Drive-by shootings by British Army in Northern Ireland

padma · 16-02-2014 6:40pm

It would be well worth your while to read the debate in the comment section on that piece to sway your leanings.

Karl Stein · 16-02-2014 7:51pm

junder wrote: »

Bombay street?
http://malachiodoherty.com/2009/08/12/the-pogrom-myth/

Yeah Bombay street.

Horrible isn't it Junder when your crowd get shown up for the murderous ethnic cleansers they were.

Shame on you.

tdv123 · 16-02-2014 8:23pm

junder wrote: »

Bombay street?
http://malachiodoherty.com/2009/08/12/the-pogrom-myth/

Sure if the UVF say it's a myth it must be true.

Bombay Street was there then the Loyalists came & then it was gone & 1500 people were left homeless, 9 killed & scores injured. But obviously those BBC reporters are just trying to demonize the UVF :rolleyes:

I guess Bloody Sunday & Ballymurphy are myths as well are they?

junder · 16-02-2014 8:36pm

tdv123 wrote: »

Sure if the UVF say it's a myth it must be true.

Bombay Street was there then the Loyalists came & then it was gone & 1500 people were left homeless, 9 killed & scores injured. But obviously those BBC reporters are just trying to demonize the UVF :rolleyes:

I guess Bloody Sunday & Ballymurphy are myths as well are they?

Sorry I thought malachi was a respected journalist not a member of the UVF, you learn something everyday

tdv123 · 16-02-2014 9:05pm

junder wrote: »

Sorry I thought malachi was a respected journalist not a member of the UVF, you learn something everyday

With books titled "I was a teenage Catholic" as if it were some sort of crime to be a Catholic teenager he clearly has a chip on his shoulder.

Anybody trying to defend pogroms clearly has an agenda. I don't deny or try to defend atrocities like kingsmill or teebane they happened & so did the bombay pogrom.

junder · 16-02-2014 9:19pm

tdv123 wrote: »

With books titled "I was a teenage Catholic" as if it were some sort of crime to be a Catholic teenager he clearly has a chip on his shoulder.

Anybody trying to defend pogroms clearly has an agenda. I don't deny or try to defend atrocities like kingsmill or teebane they happened & so did the bombay pogrom.

Since malachi was a teenage catholic, what's the issue about writing a book about being a teenage catholic, clearly he has insight on the subject matter, just because he doesn't parrot the usual republican propaganda doesn't make his opinion any less valid

tdv123 · 16-02-2014 9:52pm

junder wrote: »

Since malachi was a teenage catholic, what's the issue about writing a book about being a teenage catholic, clearly he has insight on the subject matter, just because he doesn't parrot the usual republican propaganda doesn't make his opinion any less valid

When he starts defending pogroms & massacres it does make it less valid. I used to be a Catholic as well I don't run around preaching that they all deserved to be burned out of their houses.

Peter Taylor is a good journalist who has written several books on the conflict & done a series on the 3 different view points & no biased favoring.

junder · 16-02-2014 10:17pm

tdv123 wrote: »

When he starts defending pogroms & massacres it does make it less valid. I used to be a Catholic as well I don't run around preaching that they all deserved to be burned out of their houses.

Peter Taylor is a good journalist who has written several books on the conflict & done a series on the 3 different view points & no biased favoring.

I didn't see him defending any massacres or pogroms. In fact the only person who has in anyway defended or justify and terrorist actions is yourself and even when you do admit to any wrong doings on the part of republicans you always attempt to shift the blame to ' criminal' acting with out authority. Will lets look at an event where authority was allegedly given

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/martin-mcguinness-ordered-murder-of-census-worker-fresh-allegations-from-ira-supergrass-raymond-gilmour-29994313.html

I can pretty much guess your response

Sand · 21-02-2014 9:54pm

@tdv123

I'll give you an example. If the they IRA did something like Dublin & Monaghan bombings were the UVF (possible British intelligences) goals was to create as much dead bodies as possibles The IRA strategy was to economic & financial damage slaughter innocent people.

See, you making unsupported statements like that doesn't make them true. Lets say I was to respond: "The IRA strategy was to slaughter innocent people". Then we have two opposed *opinions*

Everyone has an *opinion*. Both are equally valuable so we end up with a circular "Is-Is'nt-Is-Is'nt-Is..." argument which is slightly less useful than a dog chasing its tail - at least the dog is having fun.

How we progress is that we examine the *evidence*.. When you say if the IRA did something like the Dublin & Monaghan bombings it makes me wonder if you are completely unfamiliar with the IRA bombing campaign. Seriously, are you familiar with the work of the Provisional IRA? I'm getting the sense that you're quite young and are only familiar with the shiny, scrubbed, friendly Uncle Gerry Adams Sinn Fein.

You heard of the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4? I'm sure you have as a (very valid) example of flawed British (in)justice. But are you aware that the IRA *did* indeed bomb those pubs - killing 26 people and wounding 247 just out having a pint in Birmingham and Guilford - it was just the wrong people imprisoned for it? And then you say *if* the IRA did something like the Dublin and Monaghan bombings...

Look - you have an opinion. Examine the evidence. If you struggle to support your opinion with evidence, then maybe you should review your opinion.

Name one attack the the Army Council sanctioned on civilians?

Uh, all of them?

Name the Provisional IRA men tried and imprisoned by the Army Council for the Birmingham and Guilford pub bombings.

Yes it [forced suicide bombing] did actually & disguised many Republicans & helped the Provos loose support which they needed.

And yet the strategy was pursued for several years in many different attacks. With no significant loss of IRA support - sure, some might have had troubled views on the tactic. But it didn't endanger their support then. Or yours even today. You complained that the loyalists enjoyed support even despite horrendous attacks and atrocities - do you appreciate now how some could be troubled by Loyalist terrorist attacks but still support them?

It's puzzling to me because there was *always* an alternative to those horrendous attacks and atrocities. If people really were as bothered by those attacks as you claim why didn't they withdraw support for the Provos and Loyalists and instead turn to peaceful political action? For whatever reasons they preferred tit-for-tat killings and murder over talking and compromise, and it took 30-40 years of bloodshed before even the most depraved were exhausted. And even now "dissidents" on all sides still want more blood.

You seem to place a lot of weight in the unified loyalist command structure - seemingly the loyalist terrorist groups were a monolithic bloc, all taking orders from HQ under strict discipline - do you think the IRA army council approved or did not approve those attacks on civilians? If they did approve - you have your answer for the above question about the council approving attacks on civillians. If they did not approve, why do you think the nominally unified loyalist command structure was more effective at controlling and directing the actions of many different groups?

It's that a joke hardly anybody complies with the Geneva covnention anymore if they can get away with it. It was a war. It was low intensity guerrilla warfare. There the Army of the of Irish Republic.

Well, they could get away with it in the ranks of the self described "Army of the Irish Republic". By the way - its actually an insult to the Irish army for a gang of thugs who carry out no-warning pub bombings to declare themselves the army of the Irish republic and sneer at the Geneva Conventions.

Also, you seem to be sneering at Bobby Sands too. He starved himself to death for the right to be treated as a prisoner of war. But you think that's a joke?

Also - if there was a war, do you think it was okay for British Army soldiers to drive around Belfast and Derry randomly murdering civilians? After all, it was a war, wasn't it? **** happens, right?

@Nodin

If you can find a quote of mine that supports the deliberate targeting of civillians, I'd like to see it please .

Well, I actually said X, and you're playing the old game of "Prove Y, else X is disproved"

Nodin · 22-02-2014 3:26pm

Sand wrote: »

@Nodin

Well, I actually said X, and you're playing the old game of "Prove Y, else X is disproved"

You seem to be playing the Tony Blair trick of mentioning Al Qaeda in one sentence and Saddam in the next, then denying you've conflated the two.

You might address the points I've raised with regards the actual issue now and again.

Sand · 22-02-2014 5:43pm

@Nodin

Fairly ironic thing to say really.

Here is what I said:

Now, when it comes to "our" side deliberately targeting civillians, I get told "Well, it was a war, **** happens".".

Here is what you said.

If you can find a quote of mine that supports the deliberate targeting of civillians, I'd like to see it please .

I was accusing Provos of hypocrisy, of being terribly interested in killings by the "other side" but being completely disinterested in the victims of "their side". Civilian deaths are absolutely unacceptable acts that only a vile, murderous group would cause, unless it was the IRA that carried out the attack - in which case, civilian deaths are an unfortunate reality of war, mourned by the IRA more than any. This thread is proof enough.

Of course I wouldn't accuse posters here of supporting attacks on civilians. As already established, no poster supports attacks on civilians - they just support groups which consistently and deliberately attacked civilians for decades. Very different things. They feel "troubled" that the group they support carried out these acts which they don't support, but they somehow find the inner strength to carry that cross. A very complex amorality.

Nodin · 22-02-2014 11:09pm

Sand wrote: »

@(...............)complex amorality.

More blather.

Are you going to address the points I've raised with regards the actual issue at any stage in the future?

Sand · 23-02-2014 12:21am

What points? What is the "actual issue" to your mind?

I can see from your posts on this thread that you're desperate to try portray the conflict in Northern Ireland as just one more occasion of post colonial policing. There is three problems with that: firstly it betrays a European centric/arrogant interpretation of national struggle. Malaya, Cyprus, Burma, Kenya, Aden. Shure, they're all just the same in that they are not "us". Different and distinct, just like all the others.

Secondly, unlike in Malaya, Cyprus, Burma, Kenya, Aden the "imperialists" didn't go home. Rightly or wrongly, after 400 years, they are home. *They* are not the minority, they are the majority in that corner. On the plus side - they are mainly drawn from Scotland. Scotland is called Scotland, not Pictland, because of the Irish. The Scots have been renowned as "hard men" in Ireland since medieval times - they were imported as mercenaries by Irish Gaelic lords because they could be trusted to fight to the death for their king. Irish kings could rely upon them far more than they could upon their own family (interesting fact - at the time of the Norman invasion, the High King of Ireland was engaged in a life and death struggle with his grandfather, father, brothers, uncles and nephews - Gaelic inheritance laws were a Darwinian disadvantage). And they like a pint, just as much as we do. Plenty of common ground to be shared if you can just climb out of the trench you've dug yourself into. There is plenty of humour and friendship to be found in what is different.

EDIT-I have to add to this point: My family name is definitely Gaelic. "Real" Irish. All the way back to the good old medieval days. I don't have to struggle with translating anglo names like Smith into some more nationalist friendly bull**** like "Fhuinneog O'Smithigh-Trying-Too-Hard". But then, the family names of the "planters" who were also Gaelic weren't trying too hard either. When the IRA - like all nationalist movements - ask me to divide Irish people into "real" Irish and "not real" Irish, who ask me to divide people into victims and valid if unfortunate targets, I have to wonder what I am supposed to make of people who have family names which are clearly English or Saxon in origin but who would be offended if I were to describe them as anything other than Irish. Quite frankly - the definition of "Irish" has moved on since the 16th century. Tony Cascarino is proof enough of that. Move on.

EDIT2 - I was also amused by my own mothers bemusement when she visited Scotland recently. She exclaimed that all the local place names seemed to be in Irish. I had to explain to her that they seemed to be in Irish because they were in Gaelic - a shared language because the first "imperialism" was Ireland -> Pictland = Scotland. Unfortunately, the gits were like a boomerang. They came back. With a humourless dry ****e religion.

The third point is that you acknowledge my actual point -that Provos are hypocritical in their hysterical view of the dead in the conflict. You are unable or unwilling to contest that, so you attempt to misdirect onto grounds you feel more comfortable on - NI, as just one more post-colonial battlefield. Just like Kenya. Right.

Mr Cumulonimbus · 23-02-2014 1:49am

Sand wrote: »

Provos are hypocritical in their hysterical view of the dead in the conflict.

Fancy that, propaganda eh? It wasn't used as a tactic before the Troubles came along then?

actual soldiers try not to put bombs in pubs, shops, homes etc.

'Actual soldiers' through the availability of better delivery systems, had a nasty habit of dropping bombs (from 4lb magnesium incendiaries to nuclear warheads) from a great height on to pubs, shops, homes etc.

junder · 23-02-2014 4:58am

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Fancy that, propaganda eh? It wasn't used as a tactic before the Troubles came along then?

'Actual soldiers' through the availability of better delivery systems, had a nasty habit of dropping bombs (from 4lb magnesium incendiaries to nuclear warheads) from a great height on to pubs, shops, homes etc.

Eh? Nuclear warheads in northern Ireland , care to back that up or is it just hyperbole

Nodin · 23-02-2014 7:08am

Sand wrote: »

What points? What is the "actual issue" to your mind?

I can see from your posts on this thread that you're desperate to try portray the conflict in Northern Ireland as just one more occasion of post colonial policing. There is three problems with that: firstly it betrays a European centric/arrogant interpretation of national struggle. Malaya, Cyprus, Burma, Kenya, Aden. Shure, they're all just the same in that they are not "us". Different and distinct, just like all the others..

It would be nice if you actually read what I added.....I was comparing the methods of the British army, who employed the same methods and often the same personnel in these various theatres.

Sand wrote: »

Secondly, unlike ...................ya. Right.

That has nothing to do with what I posted.

Nodin · 23-02-2014 7:11am

junder wrote: »

Eh? Nuclear warheads in northern Ireland , care to back that up or is it just hyperbole

He's referring to the usual notion that the factory manufactured, quality controlled explosive munition - when delivered by a professional state force - is somehow a nobler beast than that cooked together in Paddys back yard.

Godge · 25-02-2014 4:36pm

Charles Rocher wrote: »

The numbers are the numbers. Take it up with CAIN if you think they're wrong.

Incorrect.

The PIRA killed about 650 civilians.

152 of which were unintended targets.
34 of which were contractors for the BA.
19 of which were alleged criminals and drug dealers
8 Protestant civilians during street disturbances (probably attacking Nationalist areas.

Let us look at the numbers you provide. The numbers you account for add up to 213 (152+34+19+8) which means that the IRA deliberately targeted and killed 437 (650-213) uninvolved civilians according to your numbers.

Charles Rocher wrote: »

Because when it comes to out-and-out blood lust for killing civilians the percentages tell us who went after soft targets who were unlikely to shoot back and who went after the armed apparatus of the sectarian statelet.

.

No, the perecentages tell us nothing. If one group killed 10 people in total, 8 of whom were innocent civilians, they would have an innocent civilian rate of 80%.

That would be much more than the IRA yet in any sane world the IRA were the killers and terrorists.

Sand · 04-04-2014 11:59pm

Still no update on the investigation into the MRF ninja death squad roaming Northern Ireland, despite 6 months passing. Seemed to be an open and shut case given the headlines. And the book publicised by the show cant be doing all that well - its been withdrawn from Amazon with one customer review that doesn't sound too positive

Having read the manuscript notes for this book, and being an Armed Forces Veteran myself, I look forward to seeing this book denounced in the press and the author hauled before the courts.

Don't believe a word of it!

Still, prophets are despised amongst their own aren't they? And I still expect this to pass into "fact" amongst certain circles.

Nodin · 05-04-2014 7:08pm

Sand wrote: »

Still no update on the investigation into the MRF ninja death squad roaming Northern Ireland, despite 6 months passing. Seemed to be an open and shut case given the headlines. And the book publicised by the show cant be doing all that well - its been withdrawn from Amazon with one customer review that doesn't sound too positive

Still, prophets are despised amongst their own aren't they? And I still expect this to pass into "fact" amongst certain circles.

An anonymous armed forced veteran denounces it? Well that's me disabused of any notion I had.

It's amazing how you can fail to place the last piece of the jigsaw if you refuse to look at all the other pre-assembled pieces.

Sand · 12-06-2014 8:49pm

Still no updates on the PSNI investigation. The book "MRF Shadow Troop" is still unavailable on Amazon - presumably the authors balls withdrew somewhere under his stomach after the PSNI got involved and he realised big man talk that impressed the lads down in the pub could get him in a bit of trouble. Seems the story stopped dead in November 2013.

Oh well, as I predicted earlier people will still refer the wild headline claims as if they were proven despite no evidence whatsoever.

Nodin · 12-06-2014 10:05pm

Sand wrote: »

Still no updates on the PSNI investigation. The book "MRF Shadow Troop" is still unavailable on Amazon - presumably the authors balls withdrew somewhere under his stomach after the PSNI got involved and he realised big man talk that impressed the lads down in the pub could get him in a bit of trouble. Seems the story stopped dead in November 2013.
.

Rreally?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/MRF-Shadow-Troop-intelligence-undercover/dp/1909609021/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402606900&sr=8-1&keywords=mrf+shadow+troop

http://www.amazon.com/MRF-Shadow-Troop-intelligence-undercover/dp/1909609021/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

Sand · 12-06-2014 10:27pm

Good point - Its listed as unavailable under the title "Shadow Troop", but I presume there was a rebranding. I guess you can still spend your money on a detailed confession if you really believe this Simon Cursey chap is a reliable witness...or maybe not.

Could not finish it. Even for some of excuses for not giving detail story Is so vague. I'm sure this type of thing went on but Don't think author was party of it.

It was a nothing book. It was like an old style cowboy book. I think the man lives in a fantasy land

If you hope to read about the MRF, give this missive a miss. If you are interested in weapons, JFK, Munich Olympics or PLO you might enjoy it if you are not bored easily. The guy is an idiot a fool and a bigot. Don't waste your money.....

very biased. From one who grew up in Belfast he has no universal view of the situation that eventually grew into the troubles. sounds like the author would have been trigger happy in any situation. sad really. People like him added to the troubles, they did not provide any solution.

Nodin · 12-06-2014 11:07pm

Sand wrote: »

Good point - Its listed as unavailable under the title "Shadow Troop", but I presume there was a rebranding. I guess you can still spend your money on a detailed confession if you really believe this Simon Cursey chap is a reliable witness...or maybe not.

Wow - Amazon reviews!!!!!!!!!!! That's even more convincing that the Anonymous armed forces veteran you had earlier.

Sand · 15-06-2014 9:56pm

Well Nodin, seeing as you think the book and author are credible are you going to pick up a copy? Surely a few quid is cheap for a detailed confession by a British army death squad?

Nodin · 15-06-2014 10:14pm

Sand wrote: »

Well Nodin, seeing as you think the book and author are credible are you going to pick up a copy? Surely a few quid is cheap for a detailed confession by a British army death squad?

I may well do so. It would be interesting to compare the mentality with that exhibited in other territories where the same tactics were employed.

junder · 15-06-2014 10:43pm

I post on a military site and the topic of this book came up, the author made the mistake of posting on the thread, he was torn a new one, the book is utter bollocks, anybody with any military experience, regardless of what nation they served can see that

maccored · 15-06-2014 11:04pm

to be fair that book seems to have far more decent reviews that crap ones.

Sand wrote: »

Well Nodin, seeing as you think the book and author are credible are you going to pick up a copy? Surely a few quid is cheap for a detailed confession by a British army death squad?

Nodin · 15-06-2014 11:20pm

junder wrote: »

I post on a military site and the topic of this book came up, the author made the mistake of posting on the thread, he was torn a new one, the book is utter bollocks, anybody with any military experience, regardless of what nation they served can see that

Yet the British did employ such a unit in Belfast and tactics in the early 1970's, much as they did in Aden (where the SAS were employed to much the same purpose), Burma, Kenya etc.

junder · 16-06-2014 1:36pm

Nodin wrote: »

Yet the British did employ such a unit in Belfast and tactics in the early 1970's, much as they did in Aden (where the SAS were employed to much the same purpose), Burma, Kenya etc.

The british army had many specialist units non of which where tasked to do indiscriminate drive by's that was left to the locals ( on sides)

Nodin · 16-06-2014 2:08pm

junder wrote: »

The british army had many specialist units non of which where tasked to do indiscriminate drive by's that was left to the locals ( on sides)

Not really
http://books.google.ie/books?id=SvRhIh5sbWAC&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=british+hit+squads+aden&source=bl&ots=d5c92itIH5&sig=TK4FnFi2voDedeuNXB5xdpLIZrU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QOueU9_dJoLy7Abg04HYCQ&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=british%20hit%20squads%20aden&f=false

http://www.brh.org.uk/site/articles/hidden-histories-british-state-revealed-2013/

Sand · 04-07-2014 11:44pm

I saw an update on the Panorama BBC investigation into the MRF - given its been close to 9 months I was hopeful we would see some arrests of this Murder Death Kill squad that was apparently roaming the streets.

However, it was just a news story on BBC incompetence - apparently they sent the files they claim to have had on the MRF to the target of another Panorama investigation, exposing the personal details of at least one MRF member in the process. Good to know the BBC is a competent, professional organisation. First they whip up a wave of hysteria against this MRF, then they send out personal details to assist anyone interested in righting perceived wrongs.

Nodin · 09-07-2014 11:47pm

Sand wrote: »

I saw an update on the Panorama BBC investigation into the MRF - given its been close to 9 months I was hopeful we would see some arrests of this Murder Death Kill squad that was apparently roaming the streets.

However, it was just a news story on BBC incompetence - apparently they sent the files they claim to have had on the MRF to the target of another Panorama investigation, exposing the personal details of at least one MRF member in the process. Good to know the BBC is a competent, professional organisation. First they whip up a wave of hysteria against this MRF, then they send out personal details to assist anyone interested in righting perceived wrongs.

.....given that we've never seen arrests from bloody Sunday and any number of other incidents from all sides, I'm not sure what makes you "hopeful" .

Sand · 11-07-2014 12:43am

Well, we were widely assured members of the unit had confessed on TV. Surely, with a full and complete confession on TV, and a written confession printed and on sale in the shops it shouldn't really require too much police work to get some arrests made? Right?

Nodin · 11-07-2014 6:34am

Sand wrote: »

Well, we were widely assured members of the unit had confessed on TV. Surely, with a full and complete confession on TV, and a written confession printed and on sale in the shops it shouldn't really require too much police work to get some arrests made? Right?

....which presumes any number of things, first and foremost an interest in prosecution.

Sand · 13-07-2014 1:19am

That's a wonderfully circular persecution complex - the absence of evidence of any conspiracy is in fact evidence of the conspiracy. Right? Come on Nodin, you're smarter than this.

The highest probability is that a bunch of big mouth Walter Mitty characters blagged their way onto Panorma, telling the gullible reporters exciting, scandalous and untrue tales of taking the gloves off, of fighting terror with terror and being the biggest, baddest mean men around. The sort of tales that let these lads think they were in power and in control, when in reality they were just numbers in a system. Panorama lapped it up because the BBC is almost genetically engineered to lap up these sort of conspiracy tales. Big and bold headlines were put out, with absolutely nothing to back them, and so far...no evidence has meant no arrests, no charges and no convictions.

Nodin · 13-07-2014 3:09pm

Sand wrote: »

That's a wonderfully circular persecution complex - the absence of evidence of any conspiracy is in fact evidence of the conspiracy. Right? Come on Nodin, you're smarter than this..

It's a fact that a very large number of incidents have occurred to which there have been no prosecutions eg Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy.

Sand wrote: »

The highest probability (............), no charges and no convictions.

But it was long know that such a group operated, that such policies were enacted elsewhere, thus there's absolutely nothing fantastic about it.

maccored · 13-07-2014 9:14pm

Sand wrote: »

The highest probability is that a bunch of big mouth Walter Mitty characters blagged their way onto Panorma, telling the gullible reporters exciting, scandalous and untrue tales of taking the gloves off, of fighting terror with terror and being the biggest, baddest mean men around. The sort of tales that let these lads think they were in power and in control, when in reality they were just numbers in a system. Panorama lapped it up because the BBC is almost genetically engineered to lap up these sort of conspiracy tales. Big and bold headlines were put out, with absolutely nothing to back them, and so far...no evidence has meant no arrests, no charges and no convictions.

I just want to make sure Im on the right page here. Does what you said above mean you don't believe the MRF existed and done the things they are meant to have done? I've read back your posts and I'm having a hard time pinning down exactly what you are saying, overall, as far as the MRF is concerned.

Sand · 17-07-2014 11:40pm

maccored wrote: »

I just want to make sure Im on the right page here. Does what you said above mean you don't believe the MRF existed and done the things they are meant to have done? I've read back your posts and I'm having a hard time pinning down exactly what you are saying, overall, as far as the MRF is concerned.

The MRF existing is a matter of record. The matter under dispute is if the MRF was a plain-clothes intelligence gathering unit of the British Army that infiltrated Republican controlled areas and observed activity there. Or a gang of lads with bad hairdos driving around randomly murdering people for no real reason that can be perceived. Other than just being plain evil of course.

Either is possible - I wasn't there. Maybe they were the <insert bad name here> of the earth. But, in the absence of *any* credible evidence, the former seems more likely than the latter. I'd have thought Provo's would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt - many Provos still seem utterly convinced that the Provos never deliberately targeted civilians. Despite vast amounts of evidence that they did.

If they cant see any evidence for that, I find it hard to believe they can find any convincing evidence that the MRF was some sort of death squad.

maccored · 18-07-2014 9:38am

I thought the whole point of the MRF was to be "a plain-clothes intelligence gathering unit of the British Army that infiltrated Republican controlled areas and observed activity there"?

Feel free to show us your definitive proof that provos purposefully targeted civilians whenever you want. That's if you actually have any that is. If it's just waffle, then dont worry about it.

Sand wrote: »

The MRF existing is a matter of record. The matter under dispute is if the MRF was a plain-clothes intelligence gathering unit of the British Army that infiltrated Republican controlled areas and observed activity there. Or a gang of lads with bad hairdos driving around randomly murdering people for no real reason that can be perceived. Other than just being plain evil of course.

Either is possible - I wasn't there. Maybe they were the <insert bad name here> of the earth. But, in the absence of *any* credible evidence, the former seems more likely than the latter. I'd have thought Provo's would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt - many Provos still seem utterly convinced that the Provos never deliberately targeted civilians. Despite vast amounts of evidence that they did.

If they cant see any evidence for that, I find it hard to believe they can find any convincing evidence that the MRF was some sort of death squad.

maccored · 18-07-2014 9:43am

somebody may let Amnesty International know too btw, since they have made calls to have the MRF investigated.

Nodin · 18-07-2014 3:12pm

Sand wrote: »

The MRF existing is a matter of record. The matter under dispute is if the MRF was a plain-clothes intelligence gathering unit of the British Army that infiltrated Republican controlled areas and observed activity there. Or a gang of lads with bad hairdos driving around randomly murdering people for no real reason that can be perceived. Other than just being plain evil of course.
.

Bumping off males of arms bearing age to intimidate the local populace is a well known way of maintaining control and was applied throughout the 'Empire'.

Sand · 18-07-2014 7:58pm

maccored wrote: »

I thought the whole point of the MRF was to be "a plain-clothes intelligence gathering unit of the British Army that infiltrated Republican controlled areas and observed activity there"?

Well, another theory is that they were a death squad out murdering people at random. At this point I give more weight to the "plain-clothes intelligence gathering unit" theory.

Feel free to show us your definitive proof that provos purposefully targeted civilians whenever you want. That's if you actually have any that is. If it's just waffle, then dont worry about it.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

@Nodin

Bumping off males of arms bearing age to intimidate the local populace is a well known way of maintaining control and was applied throughout the 'Empire'.

That doesn't even approach the minimum standard for evidence. I could make a similar supposition about Provos having solid motives to intimidate and control the Protestant majority by murdering Protestants, particularly farmers in border areas, and I doubt either you or Maccored would acknowledge that it was any sort of evidence that the Provos deliberately targeted civilians.

You lads are fairly inconsistent when it comes to standards of evidence. You don't need any evidence at all to be convinced of wrongdoing by "them" but cant seem to find any evidence of all of wrongdoing by "us".

Nodin · 18-07-2014 8:15pm

Sand wrote: »

Well, another (..........)of wrongdoing by "us".

So the reason you keep going on about this is actually to get a dig in at the Provos then. I was wondering there.

Fr. Ned · 18-07-2014 8:24pm

Nodin wrote: »

So the reason you keep going on about this is actually to get a dig in at the Provos then. I was wondering there.

There are people on this and other forums who would actually apologise to the British for acts of terrorism like the Dublin/Monaghan bombings.
Acts of terrorism enabled by British security forces.

It's a certain mindset some people have.

Sand · 18-07-2014 8:34pm

Nodin wrote: »

So the reason you keep going on about this is actually to get a dig in at the Provos then. I was wondering there.

Nah, the reason I keep going on about it is that for the best part of a month people completely lost the plot over wild claims. And as I gently pointed out then, and since without any actual evidence to support those wild claims.

What makes it very interesting is many of those absolutely persuaded of the wild, so far baseless claims are very hard to convince of even the most minor, well known activities of their favourite brand of Northern Ireland terrorist.

@Fr. Ned

There are people on this and other forums who would actually apologise to the British for acts of terrorism like the Dublin/Monaghan bombings.

Well, I'd rather they apologise to the victims of the Dublin/Monaghan bombings first. Not clear what the British would be owed an apology over in that case.

Nodin · 18-07-2014 9:23pm

Sand wrote: »

Nah, the reason I keep going on about it is that for the best part of a month people completely lost the plot over wild claims. And as I gently pointed out then, and since without any actual evidence to support those wild claims.

What makes it very interesting is many of those absolutely persuaded of the wild, so far baseless claims are very hard to convince of even the most minor, well known activities of their favourite brand of Northern Ireland terrorist.

I'd be more convinced you weren't trying to get a dig in if you didn't try to get a dig in while trying to convince me you weren't doing so, if you follow me.

Fratton Fred · 23-07-2014 10:24pm

maccored wrote: »

Feel free to show us your definitive proof that provos purposefully targeted civilians whenever you want. That's if you actually have any that is. If it's just waffle, then dont worry about it.

Birmingham pub bombings.
Second Warrington bomb
Harrods bomb
Manchester bomb
Le Mons bomb
Bloody Friday

How much more would you like?

pO1Neil · 28-07-2014 1:29pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Birmingham pub bombings.
Second Warrington bomb
Harrods bomb
Manchester bomb
Le Mons bomb
Bloody Friday

How much more would you like?

Other than the Birmingham bombings (which I'm not convinced was carried out by the IRA) the rest were not "targeted" at civilians. The others were aimed at infrastructure & causing economic damage not civilian damage. You have to be honest with yourself first before you can try to win people over to your point view. The Kingsmill massacre was a real deliberate attempt by Republicans to harm civilians or the Darkley killings by the Catholic Reaction Force or the Orange Cross pub killings carried out by the IPLO.

Fratton Fred · 29-07-2014 9:26pm

pO1Neil wrote: »

Other than the Birmingham bombings (which I'm not convinced was carried out by the IRA) the rest were not "targeted" at civilians. The others were aimed at infrastructure & causing economic damage not civilian damage. You have to be honest with yourself first before you can try to win people over to your point view. The Kingsmill massacre was a real deliberate attempt by Republicans to harm civilians or the Darkley killings by the Catholic Reaction Force or the Orange Cross pub killings carried out by the IPLO.

Why are you not convinced the IRA carried outbtge Birmingham pub bombings?

Also, why were all those places bombed at the busiest time of day? The Warrington bombs (note plural) went off outside a MacDonald's on a Saturday lunchtime. What infrastructure or economic damage did that cause that would not have been caused at 3am on a Tuesday?

Drive-by shootings by British Army in Northern Ireland

Comments