British State Collusion

[Maguire01]

Think some are missing the point here. This topic is about 'law enforcement' officers murdering people it was supposed to be protecting.

Hmmm... but isn't the republican narrative that the security forces were 'combatants' in a 'war'? If they were merely 'law enforcement' then surely the logic is that there was no war and the paramilitaries were simply criminals breaking the law.

[Jeepers Creepers]

Think some are missing the point here. This topic is about 'law enforcement' officers murdering people it was supposed to be protecting.

Hmmm... but isn't the republican narrative that the security forces were 'combatants' in a 'war'? If they were merely 'law enforcement' then surely the logic is that there was no war and the paramilitaries were simply criminals breaking the law.

More referring to the RUC rather than the British Army with the term 'Law Enforcement' as this was the serving police force at the time albeit a paramilitary police force.

[Maguire01]

Think some are missing the point here. This topic is about 'law enforcement' officers murdering people it was supposed to be protecting.

Hmmm... but isn't the republican narrative that the security forces were 'combatants' in a 'war'? If they were merely 'law enforcement' then surely the logic is that there was no war and the paramilitaries were simply criminals breaking the law.

More referring to the RUC rather than the British Army with the term 'Law Enforcement' as this was the serving police force at the time albeit a paramilitary police force.

That doesn't change my point.

[michaelg]

How can the brave stoopites come on her now, and basically say, 'no shit sherlock, the British Army and the RUC and the Loyalist Paramilitary Groups were all the one side'', yet they drag the men who fought against this group through the mud at every opportunity.  The republican movement by and large had legitimate targets, yes there was collateral damage, yes there was stupidity and yes there was evil thugs.  The brave keyboard warriors that can travel south without a checkpoint, can sit at their cushy civil service job, can send there kids to rugby/soccer training forget what the war has now provided for them. the men that take the leap of change will always be shafted, you only have to Look at Trimble and Paisley. We have come so far on this Island yet again history will repeat itself when the west brit section of the nationalist community will cosy up their paymasters. Republicans come in all shapes and sizes. For me 1, there are no brits on out streets. 2, I can cross the boarder without any hassle, the politicians that I vote for has a say in running my affairs. 3, I can spend Euro in 90% of the shops im enter in the north. 4, im happy to engage with any sections of the community to further this part of the Island.

Do I want a united Ireland?-YES of course, am a happy with the current situation?-NO, but am i satisfied that the war effort has put us in the right place to get the best for our people-absolutely.

You forgetting about the one million or so Unionists?

[Jeepers Creepers]

Think some are missing the point here. This topic is about 'law enforcement' officers murdering people it was supposed to be protecting.

Hmmm... but isn't the republican narrative that the security forces were 'combatants' in a 'war'? If they were merely 'law enforcement' then surely the logic is that there was no war and the paramilitaries were simply criminals breaking the law.

Start a new topic then called 'security forces through Republicans eyes' because on this thread I'm discussing 'law  enforcement' officers covertly murdering civilians.

More referring to the RUC rather than the British Army with the term 'Law Enforcement' as this was the serving police force at the time albeit a paramilitary police force.

That doesn't change my point.

[Maguire01]

Think some are missing the point here. This topic is about 'law enforcement' officers murdering people it was supposed to be protecting.

Hmmm... but isn't the republican narrative that the security forces were 'combatants' in a 'war'? If they were merely 'law enforcement' then surely the logic is that there was no war and the paramilitaries were simply criminals breaking the law.

More referring to the RUC rather than the British Army with the term 'Law Enforcement' as this was the serving police force at the time albeit a paramilitary police force.

That doesn't change my point.

Start a new topic then called 'security forces through Republicans eyes' because on this thread I'm discussing 'law  enforcement' officers covertly murdering civilians.

Oh right, so we discuss things in a vacuum. Forget about context. To avoid awkward questions.

[Wildweasel74]

Yeah Omagh was collateral damage, right!!

[Rossfan]

Do I want a united Ireland?-YES of course, am a happy with the current situation?-NO, but am i satisfied that the war effort has put us in the right place to get the best for our people-absolutely.

Do you, or others feel that the war effort should have ended sooner?
Say in the early 1980's.

By then surely the IRA knew that Britain were never going to withdraw.

The longer it went on meant Unionist's attitude against an U.I. hardened
with every bomb and every bullet.

Britain will withdraw if a majority in the 6 Cos. vote for a U I
Personally iIfeel that after the signing of the Anglo Irish Agreement in 1985 the Provos should have looked to abandon their campaign as the British Govt were acknowledging that  the Irish Govt was also part of the equasion and that "Nawthen Awlan" wasn't as "British as Finchley" after all.

[Rossfan]

How can the brave stoopites come on her now, and basically say, 'no shit sherlock, the British Army and the RUC and the Loyalist Paramilitary Groups were all the one side'', yet they drag the men who fought against this group through the mud at every opportunity.  The republican movement by and large had legitimate targets, yes there was collateral damage, yes there was stupidity and yes there was evil thugs.  The brave keyboard warriors that can travel south without a checkpoint, can sit at their cushy civil service job, can send there kids to rugby/soccer training forget what the war has now provided for them. the men that take the leap of change will always be shafted, you only have to Look at Trimble and Paisley. We have come so far on this Island yet again history will repeat itself when the west brit section of the nationalist community will cosy up their paymasters. Republicans come in all shapes and sizes. For me 1, there are no brits on out streets. 2, I can cross the boarder without any hassle, the politicians that I vote for has a say in running my affairs. 3, I can spend Euro in 90% of the shops im enter in the north. 4, im happy to engage with any sections of the community to further this part of the Island.

Do I want a united Ireland?-YES of course, am a happy with the current situation?-NO, but am i satisfied that the war effort has put us in the right place to get the best for our people-absolutely.

You forgetting about the one million or so Unionists?

48% of 1.8 million ( 880,000 ?)

[michaelg]

How can the brave stoopites come on her now, and basically say, 'no shit sherlock, the British Army and the RUC and the Loyalist Paramilitary Groups were all the one side'', yet they drag the men who fought against this group through the mud at every opportunity.  The republican movement by and large had legitimate targets, yes there was collateral damage, yes there was stupidity and yes there was evil thugs.  The brave keyboard warriors that can travel south without a checkpoint, can sit at their cushy civil service job, can send there kids to rugby/soccer training forget what the war has now provided for them. the men that take the leap of change will always be shafted, you only have to Look at Trimble and Paisley. We have come so far on this Island yet again history will repeat itself when the west brit section of the nationalist community will cosy up their paymasters. Republicans come in all shapes and sizes. For me 1, there are no brits on out streets. 2, I can cross the boarder without any hassle, the politicians that I vote for has a say in running my affairs. 3, I can spend Euro in 90% of the shops im enter in the north. 4, im happy to engage with any sections of the community to further this part of the Island.

Do I want a united Ireland?-YES of course, am a happy with the current situation?-NO, but am i satisfied that the war effort has put us in the right place to get the best for our people-absolutely.

You forgetting about the one million or so Unionists?

48% of 1.8 million ( 880,000 ?)

Apologies, a mere 880,00 Brits still left on the streets.

[Main Street]

Think some are missing the point here. This topic is about 'law enforcement' officers murdering people it was supposed to be protecting.

Hmmm... but isn't the republican narrative that the security forces were 'combatants' in a 'war'? If they were merely 'law enforcement' then surely the logic is that there was no war and the paramilitaries were simply criminals breaking the law.

More referring to the RUC rather than the British Army with the term 'Law Enforcement' as this was the serving police force at the time albeit a paramilitary police force.

That doesn't change my point.

Start a new topic then called 'security forces through Republicans eyes' because on this thread I'm discussing 'law  enforcement' officers covertly murdering civilians.

Oh right, so we discuss things in a vacuum. Forget about context. To avoid awkward questions.

You are deluding yourself Maguire if you imagine yourself the creator of the awkward question, so awkward and brilliant that you then insinuate JC has to avoid answering it
In the light of this evidence of collusion Maguire, do you not accept the premise coming from a citizen of the state, expressing the sentiment that the officers who were supposed to uphold the law were the ones doing the murdering?

[Íseal agus crua isteach a]

I have some good reading information in the following cases involving collusion.

Gerard Lawlor
Sean Graham bookies
Clonoe
Loughinisland

Its in a PDF format which I'm not sure how to put up here. If anyone is interested in reading these reports I would gladly send you an email.

[Nally Stand]

Ah now Íseal don't be at that. Can you not see that this thread is about the IRA and how they started it all, and how they always went out to butcher civilians and that they are the only ones we can talk about. Take your aul talk about British State Collusion somewhere else!

[Maguire01]

Think some are missing the point here. This topic is about 'law enforcement' officers murdering people it was supposed to be protecting.

Hmmm... but isn't the republican narrative that the security forces were 'combatants' in a 'war'? If they were merely 'law enforcement' then surely the logic is that there was no war and the paramilitaries were simply criminals breaking the law.

More referring to the RUC rather than the British Army with the term 'Law Enforcement' as this was the serving police force at the time albeit a paramilitary police force.

That doesn't change my point.

Start a new topic then called 'security forces through Republicans eyes' because on this thread I'm discussing 'law  enforcement' officers covertly murdering civilians.

Oh right, so we discuss things in a vacuum. Forget about context. To avoid awkward questions.

You are deluding yourself Maguire if you imagine yourself the creator of the awkward question, so awkward and brilliant that you then insinuate JC has to avoid answering it
In the light of this evidence of collusion Maguire, do you not accept the premise coming from a citizen of the state, expressing the sentiment that the officers who were supposed to uphold the law were the ones doing the murdering?

I absolutely do. No reservations. No equivocation.

My point is that if you consider the RUC/UDR to be merely 'law enforcement' (as they should have been) rather than 'combatants' in a 'war' as per the republican narrative, then in turn, the paramilitaries must simply be law-breaking and criminal.

[Maguire01]

Ah now Íseal don't be at that. Can you not see that this thread is about the IRA and how they started it all, and how they always went out to butcher civilians and that they are the only ones we can talk about. Take your aul talk about British State Collusion somewhere else!

No, absolutely bring it on here. Why would we avoid these issues being discussed regardless of who perpetrated them? How many posters on this thread have tried to deny a discussion on state collusion?