[Artical] 'Irish have taken the point': British envoy on Dublin bombs

monument

'Irish have taken the point': British envoy on Dublin bombs

02 January 2005 By Rory Rapple

“I think the Irish have taken the point.” That was how the then British Ambassador to Ireland, Sir Arthur Galsworthy, responded to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of May 17, 1974.

Analysing the Irish reaction to the atrocity, he noted that “there is no sign of any general anti-Northern Protestant reaction'‘, adding that “the predictable attempt by the IRA to pin the blame on the British (British agents, the SAS, etc) has made no headway at all'‘.

....

The ambassador later wrote: “It is only now that the South has experienced violence that they are reacting in the way that the North has sought for so long.”

Despite these feelings of schadenfreude, he told the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) that “it would be. . . a psychological mistake for us to rub this point in . . . I think the Irish have taken the point'‘.

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS%20FEATURES-qqqs=news-qqqid=1281-qqqx=1.asp

It was awful nice of them to make the point, wasn’t it?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Trojan

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

"point" apparently. Six times, just so we don't miss it. I wish he made one though.

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I presume that the British were involved (in some guise) with the Dublin & Monaghan bombings. This is a well known rumour/conspiracy/fact/point (delete as appropriate).

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

I presume that the British were involved (in some guise) with the Dublin & Monaghan bombings. This is a well known rumour/conspiracy/fact/point (delete as appropriate).

A loyalist terror group / individual could well describe themselves as British.
Well done, Dub in Glasgow. However, unlike the Dublin Govt. in that era
( Haughey, Blaney, the arms trial etc smuggling guns to the IRA ), there is absolutely no proof or indication that the British government had anything to do with the Dublin + Monaghan bombings.

arcadegame2004

Quite a sinister thing for the Ambassador to say, methinks. Highly suggestive too. Don't bet on every finding out the truth behind this in our lifetime though. The truth is probably hidden in some files concealed under the 75 year, 100 year or whatever rules.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

A loyalist terror group / individual could well describe themselves as British.
Well done, Dub in Glasgow. However, unlike the Dublin Govt. in that era
( Haughey, Blaney, the arms trial etc smuggling guns to the IRA ), there is absolutely no proof or indication that the British government had anything to do with the Dublin + Monaghan bombings.

You must have been asleep with all the speculation and allegations of British military collusion into the bombings.

Article by Don Mullin

Looks like we will never truely know.

true

No, I was not asleep, but this is all it was , quote " speculation and allegations ". We have come to expect quite a lot of speculation and allegations from Sinn Fein and their supporters over the years. It is a bit predictable, and sad when they never offer up "speculation and allegations" on incidents which do not suit them e.g. certain republican terrorist attrocities.

Big Ears

Thier obviously not going to go out and link themselves to terrorist activities that people weren't aware they were involved in , or to admit to terrorist activities that people were suspicious about . It dosen't exactly game supporters .

true

Big Ears wrote:

Thier obviously not going to go out and link themselves to terrorist activities that people weren't aware they were involved in , or to admit to terrorist activities that people were suspicious about . It dosen't exactly game supporters .

Exactly. Sinn Fein would not be half as quick to speculate and allege collusion in incidents they or their members may have been involved in , such as the Stormont spying incident , the break in at Gough barracks, the murder of the RUC men returning north after a meeting with the Gardai in Dundalk, the murder of the Northern judge and his wife returning north from the Republic etc. No, No, the only collusion that could ever have happened is by the British. They are to blame for everything.

monument

No, I don’t think so, as far as I know a lot of republicans don’t like the "Free State" (sic), most of the political parties, the Irish Army, Ireland’s police force etc… so I cant see how “they are to blame for everything” could stand.

Old British goverments are to blame for a lot of problems in the world today, but that’s to be expected with the kind of empire they built and ran – not something you can exactly blame the current UK government for.

However, their current so-called “liberation” attempt, along with the clamp down on civil liberties on their own people, doesn’t really inspire confidence that they’ve changed their ways.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

No, I was not asleep, but this is all it was , quote " speculation and allegations ".

No indication of it then ???

We have come to expect quite a lot of speculation and allegations from Sinn Fein and their supporters over the years.

Have you really? What if it was not from a Republican source? Would you believe it or would you dismiss it as you normally do??

It is a bit predictable, and sad when they never offer up "speculation and allegations" on incidents which do not suit them e.g. certain republican terrorist attrocities.

I find it very predicable and sad that people like you never offer anything other than the British official side.

true

Sorry Sunshine, I do not just offer "anything but the British official side", I offer the Irish side. Unlike you, I live in Ireland. If anyone is likely to have a British side ( not that there is anything wrong with that ), it is someone who lives there like you, now that you mention it.

Just because I tell the truth as well and you do not like it, that is your problem.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Sorry Sunshine, I do not just offer "anything but the British official side", I offer the Irish side. Unlike you, I live in Ireland. If anyone is likely to have a British side ( not that there is anything wrong with that ), it is someone who lives there like you, now that you mention it.

Just because I tell the truth as well and you do not like it, that is your problem.

Here we go again, have you got some sort of problem with me currently living in the UK as you seem to mention it each time the discussion is not going your way

true

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Here we go again, have you got some sort of problem with me currently living in the UK as you seem to mention it each time the discussion is not going your way

No on both counts. I do not have a problem with you currently living in the UK
Regarding your assesement of the direction of the discussion, I disagree with you there also.

You said that I offer nothing but the British official side : this is a bit rich as I am Irish and relatively neutral. You, on the other side, seem to offer nothing but the IRA official side.

A Dub in Glasgo

I find it strange that a neutral, with an obvious interest in NI, would not have heard about the strong rumours/suggestions/indications/speculation/evidence that the British military were involved in the Dublin & Monaghan bombings. Then when that neutral person hears for the first time that there is a possibility of involvement ignores it and claims the people raising the issue are trying to smear the good name of the British Government!!

true

You have twisted what I said yet again. You say I have not heard about the rumours and speculation re the Dublin and Monaghan bombings....if you take the time to read the above posts you will read that I am aware of these rumours and speculation. However, there are a lot stronger rumours and speculation about other matters , rumours and speculation which Sinn Fein / IRA dismiss out of hand. Which do you believe ? Do you believe all the rumours and speculation ? Only if its peddled by nationalists ? Do you not treat every speculation with a question mark until there is evidence? Mr. Dub in Glasgow, I think you have green tinted glasses. Janey Mac !

A Dub in Glasgo

there is absolutely no proof or indication that the British government had anything to do with the Dublin + Monaghan bombings.

There are plenty of questions to be answered about who was really behind the bombings. Plenty to indicate British military involvement. You have stated there is no proof or indication which pointed, to me, that you were not familiar with the speculation.

true

Eleven posts ago I wrote I was aware of the speculation. That is all it is : speculation from certain quarters. There is no proof of British military involvement. There is nothing to indicate British Military were definitely involved. As you say, there are plenty of questions. At one stage, there was some speculation it was republicans who were behind it, in order to up the temperature in the North a bit and help recruit more "volunteers". Who knows for sure? I do not , and unless you have inside information, neither do you. All I know is that planting ALL bombs is barbaric, would you not agree? Or would you have to rule out Warrington , Le Mons, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, etc etc.

A Dub in Glasgo

true wrote:

Who knows for sure? I do not , and unless you have inside information, neither do you.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2238193&postcount=7

The last sentence

true

Well, Dub in Glasgow, your link is post no. 7. That, combined with my post no. 8, just go to reinforce everything I just said. At the bootom of your link, you say "Looks like we will never truly know" ( presumably who carried out these particular bombings ).

Perhaps you would answer the question at the bottom of my last post:

All I know is that planting ALL bombs is barbaric, would you not agree? Or would you have to rule out Warrington , Le Mons, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, etc etc.

A Dub in Glasgo

I would agree. If you were here during the blood lust of Falluja, you will have seen many people on here justify bombings and killings.

The problem is that the majority of people agree with bombings and killlings when it suits their political outlook. There are very few people who are pacifists. This makes the ranting and raving of people who are trying to take a moral high ground about violence from one source but agree with it from another source hard to stomach.

true

So I take it you would condemn the likes of the Warrington, Le Mons, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen just as much as any other bombs ? Good.

Re your comment regarding pacifists , it is important to understand a person can condemn terrorist bombs as above and yet reserve the right to support governments to use bombs via its soldiers / airmen in uniform, behaving according to the rules of the geneva convention, during war,when war is declared by one country upon another. Not a bunch of terrorists upon a country. No ifs or buts.

A Dub in Glasgo

There is always an if or a but

I do not agree with violence but.......

true

There may always be an if or a but from you , Dub in Glasgow, but not from someone who abide by the rules of the Geneva convention.

There is a difference between violence ( as in terrorist bombs by minority terror groups ) and bombs in wartime between countries at war.

cdebru

true wrote:

There may always be an if or a but from you , Dub in Glasgow, but not from someone who abide by the rules of the Geneva convention.

There is a difference between violence ( as in terrorist bombs by minority terror groups ) and bombs in wartime between countries at war.

yes I'm sure the people killed by them feel much better knowing it was between countries

cdebru

I think it was pure coincidence that the loyalist discovered how to make massive car bombs plant them in dublin and monaghan
and then promptly forgot how they had achieved this and never managed to repeat this or anything like this again.
of course maybe we had gotten the point

monument

true wrote:

There may always be an if or a but from you , Dub in Glasgow, but not from someone who abide by the rules of the Geneva convention.

“of the Geneva convention”… so that excludes the British government. Unless you have the twisted version where you can lock people up indefinitely with out a proper trial, as they are currently doing in the UK?

true wrote:

There is a difference between violence ( as in terrorist bombs by minority terror groups ) and bombs in wartime between countries at war.

No, there is not when both kill innocent civilians.

Actually, sometimes there is a difference, in your “wartime between countries at war” option of butchering a lot more innocent civilians are usually killed – often for reasons like money, oil, and revenge.

And before you ask I have no problem condemning the killing of innocent civilians by the IRA, or any republican group as well as the killing of innocent civilians by any state – both are equally unacceptable.

true

"of the Geneva convention”… so that excludes the British government. Unless you have the twisted version where you can lock people up indefinitely with out a proper trial, as they are currently doing in the UK? [/I]

The British government has an excellent record with regard to the Geneva convention - just ask the millions of people ( Germans, Argentinians etc ) who were fairly treated by Britain under it.



Quote by Monument No, there is not when both kill innocent civilians.

Actually, sometimes there is a difference, in your “wartime between countries at war” option of butchering a lot more innocent civilians are usually killed – often for reasons like money, oil, and revenge.

And before you ask I have no problem condemning the killing of innocent civilians by the IRA, or any republican group as well as the killing of innocent civilians by any state – both are equally unacceptable.

What about when the IRA planted a bomb under a retired RUC mans car - do you condemn that?

What about bombings by the Luftwaffe and RAF of each others military installations during WW2 - do you put this on a lower moral plane ( no pun intended ) than bombs planted against RUC and UDR ?

monument

true wrote:

The British government has an excellent record with regard to the Geneva convention - just ask the millions of people ( Germans, Argentinians etc ) who were fairly treated by Britain under it.

Alternatively, I’ll just take the current governments actions (and their allies actions) into account, and with out even digging into history, rubbish your claim they respect the Geneva convention.

true wrote:

What about when the IRA planted a bomb under a retired RUC mans car - do you condemn that?

Yes.

true wrote:

"What about bombings by the Luftwaffe and RAF of each others military installations during WW2 - do you put this on a lower moral plane ( no pun intended ) than bombs planted against RUC and UDR ?

When there is blatant disregard for innocent civilians, it’s all the same. But before you start, bombing a military airbase/base/port/factory or infrastructure isn’t the same as bombing a heavily populated area.

Sand

yes I'm sure the people killed by them feel much better knowing it was between countries

Ah another re-run of the "accidentially hitting someone with a car=running them down in a car" moral debate.
Ill save us some time - your position is bollocks:)

“of the Geneva convention”… so that excludes the British government. Unless you have the twisted version where you can lock people up indefinitely with out a proper trial, as they are currently doing in the UK?

Theres two cases here....

A) It was a war between two recognised parties in Northern Ireland...Then they can lock up people as long as the war is in effect -I.E. until the IRA admits the war is over and they lost.

It wasnt a war, but a terrorist campaign....then crinimal law applies so the geneva convention isnt called into account.

A doesnt count because the IRA etc etc didnt match the requirements of being a recognised participant in a war.

No, there is not when both kill innocent civilians.

Ah, a similar logic to the end justifies the means. The end damns the means. Can you honestly believe that the IRA and the British followed the same standards? The IRA *routinely* murdered civillians. This did not breach any of their standards. It was their SOP.

republicans on the other hand kick up a stink over isolated incidents of British wrongdoing - which standout so much because they were definitly not routine, but breaches of expected standards. Even republicans admit this - Warrington was acceptable, but Bloody Sunday was not because republicans accept that the British hold to higher standards than they do.

Alternatively, I’ll just take the current governments actions (and their allies actions) into account, and with out even digging into history, rubbish your claim they respect the Geneva convention.

Ah right, retroactive condemnation of British adherence to the Geneva Convention in Northern Ireland over the past 40 years based on what? Some acts of their allies in a seperate conflict and theatre in 2004-5? Do we get to condemn the IRAs respect for human rights based on say Colonel Ghadaffis actions? Or can we talk about their involvement via Sean Russell, feted by the SF crowd for his plotting with the Nazis for a - (Nationalist Socialist Workers?) - United Ireland? Poor Sean's looking a bit shorter these days. Sure by your standards we can use the Nazi atrocities to condemn the IRA. I love these new rules.