gaaboard.com

Non GAA Discussion => General discussion => Topic started by: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 05:03:20 PM

Title: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 05:03:20 PM
The saga goes on:

PM rejects Public Inquiry in Finucane Case
Pat Finucane Centre Response to Finucane meeting with Prime Minister David Cameron Today:

"Reacting to the outcome of the meeting this afternoon with British Prime Minister David Cameron the PFC shares the shock and concern of the Finucane family at the news that no Public Inquiry is to be held into the 1989 murder.

"The family have campaigned long and hard for an inquiry into the murder of Pat. They were told that a Public Inquiry would be set up by the British Government. The Irish Government was told that a Public Inquiry would be set up.

Instead the PM has told the family that a QC, Sir Desmond da Silva, will be asked to 'review' the available papers and then brief the family. This is an extraordinary turnaround which we find incomprehensible and unacceptable. We understand that the family will not cooperate in any shape or fashion with this 'review'.

At the meeting they were told that this was the "best way forward". This may be true for the security forces and agencies who wish to conceal the truth. It is certainly not the best way forward for the family.

It was claimed that witnesses are not 'available' and that this would negate the effectiveness of any inquiry. This is a shabby and scandalous excuse.   

It is absolutely vital that any inquiry be allowed to delve into the involvement of the British Army Force Research Unit, RUC Special Branch and the Security Service MI5 in the murder. Britain is failing to honour the commitment it made at Weston Park to implement the recommendations of Judge Cory, the Canadian judge appointed by the two governments to evaluate the evidence in a number of contentious cases. He recommended a Public Inquiry into the murder.

Pat Finucane received death threats from members of the RUC. Using parliamentary privilege only weeks before the murder a Conservative Government minister accused members of the legal profession of being close to the IRA thus setting the scene for loyalist attacks on lawyers. Both RUC and FRU agents were involved in the murder of Pat Finucane. On February 12 1989 Pat was murdered in front of his family.

Those who would argue that the above facts are a not a matter for Public Inquiry should consider the words of Geraldine Finucane,

I believe that it is a mistake to ignore cases of serious concern just because they are in the past. I believe the only way our society can move forward into a peaceful future is by examining the controversies of our past and exposing them fully for all to see. I believe this creates foundations of confidence, upon which a lasting peace can be built. END"
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hereiam on October 11, 2011, 05:09:50 PM
That to me and I'm sure alot of other people says that the brits have something to hide. British c***ts
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Minder on October 11, 2011, 05:23:34 PM
I thought Cameron said after Saville announcement there would be no more costly, lengthy public enquiries so it's hardly that big a surprise.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Milltown Row2 on October 11, 2011, 05:32:00 PM
Nally no doubt that should there be an open inquiry to all the real underhand tactics by all those involved in the atrocities carried out during the troubles, but would we ever get the real truth?

I don't think we would.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 05:37:39 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 05:23:34 PM
I thought Cameron said after Saville announcement there would be no more costly, lengthy public enquiries so it's hardly that big a surprise.

When we consider the following, NOTHING surprises me about the lengths the British Government will go in order to cover up their activities in Ireland:

- They releases just TWENTY heavily censored pages of a TWENTY THOUSAND page report into Collusion by the Stevens Inquiry team

- Stevens also stated that the obstruction he faced in his inquiry from the British 'security' forces "was cultural in its nature and widespread within parts of the army and the RUC".

- When Stevens himself felt that he had enough hard evidence to convict at least 25 senior military personnel, the DPP did not bring forward ANY prosecutions

- The British Secretary of State at the time of his report, attempted to prevent The Sunday Times from investigating the circumstances surrounding the fire at the offices of the Steven's Inquiry which destroyed other crucial evidence




It also doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they lied to the family, and to the Irish Government when they told them there would be a Public Inquiry.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: AQMP on October 11, 2011, 05:38:43 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 05:23:34 PM
I thought Cameron said after Saville announcement there would be no more costly, lengthy public enquiries so it's hardly that big a surprise.

Saville really was the inquiry to end all inquiries...
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 05:51:07 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 11, 2011, 05:32:00 PM
Nally no doubt that should there be an open inquiry to all the real underhand tactics by all those involved in the atrocities carried out during the troubles, but would we ever get the real truth?

I don't think we would.

Sadly I doubt it too, but something has to be tried to help matters. Martin McGuinness said recently that Tony Blair stated to him privately in a meeting that Britain played a huge part in the conflict but that the British Government could never publically come out and admit as much. That is the crux of the matter. To date they (I include it's police and armed forces in this) are the one side in the conflict who will not openly admit that it was involved in a conflict and has not issued an apology to the families of it's innocent victims. Expecting the whole truth seems a long way off. 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: thebigfella on October 11, 2011, 05:52:24 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 05:37:39 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 05:23:34 PM
I thought Cameron said after Saville announcement there would be no more costly, lengthy public enquiries so it's hardly that big a surprise.

When we consider the following, NOTHING surprises me about the lengths the British Government will go in order to cover up their activities in Ireland:

- They releases just TWENTY heavily censored pages of a TWENTY THOUSAND page report into Collusion by the Stevens Inquiry team

- Stevens also stated that the obstruction he faced in his inquiry from the British 'security' forces "was cultural in its nature and widespread within parts of the army and the RUC".

- When Stevens himself felt that he had enough hard evidence to convict at least 25 senior military personnel, the DPP did not bring forward ANY prosecutions

- The British Secretary of State at the time of his report, attempted to prevent The Sunday Times from investigating the circumstances surrounding the fire at the offices of the Steven's Inquiry which destroyed other crucial evidence




It also doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they lied to the family, and to the Irish Government when they told them there would be a Public Inquiry.

So why do you even bother then? Seems to me you spend your entire day justifying the Provo's organised crime fight for Irish freedom and looking for ways to get upset at the Brits.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:09:34 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on October 11, 2011, 05:52:24 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 05:37:39 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 05:23:34 PM
I thought Cameron said after Saville announcement there would be no more costly, lengthy public enquiries so it's hardly that big a surprise.

When we consider the following, NOTHING surprises me about the lengths the British Government will go in order to cover up their activities in Ireland:

- They releases just TWENTY heavily censored pages of a TWENTY THOUSAND page report into Collusion by the Stevens Inquiry team

- Stevens also stated that the obstruction he faced in his inquiry from the British 'security' forces "was cultural in its nature and widespread within parts of the army and the RUC".

- When Stevens himself felt that he had enough hard evidence to convict at least 25 senior military personnel, the DPP did not bring forward ANY prosecutions

- The British Secretary of State at the time of his report, attempted to prevent The Sunday Times from investigating the circumstances surrounding the fire at the offices of the Steven's Inquiry which destroyed other crucial evidence




It also doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they lied to the family, and to the Irish Government when they told them there would be a Public Inquiry.

So why do you even bother then? Seems to me you spend your entire day justifying the Provo's organised crime fight for Irish freedom and looking for ways to get upset at the Brits.

It seems to me you would happily spend all day making sarcastic remarks about me and about the IRA, but simultaneously have very little nothing to say about British state murder. This thread is about British State Collusion, in case you didn't see the title, so you may take your "intelligent" remarks elsewhere.

P.S. I have stated many times that, like the Old IRA, the Provisional IRA carried out many despicable acts which I would never wish to justify, but I make no apologies for seeing both campaigns in general as totally justifiable. As for "looking for ways to get upset at the brits", well I would hardly have to look very hard now. I can assure you that my family and my near neighbours have no need to go looking for reasons to be upset at the British state. Not that you either know or give a fcuk about that.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: tyssam5 on October 11, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
Would there be any point in a public inquiry? Saville had a point, exoneration of the dead. What's the goal here, truth about British intelligence, that's never going to happen and what would the benefit even if it did?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:19:39 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on October 11, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
Would there be any point in a public inquiry? Saville had a point, exoneration of the dead. What's the goal here, truth about British intelligence, that's never going to happen and what would the benefit even if it did?

I'd say the Finucane family would soon tell you their goal... the truth about Pat's murder. The benefit to them? Probably immeasurable. How many other families are being denied the truth from the British State? Should they just not bother trying to find out the truth?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:20:08 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on October 11, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
Would there be any point in a public inquiry? Saville had a point, exoneration of the dead. What's the goal here, truth about British intelligence, that's never going to happen and what would the benefit even if it did?

The only people to benefit would be the legal profession, who were probably salivating at the thought of another lengthy enquiry. The family probably wouldn't have got the answers they were looking for.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:20:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:19:39 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on October 11, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
Would there be any point in a public inquiry? Saville had a point, exoneration of the dead. What's the goal here, truth about British intelligence, that's never going to happen and what would the benefit even if it did?

I'd say the Finucane family would soon tell you their goal... the truth about Pat's murder. The benefit to them? Probably immeasurable. How many other families are being denied the truth from the British State? Should they just not bother trying to find out the truth?

Whether you like it or not, there isn't going to be an inquiry for every episode of collusion you think there was.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ulick on October 11, 2011, 06:21:06 PM
Considering the British government committed in 2001 to adopt Judge Cory's recommendations, the Smithwick Tribunal should be suspended immediately as the British have reneged on their side of the bargain.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:22:09 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:20:08 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on October 11, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
Would there be any point in a public inquiry? Saville had a point, exoneration of the dead. What's the goal here, truth about British intelligence, that's never going to happen and what would the benefit even if it did?

The only people to benefit would be the legal profession, who were probably salivating at the thought of another lengthy enquiry. The family probably wouldn't have got the answers they were looking for.

So the family wouldn't benefit from getting the truth about the state's involvement in the murder of their family member?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:22:09 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:20:08 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on October 11, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
Would there be any point in a public inquiry? Saville had a point, exoneration of the dead. What's the goal here, truth about British intelligence, that's never going to happen and what would the benefit even if it did?

The only people to benefit would be the legal profession, who were probably salivating at the thought of another lengthy enquiry. The family probably wouldn't have got the answers they were looking for.

So the family wouldn't benefit from getting the truth about the state's involvement in the murder of their family member?

Did you read all of my post? How do you know they would have found out the truth?  As i have already said Saville was the end of it most likely.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:24:52 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:20:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:19:39 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on October 11, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
Would there be any point in a public inquiry? Saville had a point, exoneration of the dead. What's the goal here, truth about British intelligence, that's never going to happen and what would the benefit even if it did?

I'd say the Finucane family would soon tell you their goal... the truth about Pat's murder. The benefit to them? Probably immeasurable. How many other families are being denied the truth from the British State? Should they just not bother trying to find out the truth?

Whether you like it or not, there isn't going to be an inquiry for every episode of collusion you think there was.

I never said there should be one into every murder. Clearly that would be impractical as it could be up to 900 or more victims. The point is that they promised the family and the Irish Government that there would be an Inquiry into Pat Finucane's murder. They are now breaking that promise. Should we just lie down and accept the British Government shooting Irish civilians and then lying to the the families and the Irish Government about it all?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:26:16 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:22:09 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:20:08 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on October 11, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
Would there be any point in a public inquiry? Saville had a point, exoneration of the dead. What's the goal here, truth about British intelligence, that's never going to happen and what would the benefit even if it did?

The only people to benefit would be the legal profession, who were probably salivating at the thought of another lengthy enquiry. The family probably wouldn't have got the answers they were looking for.

So the family wouldn't benefit from getting the truth about the state's involvement in the murder of their family member?

Did you read all of my post? How do you know they would have found out the truth?  As i have already said Saville was the end of it most likely.

Who's to know if the family wouldn't have gotten the answers? People said that about Bloody Sunday's victims too. It took long enough for the British to accept what the whole world knew. It means everything to the families to hear an apology.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:24:52 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:20:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:19:39 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on October 11, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
Would there be any point in a public inquiry? Saville had a point, exoneration of the dead. What's the goal here, truth about British intelligence, that's never going to happen and what would the benefit even if it did?

I'd say the Finucane family would soon tell you their goal... the truth about Pat's murder. The benefit to them? Probably immeasurable. How many other families are being denied the truth from the British State? Should they just not bother trying to find out the truth?

Whether you like it or not, there isn't going to be an inquiry for every episode of collusion you think there was.

I never said there should be one into every murder. Clearly that would be impractical as it could be up to 900 or more victims. The point is that they promised the family and the Irish Government that there would be an Inquiry into Pat Finucane's murder. They are now breaking that promise. Should we just lie down and accept the British Government shooting Irish civilians and then lying to the the families and the Irish Government about it all?

Different government.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:35:01 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:24:52 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:20:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:19:39 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on October 11, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
Would there be any point in a public inquiry? Saville had a point, exoneration of the dead. What's the goal here, truth about British intelligence, that's never going to happen and what would the benefit even if it did?

I'd say the Finucane family would soon tell you their goal... the truth about Pat's murder. The benefit to them? Probably immeasurable. How many other families are being denied the truth from the British State? Should they just not bother trying to find out the truth?

Whether you like it or not, there isn't going to be an inquiry for every episode of collusion you think there was.

I never said there should be one into every murder. Clearly that would be impractical as it could be up to 900 or more victims. The point is that they promised the family and the Irish Government that there would be an Inquiry into Pat Finucane's murder. They are now breaking that promise. Should we just lie down and accept the British Government shooting Irish civilians and then lying to the the families and the Irish Government about it all?

Different government.
Same state.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:36:20 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:35:01 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:24:52 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 06:20:58 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:19:39 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on October 11, 2011, 06:13:43 PM
Would there be any point in a public inquiry? Saville had a point, exoneration of the dead. What's the goal here, truth about British intelligence, that's never going to happen and what would the benefit even if it did?

I'd say the Finucane family would soon tell you their goal... the truth about Pat's murder. The benefit to them? Probably immeasurable. How many other families are being denied the truth from the British State? Should they just not bother trying to find out the truth?

Whether you like it or not, there isn't going to be an inquiry for every episode of collusion you think there was.

I never said there should be one into every murder. Clearly that would be impractical as it could be up to 900 or more victims. The point is that they promised the family and the Irish Government that there would be an Inquiry into Pat Finucane's murder. They are now breaking that promise. Should we just lie down and accept the British Government shooting Irish civilians and then lying to the the families and the Irish Government about it all?

Different government.
Same state.

And ?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Trout on October 11, 2011, 06:37:00 PM
Will we also get an inquiry into members of IRA acting as British agents Nally, eh?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:38:59 PM
Quote from: Trout on October 11, 2011, 06:37:00 PM
Will we also get an inquiry into members of IRA acting as British agents Nally, eh?

Excellent contribution as usual, Trout.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 11, 2011, 06:51:00 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 05:37:39 PM
It also doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they lied to the family, and to the Irish Government when they told them there would be a Public Inquiry.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it a Labour government that made the promise? Doesn't make it 'right', but i'd imagine there are countless examples of overturning decisions made by previous administrations in all elements of government.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trileacman on October 11, 2011, 06:57:21 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:38:59 PM
Quote from: Trout on October 11, 2011, 06:37:00 PM
Will we also get an inquiry into members of IRA acting as British agents Nally, eh?

Excellent contribution as usual, Trout.

Dodge the question as usual, Nally.

Stop trying to hide from what you don't like, then shoving what you do down everyone's throats. Your as guilty as the Brits for having an "our truths" and "their truths" mentality.

Before you put words in my mouth I better state that Finucanes murder was in all probability an act of collusion. But the Brits reneging on a promise? f**king shocker that move ::) . Smithwick tribunal should be threw up in the air if it was part of the deal but sure would Cameron et al give a f**k about that? If Kenny had any balls he'd rattle the Brits on this one but it was two governments, long since resigned to the scrapheap. And for that why would he sour relations with the Brits, because of the Finucanes? I'd say he couldn't give a damn. The ugly side of politics and political compromise.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Tony Baloney on October 11, 2011, 08:04:38 PM
The Finucane's are one family. Why champion them? The taxpayer has paid enough.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Íseal agus crua isteach a on October 11, 2011, 08:22:19 PM
The children who died in Ireland and Britain since 1968 because of the troubles.


(141 Irish Catholic children)
Murdered by British

Patrick Barnard (13), Dungannon, Co. Tyrone, killed along with James McCaughey (13) and three adult Catholics in British paramilitary car bomb attack.
Daniel Barrett (15), Ardoyne, Belfast; shot in his home from a nearby BA observation post.
John Beattie (17), West Belfast, shot in his father's van by a British army sniper.
James Joseph Boyle (16), West Belfast, abducted and shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
John Boyle (16), Dunloy, Co. Antrim, shot by SAS near an arms dump he had earlier discovered and reported to authorities.
Francis Bradley (16), Ardoyne, Belfast, killed along with three adult Catholics in British paramilitary car bomb attack.
Marian Brown (17), West Belfast, shot in face by British paramilitary terrorists on Roden Street after she kissed her boyfriend goodnight.
Michael Bernard Browne (16), Bangor, Co. Down, shot twice in head by British paramilitary terrorists.
Martha Campbell (13), Ballymurphy Road, Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
John Collins (17), West Belfast, shot by Parachute Reg't soldier at a checkpoint.
Michael Patrick Connors (14), Central Belfast, shot along with John Mahon by British soldiers at a checkpoint.
Patrick Crawford (15), West Belfast, while walking with two others, shot by British soldiers.
James Cromie (13), Belfast, killed along with fourteen other Catholics by British paramilitary car bomb outside McGurk's Pub.
Alphonsus Cunningham (13), West Belfast, during disturbances, run over by a vehicle.
Manus Deery (15), Derry, shot by army sniper as he brought supper home from nearby shop.
Bridget Anne Dempsey (10 months), North Belfast, burned to death along with her mother and father when British paramilitary terrorists firebombed their house at night.
John Dempsey (16), West Belfast, shot by British soldier in disturbances following hunger-strike death of Joe McDonnell.
Breda Devine (20 months), Omagh, killed along with twenty-eight others in a car-bomb massacre by the RUC, Brit army Int. and MI5 and its Chicago FBI operatives.
David Devine (16), Strabane, Tyrone, shot along with two adult Catholics by SAS.
Oran Doherty , Buncrana, Co. Donegal, killed, along with his friend, Sean McLaughlin, in Omagh bombing.
Pauline Doherty (17), North Belfast, in her house, shot six times by British paramilitary terrorists.
James Doherty (4), West Belfast, shot outside his home.
Gerald Donaghy (17), Derry, in civil rights march, killed along with five other Catholic minors and eight Catholic adults on Bloody Sunday, by British soldiers of the Parachute reg't and Royal Anglian reg't, shot in back.
Thomas Donaghy (16), North Belfast, shot dead on way to work along with 18-year-old Margaret McErlean, by British paramilitary terrorists.
Michael Francis Donnelly (14), Silverbridge, Armagh, killed along with two adult Catholics in bomb-and-bullet attack on Donnelly's Bar; by RUC, UDR and British paramilitary terrorists.
John Dougal (16), West Belfast, shot from British army observation bunker.
Jack Duddy (17), Derry, on Bloody Sunday, by British soldiers, shot in back.
Brian Duffy (15), North Belfast, in a taxi stand, died along with driver, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Seamus Duffy (15), North Belfast, shot at close range by RUC rubber bullet.
Bernard Samuel Fox (16), North Belfast, shot by British soldiers.
Margaret Gargan (13), West Belfast, shot by British soldiers who also shot dead Fr. Noel Fitzpatrick as he gave her Last Rites. The bullet that killed Fr. Fitzpatrick passed through him and also killed Patrick Butler. While trying to drag Fr. Fitzpatrick to safety David McCafferty was also shot dead by the soldiers. (The first priest killed was Fr. Hugh Mullan, West Belfast, shot, twice, by British soldiers as he gave Last Rites to another of their victims. An attempt to drag him to safety ended when Frank Quinn was shot dead by the soldiers.)
Rosaleen Gavin eight, North Belfast, shot by British soldiers from an observation post.
Stephen Geddes (10), West Belfast, shot in head at close range by British soldier with rubber bullet.
Gerald Gibson (17), West Belfast, shot in head by British soldiers.
Hugh Gilmore (17), Derry, one of fourteen shot dead on Bloody Sunday.
Rory Gormley (14), West Belfast, while being driven to school by his father, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Desmond Healey (14), West Belfast, shot in back by Parachute Reg't soldier.
Kevin Heatley (12), Newry, Co. Down, shot by British soldier. Kevin's father later committed suicide.
Daniel Hegarty (16), Derry, shot twice in the head by British soldiers.
Terrence Hennebry (17), South Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Clare Hughes (4), North Belfast, in blast of British paramilitary car-bomb outside Benny's Pub.
Michael James Hughes (16), Newry, Co. Down, shot by Royal Marine.
Charles Irvine (16), West Belfast, shot by British soldiers at a checkpoint.
Carol Ann Kelly (11), West Belfast, shot in head by British soldier's rubber bullet as she brought milk home from a nearby shop.
Michael Kelly (17), Derry, shot on Bloody Sunday.
Paul Kelly (17), West Belfast, Shot by British soldiers at a checkpoint.
James Kennedy (15), South Belfast, killed, along with four Catholic adults, in British paramilitary gun attack on betting shop.
James Kerr (17), South Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Julia Livingstone (14), shot in head at close range by a rubber bullet gun mounted on a British armored vehicle.
Brenda Logue (17), Carrickmore, Co. Tyrone, in Omagh atrocity.
Colin Lundy (16), Glengormley, Co. Antrim, burned to death along with his mother when British paramilitary terrorists firebombed their home at 4 a.m.
Eileen Mackin (14), West Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Anne Magee (15), North Belfast, while at work in a grocery, shot in face by British paramilitary terrorists.
Gerald Martin Maginn (17), shot repeatedly in head by RUC.
Andrew Maguire (6 weeks),
Joanne Maguire eight and
John Maguire (2), West Belfast, all crushed by a car when its driver was shot dead by a British soldier. Their mother later committed suicide.
Hugh Maguire (9), West Belfast, hit by British armored vehicle.
John Mahon (16) Belfast, joyriding in stolen car, shot by RUC.
Jolene Marlow (17), Co. Tyrone, in Omagh bomb blast.
Shane McArdle (17), Markethill, Co. Armagh, at a taxi stand, shot along with Gavin McShane, by RUC/British paramilitary terrorists.
Gerald McAuley (15), West Belfast, shot dead along with an adult Catholic, by British paramilitary terrorists who were also burning down the homes of Catholics on Bombay Street and adjacent streets.
Patrick McCabe (17), North Belfast, shot from a nearby Parachute Reg't observation post.
Siobhan McCabe (4), West Belfast, shot near her house by British soldiers.
David McCafferty (14), West Belfast, shot by British soldiers while trying to drag to safety Fr. Fitzpatrick who the soldiers had just shot.
James McCallum (16), West Belfast, in British paramilitary bombing of Murtagh's Pub.
Gary McCartan (17), South Belfast, shot when he opened his front door to British paramilitary terrorists. (British paramilitary terrorists separately murdered his brother, three uncles and a cousin.)
Michael McCartan (16), South Belfast, brother of Gary McCartan, while painting a republican slogan on a wall, shot by RUC.
James Francis McCaughey (13), Dungannon, Co. Tyrone, killed in street along with his friend, Patrick Barnard (13).
David McClenaghan (15), North Belfast, at night in his home, shot by British paramilitary terrorists who also raped his widowed mother.
Stephen McConomy (11), Derry, shot in head by plastic bullet fired from a nearby armored vehicle.
Sean McConville (17), North Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terrorists from car after asking him directions.
Eamonn McCormick (17), West Belfast, shot by British soldiers during a joint army/British paramilitary attack on a Catholic gathering.
Cornelius McCrory (17), West Belfast, abducted and killed by a British paramilitary terror gang.
Patrick McCullough (17), North Belfast, in a group returning from church, shot by British paramilitary terror gang in a car.
Robert McCullough (17), Belfast, while on lunch-break at work, shot twice in head by British paramilitary terror gang.
Michael McDaid (17), Derry, murdered in custody by British soldiers on Bloody Sunday.
Arthur McDonnell (16) shot along with Charles Irvine, by British soldiers and died years later as a direct consequence.
Anthony McDowell (12), North Belfast, while a passenger in a car, attributed to Parachute Reg't soldiers who deny it.
Kevin McElhinney (17), Derry, shot in the back by British soldiers on Bloody Sunday.
Bernard McErlean (16), West Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terrorist gang abetted by British army.
Annette McGavigan (14), Derry, shot by British soldiers.
James McGerrigan (17), Co. Armagh, in custody, shot by British soldier.
Anthony McGrady (16), North Belfast, at work in auto repair shop, killed along with two Catholic adults in British paramilitary bomb-and-gun attack.
Patrick McGreevey (16), North Belfast, shot by British paramilitary terror gang from a passing car.
Leo McGuigan (16), North Belfast, while walking along Estoril Park, shot by British soldiers.
Doreen McGuinness (16), West Belfast, shot by soldiers at checkpoint.
Francis McGuinness (17), West Belfast, shot by British soldier.
Joseph McGuinness (13), North Belfast, walking with friends to a fish and chip shop, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Maria McGurk (14), North Belfast, daughter of owner of McGurk's Bar, killed along with fourteen others by British paramilitary terrorist bomb attack on the bar.
Geraldine McKeown (14), North Belfast, shot through her window by British paramilitary terrorists.
Sean McLaughlin (12), Buncrana, Co. Donegal, killed in Omagh atrocity.
Kevin McMenamin (10), West Belfast, in blast of a bomb placed by British paramilitary terrorists.
Carol McMenamy (15), North Belfast, shot in head and neck by British paramilitary terrorists in front of her cousin's house. Her brother and cousin were murdered earlier.
Gavin Patrick McShane (17), Keady, Co. Armagh, shot by British paramilitary.
Martin McShane (16), Coalisland, Co. Tyrone, at a GAA club, killed by a burst from a Royal Marine Commando's machine gun.
Paul Jason McWilliams (16), West Belfast, shot in back by British soldier.
Paul Moan (16), West Belfast, shot by British soldiers at a checkpoint.
Maura Monaghan (18 months) Omagh, killed in Omagh bombing described above.
John Mooney (17), North Belfast, shot by British soldiers near his home.
James Morgan (16), Castlewellan, Co. Down, thumbed a lift from strangers who proved to be British paramilitary terrorists who beat him to death and dumped his corpse in a pit used for disposal of dead animals.
Ciaran Gerard Murphy (16), North Belfast, beaten and shot six times by British paramilitary terrorists.
Darren Murray (12), Portadown, Co. Armagh, chased by British paramilitary terrorists into traffic where a car killed him.
Denis Michael Neill (16), North Belfast, while walking home, shot by British soldiers.
Leo Norney (17), West Belfast, shot by British army who first denied then admitted guilt.
Jacqueline O'Brien (17 months) and
Anne Marie O'Brien (5 months), along with their mother, Anna, and father, John, among the thirty-three killed in the car-bomb blasts of 17May74 in Dublin and Monaghan streets placed by BA/RUC/"The Jackal."
Michelle O'Connor (3), South Belfast, killed by a bomb attached to her father's car by British paramilitary terrorists.
Dwayne O'Donnell (17), Co. Tyrone, in front of Boyle's Pub in Cappagh, killed along with four other Catholics by British paramilitary bullet and bomb attack.
Majella O'Hare (12), Whitecross, Co. Armagh, on way, with friends, to Confession, shot by 3 Parachute Reg't soldier.
Geraldine O'Reilly (14), Belturbet, Co. Cavan, while walking with her boyfriend, Patrick Stanley, outside Belturbet Post Office, killed by British paramilitary car-bomb.
Sean O'Riordan (13), West Belfast, shot in back of head by British soldier.
Michelle Osborne (13), Hannahstown, Co. Antrim, killed by British paramilitary terror bomb placed in Ballymacaward Kennel Club.
Martin Peake (17), West Belfast, shot at a checkpoint by a soldier of the Parachute Reg't.
Richard Quinn (10),
Mark Quinn (9) and
Jason Quinn eight, Ballymoney, Co. Antrim, burned to death by British paramilitary terrorists who fire-bombed them in their beds. Their mother had tried to protect them from just such Anti-Catholic attacks by raising them as Protestants; but they were deemed Catholic enough to merit death.
Philip Rafferty (14), South Belfast, abducted from near his home and shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Anthony Reavey (17), Whitecross, Co. Armagh, while hiding under a bed from home invaders, shot dead, along with his two brothers, by British paramilitary terrorists.
Katrina Rennie (16), Craigavon, Co. Armagh, while working in a mobile shop, shots to the head, along with two adults, by a four-man RUC/British paramilitary gang chauffeured by Billy "King Rat" Wright.
James Joseph Reynolds (16), North Belfast, while talking with friends on corner, shot by British paramilitary terrorists on a passing motorcycle.
Francis Anthony Rice (17), Castlewellan, Co. Down, stabbed to death by RUC agent Robin "The Jackal" Jackson.
John Patrick Rolston (16), North Belfast, returning home afoot, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Patrick Rooney (9), West Belfast, while in bed, shot by RUC machine gun through wall.
Daniel Rouse (17), South Belfast, abducted from near home and shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Francis Rowntree (11), West Belfast, shot in the head at close range by British soldiers.
Gabriel Savage (17), South Belfast, while talking with his girlfriend on the sidewalk, abducted and shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
John Joseph Savage (17), West Belfast, shot by British soldiers.
Michael Scott (10), North Belfast, while visiting his grandmother, burned to death along with her when British paramilitary terrorists firebombed her house.
Patrick Stanley (16), Co. Clare, killed in Belturbet, Co. Cavan along with
Geraldine O'Reilly, by British paramilitary car bomb.
Brian Stewart (13), West Belfast, shot in head by plastic bullet at close range by British soldier.
Paula Stronge (6), North Belfast, while playing in street, killed along with four-year-old Clair Hughes, in British paramilitary bombing of Benny's Bar.
Francis Taggart (17), Lisburn, Co. Antrim, while walking home, stabbed by British paramilitary gang.
James Templeton (15), South Belfast, while walking in front of Catholic bar that British paramilitary terrorists shot up after it was opened following an earlier British paramilitary bombing that killed eight adults.
Michael Tighe (17), Craigavon, Co. Armagh, shot by RUC (later exposed by John Stalker as an example of Britain's policy of assassination).
Ronald Trainor (17), Portadown, Co. Armagh, at home, in a British paramilitary gun and bomb attack. His mother, a convert to Catholicism, was consequently murdered by British paramilitary terrorists a year earlier, as was a brother.
Michael Vincent Turner (16), North Belfast, shot in head by British paramilitary terrorists.
Damien Walsh (17), West Belfast, while at work in a shop, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Peter Joseph Watterson (15), West Belfast, in front of his mother's shop, shot in back by British paramilitary terrorists from passing car.
Paul Whitters (15), Derry, shot at close range by RUC plastic bullet.
John Young (17) Derry, shot on Bloody Sunday by British soldiers.

BRITISH (PROTESTANT) CHILDREN (10)

James Barker (15), Buncrana, Co. Donegal, in Omagh bomb atrocity),
William Crawford (17) North Belfast, while in a club, shot by British paramilitary ejected earlier.
Henry Cunningham (17), Collon, Co. Donegal, for associating with Catholics, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Norman Hutchinson (17), South Belfast, for associating with Catholics and dating a Catholic, shot by British paramilitary terrorists.
Samantha McFarland (17), in Omagh atrocity.
Alex Moorehead (16), Newtownstewart, Co. Tyrone, shot by British soldier.
Alan Radford (16), in Omagh atrocity.
Gary Reid (17) East Belfast, shot, along with an adult, by Brit soldier),
William Warnock (15) East Belfast, run over by Brit army vehicle),
Lorraine Wilson (15), in Omagh atrocity.


BRITISH (PROTESTANT) CHILDREN (20)
Murdered by Irish Republicans

John Smyth Bailey (17), North Belfast, while walking near home, shot by republicans.
Jonathan Ball* (3), Warrington, England, killed by IRA bomb set in a trash can.
Linda Boyle (17), West Belfast, in IRA gun and bomb attack on Bayardo Bar in Shankill Road that killed three adults.
Nicholas Brabourne (14), London, aboard Lord Mountbatten's boat in Co. Sligo, killed by IRA bomb, along with Lord Mountbatten (his grandfather) and Paul Maxwell.
Alan Glenn Callaghan (17), Derry, in IRA gun and bomb attack that killed eleven British soldiers in Droppin Well Pub but also killed Valerie Ann McIntyre and three adult civilians.
Danielle Carter (15), Essex, England, while visiting London's financial district, killed, along with two adults, by IRA bomb.
Graeme Dougan (15 months), North Belfast, inadequate warning of IRA bomb.
Mark Frizzell (17), East Belfast, attacked and killed in Catholic district.
Andrew Johnson (17), North Belfast, while working, shot by republicans.

Alan Jack (5 months), Strabane, Co. Tyrone, killed in IRA bomb blast, inadequate warning.
Maurice Knowles (17), North Belfast, while wild-fowling, shot by two 16-year-old Catholics for refusing to hand over his gun.
Paul Maxwell (15) of Enniskillen, Co. Fermanagh, killed on Mountbatten's boat.
Alan McCrum (11), Banbridge, Co. Down, killed by IRA car bomb.
Valerie Anne McIntyre (17), Derry, killed in the IRA attack on Bayardo Bar.
Harold Morris (15), West Belfast, near his home, shot by republicans.
Stephen Parker (14), North Belfast, killed by republican car bomb that also killed an adult.
Timothy Perry* (12), Warrington, England, along with Jonathan Ball in IRA bombing.
Joseph Taylor (17), West Belfast, at work, shot by republicans.
Heather Thompson (17), North Belfast, at work in filling station, shot, along with an adult, by republicans.
Francis James Walker (17) Templepatrick, Co. Antrim, killed along with two adult Protestants in IRA gun attack on a bar frequented by Protestants.


FOREIGN CHILDREN (1)

Fernando Velasco Baselga (13), visitor from Spain, killed in Omagh atrocity.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Tony Baloney on October 11, 2011, 08:32:20 PM
Thanks for that.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Minder on October 11, 2011, 08:33:26 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on October 11, 2011, 08:04:38 PM
The Finucane's are one family. Why champion them? The taxpayer has paid enough.

Hierarchy of victims, don't you know?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 11, 2011, 08:48:05 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:09:34 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on October 11, 2011, 05:52:24 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 05:37:39 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 05:23:34 PM
I thought Cameron said after Saville announcement there would be no more costly, lengthy public enquiries so it's hardly that big a surprise.

When we consider the following, NOTHING surprises me about the lengths the British Government will go in order to cover up their activities in Ireland:

- They releases just TWENTY heavily censored pages of a TWENTY THOUSAND page report into Collusion by the Stevens Inquiry team

- Stevens also stated that the obstruction he faced in his inquiry from the British 'security' forces "was cultural in its nature and widespread within parts of the army and the RUC".

- When Stevens himself felt that he had enough hard evidence to convict at least 25 senior military personnel, the DPP did not bring forward ANY prosecutions

- The British Secretary of State at the time of his report, attempted to prevent The Sunday Times from investigating the circumstances surrounding the fire at the offices of the Steven's Inquiry which destroyed other crucial evidence




It also doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they lied to the family, and to the Irish Government when they told them there would be a Public Inquiry.

So why do you even bother then? Seems to me you spend your entire day justifying the Provo's organised crime fight for Irish freedom and looking for ways to get upset at the Brits.

It seems to me you would happily spend all day making sarcastic remarks about me and about the IRA, but simultaneously have very little nothing to say about British state murder. This thread is about British State Collusion, in case you didn't see the title, so you may take your "intelligent" remarks elsewhere.

P.S. I have stated many times that, like the Old IRA, the Provisional IRA carried out many despicable acts which I would never wish to justify, but I make no apologies for seeing both campaigns in general as totally justifiable. As for "looking for ways to get upset at the brits", well I would hardly have to look very hard now. I can assure you that my family and my near neighbours have no need to go looking for reasons to be upset at the British state. Not that you either know or give a fcuk about that.

Waiting for the day Nally starts a thread about a Provo-IRA atrocitiy  ::)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 09:10:10 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 11, 2011, 08:48:05 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 06:09:34 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on October 11, 2011, 05:52:24 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 11, 2011, 05:37:39 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 11, 2011, 05:23:34 PM
I thought Cameron said after Saville announcement there would be no more costly, lengthy public enquiries so it's hardly that big a surprise.

When we consider the following, NOTHING surprises me about the lengths the British Government will go in order to cover up their activities in Ireland:

- They releases just TWENTY heavily censored pages of a TWENTY THOUSAND page report into Collusion by the Stevens Inquiry team

- Stevens also stated that the obstruction he faced in his inquiry from the British 'security' forces "was cultural in its nature and widespread within parts of the army and the RUC".

- When Stevens himself felt that he had enough hard evidence to convict at least 25 senior military personnel, the DPP did not bring forward ANY prosecutions

- The British Secretary of State at the time of his report, attempted to prevent The Sunday Times from investigating the circumstances surrounding the fire at the offices of the Steven's Inquiry which destroyed other crucial evidence




It also doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they lied to the family, and to the Irish Government when they told them there would be a Public Inquiry.

So why do you even bother then? Seems to me you spend your entire day justifying the Provo's organised crime fight for Irish freedom and looking for ways to get upset at the Brits.

It seems to me you would happily spend all day making sarcastic remarks about me and about the IRA, but simultaneously have very little nothing to say about British state murder. This thread is about British State Collusion, in case you didn't see the title, so you may take your "intelligent" remarks elsewhere.

P.S. I have stated many times that, like the Old IRA, the Provisional IRA carried out many despicable acts which I would never wish to justify, but I make no apologies for seeing both campaigns in general as totally justifiable. As for "looking for ways to get upset at the brits", well I would hardly have to look very hard now. I can assure you that my family and my near neighbours have no need to go looking for reasons to be upset at the British state. Not that you either know or give a fcuk about that.

Waiting for the day Nally starts a thread about a Provo-IRA atrocitiy  ::)

There are ample threads covering those MGHU. Over 900 families in Ireland believe that State Collusion by Britain was behind the murder of their loved ones. This is the FIRST thread dedicated to it. Unsurprisingly you chose to ignore those victims in this thread though, because as far as you seem to be concerned, the IRA victims are the only ones who need talked about.

This thread is a sorry reflection of the level of support families like the Finucane's enjoy in a campaign for truth. It is ranging from claiming the family should not be seeking an inquiry, to defending the British Governments announcement today, to personal attacks on me for even referring to todays events.

Hierarchy of victims? Indeed. We can only talk about IRA victims on GAAboard it appears.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: muppet on October 11, 2011, 09:20:59 PM
We can talk about all the victims you like and that list is horrific.

What is even more horrific is this: "Omagh, killed along with twenty-eight others in a car-bomb massacre by the RUC, Brit army Int. and MI5 and its Chicago FBI operatives.

Imagine blowing innocent people to bits and then using their deaths as justification for their own murders. Sick.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: michaelg on October 11, 2011, 09:26:30 PM
(141 Irish Catholic children)
Murdered by British
I have obviously not copied the depressingly long list.
Am I right in assuming you have made no distinction between British arned forces and paramilitary organisations?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: naka on October 11, 2011, 09:54:00 PM
wasnt surprised at this announcement but from my point of view the only people an inquiry serves are the lawyers who make a packet out of it.
how many barristers and solicitors became wealthy on the back of the suffering of the bloody sunday families.

we have to move on
l cant see how inquiries help anyone, every side in the war carried out atrocities ,
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on October 11, 2011, 09:54:19 PM
nally there is no way the british gov can investigate this as they know there will be collusion uncovered if it were truthful.
That would mean possibly compensation for people in the north but the real problem for british gov is that there may have to be trials for british army/police/gangs etc as the culprits are still alive and at large.
The saville result only came out as most if not all of the guilty high ranking officers at fault are now dead.

michaelg - thats what collusion means - there is no distinction between crown forces and he local gangs they assisted/worked with/under

muppet, not sure what you mean by that. Are you still in a tizzy over your long/keane cox?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Orangemac on October 11, 2011, 09:58:16 PM
Enough money has been spent on enquiries. The Saville enquiry was ridiculous the amount of money spent on it and how long it dragged on but because of it's significance it could be argued that it was justified.

Any enquiry would most likely result in a whitewash.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: tyssam5 on October 11, 2011, 10:08:18 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 11, 2011, 09:54:19 PM
nally there is no way the british gov can investigate this as they know there will be collusion uncovered if it were truthful.
That would mean possibly compensation for people in the north but the real problem for british gov is that there may have to be trials for british army/police/gangs etc as the culprits are still alive and at large.
The saville result only came out as most if not all of the guilty high ranking officers at fault are now dead.

michaelg - thats what collusion means - there is no distinction between crown forces and he local gangs they assisted/worked with/under

muppet, not sure what you mean by that. Are you still in a tizzy over your long/keane cox?

Didn't the terms of Saville offer immunity?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: michaelg on October 11, 2011, 10:26:00 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 11, 2011, 09:54:19 PM
nally there is no way the british gov can investigate this as they know there will be collusion uncovered if it were truthful.
That would mean possibly compensation for people in the north but the real problem for british gov is that there may have to be trials for british army/police/gangs etc as the culprits are still alive and at large.
The saville result only came out as most if not all of the guilty high ranking officers at fault are now dead.

michaelg - thats what collusion means - there is no distinction between crown forces and he local gangs they assisted/worked with/undermuppet, not sure what you mean by that. Are you still in a tizzy over your long/keane cox?
I know what collusion is.  Just don't believe that there was collusion for every loyalist murder carried out
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Farrandeelin on October 11, 2011, 10:44:50 PM
Dirty British bastards. >:(

What saddened me was the 'nothing at all approach' from the government down here.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: gallsman on October 11, 2011, 11:30:31 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 11, 2011, 10:44:50 PM
Dirty British b**tards. >:(

What saddened me was the 'nothing at all approach' from the government down here.

What has saddened me the most since I moved to Dublin six years ago is the attitude (or lack thereof) of a majority of people, particularly young people, to the North. Not only do they not know or care, they don't want to know or care.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 12, 2011, 06:27:18 AM
Aside from Nallys relentless Brit bashing which gets alot of backs up, I personally believe the British need to have an inquiry, but one that is swifter and more cost effective than previously. There is no point doing it, if there are no clear and honest results.

Nally you do seem to pay lip service to deaths in the Republic, Britain or the Unionist community (except of course where the Brits were at fault).
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 12, 2011, 09:07:12 AM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 12, 2011, 06:27:18 AM
Aside from Nallys relentless Brit bashing which gets alot of backs up, I personally believe the British need to have an inquiry, but one that is swifter and more cost effective than previously. There is no point doing it, if there are no clear and honest results.

Nally you do seem to pay lip service to deaths in the Republic, Britain or the Unionist community (except of course where the Brits were at fault).

First thing's first......relentless Brit bashing? Are you accusing me of having a problem with British people? My posts refer to the British government which has directed a policy of collusion resulting in the deaths of potentially over 900 Irish citizens. If you claim I am bashing "brits" rather than the British government, please provide a quote to back this up or else retract it. If you are referring to me as relentlessly bashing the GOVERNMENT of britain for its policy of colluding in murder of Irish citizens, well, proudly guilty as charged. I can only say it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that someone like you would have a problem with that.

As for paying lip service to IRA attacks on innocent people, I have clearly and repeatedly criticised them. And I mean repeatedly. Again, it does not surprise me that someone like yourself gets upset when a thread is started about victims of anyone who isn't the IRA. Your level of interest in talking about anyone who wasn't killed by the IRA is evidenced by your opening post on this, a thread about collusion victims.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: behind the wire on October 12, 2011, 09:20:10 AM
Quote from: naka on October 11, 2011, 09:54:00 PM
wasnt surprised at this announcement but from my point of view the only people an inquiry serves are the lawyers who make a packet out of it.
how many barristers and solicitors became wealthy on the back of the suffering of the bloody sunday families.

we have to move on
l cant see how inquiries help anyone, every side in the war carried out atrocities ,

I would doubt that your attitude would be the same if it was a memeber of your family.

And maybe they should try a public inquiry without lawyers. see how that one works out.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on October 12, 2011, 09:48:47 AM
The war in the north was extremely dirty and full of propaganda bullshit and cover-ups.  I have personal experience of some stuff that no one on here has ever heard of and never will and trust me there are a lot of lies and a lot of collusion that went on.  The Finucane family deserve to know the truth but they never will.  The unfortunate thing is that the "truth" is also a subjective term, who's truth? 

There is no right answer to how the fallout from the Troubles be sorted out.  People give off about the "community development" work being a waste of tax payers money but the reality is that for thousands of people in the north the Troubles are still a very vivid part of their lives and the Government has to accept that.  Brendan McAllister, Victims Commissioner. recently commented that the level of "victims" is much higher in terms of numbers than has previously been estimated, and that includes members of the security forces and families of loyalists killed.  The Troubles lasted for 30 years, I was born in the middle of the worst of it.  It affected me and my family directly and when I tell people, who had no experience of it, what it was like they are shocked and disgusted at what happened to us and I wouldn't class myself as a victim.  The Government will not come clean, they will not accept responsibility, they had all their "agents" killed/shipped off or whatever over the last 10 years and the stories will never resurface.  I feel for the Finucane family, I know them(not well mind you) but I know this is all encompassing in their world.  There is a quote from Churchill that goes "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."  The unfortunate thing is that there are so many versions of the truth. 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on October 12, 2011, 11:09:03 AM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 12, 2011, 06:27:18 AM
I personally believe the British need to have an inquiry, but one that is swifter and more cost effective than previously. There is no point doing it, if there are no clear and honest results.

TheBrit govt won't want that outcome anyway.  >:(
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 12, 2011, 11:14:55 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 12, 2011, 11:09:03 AM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 12, 2011, 06:27:18 AM
I personally believe the British need to have an inquiry, but one that is swifter and more cost effective than previously. There is no point doing it, if there are no clear and honest results.

TheBrit govt won't want that outcome anyway.  >:(

I am pretty sure you are right Rossfan.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: muppet on October 12, 2011, 02:21:08 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on October 12, 2011, 09:48:47 AM
The war in the north was extremely dirty and full of propaganda bullshit and cover-ups.  I have personal experience of some stuff that no one on here has ever heard of and never will and trust me there are a lot of lies and a lot of collusion that went on.  The Finucane family deserve to know the truth but they never will.  The unfortunate thing is that the "truth" is also a subjective term, who's truth? 

There is no right answer to how the fallout from the Troubles be sorted out.  People give off about the "community development" work being a waste of tax payers money but the reality is that for thousands of people in the north the Troubles are still a very vivid part of their lives and the Government has to accept that.  Brendan McAllister, Victims Commissioner. recently commented that the level of "victims" is much higher in terms of numbers than has previously been estimated, and that includes members of the security forces and families of loyalists killed.  The Troubles lasted for 30 years, I was born in the middle of the worst of it.  It affected me and my family directly and when I tell people, who had no experience of it, what it was like they are shocked and disgusted at what happened to us and I wouldn't class myself as a victim.  The Government will not come clean, they will not accept responsibility, they had all their "agents" killed/shipped off or whatever over the last 10 years and the stories will never resurface.  I feel for the Finucane family, I know them(not well mind you) but I know this is all encompassing in their world.  There is a quote from Churchill that goes "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."  The unfortunate thing is that there are so many versions of the truth.

Good post.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 12, 2011, 02:33:16 PM
Former British Secretary of State for the north, Shaun Woodward, today said it was "crass and cruel" to bring Pat Finucane's family to Downing Street to say there would be no independent public inquiry into his murder, and that it was unsurprising the family walked out of yesterday's meeting.

The family have also released a statement today:

"My family and I were invited to Downing Street by the Prime Minister to hear the decision of the Government about holding a public inquiry into the murder of my husband, Pat Finucane. I have been to meetings in 10 Downing Street before but this is the first time I have been invited by a Prime Minster. I was hopeful and optimistic about today's meeting. I thought David Cameron intended to show courage and leadership on this issue. I thought he would confirm that his Government would establish a public inquiry. I dared to believe we might finally get the inquiry recommended by Judge Peter Cory in 2004.

I now know that courage and leadership on the issue of Pat's murder remains absent. The Prime Minister said he did not intend to hold a public inquiry. Instead, he proposed a review of the case by a senior QC selected by the British Government.

After 23 years of campaigning, 23 years of questions, 23 years of travelling the world gathering support for a public inquiry into Pat's murder, the offer of a 'review of the papers' is nothing less than an insult. My family and I were lured to Downing Street under false pretences. We thought we were going to be given the inquiry that was promised. Instead, the Government intends to do even less in Pat's case than in the other cases that were part of the Cory process.

My family will not be allowed to participate in this review. We will not be permitted to question witnesses. We will not be given copies of documents. In short, we are being asked to accept the result of a process from which we are completely excluded. We are being asked to trust the British Government. We were told that we should accept Mr. Cameron's assurance that this 'review of the papers' will get to the truth.

After 23 years, my family and I are beyond taking any British Prime Minister's word for anything. We have no hesitation in rejecting this sham proposal and will not be participating in it under any circumstances. It is a shoddy, half-hearted alternative to a proper public inquiry. It is not what we have sought for the last 23 years. It represents yet another broken promise by the British Government who still fear a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane and cannot bring themselves to uncover or confront the truth."

ENDS ....



Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 12, 2011, 06:18:19 PM
I'm in two minds about this. Ideally yes, there should be an enquiry. And it seems clear that there are things to hide.

Having said that, it has been acknowledged that there was collusion and the family has had an apology from the government. That's a hell of a lot more than a lot of families have.

Then there's also the fact that it's not just sustainable to have endless inquiries... so where is the line drawn?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Tony Baloney on October 12, 2011, 07:30:07 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on October 12, 2011, 09:48:47 AM
The war in the north was extremely dirty and full of propaganda bullshit and cover-ups.  I have personal experience of some stuff that no one on here has ever heard of and never will and trust me there are a lot of lies and a lot of collusion that went on.  The Finucane family deserve to know the truth but they never will.  The unfortunate thing is that the "truth" is also a subjective term, who's truth? 

There is no right answer to how the fallout from the Troubles be sorted out.  People give off about the "community development" work being a waste of tax payers money but the reality is that for thousands of people in the north the Troubles are still a very vivid part of their lives and the Government has to accept that.  Brendan McAllister, Victims Commissioner. recently commented that the level of "victims" is much higher in terms of numbers than has previously been estimated, and that includes members of the security forces and families of loyalists killed.  The Troubles lasted for 30 years, I was born in the middle of the worst of it.  It affected me and my family directly and when I tell people, who had no experience of it, what it was like they are shocked and disgusted at what happened to us and I wouldn't class myself as a victim.  The Government will not come clean, they will not accept responsibility, they had all their "agents" killed/shipped off or whatever over the last 10 years and the stories will never resurface.  I feel for the Finucane family, I know them(not well mind you) but I know this is all encompassing in their world.  There is a quote from Churchill that goes "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."  The unfortunate thing is that there are so many versions of the truth.
Well he would say that, wouldn't he.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 12, 2011, 08:43:27 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

The Stevens Inquiry team and even the RUC said he was not in the IRA.
But your article by Sean O'Callaghan (IRA man, turned tout, then UUP adviser) said he was, so it must be true. Informers are world renowned for telling the truth after all. Particuarly Sean O'Callaghan. ::)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: windyshepardhenderson on October 12, 2011, 08:44:20 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html
well smart arse, we'll just pretend that collusion never happened then? Brit loving ****  >:(
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:55:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 12, 2011, 08:43:27 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

The Stevens Inquiry team and even the RUC said he was not in the IRA.
But your article by Sean O'Callaghan said he was, so it must be true. Informers are world renowned for telling the truth after all. Particuarly Sean O'Callaghan. ::)
They could hardly say he was in the IRA when they didn't have the evidence to put him in court, could they? Just like they never had the evidence to put Gerry Adams behind bars either. Oh, hang on, Gerry wasn't in the IRA, was he? He said he wasn't so it must be true, eh? And Marty was a provo, but he left in 1974, didn't he? He said he did, so it must be true. As for informers, they lie and they tell the truth, probably in equal measure, like most people. Certainly like most Shinners, anyway.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:56:38 PM
Quote from: windyshepardhenderson on October 12, 2011, 08:44:20 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html
well smart arse, we'll just pretend that collusion never happened then? Brit loving ****  >:(
Go to bed son. It's getting late.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 12, 2011, 09:04:17 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:55:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 12, 2011, 08:43:27 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

The Stevens Inquiry team and even the RUC said he was not in the IRA.
But your article by Sean O'Callaghan said he was, so it must be true. Informers are world renowned for telling the truth after all. Particuarly Sean O'Callaghan. ::)
They could hardly say he was in the IRA when they didn't have the evidence to put him in court, could they? Just like they never had the evidence to put Gerry Adams behind bars either. Oh, hang on, Gerry wasn't in the IRA, was he? He said he wasn't so it must be true, eh? And Marty was a provo, but he left in 1974, didn't he? He said he did, so it must be true. As for informers, they lie and they tell the truth, probably in equal measure, like most people. Certainly like most Shinners, anyway.

OK so the RUC and the Stevens Inquiry team say he was not in the IRA, but you say they have no evidence, and so are not to be believed... but Sean "Liar" O'Callaghan says he was in the IRA, but also provides no evidence, so he is to be believed?!


This gets better and better!!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Gold on October 12, 2011, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 11, 2011, 11:30:31 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 11, 2011, 10:44:50 PM
Dirty British b**tards. >:(

What saddened me was the 'nothing at all approach' from the government down here.

What has saddened me the most since I moved to Dublin six years ago is the attitude (or lack thereof) of a majority of people, particularly young people, to the North. Not only do they not know or care, they don't want to know or care.

Very true Gallsman.

It seems to me that No one down below knows or cares. The North may as well be Swedan for all most know or care
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 09:17:06 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 12, 2011, 09:04:17 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:55:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 12, 2011, 08:43:27 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

The Stevens Inquiry team and even the RUC said he was not in the IRA.
But your article by Sean O'Callaghan said he was, so it must be true. Informers are world renowned for telling the truth after all. Particuarly Sean O'Callaghan. ::)
They could hardly say he was in the IRA when they didn't have the evidence to put him in court, could they? Just like they never had the evidence to put Gerry Adams behind bars either. Oh, hang on, Gerry wasn't in the IRA, was he? He said he wasn't so it must be true, eh? And Marty was a provo, but he left in 1974, didn't he? He said he did, so it must be true. As for informers, they lie and they tell the truth, probably in equal measure, like most people. Certainly like most Shinners, anyway.

OK so the RUC and the Stevens Inquiry team say he was not in the IRA, but you say they have no evidence, and so are not to be believed... but Sean "Liar" O'Callaghan says he was in the IRA, but also provides no evidence, so he is to be believed?!


This gets better and better!!
Eyewitness accounts are recognised in most courts of law, I think you'll find. O'Callaghan was in the IRA and he says he encountered PF as a 'colleague' in the course of his activities. That's evidence. Do you also insert the word 'liar' when you refer to Gerry and Marty? If not, why not?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 12, 2011, 09:20:52 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 09:17:06 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 12, 2011, 09:04:17 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:55:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 12, 2011, 08:43:27 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

The Stevens Inquiry team and even the RUC said he was not in the IRA.
But your article by Sean O'Callaghan said he was, so it must be true. Informers are world renowned for telling the truth after all. Particuarly Sean O'Callaghan. ::)
They could hardly say he was in the IRA when they didn't have the evidence to put him in court, could they? Just like they never had the evidence to put Gerry Adams behind bars either. Oh, hang on, Gerry wasn't in the IRA, was he? He said he wasn't so it must be true, eh? And Marty was a provo, but he left in 1974, didn't he? He said he did, so it must be true. As for informers, they lie and they tell the truth, probably in equal measure, like most people. Certainly like most Shinners, anyway.

OK so the RUC and the Stevens Inquiry team say he was not in the IRA, but you say they have no evidence, and so are not to be believed... but Sean "Liar" O'Callaghan says he was in the IRA, but also provides no evidence, so he is to be believed?!


This gets better and better!!
Eyewitness accounts are recognised in most courts of law, I think you'll find. O'Callaghan was in the IRA and he says he encountered PF as a 'colleague' in the course of his activities. That's evidence. Do you also insert the word 'liar' when you refer to Gerry and Marty? If not, why not?

:D :D :D The opinions of police and of government appointed Independent Inquiries tend to be heeded in a court of law too you know!!!! and both the RUC and the Stevens team said he was not in the IRA!! I'm sure british informer and UUP adivser Sean O'Callaghan is much more reliable and impartial anyone else though, you're right.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Oraisteach on October 12, 2011, 09:31:58 PM
"He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it."

So, that's it—your considered analysis of sanctioned assassination by the state.  And we're not talking of some obscure banana republic where law is meted out at the whim of the tyrant.

No, we're talking the UK, the epitome of moral and judicial rectitude.
When agents of the state are complicit in the assassination of citizens of that state, then throw out habeas corpus and corpus dilicti.  And when the state kicks in your door, Myles, without even the masquerade of a kangaroo court, you'll be OK with their "get over it" response.

Great.  Nothing like human rights being upheld by people with the moral firmness of a marshmallow.

Myles, it is late, and you have long since gone to bed, unfortunately, and left the world to the creatures of the night.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: rossie mad on October 12, 2011, 09:32:09 PM
Myles your argument has more holes in it than a shipwreck.The only thing that your argument confirms is your loyalist beliefs.The same beliefs the people who shot Mr Finucane had.So in other words you are cut from the same cloth as the gunmen.

On the case itself i would welcome an inquiry just for the sake of showing the whole world how bent the british security forces were during the troubles however one inquiry leads to a call for an avalanche of others which just isnt economically possible.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Main Street on October 12, 2011, 09:52:34 PM
The inveterate liar emerges from under his rock on occasion,
show some respect for his opinions, please.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 12, 2011, 11:06:42 PM
Quote from: Gold on October 12, 2011, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 11, 2011, 11:30:31 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 11, 2011, 10:44:50 PM
Dirty British b**tards. >:(

What saddened me was the 'nothing at all approach' from the government down here.

What has saddened me the most since I moved to Dublin six years ago is the attitude (or lack thereof) of a majority of people, particularly young people, to the North. Not only do they not know or care, they don't want to know or care.

Very true Gallsman.

It seems to me that No one down below knows or cares. The North may as well be Swedan for all most know or care

South is not below North, by the way. ::)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 01:25:47 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Again, have you any proof he was in the IRA outside of the opinion of a british agent who is also a UUP advisor? Why would you believe someone like him over the independent team of the Stevens Inquiry and of the RUC, who both have clearly stated Pat Finucane was not a member of the IRA?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: thebigfella on October 13, 2011, 01:35:34 AM
Quote from: Gold on October 12, 2011, 09:09:55 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 11, 2011, 11:30:31 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on October 11, 2011, 10:44:50 PM
Dirty British b**tards. >:(

What saddened me was the 'nothing at all approach' from the government down here.

What has saddened me the most since I moved to Dublin six years ago is the attitude (or lack thereof) of a majority of people, particularly young people, to the North. Not only do they not know or care, they don't want to know or care.

Very true Gallsman.

It seems to me that No one down below knows or cares. The North may as well be Swedan for all most know or care

You'll find that it's just not most of the south but I'd say a fair majority of the north too.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Íseal agus crua isteach a on October 13, 2011, 02:54:50 AM
 Helen McClafferty
The Omagh Atrocity's Part in Far Larger Crimes by Chris Fogarty - Irish American News   TWO NEWS ITEMS Reveal the continuing plight of the British-Occupied Irish:  1) Ex-IRA-man Gerry McGeough was sentenced to 20 years to serve two consecutive years fo...r combat against a British soldier 30 years ago in which both suffered gunshot wounds. The Brit wasn't charged.   2) The British gov't VERBALLY APOLOGIZED for murdering, 35 years ago, 12-year-old Majella O'Hare walking home from Confession. The British soldier who shot her (in the back) was always known, but he hasn't been prosecuted and won't be. As in nearly all cases of British murders and especially massacres of Irish non-combatants, only apologies ensue, and only after decades of "spin" and slandering of the victims. The uniformed murderers prove immune and are awarded medals and CBEs if their murder toll is adequate. Meanwhile, IRA-men are still tortured in Maghaberry.      THE JUDICIAL TRAVESTIES inflicted upon McGeough/O'Hare illustrates the GFA's evil consequences of selling-out the Six-Counties to Britain. McGeough's honorable defense of his country is criminalized while the daylight murder of a 12-year-old girl is immunized for thirty-five years and then "resolved" with a verbal "apology." Did Soviet or Nazi courts ever produce worse than the O'Hare/McGeough travesties? The Crown gov't just cannot help being its criminal self. All humans, except the utterly cowed, will risk all to be rid of it.   THE SELL-OUT of the Six Counties was a criminal operation long before the British gov't (through MI5 and Fr. Alex Reid of Belfast's Clonard monastery) subverted Gerry Adams. The decades of British gov't murders of Catholic men, women and children, mostly through army- and spook-led Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) psychopaths, have proven victorious. (Honorable Britonslike Capt. Fred Holroyd and Chief Constable John Stalker paid horrible prices for refusing to participate in mass murders.) The terrorism was greater than many could tolerate: an honorable Derry woman of my acquaintance now accepts British rule, having finally been cowed by the murder threats of British soldiers who tore her house apart on a regular basis for years with complete impunity   DAVID ERVINE, the UVF leader with the policy of randomly murdering Catholics to terrorize survivors into accepting British rule suggested, on record, that his policy was decisive. But during his triumphant visit to Washington in 1994 he learned it wasn't quite that decisive.He recorded his chagrin when the head of Washington's Britain desk informed him that had won "Ulster" (the uninformed refer to the Six Counties as "Ulster") for Britain only to FREE UP THE BRITISH ARMY FOR THE WARS BEING PLANNED AGAINST ISLAM. Thus, the Adams/McGuinness/Reid sell-out that led to the O'Hare/McGeough travesties, was part of EVEN GREATER EVILS PLANNED BY MONSTERS IN THE U.S./U.K. GOV'TS.
THE OMAGH ATROCITY'S part in Neo-Con plans is now clear. Though a key murderer of Catholics had been brought triumphantly to Washington in 1994, the sell-out still needed a major push,thus, "Omagh; The Bomb to End All Bombs" was planned (and later "spun"). That is why MI5,having subverted Chicago FBI agent Patrick "Ed" Buckley years earlier, brought him to Ireland. And Islam is why Buckley's US bosses and his bosses' bosses OK'd his MI5/Omagh mission. It proved easier for MI5/FBI to perpetrate Omagh than to blame it on the IRA. Consider their follow-up crimes: "Disappear" Paddy Dixon who had supplied the bomb car for MI5; "disappear" the satellite-tracked record of that car; "disappear" the phoned-in bomb warnings tapes and the log book into which they were transcribed; get the news media to cover up the absence of RUC injuries and divert attention from the disappeared evidence while demonizing the IRA enough to win the impending GFA referendum. One conjectures: Did the Crown award George Crosses to all Omagh RUC officers FOR "disappearing" the warning tapes and log book or DESPITE that criminal concealment. The stench of that award forced the Crown to later give George Crosses to all RUC.   FBI AGENT BUCKLEY was deployed to Ireland by MI5 after perpetrating crimes for them in Chicago. Those crimes were repeated in Omagh. The day that the Langert family were murdered, the local police named David Biro as their sole suspect (his murder weapon was later identified as FBI agent Lewis' 357 Magnum). The following day Buckley arrived, usurped control of the investigation, and prohibited the police from pursuing the actual murderer and sent them on nationwide wild goose chases. He got supine "reporter" Carol Marin to announce on network TV "IRA involvement," thus demonizing it. His subordinates soon framed me so cunningly for that atrocity that I was doomed, but Biro blabbed through his FBI cover into Life Without Parole. He remains in Pontiac prison. Prior to news of that atrocity I'd never even heard of anyone involved. Only after Buckley framed and incarcerated Mary (my wife), Frank O'Neill, Tony McCormick, and me on new false charges did someone (the Winnetka police?) contact our lawyers. At the Winnetka police HQ they photocopied signed murder investigation reports that had framed me. Were we poor we'd have gone straight from jail to trial to prison, but we barely bonded out, and by hiring expensive, connected attorneys we managed to get Discovery Documents including the evidentiary audiotape that we proved  in federal court was a criminal fabrication.  We four walked free, but so did the MI5/FBI criminals, to their next mission, in Ireland. That mission was Omagh, and once accomplished the FBI departed Ireland. Within hours of that blast MI5 eMailed MI5/FBI agent and life-long criminal (according to a NY State police affidavit) David Rupert. It summoned him to MI5's HQ immediately via Belfast airport where plane tickets awaited him and his wife; it ordered him to speak to nobody, especially to gardai.  Rupert/MI5 eMail correspondence is crucial' THE PATTERN EMERGES. The immunized crimes were all prelude to larger US/UK crimes. The immunized atrocities in Ireland were all either acts of mass terrorism that led to the GFA sell-out to Britain or were Obstructions of Justice regarding those crimes. Immunized atrocities include Dublin/Monaghan bombing (33 dead, 300 maimed), Bloody Sunday (14 dead, 16 wounded), McGurk's Pub bombing (15 dead, 17 maimed), Omagh (29 dead,, etc. The most effective terrorism was the decades-long UVF murders of Catholics (1000?). All perpetrators are identified.    THE PATTERN that exposes the GFA's US/UK criminal basis is the impunity: U.S. impunity to Buckley for his covering for murderer Biro while disinforming America of "IRA involvement;" his false imprisonments, perjuries, and fabrications of evidence, his involvement with Rupert in Omagh, etc., are matched by the RUC's "disappearance" of Omagh's perpetrators and crucial evidence, and the Crown's "highest" awards to the perpetrators of the worst atrocities. To think; the White House's "Britain desk" indicates that all of these crimes, including the GFA, served to free up British forces for use against Islam.   The McGeough/O'Hare travesties, the GFA and Omagh and other atrocities and all consequent obstructions of justice are part of US/UK State terrorism on a global scale. If the U.S. ever abandons its plans of world conquest and restores the Republic and its Rule of Law, it will prosecute criminals instead of immunizing them as above. A law-abiding USA. May we live to see the day! The key: discover the pattern of immunized atrocities and corollary.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 06:31:58 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 01:25:47 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Again, have you any proof he was in the IRA outside of the opinion of a british agent who is also a UUP advisor? Why would you believe someone like him over the independent team of the Stevens Inquiry and of the RUC, who both have clearly stated Pat Finucane was not a member of the IRA?
They didn't say that he wasn't in the IRA, they said that there was no evidence that he was in the IRA - different thing. Same way that there is no evidence that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, or no evidence that Marty was still in it after 1974. And why have you suddenly starting citing the RUC as a source you can believe in? Why do you rubbish O'Callaghan, but believe people like Adams and McGuinness, even though they have been caught out lying over and over again?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 08:40:29 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 06:31:58 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 01:25:47 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Again, have you any proof he was in the IRA outside of the opinion of a british agent who is also a UUP advisor? Why would you believe someone like him over the independent team of the Stevens Inquiry and of the RUC, who both have clearly stated Pat Finucane was not a member of the IRA?
They didn't say that he wasn't in the IRA, they said that there was no evidence that he was in the IRA - different thing. Same way that there is no evidence that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, or no evidence that Marty was still in it after 1974. And why have you suddenly starting citing the RUC as a source you can believe in? Why do you rubbish O'Callaghan, but believe people like Adams and McGuinness, even though they have been caught out lying over and over again?

Which demonstrates my point- the RUC was a corrupt police state force and even they made no claims that he was in the IRA. I do trust the findings of the Stevens team who could find not one solitary shred of evidence that he was an IRA member. Surely if they cannot even find evidence to back up the claim, then you are probably not in any position to substantiate the claims that you present as fact. And why do I not believe Sean O'Callaghan? Hmmmm let me think    ::)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on October 13, 2011, 08:44:42 AM
Quote from: Oraisteach on October 12, 2011, 09:31:58 PM
"He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it."

So, that's it—your considered analysis of sanctioned assassination by the state.  And we're not talking of some obscure banana republic where law is meted out at the whim of the tyrant.

No, we're talking the UK, the epitome of moral and judicial rectitude.
When agents of the state are complicit in the assassination of citizens of that state, then throw out habeas corpus and corpus dilicti.  And when the state kicks in your door, Myles, without even the masquerade of a kangaroo court, you'll be OK with their "get over it" response.

Great.  Nothing like human rights being upheld by people with the moral firmness of a marshmallow.

Myles, it is late, and you have long since gone to bed, unfortunately, and left the world to the creatures of the night.

Well said. Myles, have a read of Pastor Niemoller's famous lines. They were written for the likes of you.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 12:31:29 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.
As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.
Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.
I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.
I dont even think your loyalist brethren even believe he was in the IRA.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hereiam on October 13, 2011, 12:38:44 PM
He was killed because he was thorn in the side of the british government. They (the brits) seen him as a very smart man who knew how to counter act what the brits were up to, so they had him killed. Simple as that.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trileacman on October 13, 2011, 12:45:10 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 12:31:29 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.
As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.
Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.
I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.
I dont even think your loyalist brethren even believe he was in the IRA.
The loyalists would have been more hesitant to kill him if they knew he was in the IRA, for fear of the repercussions. It suited them more to kill innocent citizens that wouldn't strike them back.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 13, 2011, 12:46:52 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

Such ill informed rubbish, just what we've come to expect of you Myles.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stew on October 13, 2011, 02:56:15 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 01:25:47 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Again, have you any proof he was in the IRA outside of the opinion of a british agent who is also a UUP advisor? Why would you believe someone like him over the independent team of the Stevens Inquiry and of the RUC, who both have clearly stated Pat Finucane was not a member of the IRA?

He writes what he wants to believe, he is arrogant about it and he has no proof other than the word of a deeply flawed, biased liar.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Trout on October 13, 2011, 03:21:49 PM
http://marcella.dreamwidth.org/5248.html
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 13, 2011, 03:29:44 PM
Quote from: Trout on October 13, 2011, 03:21:49 PM
http://marcella.dreamwidth.org/5248.html

And what...............................................?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 03:31:52 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on October 13, 2011, 03:29:44 PM
Quote from: Trout on October 13, 2011, 03:21:49 PM
http://marcella.dreamwidth.org/5248.html

And what...............................................?

+1  ???
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 05:49:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 08:40:29 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 06:31:58 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 01:25:47 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Again, have you any proof he was in the IRA outside of the opinion of a british agent who is also a UUP advisor? Why would you believe someone like him over the independent team of the Stevens Inquiry and of the RUC, who both have clearly stated Pat Finucane was not a member of the IRA?
They didn't say that he wasn't in the IRA, they said that there was no evidence that he was in the IRA - different thing. Same way that there is no evidence that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, or no evidence that Marty was still in it after 1974. And why have you suddenly starting citing the RUC as a source you can believe in? Why do you rubbish O'Callaghan, but believe people like Adams and McGuinness, even though they have been caught out lying over and over again?

Which demonstrates my point- the RUC was a corrupt police state force and even they made no claims that he was in the IRA. I do trust the findings of the Stevens team who could find not one solitary shred of evidence that he was an IRA member. Surely if they cannot even find evidence to back up the claim, then you are probably not in any position to substantiate the claims that you present as fact. And why do I not believe Sean O'Callaghan? Hmmmm let me think    ::)
You've missed, or side stepped, the point. The fact that the agencies you mention were unable to turn up evidence on PF's membership of the IRA is hardly surprising. As I've pointed out (and you've ignored) Gerry Adams has been a leader of the IRA for most of his adult life, yet they have never been able to evidence this. (the IRA's a SECRET organisation, geddit?) Gerry still lies about it, as does Marty. People like you either believe them, or choose to ignore their lies, yet you then castigate O'Callaghan for lying! Presumably you think Frank Hegarty's mother is a liar too?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 05:53:47 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 12:31:29 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.
As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.
Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.
I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.
I dont even think your loyalist brethren even believe he was in the IRA.
Here's a quote from OWC on the subject:

'I just heard Mrs Finucane on Talkback, not happy etc......what I didn't hear (as ever) was any questioning of why her husband was targetted in the first place.
Whilst I don't wish to condone murder, as a human being I find it hard any sympathy whatsoever for the death of someone who was so obviously an active member of a sectarian murder gang.'

As usual LB, you have your finger on the pulse of unionist / loyalist opinion.  ;)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: AQMP on October 13, 2011, 05:57:39 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 05:53:47 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 12:31:29 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.
As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.
Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.
I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.
I dont even think your loyalist brethren even believe he was in the IRA.
Here's a quote from OWC on the subject:

'I just heard Mrs Finucane on Talkback, not happy etc......what I didn't hear (as ever) was any questioning of why her husband was targetted in the first place.
Whilst I don't wish to condone murder, as a human being I find it hard any sympathy whatsoever for the death of someone who was so obviously an active member of a sectarian murder gang.'

As usual LB, you have your finger on the pulse of unionist / loyalist opinion.  ;)

Or to put it another way..."Whilst I don't wish to condone murder, as a human being I find it hard any sympathy whatsoever for the death of someone who was so obviously an active member of a sectarian murder gang....ooops I just condoned murder"
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 06:14:21 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 05:49:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 08:40:29 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 06:31:58 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 01:25:47 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Again, have you any proof he was in the IRA outside of the opinion of a british agent who is also a UUP advisor? Why would you believe someone like him over the independent team of the Stevens Inquiry and of the RUC, who both have clearly stated Pat Finucane was not a member of the IRA?
They didn't say that he wasn't in the IRA, they said that there was no evidence that he was in the IRA - different thing. Same way that there is no evidence that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, or no evidence that Marty was still in it after 1974. And why have you suddenly starting citing the RUC as a source you can believe in? Why do you rubbish O'Callaghan, but believe people like Adams and McGuinness, even though they have been caught out lying over and over again?

Which demonstrates my point- the RUC was a corrupt police state force and even they made no claims that he was in the IRA. I do trust the findings of the Stevens team who could find not one solitary shred of evidence that he was an IRA member. Surely if they cannot even find evidence to back up the claim, then you are probably not in any position to substantiate the claims that you present as fact. And why do I not believe Sean O'Callaghan? Hmmmm let me think    ::)
You've missed, or side stepped, the point. The fact that the agencies you mention were unable to turn up evidence on PF's membership of the IRA is hardly surprising. As I've pointed out (and you've ignored) Gerry Adams has been a leader of the IRA for most of his adult life, yet they have never been able to evidence this. (the IRA's a SECRET organisation, geddit?) Gerry still lies about it, as does Marty. People like you either believe them, or choose to ignore their lies, yet you then castigate O'Callaghan for lying! Presumably you think Frank Hegarty's mother is a liar too?

OK I'll spell it out slowly.... the word of Sean O'Callaghan is not evidence. Just because you say witness statements are used in court does not mean that a court would believe any witness statement without regard. Does the word of a renowned liar who actively works for a unionist political party seem like a reliable piece of evidence which a court would accept as being enough to state as absolute fact, as you have done, that Pat Finucane was in the IRA? Bear in mind that neither the RUC nor the Stevens Inquiry team regard the word of Sean the tout O'Callaghan as evidence of what you present as fact.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Puckoon on October 13, 2011, 06:25:56 PM
What did Sean O'Callaghan advise the UUP on, or actively work for them on?

Surely the entire idea is and was getting both sides to work together? Why has this been used in 3 or 4 posts here as a stick to beat him with?

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 13, 2011, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on October 13, 2011, 06:25:56 PM
What did Sean O'Callaghan advise the UUP on, or actively work for them on?

Surely the entire idea is and was getting both sides to work together? Why has this been used in 3 or 4 posts here as a stick to beat him with?
I hope you're not making the mistake of looking for logic Puck!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on October 13, 2011, 06:35:36 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

Let's take that at face value so but are you satisfied with a system where elements of the police can effective try and exit the man.

Even if you have no sympathy for the man and his faith, is it not worthwhile to identify how such a thing could happen and insure that processes/checks are put in place to ensure it couldn't happen again?

Are you comfortable with arbitrary decisions being made by individuals on life or death issues? Did these executioners move from the RUC to PSNI?  Would it not serve Northern Ireland society at large to identify these folks?  Maybe they are still working away in the same manner and might target the "wrong" person?

I read Sean O'Callaghan's book and he admits to lying all over the place.  Maybe it's just me but I got lost track in the middle of it about which ones were "good" and which were just plain old porkers.

/Jim.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 07:19:56 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on October 13, 2011, 06:35:36 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

Let's take that at face value so but are you satisfied with a system where elements of the police can effective try and exit the man.

Even if you have no sympathy for the man and his faith, is it not worthwhile to identify how such a thing could happen and insure that processes/checks are put in place to ensure it couldn't happen again?

Are you comfortable with arbitrary decisions being made by individuals on life or death issues? Did these executioners move from the RUC to PSNI?  Would it not serve Northern Ireland society at large to identify these folks?  Maybe they are still working away in the same manner and might target the "wrong" person?

I read Sean O'Callaghan's book and he admits to lying all over the place.  Maybe it's just me but I got lost track in the middle of it about which ones were "good" and which were just plain old porkers.

/Jim.
I can't/don't speak for M Na G, but here is my take on the affair.

As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong*, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death. This is because I believe 100% that if Finucane was not actually a sworn "volunteer" like his brothers, then he was at the very least the IRA's favoured "In-House Lawyer". As such, his role in defending and covering up countless foul murders, indeed in assisting the murderers, actually makes him worse than those who merely pulled the trigger or set the timer, since he at least had many advantages such as talent, intelligence and education etc which he might have used for good.

And if nothing else, by the time I consider all the other uncounted, unrecorded and unrecognised victims who were genuinely innocent of any crime, I find I have no sympathy left for people who were involved in perpetuating the killings etc.

Of course, this means that I am drawn into creating "a hierarchy of victims". Then again, I simply cannot ever equate the suffering eg the two innocent children or Mr. and Mrs. Williamson, blown to pieces in the Shankill bomb, with that of Thomas Begley and Sean Kelly, the two bombers who were respectively killed and injured by their own device:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/294812.stm

And as for Finucane, where might he rank in this hierarchy? I'm afraid I can't say exactly, but I have no doubt whatever that it is rather closer to Begley and Kelly, than it is to the innocents who died in their bomb...

P.S. Which is also why I find it sickening that McGuinness and Co. are still banging on about a Public Inquiry for the likes of Finucane, yet when confronted by eg the sister of Mary Travers or the son of Pte. Patrick Kelly, we are lectured that we must either "move on" (Travers), or wait for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission [sic] (Kelly), when everyone knows that no such Commission will ever happen.



* - Actually, unlike eg Mitchell McLaughlin and his attitude to Jean McConville's murder, I would say Finucane's murder was both "wrong" AND a "crime".
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: pintsofguinness on October 13, 2011, 07:32:40 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 07:19:56 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on October 13, 2011, 06:35:36 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

Let's take that at face value so but are you satisfied with a system where elements of the police can effective try and exit the man.

Even if you have no sympathy for the man and his faith, is it not worthwhile to identify how such a thing could happen and insure that processes/checks are put in place to ensure it couldn't happen again?

Are you comfortable with arbitrary decisions being made by individuals on life or death issues? Did these executioners move from the RUC to PSNI?  Would it not serve Northern Ireland society at large to identify these folks?  Maybe they are still working away in the same manner and might target the "wrong" person?

I read Sean O'Callaghan's book and he admits to lying all over the place.  Maybe it's just me but I got lost track in the middle of it about which ones were "good" and which were just plain old porkers.

/Jim.
I can't/don't speak for M Na G, but here is my take on the affair.

As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong*, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death. This is because I believe 100% that if Finucane was not actually a sworn "volunteer" like his brothers, then he was at the very least the IRA's favoured "In-House Lawyer". As such, his role in defending and covering up countless foul murders, indeed in assisting the murderers, actually makes him worse than those who merely pulled the trigger or set the timer, since he at least had many advantages such as talent, intelligence and education etc which he might have used for good.

And if nothing else, by the time I consider all the other uncounted, unrecorded and unrecognised victims who were genuinely innocent of any crime, I find I have no sympathy left for people who were involved in perpetuating the killings etc.

Of course, this means that I am drawn into creating "a hierarchy of victims". Then again, I simply cannot ever equate the suffering eg the two innocent children or Mr. and Mrs. Williamson, blown to pieces in the Shankill bomb, with that of Thomas Begley and Sean Kelly, the two bombers who were respectively killed and injured by their own device:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/294812.stm

And as for Finucane, where might he rank in this hierarchy? I'm afraid I can't say exactly, but I have no doubt whatever that it is rather closer to Begley and Kelly, than it is to the innocents who died in their bomb...

P.S. Which is also why I find it sickening that McGuinness and Co. are still banging on about a Public Inquiry for the likes of Finucane, yet when confronted by eg the sister of Mary Travers or the son of Pte. Patrick Kelly, we are lectured that we must either "move on" (Travers), or wait for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission [sic] (Kelly), when everyone knows that no such Commission will ever happen.



* - Actually, unlike eg Mitchell McLaughlin and his attitude to Jean McConville's murder, I would say Finucane's murder was both "wrong" AND a "crime".
I would have thought that anyone who believes in the rule of law would be in favour of the accused to have a solicitor representing them.  Is it just Finucane or would you have no sympathy for any solicitor being murdered in their home?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Oraisteach on October 13, 2011, 07:36:59 PM
Myles, would you please let go of Gerry and Marty.  They're a red herring as far as the fundamental issue of this thread is concerned.

In your mindset, it is perfectly acceptable for the state to summarily execute its citizens without a trial, without evidence presented, without a defense mounted, without the not-yet-accused being able to be judged by his peers. 
WOW.

So your paragon of judicial excellence would be Don Corleone, is that right?  So screw fundamental human rights?

Myles, I don't know how old you are, but I'm thinking that even 1960's NI might be too tame a world for you. 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 07:42:35 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on October 13, 2011, 06:25:56 PM
What did Sean O'Callaghan advise the UUP on, or actively work for them on?

Surely the entire idea is and was getting both sides to work together? Why has this been used in 3 or 4 posts here as a stick to beat him with?

Not being a member of the UUP, I have no idea what his advice to them has been, and I am at a loss as to why you are asking me such a question. If they have been relying on his advice, however, they should really look elsewhere as they have seen better times. As for me using it as a stick...put it this way, O'Callaghan is a former IRA vol., turned tout. He spent many of his "active" years in my local area and is regarded among the republican people as someone who greatly embellishes his own former importance to republicanism at every opportunity, he then joined the UUP, didn't want to change his identity, and wrote a book full of ego-massaging lies and delusions of grandeur. He is a class-A ego-maniac who cannot be trusted.

O'Callaghan stated in 2002 that while he has worked as a UUP adviser, he did not support them (go figure!). Which apparently doesn't contradict the following quote from him at the Friends of the Union convention, 1998: "We can back the Ulster Unionist Party, we can back David Trimble."


This is the man who says Pat Finucane was in the IRA. Hardly rock solid evidence.

Have to anything to add to Myles na G's claims here Puck, or once again, is it only my posts which you take issue with on a thread such as this?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Trout on October 13, 2011, 08:05:24 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 07:19:56 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on October 13, 2011, 06:35:36 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html

Let's take that at face value so but are you satisfied with a system where elements of the police can effective try and exit the man.

Even if you have no sympathy for the man and his faith, is it not worthwhile to identify how such a thing could happen and insure that processes/checks are put in place to ensure it couldn't happen again?

Are you comfortable with arbitrary decisions being made by individuals on life or death issues? Did these executioners move from the RUC to PSNI?  Would it not serve Northern Ireland society at large to identify these folks?  Maybe they are still working away in the same manner and might target the "wrong" person?

I read Sean O'Callaghan's book and he admits to lying all over the place.  Maybe it's just me but I got lost track in the middle of it about which ones were "good" and which were just plain old porkers.

/Jim.
I can't/don't speak for M Na G, but here is my take on the affair.

As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong*, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death. This is because I believe 100% that if Finucane was not actually a sworn "volunteer" like his brothers, then he was at the very least the IRA's favoured "In-House Lawyer". As such, his role in defending and covering up countless foul murders, indeed in assisting the murderers, actually makes him worse than those who merely pulled the trigger or set the timer, since he at least had many advantages such as talent, intelligence and education etc which he might have used for good.

And if nothing else, by the time I consider all the other uncounted, unrecorded and unrecognised victims who were genuinely innocent of any crime, I find I have no sympathy left for people who were involved in perpetuating the killings etc.

Of course, this means that I am drawn into creating "a hierarchy of victims". Then again, I simply cannot ever equate the suffering eg the two innocent children or Mr. and Mrs. Williamson, blown to pieces in the Shankill bomb, with that of Thomas Begley and Sean Kelly, the two bombers who were respectively killed and injured by their own device:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/294812.stm

And as for Finucane, where might he rank in this hierarchy? I'm afraid I can't say exactly, but I have no doubt whatever that it is rather closer to Begley and Kelly, than it is to the innocents who died in their bomb...

P.S. Which is also why I find it sickening that McGuinness and Co. are still banging on about a Public Inquiry for the likes of Finucane, yet when confronted by eg the sister of Mary Travers or the son of Pte. Patrick Kelly, we are lectured that we must either "move on" (Travers), or wait for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission [sic] (Kelly), when everyone knows that no such Commission will ever happen.



* - Actually, unlike eg Mitchell McLaughlin and his attitude to Jean McConville's murder, I would say Finucane's murder was both "wrong" AND a "crime".

There will never be one if Sinn Fein have anything to do with it, too much to lose for too many of them. They like the questions to be all one way.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 08:06:25 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 06:14:21 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 05:49:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 08:40:29 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 06:31:58 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 01:25:47 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Again, have you any proof he was in the IRA outside of the opinion of a british agent who is also a UUP advisor? Why would you believe someone like him over the independent team of the Stevens Inquiry and of the RUC, who both have clearly stated Pat Finucane was not a member of the IRA?
They didn't say that he wasn't in the IRA, they said that there was no evidence that he was in the IRA - different thing. Same way that there is no evidence that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, or no evidence that Marty was still in it after 1974. And why have you suddenly starting citing the RUC as a source you can believe in? Why do you rubbish O'Callaghan, but believe people like Adams and McGuinness, even though they have been caught out lying over and over again?

Which demonstrates my point- the RUC was a corrupt police state force and even they made no claims that he was in the IRA. I do trust the findings of the Stevens team who could find not one solitary shred of evidence that he was an IRA member. Surely if they cannot even find evidence to back up the claim, then you are probably not in any position to substantiate the claims that you present as fact. And why do I not believe Sean O'Callaghan? Hmmmm let me think    ::)
You've missed, or side stepped, the point. The fact that the agencies you mention were unable to turn up evidence on PF's membership of the IRA is hardly surprising. As I've pointed out (and you've ignored) Gerry Adams has been a leader of the IRA for most of his adult life, yet they have never been able to evidence this. (the IRA's a SECRET organisation, geddit?) Gerry still lies about it, as does Marty. People like you either believe them, or choose to ignore their lies, yet you then castigate O'Callaghan for lying! Presumably you think Frank Hegarty's mother is a liar too?

OK I'll spell it out slowly.... the word of Sean O'Callaghan is not evidence. Just because you say witness statements are used in court does not mean that a court would believe any witness statement without regard. Does the word of a renowned liar who actively works for a unionist political party seem like a reliable piece of evidence which a court would accept as being enough to state as absolute fact, as you have done, that Pat Finucane was in the IRA? Bear in mind that neither the RUC nor the Stevens Inquiry team regard the word of Sean the tout O'Callaghan as evidence of what you present as fact.
And I'll spell it out for you once more, as you seem determined not to get the point: Gerry Adams, lifelong leader of the IRA, has never been convicted of IRA membership due to lack of evidence. However, noone seriously thinks he was never a member. What do you think? Was Gerry a member of the IRA? Likewise, there is no evidence that has so far emerged - other than the eyewitness O'Callaghan - that PF was an IRA member. Like Gerry, that doesn't mean he wasn't. Why do you think so many people within the British establishment were convinced PF was in the IRA? Perhaps it was because one or more of the many British agents operating at a high level within the Belfast IRA at that time were telling their handlers that this was the case. Not rocket science, really.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Oraisteach on October 13, 2011, 08:06:42 PM
Once again, that malleable doublethink, so convenient for the hypocrite to live with himself, free from the pangs of guilt or doubt.

You really DO have to be an evil genius to express two equal and opposite views and believe both of them.

On the one hand, you staunchly advocate the rule of law and categorically renounce murder, yet at the same time you're perfectly
comfortable with the manner of Pat Finucane's death.

Well, hit me with a hurley, preferably by an agent of the state, up a dark alley, and have him close his eyes while he's doing it so that "no compunctious visitings of nature" may invade his conscience and prevent him from completing his murderous act, and being pleased with its outcome.

So this is the brave new world of NI that you envisage? Where law is fiercely upheld except when it's fiercely not upheld.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 08:11:20 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on October 13, 2011, 07:36:59 PM
Myles, would you please let go of Gerry and Marty.  They're a red herring as far as the fundamental issue of this thread is concerned.

In your mindset, it is perfectly acceptable for the state to summarily execute its citizens without a trial, without evidence presented, without a defense mounted, without the not-yet-accused being able to be judged by his peers. 
WOW.

So your paragon of judicial excellence would be Don Corleone, is that right?  So screw fundamental human rights?

Myles, I don't know how old you are, but I'm thinking that even 1960's NI might be too tame a world for you.
Actually they're not. If there isn't enough evidence to convict Gerry of IRA membership, why should the case be different for PF?

And I never said that it was acceptable for the state to execute anyone. I think it's morally abhorrent that anyone is summarily executed. That's why I oppose the IRA, the biggest killers of the lot, and argue with their apologists.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 08:12:08 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 13, 2011, 07:32:40 PMI would have thought that anyone who believes in the rule of law would be in favour of the accused to have a solicitor representing them.  Is it just Finucane...
Of course every accused should have a solicitor to represent them. It's just I don't think that a criminal/terrorist like Finucane is fit to do that job.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 13, 2011, 07:32:40 PM... or would you have no sympathy for any solicitor being murdered in their home?
Of course I have sympathy for any innocent who is murdered, whether solicitor or no.

In every case, I feel such killings should be condemned and the perpetrators brought ot justice. but neither process automatically requires sympathy for the victim, at least where that victim is a sc**bag like Finucane.

Anyhow, if you're still having difficulty with that concept, why not go back to my opening sentence on the matter:

"As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death"


Now, where I wrote "Finucane", substitute eg "Billy Wright".

Get it now?  ::)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 08:19:01 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 08:06:25 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 06:14:21 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 05:49:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 08:40:29 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 06:31:58 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 01:25:47 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Again, have you any proof he was in the IRA outside of the opinion of a british agent who is also a UUP advisor? Why would you believe someone like him over the independent team of the Stevens Inquiry and of the RUC, who both have clearly stated Pat Finucane was not a member of the IRA?
They didn't say that he wasn't in the IRA, they said that there was no evidence that he was in the IRA - different thing. Same way that there is no evidence that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, or no evidence that Marty was still in it after 1974. And why have you suddenly starting citing the RUC as a source you can believe in? Why do you rubbish O'Callaghan, but believe people like Adams and McGuinness, even though they have been caught out lying over and over again?

Which demonstrates my point- the RUC was a corrupt police state force and even they made no claims that he was in the IRA. I do trust the findings of the Stevens team who could find not one solitary shred of evidence that he was an IRA member. Surely if they cannot even find evidence to back up the claim, then you are probably not in any position to substantiate the claims that you present as fact. And why do I not believe Sean O'Callaghan? Hmmmm let me think    ::)
You've missed, or side stepped, the point. The fact that the agencies you mention were unable to turn up evidence on PF's membership of the IRA is hardly surprising. As I've pointed out (and you've ignored) Gerry Adams has been a leader of the IRA for most of his adult life, yet they have never been able to evidence this. (the IRA's a SECRET organisation, geddit?) Gerry still lies about it, as does Marty. People like you either believe them, or choose to ignore their lies, yet you then castigate O'Callaghan for lying! Presumably you think Frank Hegarty's mother is a liar too?

OK I'll spell it out slowly.... the word of Sean O'Callaghan is not evidence. Just because you say witness statements are used in court does not mean that a court would believe any witness statement without regard. Does the word of a renowned liar who actively works for a unionist political party seem like a reliable piece of evidence which a court would accept as being enough to state as absolute fact, as you have done, that Pat Finucane was in the IRA? Bear in mind that neither the RUC nor the Stevens Inquiry team regard the word of Sean the tout O'Callaghan as evidence of what you present as fact.
And I'll spell it out for you once more, as you seem determined not to get the point: Gerry Adams, lifelong leader of the IRA, has never been convicted of IRA membership due to lack of evidence. However, noone seriously thinks he was never a member. What do you think? Was Gerry a member of the IRA? Likewise, there is no evidence that has so far emerged - other than the eyewitness O'Callaghan - that PF was an IRA member. Like Gerry, that doesn't mean he wasn't. Why do you think so many people within the British establishment were convinced PF was in the IRA? Perhaps it was because one or more of the many British agents operating at a high level within the Belfast IRA at that time were telling their handlers that this was the case. Not rocket science, really.

I don't know if you saw my post a while back where I outlined proof of O'Callaghan's tendency to lie (re: his attitude to the Ulster Unionist Party and whether he ever supported them). A few more little details about the man:


O'Callaghan also once stated that in 1990 he was told in Crumlin Road Jail, by Danny Morrison, of a secret IRA Army Council strategy which proves that the peace process is a sham. This despite the fact that he previously admitted that he was suspected of being a tout well before 1990, and in 1985 was under investigation by Tralee SF for embezzling several thousand pounds of party funds. Sound like someone Danny Morrison would tell a top secret IRA plot to? More-so when we consider that the peace process wasn't even started in 1990? Certainly the Gardai didn't trust him....in February 1997, Senior gardai told the Irish Independent that O'Callaghan's story was "highly exaggerated'' and dismissed his claims.

He is also a man who says he was the Head of Southern Command of the IRA and went to Army Council meetings during the same period when several of the IRA's largest arms shipments landed, and yet said he was not aware of any details of it, claimed he got word that something was afoot and warned his handlers, but nothing was done.



And you in this thread present this man's word as good enough for you to say that Finucane "was in the IRA"?

And you say that people in the British establishment were convinced he was in the IRA... surely the RUC would have found it easy enough to catch him out if he was seriously considered to have been a member?


LAUGHABLE
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 08:20:09 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 05:53:47 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 12:31:29 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.
As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.
Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.
I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.
I dont even think your loyalist brethren even believe he was in the IRA.
Here's a quote from OWC on the subject:

'I just heard Mrs Finucane on Talkback, not happy etc......what I didn't hear (as ever) was any questioning of why her husband was targetted in the first place.
Whilst I don't wish to condone murder, as a human being I find it hard any sympathy whatsoever for the death of someone who was so obviously an active member of a sectarian murder gang.'

As usual LB, you have your finger on the pulse of unionist / loyalist opinion.  ;)
glad I dont !
Delighted to be on a different wavelength from yourself and your owc loyalist scum who effectively condone the killing by way of attempting to let oon this guy was in the IRA but cannot find any evidence or proof that anyone can show different.
if it was a secret, then how are you so sure?
because you and other loyalist/unionist scum wish it to be true.
you dont surprise anyone on here though.
as for your alter ego, he has no problem in running down the man's character also 'becasue he was solicitor to provos etc.
feck sake someone had to defend them, and he was good, which is why they colluded to kill him !!!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Puckoon on October 13, 2011, 08:21:32 PM
Once again - I didn't realise that this was a thread where unless you are in agreement with the OP - you cannot post, nor ask a simple question.

I didn't actually ask you anything (nor come even remotely close to taking issue with your posts, as you've asserted) - but if I was to ask someone on this post directly - it would be you - considering that it is indeed you who have mentioned is UUP links a number of times - ergo, I thought you might have an answer or information I asked for in good faith. Is that so difficult to understand that you need to take such umbrage at my post?

Has it gotten to the stage where if you don't question and address every post on a topic that Nally doesn't agree with that you feel the need to wield the whataboutery in order to defend an attack that you are not under? If the paranoia has crept in that badly... well, I dunno.

As for Myles - his crassness knows no low - and I feel that his comments on this thread have been more than adequately handled (Jim and Oraisteach to name a few). I'm also of the opinion that your interest in my opinion on Myles is a perverse deflection regarding the actual information in the thread, one I shouldn't even have to answer (given I have made no reference, nor been in agreement nor disagreement with anything he has said) - and it speaks volumes.

So to simplify it further:

1. I'm not taking issue with your post - I wanted to know more about a topic you brought into the discussion. For a poster who's most famous m.o. is following other posters and HIGHLIGHTING IN BOLD A DEMAND FOR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS, well I'm not sure why you couldn't have just answered mine - or said that you don't know?

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Oraisteach on October 13, 2011, 08:24:07 PM
So, in short, Myles, your argument is "If there isn't enough evidence to convict someone, then it's OK to summarily kill them, as long as you believe that murder is wrong."

I want a piece of that society.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 08:27:48 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on October 13, 2011, 08:21:32 PM
Once again - I didn't realise that this was a thread where unless you are in agreement with the OP - you cannot post, nor ask a simple question.

I didn't actually ask you anything (nor come even remotely close to taking issue with your posts, as you've asserted) - but if I was to ask someone on this post directly - it would be you - considering that it is indeed you who have mentioned is UUP links a number of times - ergo, I thought you might have an answer or information I asked for in good faith. Is that so difficult to understand that you need to take such umbrage at my post?

Has it gotten to the stage where if you don't question and address every post on a topic that Nally doesn't agree with that you feel the need to wield the whataboutery in order to defend an attack that you are not under? If the paranoia has crept in that badly... well, I dunno.

As for Myles - his crassness knows no low - and I feel that his comments on this thread have been more than adequately handled (Jim and Oraisteach to name a few). I'm also of the opinion that your interest in my opinion on Myles is a perverse deflection regarding the actual information in the thread, one I shouldn't even have to answer (given I have made no reference, nor been in agreement nor disagreement with anything he has said) - and it speaks volumes.

So to simplify it further:

1. I'm not taking issue with your post - I wanted to know more about a topic you brought into the discussion. For a poster who's most famous m.o. is following other posters and HIGHLIGHTING IN BOLD A DEMAND FOR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS, well I'm not sure why you couldn't have just answered mine - or said that you don't know?

The opening lines of your post were a simple enquiry about a topic I raised. Your continuance of "Surely the entire idea is and was getting both sides to work together? Why has this been used in 3 or 4 posts here as a stick to beat him with?" was not about knowing more, but about challenging me. Don't get upset when I defend my posts and ask why you weren't so quick to challenge Myles on what I would have thought was a much more outlandish claim than anything I have written on the thread.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 08:31:54 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 08:12:08 PM
"As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death"


Now, where I wrote "Finucane", substitute eg "Billy Wright".

Get it now?  ::)
that sums you and unionism/loyalism up alright - make crazed excuses for killing an innocent man and try to pass it off as an incident similar to a proven and self admitted convicted killer.
showing your true colours!!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Puckoon on October 13, 2011, 08:35:27 PM
Well it is about knowing more... I am curious as to why him working with the UUP is a bad thing in terms of his credibility?

Being a liar I can understand. I don't know what he did with the UUP so I am wondering if there is something I am missing, especially if it serves to undermine is credibility (as you have suggested).

And yes - your deflection via Myles is genuinely pathetic Nally.

To simplify again:
1. I didn't know Sean O'Callaghan worked for the UUP until you mentioned it.
2. I do know Myles is a WUM, whom I choose to largely ignore (if you care to go back and check).
3. You don't got to be the head cashier at the Spar to follow what I am asking. There is no trickery in it.

Incase you haven't gotten the gist yet - you can't dictate what posts people are interested in and why. As someone said previously - this isnt the school yard. This isn't that hard.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: pintsofguinness on October 13, 2011, 08:38:44 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 08:12:08 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 13, 2011, 07:32:40 PMI would have thought that anyone who believes in the rule of law would be in favour of the accused to have a solicitor representing them.  Is it just Finucane...
Of course every accused should have a solicitor to represent them. It's just I don't think that a criminal/terrorist like Finucane is fit to do that job.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on October 13, 2011, 07:32:40 PM... or would you have no sympathy for any solicitor being murdered in their home?
Of course I have sympathy for any innocent who is murdered, whether solicitor or no.

In every case, I feel such killings should be condemned and the perpetrators brought ot justice. but neither process automatically requires sympathy for the victim, at least where that victim is a sc**bag like Finucane.

Anyhow, if you're still having difficulty with that concept, why not go back to my opening sentence on the matter:

"As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death"


Now, where I wrote "Finucane", substitute eg "Billy Wright".

Get it now?  ::)
No I don't get it, I don't care if you have sympathy for him or not. I don't understand how you can say on one breath you're a believer in the rule of law but on the next say that you have no sympathy for a solicitor murdered because he represented people accused of crimes (if you want to call it that), that was his job.
What about Rosemary Nelson, have you sympathy for her? 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 08:43:54 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 08:31:54 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 08:12:08 PM
"As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death"


Now, where I wrote "Finucane", substitute eg "Billy Wright".

Get it now?  ::)
that sums you and unionism/loyalism up alright - make crazed excuses for killing an innocent man and try to pass it off as an incident similar to a proven and self admitted convicted killer.
showing your true colours!!
I did not make any excuses for killing Finucane - any such killing is inexcusable, which is why I condemn it and would like to see the killers tried and convicted etc.

But that is out of concern for the Rule of Law, rather than for Finucane, who I no more believe to have been an "innocent man" than I believe eg Gerry Adams never to have been in the IRA.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: gallsman on October 13, 2011, 08:47:08 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 08:43:54 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 08:31:54 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 08:12:08 PM
"As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death"


Now, where I wrote "Finucane", substitute eg "Billy Wright".

Get it now?  ::)
that sums you and unionism/loyalism up alright - make crazed excuses for killing an innocent man and try to pass it off as an incident similar to a proven and self admitted convicted killer.
showing your true colours!!
I did not make any excuses for killing Finucane - any such killing is inexcusable, which is why I condemn it and would like to see the killers tried and convicted etc.

But that is out of concern for the Rule of Law, rather than for Finucane, who I no more believe to have been an "innocent man" than I believe eg Gerry Adams never to have been in the IRA.

There is plenty of evidence to presume Adams was in the Ra, what is there for Finucane?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 08:49:13 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on October 13, 2011, 08:35:27 PM
Well it is about knowing more... I am curious as to why him working with the UUP is a bad thing in terms of his credibility?

Being a liar I can understand. I don't know what he did with the UUP so I am wondering if there is something I am missing, especially if it serves to undermine is credibility (as you have suggested).

And yes - your deflection via Myles is genuinely pathetic Nally.

To simplify again:
1. I didn't know Sean O'Callaghan worked for the UUP until you mentioned it.
2. I do know Myles is a WUM, whom I choose to largely ignore (if you care to go back and check).
3. You don't got to be the head cashier at the Spar to follow what I am asking. There is no trickery in it.

Incase you haven't gotten the gist yet - you can't dictate what posts people are interested in and why. As someone said previously - this isnt the school yard. This isn't that hard.

My explanation for mentioning the UUP is outlined in my post on the previous page where I referred to his ego being behind anything the man says or does, and his record of lying about his involvement/support for the UUP). As for trying to "dictate" what you are interested in, nowhere I did try to. I asked the simple question, "have anything to add to Myles na G's claims here Puck, or once again, is it only my posts which you take issue with?". Anyway, I'm going to argue no more with you. In regards to my UUP references, as I say, see the previous page in the thread.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Trout on October 13, 2011, 08:51:18 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 13, 2011, 08:47:08 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 08:43:54 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 08:31:54 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 08:12:08 PM
"As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.
However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death"


Now, where I wrote "Finucane", substitute eg "Billy Wright".

Get it now?  ::)
that sums you and unionism/loyalism up alright - make crazed excuses for killing an innocent man and try to pass it off as an incident similar to a proven and self admitted convicted killer.
showing your true colours!!
I did not make any excuses for killing Finucane - any such killing is inexcusable, which is why I condemn it and would like to see the killers tried and convicted etc.

But that is out of concern for the Rule of Law, rather than for Finucane, who I no more believe to have been an "innocent man" than I believe eg Gerry Adams never to have been in the IRA.

There is plenty of evidence to presume Adams was in the Ra, what is there for Finucane?

Unless you live in the world of Nally Stand.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 13, 2011, 09:20:39 PM
Trout, you have to admit that British collusion more than likely led to alot of innocent people dead on the streets of Dublin & Monaghan.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 09:26:41 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 13, 2011, 09:20:39 PM
Trout, you have to admit that British collusion more than likely led to alot of innocent people dead on the streets of Dublin & Monaghan.

....and Tyrone, and Antrim, and Derry, and Down, and Donegal, and Armagh and....
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 13, 2011, 09:27:49 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 09:26:41 PM
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on October 13, 2011, 09:20:39 PM
Trout, you have to admit that British collusion more than likely led to alot of innocent people dead on the streets of Dublin & Monaghan.

....and Tyrone, and Antrim, and Derry, and Down, and Donegal, and Armagh and....

Yea Fermanagh and Cavan are safe  ;)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 10:01:26 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 08:43:54 PM
that sums you and unionism/loyalism up alright - make crazed excuses for killing an innocent man and try to pass it off as an incident similar to a proven and self admitted convicted killer.
showing your true colours! I did not make any excuses for killing Finucane - any such killing is inexcusable, which is why I condemn it and would like to see the killers tried and convicted etc.

But that is out of concern for the Rule of Law, rather than for Finucane, who I no more believe to have been an "innocent man" than I believe eg Gerry Adams never to have been in the IRA.
your belief alright. ....based on resounding evidence !! ::)
again it shows you and your ilk for what you really are.
the forked tongue and double standards of unionism/loyalism again !
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stew on October 13, 2011, 10:10:35 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 08:11:20 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on October 13, 2011, 07:36:59 PM
Myles, would you please let go of Gerry and Marty.  They're a red herring as far as the fundamental issue of this thread is concerned.

In your mindset, it is perfectly acceptable for the state to summarily execute its citizens without a trial, without evidence presented, without a defense mounted, without the not-yet-accused being able to be judged by his peers. 
WOW.

So your paragon of judicial excellence would be Don Corleone, is that right?  So screw fundamental human rights?

Myles, I don't know how old you are, but I'm thinking that even 1960's NI might be too tame a world for you.
Actually they're not. If there isn't enough evidence to convict Gerry of IRA membership, why should the case be different for PF?

Maybe because they were never in the IRA you eejit. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 10:13:48 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 08:19:01 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 08:06:25 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 06:14:21 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 05:49:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 08:40:29 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 06:31:58 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 13, 2011, 01:25:47 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.

Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.

Again, have you any proof he was in the IRA outside of the opinion of a british agent who is also a UUP advisor? Why would you believe someone like him over the independent team of the Stevens Inquiry and of the RUC, who both have clearly stated Pat Finucane was not a member of the IRA?
They didn't say that he wasn't in the IRA, they said that there was no evidence that he was in the IRA - different thing. Same way that there is no evidence that Gerry Adams was in the IRA, or no evidence that Marty was still in it after 1974. And why have you suddenly starting citing the RUC as a source you can believe in? Why do you rubbish O'Callaghan, but believe people like Adams and McGuinness, even though they have been caught out lying over and over again?

Which demonstrates my point- the RUC was a corrupt police state force and even they made no claims that he was in the IRA. I do trust the findings of the Stevens team who could find not one solitary shred of evidence that he was an IRA member. Surely if they cannot even find evidence to back up the claim, then you are probably not in any position to substantiate the claims that you present as fact. And why do I not believe Sean O'Callaghan? Hmmmm let me think    ::)
You've missed, or side stepped, the point. The fact that the agencies you mention were unable to turn up evidence on PF's membership of the IRA is hardly surprising. As I've pointed out (and you've ignored) Gerry Adams has been a leader of the IRA for most of his adult life, yet they have never been able to evidence this. (the IRA's a SECRET organisation, geddit?) Gerry still lies about it, as does Marty. People like you either believe them, or choose to ignore their lies, yet you then castigate O'Callaghan for lying! Presumably you think Frank Hegarty's mother is a liar too?

OK I'll spell it out slowly.... the word of Sean O'Callaghan is not evidence. Just because you say witness statements are used in court does not mean that a court would believe any witness statement without regard. Does the word of a renowned liar who actively works for a unionist political party seem like a reliable piece of evidence which a court would accept as being enough to state as absolute fact, as you have done, that Pat Finucane was in the IRA? Bear in mind that neither the RUC nor the Stevens Inquiry team regard the word of Sean the tout O'Callaghan as evidence of what you present as fact.
And I'll spell it out for you once more, as you seem determined not to get the point: Gerry Adams, lifelong leader of the IRA, has never been convicted of IRA membership due to lack of evidence. However, noone seriously thinks he was never a member. What do you think? Was Gerry a member of the IRA? Likewise, there is no evidence that has so far emerged - other than the eyewitness O'Callaghan - that PF was an IRA member. Like Gerry, that doesn't mean he wasn't. Why do you think so many people within the British establishment were convinced PF was in the IRA? Perhaps it was because one or more of the many British agents operating at a high level within the Belfast IRA at that time were telling their handlers that this was the case. Not rocket science, really.

I don't know if you saw my post a while back where I outlined proof of O'Callaghan's tendency to lie (re: his attitude to the Ulster Unionist Party and whether he ever supported them). A few more little details about the man:


O'Callaghan also once stated that in 1990 he was told in Crumlin Road Jail, by Danny Morrison, of a secret IRA Army Council strategy which proves that the peace process is a sham. This despite the fact that he previously admitted that he was suspected of being a tout well before 1990, and in 1985 was under investigation by Tralee SF for embezzling several thousand pounds of party funds. Sound like someone Danny Morrison would tell a top secret IRA plot to? More-so when we consider that the peace process wasn't even started in 1990? Certainly the Gardai didn't trust him....in February 1997, Senior gardai told the Irish Independent that O'Callaghan's story was "highly exaggerated'' and dismissed his claims.

He is also a man who says he was the Head of Southern Command of the IRA and went to Army Council meetings during the same period when several of the IRA's largest arms shipments landed, and yet said he was not aware of any details of it, claimed he got word that something was afoot and warned his handlers, but nothing was done.



And you in this thread present this man's word as good enough for you to say that Finucane "was in the IRA"?

And you say that people in the British establishment were convinced he was in the IRA... surely the RUC would have found it easy enough to catch him out if he was seriously considered to have been a member?


LAUGHABLE
So once again you side step the Adams issue. LAUGHABLE.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 10:28:48 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 08:20:09 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 05:53:47 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 12:31:29 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.
As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.
Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.
I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.
I dont even think your loyalist brethren even believe he was in the IRA.
Here's a quote from OWC on the subject:

'I just heard Mrs Finucane on Talkback, not happy etc......what I didn't hear (as ever) was any questioning of why her husband was targetted in the first place.
Whilst I don't wish to condone murder, as a human being I find it hard any sympathy whatsoever for the death of someone who was so obviously an active member of a sectarian murder gang.'

As usual LB, you have your finger on the pulse of unionist / loyalist opinion.  ;)
glad I dont !
Delighted to be on a different wavelength from yourself and your owc loyalist scum
At least you're now admitting you're on a different wavelength. You're on a different planet, actually, in a galaxy far, far away, but one step at a time, eh?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on October 14, 2011, 10:13:56 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 10:28:48 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 08:20:09 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 13, 2011, 05:53:47 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 13, 2011, 12:31:29 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.
As we're forever being told by republican and loyalist ex combatants (including one wannabee president), there was a conflict, bad things were done by all sides, but we have to look to the future and move on.
Except, it seems, when the victims were republicans, in which case the courts have to pay them compensation (75k for IRA man Aidan 'I didn't get the chance to surrender' McKeever) or governments have to indulge them with enquiries.
I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.
I dont even think your loyalist brethren even believe he was in the IRA.
Here's a quote from OWC on the subject:

'I just heard Mrs Finucane on Talkback, not happy etc......what I didn't hear (as ever) was any questioning of why her husband was targetted in the first place.
Whilst I don't wish to condone murder, as a human being I find it hard any sympathy whatsoever for the death of someone who was so obviously an active member of a sectarian murder gang.'

As usual LB, you have your finger on the pulse of unionist / loyalist opinion.  ;)
glad I dont !
Delighted to be on a different wavelength from yourself and your owc loyalist scum
At least you're now admitting you're on a different wavelength. You're on a different planet, actually, in a galaxy far, far away, but one step at a time, eh?
yet still closer to reality than yourself looking at the absolute rubbish yer posting (all the time )!!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on October 14, 2011, 01:55:01 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 07:19:56 PM

As someone who believes in the Rule of Law, I have to be consistent and say that Finucane's murder was wrong*, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

However, I am entirely comfortable with holding that view and at the same time having absolutely ZERO sympathy for the man himself, or the manner and timing of his death. This is because I believe 100% that if Finucane was not actually a sworn "volunteer" like his brothers, then he was at the very least the IRA's favoured "In-House Lawyer". As such, his role in defending and covering up countless foul murders, indeed in assisting the murderers, actually makes him worse than those who merely pulled the trigger or set the timer, since he at least had many advantages such as talent, intelligence and education etc which he might have used for good.

And if nothing else, by the time I consider all the other uncounted, unrecorded and unrecognised victims who were genuinely innocent of any crime, I find I have no sympathy left for people who were involved in perpetuating the killings etc.

Of course, this means that I am drawn into creating "a hierarchy of victims". Then again, I simply cannot ever equate the suffering eg the two innocent children or Mr. and Mrs. Williamson, blown to pieces in the Shankill bomb, with that of Thomas Begley and Sean Kelly, the two bombers who were respectively killed and injured by their own device:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/294812.stm

And as for Finucane, where might he rank in this hierarchy? I'm afraid I can't say exactly, but I have no doubt whatever that it is rather closer to Begley and Kelly, than it is to the innocents who died in their bomb...

P.S. Which is also why I find it sickening that McGuinness and Co. are still banging on about a Public Inquiry for the likes of Finucane, yet when confronted by eg the sister of Mary Travers or the son of Pte. Patrick Kelly, we are lectured that we must either "move on" (Travers), or wait for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission [sic] (Kelly), when everyone knows that no such Commission will ever happen.



* - Actually, unlike eg Mitchell McLaughlin and his attitude to Jean McConville's murder, I would say Finucane's murder was both "wrong" AND a "crime".

I'm not sure if this reply is directed at me.   As I said I was willing to accept the allegations at face value.  (Even though I'm not aware of any evidence other than O'Callaghan's book). 

My point is that sympathy/dislike/hatred of Finucane is irrelevant to the subject of the thread.  Anyone who believes in the rule of law (as you say you do) should be supportive of an inquiry into how this happened.

/Jim.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 14, 2011, 03:06:54 PM
Well Jim, if it's O'Callaghan's accusation you are prepared to accept at face value, I would just remind you that there is plenty of evidence to illustrate that particular individual's fondness for compulsive lying.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on October 14, 2011, 03:34:26 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 14, 2011, 03:06:54 PM
Well Jim, if it's O'Callaghan's accusation you are prepared to accept at face value, I would just remind you that there is plenty of evidence to illustrate that particular individual's fondness for compulsive lying.

I said I accept it at face value for the purposes of the discussion.  In my first post I did say:


Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on October 13, 2011, 06:35:36 PM
I read Sean O'Callaghan's book and he admits to lying all over the place.  Maybe it's just me but I got lost track in the middle of it about which ones were "good" and which were just plain old porkers.

In the context of your opening post, it matters not about Finucanes guilt or innocence.  Regardless of what one thinks of him, the summary and arbitrary nature of his killing should be unacceptable.

/Jim.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 14, 2011, 05:50:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 14, 2011, 03:06:54 PM
Well Jim, if it's O'Callaghan's accusation you are prepared to accept at face value, I would just remind you that there is plenty of evidence to illustrate that particular individual's fondness for compulsive lying.
Since you're on the subject of compulsive liars anyway, maybe you'll answer the question I asked you: do you think Gerry Adams was in the IRA?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Oraisteach on October 14, 2011, 06:24:27 PM
Jim, you hit the nail on the head.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on October 14, 2011, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 14, 2011, 05:50:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 14, 2011, 03:06:54 PM
Well Jim, if it's O'Callaghan's accusation you are prepared to accept at face value, I would just remind you that there is plenty of evidence to illustrate that particular individual's fondness for compulsive lying.
Since you're on the subject of compulsive liars anyway, maybe you'll answer the question I asked you: do you think Gerry Adams was in the IRA?
apologies for jumping in.
no the slithery hoor wasnt!
thats why I dont like him!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: ardal on October 14, 2011, 11:39:15 PM
Maybe I read it wrong, but wasn't he in the cages with the IRA members back in the 70's?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Minder on October 15, 2011, 12:46:50 AM
Quote from: ardal on October 14, 2011, 11:39:15 PM
Maybe I read it wrong, but wasn't he in the cages with the IRA members back in the 70's?

I asked someone tonight if he was in the RA and he screwed his face up and said he "was RA" but he wasn't in it !!!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Minder on October 15, 2011, 08:03:59 AM
Quote from: hardstation on October 15, 2011, 02:02:02 AM
Quote from: Minder on October 15, 2011, 12:46:50 AM
Quote from: ardal on October 14, 2011, 11:39:15 PM
Maybe I read it wrong, but wasn't he in the cages with the IRA members back in the 70's?

I asked someone tonight if he was in the RA and he screwed his face up and said he "was RA" but he wasn't in it !!!
Guilty as charged, obviously.

To put it into context, Minder was told this by his wife's cousin who had no involvement in republicanism and has drank his dole since 1987.

Did you read the post? How can you be "guilty as charged" if you aren't in something ? And your "context" is way out, but it was a nice effort.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: sammymaguire on October 15, 2011, 08:13:49 AM
Is this a debate on British State Collusion? I have missed 6 pages and cannot be arsed going back reading them. That's possibly the reason I messed up my English A-Level, you can't skim read Chaucer or Shakespeare and expect to get away with it.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 12:14:36 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 14, 2011, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 14, 2011, 05:50:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 14, 2011, 03:06:54 PM
Well Jim, if it's O'Callaghan's accusation you are prepared to accept at face value, I would just remind you that there is plenty of evidence to illustrate that particular individual's fondness for compulsive lying.
Since you're on the subject of compulsive liars anyway, maybe you'll answer the question I asked you: do you think Gerry Adams was in the IRA?
apologies for jumping in.
no the slithery hoor wasnt!
thats why I dont like him!
Thanks for that, at least you're not afraid to express an opinion on the matter. Nally Stand seems keen not to, on the other hand. He's happy to express an opinion on whether or not Pat Finucane was an IRA man, but is a bit coy about Gerry. Why would that be?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: muppet on October 15, 2011, 12:18:54 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 12:14:36 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 14, 2011, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 14, 2011, 05:50:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 14, 2011, 03:06:54 PM
Well Jim, if it's O'Callaghan's accusation you are prepared to accept at face value, I would just remind you that there is plenty of evidence to illustrate that particular individual's fondness for compulsive lying.
Since you're on the subject of compulsive liars anyway, maybe you'll answer the question I asked you: do you think Gerry Adams was in the IRA?
apologies for jumping in.
no the slithery hoor wasnt!
thats why I dont like him!
Thanks for that, at least you're not afraid to express an opinion on the matter. Nally Stand seems keen not to, on the other hand. He's happy to express an opinion on whether or not Pat Finucane was an IRA man, but is a bit coy about Gerry. Why would that be?

Because he hasn't gone away you know.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Franko on October 15, 2011, 01:39:04 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 12:14:36 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 14, 2011, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 14, 2011, 05:50:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 14, 2011, 03:06:54 PM
Well Jim, if it's O'Callaghan's accusation you are prepared to accept at face value, I would just remind you that there is plenty of evidence to illustrate that particular individual's fondness for compulsive lying.
Since you're on the subject of compulsive liars anyway, maybe you'll answer the question I asked you: do you think Gerry Adams was in the IRA?
apologies for jumping in.
no the slithery hoor wasnt!
thats why I dont like him!
Thanks for that, at least you're not afraid to express an opinion on the matter. Nally Stand seems keen not to, on the other hand. He's happy to express an opinion on whether or not Pat Finucane
was an IRA man, but is a bit coy about Gerry. Why would that be?

How about you answer a few of the questions you were asked instead of pontificating about others.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 02:31:47 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 15, 2011, 01:39:04 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 12:14:36 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on October 14, 2011, 08:19:27 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 14, 2011, 05:50:10 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 14, 2011, 03:06:54 PM
Well Jim, if it's O'Callaghan's accusation you are prepared to accept at face value, I would just remind you that there is plenty of evidence to illustrate that particular individual's fondness for compulsive lying.
Since you're on the subject of compulsive liars anyway, maybe you'll answer the question I asked you: do you think Gerry Adams was in the IRA?
apologies for jumping in.
no the slithery hoor wasnt!
thats why I dont like him!
Thanks for that, at least you're not afraid to express an opinion on the matter. Nally Stand seems keen not to, on the other hand. He's happy to express an opinion on whether or not Pat Finucane
was an IRA man, but is a bit coy about Gerry. Why would that be?

How about you answer a few of the questions you were asked instead of pontificating about others.
Happy to oblige. Point them out.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on October 15, 2011, 02:43:14 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 12:14:36 PM
Nally Stand seems keen not to, on the other hand. He's happy to express an opinion on whether or not Pat Finucane was an IRA man, but is a bit coy about Gerry. Why would that be?

Let me get your reasoning straight. If Nally Stand believes that Pat Finucane was not in the IRA, he must therefore believe that Gerry Adams was not in the IRA. This is because both have been accused of being in the IRA and this has been denied in both cases. Have I got that right?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Main Street on October 15, 2011, 03:28:58 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 15, 2011, 08:03:59 AM
Quote from: hardstation on October 15, 2011, 02:02:02 AM
Quote from: Minder on October 15, 2011, 12:46:50 AM
Quote from: ardal on October 14, 2011, 11:39:15 PM
Maybe I read it wrong, but wasn't he in the cages with the IRA members back in the 70's?

I asked someone tonight if he was in the RA and he screwed his face up and said he "was RA" but he wasn't in it !!!
Guilty as charged, obviously.

To put it into context, Minder was told this by his wife's cousin who had no involvement in republicanism and has drank his dole since 1987.

Did you read the post? How can you be "guilty as charged" if you aren't in something ? And your "context" is way out, but it was a nice effort.
I agree,, ---- based on your criteria for what passes as evidence,  how can Pat be guilty as charged? ::)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 05:33:00 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 15, 2011, 02:43:14 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 12:14:36 PM
Nally Stand seems keen not to, on the other hand. He's happy to express an opinion on whether or not Pat Finucane was an IRA man, but is a bit coy about Gerry. Why would that be?

Let me get your reasoning straight. If Nally Stand believes that Pat Finucane was not in the IRA, he must therefore believe that Gerry Adams was not in the IRA. This is because both have been accused of being in the IRA and this has been denied in both cases. Have I got that right?
Nally Stand believes that Pat Finucane wasn't in the IRA on the basis that the RUC was unable to find any evidence that says he was. Nally Stand maintains that people like Sean O'Callaghan are not to be believed. I'm curious to know his views on Adams, given that the RUC / British Army were unable to find enough evidence throughout the 70s and 80s to convict him of IRA membership. I'm also curious to know what he thinks about people like Marian Price, who maintains that Adams was her commanding officer.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 15, 2011, 06:19:04 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 05:33:00 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 15, 2011, 02:43:14 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 12:14:36 PM
Nally Stand seems keen not to, on the other hand. He's happy to express an opinion on whether or not Pat Finucane was an IRA man, but is a bit coy about Gerry. Why would that be?

Let me get your reasoning straight. If Nally Stand believes that Pat Finucane was not in the IRA, he must therefore believe that Gerry Adams was not in the IRA. This is because both have been accused of being in the IRA and this has been denied in both cases. Have I got that right?
Nally Stand believes that Pat Finucane wasn't in the IRA on the basis that the RUC was unable to find any evidence that says he was. Nally Stand maintains that people like Sean O'Callaghan are not to be believed. I'm curious to know his views on Adams, given that the RUC / British Army were unable to find enough evidence throughout the 70s and 80s to convict him of IRA membership. I'm also curious to know what he thinks about people like Marian Price, who maintains that Adams was her commanding officer.

Jaysus Myles you do go on. I had the intention of avoiding responding to you further on this thread because on a thread about something as serious as collusion, and in the week that's in it, you persist in making groundless accusations passed off as fact about Pat Finucane and as such are not someone I have any interest in discussing things with. As for my opinion on Gerry Adams, a quick search of my posts on other threads should answer your questions. Good riddance you lowlife.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 07:36:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 15, 2011, 06:19:04 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 05:33:00 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 15, 2011, 02:43:14 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 12:14:36 PM
Nally Stand seems keen not to, on the other hand. He's happy to express an opinion on whether or not Pat Finucane was an IRA man, but is a bit coy about Gerry. Why would that be?

Let me get your reasoning straight. If Nally Stand believes that Pat Finucane was not in the IRA, he must therefore believe that Gerry Adams was not in the IRA. This is because both have been accused of being in the IRA and this has been denied in both cases. Have I got that right?
Nally Stand believes that Pat Finucane wasn't in the IRA on the basis that the RUC was unable to find any evidence that says he was. Nally Stand maintains that people like Sean O'Callaghan are not to be believed. I'm curious to know his views on Adams, given that the RUC / British Army were unable to find enough evidence throughout the 70s and 80s to convict him of IRA membership. I'm also curious to know what he thinks about people like Marian Price, who maintains that Adams was her commanding officer.

Jaysus Myles you do go on. I had the intention of avoiding responding to you further on this thread because on a thread about something as serious as collusion, and in the week that's in it, you persist in making groundless accusations passed off as fact about Pat Finucane and as such are not someone I have any interest in discussing things with. As for my opinion on Gerry Adams, a quick search of my posts on other threads should answer your questions. Good riddance you lowlife.
Yeah, like I'm going to trawl through your back catalogue looking for any references you may or may not have made to Gerry Adams.  :D I'm sure that somewhere in the midst of that huge body of work you've also given your opinion on collusion, informers, state killings, etc etc, yet you still found the time on this thread to stamp over old ground. On this one issue, however, you're ducking and diving and weaving and bobbing. I strongly suspect that it's because you're smart enough to realise that the answer you give would expose the double standards and hypocrisy of your arguments about Pat Finucance.   ;)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Franko on October 16, 2011, 03:09:45 PM
Quote from: hardstation on October 13, 2011, 10:35:39 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html
OK, and if the British "security forces" (to an unknown level) set up this shooting, you would agree that they then become fair game also?

Starter for 10
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 16, 2011, 04:26:42 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 16, 2011, 03:09:45 PM
Quote from: hardstation on October 13, 2011, 10:35:39 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html
OK, and if the British "security forces" (to an unknown level) set up this shooting, you would agree that they then become fair game also?

Starter for 10
I don't like that 'also' at the end of the question. I haven't been arguing that Finucane was 'fair game' and that he therefore deserved to be murdered. I've never believed in the republican concept of 'legitimate targets'. What I've been arguing against is the veneration of the man, to the extent that you'd think he was Mother Theresa or Nelson Mandela. He was, in the opinion of many, a man who abused his position as a lawyer to aid an organisation which was waging a violent conflict against the state and many of its citizens. That didn't warrant his murder, but nor does it warrant his beatification. The other thing I've been arguing about is the double standards of Irish republicans, who urge everyone else to let go of the past, to move on and embrace the future, yet refuse to do the same themselves in cases like this. Finucane's death was no greater a tragedy than the deaths of many, many others. Other people have had to cope with their pain and, in some cases - like the Travers family, for example - look on as the killer or killers of their loved one take on high profile positions within the government of the 6 counties. And, in the case of the Travers family, their daughter was not active in the conflict. If SF and republicans expect families like the Travers to 'get over' their loss, then it is not unreasonable to expect the same of them.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on October 16, 2011, 05:27:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 05:33:00 PM
Nally Stand believes that Pat Finucane wasn't in the IRA on the basis that the RUC was unable to find any evidence that says he was. Nally Stand maintains that people like Sean O'Callaghan are not to be believed. I'm curious to know his views on Adams, given that the RUC / British Army were unable to find enough evidence throughout the 70s and 80s to convict him of IRA membership. I'm also curious to know what he thinks about people like Marian Price, who maintains that Adams was her commanding officer.

Doesn't address my question. What does it mean for your train of thought if Nally Stand believes Gerry Adam was(n't) in the IRA? You're clearly going somewhere with this and it'd be nice if you spat it out
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on October 16, 2011, 06:56:01 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 16, 2011, 05:27:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 15, 2011, 05:33:00 PM
Nally Stand believes that Pat Finucane wasn't in the IRA on the basis that the RUC was unable to find any evidence that says he was. Nally Stand maintains that people like Sean O'Callaghan are not to be believed. I'm curious to know his views on Adams, given that the RUC / British Army were unable to find enough evidence throughout the 70s and 80s to convict him of IRA membership. I'm also curious to know what he thinks about people like Marian Price, who maintains that Adams was her commanding officer.

Doesn't address my question. What does it mean for your train of thought if Nally Stand believes Gerry Adam was(n't) in the IRA? You're clearly going somewhere with this and it'd be nice if you spat it out
It would be nice if NS spat out an answer too, don't you think? Bit unfair to ask me to provide my response to NS's answer when I don't know what that is!

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on February 03, 2012, 03:30:03 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3590237/Finucane-should-not-have-been-killed-but-he-was-in-the-IRA.html
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on February 03, 2012, 03:32:32 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
1. PF was murdered.
2. There was British state involvement in his murder.
3. PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA.

I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on February 03, 2012, 03:35:55 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on October 13, 2011, 08:43:54 PM
[Finucane, who I no more believe to have been an "innocent man" than I believe eg Gerry Adams never to have been in the IRA.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on June 19, 2012, 11:12:36 AM
File reveals British Army immunity from prosecution was official policy

In 1972, 79 Irish people were shot dead by the British Army on Irish soil. The vast majority of these were civilians. In July 1972, a strategic government and security meeting at Stormont Castle was held, involving the Secretary for State William Whitelaw MP, the North's most senior British Army officer the General Officer Commanding (GOC) General Ford, the Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC, plus Lord Windlesham the British government's representative in the House of Lords, British MP's, and senior civil servants from the NIO. Relatives for Justice this week unearthed a document from this meeting. The document includes some striking quotes:


This is the first documented proof of the British Government's determination to see no British Soldiers convicted for killings in Ireland. Of the approximate 300 hundreds killings by the British Army in Ireland since 1969, there has only been convictions in three cases. All of those convicted were released significantly early and reinstated back to their regiments. Some were promoted. As mentioned, this meeting took place in 1972. That year 79 people were shot by the British Army. The meeting took place in July. That month the British Army killed 20 innocent civilians. Not one British soldier faced a conviction for ANY of these killings throughout 1972.

In terms of the "acceptable" nature of the UDA's "vigilante activities"- the month this meeting was held, loyalists committed 27 sectarian murders. Over half of these (16) were carried out by the "acceptable" UDA.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: glens abu on June 19, 2012, 11:37:50 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 19, 2012, 11:12:36 AM
File reveals British Army immunity from prosecution was official policy

In 1972, 79 Irish people were shot dead by the British Army on Irish soil. The vast majority of these were civilians. In July 1972, a strategic government and security meeting at Stormont Castle was held, involving the Secretary for State William Whitelaw MP, the North's most senior British Army officer the General Officer Commanding (GOC) General Ford, the Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC, plus Lord Windlesham the British government's representative in the House of Lords, British MP's, and senior civil servants from the NIO. Relatives for Justice this week unearthed a document from this meeting. The document includes some striking quotes:


  • That the GOC (the Head of the British Army in the north) "would see UDA leaders that afternoon" to let them know that their "efforts as vigilantes" were "acceptable".
  • That it was the British Governments"intention to carry on the war with the IRA with the utmost vigour"
  • And crucially,  'The (British) Army should not be inhibited in its campaign by the threat of court proceedings and should therefore be suitably indemnified."

This is the first documented proof of the British Government's determination to see no British Soldiers convicted for killings in Ireland. Of the approximate 300 hundreds killings by the British Army in Ireland since 1969, there has only been convictions in three cases. All of those convicted were released significantly early and reinstated back to their regiments. Some were promoted. As mentioned, this meeting took place in 1972. That year 79 people were shot by the British Army. The meeting took place in July. That month the British Army killed 20 innocent civilians. Not one British soldier faced a conviction for ANY of these killings throughout 1972.

In terms of the "acceptable" nature of the UDA's "vigilante activities"- the month this meeting was held, loyalists committed 27 sectarian murders. Over half of these (16) were carried out by the "acceptable" UDA.

It was terrible what went on in that year and the UDA/UVF came into Nationalist areas and killed with the help of the BA and RUC.I had a young cousin shot dead by UVF after coming out of a Mass for peace in Holy Family Chapel in June 72 and everyone knew who the killers were but they were able to drive past his home and abuse his family and other mourners.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:04:10 PM
Just came across a BBC video on this story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18498301 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18498301)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: orangeman on June 20, 2012, 04:21:17 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:04:10 PM
Just came across a BBC video on this story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18498301 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18498301)
It's not like them to leave documents like this lying about.

Or was it left for a reason ?.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hardy on June 20, 2012, 04:23:39 PM
It is amazing that they actually documented these decisions. It probably illustrates that the imperial mindset was still in place as recently as 1972 and they didn't consider themselves as amenable to international law and couldn't care less about local or international disapproval.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure went unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:42:34 PM
Speaking of the UDA. In 2003, a document revealed that in November of the same year as the story above (1972), a letter sent from the Ministry of Defense to the prime minister, Edward Heath of the Conservative Party, described the UDA as "useful", "constructive" and "disciplined".

The same day the letter was dated, (Nov. 29, 1972), the UDA shot dead a 22 year old Catholic bar man. In just that one same month, they murdered five civilians.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on June 20, 2012, 04:43:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed :-X

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697)

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: seafoid on June 20, 2012, 04:44:02 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 20, 2012, 04:23:39 PM
It is amazing that they actually documented these decisions. It probably illustrates that the imperial mindset was still in place as recently as 1972 and they didn't consider themselves as amenable to international law and couldn't care less about local or international disapproval.

Rhodesia was still going strong. SA was running apartheid and the Unionists had a similar mentality . It was only when economic reality hit home that things started to change . Belfast in the early 90s was desperate- there were very few places you could even got a coffee. The economy was in bits. 

Maybe too the younger generation of Protestants were different to their parents .

If the system can roll on and people can continue making money and the schools indoctrinate they'll do whatever no matter how foul it is. Just look at Israel today.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 20, 2012, 04:44:52 PM
Quelle surprise...


British government: Ballymurphy Massacre investigation 'would not be in public interest'

20/06/2012 - 12:47:47
The British government has told the families of 11 people killed by British troops in the case known as the Ballymurphy Massacre that there will be no independent investigation of the deaths.

The relatives criticised the decision of Northern Ireland Secretary of State Owen Paterson and pledged to continue their campaign.

The innocent civilians who died after being shot and beaten by members of the Parachute Regiment in 1971 included a mother-of-eight and a Catholic priest tending to the wounded.

The deaths occurred during a security operation in the Ballymurphy area of west Belfast that stretched across August 9-11 following the introduction of internment without trial.

Military claims at the time that the victims were armed republicans were discredited and the families have called for an examination of the true facts of the case - which has been linked to the killing of civilians by the same regiment on Bloody Sunday in Derry.

A spokesman for the families said they are "deeply disappointed" by Mr Paterson's decision to turn down their request for an independent investigation.

"Mr Paterson, in his letter, has stated that it 'would not be in the public interest' that an independent investigation be established," they said.

"We refute this assertion and believe that is clearly in the 'public interest' that the full facts relating to the circumstances of the deaths of our loved ones and the role of the British Parachute Regiment is fully established.

"This is especially so given the recent findings of Lord Saville in relation to the events of Bloody Sunday and the disclosure of official British government documents which reveal evidence of immunity for British soldiers involved in the murder of innocent civilians."

Northern Ireland's Attorney General John Larkin has ordered that the inquests into the deaths be re-opened.

But the families rejected advice they said they received from Mr Paterson that other avenues were open to them, including the police Historical Enquiries Team (HET) which is examining murders from the Troubles.

The relatives said the HET's handling of cases where soldiers were responsible for deaths had been criticised in a major report into its work.

The relatives said: "Although the families regard the re-opening of the inquests by the Attorney General as a very important step on our journey for truth, we believe that even a fully resourced and effective inquest will have limitations.

"It will be able to provide facts and gather crucial forensic, logistical and witness testimony evidence, but it will not be able to examines the causes, context and consequences of the massacre and answer so many of the questions that must be answered.

"We believe that only an independent investigation can facilitate the discovery of the facts and provide an accurate historical account of the events of August 1971 on the streets of Ballymurphy."

They repeated a call for British Prime Minister David Cameron to meet directly with the families.

The campaigners also asked for Taoiseach Enda Kenny to back their cause, in the way he has publicly supported the family of solicitor Pat Finucane who was killed by loyalists acting in collusion with security forces.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/british-government-ballymurphy-massacre-investigation-would-not-be-in-public-interest-556025.html
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: AZOffaly on June 20, 2012, 04:45:49 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 20, 2012, 04:43:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed :-X

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697)

I don't get this?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:46:23 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 20, 2012, 04:43:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed :-X

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697)

Indeed. As face-saving lies go, that was a spectacular one.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: orangeman on June 20, 2012, 04:47:17 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 20, 2012, 04:45:49 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 20, 2012, 04:43:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed :-X

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697)

I don't get this?

Conspiracy theorists do.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on June 20, 2012, 04:50:24 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 20, 2012, 04:45:49 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 20, 2012, 04:43:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed :-X

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697)

I don't get this?

Put it like this they were not killed in Germany.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:50:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 20, 2012, 04:45:49 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 20, 2012, 04:43:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed :-X

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697)

I don't get this?

PM sent
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 05:25:45 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 20, 2012, 04:44:52 PM
Quelle surprise...


British government: Ballymurphy Massacre investigation 'would not be in public interest'

20/06/2012 - 12:47:47
The British government has told the families of 11 people killed by British troops in the case known as the Ballymurphy Massacre that there will be no independent investigation of the deaths.

The relatives criticised the decision of Northern Ireland Secretary of State Owen Paterson and pledged to continue their campaign.

The innocent civilians who died after being shot and beaten by members of the Parachute Regiment in 1971 included a mother-of-eight and a Catholic priest tending to the wounded.

The deaths occurred during a security operation in the Ballymurphy area of west Belfast that stretched across August 9-11 following the introduction of internment without trial.

Military claims at the time that the victims were armed republicans were discredited and the families have called for an examination of the true facts of the case - which has been linked to the killing of civilians by the same regiment on Bloody Sunday in Derry.

A spokesman for the families said they are "deeply disappointed" by Mr Paterson's decision to turn down their request for an independent investigation.

"Mr Paterson, in his letter, has stated that it 'would not be in the public interest' that an independent investigation be established," they said.

"We refute this assertion and believe that is clearly in the 'public interest' that the full facts relating to the circumstances of the deaths of our loved ones and the role of the British Parachute Regiment is fully established.

"This is especially so given the recent findings of Lord Saville in relation to the events of Bloody Sunday and the disclosure of official British government documents which reveal evidence of immunity for British soldiers involved in the murder of innocent civilians."

Northern Ireland's Attorney General John Larkin has ordered that the inquests into the deaths be re-opened.

But the families rejected advice they said they received from Mr Paterson that other avenues were open to them, including the police Historical Enquiries Team (HET) which is examining murders from the Troubles.

The relatives said the HET's handling of cases where soldiers were responsible for deaths had been criticised in a major report into its work.

The relatives said: "Although the families regard the re-opening of the inquests by the Attorney General as a very important step on our journey for truth, we believe that even a fully resourced and effective inquest will have limitations.

"It will be able to provide facts and gather crucial forensic, logistical and witness testimony evidence, but it will not be able to examines the causes, context and consequences of the massacre and answer so many of the questions that must be answered.

"We believe that only an independent investigation can facilitate the discovery of the facts and provide an accurate historical account of the events of August 1971 on the streets of Ballymurphy."

They repeated a call for British Prime Minister David Cameron to meet directly with the families.

The campaigners also asked for Taoiseach Enda Kenny to back their cause, in the way he has publicly supported the family of solicitor Pat Finucane who was killed by loyalists acting in collusion with security forces.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/british-government-ballymurphy-massacre-investigation-would-not-be-in-public-interest-556025.html

Quelle surprise indeed FóSB. Just like the release of the Dublin/Monaghan bombing files were deemed not to be in the public interest to be released, a decision made the day after the British Queen ended her visit where we were told there was mutual respect between the countries and that there would be a new beginning yadda yadda yaddaaa
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: saffron sam2 on June 20, 2012, 08:24:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:50:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 20, 2012, 04:45:49 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 20, 2012, 04:43:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed :-X

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697)

I don't get this?

PM sent

I am very sorry for calling you a wally.

Could you please send me one also?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Tony Baloney on June 20, 2012, 09:51:39 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:42:34 PM
Speaking of the UDA. In 2003, a document revealed that in November of the same year as the story above (1972), a letter sent from the Ministry of Defense to the prime minister, Edward Heath of the Conservative Party, described the UDA as "useful", "constructive" and "disciplined".

The same day the letter was dated, (Nov. 29, 1972), the UDA shot dead a 22 year old Catholic bar man. In just that one same month, they murdered five civilians.
How the f**k were the UDA legal until the early 90s?! Wait, no need to answer  :(
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trileacman on June 21, 2012, 12:10:37 AM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on June 20, 2012, 08:24:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:50:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 20, 2012, 04:45:49 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 20, 2012, 04:43:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed :-X

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697)

I don't get this?

PM sent

I am very sorry for calling you a wally.

Could you please send me one also?

Same.

Why can it not be posted on the board?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Tony Baloney on June 21, 2012, 12:13:40 AM
Quote from: trileacman on June 21, 2012, 12:10:37 AM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on June 20, 2012, 08:24:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:50:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 20, 2012, 04:45:49 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 20, 2012, 04:43:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed :-X

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697)

I don't get this?

PM sent

I am very sorry for calling you a wally.

Could you please send me one also?

Same.

Why can it not be posted on the board?
;D You're a great fella altogether, Nally Stand
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: LeoMc on June 21, 2012, 10:41:04 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 21, 2012, 12:13:40 AM
Quote from: trileacman on June 21, 2012, 12:10:37 AM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on June 20, 2012, 08:24:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:50:58 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 20, 2012, 04:45:49 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 20, 2012, 04:43:14 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 20, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed :-X

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697)

I don't get this?

PM sent

I am very sorry for calling you a wally.

Could you please send me one also?

Same.

Why can it not be posted on the board?
;D You're a great fella altogether, Nally Stand
Always had a lot of time for him :)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on June 21, 2012, 12:13:25 PM
Yis are only human  :P
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Evil Genius on June 21, 2012, 01:10:27 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 19, 2012, 11:12:36 AM
File reveals British Army immunity from prosecution was official policy

In 1972, 79 Irish people were shot dead by the British Army on Irish soil. The vast majority of these were civilians. In July 1972, a strategic government and security meeting at Stormont Castle was held, involving the Secretary for State William Whitelaw MP, the North's most senior British Army officer the General Officer Commanding (GOC) General Ford, the Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC, plus Lord Windlesham the British government's representative in the House of Lords, British MP's, and senior civil servants from the NIO. Relatives for Justice this week unearthed a document from this meeting. The document includes some striking quotes:


  • That the GOC (the Head of the British Army in the north) "would see UDA leaders that afternoon" to let them know that their "efforts as vigilantes" were "acceptable".
  • That it was the British Governments"intention to carry on the war with the IRA with the utmost vigour"
  • And crucially,  'The (British) Army should not be inhibited in its campaign by the threat of court proceedings and should therefore be suitably indemnified[/b]."

This is the first documented proof of the British Government's determination to see no British Soldiers convicted for killings in Ireland. Of the approximate 300 hundreds killings by the British Army in Ireland since 1969, there has only been convictions in three cases. All of those convicted were released significantly early and reinstated back to their regiments. Some were promoted. As mentioned, this meeting took place in 1972. That year 79 people were shot by the British Army. The meeting took place in July. That month the British Army killed 20 innocent civilians. Not one British soldier faced a conviction for ANY of these killings throughout 1972.

In terms of the "acceptable" nature of the UDA's "vigilante activities"- the month this meeting was held, loyalists committed 27 sectarian murders. Over half of these (16) were carried out by the "acceptable" UDA.
Whilst these are undoubtedly very serious matters, I find it impossible to take at face value any account by you of these meetings and documents etc, both because you are either vague or selective in your quotations, but also because you are extracting from some (uncited) document produced by "Relatives For Justice", hardly the most impartial of organisations.

Worse still, you display a blatant disregard for basic facts (at least when they don't suit your case).

To take just one example which may easily be checked, I would refer to your claim that the Army killed 20 "innocent civilians" [sic] in July 1972.

For a quick reference to CAIN discloses that those 20 deaths include:
09 July - John Dougal, IRA Member
09 July - David McCafferty, IRA Mermber
11 July - Gerard Gibson, IRA Member
13 July - James Reid, IRA Member
14 July - Louis Scullion, IRA Member
14 July - Edward Brady, IRA Member
16 July - Tobias Molloy, IRA Member
21 July - Joseph Downey, IRA Member
28 July - Seamus Cassidy, IRA Member
31 July - Seamus Bradley, IRA Member (Total: 10)
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1972.html
(Note that although CAIN doesn't greatly elaborate, it can be seen that the vast majority - at least - were killed during gunfights or rioting etc).

Of course, even 10 deaths of innocent civilians are most serious and deserve further examination. But for Republicans to present even this reduced figure as "proof" of their case, without alluding to the greater context, is at best misleading and at worst malicious propaganda. For at least some of the remaining 10 civilians were caught up in exchanges of gunfire between the IRA and the Security Forces.

And what is also concealed by RFJ is just how violent, murderous and widespread was the disorder being faced by the Security Forces.

For example, during that same month, there was actually a total of 97 deaths. Twenty three of these were committed by "Loyalists" sic, whilst 51 were killed by the IRA (or other unnamed Republicans), including 28 civilians (20 Protestants and 8 RC's, btw). Republicans may also have been responsible for the murder of 2 further Protestant civilians (unattributed killings).

Included amongst this litany of death were the Bloody Friday Massacre, where the IRA murdered 9 people in a series of 20 no-warning bombs throughout Belfast, and the Claudy Massacre, where they murdered another 9 with 3 no-warning bombs.

In fact during that month, there were literally hundreds of shootings, bombings, riots and other disturbances, most of them the responsibility of the IRA/Republicans, which caused the deaths of 20 Members of the Security Forces.

In such a situation, it is a near miracle that the Security Forces didn't accidentally kill many more civilians, as they  fought to defend themselves and prevent the whole place sliding into all-out Civil War.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Billys Boots on June 21, 2012, 01:40:17 PM
The BBC report includes the words 'the vast majority of them were civilians'. 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Evil Genius on June 21, 2012, 01:57:48 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on June 21, 2012, 01:40:17 PM
The BBC report includes the words 'the vast majority of them were civilians'.
And I have cited a Database (CAIN), with specific names/dates, which clearly states that half were IRA members, and indicates that some of the remainder may have been caught up in crossfire etc.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Billys Boots on June 21, 2012, 02:13:06 PM
My point was that the piece didn't appear to come from an interested group, but from a BBC report.  I have no idea of the bona fides of your CAIN database, but I'd not expect the BBC to make unfounded statements. 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trueblue1234 on June 21, 2012, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 21, 2012, 01:10:27 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on June 19, 2012, 11:12:36 AM
File reveals British Army immunity from prosecution was official policy

In 1972, 79 Irish people were shot dead by the British Army on Irish soil. The vast majority of these were civilians. In July 1972, a strategic government and security meeting at Stormont Castle was held, involving the Secretary for State William Whitelaw MP, the North's most senior British Army officer the General Officer Commanding (GOC) General Ford, the Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC, plus Lord Windlesham the British government's representative in the House of Lords, British MP's, and senior civil servants from the NIO. Relatives for Justice this week unearthed a document from this meeting. The document includes some striking quotes:


  • That the GOC (the Head of the British Army in the north) "would see UDA leaders that afternoon" to let them know that their "efforts as vigilantes" were "acceptable".
  • That it was the British Governments"intention to carry on the war with the IRA with the utmost vigour"
  • And crucially,  'The (British) Army should not be inhibited in its campaign by the threat of court proceedings and should therefore be suitably indemnified[/b]."

This is the first documented proof of the British Government's determination to see no British Soldiers convicted for killings in Ireland. Of the approximate 300 hundreds killings by the British Army in Ireland since 1969, there has only been convictions in three cases. All of those convicted were released significantly early and reinstated back to their regiments. Some were promoted. As mentioned, this meeting took place in 1972. That year 79 people were shot by the British Army. The meeting took place in July. That month the British Army killed 20 innocent civilians. Not one British soldier faced a conviction for ANY of these killings throughout 1972.

In terms of the "acceptable" nature of the UDA's "vigilante activities"- the month this meeting was held, loyalists committed 27 sectarian murders. Over half of these (16) were carried out by the "acceptable" UDA.
Whilst these are undoubtedly very serious matters, I find it impossible to take at face value any account by you of these meetings and documents etc, both because you are either vague or selective in your quotations, but also because you are extracting from some (uncited) document produced by "Relatives For Justice", hardly the most impartial of organisations.

Worse still, you display a blatant disregard for basic facts (at least when they don't suit your case).

To take just one example which may easily be checked, I would refer to your claim that the Army killed 20 "innocent civilians" [sic] in July 1972.

For a quick reference to CAIN discloses that those 20 deaths include:
09 July - John Dougal, IRA Member
09 July - David McCafferty, IRA Mermber
11 July - Gerard Gibson, IRA Member
13 July - James Reid, IRA Member
14 July - Louis Scullion, IRA Member
14 July - Edward Brady, IRA Member
16 July - Tobias Molloy, IRA Member
21 July - Joseph Downey, IRA Member
28 July - Seamus Cassidy, IRA Member
31 July - Seamus Bradley, IRA Member (Total: 10)
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1972.html
(Note that although CAIN doesn't greatly elaborate, it can be seen that the vast majority - at least - were killed during gunfights or rioting etc).

Of course, even 10 deaths of innocent civilians are most serious and deserve further examination. But for Republicans to present even this reduced figure as "proof" of their case, without alluding to the greater context, is at best misleading and at worst malicious propaganda. For at least some of the remaining 10 civilians were caught up in exchanges of gunfire between the IRA and the Security Forces.

And what is also concealed by RFJ is just how violent, murderous and widespread was the disorder being faced by the Security Forces.

For example, during that same month, there was actually a total of 97 deaths. Twenty three of these were committed by "Loyalists" sic, whilst 51 were killed by the IRA (or other unnamed Republicans), including 28 civilians (20 Protestants and 8 RC's, btw). Republicans may also have been responsible for the murder of 2 further Protestant civilians (unattributed killings).

Included amongst this litany of death were the Bloody Friday Massacre, where the IRA murdered 9 people in a series of 20 no-warning bombs throughout Belfast, and the Claudy Massacre, where they murdered another 9 with 3 no-warning bombs.

In fact during that month, there were literally hundreds of shootings, bombings, riots and other disturbances, most of them the responsibility of the IRA/Republicans, which caused the deaths of 20 Members of the Security Forces.

In such a situation, it is a near miracle that the Security Forces didn't accidentally kill many more civilians, as they  fought to defend themselves and prevent the whole place sliding into all-out Civil War.

Me thinks you are missing a point here. Not just a point, but perhaps the biggest. As far as I know any crimes by the IRA were followed up with investigations and if caught were punished ( With or without evidence). The issue here is that the soldiers committing the crimes were not punished. In fact they received immunity by the state. It's actually a miracle that they got away with such disregard for human life and that there wasn't more violence as the nationalist community struggled to protect itself. 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: All of a Sludden on December 09, 2012, 09:13:31 PM
EG seems to be unusually quiet this week, probably doing a bit of protesting. BBC NI are unusually quiet also.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1209/pat-finucane-murder-collusion-ruc.html
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: charlieTully on December 09, 2012, 09:26:42 PM
Quote from: All of a Sludden on December 09, 2012, 09:13:31 PM
EG seems to be unusually quiet this week, probably doing a bit of protesting. BBC NI are unusually quiet also.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1209/pat-finucane-murder-collusion-ruc.html

Lying low no doubt. He will resurface at some stage. The joy is, the events off this week have rendered any future comments obsolete, unless of course he apologises unreservedly for the actions of his undemocratic brothers and sisters.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: LeoMc on December 09, 2012, 10:04:44 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on December 09, 2012, 09:26:42 PM
Quote from: All of a Sludden on December 09, 2012, 09:13:31 PM
EG seems to be unusually quiet this week, probably doing a bit of protesting. BBC NI are unusually quiet also.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1209/pat-finucane-murder-collusion-ruc.html

Lying low no doubt. He will resurface at some stage. The joy is, the events off this week have rendered any future comments obsolete, unless of course he apologises unreservedly for the actions of his undemocratic brothers and sisters.

In fairness to him he wasn't exactly supporting them when you queried this earlier in the week.
Quote

Quote from: charlieTully on December 03, 2012, 09:35:59 PM
For once I am quite looking forward to what the evil genius has to say.
QuoteFrom what I've seen and read, these "Loyalists" [sic] seem to be the usual utter scum that gather on such occasions.

I'd love to see the Peelers baton them back under the rock from which they crawled, then reverse a Land Rover over it, but sadly, they'd probably complain that their "human rights" were being infringed, or something.

P.S. Did you expect me to say anything different?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: charlieTully on December 09, 2012, 10:14:30 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on December 09, 2012, 10:04:44 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on December 09, 2012, 09:26:42 PM
Quote from: All of a Sludden on December 09, 2012, 09:13:31 PM
EG seems to be unusually quiet this week, probably doing a bit of protesting. BBC NI are unusually quiet also.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1209/pat-finucane-murder-collusion-ruc.html

Lying low no doubt. He will resurface at some stage. The joy is, the events off this week have rendered any future comments obsolete, unless of course he apologises unreservedly for the actions of his undemocratic brothers and sisters.

In fairness to him he wasn't exactly supporting them when you queried this earlier in the week.
Quote

Quote from: charlieTully on December 03, 2012, 09:35:59 PM
For once I am quite looking forward to what the evil genius has to say.
QuoteFrom what I've seen and read, these "Loyalists" [sic] seem to be the usual utter scum that gather on such occasions.

I'd love to see the Peelers baton them back under the rock from which they crawled, then reverse a Land Rover over it, but sadly, they'd probably complain that their "human rights" were being infringed, or something.

P.S. Did you expect me to say anything different?

i took him at his word, but his absence since raises doubts, don't get me wrong i do have a begrudging respect, but if there was ever a time for him to be fighting the corner its now. maybe he is genuinely embarrassed by the whole thing. his comments on pat finucane remain unforgivable though,
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: LeoMc on December 10, 2012, 08:36:58 AM
Quote from: charlieTully on December 09, 2012, 10:14:30 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on December 09, 2012, 10:04:44 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on December 09, 2012, 09:26:42 PM
Quote from: All of a Sludden on December 09, 2012, 09:13:31 PM
EG seems to be unusually quiet this week, probably doing a bit of protesting. BBC NI are unusually quiet also.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1209/pat-finucane-murder-collusion-ruc.html

Lying low no doubt. He will resurface at some stage. The joy is, the events off this week have rendered any future comments obsolete, unless of course he apologises unreservedly for the actions of his undemocratic brothers and sisters.

In fairness to him he wasn't exactly supporting them when you queried this earlier in the week.
Quote

Quote from: charlieTully on December 03, 2012, 09:35:59 PM
For once I am quite looking forward to what the evil genius has to say.
QuoteFrom what I've seen and read, these "Loyalists" [sic] seem to be the usual utter scum that gather on such occasions.

I'd love to see the Peelers baton them back under the rock from which they crawled, then reverse a Land Rover over it, but sadly, they'd probably complain that their "human rights" were being infringed, or something.

P.S. Did you expect me to say anything different?

i took him at his word, but his absence since raises doubts, don't get me wrong i do have a begrudging respect, but if there was ever a time for him to be fighting the corner its now. maybe he is genuinely embarrassed by the whole thing. his comments on pat finucane remain unforgivable though,

There havn't been the same level of line by line rebuttals alright. ;D
I would say you are not far off with the bit highlighted.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Dougal Maguire on December 10, 2012, 10:12:50 PM
Can' t understand how any of you can have any truck with the guy . He' s a complete bigot what else has him on here? Do any of you bother for instance to post on the O W C site?  His only reason for coming on herd is to spread his bile and hatred . I've been ignoring his posts for months and I feel much better for it
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: All of a Sludden on December 10, 2012, 10:17:52 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on December 10, 2012, 10:12:50 PM
Do any of you bother for instance to post on the ICE site?

ICE site?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Dougal Maguire on December 10, 2012, 10:49:53 PM
I should be o w cc . Blame the kindle fire hd
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Tony Baloney on December 10, 2012, 10:57:25 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on December 10, 2012, 10:49:53 PM
I should be o w cc . Blame the kindle fire hd
Much better the second time  ;D
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Dougal Maguire on December 10, 2012, 11:06:04 PM
Kindle Fire H D for sale
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: JUst retired on December 12, 2012, 07:08:04 AM
Interesting comments on BBC news last night. A senior detective admitted he knew about the collusion in the Finnucane case after a few months. He knew MI5 were controlling special branch.
Why only now? EG`s comments would be helpful!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: haveaharp on December 12, 2012, 08:31:33 AM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on December 10, 2012, 10:12:50 PM
I've been ignoring his posts for months and I feel much better for it

You mean he bothered you that much in the first place ?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hardy on December 12, 2012, 10:38:12 AM
What's with all this pathetic invocation of EG? Is this a variant of the "going out of your way to be offended" syndrome, whereby you go out of your way to find someone likely to have a different viewpoint to yourself (but only on occasions when you sense a potential opportunity to gloat and never on occasions when the shoe might be on the other foot)?

Or is it just another form of coat trailing/marching where you're not wanted, whereby a perceived victory (though that in itself is a pathetic view of the current situation) is worthless unless you can flaunt it before your perceived enemy?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: orangeman on December 12, 2012, 12:45:55 PM
As expected -


A review of the murder into solicitor Pat Finucane concludes that were was "no overarching state conspiracy", the Prime Minister David Cameron has said.

But Mr Cameron said the report by lawyer Desmond de Silva confirmed that agents of the state were involved in the 1989 killing and that it should have been prevented.

Mr Finucane was shot dead by loyalists at his north Belfast home.

It was one of the most controversial killings of the Troubles.

Last year, Mr Cameron acknowledged there was state collusion in Mr Finucane's murder and apologised to his family.

Sir Desmond de Silva QC carried out the review at the government's request. The Finucanes want a public inquiry as they feared the full truth would not emerge.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: LeoMc on December 12, 2012, 01:24:21 PM
Don't see anything there not known or at least suspected.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the level of state collusion uncovered by the report was "shocking"  to whom?

The review found RUC officers proposed Mr Finucane, 39, be killed, said they passed information to his killers and failed to stop the attack and then obstructed the murder investigation.Even the RUC Inspector who investigated the murder has been claiming that

MI5 helped spread propaganda against Mr Finucane in the years before he was killed.

85% of the UDA's 'intelligence' originated from sources within the security forces".Well they have no intelligence of their own

Mr Cameron was strongly critical of the RUC and Army for their conduct in relation to the killing.

"ministers were misled". Mr Cameron added that the report found "no evidence whatsoever that any government minister had fore-knowledge of Mr Finucane's murder"Wink wink, Need to know old boy, best you don't know the details. Pass the port there.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Franko on December 12, 2012, 01:25:07 PM
The review found RUC officers proposed Mr Finucane, 39, be killed, said they passed information to his killers and failed to stop the attack and then obstructed the murder investigation.

Fairly important piece of info for the BBC to bury half-way through the article.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Orior on December 12, 2012, 01:35:45 PM
Basically, the British got away with murder.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on December 12, 2012, 01:36:10 PM
Following the debate (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/dec/12/cameron-statement-finucane-report-pmqs-live) in the House of Commons is a dispiriting experience. Everyone admits it's awful, but it only emphasises how wonderful (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/dec/12/cameron-statement-finucane-report-pmqs-live#block-50c886f595cbcfe457e3dcef) everyone else in the RUC and the British Army were. The idea that the security forces were rotten to the core is too appalling a vista to contemplate.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ulick on December 12, 2012, 01:37:55 PM
Over to you Taoiseach.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: orangeman on December 12, 2012, 01:41:10 PM
The level of state collusion uncovered by a report into the murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane is "shocking", Prime Minister David Cameron has said.

But not overarching.


How shocking does it need to be ?

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: omagh_gael on December 12, 2012, 01:42:00 PM
Quote from: Hardy on December 12, 2012, 10:38:12 AM
What's with all this pathetic invocation of EG? Is this a variant of the "going out of your way to be offended" syndrome, whereby you go out of your way to find someone likely to have a different viewpoint to yourself (but only on occasions when you sense a potential opportunity to gloat and never on occasions when the shoe might be on the other foot)?

Or is it just another form of coat trailing/marching where you're not wanted, whereby a perceived victory (though that in itself is a pathetic view of the current situation) is worthless unless you can flaunt it before your perceived
enemy?

Whilst I agree with you highlighting this point in general, particularly over in the flag thread, I believe EG's views on this extremely  emotive  subject should be questioned here. He has dragged Pat Finucane's name through the mud on countless occasions and past evidence and today's evidence cements the notion that, at times, he does not simply post here to provide a unionist critique of our discussions but rather to inflame and insult the memory of a dead man.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on December 12, 2012, 01:43:17 PM
The only thing that surprises me is that the murder of Pat Finucane has eventually been officially recognised, everything else was known years ago.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: LeoMc on December 12, 2012, 01:49:16 PM
Quote from: omagh_gael on December 12, 2012, 01:42:00 PM
Quote from: Hardy on December 12, 2012, 10:38:12 AM
What's with all this pathetic invocation of EG? Is this a variant of the "going out of your way to be offended" syndrome, whereby you go out of your way to find someone likely to have a different viewpoint to yourself (but only on occasions when you sense a potential opportunity to gloat and never on occasions when the shoe might be on the other foot)?

Or is it just another form of coat trailing/marching where you're not wanted, whereby a perceived victory (though that in itself is a pathetic view of the current situation) is worthless unless you can flaunt it before your perceived
enemy?

Whilst I agree with you highlighting this point in general, particularly over in the flag thread, I believe EG's views on this extremely  emotive  subject should be questioned here. He has dragged Pat Finucane's name through the mud on countless occasions and past evidence and today's evidence cements the notion that, at times, he does not simply post here to provide a unionist critique of our discussions but rather to inflame and insult the memory of a dead man.

He stood up and condemned the flag protests. It is time he apologised for his views on PF.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Main Street on December 12, 2012, 01:50:11 PM
Quote from: Hardy on December 12, 2012, 10:38:12 AM
What's with all this pathetic invocation of EG? Is this a variant of the "going out of your way to be offended" syndrome, whereby you go out of your way to find someone likely to have a different viewpoint to yourself (but only on occasions when you sense a potential opportunity to gloat and never on occasions when the shoe might be on the other foot)?

Or is it just another form of coat trailing/marching where you're not wanted, whereby a perceived victory (though that in itself is a pathetic view of the current situation) is worthless unless you can flaunt it before your perceived enemy?
Personally I'm not bothered what the pretentious windbag has to offer on this particular thread, after his claim that whilst condemning the murder, he had no problem with accepting 100% that Finucane was a despicable  human creature, worse in his opinion than the IRA gunmen/bombers.
An opinion which most probably is derived from his injudicious unlimited appetite to swallow unsubstantiated nonsense wholesale,  such as the vague testimony of a tout as well as the state sanctioned campaign of propaganda&lies about Finucane, sustained for years before his murder.

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on December 12, 2012, 02:06:18 PM
Listening to David Cameron today would turn the stomach. Speaking about how "shocking" it was to hear of collusion being a factor! And that to bring peace on, "one of the things this government can do to help is to face up honestly when things have gone wrong in the past. If we as a country want to uphold democracy and the rule of law then we must be prepared to be judged by the highest standards. And we must also face up fully when we fall short. In showing once again that we are not afraid to do that." This is the same David Cameron who refuses a public inquiry and allowed this review based on nothing more than trusting MI5 etc to hand over all it's files. This is also the same David Cameron who spouted (along with the likes of An Taoiseach) about these two islands moving forward together in mutual respect etc etc after the royal visit to Dublin, but who's government the day after the visit ended, refused an Irish Government request to hand over it's files on the Dublin/Monaghan bombings. Hardly what I'd call "facing up honestly", Dave. I suppose in the spirit of this new found honesty, David's government will maybe release the rest of the Steven's report findings? As I mentioned on here before, when the final Stevens Report was completed, it ran to 3,000 pages. The British Government have only released just 22 (heavily censored) pages.

When loyalists murdered people in their homes, witnesses often reported that they had broken in and walked straight to the bedrooms of their victims, already knowing the house layout. I once recall seeing the "security" forces sketch my home's layout as a simple means of intimidation; but this tactic of intimidation by an implied threat was widespread. It gives an idea of the extent to which collusion was so very deeply rooted and makes you wonder how the full truth of it ever could all come out. Experiences like that, and days like today, also make me all the more amazed at some people, such as a certain mayo clown on this board, who's knowledge of what life was like here extended to expressing the view that in those times, people who were being subjected to security force intimidation just "should have reported it to the police".
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: heganboy on December 12, 2012, 03:37:45 PM
whats with all the vitriol with EG? Surely he's as entitled as any of the rest of the posters on this board to express his views and opinions. In fact he's a welcome counterpoint in these discussions. If you don't want to hear a different point of view from your own, don't post on a discussion board, or if you do, don't read the replies.

Last I checked there are a significant number of people with a similar opinion to EG, and more to the point he recognises that there are a significant number of people with a different perspective to him (on this board) and he is willing to engage and discuss. You might even learn something...

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ulick on December 12, 2012, 03:49:51 PM
Quote from: heganboy on December 12, 2012, 03:37:45 PM
whats with all the vitriol with EG? Surely he's as entitled as any of the rest of the posters on this board to express his views and opinions. In fact he's a welcome counterpoint in these discussions. If you don't want to hear a different point of view from your own, don't post on a discussion board, or if you do, don't read the replies.

Last I checked there are a significant number of people with a similar opinion to EG, and more to the point he recognises that there are a significant number of people with a different perspective to him (on this board) and he is willing to engage and discuss. You might even learn something...

Purporting the lies that got Finucane murdered in the first place, despite Stevens, the PSNI and now this report saying he wasn't a member of the IRA.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: heganboy on December 12, 2012, 03:56:49 PM
even Mr Cameron explained this morning that there was a campaign of disinformation ref Mr Finucane, you can't blame someone for trusting their sources. Again he's willing to come and discuss which I think is a very welcome addition to the forum...
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ulick on December 12, 2012, 03:59:21 PM
Quote from: heganboy on December 12, 2012, 03:56:49 PM
even Mr Cameron explained this morning that there was a campaign of disinformation ref Mr Finucane, you can't blame someone for trusting their sources. Again he's willing to come and discuss which I think is a very welcome addition to the forum...

Maybe 20 years ago it could be forgiven but Finucane was cleared by many reports in the meantime. Repeating the lies here is only shit-stirring and insulting.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on December 12, 2012, 04:14:03 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 12, 2012, 03:59:21 PM
Quote from: heganboy on December 12, 2012, 03:56:49 PM
even Mr Cameron explained this morning that there was a campaign of disinformation ref Mr Finucane, you can't blame someone for trusting their sources. Again he's willing to come and discuss which I think is a very welcome addition to the forum...

Maybe 20 years ago it could be forgiven but Finucane was cleared by many reports in the meantime. Repeating the lies here is only shit-stirring and insulting.

+1 but let's not forget another poster who contributed to the debate:

Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 08:35:49 PM
He was an IRA man, he got shot, get over it.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on October 12, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
PF, like his brothers, was an active member of the IRA....
I repeat, he was in the IRA, he got shot, get over it.


Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: red hander on December 12, 2012, 04:40:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 12, 2012, 02:06:18 PM
Listening to David Cameron today would turn the stomach. Speaking about how "shocking" it was to hear of collusion being a factor! And that to bring peace on, "one of the things this government can do to help is to face up honestly when things have gone wrong in the past. If we as a country want to uphold democracy and the rule of law then we must be prepared to be judged by the highest standards. And we must also face up fully when we fall short. In showing once again that we are not afraid to do that." This is the same David Cameron who refuses a public inquiry and allowed this review based on nothing more than trusting MI5 etc to hand over all it's files. This is also the same David Cameron who spouted (along with the likes of An Taoiseach) about these two islands moving forward together in mutual respect etc etc after the royal visit to Dublin, but who's government the day after the visit ended, refused an Irish Government request to hand over it's files on the Dublin/Monaghan bombings. Hardly what I'd call "facing up honestly", Dave. I suppose in the spirit of this new found honesty, David's government will maybe release the rest of the Steven's report findings? As I mentioned on here before, when the final Stevens Report was completed, it ran to 3,000 pages. The British Government have only released just 22 (heavily censored) pages.

When loyalists murdered people in their homes, witnesses often reported that they had broken in and walked straight to the bedrooms of their victims, already knowing the house layout. I once recall seeing the "security" forces sketch my home's layout as a simple means of intimidation; but this tactic of intimidation by an implied threat was widespread. It gives an idea of the extent to which collusion was so very deeply rooted and makes you wonder how the full truth of it ever could all come out. Experiences like that, and days like today, also make me all the more amazed at some people, such as a certain mayo clown on this board, who's knowledge of what life was like here extended to expressing the view that in those times, people who were being subjected to security force intimidation just "should have reported it to the police".

No one should be surprised, sure the British did similar in every part of their empire that resisted occupation, we know it, they know, unionists who called people who alleged collusion fantasists know it ... that's why they can stick their f**king poppies right up their holes every November when they're bitching about Fenians not wearing them
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: charlieTully on December 12, 2012, 04:49:15 PM
Quote from: red hander on December 12, 2012, 04:40:03 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on December 12, 2012, 02:06:18 PM
Listening to David Cameron today would turn the stomach. Speaking about how "shocking" it was to hear of collusion being a factor! And that to bring peace on, "one of the things this government can do to help is to face up honestly when things have gone wrong in the past. If we as a country want to uphold democracy and the rule of law then we must be prepared to be judged by the highest standards. And we must also face up fully when we fall short. In showing once again that we are not afraid to do that." This is the same David Cameron who refuses a public inquiry and allowed this review based on nothing more than trusting MI5 etc to hand over all it's files. This is also the same David Cameron who spouted (along with the likes of An Taoiseach) about these two islands moving forward together in mutual respect etc etc after the royal visit to Dublin, but who's government the day after the visit ended, refused an Irish Government request to hand over it's files on the Dublin/Monaghan bombings. Hardly what I'd call "facing up honestly", Dave. I suppose in the spirit of this new found honesty, David's government will maybe release the rest of the Steven's report findings? As I mentioned on here before, when the final Stevens Report was completed, it ran to 3,000 pages. The British Government have only released just 22 (heavily censored) pages.

When loyalists murdered people in their homes, witnesses often reported that they had broken in and walked straight to the bedrooms of their victims, already knowing the house layout. I once recall seeing the "security" forces sketch my home's layout as a simple means of intimidation; but this tactic of intimidation by an implied threat was widespread. It gives an idea of the extent to which collusion was so very deeply rooted and makes you wonder how the full truth of it ever could all come out. Experiences like that, and days like today, also make me all the more amazed at some people, such as a certain mayo clown on this board, who's knowledge of what life was like here extended to expressing the view that in those times, people who were being subjected to security force intimidation just "should have reported it to the police".

No one should be surprised, sure the British did similar in every part of their empire that resisted occupation, we know it, they know, unionists who called people who alleged collusion fantasists know it ... that's why they can stick their f**king poppies right up their holes every November when they're bitching about Fenians not wearing them

+1. Could not agree more.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on December 12, 2012, 07:14:39 PM
If one accepts Desmond de Silva and what that states about the capabilities of (at the very least, elements of) the security forces in Northern Ireland then one must accept that the same forces were more than capable of spreading disinformation about Pat Finucane.

Myles and EG must see how this undermines the "everybody knew he was" arguments that have been bandied about.

No doubt opinions on the result of this report will fall either side of normal sectarian lines when it comes to Northern Ireland's politicians.  But even unionist representatives should realise that action must be taken to prevent the likes of this happening again. 

/Jim.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: heganboy on December 12, 2012, 07:45:48 PM
interesting quote from Peter Hain

QuotePat Finucane had republican sympathies but he was a lawyer, not an activist, still less an IRA member. Yet, as De Silva confirms, the FRU and other state security officers obstructed the subsequent police murder investigation which would have exposed their complicity.

form http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/12/pat-finucane-death-stain-northern-ireland

interesting question from an american in the office, "if the government provided 85% of the loyalist intelligence and all of their weaponry does that mean without government help only 15% of the folks they killed would actually have died?"
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stew on December 12, 2012, 09:01:24 PM
Quote from: omagh_gael on December 12, 2012, 01:42:00 PM
Quote from: Hardy on December 12, 2012, 10:38:12 AM
What's with all this pathetic invocation of EG? Is this a variant of the "going out of your way to be offended" syndrome, whereby you go out of your way to find someone likely to have a different viewpoint to yourself (but only on occasions when you sense a potential opportunity to gloat and never on occasions when the shoe might be on the other foot)?

Or is it just another form of coat trailing/marching where you're not wanted, whereby a perceived victory (though that in itself is a pathetic view of the current situation) is worthless unless you can flaunt it before your perceived
enemy?

Whilst I agree with you highlighting this point in general, particularly over in the flag thread, I believe EG's views on this extremely  emotive  subject should be questioned here. He has dragged Pat Finucane's name through the mud on countless occasions and past evidence and today's evidence cements the notion that, at times, he does not simply post here to provide a unionist critique of our discussions but rather to inflame and insult the memory of a dead man.


He is a twisted, disgusting ignoramus and he should hang his head in shame for his comments regarding Pat Finucane, he was consistent in his bigotry and hatred of this man and he is a moral coward, if he had any human decency in his at all he would apologize, admit he lied about his sources pertaining to Finucane and then fcuk away off into the sunset.

Sadly he is not the type to admit he was wrong, he is a horrible, bitter little man and I hope he stays in his hole and we never hear from him or his like again.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on December 12, 2012, 09:29:14 PM
How likely is it that a full public enquiry would actually uncover the whole truth on this?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 12, 2012, 09:59:05 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 12, 2012, 03:59:21 PM
Quote from: heganboy on December 12, 2012, 03:56:49 PM
even Mr Cameron explained this morning that there was a campaign of disinformation ref Mr Finucane, you can't blame someone for trusting their sources. Again he's willing to come and discuss which I think is a very welcome addition to the forum...

Maybe 20 years ago it could be forgiven but Finucane was cleared by many reports in the meantime. Repeating the lies here is only shit-stirring and insulting.
So you're convinced that PF wasn't in the IRA because a succession of British-state sponsored reports have said so? Just to be clear: that would be the same British state, presumably, that targeted him and colluded with loyalist killers to murder him in the first place? The same British state that might now have a vested interest in denying that PF was ever in the IRA, because to do otherwise would expose it to the accusation of retrospectively justifying his murder? The same British state that might be far better off just issuing a few apologies and claiming that a few rotten apples at the bottom of the barrel were to blame (especially as most of these rotten apples, as Mrs Finucane has pointed out, are dead or no longer serving with British forces) rather than risk a whole can of worms being opened up? That's the same British state you're citing to support your view that PF wasn't a Provo?
Fair enough. Each to his own.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ulick on December 12, 2012, 10:21:53 PM
No I trust the word of his wife and family but good old British reports should be good enough for the likes of you.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Franko on December 12, 2012, 11:41:08 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 12, 2012, 09:59:05 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 12, 2012, 03:59:21 PM
Quote from: heganboy on December 12, 2012, 03:56:49 PM
even Mr Cameron explained this morning that there was a campaign of disinformation ref Mr Finucane, you can't blame someone for trusting their sources. Again he's willing to come and discuss which I think is a very welcome addition to the forum...

Maybe 20 years ago it could be forgiven but Finucane was cleared by many reports in the meantime. Repeating the lies here is only shit-stirring and insulting.
So you're convinced that PF wasn't in the IRA because a succession of British-state sponsored reports have said so? Just to be clear: that would be the same British state, presumably, that targeted him and colluded with loyalist killers to murder him in the first place? The same British state that might now have a vested interest in denying that PF was ever in the IRA, because to do otherwise would expose it to the accusation of retrospectively justifying his murder? The same British state that might be far better off just issuing a few apologies and claiming that a few rotten apples at the bottom of the barrel were to blame (especially as most of these rotten apples, as Mrs Finucane has pointed out, are dead or no longer serving with British forces) rather than risk a whole can of worms being opened up? That's the same British state you're citing to support your view that PF wasn't a Provo?
Fair enough. Each to his own.

So what you are saying is that the government have doctored the findings of the De Silva and Stevens reports to suit their own ends. I wonder, in that case, what other truths they have hidden?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: rossie mad on December 12, 2012, 11:59:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 12, 2012, 09:59:05 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 12, 2012, 03:59:21 PM
Quote from: heganboy on December 12, 2012, 03:56:49 PM
even Mr Cameron explained this morning that there was a campaign of disinformation ref Mr Finucane, you can't blame someone for trusting their sources. Again he's willing to come and discuss which I think is a very welcome addition to the forum...

Maybe 20 years ago it could be forgiven but Finucane was cleared by many reports in the meantime. Repeating the lies here is only shit-stirring and insulting.
So you're convinced that PF wasn't in the IRA because a succession of British-state sponsored reports have said so? Just to be clear: that would be the same British state, presumably, that targeted him and colluded with loyalist killers to murder him in the first place? The same British state that might now have a vested interest in denying that PF was ever in the IRA, because to do otherwise would expose it to the accusation of retrospectively justifying his murder? The same British state that might be far better off just issuing a few apologies and claiming that a few rotten apples at the bottom of the barrel were to blame (especially as most of these rotten apples, as Mrs Finucane has pointed out, are dead or no longer serving with British forces) rather than risk a whole can of worms being opened up? That's the same British state you're citing to support your view that PF wasn't a Provo?
Fair enough. Each to his own.

So you are saying now that the brit goverment has made up the findings of the da silva report so that they now seem to be some sort of apologetic man that we now all have to feel sympathy for and take at face value that there was wrong one time in their past but all is rosy now and should be forgiven. but your twisted mindset still thinks instead the oppsite is the case and your view of mr Finucane being an active member of PIRA is the correct opinion.

I knew you were of the same pedigree as one of those hairs on the ballbag of a diseae infected rat but your last statement just confirms my findings
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: el_cuervo_fc on December 13, 2012, 05:41:54 AM
The phrase "There are none so blind as those who will not see" springs to mind here.

In all seriousness Myles, are you so twisted in your logic that you just can't admit when you are wrong?

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 07:08:34 AM
Quote from: Ulick on December 12, 2012, 10:21:53 PM
No I trust the word of his wife and family but good old British reports should be good enough for the likes of you.
Good old British reports aren't good enough for me. Neither are the opinions of his wife and family.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 07:10:06 AM
Quote from: Franko on December 12, 2012, 11:41:08 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 12, 2012, 09:59:05 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 12, 2012, 03:59:21 PM
Quote from: heganboy on December 12, 2012, 03:56:49 PM
even Mr Cameron explained this morning that there was a campaign of disinformation ref Mr Finucane, you can't blame someone for trusting their sources. Again he's willing to come and discuss which I think is a very welcome addition to the forum...

Maybe 20 years ago it could be forgiven but Finucane was cleared by many reports in the meantime. Repeating the lies here is only shit-stirring and insulting.
So you're convinced that PF wasn't in the IRA because a succession of British-state sponsored reports have said so? Just to be clear: that would be the same British state, presumably, that targeted him and colluded with loyalist killers to murder him in the first place? The same British state that might now have a vested interest in denying that PF was ever in the IRA, because to do otherwise would expose it to the accusation of retrospectively justifying his murder? The same British state that might be far better off just issuing a few apologies and claiming that a few rotten apples at the bottom of the barrel were to blame (especially as most of these rotten apples, as Mrs Finucane has pointed out, are dead or no longer serving with British forces) rather than risk a whole can of worms being opened up? That's the same British state you're citing to support your view that PF wasn't a Provo?
Fair enough. Each to his own.

So what you are saying is that the government have doctored the findings of the De Silva and Stevens reports to suit their own ends. I wonder, in that case, what other truths they have hidden?
That's what I'm saying. In the case of Stevens, they've refused to release most of it - just as k Nally Stand. ;)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 07:11:23 AM
Quote from: rossie mad on December 12, 2012, 11:59:28 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 12, 2012, 09:59:05 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 12, 2012, 03:59:21 PM
Quote from: heganboy on December 12, 2012, 03:56:49 PM
even Mr Cameron explained this morning that there was a campaign of disinformation ref Mr Finucane, you can't blame someone for trusting their sources. Again he's willing to come and discuss which I think is a very welcome addition to the forum...

Maybe 20 years ago it could be forgiven but Finucane was cleared by many reports in the meantime. Repeating the lies here is only shit-stirring and insulting.
So you're convinced that PF wasn't in the IRA because a succession of British-state sponsored reports have said so? Just to be clear: that would be the same British state, presumably, that targeted him and colluded with loyalist killers to murder him in the first place? The same British state that might now have a vested interest in denying that PF was ever in the IRA, because to do otherwise would expose it to the accusation of retrospectively justifying his murder? The same British state that might be far better off just issuing a few apologies and claiming that a few rotten apples at the bottom of the barrel were to blame (especially as most of these rotten apples, as Mrs Finucane has pointed out, are dead or no longer serving with British forces) rather than risk a whole can of worms being opened up? That's the same British state you're citing to support your view that PF wasn't a Provo?
Fair enough. Each to his own.

So you are saying now that the brit goverment has made up the findings of the da silva report so that they now seem to be some sort of apologetic man that we now all have to feel sympathy for and take at face value that there was wrong one time in their past but all is rosy now and should be forgiven. but your twisted mindset still thinks instead the oppsite is the case and your view of mr Finucane being an active member of PIRA is the correct opinion.

I knew you were of the same pedigree as one of those hairs on the ballbag of a diseae infected rat but your last statement just confirms my findings
Can you read?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: johnneycool on December 13, 2012, 08:26:13 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 07:08:34 AM
Quote from: Ulick on December 12, 2012, 10:21:53 PM
No I trust the word of his wife and family but good old British reports should be good enough for the likes of you.
Good old British reports aren't good enough for me. Neither are the opinions of his wife and family.

You're probably like myself M N G, you like to see good old hard evidence that Pat Finucane was in the IRA.

Is there any?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ulick on December 13, 2012, 08:31:59 AM
So you know better than his family, the PSNI (who have access to his intelligence reports), the IRA, Brit army and practically everyone who has ever examined the case? No evidence was ever produced to even suggest he was in the IRA, but you know better. Not often I ever resort to insults on here, but previous poster is right, you are a ballbag.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on December 13, 2012, 08:33:31 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 07:08:34 AM
Quote from: Ulick on December 12, 2012, 10:21:53 PM
No I trust the word of his wife and family but good old British reports should be good enough for the likes of you.
Good old British reports aren't good enough for me. Neither are the opinions of his wife and family.

So you base your view on what rock solid evidence then? Oh yes, the word of tout Sean O'Callaghan, widely accepted as a compulsive liar. Gotcha.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on December 13, 2012, 08:57:08 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on December 13, 2012, 08:26:13 AM
You're probably like myself M N G, you like to see good old hard evidence that Pat Finucane was in the IRA.

Is there any?

You don't understand how this works. You have to prove Pat Finucane wasn't in the IRA. It's like having to prove there is no God.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: seafoid on December 13, 2012, 11:16:07 AM
Quote from: deiseach on December 13, 2012, 08:57:08 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on December 13, 2012, 08:26:13 AM
You're probably like myself M N G, you like to see good old hard evidence that Pat Finucane was in the IRA.

Is there any?

You don't understand how this works. You have to prove Pat Finucane wasn't in the IRA. It's like having to prove there is no God.
Even if he was in the IRA the Brits had no right to murder him. Everyone in England is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And IRA membership never qualified for capital punishment in the courts.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 13, 2012, 08:31:59 AM
So you know better than his family, the PSNI (who have access to his intelligence reports), the IRA, Brit army and practically everyone who has ever examined the case? No evidence was ever produced to even suggest he was in the IRA, but you know better. Not often I ever resort to insults on here, but previous poster is right, you are a ballbag.
The family who loved him and want to protect his memory, the state that murdered him and which is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise - these are the sources you're relying on? Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons. He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 13, 2012, 07:27:58 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 13, 2012, 08:31:59 AM
So you know better than his family, the PSNI (who have access to his intelligence reports), the IRA, Brit army and practically everyone who has ever examined the case? No evidence was ever produced to even suggest he was in the IRA, but you know better. Not often I ever resort to insults on here, but previous poster is right, you are a ballbag.
The family who loved him and want to protect his memory, the state that murdered him and which is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise - these are the sources you're relying on? Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons. He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

You swallow more than a Spring-Tide of the British war-machine propaganda, and you have the bottomless shame to call others 'gullible, republican...'. Gobshite indeed.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: heganboy on December 13, 2012, 07:28:34 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM

Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons.
He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

awesome thanks for clarifying that all for us.

the interesting thing here is just how convinced you are that your opinion is so much more valuable than the other opinions given in the thread and unless you have some evidence then they are based on the same data that is in the public domain. But yours are better, so much better that you can heap abuse on someone that comes to a different conclusion...
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: AQMP on December 13, 2012, 07:59:11 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 13, 2012, 08:31:59 AM
So you know better than his family, the PSNI (who have access to his intelligence reports), the IRA, Brit army and practically everyone who has ever examined the case? No evidence was ever produced to even suggest he was in the IRA, but you know better. Not often I ever resort to insults on here, but previous poster is right, you are a ballbag.
The family who loved him and want to protect his memory, the state that murdered him and which is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise - these are the sources you're relying on? Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons. He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this.[/size] The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

The defence rests M'Lud
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 08:45:13 PM
Quote from: heganboy on December 13, 2012, 07:28:34 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM

Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons.
He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

awesome thanks for clarifying that all for us.

the interesting thing here is just how convinced you are that your opinion is so much more valuable than the other opinions given in the thread and unless you have some evidence then they are based on the same data that is in the public domain. But yours are better, so much better that you can heap abuse on someone that comes to a different conclusion...
No, but I can heap abuse on someone who heaped abuse on me. Carry on.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 08:48:44 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 13, 2012, 07:27:58 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 13, 2012, 08:31:59 AM
So you know better than his family, the PSNI (who have access to his intelligence reports), the IRA, Brit army and practically everyone who has ever examined the case? No evidence was ever produced to even suggest he was in the IRA, but you know better. Not often I ever resort to insults on here, but previous poster is right, you are a ballbag.
The family who loved him and want to protect his memory, the state that murdered him and which is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise - these are the sources you're relying on? Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons. He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

You swallow more than a Spring-Tide of the British war-machine propaganda, and you have the bottomless shame to call others 'gullible, republican...'. Gobshite indeed.
On this occasion, I'm the one who's refusing to accept what the British war machine is pumping out. It's the republicans on the board who are so desperate to make a secular saint of Pat Finucane that they are quoting MI5, the British Army and the RUC to back up their case. Strange days.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stibhan on December 13, 2012, 08:53:06 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 08:48:44 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 13, 2012, 07:27:58 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 13, 2012, 08:31:59 AM
So you know better than his family, the PSNI (who have access to his intelligence reports), the IRA, Brit army and practically everyone who has ever examined the case? No evidence was ever produced to even suggest he was in the IRA, but you know better. Not often I ever resort to insults on here, but previous poster is right, you are a ballbag.
The family who loved him and want to protect his memory, the state that murdered him and which is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise - these are the sources you're relying on? Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons. He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

You swallow more than a Spring-Tide of the British war-machine propaganda, and you have the bottomless shame to call others 'gullible, republican...'. Gobshite indeed.
On this occasion, I'm the one who's refusing to accept what the British war machine is pumping out. It's the republicans on the board who are so desperate to make a secular saint of Pat Finucane that they are quoting MI5, the British Army and the RUC to back up their case. Strange days.

This is the most ridiculous riposte I've ever heard. We are quoting the British Army, MI5 and the RUC to 'back up' our 'case', so that makes us believers in the British War Machine? Or maybe, just maybe, we're quoting them because it establishes accepted facts around the case - not opinions. Quoting the opposite side to one's self is a standard rhetorical device.

Maybe it's the man in the mirror who you need to have a look at because even the organisations responsible for these heinous crimes are accepting these facts. You're charting a lonely journey through a river of bullshit.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: bennydorano on December 13, 2012, 09:07:26 PM
Someone take the shovel of that man :-[ :-[ embarrassing.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 09:13:35 PM
The British state is now saying that PF was not in the IRA, yet at one stage most of the RUC special branch, MI5 and that army unit that Brian Nelson was attached to believed otherwise. That's precisely why he was set up to be murdered. The British government has changed its tune because it suits it to do so. To argue that PF was an IRA man would create the impression that the government was trying to justify the actions of state agents in murdering him. It would also keep the thing rumbling on when the government desperately wants to put a lid on it. It doesn't want a public enquiry that might reveal more details about the extent of collusion at the time, or which might start shining a light on how high up the involvement actually went. Much better, therefore, to issue a few apologies and blame it all on a few rogue operatives, who are mostly dead, out of service, or local thugs.

All this, of course, suits the republican agenda, which is happy  to portray PF as the innocent human rights activist cruelly cut down in his prime by the big bad Brits. I believe he was murdered by the state and that the murder was inexcusable. I also believe that he was, just like his brothers, an IRA operative, who was taking information in and out of the prisons under the cover of his professional duties.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: rossie mad on December 13, 2012, 09:23:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 09:13:35 PM
The British state is now saying that PF was not in the IRA, yet at one stage most of the RUC special branch, MI5 and that army unit that Brian Nelson was attached to believed otherwise. That's precisely why he was set up to be murdered. The British government has changed its tune because it suits it to do so. To argue that PF was an IRA man would create the impression that the government was trying to justify the actions of state agents in murdering him. It would also keep the thing rumbling on when the government desperately wants to put a lid on it. It doesn't want a public enquiry that might reveal more details about the extent of collusion at the time, or which might start shining a light on how high up the involvement actually went. Much better, therefore, to issue a few apologies and blame it all on a few rogue operatives, who are mostly dead, out of service, or local thugs.

All this, of course, suits the republican agenda, which is happy  to portray PF as the innocent human rights activist cruelly cut down in his prime by the big bad Brits. I believe he was murdered by the state and that the murder was inexcusable. I also believe that he was, just like his brothers, an IRA operative, who was taking information in and out of the prisons under the cover of his professional duties.

Show me some proof and your argument wont seem like a turkey on christmas eve,hopeless,
Your reverse pscyhology argument is showing you up like the alcoholic who says he will give up the booze in the morning but knowing full well that wont happen.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: heganboy on December 13, 2012, 09:24:58 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 09:13:35 PM
I also believe that he was, just like his brothers, an IRA operative, who was taking information in and out of the prisons under the cover of his professional duties.

Why do you believe this?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stibhan on December 13, 2012, 09:37:02 PM
It's a brave man that peddles lies about a murder victim.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: haveaharp on December 13, 2012, 09:38:30 PM
Quote from: heganboy on December 13, 2012, 09:24:58 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 09:13:35 PM
I also believe that he was, just like his brothers, an IRA operative, who was taking information in and out of the prisons under the cover of his professional duties.

Why do you believe this?

Because believing the alternative is beyond the capabilities of most Unionist mindsets.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 09:50:19 PM
Quote from: heganboy on December 13, 2012, 09:24:58 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 09:13:35 PM
I also believe that he was, just like his brothers, an IRA operative, who was taking information in and out of the prisons under the cover of his professional duties.

Why do you believe this?
He was from a family with exceptionally strong republican leanings. Three of his brothers were in the IRA. It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views. If he disapproved of his brothers' activities or of the IRA generally, he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel. A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement. Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside. He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private. Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament. There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: rossie mad on December 13, 2012, 10:06:00 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 09:50:19 PM
Quote from: heganboy on December 13, 2012, 09:24:58 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 09:13:35 PM
I also believe that he was, just like his brothers, an IRA operative, who was taking information in and out of the prisons under the cover of his professional duties.

Why do you believe this?
He was from a family with exceptionally strong republican leanings. Three of his brothers were in the IRA. It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views. If he disapproved of his brothers' activities or of the IRA generally, he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel. A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement. Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside. He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private. Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament. There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?

The highlighted extracts are the huge black holes in your theory
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Itchy on December 13, 2012, 10:07:57 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 09:50:19 PM
Quote from: heganboy on December 13, 2012, 09:24:58 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 09:13:35 PM
I also believe that he was, just like his brothers, an IRA operative, who was taking information in and out of the prisons under the cover of his professional duties.

Why do you believe this?
He was from a family with exceptionally strong republican leanings. Three of his brothers were in the IRA. It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views. If he disapproved of his brothers' activities or of the IRA generally, he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel. A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement. Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside. He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private. Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament. There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?

It doesn't matter what you believe. There was no evidence of what you say and I assume if there was he would have been arrested. What happened is that people who "believed" like you and who were in a position supposedly of law and order decided to execute a man in front of his wife and children.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 13, 2012, 10:16:41 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 09:13:35 PM
He was from a family with exceptionally strong republican leanings. Three of his brothers were in the IRA. It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views...

There's a term for that guilt-by-association-groupthink, but for fear of invoking Godwin's Law I'll say nothing.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on December 13, 2012, 10:20:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Finucane
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ulick on December 13, 2012, 11:02:11 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
The family who loved him and want to protect his memory, the state that murdered him and which is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise - these are the sources you're relying on? Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons. He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

What a load of balls.


1. " the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members"
I'm also from a "strong republican family" with many close relations active IRA members in every generation going back to my grandfather. I however was not, choosing instead to go to university and pursue a different path. I have never had any dealings with the IRA but by your logic I deserve to be shot!

2.  "PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons."
The IRA were able to smuggle cameras, radios, weapons and all sorts in and out of the Crum and Long Kesh even during the worst of the gaol protests in the 70s & 80s when prisoners were on 24 hour lock-down. You want us to believe they would compromise a solicitor by having him carry out work they were already capable of doing? That's bollocks.

3. "He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no."
Nonsense. I visited the gaols many times during the conflict and was never asked to carry anything more that a box of fags - and that was a request from the inside not out.

4. " You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so"
The IRA to my knowledge always claim their personnel when they die. I've been to enough funerals of 'unlikely' IRA volunteers to know this.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
He was from a family with exceptionally strong republican leanings. Three of his brothers were in the IRA. It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views. If he disapproved of his brothers' activities or of the IRA generally, he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel. A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement. Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside. He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private. Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament. There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?

5. "It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views."
You mean republican views - so what if he had. I'd guess over half the population of this island have republican leanings, doesn't mean they approved of the IRA, their actions, or deserved to be murdered for having those views.

6. "he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel."
Maybe he could have doffed his cap every time one of his unionist betters passed him on the street as well.

7. "A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement."
No one, solicitor or not ever had unsupervised access to IRA prisoners in the gaols and prisoners were subjected to cavity searches every time they went to and came from any meeting.

8. "Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside."
See 2. above

9. "He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private."
He may have been entitled to do so under ordinary law but everyone knew conversations with lawyers and prisoners in the north were recorded (and still are).

10. ". Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament."
Go read the report.

11. "There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?"
There is plenty of evidence Adams was in the IRA, but none for Finucane.

12. Ballbag
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on December 13, 2012, 11:18:38 PM
Pat finucane was Murdered because he was good at his job as a solicitor and had the balls to represent republicans during the height of the conflict. He was seen as an obstacle to the state prosecuting republican suspects. His death would have also been used as a direct threat to other people within the law practice to think twice about representing republicans.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 11:22:36 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 13, 2012, 11:02:11 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
The family who loved him and want to protect his memory, the state that murdered him and which is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise - these are the sources you're relying on? Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons. He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

What a load of balls.


1. " the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members"
I'm also from a "strong republican family" with many close relations active IRA members in every generation going back to my grandfather. I however was not, choosing instead to go to university and pursue a different path. I have never had any dealings with the IRA but by your logic I deserve to be shot!

2.  "PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons."
The IRA were able to smuggle cameras, radios, weapons and all sorts in and out of the Crum and Long Kesh even during the worst of the gaol protests in the 70s & 80s when prisoners were on 24 hour lock-down. You want us to believe they would compromise a solicitor by having him carry out work they were already capable of doing? That's bollocks.

3. "He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no."
Nonsense. I visited the gaols many times during the conflict and was never asked to carry anything more that a box of fags - and that was a request from the inside not out.

4. " You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so"
The IRA to my knowledge always claim their personnel when they die. I've been to enough funerals of 'unlikely' IRA volunteers to know this.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
He was from a family with exceptionally strong republican leanings. Three of his brothers were in the IRA. It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views. If he disapproved of his brothers' activities or of the IRA generally, he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel. A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement. Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside. He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private. Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament. There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?

5. "It is stretching credibility, therefore, to believe that PF didn't at the very least have pro IRA views."
You mean republican views - so what if he had. I'd guess over half the population of this island have republican leanings, doesn't mean they approved of the IRA, their actions, or deserved to be murdered for having those views.

6. "he could very easily have taken steps to distance himself from them and from the political situation in the north. He was an educated man. He could've practiced a different branch of law, he could've relocated, he could've done a number of things. Instead he immersed himself in high profile cases involving IRA personnel."
Maybe he could have doffed his cap every time one of his unionist betters passed him on the street as well.

7. "A man in his position, going in and out of the prisons with unsupervised access to IRA people, would've been very useful to the republican movement."
No one, solicitor or not ever had unsupervised access to IRA prisoners in the gaols and prisoners were subjected to cavity searches every time they went to and came from any meeting.

8. "Again, it is stretching credibility to believe that this wouldn't have occurred to the IRA leadership, or that they wouldn't have asked him to relay information back and forward. This could have been done without too much risk to himself, since they were hardly likely to compromise such an important operative by asking him to smuggle in explosives up his backside."
See 2. above

9. "He was only being asked to talk and listen, which he was entitled to do with his clients in private."
He may have been entitled to do so under ordinary law but everyone knew conversations with lawyers and prisoners in the north were recorded (and still are).

10. ". Clearly the establishment thought he was up to no good, despite what the British government is saying now. Remember, it was senior RUC officers - not special branch grunts - who briefed Douglas Hogg before his infamous comments in parliament."
Go read the report.

11. "There was and is no hard evidence of PF's activities, but then the same could be said of Gerry Adams. Who thinks he wasn't in the IRA?"
There is plenty of evidence Adams was in the IRA, but none for Finucane.

12. Ballbag
Too much there to respond to at this late hour, but point 4 looks wrong. The IRA sometimes only claims volunteers many years after the event, when it's politic to do so. Witness Gerard Donaghy, the young man shot dead on Bloody Sunday, only claimed as a volunteer many years later. Conversely, the IRA sometimes claims people who weren't volunteers - for example, the guy McElhone killed in the so called Battle of St Matthews. It later turned out that he wasn't an IRA man and he wasn't shot by loyalists, but rather by republican 'friendly fire'. In short, the IRA lies when ever it suits it to do so. Only a gullible gobshite would believe otherwise.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stibhan on December 13, 2012, 11:45:42 PM
'Of course there is no hard evidence of this'.

If you aren't going to base your claims on evidence then they are no more than falsehoods. The British Government would have had absolutely no reason to obfuscate the supposed fact that Finucane was in the IRA and your weasel words to the contrary are insulting to everyone's intelligence. You mentioned Gerard Donaghy, who was not exonerated of involvement in Fianna Éireann by Saville in any shape or form, a fact that completely contradicts your arguments.

As I said to that absolute p***k Ruth Dudley Edwards on twitter, you people may think that you get the right to decide who is/was a terrorist but you absolutely do not. None of your claims stand to reason but are based on the same kind of bigotry and sectarianism that led to Douglas Hogg's comments and the eventual murder of someone who represented both loyalists and republicans in court.

The question has to be asked, however, if you are labeling Finucane as a member of the IRA, are you also labeling his partner Peter Madden as such?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stew on December 14, 2012, 04:40:50 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 08:48:44 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 13, 2012, 07:27:58 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 13, 2012, 08:31:59 AM
So you know better than his family, the PSNI (who have access to his intelligence reports), the IRA, Brit army and practically everyone who has ever examined the case? No evidence was ever produced to even suggest he was in the IRA, but you know better. Not often I ever resort to insults on here, but previous poster is right, you are a ballbag.
The family who loved him and want to protect his memory, the state that murdered him and which is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise - these are the sources you're relying on? Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons. He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

You swallow more than a Spring-Tide of the British war-machine propaganda, and you have the bottomless shame to call others 'gullible, republican...'. Gobshite indeed.
On this occasion, I'm the one who's refusing to accept what the British war machine is pumping out. It's the republicans on the board who are so desperate to make a secular saint of Pat Finucane that they are quoting MI5, the British Army and the RUC to back up their case. Strange days.

Crawl back under your rock you horrible tit.

Give us evidence of PF being in the RA, you cant and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary you continue to smear a man that was murdered by loyalist butchers, you are pond scum, a coward and a hypocrite!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stew on December 14, 2012, 04:43:29 AM
Quote from: stibhan on December 13, 2012, 09:37:02 PM
It's a brave man that peddles lies about a murder victim.

It takes a coward who knows he cant be done for defamation of Character based on the fact the man whose good name he is trailing through the muck was murdered, it takes a special kind of tr**p to do that and myles fits the bill, he is a horrible bastid!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 14, 2012, 08:00:06 AM
Quote from: stibhan on December 13, 2012, 11:45:42 PM
'Of course there is no hard evidence of this'.

If you aren't going to base your claims on evidence then they are no more than falsehoods. The British Government would have had absolutely no reason to obfuscate the supposed fact that Finucane was in the IRA and your weasel words to the contrary are insulting to everyone's intelligence. You mentioned Gerard Donaghy, who was not exonerated of involvement in Fianna Éireann by Saville in any shape or form, a fact that completely contradicts your arguments.

As I said to that absolute p***k Ruth Dudley Edwards on twitter, you people may think that you get the right to decide who is/was a terrorist but you absolutely do not. None of your claims stand to reason but are based on the same kind of bigotry and sectarianism that led to Douglas Hogg's comments and the eventual murder of someone who represented both loyalists and republicans in court.

The question has to be asked, however, if you are labeling Finucane as a member of the IRA, are you also labeling his partner Peter Madden as such?
The British government has every reason to skate over the fact that PF was in the IRA and I've given them in previous posts. Saville was not a British government sponsored enquiry, it was an independent public enquiry. You've just highlighted the reason why the BG would rather apologise for PF's killing and move on. Your use of the words bigotry and sectarianism makes me wonder if you know what they mean. I appreciate that they're big favourites in the republican lexicon, even while republican ministers are discriminating against protestant job applicants or while republican councillors are naming play parks after people who carried out the Kingsmill massacre. Study those things and you'll maybe understand the real meaning of both words. As for Peter Madden, as far as I'm aware he's a fine solicitor, same as Rosemary Nelson, same as PJ McCrory, Padraigin Drinan and a host of others. What's your point? On the hard evidence point: lack of hard evidence hasn't stopped Enda Kenny from trailing Gerry Adams round the floor of the Irish parliament recently on account of his involvement in the Jean McConville abduction. Tweet that!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 14, 2012, 08:01:08 AM
Quote from: stew on December 14, 2012, 04:40:50 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 08:48:44 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 13, 2012, 07:27:58 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 13, 2012, 08:31:59 AM
So you know better than his family, the PSNI (who have access to his intelligence reports), the IRA, Brit army and practically everyone who has ever examined the case? No evidence was ever produced to even suggest he was in the IRA, but you know better. Not often I ever resort to insults on here, but previous poster is right, you are a ballbag.
The family who loved him and want to protect his memory, the state that murdered him and which is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise - these are the sources you're relying on? Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons. He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

You swallow more than a Spring-Tide of the British war-machine propaganda, and you have the bottomless shame to call others 'gullible, republican...'. Gobshite indeed.
On this occasion, I'm the one who's refusing to accept what the British war machine is pumping out. It's the republicans on the board who are so desperate to make a secular saint of Pat Finucane that they are quoting MI5, the British Army and the RUC to back up their case. Strange days.

Crawl back under your rock you horrible tit.

Give us evidence of PF being in the RA, you cant and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary you continue to smear a man that was murdered by loyalist butchers, you are pond scum, a coward and a hypocrite!
Calm down, Stewpid. And wipe that froth off your mouth man, it's not a good look.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: ziggysego on December 14, 2012, 08:19:41 AM
Nifan is a fantastic poster.

EG and SammyG,  whilst could get under my skin at times, I have respect for. Argued for what truly admit, but could listen to others and admit when they're are wrong.

You Myles, I've no respect for. You're a bitter soul, intent on stirring up sectarian haters. Well it's not going to happen. Now clear off and stop digging yourself into a hole.

You're clearly not wanted here by anyone.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stibhan on December 14, 2012, 09:52:11 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 14, 2012, 08:00:06 AM
Quote from: stibhan on December 13, 2012, 11:45:42 PM
'Of course there is no hard evidence of this'.

If you aren't going to base your claims on evidence then they are no more than falsehoods. The British Government would have had absolutely no reason to obfuscate the supposed fact that Finucane was in the IRA and your weasel words to the contrary are insulting to everyone's intelligence. You mentioned Gerard Donaghy, who was not exonerated of involvement in Fianna Éireann by Saville in any shape or form, a fact that completely contradicts your arguments.

As I said to that absolute p***k Ruth Dudley Edwards on twitter, you people may think that you get the right to decide who is/was a terrorist but you absolutely do not. None of your claims stand to reason but are based on the same kind of bigotry and sectarianism that led to Douglas Hogg's comments and the eventual murder of someone who represented both loyalists and republicans in court.

The question has to be asked, however, if you are labeling Finucane as a member of the IRA, are you also labeling his partner Peter Madden as such?
The British government has every reason to skate over the fact that PF was in the IRA and I've given them in previous posts. Saville was not a British government sponsored enquiry, it was an independent public enquiry. You've just highlighted the reason why the BG would rather apologise for PF's killing and move on. Your use of the words bigotry and sectarianism makes me wonder if you know what they mean. I appreciate that they're big favourites in the republican lexicon, even while republican ministers are discriminating against protestant job applicants or while republican councillors are naming play parks after people who carried out the Kingsmill massacre. Study those things and you'll maybe understand the real meaning of both words. As for Peter Madden, as far as I'm aware he's a fine solicitor, same as Rosemary Nelson, same as PJ McCrory, Padraigin Drinan and a host of others. What's your point? On the hard evidence point: lack of hard evidence hasn't stopped Enda Kenny from trailing Gerry Adams round the floor of the Irish parliament recently on account of his involvement in the Jean McConville abduction. Tweet that!

I don't think I need to be lectured on etymology and I feel that the use of both words was very much appropriate. None of what you said regarding your opinion that Pat Finucane was in the IRA has even been based on fact but hearsay as you yourself point out, and you've instead turned to sniveling whataboutery about events which are, again, subject to serious controversy and debate. Nonetheless the fact remains that what you say about Saville - it being an independent inquiry - is exactly right with regards to this case, and it would take that kind of scrutiny to ascertain whatever 'facts' which you so choose to believe.

My point about Madden is that you're labeling Finucane an IRA member but supposedly exonerating his partner of 10 years for the same crime, which suggest to me either that you're lying or that you're only comfortable making those sort of accusations against people who are dead. I don't doubt the innocence of all that you mentioned, even if you misspelled some of the names, but then I don't either doubt Finucane's innocence and this smear as the unionist defence mechanism that it is.

Parliamentary Privilege would be another defence mechanism by which Kenny is able to 'trail' Gerry Adams 'round the floor' of the Dail, doing so if I recall correctly in a manner which was so far removed from the tone and context of the debate that it should be embarrassing to the taoiseach. In any case you are not an elected representative and even if you were, you are not speaking in the Westminster, Stormont or Leinster House and do not have the protection of the law.

It is interesting that you would bring such an instance up considering how Parliamentary Privilege for Douglas Hogg is a central feature of the Finucane case. Then again, I don't doubt that it is an attempt to bring the focus of this argument away from Finucane - I didn't mention Jean McConville and it has absolutely nothing to do with this case. If you wish to start a separate thread about it then I will choose whether to contribute in that thread or not. As it stands we are discussing British Collusion and I'd appreciate it if you limited the scope of your answers to that particular topic.

I once again remind you that you are not in possession of the full details of this case and that you and the various others seeking to repeat the smear campaign of the British war machine are not the appointed moral arbiter for this case. From what is in the public domain and from what are accepted facts none of the conclusions that you draw can be verified and indeed many of them have been debunked using such accepted facts. Perhaps while I am occupied studying the words 'sectarianism', and 'bigotry', you can examine these and then revise some of these conclusions.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 22, 2012, 02:12:40 AM
All the way to Thatcher, at least Niall O'Dowd is in no doubt whatsoever...

The truth is Margaret Thatcher likely ordered the Pat Finucane murder - British can never reveal the truth about the killing of civil rights lawyer By Niall O'Dowd

__________________________________________________

The latest British inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane is again leaving massive questions unanswered.

The Guardian newspaper editorial headline said it best; "Pat Finucane murder: collusion, contrition, but not the whole truth."

My strong belief is that the whole truth is that Margaret Thatcher ordered the Pat Finucane murder on February 12, 1989.

That is the key reason that no British Prime Minister will ever allow a public inquiry into the killing of the Belfast civil rights lawyer gunned down in front of his wife and children at his home.

He was shot 14 times while his widow, Geraldine, who was injured, tried to save him.

His only offense was to defend suspected IRA men and women too well in their court hearings.

I am not at all surprised that David Cameron uttered words of regret and then refused a public inquiry after the Da Silva report was issued yesterday.

Geraldine Finucane, a woman of immense courage,called it for what it was.

"This report is a sham. This report is a whitewash. This report is a confidence trick dressed up as independent scrutiny and given invisible clothes of reliability. Most of all, most hurtful and insulting of all, this report is not the truth," she told reporters afterwards.

She knows what the truth is. The order to kill her husband came all the way from the top and David Cameron or any other British Prime Minister can never allow that truth to be revealed.

He can't admit the British kill civil rights lawyers, can he?

Patrick Finucane was bringing the case of the Gibraltar 3, three IRA members shot dead in cold blood in March 1988, to Europe, which was going to be a massive embarrassment for Thatcher, who very likely gave the order for them to be shot dead also.

That court later found the three had been shot unlawfully. They had their hands up in surrender when they were shot down.

Finucane was doomed by a top government official. A member of Thatcher's government Douglas Hogg, a Home Office minister, stood up in the House of Commons three weeks before Finucane was murdered and stated that some lawyers in Northern Ireland were "unduly sympathetic" to Irish Republicans.

He was directly referring to Finucane and signaling the killers to go ahead.

The new inquiry shows that MI5 was perfectly aware of the Finucane murder plot as were the RUC Special branch.

The Stevens inquiry into the Finucane killings stated, "My Enquiry team also investigated an allegation that senior RUC officers briefed the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Rt Hon Douglas Hogg QC, MP, that 'some solicitors were unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA."

Mr Hogg repeated this view...and the Enquiry concludes that "the Minister was compromised."

In this latest enquiry, Sir Desmond Da Silva wrote, "My review of the evidence relating to Patrick Finucane's case has left me in no doubt that agents of the State were involved in carrying out serious violations of human rights up to and including murder."

Those agents did not act alone, they did so on orders from on high -- all the way to 10 Downing Street.

Thatcher's reaction to the finding that her minister was responsible for the death of a lawyer?

She promoted him to Minister for Agriculture, all the better to keep him quiet.

Hogg was not alone in fingering Finucane of course. It went much higher in the government, all the way to the top.

It was a time when Thatcher apparently believed she could win the war if only those pesky lawyers would stop getting guilty terrorists off. She also faced massive embarrassment in Europe over the Gibraltar killings.

The killing was sanctioned and carried out by the British state. Of all the crimes committed in Northern Ireland, the Finucane murder is the one which successive British government, of whatever hue, have most resisted investigating.

Pat's problem was that he was too good at his job of defending Irish men and women arrested for alleged crimes against the state.

He had to be got rid of. The leader of the gang that killed him was a British special branch agent named Tommy Lyttle. The man who confessed to being the Ulster Defense Association hit man was Ken Barrett, also a special branch agent.

The UDA man who supplied the gun was William Stobie, also a special branch agent. He was killed by the UDA, by a British agent in 2001, when he threatened to tell the truth about what happened to Pat Finucane.

Hogg and Thatcher might as well have been in the room when the gun went off fourteen times - they were just as culpable. The naming was the equivalent of painting a target on Finucane's back - everyone knew who Hogg meant.

The British government had made their preference known.

And all the whitewash in the world will never remove the truth about what happened to Pat Finucane.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Wildweasel74 on December 22, 2012, 11:28:51 AM
Myles you don't live in the north i think, going on previous post elsewhere, the reality is you know very little of the troubles outside what u would have read in the papers at the time, up her you were always innocent until proved guilty, if my brother done something, does that mean am guilty by association or blood, the old adage, innocent until proved guilty is universal, This man as far as i am aware was guilty of nothing, been a republican is no reason for shooting a man. Maybe you dont like who he represented, but somebody would have represented IRA suspects in court if he did not. does that give the police/state the right to allow a terrorist organization to shoot him because they think he involved somehow. No is the answer encase you stuck looking for one. And no i dont vote for sinn fein is the other encase you think am a die hard republican
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 22, 2012, 11:33:26 AM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on December 22, 2012, 11:28:51 AM
Myles you don't live in the north i think, going on previous post elsewhere, the reality is you know very little of the troubles outside what u would have read in the papers at the time, up her you were always innocent until proved guilty, if my brother done something, does that mean am guilty by association or blood, the old adage, innocent until proved guilty is universal, This man as far as i am aware was guilty of nothing, been a republican is no reason for shooting a man. Maybe you dont like who he represented, but somebody would have represented IRA suspects in court if he did not. does that give the police/state the right to allow a terrorist organization to shoot him because they think he involved somehow. No is the answer encase you stuck looking for one. And no i dont vote for sinn fein is the other encase you think am a die hard republican
Born and bred in Belfast as it happens, and still living here. And old enough to remember the troubles in their entirety.

O'Dowd's article is simply an example of more cherry picking from republicans. Quite happy, it appears, to accept some aspects of this British state sponsored report (ie Pat Finuncane was not actively assisting the IRA, we're truly sorry, etc etc), but unhappy with the over arching conclusion (ie this act of murder was commissioned and carried out at a low operational level of the political / military food chain). The fact is, the execution of PF was absolutely wrong, whether he was a human rights lawyer or an IRA operative. The British government knows this. It knows that democratic governments in the western world cannot go around ordering the murder of political dissidents. It therefore wants to put a lid on this case to avoid the embarrassment of further revelations. The report is designed to do just that. It is fundamentally flawed, which means that all its conclusions need to be treated with caution. That includes the conclusion that PF wasn't actively assisting the IRA.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Wildweasel74 on December 22, 2012, 11:50:42 AM
The fact that you live in belfast, i cant understand your attitude to this, i would have little interest in republican affairs, i would have alot of catholic and protestant friends, i have little time for politics to tell you the truth, but Derry always Derry to me not londonderry, Ireland is my football and rugby team, i lived down south a while, i still see myself as very Irish (in reality maybe more Irish than people down south) in a way abit like these clowns with the flags see themselves more British than the mainland, the siege mentality kicks in. Even though i wont term myself as a republican,ic an see there is something very wrong about what happened. guesswork if he was in an organization does not help matters. You only rile up alot of people on here including myself that's see an injustice, with supposed justification for the state/UDA  for carrying this murder was that his own crime was he was a republican, and thats so wrong.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 22, 2012, 01:05:37 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on December 22, 2012, 11:50:42 AM
The fact that you live in belfast, i cant understand your attitude to this, i would have little interest in republican affairs, i would have alot of catholic and protestant friends, i have little time for politics to tell you the truth, but Derry always Derry to me not londonderry, Ireland is my football and rugby team, i lived down south a while, i still see myself as very Irish (in reality maybe more Irish than people down south) in a way abit like these clowns with the flags see themselves more British than the mainland, the siege mentality kicks in. Even though i wont term myself as a republican,ic an see there is something very wrong about what happened. guesswork on if he was in an organization does not help matters. You only rile up alot of people on here including myself that's see an injustice, with supposed justification for the state/UDA  for carrying this murder was that his own crime was he was a republican, and thats so wrong.
How many different ways can I say that the murder of PF was wrong? Governments should not go around bumping off people they don't like, end of story. The fact that I think PF was an active IRA member does not qualify that in any way.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stew on December 22, 2012, 09:33:35 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 14, 2012, 08:01:08 AM
Quote from: stew on December 14, 2012, 04:40:50 AM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 08:48:44 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on December 13, 2012, 07:27:58 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 13, 2012, 06:37:37 PM
Quote from: Ulick on December 13, 2012, 08:31:59 AM
So you know better than his family, the PSNI (who have access to his intelligence reports), the IRA, Brit army and practically everyone who has ever examined the case? No evidence was ever produced to even suggest he was in the IRA, but you know better. Not often I ever resort to insults on here, but previous poster is right, you are a ballbag.
The family who loved him and want to protect his memory, the state that murdered him and which is now engaged in a damage limitation exercise - these are the sources you're relying on? Think I'll form my own opinion, thanks. It's based on the fact that PF was from a strong republican family, with 3 brothers who were active IRA members. PF was in a position to help the IRA by carrying vital intelligence information in and out of the prisons. He would've been asked to assist and with his background, it's unlikely he would've said no. Of course there's no hard evidence of this. The IRA were hardly likely to expose such a valuable asset to arrest by asking him to smuggle armalites into the Maze. But you know better. You know for certain that neither PF or Gerry Adams were ever in the IRA. You know this because the IRA, the British Army, MI5 and Mrs Finucane have said so. You are one gullible, republican gobshite.

You swallow more than a Spring-Tide of the British war-machine propaganda, and you have the bottomless shame to call others 'gullible, republican...'. Gobshite indeed.
On this occasion, I'm the one who's refusing to accept what the British war machine is pumping out. It's the republicans on the board who are so desperate to make a secular saint of Pat Finucane that they are quoting MI5, the British Army and the RUC to back up their case. Strange days.

Crawl back under your rock you horrible tit.

Give us evidence of PF being in the RA, you cant and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary you continue to smear a man that was murdered by loyalist butchers, you are pond scum, a coward and a hypocrite!
Calm down, Stewpid. And wipe that froth off your mouth man, it's not a good look.

Shove your advice up your hole you horrible, bigoted barsteward.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Itchy on December 22, 2012, 09:38:21 PM
Myles - if you have information that proves Pat Finucane was in the IRA you should really give it to the PSNI. If you don't then perhaps you should just stop taking shite and being such a bitter nasty little man.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stew on December 22, 2012, 09:42:51 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 22, 2012, 01:05:37 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on December 22, 2012, 11:50:42 AM
The fact that you live in belfast, i cant understand your attitude to this, i would have little interest in republican affairs, i would have alot of catholic and protestant friends, i have little time for politics to tell you the truth, but Derry always Derry to me not londonderry, Ireland is my football and rugby team, i lived down south a while, i still see myself as very Irish (in reality maybe more Irish than people down south) in a way abit like these clowns with the flags see themselves more British than the mainland, the siege mentality kicks in. Even though i wont term myself as a republican,ic an see there is something very wrong about what happened. guesswork on if he was in an organization does not help matters. You only rile up alot of people on here including myself that's see an injustice, with supposed justification for the state/UDA  for carrying this murder was that his own crime was he was a republican, and thats so wrong.
How many different ways can I say that the murder of PF was wrong? Governments should not go around bumping off people they don't like, end of story. The fact that I think PF was an active IRA member does not qualify that in any way.

You think, you dont know and you are wrong, you are arrogant and despite the evidence to the contrary you hold fast to this warped view, that's a bit dim really!

You saying the murder means nothing, that you continue your cowardly assault on a dead man makes you a coward of the powest order, I just hope his wife never see's the bile you write!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stew on December 22, 2012, 09:44:55 PM
Quote from: Itchy on December 22, 2012, 09:38:21 PM
Myles - if you have information that proves Pat Finucane was in the IRA you should really give it to the PSNI. If you don't then perhaps you should just stop taking shite and being such a bitter nasty little man.

The PSNI wouldnt know what to do with evidence, i am waiting for him to call out someone who is still alive and state they were in the RA without proof, he would shit himself before he would do that because at heart he is a bigot and a coward!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 23, 2012, 12:18:02 AM
Quote from: stew on December 22, 2012, 09:44:55 PM
Quote from: Itchy on December 22, 2012, 09:38:21 PM
Myles - if you have information that proves Pat Finucane was in the IRA you should really give it to the PSNI. If you don't then perhaps you should just stop taking shite and being such a bitter nasty little man.

The PSNI wouldnt know what to do with evidence, i am waiting for him to call out someone who is still alive and state they were in the RA without proof, he would shit himself before he would do that because at heart he is a bigot and a coward!
Two words for you, Stewpid: Gerry Adams.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stew on December 23, 2012, 07:03:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 23, 2012, 12:18:02 AM
Quote from: stew on December 22, 2012, 09:44:55 PM
Quote from: Itchy on December 22, 2012, 09:38:21 PM
Myles - if you have information that proves Pat Finucane was in the IRA you should really give it to the PSNI. If you don't then perhaps you should just stop taking shite and being such a bitter nasty little man.

The PSNI wouldnt know what to do with evidence, i am waiting for him to call out someone who is still alive and state they were in the RA without proof, he would shit himself before he would do that because at heart he is a bigot and a coward!
Two words for you, Stewpid: Gerry Adams.

Piles. Gerry Adams has never been a member of the ra, he has denied it for decades, the pissni have never been able to nail him for it and your brit courts have never convicted of being a member of the IRA.

Piles, do the words " innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?

Your comments on PF are nothing but a disgrace and to me you are the scum of the earth, closet loyalist who is as arrogant as he is obscene.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 23, 2012, 07:32:15 PM
Quote from: stew on December 23, 2012, 07:03:53 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 23, 2012, 12:18:02 AM
Quote from: stew on December 22, 2012, 09:44:55 PM
Quote from: Itchy on December 22, 2012, 09:38:21 PM
Myles - if you have information that proves Pat Finucane was in the IRA you should really give it to the PSNI. If you don't then perhaps you should just stop taking shite and being such a bitter nasty little man.

The PSNI wouldnt know what to do with evidence, i am waiting for him to call out someone who is still alive and state they were in the RA without proof, he would shit himself before he would do that because at heart he is a bigot and a coward!
Two words for you, Stewpid: Gerry Adams.

Piles. Gerry Adams has never been a member of the ra, he has denied it for decades, the pissni have never been able to nail him for it and your brit courts have never convicted of being a member of the IRA.

Piles, do the words " innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?

Your comments on PF are nothing but a disgrace and to me you are the scum of the earth, closet loyalist who is as arrogant as he is obscene.
I rest my case, m'lord.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 09:30:16 AM
Someone must be getting a JCB for Christmas to assist with their digging!!

The IRA wouldnt have Adams for fecks sake - he was a talker never an activist!

Jeez , talking about sticking to ones blind prejudice and here say instead of facts/reality!
God rest Pat Finnucane. His family will never get justice in this lifetime - not while thatcher and so many other colluding partisan in government (retired) , army, police force, mi5,mi6 etc are still alive.

Slowly these little things are being admitted. Flegs and state support withdrawn.
Reunification is inching ever onwards - until the economies are completely entwined and reintegration will be seamless !
Happy Christmas all
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Myles Na G. on December 24, 2012, 11:55:03 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 09:30:16 AM
Someone must be getting a JCB for Christmas to assist with their digging!!

The IRA wouldnt have Adams for fecks sake - he was a talker never an activist!

Jeez , talking about sticking to ones blind prejudice and here say instead of facts/reality!
God rest Pat Finnucane. His family will never get justice in this lifetime - not while thatcher and so many other colluding partisan in government (retired) , army, police force, mi5,mi6 etc are still alive.

Slowly these little things are being admitted. Flegs and state support withdrawn.
Reunification is inching ever onwards - until the economies are completely entwined and reintegration will be seamless !
Happy Christmas all
Did the talkers wear different colour berets?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/9560123/IRA-bomber-says-Gerry-Adams-sanctioned-mainland-bombing-campaign.html
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Saffrongael on December 24, 2012, 12:02:02 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 09:30:16 AM
Someone must be getting a JCB for Christmas to assist with their digging!!

The IRA wouldnt have Adams for fecks sake - he was a talker never an activist!

Jeez , talking about sticking to ones blind prejudice and here say instead of facts/reality!
God rest Pat Finnucane. His family will never get justice in this lifetime - not while thatcher and so many other colluding partisan in government (retired) , army, police force, mi5,mi6 etc are still alive.

Slowly these little things are being admitted. Flegs and state support withdrawn.
Reunification is inching ever onwards - until the economies are completely entwined and reintegration will be seamless !
Happy Christmas all

It really isn't.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 01:49:17 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 24, 2012, 11:55:03 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 09:30:16 AM
Someone must be getting a JCB for Christmas to assist with their digging!!

The IRA wouldnt have Adams for fecks sake - he was a talker never an activist!

Jeez , talking about sticking to ones blind prejudice and here say instead of facts/reality!
God rest Pat Finnucane. His family will never get justice in this lifetime - not while thatcher and so many other colluding partisan in government (retired) , army, police force, mi5,mi6 etc are still alive.

Slowly these little things are being admitted. Flegs and state support withdrawn.
Reunification is inching ever onwards - until the economies are completely entwined and reintegration will be seamless !
Happy Christmas all
Did the talkers wear different colour berets?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/9560123/IRA-bomber-says-Gerry-Adams-sanctioned-mainland-bombing-campaign.html
Very nice wee story!
Pity it's untrue!
Adams wasn't in the org let alone in any position of power!
Only fanciful newspaper reports and loyalist/unionist wishful thinking!
Find any IRA person that would agree with that if you can!
Happy Chrismas!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on December 24, 2012, 02:02:43 PM
Whatever Lynchboy  ::)
I suspect you're in  minority of one on that one ( sorry 2 . Jorra also says he wasn't in the IRA  ;))
One way or the other he wouldn't have approved a "mainland" bombing anyway as he lives , like me , on the mainland of Ireland plus Id never beleive a newspaper like that anyway.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 02:14:13 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 24, 2012, 12:02:02 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 09:30:16 AM
Someone must be getting a JCB for Christmas to assist with their digging!!

The IRA wouldnt have Adams for fecks sake - he was a talker never an activist!

Jeez , talking about sticking to ones blind prejudice and here say instead of facts/reality!
God rest Pat Finnucane. His family will never get justice in this lifetime - not while thatcher and so many other colluding partisan in government (retired) , army, police force, mi5,mi6 etc are still alive.

Slowly these little things are being admitted. Flegs and state support withdrawn.
Reunification is inching ever onwards - until the economies are completely entwined and reintegration will be seamless !
Happy Christmas all

It really isn't.
Strange then the increase of cross border developments, joint initiatives, increase in the dail's say/involvement in the running of affairs in the north of Ireland.
Coupled with the British gov desire to relinquish its hold, reduce its costs and repatriot jobs - well if you don't see the pattern or desire - then good luck to you.

Eventually it will make economic sense all round- then it will happen , and this will sway voters in the north as well as south not the other way around.
All northerners of both persuasions flocked south in Celtic tiger times and will do so again once this recession wears off in the next year or two.
On its own there is no economic hope for the six counties. A 32 county Ireland would be even more appealing to foreign investment- just need east coast nordies to up their work ethic!
;)
Happy Christmas!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 02:17:24 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 24, 2012, 02:02:43 PM
Whatever Lynchboy  ::)
I suspect you're in  minority of one on that one ( sorry 2 . Jorra also says he wasn't in the IRA  ;))
One way or the other he wouldn't have approved a "mainland" bombing anyway as he lives , like me , on the mainland of Ireland plus Id never beleive a newspaper like that anyway.
Sure feel free to prove his membership and order giving at any stage- or a one else with such proof!

There's a few who seem to feel they can!

Whenever yer ready!!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on December 24, 2012, 03:01:22 PM
Proof  indeed.
Secret "illegal" guerilla armies always publish their lists of members on th'internet or do they tattoo a membership number on the arm.? :D ;D
Happy Christmas Lynchboy.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 03:18:51 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 24, 2012, 03:01:22 PM
Proof  indeed.
Secret "illegal" guerilla armies always publish their lists of members on th'internet or do they tattoo a membership number on the arm.? :D ;D
Happy Christmas Lynchboy.
Indeed- but as you and a few others are so sure then please demonstrate on what evidence and proof you base this absolute belief!
Nollaig Shona!
:)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on December 24, 2012, 04:47:00 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 03:18:51 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 24, 2012, 03:01:22 PM
Proof  indeed.
Secret "illegal" guerilla armies always publish their lists of members on th'internet or do they tattoo a membership number on the arm.? :D ;D
Happy Christmas Lynchboy.
Indeed- but as you and a few others are so sure then please demonstrate on what evidence and proof you base this absolute belief!Nollaig Shona!
:)

Whatever ya say - say nothin when ya talk about you know what  ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Saffrongael on December 24, 2012, 05:08:42 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 01:49:17 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 24, 2012, 11:55:03 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 09:30:16 AM
Someone must be getting a JCB for Christmas to assist with their digging!!

The IRA wouldnt have Adams for fecks sake - he was a talker never an activist!

Jeez , talking about sticking to ones blind prejudice and here say instead of facts/reality!
God rest Pat Finnucane. His family will never get justice in this lifetime - not while thatcher and so many other colluding partisan in government (retired) , army, police force, mi5,mi6 etc are still alive.

Slowly these little things are being admitted. Flegs and state support withdrawn.
Reunification is inching ever onwards - until the economies are completely entwined and reintegration will be seamless !
Happy Christmas all
Did the talkers wear different colour berets?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/9560123/IRA-bomber-says-Gerry-Adams-sanctioned-mainland-bombing-campaign.html
Very nice wee story!
Pity it's untrue!
Adams wasn't in the org let alone in any position of power!
Only fanciful newspaper reports and loyalist/unionist wishful thinking!
Find any IRA person that would agree with that if you can!
Happy Chrismas!

Brendan Hughes
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 07:25:53 PM
Quote from: Saffrongael on December 24, 2012, 05:08:42 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 01:49:17 PM
Quote from: Myles Na G. on December 24, 2012, 11:55:03 AM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 09:30:16 AM
Someone must be getting a JCB for Christmas to assist with their digging!!

The IRA wouldnt have Adams for fecks sake - he was a talker never an activist!

Jeez , talking about sticking to ones blind prejudice and here say instead of facts/reality!
God rest Pat Finnucane. His family will never get justice in this lifetime - not while thatcher and so many other colluding partisan in government (retired) , army, police force, mi5,mi6 etc are still alive.

Slowly these little things are being admitted. Flegs and state support withdrawn.
Reunification is inching ever onwards - until the economies are completely entwined and reintegration will be seamless !
Happy Christmas all
Did the talkers wear different colour berets?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/9560123/IRA-bomber-says-Gerry-Adams-sanctioned-mainland-bombing-campaign.html
Very nice wee story!
Pity it's untrue!
Adams wasn't in the org let alone in any position of power!
Only fanciful newspaper reports and loyalist/unionist wishful thinking!
Find any IRA person that would agree with that if you can!
Happy Chrismas!

Brendan Hughes
Funnily enough , he wasn't saying that  23 years ago in Philadelphia in July/aug ( can't rem which month).
God rest him but I think he had an agenda to discredit Adams before the dark passed away.
There's plenty of other things he could have said about him instead!
I'm no fan of Adams but that's just wrong!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Gaffer on December 24, 2012, 08:25:42 PM
Here is a question to the people who demand that actual proof is produced when others state that Adams was a member of the IRA........

Where is the actual proof that Thatcher personally authorised the Shoot to Kill policy in N Ireland during the troubles? 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Saffrongael on December 24, 2012, 08:30:56 PM
There is plenty that happened during the troubles up for debate, the fact that Adams was in the IRA is not one of them.

You look like a fool for arguing otherwise.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 09:52:59 PM
Yep it is inconsequential enough alright!
I'm prob just being pedantic! - but then again I'm not the one making the unsubstantiated claim!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: thebigfella on December 24, 2012, 09:53:30 PM
Listen what ever you argue Adams was/is up to his neck in it. Grow up the f**king lot of you  ::) ::)  ::) ::)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 09:56:40 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on December 24, 2012, 08:25:42 PM
Here is a question to the people who demand that actual proof is produced when others state that Adams was a member of the IRA........

Where is the actual proof that Thatcher personally authorised the Shoot to Kill policy in N Ireland during the troubles?
Actually people believe that if an open tribunal was allowed this may actually be proven!
If not then it would at least then be disproven.
I don't know if they could hang that one on thatcher though! I'd doubt it , but that's a personal opinion.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Gaffer on December 24, 2012, 10:00:47 PM
It may be proven if it were true. Then again it may not be true. There is no proof  just like there is no proof about Adams.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on December 24, 2012, 10:01:22 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on December 24, 2012, 09:53:30 PM
Listen what ever you argue Adams was/is up to his neck in it. Grow up the f**king lot of you  ::) ::)  ::) ::)
Unless you can prove otherwise I don't believe the useless hoor could have done anything other than talk the length of himself.
I'd be very intrigued to see something of note on this- nothing but here say yet.
Don't be portraying this twit to be an activist when he is a self publicist at best!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: give her dixie on February 01, 2013, 02:53:55 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21283169


Pat Finucane killing: 'Far worse than anything alleged in Iraq or Afghanistan'

One of David Cameron's closest advisors described the murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane as far worse than anything alleged in Iraq or Afghanistan, the High Court has heard.

Sir Jeremy Heywood also questioned whether the prime minister believed it was right to "renege" on a previous administration's commitment to hold a public inquiry into a killing.

His family are challenging that decision.

Mr Finucane was shot dead in 1989.

On Thursday, Mr Justice Stephens heard how Mr Heywood, now cabinet secretary, referred to Mr Finucane's murder as "a dark moment in the country's history".

Details of emailed correspondence between the top civil servant and another senior Downing Street official were revealed as lawyers for the Finucane family pressed for complete disclosure of notes or recordings from a series of ministerial meetings.

They want the material as part of their legal challenge to the British government's refusal to order a full, independent probe into the 1989 assassination.

A review carried out by lawyer Sir Desmond de Silva QC and published in December confirmed agents of the state were involved in the murder and that it should have been prevented.

Collusion
However, it concluded there had been no overarching state conspiracy in the shooting, carried out by the loyalist Ulster Freedom Fighters at the solicitor's north Belfast home.

Although Mr Cameron expressed shock at the level of collusion uncovered by Sir Desmond, Mr Finuncane's widow, Geraldine claimed it was a sham and a whitewash.

Opening the family's application for discovery of the documents, Barry Macdonald QC said the case was about past and present abuse of state power.

The first instance in 1989 involved the murder of a solicitor perceived to be "a thorn in the side" of the government, police and security services, he claimed.

Mr Macdonald continued: "Secondly, it's about abuse of power in 2011 by the current government when it decided to renege on a solemn commitment to conduct a public inquiry into those events in 1989."

The full scale of what went on has yet to be revealed, according to the barrister.

He told Mr Justice Stephens: "The applicant, Mrs Finucane, knows the name of the person who pulled the trigger. The question is who was pulling the strings?

"In a 500-page report by Sir Desmond de Silva, consideration of the government's role takes up five pages."

Stressing the gravity of the case, Mr Macdonald detailed an email Sir Jeremy sent to Simon King, a private secretary to the prime minister, ahead of a ministerial meeting in July 2011.

In correspondence already disclosed to the parties, he asked: "Does the prime minister seriously think that it's right to renege on a previous government's clear commitment to hold a full judicial inquiry?

"This was a dark moment in the country's history - far worse than anything that was alleged in Iraq/Afghanistan.

"I cannot really think of any argument to defend not having a public inquiry. What am I missing?"

A reply email stated that the prime minister "shares the view this is an awful case, and as bad as it gets, and far worse than any post 9/11 allegation", the court heard.

Transcripts
According to Mr Macdonald, the exchange provided a flavour of the seriousness of the alleged abuse of power in not holding a public inquiry.

Material being sought by the Finuncanes' lawyers includes original notes, minutes, recordings or transcripts of:

A meeting between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Prime Minister on November 5, 2011
A meeting of officials from the Northern Ireland Office, Cabinet Office and Prime Minister's Office on May 16, 2011
A meeting of ministers on July 11, 2011
A Cabinet meeting on October 11, 2011
Copies of letters from MI5 to the Northern Ireland Office in February and March 2011
Paul McLaughlin, appearing for the government, told the court that the decision taken in the Finucane case followed a detailed balancing exercise.

He said it involved weighing any commitment by a previous government against current public interest.

Mr McLaughlin also pointed out that retired Canadian Judge Peter Cory had already examined the case and concluded there should be a public inquiry.

He argued that some of the material being sought would not advance the plaintiff's cause any further.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the prime minister said: "There is nothing we want to add to this story."

Mr Finucane was shot dead by loyalists in front of his wife and children at his north Belfast home in 1989.

Mr Cameron acknowledged in 2011 there had been state collusion in Mr Finucane's murder and apologised to his family.

The hearing continues.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Harold Disgracey on February 01, 2013, 11:26:45 AM
Worth a read.

http://www.spinwatch.org/images/Countergangs1971-76.pdf
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on March 28, 2013, 10:41:38 AM
Letter to The Irish Times by the brother of Vol. Mairead Farrell, who while unarmed and with her hands in the air, was shot dead at close range by the SAS (eight times in the back and face), alongside Vols Sean Savage (shot between 16 & 18 times) & Daniel McCann (shot 5 times) 25 years ago.

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/gibraltar-killings-recalled-1.1340634#.UVPom40Xjcg.twitter (http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/gibraltar-killings-recalled-1.1340634#.UVPom40Xjcg.twitter)

A chara, –
Some things seem never to change: 25 years since the Gibraltar killings and the only reference we find in The Irish Times is a preview of a London play setting out how the British establishment would prefer the shootings to be remembered. All other cultural events marking the anniversary are ignored: from a play on the life of my sister Mairead Farrell to the re-publication in e-format of the epic satirical poem on those shootings, Gib: A Modest Exposure by a Scots academic, the late Jack Mitchell.
Mark Hennessy (Weekend Review, March 23rd) uncritically presents a hackneyed thesis in the play placing the blame for the killings on IRA "doves", who wanted the three hardliners killed. Unsettling for the British lawyer playwright no doubt is that the European Court of Human Rights didn't see it that way. It found the British government guilty of the "unlawful killing" of the trio, who were unarmed – something your report fails to make clear. The report attempts to dilute that powerful verdict by noting the Strasbourg court did not grant "compensation" to the families – nothing could have compensated my elderly parents for the loss of their only daughter.
What should stand centre stage 25 years on, is that the IRA's guns have fallen silent, but not the weaponry of the other protagonist, the British state. We have just marked the 10th anniversary of the US and British illegal Iraq war. More than one million innocent people have been killed. And the British state continues to wage war in foreign lands.
Sinn Féin is regularly baited in the Dáil by Enda Kenny Eamon Gilmore for IRA murders. What rank hypocrisy; their Government, like consecutive Irish coalitions, is an accomplice in the US's imperial wars by allowing Shannon airport to be turned into a US military hub.
In one way, times have changed. Twenty-five years ago, Margaret Thatcher denied there was a shoot-to-kill policy. Today, Barack Obama does not. Every Tuesday he picks his "kill list" for the week. Mass killings by drones are good. They even transport the weaponry via Shannon.
The playwright Brendan Behan grasped the difference between terrorism and state violence, when he said: It is easy to spot the terrorist. He's the one with the small bomb. –   Is mise,
NIALL FARRELL,
Oranmore,
Co Galway.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: AQMP on October 24, 2013, 09:38:59 AM
Last Sunday while all the furore over Thomas Begley was going on the British Army paraded through the centre of Enniskillen to mark the end of the Royal Inniskillings as a separate regiment (or something like that).  The event finished with a religious service in the local Church of Ireland church.

Insensitive??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24645945

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 10:29:10 AM
Good to see unionism coming out and condemning this widespread state murder campaign. So far this morning I've heard Tom Elliot say that collusion didn't happen and he should know because he was in the UDR for 18 years and that any time a weapon "went missing", that "they were always recovered and recovered quickly". Oddly, innocent Catholics seemed to get shot while they were missing but that's just coincidence, right Tom?  The other unionist i've heard from today was Wee Jeffrey Donaldson who said he was worried that this book is just making an attempt to rewrite history.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hardy on October 24, 2013, 10:40:14 AM
That's just funny. He doesn't seem to realise he's confirming that weapons went missing on a somewhat regular basis.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Shamrock Shore on October 24, 2013, 10:43:41 AM
How can any sane person come out and say there was no collusion between loyalist murder gangs and the state forces?

Or have I answered my own question?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: No Soloing on October 24, 2013, 10:50:46 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 10:29:10 AM
Good to see unionism coming out and condemning this widespread state murder campaign. So far this morning I've heard Tom Elliot say that collusion didn't happen and he should know because he was in the UDR for 18 years and that any time a weapon "went missing", that "they were always recovered and recovered quickly". Oddly, innocent Catholics seemed to get shot while they were missing but that's just coincidence, right Tom?  The other unionist i've heard from today was Wee Jeffrey Donaldson who said he was worried that this book is just making an attempt to rewrite history.

Jeff is laughable. He admitted he hadnt seen the evidence of collusion, yet he is happy to go on the radio and spout on dismissing it.
I turned off when he started his 'rewrite history' spiel as I did want to listen to his horsesh*t yet again. Its his new mantra. When different narratives come out that dont fit with the cosy Unionist/British view of things it cant just be dismissed as an attempt to re-write history. History has been wrong and rewritten many times in the past. So, in NI it is imperative that attempts are made to 'rewrite history' - then we might actually get a version that is somewhere close to the truth. The old saying that history is written by the winners is so true - and for a long time the Unionist/British version of the truth was the only version because they were in authority. Are there still people out there who will only accept the official version of something and never question it?

NI will never move on until all politicians accept that there was wrong done by republicans, loyalists and the security forces. It doesnt matter who started what, or who was the worst, it matters that all sides, by their on nefarious ways, kept the conflict going for decades.

"I was never aware of any other option but to question everything." - Noam Chomsky (and definitely not Jeffery Donaldson)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Applesisapples on October 24, 2013, 11:14:39 AM
What would you expect from Jeffrey and Tom, two fine examples of UDR soldiery. I slept safe in my bed knowing these two last action heroes were out at night keeping us safe from men wielding hurling sticks and O'Neills "All Ireland Footballs"...lethal weapons...oh and sure didn't Aidan McAnespie shoot first!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Feckitt on October 24, 2013, 11:26:31 AM
Jeffrey Donaldson has no class whatsoever, and Tom Elliot actually is a simpleton.

In this new book, it details overwhelming evidence of RUC and UDR collusion in 120 murders.  120!!!!!  The vast majority of the information is not actually new at all, and has been well known and documented for years.  So how can Elliot say this morning that there was no collusion.  He is entitled to argue the point on any individual case as to whether there was collusion or not, but he is actually saying that he will ignore the evidence of 120 murders and stick to the line that there was no collusion :o

As i've already said, Elliot is actually a fool, but Jeffrey Donaldson isn't.  Both of them should be ashamed of themselves.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: muppet on October 24, 2013, 11:30:11 AM
Quote from: Hardy on October 24, 2013, 10:40:14 AM
That's just funny. He doesn't seem to realise he's confirming that weapons went missing on a somewhat regular basis.

;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Franko on October 24, 2013, 12:15:34 PM
These were the same forces of law that the idiot mayogodhelpus reckons nationalists should have reported crimes to during the troubles.  Talk about ignorance of the situation.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 24, 2013, 12:15:34 PM
These were the same forces of law that the idiot mayogodhelpus reckons nationalists should have reported crimes to during the troubles.  Talk about ignorance of the situation.

And not to forget the SDLP, who for years dismissed talk of state collusion as "republican propaganda". Reminiscent of how hey dismissed allegation of collusion in the shooting of Alex Maskey and said it was probably carried out by "fellow republicans". These same b****ds refused to even meet with families of collusion victims in stormont before they facilitated Jim Allister's anti-agreement,  hierarchy of victims bill a few months back. I wonder how the Tyrone families of those 120 odd people detailed in this book felt hearing Tyrone stoop MLA Joe Byrne at that time saying that "The innocent victims need to be addressed, in particular the innocent victims of the Provisional IRA". True colours.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: tyroneman on October 24, 2013, 12:30:13 PM
What's the book called?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 12:32:59 PM
Quote from: tyroneman on October 24, 2013, 12:30:13 PM
What's the book called?
'Lethal Allies: British Collusion in Ireland'
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lethal-Allies-British-Collusion-Ireland/dp/1781171882/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1382614347&sr=1-1&keywords=lethal+allies (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lethal-Allies-British-Collusion-Ireland/dp/1781171882/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1382614347&sr=1-1&keywords=lethal+allies)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Feckitt on October 24, 2013, 12:36:16 PM
There are various book launches over the next few weeks.  Vincent Browne is the main speaker at the Dublin event next week (Tuesday, i think)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: TransitVanMan on October 24, 2013, 12:38:58 PM
Quote from: TransitVanMan on August 03, 2011, 03:08:04 PM
As far back as 1975 the loyalists were granted access to UDR barracks.  One such instance resulted in the disappearance of the entire arsenal in Magherafelt barracks.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 12:39:41 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 12:23:16 PM
And not to forget the SDLP, who for years dismissed talk of state collusion as "republican propaganda". Reminiscent of how hey dismissed allegation of collusion in the shooting of Alex Maskey and said it was probably carried out by "fellow republicans". These same b****ds refused to meet with families of collusion victims in stormont before they facilitated Jim Allister's anti-agreement,  hierarchy of victims bill a few months back. I wonder how the Tyrone families of those 120 odd people detailed in this book felt hearing Tyrone stoop MLA Joe Byrne at that time saying that "The innocent victims need to be addressed, in particular the innocent victims of the Provisional IRA". True colours.

I did a bit of Googling and the only references I can find where the SDLP dismissed talk of state collusion come from Sinn Féin. When it comes to the SDLP and "republican propoganda" you come to top of the list (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=19197.msg1195285#msg1195285), just ahead of a Sinn Féin press release.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on October 24, 2013, 12:45:51 PM
That book is simply confirming what all right minded people knew all along.
Still it's good ( if that's the right word in the circumstances) to see it all written in one place.
As for Elliott and Donaldson - still wearing the blinkers like so many Unionists.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Main Street on October 24, 2013, 12:46:31 PM
It was quite smart for the British Army to split responsibilities for actions across numerous groups within their control.
'We didn't do the murders/assassinations, it was those UDR guys in hoods'.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 01:08:20 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 12:39:41 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 12:23:16 PM
And not to forget the SDLP, who for years dismissed talk of state collusion as "republican propaganda". Reminiscent of how hey dismissed allegation of collusion in the shooting of Alex Maskey and said it was probably carried out by "fellow republicans". These same b****ds refused to meet with families of collusion victims in stormont before they facilitated Jim Allister's anti-agreement,  hierarchy of victims bill a few months back. I wonder how the Tyrone families of those 120 odd people detailed in this book felt hearing Tyrone stoop MLA Joe Byrne at that time saying that "The innocent victims need to be addressed, in particular the innocent victims of the Provisional IRA". True colours.

I did a bit of Googling and the only references I can find where the SDLP dismissed talk of state collusion come from Sinn Féin. When it comes to the SDLP and "republican propoganda" you come to top of the list (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=19197.msg1195285#msg1195285), just ahead of a Sinn Féin press release.

I lived through enough of it. At local levels, and sometimes publicly, they denied collusion was happening. I'll never forget them for it. They routinely denied both collusion and shoot-to-kill. I already mentioned the case of Alex Maskey. On another occasion an unarmed IRA man was shot dead by the RUC, the SDLP's Eddie McGrady publicly saluted the RUC for their "restraint". They were the party which said Ronnie Flanagan was trying to edge policing forward and that they could work with him and supported an extended contract for him. Joe Byrne's quote above just sums up where he SDLP place the needs of collusion victims.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 01:52:11 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 01:08:20 PM
I lived through enough of it. At local levels, and sometimes publicly, they denied collusion was happening. I'll never forget them for it. They routinely denied both collusion and shoot-to-kill. I already mentioned the case of Alex Maskey. On another occasion an unarmed IRA man was shot dead by the RUC, the SDLP's Eddie McGrady publicly saluted the RUC for their "restraint". They were the party which said Ronnie Flanagan was trying to edge policing forward and that they could work with him and supported an extended contract for him. Joe Byrne's quote above just sums up where he SDLP place the needs of collusion victims.

Can you direct me to where the SDLP referred to allegations of collusion as "republican propaganda"? None of the cases you cite imply that was their position.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 01:52:11 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 01:08:20 PM
I lived through enough of it. At local levels, and sometimes publicly, they denied collusion was happening. I'll never forget them for it. They routinely denied both collusion and shoot-to-kill. I already mentioned the case of Alex Maskey. On another occasion an unarmed IRA man was shot dead by the RUC, the SDLP's Eddie McGrady publicly saluted the RUC for their "restraint". They were the party which said Ronnie Flanagan was trying to edge policing forward and that they could work with him and supported an extended contract for him. Joe Byrne's quote above just sums up where he SDLP place the needs of collusion victims.

Can you direct me to where the SDLP referred to allegations of collusion as "republican propaganda"? None of the cases you cite imply that was their position.

Deiseach, I lived through it and listened to that from a stream of sdlp people. It was their line. I will never forget that. You have just ignored every point I made above, which says a lot.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
Deiseach, I lived through it and listened to that from a stream of sdlp people. It was their line. I will never forget that. You have just ignored every point I made above, which says a lot.

You can't provide a single reference for it, because it's a lie.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: gallsman on October 24, 2013, 02:14:53 PM
The fact that a story about security force collusion and murder during the troubles has descended to the point of being a football to be kicked about for political point scoring within the nationalist community is pathetic.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Walter Cronc on October 24, 2013, 02:27:50 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 24, 2013, 02:14:53 PM
The fact that a story about security force collusion and murder during the troubles has descended to the point of being a football to be kicked about for political point scoring within the nationalist community is pathetic.

Playing out exactly as the Unionists want it!!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 02:29:57 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 24, 2013, 02:14:53 PM
The fact that a story about security force collusion and murder during the troubles has descended to the point of being a football to be kicked about for political point scoring within the nationalist community is pathetic.

So how should this play out?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ulick on October 24, 2013, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
Deiseach, I lived through it and listened to that from a stream of sdlp people. It was their line. I will never forget that. You have just ignored every point I made above, which says a lot.

You can't provide a single reference for it, because it's a lie.

Bollocks it is. Alban Maginness regularly denied the extent of collusion and called for nationalists to join the RUC. Similarly Austin Currie, Gerry Fitt, Joe Hendron, Eddy McGrady and Frank Feely to name just a few that I can remember.   
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 03:04:54 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
Deiseach, I lived through it and listened to that from a stream of sdlp people. It was their line. I will never forget that. You have just ignored every point I made above, which says a lot.

You can't provide a single reference for it, because it's a lie.

A lie?! What planet were you living on?? Why then did they state in a news conference after Alex Maskey's attempted murder by the UDA, that he was likely shot by fellow republicans, and why did they persist with this line even after a confession by Brian Nelson? If they didn't deny collusion, why did they initially describe Flanagan as "someone they could work with" and who "wanted to edge policing forward"? Why did they encourage support for the RUC?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: dec on October 24, 2013, 03:10:57 PM
Quote from: Ulick on October 24, 2013, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
Deiseach, I lived through it and listened to that from a stream of sdlp people. It was their line. I will never forget that. You have just ignored every point I made above, which says a lot.

You can't provide a single reference for it, because it's a lie.

Bollocks it is. Alban Maginness regularly denied the extent of collusion and called for nationalists to join the RUC. Similarly Austin Currie, Gerry Fitt, Joe Hendron, Eddy McGrady and Frank Feely to name just a few that I can remember.   

Bullshit.

http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/14604

"According to state papers released by the British Government under the 30-year rule the collusion of official state forces with unofficial unionist paramilitaries had been raised by the then West Belfast MP Gerry Fitt shortly after the Newtownabbey killings. The British Minister was informed that the RUC had been alerted to the loyalist attack half an hour before the shooting but only arrived at the scene five minutes after the teenagers had been fatally wounded. "
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hardy on October 24, 2013, 03:32:30 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 03:04:54 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
Deiseach, I lived through it and listened to that from a stream of sdlp people. It was their line. I will never forget that. You have just ignored every point I made above, which says a lot.

You can't provide a single reference for it, because it's a lie.

A lie?! What planet were you living on?? Why then did they state in a news conference after Alex Maskey's attempted murder by the UDA, that he was likely shot by fellow republicans, and why did they persist with this line even after a confession by Brian Nelson? If they didn't deny collusion, why did they initially describe Flanagan as "someone they could work with" and who "wanted to edge policing forward"? Why did they encourage support for the RUC?
For completeness (from the Belfast Telegraph, 23 January, 2007):

SDLP leader Mark Durkan told the Belfast Telegraph that the Ombudsman's report had left Sir Ronnie with no option but to stand down from his position within HMIC.

He said: "He was the head of Special Branch and then the Chief Constable during the most serious episodes of collusion revealed by Nuala O'Loan. He was never a man who gave the impression of being remote or detached from what was going on in his organisation.

"Either he was not in control of a dysfunctional organisation, or he knew full well but kept the truth hidden. In either event, he should not head up the Inspectorate of Constabulary."
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 03:36:21 PM
Quote from: Hardy on October 24, 2013, 03:32:30 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 03:04:54 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
Deiseach, I lived through it and listened to that from a stream of sdlp people. It was their line. I will never forget that. You have just ignored every point I made above, which says a lot.

You can't provide a single reference for it, because it's a lie.

A lie?! What planet were you living on?? Why then did they state in a news conference after Alex Maskey's attempted murder by the UDA, that he was likely shot by fellow republicans, and why did they persist with this line even after a confession by Brian Nelson? If they didn't deny collusion, why did they initially describe Flanagan as "someone they could work with" and who "wanted to edge policing forward"? Why did they encourage support for the RUC?
For completeness (from the Belfast Telegraph, 23 January, 2007):

SDLP leader Mark Durkan told the Belfast Telegraph that the Ombudsman's report had left Sir Ronnie with no option but to stand down from his position within HMIC.

He said: "He was the head of Special Branch and then the Chief Constable during the most serious episodes of collusion revealed by Nuala O'Loan. He was never a man who gave the impression of being remote or detached from what was going on in his organisation.

"Either he was not in control of a dysfunctional organisation, or he knew full well but kept the truth hidden. In either event, he should not head up the Inspectorate of Constabulary."

This as a result of Nuala O'Loan's report. Why the support up to then?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hardy on October 24, 2013, 03:39:35 PM
As I said - posted in the interest of completeness. On reflection, balance would be better, as no account can be fully complete, but it's good to strive for it.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: NAG1 on October 24, 2013, 03:50:50 PM
I tend not to enter into these debates because of the stupid petty point scoring that goes on within here on the board and within the so called nationalist constituency. However this one takes the biscuit, on the day where a book has been released (maybe nothing new or that we didnt know) highlighting the fact that the 'State' authorities more or less sanctioned the killing of people from within our own community, it is a bit of a disgrace the petty squabbles that are on here.

Firstly we should remember the lives cut short by these murderous squads and the families left behind.

Secondly we should be putting the message out to the world that this is what the British government engaged in within our country and against the Irish people.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: gallsman on October 24, 2013, 04:03:25 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 02:29:57 PM
Quote from: gallsman on October 24, 2013, 02:14:53 PM
The fact that a story about security force collusion and murder during the troubles has descended to the point of being a football to be kicked about for political point scoring within the nationalist community is pathetic.

So how should this play out?

Uncover the truth. Prosecute those responsible. Honour the victims.

No faction on the nationalist side has the right to use this issue to batter another to score cheap points
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 04:14:56 PM
For what it's worth, nothing said here will impact on party politics. Anything I posted about the SDLP was posted out of sheer disgust at them and I stand by it, not only for their dismissive attitude to concerns about collusion in murders around the local area, but also of their treatment of families since. But of course it should be about honouring the victims. This story should be getting a lot more coverage than it has been. Not even a mention of it on RTE News website.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Feckitt on October 24, 2013, 04:17:51 PM
It was on RTE last night at 9.00pm
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Applesisapples on October 24, 2013, 04:18:13 PM
No lover of the SDLP myself, I cannot however let them all be tarred with the one brush on this. Seamus Mallon was quite clear on Radio Ulster in recent days that he had raised state collusion at the highest levels. He also attributed blame to those at the highest levels in both the security forces and cabinet level. But those on here bleating about collusion are the same people who would claim that Thomas Begley was a soldier in a war and that the people on the Shankill Road were civilian casulties. A little consistency is required. If you are going to condemn (as they should be) the actions of the state then lets also condemn thae actions of the IRA and others who took innocent life.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ulick on October 24, 2013, 06:21:13 PM
Quote from: dec on October 24, 2013, 03:10:57 PM
Quote from: Ulick on October 24, 2013, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
Deiseach, I lived through it and listened to that from a stream of sdlp people. It was their line. I will never forget that. You have just ignored every point I made above, which says a lot.

You can't provide a single reference for it, because it's a lie.

Bollocks it is. Alban Maginness regularly denied the extent of collusion and called for nationalists to join the RUC. Similarly Austin Currie, Gerry Fitt, Joe Hendron, Eddy McGrady and Frank Feely to name just a few that I can remember.   

Bullshit.

http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/14604

"According to state papers released by the British Government under the 30-year rule the collusion of official state forces with unofficial unionist paramilitaries had been raised by the then West Belfast MP Gerry Fitt shortly after the Newtownabbey killings. The British Minister was informed that the RUC had been alerted to the loyalist attack half an hour before the shooting but only arrived at the scene five minutes after the teenagers had been fatally wounded. "

I'm sure that copy and paste is supposed to be a retort to something, what, I can't quite tell. Certainly nothing that I posted previously.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: dec on October 24, 2013, 07:10:45 PM
Quote from: Ulick on October 24, 2013, 06:21:13 PM
Quote from: dec on October 24, 2013, 03:10:57 PM
Quote from: Ulick on October 24, 2013, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
Deiseach, I lived through it and listened to that from a stream of sdlp people. It was their line. I will never forget that. You have just ignored every point I made above, which says a lot.

You can't provide a single reference for it, because it's a lie.

Bollocks it is. Alban Maginness regularly denied the extent of collusion and called for nationalists to join the RUC. Similarly Austin Currie, Gerry Fitt, Joe Hendron, Eddy McGrady and Frank Feely to name just a few that I can remember.   

Bullshit.

http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/14604

"According to state papers released by the British Government under the 30-year rule the collusion of official state forces with unofficial unionist paramilitaries had been raised by the then West Belfast MP Gerry Fitt shortly after the Newtownabbey killings. The British Minister was informed that the RUC had been alerted to the loyalist attack half an hour before the shooting but only arrived at the scene five minutes after the teenagers had been fatally wounded. "

I'm sure that copy and paste is supposed to be a retort to something, what, I can't quite tell. Certainly nothing that I posted previously.

"Alban Maginness regularly denied the extent of collusion and called for nationalists to join the RUC. Similarly Austin Currie, Gerry Fitt, Joe Hendron, Eddy McGrady and Frank Feely to name just a few that I can remember.   "

Rather than denying collusion Gerry Fitt actually raised the subject with the Brits in 1974.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 24, 2013, 08:14:20 PM
The book sounds like a good read. Missed Tom Elliott, but caught Donaldson and Kennedy on the radio - their failure to call a spade 'a spade' was pathetic.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 24, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on March 28, 2013, 10:41:38 AM
Letter to The Irish Times by the brother of Vol. Mairead Farrell, who while unarmed and with her hands in the air, was shot dead at close range by the SAS (eight times in the back and face), alongside Vols Sean Savage (shot between 16 & 18 times) & Daniel McCann (shot 5 times) 25 years ago.
Appreciate this was posted a while ago, but this attitude confuses me. How many IRA victims do you reckon were shot dead at close range, unarmed and with their hands in the air? How many security force personnel were shot by the IRA when off-duty? Are you applying a different standard to the SAS?

For the record, i'd expect a higher standard from state forces than from a paramilitary organisation, and would condemn any 'shoot to kill' policy, but such an argument doesn't seem logical for someone who supported the legitimacy of the IRA campaign.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: general_lee on October 24, 2013, 08:47:42 PM
While I do not speak for Nally Stand, in my own opinion the likes of British state agencies in a lot of cases were in a position to carry out arrests on suspected IRA members rather than shooting them on the spot and then subsequently attempt to deny that they were unarmed or that there was a STK policy in place.

They also did this with non-combatants, as well as blatantly colluding with Loyalists who were inherently sectarian in their selection of targets.

So on that basis, (and granted I think that any member willing to volunteer in the IRA should be aware of the risk to their lives),  I don't see how anyone can view the IRA as terrorists and simultaneously ignore/forget/downplay the acts of the British Gov; and somehow view them as morally superior to the IRA when they played as much an active role in killing innocent civilians as any Republican grouping did.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 24, 2013, 08:52:49 PM
Quote from: general_lee on October 24, 2013, 08:47:42 PM
While I do not speak for Nally Stand, in my own opinion the likes of British state agencies in a lot of cases were in a position to carry out arrests on suspected IRA members rather than shooting them on the spot and then subsequently attempt to deny that they were unarmed or that there was a STK policy in place.

They also did this with non-combatants, as well as blatantly colluding with Loyalists who were inherently sectarian in their selection of targets.

So on that basis, (and granted I think that any member willing to volunteer in the IRA should be aware of the risk to their lives),  I don't see how anyone can view the IRA as terrorists and simultaneously ignore/forget/downplay the acts of the British Gov; and somehow view them as morally superior to the IRA when they played as much an active role in killing innocent civilians as any Republican grouping did.
But i'm not doing that. As I said in my post above, i'd hold state forces to a higher standard than paramilitaries.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Kidder81 on October 24, 2013, 09:02:18 PM
Sad to see this being used as a point scoring exercise between nationalists, pretty repugnant actually. The victims and their families should be the focus here and trying to get some of the rogue elements in the British forces/UDR held to account. I wouldn't be holding my breath though.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 09:14:00 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 24, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Appreciate this was posted a while ago, but this attitude confuses me. How many IRA victims do you reckon were shot dead at close range, unarmed and with their hands in the air? How many security force personnel were shot by the IRA when off-duty? Are you applying a different standard to the SAS?

For the record, i'd expect a higher standard from state forces than from a paramilitary organisation, and would condemn any 'shoot to kill' policy, but such an argument doesn't seem logical for someone who supported the legitimacy of the IRA campaign.

Quite a few IRA members were shot dea when unarmed and posing no threat to the safety of those security forces who could have easily arrested them. Only off the top of my head...

Vol Mairead Farrell
Vol Sean Savage
Vol Danny McCann
Vol Pearse Jordan
Vol David Devine
Vol Michael Devine
Vol Charlie Breslin
(the above three in total shot around 150 times, each with one to the head)
Vol Joe McCann
Vol Martin McCaughey
Vol Dessie Grew (shot 48 times, including one in the back as he lay "dead or dying" on the ground)
Vol Sean Burns
Vol Gervaise McKerr
Vol Eugene Toman

Again, These are just a few off the top of my head. The thing is Maguire, the only standards I am applying to the British are the standards they applied to themselves. While they insist they were not involved in a war, then by their own rules, people like those listed above, were murdered.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: AQMP on October 24, 2013, 09:20:32 PM
The UDR was part of the British Army.  It was the British Army's largest infantry regiment.  In 2006 it was retrospectively awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: give her dixie on October 24, 2013, 09:33:20 PM
Growing up I could handle been stopped by the RUC and the Brits, but whenever I was stopped by the UDR, I was always on edge as you never knew what would come next. They were without a doubt the lowest of the low, and like many on here, I don't need a book to tell me of the dirty deeds they committed over the years not only in my area, but across the 6 counties.

While I will not hold my breath for justice for those murdered, or recognition of their unlawful deeds by the likes of Jeffrey and Tom, I just hope that the families of those murdered can find some sort of comfort in knowing that their loved ones were murdered in cold blood by agents of the British Government.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on October 24, 2013, 09:35:11 PM
Quote from: Kidder81 on October 24, 2013, 09:02:18 PM
Sad to see this being used as a point scoring exercise between nationalists, pretty repugnant actually. The victims and their families should be the focus here and trying to get some of the rogue elements in the British forces/UDR held to account. I wouldn't be holding my breath though.

+1.
Stick to the point lads and leave the jibes to the Sinn Féin and SDLP threads
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 24, 2013, 10:03:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 09:14:00 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 24, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Appreciate this was posted a while ago, but this attitude confuses me. How many IRA victims do you reckon were shot dead at close range, unarmed and with their hands in the air? How many security force personnel were shot by the IRA when off-duty? Are you applying a different standard to the SAS?

For the record, i'd expect a higher standard from state forces than from a paramilitary organisation, and would condemn any 'shoot to kill' policy, but such an argument doesn't seem logical for someone who supported the legitimacy of the IRA campaign.

Quite a few IRA members were shot dea when unarmed and posing no threat to the safety of those security forces who could have easily arrested them. Only off the top of my head...

Vol Mairead Farrell
Vol Sean Savage
Vol Danny McCann
Vol Pearse Jordan
Vol David Devine
Vol Michael Devine
Vol Charlie Breslin
(the above three in total shot around 150 times, each with one to the head)
Vol Joe McCann
Vol Martin McCaughey
Vol Dessie Grew (shot 48 times, including one in the back as he lay "dead or dying" on the ground)
Vol Sean Burns
Vol Gervaise McKerr
Vol Eugene Toman

Again, These are just a few off the top of my head. The thing is Maguire, the only standards I am applying to the British are the standards they applied to themselves. While they insist they were not involved in a war, then by their own rules, people like those listed above, were murdered.
Once again, i'd agree that they fell well short of their own standards. So the issue is the hypocrisy rather than what they actually did (which in the cases you reference, was apply similar standards to paramilitaries)?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ulick on October 25, 2013, 12:02:58 AM
Quote from: dec on October 24, 2013, 07:10:45 PM
Quote from: Ulick on October 24, 2013, 06:21:13 PM
Quote from: dec on October 24, 2013, 03:10:57 PM
Quote from: Ulick on October 24, 2013, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: deiseach on October 24, 2013, 02:07:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
Deiseach, I lived through it and listened to that from a stream of sdlp people. It was their line. I will never forget that. You have just ignored every point I made above, which says a lot.

You can't provide a single reference for it, because it's a lie.

Bollocks it is. Alban Maginness regularly denied the extent of collusion and called for nationalists to join the RUC. Similarly Austin Currie, Gerry Fitt, Joe Hendron, Eddy McGrady and Frank Feely to name just a few that I can remember.   

Bullshit.

http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/14604

"According to state papers released by the British Government under the 30-year rule the collusion of official state forces with unofficial unionist paramilitaries had been raised by the then West Belfast MP Gerry Fitt shortly after the Newtownabbey killings. The British Minister was informed that the RUC had been alerted to the loyalist attack half an hour before the shooting but only arrived at the scene five minutes after the teenagers had been fatally wounded. "

I'm sure that copy and paste is supposed to be a retort to something, what, I can't quite tell. Certainly nothing that I posted previously.

"Alban Maginness regularly denied the extent of collusion and called for nationalists to join the RUC. Similarly Austin Currie, Gerry Fitt, Joe Hendron, Eddy McGrady and Frank Feely to name just a few that I can remember.   "

Rather than denying collusion Gerry Fitt actually raised the subject with the Brits in 1974.

Didn't say he denied it pal - no one could have denied it as it was as plain as the nose on your face. However Fitt and the loyal Stoops denied the extent of it i.e. it was systemic, endemic and not just a few "bad apples" as they were prone to telling us.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Fear ón Srath Bán on October 25, 2013, 12:57:42 AM
It wasn't a case of the cops colluding with the 'loyalist' paramilitaries, the cops were the 'loyalist' paramilitaries.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Íseal agus crua isteach a on October 25, 2013, 01:21:29 AM
Ireland was Britain's experimental lab for their global policy.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on October 25, 2013, 09:44:53 AM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on October 25, 2013, 12:57:42 AM
It wasn't a case of the cops colluding with the 'loyalist' paramilitaries, the cops were the 'loyalist' paramilitaries.

I think more than anything that is the key point to the whole issue.  Collusion would suggests that they were complicit with the paramilitaries and that they were 2 separate entities.  It is quite clear that they were interwoven to such an extent that they were by and large the one.  As someone said above you could cope being stopped by the average joe cops and soldiers but once it was the UDR you were fair game (I would also place the Paras in the same group).  The reality is that for years there was a state funded paramilitary group that had a blind eye turned on it for a number of reasons.  The Government needed to control the situation and what better way than to have the main security organisation controlling the 'dogs'.  It was key to them to retaining the notion of 'discipline' within the loyalist paramilitaries as they were truly afraid of the ramifications of allowing them a free reign.  They rightly believed that there was a greater sense of order in the IRA at the time and they were able to 'trust' them in that they knew generally what they were fighting for.  The Loyalists on the other hand were very much murder gangs and were simply out to kill a taig, any taig.  Of course there was an element of that in the IRA but not to the same degree.  They genuinely feared that if the loyalists were allowed to run their own show then there would have been a bloodbath beyond anything imaginable.  This in no way justifies what they did but gives an insight into their mindset and their weakness in dealing with the Troubles during the 70's.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Main Street on October 25, 2013, 12:20:53 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 24, 2013, 10:03:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 09:14:00 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 24, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Appreciate this was posted a while ago, but this attitude confuses me. How many IRA victims do you reckon were shot dead at close range, unarmed and with their hands in the air? How many security force personnel were shot by the IRA when off-duty? Are you applying a different standard to the SAS?

For the record, i'd expect a higher standard from state forces than from a paramilitary organisation, and would condemn any 'shoot to kill' policy, but such an argument doesn't seem logical for someone who supported the legitimacy of the IRA campaign.

Quite a few IRA members were shot dea when unarmed and posing no threat to the safety of those security forces who could have easily arrested them. Only off the top of my head...

Vol Mairead Farrell
Vol Sean Savage
Vol Danny McCann
Vol Pearse Jordan
Vol David Devine
Vol Michael Devine
Vol Charlie Breslin
(the above three in total shot around 150 times, each with one to the head)
Vol Joe McCann
Vol Martin McCaughey
Vol Dessie Grew (shot 48 times, including one in the back as he lay "dead or dying" on the ground)
Vol Sean Burns
Vol Gervaise McKerr
Vol Eugene Toman

Again, These are just a few off the top of my head. The thing is Maguire, the only standards I am applying to the British are the standards they applied to themselves. While they insist they were not involved in a war, then by their own rules, people like those listed above, were murdered.
Once again, i'd agree that they fell well short of their own standards. So the issue is the hypocrisy rather than what they actually did (which in the cases you reference, was apply similar standards to paramilitaries)?
Shoot to kill was their standard they applied, therefore it was part of  their standard. SAS shoot to kill operations were part and parcel of the standard. For more extreme terror operations, they employed others to do that, UDR/Loyalist murder gangs.That strategy was also part of the British standard and has been a part of it for hundreds of years  around the world. Military structure is hierarchical, strategy and methods are handed down, grunts like the SAS/paratroopers just follow orders.
There may be some delusion floating about that there is a default noble military British standard  and sometimes they fall to meet that standard.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 26, 2013, 09:12:30 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 25, 2013, 12:20:53 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 24, 2013, 10:03:51 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 24, 2013, 09:14:00 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 24, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Appreciate this was posted a while ago, but this attitude confuses me. How many IRA victims do you reckon were shot dead at close range, unarmed and with their hands in the air? How many security force personnel were shot by the IRA when off-duty? Are you applying a different standard to the SAS?

For the record, i'd expect a higher standard from state forces than from a paramilitary organisation, and would condemn any 'shoot to kill' policy, but such an argument doesn't seem logical for someone who supported the legitimacy of the IRA campaign.

Quite a few IRA members were shot dea when unarmed and posing no threat to the safety of those security forces who could have easily arrested them. Only off the top of my head...

Vol Mairead Farrell
Vol Sean Savage
Vol Danny McCann
Vol Pearse Jordan
Vol David Devine
Vol Michael Devine
Vol Charlie Breslin
(the above three in total shot around 150 times, each with one to the head)
Vol Joe McCann
Vol Martin McCaughey
Vol Dessie Grew (shot 48 times, including one in the back as he lay "dead or dying" on the ground)
Vol Sean Burns
Vol Gervaise McKerr
Vol Eugene Toman

Again, These are just a few off the top of my head. The thing is Maguire, the only standards I am applying to the British are the standards they applied to themselves. While they insist they were not involved in a war, then by their own rules, people like those listed above, were murdered.
Once again, i'd agree that they fell well short of their own standards. So the issue is the hypocrisy rather than what they actually did (which in the cases you reference, was apply similar standards to paramilitaries)?
Shoot to kill was their standard they applied, therefore it was part of  their standard. SAS shoot to kill operations were part and parcel of the standard. For more extreme terror operations, they employed others to do that, UDR/Loyalist murder gangs.That strategy was also part of the British standard and has been a part of it for hundreds of years  around the world. Military structure is hierarchical, strategy and methods are handed down, grunts like the SAS/paratroopers just follow orders.
There may be some delusion floating about that there is a default noble military British standard  and sometimes they fall to meet that standard.
My reference to their 'standard' was a reference to the official line for the public, or what the public should expect from state forces.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Wildweasel74 on October 26, 2013, 04:04:40 PM
Its easy making a big deal out of shoot to kill but to be honest the Ira had no problems shooting unarmed civilians, staff workers, and policemen so i dont see how we much of a leg to stand on giving out about their policy when the same applied to the other side??
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Main Street on October 26, 2013, 05:39:05 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on October 26, 2013, 04:04:40 PM
Its easy making a big deal out of shoot to kill but to be honest the Ira had no problems shooting unarmed civilians, staff workers, and policemen so i dont see how we much of a leg to stand on giving out about their policy when the same applied to the other side??
Who is the 'we can't complain' who are you talking about?
Are you talking from a republican volunteer perspective, he/she can't complain about getting shot in a 'shoot to kill' ambush because he/she would do the same against agents of the state? or  is it, we can't complain - we being a community, politicians, lawyers, citizens of the state,  can't complain about State directed terror campaign against a minority community who had no comebacks, no comebacks from the British Army, the RUC, the UDR, the loyalist armed gangs, the courts, the parliament who support all of that strategy, none at all. Whatever the murdering UDR thug decided to do at a checkpoint -  was the law .... can't complain?
No comebacks to an RUC man who shoots a demonstrator in front of the world's cameras. No comeback to blatant murder on the street, no one to say that was illegal.  You have the British state engaged in a dirty war, ranging from random sectarian murders, to shoot to kill, to internment, to prison repression, torture
and we can't complain, because some republicans would also do the same?
and sure anyway didn't the nationalists bring it all upon themselves in the first place?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Feckitt on October 26, 2013, 05:45:21 PM
Main Street, It's not often you see a comment on this board that can sum things up as concisely as you have just done.  I commend you on that post. 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Gaffer on October 27, 2013, 08:27:58 AM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on October 26, 2013, 04:04:40 PM
Its easy making a big deal out of shoot to kill but to be honest the Ira had no problems shooting unarmed civilians, staff workers, and policemen so i dont see how we much of a leg to stand on giving out about their policy when the same applied to the other side??

  Totally agree !!  Provo supporters are and always were total hypocrites.
They have cried crocodile tears for years over innocent Catholics being murdered by loyalists though when the Provos  killed innocent Catholics and Protestants they cared not a hoot!!!!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on October 27, 2013, 07:53:53 PM
Think some are missing the point here. This topic is about 'law enforcement' officers murdering people it was supposed to be protecting.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on October 27, 2013, 08:07:15 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 27, 2013, 07:53:53 PM
Think some are missing the point here. This topic is about 'law enforcement' officers murdering people it was supposed to be protecting.

+1
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Wildweasel74 on October 27, 2013, 08:13:41 PM
I only originally mentioned it as someone had posted a vol. list of IRA members shoot dead unarmed, but they would do the same likewise.

this doesn't take away the deliberate attempt by UDR  who had uvf and uda members within its ranks organize the deliberate murder of Catholics whether they had involvement in anything or not, the fact that they were catholic was the only criteria they applied and their pure naked sectarianism shone through
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: RealSpiritof98 on October 27, 2013, 08:30:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 27, 2013, 10:29:20 PM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on October 27, 2013, 08:30:47 PM
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.
Such delusion. But then again, if you supported the actions of the IRA, you have to believe that, otherwise it's exposed as the futile waste of life it was.

And when you refer to the "cushy civil service jobs" and the "west brit section of the nationalist community" cosying up to "their paymasters" - hmmm... hard to know who you're referring to there. There are a lot of republicans looking very comfy in their "cushy" civil service jobs, looking very cosy with their paymasters. But it was all worthwhile, eh?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 28, 2013, 11:36:50 AM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 27, 2013, 07:53:53 PM
Think some are missing avoiding the point here. This topic is about 'law enforcement' officers murdering people it was supposed to be protecting.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on October 28, 2013, 11:47:20 AM
I was at the launch of the Anne Cadwallader's book the other day(and there are dodgy photos of me there too!)  A very emotional and amazing few hours.  There was an amazing turn-up, at least 200, and they sold nearly 400 books on the day alone.  Some of the stories that were conveyed were heart wrenching.  I have started the book and it is quite a read.  I have a very personal connection to the story that brought this book about and it is amazing how fate can deal cards differently for people.  I would urge anyone who has any interest in finding out what this country was like for many people to get this book, it is a real education,
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: gallsman on October 28, 2013, 02:12:47 PM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on October 27, 2013, 08:30:47 PM
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.

1) That's an outright lie.

2) Are you attempting to claim that was a military objective?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stibhan on October 28, 2013, 05:45:55 PM
Collateral damage. Ah jesus.

When are the people who use that particular euphemism going to realise that it was a term coined to abstract exactly the kind of state thuggery that this thread is about?

The people who were killed at Enniskillen and the Shankill weren't 'collateral damage'. They were people, for f**k's sake.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: dillinger on October 28, 2013, 06:34:09 PM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on October 27, 2013, 08:30:47 PM

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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:05:22 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 27, 2013, 07:53:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on October 28, 2013, 07:11:33 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:05:22 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 27, 2013, 07:53:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:28:15 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 28, 2013, 07:11:33 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:05:22 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 27, 2013, 07:53:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: michaelg on October 28, 2013, 08:08:51 PM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on October 27, 2013, 08:30:47 PM
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?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on October 28, 2013, 08:32:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:28:15 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 28, 2013, 07:11:33 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:05:22 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 27, 2013, 07:53:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 28, 2013, 08:32:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:28:15 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 28, 2013, 07:11:33 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:05:22 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 27, 2013, 07:53:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Wildweasel74 on October 28, 2013, 09:27:24 PM
Yeah Omagh was collateral damage, right!!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on October 28, 2013, 09:52:37 PM
Quote from: dillinger on October 28, 2013, 06:34:09 PM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on October 27, 2013, 08:30:47 PM

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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on October 28, 2013, 09:53:50 PM
Quote from: michaelg on October 28, 2013, 08:08:51 PM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on October 27, 2013, 08:30:47 PM
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 ?)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: michaelg on October 28, 2013, 10:10:23 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2013, 09:53:50 PM
Quote from: michaelg on October 28, 2013, 08:08:51 PM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on October 27, 2013, 08:30:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Main Street on October 28, 2013, 10:16:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 28, 2013, 08:32:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:28:15 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 28, 2013, 07:11:33 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:05:22 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 27, 2013, 07:53:53 PM
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?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Íseal agus crua isteach a on October 28, 2013, 11:46:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 29, 2013, 08:18:30 AM
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!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 29, 2013, 08:52:24 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2013, 10:16:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 28, 2013, 08:32:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:28:15 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 28, 2013, 07:11:33 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:05:22 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 27, 2013, 07:53:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 29, 2013, 08:57:02 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 29, 2013, 08:18:30 AM
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?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on October 29, 2013, 09:51:51 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 29, 2013, 08:57:02 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on October 29, 2013, 08:18:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Applesisapples on October 29, 2013, 09:57:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Maguire01 on October 29, 2013, 12:52:29 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 29, 2013, 09:57:19 AM
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?

Quote from: Applesisapples on October 29, 2013, 09:57:19 AM
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.)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on October 29, 2013, 02:23:22 PM
Quote from: michaelg on October 28, 2013, 10:10:23 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2013, 09:53:50 PM
Quote from: michaelg on October 28, 2013, 08:08:51 PM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on October 27, 2013, 08:30:47 PM
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???  ;D
Or is it only 40% of 1.8 m  from the last Census ( 720,000) ??
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Applesisapples on October 29, 2013, 02:26:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stibhan on October 29, 2013, 03:05:43 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on October 29, 2013, 09:57:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: johnneycool on October 29, 2013, 05:06:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: michaelg on October 29, 2013, 08:17:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 29, 2013, 02:23:22 PM
Quote from: michaelg on October 28, 2013, 10:10:23 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2013, 09:53:50 PM
Quote from: michaelg on October 28, 2013, 08:08:51 PM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on October 27, 2013, 08:30:47 PM
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???  ;D
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on October 29, 2013, 08:29:34 PM
Quote from: michaelg on October 29, 2013, 08:17:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 29, 2013, 02:23:22 PM
Quote from: michaelg on October 28, 2013, 10:10:23 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 28, 2013, 09:53:50 PM
Quote from: michaelg on October 28, 2013, 08:08:51 PM
Quote from: RealSpiritof98 on October 27, 2013, 08:30:47 PM
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???  ;D
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: HiMucker on October 29, 2013, 11:58:47 PM
Anyone see spot light tonight?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: glens abu on October 30, 2013, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on October 29, 2013, 11:58:47 PM
Anyone see spot light tonight?

Not allowed to mention Winkey as the loyal subjects on here might get annoyed.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Íseal agus crua isteach a on October 30, 2013, 11:34:20 AM


http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/historical-enquiries-team-exposes-northern-ireland-collusion/6376
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on October 30, 2013, 11:55:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Íseal agus crua isteach a on October 30, 2013, 12:05:18 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 30, 2013, 11:55:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Main Street on October 30, 2013, 01:23:21 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 29, 2013, 08:52:24 AM
Quote from: Main Street on October 28, 2013, 10:16:11 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 28, 2013, 08:32:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:28:15 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 28, 2013, 07:11:33 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 28, 2013, 07:05:22 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on October 27, 2013, 07:53:53 PM
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.

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: theskull1 on October 30, 2013, 01:34:27 PM
When you look at the amount of 'principled' politicians concerned about trust and the police as they seek the truth about plebgate, it really exposes the hypocrisy doesn't it
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Minder on October 30, 2013, 05:58:46 PM
Quote from: glens abu on October 30, 2013, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on October 29, 2013, 11:58:47 PM
Anyone see spot light tonight?

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

What loyal subjects would Winkie Irvine or the UVF have on here ?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: LeoMc on October 30, 2013, 10:21:54 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 30, 2013, 05:58:46 PM
Quote from: glens abu on October 30, 2013, 09:08:53 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on October 29, 2013, 11:58:47 PM
Anyone see spot light tonight?

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

What loyal subjects would Winkie Irvine or the UVF have on here ?
His mate Nelson has been on here in the past.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Íseal agus crua isteach a on November 14, 2013, 03:54:44 AM
This latest article is from this months IAM newspaper by well respected author Chris Fogarty.

WINNETKA & OMAGH. The connection? The same criminals were involved.
WINNETKA: Using FBI Agent Lewis's gun 16-year-old David Biro murdered the Langert family; two 1st Degree murders and one homicide. All related Winnetka crimes were perpetrated by FBI Agent Patrick "Ed" Buckley or under Buckley's direction. Buckley kept Biro at large by prohibiting the local police from pursuing him, their sole suspect. Covering for Biro, Buckley's Winnetka crimes included Obstruction of Justice, False Accusation, and Evidence Fabrication (to support his false accusation of mass murder). Buckley was bribed and subverted by Britain's MI5 according to FBI Agent Joe Doyle who also alerted Mary and me that they were planning crimes against us to silence our human rights work. Buckley and his mole Jerry Boyle got TV's Carol Marin to "break the news" of an IRA "link" to that atrocity. The rest of the media parroted Marin. Buckley framed me so cunningly for those murders that I was doomed had Biro not saved me by blabbing through his FBI cover into Life Without Parole.   
For the next two years (1991-1993) Buckley perpetrated other, non-Winnetka, crimes against us. He fabricated an FBI audiotape which, with his perjuries, was his basis for incarcerating four of us in Chicago's Federal jail at Clark and VanBuren Sts. He tried to imprison us for many years. If poor we'd have gone from jail-to-trial-to-prison, but by spending much of our life's savings on legal fees, Buckley was defeated again by proof that his evidence was fabricated, his allegations perjury. Exposing this second set of Buckley's MI5 crimes against us forced US Prosecutor Fleissner to plead US Judge Lindberg's permission to drop all charges against us. Buckley continued; he spent months directing David Rupert's private meetings with one of our unwary members, trying unavailingly to ensnare us. Failing; they formed another "Irish" group led by Rupert. Though all three sets of Buckley's (and Rupert's) crimes against us had failed, MI5 was evidently impressed enough to send both to Ireland. I can document the above. They constitute the pattern of immunized MI5/FBI crimes that would murder twenty-nine innocents in Omagh to be blamed, like the Winnetka atrocity, on the IRA, thus drive home the Belfast "Agreement"s surrender to Britain of the contested Six Counties, disarm the IRA to free up Britain's military for the Neo-Cons' planned attacks on Islam, make $billions of off-shore hydrocarbons uncontestedly British, and, as a bonus, frame Irish Patriot Michael McKevitt. Omagh helped immunize Britain's other mass murders (Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy, Dublin/Monaghan, Miami Show Band, McGurk's Pub, Loughinisland, St. Enda footballers, etc. It also reestablished internment without charge, and torture/abuse of prisoners.     
OMAGH ITSELF. August 15, 1998; the car-bombing massacre was "mission accomplished" for Buckley and Rupert. MI5 dismissed them that day. MI5 ordered Rupert to its London HQ, that tickets awaited him in Belfast airport, and to talk to nobody, especially Ireland's police. Buckley and Rupert had been in Ireland arranging it for MI5 since late-1993 or 1994 excepting, according to Rupert's testimony at McKevitt's trial, briefly in 1996 when Buckley left him alone to fly to the Atlanta Olympics bombing/murder site (where Buckley and his FBI colleagues performed Buckley's specialty - they framed Security Guard Richard Jewell for it).
Prior to Omagh the IRA had, bloodlessly, blasted shopfronts in five towns and villages, costing Britain's Exchequer $millions. Through MI5/FBI and Omagh, Britain would end that IRA tactic. The bomb-car owner, Paddy Dixon, was a government informant. MI5/FBI had total control of everything via satellite-surveillance of it. Instead of dispersing people away through side streets, the RUC corralled them down High Street to the bomb-car while standing far enough back to avoid injury to themselves. Then they "lost" the tapes of the warnings, and later "lost" the log book into which such calls were transcribed. When the Crown rewarded their "negligence" with George Crosses the consequent stench forced it to award them to all RUCs.
DAVID RUPERT is Massena, NY's most despised predator. Though we'd never heard of Michael McKevitt until news of his impending frame-up, Mary and I visited Massena seeking data useful for McKevitt's defense. Massena truck repair shop owner Bub Layo claims a Massena record, the only person ever to deal with Rupert without getting cheated. Rupert embezzled the FICA deductions from drivers' paychecks. A NY State Police Affidavit calls Rupert a life-long criminal. He defrauded all of his first three wives' parents. Upon selling his house on which he owed a $40,000 mortgage, the buyer's attorney advanced Rupert a $40,000 partial payment to clear the title. Instead of paying off the mortgage Rupert spent the $40,000. The buyer's attorney's trust in Rupert resulted in her disbarment. Working for a Detroit trucking company, Rupert embezzled some $600,000 from it; his biggest scam until he encountered FBI and MI5 from whom he extracted $millions. I possess copies of his bankruptcy filings – all four are fraudulent. He testified that an accident caused one bankruptcy, but he had filed it two weeks before the accident. The FBI got the IRS to accept $25,000 as full payment of Rupert's $million taxes owed on his criminal loot.
There is much more; but to cap it all, the FBI awarded Rupert its "prestigious" Peters Award, according to the October 7, 2013 Watertown (NY) Daily Times.     http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20131007/DCO/710079897   
The above info about Ireland is from public sources or our observations of Buckley and Rupert at the "trial" of Michael McKevitt.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lawnseed on December 04, 2013, 07:55:14 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on October 30, 2013, 11:55:17 AM
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.
and theres the elephant in the room
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on February 06, 2014, 10:57:31 AM
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72789000/jpg/_72789642_eamonn.jpg)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T-zt6JFBrs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T-zt6JFBrs)
Old news report from Stabane in August 1971, reporting on the British Army murder of Eamon McDevitt, a deaf man who couldn't speak. The report contains an interview of a Colonel Ephraums of the Royal Marine Commandos announcing to the world that two or three of his men has observed Eamonn with a gun and said, 'he finally brandished this weapon and was coming up to the aim position against one of my soldiers at short range."

The Pat Finucane Centre today uncovered documents showing that the Ministry of Defence, the GOC and Senior Crown Counsel were aware that that Eamon McDevitt was unarmed and wanted to "dispose of the case" by settling out of court.

(https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/1898045_571953882895397_715942291_n.jpg)


https://www.facebook.com/patfinucane.centre (https://www.facebook.com/patfinucane.centre)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-26063432 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-26063432)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: glens abu on February 06, 2014, 11:02:51 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 06, 2014, 10:57:31 AM
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72789000/jpg/_72789642_eamonn.jpg)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T-zt6JFBrs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T-zt6JFBrs)
Old news report from Stabane in August 1971, reporting on the British Army murder of Eamon McDevitt, a deaf man who couldn't speak. The report contains an interview of a Colonel Ephraums of the Royal Marine Commandos announcing to the world that two or three of his men has observed Eamonn with a gun and said, 'he finally brandished this weapon and was coming up to the aim position against one of my soldiers at short range."

The Pat Finucane Centre today uncovered documents showing that the Ministry of Defence, the GOC and Senior Crown Counsel were aware that that Eamon McDevitt was unarmed and wanted to "dispose of the case" by settling out of court.

(https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/1898045_571953882895397_715942291_n.jpg)


https://www.facebook.com/patfinucane.centre (https://www.facebook.com/patfinucane.centre)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-26063432 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-26063432)

Pat Finucane Centre doing great work proving to the world what a lot of us already knew.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on February 06, 2014, 11:30:20 AM
It's gas how we always get a lot of talk about how soliders are not politicians and the virtues of their straight talking ways. Yet they never seem to have any problems when it comes to lying through their teeth to cover up their atrocities.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on February 06, 2014, 11:56:38 AM
Quote from: glens abu on February 06, 2014, 11:02:51 AM
Pat Finucane Centre doing great work proving to the world what a lot of us already knew.
+1
And long may they keep doing so as otherwise what we know will be portrayed as "propoganda" to the rest of the world.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: muppet on February 06, 2014, 06:38:54 PM
Quote from: glens abu on February 06, 2014, 11:02:51 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 06, 2014, 10:57:31 AM
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72789000/jpg/_72789642_eamonn.jpg)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T-zt6JFBrs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T-zt6JFBrs)
Old news report from Stabane in August 1971, reporting on the British Army murder of Eamon McDevitt, a deaf man who couldn't speak. The report contains an interview of a Colonel Ephraums of the Royal Marine Commandos announcing to the world that two or three of his men has observed Eamonn with a gun and said, 'he finally brandished this weapon and was coming up to the aim position against one of my soldiers at short range."

The Pat Finucane Centre today uncovered documents showing that the Ministry of Defence, the GOC and Senior Crown Counsel were aware that that Eamon McDevitt was unarmed and wanted to "dispose of the case" by settling out of court.

(https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/1898045_571953882895397_715942291_n.jpg)


https://www.facebook.com/patfinucane.centre (https://www.facebook.com/patfinucane.centre)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-26063432 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-26063432)

Pat Finucane Centre doing great work proving to the world what a lot of us already knew.

I agree 100%. Disgusting how easily people covered up the deaths of innocents and lied about their pasts for decades.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lawnseed on February 09, 2014, 04:11:36 PM
No doubt the gimp will raise this matter with dandy dave as s matter of urgency ::)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on April 29, 2014, 12:21:58 PM
British Justice once again. It's about time this vile bitch was put on a boat and fucked off for good. About two weeks after stating that there is too much focus on the role of the british state during the conflict, tory secretary of state Teresa Villiers has declined to appoint an Independent Panel to look into the Ballymurphy Masscare, carried out by the Parachute Regiment just months before Bloody Sunday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27199485 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27199485)

The victims:

Francis Quinn (19), shot by a sniper while going to the aid of a wounded man.
Fr Hugh Mullan (38), a Priest, shot by a sniper while going to the aid of a wounded man.
Joan Connolly (50), shot as she stood opposite the army base.
Daniel Teggart (44), shot fourteen times. Most of the bullets allegedly entered his back as he lay injured on the ground.
Noel Phillips (20), shot as he stood opposite the army base.
Joseph Murphy (41), shot as he stood opposite the army base.
Edward Doherty (28), shot while walking along Whiterock Road.
John Laverty (20) shot twice at top of the Whiterock Road.
Joseph Corr (43) were shot multiple times at a separate point at the top of the Whiterock Road
John McKerr (49), shot by unknown attackers while standing outside a Catholic church
Paddy McCarthy (44) got into a confrontation with a group of soldiers. One of them allegedly put an empty gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. McCarthy suffered a heart-attack and died shortly thereafter.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on April 29, 2014, 12:39:01 PM
Not in the public interest, it seems. The word 'school' is missing.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: orangeman on April 29, 2014, 12:49:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2014, 12:21:58 PM
British Justice once again. It's about time this vile bitch was put on a boat and fucked off for good. About two weeks after stating that there is too much focus on the role of the british state during the conflict, tory secretary of state Teresa Villiers has declined to appoint an Independent Panel to look into the Ballymurphy Masscare, carried out by the Parachute Regiment just months before Bloody Sunday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27199485 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27199485)

The victims:

Francis Quinn (19), shot by a sniper while going to the aid of a wounded man.
Fr Hugh Mullan (38), a Priest, shot by a sniper while going to the aid of a wounded man.
Joan Connolly (50), shot as she stood opposite the army base.
Daniel Teggart (44), shot fourteen times. Most of the bullets allegedly entered his back as he lay injured on the ground.
Noel Phillips (20), shot as he stood opposite the army base.
Joseph Murphy (41), shot as he stood opposite the army base.
Edward Doherty (28), shot while walking along Whiterock Road.
John Laverty (20) shot twice at top of the Whiterock Road.
Joseph Corr (43) were shot multiple times at a separate point at the top of the Whiterock Road
John McKerr (49), shot by unknown attackers while standing outside a Catholic church
Paddy McCarthy (44) got into a confrontation with a group of soldiers. One of them allegedly put an empty gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. McCarthy suffered a heart-attack and died shortly thereafter.


Why focus of Theresa ?. There were plenty more like her in her postiton who did the same thing since the time of the incident.

Ballymurphy was horrific in its brutality and it wasn't isolated incident either.

On the one hand the left hand can't be appealing for enquiries whilst the right is arguing that we should all forget about the past and move on.

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on April 29, 2014, 01:14:20 PM
Quote from: orangeman on April 29, 2014, 12:49:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2014, 12:21:58 PM
British Justice once again. It's about time this vile bitch was put on a boat and fucked off for good. About two weeks after stating that there is too much focus on the role of the british state during the conflict, tory secretary of state Teresa Villiers has declined to appoint an Independent Panel to look into the Ballymurphy Masscare, carried out by the Parachute Regiment just months before Bloody Sunday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27199485 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27199485)

The victims:

Francis Quinn (19), shot by a sniper while going to the aid of a wounded man.
Fr Hugh Mullan (38), a Priest, shot by a sniper while going to the aid of a wounded man.
Joan Connolly (50), shot as she stood opposite the army base.
Daniel Teggart (44), shot fourteen times. Most of the bullets allegedly entered his back as he lay injured on the ground.
Noel Phillips (20), shot as he stood opposite the army base.
Joseph Murphy (41), shot as he stood opposite the army base.
Edward Doherty (28), shot while walking along Whiterock Road.
John Laverty (20) shot twice at top of the Whiterock Road.
Joseph Corr (43) were shot multiple times at a separate point at the top of the Whiterock Road
John McKerr (49), shot by unknown attackers while standing outside a Catholic church
Paddy McCarthy (44) got into a confrontation with a group of soldiers. One of them allegedly put an empty gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. McCarthy suffered a heart-attack and died shortly thereafter.


Why focus of Theresa ?. There were plenty more like her in her postiton who did the same thing since the time of the incident.

Ballymurphy was horrific in its brutality and it wasn't isolated incident either.

On the one hand the left hand can't be appealing for enquiries whilst the right is arguing that we should all forget about the past and move on.

I don't for one minute think Teresa Villiers is the only bad apple but as of today she is the Secretary of State and it is she who only around two weeks ago, essentially publicly stated the British policy of cover up. Her contributions to life here since taking up her role have been one of two things: pointless or dangerous. To quote Jude Collins: "Bend an ear, Teresa: all killing of innocent people is  cruel and barbarous, but when such acts are perpetrated by the law's custodians it clearly deserves maximum attention. What you're calling for is less. But maybe I'm forgetting you are the British Secretary of State."

And personally, I can't be accused of "appealing for enquiries whilst arguing that we should all forget about the past and move on". Approximately 25,000 republicans went through prisons here. Only four members of the British state forces have ever been jailed for murder during the conflict (each of thes convicted murderers were released early, reinstated into the state forces and handed guns). Britain has a lot to lose if the truth ever comes out compared to anybody else. As far as I'm concerned, let resilient families like those in Ballymurphy keep turning the screw on Britain for as long as it takes and let Britain foot the bill for as many enquiries as it takes, to get some truth and some justice finally.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: orangeman on April 29, 2014, 01:33:04 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2014, 01:14:20 PM
Quote from: orangeman on April 29, 2014, 12:49:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2014, 12:21:58 PM
British Justice once again. It's about time this vile bitch was put on a boat and fucked off for good. About two weeks after stating that there is too much focus on the role of the british state during the conflict, tory secretary of state Teresa Villiers has declined to appoint an Independent Panel to look into the Ballymurphy Masscare, carried out by the Parachute Regiment just months before Bloody Sunday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27199485 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27199485)

The victims:

Francis Quinn (19), shot by a sniper while going to the aid of a wounded man.
Fr Hugh Mullan (38), a Priest, shot by a sniper while going to the aid of a wounded man.
Joan Connolly (50), shot as she stood opposite the army base.
Daniel Teggart (44), shot fourteen times. Most of the bullets allegedly entered his back as he lay injured on the ground.
Noel Phillips (20), shot as he stood opposite the army base.
Joseph Murphy (41), shot as he stood opposite the army base.
Edward Doherty (28), shot while walking along Whiterock Road.
John Laverty (20) shot twice at top of the Whiterock Road.
Joseph Corr (43) were shot multiple times at a separate point at the top of the Whiterock Road
John McKerr (49), shot by unknown attackers while standing outside a Catholic church
Paddy McCarthy (44) got into a confrontation with a group of soldiers. One of them allegedly put an empty gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. McCarthy suffered a heart-attack and died shortly thereafter.


Why focus of Theresa ?. There were plenty more like her in her postiton who did the same thing since the time of the incident.

Ballymurphy was horrific in its brutality and it wasn't isolated incident either.

On the one hand the left hand can't be appealing for enquiries whilst the right is arguing that we should all forget about the past and move on.

I don't for one minute think Teresa Villiers is the only bad apple but as of today she is the Secretary of State and it is she who only around two weeks ago, essentially publicly stated the British policy of cover up. Her contributions to life here since taking up her role have been one of two things: pointless or dangerous. To quote Jude Collins: "Bend an ear, Teresa: all killing of innocent people is  cruel and barbarous, but when such acts are perpetrated by the law's custodians it clearly deserves maximum attention. What you're calling for is less. But maybe I'm forgetting you are the British Secretary of State."

And personally, I can't be accused of "appealing for enquiries whilst arguing that we should all forget about the past and move on". Approximately 25,000 republicans went through prisons here. Only four members of the British state forces have ever been jailed for murder during the conflict (each of thes convicted murderers were released early, reinstated into the state forces and handed guns). Britain has a lot to lose if the truth ever comes out compared to anybody else. As far as I'm concerned, let resilient families like those in Ballymurphy keep turning the screw on Britain for as long as it takes and let Britain foot the bill for as many enquiries as it takes, to get some truth and some justice finally.


Do you really believe that Britain really gives a shit about what the Paras or any of the rest of their killers, state sponsored or otherwise did here, up on 40 years ago ?.

If they're forced to they'll make a bit of an apology and move on.

They've done plenty bad and much worse since Ballymurphy.

You're spot on however - the Ballymurphy families do deserve justice and truth. It's in short supply if you're going looking it off the Brits. Most will end up disappointed.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Orior on April 29, 2014, 01:40:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2014, 01:14:20 PM
Quote from: orangeman on April 29, 2014, 12:49:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2014, 12:21:58 PM
British Justice once again. It's about time this vile bitch was put on a boat and fucked off for good. About two weeks after stating that there is too much focus on the role of the british state during the conflict, tory secretary of state Teresa Villiers has declined to appoint an Independent Panel to look into the Ballymurphy Masscare, carried out by the Parachute Regiment just months before Bloody Sunday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27199485 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27199485)

The victims:

Francis Quinn (19), shot by a sniper while going to the aid of a wounded man.
Fr Hugh Mullan (38), a Priest, shot by a sniper while going to the aid of a wounded man.
Joan Connolly (50), shot as she stood opposite the army base.
Daniel Teggart (44), shot fourteen times. Most of the bullets allegedly entered his back as he lay injured on the ground.
Noel Phillips (20), shot as he stood opposite the army base.
Joseph Murphy (41), shot as he stood opposite the army base.
Edward Doherty (28), shot while walking along Whiterock Road.
John Laverty (20) shot twice at top of the Whiterock Road.
Joseph Corr (43) were shot multiple times at a separate point at the top of the Whiterock Road
John McKerr (49), shot by unknown attackers while standing outside a Catholic church
Paddy McCarthy (44) got into a confrontation with a group of soldiers. One of them allegedly put an empty gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. McCarthy suffered a heart-attack and died shortly thereafter.


Why focus of Theresa ?. There were plenty more like her in her postiton who did the same thing since the time of the incident.

Ballymurphy was horrific in its brutality and it wasn't isolated incident either.

On the one hand the left hand can't be appealing for enquiries whilst the right is arguing that we should all forget about the past and move on.

I don't for one minute think Teresa Villiers is the only bad apple but as of today she is the Secretary of State and it is she who only around two weeks ago, essentially publicly stated the British policy of cover up. Her contributions to life here since taking up her role have been one of two things: pointless or dangerous. To quote Jude Collins: "Bend an ear, Teresa: all killing of innocent people is  cruel and barbarous, but when such acts are perpetrated by the law's custodians it clearly deserves maximum attention. What you're calling for is less. But maybe I'm forgetting you are the British Secretary of State."

And personally, I can't be accused of "appealing for enquiries whilst arguing that we should all forget about the past and move on". Approximately 25,000 republicans went through prisons here. Only four members of the British state forces have ever been jailed for murder during the conflict (each of thes convicted murderers were released early, reinstated into the state forces and handed guns). Britain has a lot to lose if the truth ever comes out compared to anybody else. As far as I'm concerned, let resilient families like those in Ballymurphy keep turning the screw on Britain for as long as it takes and let Britain foot the bill for as many enquiries as it takes, to get some truth and some justice finally.

I tend to agree with Orangeman. So rather than calling for more enquiries, I would prefer if we called it quits. This also means the unionists have to stop trying to take the high moral ground and complaining about terrorists in Government or 'not pursued' letters and so on and so forth.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on April 29, 2014, 01:59:19 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 29, 2014, 01:40:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2014, 01:14:20 PM
Quote from: orangeman on April 29, 2014, 12:49:19 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on April 29, 2014, 12:21:58 PM
British Justice once again. It's about time this vile bitch was put on a boat and fucked off for good. About two weeks after stating that there is too much focus on the role of the british state during the conflict, tory secretary of state Teresa Villiers has declined to appoint an Independent Panel to look into the Ballymurphy Masscare, carried out by the Parachute Regiment just months before Bloody Sunday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27199485 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27199485)

The victims:

Francis Quinn (19), shot by a sniper while going to the aid of a wounded man.
Fr Hugh Mullan (38), a Priest, shot by a sniper while going to the aid of a wounded man.
Joan Connolly (50), shot as she stood opposite the army base.
Daniel Teggart (44), shot fourteen times. Most of the bullets allegedly entered his back as he lay injured on the ground.
Noel Phillips (20), shot as he stood opposite the army base.
Joseph Murphy (41), shot as he stood opposite the army base.
Edward Doherty (28), shot while walking along Whiterock Road.
John Laverty (20) shot twice at top of the Whiterock Road.
Joseph Corr (43) were shot multiple times at a separate point at the top of the Whiterock Road
John McKerr (49), shot by unknown attackers while standing outside a Catholic church
Paddy McCarthy (44) got into a confrontation with a group of soldiers. One of them allegedly put an empty gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. McCarthy suffered a heart-attack and died shortly thereafter.


Why focus of Theresa ?. There were plenty more like her in her postiton who did the same thing since the time of the incident.

Ballymurphy was horrific in its brutality and it wasn't isolated incident either.

On the one hand the left hand can't be appealing for enquiries whilst the right is arguing that we should all forget about the past and move on.

I don't for one minute think Teresa Villiers is the only bad apple but as of today she is the Secretary of State and it is she who only around two weeks ago, essentially publicly stated the British policy of cover up. Her contributions to life here since taking up her role have been one of two things: pointless or dangerous. To quote Jude Collins: "Bend an ear, Teresa: all killing of innocent people is  cruel and barbarous, but when such acts are perpetrated by the law's custodians it clearly deserves maximum attention. What you're calling for is less. But maybe I'm forgetting you are the British Secretary of State."

And personally, I can't be accused of "appealing for enquiries whilst arguing that we should all forget about the past and move on". Approximately 25,000 republicans went through prisons here. Only four members of the British state forces have ever been jailed for murder during the conflict (each of thes convicted murderers were released early, reinstated into the state forces and handed guns). Britain has a lot to lose if the truth ever comes out compared to anybody else. As far as I'm concerned, let resilient families like those in Ballymurphy keep turning the screw on Britain for as long as it takes and let Britain foot the bill for as many enquiries as it takes, to get some truth and some justice finally.

I tend to agree with Orangeman. So rather than calling for more enquiries, I would prefer if we called it quits. This also means the unionists have to stop trying to take the high moral ground and complaining about terrorists in Government or 'not pursued' letters and so on and so forth.

The problem with "calling it quits" is that, aside from the obvious (i.e. the lack of justice for state victims more so than for any other victims), it will allow a history to be written ion stone which says that this was simply a religious/sectarian conflict, that it was started by the IRA, and that the British state were just the unfortunate referee. All of which are total lies and all of which are what many on both sides of the Irish Sea would love us all to believe.

The only time I would even consider an end to enquiries would be if the British state followed the IRA's lead and publicly admitted that it was a (highly) active protagonist and apologised to all it's victims and accepted the level of collusion it was involved in. I could not accept a scenario where it would be left that they should be allowed to tell the history of this conflict whereby they were a mere referee. Since I don't see that happening any time soon, then as far as I'm concerned, families like those in Ballymurphy who do want enquiries, deserve wholehearted support.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on April 29, 2014, 02:00:24 PM
Individuals can make a difference, especially individual politicians. When it comes to comparisons with the Hillsborough report, Theresa Villiers is adopting the attitude that Tony Blair took - "what's the point? (http://aviewfromhamcommon.blogspot.ie/2012/09/alledged-tony-blair-scribble-on.html)" Thankfully the Hillsborough families had Andy Burnham to provide an answer to that. Who will be Andy Burnham for the Ballymurphy families?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on May 15, 2014, 11:17:05 AM
As we approach the 40th anniversary of the worst case of mass murder to occur in the 26 Cos I see that the families of some of those murdered are going to sue the British Government.
I hope they or their legal people can take it as far as they have to to show up the hypocrisy of the British Govt. who are suing Libya on behalf of the "more important victims".
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Nally Stand on May 15, 2014, 12:04:23 PM
Letter in the Examiner a few days back:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/yourview/time-for-truth-on-1974-bombings-268334.html#.U3HSBY66m6Q.facebook (http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/yourview/time-for-truth-on-1974-bombings-268334.html#.U3HSBY66m6Q.facebook)

This Friday will be the 40th anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, in which 34 people were killed, including a pregnant woman and her unborn child, as well as a family of four (a four-month-old baby, her 18-month-old sister and their parents).

The bombings caused maximum carnage on Dublin's busiest day and at its busiest time — rush hour, Friday, between 5.30pm and 6pm. Three, massive bombs went off without warning, and a further bomb, a diversion to allow those responsible to escape, exploded a short while later in the border town of Monaghan.

This was the biggest mass murder in the history of the Irish State. The Taoiseach, Liam Cosgrave, said in the Dáil a few days after the bombings: "It was, without exception, the worst single outrage in these islands, since the end of the Second World War."

In fact, in terms of human casualties, it has been the worst single atrocity of the Troubles. However, this atrocity has been brushed under the carpet by our political establishment.

Those in power at the time failed to bring those responsible to justice and all investigations were wound down in weeks, without any credible explanation or follow-up.

Only in recent years, as a result of efforts by the families and friends of the victims, has any effort been made to revisit the events.

However, these efforts fall far short of what is required by any democratic regime that prioritises the protection of its citizens.

In 1999, the Barron inquiry, headed by Justice Henry Barron, was established to examine the bombings. This inquiry, while limited in scope, revealed extremely worrying facts, including the discovery that all files had simply disappeared from the Department of Justice.

While it may seem inconceivable that these files have vanished, they are apparently the only files missing from that period, so no effective efforts have been made to get to the bottom of this serious breach in State security.

In his report, Judge Barron also noted that the Government of the day "showed little interest in pursuing those responsible for the attacks".

The failure of our political establishment to pursue this matter is one of the greatest political scandals in the history of the State. Senior politicians, in power at the time, displayed scant regard for their duties and also little concern for the families of the victims.

In 1981, Cosgrave refused to attend an Oireachtas sub-committee discussing the issue, saying that he had retired from public life.

He may have retired from public life, on a generous State pension, but he still had a duty to account for his time in office. Similarly, Paddy Cooney, Justice Minister at the time of the bombings, challenged the finding of the Barron Report. He also, has a duty to help uncover the mystery of the files missing from his department.

Many of the victims of that terrible day were young people. These murders need to be given the attention they deserve, and their families and loved ones deserve justice and the truth.

If abuse of the penalty points system and other, less serious issues, can be the focus of such massive political and media attention, then surely a failure, and possible cover-up, by the State, relating to the loss of so many innocent lives, is deserving of similar attention.

Patricia McKenna
Iona Road
Glasnevin
Dublin
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Franko on June 06, 2014, 09:07:56 AM
I can't believe this isn't getting more attention...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27714715

British government authorised use of torture methods in NI in early 1970s

The British government authorised the use of torture methods in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s, an RTÉ documentary has revealed.

The finding was contained in a memo obtained by RTÉ's Investigation Unit.

The programme alleged the practice was carried out on 14 Catholic men after they were interned in 1971.

'The Torture Files' contained correspondence sent by the then Home Secretary Merlyn Rees to the Prime Minister James Callaghan in March 1977.

The memo detailed a meeting between the Attorney General of the Republic of Ireland and his UK counterpart.

'Political decision'

Mr Rees states in the letter that it was his "view (confirmed by Brian Faulkner before his death [NI's prime minister at the time]) that the decision to use methods of torture in Northern Ireland in 1971/72 was taken by ministers - in particular Lord Carrington, then secretary of state for defence."

"If at any time methods of torture are used in Northern Ireland contrary to the view of the government of the day, I would agree that individual policemen or solders should be prosecuted or disciplined; but in the particular circumstances of 1971/72, a political decision was taken," Mr Rees stated in his letter.

"I do not believe that the Irish government understand the nature of the situation in 1971/72 - a situation which, to his credit, Mr Heath (Edward Heath, the then prime minster) ended."

In August 1971, in the wake of escalating violence in Northern Ireland, Brian Faulkner introduced a new law giving the authorities the power to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists without trial (internment).

The law took effect on 9 August and during the next three days, 343 Catholics were arrested.

Twenty-one people died during the three days of unrest - 17 were shot by the British Army, 11 of whom were shot in the Ballymurphy area of west Belfast.

Those arrested were first brought to detention camps in Army bases - within two days more than 100 had been released - the rest were interned.

A dozen men were selected, hooded and flown by helicopter to a secret location, believed to be at Ballykelly airbase, County Londonderry.

Two more men later joined the others - they became known as the so-called Hooded Men who had been selected for what the Army termed "deep interrogation".

They claimed they were beaten and subjected to what were called the five techniques, which included food and sleep deprivation and being subjected to very loud noise for long periods.

A BBC Radio Ulster documentary in 2012 also revealed claims the British Army had used a form of torture known as water boarding in NI 40 years ago.

The five techniques the men were subjected to were later banned by the prime minister at the time, Edward Heath.

In December 1971, Ireland lodged a case against the United Kingdom government, alleging it breached the European Convention on Human Rights on torture, discrimination and the right to life.

Degrading treatment

The first stage of the process was an investigation by the European Human Rights Commission following the complaint.

In 1976, it ruled that the British government was guilty of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment.

Ireland, armed with the commission's finding, referred the case upwards to the European Court of Human Rights for judgment.

In 1978, the European court ruled that while the five techniques amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment, they did not constitute torture.

Patrick Corrigan, director of Amnesty International in Northern Ireland, said the revelations in the RTÉ documentary underscored "the need for a comprehensive means of dealing with our troubled past".

He said the 'The Torture Files' had further alleged that the UK government did not disclose relevant evidence to the European Court of Human Rights, in its defence of the case.

"These latest allegations that the UK government misled the European Court of Human Rights in the 'hooded men' case are deeply worrying," he said.

"The revelations underscore the need for a comprehensive means of dealing with our troubled past, and the need for all parties to come clean about their role in human rights violations and abuses."


**Edit... There may be a more appropriate thread for this but I can't find it...
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on June 06, 2014, 12:22:18 PM
Was watching the Beeb last night.   Apparently PSNI are withholding files from Police Ombudsman.  Anyhow they had Nuala O'Loan and Jeffrey Donaldson in the studio for interview.

She quoted the laws and said cops were bang out of order.  Jeffrey said she was correct on the law but that it could be trumped by "National Security".  What was most noticeable was how bristled Donaldson seemed by her.  He pointedly refused to address her as Baroness throughout the discussion.  It was Nuala O'Loan or Mrs O'Loan (even when she corrected him).  It struck me as ironic for a Unionist to be perturbed by a title like that.

Was he annoyed that a Taig getting such a grandiose honour or is there other history there?

/Jim.

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: foxcommander on June 06, 2014, 03:06:25 PM
Quote from: Franko on June 06, 2014, 09:07:56 AM
I can't believe this isn't getting more attention...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27714715

British government authorised use of torture methods in NI in early 1970s

The British government authorised the use of torture methods in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s, an RTÉ documentary has revealed.

The finding was contained in a memo obtained by RTÉ's Investigation Unit.

The programme alleged the practice was carried out on 14 Catholic men after they were interned in 1971.

'The Torture Files' contained correspondence sent by the then Home Secretary Merlyn Rees to the Prime Minister James Callaghan in March 1977.

The memo detailed a meeting between the Attorney General of the Republic of Ireland and his UK counterpart.

'Political decision'

Mr Rees states in the letter that it was his "view (confirmed by Brian Faulkner before his death [NI's prime minister at the time]) that the decision to use methods of torture in Northern Ireland in 1971/72 was taken by ministers - in particular Lord Carrington, then secretary of state for defence."

"If at any time methods of torture are used in Northern Ireland contrary to the view of the government of the day, I would agree that individual policemen or solders should be prosecuted or disciplined; but in the particular circumstances of 1971/72, a political decision was taken," Mr Rees stated in his letter.

"I do not believe that the Irish government understand the nature of the situation in 1971/72 - a situation which, to his credit, Mr Heath (Edward Heath, the then prime minster) ended."

In August 1971, in the wake of escalating violence in Northern Ireland, Brian Faulkner introduced a new law giving the authorities the power to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists without trial (internment).

The law took effect on 9 August and during the next three days, 343 Catholics were arrested.

Twenty-one people died during the three days of unrest - 17 were shot by the British Army, 11 of whom were shot in the Ballymurphy area of west Belfast.

Those arrested were first brought to detention camps in Army bases - within two days more than 100 had been released - the rest were interned.

A dozen men were selected, hooded and flown by helicopter to a secret location, believed to be at Ballykelly airbase, County Londonderry.

Two more men later joined the others - they became known as the so-called Hooded Men who had been selected for what the Army termed "deep interrogation".

They claimed they were beaten and subjected to what were called the five techniques, which included food and sleep deprivation and being subjected to very loud noise for long periods.

A BBC Radio Ulster documentary in 2012 also revealed claims the British Army had used a form of torture known as water boarding in NI 40 years ago.

The five techniques the men were subjected to were later banned by the prime minister at the time, Edward Heath.

In December 1971, Ireland lodged a case against the United Kingdom government, alleging it breached the European Convention on Human Rights on torture, discrimination and the right to life.

Degrading treatment

The first stage of the process was an investigation by the European Human Rights Commission following the complaint.

In 1976, it ruled that the British government was guilty of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment.

Ireland, armed with the commission's finding, referred the case upwards to the European Court of Human Rights for judgment.

In 1978, the European court ruled that while the five techniques amounted to inhumane and degrading treatment, they did not constitute torture.

Patrick Corrigan, director of Amnesty International in Northern Ireland, said the revelations in the RTÉ documentary underscored "the need for a comprehensive means of dealing with our troubled past".

He said the 'The Torture Files' had further alleged that the UK government did not disclose relevant evidence to the European Court of Human Rights, in its defence of the case.

"These latest allegations that the UK government misled the European Court of Human Rights in the 'hooded men' case are deeply worrying," he said.

"The revelations underscore the need for a comprehensive means of dealing with our troubled past, and the need for all parties to come clean about their role in human rights violations and abuses."


**Edit... There may be a more appropriate thread for this but I can't find it...

As long as it didn't affect the free-staters they didn't give a flying fox what went on up there to irish citizens.

Not much pressure from the Irish government back in those days. A tut directed at London once in a while was deemed sufficient or the threat of intervention which you knew would never happen.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hardy on June 06, 2014, 03:33:21 PM
One man's hauling the Brits before the European Court Of Human Rights is another man's "tut".
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: foxcommander on June 06, 2014, 03:39:45 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 06, 2014, 03:33:21 PM
One man's hauling the Brits before the European Court Of Human Rights is another man's "tut".

That fairly sorted it out....
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hardy on June 06, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
It's the only thing you could find to post about on this thread.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on June 06, 2014, 03:54:53 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on June 06, 2014, 12:22:18 PM
".  What was most noticeable was how bristled Donaldson seemed by her.  He pointedly refused to address her as Baroness throughout the discussion.  It was Nuala O'Loan or Mrs O'Loan (even when she corrected him).  It struck me as ironic for a Unionist to be perturbed by a title like that.

Was he annoyed that a Taig getting such a grandiose honour or is there other history there?

/Jim.
Probably a major affront to his culture to have a Catholic putting the Polis in their place.
And them clowns are now talking about looking for votes from Catholics  ::)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: waterfordlad on June 07, 2014, 05:16:39 PM
I just read Lethal Allies by Ann Cadwallader about collusion between Loyalists paramilitaries and the RUC/UDR in the 70's in mid Ulster and it is shocking stuff. I didn't know about this as was only born around that time. Serving RUC and UDR members took part in gun and bomb attacks on many innocent Catholics in the area and this gang based around Tyrone and Armagh were responsible for up to 120 deaths including Dublin and Monaghan bombings. The heads of the gang were tipped off about security force activity and were able to freely organise terrorism mainly based from two farms in Armagh. Weapons were passed between  UDR/RUC and terrorists and in one case a 4 man RUC unit attacked a country bar in Armagh while on duty wearing overalls over the uniforms. A man who was shot outside recognised the boots as police boots when lying injured on the ground.  3 of them got suspended sentences from the judge then. Anyone else read this book?



Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: haveaharp on June 08, 2014, 12:54:21 PM
Quote from: waterfordlad on June 07, 2014, 05:16:39 PM
I just read Lethal Allies by Ann Cadwallader about collusion between Loyalists paramilitaries and the RUC/UDR in the 70's in mid Ulster and it is shocking stuff. I didn't know about this as was only born around that time. Serving RUC and UDR members took part in gun and bomb attacks on many innocent Catholics in the area and this gang based around Tyrone and Armagh were responsible for up to 120 deaths including Dublin and Monaghan bombings. The heads of the gang were tipped off about security force activity and were able to freely organise terrorism mainly based from two farms in Armagh. Weapons were passed between  UDR/RUC and terrorists and in one case a 4 man RUC unit attacked a country bar in Armagh while on duty wearing overalls over the uniforms. A man who was shot outside recognised the boots as police boots when lying injured on the ground.  3 of them got suspended sentences from the judge then. Anyone else read this book?

Yes reading it at the minute. Not that much in it that we didn't know at the time. A couple of the names mentioned in it would have done business with an uncle of mine and would have come into the house and had a drop of tae and a chat. 2 faced f**kers.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: cadhlancian on June 09, 2014, 03:36:34 AM
Read it a few months back. I suppose it was nothing that we didn't already know, but nonetheless still harrowing to read the depth of hatred that existed in certain unionists in an area that I grew up in. I'd imagine that's only the tip of the iceberg. :-\
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on June 09, 2014, 07:29:17 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 06, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
It's the only thing you could find to post about on this thread.
Playing the man here hardy?

wtf?

He might be a bit extreme in his point- but unfortunately he's kind of correct.
IMO it's still the case! C'est la vie, but why attack the man?( fox)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on June 09, 2014, 07:32:17 PM
Quote from: waterfordlad on June 07, 2014, 05:16:39 PM
I just read Lethal Allies by Ann Cadwallader about collusion between Loyalists paramilitaries and the RUC/UDR in the 70's in mid Ulster and it is shocking stuff. I didn't know about this as was only born around that time. Serving RUC and UDR members took part in gun and bomb attacks on many innocent Catholics in the area and this gang based around Tyrone and Armagh were responsible for up to 120 deaths including Dublin and Monaghan bombings. The heads of the gang were tipped off about security force activity and were able to freely organise terrorism mainly based from two farms in Armagh. Weapons were passed between  UDR/RUC and terrorists and in one case a 4 man RUC unit attacked a country bar in Armagh while on duty wearing overalls over the uniforms. A man who was shot outside recognised the boots as police boots when lying injured on the ground.  3 of them got suspended sentences from the judge then. Anyone else read this book?
Read 'the committee' by Sean mcphilemy - though it's prob more of the same

Why are people so surprised?
Also sad as it may be, it was a war so you can't expect tribunals - though I suppose there is a case for those who were innocents killed by the colluding state lead unionist/loyalist death squads
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hardy on June 09, 2014, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 09, 2014, 07:29:17 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 06, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
It's the only thing you could find to post about on this thread.
Playing the man here hardy?

wtf?

He might be a bit extreme in his point- but unfortunately he's kind of correct.
IMO it's still the case! C'est la vie, but why attack the man?( fox)

Play the man? Attack? If you call than an attack, you can't have lasted too long on the football pitches of Meath.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: lynchbhoy on June 09, 2014, 09:25:59 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 09, 2014, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 09, 2014, 07:29:17 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 06, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
It's the only thing you could find to post about on this thread.
Playing the man here hardy?

wtf?

He might be a bit extreme in his point- but unfortunately he's kind of correct.
IMO it's still the case! C'est la vie, but why attack the man?( fox)

Play the man? Attack? If you call than an attack, you can't have lasted too long on the football pitches of Meath.
Playing the man nonetheless!!
:)

No prob on the pitches of Meath to be honest!!

Just had to be careful of the sneaky attacks from behind!

But no prob dealing with them all as I said.

Pity I was supposed to be playing football though!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: cadhlancian on June 09, 2014, 09:37:41 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 09, 2014, 07:32:17 PM
Quote from: waterfordlad on June 07, 2014, 05:16:39 PM
I just read Lethal Allies by Ann Cadwallader about collusion between Loyalists paramilitaries and the RUC/UDR in the 70's in mid Ulster and it is shocking stuff. I didn't know about this as was only born around that time. Serving RUC and UDR members took part in gun and bomb attacks on many innocent Catholics in the area and this gang based around Tyrone and Armagh were responsible for up to 120 deaths including Dublin and Monaghan bombings. The heads of the gang were tipped off about security force activity and were able to freely organise terrorism mainly based from two farms in Armagh. Weapons were passed between  UDR/RUC and terrorists and in one case a 4 man RUC unit attacked a country bar in Armagh while on duty wearing overalls over the uniforms. A man who was shot outside recognised the boots as police boots when lying injured on the ground.  3 of them got suspended sentences from the judge then. Anyone else read this book?
Read 'the committee' by Sean mcphilemy - though it's prob more of the same

Why are people so surprised?
Also sad as it may be, it was a war so you can't expect tribunals - though I suppose there is a case for those who were innocents killed by the colluding state lead unionist/loyalist death squads
[/quote
I also read the Comittee. It was more speculation than hard fact, no doubt large portions of it were true. However , Lethal Allies is cold hard facts.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on June 16, 2015, 12:09:42 AM
Anyone see the program tonight on RTE?  Pretty damning stuff and very moving. It's high time that people were fully exposed at whatever level they are at. This will constantly run as a sore until such times as the whole truth is out.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: magpie seanie on June 16, 2015, 12:18:25 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 16, 2015, 12:09:42 AM
Anyone see the program tonight on RTE?  Pretty damning stuff and very moving. It's high time that people were fully exposed at whatever level they are at. This will constantly run as a sore until such times as the whole truth is out.

Saw it and I agree completely. Terrible, terrible stuff. Think it will give some people in the 26 a bit of an eye opener.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on June 16, 2015, 12:36:35 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on June 16, 2015, 12:18:25 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 16, 2015, 12:09:42 AM
Anyone see the program tonight on RTE?  Pretty damning stuff and very moving. It's high time that people were fully exposed at whatever level they are at. This will constantly run as a sore until such times as the whole truth is out.

Saw it and I agree completely. Terrible, terrible stuff. Think it will give some people in the 26 a bit of an eye opener.
Knew most of it already but good to see it put out there again.
People like Syfín might now start to realise that the IRA weren't the only "baddies".
Ken Maginess is still one hateful cnut. " The boy Cameron" ffs!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: armaghniac on June 16, 2015, 12:50:05 AM
I'm not sure there was a whole lot new in this, but it is good to see things set out and some people could do with a reminder to how things were.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on June 16, 2015, 12:52:35 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 16, 2015, 12:09:42 AM
Anyone see the program tonight on RTE?  Pretty damning stuff and very moving. It's high time that people were fully exposed at whatever level they are at. This will constantly run as a sore until such times as the whole truth is out.

It's never gonna happen.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: omaghjoe on June 16, 2015, 03:56:32 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 09, 2014, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 09, 2014, 07:29:17 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 06, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
It's the only thing you could find to post about on this thread.
Playing the man here hardy?

wtf?

He might be a bit extreme in his point- but unfortunately he's kind of correct.
IMO it's still the case! C'est la vie, but why attack the man?( fox)

Play the man? Attack? If you call than an attack, you can't have lasted too long on the football pitches of Meath.

Your contributions to threads is often so vague and lacking in substance that they give the impression you either;

Think its somewhere between the latter two myself but wouldn't totally rule out the first ;)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: foxcommander on June 16, 2015, 04:58:11 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 16, 2015, 03:56:32 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 09, 2014, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 09, 2014, 07:29:17 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 06, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
It's the only thing you could find to post about on this thread.
Playing the man here hardy?

wtf?

He might be a bit extreme in his point- but unfortunately he's kind of correct.
IMO it's still the case! C'est la vie, but why attack the man?( fox)

Play the man? Attack? If you call than an attack, you can't have lasted too long on the football pitches of Meath.

Your contributions to threads is often so vague and lacking in substance that they give the impression you either;

  • don't know what you are talking about,
  • think you are have more foresight than others or
  • are being passive aggressive.


Think its somewhere between the latter two myself but wouldn't totally rule out the first ;)

I'll go for number 1 please Cilla
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hereiam on June 16, 2015, 10:16:31 AM
Its a pity its took this long for this issue to be highlighted in the media over here the main problem is that it wont be shown to anyone over in Britain where it could do real damage so all in all its a waste of time because the general public here will go that's terrible but go on with there lives.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: GJL on June 16, 2015, 11:45:51 AM
Quote from: Hereiam on June 16, 2015, 10:16:31 AM
Its a pity its took this long for this issue to be highlighted in the media over here the main problem is that it wont be shown to anyone over in Britain where it could do real damage so all in all its a waste of time because the general public here will go that's terrible but go on with there lives.

There was a Panorama similar to last nights show on BBC1 last week shown all over. I would doubt if many over the water would give a toss. I actually doubt if many in the 26 actually do either. :-\

Good to see it coming to the surface and I hope it keeps going.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: ballinaman on June 16, 2015, 12:00:54 PM
Quote from: GJL on June 16, 2015, 11:45:51 AM
Quote from: Hereiam on June 16, 2015, 10:16:31 AM
Its a pity its took this long for this issue to be highlighted in the media over here the main problem is that it wont be shown to anyone over in Britain where it could do real damage so all in all its a waste of time because the general public here will go that's terrible but go on with there lives.

There was a Panorama similar to last nights show on BBC1 last week shown all over. I would doubt if many over the water would give a toss. I actually doubt if many in the 26 actually do either. :-\

Good to see it coming to the surface and I hope it keeps going.
Never mind not giving a toss, they haven't a clue regarding NI in general. Astounded by the lack of basic knowledge having spent time over there.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on June 16, 2015, 12:03:55 PM
Absolutely nothing new, although it's handy to collect it all in one place in case anyone is under any illusions about the scale of things - it wasn't a few bad apples, the whole barrel was rotten. Ken Maginnis was funny, although not in a haha kind of way. He was so chuffed at how he managed (perhaps in his own mind) to bring the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos that I thought he might eat himself on camera, but then his Col Sanders-style face went puce when it was suggested that there was collusion like, uh, bringing the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos. And I must confess to a warped feeling of admiration for Michael Mates for having the balls to come on camera to defend the policy, or lack of it as he would have it. He's a hypocrite, but I think he knows he's a hypocrite.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Pub Bore on June 16, 2015, 12:19:57 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 16, 2015, 12:03:55 PM
Absolutely nothing new, although it's handy to collect it all in one place in case anyone is under any illusions about the scale of things - it wasn't a few bad apples, the whole barrel was rotten. Ken Maginnis was funny, although not in a haha kind of way. He was so chuffed at how he managed (perhaps in his own mind) to bring the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos that I thought he might eat himself on camera, but then his Col Sanders-style face went puce when it was suggested that there was collusion like, uh, bringing the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos. And I must confess to a warped feeling of admiration for Michael Mates for having the balls to come on camera to defend the policy, or lack of it as he would have it. He's a hypocrite, but I think he knows he's a hypocrite.

As Tony Hancock famously said "What about Magna Carta...did she die in vain?"
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 02:56:39 PM
Not to mention yer man Constant Markovich.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 02:59:06 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 16, 2015, 03:56:32 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 09, 2014, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 09, 2014, 07:29:17 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 06, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
It's the only thing you could find to post about on this thread.
Playing the man here hardy?

wtf?

He might be a bit extreme in his point- but unfortunately he's kind of correct.
IMO it's still the case! C'est la vie, but why attack the man?( fox)

Play the man? Attack? If you call than an attack, you can't have lasted too long on the football pitches of Meath.

Your contributions to threads is often so vague and lacking in substance that they give the impression you either;

  • don't know what you are talking about,
  • think you are have more foresight than others or
  • are being passive aggressive.


Think its somewhere between the latter two myself but wouldn't totally rule out the first ;)

I'm being stalked (though with a ridiculous twelve-month time constant) by the idiot philosopher/psychologist.

Listen, I'm from Meath. There's no passive about my aggressive.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: omaghjoe on June 16, 2015, 04:31:44 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 02:59:06 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 16, 2015, 03:56:32 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 09, 2014, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 09, 2014, 07:29:17 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 06, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
It's the only thing you could find to post about on this thread.
Playing the man here hardy?

wtf?

He might be a bit extreme in his point- but unfortunately he's kind of correct.
IMO it's still the case! C'est la vie, but why attack the man?( fox)

Play the man? Attack? If you call than an attack, you can't have lasted too long on the football pitches of Meath.

Your contributions to threads is often so vague and lacking in substance that they give the impression you either;

  • don't know what you are talking about,
  • think you are have more foresight than others or
  • are being passive aggressive.


Think its somewhere between the latter two myself but wouldn't totally rule out the first ;)

I'm being stalked (though with a ridiculous twelve-month time constant) by the idiot philosopher/psychologist.

Listen, I'm from Meath. There's no passive about my aggressive.

Well at least we are narrowing it down.... BTW no need to be insulting Hardy
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: foxcommander on June 16, 2015, 05:48:39 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 02:59:06 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 16, 2015, 03:56:32 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 09, 2014, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 09, 2014, 07:29:17 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 06, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
It's the only thing you could find to post about on this thread.
Playing the man here hardy?

wtf?

He might be a bit extreme in his point- but unfortunately he's kind of correct.
IMO it's still the case! C'est la vie, but why attack the man?( fox)

Play the man? Attack? If you call than an attack, you can't have lasted too long on the football pitches of Meath.

Your contributions to threads is often so vague and lacking in substance that they give the impression you either;

  • don't know what you are talking about,
  • think you are have more foresight than others or
  • are being passive aggressive.


Think its somewhere between the latter two myself but wouldn't totally rule out the first ;)

I'm being stalked (though with a ridiculous twelve-month time constant) by the idiot philosopher/psychologist.

Listen, I'm from Meath. There's no passive about my aggressive.

Stalked? Serious case of paranoia there to add to the other delusional characteristics.
Pandering to your own vanity perhaps - I don't think anyone likes you that much :D
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 16, 2015, 12:03:55 PM
Absolutely nothing new, although it's handy to collect it all in one place in case anyone is under any illusions about the scale of things - it wasn't a few bad apples, the whole barrel was rotten. Ken Maginnis was funny, although not in a haha kind of way. He was so chuffed at how he managed (perhaps in his own mind) to bring the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos that I thought he might eat himself on camera, but then his Col Sanders-style face went puce when it was suggested that there was collusion like, uh, bringing the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos. And I must confess to a warped feeling of admiration for Michael Mates for having the balls to come on camera to defend the policy, or lack of it as he would have it. He's a hypocrite, but I think he knows he's a hypocrite.
So every single member of the security forces at the time of the war / conflict / troubles was involved in collusion?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 06:25:58 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 16, 2015, 05:48:39 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 02:59:06 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 16, 2015, 03:56:32 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 09, 2014, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 09, 2014, 07:29:17 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 06, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
It's the only thing you could find to post about on this thread.
Playing the man here hardy?

wtf?

He might be a bit extreme in his point- but unfortunately he's kind of correct.
IMO it's still the case! C'est la vie, but why attack the man?( fox)

Play the man? Attack? If you call than an attack, you can't have lasted too long on the football pitches of Meath.

Your contributions to threads is often so vague and lacking in substance that they give the impression you either;

       
  • don't know what you are talking about,
  • think you are have more foresight than others or
  • are being passive aggressive.
Think its somewhere between the latter two myself but wouldn't totally rule out the first ;)

I'm being stalked (though with a ridiculous twelve-month time constant) by the idiot philosopher/psychologist.

Listen, I'm from Meath. There's no passive about my aggressive.

Stalked? Serious case of paranoia there to add to the other delusional characteristics.
Pandering to your own vanity perhaps - I don't think anyone likes you that much :D

Holy shit! Muppet - do something. This one is your stalker, not mine.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 16, 2015, 12:03:55 PM
Absolutely nothing new, although it's handy to collect it all in one place in case anyone is under any illusions about the scale of things - it wasn't a few bad apples, the whole barrel was rotten. Ken Maginnis was funny, although not in a haha kind of way. He was so chuffed at how he managed (perhaps in his own mind) to bring the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos that I thought he might eat himself on camera, but then his Col Sanders-style face went puce when it was suggested that there was collusion like, uh, bringing the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos. And I must confess to a warped feeling of admiration for Michael Mates for having the balls to come on camera to defend the policy, or lack of it as he would have it. He's a hypocrite, but I think he knows he's a hypocrite.
So every single member of the security forces at the time of the war / conflict / troubles was involved in collusion?

So that's the standard?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on June 16, 2015, 06:31:15 PM
Look at footage of RUC attacking civil rights marchers in Derry on 5/10/1968.
By Jases but they fairly relished attacking Catholics. I think it's fairly clear that non rotten members were pretty thin on the ground.
The whole apartheidesqe set up from Stormont down was indeed rotten and should have been closed down in 1969 rather than waiting till 72.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 06:43:09 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 16, 2015, 12:03:55 PM
Absolutely nothing new, although it's handy to collect it all in one place in case anyone is under any illusions about the scale of things - it wasn't a few bad apples, the whole barrel was rotten. Ken Maginnis was funny, although not in a haha kind of way. He was so chuffed at how he managed (perhaps in his own mind) to bring the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos that I thought he might eat himself on camera, but then his Col Sanders-style face went puce when it was suggested that there was collusion like, uh, bringing the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos. And I must confess to a warped feeling of admiration for Michael Mates for having the balls to come on camera to defend the policy, or lack of it as he would have it. He's a hypocrite, but I think he knows he's a hypocrite.
So every single member of the security forces at the time of the war / conflict / troubles was involved in collusion?

So that's the standard?
Not the standard at all, nor condoning the actions of those involved.  Simply saying that the whole barrell was not, as the poster stated, rotten.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: armaghniac on June 16, 2015, 06:48:59 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 06:43:09 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 16, 2015, 12:03:55 PM
Absolutely nothing new, although it's handy to collect it all in one place in case anyone is under any illusions about the scale of things - it wasn't a few bad apples, the whole barrel was rotten. Ken Maginnis was funny, although not in a haha kind of way. He was so chuffed at how he managed (perhaps in his own mind) to bring the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos that I thought he might eat himself on camera, but then his Col Sanders-style face went puce when it was suggested that there was collusion like, uh, bringing the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos. And I must confess to a warped feeling of admiration for Michael Mates for having the balls to come on camera to defend the policy, or lack of it as he would have it. He's a hypocrite, but I think he knows he's a hypocrite.
So every single member of the security forces at the time of the war / conflict / troubles was involved in collusion?

So that's the standard?
Not the standard at all, nor condoning the actions of those involved.  Simply saying that the whole barrell was not, as the poster stated, rotten.

The others were in the system, knowing that it was rotten.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 07:09:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2015, 06:48:59 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 06:43:09 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 16, 2015, 12:03:55 PM
Absolutely nothing new, although it's handy to collect it all in one place in case anyone is under any illusions about the scale of things - it wasn't a few bad apples, the whole barrel was rotten. Ken Maginnis was funny, although not in a haha kind of way. He was so chuffed at how he managed (perhaps in his own mind) to bring the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos that I thought he might eat himself on camera, but then his Col Sanders-style face went puce when it was suggested that there was collusion like, uh, bringing the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos. And I must confess to a warped feeling of admiration for Michael Mates for having the balls to come on camera to defend the policy, or lack of it as he would have it. He's a hypocrite, but I think he knows he's a hypocrite.
So every single member of the security forces at the time of the war / conflict / troubles was involved in collusion?

So that's the standard?
Not the standard at all, nor condoning the actions of those involved.  Simply saying that the whole barrell was not, as the poster stated, rotten.

The others were in the system, knowing that it was rotten.
How do you know this?  Have you spoken to many serving security forces members from the time?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on June 16, 2015, 07:17:53 PM
Not every member of the security force was involved in collusion. But the whole barrel was rotten.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Farrandeelin on June 16, 2015, 07:20:27 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 07:09:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2015, 06:48:59 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 06:43:09 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 16, 2015, 12:03:55 PM
Absolutely nothing new, although it's handy to collect it all in one place in case anyone is under any illusions about the scale of things - it wasn't a few bad apples, the whole barrel was rotten. Ken Maginnis was funny, although not in a haha kind of way. He was so chuffed at how he managed (perhaps in his own mind) to bring the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos that I thought he might eat himself on camera, but then his Col Sanders-style face went puce when it was suggested that there was collusion like, uh, bringing the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos. And I must confess to a warped feeling of admiration for Michael Mates for having the balls to come on camera to defend the policy, or lack of it as he would have it. He's a hypocrite, but I think he knows he's a hypocrite.
So every single member of the security forces at the time of the war / conflict / troubles was involved in collusion?

So that's the standard?
Not the standard at all, nor condoning the actions of those involved.  Simply saying that the whole barrell was not, as the poster stated, rotten.

The others were in the system, knowing that it was rotten.
How do you know this?  Have you spoken to many serving security forces members from the time?

I'd imagine they were clued in would they not be?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 07:30:46 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on June 16, 2015, 07:20:27 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 07:09:12 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on June 16, 2015, 06:48:59 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 06:43:09 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 06:27:37 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 16, 2015, 12:03:55 PM
Absolutely nothing new, although it's handy to collect it all in one place in case anyone is under any illusions about the scale of things - it wasn't a few bad apples, the whole barrel was rotten. Ken Maginnis was funny, although not in a haha kind of way. He was so chuffed at how he managed (perhaps in his own mind) to bring the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos that I thought he might eat himself on camera, but then his Col Sanders-style face went puce when it was suggested that there was collusion like, uh, bringing the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos. And I must confess to a warped feeling of admiration for Michael Mates for having the balls to come on camera to defend the policy, or lack of it as he would have it. He's a hypocrite, but I think he knows he's a hypocrite.
So every single member of the security forces at the time of the war / conflict / troubles was involved in collusion?

So that's the standard?
Not the standard at all, nor condoning the actions of those involved.  Simply saying that the whole barrell was not, as the poster stated, rotten.

The others were in the system, knowing that it was rotten.
How do you know this?  Have you spoken to many serving security forces members from the time?

I'd imagine they were clued in would they not be?
I would imagine that your average Constable on the ground would have known f**k all about it.  Many would have been trying to get on with the job of being a Police Officer, which is difficult enough without the fear of being shot in the back as you carried out your work.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on June 16, 2015, 08:34:29 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 07:30:46 PM
I would imagine that your average Constable on the ground would have known f**k all about it.  Many would have been trying to get on with the job of being a Police Officer, which is difficult enough without the fear of being shot in the back as you carried out your work.
Which of course wasn't happening in a vacuum but was the awful inevitable consequence of what was visited on 1 Community from 1922 onwards.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 08:50:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 16, 2015, 08:34:29 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 07:30:46 PM
I would imagine that your average Constable on the ground would have known f**k all about it.  Many would have been trying to get on with the job of being a Police Officer, which is difficult enough without the fear of being shot in the back as you carried out your work.
Which of course wasn't happening in a vacuum but was the awful inevitable consequence of what was visited on 1 Community from 1922 onwards.
I doubt we will agree on this.  In my mind, however, I find it difficult to see how you could justify shooting fellow Irishmen in this way.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Oraisteach on June 16, 2015, 09:36:22 PM
So, Michael, we're in the land of imagination.  You imagine that the average policeman was oblivious to the goings-on.  I, on the other hand, don't buy into that Pollyanna wishful thinking.  With weaponry vanishing at an alarming rate, for example, I imagine than a good few ordinary constables had probably heard of this, had a fairly accurate idea of where the weapons were going, and thought it best to let sleeping dogs lie (as in not tell the truth).  I guess that years of listening to deceit and cover-ups have fostered in me a healthy cynicism, I imagine.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 10:13:52 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on June 16, 2015, 09:36:22 PM
So, Michael, we're in the land of imagination.  You imagine that the average policeman was oblivious to the goings-on.  I, on the other hand, don't buy into that Pollyanna wishful thinking.  With weaponry vanishing at an alarming rate, for example, I imagine than a good few ordinary constables had probably heard of this, had a fairly accurate idea of where the weapons were going, and thought it best to let sleeping dogs lie (as in not tell the truth).  I guess that years of listening to deceit and cover-ups have fostered in me a healthy cynicism, I imagine.
Think what you like.  Very simplistic to tar everyone with the same brush. 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Gaffer on June 16, 2015, 10:29:43 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on June 16, 2015, 09:36:22 PM
So, Michael, we're in the land of imagination.  You imagine that the average policeman was oblivious to the goings-on.  I, on the other hand, don't buy into that Pollyanna wishful thinking.  With weaponry vanishing at an alarming rate, for example, I imagine than a good few ordinary constables had probably heard of this, had a fairly accurate idea of where the weapons were going, and thought it best to let sleeping dogs lie (as in not tell the truth).  I guess that years of listening to deceit and cover-ups have fostered in me a healthy cynicism, I imagine.

Any of those who were involved in illegal activity aren't going to mouth off to all their colleagues ! 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: theticklemister on June 16, 2015, 11:14:22 PM
Quote from: Gaffer on June 16, 2015, 10:29:43 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on June 16, 2015, 09:36:22 PM
So, Michael, we're in the land of imagination.  You imagine that the average policeman was oblivious to the goings-on.  I, on the other hand, don't buy into that Pollyanna wishful thinking.  With weaponry vanishing at an alarming rate, for example, I imagine than a good few ordinary constables had probably heard of this, had a fairly accurate idea of where the weapons were going, and thought it best to let sleeping dogs lie (as in not tell the truth).  I guess that years of listening to deceit and cover-ups have fostered in me a healthy cynicism, I imagine.

Any of those who were involved in illegal activity aren't going to mouth off to all their colleagues !

but when ye go in to pick up yer SLR to go on patrol and it's not there, ye begin to ask questions
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Oraisteach on June 17, 2015, 12:35:49 AM
That's my point, Tickle.  There's no possible way that the average police officer would not know that weapons were mysteriously flying off the racks without knowing or at least wondering where they were going.  They were therefore complicit through silence, in my view, or else they were as obtuse as the Keystone Kops.  I don't know how many rotten apples there were in the RUC barrel, but it was certainly way more than a handful.  And given their track record for and habitual lying over the years, you'll forgive my skepticism.  I recall in particular the speed at which weapons were cleaned after the murder of John Gallagher in Armagh, early in the Troubles.  That was an attempted cover-up.  As for the disappearing weapons that strangely found themselves in Loyalist hands, I suppose it's a case of RUC them, RU don't. Most posters on here are probably familiar with it, but Lethal Allies is a useful and eye-opening read about the breadth of collusion.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: johnneycool on June 17, 2015, 11:02:57 AM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 06:22:15 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 16, 2015, 12:03:55 PM
Absolutely nothing new, although it's handy to collect it all in one place in case anyone is under any illusions about the scale of things - it wasn't a few bad apples, the whole barrel was rotten. Ken Maginnis was funny, although not in a haha kind of way. He was so chuffed at how he managed (perhaps in his own mind) to bring the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos that I thought he might eat himself on camera, but then his Col Sanders-style face went puce when it was suggested that there was collusion like, uh, bringing the SAS in to engage in some extra-judicial murdering of a few Provos. And I must confess to a warped feeling of admiration for Michael Mates for having the balls to come on camera to defend the policy, or lack of it as he would have it. He's a hypocrite, but I think he knows he's a hypocrite.
So every single member of the security forces at the time of the war / conflict / troubles was involved in collusion?

No, but a good few turned a blind eye to it, there weren't too many whistle blowers, even now coming out of the ranks of the RUC/UDR/Army.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on June 17, 2015, 11:10:06 AM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 08:50:28 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 16, 2015, 08:34:29 PM
Quote from: michaelg on June 16, 2015, 07:30:46 PM
I would imagine that your average Constable on the ground would have known f**k all about it.  Many would have been trying to get on with the job of being a Police Officer, which is difficult enough without the fear of being shot in the back as you carried out your work.
Which of course wasn't happening in a vacuum but was the awful inevitable consequence of what was visited on 1 Community from 1922 onwards.
I doubt we will agree on this.  In my mind, however, I find it difficult to see how you could justify shooting fellow Irishmen in this way.

Never said I justified it. Simply pointing out that it was the inevitable consequences of the type of set up that existed in the 6 Cos from 1922 onwards.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: general_lee on June 17, 2015, 11:33:07 AM
Of course the whole of the RUC knew fine rightly. You'd be some dose not to notice. Doesn't necessarily make them all complicit though does it? Plenty had unionist/loyalist leanings of which no doubt descended into outright cooperating/colluding with loyalists. I'm sure the of the decent RUC officers very few were willing to become whistleblowers for obvious reasons, can you really blame them?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: deiseach on June 17, 2015, 11:41:55 AM
Quote from: general_lee on June 17, 2015, 11:33:07 AM
Of course the whole of the RUC knew fine rightly. You'd be some dose not to notice. Doesn't necessarily make them all complicit though does it? Plenty had unionist/loyalist leanings of which no doubt descended into outright cooperating/colluding with loyalists. I'm sure the of the decent RUC officers very few were willing to become whistleblowers for obvious reasons, can you really blame them?

No, you couldn't blame them. But that's the point about the whole barrel being rotten. There wasn't a single part of the force that wasn't touched by the blight. I'm sure there were plenty of members of the RUC who, in another time and another place, would have made top-notch Dixon of Dock Green-type bobbies. But it was not another time and it was not another place.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on June 17, 2015, 12:07:24 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on June 16, 2015, 09:36:22 PM
So, Michael, we're in the land of imagination.  You imagine that the average policeman was oblivious to the goings-on.  I, on the other hand, don't buy into that Pollyanna wishful thinking.  With weaponry vanishing at an alarming rate, for example, I imagine than a good few ordinary constables had probably heard of this, had a fairly accurate idea of where the weapons were going, and thought it best to let sleeping dogs lie (as in not tell the truth).  I guess that years of listening to deceit and cover-ups have fostered in me a healthy cynicism, I imagine.

Was the issue of missing weapons not a UDR one more than RUC?

To be frank, it's hard to discuss this with such polarised people as Northerners.  Everyone is very one-eyed about themmuns.

If we take the Smithwick Inquiry definition of collusion then most UDR men and many RUC officers were guilty of collusion.  However, those that applauded Smithwick are the same ones who will deny the facts presented about state collusion.

There had to be a police force and they were in a difficult position, particularly as State policy was to be "hands off" to one side for such a long time.  Creating the UDR was a bad, bad idea.  Once things kicked off there was nothing more likely than it becoming a Unionist militia.  To me, that is exactly what happened.  I doubt you will find another regiment with as many criminal convictions in the British Army (and that only accounts for those that were caught).  The fact that so much equipment such as weapons and uniforms went missing and so many within didn't even hide their association means that any subsequent recruits have to be deemed colluding.

/Jim.


Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: general_lee on June 17, 2015, 12:11:43 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 17, 2015, 11:41:55 AM
Quote from: general_lee on June 17, 2015, 11:33:07 AM
Of course the whole of the RUC knew fine rightly. You'd be some dose not to notice. Doesn't necessarily make them all complicit though does it? Plenty had unionist/loyalist leanings of which no doubt descended into outright cooperating/colluding with loyalists. I'm sure the of the decent RUC officers very few were willing to become whistleblowers for obvious reasons, can you really blame them?

No, you couldn't blame them. But that's the point about the whole barrel being rotten. There wasn't a single part of the force that wasn't touched by the blight. I'm sure there were plenty of members of the RUC who, in another time and another place, would have made top-notch Dixon of Dock Green-type bobbies. But it was not another time and it was not another place.

I don't disagree that the whole of the RUC was poisoned by virtue of the manner in which it operated. I guess it was just a poor set of circumstances in which to pursue a career if you were a non-OO aligned/unionist/loyalist sympathiser. I read about a former Down GAA player and it beggars belief how he ever decided to join the police back then.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on June 17, 2015, 12:18:29 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 17, 2015, 11:33:07 AM
Of course the whole of the RUC knew fine rightly. You'd be some dose not to notice. Doesn't necessarily make them all complicit though does it? Plenty had unionist/loyalist leanings of which no doubt descended into outright cooperating/colluding with loyalists. I'm sure the of the decent RUC officers very few were willing to become whistleblowers for obvious reasons, can you really blame them?

You may or may not blame them but if one extends the definition of collusion to include omission then, they colluded. 

They may have felt/been coerced into that collusion, but it collusion it was.

/Jim.

Edit:

Link to discussion on defining collusion: http://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2013/1203/490666-smithwick-tribunal-collusion/ (http://www.rte.ie/news/special-reports/2013/1203/490666-smithwick-tribunal-collusion/)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: general_lee on June 17, 2015, 12:21:23 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on June 17, 2015, 12:07:24 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on June 16, 2015, 09:36:22 PM
So, Michael, we're in the land of imagination.  You imagine that the average policeman was oblivious to the goings-on.  I, on the other hand, don't buy into that Pollyanna wishful thinking.  With weaponry vanishing at an alarming rate, for example, I imagine than a good few ordinary constables had probably heard of this, had a fairly accurate idea of where the weapons were going, and thought it best to let sleeping dogs lie (as in not tell the truth).  I guess that years of listening to deceit and cover-ups have fostered in me a healthy cynicism, I imagine.

Was the issue of missing weapons not a UDR one more than RUC?

To be frank, it's hard to discuss this with such polarised people as Northerners.  Everyone is very one-eyed about themmuns.

If we take the Smithwick Inquiry definition of collusion then most UDR men and many RUC officers were guilty of collusion.  However, those that applauded Smithwick are the same ones who will deny the facts presented about state collusion.

There had to be a police force and they were in a difficult position, particularly as State policy was to be "hands off" to one side for such a long time.  Creating the UDR was a bad, bad idea.  Once things kicked off there was nothing more likely than it becoming a Unionist militia.  To me, that is exactly what happened.  I doubt you will find another regiment with as many criminal convictions in the British Army (and that only accounts for those that were caught).  The fact that so much equipment such as weapons and uniforms went missing and so many within didn't even hide their association means that any subsequent recruits have to be deemed colluding.

/Jim.
A lot of these weapons were "stolen", very much an RUC matter to investigate "theft", no?

I don't know if you're intentionally being disingenuous with your "polarised" quip. Quite far off the mark imo, especially where some of the victims are concerned - See the dignity of Malachy McDonald.

The rest is spot on.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jim_Murphy_74 on June 17, 2015, 12:29:40 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 17, 2015, 12:21:23 PM
A lot of these weapons were "stolen", very much an RUC matter to investigate "theft", no?

I don't know if you're intentionally being disingenuous with your "polarised" quip. Quite far off the mark imo, especially where some of the victims are concerned - See the dignity of Malachy McDonald.

The rest is spot on.

Valid point about theft.  Apologies, wasn't intent on being disingenuous with "polarised" comment.

I guess my point is that the varying definitions of collusion are used by many (I shouldn't generalise too much) when talking about their own versus the others.

/Jim.



Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on June 17, 2015, 12:40:14 PM
The reality is that no one knows the full extent of the level of involvement of members of the security forces.  The average cop on the street may not have had direct knowledge of it but there's no doubt that the majority who have had an inkling and not just that but the majority would have had a sectarian view into how to police and that cannot be denied.  There were more badduns then gooduns and that's for sure.

The big issue is not the bobby on the beat though but the higher echelons of power both within the police/udr/government etc who blatantly endorsed this behaviour.  The psychopath will always be a psychopath as its in his DNA.  The men at the top always had the distance between themselves and the actions to pull it all back and stop it.  They didn't,  they actively encouraged it as to coin a phrase used the other night they could not fight a battle on 2 fronts.  By doing this they openly allied themselves to the terrorists and in my view this is akin to war crimes.  This is the biggest crime in the whole thing,  they had the power to stop this murdering and refused.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Franko on June 17, 2015, 12:50:08 PM
The entire force below the level of the highest 'rotten apple' is corrupt.  No matter how cleanly any individual officer operated, if they were taking direction from a corrupt officer they are tainted.

The only thing that needs to be determined is exactly how high that was.  I'd contend that it went right to the VERY top (and I don't mean the Chief Constable).
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: muppet on June 17, 2015, 03:28:17 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 06:25:58 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 16, 2015, 05:48:39 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2015, 02:59:06 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 16, 2015, 03:56:32 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 09, 2014, 07:54:12 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 09, 2014, 07:29:17 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 06, 2014, 03:50:04 PM
It's the only thing you could find to post about on this thread.
Playing the man here hardy?

wtf?

He might be a bit extreme in his point- but unfortunately he's kind of correct.
IMO it's still the case! C'est la vie, but why attack the man?( fox)

Play the man? Attack? If you call than an attack, you can't have lasted too long on the football pitches of Meath.

Your contributions to threads is often so vague and lacking in substance that they give the impression you either;

       
  • don't know what you are talking about,
  • think you are have more foresight than others or
  • are being passive aggressive.
Think its somewhere between the latter two myself but wouldn't totally rule out the first ;)

I'm being stalked (though with a ridiculous twelve-month time constant) by the idiot philosopher/psychologist.

Listen, I'm from Meath. There's no passive about my aggressive.

Stalked? Serious case of paranoia there to add to the other delusional characteristics.
Pandering to your own vanity perhaps - I don't think anyone likes you that much :D

Holy shit! Muppet - do something. This one is your stalker, not mine.

He reminds me of the fella in the midlands years ago, who had campaign posters with "Stop the pedophiles!" on it.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Tony Baloney on June 17, 2015, 11:35:28 PM
Google Sergeant Joe Campbell if you want to see what happened the good cops.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on June 09, 2016, 12:03:47 PM
I'm sure most people suspected that all along.
Still good to get it confirmed in an official report.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: johnneycool on June 09, 2016, 01:43:55 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 09, 2016, 12:03:47 PM
I'm sure most people suspected that all along.
Still good to get it confirmed in an official report.

Dublin media for years thought collusion was made up, so yes its good to get an agent of the state saying that other agents of the state colluded and assisted loyalist murder gangs to freely operate with impunity just to enlighten those less well informed to the south of what was actually going on.

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: muppet on June 09, 2016, 02:04:01 PM
It is great to see collusion officially acknowledged, but.......

It seems to set a very low standard for 'collusion', echoing and even referencing the Smithwick definition.

Here is part of what Smithwick defined as 'collusion':

..While (collusion) generally means the commission of an act, I am also of the view that it should be considered in terms of an omission or failure to act...

Most of us here would believe that RUC collusion with Loyalist terrorists meets a much more robust definition than simply '..an omission or failure to act..'. I would suggest that most of us believe such RUC collusion would meet a far stricter definition than any official Gárda collusion (let's face it the vast majority of Gárdaí were no fans of the IRA/INLA), so while I am glad to see an official finding of 'collusion' I am suspicious of the motives in dumbing down the definition of collision.

I suspect just about anyone in any position of power, north, south or in London could be shown to be guilty of such a wide open definition of collusion, simply by 'omission or failure to act'.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Over the Bar on June 09, 2016, 02:37:19 PM
Likely to be followed by a Commons apology from Cameron with the insistence that there is no need whatsoever to waste taxpayers money with an inquiry as the collusion charge is accepted.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Orior on June 09, 2016, 04:01:35 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on June 09, 2016, 02:37:19 PM
Likely to be followed by a Commons apology from Cameron with the insistence that there is no need whatsoever to waste taxpayers money with an inquiry as the collusion charge is accepted.

I would agree with Cameron. Inquiries (and Enquiries) are a waste of money (unless you are a barrister). So forget the past and move on.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: GJL on June 09, 2016, 04:20:17 PM
Quote from: Orior on June 09, 2016, 04:01:35 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on June 09, 2016, 02:37:19 PM
Likely to be followed by a Commons apology from Cameron with the insistence that there is no need whatsoever to waste taxpayers money with an inquiry as the collusion charge is accepted.

I would agree with Cameron. Inquiries (and Enquiries) are a waste of money (unless you are a barrister). So forget the past and move on.

Did you loose anyone in the troubles?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Orior on June 09, 2016, 04:38:37 PM
My wife lost two, one from each side of the conflict.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SkillfulBill on June 09, 2016, 04:53:58 PM
As we see more and more evidence of state sponsord terrorism. It continues to show that the British State is no better or worse than the Syria's and Libya's of this world. ONLY difference between them is their relative ability to control their global PR.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: balladmaker on June 09, 2016, 04:58:36 PM
QuoteMy wife lost two, one from each side of the conflict.

So you should know as well as anyone that a comment such as
QuoteSo forget the past and move on.
is not acceptable in such circumstances.

So the report says members of the RUC colluded, but the RUC had no advance knowledge of the Loughinisland murders ... go figure.

When will we see an enquiry into the murder of Dennis Carville outside of Lurgan, or the murder of Katrina Rennie, Eileen Duffy and Brian Frizzell in the Craigavon sweet shop ... plus the many, many more murders where RUC collusion is widely suspected. 

The whole thing is rotten to the core!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on June 09, 2016, 06:52:07 PM
Tip of the iceberg.

Now, for the truth on the hundreds of other cases.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: T Fearon on June 09, 2016, 08:13:19 PM
Silence of the freestate government deafening.Mustnt upset their British mates.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Orior on June 09, 2016, 09:02:08 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on June 09, 2016, 04:58:36 PM
QuoteMy wife lost two, one from each side of the conflict.

So you should know as well as anyone that a comment such as
QuoteSo forget the past and move on.
is not acceptable in such circumstances.

So the report says members of the RUC colluded, but the RUC had no advance knowledge of the Loughinisland murders ... go figure.

When will we see an enquiry into the murder of Dennis Carville outside of Lurgan, or the murder of Katrina Rennie, Eileen Duffy and Brian Frizzell in the Craigavon sweet shop ... plus the many, many more murders where RUC collusion is widely suspected. 

The whole thing is rotten to the core!

Yes, rotten to the core but disagree with all these enquiries. It does not solve anything and creates more division.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on June 09, 2016, 09:35:49 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 09, 2016, 08:13:19 PM
Silence of the freestate government deafening.Mustnt upset their British mates.

What else would you expect from a shower of arse-lickers?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on June 09, 2016, 09:53:16 PM
The problem with Inquiries is that they become political footballs and them and us becomes the problem. Who deserves one? Should there be one if someone was found guilty? Should there be one for all cases involving alleged collusion? Should there be a 'Truth' forum similar to what happened in South Africa?  Will a government allow itself to be opened up in public or will they invoke national security or the like to provide a stumbling block?

I personally believe that there should be a forum. This in itself holds many pitfalls as people will want prosecutions but only way to have full cooperation is to have no prosecutions. That will be very difficult to attain. For now it's clear to see that there was endemic collusion at many different levels. The next step in all these cases is vital.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on June 09, 2016, 10:34:57 PM
Isn't the Brits obliged to carry out inquiries into these collusion cases/miscarriage of justice etc under some European Commission law, or some old shite like that?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: ashman on June 09, 2016, 10:39:17 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 09, 2016, 08:13:19 PM
Silence of the freestate government deafening.Mustnt upset their British mates.

What should they do ??? Should then not consider it and raise in appropriate forum ?? If any .

I have no truck for the government . 

Surely if this is such a big issue ( and it bloody is) Sinn Fein would pull out of Northern Executive until there is a full investigation ??? The scum who colluded with loyalist death squads should be fully investigated and face prosecution .

Over to you .  Unfortunately down here there is no votes or political capital from the north any more .
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Tony Baloney on June 09, 2016, 10:39:47 PM
Collusion hardly surprising but don't be expecting any prosecutions. Do we really want to still be having enquiries for another 20 years because that is where all this is leading. The legal profession are the people who gain most.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SkillfulBill on June 09, 2016, 10:41:30 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 09, 2016, 09:53:16 PM
The problem with Inquiries is that they become political footballs and them and us becomes the problem. Who deserves one? Should there be one if someone was found guilty? Should there be one for all cases involving alleged collusion? Should there be a 'Truth' forum similar to what happened in South Africa?  Will a government allow itself to be opened up in public or will they invoke national security or the like to provide a stumbling block?

I personally believe that there should be a forum. This in itself holds many pitfalls as people will want prosecutions but only way to have full cooperation is to have no prosecutions. That will be very difficult to attain. For now it's clear to see that there was endemic collusion at many different levels. The next step in all these cases is vital.

When you have state involvement in the murder of citizens then inquiries are not only justified but also a BASIC element of democracy. Collusion and the use of informants were rampant and it does not just stop at deaths as a result of loyalists activities. The State has been directly and indirectly involved in many many murders. How many people died as a result of this we can only guess at. Rotten to the core.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: ashman on June 09, 2016, 10:48:54 PM
A similar case is the GAL in the Spanish governments war v ETA.  Although the targets in Northern Ireland had a much higher number of civilian targets (not collateral damage as they often say) .  A number of low and medium level handlers .  Never went to the top when the real puppet masters were.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on June 09, 2016, 10:55:58 PM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 09, 2016, 10:41:30 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 09, 2016, 09:53:16 PM
The problem with Inquiries is that they become political footballs and them and us becomes the problem. Who deserves one? Should there be one if someone was found guilty? Should there be one for all cases involving alleged collusion? Should there be a 'Truth' forum similar to what happened in South Africa?  Will a government allow itself to be opened up in public or will they invoke national security or the like to provide a stumbling block?

I personally believe that there should be a forum. This in itself holds many pitfalls as people will want prosecutions but only way to have full cooperation is to have no prosecutions. That will be very difficult to attain. For now it's clear to see that there was endemic collusion at many different levels. The next step in all these cases is vital.

When you have state involvement in the murder of citizens then inquiries are not only justified but also a BASIC element of democracy. Collusion and the use of informants were rampant and it does not just stop at deaths as a result of loyalists activities. The State has been directly and indirectly involved in many many murders. How many people died as a result of this we can only guess at. Rotten to the core.

Agreed.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: ashman on June 09, 2016, 11:03:46 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 09, 2016, 10:39:47 PM
Collusion hardly surprising but don't be expecting any prosecutions. Do we really want to still be having enquiries for another 20 years because that is where all this is leading. The legal profession are the people who gain most.

An ombudsman report and obtaining prosecutions are two different kettles of fish.

The burden of proof is huge .

At this stage surely the old "it's a honey pot for the legal profession " argument should not be a factor in assessing the importance of establishing the truth.  As an aside in modern Europe the scandalous fees charged by the legal profession must be tackled and the market should have a role.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SkillfulBill on June 09, 2016, 11:20:40 PM
Quote from: ashman on June 09, 2016, 11:03:46 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 09, 2016, 10:39:47 PM
Collusion hardly surprising but don't be expecting any prosecutions. Do we really want to still be having enquiries for another 20 years because that is where all this is leading. The legal profession are the people who gain most.

An ombudsman report and obtaining prosecutions are two different kettles of fish.

The burden of proof is huge .

At this stage surely the old "it's a honey pot for the legal profession " argument should not be a factor in assessing the importance of establishing the truth.  As an aside in modern Europe the scandalous fees charged by the legal profession must be tackled and the market should have a role.

Legal cost are not relevant in this. What cost the truth ?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: johnneycool on June 10, 2016, 08:57:07 AM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 09, 2016, 11:20:40 PM
Quote from: ashman on June 09, 2016, 11:03:46 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 09, 2016, 10:39:47 PM
Collusion hardly surprising but don't be expecting any prosecutions. Do we really want to still be having enquiries for another 20 years because that is where all this is leading. The legal profession are the people who gain most.

An ombudsman report and obtaining prosecutions are two different kettles of fish.

The burden of proof is huge .

At this stage surely the old "it's a honey pot for the legal profession " argument should not be a factor in assessing the importance of establishing the truth.  As an aside in modern Europe the scandalous fees charged by the legal profession must be tackled and the market should have a role.

Legal cost are not relevant in this. What cost the truth ?

We're seeing time and time again institutionalised collusion from the RUC and British forces where if they weren't actually involved they were turning a blind eye and then not investigating properly, to willfully destroying evidence to prevent justice being served, surely its time a lot of these honours bestowed on the RUC were removed in disgrace if only to show the Unionists that the moral high ground that they hold in terms of what happened during the last 40 years is very shaky and the violence was not solely the republican/nationalists causing it.

 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on June 10, 2016, 11:27:23 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on June 10, 2016, 08:57:07 AM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 09, 2016, 11:20:40 PM
Quote from: ashman on June 09, 2016, 11:03:46 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 09, 2016, 10:39:47 PM
Collusion hardly surprising but don't be expecting any prosecutions. Do we really want to still be having enquiries for another 20 years because that is where all this is leading. The legal profession are the people who gain most.

An ombudsman report and obtaining prosecutions are two different kettles of fish.

The burden of proof is huge .

At this stage surely the old "it's a honey pot for the legal profession " argument should not be a factor in assessing the importance of establishing the truth.  As an aside in modern Europe the scandalous fees charged by the legal profession must be tackled and the market should have a role.

Legal cost are not relevant in this. What cost the truth ?

We're seeing time and time again institutionalised collusion from the RUC and British forces where if they weren't actually involved they were turning a blind eye and then not investigating properly, to willfully destroying evidence to prevent justice being served, surely its time a lot of these honours bestowed on the RUC were removed in disgrace if only to show the Unionists that the moral high ground that they hold in terms of what happened during the last 40 years is very shaky and the violence was not solely the republican/nationalists causing it.



Didn't the queen herself pin medals on soldiers involved in Bloody Sunday? It is rotten all the way to the top!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Orior on June 10, 2016, 01:16:58 PM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 09, 2016, 11:20:40 PM
Quote from: ashman on June 09, 2016, 11:03:46 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 09, 2016, 10:39:47 PM
Collusion hardly surprising but don't be expecting any prosecutions. Do we really want to still be having enquiries for another 20 years because that is where all this is leading. The legal profession are the people who gain most.

An ombudsman report and obtaining prosecutions are two different kettles of fish.

The burden of proof is huge .

At this stage surely the old "it's a honey pot for the legal profession " argument should not be a factor in assessing the importance of establishing the truth.  As an aside in modern Europe the scandalous fees charged by the legal profession must be tackled and the market should have a role.

Legal cost are not relevant in this. What cost the truth ?

But will you get the truth? Which would you prefer, spend millions trying to get the brits to admit their guilt or a job, health and roof over your head?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: naka on June 10, 2016, 01:31:28 PM
it was a dirty war which went on for nearly 30 years.
all sides did things that they don`t want investigated.
the truth will never fully come out.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2016, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: naka on June 10, 2016, 01:31:28 PM
it was a dirty war which went on for nearly 30 years.
all sides did things that they don`t want investigated.
the truth will never fully come out.

agreed, and while that wont help surviving members of people that were blown up, shot or disappeared who desperately seek answers/justice.. the question has to be when will it stop? A truth amnesty needs to be agreed and to hell with the legal profession making millions off the backs of people misery
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on June 10, 2016, 02:04:56 PM
The truth is the conflict here was perpetuated by the Security forces, Unionism, British govt. Played eveyone like puppets and could have brought the conflict to an end at anytime but chose not to.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2016, 02:20:27 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on June 10, 2016, 02:04:56 PM
The truth is the conflict here was perpetuated by the Security forces, Unionism, British govt. Played eveyone like puppets and could have brought the conflict to an end at anytime but chose not to.

Yes true, and the use of informants was disgusting, looking back at it all now with sensible thinking it could have ended so easily, or at the very least thousands of families could have been spared the heartache of losing love ones.....

Only have to look at other conflicts to see how it still goes on and the killings are happening at a far greater rate than what we had, its seems that a great bit of blood letting is needed by both sides before people say enough is enough... continue to let it consume you and it will never leave

Played like puppets, why? to what end did it benefit the British government to have an unstable state? Serious question, as it wasn't to make money, and unionist vote wasn't needed to keep the government in place
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: T Fearon on June 10, 2016, 02:25:26 PM
The deafening silence from Dublin should once again be a salutary lesson to those who aspire to Irish unity.The truth is they don't want to know because they regard us as foreigners.What therefore is the point continuing with this aspiration? Far better to procèed with a N Irish identity devoid of the caustic associations with London and Dublin.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on June 10, 2016, 02:43:26 PM
Ah Tony will ya start batin another drum.
That oul one is well burst now  >:(
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: muppet on June 10, 2016, 02:57:24 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 10, 2016, 02:25:26 PM
The deafening silence from Dublin should once again be a salutary lesson to those who aspire to Irish unity.The truth is they don't want to know because they regard us as foreigners.What therefore is the point continuing with this aspiration? Far better to procèed with a N Irish identity devoid of the caustic associations with London and Dublin.

Partitionist!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: T Fearon on June 10, 2016, 03:25:32 PM
Is what I'm saying factually incorrect? Was there widespread condemnation from Leinster House? Was the British Ambassador's residence ransacked?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: muppet on June 10, 2016, 03:31:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 10, 2016, 03:25:32 PM
Is what I'm saying factually incorrect? Was there widespread condemnation from Leinster House? Was the British Ambassador's residence ransacked?

QuoteFar better to procèed with a N Irish identity devoid of the caustic associations with London and Dublin.

It is factually correct that you a partitionist when you write the above.

Oh and......

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/kenny-to-raise-british-and-loyalist-collusion-with-cameron-dail-told-1.2253424 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/kenny-to-raise-british-and-loyalist-collusion-with-cameron-dail-told-1.2253424)
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/dáil-debate-on-british-loyalist-collusion-1.817956 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/d%C3%A1il-debate-on-british-loyalist-collusion-1.817956)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: T Fearon on June 10, 2016, 06:02:20 PM
Tokenism at its worst.

Also I am not partitionist.The state,with a parliament 80 miles from my home,that treats me as a "Foreign Affairs" matter,is.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: armaghniac on June 10, 2016, 06:04:11 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 10, 2016, 06:02:20 PM
Also I am not partitionist.

You are no more a partitionist than a WUM.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: muppet on June 10, 2016, 06:05:17 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 10, 2016, 06:02:20 PM
Tokenism at its worst.

Also I am not partitionist.The state,with a parliament 80 miles from my home,that treats me as a "Foreign Affairs" matter,is.

The basis for their treatment of you is the Good Friday Agreement.

You want the 6 counties to remain separate from the 26. That is your right, but don't keep blaming everyone else for your partitionist views.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: T Fearon on June 10, 2016, 07:09:48 PM
I don't want this.I am just being realistic as I see no effort whatsoever from any nationalist to end partition.Therefore what is the point in holding on to this aspiration?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: muppet on June 10, 2016, 07:11:58 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 10, 2016, 07:09:48 PM
I don't want this.I am just being realistic as I see no effort whatsoever from any nationalist to end partition.Therefore what is the point in holding on to this aspiration?

Perfect partitionist argument.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: T Fearon on June 10, 2016, 08:50:26 PM
The partitionist position emanates wholly from the freestate,who acknowledge and agree the British should govern the North.They classify the North under Foreign Affairs,FF and FG don't stand in the North because they have no interest in the place
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on June 10, 2016, 09:14:59 PM
Majority of the voters all across Ireland voted for the Good Friday Agreement which provided for the 6 Cos to be under British jurisdiction until a majority votes otherwise.
Most of those who voted against were if a Unionist persuasion.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: T Fearon on June 10, 2016, 09:59:13 PM
They voted for the status quo.By the absurdity of your argument the British People voted for the Tories in the last General Election until a majority votes for a labour government at some undefined future date! Totally ludicrous.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on June 10, 2016, 10:21:48 PM
Stop being silly Tony. I'm  not making any argument  - just mentioning a fact .
You seem to imply  the "Free State(sic) Government " can just re unite the Country just by snapping their fingers.

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: StGallsGAA on June 10, 2016, 11:23:28 PM
Fortunately for the British state,  recruiting republican informers meant lots more dead republicans via covert operations against republican killers. 

Unfortunately for Nationalists, the British state recruiting  Loyalist informers meant the same  informers could brashly maintain a high profile of intimidation, murder any catholic at will, be paid to do so by the British establishment, with total immunity from prosecution.... and all the while not a covert operation against loyalist killers in sight.  There's your difference.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: T Fearon on June 11, 2016, 12:03:37 AM
Correct.And not a whimper from the freestate  government about it
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SkillfulBill on June 11, 2016, 01:42:35 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 11, 2016, 12:03:37 AM
Correct.And not a whimper from the freestate  government about it

Not often I agree with this guy fearon but his point about the deafening silence from the freestate government on this is gut wrenching. His other point about accepting the status quo and cow tailing to unionisim is horse shite.The only true solution to this part of the world is the ending of partition. It may or may not be in my life time but it will be in my children's but unification is the only logical long term solution. When ordinary decent protestants finally realise how rotten this state is and how many of their friends and neighbours died as a result of government activity they will come to their senses. It was not only the Loyalists who were infiltrated at the highest levels. When the head of republican internal security was a paid agent you have to ask the question what was it all about ? where the British state actually in control of all sides in the conflict, RUC, British Army, UVF and the Provos. As the inquiries continue this will become clear. Kingsmill is the start of Unionism realisation that the state they owe their allegiance to has been at the root cause of their pain. Granted it was republicans who carried out the brutal acts but it was their own government who was pulling the strings. New evidence appears after 40 years which conveniently stops the enquiry? FFS. McGurks Bar, Ballymurphy,Bloody sunday,Rosemary Nelson, Pat and Diarmid Shields, The Foxes, Miami, St Patricks day murders on Donaghmore in Dungannon, Teeban, Brian Nelson, Finuicane Loughanisland, the list is endless of paid agents involvement with direct and indirect involvement of the state In wholesale murder.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: armaghniac on June 11, 2016, 03:16:17 AM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 11, 2016, 01:42:35 AM
Not often I agree with this guy fearon but his point about the deafening silence from the freestate government on this is gut wrenching. His other point about accepting the status quo and cow tailing to unionisim is horse shite.The only true solution to this part of the world is the ending of partition. It may or may not be in my life time but it will be in my children's but unification is the only logical long term solution. When ordinary decent protestants finally realise how rotten this state is and how many of their friends and neighbours died as a result of government activity they will come to their senses. It was not only the Loyalists who were infiltrated at the highest levels.

I'm afraid your hopes are groundless. Watch the Brexit referendum this month, in Protestant areas there will be high vote for Brexit to try and overturn the Good Friday Agreement; these revelations will have no effect on those who prefer to go back to the past.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: T Fearon on June 11, 2016, 07:20:41 AM
My point is that both unionists and nationalists have been treated abominably by the states they owe allegiance to,Britain and Ireland.This is because neither of these states regards us as truly British or Irish and will do and compromise on everything and anything to keep some semblance of peace here.

In spite of this abominable treatment too many here still pursue these counterproductive,illogical and divisive allegiances instead of forging a common Northern Irish identity the only feasible means of uniting both communities.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on June 11, 2016, 08:14:35 AM
This "Northern Irish" identity will still have to be part of some sovereign state as it won't ever be one itself.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: T Fearon on June 11, 2016, 10:12:42 AM
It might someday.Probably like the South,nominally sovereign but ruled and financed effectively by US,Europe and UK.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on June 11, 2016, 10:50:25 AM
The "south(sic)" isn't financed and ruled by US, UK. It is part of a large Co op Eurozone/ EU.
It got loans from the IMF/ EU/ ECB which HAVE TO BE PAID BACK. The Public Finances are now hitting the EU required 3% deficit even with the Interest repayments.
The 6  Cos is about as viable as a Sovereign State as Connacht would be.
But back to the Collusion - I see the Stake knife alleged traitor/ Brit agent or whatever is to be investigated as well.
Time ALL the other cases were investigated too - but how much stuff will the Brits keep hidden as in the Dublin/ Monaghan atrocities?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: T Fearon on June 11, 2016, 11:57:50 AM
All as bad as each other.All equally to blame and as usual innocent people suffer and don't get justice.Another reason for ordinary decent people,the vast majority, to take control of our destiny under a common Northern Irishness and not let subversive forces from outside manipulate.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Farrandeelin on June 12, 2016, 11:44:58 PM
What party espouses this Northern Irishness Tony?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: rrhf on June 13, 2016, 02:52:09 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 11, 2016, 08:14:35 AM
This "Northern Irish" identity will still have to be part of some sovereign state as it won't ever be one itself.
Yes economically it will always be on the tit.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: muppet on June 13, 2016, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on June 12, 2016, 11:44:58 PM
What party espouses this Northern Irishness Tony?

Why is there no Northern Partitionist Party for devout Catholics? Tony needs a home.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: T Fearon on June 13, 2016, 03:25:02 PM
Parties like Alliance are soft unionists.We need a party who will effectively abandon the constitutional question in favour of living in the here and now.Such a party would also be needed in the event of a United Ireland to ensure unique Northern Irishness is recognised.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: general_lee on June 13, 2016, 04:09:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 13, 2016, 03:25:02 PM
Parties like Alliance are soft unionists.We need a party who will effectively abandon the constitutional question in favour of living in the here and now.Such a party would also be needed in the event of a United Ireland to ensure unique Northern Irishness is recognised.
What is this?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: screenexile on June 13, 2016, 04:21:52 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 13, 2016, 04:09:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 13, 2016, 03:25:02 PM
Parties like Alliance are soft unionists.We need a party who will effectively abandon the constitutional question in favour of living in the here and now.Such a party would also be needed in the event of a United Ireland to ensure unique Northern Irishness is recognised.
What is this?

Ulster Scots, Ulster Fry, Marching . . . I think that's about it really.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: supersarsfields on June 13, 2016, 04:22:37 PM
flegs
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: muppet on June 13, 2016, 04:27:55 PM
Quote from: screenexile on June 13, 2016, 04:21:52 PM
Quote from: general_lee on June 13, 2016, 04:09:06 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 13, 2016, 03:25:02 PM
Parties like Alliance are soft unionists.We need a party who will effectively abandon the constitutional question in favour of living in the here and now.Such a party would also be needed in the event of a United Ireland to ensure unique Northern Irishness is recognised.
What is this?

Ulster Scots, Ulster Fry, Marching . . . I think that's about it really.

Loyalism is hating the Irish.
Republicanism is hating the British.
Northern Irishness (a la Tony Fearon) is hating both.

Can't see it taking off.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: GJL on June 13, 2016, 04:46:12 PM
Pallets and Tyres in a big pile.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on June 13, 2016, 04:59:18 PM
Whistling as you shpeak!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: armaghniac on June 13, 2016, 05:17:56 PM
Living in the here and now.
You could start the Party party.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Orior on June 13, 2016, 05:23:31 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 13, 2016, 04:59:18 PM
Whistling as you shpeak!

Lol. Of course I cannot think who you are referring to.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on June 13, 2016, 11:27:39 PM
https://www.change.org/p/theresa-villiers-an-apology-to-the-loughinisland-families-from-theresa-villiers?recruiter=88603575&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-xs-petitions_share-no_msg

Sign, share and shame the bitch!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on June 13, 2016, 11:32:26 PM
 Signed.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SuperMac on June 14, 2016, 05:48:08 PM
Quote from: StGallsGAA on June 10, 2016, 11:23:28 PM
Fortunately for the British state,  recruiting republican informers meant lots more dead republicans via covert operations against republican killers. 

Unfortunately for Nationalists, the British state recruiting  Loyalist informers meant the same  informers could brashly maintain a high profile of intimidation, murder any catholic at will, be paid to do so by the British establishment, with total immunity from prosecution.... and all the while not a covert operation against loyalist killers in sight.  There's your difference.
How anyone could describe themselves as an Irish nationalist and use the words " fortunately" about the death of Irish citizens by the British state just shows the perversity of our total fu*ked up kip of a state that produces such a mindset. That's a Sunday Independent 'nationalist' for you I suppose. Fortunately for the Provos they had many spies within the RUC, Brits etc and used that information to good effect at Brighton, knew that internment was coming in, turning Tory MP Ian Gow into toast, tracking the Brits from Aldergrove to blow them to pieces at Ballygawley and thousands of other operations. Indeed I remember reading in Seán Mac Stíofáin's Memoirs of a Revolutionary that women were among the best intelligence officers in the IRA .......
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SuperMac on June 14, 2016, 05:53:50 PM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 11, 2016, 01:42:35 AM
Not often I agree with this guy fearon but his point about the deafening silence from the freestate government on this is gut wrenching. His other point about accepting the status quo and cow tailing to unionisim is horse shite.The only true solution to this part of the world is the ending of partition. It may or may not be in my life time but it will be in my children's but unification is the only logical long term solution. When ordinary decent protestants finally realise how rotten this state is and how many of their friends and neighbours died as a result of government activity they will come to their senses. It was not only the Loyalists who were infiltrated at the highest levels. When the head of republican internal security was a paid agent you have to ask the question what was it all about ? where the British state actually in control of all sides in the conflict, RUC, British Army, UVF and the Provos. As the inquiries continue this will become clear. Kingsmill is the start of Unionism realisation that the state they owe their allegiance to has been at the root cause of their pain. Granted it was republicans who carried out the brutal acts but it was their own government who was pulling the strings. New evidence appears after 40 years which conveniently stops the enquiry? FFS. McGurks Bar, Ballymurphy,Bloody sunday,Rosemary Nelson, Pat and Diarmid Shields, The Foxes, Miami, St Patricks day murders on Donaghmore in Dungannon, Teeban, Brian Nelson, Finuicane Loughanisland, the list is endless of paid agents involvement with direct and indirect involvement of the state In wholesale murder.
Yeah sure, from August '69 every member of the Provos and INLA was in fact a Brit spy - funny enough they don't seem to want to crack down on the Disso's fairly quick though and this when the Provos had a 1,000 times more capability. I suppose the Brighton Hotel bombing, Mountbatten, Warrenpoint, London, Manchester etc was all just super crafty plans by the Brits to fool the world for 25 years. Get real.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SuperMac on June 14, 2016, 06:35:03 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on June 10, 2016, 02:04:56 PM
The truth is the conflict here was perpetuated by the Security forces, Unionism, British govt. Played eveyone like puppets and could have brought the conflict to an end at anytime but chose not to.
Stakeknife how the Brits organised the whole war against themselves for 25 years, boy they sure fooled the entire world didn't they. Funny enough they don't seem to keen to let organise the disso's into a 25 year conflict ??
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SkillfulBill on June 14, 2016, 06:46:16 PM
Quote from: SuperMac on June 14, 2016, 06:35:03 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on June 10, 2016, 02:04:56 PM
The truth is the conflict here was perpetuated by the Security forces, Unionism, British govt. Played eveyone like puppets and could have brought the conflict to an end at anytime but chose not to.
Stakeknife how the Brits organised the whole war against themselves for 25 years, boy they sure fooled the entire world didn't they. Funny enough they don't seem to keen to let organise the disso's into a 25 year conflict ??

Your an extremely naive person if you can't see that from the mid 80's republicans were penetrated at the highest levels, Denis Donaldson and stakeknife are only two examples. Guys with influence over direction and policy. Loughhall, Clonoe, Strabane and Coagh don't happen by accident.

Why would they want the Disso's distroy the settlement which the British wanted planned and Orchastrate from the mid 80's onwards ?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SuperMac on June 14, 2016, 07:12:15 PM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 14, 2016, 06:46:16 PM
Your an extremely naive person if you can't see that from the mid 80's republicans were penetrated at the highest levels, Denis Donaldson and stakeknife are only two examples. Guys with influence over direction and policy. Loughhall, Clonoe, Strabane and Coagh don't happen by accident.

Why would they want the Disso's distroy the settlement which the British wanted planned and Orchastrate from the mid 80's onwards ?
If there's anyone who is an  extremely naive person it's you matey :) On the law of averages the Brits were going to find out where some weapons etc were been stored and lay an ambush. You mention Loughgall, so come the Provos could retaliate back with Ballygawley 8 dead and Lisburn 6 dead in reply ? And it should be pointed out that Brit ambushes were far from been the success story they claimed with the IRA sometimes playing a double game and killing some of them in a counter ambush. When the Brits carried out an ambush it was hyped in the media for days as the daring do 007 SAS blah, blah, blah. When the Provos took some of them out in a counter ambush it was quietly put down as the death of " undercover soldiers " and dropped by the next day.

As for "the settlement which the British wanted planned and Orchastrate from the mid 80's onwards" Yeah sure they let London, Manchester, MP Ian Gow turned to toast and thousands of other operations go ahead in some sort of plan to make it look like the British govt could bring about a settlement with the very people they had said for 25 years over their dead bodies would they ever speak to never mind end up in power sharing with  ;D GET REAL.

IRA kill SAS men in counter ambush | Cappagh | 24th March 1990 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L8tWQlX7Fc
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SkillfulBill on June 14, 2016, 07:12:35 PM
Quote from: SuperMac on June 14, 2016, 06:35:03 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on June 10, 2016, 02:04:56 PM
The truth is the conflict here was perpetuated by the Security forces, Unionism, British govt. Played eveyone like puppets and could have brought the conflict to an end at anytime but chose not to.
Stakeknife how the Brits organised the whole war against themselves for 25 years, boy they sure fooled the entire world didn't they. Funny enough they don't seem to keen to let organise the disso's into a 25 year conflict ??

Brits needed to control both sides to a settlement. Which they did. They recognised after the hunger strikes they had to turn their biggest weakness into a strength (The republican movement). They already had loyalists in their pockets. The Strategy was very simple.
1. Shoot to kill STRATEGY.
2. Target catholic population by directing loyalist death squads.
3. When shoot to kills stratey was exposed the changed tactics by using loyalists to target republican activists abd known republican families. Galbally
4. Use of their agents within republican movement to disrupt and ambush IRA activities. LOUGHALL CLONOE etc
5. Use of internal IRA security to eliminate informers who had become liabilities to them and to eliminate other memvers who were not informers SCAP.
6. Use of republican acitivies to target loyalists. Shankill.
7. Influence political thinking of Republicans Donaldson.
8. Omagh. Manchester Canary Warf and all the other operations are collateral damage.

Any good military strategist would recognise the planning and Orchastration get your head out of your ass.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: foxcommander on June 14, 2016, 07:26:26 PM
Bill - don't forget that media coverage (or lack of) on both sides of the border was important to keep the population focused on what they needed to know by certain parties.

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SuperMac on June 14, 2016, 07:28:31 PM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 14, 2016, 07:12:35 PM
Brits needed to control both sides to a settlement. Which they did. They recognised after the hunger strikes they had to turn their biggest weakness into a strength (The republican movement). They already had loyalists in their pockets. The Strategy was very simple.
1. Shoot to kill STRATEGY.
2. Target catholic population by directing loyalist death squads.
3. When shoot to kills stratey was exposed the changed tactics by using loyalists to target republican activists abd known republican families. Galbally
4. Use of their agents within republican movement to disrupt and ambush IRA activities. LOUGHALL CLONOE etc
5. Use of internal IRA security to eliminate informers who had become liabilities to them and to eliminate other memvers who were not informers SCAP.
6. Use of republican acitivies to target loyalists. Shankill.
7. Influence political thinking of Republicans Donaldson.
8. Omagh. Manchester Canary Warf and all the other operations are collateral damage.

Any good military strategist would recognise the planning and Orchastration get your head out of your ass.
So Walter Mitty is at it again  :) Absolutely illogical and absurd to think the Brits from 1981 were running the IRA to bring about a settlement nearly a decade and a half later and accepting the billions of damage to London, Manchester etc as "collateral damage " as well as all the deaths of their own including MP's, Judges, Generals and almost been wiped out at Brighton or mortared into Downing St etc Like I said, they don't seem to be too keen to let organise the disso's into a 25 year conflict.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/IRA_Bishopsgate.JPG)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SuperMac on June 14, 2016, 07:33:05 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 14, 2016, 07:26:26 PM
Bill - don't forget that media coverage (or lack of) on both sides of the border was important to keep the population focused on what they needed to know by certain parties.
The collaboration was going on long before 1969 when I think of it such as Dev bringing over an English hangman to execute Irish prisoners, internment etc And just carried on regardless from first day of the troubles when the great ' stand idly by ' Lynch's Fianna Fail govt did everything possible to collaborate with the Brits and unionist regime in the north to maintain partition and their rotten, cronyist, gombeen state south of the border.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SkillfulBill on June 14, 2016, 07:49:00 PM
Quote from: SuperMac on June 14, 2016, 07:28:31 PM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 14, 2016, 07:12:35 PM
Brits needed to control both sides to a settlement. Which they did. They recognised after the hunger strikes they had to turn their biggest weakness into a strength (The republican movement). They already had loyalists in their pockets. The Strategy was very simple.
1. Shoot to kill STRATEGY.
2. Target catholic population by directing loyalist death squads.
3. When shoot to kills stratey was exposed the changed tactics by using loyalists to target republican activists abd known republican families. Galbally
4. Use of their agents within republican movement to disrupt and ambush IRA activities. LOUGHALL CLONOE etc
5. Use of internal IRA security to eliminate informers who had become liabilities to them and to eliminate other memvers who were not informers SCAP.
6. Use of republican acitivies to target loyalists. Shankill.
7. Influence political thinking of Republicans Donaldson.
8. Omagh. Manchester Canary Warf and all the other operations are collateral damage.

Any good military strategist would recognise the planning and Orchastration get your head out of your ass.
So Walter Mitty is at it again  :) Absolutely illogical and absurd to think the Brits from 1981 were running the IRA to bring about a settlement nearly a decade and a half later and accepting the billions of damage to London, Manchester etc as "collateral damage " as well as all the deaths of their own including MP's, Judges, Generals and almost been wiped out at Brighton or mortared into Downing St etc Like I said, they don't seem to be too keen to let organise the disso's into a 25 year conflict. What a clown.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/IRA_Bishopsgate.JPG)

Your not the brightest individual on the board then.All of these operations you highlight are the reasons why the Brits had to find a way out. They knew a united ireland couldnt be achieved due to the small problem of 1M unionists. So ask yourself this question. What was it that brought Martin and Gerry from their 1970's meeting in which they asked tge Brits to get out within 2 years to the Goodfriday agreement ? Did the boys just get old ? Brits didn't control an Empire or win 2 world wars by sitting back and letting it happen.....and let others set the agenda. This is an establishment prepared to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their own citizens so 4-5000 in Ireland abd a few Billion is nothing to them.Puppet masters at their work and every thinking republican knows it.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: AZOffaly on June 15, 2016, 01:03:01 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on June 13, 2016, 11:32:26 PM
Signed.

Signed
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: stew on June 15, 2016, 01:10:21 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 13, 2016, 03:25:02 PM
Parties like Alliance are soft unionists.We need a party who will effectively abandon the constitutional question in favour of living in the here and now.Such a party would also be needed in the event of a United Ireland to ensure unique Northern Irishness is recognised.

Bollocks Tony from start to finish.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SuperMac on June 15, 2016, 01:51:12 PM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 14, 2016, 07:49:00 PM
Your not the brightest individual on the board then.All of these operations you highlight are the reasons why the Brits had to find a way out. They knew a united ireland couldnt be achieved due to the small problem of 1M unionists. So ask yourself this question. What was it that brought Martin and Gerry from their 1970's meeting in which they asked tge Brits to get out within 2 years to the Goodfriday agreement ? Did the boys just get old ? Brits didn't control an Empire or win 2 world wars by sitting back and letting it happen.....and let others set the agenda. This is an establishment prepared to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their own citizens so 4-5000 in Ireland abd a few Billion is nothing to them.Puppet masters at their work and every thinking republican knows it.
If there's anyone who is not the not the brightest individual on the board it's obviously you Walter  ;D Your like a member of the flat earth society who thinks if he shouts " The earth is flat, the earth is flat, the earth is flat " everyone will eventually start thinking like him !!! Again totally illogical and absurd to push a conspiracy theory that from 1981 the Brits were secretly running the IRA to bring about a settlement nearly a decade and a half later and accepting the billions of damage to London, Manchester etc as "collateral damage " as well as the international embarrassment of the Provos mortaring Downing St, Brighton Hotel etc. It was the Provos who had the upper hand with their spies within British security services and hence bombs under MP's cars, mortars into Downing St, the mass break out of 33 of the IRA's most deadly men in 1983, the huge arms shipments from Libya which your MI5, MI6, SAS etc knew nothing about until the 3rd and smallest one was captured by accident by the Irish navy.

And as for " Britain win 2 world wars by " ah yes here we go again, Britain the nation that tries to hype itself up with the conceited lies that they alone defeated Germany in two world wars  ;D And how in God's name Gerry and Martin back in the mid 70's were supposed to know about the future Good Friday agreement of 1998 is beyond me.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SkillfulBill on June 16, 2016, 12:43:15 AM
Quote from: SuperMac on June 15, 2016, 01:51:12 PM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 14, 2016, 07:49:00 PM
Your not the brightest individual on the board then.All of these operations you highlight are the reasons why the Brits had to find a way out. They knew a united ireland couldnt be achieved due to the small problem of 1M unionists. So ask yourself this question. What was it that brought Martin and Gerry from their 1970's meeting in which they asked tge Brits to get out within 2 years to the Goodfriday agreement ? Did the boys just get old ? Brits didn't control an Empire or win 2 world wars by sitting back and letting it happen.....and let others set the agenda. This is an establishment prepared to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their own citizens so 4-5000 in Ireland abd a few Billion is nothing to them.Puppet masters at their work and every thinking republican knows it.
If there's anyone who is not the not the brightest individual on the board it's obviously you Walter  ;D Your like a member of the flat earth society who thinks if he shouts " The earth is flat, the earth is flat, the earth is flat " everyone will eventually start thinking like him !!! Again totally illogical and absurd to push a conspiracy theory that from 1981 the Brits were secretly running the IRA to bring about a settlement nearly a decade and a half later and accepting the billions of damage to London, Manchester etc as "collateral damage " as well as the international embarrassment of the Provos mortaring Downing St, Brighton Hotel etc. It was the Provos who had the upper hand with their spies within British security services and hence bombs under MP's cars, mortars into Downing St, the mass break out of 33 of the IRA's most deadly men in 1983, the huge arms shipments from Libya which your MI5, MI6, SAS etc knew nothing about until the 3rd and smallest one was captured by accident by the Irish navy.

And as for " Britain win 2 world wars by " ah yes here we go again, Britain the nation that tries to hype itself up with the conceited lies that they alone defeated Germany in two world wars  ;D And how in God's name Gerry and Martin back in the mid 70's were supposed to know about the future Good Friday agreement of 1998 is beyond me.

You obviously have little or no understanding of what went on during the 80's and 90's in the six counties. Your romantic notions of the nature of the war indicates to me you are either very young or you are a fireside general from the 26 who has no experience of living through that period in the North and have never shared your views of the resounding success of the war with anyone who actually dedicated themselves to the pursuit of it. I doubt very much if you actually know anyone from the Republican movement. If you do perhaps you should check out your thesis that the Brits were brought to the table on Republican terms and that the settlement that came about is what they fought and died for.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2016, 08:11:35 AM
Jesus what a couple of pages!! Seemed real delight on some of those posts about blowing people to smitherings!! Listing atrocities and beating chests! Sad that there are people still thinking that it was a romantic war! Absolutely no winners in this dirty war.... All of them in bed with each other lining their pockets while others rotted in jail died in jail or murdered on the streets in bars even while attending mass or funerals!!

And what did we all get out of it??
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Applesisapples on June 16, 2016, 10:11:53 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2016, 08:11:35 AM
Jesus what a couple of pages!! Seemed real delight on some of those posts about blowing people to smitherings!! Listing atrocities and beating chests! Sad that there are people still thinking that it was a romantic war! Absolutely no winners in this dirty war.... All of them in bed with each other lining their pockets while others rotted in jail died in jail or murdered on the streets in bars even while attending mass or funerals!!

And what did we all get out of it??
SF copperfastening partition, McGuinness supporting the NI soccer team and kissing the arse of the Royal family and the DUP.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Owenmoresider on June 16, 2016, 11:29:32 AM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 16, 2016, 12:43:15 AM
Quote from: SuperMac on June 15, 2016, 01:51:12 PM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 14, 2016, 07:49:00 PM
Your not the brightest individual on the board then.All of these operations you highlight are the reasons why the Brits had to find a way out. They knew a united ireland couldnt be achieved due to the small problem of 1M unionists. So ask yourself this question. What was it that brought Martin and Gerry from their 1970's meeting in which they asked tge Brits to get out within 2 years to the Goodfriday agreement ? Did the boys just get old ? Brits didn't control an Empire or win 2 world wars by sitting back and letting it happen.....and let others set the agenda. This is an establishment prepared to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their own citizens so 4-5000 in Ireland abd a few Billion is nothing to them.Puppet masters at their work and every thinking republican knows it.
If there's anyone who is not the not the brightest individual on the board it's obviously you Walter  ;D Your like a member of the flat earth society who thinks if he shouts " The earth is flat, the earth is flat, the earth is flat " everyone will eventually start thinking like him !!! Again totally illogical and absurd to push a conspiracy theory that from 1981 the Brits were secretly running the IRA to bring about a settlement nearly a decade and a half later and accepting the billions of damage to London, Manchester etc as "collateral damage " as well as the international embarrassment of the Provos mortaring Downing St, Brighton Hotel etc. It was the Provos who had the upper hand with their spies within British security services and hence bombs under MP's cars, mortars into Downing St, the mass break out of 33 of the IRA's most deadly men in 1983, the huge arms shipments from Libya which your MI5, MI6, SAS etc knew nothing about until the 3rd and smallest one was captured by accident by the Irish navy.

And as for " Britain win 2 world wars by " ah yes here we go again, Britain the nation that tries to hype itself up with the conceited lies that they alone defeated Germany in two world wars  ;D And how in God's name Gerry and Martin back in the mid 70's were supposed to know about the future Good Friday agreement of 1998 is beyond me.

You obviously have little or no understanding of what went on during the 80's and 90's in the six counties. Your romantic notions of the nature of the war indicates to me you are either very young or you are a fireside general from the 26 who has no experience of living through that period in the North and have never shared your views of the resounding success of the war with anyone who actually dedicated themselves to the pursuit of it. I doubt very much if you actually know anyone from the Republican movement. If you do perhaps you should check out your thesis that the Brits were brought to the table on Republican terms and that the settlement that came about is what they fought and died for.
Going on his posts he's a Dublin-based Shinner. A particularly arrogant and delusional element of that cult.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SuperMac on June 16, 2016, 11:43:02 AM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 16, 2016, 12:43:15 AM
You obviously have little or no understanding of what went on during the 80's and 90's in the six counties. Your romantic notions of the nature of the war indicates to me you are either very young or you are a fireside general from the 26 who has no experience of living through that period in the North and have never shared your views of the resounding success of the war with anyone who actually dedicated themselves to the pursuit of it. I doubt very much if you actually know anyone from the Republican movement. If you do perhaps you should check out your thesis that the Brits were brought to the table on Republican terms and that the settlement that came about is what they fought and died for.
;D Growing up in a house in Dublin where the Special Branch pestering us, arrested going to demos, arrested coming from demo's, God only knows how many Republicans from the north stayed in our house through the 70's, 80's on SF business down here or even just socializing with the old man down for a match or something. I'd know a lot more about the state and thuggery etc than you ever would sunshine.

So since your such a big fan boy of the Brits with your conspiracy theory's, what was your experience of the troubles ? In the UDR, RUC or let me guess, the SAS !!! Or more like British tabloid papers and Andy McNabb books !
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SuperMac on June 16, 2016, 11:47:02 AM
Quote from: Owenmoresider on June 16, 2016, 11:29:32 AM
Going on his posts he's a Dublin-based Shinner. A particularly arrogant and delusional element of that cult.
Oh dear another culchie with a chip on his shoulder because he couldn't pull a Dublin chick in Copper Face Jacks  :) Just remember, it was us Dubs who kicked it off in 1916, IRB/Fenians founded on Lombard St Dublin, Robert Emmet's Rebellion etc Dublin the City that fought an Empire !
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SuperMac on June 16, 2016, 11:51:45 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2016, 08:11:35 AM
Jesus what a couple of pages!! Seemed real delight on some of those posts about blowing people to smitherings!! Listing atrocities and beating chests! Sad that there are people still thinking that it was a romantic war! Absolutely no winners in this dirty war.... All of them in bed with each other lining their pockets while others rotted in jail died in jail or murdered on the streets in bars even while attending mass or funerals!!

And what did we all get out of it??
Can anyone spot the troll .......... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trueblue1234 on June 16, 2016, 12:06:28 PM
Quote from: SuperMac on June 16, 2016, 11:51:45 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2016, 08:11:35 AM
Jesus what a couple of pages!! Seemed real delight on some of those posts about blowing people to smitherings!! Listing atrocities and beating chests! Sad that there are people still thinking that it was a romantic war! Absolutely no winners in this dirty war.... All of them in bed with each other lining their pockets while others rotted in jail died in jail or murdered on the streets in bars even while attending mass or funerals!!

And what did we all get out of it??
Can anyone spot the troll .......... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

2 in fact.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Owenmoresider on June 16, 2016, 12:20:05 PM
Quote from: SuperMac on June 16, 2016, 11:47:02 AM
Quote from: Owenmoresider on June 16, 2016, 11:29:32 AM
Going on his posts he's a Dublin-based Shinner. A particularly arrogant and delusional element of that cult.
Dublin the City that fought an Empire !
Oh I've no doubt that you have that jersey alright, alongside your Long Kesh 81 one as well. The SF shop exists for the gullible like you.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SkillfulBill on June 16, 2016, 01:51:27 PM
Quote from: SuperMac on June 16, 2016, 11:43:02 AM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 16, 2016, 12:43:15 AM
You obviously have little or no understanding of what went on during the 80's and 90's in the six counties. Your romantic notions of the nature of the war indicates to me you are either very young or you are a fireside general from the 26 who has no experience of living through that period in the North and have never shared your views of the resounding success of the war with anyone who actually dedicated themselves to the pursuit of it. I doubt very much if you actually know anyone from the Republican movement. If you do perhaps you should check out your thesis that the Brits were brought to the table on Republican terms and that the settlement that came about is what they fought and died for.
;D Growing up in a house in Dublin where the Special Branch pestering us, arrested going to demos, arrested coming from demo's, God only knows how many Republicans from the north stayed in our house through the 70's, 80's on SF business down here or even just socializing with the old man down for a match or something. I'd know a lot more about the state and thuggery etc than you ever would sunshine.

So since your such a big fan boy of the Brits with your conspiracy theory's, what was your experience of the troubles ? In the UDR, RUC or let me guess, the SAS !!! Or more like British tabloid papers and Andy McNabb books !

Its worse than I suspected. Republican by osmosis fireside chats and being regaled by heroic stories of daring do. Sorry to burst your bubble lad but if you had to live through it and watched friends and family murdered at the hands of the loyalists through state sponsored death squads or seen young men gunned down in ambushes having been set up by paid British agents or had family committed to long prison sentences as a result of paid agents of the state you might not be looking at it through the same rosey prism. The gloss of the odd big spectacular was only that gloss. The reality was infiltration to the highest levels and manipulation of the political process to arrive at sunningdale mark 2 with Shinners agreement. Nice safe place to be in your Dublin home far away from reality.

If you bought the line that we won the war more fool you.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Milltown Row2 on June 17, 2016, 07:52:15 AM
Quote from: SuperMac on June 16, 2016, 11:51:45 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 16, 2016, 08:11:35 AM
Jesus what a couple of pages!! Seemed real delight on some of those posts about blowing people to smitherings!! Listing atrocities and beating chests! Sad that there are people still thinking that it was a romantic war! Absolutely no winners in this dirty war.... All of them in bed with each other lining their pockets while others rotted in jail died in jail or murdered on the streets in bars even while attending mass or funerals!!

And what did we all get out of it??
Can anyone spot the troll .......... ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

Now, explain?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SuperMac on June 17, 2016, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on June 16, 2016, 12:06:28 PM

2 in fact.
Yeah, you an Milltown Row2  ;)  8)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SuperMac on June 17, 2016, 03:53:24 PM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 16, 2016, 01:51:27 PM
Its worse than I suspected. Republican by osmosis fireside chats and being regaled by heroic stories of daring do. Sorry to burst your bubble lad but if you had to live through it and watched friends and family murdered at the hands of the loyalists through state sponsored death squads or seen young men gunned down in ambushes having been set up by paid British agents or had family committed to long prison sentences as a result of paid agents of the state you might not be looking at it through the same rosey prism. The gloss of the odd big spectacular was only that gloss. The reality was infiltration to the highest levels and manipulation of the political process to arrive at sunningdale mark 2 with Shinners agreement. Nice safe place to be in your Dublin home far away from reality.

If you bought the line that we won the war more fool you.
Yep here we go yet again " the earth is flat, the earth is flat, and you must believe me how the Brits organised the whole conflict against themselves for 25 years to bring about the Good Friday Agreement "  :) And best of all now the Brit fan boy is pretending to be from the north and a nationalist somehow !!  You mention the "odd big spectacular" the Provos carried out thousands upon thousands of operations between 1981 and 1998, while the big success you claimed of "Loughhall, Clonoe, Strabane and Coagh " over a decade and a half amounts to a pathetic fu*k all buddy. And as stated, on the law of averages the Brits were going to find out where some weapons etc were been stored and lay an ambush, for the one IRA volunteer they killed in an ambush the Provos would have killed 10 or more of your crowd Walter  ;)

And I didn't mention anything about anyone winning a war, nope - you did WW1 and WW2 by the Brits all on their own eh Walter  :D
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SkillfulBill on June 17, 2016, 04:38:32 PM
Quote from: SuperMac on June 17, 2016, 03:53:24 PM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 16, 2016, 01:51:27 PM
Its worse than I suspected. Republican by osmosis fireside chats and being regaled by heroic stories of daring do. Sorry to burst your bubble lad but if you had to live through it and watched friends and family murdered at the hands of the loyalists through state sponsored death squads or seen young men gunned down in ambushes having been set up by paid British agents or had family committed to long prison sentences as a result of paid agents of the state you might not be looking at it through the same rosey prism. The gloss of the odd big spectacular was only that gloss. The reality was infiltration to the highest levels and manipulation of the political process to arrive at sunningdale mark 2 with Shinners agreement. Nice safe place to be in your Dublin home far away from reality.

If you bought the line that we won the war more fool you.
Yep here we go yet again " the earth is flat, the earth is flat, and you must believe me how the Brits organised the whole conflict against themselves for 25 years to bring about the Good Friday Agreement "  :) And best of all now the Brit fan boy is pretending to be from the north and a nationalist somehow !!  You mention the "odd big spectacular" the Provos carried out thousands upon thousands of operations between 1981 and 1998, while the big success you claimed of "Loughhall, Clonoe, Strabane and Coagh " over a decade and a half amounts to a pathetic fu*k all buddy. And as stated, on the law of averages the Brits were going to find out where some weapons etc were been stored and lay an ambush, for the one IRA volunteer they killed in an ambush the Provos would have killed 10 or more of your crowd Walter  ;)

And I didn't mention anything about anyone winning a war, nope - you did WW1 and WW2 by the Brits all on their own eh Walter  :D

Pathetic stuff here supermac you come accross as a brain washed individual unable to make an argument for yourself. You want to make out that I am some clown from the UK who does not understand the North and has British sympathies. The truth which I know you don't want to hear or accept is that I am a life long republican  born among the bushes at the begining of the troubles from a political family with a direct living experience of growing up with the in the times you wish to lecture me on Those deaths in Coagh, Loughgall and Clonoe are a little more personal to me having actually known some of the people and their families who died. To be given a lesson in what the truth of what happened here from a fireside general such as yourself is not something I am inclined to do. Growing up in it gives you a healthy doose of realisim. Now this is my final post to you as I can clearly see I am communicating with a pathetic individual of the plastic variety who gets off on the idea of slabbering on about being a mighty republican from the safety of Dublin. Many young lives were sacraficed on both sides to put certain politicans into power under British rule.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Farrandeelin on June 17, 2016, 09:52:55 PM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 13, 2016, 11:27:39 PM
https://www.change.org/p/theresa-villiers-an-apology-to-the-loughinisland-families-from-theresa-villiers?recruiter=88603575&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-xs-petitions_share-no_msg

Sign, share and shame the bitch!

Signed.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: GJL on June 17, 2016, 11:01:48 PM
Done it the other day. She is an old fashioned, stuck up traditional tory. Vile bitch.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: maddog on June 17, 2016, 11:31:32 PM
Signed.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Farrandeelin on June 18, 2016, 10:02:09 AM
Quote from: GJL on June 17, 2016, 11:01:48 PM
Done it the other day. She is an old fashioned, stuck up traditional tory. Vile bitch.
What Tory isn't vile?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: SuperMac on June 22, 2016, 06:27:04 PM
Quote from: SkillfulBill on June 17, 2016, 04:38:32 PM
Pathetic stuff here supermac you come accross as a brain washed individual unable to make an argument for yourself. You want to make out that I am some clown from the UK who does not understand the North and has British sympathies. The truth which I know you don't want to hear or accept is that I am a life long republican  born among the bushes at the begining of the troubles from a political family with a direct living experience of growing up with the in the times you wish to lecture me on Those deaths in Coagh, Loughgall and Clonoe are a little more personal to me having actually known some of the people and their families who died. To be given a lesson in what the truth of what happened here from a fireside general such as yourself is not something I am inclined to do. Growing up in it gives you a healthy doose of realisim. Now this is my final post to you as I can clearly see I am communicating with a pathetic individual of the plastic variety who gets off on the idea of slabbering on about being a mighty republican from the safety of Dublin. Many young lives were sacraficed on both sides to put certain politicans into power under British rule.
At least you finally came out with somethingsensible, hopefully it will be your last post Walter. And this coming from a pathetic Brit fan boy and all round Walter Mitty who tries to concoct some conspiracy theory that the Brits from 1981 the Brits were secretly running the IRA to bring about a settlement nearly a decade and a half later and accepting the billions of damage to London, Manchester as well as the international embarrassment of the Provos mortaring Downing St, Brighton Hotel, blowing up MP's, Judges as well as carrying out thousands and thousands of operations during that same period :)

Doubtless now the Brit fan boys like yourself are waiting until the result of the Brexit referendum to concoct some conspiracy theory on the killing of MP Jo Cox. So it'll run something like this !

A) Vote to remain - well the Brit super clever puppet masters arranged her killing in order to get sympathy to the Remain side of which she was a campaigner !!

B) Vote to leave - well the Brit super clever puppet masters arranged her killing in order to turn the British public off staying in fear of the right wing extremism remaining might cause !!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: gaaman2016 on November 02, 2017, 08:56:04 PM
As a Loughinisland man I found todays Irish News deeply disturbing. Some of the revelation that are disclosed in the upcoming documentary made me think how could something like this happen in the latter end of the 20th Century and today's revelations no one seems to have batted an eyelid.

Just because it happened in Northern Ireland, doesn't mean it should be treated any differently . Imagine something like this happened in England?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: StGallsGAA on November 02, 2017, 11:35:50 PM
Quote from: gaaman2016 on November 02, 2017, 08:56:04 PM
As a Loughinisland man I found todays Irish News deeply disturbing. Some of the revelation that are disclosed in the upcoming documentary made me think how could something like this happen in the latter end of the 20th Century and today's revelations no one seems to have batted an eyelid.

Just because it happened in Northern Ireland, doesn't mean it should be treated any differently . Imagine something like this happened in England?

The historical enquires team was disbanded because of "lack of funding".  Very convenient,  coupled with the need for DUP to agree to any future enquires on the past.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jim Bob on November 03, 2017, 12:57:18 AM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on June 18, 2016, 10:02:09 AM
Quote from: GJL on June 17, 2016, 11:01:48 PM
Done it the other day. She is an old fashioned, stuck up traditional tory. Vile bitch.
What Tory isn't vile?

Tory Island !!!!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 12:58:20 AM
Nobody batted an eyelid because nobody is surprised. New details, and you sit and shake the head in disbelief of the things that went on. I can't imagine what these families are going through.

Each case will be deliberately batted away, and eventually there will be nobody alive to continue fighting. And eventually this HET won't even exist and the families will all be told to move on and stop living in the past.

Absolutely rotten to the core.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Oraisteach on November 03, 2017, 01:51:33 AM
What revelations about Loughinisland did the Irish News make today, and what's the name of the upcoming documentary?   I read Lethal Allies, and it was very disturbing.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: JPGJOHNNYG on November 03, 2017, 07:29:32 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 03, 2017, 12:58:20 AM
Nobody batted an eyelid because nobody is surprised. New details, and you sit and shake the head in disbelief of the things that went on. I can't imagine what these families are going through.

Each case will be deliberately batted away, and eventually there will be nobody alive to continue fighting. And eventually this HET won't even exist and the families will all be told to move on and stop living in the past.

Absolutely rotten to the core.

Well this is exactly what is happening. You only have to look at bloody sunday, a number of the soldiers in question are already dead so Im guessing as soon as the last guilty one drops we will miraculously find out some more details at which point nothing can actually be done.
I got quite angry the other day listening to Doug Beattie on the radio, Doug being from the very liberal wing of the UUP and someone who usually talks some sense. He decided  in response to the ILA (and equality) rant about SF and the IRA and the murders over the troubles and how SF deny equality to others when it suits. What any of this had to do with ILA I have no idea other than his tenuous equality link of course the former Seargent Major would have very little to say about all the wrongs carried out by the very people who were actually sent to protect the civillians. Only yesterday on asking for help for Nairacs body to be recovered did he call him a 'brave'man - a man whose name is linked to a whole number of collusion allegations. The UUP seem to be trying to out flank the TUV post election melt down - that will work, NOT.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: gaaman2016 on November 03, 2017, 08:54:18 AM
Quote from: Oraisteach on November 03, 2017, 01:51:33 AM
What revelations about Loughinisland did the Irish News make today, and what's the name of the upcoming documentary?   I read Lethal Allies, and it was very disturbing.

Documentary is called "No Stone Unturned" and is in cinemas next Friday

According to the Irish News, the documentary alleges
-One of the gang was a Special Branch Informant
-Informant told Special Branch when and where the attack would take place
-On the day of the attack, Informant told Special Branch attack was off due to mechanical issues with getaway car
-A women who was a civilian RUC worker twice informed the RUC that her husband was the shooter and informed the RUC who the other two members of the gang where.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Oraisteach on November 03, 2017, 03:19:15 PM
Thanks gaaman
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Over the Bar on November 03, 2017, 09:01:40 PM
You get a sense that  the deadlock at Stormont suits the British establishment very well since it puts historical inquiries on the back burner for a bit longer.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: WT4E on December 09, 2017, 06:12:30 PM
Quote from: gaaman2016 on November 03, 2017, 08:54:18 AM
Quote from: Oraisteach on November 03, 2017, 01:51:33 AM
What revelations about Loughinisland did the Irish News make today, and what's the name of the upcoming documentary?   I read Lethal Allies, and it was very disturbing.

Documentary is called "No Stone Unturned" and is in cinemas next Friday

According to the Irish News, the documentary alleges
-One of the gang was a Special Branch Informant
-Informant told Special Branch when and where the attack would take place
-On the day of the attack, Informant told Special Branch attack was off due to mechanical issues with getaway car
-A women who was a civilian RUC worker twice informed the RUC that her husband was the shooter and informed the RUC who the other two members of the gang where.

Does anyone know if/when this is available on DVD?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Avondhu star on December 09, 2017, 08:18:48 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on November 03, 2017, 09:01:40 PM
You get a sense that  the deadlock at Stormont suits the British establishment very well since it puts historical inquiries on the back burner for a bit longer.

The deadlock suits them all because none of them want to be seen to concede an inch. That's what you get when you strip away the middleground and leave you with the extremists on each side
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: StGallsGAA on December 10, 2017, 12:09:35 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on December 09, 2017, 08:18:48 PM
Quote from: Over the Bar on November 03, 2017, 09:01:40 PM
You get a sense that  the deadlock at Stormont suits the British establishment very well since it puts historical inquiries on the back burner for a bit longer.

The deadlock suits them all because none of them want to be seen to concede an inch. That's what you get when you strip away the middleground and leave you with the extremists on each side

The other view is that you have Unionist Supremacists on one side and those who refuse to accept Unionist Supremacy on the other. 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: FL/MAYO on January 15, 2018, 01:32:11 PM
Quote from: gaaman2016 on November 03, 2017, 08:54:18 AM
Quote from: Oraisteach on November 03, 2017, 01:51:33 AM
What revelations about Loughinisland did the Irish News make today, and what's the name of the upcoming documentary?   I read Lethal Allies, and it was very disturbing.

Documentary is called "No Stone Unturned" and is in cinemas next Friday

According to the Irish News, the documentary alleges
-One of the gang was a Special Branch Informant
-Informant told Special Branch when and where the attack would take place
-On the day of the attack, Informant told Special Branch attack was off due to mechanical issues with getaway car
-A women who was a civilian RUC worker twice informed the RUC that her husband was the shooter and informed the RUC who the other two members of the gang where.

I watched the documentary last night. They named the gang members and also have video footage of the shooter working in West Belfast. The shooter was an informer hence the attempted cover up.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Norf Tyrone on January 15, 2018, 02:12:59 PM
Anywhere to watch online?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: FL/MAYO on January 15, 2018, 02:34:40 PM
Quote from: Norf Tyrone on January 15, 2018, 02:12:59 PM
Anywhere to watch online?
Amazon have it.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Oraisteach on January 17, 2018, 07:50:06 PM
Watched the documentary last night. Naming the names was significant, as was acknowledging once more the collusion and the destruction of evidence. Given that it was a 2-hour programme, I knew I wouldn't be entirely satisfied. The cursory treatment of the Troubles leading up to Loughinisland was not surprising given the time constraints, as was the hasty treatment of the extent of the collusion beyond this particular massacre, but I suppose that's material for another documentary or six.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on January 30, 2018, 05:35:46 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0130/937131-stakeknife/
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Square Ball on January 30, 2018, 07:31:07 PM
https://www.facebook.com/michael.goggin.9275/posts/139151303543135

This link worked for me,
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hereiam on January 30, 2018, 10:21:43 PM
Go old Brit PR machine at it again. Get a story out that they have arrested ole Scapi to take the focus away from the Hegarty case.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Sinn Fein aren't out on the street protesting about the arrest of their old buddy
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 09:53:28 AM
 ::)
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Sinn Fein aren't out on the street protesting about the arrest of their old buddy

Probably because this guy was a spy working for the british army.... as anyone with a titter of wit would already know.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 09:53:28 AM
::)
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Sinn Fein aren't out on the street protesting about the arrest of their old buddy

Probably because this guy was a spy working for the british army.... as anyone with a titter of wit would already know.
Yes. And the Shinners want to keep as quiet as possible that one of their top men was selling out the gobshites down the line and ordering the murder of I.R.A. men to cover up his double dealing.
Needless to say Adams and Co never suspected a thing
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 09:53:28 AM
::)
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Sinn Fein aren't out on the street protesting about the arrest of their old buddy

Probably because this guy was a spy working for the british army.... as anyone with a titter of wit would already know.
Yes. And the Shinners want to keep as quiet as possible that one of their top men was selling out the gobshites down the line and ordering the murder of I.R.A. men to cover up his double dealing.
Needless to say Adams and Co never suspected a thing

Oh right so you already knew this and felt the need to make a snide comment about Sinn Fein, as is your wont.

The fact that he allegedly murdered dozens of people whilst in the employ of the British army does not give you cause for comment but Gerry Adam's lack of reaction does?

Weirdo.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:05:40 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 09:53:28 AM
::)
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Sinn Fein aren't out on the street protesting about the arrest of their old buddy

Probably because this guy was a spy working for the british army.... as anyone with a titter of wit would already know.
Yes. And the Shinners want to keep as quiet as possible that one of their top men was selling out the gobshites down the line and ordering the murder of I.R.A. men to cover up his double dealing.
Needless to say Adams and Co never suspected a thing

Oh right so you already knew this and felt the need to make a snide comment about Sinn Fein, as is your wont.

The fact that he allegedly murdered dozens of people whilst in the employ of the British army does not give you cause for comment but Gerry Adam's lack of reaction does?

Weirdo.

He didnt have people plugged without running it past the higher ups in SF/IRA.  No one suspected him or Donaldson. The weirdos are the ones believing the shite coming from the cult
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:05:40 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 09:53:28 AM
::)
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Sinn Fein aren't out on the street protesting about the arrest of their old buddy

Probably because this guy was a spy working for the british army.... as anyone with a titter of wit would already know.
Yes. And the Shinners want to keep as quiet as possible that one of their top men was selling out the gobshites down the line and ordering the murder of I.R.A. men to cover up his double dealing.
Needless to say Adams and Co never suspected a thing

Oh right so you already knew this and felt the need to make a snide comment about Sinn Fein, as is your wont.

The fact that he allegedly murdered dozens of people whilst in the employ of the British army does not give you cause for comment but Gerry Adam's lack of reaction does?

Weirdo.

He didnt have people plugged without running it past the higher ups in SF/IRA.  No one suspected him or Donaldson. The weirdos are the ones believing the shite coming from the cult

No, you are the weirdo, with your weird one-eyed obsession with SF.

Do you not suppose he also ran it past his handlers in the BA. And that the collusion of the so-called 'forces of law and order' might be more worthy of criticism than the actions of your 'cult'.
It's clear from your posting that you have an unhealthy obsession with SF.

Weirdo.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Milltown Row2 on January 31, 2018, 01:45:33 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:05:40 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 09:53:28 AM
::)
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Sinn Fein aren't out on the street protesting about the arrest of their old buddy

Probably because this guy was a spy working for the british army.... as anyone with a titter of wit would already know.
Yes. And the Shinners want to keep as quiet as possible that one of their top men was selling out the gobshites down the line and ordering the murder of I.R.A. men to cover up his double dealing.
Needless to say Adams and Co never suspected a thing

Oh right so you already knew this and felt the need to make a snide comment about Sinn Fein, as is your wont.

The fact that he allegedly murdered dozens of people whilst in the employ of the British army does not give you cause for comment but Gerry Adam's lack of reaction does?

Weirdo.

He didnt have people plugged without running it past the higher ups in SF/IRA.  No one suspected him or Donaldson. The weirdos are the ones believing the shite coming from the cult

No, you are the weirdo, with your weird one-eyed obsession with SF.

Do you not suppose he also ran it past his handlers in the BA. And that the collusion of the so-called 'forces of law and order' might be more worthy of criticism than the actions of your 'cult'.
It's clear from your posting that you have an unhealthy obsession with SF.

Weirdo.

"There have been some threads where lots of people have talked lots of bollocks but this one is really taking the proverbial biscuit with the amount of pure and utter bollocks talked about such a serous matter."
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:58:35 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:05:40 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 09:53:28 AM
::)
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Sinn Fein aren't out on the street protesting about the arrest of their old buddy

Probably because this guy was a spy working for the british army.... as anyone with a titter of wit would already know.
Yes. And the Shinners want to keep as quiet as possible that one of their top men was selling out the gobshites down the line and ordering the murder of I.R.A. men to cover up his double dealing.
Needless to say Adams and Co never suspected a thing

Oh right so you already knew this and felt the need to make a snide comment about Sinn Fein, as is your wont.

The fact that he allegedly murdered dozens of people whilst in the employ of the British army does not give you cause for comment but Gerry Adam's lack of reaction does?

Weirdo.

He didnt have people plugged without running it past the higher ups in SF/IRA.  No one suspected him or Donaldson. The weirdos are the ones believing the shite coming from the cult

No, you are the weirdo, with your weird one-eyed obsession with SF.

Do you not suppose he also ran it past his handlers in the BA. And that the collusion of the so-called 'forces of law and order' might be more worthy of criticism than the actions of your 'cult'.
It's clear from your posting that you have an unhealthy obsession with SF.

Weirdo.

Of course he did which asks the question how many more undiscovered informers are there in the higher ranks of SF
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:58:35 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:05:40 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 09:53:28 AM
::)
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Sinn Fein aren't out on the street protesting about the arrest of their old buddy

Probably because this guy was a spy working for the british army.... as anyone with a titter of wit would already know.
Yes. And the Shinners want to keep as quiet as possible that one of their top men was selling out the gobshites down the line and ordering the murder of I.R.A. men to cover up his double dealing.
Needless to say Adams and Co never suspected a thing

Oh right so you already knew this and felt the need to make a snide comment about Sinn Fein, as is your wont.

The fact that he allegedly murdered dozens of people whilst in the employ of the British army does not give you cause for comment but Gerry Adam's lack of reaction does?

Weirdo.

He didnt have people plugged without running it past the higher ups in SF/IRA.  No one suspected him or Donaldson. The weirdos are the ones believing the shite coming from the cult

No, you are the weirdo, with your weird one-eyed obsession with SF.

Do you not suppose he also ran it past his handlers in the BA. And that the collusion of the so-called 'forces of law and order' might be more worthy of criticism than the actions of your 'cult'.
It's clear from your posting that you have an unhealthy obsession with SF.

Weirdo.

Of course he did which asks the question how many more undiscovered informers are there in the higher ranks of SF

Well not for me it doesn't. What it does ask is how many murders the state forces of law and order colluded in? Murders they were supposed to be preventing! You have an extremely weird take on this story. If they are undiscovered informers surely the question should be asked of the BA/RUC/MI5 as clearly SF do not know the answer.

You are consistent in having a dig at SF and making fantastical mental contortions to do on many occasions, why can you not admit that that is your sole agenda for whatever the reasons are?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: red hander on January 31, 2018, 04:29:19 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:05:40 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 09:53:28 AM
::)
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Sinn Fein aren't out on the street protesting about the arrest of their old buddy

Probably because this guy was a spy working for the british army.... as anyone with a titter of wit would already know.
Yes. And the Shinners want to keep as quiet as possible that one of their top men was selling out the gobshites down the line and ordering the murder of I.R.A. men to cover up his double dealing.
Needless to say Adams and Co never suspected a thing

Oh right so you already knew this and felt the need to make a snide comment about Sinn Fein, as is your wont.

The fact that he allegedly murdered dozens of people whilst in the employ of the British army does not give you cause for comment but Gerry Adam's lack of reaction does?

Weirdo.

He didnt have people plugged without running it past the higher ups in SF/IRA.  No one suspected him or Donaldson. The weirdos are the ones believing the shite coming from the cult

Are you Ruth Dudley Edwards' f**kpig?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:58:35 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:05:40 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 09:53:28 AM
::)
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Sinn Fein aren't out on the street protesting about the arrest of their old buddy

Probably because this guy was a spy working for the british army.... as anyone with a titter of wit would already know.
Yes. And the Shinners want to keep as quiet as possible that one of their top men was selling out the gobshites down the line and ordering the murder of I.R.A. men to cover up his double dealing.
Needless to say Adams and Co never suspected a thing

Oh right so you already knew this and felt the need to make a snide comment about Sinn Fein, as is your wont.

The fact that he allegedly murdered dozens of people whilst in the employ of the British army does not give you cause for comment but Gerry Adam's lack of reaction does?

Weirdo.

He didnt have people plugged without running it past the higher ups in SF/IRA.  No one suspected him or Donaldson. The weirdos are the ones believing the shite coming from the cult

No, you are the weirdo, with your weird one-eyed obsession with SF.

Do you not suppose he also ran it past his handlers in the BA. And that the collusion of the so-called 'forces of law and order' might be more worthy of criticism than the actions of your 'cult'.
It's clear from your posting that you have an unhealthy obsession with SF.

Weirdo.

Of course he did which asks the question how many more undiscovered informers are there in the higher ranks of SF

Well not for me it doesn't. What it does ask is how many murders the state forces of law and order colluded in? Murders they were supposed to be preventing! You have an extremely weird take on this story. If they are undiscovered informers surely the question should be asked of the BA/RUC/MI5 as clearly SF do not know the answer.

You are consistent in having a dig at SF and making fantastical mental contortions to do on many occasions, why can you not admit that that is your sole agenda for whatever the reasons are?

Well it was Adams who came out and defended the murder of a man by saying "thats what happens if you inform in West Belfast"
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 04:41:23 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:58:35 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:05:40 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 09:53:28 AM
::)
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Sinn Fein aren't out on the street protesting about the arrest of their old buddy

Probably because this guy was a spy working for the british army.... as anyone with a titter of wit would already know.
Yes. And the Shinners want to keep as quiet as possible that one of their top men was selling out the gobshites down the line and ordering the murder of I.R.A. men to cover up his double dealing.
Needless to say Adams and Co never suspected a thing

Oh right so you already knew this and felt the need to make a snide comment about Sinn Fein, as is your wont.

The fact that he allegedly murdered dozens of people whilst in the employ of the British army does not give you cause for comment but Gerry Adam's lack of reaction does?

Weirdo.

He didnt have people plugged without running it past the higher ups in SF/IRA.  No one suspected him or Donaldson. The weirdos are the ones believing the shite coming from the cult

No, you are the weirdo, with your weird one-eyed obsession with SF.

Do you not suppose he also ran it past his handlers in the BA. And that the collusion of the so-called 'forces of law and order' might be more worthy of criticism than the actions of your 'cult'.
It's clear from your posting that you have an unhealthy obsession with SF.

Weirdo.

Of course he did which asks the question how many more undiscovered informers are there in the higher ranks of SF

Well not for me it doesn't. What it does ask is how many murders the state forces of law and order colluded in? Murders they were supposed to be preventing! You have an extremely weird take on this story. If they are undiscovered informers surely the question should be asked of the BA/RUC/MI5 as clearly SF do not know the answer.

You are consistent in having a dig at SF and making fantastical mental contortions to do on many occasions, why can you not admit that that is your sole agenda for whatever the reasons are?

Well it was Adams who came out and defended the murder of a man by saying "thats what happens if you inform in West Belfast"

Are you intent on proving my point?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: north_antrim_hound on January 31, 2018, 06:17:08 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 04:33:35 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:58:35 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 01:26:36 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 01:05:40 PM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 10:55:53 AM
Quote from: Keyser soze on January 31, 2018, 09:53:28 AM
::)
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:44:27 AM
Sinn Fein aren't out on the street protesting about the arrest of their old buddy

Probably because this guy was a spy working for the british army.... as anyone with a titter of wit would already know.
Yes. And the Shinners want to keep as quiet as possible that one of their top men was selling out the gobshites down the line and ordering the murder of I.R.A. men to cover up his double dealing.
Needless to say Adams and Co never suspected a thing

Oh right so you already knew this and felt the need to make a snide comment about Sinn Fein, as is your wont.

The fact that he allegedly murdered dozens of people whilst in the employ of the British army does not give you cause for comment but Gerry Adam's lack of reaction does?

Weirdo.

He didnt have people plugged without running it past the higher ups in SF/IRA.  No one suspected him or Donaldson. The weirdos are the ones believing the shite coming from the cult

No, you are the weirdo, with your weird one-eyed obsession with SF.

Do you not suppose he also ran it past his handlers in the BA. And that the collusion of the so-called 'forces of law and order' might be more worthy of criticism than the actions of your 'cult'.
It's clear from your posting that you have an unhealthy obsession with SF.

Weirdo.

Of course he did which asks the question how many more undiscovered informers are there in the higher ranks of SF

Well not for me it doesn't. What it does ask is how many murders the state forces of law and order colluded in? Murders they were supposed to be preventing! You have an extremely weird take on this story. If they are undiscovered informers surely the question should be asked of the BA/RUC/MI5 as clearly SF do not know the answer.

You are consistent in having a dig at SF and making fantastical mental contortions to do on many occasions, why can you not admit that that is your sole agenda for whatever the reasons are?

Well it was Adams who came out and defended the murder of a man by saying "thats what happens if you inform in West Belfast"

That's what did happen so what do you want him to say
Westbrits like yourself to me are ten times worse than any hard loyalists up here
You want to focus on one side all the time
This thread is about collusion and highlights the underhand dealings of the British state during those horrible times
There is a consistent projection of self righteousness from one side of the conflict and evidence to expose the British state as bad or even worse than their republican counterparts is constantly being brushed under the carpet
Could you not start your own thread on SF bashing and knock yourself out instead of jamming up ones like these with completely irrelevant vitriol
Attitudes like yours is why there was trouble up here for years
You are a real bigot to the point of self embarrassment 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 06:45:31 PM
British collusion isn't all about Loyalists being used tokill Catholics. It also includes British using republicans to kill Catholics. These killers were amply rewarded by their British masters for their dirty work. The people on here would have us believe that collusion was only on one side and they get upset at the thought that some of their own brave boyos sold them out for the Queen's shilling
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: red hander on January 31, 2018, 06:52:24 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 06:45:31 PM
British collusion isn't all about Loyalists being used tokill Catholics. It also includes British using republicans to kill Catholics. These killers were amply rewarded by their British masters for their dirty work. The people on here would have us believe that collusion was only on one side and they get upset at the thought that some of their own brave boyos sold them out for the Queen's shilling

Collusion was almost exclusively on one side. Read some history, you west Brit clown. The Brits did the exact same in every part of their 'empire' where the native people took up arms to get them out. As regards responsibility for killings, the British Empire makes Hitler and Stalin combined look like a pair of choirboys. You really are a revisionist shite peddlar
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: north_antrim_hound on January 31, 2018, 07:02:44 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 06:45:31 PM
British collusion isn't all about Loyalists being used tokill Catholics. It also includes British using republicans to kill Catholics. These killers were amply rewarded by their British masters for their dirty work. The people on here would have us believe that collusion was only on one side and they get upset at the thought that some of their own brave boyos sold them out for the Queen's shilling

WTF are you talking about

British collusion entailed furnishing info of nationalists suspects to loyalists paramilitaries for executions without investigation or trial

Having intelligence on the IRA through infiltration with payed spy's ( learnt through their involvement in the Cold War) is completely different and not the subject of this thread

Your deflecting to have a go same as the British spin machine has brought out more "stakeknife" BS this week to deflect from this
Do you not even know how the real world works
What happened during your childhood to make you so one dimensional
Pathetic
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 07:09:50 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on January 31, 2018, 07:02:44 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 06:45:31 PM
British collusion isn't all about Loyalists being used tokill Catholics. It also includes British using republicans to kill Catholics. These killers were amply rewarded by their British masters for their dirty work. The people on here would have us believe that collusion was only on one side and they get upset at the thought that some of their own brave boyos sold them out for the Queen's shilling

WTF are you talking about

British collusion entailed furnishing info of nationalists suspects to loyalists paramilitaries for executions without investigation or trial

Having intelligence on the IRA through infiltration with payed spy's ( learnt through their involvement in the Cold War) is completely different and not the subject of this thread

Your deflecting to have a go same as the British spin machine has brought out more "stakeknife" BS this week to deflect from this
Do you not even know how the real world works
What happened during your childhood to make you so one dimensional
Pathetic
It's you that is one dimensional. Collusion also involved setting up Low ranking Provos as informers to be murdered by Scapaticci crew to protect the the real ones  Donaldson and Scap
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: GJL on January 31, 2018, 07:59:50 PM
Avondhu Star. There are people on here that have lost family members as a direct result of collusion between British forces and loyalist murder gangs. These people are reading this thread. They have lost fathers, brothers, grandparents, uncles. This is not a f**king game. So please take you stupid point scoring points and fcuk off. You not wanted here or are you welcome. Do one.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: GJL on January 31, 2018, 07:59:50 PM
Avondhu Star. There are people on here that have lost family members as a direct result of collusion between British forces and loyalist murder gangs. These people are reading this thread. They have lost fathers, brothers, grandparents, uncles. This is not a f**king game. So please take you stupid point scoring points and fcuk off. You not wanted here or are you welcome. Do one.

Do the people who lost loved ones because of collusion between thebritish and IRA informers matter to you at all or would you rather forget them?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: GJL on January 31, 2018, 08:15:50 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: GJL on January 31, 2018, 07:59:50 PM
Avondhu Star. There are people on here that have lost family members as a direct result of collusion between British forces and loyalist murder gangs. These people are reading this thread. They have lost fathers, brothers, grandparents, uncles. This is not a f**king game. So please take you stupid point scoring points and fcuk off. You not wanted here or are you welcome. Do one.

Do the people who lost loved ones because of collusion between thebritish and IRA informers matter to you at all or would you rather forget them?

You are a disgusting piece of shit. You are using people's deaths to score points. This is a subject that matters a lot to me and I will not debate or discuss it with you when you have demonstrated several times that all you are interested in is bashing a political party. f**k off.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:23:41 PM
Quote from: GJL on January 31, 2018, 08:15:50 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: GJL on January 31, 2018, 07:59:50 PM
Avondhu Star. There are people on here that have lost family members as a direct result of collusion between British forces and loyalist murder gangs. These people are reading this thread. They have lost fathers, brothers, grandparents, uncles. This is not a f**king game. So please take you stupid point scoring points and fcuk off. You not wanted here or are you welcome. Do one.

Do the people who lost loved ones because of collusion between thebritish and IRA informers matter to you at all or would you rather forget them?

You are a disgusting piece of shit. You are using people's deaths to score points. This is a subject that matters a lot to me and I will not debate or discuss it with you when you have demonstrated several times that all you are interested in is bashing a political party. f**k off.
To debate you must be prepared to see both  sides, something you are clearly incapable or willing to do. As for bashing political parties I didn't know that was forbidden. So slip away there and talk to the wall
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: GJL on January 31, 2018, 08:30:30 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:23:41 PM
Quote from: GJL on January 31, 2018, 08:15:50 PM
Quote from: Avondhu star on January 31, 2018, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: GJL on January 31, 2018, 07:59:50 PM
Avondhu Star. There are people on here that have lost family members as a direct result of collusion between British forces and loyalist murder gangs. These people are reading this thread. They have lost fathers, brothers, grandparents, uncles. This is not a f**king game. So please take you stupid point scoring points and fcuk off. You not wanted here or are you welcome. Do one.

Do the people who lost loved ones because of collusion between thebritish and IRA informers matter to you at all or would you rather forget them?

You are a disgusting piece of shit. You are using people's deaths to score points. This is a subject that matters a lot to me and I will not debate or discuss it with you when you have demonstrated several times that all you are interested in is bashing a political party. f**k off.
To debate you must be prepared to seventh sides, something you are clearly incapable or willing to do. So slip away there and talk to the wall

To debate you must have a certain level of respect for the person you are engaging with. You do not deserve my respect as all you want to do is use this subject to bash a political party. Your a disgrace.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hereiam on January 31, 2018, 10:29:39 PM
Willie Frazer is alive an well on this board
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Main Street on February 27, 2018, 12:32:12 PM
Fred Holroyd, the honourable brit, "who was forced to leave the Army because he raised concerns about an alleged shoot-to-kill policy", is taking legal action against the MoD and has the full support of a military surgeon witness.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43157031 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43157031)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: grounded on February 28, 2018, 07:45:07 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 27, 2018, 12:32:12 PM
Fred Holroyd, the honourable brit, "who was forced to leave the Army because he raised concerns about an alleged shoot-to-kill policy", is taking legal action against the MoD and has the full support of a military surgeon witness.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43157031 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43157031)

It was a dirty, dirty war. Unfortunately, for the most part those affected will never know the full truth.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: johnneycool on February 28, 2018, 11:04:57 PM
Quote from: grounded on February 28, 2018, 07:45:07 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 27, 2018, 12:32:12 PM
Fred Holroyd, the honourable brit, "who was forced to leave the Army because he raised concerns about an alleged shoot-to-kill policy", is taking legal action against the MoD and has the full support of a military surgeon witness.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43157031 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43157031)

It was a dirty, dirty war. Unfortunately, for the most part those affected will never know the full truth.

Because people in Whitehall don't want you to know.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: grounded on March 01, 2018, 09:04:10 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 28, 2018, 11:04:57 PM
Quote from: grounded on February 28, 2018, 07:45:07 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 27, 2018, 12:32:12 PM
Fred Holroyd, the honourable brit, "who was forced to leave the Army because he raised concerns about an alleged shoot-to-kill policy", is taking legal action against the MoD and has the full support of a military surgeon witness.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43157031 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43157031)

It was a dirty, dirty war. Unfortunately, for the most part those affected will never know the full truth.

Because people in Whitehall don't want you to know.

You're right, but it's not just whitehall!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on March 01, 2018, 09:16:57 PM
Quote from: grounded on March 01, 2018, 09:04:10 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on February 28, 2018, 11:04:57 PM
Quote from: grounded on February 28, 2018, 07:45:07 PM
Quote from: Main Street on February 27, 2018, 12:32:12 PM
Fred Holroyd, the honourable brit, "who was forced to leave the Army because he raised concerns about an alleged shoot-to-kill policy", is taking legal action against the MoD and has the full support of a military surgeon witness.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43157031 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43157031)

It was a dirty, dirty war. Unfortunately, for the most part those affected will never know the full truth.

Because people in Whitehall don't want you to know.

You're right, but it's not just whitehall!

Leinster House as well....
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Insane Bolt on June 12, 2018, 05:35:46 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44455415

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Stan Laurel on June 19, 2018, 11:39:16 AM
Soldier to face prosecution over death of Aidan McAnespie.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0619/971600-aidan-mcanespie/?utm_source=xtremepush&utm_medium=webpush&utm_campaign=British+soldier+to+face+manslaughter+charge+over+death+of+Aidan+McAnespie+in+1988+%28xtremepush+%233134893%29&utm_term=notification+%2374640738_105993146&utm_content=A (https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0619/971600-aidan-mcanespie/?utm_source=xtremepush&utm_medium=webpush&utm_campaign=British+soldier+to+face+manslaughter+charge+over+death+of+Aidan+McAnespie+in+1988+%28xtremepush+%233134893%29&utm_term=notification+%2374640738_105993146&utm_content=A)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hereiam on June 19, 2018, 11:52:46 AM
A disgrace that this has taken so long
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: RedHand88 on June 19, 2018, 11:54:46 AM
Its better than nothing I suppose. What's the chances of the soldier doing any time behind bars?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Stan Laurel on June 19, 2018, 12:00:58 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 19, 2018, 11:54:46 AM
Its better than nothing I suppose. What's the chances of the soldier doing any time behind bars?

I would guess absolutely no chance.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: orangeman on June 19, 2018, 12:15:06 PM
Not much consolation at this stage.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ambrose on June 19, 2018, 02:01:53 PM
Quote from: Stan Laurel on June 19, 2018, 12:00:58 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on June 19, 2018, 11:54:46 AM
Its better than nothing I suppose. What's the chances of the soldier doing any time behind bars?

I would guess absolutely no chance.

If found guilty he will serve a maximum of two years.  He is only 48 now which means he was 18 at the time of this incident. Isn't it madness to think that an 18 year old was sitting there with a machine gun, though we just took it for granted at the time.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on June 19, 2018, 02:18:10 PM
So what has changed in the evidence in 30 years?

It'll be like Bloody Sunday. Oops, sorry about that, but still no convictions.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ambrose on June 20, 2018, 05:52:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 19, 2018, 02:18:10 PM
So what has changed in the evidence in 30 years?

It'll be like Bloody Sunday. Oops, sorry about that, but still no convictions.

New evidence from the PSNI that it couldn't have been an accidental shooting. Still can't understand how it isn't a murder charge but the family seem ok with the decision.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: red hander on June 20, 2018, 06:02:55 PM
Even after they were done for murder, Ian Thain and Lee Clegg were admitted back into the British Army after serving what must have been the shortest sentences in history for the crime. Irish victims of these scum have always been treated with contempt. Unfortunately, the McAnespie family will never get the justice they deserve, like the countless other victims of state murderers
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on June 20, 2018, 06:31:39 PM
Quote from: Ambrose on June 20, 2018, 05:52:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 19, 2018, 02:18:10 PM
So what has changed in the evidence in 30 years?

It'll be like Bloody Sunday. Oops, sorry about that, but still no convictions.

New evidence from the PSNI that it couldn't have been an accidental shooting. Still can't understand how it isn't a murder charge but the family seem ok with the decision.

And it took them 30 years to come to that conclusion. Still, a token sentence is all that will happen.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: GJL on June 20, 2018, 06:34:34 PM
Been proven that it takes 9lbs of pressure to depress the trigger on the particular gun used yet he claimed it was an accident. Not possible.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: general_lee on June 20, 2018, 11:13:37 PM
Quote from: Ambrose on June 20, 2018, 05:52:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 19, 2018, 02:18:10 PM
So what has changed in the evidence in 30 years?

It'll be like Bloody Sunday. Oops, sorry about that, but still no convictions.

New evidence from the PSNI that it couldn't have been an accidental shooting. Still can't understand how it isn't a murder charge but the family seem ok with the decision.
I think one theory is that shots were fired around McAnespie in an attempt to make him "dance" although I've also heard somewhere that one shot was fired directly into his back and the part of his ribcage was removed at autopsy and never returned which may have interfered with providing evidence of him being deliberately murdered. Either way the soldier responsible obviously operated in a culture where it was acceptable to intimidate civilians and where if incidents like this occurred they were safe in the knowledge they'd get away with it. Scant consolation for his family but hopefully solider is found guilty and they get some form closure 30 years later
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hardy on June 21, 2018, 09:32:35 AM
I heard, but can't verify the source, that the new evidence may include ballistics analysis that shows the fatal bullet wasn't a ricochet, as had been claimed, but a direct shot. Though if that's the case, I don't understand how the charge becomes manslaughter and not murder.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on June 21, 2018, 11:45:49 AM
A couple if Aidans brothers were interviewed by yer woman Miriam on RTE radio a few weeks back. Worth a listen. Fairly puts this accidental shite to bed.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: DownFanatic on August 31, 2018, 01:04:17 PM
http://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2018/08/31/news/men-held-on-suspicion-of-stealing-loughinisland-documents-from-police-ombudsman-s-office-1421458/
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Itchy on August 31, 2018, 02:03:48 PM
This investigation is complex alright while the one in the cold blooded murder of civilians was not so complex
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on August 31, 2018, 02:11:20 PM
Aye, no surprise here.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hereiam on August 31, 2018, 02:39:56 PM
Wat exactly happened here. Why were they arrested
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: screenexile on August 31, 2018, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on August 31, 2018, 02:39:56 PM
Wat exactly happened here. Why were they arrested

Sounds like they stole/obtained documents from the Ombudsmans office to assist with the documentary?

I'm presuming they maybe had a source in there who was able to get them or something but details seem very sketchy.

Will be a pretty big free press story it's not the last we'll hear of it!!!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Dire Ear on August 31, 2018, 04:23:17 PM
Clare Rogan, who lost her husband in the attack said the families were "shocked and appalled" at the news of the arrests.

She added: "These actions are the latest attempt to deter the work of families and journalists who seek to shine the light on the dark levels of collusion at the heart of the British state."
BBC NI news
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Insane Bolt on September 08, 2018, 09:02:30 PM
C4 documentary on now Massacre at Ballymurphy
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hereiam on September 08, 2018, 09:50:08 PM
Never trust the British. A whole generation needs to learn this very quickly
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Itchy on September 08, 2018, 10:15:15 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on September 08, 2018, 09:50:08 PM
Never trust the British. A whole generation needs to learn this very quickly

Old sphillis believes everything they say about Russian agents. I believe nothing they say,  not one thing.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hereiam on September 08, 2018, 11:19:33 PM
Wonder did slow learner Karren Bradley watch that. Would open her fcukin eyes
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on September 08, 2018, 11:55:06 PM
Quote from: Itchy on September 08, 2018, 10:15:15 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on September 08, 2018, 09:50:08 PM
Never trust the British. A whole generation needs to learn this very quickly

Old sphillis believes everything they say about Russian agents. I believe nothing they say,  not one thing.

You're absolutely right. I wouldn't believe a word either. But the spineless arselickers in the Irish government believe it.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on September 08, 2018, 11:57:14 PM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on September 08, 2018, 09:02:30 PM
C4 documentary on now Massacre at Ballymurphy
Excellent programme about a disgraceful episode.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Orior on September 09, 2018, 11:22:16 AM
Wouldn't it be better if we ditched the past?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: playwiththewind1st on September 09, 2018, 11:26:02 AM
The ongoing problem with the victims/survivors/legacy issues would suggest that this will not be possible.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Orior on September 09, 2018, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: hardstation on September 09, 2018, 11:36:43 AM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 11:22:16 AM
Wouldn't it be better if we ditched the past?
No.

Then let's start with a victims commissioner for the 1641 Rebellion.

Or are you going to draw the line for what is in scope?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Orior on September 09, 2018, 01:46:54 PM
Quote from: hardstation on September 09, 2018, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: hardstation on September 09, 2018, 11:36:43 AM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 11:22:16 AM
Wouldn't it be better if we ditched the past?
No.

Then let's start with a victims commissioner for the 1641 Rebellion.

Or are you going to draw the line for what is in scope?
If their loved ones are still hurting, demanding to know the truth and trying to clear their names, I wish them the best of luck.
In relation to Ballymurphy, these families have sat back and watched their loved one's killers be hailed as heroes, awarded and indeed knighted for their actions in the British military. Meanwhile, those innocents who were murdered in cold blood were vilified as terrorists.
It may be easy for you to "ditch it" but I don't know where you get off telling these families to "ditch it".

Okay. Maybe if I said I had a brother killed in the Troubles? If I had two relations killed in the Troubles can I "get off" as you put it?

Everybody has suffered.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Itchy on September 09, 2018, 01:52:25 PM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 01:46:54 PM
Quote from: hardstation on September 09, 2018, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: hardstation on September 09, 2018, 11:36:43 AM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 11:22:16 AM
Wouldn't it be better if we ditched the past?
No.

Then let's start with a victims commissioner for the 1641 Rebellion.

Or are you going to draw the line for what is in scope?
If their loved ones are still hurting, demanding to know the truth and trying to clear their names, I wish them the best of luck.
In relation to Ballymurphy, these families have sat back and watched their loved one's killers be hailed as heroes, awarded and indeed knighted for their actions in the British military. Meanwhile, those innocents who were murdered in cold blood were vilified as terrorists.
It may be easy for you to "ditch it" but I don't know where you get off telling these families to "ditch it".

Okay. Maybe if I said I had a brother killed in the Troubles? If I had two relations killed in the Troubles can I "get off" as you put it?

Everybody has suffered.

Some people and families can't move on without closure. These people had their relatives slurred as gun men, they want that righted.  Others who lost family just want to move on. Neither group has the right to tell the other what they should do in my opinion.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ambrose on September 09, 2018, 02:17:35 PM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: hardstation on September 09, 2018, 11:36:43 AM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 11:22:16 AM
Wouldn't it be better if we ditched the past?
No.

Then let's start with a victims commissioner for the 1641 Rebellion.

Or are you going to draw the line for what is in scope?

Castle Catholicism at its finest yet again from Orior, hardly surprising from someone who describes himself as northern Irish.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Orior on September 09, 2018, 02:53:26 PM
Quote from: hardstation on September 09, 2018, 01:55:03 PM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 01:46:54 PM
Quote from: hardstation on September 09, 2018, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: hardstation on September 09, 2018, 11:36:43 AM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 11:22:16 AM
Wouldn't it be better if we ditched the past?
No.

Then let's start with a victims commissioner for the 1641 Rebellion.

Or are you going to draw the line for what is in scope?
If their loved ones are still hurting, demanding to know the truth and trying to clear their names, I wish them the best of luck.
In relation to Ballymurphy, these families have sat back and watched their loved one's killers be hailed as heroes, awarded and indeed knighted for their actions in the British military. Meanwhile, those innocents who were murdered in cold blood were vilified as terrorists.
It may be easy for you to "ditch it" but I don't know where you get off telling these families to "ditch it".

Okay. Maybe if I said I had a brother killed in the Troubles? If I had two relations killed in the Troubles can I "get off" as you put it?

Everybody has suffered.
No. It is not up to you to tell anyone else when it is time to move on and "ditch the past".

No I wont tell anyone to ditch the past. Otherwise we would lose out on annual 1690 celebrations, and Remembrance Sunday.

I would also like the british to own up and admit they acted outside the law, but the wont. So we are doomed to live in a stalemate.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: GJL on September 09, 2018, 08:48:11 PM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 01:46:54 PM
Quote from: hardstation on September 09, 2018, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: hardstation on September 09, 2018, 11:36:43 AM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 11:22:16 AM
Wouldn't it be better if we ditched the past?
No.

Then let's start with a victims commissioner for the 1641 Rebellion.

Or are you going to draw the line for what is in scope?
If their loved ones are still hurting, demanding to know the truth and trying to clear their names, I wish them the best of luck.
In relation to Ballymurphy, these families have sat back and watched their loved one's killers be hailed as heroes, awarded and indeed knighted for their actions in the British military. Meanwhile, those innocents who were murdered in cold blood were vilified as terrorists.
It may be easy for you to "ditch it" but I don't know where you get off telling these families to "ditch it".

Okay. Maybe if I said I had a brother killed in the Troubles? If I had two relations killed in the Troubles can I "get off" as you put it?

Everybody has suffered.

Did you?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 09, 2018, 09:07:36 PM
Quote from: GJL on September 09, 2018, 08:48:11 PM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 01:46:54 PM
Quote from: hardstation on September 09, 2018, 12:12:50 PM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 12:01:51 PM
Quote from: hardstation on September 09, 2018, 11:36:43 AM
Quote from: Orior on September 09, 2018, 11:22:16 AM
Wouldn't it be better if we ditched the past?
No.

Then let's start with a victims commissioner for the 1641 Rebellion.

Or are you going to draw the line for what is in scope?
If their loved ones are still hurting, demanding to know the truth and trying to clear their names, I wish them the best of luck.
In relation to Ballymurphy, these families have sat back and watched their loved one's killers be hailed as heroes, awarded and indeed knighted for their actions in the British military. Meanwhile, those innocents who were murdered in cold blood were vilified as terrorists.
It may be easy for you to "ditch it" but I don't know where you get off telling these families to "ditch it".

Okay. Maybe if I said I had a brother killed in the Troubles? If I had two relations killed in the Troubles can I "get off" as you put it?

Everybody has suffered.

Did you?

Does it matter if he has or not? Not a family I knew where I grew up didn't have a relative that was maimed shot or witnessed shootings..

I think he's asking the question when will we put it behind us to move forward? I'm for a truth commission myself, but I can totally understand the plight of the Ballymurphy families.. and any other families that suffered loss without getting closure
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on May 30, 2019, 02:14:58 PM
Saw that Unquiet Graves film last night about the Glennane Gang - had it's North American premiere here.

Very powerful movie - some scenes were harrowing - like the widow of Pat Campbell having to identify her husband's killer Robin Jackson.

For the life of me - I'd also never heard that story about them wanting to shoot up a primary school in retaliation for Kingsmills.  :o
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trailer on May 30, 2019, 02:33:44 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 30, 2019, 02:14:58 PM
Saw that Unquiet Graves film last night about the Glennane Gang - had it's North American premiere here.

Very powerful movie - some scenes were harrowing - like the widow of Pat Campbell having to identify her husband's killer Robin Jackson.

For the life of me - I'd also never heard that story about them wanting to shoot up a primary school in retaliation for Kingsmills.  :o

Yes, a very emotive docu-film. I watched it in the company of a lot of the families and it was an extremely tough watch. The opening scene epitomises the horror and what it was like trying to do innocent everyday things like coming home from a GAA game.
Did they have a Q&A afterwards with the director Sean Murray?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on May 30, 2019, 02:53:23 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 30, 2019, 02:33:44 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 30, 2019, 02:14:58 PM
Saw that Unquiet Graves film last night about the Glennane Gang - had it's North American premiere here.

Very powerful movie - some scenes were harrowing - like the widow of Pat Campbell having to identify her husband's killer Robin Jackson.

For the life of me - I'd also never heard that story about them wanting to shoot up a primary school in retaliation for Kingsmills.  :o

Yes, a very emotive docu-film. I watched it in the company of a lot of the families and it was an extremely tough watch. The opening scene epitomises the horror and what it was like trying to do innocent everyday things like coming home from a GAA game.
Did they have a Q&A afterwards with the director Sean Murray?

Yes - actually the brother one of the guys killed in that opening scene lives here now and was at the film last night.

They did have a Q&A afterwards yes - very interested in his next piece that he's filming right now about David Kelly - the scientist behind the Iraq War WMD dossier
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trailer on May 30, 2019, 04:56:41 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 30, 2019, 02:53:23 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 30, 2019, 02:33:44 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 30, 2019, 02:14:58 PM
Saw that Unquiet Graves film last night about the Glennane Gang - had it's North American premiere here.

Very powerful movie - some scenes were harrowing - like the widow of Pat Campbell having to identify her husband's killer Robin Jackson.

For the life of me - I'd also never heard that story about them wanting to shoot up a primary school in retaliation for Kingsmills.  :o

Yes, a very emotive docu-film. I watched it in the company of a lot of the families and it was an extremely tough watch. The opening scene epitomises the horror and what it was like trying to do innocent everyday things like coming home from a GAA game.
Did they have a Q&A afterwards with the director Sean Murray?

Yes - actually the brother one of the guys killed in that opening scene lives here now and was at the film last night.

They did have a Q&A afterwards yes - very interested in his next piece that he's filming right now about David Kelly - the scientist behind the Iraq War WMD dossier

Toronto - yes of course.
For anyone who hasn't seen the film I think it will be on Amazon later this year. It is a must watch. An insight into what living in NI and being Nationalist was like. A population targeted by paramilitary, military and police forces every single day. 
I didn't know that was his next project. Should be very interesting.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: marty34 on May 30, 2019, 05:01:28 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 30, 2019, 04:56:41 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 30, 2019, 02:53:23 PM
Quote from: trailer on May 30, 2019, 02:33:44 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 30, 2019, 02:14:58 PM
Saw that Unquiet Graves film last night about the Glennane Gang - had it's North American premiere here.

Very powerful movie - some scenes were harrowing - like the widow of Pat Campbell having to identify her husband's killer Robin Jackson.

For the life of me - I'd also never heard that story about them wanting to shoot up a primary school in retaliation for Kingsmills.  :o

Yes, a very emotive docu-film. I watched it in the company of a lot of the families and it was an extremely tough watch. The opening scene epitomises the horror and what it was like trying to do innocent everyday things like coming home from a GAA game.
Did they have a Q&A afterwards with the director Sean Murray?

Yes - actually the brother one of the guys killed in that opening scene lives here now and was at the film last night.

They did have a Q&A afterwards yes - very interested in his next piece that he's filming right now about David Kelly - the scientist behind the Iraq War WMD dossier

Toronto - yes of course.
For anyone who hasn't seen the film I think it will be on Amazon later this year. It is a must watch. An insight into what living in NI and being Nationalist was like. A population targeted by paramilitary, military and police forces every single day. 
I didn't know that was his next project. Should be very interesting.

Did I hesr it will be on RtÉ in the summer?

Everybody in the 26 counties should watch it, if they get a chance.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Gabriel_Hurl on May 30, 2019, 05:22:45 PM
Yes - the director mentioned last night that RTE will be airing it in July

You can rent stream it here - https://www.journeyman.tv/film/7506/unquiet-graves#payments_modal_on and on Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nbIapo51iQ
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hereiam on June 04, 2019, 12:14:30 PM
Finally watched "no stone unturned" last night. Really does show what was going on back then and most likely still is with handlers etc. The way the so called Police are behaving even today shows that Catholics are not safe with this shower of c**ts
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on June 04, 2019, 01:01:15 PM
The  whole episode regarding the arresting of the two journalists that were involved in that film, is to discredit what they uncovered. To more or less say, sure you don't want to be listening to the lies that those boys are spinning you.

50/50 recruitment or not. The PSNI adhere to a Brit agenda, and always will.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: imtommygunn on June 04, 2019, 02:07:15 PM
This whole thing has set them back years in my view. Years.

It completely discredits the PSNI full stop and makes them no better than the RUC.

I don't know why a hell of a lot more isn't being made of this.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hereiam on June 04, 2019, 03:55:49 PM
The whole Brexit shite is taking alot of the light off these stories but every Irish journalists should be shouting from the roof tops about this. Why has RTE not even shown this yet, where is Leo condemning what has happened to these men in modern times.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on June 04, 2019, 04:37:18 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 04, 2019, 02:07:15 PM
This whole thing has set them back years in my view. Years.

It completely discredits the PSNI full stop and makes them no better than the RUC.

I don't know why a hell of a lot more isn't being made of this.

More hasn't been made of this, because this is a British-run statelet, with a British propaganda news channel and a police force with a British agenda. Half the elected politicians keep the British agenda going, never seeing a problem with government behaviour and of their armed forces. Plus you have an inept Nationalist/Republican politicians who only care about lining their own pockets.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trailer on June 04, 2019, 04:52:25 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 04, 2019, 04:37:18 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 04, 2019, 02:07:15 PM
This whole thing has set them back years in my view. Years.

It completely discredits the PSNI full stop and makes them no better than the RUC.

I don't know why a hell of a lot more isn't being made of this.

More hasn't been made of this, because this is a British-run statelet, with a British propaganda news channel and a police force with a British agenda. Half the elected politicians keep the British agenda going, never seeing a problem with government behaviour and of their armed forces. Plus you have an inept Nationalist/Republican politicians who only care about lining their own pockets.

The British government and indeed the Paramilitaries just wish this would all go away. I was at the screening of Unquiet graves and I was struck by the age of the people in the room. Time is not on their side in their search for answers.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on June 12, 2019, 01:02:37 PM
Soldier to face prosecution over the killing of Aidan McAnespie.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Insane Bolt on June 12, 2019, 03:10:31 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 12, 2019, 01:02:37 PM
Soldier to face prosecution over the killing of Aidan McAnespie.

Johnny Mercer and Mark Francois will be in meltdown......so will poor Willie.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hereiam on July 29, 2019, 09:12:19 PM
So RTE have pulled the showing of unquiet graves tonite. Can someone explain to me why this was done. Shame on you RTE
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: RedHand88 on July 29, 2019, 09:24:08 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on July 29, 2019, 09:12:19 PM
So RTE have pulled the showing of unquiet graves tonite. Can someone explain to me why this was done. Shame on you RTE

The whole thing is strange. No real reason given and no date yet for rescheduling. The worst bit of all is that Mrs Browns Boys is on instead.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on July 29, 2019, 09:29:07 PM
This is the same RTE that aired a program about Princess Margaret last week  ::)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Armagh18 on July 29, 2019, 09:37:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on July 29, 2019, 09:24:08 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on July 29, 2019, 09:12:19 PM
So RTE have pulled the showing of unquiet graves tonite. Can someone explain to me why this was done. Shame on you RTE

The whole thing is strange. No real reason given and no date yet for rescheduling. The worst bit of all is that Mrs Browns Boys is on instead.
Disgraceful that this isn't being shown. Technical issues my hole.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: GJL on July 29, 2019, 09:47:58 PM
RTE = West Brits.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: brokencrossbar1 on July 29, 2019, 10:06:06 PM
Obviously Sean Murray refused to allow them to edit it so they pulled it. Drew Harris' grubby hands all over it. 
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: armaghniac on July 29, 2019, 10:37:59 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on July 29, 2019, 09:37:11 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on July 29, 2019, 09:24:08 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on July 29, 2019, 09:12:19 PM
So RTE have pulled the showing of unquiet graves tonite. Can someone explain to me why this was done. Shame on you RTE

The whole thing is strange. No real reason given and no date yet for rescheduling. The worst bit of all is that Mrs Browns Boys is on instead.
Disgraceful that this isn't being shown. Technical issues my hole.

No doubt someone sued them. Be patient.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: macdanger2 on July 29, 2019, 10:52:11 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on July 29, 2019, 09:12:19 PM
So RTE have pulled the showing of unquiet graves tonite. Can someone explain to me why this was done. Shame on you RTE
. That's a balls
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Main Street on July 30, 2019, 02:57:06 AM
Obviously, such programs and their like are upsetting to the the type of people who opine that 'Come out ye Black and Tans' to be a terrorist ditty instead of what it is, a   song of humourist satire.
Save Ulster from .....  ahem ..... documentaries!!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: marty34 on July 30, 2019, 09:02:54 AM
Is it to be rescheduled or pulled completely?

It suprised me in the first place when I heard RTÉ were going to show it on a Monday evening at 9:30pm.

Too good to be true and all that!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Baile an tuaigh on July 31, 2019, 02:25:51 AM
Quote from: Hereiam on June 04, 2019, 12:14:30 PM
Finally watched "no stone unturned" last night. Really does show what was going on back then and most likely still is with handlers etc. The way the so called Police are behaving even today shows that Catholics are not safe with this shower of c**ts

I was fortunate to get a great chat with both Barry Mc Caffery and Trevor Birney. Hard to comprehend but there are millions of documents about the troubles still classified.

"No stone unturned is nominated in the Outstanding Investigative Documentary Emmy awards".


Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trailer on July 31, 2019, 08:52:41 AM
I appreciate that RTE have pulled it, but I encourage anyone who hasn't seen it to go out and make a point of watching one of the screenings. I believe it's also on Amazon? Can someone confirm? And if you are going to watch it, bring a friend.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: GJL on July 31, 2019, 09:02:21 AM
Quote from: trailer on July 31, 2019, 08:52:41 AM
I appreciate that RTE have pulled it, but I encourage anyone who hasn't seen it to go out and make a point of watching one of the screenings. I believe it's also on Amazon? Can someone confirm? And if you are going to watch it, bring a friend.


Watched it on Amazon myself a while ago.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: JohnDenver on July 31, 2019, 09:38:03 AM
Various download / viewing options here:

https://twitter.com/sean_murray1/status/1154305201916043264?s=20 (https://twitter.com/sean_murray1/status/1154305201916043264?s=20)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trailer on July 31, 2019, 10:03:49 AM
Quote from: GJL on July 31, 2019, 09:02:21 AM
Quote from: trailer on July 31, 2019, 08:52:41 AM
I appreciate that RTE have pulled it, but I encourage anyone who hasn't seen it to go out and make a point of watching one of the screenings. I believe it's also on Amazon? Can someone confirm? And if you are going to watch it, bring a friend.


Watched it on Amazon myself a while ago.

Quote from: JohnDenver on July 31, 2019, 09:38:03 AM
Various download / viewing options here:

https://twitter.com/sean_murray1/status/1154305201916043264?s=20 (https://twitter.com/sean_murray1/status/1154305201916043264?s=20)

Great stuff - plenty of options. Go and watch it and tell a friend.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Denn Forever on July 31, 2019, 02:00:13 PM
You Tube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUjC5xJrmLk
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on July 31, 2019, 03:27:19 PM
Quote from: Denn Forever on July 31, 2019, 02:00:13 PM
You Tube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUjC5xJrmLk

Is that the whole film?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trailer on July 31, 2019, 04:54:17 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on July 31, 2019, 03:27:19 PM
Quote from: Denn Forever on July 31, 2019, 02:00:13 PM
You Tube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUjC5xJrmLk

Is that the whole film?

That's not the film. That's a different documentary.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Denn Forever on July 31, 2019, 04:57:12 PM
45 minute long seems about right for a spotlight report.  For thpse who've seen it, is this about right?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Kidder81 on July 31, 2019, 05:04:26 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on July 31, 2019, 03:27:19 PM
Quote from: Denn Forever on July 31, 2019, 02:00:13 PM
You Tube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUjC5xJrmLk

Is that the whole film?

Anything new in it that isn't in the book Lethal Allies?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: marty34 on July 31, 2019, 05:11:32 PM
Any word of when RTÉ are going to show it?

Hopefully in the winter when people are all in their houses - the more people see it the better.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: macdanger2 on September 06, 2019, 10:12:29 PM
Just watched No Stone Unturned, well worth a watch. Amazing that yer man is still free as a bird
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Ambrose on September 19, 2019, 11:35:38 PM
Quote from: marty34 on July 31, 2019, 05:11:32 PM
Any word of when RTÉ are going to show it?

Hopefully in the winter when people are all in their houses - the more people see it the better.

No Stone Unturned will air on RTÉ One on Wednesday 2 October at 9.35pm.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Main Street on September 21, 2019, 01:47:38 AM
I watched it on You Tube a while ago,
hard to credit that still there some self appointed know-it-alls on the board here  who opine with a fervour that there was little or no colusion between the british 'state' apparatus and loyalist terror attacks.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Mike Tyson on October 02, 2019, 08:09:24 PM
Just a reminder that No Stone Unturned is on RTE one at 9.35pm tonight.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Milltown Row2 on October 02, 2019, 11:01:20 PM
The troubles show last night basically covered anything you wanted to known about state collusion. They worked both sides to the point that they had that many touts in the ra that they couldn't function. The information the IRA got from the Castlereagh police station had the names of too many British paid spies within the ranks of the IRA that they couldn't continue!

A seriously dirty war
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: balladmaker on October 03, 2019, 12:25:04 AM
A dirty war to the point that the prime suspect and alleged serial killer is living within 3 or 4 miles of the scene of the Loughinisland massacre, and walking the streets with impunity as he carries on the running of his pest control business.  If I was a relative or friend of one of the victims, I'd find that impossible to accept!  Really feel for the families, British antagonism at its absolute worst.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: marty34 on October 03, 2019, 09:21:54 AM
How could the RUC lose destroy the car etc.?

Great programme, well made but more questions than answers.

What is the story with the 'investigation' now?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Harold Disgracey on October 15, 2019, 08:16:16 PM
I see Billy Wright and the peace loving pastor Alan Oliver feature in tonight's Spotlight.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: general_lee on October 15, 2019, 10:22:37 PM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on October 15, 2019, 08:16:16 PM
I see Billy Wright and the peace loving pastor Alan Oliver feature in tonight's Spotlight.
Tough watch. It's amazing the pastor has never been charged. Like the post above about loughinisland, he's still a free man living only a few miles from where these sectarian murders took place
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: quit yo jibbajabba on October 15, 2019, 10:38:15 PM
Same story. Again and again. Not even shocking anymore.

Jesus NI was a savage place for a while and we lived thro it hardly battin an eyelid...

24 deaths in one week in 93
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Harold Disgracey on October 15, 2019, 10:44:12 PM
Quote from: general_lee on October 15, 2019, 10:22:37 PM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on October 15, 2019, 08:16:16 PM
I see Billy Wright and the peace loving pastor Alan Oliver feature in tonight's Spotlight.
Tough watch. It's amazing the pastor has never been charged. Like the post above about loughinisland, he's still a free man living only a few miles from where these sectarian murders took place

Growing up in Portadown we were well aware that Wright and his gang were protected, the police ensured they had safe passage to and from their missions. Alan Oliver also 'allegedly' shot Gavin McShane and Shane McArdle in Armagh.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: balladmaker on October 15, 2019, 11:45:20 PM
Alan Oliver was the 'alledged' gunman who killed my 16 yr old cousin in 1991, along with her friend and another innocent bystander.  He walks the streets with impunity, running his Christian outreach program ... that was a sickening watch tonight.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on November 30, 2020, 05:57:25 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2020/1130/1181310-finucane-murder/
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Itchy on November 30, 2020, 06:39:47 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 30, 2020, 05:57:25 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2020/1130/1181310-finucane-murder/

Is anyone surprises? Pig and grunts comes to mind
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: general_lee on November 30, 2020, 06:48:33 PM
They've too much to hide. Not shocked at all bit disappointing all the same.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: grounded on November 30, 2020, 07:37:57 PM
Not one bit suprised.
             They simply cannot allow a public inquiry. Too many involved at very high levels that are still knocking about and still in positions of power. Rotten to the core.
         It about sums up the 100th anniversary of the creation of this hole.
       
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Angelo on November 30, 2020, 10:28:34 PM
Not one iota described but it's absolutely and maddening to hear.

God help Geraldine Finucane and that family, she's a courageous woman.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Baile Brigín 2 on November 30, 2020, 11:18:26 PM
I think they screwed the pooch here and now know it. Weston Park agreed an investigation. Cameron apologised, admitted collusion and promised an investigation. Tbe British Supreme Court demanded it. So refusing to do so directly implicates Thatcher. The 'smart' move was a wet fart inquiry.

The whole of Whitehall is full of morons.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on December 01, 2020, 12:01:26 AM
I think the refusal of an enquiry actually says more than a Mickey Mouse enquiry would.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Baile Brigín 2 on December 01, 2020, 01:04:44 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on December 01, 2020, 12:01:26 AM
I think the refusal of an enquiry actually says more than a Mickey Mouse enquiry would.

Precisely. They are too bombastic to have the wit to set up a nothing investigation that stops with Nelson and Stobie. Both dead.

They aren't even trying anymore
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: grounded on December 07, 2020, 10:54:46 AM
A bit of plagiarism here from another site but i think they have summed it up better than i could;
' Because of legal repercussions for senior politicians beaucrats and senior intelligence and military officers from that time who signed off on the activities of the SAS, 14th Intelligence Company, the FRU and other groups in the security forces who worked hand and glove with loyalist groups. The majority of the people involved whether they were giving orders running operations or pulling triggers are long since retired and comfortably retired.
We are talking about household names at cabinet level decorated veterans and at least one or two best selling novelists and prominent media personalities.

Nobody will be convicted of the Bloody Sunday killings for the same reason. Michael Jackson who later was the British top general was a junior officer in Derry that day. F had a long career finishing up as senior noncom in the Paras. Several of the men were involved in plainclothes assassinations as well as patrolling in uniform in their official roles and a few served in the SAS and top secret undercover work.
To keep that hush hush they were protected.'


'
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: grounded on December 09, 2020, 08:22:38 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55247033

A 180-page report says hundreds of Iraqi detainees were abused by British soldiers between 2003 and 2009.

But the ICC could not determine whether the UK had acted to shield soldiers from prosecution.

The ICC told the BBC: "It is without dispute there is evidence war crimes were committed."

Its report said there was a reasonable basis to conclude that at least seven Iraqis were illegally killed while in British custody between April and September 2003.

The ICC report refers to evidence of a pattern of war crimes carried out across a number of years by soldiers from several British regiments. Some detainees were raped or subjected to sexual violence. Others were beaten so badly they died from their injuries.

The Iraqi individuals, many of them civilians, were unarmed and in British custody at the time.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: grounded on December 09, 2020, 08:23:40 PM
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said the ICC review "confirms that the UK is willing and able to investigate and prosecute claims of wrongdoing by armed forces personnel".

He said it had brought to light "no new evidence" and the ICC statement "vindicates our efforts to pursue justice where allegations have been founded".

"I am pleased that work we have done, and continue to do, in improving the quality and assurances around investigations has been recognised by the ICC," he said.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on December 14, 2020, 06:44:52 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/investigations-unit/2020/1213/1184198-british-military-cooperated-with-1972-ni-bridge-bombing/
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: grounded on December 14, 2020, 08:00:54 PM
Worth a read https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thenationalnews.com/world/mena/secret-colonial-era-files-reveal-british-cover-up-of-torture-in-aden-1.667507

The regiment was involved in Aden as well as t he notorious pitchfork murders in Fermanagh.
    In the Aden case information related to the torture perpetrated will not be released until 2050

   However, the minutes of a key border security meeting held two days after the bombing of Belturbet – which involved the British Army, the RUC and the UDR – will remain closed to the public until 2057. Dating from 1972, those records will end up being sealed for 84 years in total.

Par for the course it seems.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Itchy on December 15, 2020, 01:12:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 14, 2020, 06:44:52 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/investigations-unit/2020/1213/1184198-british-military-cooperated-with-1972-ni-bridge-bombing/

I'm waiting for the avalanche of FG and FF TD's lining up to express outrage and insist on the files, locked away for another 50 yrs, to be released. What do you think Rossfan, will my wish come true?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Main Street on December 15, 2020, 05:18:54 PM
Quote from: Itchy on December 15, 2020, 01:12:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 14, 2020, 06:44:52 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/investigations-unit/2020/1213/1184198-british-military-cooperated-with-1972-ni-bridge-bombing/

I'm waiting for the avalanche of FG and FF TD's lining up to express outrage and insist on the files, locked away for another 50 yrs, to be released. What do you think Rossfan, will my wish come true?
That would be the 6 Garda reports made  since the original investigation files went missing.
To lose the files of one orginal investigation  may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose files from two looks like carelessness, but not even David Copperfield  could make vanish all the original investigation files to  every bombing carried out in the  South.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Angelo on December 15, 2020, 07:01:54 PM
Quote from: Itchy on December 15, 2020, 01:12:31 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 14, 2020, 06:44:52 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/investigations-unit/2020/1213/1184198-british-military-cooperated-with-1972-ni-bridge-bombing/

I'm waiting for the avalanche of FG and FF TD's lining up to express outrage and insist on the files, locked away for another 50 yrs, to be released. What do you think Rossfan, will my wish come true?

You'll find that chap over in the SF thread pedalling his agenda but he won't dare tackle the shit his own state was up to.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: GJL on May 12, 2021, 11:29:17 AM
24th anniversary of Sean Brown's murder by state agents in Bellaghy. He was targeted simply because of his love of the GAA.

With the positive news for the Ballymurphy families yesterday lets hope the truth can come out on this case and the many others waiting for some sort of justice.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:52:18 AM
On the 23rd May 1997, the DUP's Rev. Willie McCrea, a man who had once shared a platform with LVF, after losing his Mid-Ulster Westminster seat to Martin McGuinness, stated at the election count that nationalists in Mid-Ulster would "... reap a bitter harvest." His remarks were widely regarded as a threat, and were challenged as such by Martin McGuinness. One week later, the LVF murdered Sean Brown.

The suspects in the murder have since been publicly named as the later to be Billy Wright's successor as LVF leader, Mark 'Swinger' Fulton, Muriel Gibson, Laurence 'Duffer' Kincaid, Laurence 'Larry' Kincaid and Jim Fulton.

It has been long alleged that Fulton and his brother were given "documentation and assistance from the Ministry of Defence and MI5 to aid them in the LVF targeting" of nationalists. Special Branch were aware of the suspects names for the duration of the investigation into the murder and did not pass the names on to Special Branch. When an inquiry into the police investigation was launched, the key file on the case suddenly disappeared. Police Ombudsman at the time, Nuala O'Loan, said about it, "I regard it as sinister that this document disappeared. It was the only document which disappeared from this particular police station." She noted that the occurrence book of another station, which recorded what happened on the night of the killing, was also missing.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: JohnDenver on May 12, 2021, 12:02:16 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:52:18 AM
On the 23rd May 1997, the DUP's Rev. Willie McCrea, a man who had once shared a platform with LVF, after losing his Mid-Ulster Westminster seat to Martin McGuinness, stated at the election count that nationalists in Mid-Ulster would "... reap a bitter harvest." His remarks were widely regarded as a threat, and were challenged as such by Martin McGuinness. One week later, the LVF murdered Sean Brown.

The suspects in the murder have since been publicly named as the later to be Billy Wright's successor as LVF leader, Mark 'Swinger' Fulton, Muriel Gibson, Laurence 'Duffer' Kincaid, Laurence 'Larry' Kincaid and Jim Fulton.

It has been long alleged that Fulton and his brother were given "documentation and assistance from the Ministry of Defence and MI5 to aid them in the LVF targeting" of nationalists. Special Branch were aware of the suspects names for the duration of the investigation into the murder and did not pass the names on to Special Branch. When an inquiry into the police investigation was launched, the key file on the case suddenly disappeared. Police Ombudsman at the time, Nuala O'Loan, said about it, "I regard it as sinister that this document disappeared. It was the only document which disappeared from this particular police station." She noted that the occurrence book of another station, which recorded what happened on the night of the killing, was also missing.

You watch the likes of Line of Duty, almost rolling your eyes at the corruption going on in the "fictional" TV show regarding the police. Whereas the facts are showing and have long been known that collusion and underhand elements were at work against Nationalists and Republicans for years.

The night of Sean Brown's murder - the killers took a direct route from Bellaghy driving through Toome past the RUC station. No CCTV in operation that night......

https://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/16748 (https://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/16748)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Angelo on May 12, 2021, 01:23:30 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on May 12, 2021, 11:52:18 AM
On the 23rd May 1997, the DUP's Rev. Willie McCrea, a man who had once shared a platform with LVF, after losing his Mid-Ulster Westminster seat to Martin McGuinness, stated at the election count that nationalists in Mid-Ulster would "... reap a bitter harvest." His remarks were widely regarded as a threat, and were challenged as such by Martin McGuinness. One week later, the LVF murdered Sean Brown.

The suspects in the murder have since been publicly named as the later to be Billy Wright's successor as LVF leader, Mark 'Swinger' Fulton, Muriel Gibson, Laurence 'Duffer' Kincaid, Laurence 'Larry' Kincaid and Jim Fulton.

It has been long alleged that Fulton and his brother were given "documentation and assistance from the Ministry of Defence and MI5 to aid them in the LVF targeting" of nationalists. Special Branch were aware of the suspects names for the duration of the investigation into the murder and did not pass the names on to Special Branch. When an inquiry into the police investigation was launched, the key file on the case suddenly disappeared. Police Ombudsman at the time, Nuala O'Loan, said about it, "I regard it as sinister that this document disappeared. It was the only document which disappeared from this particular police station." She noted that the occurrence book of another station, which recorded what happened on the night of the killing, was also missing.

Look at Patsy Kelly from Trillick.

Murdered by a DUP councillor who sat in the same chamber as him, for what, being a nationalist?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: BennyCake on July 13, 2021, 06:12:27 PM
Amnesty as good as confirmed. Disgusting, but not in any way surprising from these scumbuckets in Westminster

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57822470
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57822470)
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: dec on July 13, 2021, 08:12:22 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on July 13, 2021, 06:12:27 PM
Amnesty as good as confirmed. Disgusting, but not in any way surprising from these scumbuckets in Westminster

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57822470
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57822470)

"It is believed it will involve a statute of limitations ending all prosecutions related to the Northern Ireland Troubles prior to 1998.

It would apply to former members of the security forces as well as ex-paramilitaries."
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: johnnycool on July 14, 2021, 01:45:19 PM
they need to bury the story that the state forces were murdering scumbags and not the peacekeepers they like to portray them as.

British establishment doing what it does best.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: tbrick18 on July 14, 2021, 02:20:05 PM
This is purely an exercise in saving face for the British Government.
The prosecution of soldier F was a precedent that they couldn't handle as it would open the door to so many more prosecutions across NI and the wider global conflicts the Brit forces were part of.
Everyone else is threw under the bus, in true Tory fashion, so they can look out for their own interests.

Fair play to Eastwood for naming F yesterday.....not sure what the legalities are for the likes of us reposting the the name online, but his name is out there now and I hope it's spread far and wide.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: general_lee on July 14, 2021, 03:36:28 PM
They're inadvertently vindicating every killing by the IRA by doing this.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: johnnycool on July 14, 2021, 03:53:57 PM
Quote from: general_lee on July 14, 2021, 03:36:28 PM
They're inadvertently vindicating every killing by the IRA by doing this.

They don't care.

The spin that this is an amnesty for their soldiers will sit well with their gammon voting base.

The fact that it's an amnesty for everyone else who committed a crime here in the name of the troubles will also walk scot free will not be part of the headlines...

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: DickyRock on July 14, 2021, 06:44:59 PM
Quotenot sure what the legalities are for the likes of us reposting the the name online

Don't, parliamentary privilege doesn't cover repeating it AFAIK. That's why news sites haven't repeated it.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: GJL on February 08, 2022, 05:12:09 PM
Another damming report today on state murder. Not surprising to some of us and good to see the truth come out.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: grounded on February 08, 2022, 08:05:36 PM
Quote from: GJL on February 08, 2022, 05:12:09 PM
Another damming report today on state murder. Not surprising to some of us and good to see the truth come out.

The report also identified concerns about the practice of returning weapons to loyalists that had been deactivated, when the organisations had the proficiency to reactivate such firearms.

One such handgun was used in the murders of five people in the bookies.

Weapons that had not been deactivated were also returned to terrorists, something Ms Anderson said she found "inherently reckless".

' tip of the iceberg ' rotten right to the top
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: tiempo on February 08, 2022, 11:33:28 PM
Agree fully, if this is what they are prepared to admit to I'd say the reality is a thousand times worse
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: clarshack on February 09, 2022, 10:34:31 AM
was watching BBC Newsline last night and there was some former RUC guy on still spouting nonsense that it wasn't the RUC he knew etc. I guess that's a good example of Cognitive dissonance?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on February 09, 2022, 11:16:38 AM
While everyone knew it was going on it's always good to see some body or other putting it down in print.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on May 25, 2022, 04:43:25 PM
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/british-secret-service-ordered-killing-of-sinn-fein-councillor-td-tells-dail-41689063.html
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: grounded on September 11, 2022, 09:40:56 AM
https://www.relativesforjustice.com/daniel-mccolgan-inquest-continuing/

Rotten, rotten to the absolute core.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Milltown Row2 on September 11, 2022, 10:13:02 AM
Remember this case at the time.. there are no words to the embarrassing attempts to hide their actions or inability to conduct a proper fair investigation..

Feeling angry after ready that
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: grounded on September 11, 2022, 05:52:25 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 11, 2022, 10:13:02 AM
Remember this case at the time.. there are no words to the embarrassing attempts to hide their actions or inability to conduct a proper fair investigation..

Feeling angry after ready that

' just a few bad apples '
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: grounded on December 14, 2022, 10:16:58 AM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63908301

Still at it, always were.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Never beat the deeler on December 15, 2022, 12:27:14 AM
Quote from: grounded on December 14, 2022, 10:16:58 AM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63908301

Still at it, always were.

Is there a more rotten organisation in the world?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Armagh18 on December 15, 2022, 07:32:07 AM
Did anyone catch the documentary on TG4 last night? Missed it myself, must try to watch it on the player.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Main Street on December 15, 2022, 11:30:18 AM
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on December 15, 2022, 12:27:14 AM
Quote from: grounded on December 14, 2022, 10:16:58 AM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63908301

Still at it, always were.

Is there a more rotten organisation in the world?
Special Armed Sadists.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: LC on December 15, 2022, 12:26:06 PM
Quote from: Main Street on December 15, 2022, 11:30:18 AM
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on December 15, 2022, 12:27:14 AM
Quote from: grounded on December 14, 2022, 10:16:58 AM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63908301

Still at it, always were.

Is there a more rotten organisation in the world?
Special Armed Sadists.


Agree 100% and were used in a brutal way throughout the troubles.  A number of years ago I read a great book called The SAS In Ireland by Raymond Murray which gave a great insight regarding their involvement in a number of operations ranging including Loughall, Clonoe, Coagh, Drumnakilly etc.  A lot of information regarding the victims / IRA members in terms of who they were as individuals, their backgrounds, families etc.  While the SAS and whoever was directing them were completely over the top in terms of their actions to me the most tragic thing was how did SAS / RUC know those guys would be in a certain place at a certain time.  It was not strangers who 'grassed them up' but probably a friend, neighbour, work colleague or wore again a 'comrade' and what for ......30 pieces of silver.  Same individuals were no doubt front and centre at the wakes / funerals and probably telling the elderly parents that there son was a great patriot dying for his country.  The fact that such people could live not only with themselves but within their community is sickening, back then they would have know fine rightly by passing on such information there was probably going to be only one conclusion. 

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Milltown Row2 on December 15, 2022, 12:34:15 PM
Quote from: LC on December 15, 2022, 12:26:06 PM
Quote from: Main Street on December 15, 2022, 11:30:18 AM
Quote from: Never beat the deeler on December 15, 2022, 12:27:14 AM
Quote from: grounded on December 14, 2022, 10:16:58 AM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63908301

Still at it, always were.

Is there a more rotten organisation in the world?
Special Armed Sadists.


Agree 100% and were used in a brutal way throughout the troubles.  A number of years ago I read a great book called The SAS In Ireland by Raymond Murray which gave a great insight regarding their involvement in a number of operations ranging including Loughall, Clonoe, Coagh, Drumnakilly etc.  A lot of information regarding the victims / IRA members in terms of who they were as individuals, their backgrounds, families etc.  While the SAS and whoever was directing them were completely over the top in terms of their actions to me the most tragic thing was how did SAS / RUC know those guys would be in a certain place at a certain time.  It was not strangers who 'grassed them up' but probably a friend, neighbour, work colleague or wore again a 'comrade' and what for ......30 pieces of silver.  Same individuals were no doubt front and centre at the wakes / funerals and probably telling the elderly parents that there son was a great patriot dying for his country.  The fact that such people could live not only with themselves but within their community is sickening, back then they would have know fine rightly by passing on such information there was probably going to be only one conclusion.

These 'touts' were brutalised physically and mentally, the mental pressure that was put on them would have taken a toll. They certainly didn't do it for the money, the first press would have been life without parole, your kids going into care, putting other loved ones away. You simply can not say it was for money..

Fear would make you do a lot of things, not everyone would have the mental strength you have

I suppose its an unwritten part of history, I doubt that a you'll get an honest approach from it either, but if it was done honestly, it would give you some insight
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: general_lee on December 15, 2022, 09:31:39 PM
It's alleged one of the IRA members killed at Loughgall was a Brussel sprout. Any IRA volunteer would have known the dangers of informers in the ranks. an unfortunate part of the dirty war. Was it Denis Bradley that said if the full truth came out we would be able to deal with it? An almost scary thought.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: LC on December 15, 2022, 09:48:55 PM
Quote from: general_lee on December 15, 2022, 09:31:39 PM
It's alleged one of the IRA members killed at Loughgall was a Brussel sprout. Any IRA volunteer would have known the dangers of informers in the ranks. an unfortunate part of the dirty war. Was it Denis Bradley that said if the full truth came out we would be able to deal with it? An almost scary thought.

In the weeks after Loughgall a high profile RUC officer was killed in an ambush when returning from a meeting in Dundalk. It was alleged in a newspaper article a few years later that the East Tyrone brigade had given clear instructions that the police officers were to be kidnapped so that the identity of those who had informed on the Loughgall attack could be established.  Such orders were not followed and it was stated in the article there was an agenda behind this.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Milltown Row2 on December 15, 2022, 10:01:35 PM
Is that the killing that was linked to the Garda?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: LC on December 15, 2022, 10:12:56 PM
I believe so.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jim Bob on December 15, 2022, 11:06:08 PM
Quote from: LC on December 15, 2022, 09:48:55 PM
Quote from: general_lee on December 15, 2022, 09:31:39 PM
It's alleged one of the IRA members killed at Loughgall was a Brussel sprout. Any IRA volunteer would have known the dangers of informers in the ranks. an unfortunate part of the dirty war. Was it Denis Bradley that said if the full truth came out we would be able to deal with it? An almost scary thought.

In the weeks after Loughgall a high profile RUC officer was killed in an ambush when returning from a meeting in Dundalk. It was alleged in a newspaper article a few years later that the East Tyrone brigade had given clear instructions that the police officers were to be kidnapped so that the identity of those who had informed on the Loughgall attack could be established.  Such orders were not followed and it was stated in the article there was an agenda behind this.

Was 2 years after Loughgall not weeks !
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Snapchap on April 26, 2023, 12:49:56 PM
The Police Ombusdman report released today into the murder of Cllr Patsy Kelly from Trillick, Co. Tyrone in 1974 has found "collusive behaviour" on the part of the RUC investigation team. The details can be read here: https://www.policeombudsman.org/Media-Releases/2023/Patrick-Kelly%E2%80%99s-Family-%E2%80%98Failed-By-Police%E2%80%99 (https://www.policeombudsman.org/Media-Releases/2023/Patrick-Kelly%E2%80%99s-Family-%E2%80%98Failed-By-Police%E2%80%99)

For anyone unfamiliar with the case, Patsy was kidnapped from his car, shot dead and had a 56lb weight tied to his body which was then thrown into a lake. It was locally known from the outset that he was murdered by members of a British Army (UDR) patrol, one of whom was widely suspected locally as having been the late DUP MLA Oliver Gibson. In 1999, another UDR man, David Jordan, broke down in a bar and confessed his involvement in the murder. He also implicated four other members of the murder gang, all of whom were members of the UDR, and one of whom he named as Oliver Gibson, claiming that it was Gibson who pulled the trigger. Gibson was eventually named in the Sunday Business Post as a chief suspect.

Taken from an archive report from October 1999, Ireland On Sunday:
Quote
Former UDR Soldier Who Witnessed Kelly Killing Dies Suddenly:
"David Jordan told how he was in the back of a van with other UDR men when the killing took place.
Jordan's head went down & he started to cry. He hit the table with his fist and said "poor Patsy, I was there the night he was killed". Jordan then named a leading unionist politician who he said pulled the trigger. Jordan said: "X did the shooting. He shot him at least two times and each time he shot him I saw Patsy's body jumping". He also named at least four other members of the murder gang, all members of the British Army's UDR, with one in plain clothes.
The Patsy Kelly killing has been compared to a southern United States-style 'lynching' in that he was active politically and was apparently killed to remove his influence from the local scene.
Kelly is still much talked of in West Tyrone. As thousands searched for him, a local newspaper recorded: No man could have a greater tribute paid to him and no man more richly deserved that tribute."



The bones of the findings in today's report are that:
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Rossfan on April 26, 2023, 01:47:01 PM
Obviously more than 1 Glenanne gang!
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: LC on April 26, 2023, 02:00:58 PM
That would seem to be  a terrible event made worse further by the cover up thereafter.

Digressing slightly but I see a mucker of Stakeknife's has skipped the country......another die hard republican showing his true colours.  Feel sorry for all the families in this country who lost sons and brothers who were in the IRA.  No way condoning their actions but they believed they were fighting for a cause.  Stakeknife and his cronies had their own cause it would seem.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trailer on April 26, 2023, 05:17:34 PM
Quote from: LC on April 26, 2023, 02:00:58 PM
That would seem to be  a terrible event made worse further by the cover up thereafter.

Digressing slightly but I see a mucker of Stakeknife's has skipped the country......another die hard republican showing his true colours.  Feel sorry for all the families in this country who lost sons and brothers who were in the IRA.  No way condoning their actions but they believed they were fighting for a cause.  Stakeknife and his cronies had their own cause it would seem.

The reason there will never be a full inquiry into the Brits on goings and the reason the SF and IRA are happy with a amnesty is because of the IRA collusion with the Brits.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Snapchap on April 26, 2023, 11:49:16 PM
An innocent nationalist, targetted by loyalist paramilitaries, murdered by the British Army and the killers protected by the police.

As someone said on twitter today, this is state that the nationalist people were encouraged to accept by the political establishment in Dublin.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jim Bob on April 27, 2023, 12:02:14 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 26, 2023, 11:49:16 PM
An innocent nationalist, targetted by loyalist paramilitaries, murdered by the British Army and the killers protected by the police.

As someone said on twitter today, this is state that the nationalist people were encouraged to accept by the political establishment in Dublin.

This is the state which is accepted by Sinn Fein
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trailer on April 27, 2023, 08:38:45 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 26, 2023, 11:49:16 PM
An innocent nationalist, targetted by loyalist paramilitaries, murdered by the British Army and the killers protected by the police.

As someone said on twitter today, this is state that the nationalist people were encouraged to accept by the political establishment in Dublin.

Ahhha ha ha ha - on the day that Mo'N accepted an invitation to King Charles's Coronation. Fantastic.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trailer on April 27, 2023, 08:56:23 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Most Nationalists have been playing the "long game", SF and IRA have criticised and murdered many Nationalists for "playing the long game"
It's the sheer hypocrisy of their stance. One minute Mo'N is standing in Clonoe unveiling a memorial stone for dead IRA members and the next she's going to London to attend the King Coronation. The head of the very British State they want to remove from Ireland! Which is it? Why murder and kill for 30 years then give it all up to accept a democratic solution? Was SF and the IRA wrong all along?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Armagh18 on April 27, 2023, 09:13:06 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.
So would I, tbf.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Snapchap on April 27, 2023, 09:41:03 AM
I think what's very telling is that in response to a post about yesterdays Ombudsman's report into Patsy Kelly's abduction and murder, Trailer's only three posts have been solely dedicated to attacks on SF.

So back to the murder of Patsy Kelly (if Trailer can try to tolerate such a topic being talked about for a moment). Some other bits of information contained within yesterday's report:

Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 27, 2023, 08:56:23 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Most Nationalists have been playing the "long game", SF and IRA have criticised and murdered many Nationalists for "playing the long game"
It's the sheer hypocrisy of their stance. One minute Mo'N is standing in Clonoe unveiling a memorial stone for dead IRA members and the next she's going to London to attend the King Coronation. The head of the very British State they want to remove from Ireland! Which is it? Why murder and kill for 30 years then give it all up to accept a democratic solution? Was SF and the IRA wrong all along?

Your preferred strategy is....
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jim Bob on April 27, 2023, 07:18:58 PM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Why didn't the republicans start to play the 'long game ' in the 60s if that was the way to go.
There'd be plenty alive today if they had
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: seafoid on April 27, 2023, 07:30:39 PM
Quote from: Jim Bob on April 27, 2023, 07:18:58 PM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Why didn't the republicans start to play the 'long game ' in the 60s if that was the way to go.
There'd be plenty alive today if they had
It wasn't the way to go
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: LC on April 27, 2023, 09:52:45 PM
It is just over 50 years since the troubles started and in the period up to the ceasefire there was something in the region of 3000+ deaths.

The question is did the republican movement / cause / struggle or whatever term you want to use make any real progress in the 25 years pre GFA or more so 25 years post GFA?

We are more closer than we have ever been to a UI than ever but it is probably as much to do with general demographics, a more educated nationalist population, unionist implosion and British Government not really caring any more.

A lot of people lying in graves who every Easter are being celebrated as making the ultimate sacrifice, like a lot of lives it was just wasted and did not then or now make any impact on the objectives of republicanism.   A lot of good men in these graves led astray by others who never got their hands dirty.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jim Bob on April 28, 2023, 04:31:29 AM
Quote from: seafoid on April 27, 2023, 07:30:39 PM
Quote from: Jim Bob on April 27, 2023, 07:18:58 PM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Why didn't the republicans start to play the 'long game ' in the 60s if that was the way to go.
There'd be plenty alive today if they had
It wasn't the way to go

Was the way but all the Provos wanted to do was Kill Kill Kill
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 05:47:49 AM
Quote from: Jim Bob on April 28, 2023, 04:31:29 AM
Quote from: seafoid on April 27, 2023, 07:30:39 PM
Quote from: Jim Bob on April 27, 2023, 07:18:58 PM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Why didn't the republicans start to play the 'long game ' in the 60s if that was the way to go.
There'd be plenty alive today if they had
It wasn't the way to go

Was the way but all the Provos wanted to do was Kill Kill Kill

Jim Bob, if you have nothing to contribute to the discussion on Patsy Kelly, then kindly take your nonsense to some other thread.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:29:16 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 27, 2023, 08:56:23 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Most Nationalists have been playing the "long game", SF and IRA have criticised and murdered many Nationalists for "playing the long game"
It's the sheer hypocrisy of their stance. One minute Mo'N is standing in Clonoe unveiling a memorial stone for dead IRA members and the next she's going to London to attend the King Coronation. The head of the very British State they want to remove from Ireland! Which is it? Why murder and kill for 30 years then give it all up to accept a democratic solution? Was SF and the IRA wrong all along?

Your preferred strategy is....

Democracy is my preferred strategy, same as it has always been. Of course we need to reach out to the other community on this island. But SF criticised and murdered nationalists for doing just that. Stoops, west brits, took the soup! That's always been the shit flung at us. Now they are doing exactly that! Why did they have a murderous campaign for 30 years? Why did all those people die? For what?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 09:44:32 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:29:16 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 27, 2023, 08:56:23 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Most Nationalists have been playing the "long game", SF and IRA have criticised and murdered many Nationalists for "playing the long game"
It's the sheer hypocrisy of their stance. One minute Mo'N is standing in Clonoe unveiling a memorial stone for dead IRA members and the next she's going to London to attend the King Coronation. The head of the very British State they want to remove from Ireland! Which is it? Why murder and kill for 30 years then give it all up to accept a democratic solution? Was SF and the IRA wrong all along?

Your preferred strategy is....

Democracy is my preferred strategy, same as it has always been. Of course we need to reach out to the other community on this island. But SF criticised and murdered nationalists for doing just that. Stoops, west brits, took the soup! That's always been the shit flung at us. Now they are doing exactly that! Why did they have a murderous campaign for 30 years? Why did all those people die? For what?

Still persisting with your effort to interrupt any discussion about Patsy Kelly's murder/British state collusion?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:48:59 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 09:44:32 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:29:16 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 27, 2023, 08:56:23 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Most Nationalists have been playing the "long game", SF and IRA have criticised and murdered many Nationalists for "playing the long game"
It's the sheer hypocrisy of their stance. One minute Mo'N is standing in Clonoe unveiling a memorial stone for dead IRA members and the next she's going to London to attend the King Coronation. The head of the very British State they want to remove from Ireland! Which is it? Why murder and kill for 30 years then give it all up to accept a democratic solution? Was SF and the IRA wrong all along?

Your preferred strategy is....

Democracy is my preferred strategy, same as it has always been. Of course we need to reach out to the other community on this island. But SF criticised and murdered nationalists for doing just that. Stoops, west brits, took the soup! That's always been the shit flung at us. Now they are doing exactly that! Why did they have a murderous campaign for 30 years? Why did all those people die? For what?

Still persisting with your effort to interrupt any discussion about Patsy Kelly's murder/British state collusion?

Not sure what you want me to say. It's terrible. What his wife and family went through is awful.
They deserve the truth.

Would SF and IRA lead by example and talk about what they know? Forcing the British to do the same?

Reality for all the victims is this. The British Gov is playing for time. Hoping that Victims and their immediate relatives die. Another 25 years and there will neither families to push for truth and justice nor perpetrators to tell what happened and stand trial. There is no closure for victims.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Armagh18 on April 28, 2023, 09:58:08 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:48:59 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 09:44:32 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:29:16 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 27, 2023, 08:56:23 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Most Nationalists have been playing the "long game", SF and IRA have criticised and murdered many Nationalists for "playing the long game"
It's the sheer hypocrisy of their stance. One minute Mo'N is standing in Clonoe unveiling a memorial stone for dead IRA members and the next she's going to London to attend the King Coronation. The head of the very British State they want to remove from Ireland! Which is it? Why murder and kill for 30 years then give it all up to accept a democratic solution? Was SF and the IRA wrong all along?

Your preferred strategy is....

Democracy is my preferred strategy, same as it has always been. Of course we need to reach out to the other community on this island. But SF criticised and murdered nationalists for doing just that. Stoops, west brits, took the soup! That's always been the shit flung at us. Now they are doing exactly that! Why did they have a murderous campaign for 30 years? Why did all those people die? For what?

Still persisting with your effort to interrupt any discussion about Patsy Kelly's murder/British state collusion?

Not sure what you want me to say. It's terrible. What his wife and family went through is awful.
They deserve the truth.

Would SF and IRA lead by example and talk about what they know? Forcing the British to do the same?

Reality for all the victims is this. The British Gov is playing for time. Hoping that Victims and their immediate relatives die. Another 25 years and there will neither families to push for truth and justice nor perpetrators to tell what happened and stand trial. There is no closure for victims.
Quit with that shite, you sound like Arlene!

Agree with your second paragraph though, that is inevitably how it will play out.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 10:03:10 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:48:59 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 09:44:32 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:29:16 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 27, 2023, 08:56:23 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Most Nationalists have been playing the "long game", SF and IRA have criticised and murdered many Nationalists for "playing the long game"
It's the sheer hypocrisy of their stance. One minute Mo'N is standing in Clonoe unveiling a memorial stone for dead IRA members and the next she's going to London to attend the King Coronation. The head of the very British State they want to remove from Ireland! Which is it? Why murder and kill for 30 years then give it all up to accept a democratic solution? Was SF and the IRA wrong all along?

Your preferred strategy is....

Democracy is my preferred strategy, same as it has always been. Of course we need to reach out to the other community on this island. But SF criticised and murdered nationalists for doing just that. Stoops, west brits, took the soup! That's always been the shit flung at us. Now they are doing exactly that! Why did they have a murderous campaign for 30 years? Why did all those people die? For what?

Still persisting with your effort to interrupt any discussion about Patsy Kelly's murder/British state collusion?

Not sure what you want me to say. It's terrible. What his wife and family went through is awful.
They deserve the truth.

Would SF and IRA lead by example and talk about what they know? Forcing the British to do the same?

Reality for all the victims is this. The British Gov is playing for time. Hoping that Victims and their immediate relatives die. Another 25 years and there will neither families to push for truth and justice nor perpetrators to tell what happened and stand trial. There is no closure for victims.

It's just a bit revealing that when the news cycle of three days ago was dominated by the Ombusdman's report which outlined the fairly staggering, multi-levelled nature of collusion by the British security forces in the murder of an innocent nationalist councillor, that your gut instinct was to respond to it with a series of posts about SF and the IRA. It's revealing that it took you three days to make a tokenistic reference to Patsy's murder. It's revealing that you only made your tokenistic reference to Patsy's murder after being repeatedly asked why you were ignoring it. It's revealing that after making your tokenistic reference, that you immediately returned to talking about SF and the IRA in the very next sentence.

Then again it's really not that surprising, because he was after all murdered by the British Army and every time you have ever been asked for your opinion on whether the british army's activities here amounted to terrorism, you have steadfastly refused to answer.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trailer on April 28, 2023, 11:07:04 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 10:03:10 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:48:59 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 09:44:32 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:29:16 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 27, 2023, 08:56:23 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Most Nationalists have been playing the "long game", SF and IRA have criticised and murdered many Nationalists for "playing the long game"
It's the sheer hypocrisy of their stance. One minute Mo'N is standing in Clonoe unveiling a memorial stone for dead IRA members and the next she's going to London to attend the King Coronation. The head of the very British State they want to remove from Ireland! Which is it? Why murder and kill for 30 years then give it all up to accept a democratic solution? Was SF and the IRA wrong all along?

Your preferred strategy is....

Democracy is my preferred strategy, same as it has always been. Of course we need to reach out to the other community on this island. But SF criticised and murdered nationalists for doing just that. Stoops, west brits, took the soup! That's always been the shit flung at us. Now they are doing exactly that! Why did they have a murderous campaign for 30 years? Why did all those people die? For what?

Still persisting with your effort to interrupt any discussion about Patsy Kelly's murder/British state collusion?

Not sure what you want me to say. It's terrible. What his wife and family went through is awful.
They deserve the truth.

Would SF and IRA lead by example and talk about what they know? Forcing the British to do the same?

Reality for all the victims is this. The British Gov is playing for time. Hoping that Victims and their immediate relatives die. Another 25 years and there will neither families to push for truth and justice nor perpetrators to tell what happened and stand trial. There is no closure for victims.

It's just a bit revealing that when the news cycle of three days ago was dominated by the Ombusdman's report which outlined the fairly staggering, multi-levelled nature of collusion by the British security forces in the murder of an innocent nationalist councillor, that your gut instinct was to respond to it with a series of posts about SF and the IRA. It's revealing that it took you three days to make a tokenistic reference to Patsy's murder. It's revealing that you only made your tokenistic reference to Patsy's murder after being repeatedly asked why you were ignoring it. It's revealing that after making your tokenistic reference, that you immediately returned to talking about SF and the IRA in the very next sentence.

Then again it's really not that surprising, because he was after all murdered by the British Army and every time you have ever been asked for your opinion on whether the british army's activities here amounted to terrorism, you have steadfastly refused to answer.

Sorry I didn't realise you were the thread police. Apologies.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 11:15:28 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 11:07:04 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 10:03:10 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:48:59 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 09:44:32 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:29:16 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 27, 2023, 08:56:23 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Most Nationalists have been playing the "long game", SF and IRA have criticised and murdered many Nationalists for "playing the long game"
It's the sheer hypocrisy of their stance. One minute Mo'N is standing in Clonoe unveiling a memorial stone for dead IRA members and the next she's going to London to attend the King Coronation. The head of the very British State they want to remove from Ireland! Which is it? Why murder and kill for 30 years then give it all up to accept a democratic solution? Was SF and the IRA wrong all along?

Your preferred strategy is....

Democracy is my preferred strategy, same as it has always been. Of course we need to reach out to the other community on this island. But SF criticised and murdered nationalists for doing just that. Stoops, west brits, took the soup! That's always been the shit flung at us. Now they are doing exactly that! Why did they have a murderous campaign for 30 years? Why did all those people die? For what?

Still persisting with your effort to interrupt any discussion about Patsy Kelly's murder/British state collusion?

Not sure what you want me to say. It's terrible. What his wife and family went through is awful.
They deserve the truth.

Would SF and IRA lead by example and talk about what they know? Forcing the British to do the same?

Reality for all the victims is this. The British Gov is playing for time. Hoping that Victims and their immediate relatives die. Another 25 years and there will neither families to push for truth and justice nor perpetrators to tell what happened and stand trial. There is no closure for victims.

It's just a bit revealing that when the news cycle of three days ago was dominated by the Ombusdman's report which outlined the fairly staggering, multi-levelled nature of collusion by the British security forces in the murder of an innocent nationalist councillor, that your gut instinct was to respond to it with a series of posts about SF and the IRA. It's revealing that it took you three days to make a tokenistic reference to Patsy's murder. It's revealing that you only made your tokenistic reference to Patsy's murder after being repeatedly asked why you were ignoring it. It's revealing that after making your tokenistic reference, that you immediately returned to talking about SF and the IRA in the very next sentence.

Then again it's really not that surprising, because he was after all murdered by the British Army and every time you have ever been asked for your opinion on whether the british army's activities here amounted to terrorism, you have steadfastly refused to answer.

Sorry I didn't realise you were the thread police. Apologies.

Was the british army's campaign here a terrorist one, trailer?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: trailer on April 28, 2023, 12:20:37 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 11:15:28 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 11:07:04 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 10:03:10 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:48:59 AM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 09:44:32 AM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:29:16 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 27, 2023, 08:56:23 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Most Nationalists have been playing the "long game", SF and IRA have criticised and murdered many Nationalists for "playing the long game"
It's the sheer hypocrisy of their stance. One minute Mo'N is standing in Clonoe unveiling a memorial stone for dead IRA members and the next she's going to London to attend the King Coronation. The head of the very British State they want to remove from Ireland! Which is it? Why murder and kill for 30 years then give it all up to accept a democratic solution? Was SF and the IRA wrong all along?

Your preferred strategy is....

Democracy is my preferred strategy, same as it has always been. Of course we need to reach out to the other community on this island. But SF criticised and murdered nationalists for doing just that. Stoops, west brits, took the soup! That's always been the shit flung at us. Now they are doing exactly that! Why did they have a murderous campaign for 30 years? Why did all those people die? For what?

Still persisting with your effort to interrupt any discussion about Patsy Kelly's murder/British state collusion?

Not sure what you want me to say. It's terrible. What his wife and family went through is awful.
They deserve the truth.

Would SF and IRA lead by example and talk about what they know? Forcing the British to do the same?

Reality for all the victims is this. The British Gov is playing for time. Hoping that Victims and their immediate relatives die. Another 25 years and there will neither families to push for truth and justice nor perpetrators to tell what happened and stand trial. There is no closure for victims.

It's just a bit revealing that when the news cycle of three days ago was dominated by the Ombusdman's report which outlined the fairly staggering, multi-levelled nature of collusion by the British security forces in the murder of an innocent nationalist councillor, that your gut instinct was to respond to it with a series of posts about SF and the IRA. It's revealing that it took you three days to make a tokenistic reference to Patsy's murder. It's revealing that you only made your tokenistic reference to Patsy's murder after being repeatedly asked why you were ignoring it. It's revealing that after making your tokenistic reference, that you immediately returned to talking about SF and the IRA in the very next sentence.

Then again it's really not that surprising, because he was after all murdered by the British Army and every time you have ever been asked for your opinion on whether the british army's activities here amounted to terrorism, you have steadfastly refused to answer.

Sorry I didn't realise you were the thread police. Apologies.

Was the british army's campaign here a terrorist one, trailer?

I've answered this question, many times on different threrads. Yet you refuse to answer the same question about the IRA. Revealing alright.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 12:32:18 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 12:20:37 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on April 28, 2023, 11:15:28 AM
Was the british army's campaign here a terrorist one, trailer?

I've answered this question, many times on different threrads. Yet you refuse to answer the same question about the IRA. Revealing alright.

No you haven't. You've only gone as far as to say that they wouldn't regard their campaign as a terrorist one. You haven't said whether YOU would consider it to be a terrorist one. If you believe I am incorrect, and that you have in fact answered it "many times", then post a link to just one of those times.

And I don't recall you ever asking me if the IRA campaign was a terrorist one (care to link to you asking me that while you're at it?). I'm more than happy so say that no, I don't regard it as a terrorist campaign. Kinda like the Old IRA campaign, it was a legitimate campaign which of course, inevitably, did feature many illegitimate and reprehensible acts. Of course, this isn't a thread about the IRA campaign, despite your repeated efforts to turn it into one. So perhaps we'll continue the IRA discussion on a more appropriate thread of your choosing and we can, if you can stomach the thought, actually allow this thread to be about British state collusion with loyalist paramilitaries?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Armagh18 on April 28, 2023, 12:40:45 PM
Lads can you take that to an appropriate thread or to PM please?
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Itchy on April 28, 2023, 12:43:20 PM
Quote from: Jim Bob on April 27, 2023, 07:18:58 PM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Why didn't the republicans start to play the 'long game ' in the 60s if that was the way to go.
There'd be plenty alive today if they had

It's the way to go now, stratagies and situations change. If it's hard to understand that watch a 60s gaa match and then watch a modern one.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Itchy on April 28, 2023, 12:47:38 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 28, 2023, 09:29:16 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: trailer on April 27, 2023, 08:56:23 AM
Quote from: Itchy on April 27, 2023, 08:42:34 AM
It's called playing the long game lads, I'd love to hear your alternative path and strategy to a united ireland.
Something very similar happened when the south declared themselves a republic.

Most Nationalists have been playing the "long game", SF and IRA have criticised and murdered many Nationalists for "playing the long game"
It's the sheer hypocrisy of their stance. One minute Mo'N is standing in Clonoe unveiling a memorial stone for dead IRA members and the next she's going to London to attend the King Coronation. The head of the very British State they want to remove from Ireland! Which is it? Why murder and kill for 30 years then give it all up to accept a democratic solution? Was SF and the IRA wrong all along?

Your preferred strategy is....

Democracy is my preferred strategy, same as it has always been. Of course we need to reach out to the other community on this island. But SF criticised and murdered nationalists for doing just that. Stoops, west brits, took the soup! That's always been the shit flung at us. Now they are doing exactly that! Why did they have a murderous campaign for 30 years? Why did all those people die? For what?

You think we would've got where we are today without violence. I think without violence (unfortunately) we'd have 32 counties under British rule and be 2nd class citizen in our own country.
As for now, little Englanders are wrecking Britain, demographics as going to turn against the union very quickly. It's the end times for the 6 counties so correct strategy is to reach out to what will soon be a large minority.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Saffrongael on April 28, 2023, 01:06:26 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 28, 2023, 12:40:45 PM
Lads can you take that to an appropriate thread or to PM please?

Some amount of time spent typing these posts ffs
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: seafoid on April 28, 2023, 01:19:52 PM
British State Collusion is meaningless post Scappatticci. The Brits were managing the IRA towards a ceasefire and at least 18 people were murdered in the process.
There is no ideological purity in the North, unfortunately. There are just loads of people who died pointlessly.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Snapchap on January 03, 2024, 10:07:42 PM
Seems fitting to reference here the death today of British Army General Frank Kitson, given that he, more than anybody else in the British establishment, wrote the how-to book (quite literally) on state collusion with paramilitaries and counterinsurgency gangs. Kitson developed the policy of attempting to "kill the fish" (republicans) by terrorising the wider nationalist population - a tactic he termed "poisoning the water" - and he did his best to put his theory into practice.

The 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment - which carried out the Bloody Sunday and Ballymurphy massacre - was nicknamed 'Kitson's private army', while the British Army's secret Military Reaction Force (MRF), a counter-insurgency unit which is known to have been involved in a large number of killings of innocent Catholics, was based at Kitson's Palace Barracks HQ in Belfast. The MRF is thought to have been formed based on Kitson's tactics in supressing the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya as well as his previous colonial exploits in Malaya and Cyrpus. Similar units to the MRF had been set up in Cyprus (Q Patrols) and Oman (firqats). It is telling that every single General Officer Commanding the British Army in the north in the 1970s had seen military service in the sort of 'colonies' where Kitson learned his trade.

Kitson, of course, goes to his death with an eye-watering list of awards, titles, honours and gongs bestowed upon him by an empire grateful for his service, but I can't imagine any of those medals or titles will carry much weight now as he meets his maker.

My his many victims in Ireland and around the world RIP.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Hereiam on February 06, 2024, 09:56:16 PM
Not really surprised about this, sad for the victims families.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68218740
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on February 06, 2024, 09:59:00 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on February 06, 2024, 09:56:16 PMNot really surprised about this, sad for the victims families.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68218740

Is the Kenova report ever going to be published??
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: LC on February 07, 2024, 07:51:13 AM
Quote from: Hereiam on February 06, 2024, 09:56:16 PMNot really surprised about this, sad for the victims families.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68218740

There will be a lot of people over and above the soldiers / British Government who will be glad to see this brushed under the carpet.
Title: Re: British State Collusion
Post by: seafoid on March 08, 2024, 12:36:20 PM
https://twitter.com/AllisonMorris1/status/1766059355458158876