Bruce Anderson in the Daily Telegraph:
Twenty years ago today, a fine man was foully murdered. Ian Gow had been one of Margaret Thatcher's close associates. No one on the UK mainland had been more resolute in defending the cause of Ulster Unionism. So he attracted the IRA's enmity. Even if not actually in uniform, he fell in battle against terrorism: a battle in which he had been a proud combatant.
As he points out, Republicans knew exactly what they were doing by targetting Gow and of all the attrocities carried out by them over the period of the Troubles, this may have been the one to have the had the most longest-lasting historical effect:
In October 1984, the IRA came close to assassinating her. In 1990, by murdering Ian, they helped to bring her down. If Ian Gow had been slain while protecting Margaret Thatcher, he would have died with a smile on his face. But when she most had need of him, her enemies had ensured that he would not be available.
In a fallen world, evil often seems to triumph. Yet the memory of good men is an antidote against evil. Ian Gow left such a memory, in the hearts of all his friends.
2 comments:
but ian gow would have opposed the good friday agreement, and the peace process,
ray smallwood, a loyalist spokes-person, and a few others would also have opposed the process,
better for us all that such barriers were removed,
peace did not come cheap, those no people who were deemed important to the peace project, eventuality jumped on the yes band-wagon.
"better for us all that such barriers were removed"
That sounds very chilling justification for murder Michael.
The British Army "facilitating" the UVF or UFF to go in and take out the provo leadership and whatever few innocents happened to find themselves in the way would have also removed a "barrier" but would it have been morally justifiable?
If that's the kind of logic your "Peace process" is built on then it is on very soft foundations indeed. You're welcome to it.
Post a Comment