Drive-by shootings by British Army in Northern Ireland

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

So, no evidence then. Glad we cleared that up.

I'm not surprised someone with such religious devotion to the myth that the IRA brought down the Sunningdale Agreement has no understanding of the difference between proof and evidence.

Dr.Tank Adams

alastair wrote: »

So, no evidence then. Glad we cleared that up.

Oooh, a smart-a*** I see... So Loyalist testimony isn't evidence, is it not? And the destruction of records isn't enough for reasonable doubt and for further investigations to be commissioned? Come on now, stop sticking your head in the ground, you're fooling no-one.

alastair

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Oooh, a smart-a*** I see... So Loyalist testimony isn't evidence, is it not? And the destruction of records isn't enough for reasonable doubt and for further investigations to be commissioned? Come on now, stop sticking your head in the ground, you're fooling no-one.

Destroyed documentation is quite possibly a good basis for further investigation. What it's not is proof of anything. 'Loyalist testimony' is actually hearsay from a given individual who may, or may not be credible, and needs to be supported with some other form of independent corroboration. No-one has ever produced evidence that the Glenanne gang was anything more that a locally inspired grouping - operating independently of any grander scheme. If British military intelligence were linked, then that would put them in good company, as there were precious few paramilitary groupings, loyalist or republican, that were not linked to military intelligence.

Dr.Tank Adams

alastair wrote: »

Destroyed documentation is quite possibly a good basis for further investigation. What it's not is proof of anything. 'Loyalist testimony' is actually hearsay from a given individual who may, or may not be credible, and needs to be supported with some other form of independent corroboration. No-one has ever produced evidence that the Glenanne gang was anything more that a locally inspired grouping - operating independently of any grander scheme. If British military intelligence were linked, then that would put them in good company, as there were precious few paramilitary groupings, loyalist or republican, that were not linked to military intelligence.

If it came from Republicans I'd be skeptical, the fact it comes from Loyalists (please note plural) tells us that there is something to it. I know people like you enjoy playing dumb, but it's a fact acknowledged by almost everyone (including CAIN, the most widely respected authority on these matters) that collusion took place during the Troubles up to the highest levels.
Just out of interest, if I asked you do you believe Gerry Adams was ever in the IRA, would you respond yes? Because there's no evidence for that other than "hearsay" either...

Sand

Can'tseeme wrote: »

You're the only one jumping to wild conclusions that they're a bunch of Andy McNab's. When there has been nothing to suggest that.

For the purposes of scientific research, are you consciously ignoring the release of an Andy McNab book by one of the contributors, or are you unable to perceive my reference to it in my earlier posts due to some unconscious editing? I'm genuinely curious.

alastair

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

If it came from Republicans I'd be skeptical, the fact it comes from Loyalists (please note plural) tells us that there is something to it. I know people like you enjoy playing dumb, but it's a fact acknowledged by almost everyone (including CAIN, the most widely respected authority on these matters) that collusion took place during the Troubles up to the highest levels.
Just out of interest, if I asked you do you believe Gerry Adams was ever in the IRA, would you respond yes? Because there's no evidence for that other than "hearsay" either...

People like me? You don't know me from Adam.

The evidence of Adams' membership of the IRA is not just based on hearsay, it's based on his undisputed role in participating in an IRA negotiating party, his being photographed in uniform at an IRA funeral, and the official position of two governments with access to ample information. There's nothing beyond speculation and hearsay with regard to the Glenanne gang - including claims by some who's credibility is, to be kind, less than solid.

No-one is disputing collusion took place. That's a straw man argument. The Genanne gang undoubtedly included personnel from the UDR and RUC. But that's a far cry from claiming that they were acting under orders from the British Army.

alastair

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I'm not surprised someone with such religious devotion to the myth that the IRA brought down the Sunningdale Agreement has no understanding of the difference between proof and evidence.

Neither proof, nor evidence supplied to support the claim. But feel free to avoid the substantive issue.

And - again - Sunningdale was brought down by the combined response of loyalist and the IRA. IRA policy was always to undermine power-sharing arrangements and devolved government.

Dr.Tank Adams

alastair wrote: »

People like me? You don't know me from Adam.

The evidence of Adams' membership of the IRA is not just based on hearsay, it's based on his undisputed role in participating in an IRA negotiating party, his being photographed in uniform at an IRA funeral, and the official position of two governments with access to ample information. There's nothing beyond speculation and hearsay with regard to the Glenanne gang - including claims by some who's credibility is, to be kind, less than solid.

No-one is disputing collusion took place. That's a straw man argument. The Genanne gang undoubtedly included personnel from the UDR and RUC. But that's a far cry from claiming that they were acting under orders from the British Army.

Being pictured at an IRA funeral by no means proves you were in the IRA, in fact most of the people at IRA funerals weren't members. Neither does wearing an "IRA uniform" I'm afraid, I could wear a Legionnaire uniform if I wished, doesn't make me a Legionnaire. And if the governments evidence is so compelling, then why has it never come out and proven it? When you get down to it, nearly all of the evidence for Adams membership is "hearsay" as you would put it. Just to make things clear, I absolutely believe Adams was in the IRA, I'm just making the point of how easy it is to argue he wasn't by using the sort of equivocal, "can't be certain" rhetoric you are using to deny BA collusion with Loyalists.

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

And - again - Sunningdale was brought down by the combined response of loyalist and the IRA. IRA policy was always to undermine power-sharing arrangements and devolved government

Evidence?

Actually don't bother, everyone knows you're making it up anyway and it was the mad dogs of Unionism with their vanguard loyalist thugs who brought it down.

The Sunningdale Agreement

Monday 10 December 1973
Loyalists announced the establishment of the Ulster Army Council (UAC) to resist the proposed Council of Ireland. The UAC was an umbrella group for the main Loyalist paramilitary groups and included the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF).

Saturday 23 March 1974
The Ulster Workers' Council (UWC), a new Loyalist grouping, issued a statement calling for new elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The UWC threatened civil disobedience unless the Executive was dissolved.

Tuesday 28 May 1974
Day 14 of the UWC strike
The crisis came to a head. Brian Faulkner resigned as Chief Executive following a refusal by Merlyn Rees, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to meet with representatives from the Ulster Workers' Council (UWC). Faulkner's Unionist colleagues also resigned. This effectively marked the end of the Northern Ireland Executive. A large demonstration of farmers in tractors blocked the entrance to the Stormont parliament buildings and also much of the Upper Newtownards Road. News of the collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive spread to the protestors. Celebrations took place in Protestant areas across the region.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/sunningdale/chron.htm

alastair

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Being pictured at an IRA funeral by no means proves you were in the IRA, in fact most of the people at IRA funerals weren't members. Neither does wearing an "IRA uniform" I'm afraid, I could wear a Legionnaire uniform if I wished, doesn't make me a Legionnaire.

I wouldn't suggest passing yourself off as a legionnaire at a funeral of a legionnaire. Wearing an IRA uniform at a IRA funeral, is pretty unambiguous. As is presenting yourself amongst a party of IRA negotiators.

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

And if the governments evidence is so compelling, then why has it never come out and proven it?

Because it wasn't useful for either government to do so. Real-politik.

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

When you get down to it, nearly all of the evidence for Adams membership is "hearsay" as you would put it.

Except for the evidence that isn't hearsay.

Dr.Tank Adams wrote: »

Just to make things clear, I absolutely believe Adams was in the IRA, I'm just making the point of how easy it is to argue he wasn't by using the sort of equivocal, "can't be certain" rhetoric you are using to deny BA collusion with Loyalists.

Except that there are completely different scenarios, with completely differing degrees of evidence pertaining. I'm not equivocating about collusion with regard to the Glenanne gang, I'm being honest about the lack of evidence to support the claim they were acting on behalf of the British Army, or any other high-level British interests. The Glenanne gang narrowly missed killed my parents, who were injured in a car-bombing - I hold no love for them, but I equally don't need to listen to half-baked conspiracy theories that paint their actions as some grand British Army plan. 'People like me' just don't like lazy propaganda.

alastair

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Evidence?

The evidence is in the stated policy of the IRA right up until the end of their campaign of violence - all measures to undermine powersharing.

Dr.Tank Adams

alastair wrote: »

I wouldn't suggest passing yourself off as a legionnaire at a funeral of a legionnaire. Wearing an IRA uniform at a IRA funeral, is pretty unambiguous. As is presenting yourself amongst a party of IRA negotiators.


Because it wasn't useful for either government to do so. Real-politik.


Except for the evidence that isn't hearsay.


Except that there are completely different scenarios, with completely differing degrees of evidence pertaining. I'm not equivocating about collusion with regard to the Glenanne gang, I'm being honest about the lack of evidence to support the claim they were acting on behalf of the British Army, or any other high-level British interests. The Glenanne gang narrowly missed killed my parents, who were injured in a car-bombing - I hold no love for them, but I equally don't need to listen to half-baked conspiracy theories that paint their actions as some grand British Army plan. 'People like me' just don't like lazy propaganda.

I'm well aware the examples are not completely alike, I simply used it as it's a northern related subject. There are hundreds of other examples from around the world I could have used, but the general point is the same. As for not wanting to expose Adams for political reasons, yes, that makes sense for the last 20 years, not really the 20 before that though. As for the evidence that isn't "hearsay", could you please direct me to it?
Listen, it's clear we aren't going to come to an agreement here, and seeing as you're trying to claim that the IRA brought about the downfall of Sunningdale (which everyone accepts was 90% UWC and 10% the Army not bothering to stop them) tells me that you're not really interested in a proper argument and are just here to push the Unionist/British-centric view even if you don't really believe it yourself.

Can'tseeme

Sand wrote: »

For the purposes of scientific research, are you consciously ignoring the release of an Andy McNab book by one of the contributors, or are you unable to perceive my reference to it in my earlier posts due to some unconscious editing? I'm genuinely curious.

Andy McNab has nothing to do with this subject.

So what if one of the contributors has a book out.

Godge

padma wrote: »

What captured my eye most about this article in anticipation of tonights BBC's panarama episode is the use of Drive-by shootings by British Army personnel in west Belfast. Did these actions prompt the drive-bys that were carried out by loyalists continuously throughout the conflict.

.

Is it any wonder that these threads descend into anarchy and have to be banished to their own forum when a pejorative word such as "continuously" is used in the OP when it has no basis in fact and no relation to the meaning of the word.

I really am coming round to the belief that it is not possible to have a rational debate on Northern Ireland on these boards.

padma

Godge wrote: »

Is it any wonder that these threads descend into anarchy and have to be banished to their own forum when a pejorative word such as "continuously" is used in the OP when it has no basis in fact and no relation to the meaning of the word.

I really am coming round to the belief that it is not possible to have a rational debate on Northern Ireland on these boards.

Drive by shootings in catholic neighbourhoods in Belfast happened continuously throughout the troubles. Whats the problem? The question posed here is did the BA have something to do with that random tactic of randomly shooting at people which was the guerilla tactic of Loyalists. This is not disputed, we all know loyalist killings were mainly sectarian, pick a catholic shooting.

Godge

padma wrote: »

Drive by shootings in catholic neighbourhoods in Belfast happened continuously throughout the troubles. Whats the problem? The question posed here is did the BA have something to do with that random tactic of randomly shooting at people which was the guerilla tactic of Loyalists. This is not disputed, we all know loyalist killings were mainly sectarian, pick a catholic shooting.

"contunuously" would mean every day for 30 years, fact is that didn't happen.

I am not saying "drive-by" shootings didn't happen.

It would be like saying the IRA continuously bombed British civilians on the mainland throughout the troubles. Not true.

This is the problem with the language on both sides of this debate.

moxin

Godge wrote: »

"contunuously" would mean every day for 30 years, fact is that didn't happen.

I am not saying "drive-by" shootings didn't happen.

It would be like saying the IRA continuously bombed British civilians on the mainland throughout the troubles. Not true.

This is the problem with the language on both sides of this debate.

Intimidation and violence did happen at various levels on a daily basis, each incident didn't always result in death, it included low level violence as well

marienbad

Godge wrote: »

"contunuously" would mean every day for 30 years, fact is that didn't happen.

I am not saying "drive-by" shootings didn't happen.

It would be like saying the IRA continuously bombed British civilians on the mainland throughout the troubles. Not true.

This is the problem with the language on both sides of this debate.

Would you settle for 'frequently' then ? or if not what word would you choose ?

junder

In the armed forces we have a name for those so called soldiers who make these allegations, Walter mittys, fantasticists, if these soldiers who appeared on this programme did what they are are claiming, then they have made a public admission of a crime, are they so moved that they felt the need to confess and go to jail, have then arrested and charged. I was recently on a website populated by serving and ex-serving soldiers. One of these that was interviewed by the BBC and responsible for writing a book had his story torn to pieces alleged dates, tactics used, language everything was torn to shreds by soldiers both high low ranking that where serving in northern Ireland at the times these drive bys where allegedly happening

marienbad

junder wrote: »

In the armed forces we have a name for those so called soldiers who make these allegations, Walter mittys, fantasticists, if these soldiers who appeared on this programme did what they are are claiming, then they have made a public admission of a crime, are they so moved that they felt the need to confess and go to jail, have then arrested and charged. I was recently on a website populated by serving and ex-serving soldiers. One of these that was interviewed by the BBC and responsible for writing a book had his story torn to pieces alleged dates, tactics used, language everything was torn to shreds by soldiers both high low ranking that where serving in northern Ireland at the times these drive bys where allegedly happening

Junder - are you saying these things never happen or what ?

Godge

moxin wrote: »

Intimidation and violence did happen at various levels on a daily basis, each incident didn't always result in death, it included low level violence as well

marienbad wrote: »

Would you settle for 'frequently' then ? or if not what word would you choose ?

Again, this is the language problem.

The statement made in the OP by padma and repeated again later in the thread said that

"Drive by shootings in catholic neighbourhoods in Belfast happened continuously throughout the troubles"

All of the rest of the debate is tainted by this wrong use of language.

"

marienbad

Godge wrote: »

Again, this is the language problem.

The statement made in the OP by padma and repeated again later in the thread said that

"Drive by shootings in catholic neighbourhoods in Belfast happened continuously throughout the troubles"

All of the rest of the debate is tainted by this wrong use of language.

"

So what language would you use ?

padma

My question not statement was did these drive bys prompt loyalists using the same tactic continuously throughout the troubles. You have a problem with continuously feel free to change it to frequent etc. what do you think yourself

junder

marienbad wrote: »

Junder - are you saying these things never happen or what ?

I'm saying that it was Republican / loyalist paramilitaries that were responsible for the majority if not all drive by shootings,

Dr.Tank Adams

junder wrote: »

I'm saying that it was Republican / loyalist paramilitaries that were responsible for the majority if not all drive by shootings,

Loyalists may have physically carried out a lot of the shootings, but how many were as the result of BA planning, tip-offs etc.? Quite a few most people believe.

tdv123

Godge wrote: »

"contunuously" would mean every day for 30 years, fact is that didn't happen.

I am not saying "drive-by" shootings didn't happen.

It would be like saying the IRA continuously bombed British civilians on the mainland throughout the troubles. Not true.

This is the problem with the language on both sides of this debate.

They bombed civilians once on the mainland in Birmingham (which was a ****ing disgrace) it made us look as bad as the loyalists . The rest were aimed at military & economic damage.

tdv123

junder wrote: »

I'm saying that it was Republican / loyalist paramilitaries that were responsible for the majority if not all drive by shootings,

When did Republicans ever do a drive by shooting against civilians? = 0

How many Loyalists did drive by shootings were aimed at civilians? = A lot

Godge

padma wrote: »

My question not statement was did these drive bys prompt loyalists using the same tactic continuously throughout the troubles. You have a problem with continuously feel free to change it to frequent etc. what do you think yourself

tdv123 wrote: »

When did Republicans ever do a drive by shooting against civilians? = 0

How many Loyalists did drive by shootings were aimed at civilians? = A lot

Continuously? A lot?

I am not the one making out a conspiracy theory about drive-by shootings. Those that do have such a theory (whether true or untrue) do not help persuade people with the use of inexact pejorative language. That is all.

Can someone put a figure on the total number of drive-by shootings from a credible source?

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

When did Republicans ever do a drive by shooting against civilians? = 0

How many Loyalists did drive by shootings were aimed at civilians? = A lot

Funny, I have relatives who had thier houses shot up by republicans in drive by shootings. Guess they must have imagined it. I think the best account of the true nature of the killings in northern Ireland by both.sides us dillions ' political murder in northern Ireland'

tdv123

junder wrote: »

Funny, I have relatives who had thier houses shot up by republicans in drive by shootings. Guess they must have imagined it. I think the best account of the true nature of the killings in northern Ireland by both.sides us dillions ' political murder in northern Ireland'

Damn it I made a rookie mistake. I should have PIRA never authorized random shootings on peoples houses Others like The INLA, IPLO, SARAF & CRF did that and thats why popularity for these groups was non existence - except for the INLA from 78 - 82/83ish

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

Damn it I made a rookie mistake. I should have PIRA never authorized random shootings on peoples houses Others like The INLA, IPLO, SARAF & CRF did that and thats why popularity for these groups was non existence - except for the INLA from 78 - 82/83ish

Ah yes the great pira get out clause 'we didn't authorise it' ' rogue elements' etc etc should read the book I suggested, might open your eyes a bit

tdv123

junder wrote: »

Ah yes the great pira get out clause 'we didn't authorise it' ' rogue elements' etc etc should read the book I suggested, might open your eyes a bit

Well they didn't authorize those type of attacks. That's just a fact. And I'm sure IRA men who acted without the blessing of the Army Council were executed for treason.

tdv123

Getting back on topic anyone remember the murder of Carol Ann Kelly who was just 12 when she was murdered by the British Army?

On 19 May 1981, while playing outside her home, she was asked by a neighbour to go to the shop for a pint of milk. As she returned, a number of British Army Land Rovers drove by. Two plastic bullets were fired, one hitting Kelly on the head

Kelly's older sister is interviewed in this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKLk6s4KoMg

How sick in the head do you have to be to murder a small girl?

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

Well they didn't authorize those type of attacks. That's just a fact. And I'm sure IRA men who acted without the blessing of the Army Council were executed for treason.

It's a fact is it? Care to back that up

Sand

tdv123 wrote: »

How sick in the head do you have to be to murder a small girl?

Careful - you might offend a lot of serving politicians with remarks like that.

moxin

Sand wrote: »

Careful - you might offend a lot of serving politicians with remarks like that.

Thatcher who reigned in 1981 at the time of the killing of the child is dead. I'm sure most UK politicians in power at the time at either retired or dead. Your comment makes no sense.

tdv123

Sand wrote: »

Careful - you might offend a lot of serving politicians with remarks like that.

So your a child murdering apologist now, that's to you.

tdv123

junder wrote: »

It's a fact is it? Care to back that up

Care to bring prove me wrong. The Army council knew killing civilians was utter counter productive & were very much against.

gallag

tdv123 wrote: »

Care to bring prove me wrong. The Army council knew killing civilians was utter counter productive & were very much against.

Does not compute. IRA killed about 650 civilians.

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

Care to bring prove me wrong. The Army council knew killing civilians was utter counter productive & were very much against.

You made the assertion not me, so if it's a fact as you say, let's here how it is a fact since the ira's list of murders would tend to prove you wrong

Fratton Fred

tdv123 wrote: »

Well they didn't authorize those type of attacks. That's just a fact. And I'm sure IRA men who acted without the blessing of the Army Council were executed for treason.

Really? How is Pat Doherty's brother Hugh these days?

Godge

tdv123 wrote: »

Well they didn't authorize those type of attacks. That's just a fact. And I'm sure IRA men who acted without the blessing of the Army Council were executed for treason.

If it is a fact, you will have an independent record to back this up.

Just saying the Army Council didn't authorise this or that means nothing. There are people going around saying Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness weren't ever on the Army Council and nobody believes it so why would anyone believe this?

maccored

quite often the truth and what people believe aren't the same.' common knowledge' may have been a better term to use than 'a fact' I think.

By the way - why do you believe adams was in the IRA? Do you have any 'independent record' to back that up?

I didn't think so.

marienbad

maccored wrote: »

quite often the truth and what people believe aren't the same.' common knowledge' may have been a better term to use than 'a fact' I think.

By the way - why do you believe adams was in the IRA? Do you have any 'independent record' to back that up?

I didn't think so.

Why do you think it matters at this stage whether he was in the IRA or not ?

tdv123

junder wrote: »

You made the assertion not me, so if it's a fact as you say, let's here how it is a fact since the ira's list of murders would tend to prove you wrong

Everyone knows the IRA didn't get involved in sectarian killings. There was plenty of Protestant people in the liberation movement do you think the leadership would do something to alienate all of them & put the whole struggle at risk. They might have been murderers but they weren't idiots.

It's a pitty your outrage isn't felt for the victims of BA terror. The hypocrisy of some people is amazing. A a few scumbag republicans committee a brutal murder suddenly every republican is a evil murderer but a few scumbag British carry out brutal murders it's "ah sure it's just one or two wee scamps great bunch of lads really sorting those evil fenians out". It's sad how peoples outrage only flows one way.

Sad truth is some peoples blood is valued more than others.

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

Everyone knows the IRA didn't get involved in sectarian killings. There was plenty of Protestant people in the liberation movement do you think the leadership would do something to alienate all of them & put the whole struggle at risk. They might have been murderers but they weren't idiots.

It's a pitty your outrage isn't felt for the victims of BA terror. The hypocrisy of some people is amazing. A a few scumbag republicans committee a brutal murder suddenly every republican is a evil murderer but a few scumbag British carry out brutal murders it's "ah sure it's just one or two wee scamps great bunch of lads really sorting those evil fenians out". It's sad how peoples outrage only flows one way.

Sad truth is some peoples blood is valued more than others.

The only person showing any outrage or making any justifications for terrorism is yourself so spare us the faux indignation and answer the question you where asked

tdv123

junder wrote: »

The only person showing any outrage or making any justifications for terrorism is yourself so spare us the faux indignation and answer the question you where asked

When did I justify or try to justify terrorism? I support the right of people to defend themselves against imperialist aggression. I don't support anyone blowing up innocent people. I've already answered your question & I don't need to prove anything to yo mate.

Sand

tdv123 wrote: »

I support the right of people to defend themselves against imperialist aggression. I don't support anyone blowing up innocent people.

So, you believe all the victims of the Provo's were guilty - that they deserved what was done to them?

Would you support the right of people to defend themselves against people who blow up innocent people?

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

When did I justify or try to justify terrorism? I support the right of people to defend themselves against imperialist aggression. I don't support anyone blowing up innocent people. I've already answered your question & I don't need to prove anything to yo mate.

You justify terrorism when you try to excuse thier actions

Frank Lee Midere

What have the Provos got to do with anything? If the US authorised undercover white army members to shoot black US citizens at checkpoints because there was a chance some might have been in the Black Panthers would people support it? In fact the SA army did that during apartheid. Probably white racists said " what about the ANC?"