Karine Maucourt ([email protected])
Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:09 +0200 (MET)
Here is the part IIb of this epic post.
Liz wrote:
>As for those who said "no" to violence--were they _really_ opposed to all
>violence? Did they look at the cause of violence, or did they just
>condemn the symptoms?
For instance, J. Hume always said "no" to violence whatever the
side. I think you know this and it's why Bono said he could support him. Do
you really think people are so stupid than they can't see why violence
appeared there ? You can easily understand how french people for instance
were chocked when they learnt catholics hadn't the same rights than
protestants in NI before. I suppose you know my ancestors did revolution for
equality and fraternity too, not only for freedom. So, i can also understand
easily where the violence comes from. And do you know here in France, we
celebrate this year the 400th anniversary of a law allowing protestantism
here ? So, you can understand we thought (and still think) this conflict
was/is a total absurdity. IMO, everybody know this, even people who continue
to use violence. BTW, to answer to violence by violence isn't a good choice,
even though it's the easier choice to make. And this violence in return
can't be justified at all if it's turn toward innocent civils. And it's why
i never supported Sinn Fein/IRA even though i can easily understand the
original catholic anger.
>Let's face it, peaceniks and pseudo-pacifists are a
>dime a dozen in Ireland. They've probably done more to set back the cause
>of a genuinely revolutionary form of nonviolence than anything done or
>said by "extremists".
This kind of people exist everywhere and i hope you don't think i'm
one of them ;-) But i'm not sure someone can do more to set back nonviolent
solution than people who put bombs on the streets. And i don't talked only
about Omagh's bomb, but all bombs from both sides during so long years.
>>In the first (and only in this case)
>>cease-fire (which was broken after) everybody knew IRA leaders imposed it to
>> their base
>I'd be interested in seeing the article, or at least knowing the author
>and source.
Hope you well received my message (to your private e-mail) about
this. If you didn't, let me know i'll send you again.
>But, sorry, I've got my own sources of info, from within the
>IRM itself, and I still stand by my original comments.
And you never doubt of them ? ;-) Don't you think they weren't
pleased to do this ? And they surely didn't want to boast about this. And i
have a question related to this: are your sources about this from IRM US rep
or IRM irish rep or...?
>The IRA's Army
>Council did not impose the cease-fire on the organization. It just
>doesn't work this way!
Maybe now, after reading my message, you understand your mistake.
>And I'm a bit confused by your "first...and only
>in this case" remark--there actually has only one IRA cessation; when it
>was _renewed_ in 1997, it was regarded as a continuation of the 1994
>cessation.
Sorry, here we count 2 cease-fires, but it's not very important,
it's an interpretation. BTW, i was wrong because the both cease-fire were
imposed by the head of the organization (it's also in the same private
message i've sent to you).
>Anyways, after the cease-fire was called in 1994, the British
>government began a very slick disinformation campaign, designed to sow
>dissent within the broader Republican movement, and most of the tales of
>the "IRA leadership" forcing a cease-fire on the rank and file came out of
>that disinformation effort. It's fiction, designed to create distrust and
>discord;
If you know (but maybe i taught you this) in July 97 for instance,
IRA's head took the decision alone and called together its convention only 3
months later to ratify the cease-fire and not to argue about its
opportunity, and you can't call it a fiction. And don't say british
government invented this, it's very easy to control this and you can guess
my sources are not blind believers of british propaganda. French people are
known as a very doubtful people. If you learnt french language at school,
maybe you know Descartes...Do you know what i mean ? ;-) If not, i'll
explain it to you.
>it was pretty obvious to most observers that the Tory government
>hoped that the IRM's willingness to work within the peace process, and the
>IRA's willngness to call a cease-fire, would cause a split in the ranks.
>The media was full of lurid tales of imminent splits,
Do you know how was appeared the "true IRA" ? Because there were
dissensions inside IRA organization and it's why some of the IRA members
seceded. And these disagreements appeared publicly when some of IRA members
said it themselves to the press in October 97. Maybe you didn't know this.
I'm not sure you know everything in this organization (and i know i don't
know everything too). If you still doubt, check out the NI newspapers (at
least) from last Oct., they surely have articles about this.
>predictions that
>Gerry Adams would be shot dead, blahblahblah. Wishful thinking on the
>part of the Tories doesn't make it a fact!
Maybe some people remembered why Michael Collins was killed by IRA.
We can even suppose Gerry Adams thought about this too. You know there are
in IRA some crazy people, don't you ?
>>>> >Yes, I _do_ understand this conflict more than U2--and if anyone in the
> >>>band and/or Principle Management want to debate me on the issue, well, my
> >>>email address is on this post! :)
>> Easy to say this when you know they surely don't want to lost their
>> time with you. Sorry to be hard with you but your quote prove you refuse to
>> try to understand other points of view than yours. And it's this fact i
>>condemn.
>Let's see if I have this straight--you say that U2 aren't hostile to
>Republicans, then turn around and say that they surely woulnd't want to
>waste their time with someone like me? Wow.
:-D They can refuse for others reasons than hostility to
Republicans. And maybe one day, you'll understand/admit why they don't like
Republicans...And i still can't see how you can be sure to understand NI
conflict better than U2.
>And before you go off and
>attack me again for being close-minded,
I didn't attack you, just said this. And it's a fact, even if you're
not pleased with this. BTW, you seem to feel guilty to be one-sided, why
since MLK was one-sided too ? OK, i know i already talked about this, but
it's you who wrote this word again ;-).
>do not that I *did* offer to
>debate them on the issue, not lecture them... ;-)
My purpose on this subject wasn't to lecture you ;-) but i think
it's very presumptious from you to claim you understand this conflict better
than U2. How can you be sure of this ? You're not in their head and you
never debated with them to judge what they know/don't know about this
conflict. And Bono has a personal experiment about religious segregation you
didn't have and any knowledge can replace this.
And after that, you said you was ready to debate with them, without
knowing if they read your messages about NI, and knowing they can refuse,
not because they can be hostile to Republicans but because they can think
it's a lost of time to debate with someone who seems to refuse to take in
account others points of view. Because be sure you appeared like that
sometimes. Can't you imagine why many North-Irish wirelings don't want to
debate with you (and me sometimes) about their conflict ?
>Oh, and nice to see that you're the person who decides who the band will
>and won't waste their time on...
It only was a suggestion in my head and it's why i wrote "surely". I
suppose i miswrote my thoughts.
>especially when you direct this against a
>person who's been a fan for over 17 years now.
I had guessed you was a longtime fan, i've noticed your others
messages were very reliable, but i didn't speak to the fan there but only to
the person who claimed she was strongly republican. Hope you trust me for
this. I'm sure they would be very happy to meet a longtime fan like you.
Remember they always thank fans to stay stuck with them. Sorry if i hurt
you, i'm also a longtime fan, but only ;-) since 83 (i discovered them with
NYD).
>Should I assume that you
>think the band should only associate with yes-men and celebrities and
>various superdupermodels, rather than anyone who _dares_ to disagree with
>them?
No ! No ! Not at all ! I just thought they can choose the subjects
they wanted to debate with people. And they seem (IMO) not to want debating
with fans about NI. Just feeling...
>She's going to smack my knees with breeze blocks! =:( Oy, it always
>comes down to this, doesn't it? OK, I'm just joking...
Waou !!! I didn't know this expression. Thanks for teaching me this one ;-D
>I've seen a lot of
>articles/interviews over the years and haven't been greatly impressed. If
>you've got something you think will turn my head around, go ahead and send
>it on to me
OK, OK, they will be sent to you, in private of course, because this
epic post is becoming a mammoth post ! :-D
>(and yes, I've read some articles/interviews in French
>magazines; I had to peek at my dictionary, but I could read them well
>enough!)
Wonderful !!! It will be easier to me. I just hope you will have
time to read them all. Be ready to receive many messages from me in french now !
>> Please, enlighten me about this. Fine Gael support to break down
>>peace ????
>Let's just say that Fine Gael weren't exactly "on board" the peace effort,
>OK?.....
I've also asked this to NI persons and they said you're right,
hehe... They can agree with you sometimes, hope you're happy about this ;-))
>Are you kidding? If Satan ran on the SDLP ticket, he'd get elected! :D
It's a joke ? I hope ;-) BTW, what do you reproach to SDLP ?
>Naw, I still think the tickets should have been up for grabs to anyone who
>could get to 'em! If they wanted to restrict the audience to people of a
>certain age, all they had to do was make a would-be buyers produce a valid
>ID showing their birthdate! I know that they wanted to restrict the
>audience to first-time voters and all that, but I still see way too much
>of the control-freak aspect of Northern Ireland "moderate" politics at
>play here. Anything that can't be controlled or contained is considered a
>threat until proven otherwise, etc.
If i good remember, a NI wireling already replied to this,
explaining the conditions the tickets were available to the yes concert. If
the organizers didn't want to sell tickets like you would like to, what can
we do ? And if you absolutely want to see there a "way too much of the
control-freak aspect...", what can i do ? And keep in mind the suspicious
atmosphere they could have there, which can make them very cautious.
>I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the concert wasn't broadcast on
>TV or radio, was it? (I'd figure that if it was, I'd have heard of the
>bootlegs by now!) If not, why not? After all, here is a "star-studded"
>event taking place in support of a supposedly historic election, and,
>what, it can't get shown on BBC-NI or UTV? On the radio? Was it purely a
>logistical or budgetary issue?
Maybe you have to ask the BBC itself why, saying you're interested
in this. I can't reply for sure, i'm not in their head. What's your idea ?
Or maybe you can ask to IRA/Sinn Fein itself ? I'm curious of hearing their
answer. BTW, if the audience was restricted to part of people, it's logical
not to allow everybody listen to the show, it would be contradictory. I
mean, why restricting the tickets sales to parts of people if everybody can
listen to it on radio/TV ?
>Anyways, contrast this to the concert at
>this month's West Belfast Festival (if memory serves, Mary Black and
>Shane MacGowan are playing--assuming Shane shows up, that is--and talk
>about a study in contrasts!), which is a good example of grass-roots,
>community-based arts organizing.
Do you consider the West Belfast Festival as a political event ? If
not, you can't compare it to the Yes concert.
Well, this is the end of this part II.
In the name of love
Karine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Fri Sep 11 1998 - 05:56:02 PDT