Loyalist Marchers forced to defend themselves from attack!

[red hander]

Easy to do ... he has some f**king nerve, after all

[Nally Stand]

'An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre' - no independent, impartial sources then?

An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre ARE independent for the single reason that they represent FAMILIES. An Fhirinne in particular is a group which families VOLUNTARILY join if they believe their loved ones were victims of state murder. So again I am forced to ask WHO ARE YOU TO TELL THEM THEY ARE WRONG?

As for the other sources: the youtube clip looks like it was shot sometime in the '70s, while the quote that the IRA could never be defeated militarily is hardly groundbreaking. The so called dissidents will never be defeated militarily either. That's hardly a testament to their prowess, though. It's an acknowledgement that conventional armies can never totally irradicate a guerilla force. There'll always be a handful of diehards ready to carry on the fight.
I was being in tongue in cheek with my statistic for republican informants / agents. Noone knows the full story yet and probably never will, but it was most certainly significant and was an important factor in pushing the republican movement down the political path. Put it this way: the Belfast brigade was so worried by leaks, that it ordered that all operations (from the mid eighties) had to be cleared by IRA internal security. This meant that details of every action had to be run past two people who have since been uncovered as British agents.

Your remark may have been tongue in cheek but the simple fact is you wrote it to make a specific point: That the IRA was riddled with spies and informants. This is something you now try to back up by sort of citing a single example from Belfast. You asked me to provide you with sources which back up my point that the IRA were not in fact "riddled" with spies. I did so. If the IRA were full of spies, the British Army would not have privately admitted that they couldn't be beaten and described them in much more impressive terms that the terms they reserved for Loyalist paramilitaries. (Though the document quoted does refer to the UDA as "respectable"!). And since you asked me to back up my claims with sources, what is your point in complaining about one such source being from (seemingly) early in the conflict when the other one is very recent could you tell me? Oh, and if you so choose, there is another video on youtube where Tony Blair also RECENTLY stated that the British did not defeat the IRA.

[Minder]

Serious question Nally,not trying to get a rise, how widespread do you believe the infiltration was by the Brits, re informers?

[lynchbhoy]

'An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre' - no independent, impartial sources then?

An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre ARE independent for the single reason that they represent FAMILIES. An Fhirinne in particular is a group which families VOLUNTARILY join if they believe their loved ones were victims of state murder. So again I am forced to ask WHO ARE YOU TO TELL THEM THEY ARE WRONG?

As for the other sources: the youtube clip looks like it was shot sometime in the '70s, while the quote that the IRA could never be defeated militarily is hardly groundbreaking. The so called dissidents will never be defeated militarily either. That's hardly a testament to their prowess, though. It's an acknowledgement that conventional armies can never totally irradicate a guerilla force. There'll always be a handful of diehards ready to carry on the fight.
I was being in tongue in cheek with my statistic for republican informants / agents. Noone knows the full story yet and probably never will, but it was most certainly significant and was an important factor in pushing the republican movement down the political path. Put it this way: the Belfast brigade was so worried by leaks, that it ordered that all operations (from the mid eighties) had to be cleared by IRA internal security. This meant that details of every action had to be run past two people who have since been uncovered as British agents.

Your remark may have been tongue in cheek but the simple fact is you wrote it to make a specific point: That the IRA was riddled with spies and informants. This is something you now try to back up by sort of citing a single example from Belfast. You asked me to provide you with sources which back up my point that the IRA were not in fact "riddled" with spies. I did so. If the IRA were full of spies, the British Army would not have privately admitted that they couldn't be beaten and described them in much more impressive terms that the terms they reserved for Loyalist paramilitaries. (Though the document quoted does refer to the UDA as "respectable"!). And since you asked me to back up my claims with sources, what is your point in complaining about one such source being from (seemingly) early in the conflict when the other one is very recent could you tell me? Oh, and if you so choose, there is another video on youtube where Tony Blair also RECENTLY stated that the British did not defeat the IRA.

good points again, but I am telling you that you are wasting your time with this buck eejt who quite obviously doesnt know what he/she is talking about - grasping at straws and making shildish little quips instead of reasoned answers should show you what you are dealing with here in mylse.
this guy is a unionist/loyalist and does not want to know causes of violence or that anyone other than the IRA caused violence and death.
move on as you are wasting your time and good insights on this topic!.

[Nally Stand]

You are probably right on some points.

good points again, but I am telling you that you are wasting your time with this buck eejt

And definately right on other points.

this guy is a unionist/loyalist and does not want to know causes of violence or that anyone other than the IRA caused violence and death.

[Nally Stand]

Serious question Nally, not trying to get a rise, how widespread do you believe the infiltration was by the Brits, re informers?

Fair enough question. I'm all for rational discussion. What rises me is people trying to attack republicanism with nothing better than 'tongue-in-cheek' remarks/sensationalism/lies/using single examples as generalisations. These seem to be the typical debating styles of people like Myles and ardmhacaabu. Though in fairness to Myles, he doesn't tell me he'll ignore me when faced with questions.

My honest opinion was that the extent of British infiltration of the IRA was not as great as people would lead us to believe. Unlike certain people on this board I am prepared to accept that I could be totally wrong but, as I say, such people tend use specific examples of spies/touts as generalisations in order to state that the IRA were absolutely riddled, and refuse blindly to look at the big picture.
The reasons I bleieve that spies were not so common is that the IRA were the ONLY 'paramilitary' group that the British Army claimed privately & publically, that it could not defeat. This was never stated of loyalist paramilitaries because, as we now know, the dividing lines between British security forces and loyalists were somewhat blurred through collusion. Similarly, dissident organisations have been active for around 15 years and have managed to inflict is it three(?) (what they would term successful) attacks on members of the security forces. I suspect that this is due to high infiltration of such groups by spies/touts. This is evidenced by the fact that most of the leadership of the RIRA, for example, found themselves locked up in a very short time. This was never the case for the PIRA. They were capable of mounting a HIGHLY SUSTAINED military campaign for three decades. To suggest they could have done such a thing while being anywhere NEAR riddled with touts and spies is, in my opinion, highly unrealistic.

[Myles Na G.]

'The role of what republicans dubbed 'securocrats' is inevitably one where speculation, rumour and conspiracy theory are rife. It is clear, however,that state intelligence agencies penetrated the movement at various levels...The security services provided the intelligence that allowed the police and the military to bear down on the IRA's capacity to continue with any sort of effective campaign.' Ireland Since 1939' Henry Patterson, p350

'A significant number of men in key positions in Sinn Fein and the IRA, including men who acted as bodyguards to Gerry Adams - and even his driver - had been 'turned' by British Intelligence in the mid eighties...As more and more information about highly placed informers became public in 2007 and 2008, Gerry Bradley would shake his head at each revelation and ask ruefully: 'How did we get anything done?' ' Insider, Gerry Bradley's Life in the IRA

Just because I can't be arsed sitting here typing out paragraphs of text to prove what is generally taken as common knowledge, doesn't mean the sources aren't around. The IRA was brought to the negotiating table because it was getting nowhere and one of the chief factors in this was the extent to which the organisation had been taken over by British intelligence. Why else would it have settled for something it could've had by the mid 1970's? Republicans can spin it anyway they choose, but the bottom line is that the IRA settled for an internal, partitionist outcome to their long war, something they would've sneered at in the early days of the troubles.

[Myles Na G.]

'An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre' - no independent, impartial sources then?

An Fhirinne and the Pat Finucane Centre ARE independent for the single reason that they represent FAMILIES. An Fhirinne in particular is a group which families VOLUNTARILY join if they believe their loved ones were victims of state murder. So again I am forced to ask WHO ARE YOU TO TELL THEM THEY ARE WRONG?

As for the other sources: the youtube clip looks like it was shot sometime in the '70s, while the quote that the IRA could never be defeated militarily is hardly groundbreaking. The so called dissidents will never be defeated militarily either. That's hardly a testament to their prowess, though. It's an acknowledgement that conventional armies can never totally irradicate a guerilla force. There'll always be a handful of diehards ready to carry on the fight.
I was being in tongue in cheek with my statistic for republican informants / agents. Noone knows the full story yet and probably never will, but it was most certainly significant and was an important factor in pushing the republican movement down the political path. Put it this way: the Belfast brigade was so worried by leaks, that it ordered that all operations (from the mid eighties) had to be cleared by IRA internal security. This meant that details of every action had to be run past two people who have since been uncovered as British agents.

Your remark may have been tongue in cheek but the simple fact is you wrote it to make a specific point: That the IRA was riddled with spies and informants. This is something you now try to back up by sort of citing a single example from Belfast. You asked me to provide you with sources which back up my point that the IRA were not in fact "riddled" with spies. I did so. If the IRA were full of spies, the British Army would not have privately admitted that they couldn't be beaten and described them in much more impressive terms that the terms they reserved for Loyalist paramilitaries. (Though the document quoted does refer to the UDA as "respectable"!). And since you asked me to back up my claims with sources, what is your point in complaining about one such source being from (seemingly) early in the conflict when the other one is very recent could you tell me? Oh, and if you so choose, there is another video on youtube where Tony Blair also RECENTLY stated that the British did not defeat the IRA.

good points again, but I am telling you that you are wasting your time with this buck eejt who quite obviously doesnt know what he/she is talking about - grasping at straws and making shildish little quips instead of reasoned answers should show you what you are dealing with here in mylse.
this guy is a unionist/loyalist and does not want to know causes of violence or that anyone other than the IRA caused violence and death.
move on as you are wasting your time and good insights on this topic!.

Nally Stand's cheer leader at it again! 

[Myles Na G.]

I feel no more sense of shame over the activities of the British army than I do over, say, the American army, or the Israelis. Why should I? I'm Irish. I live and work in the UK, but so do thousands of Poles. You're also over egging the issue of state murder, as republicans are apt to do in order to put a gloss on their own, much larger campaign of murder and mayhem. Of course there were instances of state murder, or state sponsored murder, over the 25 years of the troubles, but nowhere near to the extent republicans like to make out. Two quick answers to your quick questions: I was exaggerating when I said every other republican was a British agent. It was probably only one in every three.  As for your leaked document, do you have a source for that? I haven't come across that quote before, so I'd like to take a look at it if that's okay with you.

That's typical unionist speak there Myles. Your playing down state murder by comparing it to paramilitries!! You've let your mask slip badly in this thread!!     

Dear God, please strike dead on the spot the next person to use that particular cliche. If you do, I'll start going to Mass again. Thank you. Myles

Yet again, the mask slips.

Hope you posted that from beyond the grave.

[lynchbhoy]

'The role of what republicans dubbed 'securocrats' is inevitably one where speculation, rumour and conspiracy theory are rife. It is clear, however,that state intelligence agencies penetrated the movement at various levels...The security services provided the intelligence that allowed the police and the military to bear down on the IRA's capacity to continue with any sort of effective campaign.' Ireland Since 1939' Henry Patterson, p350

'A significant number of men in key positions in Sinn Fein and the IRA, including men who acted as bodyguards to Gerry Adams - and even his driver - had been 'turned' by British Intelligence in the mid eighties...As more and more information about highly placed informers became public in 2007 and 2008, Gerry Bradley would shake his head at each revelation and ask ruefully: 'How did we get anything done?' ' Insider, Gerry Bradley's Life in the IRA

Just because I can't be arsed sitting here typing out paragraphs of text to prove what is generally taken as common knowledge, doesn't mean the sources aren't around. The IRA was brought to the negotiating table because it was getting nowhere and one of the chief factors in this was the extent to which the organisation had been taken over by British intelligence. Why else would it have settled for something it could've had by the mid 1970's? Republicans can spin it anyway they choose, but the bottom line is that the IRA settled for an internal, partitionist outcome to their long war, something they would've sneered at in the early days of the troubles.

in a word 'rubbish' - thats simply subjective blinkered uneducated piffle from you (yet again !!)

you cannot answer the facts Nally gave you - that if thre were that many 'insiders' then surely it would have been the british army fighting against themselves !!


you are way overstating the amount of informants, and these seemed to increase when it was all over anyhow !


the republican movement/nationalists/catholics/Irish would have got nothing by going with the 'offers' in the early/mid 70's because there was still systematic persecution and inequality. When this changed and there was an opportunity for a genuine equal society and the secondary objective of re-unification, at that stage it was the correct time to embrace it. The earlier 'offer' would have seen it slide back into what things were as unionists/loyalists were not ready to power share then (they still are not in the main, but as they as rearing the loss of their majority its starting to be taken out of their hands).

gerry adams driver /bodyguard was an informant - LOL, he must have passed on lots of secrets about pipe smoking and writing books !!

[lynchbhoy]

on the subject of loyalists/unionists and mindsets not changing, has anyone been arrested or charged for the attack on that woman?
Has she recovered?
did she eventually manage to get her hair done?

[Nally Stand]

'The role of what republicans dubbed 'securocrats' is inevitably one where speculation, rumour and conspiracy theory are rife. It is clear, however,that state intelligence agencies penetrated the movement at various levels...The security services provided the intelligence that allowed the police and the military to bear down on the IRA's capacity to continue with any sort of effective campaign.' Ireland Since 1939' Henry Patterson, p350

'A significant number of men in key positions in Sinn Fein and the IRA, including men who acted as bodyguards to Gerry Adams - and even his driver - had been 'turned' by British Intelligence in the mid eighties...As more and more information about highly placed informers became public in 2007 and 2008, Gerry Bradley would shake his head at each revelation and ask ruefully: 'How did we get anything done?' ' Insider, Gerry Bradley's Life in the IRA

Just because I can't be arsed sitting here typing out paragraphs of text to prove what is generally taken as common knowledge, doesn't mean the sources aren't around. The IRA was brought to the negotiating table because it was getting nowhere and one of the chief factors in this was the extent to which the organisation had been taken over by British intelligence. Why else would it have settled for something it could've had by the mid 1970's? Republicans can spin it anyway they choose, but the bottom line is that the IRA settled for an internal, partitionist outcome to their long war, something they would've sneered at in the early days of the troubles.

It's not the first time you have quoted Gerry Bradley. Why not get a few quotes from Ruth Dudley Edwards or Fintan O'Toole or someone else who has a particular axe to grind with republicans in a public fashion?
Might I also add to the other voices on this board saying that your mask is truly slipping. Your analysis above is suspiciously similar to Gregory Campbell's (DUP) press release on the ETA ceasefire where he remarks "The IRA was riddled with informants and they were delighted when offered a way out of terror at a very cheap price."

Considering that at the time of Sunningdale, the British state was at war with the nationalist/republican population through state collusion, widespread harassment at police/British Army checkpoints (which was a major cause of IRA recruitment) as well as institutionalised religious discrimination throughout the state, then talking as if Sunningdale was ever going to last is totally fanciful and absurd. Even with years of relative peace since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, it took until 2007 before a stable(ish) executive was established. That was almost TEN YEARS after the Good Friday Agreement was signed. Arguing that Sunningdale was the answer is to ignore the political and social climate of the day. Something many unionists seem to be adept at.

It was due to pressure from the IRA that the British eventually agreed to sit down at the table. The Docklands bombing only took place due to the British Government not taking peace talks seriously:

'The cessation presented a historic challenge for everyone and Óglaigh na hÉireann commends the leadership of nationalist Ireland at home and abroad. They rose to the challenge. The British Prime Minister did not. Instead of embracing the peace process, the British government acted in bad faith, with Mr Major and the Unionist leaders squandering this unprecedented opportunity to resolve the conflict.'
IRA Statement after the Docklands bombing
(Hardly the statement you would expect to hear from a group which would have been "delighted to find a way out of terror at a very cheap price" does it Gregory/Myles?

If the IRA were honestly riddled with informers, HOW would the British Government not have known about the Docklands? Surely at a time of ceasefire the IRA would have been at it's most vulnerable to informers?

If the IRA were riddled with informers, how is is that it was the ONLY paramilitary organisation which the British described as having carried out a "SUSTAINED" professional campaign? How is it the IRA could be described by the Irish Times, in it's review of Bandit Country , as "the most effective guerilla/terrorist army in the world"? If the IRA was indeed riddled with spies, it doesn't say much for their quality does it?

[Puckoon]

If the IRA were riddled with informers, how is is that it was the ONLY paramilitary organisation which the British described as having carried out a "SUSTAINED" professional campaign? How is it the IRA could be described by the Irish Times, in it's review of Bandit Country , as "the most effective guerilla/terrorist army in the world"? If the IRA was indeed riddled with spies, it doesn't say much for their quality does it?

I might be getting this wrong here - but the quote from Bandit Country to my recollection came from one SAS commander. Hardly the opinion of an entire military wing of the Brits.

I think the danger with such statements is that if enough pinches of salt are taken, and the soundbyte gets the right spin in the right places - it gets taken as gospel... NOT that I am disagreeing with you.

Regarding your post on the level of infiltration of the IRA by touts - there is the republican stance, there is the british stance and somewhere in the middle I think we'd find the truth.

[Nally Stand]

If the IRA were riddled with informers, how is is that it was the ONLY paramilitary organisation which the British described as having carried out a "SUSTAINED" professional campaign? How is it the IRA could be described by the Irish Times, in it's review of Bandit Country , as "the most effective guerilla/terrorist army in the world"? If the IRA was indeed riddled with spies, it doesn't say much for their quality does it?

I might be getting this wrong here - but the quote from Bandit Country to my recollection came from one SAS commander. Hardly the opinion of an entire military wing of the Brits.

I think the danger with such statements is that if enough pinches of salt are taken, and the soundbyte gets the right spin in the right places - it gets taken as gospel... NOT that I am disagreeing with you.

Regarding your post on the level of infiltration of the IRA by touts - there is the republican stance, there is the british stance and somewhere in the middle I think we'd find the truth.

It may have also been said by an SAS commander in Bandit Country, however I take it from the internal British Military document which assesses it's involvement in Ireland. A post of mine a page or two back gives a link to the BBC news report on it.

As I've said earlier too, I could absolutely be wrong on the issue of the level of infiltration. Nobody knows for definite, as even Myles might accept. I just put forward my own opinion to counter a sensationalist argument which has since been claimed to having been "tongue in cheek" and I put forward my argument based not on individual instances but on analysis of the effectiveness of the over-all IRA campaign in relation to how effective a group riddled with informers possibly COULD be.

[Minder]

Lynchboy - His driver was also in the IRA so I would say he knew more than just about writing books and pipe smoking.