IRA bombing victim speaks out against Congressman Peter King

In any violent conflict bad things happen which are not justifiable. However, this conflict was precipitated by british terror against innocent indigenous non-combatants (including RUC led pogroms as well as the initial bifurcation against the democratic will of both Ulster and Ireland). No act of the IRA compares to the evil perpetrated by the british terror state particularly when you consider it was official (although covert - perhaps this is the reason for severe restrictions against freedom of speech) policy of the british terror state to harrass, torture, and murder non-combatants (see the O'Loan report for hints at this; as information is released it becomes more apparent that ballymurphy and bloody sunday were orchestrated from the top). I'm sure the indigenous partisans in Eastern Europe committed some wrongs against the invading Nazis. It really is a comparable situation, particularly considering that the british ethos, like the Nazis, has always been rooted in supremacism (as reflected in all of their state ceremonies and these cancerous orange marches).

I do object to "murders by authorities and their pro-British terror organisation". Who wouldn't? None of that justifies the IRA's bombing campaign in the 1970s and 1980s. It's as simple as that. Just once -- just once -- I'd like to see an apologist for the IRA attempt to justify one -- just one -- specific atrocity. Let's say the Shankill Road chip shop bombing, for instance. They never do. Their response is always simply to list the other side's atrocities. Yes? Okay. I agree. Now, answer the question. The only logical deduction to be drawn from such a response (if it can be so dignified) is that these attacks were part of a tit for tat campaign. You kill our innocent men, women and children. We kill yours. One lot is as bad as the other.

Dr.Trelwaney your piece as you wrote it appeared biased. Objecting to terrorism and murders by the authorities and their pro-British terror organizations would have brought some balance to your argument. The murder of children by crown forces ,of the 150 children killed in the north of Ireland 90% were killed by British forces or their surrogates for instance the 17 yr. old who was shot by a soldier because he took to long to answer a question. The young boy was mentally retarded. Majella (12)shot by a "soldier" because she would not tell the whereabouts of her brother.The babe in arms shot by a "rubber bullet" The injustices meted out on the Maguire family. The state murder of Giuseppe Conlon and the list goes on.

What? I don't even know what that means, Sean. Could you please explain. My sole point was that it is vile to blow up civilians and that, when pressed on this point, IRA apologists are incapable of justifying such attacks. Ask me about a specific act of "British terrorism" and I'll happily express an opinion. I agree there were many such outrages. I have never denied it. I really have no idea what your accusation means.

Dr Trelawney justifying British terrorism by omission.

I do agree that the intentional killing of non-combatants to be unequivocally wrong. However, this, combined with massive doses of supremacism, has been the standard rule rather than the exception for british conduct worldwide.

The "point", Kurt, is that no historical atrocities by the British justify, for example, the bombing of a chip shop in the Shankill Road, a bus station in Belfast's Oxford Street, a street in Warrington or... Well, I could go on all night. I have never seen an IRA apologist even try to justify -- not to mention, succeed in that task -- these bombings (and contemporaneous shootings). The response is always: "What about Bloody Sunday" What about Dublin and Monaghan?" I can only assume that the wretchedness of these acts is now an embarrassment even to the most fanatical IRA supporter. Incidentally, to describe them as mere "indiscretions" is faintly disgusting. I grew up in Belfast and I don't remember thinking: "Gosh, how indiscrete it is to blow an old lady's head off." The notion that such actions were defensive is utterly absurd.

Thanks, Searlit. The point that could never be absorbed by a brainwashed brit battery hen such as Dr. Trolloney is one of proportion. Comparing IRA indiscretions to global british terrorism is akin to comparing the boy scouts to atilla the hum. One must remember that the IRA was defending the indigenous populations from unspeakable horrors (if you don't believe this, read the O'Loan inquiry or eyewitness accounts of Ballymurphy).

This is all revisionist history of dubious character. King's record on Northern Ireland is outstanding. King alway supported a negotiated settlement and was instrumental in encouraging IRA ceasefires and the peace talks that followed. King was one of the few Republicans who supported the American visa for Gerry Adams, while characters like this Tom Parker were promoting the British Government as caring for human rights. And what exactly is this Parker character trying to do now anyway with his questionable comments. How does it contribute to anything? King's position on N Ireland was and is the correct one.

Great post kurtjohnson! Where have you been? I haven't seen posts by you for some time.

Guys, the crimes of others do not absolve us of responsibility for our conduct - isn't that a basic moral notion? So the Blitz of London did not justify Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima etc. The IRA's campaign was plain wrong and Peter King was wrong to support it. Now that the political climate has changed, he has seen fit to change his tune like many a slippery pol before him.

"Was the terror state responsible for the atrocity bombings of civilians in Dresden? How about using terror bombing and chemical weapons against non-combatants in Iraq and Iran?" Groan! Once again, as is always the case, IRA apologists refuse to address the specific allegations and change the subject.

The bombing of Dresden, Iraq and Iran was jointly carried out by the US and UK. Nelson Mandela is South African and South Africa has been an independant country in one from or another for 100 years. A lot of third world countries consider US Imperialism to have taken over from British Imperialism. They do not see a diffence between the UK and US.

There is no existing political entity with a comparable scale of atrocities on its hands than the british terror state. Keep in mind that these have historically been carried out with an extremely racist and supremacist bent. Most terror state fans even consider Nelson Mandela a terrorist - any indigenous resistance to colonial atrocities and degradation is branded as terrorism. Re the reference to MLK, Ghandi and civil disobedience, these tactics were met with immediate deadly force and torture in Ireland. @Dr. Trollawney - Was the terror state responsible for the atrocity bombings of civilians in Dresden? How about using terror bombing and chemical weapons against non-combatants in Iraq and Iran?

The storyline of this article does fit with the regular IRA bashing of IrishCentral. Nothing in the article about King's involvement in bringing peace to Ireland. Nothing From probrit Amnesty about King's involement in the Clinton peace proposals. Shame Niall, but that's just the way you are! But even Niall comes across as a Brit Shoneen for publishing this puff piece.