On Tue, 13 Feb 1996, Carl Sprake wrote:
> On 13/2 UC Collins wrote:
> > perhaps most of the blame - should be
> >laid on the Brits.
> Now, while I would not under any circumstance want to provoke any sort of
> increase in tension, it seems that the Brits were right to push for de
> commisioning of weapons. This would have indicated a true committment by the IRA
> and Sinn Fein to the peace process. While the IRA retained its weapons there was
> always the potential, as we saw last Friday, that there could be a new wave of
> Normally, I wouldn't get involved in this sort of debate. However, I think that
> saying the Brits were partly to blame is a bit much.
I must stress that I am strongly against the IRA's attacks on innocent
civilians; however, I cannot see any justification for demanding that
they surrender their weapons before negotiation. The British army is
still armed. The RUC is still armed. As the British government has showed
little ability in the past to maintain its treaties, I cannot see that
the IRA's wariness is unjustified. The British government is greatly
responsible for the violence, regardless of whether or not violence is
justifiable. It is (morally, not legally) responsible for repairing the
destruction caused by past governments, and so far it has dealt with this
destruction with empty rhetoric, addressing it only as much as it pertains to
British comfort. Until the British government does something to solve the
problems which it created, it will remain at least partially responsible
for the violence that follows.
P.S.- In theory, I agree with the subscriber who feels that there is a
better forum for this conversation (perhaps one of the groups Linda
mentioned). In practice, I am ecstatic that we are not discussing red
hair, racial memory or reincarnation.