Red Top Rubbish

Guest writer David McSweeney with a critical overview of the coverage provided by the Scottish Daily Record

The Scottish Daily Record publication carried an interview with the Taliban in early October. True to the paper's history and culture the piece spewed comic book jingoism and arrogance.

The interview was with a Taliban commander Qari Nasrullah, and was held in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The interviewer set the scene by telling readers that the Taliban blighter was 'wrapped in an afghan scarf'
 and spoke in 'his Pashto tongue of the lawless tribal border between Pakistan’s north west frontier and Afghanistan.' The bastard-saville row attire and BBC English, surely, if he had a shred of humanity.

“What followed” the Record piece tells us:

was an invaluable insight into the twisted logic of an enemy mind. Equally disturbing was the fact this terror veteran is adamant the Taliban will once again rule Afghanistan with an iron fist and return to the dark days of strict Sharia law.

The Record writer it appears is opposed to exclusivist Muslim rule in Afghanistan as expounded by the Taliban, he feels no doubt they wouldn’t want anyone of any other religion “about the place”.

The Record scribbler then eased into his role as Ministry of Defence psych-ops journalist, 'I pressed the "slim rebel” we are told by the interviewer ‘about the terrible toll his comrades have inflicted on NATO troops since the US led invasion of 2001.'

The inversion of the human cost of NATO aggression is straight up shameless. The tens of thousands of Afghans killed are written out of history. It is the poor NATO kittens who have to face the audacity of Afghans hurting them while they maim and murder in Afghanistan who deserve our sympathy. Five afghan children were killed or injured each and every day in 2012 as a result of the NATO war in Afghanistan according to the United Nations.

The Taliban commander pointed out that:

thousands of our men have been martyred and as for your soldiers, we did not go after them to other countries. They came to our country and they have been torturing us and have sabotaged our government.

The Record man tells us the Taliban spokesman 'shows not a shred of remorse over the deaths.’ Later in the article the Taliban man is referred to as a “thug”.

The whole interview must have cost a fair penny, flights to Pakistan, accommodation and all the other attendant costs. If it was religious hatred, calls for sectarian rule, extremism and contempt for the lives of others, Chris Hughes, the interviewer was looking to highlight, a short bus ride from the centre of Glasgow would have sufficed.

To Ibrox stadium in the west of the city, on the 28th of September to be specific. It was “Forces Day” at the home game of the new club playing in the stadium. This was an event endorsed and logistically supported by the British Ministry of Defence. The General Officer Commanding British troops in Scotland Major General Nick Eeles led his troops at the event. Four hundred on duty members of the British army, navy and air force marched on the pitch.

Alex Thompson of Channel 4 wrote about the shameful scenes of the day under a headline of Armed Forces involvement in a sectarian Rangers “party” a PR disaster. Thompson described what happened after the marching ended:

for a prolonged period British armed forces in uniform waved clapped, danced did the “Bouncy” and snapped their selfies as the Ibrox faithful went through their reportie of songs, a number of chants praised the Northern Ireland paramilitary organisation the Ulster Volunteer Force.

The “Bouncy” was a sick ritual that fans of  Rangers football club started in the aftermath of the murder of Robert Hamill in Portadown in 1999. Robert was kicked to death by a loyalist gang watched by fully armed members of the RUC/PSNI seated in a landrover a short distance away.

There are also pictures from the Ibrox day showing four uniformed members of the British army holding a scarf with the words “Keep Ulster Protestant” on it.

A song mocking the death of Irish Republican Bobby Sands was repeated during the hate fest.

An official British military event attended by the most senior military figure in Scotland lauding the Ulster Volunteer Force. The silence from the “anti violence” brigade could rupture your eardrums.

The UVF has been responsible for over 500 deaths in recent decades; the British military have lost 444 personnel due to their aggression in Afghanistan.

Many of those who screamed and roared about Malala Yousafzawi will no doubt never of heard of Jemma McGrath. Two days before the British military displayed their support for the organisation in Glasgow, members of the UVF forced their way into McGraths home in East Belfast and shot her in the lower abdomen, left arm and both legs. Threats against Catholic schoolchildren by loyalist paramilitaries in north Belfast the month before went with little comment or condemnation. It is a safe bet that in the leafy suburbs of Dublin and Belfast the “human rights “ brigade will shed bitter tears as they read Ms Yousafzawis new book about her denial of education.

Alex Thompson opened his blog on the issue by stating 'its not about Rangers its about the Ministry of Defence.' Having witnessed the behaviour of his troops Major General Eeles didn’t express regret or guarantee those involved would be disciplined. No, he said 'I very much hope this inaugural Armed forces day at Rangers will be repeated annually for many years to come.'

What did the Daily Record have to say about the troops behaviour, remembering how opposed they are to “twisted logic” ?.

Roy Greenslade in his Guardian piece titled Will mainstream media report on sectarian singing by British troops? gives us the answer. Greenslade states 'two media reports about the events that have been published, one on STV and another on the Daily Record site make no reference to the soldier’s antics.’

The Record did mention that 'the match day experience began in dramatic circumstances' but only because two marines 'abseiled down the Govan stand ahead of kick off, before delivering the match ball to the referee.'

Greenslade continues by asking the question that cry’s out to addressed 'how odd that both outlets missed the story, or do their reporters think soldiers chanting jingoistic sectarian songs in unison with football fans is unworthy of comment?'

The next time you hear someone claiming that wearing a poppy, or laying wreaths at British military graves is in some way an Irish Republican thing to do, remember “Tom Hartley syndrome” is a virulent form of Stockholm syndrome.


  1. AM-

    " Have inflicted on NATO troops since the US led invasion of 2001 "

    Have noticed a lot of the media using those terms now that the brit army is being forced to withdraw from afganisten with even there tail between their legs being shot off-its like IRAQ all over again-those brit army lovers never learn-

    Where is the dailys scorn for the failed brit armys missions abroad-no calls for those heads of that disgrace for a army to step down-

    What about our local papers-not a snide remark to be seen about the run of the neighbours cowards from abroad-

    Remember them with pride whilst trying to stop laughing at the yellow gits-

  2. The Taliban act all innocent but are a pack of animals. I served with the US military and the stories of what really goes on there, is way different from the picture they paint. One incident I can tell of, is a 4 year old girl with a suicide bomb vest strapped to her. Kids would run up to the convoys for sweets and then they would blow them up.
    Also use to place IED's inside of dead kids on the side of the road. They are sick individuals.
    As for the majority of Scottish people singing about Bobby Sands, who cares. He was a member of a terrorist group that murdered women and children. Not to mention he committed suicide. Nobody forced him to starve himself and nobody forced him to join a terror group. We passed the spot on the Shankill a few days ago where the brave IRA men in the cover of darkness left a bomb which when exploded, killed a 2 year old and a 7 month old baby. It actually took the head off the baby.

  3. Maitiu-

    " I served with the US military "-

    The US military act all innocent but are a pack of animals-

    The afgan and Irish freedom fighters had no stealth bombers or
    tanks or ships that can fire cruise missles or helicopters-how do you expect them to fight for their freedom-

    Bobby Sands is a hero to most of us on the Quill no matter what about political differences-
    Bobby tried his best to stay alive
    for as long as he could-to write as long as he could-but he was held
    in a small cell with a blanket on and sh1t covering the walls-but he had still got one weapon left-his body-and he used it against a evil empire but he fell in battle during his struggle-it was no suicide-Rest in Peace Bobby-

  4. michael. Are you really trying to condone the Talibans murder of kids? take them away and attach bombs to them? Seems the old phrase is true for many IRA supporters. Offended by everything and ashamed of nothing.
    Did these muslim extremists have no choice but to fly planes into the twin towers?
    The murder of kids in any war or situation is sick.

  5. Maitiu,

    I was surprised by the one of your comment in relation to Bobby. His was one of the most peaceful protests known to humanity. It was ignored by the British and when peaceful protest is ignored it can lead to the type of activity you criticise.

    The US is a very belligerent nation and visits wars on far away places with worrying regularity. Like the Taliban its forces slaughter children. In their midst sits one of the most notorious war criminals of the 20th Century, Henry Kissinger. Yet they read out the moral riot act to a Syrian war criminal and expect people not to notice the skewed perspective.

    The Taliban are a shower of religious nutters determined to limit freedom. US Foreign Policy is not much different.

  6. As for the majority of Scottish people singing about Bobby Sands, who cares.

    I'd start with his family, then his friends and comrades. That alone tells me a lot of people cared and still do about Bobby Sands.

    He was a member of a terrorist group that murdered women and children. Not to mention he committed suicide. Nobody forced him to starve himself and nobody forced him to join a terror group.

    Or he was something we weren't soldiers in a guerilla army fighting for what he believed in. Don't you think if Bobby Sands and the other hunger strikers had another option they'd taken it? Try (I can't) to imagine being locked up 24/7-365 with no light at the end of the tunnel. Living in your own shit. No hygiene what so ever. The only time you got out of your cell you got beaten, sexually abused...The hunger stikers maitiu. didn't have many if at all any options left but to go on hunger strike.

    And while no body forced anyone to join the Provisonals/INLA etc..Circumastance, what they were exposed too did. You and me were just out of short trousers in 1981. Most of the prisioners remebered the pogroms, internment..the gun battles. It was a very different world and the war (thats what it was) was being fought very different (seems to me for more socialist reasons)..

    We passed the spot on the Shankill a few days ago where the brave IRA men in the cover of darkness left a bomb which when exploded, killed a 2 year old and a 7 month old baby. It actually took the head off the baby.

    You can do better that Maitiu or at least more objective. It's possible to walk through nationalist areas of Belfast and say something similar like.. "That here is a spot where brave loyalist's blew up or shot someone.".Or you could have said.."The other day we passed a spot on the Shankill were the buthchers got drunk and rompered anyone.."

    As for bombs,conventional armies knownly blow off two year olds kids on an almost daily basis in the seach for peace, juctice a freeer world..

  7. I 100% hate wars. Though I am not ashamed to have served in the US military. I do not and did not support the middle eastern wars. Several I was with in basic training were killed over there within 6 months of leaving basic training. I have often been very critical of the US's foreign policy. It sticks it's nose into everything. Though I served and served with pride. It is not an easy job.

    I understand the hunger strikers were peaceful in what they did. It was the murder campaign on the outside that I am 100% against.Outside of Republican circles, these people were criminals who broke the law and were sent to prison as is everybody else who breaks the law. They were not forced to join a terror group and they were not forced to carry out the blanket protests. I just can not jump that ideological hurdle at this time. These people were out to murder people from my community and murder they did. I do however understand why young people joined the IRA. I get it. Northern Ireland was in a horrendous state and Catholics were treated in horrid ways.

    I was at the Andy Tyrie historical museum a few weeks ago and they have loyalist hunger striker documents on show. So yes, I agree it is a form of non violent protest and all hunger strikers were certainly very brave men. I will not condone militant Republicanism in any form.
    Lets be real. We could sit and do a tit for tat of attacks that have been carried out for weeks on end. I highlighted the murder of these young children due to the whiter than white attitude that some Republicans like to paint their movement with.

  8. Maitiu,

    I wasn’t criticising you for having served in the US Army. My point is that the US Army has been guilty of crimes every bit as horrendous as the Taliban.

    I hate wars too and think we should do everything reasonably possible to avert them.

    I don’t see the IRA campaign as a murder campaign. Unless we agree with Adams and argue that all killing is murder which it is not. There is a political difference between the IRA campaign and murder. It doesn’t by necessity make the campaign right, nor elevate political homicide to a plateau where it is beyond criticism. It merely acknowledges a difference in motivation that emanated not from individual pathology but from societal malfunction and it implies that the political killing must not be judged in isolation, as the sole product of those who killed, but something that has an explanatory framework outside of the individual.

    Outside of Republican circles, these people were criminals who broke the law and were sent to
    prison as is everybody else who breaks the law.

    Patently not so. Globally, there was enormous recognition for the hunger strikers as being something than mere criminals. Very few nationalists regarded them as criminals. Moreover, they did not go to jail like everybody else who broke the law. Because a lot of people who broke the law were politically exempt from going to jail. How many RUC went to jail for the torture in 1977? They went on strike to be able to continue torturing in secret.

    People were not forced to join the IRA but that they felt the need to join is something your perspective fails to allow for. They were not forced to carry out the blanket protest either but that they did says something about how they felt the system they opposed was so rotten. There was prison staff brutality virtually every day of the protest, carried out by people breaking the law: not one jailed for it. The prisoners were breaking laws they refused to recognise. The prison staff were breaking laws they were labelling prisoners criminals for breaking.

    You are not being asked to jump any ideological hurdle. You are free to sat where you are. No one is trying to convert you, merely to present you with a different way of viewing things.

    I doubt very much if you will find a whiter than white attitude towards republicanism on this blog.

  9. AM, your reply is very honest and frank and one of the reasons i enjoy this site. I wish to understand the Republican perspective and I do like the fact the we can debate here. As a Unionist i do feel it is essential for our future generations for us to understand and learn from each other. Often our views will be at odds here.

  10. What made you join Uncle Sam maitiu? Why didn't you join the BA/UDR or RUC...?

    Was it to get a green card?

  11. Maitiu

    In my opinion you were 100% correct to raise the issue of the deaths of a 2 year old child and a 7 month child. I have two young children myself.The pain anguish and torment of the families of those two children killed on the Shankill Rd cries out.

    If i can explain where the momentum for writing what I did comes from. i was in the company of a guy recently who had been highy involved in "peace" groups. He was saying what a great guy Colin Parry was(which I am not saying is not true)how great it was that Mc Guinness spoke at the memorial talk for Mr Parrys son. I asked him did he ever think there would be a memorial lecture for the 3 young Quinn children? His reply "Who are they?.These peace lovers often have a very selective concern with violence/its victims i have found

    Many on here will have suffered berevement and trauma at the hands of the UVF- when I see the British military openly supporting this group it angers me greatly.

    Anyone who is not devastated at the death of any child is mad- Irish and Afghan children are just as/ no more important than any other child.

  12. @ Frankie.

    You need to already have a green card to join the US military. So no.
    I joined for many reasons. University is paid for. $40k a year starting salary plus full medical benefits and much more.
    I did want to join the BA once. I was in the military cadets as a teenager and tried to join the Parachute regiment at 17.
    My dream from childhood was to join the SAS. I always wanted to try the military so since I lived in America, I joined theirs instead.
    I was offered full US citizenship in the military but turned it down.
    Not to mention my Wife's family are all Marine corps and Navy and all have served.
    So yeah, you can not join the military without a green card.

  13. @ David.

    The BA have no right to support or sing along to any UVF / UDA songs at all. They are the military and are suppose to act in a non political manner. So I agree with that 100%.

    I just wanted to say that the taliban are not some hero band of freedom fighters. I know exactly the limits they sink to. They do not care about the people in the villages they take over.
    Would they be fighting if the allied troops were not over there? I believe not.
    I want all our troops home and out of the middle east.
    Muslim extremism is a huge threat to the world. I say that as an Atheist. They want to wipe the western world out. Simply because we do not believe in their twisted logic.

  14. Maitiu,

    All conflict essentially is the result of an 'imposition of will'. Whether that's conflict between individuals, between communities, or between States/Counties inherent and at the root of that conflict there is always an imposition of will.

    Your comment " I do however understand why young people joined the IRA." implies your understanding of that truism. The generally measured comments between participants within this thread are I propose further evidence of that truism insofar as contributors are exchanging opinions and ideas for the greatest part in a respectful way without having to shove them down each others' throats.

    It's predictable 'cause and effect' that when one party imposes their will on another that there will always be a response.
    What that response will be is not entirely predictable but can be almost certainly be categorised in one three ways; it will be passive, assertive or aggressive. The intensity (real or perceived) of the imposition by the imposing party will inevitably be a determinant as to the quality of the response.

  15. >(To Maitiu P2 Continued) That a substantial section of the nationalist/republican population responded assertively to very real impositions of will, as exampled in the distribution of jobs and housing by The Unionists authorities, is hardly surprising. Considering the effective use of gerrymandering to thwart any prospect of normal constitutional redress to those impositions I believe most fair-minded observers would say it was also inevitable. The over-reaction by The Unionist Government and the reactionary response of 'Loyalism' in the streets to the assertive response of the civil rights movement led eventually to an assertion in arms by a section of the oppressed community.

    From your comments Maitiu I guess you understand much of the historical sequence that far. However it seems to me you miss the over-arching narrative of British/Irish history.
    Civil society evolved and is maintained in order create cohesiveness in society in a civil way. To that end we have systems of government and systems of justice. It could be said in an 'ideal' system these are the bulwark against the excesses of any imposition of will by one party upon another within that society. The elected government of Britain & Ireland, Westminster introduced The Government Of Ireland Act 1886 also know as the first home rule bill to facilitate devolved government for the island of Ireland. Gladstone beseeched Parliament to pass it and grant Home Rule to Ireland in honour rather than it being compelled to one day do so in humiliation. Unionists and the Orange Order were fierce in their resistance; for them, any measure of Home Rule was denounced as nothing other than Rome Rule. The Conservatives and Unionists defeated the proposed bill in The Commons.

    The second bill for devolved government was passed seven years later in 1893. That is the government of Britain and Ireland, elected by the men who had a franchise to speak and legislate , passed a bill for devolved government for Ireland. That bill failed in the elitist conservative controlled and undemocratic upper House of Lords.

    After a further wait of 19 years and the previous introduction of The Parliament Act of 1911 (The Parliament Act was a potential game changer which meant The Lords could no longer withhold the implementation of any Act passed by the commons indefinitely but merely stall enactment for two years). The Home Rule Bill was passed April 11th 1912 with a small majority. Once again the dully elected Government of the peoples of Ireland and Britain had approved devolved government for Ireland.Once again thwarted in the Lords, but only for two years this time.

    In the weeks prior to the first passing of the Third Home Rule Bill Ulster Unionism/'Loyalism' started to organise a militia to defy parliament and by 28 Sept 1912 500,000 had signed the Ulster Covenant asserting to protected the Union by 'any means necessary'.
    This wilfulness Maitiu is for many nationalist/republicans the conundrum of Unionism/'Loyalism'. In their defiance of the democratic processes of the time, their imposition of will by threat of violent insurrection counter to parliament is an earlier manifestation of their supremacist stance which pertained throughout the rest of the twentieth century and is desperately clutched to by a significant number to this day.

    All that said Maitiu I commend you for your open-mindedness to engage in these discussions.

  16. Lord Carson formed the UVF in 1912 and also the formation of the YCV. Some of my family signed that covenant and served in the original UVF. I am currently studying several books on their formation and the home rule bill.
    I must be honest, I was shocked to learn that UVF guns were brought in from Germany to fight the British. Rather ironic giving our Unionist history.
    The original UVF were rather spectacular. Local men and women rose to form a proper military that could have took on elements of the British Army. I am sure all hell would have broke lose if the world war had not happened.

    If anybody could point me to any good books on the home rule issues, that would be great.

  17. Maitiu,

    The Ulster Crisis, Resistance to Home Rule, 1912–14 by ATQ Stewart provides a good account and deals with the gunrunning in some detail.

  18. Maitiu,
    ah yes there are many strange quirks to history, but as a military man you'll known that when in a dog fight you'll take support from wherever it comes. My enemy's foe is my friend, and all that.

    We all bring our family and cultural history with us. I believe we remain unconscious prisoners to that history until we revisit and evaluate it. So good luck on your journey back. I've no doubt you'll find the research fruitful and satisfying.

    I'm not so sure I'd agree with your optimistic appraisal that the UVF could have taken on elements of the British Army with much success. Though in the end it didn't really matter since many of the officer class in Ireland threatened to resign rather than take up arms against the Ulster Volunteers and further intimated that many might even side with the UVF!(Curragh Mutiny 1914).
    Further usurpation of the legitimate democratic purpose!!
    The officer class were egged on by power brokers in the Conservative Party and Aristocracy because they believed that any concessions on the Irish Question would lead to the demise of The Empire.
    Thankfully they were right on that point!

  19. Thanks Robert. I will check that book out.

    Henry Joy.
    The elite have always been the leaders of the working class. That will never change. So no shock at the officer class being led by the " elites ".
    I do believe the UVF could have given the BA a good run for their money to an extent. Against smaller battalions yes. Certainly could have given the BA a headache and would have been hard to take down. The PIRA had far smaller numbers and less weapons and gave a damn headache for over 30 years.
    Though lets be honest, if the BA had of let the gloves off and given the SAS and Para's free reign, it would have been over in a month for the IRA.
    I have had friends who were Navy SEAL's and have known US Special Forces soldiers and they pale compared to the SAS. Truly the best in the world ( sorry for going off track ).

    What are your thoughts on the power of the original UVF? What do you think would have happened if they really have had gone to battle with the BA?

  20. Maitiu,

    I believe that the UVF's power was not militaristic but a form of people power insofar as such large numbers were mobilised in defiance of parliament.
    Their strength was in demonstrating in such large numbers that this resulted in the addition of vague amendments to the second and third readings of the 1914 act (which was never implemented because of the Great War and unfolding events in Ireland). These vague amendments suggested that some counties in Ulster would not be included in the proposed devolution for a period of six years, these unspecified number of counties would remain under direct rule from Westminster. It could be reasonably argued this was a precursor for The 1920 Government of Ireland Act which envisaged two devolved states Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland though this Act was never put into force either because of the subsequent treaty of 1922 leading to dominion status for the 26 counties and the formation of the 6 Counties of Northern Ireland.
    Militarily I think the UVF would have met the same fate as The Easter Rebellion of 1916. It would have been crushed fairly quickly as I believe they too would have chosen conventional warfare rather than guerrilla tactics.

    The UVF was fortunate insofar as that their aims were the same as those of their elite masters. Some could argue unfortunate in the fact that so many working class lads were seduced by that same elite into becoming cannon fodder in the great war. It's poignant to remember at this time that far more Irishmen North and South were led to their deaths by the leaders of constitutional Unionism and constitutional Nationalism than in any revolutionary or sectarian struggle.

  21. Maitiu, So you joined the US army for money and all the perks that went with it? Bobby Sands and most of the people in the Blocks with him didn't join the IRA for money, nor were there any perks that went with joining the IRA when they did. (granted there are a few scumbags that call themselves "Republicans" who only got where they are now on the backs of Bobby and his comrades). No doubt you are a keen watcher of Fox "News" with your skewed view of the world. What the yanks did in Afghanistan, Iraq and (covertly) all over the planet, is a fucking disgrace! I, like others on here, am not saying that the IRA were whiter than white, but when you have war criminals like Bush, Cheney, Blair et al walking the streets free and a bastard like Kissinger accepting the "Nobel Peace Prize", then there's something wrong! Listen to the chorus of the song "Joe McDonnell".

  22. lol fox news. I never watched them. I was a member of an Atheist group and also worked in the democratic office for Obamas election. Fox news I am not.

  23. Matthew you first came across on this site as someone from the Unionist community worth engaging in but you showed your true colours at the beginning of this thread. A lot in those comments but what stands out is the continuing attempts to equivocatd Bashar al-Assad with the likes of Henry Kissinger - pure fantasy

  24. Sean/Maitiu,

    in terms of both being war criminals there is a comparison that can be drawn. But the war crimes of Assad simply do not reach the scale of Kissinger's.

    Sean, don't lost patience with Maitiu. I think he is very worth engaging. I found his comments on Bobby harder to take than his views on Assad. But if we seek an intellectually diverse world, this is the type of challenge we are going to face.

    There is a piece going out tomorrow (nothing else intervening) from a left wing site in the US which tries to get to grips with some of these arguments on the left in respect of supporting tyrants because they oppose the West. You might think it worthwhile responding to Sean.

  25. I really do not see any of my comments as highly conservative and certainly no offense is meant.
    To say my " true colours " have shown is rather facetious. I am not some fanatical conservative UKIP type person.
    I will admit that some of the debates I have had at Unionist student meetings have left me branded as a Socialist Nationalist. I consider myself more of a UK Labour / Unionist.
    Yes, I served in the US military but that does not set the framework for my political outlook.
    Sad truth is that the military was my only way out of damn poverty. Economy struck and I ended up at 25hrs average in Walmart on minimum wage with a child and no health care and could not even afford my rent in one go due to the terrible wages. No other jobs were available. So I did what I had to do for my family.
    Never judge a book by the cover.

  26. I'm judging you by your comment on Bobby Sands not your service in the US military. Absolutely appalling and my opinion of you has seriously dropped after that insensitive rubbish you's the cheek to come out with on this site while pretending to be the voice of reason

  27. Sean,

    perhaps that is why Maitiu did come on this site - becuase he can vent his views in the knowledge that this site does not protect people from an offensive opinion. People simply do not share our views. Most unionists probably feel it is not reasonable to view Bobby as we view him. It is probably unreasonable to expect them to.

    He is as welcome here as the next person and there is no cheek about it. An opinion that is undoubtedly harsh to our sensitivities but that is in the air we breathe here.

  28. Not gonna argue about it. If a man says Bobby Sands committed suicide then I'm not going to pretend it was anything other than pure hate-filled, sectarian vitriol. So Hurson-boy and all the others committed suicide? He's as welcome to his views as the next man but if you ask me the mask slipped for a second when we compare that outrageous statement to the other more measured postings we've seen so far. So Bobby Sands was a terrorist? Coming from a man who served in the killing-machine that is the US military - that is responsible for the terrorism that afflicts Iraq, Libya and Syria at this very moment in time - that's a bit rich for my taste. "You dare to call me a terrorist while you look down your gun"

  29. One man's (or indeed one woman's) terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

    A divergence of opinion dependent on from where one is perceiving it from.
    From where I perceive it from McSweeney, McNeala & Darcy, Gaughan & Stagg, Sands through to Devine and all the other Republican hunger-strikers were freedom fighters and heroes.

    Maithiu has another perspective based on his history and social conditioning. Whereas I do disagree with his opinion I don't believe hurling insults will change or has any potential to lead to anything useful in terms of understanding or respect of difference.

  30. Who the hell are you 'Henry Joy' and what's your game, show me where I insulted anyone? If I wanted to insult anyone I'd say they were full of shit, an opinion I'm starting to form of yourself. Indeed I think you're a troll, what your agenda is I haven't quite figured out but no doubt you have one. If Mattieu feels insulted because someone challenges his comments I'd hope that despite being annoyed he'd be the first to admit that it's fair game on here. If he'd been insulted on the basis of who he is or where he comes from now that's another story and I'd be the first to defend him. I think we're starting to see a bit of your true colour here too, though I first noticed it in the waffle you put on in an attempt to debate with Anthony in the Jim Lynagh Cumann debate a few days back. You seem to be a bit of a troublemaker far as I can see - one to watch

  31. I understand the hunger strikers were peaceful in what they did. It was the murder campaign on the outside that I am 100% against.Outside of Republican circles, these people were criminals

    Maitiu, take 37mins & 26seconds from your 'me' time and watch Loyalist's 1981 Then tell me again 'outside of republican circles, these people were criminals'..

    I'm sure you've seen todays reports about collusion. Seems to me at least a lot of criminals on a murder campaign were in fact state forces of all shades..

  32. Show you where you insulted anyone sean bres?

    "If a man says Bobby Sands committed suicide then I'm not going to pretend it was anything other than pure hate-filled, sectarian vitriol."

    It's seems pretty clear to me that you attribute 'hateful sectarian vitriol ' motivation to Maithiu's comments. An assumption on your behalf Sean. You'd do well to remember the old adage that to ASSume makes an ass out of U and an ass out of ME.

    "Moral leaders the likes of Cardinal Basil Hume, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, evaluated Sand's behavior as suicide and immoral." *
    Could hardly and rightfully label Hume's motives as hate-filled and sectarian vitriol, as you ascribed to Maithiu's?

    As AM replied to you previously " Most unionists probably feel it is not reasonable to view Bobby as we view him. It is probably unreasonable to expect them to." In that context Sean I view your comments as unreasonable.

    * Journal of Value Inquiry 17:65-75 (1983) BOBY SANDS, SUICIDE AND SELF-SACRIFICE James W McGray, University of San Diego.