Social Items

TPQ
Jim Duffy ✍ One aspect of the shooting which I had not realised is that the Secret Service have not been paid since February. 

Their budget has not been approved by Congress.
 
The security put at the venue was not the top level security it should have had, but a slimmed down security - possibly because the Secret Service had not the money to do the top level security.
 
The evacuation of cabinet members and leaders was also chaotic. Their secret service were not in the room. They were kept in the back room. So when reports of the shooting came in, they had to rush in, then clamber over people lying on the ground, and tables, to get to the person they were supposed to protect. Had the attempted assassin, or multiple assassins, got into the ballroom it could have been a massacre as senior figures were shot before they were gotten to by the secret service.

The more information that comes out, the worse the security looks. I was wondering why the secret service leaders were pushing the narrative straight away that the performance had been exemplary. It smelled fishy. The only reason people go overboard praising the security in such case is to try to set the agenda and distract from major security failures. They hope the media and politicians buy the narrative and don't ask questions.
 
Another issue was the slow evacuation of Trump. It appears he didn't comprehend what was happening and wouldn't move. They struggled to make him understand he needed to go. It shows the dangers of having a president showing clear evidence of dementia. Dementia patients often can freeze and not know what is happening.
 
Medical issues can cost a president their life. It did with President Kennedy. When hit the first time by a bullet, he should have laid down on the seat, as indeed he was trained to do. However he couldn't as he was unable to move as he was wearing a back brace, given his extremely bad back. It meant he couldn't get down so was a stuck in place, with a frame holding him up, for the next shot. He probably would have survived if he hadn't been wearing the back brace, as he would have fallen either onto the seat or the well of the car and avoided the fatal head shot.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

The Slow Evacuation Of Trump

Seamus Kearney 🎤 'For who forgives the accursed crime of black treachery?
Rebellion, in its chosen time,
May freedom's champion be.'


The day after the rap at the door from the journalist Greg Harkin on 10th May 2003, Scappaticci was summoned to a clandestine meeting with his military handlers at his holiday home in Portaferry on the County Down coastline.

They suggested strongly that a furniture removal van be organised and sent to the family home to remove him, his wife and children into the safety of protective custody, but Stakeknife was having none of it. Instead he told his handlers that he could 'brassneck it out' and figured that the IRA leadership would aid him in his denials because of the current peace process. He already had an insurance policy in place as he held an enormous amount of sensitive information on the IRA hierarchy and they knew it. Therefore, he was prepared to take his chances in the roll of the dice.

Freddie Scappaticci decided to apply the age old maxim, 'The best form of defence is attack', so made the first move by contacting the Republican Movement himself and arranged a meeting with two senior IRA personnel, one of whom had suspected him thirteen years earlier of being an agent in the Sandy Lynch affair. As he set facing both men the tension in the room began to rise, until Scappaticci blatantly denied the allegation that he was the agent Stakeknife. On hearing this the two senior IRA officers were given an opening and took it by simply advising Scappaticci to issue a firm and public denial in which the IRA would not contest. In other words a 'gentleman's agreement' was reached which served both parties. The meeting ended.

Next in his line of vision was the Republican base in West Belfast, the ordinary men and women who had shouldered and endured the long war. If he was to remain amongst them then he had to dupe them into thinking he was on their side during the struggle. Therefore on the 12th May 2003 he gave an interview with the Andersonstown News and issued a firm denial of the allegations against him which placated a sizeable section of people who accepted he wasn't Stakeknife but just 'a hard working Republican, stitched up by a venomous British gutter press'. As far as Scappaticci and his FRU handlers were concerned the ploy was beginning to work.

On 14th May 2003, a meeting in his solicitor's office on the Falls Road took place, attended by the renown journalist Brian Rowan, with the IRA's Director of Intelligence and the Adjutant of Northern Command monitoring proceedings in a building opposite. As pre-arranged Scappaticci issued a public statement in which he denied that he was a British agent and with that approach expected the latest piece of theatre to bring the curtain down on the press who had hounded him thus far. To copperfasten the dual arrangement between Stakeknife and the IRA leadership a number of statements were issued from senior Republicans who slammed the press for being so gullible into accepting British intelligence propaganda, and by doing so muddied the waters by claiming the allegations against Scappaticci were' bizarre and without proof'.

However, this act of deception was never going to work for a journalist who watched as Scappaticci spewed out his lies to a waiting audience in a solicitor's office on the Falls Road. Stakeknife along with the IRA leadership had carefully engineered the deception and in so doing had duped their own people, but it would take a feisty and courageous woman to finally corner and out manoeuvre this slithering snake who had escaped justice for so long.

Seamus Kearney is a former Blanketman and author of  
No Greater Love - The Memoirs of Seamus Kearney.

Stakeknife 🕵 The Rise And Fall 🕵 Act XVI

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Fifty Six

 

A Morning Thought @ 3130

Gary Robertson ⚽There’s a pub quiz question that asks which is the closest rivalry in Scottish football? 

The answer of course is The Dundee Derby. A mere one hundred meters separate these clubs, a two minute stroll for a fit man (they tell me) but there’s a gulf far bigger than distance and this was evident on Sunday as the two came head to head at Tannadice. The three nil score line doesn’t flatter the Arabs, sure Ferrys’ opener was comical, a shot that bounced off him and in it rolled to put the home side 1-0 ahead. From there on superb defending, goal line clearances and but for woodwork this game could well have been over by half time. Dundee did have the ball in the net but up stepped VAR to rule the goal out due to an infringement in the box and much to the away fans annoyance. For what It’s worth I did think it was a tad harsh on Dundee but rules is rules as they say.

Ferry’s second on 70 mins, a shot from 20 yards was no more than United deserved. And with Strain putting the icing on the cake with a third less than two mins later, United cemented their spot as top dogs in the city of discovery for another year. The same city, the same street but very different emotions for the two sets of fans.

Talking of emotions congratulations to St Johnstone who have secured the title and a return to the SPL for next season. Saints have looked strong most of this year and have navigated the tricky path back to the top flight and a chance to rub shoulders with the elite of Scottish football, and The Rangers. A well done and pat on the back to Simo Valakari and his team.

Sadly though there are also commiserations and these go to both Kielty Hearts who found League One tough going this season and are relegated to League Two. A similar fate befell Edinburgh City battling from a 15 point deduction placed by the SFA on the club “due to said club suffering an insolvency event”. It was always an uphill battle and but for that 15 point deduction would find themselves in 9th place above Dumbarton. Cruelly they find themselves dropping out of the league altogether.

League One, and Inverness Caley despite their own 5 point deduction for going into administration are now 2 points clear with the title in their hands - avoid defeat to Hamilton Accies on Saturday and it’s a return to the Championship
.
So to the SPL and the race for the title.

First up Celtic and a chance to close the gap and keep the pressure on both Hearts and Rangers.
 
An early evening kick off and with Celtic Park bathed in spring sunshine the scene was set for battle. I was a little more confident going into this one. Not because I don’t rate Falkirk but because there was a spring in the step of the players that had been missing for quite some time. That said, it was Falkirk with the best opportunity in the 21st min to open the scoring when a rocket from the foot of Spencer was touched around the post by a - at full stretch - Sinisalo. A shot from Ralston was dealt with adequately enough by the Falkirk keeper before up stepped a rejuvenated Daizen Maeda. Now the most cynical among us could question whether this upturn in form is to put himself in the spotlight and a move away from Celtic but whatever it is if it helps us lift the title I’m all for it.

For the second week in a row his pace closing down caused mayhem, and having robbed the defender slotted past a hapless Hogarth in the Falkirk goal - and the Celts were one nil up. Falkirk continued to press but to no avail and Celtic were rewarded in the 44th minute when “Mr Celtic”, Kieran Tierney, fired home Celtic's second, and into the break they went. In the sunlight and strains of Depeche modes’ “Just can’t get enough” amongst others the attending fans were certainly in joyful mood.

So to the second half and the 70th minute and the ghosts of Celtic past raised their heads briefly as Wilson fired home from a difficult angle and suddenly Falkirk were back in the game. However this time Celtic refused to buckle and were in no mood to relinquish their lead and the points were sealed by Maeda in the 83rd minute when his second made its way into the net and for 24hrs Celtic were alongside Hearts at the top of the SPL. A job well done and it’s over to the Rangers and Hearts to continue the chase.

First up on Sunday and the Edinburgh Derby with Hearts facing Hibernian at Easter Road. A ground that recently hasn’t been a happy hunting ground for the Jambos and so it seemed to continue when in the seventh minute a header from soon to be elsewhere Bowie slammed home into the net and Hibernian were one nil up. My prediction of a home win looking good or at least for a few mins til the Hibs keeper Sallinger inexplicably handled the ball outside the box and with the intervention of VAR was shown a red card by Don Robertson and Hibs task was made much more difficult. However to their credit the home team battled and battled but tempers flared and Passlack of Hibs saw his second yellow on 49mins and the home side reduced to nine men. Magnificent saves from stand in Hibs keeper Smith and the woodwork managed to repel the onslaught as Hearts desperately sought an equaliser. This finally came in the 65th minute when a shot from the darling of the Scottish press, Shankland, bounced off Hibs defender O’Hara and the scores were level. Hearts of course, much to the delight of Ian Crocker (a man so impartial that I’m sure sleeps under a Rangers FC duvet) restored Hearts 3 point lead at the top of the table.

Over at Ibrox however things weren’t going to plan for the boys in blue. Having lined up against an inconsistent Motherwell. I, along with many others felt this was a “given” for the Rangers. Danny Röhl's boys have looked ruthless recently and are the team I personally fear most, or at least did, in this title battle. To the strains of Tina Turner and a “Keep believing” tifo the scene was set. Motherwell however clearly hadn’t read the script and were there not simply to make up numbers but instead to dent hopes. Askou has said he’s tired of the “Kingmaker” tag that has been thrown around his club recently but like it or not Jens’ it’s going to stick particularly after Sunday's performance.

So to the game and as I said Motherwell didn’t turn up to just play out 90 mins, walk away and leave 3 points on the Broomloan Road. After a spell of early Rangers pressure it was Motherwell who took advantage of some poor defending and Fadinger fired past Butland in the 16th minute to put the Steelmen 1 up. A goal applauded by his manager, it was clear to see Motherwell aren’t on the beach just yet. Despite their pressure Rangers created little in the way of chances from open play and again found themselves punished again by sloppy defending as Longelo fired into the net and sent the Fir Park side 2 up. The small contingent of away fans filled Ibrox with noise but not the noise the Rangers needed to hear. Longelo should probably made it 3 but for a deflection off a Rangers boot sent the ball looping over the bar and out for a corner. Despite their best efforts the Rangers couldn’t find a way to break through the Well defence and the fans made sure the team were aware of their disapproval at half time.

Now I’ve said before this team can battle and we’ve also been aware that a two goal lead is a dangerous one and so when changes were made by Röhl the team emerged with a renewed vigour and it didn’t take long before Chermiti, helped by a slip by Motherwell's McGinn, halved the deficit in the 51st minute. Game on and from there on in I felt a Rangers victory was the only possible outcome. I’m glad I’m wrong more often than I’m right.

Rangers did battle and they did add a second on 70 mins as Raskin headed home from close range 2-2.The star of the show however was Motherwell's Longelo, the 25 year old left winger from Barking, found the back of the Rangers net in the 90th minute to once again put Motherwell ahead.

Despite playing ten mins of the advertised seven of injury time the Rangers couldn’t find an equaliser and at the final whistle the boos rang out. Rangers fans clearly far from happy now find themselves in third spot in the league a point behind Celtic and four points behind Hearts. With four games to go and next up for the Rangers a trip to Tynecastle on Monday May 4th at 5-30 (Sky or Premier Sports I imagine will carry this game) losing there could put them seven points off the top with three to go and at kick off four behind Celtic assuming of course they take care of Hibs in a tricky trip to Easter Road. Any points dropped now can be crucial and sure things can change quickly this is a blow the men from Ibrox didn’t need.

Next weekend will see champions crowned, play off places assured and relegations confirmed but in the SPL it’s another must win for all 3 at the top of the table. A Rangers win means Hearts lose and if Celtic beat Hibs on Sunday the gap could be one point and goal difference between the three. This is certainly shaping up for a powder keg finish.

Til next time …

🐼 Gary Robertson is the TPQ Scottish football correspondent.

Is Your Motherwell Danny Röhl?

Real News Network ★ Written by Jane Slaughter.

In 2011 Frank Bardacke published an 800-page history of the Farm Workers union: Trampling Out the Vintage: Cesar Chavez and the Two Souls of the United Farm Workers. It opened many eyes to the reasons the UFW became a shadow of its former self.

Bardacke starts the book with an epigraph, a quote from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: “O what a fall was there, my countrymen! Then I, and you, and all of us fell down…”

Bardacke was a farmworker in the fields of the Salinas Valley for six seasons in the 1970s. When he decided to write his book years later, he went back to his carpool co-workers, finding them still at work in the fields. In 1994, the union had been thoroughly defeated for nearly 10 years—but his old friends were afraid even to mention its name where the foreman might hear.

I interviewed Frank Bardacke after a New York Times investigation revealed evidence that Chavez had sexually abused young girls who were volunteering with the union, and the allegation that he had also assaulted union co-founder Dolores Huerta. – Jane Slaughter

Continue @ RNN.

A Lack Of Democracy In The United Farm Workers Gave Chavez Immunity

Barry Gilheany ⚽ The conventional narrative that is being told about Leeds United’s narrow loss to Chelsea in the second of this weekend’s FA Cup Semi Finals at a gloriously sunny Wembley on Sunday past is that once again we didn’t turn up, froze, were overcome by nerves etc, etc. etc. 

Yes, we failed to break our Wembley duck for the fourth successive occasion since an Eric Cantona hat trick won us the 1992 FA Charity Shield in a 4-3 victory over Liverpool. Yes, we were outclassed in the first half thanks largely to the five back formation that Daniel Farke decided to start with and off days by Ao Tanaka and Ethan Ampadou in particular. 

Yet the statistic that I have just given should indicate just what a momentous occasion this was for Leeds United Football Club. For this was our first appearance in an FA Cup semi-final in 39 years, since a thrilling 3-2 defeat to Coventry City at Hillsborough in which we were just 24 minutes from reaching what should be the only club fixture reserved for Wembley – the Cup Final. I cannot help but feel that we would have had a better chance at a ground like Villa Park or Old Trafford which are shorter in pitch dimensions and less of a psychological occasion than Wembley.

But this really was an occasion pregnant with history, both club and personal. It took place on the 34th anniversary of the achievement of our last major honour – the old First Division Championship on Sunday 26th April 1992 which has earned us, in the words of the music journalist and author Dave Simpson, The Last Champions. It was a reprise of, and another opportunity for Leeds to gain revenge in a Cup tie for one of the many injustices suffered by Don Revie’s Legends – the 2-1 defeat in the 1970 FA Cup Final replay by Chelsea at Old Trafford. Played in front of a then record tv audience of 26 million, this match was perhaps the emblem of the brutality of 60s and 70s English football as feuds developed over the years were played out in technicolour savagery with virtually no intervention by the referee for whom, in the words of the legendary sports writer Hugh MacIlvaney, “only the production of a death certificate” would have been grounds for a booking, a sanction that that was only imposed on two occasions. 

A contemporary Premier League referee would have dished out seven red cards to Chelsea and four to Leeds; with Chelsea defender Eddie McCreadie being sent off twice. Two incidents remain seared in the memories of Leeds fans of that vintage; the scything down of Eddie Gray who had virtually conducted proceedings in the drawn Wembley match with virtuoso wing play by Ron “Chopper” Harris and a high kick on Billy Bremner by Eddie McCreadie in the penalty area near the end of normal time (Chelsea got their winner in extra time). Not that Leeds were shrinking violets. A cynical barge on Chelsea keeper Peter Bonetti early doors may have hobbled him sufficiently to prevent Mick Jones’s mazy opener for Leeds. 

This match established a specifically football related hatred among Leeds fans of Chelsea to be, as all tribal feuds are, handed down the generations though cultural factors such as the London media’s adoration of the King’s Road fashion style association in contrast to the gritty Northern character of Don Revie’s side which they loathed. The rivalry was to be fought out on terraces and service stations throughout the 1970s and 1980s by their respective hooligan firm; the Chelsea Head hunters and the Leeds Service Crew with a particularly infamous denouement at the end of the 1983-84 season at Stamford Bridge when after a 5-0 victory had secured promotion for the home side, Leeds fans charged across the pitch to take apart and smash their scoreboard. Historical antagonisms were to be exacerbated by the controversial stewardship of Leeds by former Chelsea Chairman Ken Bates in the same capacity between 2005 and 2013 who had publicly nursed a desire to have Leeds expelled from the Football League over the Scoreboard incident and his presiding over our first ever relegation to the third tier of English football, the placing of the club into administration and a subsequent 15 points deduction for exiting administration without following insolvency procedures did feed conspiracy theories about his intentions. Master Bates was a thoroughly toxic influence on the club.

The 1970 Cup Final was my introduction to and initiation into the, as our club anthem Marching on Together, the “ups and downs”, with rather more of the latter, of the life of a Leeds United supporter. As the club went into its post Paris 75 robbery decline, the excitement of following Northern Ireland’s two World Cup Final tournaments in the 1980s partially displaced loyalties to a club which suffered relegation in 1982, and which developed a particular reputation for the thuggery and racism of more than a small minority of its following. However the semifinal run in 1987 and another near thing when promotion to the Old First Division was snatched from our grasp in extra time of a play-off final replay against Charlton Athletic who came back from a John Sheridan free kick classic to win 2-1 (the Russian Roulette torture mechanism of the Penalty Shoot Out had yet to be introduced into domestic competitions yet) rekindled the fires of a dormant passion. I became a born-again Leeds United fan; the year I became a self-imposed exile from Northern Ireland.

But now let me move from the future past to the future present. We actually started the brighter side and almost took the lead when a flick on from Dominic Calvert-Lewin presented Brenden Aaronson with a glorious opportunity, but his well-aimed shot was brilliantly saved by Chelsea keeper Sanchez. Had Norah Okafor opted to slot the ball through to an attendant Calvert-Lewin in the box rather than draw out a freekick which Tanaka disappointingly fluffed then we may have had another gilt-edged chance to score. 

But Chelsea, playing under caretaker boss Rob McFarlane - after the virtual refusal of their team to play for “supply teacher” Liam Rosenior led to their worst since 1911 of five defeats on the bounce and five clean sheets up front and the departure of the hapless Liam - soon asserted control as the law of the new manger bounce dictates. The malfunctioning of usually solid midfield partnership of captain Ampadou and Tanaka attracted the attention of Steven Gerrard making his debut as an analyst alongside Darren Fletcher and Ally McCoist in the TNT commentary box, and it was no surprise when Chelsea took the lead in the 23rd minute with a glorious header by Enzo Fernandez on his return to the side after being dropped for the last two games by Rosenior, after a pin point cross by Pedro Neto. I was frankly relieved that we went into the half-time interval just the one goal in arears.

The case for a change in formation was unanswerable and, as he showed at that crucial juncture at half-time at the Etihad in late November, Leeds manger Daniel Farke again displayed his tactical nous and flexibility by bringing on Anton Stach and Joe Rodon in place of Sebastien Bjiol and James Justin for the second half. It nearly paid immediate dividends as a fierce top corner bound pile driver was tipped over by Sanchez. Now a rejuvenated midfield and wing back pairings were really getting into their groove, and further chances came the way of Calvert-Lewin, but both efforts were dealt with relatively comfortably by Sanchez. 

It has to be pointed out that, despite the volume of well merited praise that has come DCL’s way, he has only scored once in open play in his last 18 games, and this statistic underlines the absolute necessity for Leeds to sign a younger, hungrier, and proven goal scoring forward in this summer’s transfer window. Gnonto and Nmencha came on to inject extra pace up front but there was a growing inevitability to the ultimate outcome; that we had seen this movie before. Controversy was injected into the proceedings by an increasingly common and egregious act of gamesmanship when Sanchez on the advice of a teammate sank to the ground with a phantom bout of cramp/muscle strain/thigh injury in order to enable an informal coaching session on the pitch. When Sanchez rose to the grounds in no apparent physical distress it triggered on field player confrontations and a chorus of boos from the 32,000 Leeds fans in attendance.

Such manoeuvres are clearly contrary to the laws of the game but the reluctance of referees to clamp down on these acts of, frankly, cheating are the cause of much fan outrage. Pep Guardiola employed similar dark arts during the Ramadan break at Elland Road in February with the successful aim in disrupting our rhythm. Such offences may not rank on the scales of criminality of a Ron Harris or an Eddie McCreadie but are becoming associated with the modern Chelsea and other ‘elite clubs’ for whom the normal rules of sporting probity on the pitch and financial probity seem to apply on an a la carte basis.

And so it was. A Wembley hoodoo remains uncracked, but it does not have to be a monkey on our collective shoulders. In what was more of a Premier League fixture than the genuine Cup atmosphere of the other Cup semi-final when for three magical minutes Championship Southampton dreamed of beating Manchester City after an exquisite 20 yard strike by Irish international Finn Azaz in the 79th minute and reaching the Final for only the second time since their victory also as a second tier side over Manchester United half a century ago in 1976. As it turned out, a cruelly deflected strike by Doku and a sensational long-range goal by Nico Gonzalez sent City to their fourth Cup Final in a row.

Defeat in a Cup semi-final always used to be seen as the most bitterly disappointing of all football experiences. As an attendee of two play-off final defeats and tv viewer of one other and two semi-final defeats, I can testify to the crushing, numbing devastation of these defeats. No such distress was, for me, attached, to Sunday’s loss. We again showed we are, as a promoted club, competitive at Premier League level. We now have to secure our topflight place by beating relegated Burnley at home on Friday night and then getting perhaps another point in the remaining three games after that. Then we can build a squad that can make use more of a permanent fixture in the Premiership and finally lay that Wembley hoodoo to rest.

Marching on Together.

⏩Barry Gilheany is a freelance writer, qualified counsellor and aspirant artist resident in Colchester where he took his PhD at the University of Essex. He is also a lifelong Leeds United supporter. 

Disappointment But Not Distress ⚽ FA Cup Semi-Final – Chelsea 1 Leeds United 0

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Fifty Five

 

A Morning Thought @ 3129

Cam Ogie ✍ Son Of Sam 🪶 “ . . . The Dog Made Me D It . . . ” 🪶 Serial Killer David Berkowitz.

A serious, rigorous and coherent critique of the responses by Donald Trump, JD Vance, and commentators such as Pete Hegseth to Pope Leo XIV must begin by recognizing a fundamental asymmetry  and becomes significantly stronger when it grounds itself not only in contrast, but in evidence: this is not simply a disagreement of opinions, but a divergence between distinct intellectual frameworks. What emerges is not a clash of equal arguments, but a striking mismatch between a deeply developed theological tradition and a form of political rhetoric that often substitutes assertion for reasoning.

Pope Leo XIV’s authority is not merely symbolic—it is intellectual, historical, and rigorously earned. His academic formation alone reflects this: a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics from Villanova University (1977), followed by a Doctorate in Canon Law from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas. This is complemented by his life as an Augustinian friar, formed within a tradition shaped by figures such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. Within this framework, questions of war, justice, and human dignity are not improvised—they are debated, refined, and constrained by centuries of moral reasoning, including principles like just war theory, proportionality, and the protection of noncombatants.

Set against this, the rhetoric of his critics reveals a fundamentally different mode of engagement.

Trump’s worldview, shaped in part by his economics education at the University of Pennsylvania, is rooted in transaction, dominance, and outcome. His language about war—calls for overwhelming force, threats of destruction—does not attempt to engage moral theology. Instead, it treats force as inherently self-justifying, collapsing complex ethical questions into demonstrations of strength.

Vance, despite his credentials from Ohio State University and Yale Law School, often approaches theology through a legal or ideological lens that does not fully translate. Legal reasoning is adversarial and strategic; theology is cumulative and truth oriented. The result is a critique that may sound rigorous but rarely grapples with the depth of the tradition it addresses.

It is with Hegseth, however, that the contrast becomes most explicit—because his rhetoric provides direct examples of how religion is being deployed. In a Pentagon prayer, he stated:

Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness … and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.

Elsewhere, he invoked divine support for military success:

“May the Lord grant… total victory over those who seek to harm them.”

He has also drawn directly on scripture in a martial context:

“Blessed be the Lord… who trains my hands for war.”

And framed military action within overtly religious language:

“Recognizing the providence of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

These are not isolated remarks; they form a pattern in which religious language is used to sanction violence rather than interrogate it. At times, this rhetoric is further blended with cultural imagery—echoing tones and references reminiscent of Pulp Fiction—producing a fusion of faith, identity, and spectacle that bears little resemblance to disciplined theological discourse.

This is where the critique sharpens most effectively. The issue is not that such rhetoric is pathological. It is that it relies on assertion without examination. Appeals to “righteousness,” “victory,” or divine providence are presented as self-evident justifications, rather than claims requiring moral scrutiny.

At times, this structure of reasoning can sound—rhetorically, not literally—uncomfortably close to the logic of “the dog made me do it.” Not because the speakers are irrational, but because the argument rests on an external authority that is invoked rather than examined. The authority may be framed as divine mandate, national security/destiny, historical right or civilizational defence—but the effect is similar: justification is asserted, not argued.

The crucial difference, of course, is that these are not the actions of individuals detached from reality. They are deliberate, structured, and politically reinforced narratives. This makes them more serious, not less. The problem is not irrationality—it is rationalization. Violence is framed as necessary, righteous, even inevitable, within systems that can obscure the need for deeper ethical evaluation.

This stands in stark contrast to the tradition Pope Leo XIV represents. Catholic theology does not permit violence to justify itself. It demands that it be constrained, questioned, and morally accounted for. Where Hegseth’s language calls for “no mercy,” the Church’s tradition insists on limits. Where political rhetoric celebrates total victory, theology asks whether such victory can ever be morally legitimate.

What we are seeing, then, is not simply disagreement—it is a category mismatch. Trump, Vance, and Hegseth are not engaging the Pope within the framework of theology; they are addressing him as though he were a political actor operating within their own logic. In doing so, they flatten a complex moral tradition into something that can be overridden by rhetorical force.

In the end, the contrast is stark. On one side stands a figure formed by decades of disciplined study within a two-thousand-year-old intellectual tradition. On the other are critics whose engagement with that tradition is partial, instrumental, and at times dismissive. The result is not a meaningful theological debate, but a misalignment—one in which assertion replaces reasoning, and where, at moments, the justification for violence can sound as though it rests on an authority that need not explain itself.

The problem is not that U.S. and Israeli actions resemble the irrational violence of a serial killer; it is that they are far more troubling than that. They are rationalized, systematized, and justified through the language of law, security, and even morality. Where Berkowitz claimed a ‘demon dog’ told him to kill, states invoke national security, historical destiny, or divine sanction. The danger lies not in madness, but in the normalization of extreme violence under the cover of legitimacy.

And it is precisely in that gap—between reasoned moral argument and unexamined certainty—that the critique finds its full force.

⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast.

The Dog Made Me Do it

Seamus Kearney 🎤 It has to be noted here and highlighted that the Unionist leadership has a particular problem with Bobby Sands, the nine other hunger strikers and the whole H Block issue of 1981.


In 2013, even after the European Union offered over 18 million pounds for the construction of a Conflict Resolution Centre at the Long Kesh /H Block site, it was the DUP and the Unionist bloc that rejected it on the grounds that the site would become 'a shrine to Republican terrorists'. 

Even after Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson declared the Long Kesh site 'spade ready', in July 2013, a letter from America by the same Peter Robinson declared a change of heart and rubbished the whole idea of the preservation of the site. The Unionist leadership went on to state that the H Blocks, including the prison hospital where the ten hunger strikers died, should be demolished, flattened and 'social housing' built on the site.

On closer examination one must ask the pertinent question - why so much vitriol around this particular issue, even to the point of demanding the demolition of the recently erected statue of Bobby Sands near his home in Twinbrook, on a site which threatens no one?

The answer lies in the human condition of not allowing the real story to be told in the public arena. When the Reich Main Security Office in Berlin, Germany, was informed about the prisoner revolt in August 1943 at the Treblinka death camp in Eastern Poland, Heinrich Himmler ordered the camp to be demolished, flattened and 'pine trees' to be planted on the former site in an attempt to cover up the evidence of what actually happened there. The Nazi leadership understood correctly the horror which lay within the Treblinka death camp and tried to eradicate the evidence of their own guilt.

Equally, be rest assured, deep within the Unionist psyche the same guilt lies in the decision not to build the Conflict Resolution Centre and to eradicate the statue of Bobby Sands in Twinbrook. Because by recognising Bobby Sands in any shape or form, or by finally agreeing to the Conflict Resolution Centre at Long Kesh, shelved since 2013 by Unionist intransigence, they would effectively lose the argument and the narrative surrounding their failed state. 

The Unionist leadership must not be appeased because appeasement only feeds into their ignorance and intransigence, instead they must be confronted and outflanked by a common sense approach which allows the history of partition, the last 40 years of conflict to be properly told, the crucible being the H Block struggle at Long Kesh, and history to be recorded properly for posterity.

Seamus Kearney is a former Blanketman and author of  
No Greater Love - The Memoirs of Seamus Kearney.

Bobby Sands Still Confronting Unionist Ignorance And Intransigence

Dr John Coulter ✍ The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has in reality sent a shockwave to Iran in the wake of downgrading the United Kingdom’s growth estimate in the IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook.

Reading between the lines, the political message to Iran is simply - accept the deal with the United States and stop attacking shipping in the vital oil supply route, the Strait of Hormuz.

The IMF has already forecast that the energy shock from the Iran war will hit the UK the hardest of all the globe’s advanced economies. The UK is already suffering from the cost of living crisis, and the fuel price crisis does not auger well for PM Keir Starmer ahead of crucial elections in England, Scotland and Wales on 7th May.

The pressure has been piled on Starmer’s premiership when the IMF cut its estimate for UK growth in 2026 to 0.8% from the 1.3% prediction made a few months ago in January before the Iran war erupted.

In justifying its estimate, the IMF said the downgrade was due to that war, fewer interest rates cuts and the expectation that the impact of higher energy costs would linger into next year - the same year as crunch council and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland.

The IMF’s downgrade flies in the face of the UK statistics own figures of a growth of 0.5% in the economy. However, this will not be good enough to fend off a potential Labour meltdown on 7th May when the Left-wing Green Party and Right-wing Reform UK party are expected to make substantial gains at the expense of Starmer’s party.

A catastrophic result on 7th May is expected to well be the death knell for Starmer’s leadership and the behind the scenes jockeying for position to replace him as both party leader and PM is already underway.

But what is really driving the IMF downgrade is the global context rather than purely the cost of living crisis within the UK. The IMF is really trying to prepare the overall global economy for President Donald Trump’s next move on Iran.

The major problem facing Trump is how to lean politically on the Iranians to promise never to develop their nuclear capabilities to the extent that they possess a nuclear bomb. The real concern in the Trump camp in Washington is that the Iranians want a nuclear capacity, not to heat homes or fuel factories, but to attack Israel - hence the latter’s part in assisting the US in air strikes against Iran.

Mind you, Israel is also a nuclear power and possesses nuclear bombs so is Iran merely trying to create a 1950s Cold War scenario in the Middle East in the hope that no one is silly enough to press the red buttons? In the Fifties and Sixties, both the US and the communist USSR had nuclear bombs, but no one would fire as they became deterrents to avoid a nuclear war.

In military terms, can Trump and the Israelis give the Iranian regime such a bloody nose that the country’s Revolutionary Guard-dominated leadership signs a concrete and long-term agreement that it will never develop a nuclear arms capability?

Currently, Trump and the Israelis are attempting to get Iran to agree to this scenario purely through an air bombardment offensive. But what happens if Iran can hold the line militarily and soaks up the pressure of air strikes - will a ground offensive be required as with Kuwait and Iraq in terms of ‘boots on the ground’?

Trump will certainly not want any Iran conflict - especially if it requires ‘boots on the ground’ - to deteriorate into another embarrassing Vietnam or Afghanistan. In the Seventies, the US had to abandon South Vietnam to the North Vietnamese communists after at least a decade of ‘boots on the ground’ fighting the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong guerrillas; a campaign which cost the lives of some 10,000 American service personnel.

During the previous Joe Biden Presidential administration, the US had to crawl away from Afghanistan leaving the radical Islamic Taliban back in control of the country. What did all those coalition forces die for?

Any ground offensive will not be as militarily simple as driving the late dictator Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait or Iraq. A conventional war against Iran could be very costly in lives for the US, and there is no guarantee that other NATO countries would join America in such a conflict.

Could Trump actually find himself in the same position as a Presidential predecessor - Harry S. Truman - who approved the atomic bombing of two major Japanese cities in 1945 to force the Japanese military government to finally surrender.

One reason for using the nuclear option against Japan was the conventional experience for the Americans in capturing islands, such as Iwo Jima and Okinawa, given the estimated number of Allied lives it would have cost to capture mainland Japan, given the fanaticism of the Japanese military leadership. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is a 21st century example of that Japanese World War Two-style fanaticism.

So let’s pose the controversially unthinkable - Trump has used colourful language during the Iran crisis to describe what could happen, so would the President be prepared to use limited nuclear strikes against Iran if the current war deteriorated into a Vietnam-style conflict?

The bitter reality which the Trump administration has to face is that while Starmer remains as PM, there is no chance of British security forces being used in a ‘boots on the ground’ scenario in Iran. As for the European Union, it is too politically scared to act against the current regime in Iran in a military capacity.

Iran knows it cannot win a conventional war against the US. It’s only hope of any success is to drag the conflict out in the hope that either Trump gets fed up with the war and shifts his attention back to taking over Greenland, or Iran signs a deal concerning the Strait of Hormuz, or Trump’s term as Presidency runs out of time and the more liberal Democratic Party wins the next race for the White House.

As my recent participation on Algeria’s AL24 News television discussion on the Iran war shows - a lasting solution is far from clear:

Discussing the Iran war on the English language Algerian tv channel AL24 News.


 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
John is a Director for Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. 

Iran Needs To Take Note Of IMF Downgrade For UK

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Hundred And Fifty Four

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)