Just finished this, and tbh , as someone who grew up in east Tyrone in 70s, 80,s and 90,s, this totally blows my mind. There was always a general "acceptance" that collusion existed in our society. But, to see this written down in a book like this really drives it home. Surely the British government has a serious case to answer in light of this book? This is as bad as it gets. The incident regarding The Rock Bar is particularly galling. Prosecutions have to come out of this .
What have you been reading?
God help and man or woman waiting for prosecutions to come out of this book.
Quote from: moysider on November 18, 2013, 09:49:31 AM
What have you been reading?
I'm guessing LETHAL ALLIES : British Collusion in Ireland. The one-star reviews on Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1781171882/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0) are revealing, covering as they do the full spread of denial:
1) None of it is true!
2) Okay, some of it may be true but they were bad apples!
3) Okay, it's all true but isn't it time to move on?
Even the dogs on the street know about collusion. It's a waste of time thinking anyone will be brought to justice though. The British government usually pin medals on those involved, like they did with the soldiers on Bloody Sunday.
It makes my blood boil thinking about it. God knows how the families affected feel. The security forces are rotten to the core. Still are, in my opinion. A change of name and uniform doesn't change a thing.
There's certainly a market for authors to make money in this space. Its not always about finding the truth. Just need to be wary of that
Quote from: theskull1 on November 18, 2013, 12:24:03 PM
There's certainly a market for authors to make money in this space. Its not always about finding the truth. Just need to be wary of that
The author Anne Cadwallader is not making a single penny from this book. All profits are going back into the Pat Finucane Centre.
Quote from: Feckitt on November 18, 2013, 01:29:07 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on November 18, 2013, 12:24:03 PM
There's certainly a market for authors to make money in this space. Its not always about finding the truth. Just need to be wary of that
The author Anne Cadwallader is not making a single penny from this book. All profits are going back into the Pat Finucane Centre.
Also it is not a fly by night type of book based on generating money. It is the culmination of 15 years worth of research but theskull does have a very valid caveat.
Quote from: deiseach on November 18, 2013, 09:57:38 AM
Quote from: moysider on November 18, 2013, 09:49:31 AM
What have you been reading?
I'm guessing LETHAL ALLIES : British Collusion in Ireland. The one-star reviews on Amazon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1781171882/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_one?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0) are revealing, covering as they do the full spread of denial:
1) None of it is true!
2) Okay, some of it may be true but they were bad apples!
3) Okay, it's all true but isn't it time to move on?
It's quite funny - all the DUPS and UUPS giving it 1 star, The Shinners giving it 5. We just need a wee 3 from the Alliance. Even book reviews in this country are polarised!
Quote from: CD on November 18, 2013, 02:22:29 PM
It's quite funny - all the DUPS and UUPS giving it 1 star, The Shinners giving it 5. We just need a wee 3 from the Alliance. Even book reviews in this country are polarised!
;D
Quote from: theskull1 on November 18, 2013, 12:24:03 PM
There's certainly a market for authors to make money in this space.
Couldn't the same be said for any book genre? And as already mentioned, the author is not taking a penny from the sales profit. All profts will be going back into the Pat Finucane Centre so that they can continue their work.
Quote from: theskull1 on November 18, 2013, 12:24:03 PM
Its not always about finding the truth. Just need to be wary of that
Is this book not about finding the truth? After all, the claims made in the book are backed up with the evidence. What is your insinuation?
The author, Anne Cadwallader, will be on Vincent Browne tonight.
Unlike various other books, this book has been diligently put together. There is very little idle speculation , and nearly everything and everyone mentioned in it, was justifiably so! I can read as well as the next man, and I don't need amazon to tell me anything else. The use of the word bad apples by some on here, is an embarrassment . The bottom line is , that the state allowed scores of INNOCENT people to be murdered over an extended period of time. There are bad apples everywhere, the point is, when they are found , they are usually fucked out of the barrel , NOT allowed to continue to rot !
A lot on this board would rather believe a programme that contained the lies of two alcoholics with an axe to grind, than a book on collusion backed up with facts.
Quote from: cadhlancian on November 18, 2013, 03:42:57 PM
Unlike various other books, this book has been diligently put together. There is very little idle speculation , and nearly everything and everyone mentioned in it, was justifiably so! I can read as well as the next man, and I don't need amazon to tell me anything else. The use of the word bad apples by some on here, is an embarrassment . The bottom line is , that the state allowed scores of INNOCENT people to be murdered over an extended period of time. There are bad apples everywhere, the point is, when they are found , they are usually fucked out of the barrel , NOT allowed to continue to rot !
Wft are you on about? Can you not read the few replies on this thread for what they are about.
Are you sure you can read as well as the next man?
Quote from: cadhlancian on November 18, 2013, 03:42:57 PM
Unlike various other books, this book has been diligently put together. There is very little idle speculation , and nearly everything and everyone mentioned in it, was justifiably so! I can read as well as the next man, and I don't need amazon to tell me anything else. The use of the word bad apples by some on here, is an embarrassment . The bottom line is , that the state allowed scores of INNOCENT people to be murdered over an extended period of time. There are bad apples everywhere, the point is, when they are found , they are usually fucked out of the barrel , NOT allowed to continue to rot !
I was the one who used the phrase 'bad apples' and I can assure you I don't believe for one second that it was a case of just a few bad apples. The system was rotten to the core. And the recent HET stink suggested it probably still is.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 18, 2013, 03:18:39 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on November 18, 2013, 12:24:03 PM
There's certainly a market for authors to make money in this space.
Couldn't the same be said for any book genre? And as already mentioned, the author is not taking a penny from the sales profit. All profts will be going back into the Pat Finucane Centre so that they can continue their work.
Quote from: theskull1 on November 18, 2013, 12:24:03 PM
Its not always about finding the truth. Just need to be wary of that
Is this book not about finding the truth? After all, the claims made in the book are backed up with the evidence. What is your insinuation?
I insinuated nothing Nally. Far far too touchy.
I'd be fairly certain there was collusion during the troubles and would love to see it come out of the wash. I'm just saying that its healthy to be skeptical when "evidence" in published print is released. I've no doubt the Finucane centre think no differently to me about examining evidence in a robust way. If the research done for this book stands up to scrutiny and in time help brings about a inquiry into the goings on then, I'll be as happy as the next man.
Think theres a TG4 documentary about this coming up
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gardai-and-psni-in-open-warfare-over-ruc-deaths-probe-29364013.html
Gardai and PSNI in open warfare over RUC deaths probe
Tom Brady Security Editor– 22 June 2013
A MAJOR rift has erupted between the gardai and the PSNI over claims of collusion in the Provisional IRA murder of two senior RUC officers as they were making their way back across the Border after visiting Dundalk garda station.
Evidence given to the Smithwick Tribunal by PSNI and British security sources alleged that a member of the gardai gave a tip-off to the IRA about the visit, leading to a fatal ambush on the officers.
Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Supt Bob Buchanan were murdered on March 20, 1989 and the incident has been at the centre of a tribunal investigation for the past eight years.
However, the claims of collusion have been strongly challenged by lawyers for three named garda sergeants and for the garda authorities.
The difference of opinion between the two forces has now turned into open warfare. Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan forcibly dismissed any suggestion of collusion and accused the PSNI of failing to co-operate fully with the tribunal.
The garda authorities were incensed at the late introduction of "fresh" intelligence in the closing stages of the tribunal when the blame was shifted from the three retired garda sergeants – Owen Corrigan, Leo Colton and Finbarr Hickey – to two other possible sources.
At the final day of the tribunal hearings yesterday, the Garda Commissioner's counsel, Diarmaid McGuinness, insisted that these allegations were "nonsense upon stilts".
AMBUSH
He said PSNI assistant chief constable Drew Harris had told the tribunal there was no RUC intelligence at the time of the murders that suggested collusion by any member of An Garda Siochana in the ambush.
But 24 years later, the tribunal was faced with a "Niagara of intelligence", with Mr Drew swearing it was all accurate.
He told Judge Peter Smithwick: "The authority with which he (Mr Drew) has given his evidence, his rank, his experience, his asserted bona fides, his description of the process involved, are all paraded before you in order to compel you in some way to give weight and credence to these matters.
"This intelligence has been withheld from you. It beggars belief as to how you are expected to come to adjudication, not merely in relation to this intelligence but to the issue of collusion as a whole, having regard to the actions of the PSNI in this regard."
The withholding of intelligence, he said, "cast the gravest shadow over the bona fides, the willingness and ability of the PSNI to co-operate with the tribunal."
Mr McGuinness accused the PSNI of failing the families of the late Chief Supt Breen and Supt Buchanan; failing An Garda Siochana by not sharing this intelligence; and ultimately failing the tribunal itself.
Based on the totality of the evidence before the tribunal, there was no evidence of any garda collusion and that was the submission of the Garda Commissioner, he added.
Counsel for the PSNI, Mark Robinson had earlier argued that the force had given every help it could to the tribunal.
The judge's final report is expected in the late autumn.
Irish Independent
Quote from: theskull1 on November 18, 2013, 04:35:31 PM
I'd be fairly certain there was collusion during the troubles and would love to see it come out of the wash. I'm just saying that its healthy to be skeptical when "evidence" in published print is released. I've no doubt the Finucane centre think no differently to me about examining evidence in a robust way. If the research done for this book stands up to scrutiny and in time help brings about a inquiry into the goings on then, I'll be as happy as the next man.
Fairly certain? I'd love to know what more proof you need. I can only assume that you haven't read the book going by that comment. It's healthy to be skeptical indeed, but questioning something's existence despite years of proof emerging? Collusion is not under dispute. The people knew it was happening, but if living through it were not enough to convince you, surely the Stevens Report (well, the 19 pages of the 20,000 page report which the British
didn't withhold from the public) should be all the proof you need. Some quotes from that report which merely focused on two killings:
4.7 I conclude there was collusion in both murders and the circumstances surrounding them. Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the willful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder.4.8 The withholding of information impedes the prevention of crime and the arrest of suspects. The unlawful involvement of agents in murder implies that the security forces sanction killings.4.9 My three Enquiries have found all these elements of collusion to be present. The co-ordination, dissemination and sharing of intelligence were poor. Informants and agents were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes. Nationalists were known to be targeted but were not properly warned or protected. Crucial information was withheld from Senior Investigating Officers. Important evidence was neither exploited nor preserved.2.18 A further aspect of my Enquiry was how the RUC dealt with threat intelligence. This included examination and analysis of RUC records to determine whether both sides of the community were dealt with in equal measure. They were not."Even in recent times, collusion was evident in leaks from the Stevens team and the fire which destroyed the offices of the Stevens team. In his words
"There was a clear breach of security before the planned arrest of Nelson and other senior loyalists. Information was leaked to the loyalist paramilitaries and the press. This resulted in the operation being aborted. Nelson was advised by his FRU handlers to leave home the night before. A new date was set for the operation on account of the leak. The night before the new operation my Incident room was destroyed by fire. This incident, in my opinion, has never been adequately investigated and I believe it was a deliberate act of arson."The smoke alarms and heat sensors didn't work, there was no water in the fire protection system and the telephone lines had been mysteriously cut. The Sunday Times later published claims from a former British Army FRU member that his unit was behind the fire and british defence secretary Geoff Hoon went so far as to obtain an injunction in the High Court in London banning the paper from publishing any more allegations.
Only from investigating two murders, Stevens said he believed he had enough evidence to convict 25 senior military personnel.
Recently on TV, Ken Maguinness revealed how he personally reported to Maggie Thatcher the names of the IRA volunteers whom he believed to have been involved in the attack on British soldiers on a bus near Ballygawley. Within ten days, they were shot dead by the SAS at Drumnakilly. I could go on.
Interesting article..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508511/Exposed-The-army-black-ops-squad-ordered-murder-IRAs-players.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508511/Exposed-The-army-black-ops-squad-ordered-murder-IRAs-players.html)
Anybody see Vincent Browne last night? That former diplomat Noel Dorr made my skin crawl. An utterly contemptable being, who typified the Dublin Government's attitude to British Collusion in Ireland. See no evil , hear no evil, speak no evil. Went something along the lines of...
VB: What about collusion Noel?
Noel: "Alleged collusion"
VB: Well what about the "alleged" collusion, Noel?
Noel: Well I wouldn't know anything about that so no point in me commenting, but I know all about the IRA bombing England and about the collusion in Dundalk with the IRA in the murders of two RUC men.
VB: Wasn't that "alleged" too, and isn't that more a case of a couple of rogue Gardaí rather than an instutionalised state policy of collusion, and isn't there evidence against them seemingly very poor?
Noel: Eh, well ok
VB: What about relations between the two countries Noel?
Noel:I think it's closer than ever and there were problems over the years due to the north, that has all been solved and the Queen came here and it was so emotional.
Anne Cadwallader: I just listened to Noel say that the issues around the north have been solved. Well I saw emotion when Queen Elizabeth came to Ireland too. I stood on Talbott St with the families of the Dublin & Monaghan bombings when the visit happened, which was on the anniversary of the bombings, and they were crying out of sheer pain and frustration that after all these years and despite these two states supposedly being such good friends and having such a close relationship and trusting eachother, and the talk about mutual respect, that Britain still refuses to hand over their files on the bombings, to help these grieving families find closure.
Noel: But she came over, and she bowed her head. And she spoke a few words in Irish. And ohhhhhh the accent she spoke them in!! But I can't talk about collusion because I don't know"
Quote from: glens abu on November 18, 2013, 04:17:04 PM
A lot on this board would rather believe a programme that contained the lies of two alcoholics with an axe to grind, than a book on collusion backed up with facts.
So only one of the two can be true then? Either Adams was in the IRA or there was state collusion?
And quite telling that it's the
lies (not even the
allegations) of two
alcoholics (might as well play the man).
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 10:42:19 AM
Anybody see Vincent Browne last night? That former diplomat Noel Dorr made my skin crawl. An utterly contemptable being, who typified the Dublin Government's attitude to British Collusion in Ireland. See no evil , hear no evil, speak no evil. Went something along the lines of...
VB: What about collusion Noel?
Noel: "Alleged collusion"
VB: Well what about the "alleged" collusion, Noel?
Noel: Well I wouldn't know anything about that so no point in me commenting, but I know all about the IRA bombing England and about the collusion in Dundalk with the IRA in the murders of two RUC men.
VB: Wasn't that "alleged" too, and isn't that more a case of a couple of rogue Gardaí rather than an instutionalised state policy of collusion, and isn't there evidence against them seemingly very poor?
Noel: Eh, well ok
VB: What about relations between the two countries Noel?
Noel:I think it's closer than ever and there were problems over the years due to the north, that has all been solved and the Queen came here and it was so emotional.
Anne Cadwallader: I just listened to Noel say that the issues around the north have been solved. Well I saw emotion when Queen Elizabeth came to Ireland too. I stood on Talbott St with the families of the Dublin & Monaghan bombings when the visit happened, which was on the anniversary of the bombings, and they were crying out of sheer pain and frustration that after all these years and despite these two states supposedly being such good friends and having such a close relationship and trusting eachother, and the talk about mutual respect, that Britain still refuses to hand over their files on the bombings, to help these grieving families find closure.
Noel: But she came over, and she bowed her head. And she spoke a few words in Irish. And ohhhhhh the accent she spoke them in!! But I can't talk about collusion because I don't know"
The first bit in bold is an amazing statement if he said that. Is giving evidence to the Smithwick Tribunal?
The 2nd bit in bold is so full of hyperbolic nonsense it actually undermines the various serious point she was attempting to make. If the book is written like that I will not be getting it.
All the above is paraphrasing, but is the gist of what was said. As for the book, it is an astonishingly detailed, evidence based account. Evidence stands on it's own merit. And if it was OK for Noel Dorr to slabber about the emotion that "people" felt at hearing Queen Elizabeth speaking Irish ("and in the accent she spoke it in"), then Anne Cadwallader was well within her rights to speak about the emotional anguish of the victims families (whom she had worked with for around twelve years in producing her book) who held a silent and dignified protest on the day and who have a damn good reason to be feeling pain she spoke of. If she stood with them on the anniversary and saw them crying, then she has every right to say so. They might not be IRA victims but media references to their suffering should still be tolerated in the same way at least! If her speaking of this is enough for you to not want to buy a book outlining overwhelming evidence of collusion, then I suspect you likely had no intention of buying it anyway. I'd highly recommend you do though.
I attempted to get the loan of this book from a public library in Birmingham yesterday, I was told they had no trace of any such publication. Anyone know why?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEjqpRVfQSc
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 10:42:19 AM
Anne Cadwallader: I just listened to Noel say that the issues around the north have been solved. Well I saw emotion when Queen Elizabeth came to Ireland too. I stood on Talbott St with the families of the Dublin & Monaghan bombings when the visit happened, which was on the anniversary of the bombings, and they were crying out of sheer pain and frustration that after all these years and despite these two states supposedly being such good friends and having such a close relationship and trusting eachother, and the talk about mutual respect, that Britain still refuses to hand over their files on the bombings, to help these grieving families find closure.
They must think McGuinness really sold out when he met her only a year later... and still no files on the Monaghan / Dublin bombings.
Wish I had a link to the Vincent Browne show.
As for Lethal Allies, I'd strongly recommend it. What I liked most about it was its measured and meticulous analysis, a careful join-the-dots that leaves little room for ambiguity and misinterpretation. In fact, its strongest characteristic is a quality that some might dislike—its deliberate repetitiveness. But the repetition is essential in reinforcing the carefully woven fabric that is this book. The author carefully follows the threads of victims, interweaving the victims with their murderers, linking ballistic evidence to killers and then to victims. I like, too, her flowcharts that join events and people and weapons.
Further, her painstaking connecting of the murder gang to the security forces leaves no doubt about collusion. All that remains is a question of degree. Just how systemic was that collusion? It was certainly more than the popular "few bad apples." The authorities' mishandling and loss (read deliberate bungling) of evidence as well as failure to investigate according to rudimentary forensic protocol casts a dark pall over the integrity of those charged with upholding justice. Not a shocking revelation to those of us who lived through it.
Though Cadwallader veers away from the emotional, at times she sprinkles occasional remarks from the victims' families, and though such interjections do little to bolster her central thesis, they serve to remind us that we readers are dealing not with raw statistics but with real people, people still struggling to cope.
As a post script, a couple of things struck me. I picked up the book expecting an overt SF blas, which really wouldn't have bothered me, but I was surprised that not only did the book lack a Sinn Fein bias, some of its central characters, apart from the victims and their UVF/UDR killers of course, were SDLP reps and Fathers Murray and Faul.
And on a personal note, I was jolted to discover that one of the victims was almost certainly the father of a girl I dated briefly during the early 70s.
Thanks for the link, Sludden, but being in the states, I can access it. Don't know the nuances of body-swerving an Irish IP address.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 07:02:54 PM
All the above is paraphrasing, but is the gist of what was said. As for the book, it is an astonishingly detailed, evidence based account. Evidence stands on it's own merit. And if it was OK for Noel Dorr to slabber about the emotion that "people" felt at hearing Queen Elizabeth speaking Irish ("and in the accent she spoke it in"), then Anne Cadwallader was well within her rights to speak about the emotional anguish of the victims families (whom she had worked with for around twelve years in producing her book) who held a silent and dignified protest on the day and who have a damn good reason to be feeling pain she spoke of. If she stood with them on the anniversary and saw them crying, then she has every right to say so. They might not be IRA victims but media references to their suffering should still be tolerated in the same way at least! If her speaking of this is enough for you to not want to buy a book outlining overwhelming evidence of collusion, then I suspect you likely had no intention of buying it anyway. I'd highly recommend you do though.
Fair enough.
But it isn't ok for this Noel Dorr to speak as you say he did. To dismiss British collusion, claim he knew all about Gárda collusion and then talk about emotion is obviously absurd of him. But it can't be used as an excuse to justify the same treatment to the opposing argument.
Quote from: muppet on November 19, 2013, 10:53:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 07:02:54 PM
All the above is paraphrasing, but is the gist of what was said. As for the book, it is an astonishingly detailed, evidence based account. Evidence stands on it's own merit. And if it was OK for Noel Dorr to slabber about the emotion that "people" felt at hearing Queen Elizabeth speaking Irish ("and in the accent she spoke it in"), then Anne Cadwallader was well within her rights to speak about the emotional anguish of the victims families (whom she had worked with for around twelve years in producing her book) who held a silent and dignified protest on the day and who have a damn good reason to be feeling pain she spoke of. If she stood with them on the anniversary and saw them crying, then she has every right to say so. They might not be IRA victims but media references to their suffering should still be tolerated in the same way at least! If her speaking of this is enough for you to not want to buy a book outlining overwhelming evidence of collusion, then I suspect you likely had no intention of buying it anyway. I'd highly recommend you do though.
Fair enough.
But it isn't ok for this Noel Dorr to speak as you say he did. To dismiss British collusion, claim he knew all about Gárda collusion and then talk about emotion is obviously absurd of him. But it can't be used as an excuse to justify the same treatment to the opposing argument.
It seemed Anne's only reason for bringing up the topic of emotions was as a direct reply to Dorr's comment that the situation in the north was settled. She simply responded by pointing out how absurd a statement that was considering she stood with victims' family members who were literally in tears from pain and anger on Talbott St during the state visit by queen Elizabeth because they continue to be denied closure by a state which had it's Head of State parading around their city on the anniversary of their loved one's deaths. Her arguments overall on the programme, and in her book, were almost exclusively fact/evidence based, rather than emotive.
Personally speaking, the way those families (any anybody who dared voice support for them) were at best ignored that day, and at worst, told to stop living in the past, by an Irish society conditioned to fawn over queen Elizabeth made my skin crawl every bit as much as did the comments of Noel Dorr last night. And for the record, Britain's most recent refusal to hand over the files came the very next day after the "historic" state visit ended. The newfound mutual respect lasted less than 24 hours.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 19, 2013, 07:34:44 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 10:42:19 AM
Anne Cadwallader: I just listened to Noel say that the issues around the north have been solved. Well I saw emotion when Queen Elizabeth came to Ireland too. I stood on Talbott St with the families of the Dublin & Monaghan bombings when the visit happened, which was on the anniversary of the bombings, and they were crying out of sheer pain and frustration that after all these years and despite these two states supposedly being such good friends and having such a close relationship and trusting eachother, and the talk about mutual respect, that Britain still refuses to hand over their files on the bombings, to help these grieving families find closure.
They must think McGuinness really sold out when he met her only a year later... and still no files on the Monaghan / Dublin bombings.
I can't tell you what they think about him doing so. I'd imagine they probably wouldn't have liked it if he had met her in Dublin on the anniversary of the bombing though.
Quote from: Oraisteach on November 19, 2013, 09:33:58 PM
Thanks for the link, Sludden, but being in the states, I can access it. Don't know the nuances of body-swerving an Irish IP address.
TV3's Tonight with VB isn't just reserved to Irish IP's.
I don't have an Irish IP and I can watch it, just as if it was an open web video.
Main Street, any suggestion on how I should go about watching it here in the US?
Quote from: Oraisteach on November 19, 2013, 11:53:14 PM
Main Street, any suggestion on how I should go about watching it here in the US?
I can't say what is your issue, it's a curious one.
Is it the same for all others in the USA and Canada?
Yes, California here. Just tried to open it. Not available in my region.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 11:08:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 19, 2013, 10:53:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 07:02:54 PM
All the above is paraphrasing, but is the gist of what was said. As for the book, it is an astonishingly detailed, evidence based account. Evidence stands on it's own merit. And if it was OK for Noel Dorr to slabber about the emotion that "people" felt at hearing Queen Elizabeth speaking Irish ("and in the accent she spoke it in"), then Anne Cadwallader was well within her rights to speak about the emotional anguish of the victims families (whom she had worked with for around twelve years in producing her book) who held a silent and dignified protest on the day and who have a damn good reason to be feeling pain she spoke of. If she stood with them on the anniversary and saw them crying, then she has every right to say so. They might not be IRA victims but media references to their suffering should still be tolerated in the same way at least! If her speaking of this is enough for you to not want to buy a book outlining overwhelming evidence of collusion, then I suspect you likely had no intention of buying it anyway. I'd highly recommend you do though.
Fair enough.
But it isn't ok for this Noel Dorr to speak as you say he did. To dismiss British collusion, claim he knew all about Gárda collusion and then talk about emotion is obviously absurd of him. But it can't be used as an excuse to justify the same treatment to the opposing argument.
It seemed Anne's only reason for bringing up the topic of emotions was as a direct reply to Dorr's comment that the situation in the north was settled. She simply responded by pointing out how absurd a statement that was considering she stood with victims' family members who were literally in tears from pain and anger on Talbott St during the state visit by queen Elizabeth because they continue to be denied closure by a state which had it's Head of State parading around their city on the anniversary of their loved one's deaths. Her arguments overall on the programme, and in her book, were almost exclusively fact/evidence based, rather than emotive.
Personally speaking, the way those families (any anybody who dared voice support for them) were at best ignored that day, and at worst, told to stop living in the past, by an Irish society conditioned to fawn over queen Elizabeth made my skin crawl every bit as much as did the comments of Noel Dorr last night. And for the record, Britain's most recent refusal to hand over the files came the very next day after the "historic" state visit ended. The newfound mutual respect lasted less than 24 hours.
no doubt poetry muppet will mention the files when hes in London next year ::) some chance
Quote from: lawnseed on November 20, 2013, 05:36:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 11:08:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 19, 2013, 10:53:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 07:02:54 PM
All the above is paraphrasing, but is the gist of what was said. As for the book, it is an astonishingly detailed, evidence based account. Evidence stands on it's own merit. And if it was OK for Noel Dorr to slabber about the emotion that "people" felt at hearing Queen Elizabeth speaking Irish ("and in the accent she spoke it in"), then Anne Cadwallader was well within her rights to speak about the emotional anguish of the victims families (whom she had worked with for around twelve years in producing her book) who held a silent and dignified protest on the day and who have a damn good reason to be feeling pain she spoke of. If she stood with them on the anniversary and saw them crying, then she has every right to say so. They might not be IRA victims but media references to their suffering should still be tolerated in the same way at least! If her speaking of this is enough for you to not want to buy a book outlining overwhelming evidence of collusion, then I suspect you likely had no intention of buying it anyway. I'd highly recommend you do though.
Fair enough.
But it isn't ok for this Noel Dorr to speak as you say he did. To dismiss British collusion, claim he knew all about Gárda collusion and then talk about emotion is obviously absurd of him. But it can't be used as an excuse to justify the same treatment to the opposing argument.
It seemed Anne's only reason for bringing up the topic of emotions was as a direct reply to Dorr's comment that the situation in the north was settled. She simply responded by pointing out how absurd a statement that was considering she stood with victims' family members who were literally in tears from pain and anger on Talbott St during the state visit by queen Elizabeth because they continue to be denied closure by a state which had it's Head of State parading around their city on the anniversary of their loved one's deaths. Her arguments overall on the programme, and in her book, were almost exclusively fact/evidence based, rather than emotive.
Personally speaking, the way those families (any anybody who dared voice support for them) were at best ignored that day, and at worst, told to stop living in the past, by an Irish society conditioned to fawn over queen Elizabeth made my skin crawl every bit as much as did the comments of Noel Dorr last night. And for the record, Britain's most recent refusal to hand over the files came the very next day after the "historic" state visit ended. The newfound mutual respect lasted less than 24 hours.
no doubt poetry muppet will mention the files when hes in London next year ::) some chance
Did McGuinness take the Queen to task on them last year?
Quote from: Oraisteach on November 19, 2013, 08:15:25 PM
Wish I had a link to the Vincent Browne show.
As for Lethal Allies, I'd strongly recommend it. What I liked most about it was its measured and meticulous analysis, a careful join-the-dots that leaves little room for ambiguity and misinterpretation. In fact, its strongest characteristic is a quality that some might dislike—its deliberate repetitiveness. But the repetition is essential in reinforcing the carefully woven fabric that is this book. The author carefully follows the threads of victims, interweaving the victims with their murderers, linking ballistic evidence to killers and then to victims. I like, too, her flowcharts that join events and people and weapons.
Further, her painstaking connecting of the murder gang to the security forces leaves no doubt about collusion. All that remains is a question of degree. Just how systemic was that collusion? It was certainly more than the popular "few bad apples." The authorities' mishandling and loss (read deliberate bungling) of evidence as well as failure to investigate according to rudimentary forensic protocol casts a dark pall over the integrity of those charged with upholding justice. Not a shocking revelation to those of us who lived through it.
Though Cadwallader veers away from the emotional, at times she sprinkles occasional remarks from the victims' families, and though such interjections do little to bolster her central thesis, they serve to remind us that we readers are dealing not with raw statistics but with real people, people still struggling to cope.
As a post script, a couple of things struck me. I picked up the book expecting an overt SF blas, which really wouldn't have bothered me, but I was surprised that not only did the book lack a Sinn Fein bias, some of its central characters, apart from the victims and their UVF/UDR killers of course, were SDLP reps and Fathers Murray and Faul.
And on a personal note, I was jolted to discover that one of the victims was almost certainly the father of a girl I dated briefly during the early 70s.
Presumably the SDLP reps were simply popping up to deny collusion? That's what Nally tell us.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 05:50:26 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on November 19, 2013, 08:15:25 PM
Wish I had a link to the Vincent Browne show.
As for Lethal Allies, I'd strongly recommend it. What I liked most about it was its measured and meticulous analysis, a careful join-the-dots that leaves little room for ambiguity and misinterpretation. In fact, its strongest characteristic is a quality that some might dislike—its deliberate repetitiveness. But the repetition is essential in reinforcing the carefully woven fabric that is this book. The author carefully follows the threads of victims, interweaving the victims with their murderers, linking ballistic evidence to killers and then to victims. I like, too, her flowcharts that join events and people and weapons.
Further, her painstaking connecting of the murder gang to the security forces leaves no doubt about collusion. All that remains is a question of degree. Just how systemic was that collusion? It was certainly more than the popular "few bad apples." The authorities' mishandling and loss (read deliberate bungling) of evidence as well as failure to investigate according to rudimentary forensic protocol casts a dark pall over the integrity of those charged with upholding justice. Not a shocking revelation to those of us who lived through it.
Though Cadwallader veers away from the emotional, at times she sprinkles occasional remarks from the victims' families, and though such interjections do little to bolster her central thesis, they serve to remind us that we readers are dealing not with raw statistics but with real people, people still struggling to cope.
As a post script, a couple of things struck me. I picked up the book expecting an overt SF blas, which really wouldn't have bothered me, but I was surprised that not only did the book lack a Sinn Fein bias, some of its central characters, apart from the victims and their UVF/UDR killers of course, were SDLP reps and Fathers Murray and Faul.
And on a personal note, I was jolted to discover that one of the victims was almost certainly the father of a girl I dated briefly during the early 70s.
Presumably the SDLP reps were simply popping up to deny collusion? That's what Nally tell us.
Makes it all the more absurd that they same bunch of cretins refused to meet families of collusion victims in stormont on the day they facilitated Jim Allister's anti-agreement SPAD bill, and at an another event in Westminster.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 05:48:43 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on November 20, 2013, 05:36:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 11:08:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 19, 2013, 10:53:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 07:02:54 PM
All the above is paraphrasing, but is the gist of what was said. As for the book, it is an astonishingly detailed, evidence based account. Evidence stands on it's own merit. And if it was OK for Noel Dorr to slabber about the emotion that "people" felt at hearing Queen Elizabeth speaking Irish ("and in the accent she spoke it in"), then Anne Cadwallader was well within her rights to speak about the emotional anguish of the victims families (whom she had worked with for around twelve years in producing her book) who held a silent and dignified protest on the day and who have a damn good reason to be feeling pain she spoke of. If she stood with them on the anniversary and saw them crying, then she has every right to say so. They might not be IRA victims but media references to their suffering should still be tolerated in the same way at least! If her speaking of this is enough for you to not want to buy a book outlining overwhelming evidence of collusion, then I suspect you likely had no intention of buying it anyway. I'd highly recommend you do though.
Fair enough.
But it isn't ok for this Noel Dorr to speak as you say he did. To dismiss British collusion, claim he knew all about Gárda collusion and then talk about emotion is obviously absurd of him. But it can't be used as an excuse to justify the same treatment to the opposing argument.
It seemed Anne's only reason for bringing up the topic of emotions was as a direct reply to Dorr's comment that the situation in the north was settled. She simply responded by pointing out how absurd a statement that was considering she stood with victims' family members who were literally in tears from pain and anger on Talbott St during the state visit by queen Elizabeth because they continue to be denied closure by a state which had it's Head of State parading around their city on the anniversary of their loved one's deaths. Her arguments overall on the programme, and in her book, were almost exclusively fact/evidence based, rather than emotive.
Personally speaking, the way those families (any anybody who dared voice support for them) were at best ignored that day, and at worst, told to stop living in the past, by an Irish society conditioned to fawn over queen Elizabeth made my skin crawl every bit as much as did the comments of Noel Dorr last night. And for the record, Britain's most recent refusal to hand over the files came the very next day after the "historic" state visit ended. The newfound mutual respect lasted less than 24 hours.
no doubt poetry muppet will mention the files when hes in London next year ::) some chance
Did McGuinness take the Queen to task on them last year?
don't think hes the president.. don't think hes a representative of the 26 government..
Quote from: lawnseed on November 20, 2013, 07:42:43 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 05:48:43 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on November 20, 2013, 05:36:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 11:08:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 19, 2013, 10:53:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 07:02:54 PM
All the above is paraphrasing, but is the gist of what was said. As for the book, it is an astonishingly detailed, evidence based account. Evidence stands on it's own merit. And if it was OK for Noel Dorr to slabber about the emotion that "people" felt at hearing Queen Elizabeth speaking Irish ("and in the accent she spoke it in"), then Anne Cadwallader was well within her rights to speak about the emotional anguish of the victims families (whom she had worked with for around twelve years in producing her book) who held a silent and dignified protest on the day and who have a damn good reason to be feeling pain she spoke of. If she stood with them on the anniversary and saw them crying, then she has every right to say so. They might not be IRA victims but media references to their suffering should still be tolerated in the same way at least! If her speaking of this is enough for you to not want to buy a book outlining overwhelming evidence of collusion, then I suspect you likely had no intention of buying it anyway. I'd highly recommend you do though.
Fair enough.
But it isn't ok for this Noel Dorr to speak as you say he did. To dismiss British collusion, claim he knew all about Gárda collusion and then talk about emotion is obviously absurd of him. But it can't be used as an excuse to justify the same treatment to the opposing argument.
It seemed Anne's only reason for bringing up the topic of emotions was as a direct reply to Dorr's comment that the situation in the north was settled. She simply responded by pointing out how absurd a statement that was considering she stood with victims' family members who were literally in tears from pain and anger on Talbott St during the state visit by queen Elizabeth because they continue to be denied closure by a state which had it's Head of State parading around their city on the anniversary of their loved one's deaths. Her arguments overall on the programme, and in her book, were almost exclusively fact/evidence based, rather than emotive.
Personally speaking, the way those families (any anybody who dared voice support for them) were at best ignored that day, and at worst, told to stop living in the past, by an Irish society conditioned to fawn over queen Elizabeth made my skin crawl every bit as much as did the comments of Noel Dorr last night. And for the record, Britain's most recent refusal to hand over the files came the very next day after the "historic" state visit ended. The newfound mutual respect lasted less than 24 hours.
no doubt poetry muppet will mention the files when hes in London next year ::) some chance
Did McGuinness take the Queen to task on them last year?
don't think hes the president.. don't think hes a representative of the 26 government..
What difference does that make?
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 20, 2013, 06:01:44 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 05:50:26 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on November 19, 2013, 08:15:25 PM
Wish I had a link to the Vincent Browne show.
As for Lethal Allies, I'd strongly recommend it. What I liked most about it was its measured and meticulous analysis, a careful join-the-dots that leaves little room for ambiguity and misinterpretation. In fact, its strongest characteristic is a quality that some might dislike—its deliberate repetitiveness. But the repetition is essential in reinforcing the carefully woven fabric that is this book. The author carefully follows the threads of victims, interweaving the victims with their murderers, linking ballistic evidence to killers and then to victims. I like, too, her flowcharts that join events and people and weapons.
Further, her painstaking connecting of the murder gang to the security forces leaves no doubt about collusion. All that remains is a question of degree. Just how systemic was that collusion? It was certainly more than the popular "few bad apples." The authorities' mishandling and loss (read deliberate bungling) of evidence as well as failure to investigate according to rudimentary forensic protocol casts a dark pall over the integrity of those charged with upholding justice. Not a shocking revelation to those of us who lived through it.
Though Cadwallader veers away from the emotional, at times she sprinkles occasional remarks from the victims' families, and though such interjections do little to bolster her central thesis, they serve to remind us that we readers are dealing not with raw statistics but with real people, people still struggling to cope.
As a post script, a couple of things struck me. I picked up the book expecting an overt SF blas, which really wouldn't have bothered me, but I was surprised that not only did the book lack a Sinn Fein bias, some of its central characters, apart from the victims and their UVF/UDR killers of course, were SDLP reps and Fathers Murray and Faul.
And on a personal note, I was jolted to discover that one of the victims was almost certainly the father of a girl I dated briefly during the early 70s.
Presumably the SDLP reps were simply popping up to deny collusion? That's what Nally tell us.
Makes it all the more absurd that they same bunch of cretins refused to meet families of collusion victims in stormont on the day they facilitated Jim Allister's anti-agreement SPAD bill, and at an another event in Westminster.
I'm surprised you're so precious about the agreement - SF is more than happy to ignore aspects of it when it suits.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 09:40:37 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 20, 2013, 06:01:44 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 05:50:26 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on November 19, 2013, 08:15:25 PM
Wish I had a link to the Vincent Browne show.
As for Lethal Allies, I'd strongly recommend it. What I liked most about it was its measured and meticulous analysis, a careful join-the-dots that leaves little room for ambiguity and misinterpretation. In fact, its strongest characteristic is a quality that some might dislike—its deliberate repetitiveness. But the repetition is essential in reinforcing the carefully woven fabric that is this book. The author carefully follows the threads of victims, interweaving the victims with their murderers, linking ballistic evidence to killers and then to victims. I like, too, her flowcharts that join events and people and weapons.
Further, her painstaking connecting of the murder gang to the security forces leaves no doubt about collusion. All that remains is a question of degree. Just how systemic was that collusion? It was certainly more than the popular "few bad apples." The authorities' mishandling and loss (read deliberate bungling) of evidence as well as failure to investigate according to rudimentary forensic protocol casts a dark pall over the integrity of those charged with upholding justice. Not a shocking revelation to those of us who lived through it.
Though Cadwallader veers away from the emotional, at times she sprinkles occasional remarks from the victims' families, and though such interjections do little to bolster her central thesis, they serve to remind us that we readers are dealing not with raw statistics but with real people, people still struggling to cope.
As a post script, a couple of things struck me. I picked up the book expecting an overt SF blas, which really wouldn't have bothered me, but I was surprised that not only did the book lack a Sinn Fein bias, some of its central characters, apart from the victims and their UVF/UDR killers of course, were SDLP reps and Fathers Murray and Faul.
And on a personal note, I was jolted to discover that one of the victims was almost certainly the father of a girl I dated briefly during the early 70s.
Presumably the SDLP reps were simply popping up to deny collusion? That's what Nally tell us.
Makes it all the more absurd that they same bunch of cretins refused to meet families of collusion victims in stormont on the day they facilitated Jim Allister's anti-agreement SPAD bill, and at an another event in Westminster.
I'm surprised you're so precious about the agreement - SF is more than happy to ignore aspects of it when it suits.
Whataboutery. I think my point was about the stoops ignoring the agreement in this discussion.
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 20, 2013, 09:52:39 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 09:40:37 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 20, 2013, 06:01:44 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 05:50:26 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on November 19, 2013, 08:15:25 PM
Wish I had a link to the Vincent Browne show.
As for Lethal Allies, I'd strongly recommend it. What I liked most about it was its measured and meticulous analysis, a careful join-the-dots that leaves little room for ambiguity and misinterpretation. In fact, its strongest characteristic is a quality that some might dislike—its deliberate repetitiveness. But the repetition is essential in reinforcing the carefully woven fabric that is this book. The author carefully follows the threads of victims, interweaving the victims with their murderers, linking ballistic evidence to killers and then to victims. I like, too, her flowcharts that join events and people and weapons.
Further, her painstaking connecting of the murder gang to the security forces leaves no doubt about collusion. All that remains is a question of degree. Just how systemic was that collusion? It was certainly more than the popular "few bad apples." The authorities' mishandling and loss (read deliberate bungling) of evidence as well as failure to investigate according to rudimentary forensic protocol casts a dark pall over the integrity of those charged with upholding justice. Not a shocking revelation to those of us who lived through it.
Though Cadwallader veers away from the emotional, at times she sprinkles occasional remarks from the victims' families, and though such interjections do little to bolster her central thesis, they serve to remind us that we readers are dealing not with raw statistics but with real people, people still struggling to cope.
As a post script, a couple of things struck me. I picked up the book expecting an overt SF blas, which really wouldn't have bothered me, but I was surprised that not only did the book lack a Sinn Fein bias, some of its central characters, apart from the victims and their UVF/UDR killers of course, were SDLP reps and Fathers Murray and Faul.
And on a personal note, I was jolted to discover that one of the victims was almost certainly the father of a girl I dated briefly during the early 70s.
Presumably the SDLP reps were simply popping up to deny collusion? That's what Nally tell us.
Makes it all the more absurd that they same bunch of cretins refused to meet families of collusion victims in stormont on the day they facilitated Jim Allister's anti-agreement SPAD bill, and at an another event in Westminster.
I'm surprised you're so precious about the agreement - SF is more than happy to ignore aspects of it when it suits.
Whataboutery. I think my point was about the stoops ignoring the agreement in this discussion.
This discussion was about collusion - you brought the agreement into it. And maybe my comment is whataboutery. But it's double-standards. Why should one party have to rigidly comply with the agreement when others take an 'a la carte' approach?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24987465
Quote from: Oraisteach on November 19, 2013, 11:53:14 PM
Main Street, any suggestion on how I should go about watching it here in the US?
Download Hola Unblocker for Google Chrome and follow the instructions - works for me here
Quote from: DownFanatic on November 21, 2013, 12:30:56 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24987465
Odds on a prosecution 500/1
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 09:39:06 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on November 20, 2013, 07:42:43 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 05:48:43 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on November 20, 2013, 05:36:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 11:08:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 19, 2013, 10:53:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 07:02:54 PM
All the above is paraphrasing, but is the gist of what was said. As for the book, it is an astonishingly detailed, evidence based account. Evidence stands on it's own merit. And if it was OK for Noel Dorr to slabber about the emotion that "people" felt at hearing Queen Elizabeth speaking Irish ("and in the accent she spoke it in"), then Anne Cadwallader was well within her rights to speak about the emotional anguish of the victims families (whom she had worked with for around twelve years in producing her book) who held a silent and dignified protest on the day and who have a damn good reason to be feeling pain she spoke of. If she stood with them on the anniversary and saw them crying, then she has every right to say so. They might not be IRA victims but media references to their suffering should still be tolerated in the same way at least! If her speaking of this is enough for you to not want to buy a book outlining overwhelming evidence of collusion, then I suspect you likely had no intention of buying it anyway. I'd highly recommend you do though.
Fair enough.
But it isn't ok for this Noel Dorr to speak as you say he did. To dismiss British collusion, claim he knew all about Gárda collusion and then talk about emotion is obviously absurd of him. But it can't be used as an excuse to justify the same treatment to the opposing argument.
It seemed Anne's only reason for bringing up the topic of emotions was as a direct reply to Dorr's comment that the situation in the north was settled. She simply responded by pointing out how absurd a statement that was considering she stood with victims' family members who were literally in tears from pain and anger on Talbott St during the state visit by queen Elizabeth because they continue to be denied closure by a state which had it's Head of State parading around their city on the anniversary of their loved one's deaths. Her arguments overall on the programme, and in her book, were almost exclusively fact/evidence based, rather than emotive.
Personally speaking, the way those families (any anybody who dared voice support for them) were at best ignored that day, and at worst, told to stop living in the past, by an Irish society conditioned to fawn over queen Elizabeth made my skin crawl every bit as much as did the comments of Noel Dorr last night. And for the record, Britain's most recent refusal to hand over the files came the very next day after the "historic" state visit ended. The newfound mutual respect lasted less than 24 hours.
no doubt poetry muppet will mention the files when hes in London next year ::) some chance
Did McGuinness take the Queen to task on them last year?
don't think hes the president.. don't think hes a representative of the 26 government..
What difference does that make?
in the official capacity the queen, peter robbo and martin were guests of the 26 government. martin was there to meet the queen as a representative of the 6 and as a rep of sinn fein a party with the intentions of being in power in the 26 very soon there's a time and place.. that's diplomacy.. I have no doubt that were it martin that were president and he was on his way to London on a return official state visit he would definitely use the opportunity to ask publicly for the files in question.
at best the queen will get a book of poetry and a pint of Guinness.. from our president.
Quote from: lawnseed on November 21, 2013, 09:28:05 AM
in the official capacity the queen, peter robbo and martin were guests of the 26 government. martin was there to meet the queen as a representative of the 6 and as a rep of sinn fein a party with the intentions of being in power in the 26 very soon there's a time and place.. that's diplomacy.. I have no doubt that were it martin that were president and he was on his way to London on a return official state visit he would definitely use the opportunity to ask publicly for the files in question.
at best the queen will get a book of poetry and a pint of Guinness.. from our president.
So let me get this straight. Martin McGuinness doesn't ask the question when he meets the Queen as a private citizen, yet you say he would ask the question if he were President? The President is severely restricted in their function, both by the Constitution and by protocol. It'd be like the government of New Zealand protesting to France over the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by getting Liz, in her role as Head of State of NZ, to doorstep Francois Mitterand during a state visit. Typical Shinner fantasies to explain away their collaboration with the Brits, collaboration that they find so odious when practiced by others.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 10:14:53 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 20, 2013, 09:52:39 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 09:40:37 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 20, 2013, 06:01:44 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 05:50:26 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on November 19, 2013, 08:15:25 PM
Wish I had a link to the Vincent Browne show.
As for Lethal Allies, I'd strongly recommend it. What I liked most about it was its measured and meticulous analysis, a careful join-the-dots that leaves little room for ambiguity and misinterpretation. In fact, its strongest characteristic is a quality that some might dislike—its deliberate repetitiveness. But the repetition is essential in reinforcing the carefully woven fabric that is this book. The author carefully follows the threads of victims, interweaving the victims with their murderers, linking ballistic evidence to killers and then to victims. I like, too, her flowcharts that join events and people and weapons.
Further, her painstaking connecting of the murder gang to the security forces leaves no doubt about collusion. All that remains is a question of degree. Just how systemic was that collusion? It was certainly more than the popular "few bad apples." The authorities' mishandling and loss (read deliberate bungling) of evidence as well as failure to investigate according to rudimentary forensic protocol casts a dark pall over the integrity of those charged with upholding justice. Not a shocking revelation to those of us who lived through it.
Though Cadwallader veers away from the emotional, at times she sprinkles occasional remarks from the victims' families, and though such interjections do little to bolster her central thesis, they serve to remind us that we readers are dealing not with raw statistics but with real people, people still struggling to cope.
As a post script, a couple of things struck me. I picked up the book expecting an overt SF blas, which really wouldn't have bothered me, but I was surprised that not only did the book lack a Sinn Fein bias, some of its central characters, apart from the victims and their UVF/UDR killers of course, were SDLP reps and Fathers Murray and Faul.
And on a personal note, I was jolted to discover that one of the victims was almost certainly the father of a girl I dated briefly during the early 70s.
Presumably the SDLP reps were simply popping up to deny collusion? That's what Nally tell us.
Makes it all the more absurd that they same bunch of cretins refused to meet families of collusion victims in stormont on the day they facilitated Jim Allister's anti-agreement SPAD bill, and at an another event in Westminster.
I'm surprised you're so precious about the agreement - SF is more than happy to ignore aspects of it when it suits.
Whataboutery. I think my point was about the stoops ignoring the agreement in this discussion.
This discussion was about collusion - you brought the agreement into it. And maybe my comment is whataboutery. But it's double-standards. Why should one party have to rigidly comply with the agreement when others take an 'a la carte' approach?
Any party could be accused of acting contrary to the agreement at any time. My point about the SDLP, the self-proclaimed creators, defenders and champions of said agreement (
"The SDLP is stronger for the Good Friday Agreement. Because we are stronger for each and every one of its key principles....We are also the only party that has defended all of the Agreement") doing so, is in regards their support of Jim Allisters anti-agreement legislation (yes, I know they abstained, but that was all they had to do in order to support it); and in doing so created a hierarchy of innocent victims, where victims of collusion are at the very bottom; victims like those in Anne Cadwallader's book and like those who's families the stoops refused to meet with.
Quote from: deiseach on November 21, 2013, 09:49:11 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on November 21, 2013, 09:28:05 AM
in the official capacity the queen, peter robbo and martin were guests of the 26 government. martin was there to meet the queen as a representative of the 6 and as a rep of sinn fein a party with the intentions of being in power in the 26 very soon there's a time and place.. that's diplomacy.. I have no doubt that were it martin that were president and he was on his way to London on a return official state visit he would definitely use the opportunity to ask publicly for the files in question.
at best the queen will get a book of poetry and a pint of Guinness.. from our president.
So let me get this straight. Martin McGuinness doesn't ask the question when he meets the Queen as a private citizen, yet you say he would ask the question if he were President? The President is severely restricted in their function, both by the Constitution and by protocol.
Typical Shinner fantasies to explain away their collaboration with the Brits, collaboration that they find so odious when practiced by others.
Partitionist Hayseed shows his total lack of understanding of Bunreacht na hÉireann and the role of the Uachtarán.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 21, 2013, 11:09:59 AM
Partitionist Hayseed shows his total lack of understanding of Bunreacht na hÉireann and the role of the Uachtarán.
It's 'diplomacy', it seems. Can you imagine the stink in Britain if the head of state of any country, let alone an individual who has had such a chequered relationship with Blighty, were to start making demands in public of their supposedly above-that-kind-of-thing Majesty?
Quote from: lawnseed on November 21, 2013, 09:28:05 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 09:39:06 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on November 20, 2013, 07:42:43 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 05:48:43 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on November 20, 2013, 05:36:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 11:08:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 19, 2013, 10:53:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 07:02:54 PM
All the above is paraphrasing, but is the gist of what was said. As for the book, it is an astonishingly detailed, evidence based account. Evidence stands on it's own merit. And if it was OK for Noel Dorr to slabber about the emotion that "people" felt at hearing Queen Elizabeth speaking Irish ("and in the accent she spoke it in"), then Anne Cadwallader was well within her rights to speak about the emotional anguish of the victims families (whom she had worked with for around twelve years in producing her book) who held a silent and dignified protest on the day and who have a damn good reason to be feeling pain she spoke of. If she stood with them on the anniversary and saw them crying, then she has every right to say so. They might not be IRA victims but media references to their suffering should still be tolerated in the same way at least! If her speaking of this is enough for you to not want to buy a book outlining overwhelming evidence of collusion, then I suspect you likely had no intention of buying it anyway. I'd highly recommend you do though.
Fair enough.
But it isn't ok for this Noel Dorr to speak as you say he did. To dismiss British collusion, claim he knew all about Gárda collusion and then talk about emotion is obviously absurd of him. But it can't be used as an excuse to justify the same treatment to the opposing argument.
It seemed Anne's only reason for bringing up the topic of emotions was as a direct reply to Dorr's comment that the situation in the north was settled. She simply responded by pointing out how absurd a statement that was considering she stood with victims' family members who were literally in tears from pain and anger on Talbott St during the state visit by queen Elizabeth because they continue to be denied closure by a state which had it's Head of State parading around their city on the anniversary of their loved one's deaths. Her arguments overall on the programme, and in her book, were almost exclusively fact/evidence based, rather than emotive.
Personally speaking, the way those families (any anybody who dared voice support for them) were at best ignored that day, and at worst, told to stop living in the past, by an Irish society conditioned to fawn over queen Elizabeth made my skin crawl every bit as much as did the comments of Noel Dorr last night. And for the record, Britain's most recent refusal to hand over the files came the very next day after the "historic" state visit ended. The newfound mutual respect lasted less than 24 hours.
no doubt poetry muppet will mention the files when hes in London next year ::) some chance
Did McGuinness take the Queen to task on them last year?
don't think hes the president.. don't think hes a representative of the 26 government..
What difference does that make?
in the official capacity the queen, peter robbo and martin were guests of the 26 government. martin was there to meet the queen as a representative of the 6 and as a rep of sinn fein a party with the intentions of being in power in the 26 very soon there's a time and place.. that's diplomacy.. I have no doubt that were it martin that were president and he was on his way to London on a return official state visit he would definitely use the opportunity to ask publicly for the files in question.
at best the queen will get a book of poetry and a pint of Guinness.. from our president.
But that is not the only time Martin met her. Should he have asked her in the Lyric theatre when he was on home turf?
What has this got to do with a doddery elderly queen, leave the woman in peace.
Seeing as Martin McGuinness has given his very active response, in the tradition of militant republicanism, to the British military machine and their methods since 1968, I think his response and message has been loud and clear over the decades and was never silenced.
The problem is what to do from here.
It would appear that the righteous Unionists have a tendency to not bear any responsibility, they tag militant republicans with the blame for all the mayhem and McGuinness has not been shy to reciprocate that he has no issues with an all round inquiry into all the activities of all the protagonists since 1968. That means, open up every can of worms. And what benefit will that have?
It would appear that a South African peace and reconciliation process wont be applicable because the society in South Africa is more conducive to accept the need for forgiveness or some form of acceptance and moving on. In NI those conditions do not exist or are not loud enough.
Anyone watching BBC 1 at the min? Hard to listening to, very one sided British propaganda material. "We had to take them out, they were terrorists, they were baby killers" etc etc. There was a vague introduction about bloody sunday and that the army had to take to the street to curb the IRA violence. Just the usual wishy washy version of events. still interesting viewing all the same.
Forget the Brazil death squads, got nothing on these boys, make the rules up as they went along, broke any law they were supposed to uphold, when they say Northern Ireland was the dirty war, i dont think people knew how dirty it was, some of these guys are pretty much sewer rats
Their arrogance is pretty astounding.
Nothing new. Nothing surprising. Cnuts.
Their naivety and ignorance was telling. I wonder what Larkin thought of after his musings the other day. I hope every last one of those c***ts is brought in for questioning. I won't be holding my breath though.
It's a tribute program to the members of the prototype underground murder squads of the British Army who eventually (in different disguises) crippled the IRA's ability to wage their campaign and eventually forced them to surrender their arms, according to the closing words of the presenter.
The campaign to criminalise militant republicanism still goes on.
Yep, wear that poppy with pride
Surely these guys go against the official government line and could and should be prosecuted.
They were sent out to shoot and kill IRA suspects and bring the war to them. So why then did they only shoot civilians?
Quote from: HiMucker on November 21, 2013, 10:26:10 PM
Surely these guys go against the official government line and could and should be prosecuted.
Makes the timing of Larkins comments much more interesting.
'Legitimate' targets. Well they could have had a gun so that's good enough reason to blow their brains out. Cowardly scum.
Did the IRA drive into loyalist areas in 1972 shooting civilians as claimed in the programme?
Interesting to see Martin Dillon on the program. He was writing about this 20+ years ago.
The re-writing and 'softening' of history continues, I was very disappointed in John Larkin and I do not for one minute believe that he was acting 'independently' like Cameron suggested "The words of the Northern Ireland Attorney General are very much his own words,". He was someone who to my mind always fought for the underdog but recently he has turned Turk.
The program tonight was fascinating in many ways in that they openly admitted to a shoot to kill policy and shoot on sight policy but as has been stated their arrogance was very unpalatable.
Drip, drip, drip. They're softening us up, bit by bit, week by week, month by month, year on year.
Nothing shocks anymore.
Quote from: orangeman on November 22, 2013, 12:16:16 AM
Drip, drip, drip. They're softening us up, bit by bit, week by week, month by month, year on year.
Nothing shocks anymore.
I told yous. Outfoxed. They are always one step ahead.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 22, 2013, 12:20:07 AM
Quote from: orangeman on November 22, 2013, 12:16:16 AM
Drip, drip, drip. They're softening us up, bit by bit, week by week, month by month, year on year.
Nothing shocks anymore.
I told yous. Outfoxed. They are always one step ahead.
There'll be more revelations and more programmes like this.
Larkin's "suggestion" yesterday wasn't just made off the top of his head. It's all carefully planned, considered and timed.
History will be buried. People will grow old and die waiting for the truth about these sorts of things. Obviously the British want to bury the past and dress it up as trying getting this hole to move beyond this ugly past.
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on November 21, 2013, 10:28:07 PM
They were sent out to shoot and kill IRA suspects and bring the war to them. So why then did they only shoot civilians?
Because they couldn't shoot back being unarmed.
Like others I suspect this programme and the AG's comments are part of a choreography leading to something.
To stop investigating things so that no Brits involved in dirty tricks can spill any info?
Hope the 26 Cos. Poppy wearers are proud of themselves the cnuts.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 22, 2013, 10:54:28 AM
Like others I suspect this programme and the AG's comments are part of a choreography leading to something.
Definitely. I've seen Peter Hain and David Davies have weighed in the subject, admitting it's all very sad but the natives
really need to move on. Both Labour and the Tories are onside. The fix is in.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 22, 2013, 10:54:28 AM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on November 21, 2013, 10:28:07 PM
They were sent out to shoot and kill IRA suspects and bring the war to them. So why then did they only shoot civilians?
Because they couldn't shoot back being unarmed.
Like others I suspect this programme and the AG's comments are part of a choreography leading to something.
To stop investigating things so that no Brits involved in dirty tricks can spill any info?
Hope the 26 Cos. Poppy wearers are proud of themselves the cnuts.
I would imagine they are sh1tting themselves at cases being brought against them and £millions claims coming in.
Of course and the program on the disappeared was just going over old ground,nothing new but sure all the usual pro British elements loved it getting a dig at the Shinners but very silent on these issues.
Nuala O'Loan calls for investigation into claims soldiers killed unarmed civilians
Claims that a secret Army unit in Northern Ireland shot unarmed civilians during the 1970s must be investigated, a former police ombudsman has said.
Baroness Nuala O'Loan called for an investigation into the revelations broadcast in a BBC Panorama programme.
Three former members of the Military Reaction Force (MRF) told the programme they had been tasked with "hunting down" IRA members in Belfast.
Baroness O'Loan said the families of those targeted deserve answers.
"Families who have, for 40 years, wondered how did it come about that their loved ones were shot by the military and yet no-one was brought to book and the facts maybe didn't add up, that they were told, and there were allegations of people having guns when they clearly and manifestly didn't have guns - I think those families have the right to know what happened."
Baroness Nuala O'Loan served as Northern Ireland's first police ombudsman from 2000 to 2007.
During her tenure she carried out high-profile investigations into allegations of security force collusion in civilian murders.
The former MRF soldiers, who were speaking publically for the first time, told Panorama that they believed the unit had saved many lives.
The MRF was disbanded in 1973.
The Ministry of Defence said admissions by soldiers they they sometimes operated beyond the law will be referred to the police.
There are murders in Ireland but they are not of Irish stock
There are terrorists in Ireland but they serve a foreign law
They will never face a Diplock court or rot in H Block cell
For murder isn't murder when it serves the crown so well
Would I be on the right track if I thought they ( Brits) are building to a "Victims/Truth/Legacy/Past" Commission where they will say that "the only way we can get at the truth is to give immunity from prosecution to people involved in killings"?????
Quote from: Rossfan on November 22, 2013, 01:03:01 PM
Would I be on the right track if I thought they ( Brits) are building to a "Victims/Truth/Legacy/Past" Commission where they will say that "the only way we can get at the truth is to give immunity from prosecution to people involved in killings"?????
Would this not be equally as appealing to Sinn Fein?
Quote from: glens abu on November 22, 2013, 11:59:24 AM
Of course and the program on the disappeared was just going over old ground,nothing new but sure all the usual pro British elements loved it getting a dig at the Shinners but very silent on these issues.
Those families have every right to tell their story, no matter how much it made some squirm watching it.
Do you think they should "move on" ?
Quote from: Rossfan on November 22, 2013, 01:03:01 PM
Would I be on the right track if I thought they ( Brits) are building to a "Victims/Truth/Legacy/Past" Commission where they will say that "the only way we can get at the truth is to give immunity from prosecution to people involved in killings"?????
Not possible old chap. Too many important people higher up the food chain would be implicated. These soldiers/Terrorists( what's good for the goose..) didn't act of their own accord. Somebody signed or ok'd their orders and sent them out. Of course it helps when the records were conveniently destroyed.
Quote from: grounded on November 22, 2013, 01:34:39 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 22, 2013, 01:03:01 PM
Would I be on the right track if I thought they ( Brits) are building to a "Victims/Truth/Legacy/Past" Commission where they will say that "the only way we can get at the truth is to give immunity from prosecution to people involved in killings"?????
Not possible old chap. Too many important people higher up the food chain would be implicated. These soldiers/Terrorists( what's good for the goose..) didn't act of their own accord. Somebody signed or ok'd their orders and sent them out. Of course it helps when the records were conveniently destroyed.
Ahhh but only the lowly soldier on the ground would be talking to the "Commission" -- "I fired a shot, it hit someone"
The order givers won't be asked as they weren't physically involved in the incidents ;)
Quote from: michaelg on November 22, 2013, 01:14:33 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 22, 2013, 01:03:01 PM
Would I be on the right track if I thought they ( Brits) are building to a "Victims/Truth/Legacy/Past" Commission where they will say that "the only way we can get at the truth is to give immunity from prosecution to people involved in killings"?????
Would this not be equally as appealing to Sinn Fein?
You're learning buckeen ;)
Quote from: Rossfan on November 22, 2013, 02:23:15 PM
Quote from: michaelg on November 22, 2013, 01:14:33 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 22, 2013, 01:03:01 PM
Would I be on the right track if I thought they ( Brits) are building to a "Victims/Truth/Legacy/Past" Commission where they will say that "the only way we can get at the truth is to give immunity from prosecution to people involved in killings"?????
Would this not be equally as appealing to Sinn Fein?
You're learning buckeen ;)
If anything Sinn Fein have less to lose from a truth commission as they've never held the moral high ground and if anything did come out it'd be a case of 'sure we suspected as much all along.
The British establishment has far more to lose as its part as a fair/honest hand in the conflict will unravel in a big way, with the behaviour of its army, police force, reservists, UDR will be in tatters, not to mention the judicial system and political elite both here and in whitehall being shown for the dirty scumbags they are no matter what Eton accent they can manage.
Quote from: Kidder81 on November 22, 2013, 01:26:11 PM
Quote from: glens abu on November 22, 2013, 11:59:24 AM
Of course and the program on the disappeared was just going over old ground,nothing new but sure all the usual pro British elements loved it getting a dig at the Shinners but very silent on these issues.
Those families have every right to tell their story, no matter how much it made some squirm watching it.
Do you think they should "move on" ?
What did you think of the program last night about Brits drive by shooting of nationalists?
Quote from: lawnseed on November 21, 2013, 09:28:05 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 09:39:06 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on November 20, 2013, 07:42:43 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 20, 2013, 05:48:43 PM
Quote from: lawnseed on November 20, 2013, 05:36:31 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 11:08:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on November 19, 2013, 10:53:40 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on November 19, 2013, 07:02:54 PM
All the above is paraphrasing, but is the gist of what was said. As for the book, it is an astonishingly detailed, evidence based account. Evidence stands on it's own merit. And if it was OK for Noel Dorr to slabber about the emotion that "people" felt at hearing Queen Elizabeth speaking Irish ("and in the accent she spoke it in"), then Anne Cadwallader was well within her rights to speak about the emotional anguish of the victims families (whom she had worked with for around twelve years in producing her book) who held a silent and dignified protest on the day and who have a damn good reason to be feeling pain she spoke of. If she stood with them on the anniversary and saw them crying, then she has every right to say so. They might not be IRA victims but media references to their suffering should still be tolerated in the same way at least! If her speaking of this is enough for you to not want to buy a book outlining overwhelming evidence of collusion, then I suspect you likely had no intention of buying it anyway. I'd highly recommend you do though.
Fair enough.
But it isn't ok for this Noel Dorr to speak as you say he did. To dismiss British collusion, claim he knew all about Gárda collusion and then talk about emotion is obviously absurd of him. But it can't be used as an excuse to justify the same treatment to the opposing argument.
It seemed Anne's only reason for bringing up the topic of emotions was as a direct reply to Dorr's comment that the situation in the north was settled. She simply responded by pointing out how absurd a statement that was considering she stood with victims' family members who were literally in tears from pain and anger on Talbott St during the state visit by queen Elizabeth because they continue to be denied closure by a state which had it's Head of State parading around their city on the anniversary of their loved one's deaths. Her arguments overall on the programme, and in her book, were almost exclusively fact/evidence based, rather than emotive.
Personally speaking, the way those families (any anybody who dared voice support for them) were at best ignored that day, and at worst, told to stop living in the past, by an Irish society conditioned to fawn over queen Elizabeth made my skin crawl every bit as much as did the comments of Noel Dorr last night. And for the record, Britain's most recent refusal to hand over the files came the very next day after the "historic" state visit ended. The newfound mutual respect lasted less than 24 hours.
no doubt poetry muppet will mention the files when hes in London next year ::) some chance
Did McGuinness take the Queen to task on them last year?
don't think hes the president.. don't think hes a representative of the 26 government..
What difference does that make?
in the official capacity the queen, peter robbo and martin were guests of the 26 government. martin was there to meet the queen as a representative of the 6 and as a rep of sinn fein a party with the intentions of being in power in the 26 very soon there's a time and place.. that's diplomacy.. I have no doubt that were it martin that were president and he was on his way to London on a return official state visit he would definitely use the opportunity to ask publicly for the files in question.
at best the queen will get a book of poetry and a pint of Guinness.. from our president.
Doh! McGuinness refused to meet the Queen when she was a guest of thee Irish Government. He then made a u-turn and met her a year later when she visited NI. He never met her as a guest of the '26 government' - he met her on his own patch.
Interesting that you recognise "diplomacy" however.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 21, 2013, 11:09:59 AM
Quote from: deiseach on November 21, 2013, 09:49:11 AM
Quote from: lawnseed on November 21, 2013, 09:28:05 AM
in the official capacity the queen, peter robbo and martin were guests of the 26 government. martin was there to meet the queen as a representative of the 6 and as a rep of sinn fein a party with the intentions of being in power in the 26 very soon there's a time and place.. that's diplomacy.. I have no doubt that were it martin that were president and he was on his way to London on a return official state visit he would definitely use the opportunity to ask publicly for the files in question.
at best the queen will get a book of poetry and a pint of Guinness.. from our president.
So let me get this straight. Martin McGuinness doesn't ask the question when he meets the Queen as a private citizen, yet you say he would ask the question if he were President? The President is severely restricted in their function, both by the Constitution and by protocol.
Typical Shinner fantasies to explain away their collaboration with the Brits, collaboration that they find so odious when practiced by others.
Partitionist Hayseed shows his total lack of understanding of Bunreacht na hÉireann and the role of the Uachtarán.
Well he didn't understand it during the presidential campaign...
Quote from: HiMucker on November 21, 2013, 09:47:38 PM
Anyone watching BBC 1 at the min? Hard to listening to, very one sided British propaganda material. "We had to take them out, they were terrorists, they were baby killers" etc etc. There was a vague introduction about bloody sunday and that the army had to take to the street to curb the IRA violence. Just the usual wishy washy version of events. still interesting viewing all the same.
Really? I don't think the British Army came out of that programme in a positive light for too many people. If it was propoganda, they got it spectacularly wrong.
Quote from: glens abu on November 22, 2013, 11:59:24 AM
Of course and the program on the disappeared was just going over old ground,nothing new but sure all the usual pro British elements loved it getting a dig at the Shinners but very silent on these issues.
And the pro-shinner elements were fairly quiet on the other thread. Do you not realise that's the way this place works?
I believe a 'truth commission' is a ridiculous idea. The full truth will never come out, with or without amnesties. So why deny victims even a remote chance of justice?
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 23, 2013, 11:22:35 AM
Quote from: glens abu on November 22, 2013, 11:59:24 AM
Of course and the program on the disappeared was just going over old ground,nothing new but sure all the usual pro British elements loved it getting a dig at the Shinners but very silent on these issues.
And the pro-shinner elements were fairly quiet on the other thread. Do you not realise that's the way this place works?
Talking balls again Maguire,sure the top Shinner took part in the program,and it was the Shinners who pushed for the setting up of the body to recover the disappeared.Why was this program not shown 3times in the one week on BBC and also on RTE.Unfortunatly you people don't want the truth to come out because it might hurt you a lot more than the Shinners.So you might be right on that score.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 23, 2013, 11:25:12 AM
I believe a 'truth commission' is a ridiculous idea. The full truth will never come out, with or without amnesties. So why deny victims even a remote chance of justice?
I would genuinely like to know who exactly, and at what level, was the highest authority that signed off on the British decision to behave as they did.
A 'truth commission' could happen, but it would have to be all inclusive. As I suggested before it would have to be comprehensive, confidential until it's conclusion and nothing would be agree (to be published etc) until everything was agreed.
Quote from: muppet on November 23, 2013, 12:43:49 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 23, 2013, 11:25:12 AM
I believe a 'truth commission' is a ridiculous idea. The full truth will never come out, with or without amnesties. So why deny victims even a remote chance of justice?
I would genuinely like to know who exactly, and at what level, was the highest authority that signed off on the British decision to behave as they did.
A 'truth commission' could happen, but it would have to be all inclusive. As I suggested before it would have to be comprehensive, confidential until it's conclusion and nothing would be agree (to be published etc) until everything was agreed.
It would be good to know - I just don't believe we'd
ever get the whole truth, and there'd continue to be accusations over who was holding back on what.
Would you have confidence that all parties to such a commission would put all their cards on the table?
Quote from: glens abu on November 23, 2013, 12:43:00 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 23, 2013, 11:22:35 AM
Quote from: glens abu on November 22, 2013, 11:59:24 AM
Of course and the program on the disappeared was just going over old ground,nothing new but sure all the usual pro British elements loved it getting a dig at the Shinners but very silent on these issues.
And the pro-shinner elements were fairly quiet on the other thread. Do you not realise that's the way this place works?
Talking balls again Maguire,sure the top Shinner took part in the program,and it was the Shinners who pushed for the setting up of the body to recover the disappeared.
He didn't have much choice but to take part - he was in a 'no win' situation really, but he could hardly have refused to answer questions. But yes, well done on supporting the body to help 'right' these war crimes.
Quote from: glens abu on November 23, 2013, 12:43:00 PM
Why was this program not shown 3times in the one week on BBC and also on RTE.
Here's a guide to the next 4 repeats on BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n3csvf5f/broadcasts/upcoming
Quote from: glens abu on November 23, 2013, 12:43:00 PM
Unfortunatly you people don't want the truth to come out because it might hurt you a lot more than the Shinners.So you might be right on that score.
"you people"? Trying to play the man again? I have no problem with the truth - it can't hurt me. I'll condemn violence no matter who perpetrated it - especially if it was perpetrated against innocent civilians. I've also said in the past that i'd expect higher standards from state forces than paramilitary groups. I'm not conflicted in any way when it comes to condemning violence. Without any reservation, I condemn the activities reported in panorama.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 23, 2013, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on November 21, 2013, 09:47:38 PM
Anyone watching BBC 1 at the min? Hard to listening to, very one sided British propaganda material. "We had to take them out, they were terrorists, they were baby killers" etc etc. There was a vague introduction about bloody sunday and that the army had to take to the street to curb the IRA violence. Just the usual wishy washy version of events. still interesting viewing all the same.
Really? I don't think the British Army came out of that programme in a positive light for too many people. If it was propoganda, they got it spectacularly wrong.
In fairness Maguire I posted that about 20 mins in to the programme. It then did take a turn. But as someone else said it ended spectacularly along the lines of "poppy endorsing support our heroes"
Quote from: HiMucker on November 23, 2013, 02:09:17 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 23, 2013, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on November 21, 2013, 09:47:38 PM
Anyone watching BBC 1 at the min? Hard to listening to, very one sided British propaganda material. "We had to take them out, they were terrorists, they were baby killers" etc etc. There was a vague introduction about bloody sunday and that the army had to take to the street to curb the IRA violence. Just the usual wishy washy version of events. still interesting viewing all the same.
Really? I don't think the British Army came out of that programme in a positive light for too many people. If it was propoganda, they got it spectacularly wrong.
In fairness Maguire I posted that about 20 mins in to the programme. It then did take a turn. But as someone else said it ended spectacularly along the lines of "poppy endorsing support our heroes"
It was clearly stated near the end of the program by the presenter, that this was tribute program to to the members of the prototype underground murder squads of the British Army in NI, who eventually (in different murder squad disguises) crippled the IRA's ability to wage their campaign and eventually forced them to surrender their arms.The propaganda was the tribute to the soldiers, the strategy and drilled home the rationalisation of the methods used.
The rationalisation was, yes the grunts did murder but those were good murders, done for the good of society and forced the IRA to surrender.
And if they did murder, a facile denial was offered that they were ordered to murder.
That was a good propaganda program from the BBC, it hit all the buttons and ticked all the boxes. Yes we did dirty stuff but we had to, so we could beat Paddy the nasty terrorist.
Quote from: Main Street on November 23, 2013, 04:42:00 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on November 23, 2013, 02:09:17 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 23, 2013, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on November 21, 2013, 09:47:38 PM
Anyone watching BBC 1 at the min? Hard to listening to, very one sided British propaganda material. "We had to take them out, they were terrorists, they were baby killers" etc etc. There was a vague introduction about bloody sunday and that the army had to take to the street to curb the IRA violence. Just the usual wishy washy version of events. still interesting viewing all the same.
Really? I don't think the British Army came out of that programme in a positive light for too many people. If it was propoganda, they got it spectacularly wrong.
In fairness Maguire I posted that about 20 mins in to the programme. It then did take a turn. But as someone else said it ended spectacularly along the lines of "poppy endorsing support our heroes"
It was clearly stated near the end of the program by the presenter, that this was tribute program to to the members of the prototype underground murder squads of the British Army in NI, who eventually (in different murder squad disguises) crippled the IRA's ability to wage their campaign and eventually forced them to surrender their arms.The propaganda was the tribute to the soldiers, the strategy and drilled home the rationalisation of the methods used.
The rationalisation was, yes the grunts did murder but those were good murders, done for the good of society and forced the IRA to surrender.
And if they did murder, a facile denial was offered that they were ordered to murder.
That was a good propaganda program from the BBC, it hit all the buttons and ticked all the boxes. Yes we did dirty stuff but we had to, so we could beat Paddy the nasty terrorist.
Well I got a very different impression than you then. If it was propoganda it missed the mark by a mile.
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 23, 2013, 05:15:17 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 23, 2013, 04:42:00 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on November 23, 2013, 02:09:17 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 23, 2013, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on November 21, 2013, 09:47:38 PM
Anyone watching BBC 1 at the min? Hard to listening to, very one sided British propaganda material. "We had to take them out, they were terrorists, they were baby killers" etc etc. There was a vague introduction about bloody sunday and that the army had to take to the street to curb the IRA violence. Just the usual wishy washy version of events. still interesting viewing all the same.
Really? I don't think the British Army came out of that programme in a positive light for too many people. If it was propoganda, they got it spectacularly wrong.
In fairness Maguire I posted that about 20 mins in to the programme. It then did take a turn. But as someone else said it ended spectacularly along the lines of "poppy endorsing support our heroes"
It was clearly stated near the end of the program by the presenter, that this was tribute program to to the members of the prototype underground murder squads of the British Army in NI, who eventually (in different murder squad disguises) crippled the IRA's ability to wage their campaign and eventually forced them to surrender their arms.The propaganda was the tribute to the soldiers, the strategy and drilled home the rationalisation of the methods used.
The rationalisation was, yes the grunts did murder but those were good murders, done for the good of society and forced the IRA to surrender.
And if they did murder, a facile denial was offered that they were ordered to murder.
That was a good propaganda program from the BBC, it hit all the buttons and ticked all the boxes. Yes we did dirty stuff but we had to, so we could beat Paddy the nasty terrorist.
Well I got a very different impression than you then. If it was propoganda it missed the mark by a mile.
The program reflected badly on the Brits as it showed them up as being as lawless as those they were fighting but the bit at the end tried to justify and commend the killers. It was an attempt at propaganda but failed. I guess it was a deal done with these c***ts we will give an interview but it must be said that we contributed to the defeat of the IRA, which of course they did not.
To me the ending note of the programme basically said that the end justified the means. Ok, if that's the road they want to go down then by the same token the republican campaign was justified as without it we would be stuck with similar rights enjoyed in the 60's and 70's.
Quote from: haveaharp on November 23, 2013, 06:10:09 PM
To me the ending note of the programme basically said that the end justified the means. Ok, if that's the road they want to go down then by the same token the republican campaign was justified as without it we would be stuck with similar rights enjoyed n the 60's and 70's.
You should brush up on your history
Quote from: Saffrongael on November 23, 2013, 07:23:03 PM
Quote from: haveaharp on November 23, 2013, 06:10:09 PM
To me the ending note of the programme basically said that the end justified the means. Ok, if that's the road they want to go down then by the same token the republican campaign was justified as without it we would be stuck with similar rights enjoyed n the 60's and 70's.
You should brush up on your history
Enlighten me
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 23, 2013, 05:15:17 PM
Quote from: Main Street on November 23, 2013, 04:42:00 PM
Quote from: HiMucker on November 23, 2013, 02:09:17 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on November 23, 2013, 11:19:57 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on November 21, 2013, 09:47:38 PM
Anyone watching BBC 1 at the min? Hard to listening to, very one sided British propaganda material. "We had to take them out, they were terrorists, they were baby killers" etc etc. There was a vague introduction about bloody sunday and that the army had to take to the street to curb the IRA violence. Just the usual wishy washy version of events. still interesting viewing all the same.
Really? I don't think the British Army came out of that programme in a positive light for too many people. If it was propoganda, they got it spectacularly wrong.
In fairness Maguire I posted that about 20 mins in to the programme. It then did take a turn. But as someone else said it ended spectacularly along the lines of "poppy endorsing support our heroes"
It was clearly stated near the end of the program by the presenter, that this was tribute program to to the members of the prototype underground murder squads of the British Army in NI, who eventually (in different murder squad disguises) crippled the IRA's ability to wage their campaign and eventually forced them to surrender their arms.The propaganda was the tribute to the soldiers, the strategy and drilled home the rationalisation of the methods used.
The rationalisation was, yes the grunts did murder but those were good murders, done for the good of society and forced the IRA to surrender.
And if they did murder, a facile denial was offered that they were ordered to murder.
That was a good propaganda program from the BBC, it hit all the buttons and ticked all the boxes. Yes we did dirty stuff but we had to, so we could beat Paddy the nasty terrorist.
Well I got a very different impression than you then. If it was propoganda it missed the mark by a mile.
You missed the propaganda bias by a mile then. It was a program about rationalising the methods of the death squads. Listen to the last 5 minutes again. It's as blatant a piece of propaganda as Himmler could ever conjure, though in a subtle mood.
Just because you might have a different reaction to the account and description of the methods outlined in the documentary, does not detract from the goal of the program, the message was loud and clear.
If the program was not about propaganda, then half asleep I could think of a hundred questions never asked which could have ripped apart their attempt to rationalise state sponsored terror and murder.
The obvious fcking question, well maybe your murder squads prolonged the war, maybe bloody sunday consolidated the growth and cause of militant republicanism, maybe shooting kids and civilians on the streets, by the British Army sponsored murder squads, sent a loud and clear message to a nationalist community and widened and hardened the support for militant republicans.
And then the presenter tries to portray it all as if the strategy was a great success, ultimately bringing a surrender of the IRA. Well if that isn't a crock of moronic Brit propaganda, then what is?
I mean, is that type of tally ho Victor comic book perspective coming from the presenter, suppose to be objective?