Worst Killers of the Troubles

alfranken

DublinDes wrote: »

I'm surprised no one mentioned Paisley. He may not have pulled the trigger himself but he sure incited many others to it though. :mad:




Nor for that matter was he the only unionist who was happy to flirt with the loyalists.

He'll get his reward in heaven.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, his name was Luke actually and he seemed pretty convincing.

Pretty convincing because it appeals to your political nature? Of course.

But I can categorically tell you that it's a load of rubbish. You're more than welcome to take it up in the conspiracy forum and provide your proof, rather than a Jimmy told me story.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

But I can categorically tell you that it's a load of rubbish.

I would have thought that the only folk who could "categorically" attest that Loughgall was not a setup would have to be in cahoots with the Crown forces, no?

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

I would have thought that the only folk who could "categorically" attest that Loughgall was not a setup would have to be in cahoots with the Crown forces, no?

No.

lugha

I only vaguely recall the affair but as best I can recollect the SAS were lying in wait. Presumably someone tipped of the SAS, so in that sense they IRA unit were setup?

alfranken

lugha wrote: »

I only vaguely recall the affair but as best I can recollect the SAS were lying in wait. Presumably someone tipped of the SAS, so in that sense they IRA unit were setup?

Happens in war

Fratton Fred

Ed Maloney mentions it in his book "the Secret History of the IRA".

S-Murph

FTA69 wrote: »

In short, their entire "brand" so to speak has become associated with drugs and crackpots like Dessie O'Hare; the best thing they could do would be to wind up their armed group because it has brought them and others nothing but trouble over the past ten years.

But that 'brand' varies from place to place. In Derry, and numerous other parts of the North, people are quite supportive, or sympathetic, to the INLA.

It is true that elements of the organisation have muddied the water, but thats something that can be overcome with some work.

It is very unfortunate, in my view, that the last revolutionary socialist organisation with arms on the island has given them up. The organisation could have been moulded into something more than a traditional paramilitary, with more than "armed struggle" its focus.

It wasn't me!

S-Murph wrote: »

It is very unfortunate, in my view, that the last revolutionary socialist organisation with arms on the island has given them up. The organisation could have been moulded into something more than a traditional paramilitary, with more than "armed struggle" its focus.

You've got to be joking. Unfortunate? Illustrate exactly how armed paramilitary groups operating without state sanction is going to contribute to stability or positive progress in Ireland please? Because I have to say, I spent saturday night hallucinating with fever, and that's still the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a really long time. And how is it no longer possibly to become more than a traditional paramilitary now that they've committed to getting away from armed insurrection? Surely logic suggests that that's a move in such a direction? Honestly, that was just baffling, frankly.

alfranken

S-Murph wrote: »

But that 'brand' varies from place to place. In Derry, and numerous other parts of the North, people are quite supportive, or sympathetic, to the INLA.

It is true that elements of the organisation have muddied the water, but thats something that can be overcome with some work.

It is very unfortunate, in my view, that the last revolutionary socialist organisation with arms on the island has given them up. The organisation could have been moulded into something more than a traditional paramilitary, with more than "armed struggle" its focus.

Snigger, they had so much to offer.

S-Murph

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Illustrate exactly how armed paramilitary groups operating without state sanction is going to contribute to stability or positive progress in Ireland please?

Well its a highly subjective issue. I cant understand where "state sanction" comes into this, as if the Irish free state or British state is an absolute entity.

In particular with the INLA, its political goal is/was the establishment of an Irish socialist republic. Thats a progressive aim, in my view.

And how is it no longer possibly to become more than a traditional paramilitary now that they've committed to getting away from armed insurrection?

They were formed to undertake an armed struggle specifically, not insurrection. They have now claimed the armed struggle is over, which is fair enough as it was futile anyway. They have also claimed that the socialist struggle will take an exclusivley peaceful path - which pretty much flies in the face of what a revolution is.

The options they have limited themselves to was armed struggle against the British or peaceful political struggle. This neglects their potential role in backing up the class struggle and achieving tactical goals using physical force.

Victor

b12mearse wrote: »

Today the INLA is to announce its ending its campaign. http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1011/inla.html
Through the years the INLA has produced the most vicious killers of the troubles, Dessie O Hare and Dominic McGlinchey. Dessie O Hare himself murdered around 30 people and is now walking the streets which I find quite fascinating.
I was just wondering who else you could add to the list of worst killers of the troubles and there number of victims?
I'm sorry if I have offended anyone but I think its worth a discussion.

Terrontress wrote: »

I think Lenny Murphy would have to be seen as one of the worst. An absolute psychopath whose death was welcomed by loyalist, republicans and security forces alike.

mega man wrote: »

Jim Lynagh murdered around 30 people. met his end in loughgall,
some guy in south armagh holds poll position with 70 murders...

dlofnep wrote: »

Lenny Murphy, without a doubt.

b12mearse wrote: »

what about johnny adair?

mega man wrote: »

Brian Nelson murdered quite a few. the British Governemnt gave him a lincence to kill.

PomBear wrote: »

i'd put Maggie Thatcher at pole position

What is this Top Trumps?

S-Murph

alfranken wrote: »

Snigger, they had so much to offer.

And the movement still does.

alfranken

S-Murph wrote: »

And the movement still does.

My bowels just had a movement. I wouldn't trust the fascist psycho gangsters to iron my shirt let alone have any involvement in politics.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

Pretty convincing because it appeals to your political nature? Of course.

But I can categorically tell you that it's a load of rubbish. You're more than welcome to take it up in the conspiracy forum and provide your proof, rather than a Jimmy told me story.

actually his political views were/are very different to mine, he was looking at it more as a "the SAS wouldn't have been able to ambush them if the IRA army council hadn't set them up".

Still, once again you are the proven oracle on these things.

S-Murph

alfranken wrote: »

My bowels just had a movement. I wouldn't trust the fascist psycho gangsters to iron my shirt let alone have any involvement in politics.

Im guessing you know some personally. Or is that your bowels talking.

caseyann

b12mearse wrote: »

Today the INLA is to announce its ending its campaign. http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1011/inla.html
Through the years the INLA has produced the most vicious killers of the troubles, Dessie O Hare and Dominic McGlinchey. Dessie O Hare himself murdered around 30 people and is now walking the streets which I find quite fascinating.
I was just wondering who else you could add to the list of worst killers of the troubles and there number of victims?
I'm sorry if I have offended anyone but I think its worth a discussion.

Kerr's FRU has been the subject of a long-running and top secret inquiry by Sir John Stevens, Scotland Yard Commissioner, into whether or not they colluded with loyalists as part of a campaign of organised state-sanctioned murder. The FRU are suspected of carrying out an arson attack on Stevens' office in an attempt to destroy key evidence linking the unit with UDA murder gangs. This is a story that military chiefs do not want out.
http://www.serve.com/pfc/fru/fru12022k1a.html

http://cryptome.org/hmg-murder.htm

FTA69

lugha wrote: »

I only vaguely recall the affair but as best I can recollect the SAS were lying in wait. Presumably someone tipped of the SAS, so in that sense they IRA unit were setup?

They could have been aware of the ambush due to electronic or personal surveillance, similarly it could also have been the result of a tout within East Tyrone. Neither option suggest that they were set up by the IRA leadership, the former two options are a far more likely explanation in my opinion.

S Murph,

But that 'brand' varies from place to place. In Derry, and numerous other parts of the North, people are quite supportive, or sympathetic, to the INLA

Outside of Derry and Strabane I can't think of any areas where the Irps would be considered "strong". The fact also remains that within the capital city of this country, for years the INLA leader was nothing short of a criminal, and has been denounced as such by senior members of the RSM and even the INLA themselves. The Duffy debacle did untold damage to the RSM in South, leaving numbers of young people stuck in Portlaoise because Duffy went on a power trip and involved himself in crime. Similarly that whole episode dragged Republicanism in Inner City and West Dublin into the sh*t, this at a time when Republicans need reorganisation and support above all. Hardly empowering the proletariat is it? To be honest arms and armed organisations are entirely redundant tactics at this present moment in time, the only time I can see those tactics being feasably re-employed in the near future is if members of Republican organisations come under attack from drug-dealers or other anti-working class elements.

The focus now must be to construct a socialist alternative and to tap into the current swathes of massive discontent amongst working people in Ireland. If you aren't relevant to their daily struggles, or active on issues that affect them then in short you're wasting your time. Generally paramilitarism along the lines of recent INLA activity more often than not detract from that in my opinion.

The RSM has many decent, sincere and astute activists. It is them who need to take the initiative if the broader RSM is to have any hope of becoming somewhat relevant in working-class politics.

LordSutch

José Alaninho

Camelot wrote: »

Nice collection! UTP!

S-Murph

FTA69 wrote: »

The fact also remains that within the capital city of this country, for years the INLA leader was nothing short of a criminal, and has been denounced as such by senior members of the RSM and even the INLA themselves. The Duffy debacle did untold damage to the RSM in South, leaving numbers of young people stuck in Portlaoise because Duffy went on a power trip and involved himself in crime. Similarly that whole episode dragged Republicanism in Inner City and West Dublin into the sh*t, this at a time when Republicans need reorganisation and support above all.

Build a bridge. Tomorrows issue will be the X factor.

If the organisation can be reorganised to take a more political direction, there is no reason why that image cannot change. Peoples perceptions are not absolute, they change. Because they have a bad image right now dosnt mean they should throw in their hat.

Hardly empowering the proletariat is it?

Oh ha ha so funny.

To be honest arms and armed organisations are entirely redundant tactics at this present moment in time,

Armed action dosnt just 'happen' when we want it. The point in having an army is that the tactic is availible and optional, when needed. Without an army, the tactic is not availible - even when the moment comes.

So what "the present moment" is dosnt matter. Besides that, I disagree. I think there are plenty of situations right now where armed intervention could be used where peaceful political struggle has failed.

the only time I can see those tactics being feasably re-employed in the near future is if members of Republican organisations come under attack from drug-dealers or other anti-working class elements.

No, I think that would be the last thing on my mind. Armed action can be used to back up the class struggle - not just to kneecap dealers. Thats a traditionalist approach you are taking.

The focus now must be to construct a socialist alternative and to tap into the current swathes of massive discontent amongst working people in Ireland. If you aren't relevant to their daily struggles, or active on issues that affect them then in short you're wasting your time. Generally paramilitarism along the lines of recent INLA activity more often than not detract from that in my opinion.

Thats what the IRSP is there for. All emphasis should be placed on building the political base. That, however, does not mean disbanding the army.

the bolt

mega man wrote: »

Jim Lynagh murdered around 30 people. met his end in loughgall,
some guy in south armagh holds poll position with 70 murders...

allways weary of figures like that or mad dog killed x amount,who really knows?just my 2cents worth.

alfranken

S-Murph wrote: »

Build a bridge. Tomorrows issue will be the X factor.

If the organisation can be reorganised to take a more political direction, there is no reason why that image cannot change. Peoples perceptions are not absolute, they change. Because they have a bad image right now dosnt mean they should throw in their hat.



Oh ha ha so funny.



Armed action dosnt just 'happen' when we want it. The point in having an army is that the tactic is availible and optional, when needed. Without an army, the tactic is not availible - even when the moment comes.

So what "the present moment" is dosnt matter. Besides that, I disagree. I think there are plenty of situations right now where armed intervention could be used where peaceful political struggle has failed.


No, I think that would be the last thing on my mind. Armed action can be used to back up the class struggle - not just to kneecap dealers. Thats a traditionalist approach you are taking.



Thats what the IRSP is there for. All emphasis should be placed on building the political base. That, however, does not mean disbanding the army.

Fair enough, they might need drugs when they realise they are throwing their lives away on something no one (with a life anyway) will remember them for.

the bolt

alfranken wrote: »

He'll get his reward in heaven.

or on the late late show:rolleyes:

S-Murph

alfranken wrote: »

Fair enough, they might need drugs when they realise they are throwing their lives away on something no one (with a life anyway) will remember them for.

Volunteers dont involve themselves, or die, to be remembered. They volunteer to make social change and achieve political objectives.

DoireNod

alfranken wrote: »

Fair enough, they might need drugs when they realise they are throwing their lives away on something no one (with a life anyway) will remember them for.

You can get drugs without taking them by force, so why would an army be beneficial to acquiring narcotics? You're completely ignoring the point that was made.

Who are you to decide what is worth fighting for? Have you experienced any systematic infliction of terror and injustice? I presume you must have, seeing as you're so informed on the topic...

There are instances across the world currently that are testimony to the fact that armed conflict could happen at any time, so having an army might be beneficial, hypothetically speaking. There was a time and a place for armed rebellion in Ireland as history has proven - we would not be where we are today without it.

alfranken

DoireNod wrote: »

You can get drugs without taking them by force, so why would an army be beneficial to acquiring narcotics? You're completely ignoring the point that was made.

Who are you to decide what is worth fighting for? Have you experienced any systematic infliction of terror and injustice? I presume you must have, seeing as you're so informed on the topic...

There are instances across the world currently that are testimony to the fact that armed conflict could happen at any time, so having an army might be beneficial, hypothetically speaking. There was a time and a place for armed rebellion in Ireland as history has proven - we would not be where we are today without it.

Yes I'm aware of how the catholic population were f***ed over and how the people in charge let it happen and couldn't understand that you don't treat people like dirt and expect them to like it, there is also a time to realise that if what you're doing is going to have a positive effect, although for many in paramiltary organisations it was just a ganster enterprise.
The original point was that was made was that it was sad that the INLA disbanded, the INLA could never have existed and there would be no loss.

DoireNod

alfranken wrote: »

Yes I'm aware of how the catholic population were f***ed over and how the people in charge let it happen and couldn't understand that you don't treat people like dirt and expect them to like it, there is also a time to realise that if what you're doing is going to have a positive effect, although for many in paramiltary organisations it was just a ganster enterprise.

You're aware of it, but did you experience it? If not, I'd suggest you educate yourself further on the topic. For those in the IRSP and INLA and other militant republican groups, it was more than greedy gangsterism that involved them. You have to realise and accept this.

The original point was that was made was that it was sad that the INLA disbanded, the INLA could never have existed and there would be no loss.

In your opinion. Had you been living in the North during the height of the Troubles, your opinion may have been ever so slightly different.

S-Murph

alfranken wrote: »

although for many in paramiltary organisations it was just a ganster enterprise.

'Gangsterism' exists in all organisations - including the Gardai and Free State Army.

We shouldnt judge an entire institution on the actions and gangsterism of a minority. Paramilitaries are no exception to this.

The discuission on the disbandment of the INLA should focus on the future, not the past. It had/has a potential role in the class struggle. That seems to have been overlooked in my view.

lugha

For me, anyone who endorses physical force as a means to an end needs to ask the question, from where does the authority to so act come? In a normal democratic state, the police and army have such authority because they are answerable to the elected leaders of that state and hence the people. You can make an argument for physical force if the will of the majority is being denied, as happens in South Africa under apartheid, or if a minority is being beaten down, as happened with Catholics in NI at the beginning of the troubles. The problem I had with physical force republicanism, the PIRA in particular, is that they engaged in such activities right up to the mid 1990s, all the while claiming to represent me (as they implicitly did by asserting that the army council of the IRA were the legitimate government of ALL Ireland). All this time, the people of the republic regularly had fair and free elections and for a time, Sinn Fein fielded candidates, and these rarely succeeded in getting more than a miniscule vote, let alone a majority which might have given them a mandate of sorts to act on our behalf. In short, they did not have authority ever to act for us. They would rebuff this argument by telling us that our state was illegitimate, that our government was a puppet of London, that essentially we were not competent to determine how and by whom we were to be ruled. Ironically, all the while, they would lambast imperial Britain!