Smithwick: Collusion in Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen murders

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

Schoolboy error. You're confusing democracy with law.

But whose law? The majority rules, remember (nostalgically, I know).

Back of the class.

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

But whose law? The majority rules, remember (nostalgically, I know).

Back of the class.

When you have an actual argument to present, I'd love to hear it. NI is a part of a democratic parliamentary system. It was before the provos formed, and remained so all the way through their campaign of violence. It remains so today.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

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

No alastair, you admitted elsewhere that the 'act of union pre-dated democratic governance'. It's an abuse of that parliamentary democratic system because of this to believe that Irish nationalism was considered by the British government to be a minority in the UK.

el pasco

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.

The English took over Ireland by force and murder and brutally not by a free and fair vote therefore your point isn't valid

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

NI is a part of a democratic parliamentary system. It was before the provos formed, and remained so all the way through their campaign of violence. It remains so today.

What an own goal on the day that's in it!! Thanks, bud. Ha ha ha ha ha

I don't even have to go into gerrymandering when I recall that South African Minister for Justice J. Vorster expressed his envy of something up North, saying his government would be willing to exchange all the legislation of the apartheid regime’s Coercion Act (1963) for one clause - the right to imprison without charge or trial - of the Northern Ireland Special Powers Act.

mmwah

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

No alastair, you admitted elsewhere that the 'act of union pre-dated democratic governance'. It's an abuse of that parliamentary democratic system because of this to believe that Irish nationalism was considered by the British government to be a minority in the UK.

It was a minority in the UK. And the UK was/is a democratic state. California's history is equally based in non-democratic accession, but I'm guessing you don't dispute it's integral role, and legitimacy as an integral part of the democratic system within the USA? And yet they don't get to govern themselves every time they vote for Democrats and the nation votes Republican. Or see any other democratic state that has a heritage of non-democratic conflict or warfare (ie - most of them).

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

What an own goal on the day that's in it!! Thanks, bud. Ha ha ha ha ha

I don't even have to go into gerrymandering when I recall that South African Minister for Justice J. Vorster expressed his envy of something up North, saying his government would be willing to exchange all the legislation of the apartheid regime’s Coercion Act (1963) for one clause - the right to imprison without charge or trial - of the Northern Ireland Special Powers Act.

mmwah

Gerrymandering had nothing to do with the parliamentary electoral process up north. It related purely to local council elections.

el pasco

Could this discussion please go back to the topic please

Just a though why did the RUC have such a sloppy attitude to their own security?

Secondly a DUP member called for the Irish government to apologise for all its involvement in IRA activities yet this amounts to maybe a few cases at most

The Britsish state was involved in the mass murder if innocent civilians with both the MPR and with loyalist parimilitaries and the Dublin and Monaghan bombings yet not a word about it

The DUP and Irish media are taking a OTT reaction to this story like if you look at what the British government did at the very highest levels bombing it's nearest neighbours capital city and murdering at least 100 innocent civilans that we know of
Yet the Irish media keep going on about the IRA crimes
Yes the IRA did do terrible terrible crimes and yes the should face justice but what about what the British state did also

Just a though

Like imagine if the Irish government was accused with a lot if evidence from a state agency of mass murder it could very well mean war or serious response from the British government and rightly so
Yet nothing from the Irish government or media
Not a thing

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

Gerrymandering had nothing to do with the parliamentary electoral process up north. It related purely to local council elections.

Ha ha ha Vorster loved your "democracy" you genius but you ignore that haymaker too. Your corner should really throw in the towel now. You don't know where you are.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

It was a minority in the UK. And the UK was/is a democratic state. California's history is equally based in non-democratic accession, but I'm guessing you don't dispute it's integral role, and legitimacy as an integral part of the democratic system within the USA? And yet they don't get to govern themselves every time they vote for Democrats and the nation votes Republican. Or see any other democratic state that has a heritage of non-democratic conflict or warfare (ie - most of them).

Sorry Alastair what exclatly is your point here like cut to the chase
Ireland unlike California wasn't invaded by USA
They didn't steal the land if the people and "plant" hundred and thousands of people and ban the people from speaking their own language and practice their own religion etc etc

So Alastiar would you want Ireland part of England then Is that is??

marienbad

alastair wrote: »

Who knows? We certainly didn't ever inquire.

What is your opinion ?

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Ha ha ha Vorster loved your "democracy" you genius but you ignore that haymaker too. Your corner should really throw in the towel now. You don't know where you are.

No need for the scare quotes on democracy - NI was a democracy and remains so. Quite how the internment of a couple of hundred people was supposed to subvert the electoral process (at a time when republicans played no real role in electoral politics in any case) escapes me. And if the suggestion is that Vorster would have preferred a universal democratic franchise in SA, even with powers of internment - you're failing miserably. Unionists, Nationalist, Republicans, and none-of-the-above, all had a vote in NI (unlike SA).

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Sorry Alastair what exclatly is your point here like cut to the chase
Ireland unlike California wasn't invaded by USA ??

It was (California).

el pasco wrote: »

So Alastiar would you want Ireland part of England then Is that is??

Do you believe that Scotland is a part of England? How about Northern Ireland?

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

It was a minority in the UK.

As interpreted by the British establishment based on the outcome of a numerical headcount spread over the 2 islands. Irish nationalism's interpretation of such a headcount was confined to the island of Ireland.

And the UK was/is a democratic state.

Whose boundaries were in dispute.

alastair

marienbad wrote: »

What is your opinion ?

My personal opinion is that it wouldn't have taken many years for a devolved Ireland to shift to full independence, partition would probably still have been on the cards however.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

As interpreted by the British establishment based on the outcome of a numerical headcount spread over the 2 islands. Irish nationalism's interpretation of such a headcount was confined to the island of Ireland.

So what? The democratic structure was based on the two islands.

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Whose boundaries were in dispute.

No they were not. And if you believe they were, do you believe that they still are, and do you, as a consequence, believe that the democratic process and/or majority in the UK have no legitimacy?

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

Nothing to suggest any systemic campaign of government collusion resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people there though. The MoD had their plants in the IRA too, lets not forget.

Read this for your proof
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/northern-irelands-police-colluded-with-loyalists-to-cover-up-catholic-murders-8899964.html

Sorry Alastair what exactly is your agenda here???
What is position??

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

...the internment of a couple of hundred people...

Ah, yes, "selective internment" - you select your taigs, you round them up and then you lock them away without trial (VERY democratic, son, VERY impressive).

But at least you refer to them here as "people" ...

here, smell these salts

Tramps Like Us

HansHolzel wrote: »

Ah, yes, "selective internment" - you select your taigs, you round them up and then you lock them away without trial (VERY democratic, son, VERY impressive).

But at least you refer to them here as "people" ...

here, smell these salts

Dont forget the bit where your house gets smashed and kids are traumatised by seeing their dad get battered around the place. Here's an account by someone who was interned;

Five am approx. Woken by thudding at door. Breaking timber. Chair holds for about a minute. English accents. Flashlight. Steps on stairs. Room door kicked in. Pistol gleams in light, blinding.
'Get out.'
'Me: It's a bit early, isn't it?'
Lamp swings nearer, threateningly. 'Button your lip mate and out quick.'
'An Englishman's home is his castle.'
'You're not in England now mate - up.'
Get up. Dress. Officer and soldiers search house. Take some documents. One a speech by Thomas MacGiolla at ard-fheis. Also take me - at gunpoint.
Street lined with soldiers. No other movement. Quite dark, still. House fronts gleaming in softening dark. Hear a pistol crack some distance away. Around corner and into jeep. Sit down. Other prisoners here. One man mistaken for son. 'No talk you.' Drive at speed to Albert Street Barracks. More lorries, saracens here. More prisoners. Soldiers threatening and abusive. Looking serious. Taken into small office one by one from yard. Searched. Questioned. Personal belongings taken. Shoes taken. Name not believed. It should be like B. McMillen, Sean Dunne or John Garland. I was sorry. Shooed at gunpoint across rough rubble-strewn yard or barbed wire corral. Put in with other prisoners. More coming in. Soldiers saying we were to be shot. We were 'Fenian bastards', '****ing Irish swine,' etc.
After half an hour, taken out one by one. Hands tied in front with strips of cotton. Frogmarched to lorries (two). About 25 prisoners in all by now. Could hear crowds jeering and cheering. Bomb blasts. Thompson sub-machine guns thumping. S.L.R's. Two plumes of smoke from fires to be seen. Onto lorries and sit down. One - Mr.Brady - has chair kicked from under him by soldiers as he gets in. Falls. Gets in second time. Driven off. More threats. Rifle butts aimed at feet. Driven to Girdwood Barracks. Standing waiting to go in.
Could see six men taken out by MP's [military police]. Forced to run and beaten by batons. Saw them coming back five minutes later being forced to crawl on hands and knees and being beaten. Blood on head of two. Feet bleeding. Told not to look at my guard. Taken in and photographed. Put sitting down in gym with about 100 others. Hands untied at door. After one hour Special Branch man starts calling out names. Batches of six taken out. Come back breathless, bleeding and limping. One lead in with blood pouring from head wound. Now I hear my own name called. Six of us in all. Grabbed on each side at outside door by MP's. Forced to run. Half jump, half dragged over low stone wall surround, through rose bed into field. Helicopter about 70 yards away. Propeller churning. Doors open. 'Run you swine.'
Kicked and thumped with batons. Police dogs snapping at either side of corridor. Soldiers jump in way. Knock you down. Fall and you are picked up. Kicked up ramp into helicopter. No sooner sitting that told 'jump out'. Now told 'bend down'. Then 'run'. Everything straightened up to run, kicked. Back to gym building. Flung through door. Struck wrist badly here. A joint military-RUC exercise in brutality. Now taken for interrogation to Special Branch. Two men. Asked solicitor. No chance. No comment. Name, address and little else.
'You could do four years for refusing to co-operate.'
Taken upstairs. Sit on floor in crowded room. About 170 there - air short and stuffy. I see Mike Farrell and other PD [People's Democracy] members. 'Bejayus the roof's come in.' Sit on floor facing portraits of English Queen and Prince Philip. See Belfast City Councillor, James O'Kane. See Frank McGlade. He's been in situation like this before. See a blind man led in. Another victory for the all-conquering British Army. Red caps compete to threaten men on floor. Their biggest win since Waterloo.
Batches of six men being called out and led off. Some no shirts. Pyjamas others. Blue denims and work clothes predominate. One man led in white overalls. Taken at work in Kennedy's Bakery. About 11 am now. Get a cup of tea. Now I hear my name called again. What had happened to the others? Led out to rear. Barbed wires rolls form short corridor. Soldiers with batons each side. Here we go again and I know I won't hold out much longer. I am at head of column. 19 year old behind.
'You got a certain message,' says RSM [Regimental Sergeant Major] Red Cap to corporal.
'Yes.' 'Do it then.' 'Come you lot - at the double.'
All six now running on sharp shingle, over a wooden L plank, onto red bricks upended.
Kicking, shouting, baton blows. Big RSM next to me.
'So you're important, now - you're not so important now.'
Tries to stamp on my feet. Misses. Sweet Jesus, how far to go.
'Through that dump.' Soldier skirts it. Rotten vegetables, broken glass, boxes. Now tree stumps. Hear the thumping of batons on bodies behind me. Screaming abuse. Can't very well understand English accent at that pitch. Must be their last stand.
See prison gates ahead. Flung down steps into D wing, Crumlin Road. Limping and bloody. But I had survived. Collapsed into cell. Forty-eight hours minus wash and exercise after that.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

It was (California).



Do you believe that Scotland is a part of England? How about Northern Ireland?

California was never invaded by the USA when it joined The USA

Politically yes Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of England as they have the same currency army foreign policy head of state etc

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Read this for your proof
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/northern-irelands-police-colluded-with-loyalists-to-cover-up-catholic-murders-8899964.html

There's no proof of government collusion there - let alone systemic government collusion.

K-9

Mod:

I know it's a thread about the troubles but keep it some way on the topic please, that means no talk about the Irish volunteers, 1918, 1916, the Northern Ireland forum is there if you want to keep having that circular debate. There's no need for it on this thread, nor Nelson Mandela which I've already warned about, but seems to have been forgotten.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

There's no proof of government collusion there - let alone systemic government collusion.

If the British PM does not contest this what does that say??

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Proof of concussion here, though

No-one that I've noticed is denying collusion was a reality. But that's quite different from proof of systemic government collusion (from either government).

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

If the British PM does not contest this what does that say??

Go on then - tell us what you think that says about anything.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

Go on then - tell us what you think that says about anything.

What do you mean?

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

Ah, yes, "selective internment" - you select your taigs, you round them up and then you lock them away without trial (VERY democratic, son, VERY impressive).

But at least you refer to them here as "people" ...

here, smell these salts

Which election was swung by the numbers interned at that time? I'm dying to hear how this supposed strategy of electoral suppression played out.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

Go on then - tell us what you think that says about anything.

Well he could of said that it was not true and deny it but he didn't

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

What do you mean?

You asked the question - presumably you've formulated your own answer?

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

You asked the question - presumably you've formulated your own answer?

I answered it

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Well he could of said that it was not true and deny it but he didn't

Why would he have done that? Collusion from various members of the RUC, UDR, and now Gardaí, is a matter of record - you'd look pretty silly denying it happened. But proof of systemic government collusion it is not.

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

I answered it

No you didn't - 'If the British PM does not contest this what does that say?'

So - what does that 'say'?

HansHolzel

alastair wrote: »

Which election was swung by the numbers interned at that time? I'm dying to hear how this supposed strategy of electoral suppression played out.

No, you're only concussed, you're not dying.

Mod: Banned

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

Why would he have done that? Collusion from various members of the RUC, UDR, and now Gardaí, is a matter of record - you'd look pretty silly denying it happened. But proof of systemic government collusion it is not.

Do you mean government approval from the highest level??
Well in many cases the British government is with holding evidence or destroyed evidence

For instance to have the military death squads would of have to have approval from the highest level
Athough under the 30 year rule there was evidence that the British government gave arms and intelligence to loyalist gangs

alastair

HansHolzel wrote: »

No, you're only concussed, you're not dying.

So - essentially nothing to suggest internment had any impact on electoral outcomes?

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

No you didn't - 'If the British PM does not contest this what does that say?'

So - what does that 'say'?

Well it must mean that it is true then
Otherwise he would of said that it was not true

Sand

@Carlos Roca

Like the Union/loyalist collapse of the Sunningdale Agreement? The British government were talking with the IRA all along while denying the political aspect of Republican violence.

The BGOV could have brought the mad dogs of Unionism to heel long before they did and chose not to; the drawing out of the conflict lies squarely at its feet. As was said above the PIRA was a symptom of the disease not the disease itself.

What incredible experiment have you run to make this call? Or is it just another imaginative claim?

This is the fun thing about NI threads. Frankly quixotic views offered as fact.

Tell you what, seeing as we can presume from your above comments that you support the Provo campaign as a positive contribution to the NI peace process engaged in by constitutional nationalists and moderate unionists, maybe you could support that paradoxical view before I need to fact check reality.

@grainnewhale

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

And later investigated, uncovered and punished by those two parties - even when politically harmful to themselves. This is completely at odds with the Provo attitude which is only interested in "truth seeking" where it is politically useful to them. Provo crimes and victims of Provo crimes? That's someone else's problem.

Look - to allow for the fact that I might not be addressing a closed mind, the only thing that needs to be done is a clear record of who was killed and in what circumstances need be maintained. Objective facts.

What the Provos are desperately trying to do (even in this thread) is to apply a context whereby certain victims are reduced to non-human cardboard cutouts, that don't have suffering families - nothing to make a human connection with. Several smears have been made against the victims here simply by association with the RUC. Repeated claims that "It was a war." All these claims are dishonestly made as they are quickly thrown out the window when the murder was not carried out by a Provo or a fellow traveller.

The reason the Provos are so desperate to do this is that any objective reading of victims deaths and its circumstances: be it no-warning bomb attacks on pubs and shops, or sectarian sorting of bus passengers before murdering the protestants, or unarmed RUC men trying to surrender being gunned down anyway, or a mans family being kidnapped to force him to act as suicide bomber...basic common humanity means people might query the Provos relentlessly casual and at times shocking brutality in atrocities that were offensive in nature - not defensive. That might cost the Provos some votes. Hence they are desperate to ensure objective history is not maintained, but that instead every crime and victim has a context...a context suitable to their political needs.

Nobody will take Provos claims of seeking the truth and families having the right to know seriously whilst they maintain that attitude - Gerry Adams cant even be honest about his activities in the 1970s and 1980s.

For Reals wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

I don't see how. It read how I intended previously, you just mangled it to make sense to yourself alone.

Like Thatcher and 'World in Action'?

Based on the above, probably not.

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

No, I didn't and I dont. But as you mention it, they were morally far more sound than the Provos (or the Loyalists for that matter) ever were.

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

That's a fairly amazing view (You see ChicagoJoe - this is what I love about NI threads: the quite frankly brilliant insights offered therein) as if the IRA were created by British occupation, then they were at least 400 years behind schedule.

If you really want to go down that particular rabbithole, the problem was created by rivalry in the 11th and 12th century between Canterbury (which traditionally held Ireland in its remit - quite frankly because Ireland might have been Christian but was not Roman Catholic, having never been Roman) and Irish Catholic reforming churchmen (who were winning recognition for an independent Irish Catholic clergy, separate from Canterbury). Canterbury obviously resented the loss of authority over the Irish bishops, got their man Adrian IV made Pope (the only English Pope ever btw), who reciprocated by issuing the Laudabiliter: which offered Ireland as a papal fief to the King of England with a stated mission to save the godless, heathen Irish and bring them back to the care of the mother Church: Canterbury. Even then, nothing might have happened except a King of Leinster was deposed and went to his allies in England seeking assistance in recovering his throne. Even then, nothing might have happened except that King died whilst a Welsh-Norman (It was the Welsh who invaded btw - the King of England actually opposed the invasion) army, led by an ambitious, rebellious Welsh-Norman warlord married to his daughter was at large in Ireland and not inclined to go home empty handed.

Basically...the IRA was created by a tremendous weight of historical forces and choices - far beyond some trite "British occupation" catchphrase. The IRA made choices too: no one forced them to bomb civilian targets. They chose to. Several of the loyalist murder gang and terrorists were similarly created by the reaction to IRA atrocities.

Are the Provos going to accept responsibility for them in the way you expect the British government to accept responsibility for the Provos? Doubt it.

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

I'm pretty sure that's my point. Meanwhile in this thread, Provos are completely dismissing one side.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

So - essentially nothing to suggest internment had any impact on electoral outcomes?

Internment did not have an impact on electoral outcomes but was illegal at the time and was a gross abuse of British state power

HansHolzel

Other posters may be interested in the definition of a key term from an impeccable source.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines democracy as:

- a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:

- a state governed under a system of democracy:
- control of an organization or group by the majority of its members:
- the practice or principles of social equality:

...which do NOT include: interning taigs without trial; gerrymandering local government; terrorizing the artificial minority with regular and 'special' police units almost wholly drawn from the artificial majority; denying the minority equality in jobs and housing; and having a Special Powers Act that attracts the envy of a prime minister of apartheid South Africa.

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Do you mean government approval from the highest level??
Well in many cases the British government is with holding evidence or destroyed evidence

For instance to have the military death squads would of have to have approval from the highest level
Athough under the 30 year rule there was evidence that the British government gave arms and intelligence to loyalist gangs

You can't have systemic government collusion without approval from the highest levels. That's the nature of anything systemic.

Withholding records is is not proof of anything other than secrecy. If you've evidence under the 30 year released documents of the UK government colluding with loyalist gangs, why not stick up a link or two?

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Well it must mean that it is true then
Otherwise he would of said that it was not true

That doesn't follow. But if you expect him to deny any collusion took place, you'd be on your own - collusion has been known about, and some who were involved were jailed for their activities. Still doesn't support a theory of systemic state collusion though.

el pasco

Sand wrote: »

@Carlos Roca



This is the fun thing about NI threads. Frankly quixotic views offered as fact.

Tell you what, seeing as we can presume from your above comments that you support the Provo campaign as a positive contribution to the NI peace process engaged in by constitutional nationalists and moderate unionists, maybe you could support that paradoxical view before I need to fact check reality.

@grainnewhale


And later investigated, uncovered and punished by those two parties - even when politically harmful to themselves. This is completely at odds with the Provo attitude which is only interested in "truth seeking" where it is politically useful to them. Provo crimes and victims of Provo crimes? That's someone else's problem.

Look - to allow for the fact that I might not be addressing a closed mind, the only thing that needs to be done is a clear record of who was killed and in what circumstances need be maintained. Objective facts.

What the Provos are desperately trying to do (even in this thread) is to apply a context whereby certain victims are reduced to non-human cardboard cutouts, that don't have suffering families - nothing to make a human connection with. Several smears have been made against the victims here simply by association with the RUC. Repeated claims that "It was a war." All these claims are dishonestly made as they are quickly thrown out the window when the murder was not carried out by a Provo or a fellow traveller.

The reason the Provos are so desperate to do this is that any objective reading of victims deaths and its circumstances: be it no-warning bomb attacks on pubs and shops, or sectarian sorting of bus passengers before murdering the protestants, or unarmed RUC men trying to surrender being gunned down anyway, or a mans family being kidnapped to force him to act as suicide bomber...basic common humanity means people might query the Provos relentlessly casual and at times shocking brutality in atrocities that were offensive in nature - not defensive. That might cost the Provos some votes. Hence they are desperate to ensure objective history is not maintained, but that instead every crime and victim has a context...a context suitable to their political needs.

Nobody will take Provos claims of seeking the truth and families having the right to know seriously whilst they maintain that attitude - Gerry Adams cant even be honest about his activities in the 1970s and 1980s.



I don't see how. It read how I intended previously, you just mangled it to make sense to yourself alone.



Based on the above, probably not.




No, I didn't and I dont. But as you mention it, they were morally far more sound than the Provos (or the Loyalists for that matter) ever were.




That's a fairly amazing view (You see ChicagoJoe - this is what I love about NI threads: the quite frankly brilliant insights offered therein) as if the IRA were created by British occupation, then they were at least 400 years behind schedule.

If you really want to go down that particular rabbithole, the problem was created by rivalry in the 11th and 12th century between Canterbury (which traditionally held Ireland in its remit - quite frankly because Ireland might have been Christian but was not Roman Catholic, having never been Roman) and Irish Catholic reforming churchmen (who were winning recognition for an independent Irish Catholic clergy, separate from Canterbury). Canterbury obviously resented the loss of authority over the Irish bishops, got their man Adrian IV made Pope (the only English Pope ever btw), who reciprocated by issuing the Laudabiliter: which offered Ireland as a papal fief to the King of England with a stated mission to save the godless, heathen Irish and bring them back to the care of the mother Church: Canterbury. Even then, nothing might have happened except a King of Leinster was deposed and went to his allies in England seeking assistance in recovering his throne. Even then, nothing might have happened except that King died whilst a Welsh-Norman (It was the Welsh who invaded btw - the King of England actually opposed the invasion) army, led by an ambitious, rebellious Welsh-Norman warlord married to his daughter was at large in Ireland and not inclined to go home empty handed.

Basically...the IRA was created by a tremendous weight of historical forces and choices - far beyond some trite "British occupation" catchphrase. The IRA made choices too: no one forced them to bomb civilian targets. They chose to. Several of the loyalist murder gang and terrorists were similarly created by the reaction to IRA atrocities.

Are the Provos going to accept responsibility for them in the way you expect the British government to accept responsibility for the Provos? Doubt it.



I'm pretty sure that's my point. Meanwhile in this thread, Provos are completely dismissing one side.

In this case the RUC officers should of had armed escort to the border with British Army /RUC and then an armed escort with the Irish army /armed Garda in an armoured car and travelled on a main road or just use a helicopter
It was very sloppy actions on behalf of the RUC
The fact they used there own private cars to do to Dundalk 10 times a month and park in the same spot outside Dundalk Garda station is daff
The RUC officers weren't Angels either as Mr.Breen was involved in loyalist parliamilitary and there was a lot of involved with the RUC and loyalist

I am not justify what happened but you got to take common sense approach to your own security

Also the actions of the RUC towards many nationalist didn't help there cause when they needed there help as if the police are the most corrupt police force in the free world and involved in serious crimes and help terrorist the why should you help them

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

You can't have systemic government collusion without approval from the highest levels. That's the nature of anything systemic.

Withholding records is is not proof of anything other than secrecy. If you've evidence under the 30 year released documents of the UK government colluding with loyalist gangs, why not stick up a link or two?

Ok I will try and find it for you but if the British government destroy evidence or withhold it then how can I show it to you

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Ok I will try and find it for you but if the British government destroy evidence or withhold it then how can I show it to you

But you just claimed it existed?

Athough under the 30 year rule there was evidence that the British government gave arms and intelligence to loyalist gangs

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

But you just claimed it existed?

I read it in the Irish News

Also you said Northern Ireland was a democracy but it isn't according to the Oxford English Dictionary

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

I read it in the Irish News

Also you said Northern Ireland was a democracy but it isn't according to the Oxford English Dictionary

Well - it is. It's a part of a representative democratic parliamentary system.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

That doesn't follow. But if you expect him to deny any collusion took place, you'd be on your own - collusion has been known about, and some who were involved were jailed for their activities. Still doesn't support a theory of systemic state collusion though.

In the case of the HET stating that over 100 people were murdered by the members of the British security forces he did not deny it
On the case of British security colliding with loyalist involved in the Dublin and Monaghan bombing he did not deny it

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

Well - it is. It's a part of a representative democratic parliamentary system.

Read the definition of democracy in the Oxford English Dictionary

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Read the definition of democracy in the Oxford English Dictionary

I'm well aware what the classic definition of democracy is. That doesn't remove from the fact that NI is a representative democracy, just as this state is, even though it wouldn't pass muster by the Oxford Dictionary definition.

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

In the case of the HET stating that over 100 people were murdered by the members of the British security forces he did not deny it
On the case of British security colliding with loyalist involved in the Dublin and Monaghan bombing he did not deny it

and...?