Still no answers for families of Dublin and Monaghan Bombings

FTA69 · 11-05-2010 12:06pm

OS119,

the BG might have considered wearing the hair shirt if they had any confidence that others would follow suit, but they aren't going to do it again when the evidence from the Saville Inquiry suggests that no other party is interested in cleaning house if it might get embarrassing.

the BG dipped its toe - however hesitantly - in the pool of 'truth and reconcilliation' and found that no one else wanted to take a dip. nobody can be overly surprised that they've decided not to do so again.

They did in their holes, even regarding Bloody Sunday they have yet to make so much as an apology for it. Even when John Stevens conducted a report into collusion between the Brits and Loyalist paramilitaries he was obstructed at every turn, even going so far as blaming the FRU for torching his headquarters. Out of a 3000 page report the Brits allowed 15 pages of it to be published.

I agree with your assertion that it is in neither party's interest to have their actions divulged in public, but your notion that the Brits would be prepared to acknowledge the dirty tricks they undertook during the war in this country is simply pure and utter nonsense.

SlabMurphy · 11-05-2010 12:14pm

Camelot wrote: »

For what its worth Slab Murphy, the 'enemy' that plays by whatever rules it sees fit were the Provisional IRA, and I for one, am glad that they 'The IRA' do not exist anymore . . .

Well as you seen I was paraphrasing Fratton's post #88. So may I take it, that you have no issue with the Brits or their loyalist puppets playing by whatever rules it sees fit ? It's only the IRA that you object to ?

OhNoYouDidn't · 11-05-2010 2:44pm

baalthor wrote: »

The closest equivalent on the IRA/Republican side to Dublin/Monaghan would be the Kingsmill Massacre.

Really? What was the Irish security apperatus involvement in that attack?

OhNoYouDidn't · 11-05-2010 2:45pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

What do you know,and have you told the authorities.?

Come on out of that. Books have been written on the subject of collusion and this bombing in particular. There is a legitimate debate on the multiple fatal bombings, one of which was the biggest atrocity of the troubles, that many observers can point to elements of the British military.

Why did they do it, who knew and why did the Irish state not object?

OS119 · 11-05-2010 4:31pm

FTA69 wrote: »

OS119,

They did in their holes, even regarding Bloody Sunday they have yet to make so much as an apology for it. Even when John Stevens conducted a report into collusion between the Brits and Loyalist paramilitaries he was obstructed at every turn, even going so far as blaming the FRU for torching his headquarters. Out of a 3000 page report the Brits allowed 15 pages of it to be published.

I agree with your assertion that it is in neither party's interest to have their actions divulged in public, but your notion that the Brits would be prepared to acknowledge the dirty tricks they undertook during the war in this country is simply pure and utter nonsense.

i don't suggest that they would be keen to do it, rather that if they felt that both the political process needed it, and that other parties to the conflict would be prepared to follow suit, then they would look at the idea.

the Saville enquiry is the evidence of that - there was no political force in the UK political system demanding that enquiry (and it now appears that most of the senior Labour people involved in setting it up regret doing so), and everyone knew it would be embarassing, yet the UK govt went ahead with it anyway.

the BG now looks foolish for having done 'the right thing', it made a start - an imperfect start perhaps - but it did dip its toe into the pool of 'we fcuked up, and this is how' - but nobody else was interested in following suit.

LordSutch · 11-05-2010 4:37pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

There is a legitimate debate on the multiple fatal bombings, one of which was the biggest atrocity of the troubles, that many observers can point to elements of the British military.

Omagh?

OhNoYouDidn't · 11-05-2010 5:21pm

Camelot wrote: »

Omagh?

More people were killed in the Dublin & Monaghan bombings. 33 versus 29. And interestingly British intellegence have questions to answer on both attacks.

Camelot, while I don't agree with everything you post, you are an articulate and resonable poster most of the time. But you are letting youself down badly here. Please do some basic research on this if you insist on contributing....

FlutterinBantam · 11-05-2010 5:48pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Come on out of that. Books have been written on the subject of collusion and this bombing in particular. There is a legitimate debate on the multiple fatal bombings, one of which was the biggest atrocity of the troubles, that many observers can point to elements of the British military.

Why did they do it, who knew and why did the Irish state not object?

Books have been written about many things, UFO sightings, Alien invasion, Leprechauns etc.

Some people here 'seem' to know all that was behind these events.

Did they go to the authorities.?

FTA69 · 11-05-2010 5:58pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Books have been written about many things, UFO sightings, Alien invasion, Leprechauns etc.

Strawman.

LordSutch · 11-05-2010 6:29pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

More people were killed in the Dublin & Monaghan bombings. 33 versus 29. And interestingly British intellegence have questions to answer on both attacks.

Indeed, when you add the number of people killed in the three Dublin Bombings to the number of people killed in the Monaghan Bomb planted later that same day you get a total of 33 casualties, as opposed to the 29 people killed in the one bomb planted in Omagh!

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Camelot, while I don't agree with everything you post, you are an articulate and resonable poster most of the time. But you are letting youself down badly here. Please do some basic research on this if you insist on contributing....

Looks like I had done my research, My God this is a depressing thread . . .

Poccington · 11-05-2010 6:31pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Books have been written about many things, UFO sightings, Alien invasion, Leprechauns etc.

Some people here 'seem' to know all that was behind these events.

Did they go to the authorities.?

Colin Wallace, John Weir and Captain Fred Holroyd all went to the authorities.

Are they good enough sources for you?

On the topic of collusion, to anyone that says it never took place all I'll say is... Brian Nelson, Robin Jackson and the many roadblocks that the three Stevens Inquiries faced.

FlutterinBantam · 11-05-2010 6:38pm

FTA69 wrote: »

Strawman.

Very easy to throw in these expressions but you don't fool me.

A lot of people on here seem to know a lot about events.

Did they go to the authorities or not.

I don't need to know who else did or didn't or hearsay stuff.

If YOU knew something did YOU go?

otherwise it's all just waffle.:cool:

Poccington · 11-05-2010 6:49pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Very easy to throw in these expressions but you don't fool me.

A lot of people on here seem to know a lot about events.

Did they go to the authorities or not.

I don't need to know who else did or didn't or hearsay stuff.

If YOU knew something did YOU go?

otherwise it's all just waffle.:cool:

Oh right.

That's a bit like saying:

"Did you witness or know of any kind of ill treatment of prisoners taking place in Auschwitz?"

"No I didn't, I wasn't alive at the time."

"Well then it didn't happen, you're just waffling."

Or insert any other random incident where something was very wrong.

Seriously, if former members of 14 Int Coy, RUC Special Patrol Group, FRU and the bloody Stevens Inquiries all say that collusion took place, how does that equate to hearsay? What other evidence do you want?

A Dub in Glasgo · 11-05-2010 7:06pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Very easy to throw in these expressions but you don't fool me.

A lot of people on here seem to know a lot about events.

Did they go to the authorities or not.

I don't need to know who else did or didn't or hearsay stuff.

If YOU knew something did YOU go?

otherwise it's all just waffle.:cool:

I raise the 'strawman' expression with 'clutching at straws' expression!

FlutterinBantam · 11-05-2010 7:06pm

You will really have to read my post again.

wolfpawnat · 11-05-2010 7:17pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Books have been written about many things, UFO sightings, Alien invasion, Leprechauns etc.

Some people here 'seem' to know all that was behind these events.

Did they go to the authorities.?

The reason I know about these events is by reading published literature regarding said events, so I would assume the autorities would have some notion of what I have read (since part of one of the books has info on the bomb material compostion obtained from the autorities). The Dublin and Monaghan Bombings are one of the more written about atrocities. And my father comes from Monaghan so for me there is the extra interest.

Camelot wrote: »

Indeed, when you add the number of people killed in the three Dublin Bombings to the number of people killed in the Monaghan Bomb planted later that same day you get a total of 33 casualties, as opposed to the 29 people killed in the one bomb planted in Omagh!

The amount of bombs used is irrelevent, it is the overall force of the attack that matters in the overall scheme of things. Everyone with functioning brain cells knows the reason for the number of people killed by the Omagh bomb is so great is due to misfortune (and there are several theories on this) everyone was told to stay behind a certain line as it was believed the bomb was further up the street and sadly they were all in close proximity to the actual location of the bomb. That makes sense! Who knows how many would have been killed had they not all been put so close to the bomb.

Camelot wrote: »

My God this is a depressing thread . . .

Then I am confused to your reason for staying on!?!

If you are not happy with the way this thread is going, then why not abandon it and save yourself the depression/annoyance?

Poccington · 11-05-2010 7:19pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Very easy to throw in these expressions but you don't fool me.

A lot of people on here seem to know a lot about events.

Did they go to the authorities or not.

I don't need to know who else did or didn't or hearsay stuff.

If YOU knew something did YOU go?

otherwise it's all just waffle.:cool:

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You will really have to read my post again.

Ok, so I have read your post once again.

What I take from it is, that unless myself or anyone else posting on this thread regarding collusion between British security forces and Loyalists personally reported an incident to the authorities, everything else is just waffle.

Does the Stevens Inquiries fall under the "waffle" category? Does Brian Nelson's police statement fall under the "waffle" category? Does Colin Wallace and John Weir's personal experiences and admissions of collusion, fall under the "waffle" category?

lugha · 11-05-2010 7:37pm

baalthor wrote: »

You can argue that a state or an organisation carried out a particular act based on circumstantial evidence. For example, Al Queda were held responsible for September 11 long before anyone was charged in relation to the attacks.

To arrest and imprison an individual usually requires a trial and proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, similarly accusing someone of a serious crime requires a high burden of proof.

Fair enough. If you were sitting on a jury and had the freedom of an individual in your hands, you should certainly be very demanding in terms of the quality of the evidence against them. But what I am talking about is inconsistencies in relation to how some assess the likely truth of something for their own information on the basis of incomplete or imperfect knowledge, a state of affairs that often pertains to the murky world of subversion and collusion.

The inconsistency comes from insisting that you do not accept as true, for your own information, that an individual is or was an IRA member, not that you would not convict them on the knowledge you have (which perhaps you properly shouldn’t) when you are fully convinced of the truth, again for your own information, that there was British collusion in the Dublin / Monaghan bombings when the evidence in both cases may be broadly similar, i.e. suspicious or maybe even strong, but not compelling.

moonpurple · 11-05-2010 7:43pm

wolpawnpat you are absolutely right to give your location as in a world of your own, this is very clear when you type above

"Everyone with functioning brain cells knows the reason for the number of people killed by the Omagh bomb is so great is due to misfortune"

NO....it was not misfortune: many shoppers were murdered in Omagh in THE WORST ATROCITY in Ireland since 1968 because people YOU (and some other clowns here) admire placed a car full of explosives on a busy street on a saturday summers afternoon,

FlutterinBantam · 11-05-2010 8:37pm

Well said, time someone said it as it was.

FTA69 · 11-05-2010 9:14pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Very easy to throw in these expressions but you don't fool me.

A lot of people on here seem to know a lot about events.

Did they go to the authorities or not.

I don't need to know who else did or didn't or hearsay stuff.

If YOU knew something did YOU go?

otherwise it's all just waffle.:cool:

Balls. You're comparing documented and proven events like collusion to leprechauns, that is a strawman.

As has been alluded to already, various Loyalists and British military intelligence figures have stated that it took place. The case of Brian Nelson is well documented, a British agent who explicitly directed the targets the UDA and other Loyalists whom he supplied with intelligence he received from the Force Research Unit. Even John Stevens declared it was widespread and his inquiries were obstructed. (Perhaps that other fella on here will be declaring he secretly supports the Real IRA or some other bullsh*t).

The thing is though FB, and it's very transparent, is that you can't admit to yourself that "our boys" and the British government were up to their necks in the murder of civilians as well as arming and facilitating death squads. To do so would counteract your bogus opinion that the Brits here had some sort of moral highground, they don't; hence you bending over backwards to deny what's staring you in the face.

wolfpawnat · 11-05-2010 9:35pm

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The amount of bombs used is irrelevent, it is the overall force of the attack that matters in the overall scheme of things. Everyone with functioning brain cells knows the reason for the number of people killed by the Omagh bomb is so great is due to misfortune (and there are several theories on this) that everyone was told to stay behind a certain line as it was believed the bomb was further up the street and sadly they were all in close proximity to the actual location of the bomb. That makes sense! Who knows how many would have been killed had they not all been put so close to the bomb.

moonpurple wrote: »

wolpawnpat you are absolutely right to give your location as in a world of your own, this is very clear when you type above

"Everyone with functioning brain cells knows the reason for the number of people killed by the Omagh bomb is so great is due to misfortune"

NO....it was not misfortune: many shoppers were murdered in Omagh in THE WORST ATROCITY in Ireland since 1968 because people YOU (and some other clowns here) admire placed a car full of explosives on a busy street on a saturday summers afternoon,

I love your misquoting:rolleyes: I condemn all dissendent attacks on both sides of the divide, since your first post on this thread you have had the sole agenda of trying to make this about your view and your view only.

It is not the worst atrocity, it is one of them. D&M bombing was just women and children, so you think they deserved to die?

And I do not condone any attacks on civilains regardless of "reasons". You seem incapible of reading this same piece of my posts any time.

So I'll say it again

I DO NOT CONDONE ANY ATTACK ON CIVILIANS BY ANY DISSENDENT GROUP ON EITHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL/RELIGIOUS DIVIDE.

Now that is done, on with the thread

LordSutch · 11-05-2010 9:53pm

wolfpawnat wrote: »

So I'll say it again

I DO NOT CONDONE ANY ATTACK ON CIVILIANS BY ANY DISSENDENT GROUP ON EITHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL/RELIGIOUS DIVIDE.

Now that is done, on with the thread

Dissedents indeed, but what about Provisional IRA attacks :cool:

Fratton Fred · 11-05-2010 9:58pm

Poccington wrote: »

Ok, so I have read your post once again.

What I take from it is, that unless myself or anyone else posting on this thread regarding collusion between British security forces and Loyalists personally reported an incident to the authorities, everything else is just waffle.

Does the Stevens Inquiries fall under the "waffle" category? Does Brian Nelson's police statement fall under the "waffle" category? Does Colin Wallace and John Weir's personal experiences and admissions of collusion, fall under the "waffle" category?

I have no doubt collusion went on, in fact I am surprised that people are surprised that it did.

as a military man, do you not at least have empathy for a lot of it? I'm not expecting you to sympathise, but you must surely understand how a lot of otherwise respectable British Soldiers sank to these depths?

Blackjack · 11-05-2010 10:02pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I have no doubt collusion went on, in fact I am surprised that people are surprised that it did.

as a military man, do you not at least have empathy for a lot of it? I'm not expecting you to sympathise, but you must surely understand how a lot of otherwise respectable British Soldiers sank to these depths?

You mean used the same methods that they would then refer to as Terrorism?.

LordSutch · 11-05-2010 10:09pm

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The Dublin and Monaghan Bombings are one of the more written about atrocities. And my father comes from Monaghan so for me there is the extra interest.

Yes, somebody else stated that D&M was the single worst atrocity of the Troubles, so I pointed that it was actually Omagh. (Dublin & Monaghan were multiple).

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The amount of bombs used is irrelevent, it is the overall force of the attack that matters in the overall scheme of things. Everyone with functioning brain cells knows the reason for the number of people killed by the Omagh bomb is so great is due to misfortune (and there are several theories on this) everyone was told to stay behind a certain line as it was believed the bomb was further up the street and sadly they were all in close proximity to the actual location of the bomb. That makes sense! Who knows how many would have been killed had they not all been put so close to the bomb.

My functioning brain cells tell me that some complete 'low lifes' with even fewer brain cells than me, planted a Bomb designed to maim & murder as many as possible!

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Then I am confused to your reason for staying on!?! If you are not happy with the way this thread is going, then why not abandon it and save yourself the depression/annoyance?

I'll tell you why I am staying on, its because this blasted thread is still here, in the middle of two UK election threads to which I am posting to.

Fratton Fred · 11-05-2010 10:20pm

Blackjack wrote: »

You mean used the same methods that they would then refer to as Terrorism?.

if killing a killer is terrorism then yes, but lets fact it, it is all semantics. The IRA called it a war, but didn't wear uniforms. If they did, then a lot of these "Civilians" that were supposedly killed by the British Army or UVF would have been combatants.

don't forget, there is also well documented cases where collusion with UVF informers helped prevent some atrocities from being carried out.

Blackjack · 11-05-2010 10:22pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if killing a killer is terrorism then yes, but lets fact it, it is all semantics. The IRA called it a war, but didn't wear uniforms. If they did, then a lot of these "Civilians" that were supposedly killed by the British Army or UVF would have been combatants.

don't forget, there is also well documented cases where collusion with UVF informers helped prevent some atrocities from being carried out.

As long as you're willing to apply the same rules for all then, or is it just OK if the rules only apply to one side?

Blackjack · 11-05-2010 10:23pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if killing a killer is terrorism then yes, but lets fact it, it is all semantics. The IRA called it a war, but didn't wear uniforms. If they did, then a lot of these "Civilians" that were supposedly killed by the British Army or UVF would have been combatants.

don't forget, there is also well documented cases where collusion with UVF informers helped prevent some atrocities from being carried out.

Hopefully you'll hold the Civilians massacred in Dublin, Monaghan and Omagh in better esteem.

Mayo Exile · 11-05-2010 10:38pm

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

the forces of law and order.

Have such bodies ever, ever, ever done wrong in your eyes?

Also I am wondering were you mugged by a gang of vicious rationalists in the past which leads to your seemingly extremist empiricist viewpoint in this thread??

Still no answers for families of Dublin and Monaghan Bombings

Comments