Smithwick: Collusion in Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen murders

grainnewhale

maryishere wrote: »

what the Gardaí? So whats new then? It did not need a 12 million euro investigation or a judge to deliver the verdict to know that. I gather in just in one Garda station Judge Smithwick found 3 members who were found to have colluded to some extent in the past. A high percentage, don't you think.

oh, and if the 2 police forces wanted to meet to discuss matters of joint concern, whether it be terrorism or fuel laundering or whatever, wouldn't it have been safer for the gardai to meet in Newry police station rather than getting unarmed ruc to travel south of the border? Knowing by law they could not carry their firearms south of the border.

If you think armed ruc and britsh soliders never crossed the border, you would be very mistaken.

grainnewhale

boetstark wrote: »

Hi guys New here but a regular reader.
There is no doubt that nationalists got a rough deal in NI. Imagine this scenario, people of Munster decide that we really don't want to be part of ROI. We are different and the destruction of the state as it stands is our aim. Guarantee there would be a backlash..nationalists in NI have been whinging since 1920's about United Ireland and they wonder then??
RUC were a non sectarian force in general, my uncle was an officer and Catholic and I guarantee he never heard a sectarian comment. They were brutal at times no doubt to Provo terrorists and their sympathisers.
That SF guy on Vincent Brown made me puke, a war is between 2 combatants. Calling IRA volunteers soldiers makes me sick. Anybody who murders defenceless women children and unarmed men are terrorists, nothing better.
We need to start calling a spade a spade in this small island if we are ever to move on.

That would cover the RUC so.

grainnewhale

Godge wrote: »

Just reading Gerry Adams comments for the first time

"When you have that kind of laissez faire disregard for their own security by An Garda Síochána and the RUC…what happened, happens."

Am I the only one here to be horrified by this?

I am not a fan of Alan Shatter but

""I found Gerry Adams' contribution this morning to be nauseating. The truth is you had two respected, senior members of the RUC barbarically murdered in cold blood."

just about hits the nail on the head. You would think that some of the IRA apologists on here would have the decency to lie low for a few days and think carefully before posting the drivel I have read over the last few pages.

As for Padraic MacLochlainn saying they had a duty to kill them, that is just beyond humanity. Does he really represent the views of the people of Donegal North-East?

They may have been respected by you.

grainnewhale

Fratton Fred wrote: »

At what point does turning a blind eye become collusion?

How often was a blind eye turned to a bomb factory,.or a truck full of fertiliser heading to the ferry?

Why would there be a truck load of fertiliser heading to the ferry.

Tramps Like Us

Fertilizer bomb I presume.


People are living in fantasy land if they think the Gardaí or the Irish state colluded with republicans beyond very isolated incidents, or were even sympathetic. Where was this when they were assaulting people at funerals or battering people around holding cells

Republicans never liked or got on with the gardaí and the feeling was mutual

Tramps Like Us

grainnewhale wrote: »

They may have been respected by you.

Godge obviously respects the Glennane gang too? Breen gave 'em guns and covered up things to help the Jackal

K-9

junder wrote: »

He may have been innocent and there may have been a totally innocent reason for carrying the clothes of the Ira commander on his back seat, and it was a total coincidence that he just happened to be wearing the same overalls as the Ira men

I asked you politely to provide a link for your previous post, the above doesn't suffice.

Do not post on this thread again, thank you.

grainnewhale

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Fertilizer bomb I presume.


People are living in fantasy land if they think the Gardaí or the Irish state colluded with republicans beyond very isolated incidents, or were even sympathetic. Where was this when they were assaulting people at funerals or battering people around holding cells

Republicans never liked or got on with the gardaí and the feeling was mutual

You could add forging statements of confession and lying in court. In fairness the gardai were only carrying out the wishes of the irish government.

Fratton Fred

BFDCH. wrote: »

I don't think you have quite grasped your Queen’s English; triumphalism, do you think that's the right word? .

Yes, I used the word on purpose, because that is what it was.

grainnewhale

Sand wrote: »

The Provos are in a desperate struggle to control the past. By any objective analysis, practically nothing of value was accomplished by the Provos campaign that wasn't achieved already by constitutional means. If anything, the Provo campaign delayed and hindered progress.

Their attitude to victims is amazingly hypocritical. Their judgement is formed by who the victim was killed by and if their death can be used to support their campaign. That's it. Hence the hysterical reaction to the Panorama drama which is at best...poorly researched, vs. the dismissive and frankly callous response to actual inquiry findings.

I think the Irish and British governments will have to step in to ensure an objective record of the Troubles is maintained - SF and the Provos will try to airbrush out certain victims, or even smear them as deserving what they got, whilst creating a cult of victim-hood around others.

This would be laughable, if it wasn't for all the lies, dirty tricks an murder commited and covered up by these two parties.

K-9

Mod:

For those wondering, Nelson Mandela has nothing to do with the Smithwick Tribunal.

Busted Flat.

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

For those wondering, Nelson Mandela has nothing to do with the Smithwick Tribunal.

I heard he like the odd pint of plain.

trashcan

Sand wrote: »

Their attitude to victims is amazingly hypocritical. Their judgement is formed by who the victim was killed by and if their death can be used to support their campaign. That's it.

Maybe so, but they are hardly alone in that. I find it depressingly predictable in reactions from both sides in the North. Sympathies depend mainly on which side the victim came from. One sides outrage is the other sides regrettable incident.

Fratton Fred

TOMASJ wrote: »

If your enemy is wounded and disabled on the floor it is a war crime to kill him/her only one brit soldier "that i am aware of has ever been prosecuted for this crime,

Had he not filmed himself shooting a wounded talaban soilder, he too like hunderds of brit soilders in the north would have got off scot free,
he may well yet as the case has not ended.

And again with the double standards.

TOMASJ

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And again with the double standards.

With the poor conviction rate against brit soldiers who killed people in the north and elswhere,

I cant see double standerds in pointing out that they would have had to the film the event to have even a prosecution against them,

You should have a good long think on your blind support for the british army and there masters wrong doing here in ireland

Slideshowbob

Awwwww Padraig says he was stitched up

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/i-was-stitched-up-by-vincent-browne-claims-sf-td-616403.html#.UqGxkRJruMU.twitter

No Padraig, you just proved you don't have the competence to be a nstionsl politician.

BFDCH.

A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire.

alastair

BFDCH. wrote: »

A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a certain point, one can only fight fire with fire.

Or, alternatively, you can waste years, and hundreds of lives in finally arriving at the point where you realise that your strategy was flawed from the outset - and 'fighting fire with fire' generally isn't that clever an idea - ask any firefigher.

ChicagoJoe

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How can anyone.claim loughall was anything other than a well executed anti terrorist operation? With one obvious tragic episode.

The same could be said if not even more so considering the resources available to the IRA, with Breen killed in a similiar fashion, nearby Ballygawley bus bombing with 8 British soldiers killed and even more maimed and then 6 more killed in Lisburn - and Loughall was supposed ot be the "knock out blow" to the IRA in Armagh :eek: !!!!!!!!

BFDCH.

alastair wrote: »

Or, alternatively, you can waste years, and hundreds of lives in finally arriving at the point where you realise that your strategy was flawed from the outset - and 'fighting fire with fire' generally isn't that clever an idea - ask any firefigher.

i think i'll take nelson's word over alastairs.

Fratton Fred

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

The same could be said if not even more so considering the resources available to the IRA, with Breen killed in a similiar fashion, nearby Ballygawley bus bombing with 8 British soldiers killed and even more maimed and then 6 more killed in Lisburn - and Loughall was supposed ot be the "knock out blow" to the IRA in Armagh :eek: !!!!!!!!

Other than delight in the killing of people, what's your point?

For Reals

The Provos British Government are in a desperate struggle to control the past. By any objective analysis, practically nothing of value was accomplished by the Provos British campaign that wasn't achieved already by constitutional means. If anything, the Provo British campaign delayed and hindered progress.

Fixed that for you.

Sand wrote: »

Their attitude to victims is amazingly hypocritical. Their judgement is formed by who the victim was killed by and if their death can be used to support their campaign. That's it. Hence the hysterical reaction to the Panorama drama which is at best...poorly researched, vs. the dismissive and frankly callous response to actual inquiry findings.

Like Thatcher and 'World in Action'?

I think the Irish and British governments will have to step in to ensure an objective record of the Troubles is maintained - SF and the Provos will try to airbrush out certain victims, or even smear them as deserving what they got, whilst creating a cult of victim-hood around others.

Sorry it seems you're saying these governments are paragons of virtue?

The IRA were created by the British occupation and how the British government handled it, yes/no?

Regardless of your view, if you want the truth of history to come to the fore you can't completely dismiss one side.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Or, alternatively, you can waste years, and hundreds of lives in finally arriving at the point where you realise that your strategy was flawed from the outset - and 'fighting fire with fire' generally isn't that clever an idea - ask any firefigher.

Which flies in the face of anything approaching a logical assessment of history and is rather the last outpost of those who regret the passing of a suprematist dictatorship.
The logical facts are that by the time some 'nationalists' bowed and scrapped to 'achieve' the Sunningdale Agreement the Unionist suprematists were just not ready to accept equality, they brought it down. It took another 25 years of bloodshed to get them to sit at a table and give what should have been there in the first place.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

It was a war, not a cake sale. The RUC were on one side of it.

If that is the case then why all the drama about the RUC, bloody Sunday, british collusion and so on. You can't have it both ways, either all is fair in a war or we see things for what they are.

BFDCH.

jank wrote: »

If that is the case then why all the drama about the RUC, bloody Sunday, british collusion and so on. You can't have it both ways, either all is fair in a war or we see things for what they are.

the RUC aren't civilians, the victims on bloody sunday were.

The IRA said they were at war. The British said they were just dealing with criminals and then covered up their crimes against their own innocent civilians.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which flies in the face of anything approaching a logical assessment of history and is rather the last outpost of those who regret the passing of a suprematist dictatorship.

The conspiracy forum is that-a-way.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The logical facts are that by the time some 'nationalists' bowed and scrapped to 'achieve' the Sunningdale Agreement the Unionist suprematists were just not ready to accept equality, they brought it down. It took another 25 years of bloodshed to get them to sit at a table and give what should have been there in the first place.

It took another 25 years of bloodshed for the IRA to finally realise that their armed campaign was counter-productive, and had failed to achieve any of their goals. Where are we now, after all that killing? At the place that constitutional politics would have had us a couple of decades ago.

jank

BFDCH. wrote: »

the RUC aren't civilians, the victims on bloody sunday were.

The IRA said they were at war. The British said they were just dealing with criminals and then covered up their crimes against their own innocent civilians.

Yet the Provos killed more civilians than anyone else. That is my feckin point. Either it was a war or not. If it was a war then you can't run off to mammy and complain the guy your fighting against is using unfair tactics like hiring loyalists to do some dirty work. If it wasn't a war than what the Provos (and others) did was flat out murder. One can't have it both ways and shift the goal posts for the other side to make your side more 'moral'.

alastair

jank wrote: »

One can't have it both ways and shift the goal posts for the other side to make your side more 'moral'.

Of course you can - if hypocrisy is your specialism. Nobody better than the Shinners in that regard.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Other than delight in the killing of people, what's your point?

As opposed to the quiet satisfaction contained within one of your previous observations?

How can anyone.claim loughall was anything other than a well executed anti terrorist operation? With one obvious tragic episode.

Hannibal

Anyone who thinks that the RUC weren't fair game for the IRA is living under a rock and are ignorant of what actually went on in the north in the decades previously. You can call the IRA terrorists if you want but then you have to apply the same measures to both the RUC, British army and obviously loyalist paramilitaries. Gerry Adams was right when he questioined why the RUC officers didn't take more security when travelling to Dundalk on a very regular basis and the fact that Adams was right has more people trying to condemn him.

I've seen reference to Sunningdale on here and just to clarify there's TWO crucial differences between Sunningdale and the GFA. Self determination and recognition of both identities. All people born in Ireland have the right to be an Irish citizen and this wasn't in Sunningdale.

alastair

Hannibal wrote: »

I've seen reference to Sunningdale on here and just to clarify there's TWO crucial differences between Sunningdale and the GFA. Self determination and recognition of both identities. All people born in Ireland have the right to be an Irish citizen and this wasn't in Sunningdale.

Neither are differences.

Neither Sunningdale or the GFA have anything to say regarding the right to be an Irish citizen. That right is, and was, available to all people born on this island (provisos from last referendum excepted), or to those with Irish parents or grandparents. No change there.

The right of self determination is no different in the GFA than it was in Sunningdale. The status of NI within the UK was, and remains dependent on the wishes of the majority in NI. It's been that way since 1924.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The conspiracy forum is that-a-way.



It took another 25 years of bloodshed for the IRA to finally realise that their armed campaign was counter-productive, and had failed to achieve any of their goals. Where are we now, after all that killing? At the place that constitutional politics would have had us a couple of decades ago.

You may as well leave the island Alastair, with that version of history you have, because as the role of SF and the IRA in bringing a lasting peace to this island continues to emerge you are just going to be permanently upset.
The Unionists blocked every single effort to progress equality in their failed statlet and are still attempting it. However, the GFA and those who held out to achieve ensures that they no longer have the suprematist veto.

alastair wrote: »

Of course you can - if hypocrisy is your specialism. Nobody better than the Shinners in that regard.

I think we are seeing who the real specialists in hypocrisy are and have always been in the aftermath of the death of Nelson Mandela,
Cameron should be ashamed of himself and I hope somebody somewhere will call him out on it.

BFDCH.

jank wrote: »

Yet the Provos killed more civilians than anyone else. That is my feckin point. Either it was a war or not. If it was a war then you can't run off to mammy and complain the guy your fighting against is using unfair tactics like hiring loyalists to do some dirty work. If it wasn't a war than what the Provos (and others) did was flat out murder. One can't have it both ways and shift the goal posts for the other side to make your side more 'moral'.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Status_Summary.html
3531 killed in the troubles
1841 civilians killed
1522 catholics killed in the troubles- 396 republicans killed- leaving 1130 or so Catholic civilians as victims- given the sectarian nature of the conflict on that side and the policy of declaring war on the irish catholic population (as described in the link i posted earlier and the statements of the soldiers in the panorama doc the other week) we can assume were killed by the loyalist british side. so 4 out of every 5 killed by the british side were civilians- or two thirds of the total civilians killed.
the republicans killed

C1300 loyalists and british security forces killed- we can assume by republicans?
republicans killed 2058 in total. - so 760 is the most they could've killed in terms of civilians- less than half.
so out of every three victims of the republicans were civilian or 1 third of the total.

Your point is fundamentally flawed. my point was one side said it was a war, the other denied that there was sides or a war going on while taking part in a war against the other side.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

You may as well leave the island Alastair, with that version of history you have, because as the role of SF and the IRA in bringing a lasting peace to this island continues to emerge you are just going to be permanently upset.

Don't worry; I'm not upset. I'm as much a fan of farce as the next man. I'll reserve my respect for the peacemakers who didn't need to find a belated road to Damascus.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Unionists blocked every single effort to progress equality in their failed statlet and are still attempting it. However, the GFA and those who held out to achieve ensures that they no longer have the suprematist veto.

Just as the GFA ensures the IRA supremacist veto in the form of the armalite and semtex cannot veto democracy in NI any longer.

BFDCH.

alastair wrote: »

Neither are differences.

Neither Sunningdale or the GFA have anything to say regarding the right to be an Irish citizen. That right is, and was, available to all people born on this island (provisos from last referendum excepted), or to those with Irish parents or grandparents. No change there.

The right of self determination is no different in the GFA than it was in Sunningdale. The status of NI within the UK was, and remains dependent on the wishes of the majority in NI. It's been that way since 1924.

since the UVF brought the gun and the bomb back into politics to ensure the will of the majority of the people on this island was ignored and proving that the British government will listen to your demands, not if you have a mandate, but if you are backed up by paramilitary force. The Irish volunteers were formed in response to the UVF, if the loyalist had just respected the democratic will of the people none of this ****e would have ever happened.

alastair

BFDCH. wrote: »

if the loyalist had just respected the democratic will of the people none of this ****e would have ever happened.

There was no majority in favour of Irish independence from the UK in either the UK or Northern Ireland. Just as Irish separatists felt unable to respect the will of the democratic majority within the UK, why should unionists have felt any obligation to respect the will of a majority of nationalists on this island? It makes no sense at all.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Don't worry; I'm not upset. I'm as much a fan of farce as the next man. I'll reserve my respect for the peacemakers who didn't need to find a belated road to Damascus.



Just as the GFA ensures the IRA supremacist veto in the form of the armalite and semtex cannot veto democracy in NI any longer.

The armalite and semtex will not respect authority if it isn't democratic.
Mandela advised SF and the IRA not to decomission until they got what they wanted....they decomissioned because they got what they wanted, and will now work at delivering the ultimate goal, a united Ireland free of outside impediment.

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

Where are we now, after all that killing? At the place that constitutional politics would have had us a couple of decades ago.

The elephant in the room in your head there is Paisley.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

Irish separatists felt unable to respect the will of the democratic majority within the UK

Since the UK never respected the will of the 'Irish separatists' when they were joined to the UK by undemocratic methods initially, it's an abuse of democracy to consider them a 'minority in the UK' as a consequence.

HansHolzel

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

... and Loughall was supposed ot be the "knock out blow" to the IRA in Armagh :eek: !!!!!!!!

It was Jim Lynagh's East Tyrone IRA unit that was taken out at Loughgall in an IRA operation that smacked of overconfidence and recklessness.

BFDCH.

alastair wrote: »

There was no majority in favour of Irish independence from the UK in either the UK or Northern Ireland. Just as Irish separatists felt unable to respect the will of the democratic majority within the UK, why should unionists have felt any obligation to respect the will of a majority of nationalists on this island? It makes no sense at all.

And that last line is an example of the attitude that is the reason we have had this entire conflict; a refusal on the part of a tiny minority to respect the democratic will of the people of the island. They chose to threaten war rather than accept a peaceful solution.

The united kingdom of great britain and Ireland. So the Irish part had an election at which 85% of the population voted for nationalist politicians who's main aim was separation from great britain; can you deduce where the sense comes from yet?

In which votes on colonial separation in the past have you seen the colonial power be included in the vote for independence?

Respecting the will of a peaceful, democratic election 'makes no sense at all', war it is, they reaped what they sowed.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The armalite and semtex will not respect authority if it isn't democratic.

NI has been democratic for the entire life of the provos. They just disregarded that fact.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Mandela advised SF and the IRA not to decomission until they got what they wanted....they decomissioned because they got what they wanted, and will now work at delivering the ultimate goal, a united Ireland free of outside impediment.

The entire delay over decommissioning related purely to loss of face over the sequence of decommissioning - nothing more. They gained nothing from the delay.

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

NI has been democratic for the entire life of the provos.

You obviously think democracy is simply a head count.

Then how about a situation where, say 55% of the population vote to exterminate the other 45%? No problem to you, it's democratic.

alastair

BFDCH. wrote: »

And that last line is an example of the attitude that is the reason we have had this entire conflict; a refusal on the part of a tiny minority to respect the democratic will of the people of the island. They chose to threaten war rather than accept a peaceful solution.

What exactly do you think was happening in Dublin in 1916? Unionism is no 'tiny minority' on this island - it's a substantial minority - who had no interest whatsoever in joining in any separatist exercise. And they were part of a much larger majority, within the UK, that equally did not share in any interest in that separatist movement.

BFDCH. wrote: »

The united kingdom of great britain and Ireland. So the Irish part had an election at which 85% of the population voted for nationalist politicians who's main aim was separation from great britain; can you deduce where the sense comes from yet?

Not from this line of thinking. If Cork voted FF next time out, and FG held a national majority, should we therefore simply let Corkonians secede and form their own state? There was no Irish election in 1918 - there was a UK one, in which Irish separatists won about 10% of the seats under contest.

BFDCH. wrote: »

In which votes on colonial separation in the past have you seen the colonial power be included in the vote for independence?

It wasn't a vote on separation - it was a general election within the UK. You are aware the when the Scots go to the polls and elect MP's, it's not a Scottish election, it's a UK one. If they elected a majority of SNP MP's tomorrow, it still wouldn't be a vote on independence - that requires an actual vote/referendum on that subject.

BFDCH. wrote: »

Respecting the will of a peaceful, democratic election 'makes no sense at all', war it is, they reaped what they sowed.

The will of the majority in 1918 was for continuity of the UK as it stood - by 630 seats or thereabouts.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

You obviously think democracy is simply a head count.

Then how about a situation where, say 55% of the population vote to exterminate the other 45%? No problem to you, it's democratic.

Schoolboy error. You're confusing democracy with law.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Since the UK never respected the will of the 'Irish separatists' when they were joined to the UK by undemocratic methods initially, it's an abuse of democracy to consider them a 'minority in the UK' as a consequence.

You've attempted this warped logic without success already. The UK was a democratic parliamentary system in 1918.

marienbad

alastair wrote: »

What exactly do you think was happening in Dublin in 1916? Unionism is no 'tiny minority' on this island - it's a substantial minority - who had no interest whatsoever in joining in any separatist exercise. And they were part of a much larger majority, within the UK, that equally did not share in any interest in that separatist movement.



Not from this line of thinking. If Cork voted FF next time out, and FG held a national majority, should we therefore simply let Corkonians secede and form their own state? There was no Irish election in 1918 - there was a UK one, in which Irish separatists won about 10% of the seats under contest.


It wasn't a vote on separation - it was a general election within the UK. You are aware the when the Scots go to the polls and elect MP's, it's not a Scottish election, it's a UK one. If they elected a majority of SNP MP's tomorrow, it still wouldn't be a vote on independence - that requires an actual vote/referendum on that subject.


The will of the majority in 1918 was for continuity of the UK as it stood - by 630 seats or thereabouts.

Would the UK have allowed a referendum in Ireland do you think ?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

NI has been democratic for the entire life of the provos. They just disregarded that fact.



The entire delay over decommissioning related purely to loss of face over the sequence of decommissioning - nothing more. They gained nothing from the delay.

Refuse point blank to decommission until SF are allowed to the table. Request dropped, talks proceed. Talks deadlock. Come off ceasefire, focus a few minds that need focussing. Advance a bit more at the table, come off ceasefire to underline the points made again.
Signatures all around, deal done.

Live in your Unionist PR fantasy world for as long as you can Alastair.

alastair

marienbad wrote: »

Would the UK have allowed a referendum in Ireland do you think ?

Who knows? We certainly didn't ever inquire.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Refuse point blank to decommission until SF are allowed to the table. Request dropped, talks proceed. Talks deadlock. Come off ceasefire, focus a few minds that need focussing. Advance a bit more at the table, come off ceasefire to underline the points made again.
Signatures all around, deal done.

Live in your Unionist PR fantasy world for as long as you can Alastair.

Remind me what they gained by delaying decommissioning (nothing to do with ceasefires) - the subject in question?