Adams says sorry

[Wasp]

Fair points Earl and I for one maybe don't agree with them all but I do welcome what you said. From your point of view I feel that you have been fair.

AFD ok let's take it that I believe Adam's is genuinely sorry (which I don't) and let's say the vast majority of members are also genuinely sorry (which I don't believe, but I am willing to try to believe yourself). Now as a Unionist I can accept that these people are genuinely sorry. But here lies a few of the problems for people like myself.

First of all, sf all to often are saying one thing then doing and saying another. They have been creating and maintaining tensions which I know is not all there fault, but they still do this.

Secondly there is a whole lot of hurt out there on bothsides which needs to be faced and dealt with. If a wound is not dealt with properly it will keep reopening.

On condemnation of at the least some of the attacks then it is a must for me and many like me. If the British army repeatedly planted bombs in packed streets in Belfast or Dublin then I would condemn them and I would join any protests against them. What people like me find hard to grasp is the fact that republicans cannot condemn cowardly attacks like Warrington where they knew what the results would be just in the sameway they knew the results of many other bombs. How on earth can anyone claim to want equality, peace and claim to represent everyone concerning health etc when they cannot condemn such actions?

IMO no-one is fit for government if they cannot condemn bombs targeting civillians on purpose while for example they are out shopping in a busy Saturday afternnon.

What I am getting here or rather reading from it is that no bombs by eitherside should be condemned including petrol bomb attacks such as the Quinn kids, Warrington, Dublin, Monaghan, La Mon etc. Is this really the view of republicans that these bombs are not to be condemned??

[An Fear Dubh]

I can see Harry's point of view and respect it because I think it is similar to mine but from the opposite side of the spectrum, his is from a Unionist side and mine from a Republican side.

Now I think Wasp made some fair (or honest from his perspective) points which I want to address.

Reaching this point has been difficult for people like me. I was brought up watching relatives regularly being arrested and going to Gaol. Houses being searched and wrecked simply because of our political standpoint. We have a long list of dead relatives. It became a way of life. When you are so close to events on the ground it is very difficult to be able to see the bigger picture. And for some Republicans it is still difficult to understand this. But those that do see, do not always see the way clearly and sometimes the old tribalism and the old ways creep back in because this is what they feel comfortable with.

Yes SF do send out mixed messages at times, saying one thing and doing another. I see that too, but they are not perfect, and you acknowledge that sometimes it is not just their fault. SF are trying to build trust, can anyone trust a politician? But more so at community levels we need to build trust. And in groups like this we can develop an understanding and trust each other.

I agree that the hurt on both sides needs to be dealt with, I am uncertain what is the best way to deal with the hurt and the past.

As a Republican I have no problem in condemning some attacks that were carried out by Republicans where I think the actions were unjustified. For myself attacks that resulted in innocents being killed were the reason that I questioned should Republicans feel justified in continuing the 'armed struggle'. And we looked for ways where we could stop the armed struggle and bring along the majority of Republicans into a non-violent route. But I do not believe (or I find it difficult to accept) that Republicans would set out to kill innocents. I can see your (Wasp) logic and agree that planting bombs in shopping malls is going to result in the death of innocents. It should not have been done, it was wrong and irresponsible. I must assume (as I can not bring myself to accept that some Republicans would be so evil) that they thought bomb warnings and other measures would ensure that innocent life would not be effected. But regardless of how the British authorities used the warnings etc, it was irresponsible and naive of those Republicans to continue with that plan.

I am not saying that no bomb or action should not be condemned. Where it is wrong we need to say that. My difficulty is that sometimes people can use emotive words like 'scum', 'cowardly'. And relate them to one side, the IRA. But if we step away and forget the particular group and look at it the same type of action by another group. Then depending on our political perspective some can support that action.

Harry said that the IRA were looking to impose their political view through armed force, and while I do not accept that analysis, I agree that trying to impose you political view by armed force is wrong. But in Iraq British forces are looking to impose their political view through armed force. I believe that both you and Harry support the British in this objective or at least some of it.

But why is only one groups action the work of cowards and scum, why not all that use the same tactics? If you want to highlight individual acts and condemn them, I respect that and can join you in condemnation where it is needed. But I will not join you when you use emotive words with the intention to insult one side only.

[Wasp]

Now I think Wasp made some fair (or honest from his perspective) points which I want to address.

Thank you and I will try to do the same.

Reaching this point has been difficult for people like me.

While this confuses me I do unnderstand your political thinking is different from mine, your views on the conflict are different than mine so I accept what you have just said about things being difficult for people like you.

I was brought up watching relatives regularly being arrested and going to Gaol. Houses being searched and wrecked simply because of our political standpoint. We have a long list of dead relatives. It became a way of life. When you are so close to events on the ground it is very difficult to be able to see the bigger picture. And for some Republicans it is still difficult to understand this. But those that do see, do not always see the way clearly and sometimes the old tribalism and the old ways creep back in because this is what they feel comfortable with.

Both sides can say this and all to often they use this to try to defend their stance which I am not accusing you of. But these are the types of things that all sides can say.

Yes SF do send out mixed messages at times, saying one thing and doing another. I see that too, but they are not perfect, and you acknowledge that sometimes it is not just their fault. SF are trying to build trust, can anyone trust a politician?

As a Unionist I welcome your admittance of this as there are those who claim sf to be perfect and never at fault. Can anyone trust a politician? Well to answer that I would say no but there might be a tiny percentage that you could trust and that would only be concerning something unimportant.

But more so at community levels we need to build trust. And in groups like this we can develop an understanding and trust each other.

I agree and I myself am involved in certain things which I wish I had done years ago, but it is more of a sidestep from what I actually do as politics usually comes into most things up here.

I agree that the hurt on both sides needs to be dealt with, I am uncertain what is the best way to deal with the hurt and the past.

I don't have the answers for that either but acknowledgement for people like me plays a big part.

As a Republican I have no problem in condemning some attacks that were carried out by Republicans where I think the actions were unjustified. For myself attacks that resulted in innocents being killed were the reason that I questioned should Republicans feel justified in continuing the 'armed struggle'.

Now for me this is the most positive and encouraging thing that you have said. This has like weakened the 'barrier' that I have and I welcome your acknowledgement and condemnation.

And we looked for ways where we could stop the armed struggle and bring along the majority of Republicans into a non-violent route. But I do not believe (or I find it difficult to accept) that Republicans would set out to kill innocents.

You may find it difficult to accept as none of us want to admit such things or rather we want to find reason why such things happened, but they did target innocents over and over again.

I can see your (Wasp) logic and agree that planting bombs in shopping malls is going to result in the death of innocents. It should not have been done, it was wrong and irresponsible.

Again I welcome this.

I must assume (as I can not bring myself to accept that some Republicans would be so evil) that they thought bomb warnings and other measures would ensure that innocent life would not be effected.

There is evil in all sides and some the hatred is so strong that the more they kill the more they celebrate. The old 'how many did we get' applies to both sides. I know you are a commited republican and I understand the difficulty you have in bringing yourself to accept some republicans were evil, but they were/are. Evil walks hand in hand many people and it doesn't differentiate between colour, religion or politics.

But regardless of how the British authorities used the warnings etc, it was irresponsible and naive of those Republicans to continue with that plan.

Many warnings were give to places that the security forces had no control over. But you ended your comment correctly.

I am not saying that no bomb or action should not be condemned. Where it is wrong we need to say that.

Again most welcomed.

My difficulty is that sometimes people can use emotive words like 'scum', 'cowardly'. And relate them to one side, the IRA. But if we step away and forget the particular group and look at it the same type of action by another group. Then depending on our political perspective some can support that action.

There are alot more scum and cowards than the ira and these words are not just for the ira. I have mentioned the Quinn boys and those who ordered/executed that attack are cowardly scum bastards and are nothing but vermin. Bastards.

Harry said that the IRA were looking to impose their political view through armed force, and while I do not accept that analysis, I agree that trying to impose you political view by armed force is wrong. But in Iraq British forces are looking to impose their political view through armed force. I believe that both you and Harry support the British in this objective or at least some of it.

First of all I am against the Iraq war, but the soldiers there are not trying to impose their political view unless you call them wanting people to have the freedom to choose and be free from tyranny etc imposing. They are doing their best to let Iraqi forces take back control. Sadly the whole thing is a mess in which many people like myself were fooled by that cunt Blair with the WMD excuse. But in saying that Saddam had to be ousted at some stage and we mustn't forget the horrible deeds he inflicted on his own people.

But why is only one groups action the work of cowards and scum, why not all that use the same tactics? If you want to highlight individual acts and condemn them, I respect that and can join you in condemnation where it is needed. But I will not join you when you use emotive words with the intention to insult one side only.

See my earlier answer. How many times have so called loyalists taken someone and beat them to death including their own? Cowards and scum are too nice for them. I found it difficult to call myself a loyalist for a long time simply because I viewed loyalist = uvf/uda which is far from true, but it took me a while to work on that. I am a proud Loyalist, Protestant, Unionist and Ulsterman and I now understand you do not have to support the uvf or the uda to be a loyalist. I have listened to elements within loyalism alot more recently and my understanding has increased. I welcome their regret, acknowledgement of things they have done but also understand some of the other things they have done.

[An Fear Dubh]

I think generally we have stated our different positions and to continue on some points would merely be circling the same arguments.

But two points, Wasp says he is against the war in Iraq. But British soldiers are not trying to impose their political view! This is completely wrong, it the view of what the British and American think of is freedom, not the people of Iraq. While agree Saddam was a tyrant, both America and Britain supported and supplied him for many years. Seeing nothing wrong with his democracy, when he gassed Kurds with weapons supplied by Britain. It was only when he threatened the oil distribution did they act against him. America has toppled many regimes without invasion, but the need was to have forces on the ground to police the oil distribution. If it was a simple matter of toppling a dictator Saddam they should have left weeks after they captured him.

How far does your condemnation of the murder of the Quinn children spread. Do you (Wasp) apportion some responsibility to the Orange Order who called for 'civil disturbance' in support of the Orangemen at Portadown? Or do you limit your condemnation?

[Wasp]

AFD first of all Sadamm invaded Kuwait which must not be forgotten and I think you will find this changed the attitudde of the West towards him. Thye acted against him to free Kuwait which is something people tend to forget. But they did support him in his fight against Iran and on this they are guilty of double standards. Now you or I cannot speak for what view the people of Iraq have of freedom, we cannot go solely on the governments involved etc, nor the extremists. But we can go by what the ordinary people on the ground are saying via the worlds press. The main news channel I watch is al jazeera and it provides excellent coverage even though it is to an extent anti-western thinly veiled by at times showing a less than onesided stance.

My condemnation of the Quinn murders goes as far as humanly possible. I do not apportion any blame on the OO because first of all the house was not targeted because of Drumcree/Portadown/calls for civil disturbance etc.

If the house was attacked because of Orangemne calling for civil disobedience I would still not condemn them as they did not mean in any shape or form for this house to be targeted. Calls for civil disobedience can be twisted by some to mean anything so if as you say the order called for this to happen then they should also have outlined to what extent or what exactly they mean by civil disobedience. When one of the guilford four (I think it was them) said about British soldiers going home in boxes does that make him responsible for the deaths of any soldiers and he directly named them where as the OO did not directly name the Quinn household. Is Hume and co to blame for any trouble that followed some of the things he said or any protest marches? Is the civil rights movement to blame for Bloody Sunday?

If anyone was killed or seriously injured answering these calls then the Order would have been totally irresponsible and would have to shoulder some blame no matter how slight at events following their so called call for disobedience if they did not explain what they meant by it.

But as I said this home was not targeted because of Portadown, sadly it happened during the Drumcree crisis but it was nothing to do with Drumcree.

I am in no way trying to excuse those responsible as they are nothing but scum, but to say the OO had any part either directly or indirectly is simply not true.

[An Fear Dubh]

I think you will find that there was a couple of years between the 'freedom' of Kuwait and the invasion of Iraq.

But just so we understand you too limit your condemnation, because of your political view point.

[Jim]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=by43joQLYj8
Rory bremner, has to be the funniest yet just as factual show on the iraq war i've seen yet, was made just before the invasion.

[earl]

anfeardubh said:

I think generally we have stated our different positions and to continue on some points would merely be circling the same arguments.

But two points, Wasp says he is against the war in Iraq. But British soldiers are not trying to impose their political view! This is completely wrong, it the view of what the British and American think of is freedom, not the people of Iraq. While agree Saddam was a tyrant, both America and Britain supported and supplied him for many years. Seeing nothing wrong with his democracy, when he gassed Kurds with weapons supplied by Britain. It was only when he threatened the oil distribution did they act against him. America has toppled many regimes without invasion, but the need was to have forces on the ground to police the oil distribution. If it was a simple matter of toppling a dictator Saddam they should have left weeks after they captured him.

How far does your condemnation of the murder of the Quinn children spread. Do you (Wasp) apportion some responsibility to the Orange Order who called for 'civil disturbance' in support of the Orangemen at Portadown? Or do you limit your condemnation?

Let's not forget the main reason the U.S. went to war with Iraq, Saddam was about to ruin the dollar's monopoly on oil by trading in Euro's instead. The people of Iraq were allowed to suffer for all those years until this happened. Of course now that they are 'liberated', the oil fields safe and American interests secure in the region, everything else is just filler for the 6 o'clock news.

[Wasp]

AFD in what way do I limit my condemnation because of my political viewpoint?