Loyalist Marchers forced to defend themselves from attack!

[lynchbhoy]

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

At least one of them was then!!

[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.

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?

Whatever else one may think about Gerry Bradley - and as you may have gathered, I don't particularly care for the IRA - he devoted many years of his life and several years of freedom to that organisation's cause. I think he's more entitled to express an opinion than most of the armchair generals found on the GAA Board.

[red hander]

If squirming made a noise, what would it sound like?

[Myles Na G.]

If squirming made a noise, what would it sound like?

If sheep could use a keyboard, what would they post?

[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?

Whatever else one may think about Gerry Bradley - and as you may have gathered, I don't particularly care for the IRA - he devoted many years of his life and several years of freedom to that organisation's cause. I think he's more entitled to express an opinion than most of the armchair generals found on the GAA Board.

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

P.S. That is honestly your reply? Have you absolutely nothing to come back with on my other points/questions? That's laughable, even for you

[red hander]

If squirming made a noise, what would it sound like?

If sheep could use a keyboard, what would they post?

Dunno, but reading your cac I know what emus post when you let them near a keyboard after they've taken their heads out of the sand

[Puckoon]

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

[Nally Stand]

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Well let me re-phrase...their opinions are as valuable as the reader decides they are. However, things they report as facts cannot be trusted as such people cannot be trusted to write impartially on something which they have a vested agenda against. It's not complicated.

An outspoken critic of anything cannot be totally trusted to write impartially on the subject.

[Puckoon]

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Well let me re-phrase...their opinions are as valuable as the reader decides they are. However, things they report as facts cannot be trusted as such people cannot be trusted to write impartially on something which they have a vested agenda against. It's not complicated.

An outspoken critic of anything cannot be totally trusted to write impartially on the subject.

I think anyone with an ounce of sense can judge the partial or impartial nature of critics, or proponents.

Just because someone may be impartial - that does automatically not make them a liar. In a similar vein that you opinions -  with you being a supporter of Sinn Fein and a republican, should not be thrown out the window because you cant be trusted to write on a subject without your own bias.

What is the difference in having a vested agenda against, versus a vested agenda for, unless of course a difference suits ones agenda...

[Nally Stand]

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Well let me re-phrase...their opinions are as valuable as the reader decides they are. However, things they report as facts cannot be trusted as such people cannot be trusted to write impartially on something which they have a vested agenda against. It's not complicated.

An outspoken critic of anything cannot be totally trusted to write impartially on the subject.

I think anyone with an ounce of sense can judge the partial or impartial nature of critics, or proponents.

Just because someone may be impartial - that does automatically not make them a liar. In a similar vein that you opinions -  with you being a supporter of Sinn Fein and a republican, should not be thrown out the window because you cant be trusted to write on a subject without your own bias.

What is the difference in having a vested agenda against, versus a vested agenda for, unless of course a difference suits ones agenda...

Honestly Puck, it's really not complicated. Would an anecdotal statement of a prosecution witness be relied upon in if such a witness was known to be someone with a vested interest in getting the defendant convicted? Can someone who has a vested interest in attacking the mainstream republicanism be trusted to write in impartial story about mainstream republicanism?

And it is hardly fair to compare me to a published author. I readily admit that I am pro-mainstream republican and have never written a book trying to discuss the subject. Gerry Bradley is someone who's principle motivation is undermining mainstream republicanism and therefor what he presents as opinions are up to himself and the reader, but what he presents as fact must be taken with a pinch of salt.

I know you have indicated before that you are not exactly a fan of the IRA, which is of course up to yourself, however I'm definitely starting to doubt whether you meant it when you said you weren't winding, I really am. If you were anyway impartial in this you would maybe be taking Myles up also for his ...eh hem...."reply" ...to my last post to him in which he shamelessly avoided replying to any of the questions put to him! Just a thought!

[Myles Na G.]

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Excellent point. However, Gerry Bradley would probably argue that he has not fallen away from mainstream republicanism, but rather that mainstream republicanism has fallen away from him and those like him. Shinners don't like hearing this. More importantly, they don't like other people hearing this, therefore they dismiss any opinion which doesn't conform to the gospel of Gerry and Marty as 'biased'. On the other hand, they're quite happy to quote groups like the Finucane Centre in support of their arguments, which makes me think they've had an irony by pass operation at some point.

[Myles Na G.]

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Well let me re-phrase...their opinions are as valuable as the reader decides they are. However, things they report as facts cannot be trusted as such people cannot be trusted to write impartially on something which they have a vested agenda against. It's not complicated.

An outspoken critic of anything cannot be totally trusted to write impartially on the subject.

I think anyone with an ounce of sense can judge the partial or impartial nature of critics, or proponents.

Just because someone may be impartial - that does automatically not make them a liar. In a similar vein that you opinions -  with you being a supporter of Sinn Fein and a republican, should not be thrown out the window because you cant be trusted to write on a subject without your own bias.

What is the difference in having a vested agenda against, versus a vested agenda for, unless of course a difference suits ones agenda...

Honestly Puck, it's really not complicated. Would an anecdotal statement of a prosecution witness be relied upon in if such a witness was known to be someone with a vested interest in getting the defendant convicted? Can someone who has a vested interest in attacking the mainstream republicanism be trusted to write in impartial story about mainstream republicanism?

And it is hardly fair to compare me to a published author. I readily admit that I am pro-mainstream republican and have never written a book trying to discuss the subject. Gerry Bradley is someone who's principle motivation is undermining mainstream republicanism and therefor what he presents as opinions are up to himself and the reader, but what he presents as fact must be taken with a pinch of salt.

I know you have indicated before that you are not exactly a fan of the IRA, which is of course up to yourself, however I'm definitely starting to doubt whether you meant it when you said you weren't winding, I really am. If you were anyway impartial in this you would maybe be taking Myles up also for his ...eh hem...."reply" ...to my last post to him in which he shamelessly avoided replying to any of the questions put to him! Just a thought!

If you want an answer to every point you make, here's a tip - shorten your posts.

[lynchbhoy]

If you want an answer to every point you make, here's a tip - shorten your posts.

so you cant answer them then - well you never can , so its no surprise !

as for gerry bradley, thats a laughable comment to say that he hasnt gone away off on his own tangent - he is obv bitter over something and its fairly obvious in all he says 1

as for sf - they are not mainstream republicanism, they are the only show in town for voters which is what keeps some of their candidates elected (a lot of them are decent or even good though). A lot of people would disagree with sf and a lot of their outlook - and I dont mean those dissident eejits either.

still no word on what happened about the criminals that assaulted the woman crossing the street is there?

[Nally Stand]

He also is an outspoken critic of SF and has a vested interest in discrediting both SF and the IRA nowadays, so no, his opinions are about as reliable and trustworthy as those of Ruth Dudley Edwards.

Not winding - just asking.

Nally - would you say then that reading the accounts of an ex-mormon, an ex-freemason, or an ex-amyway operative are neither reliable nor trustworthy - just because they have fallen away from a cause they once went to great lengths for?

Why, if someone is a critic, does that make their opinions invaluable, especially if coming from a time spent inside an organization?

Well let me re-phrase...their opinions are as valuable as the reader decides they are. However, things they report as facts cannot be trusted as such people cannot be trusted to write impartially on something which they have a vested agenda against. It's not complicated.

An outspoken critic of anything cannot be totally trusted to write impartially on the subject.

I think anyone with an ounce of sense can judge the partial or impartial nature of critics, or proponents.

Just because someone may be impartial - that does automatically not make them a liar. In a similar vein that you opinions -  with you being a supporter of Sinn Fein and a republican, should not be thrown out the window because you cant be trusted to write on a subject without your own bias.

What is the difference in having a vested agenda against, versus a vested agenda for, unless of course a difference suits ones agenda...

Honestly Puck, it's really not complicated. Would an anecdotal statement of a prosecution witness be relied upon in if such a witness was known to be someone with a vested interest in getting the defendant convicted? Can someone who has a vested interest in attacking the mainstream republicanism be trusted to write in impartial story about mainstream republicanism?

And it is hardly fair to compare me to a published author. I readily admit that I am pro-mainstream republican and have never written a book trying to discuss the subject. Gerry Bradley is someone who's principle motivation is undermining mainstream republicanism and therefor what he presents as opinions are up to himself and the reader, but what he presents as fact must be taken with a pinch of salt.

I know you have indicated before that you are not exactly a fan of the IRA, which is of course up to yourself, however I'm definitely starting to doubt whether you meant it when you said you weren't winding, I really am. If you were anyway impartial in this you would maybe be taking Myles up also for his ...eh hem...."reply" ...to my last post to him in which he shamelessly avoided replying to any of the questions put to him! Just a thought!

If you want an answer to every point you make, here's a tip - shorten your posts.

YOU WONT ANSWER MY QUESTIONS BECAUSE MY POST WAS TOO LONG???!!


HAHA Myles seriously, stop making a tool of yourself! If you cannot answer my questions then at least try to come up with a better excuse than that

[Croí na hÉireann]

If squirming made a noise, what would it sound like?

If sheep could use a keyboard, what would they post?

Keep me away from the Rossies