David.

I'm glad to read what you say.

I've always thought the term 'dissident' republican was as silly as calling terrorists, 'freedom fighters'.
My own view is that there is a 'wild' side to the Irish character which is nothing to do with their religion.
When at a Catholic school in north London in the 50s, the staff had a daily struggle with the Irish element who were disruptive and vandalistic. During Mass on Wednesdays they were forced to sit at the front where an eye could be kept on them; And to change their ways.
It had little effect. But beating them, which the nuns did regularly (in those days), certainly DID.

DV

If you enabled smilies here I'd be rolling my eyes.

You well know that most republicans will be distancing themselves from what happened to that man in Castlederg. The war is over, it's only the dissident republicans and the dissident unionists like yourselves who don't like the peace we have as a legacy of the GFA.

Let's get things in perspective shall we?

Oh and Bernard, what a ridiculous posting! Let the nuns deal with them, hmmmm!

David has a point and nationalists can't dismiss it out of hand. What is the basis for claiming that this bomb was wrong but earlier bombs were ok.

The easy answer is The Agreement makes the difference. But there was nothing in the Agreement that wasn't on the table in 1973.

I think that if we are going to defeat the dissidents we will have to face up to the fact that the armed struggle was a mistake in the first place.

Bernard,

Are you taking the p*ss with that comment

The Republican movement have rarely been a unified bunch. There has always been multiple factions often due to ideological differences and often due to differences in how people believed their campaign should be carried out. Once these groups split from the main group, more often enough, little mutual admiration remained, although they still had the same larger end goal in mind

To say and believe that the dissidents and the provisionals are the one grouping is to ignore the facts and to show a misunderstanding and lack of understanding of Irish and British history in this area. There have always been fractures in Irish republicanism.

Henry,

The "armed struggle" was a terrorist campaign and it was wrong. Terrorism is always wrong. It devalues human life and brutalises society.

What is the basis for claiming that this bomb was wrong but earlier bombs were ok.

There is no basis. There is no moral difference between this bomb or any in the past

This particular incident does not have the support ofthe nationalist community, and the dragging out of past atrocities won't make it so. The culprits should be hunted down and turned over to the nuns as Bernard suggests.

>>What is the basis for claiming that this bomb was wrong but earlier bombs were ok.<<

While every bomb was terribly wrong - for many different reasons - there is a difference.
In the early 70's, the province was at war: Apart from continuous attacks from the IRA, there were daily raids by the army on Nationalist residential areas, the law way being continually broken by the "security forces", there were shootings of civilians and internment without trial, torture etc. There was simply mayhem, violence and law-breaking on all sides, and practically the entire Nationalist population was in revolt.

The situation and political context today could hardly be more different.

>>My own view is that there is a 'wild' side to the Irish character which is nothing to do with their religion.
When at a Catholic school in north London in the 50s, the staff had a daily struggle with the Irish element<<

If that's the case, how come the vast majority of Ireland is much more peaceful and law-abiding than north London?

By the way, did the nuns in that great school you claim you attended not teach you English grammar, by beating you if neccessary?

Oh my God this is horrendous. Not funny at all. Is it even major headline news?

David your book is more relevant than ever. I have learned loads about NI since visiting ATW and am enjoying your book a lot.

Noel

I take your point about the early 70s. In my opinion the failure of the orange state to reform itself and the support the British gave to that position caused the violence. And any criticism of the IRA from either the British or the Unionists that doesn't acknowledge the facts of the matter will always ring hollow to me.

But for nationalists there are still major questions to be asked about the failure and futility of the IRA campagin.

Of course we know where the thing came from but it was neither good nor glorious and if we want future generations to aviod the same mistakes we need to understand what kept the violence going long after the shape of a solution was already clear.

All sides have questions to ask in that regard of course.

There was a problem with my communication here.
I was merely trying to conflate what I remember of the Irish temperament in an early Catholic school, with random acts of violence in NI.
Anyone who lived in 'Paddy's Town' (Camden) in the 50s/60s will know what hooligans (Irish word) they can be.

Bernard

(Do you play golf by the way?)

Did it ever occur to you to wonder why the violence which you ascribe to the Irish temperament was notable by its absence in the part of the island that was not run by the British.

Henry.

I understand your last sentence. When I recall the mindless violence here in the SE, (I was at agricultural college, 7 miles outside Guildford in 1974) and throughout the 70s, it is hard not to view the Irish temperament as thuggish and uncontrollable.

(never had any interest in golf. Meaning.....?)

Bernard,

As a humanist I regard people everywhere in the world as being similar. With respect, I believe you're confusing nature with nurture—that which you call "temperament" may simply be a societal phenomenon.

Bernard

(never had any interest in golf. Meaning.....?)

It's a Cork joke. Don't worry about it.