British State Collusion

[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!

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?

Deny? None. Deflect away from? A fair few.

[Applesisapples]

A few observations:
1. Uncomfortable as it might be for some we would not be at this point if it had not been for the IRA campaign. There is no way on this green earth that Unionists would have compromised to the extent they did, you just have to look at their actions today as they try to undo the GFA because we have relative peace.
2. It is hypocritical for the IRA and SF to complain of shoot to kill policies, they claim the troubles were a war, if that's that's the case then all's fair etc... In addition they as others have pointed out did enough STK themselves. On the other hand, I as a citizen expect better from state forces who are denying that there was a war, that is my right. I expect law breakers to be arrested not shot on site...British Government hypocrisy and double standards.
3. In a state where 90% plus of law officers/security forces come from one section of the population collusion was bound to happen, the surprise is that it wasn't more widespread.
4. As to the future I can't see a UI happening any time soon, too many so called nationalists are comfortable with their position in this new Northern Ireland.

[Maguire01]

A few observations:
1. Uncomfortable as it might be for some we would not be at this point if it had not been for the IRA campaign. There is no way on this green earth that Unionists would have compromised to the extent they did, you just have to look at their actions today as they try to undo the GFA because we have relative peace.

But we might have been somewhere not too dis-similar a lot earlier and with a lot fewer dead bodies. If the objective of the campaign was a united Ireland, then what has been achieved? The principle of consent?

3. In a state where 90% plus of law officers/security forces come from one section of the population collusion was bound to happen, the surprise is that it wasn't more widespread.

Worth pointing out that there was a clear strategy to keep that 'balance' - we know what happened to catholics who joined the RUC.
(Not that that's any excuse, just context.)

[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 ?)

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

All homeless or what??? 
Or is it only 40% of 1.8 m  from the last Census ( 720,000) ??

[Applesisapples]

Wrong on both counts. We would never ever have got unionists anywhere close to where we are now, look at what they did with the Sunningdale agreement. Secondly at that time there is no way that catholics would have joined the forces of a hostile state with all it's unionist trappings. It wasn't just the IRA who didn't want catholics in state forces, the RUC after all propped up Stormont and this predated the IRA return to armed struggle in the late '60's. As many posters myself included keep pointing out unioists don't do equality except on unionist terms.

[stibhan]

A few observations:
1. Uncomfortable as it might be for some we would not be at this point if it had not been for the IRA campaign. There is no way on this green earth that Unionists would have compromised to the extent they did, you just have to look at their actions today as they try to undo the GFA because we have relative peace.
2. It is hypocritical for the IRA and SF to complain of shoot to kill policies, they claim the troubles were a war, if that's that's the case then all's fair etc... In addition they as others have pointed out did enough STK themselves. On the other hand, I as a citizen expect better from state forces who are denying that there was a war, that is my right. I expect law breakers to be arrested not shot on site...British Government hypocrisy and double standards.
3. In a state where 90% plus of law officers/security forces come from one section of the population collusion was bound to happen, the surprise is that it wasn't more widespread.
4. As to the future I can't see a UI happening any time soon, too many so called nationalists are comfortable with their position in this new Northern Ireland.

I agree with all of this but I'm loathe to make grand predictions about the future for the island. It would be easy to say that nationalists are comfortable but that obscures the fact that a lot of people with long to medium term memories are just happy that an uneasy peace has broken out, and that protests with sporadic violence are taking the place of all-out conflict.

If you had have told someone 10 years ago that Sinn Féin and the DUP would be in government together by 2007, you'd have been considered a hopeless optimist. 20 years ago, you'd have been sectioned. On the same level if you'd had forecast the economic recession in the South before the shite hit the fan then you'd have been called a complete begrudgering arsehole.

People predict the future to suit their ideological outlook, and can make figures look anyway they want to. The reality is that the amount of change that has gone on in the north over the past decade makes it entirely impossible to say what will happen. Irish history is full of idiotic prophecies.

[johnneycool]

Lets not kid ourselves. unionists didn't agree to compromise as a choice. The british governments  unconditional suppport for their goings on had diluted either by bombing campaigns in london or international pressure but unionists didn't unilaterally decide to power share.

[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.

All homeless or what??? 
Or is it only 40% of 1.8 m  from the last Census ( 720,000) ??

That's hilarious.  If you took the time to notice, you would see that I was quoting the original poster.

[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 ?)

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

All homeless or what??? 
Or is it only 40% of 1.8 m  from the last Census ( 720,000) ??

That's hilarious.  If you took the time to notice, you would see that I was quoting the original poster.

Lighten up a bit gasúinín. Anyway I'd guess yer man was referring to Brit soldiers.

[HiMucker]

Anyone see spot light tonight?

[glens abu]

Anyone see spot light tonight?

Not allowed to mention Winkey as the loyal subjects on here might get annoyed.

[Íseal agus crua isteach a]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/historical-enquiries-team-exposes-northern-ireland-collusion/6376

[BennyCake]

The truth will never come out about collusion. The families of Robert Hamill, Rosemary Nelson, Pat Finucan etc will never get the truth. And that's just the high profile cases. Admitting that security forces were involved would be like admitting it was the Queen herself of Prime Minister who murdered these people. It'll never happen.

Sure whenever the Bloody Sunday verdict was released, saying those shot were innocent marchers without weapons, no soldier was still ever convicted of murder.

Yup, collision is just all in the heads of paranoid Catholics. It doesn't exist.

[Íseal agus crua isteach a]

The truth will never come out about collusion. The families of Robert Hamill, Rosemary Nelson, Pat Finucan etc will never get the truth. And that's just the high profile cases. Admitting that security forces were involved would be like admitting it was the Queen herself of Prime Minister who murdered these people. It'll never happen.

Sure whenever the Bloody Sunday verdict was released, saying those shot were innocent marchers without weapons, no soldier was still ever convicted of murder.

Yup, collision is just all in the heads of paranoid Catholics. It doesn't exist.

Patrick Finucans' death warrant was signed in ten Downing Street by Margaret Thatcher herself.

[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?

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.

I don't know what the republican narrative is or how accurate your perception of the republican narrative is or how a republican should answer a hypothetical question.
Perceptions of what the RUC were about, came from their actions. If a police force is used to break up a legitimate strike by workers with violence and false criminal charges, then we can say the police force is not engaged in law and order activities, it's being used  to break the law and fails to protect the people it's supposed to serve.
I doubt if anyone here is under any impression that the UDR were about law enforcement, they were a regiment of the British Army, not unlike the Home Guard regiment in Kenya in the mid 1950's.