect a loyalist to condemn a plan to kill the IRA council that went similarly wrong.
It may give a momentary 'feel-good' factor if we all start condeminng all past attacks but exactly what does it accomplish beyond that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 10, 2007 20:36:09 GMT
It accomplishes a sense of acknoweldgement, a sense of understanding and a sense of mutual feeling about events that caused so much division and pain.
The original intent of that attack was to kill and maim as many Protestants as possible while alledgedly attacking the uda at the sametime. The 11 second fuse proves that this was the intent and only to give the two bastards that done it time to run off like the cowards they are.
The ira must have poorly planned and executed many many many times knowing fine well what the results would be. Republican rhetoric doesn't wash with me with these so called accidents. I suppose the kids on Montbatten's boat was an accident or did the cowards that detonated that bomb know fine well kids would be on board. Same old lame pathetic excuses fro so called peace lovers who want to reach out to their unionist friends. Shame on all of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Sept 10, 2007 20:44:27 GMT
as i think jim pointed out if the aim was to kill and maim as many protestants as possible then better methods for such an unpleasant act could have been devised than walking into the shankhill road in broad daylight on a busy saturday afternoon. Mountbatten was to me a legitimate enemy target - I don't think killing him had much point but I can see why he was chosen. And yes indeed the IRA did poorly plan and execute attacks many, many times - more of their members in the early years of the conflict were killed by been caught in 'own-goal' type explosions than any other method.
It is a pointless fallacy to call the volunteers who detonated the bomb on Mountbatten's yacht 'cowards'. If they are cowards the label would also be true for much of any army in the world where assasinations on leading enemy figures have been made and civilians died.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Sept 10, 2007 20:52:03 GMT
Mmmm once again the usuial republican response 'other armies killing civillians etc, the ira are not an army, they are murdering sectarian cowardly bastards. Why did you ignore the fact they knew kids were on the yacht knowing full well they would have no chance? And you think it is wrong to label these vermin cowards.
Sorry did I label them cowards, that is those that detonated the bomb on mpountbattens yacht? Perhaps I should have said hate filled, sectarian, ruthless, child murdering, child abusers, women killing, yellow vermin bastards. Hope that is plain enough.
And it is a pity alot more were not killed by there own bombs and 'accidents'. They are cowards of the highest order where most of there attacks were aimed at unarmed defenceless people and if they were armed then it was shooting them in the back. Scum is too good a word for them and I hope they roast in hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Sept 10, 2007 21:04:10 GMT
if you cannot accept the the IRA sees itself as an army then you cannot hope to deal or negotaite with them at all, just as people from the republican side could not have negotaited with loyalist leaders if they did not attempt to see they too saw themselves as having a legitmate cause.
To me the IRA are an army, to some Irish people they would not be but as a republican it is only logical that I wll tend to see them as one. I do not by any means view them as faultless paragons and sectarianism crept into the campaign at times, that cannot be denied. But to engage in massive generalisations like you are doing is silly WASP, you are throwing the toys out of the pram to be honest.
|
|
