Enniskillen and appeasement

Peter Taylor’s programme on the Eskund and Enniskillen has just been aired on the BBC. I will not go over the events in detail save to say that it made this grown man, who is not unacquainted with death, cry. What I found interesting and disgusting in equal measure is the way in which this programme propagated the revisionist narrative which is now prominent regarding the IRA and the Troubles.Taylor, an experienced journalist regarding Northern Ireland made some claims which can only be seen as lies. He commented on his surprise at the Enniskillen massacre stating that the “IRA did not target civilians”. Such a falsehood cannot be allowed to stand. I could spend the rest of the night blogging on the civilians the IRA had murdered before this event, let us mention merely the La Mon, Kingsmills and Darkley massacres and move on. It is also worth mentioning that Taylor discusses the attempted murders of the BB and GB at Tullyhommon and his interviewee states that the IRA regarded them as legitimate targets as they were part of the “community in Fermanagh” and we all know that that is true and exactly what it means. Mention is also made that that was a command wire device which would have meant that an IRA “volunteer” would have stood and pressed a button whilst watching to see the BB and GB children die.

To try to justify the moral surrender to murderers that has subsequently happened here in Northern Ireland there is a need to justify the revisionist narrative. That narrative is that the IRA leaders and specifically Gerry Adams (and possibly to a lesser extent) Martin McGuinness realised after Enniskillen that there was a need for peace and then began a process to bring that about.

Of course we know that this was abject nonsense, though of course it is not merely nonsense it is actually a monstrous lie. Enniskillen was a terrible embarrassment but it did not stop extremely frequent murders of civilians subsequently. So why this need to have the narrative? A few reasons come quickly to mind; I am sure others will add more.

Firstly the need to excuse those who later entreated with the leaders of these murderers, let the murderers out of prison and essentially ensured that no one will ever be pursued for the Enniskillen atrocity or the very many other unsolved crimes.

Secondly to make people feel that the perpetrators of that act and their leaders were jolted into some sort of decency, helping to justify the moral gymnastics of their appeasers above.

Thirdly to try to make some good come out of evil. There was good as I have said before: That was Gordon Wilson’s appeal for no retaliation, Noreen Hill’s devotion to the oft forgotten 12th murder victim Ronnie Hill. People want to see some good: it helps with the two issues above.

Fourthly I would suggest that this is in part people saying that the IRA were different to the like of current so called Muslim terrorists as they (the IRA) would not have done the likes of 9/11 and the July London bombings. We know of course that the IRA would have and did relatively similar things. It is important, however, for the appeasers to feel that the IRA were somehow different terrorists to the Al Qaeda terrorists as that explains giving Adams and co some of what they wanted and not doing so with Bin laden.

Finally of course some of the appeasers may be quietly preparing for the day (it may already be happening) when the likes of Bin Laden or his successors are entreated with, welcomed and their rehabilitation begun.

Those who died at Enniskillen died to satisfy the bigoted murderous blood lust of Adams and McGuinness coupled with their warped sense of a revolution and the same perversions in their friends and helpers. Those who died at 9/11 did so to satisfy the same emotions from Bin Laden and his cohorts. Both groups of victims are equally blameless, both groups of perpetrators equally guilty. The only question is how long the appeasers will pretend that they see a difference.