Smithwick: Collusion in Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen murders

TOMASJ wrote: »

It sure is, and has been happening for near 30 years in the North

Second post of the thread
Surely a record for whataboutery ?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Second post of the thread
Surely a record for whataboutery ?

Would you prefer to ignore same thing happening in different parts of the country,

but to a much greater scale in the north

TOMASJ wrote: »

Would you prefer to ignore same thing happening in different parts of the country,

but to a much greater scale in the north

I assume you are referring to collusion between the RUC and Loyalists ?

Well if you are then I think it has nothing to do with this thread

The thread is about Garda collusion with Republican terrorists

And any reference to RUC and loyalists collusion is nothing more than whataboutery, which I pointed out in my post.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I assume you are referring to collusion between the RUC and Loyalists ?

Well if you are then I think it has nothing to do with this thread

The thread is about Garda collusion with Republican terrorists

And any reference to RUC and loyalists collusion is nothing more than whataboutery, which I pointed out in my post.

I was responding to opening post where he/she said

( Truly shocking that people sworn to uphold the law would be involved in premeditated murders.)

Do you not see the similarities, that the so called forces of law and order are no better than the so called terrorists.

The Gardaí were certainly Assets after the Dublin/Monaghan atrocity,the way they gave up the investigation and strong armed victims families in the aftermath. A rogue force making a decision based on Politics is far worse than a few rogue members acting alone.

But lo and behold guess which one the Irish media will focus on?:rolleyes:

Breen looked after Complaints and Discipline in the RUC. He was Divisional Commander of H Division: that is, he was in charge of operations in South Armagh and South Down. He was the RUC presence at the press conference following the shooting dead of eight IRA men at Loughgall in a 1987 ambush by the SAS. That would probably have made them high profile targets as revenge for Loughgall.

Which makes their conduct rather "laissez-faire" as Gerry Adams said, as they ensured that any information leak, collusion or otherwise, placed themselves at great risk. It is notable how some elements in the media are today implying that there is something odd in Adams saying this, when the dogs on the street knew this.

There was always the odd Guard who helped the IRA for one reason or another, whether out of coercion or sympathy or a million and one other reasons. Personally I'm unsure as to how that's a major surprise for anyone, especially considering many cops would come from rural, nationalist backgrounds themselves. The major question is whether there was collusion with the IRA was actual state policy at this time and it's clear to all and sundry that there wasn't.

The reason I'm sceptical about the publicity around this case is because some people are using it to try and portray a false equivalency between this and British collusion with Loyalists; "errah sure we will at it lads, move on." The key difference is that collusion in the north was a widespread activity and also conducted and administrated by bodies that answered directly to the British establishment. Needless to say, the British government isn't too keen on admitting that it sponsored death squads to murder their own citizens.

Like all victims of the conflict, we can have a degree of sympathy for the men and their families. But we should have no tolerance for the likes of David Ford who seeks to use this case for political capital and to suggest collusion with Loyalists was a minor occurrence.

FTA69 wrote: »

There was always the odd Guard who helped the IRA for one reason or another, whether out of coercion or sympathy or a million and one other reasons. Personally I'm unsure as to how that's a major surprise for anyone, especially considering many cops would come from rural, nationalist backgrounds themselves. The major question is whether there was collusion with the IRA was actual state policy at this time and it's clear to all and sundry that there wasn't.

The reason I'm sceptical about the publicity around this case is because some people are using it to try and portray a false equivalency between this and British collusion with Loyalists; "errah sure we will at it lads, move on." The key difference is that collusion in the north was a widespread activity and also conducted and administrated by bodies that answered directly to the British establishment. Needless to say, the British government isn't too keen on admitting that it sponsored death squads to murder their own citizens.

Like all victims of the conflict, we can have a degree of sympathy for the men and their families. But we should have no tolerance for the likes of David Ford who seeks to use this case for political capital and to suggest collusion with Loyalists was a minor occurrence.

This thread is not about RUC or British state collusion and to try and portray this as some sort of zero-sum game is absolute dishonesty. It's either acceptable that members of the Gardai had a close hand in two men being murdered whilst they represented the police of a neighboring foreign state on matters relevant to both jurisdictions, or it is not acceptable.

As for state policy, you'll find nothing on paper nor do I think anyone would suggest it was even unofficial policy. But with the highest echelons of the Gardai choosing to look the other way - either out of naively wishing the matter to go away, incompetence, or at worst tacit approval - sends a very negative impression on how the state choose to deal with such issues.

Further, what sort of message do you think it serves to fostering cooperation between the PSNI and the Gardai today?

Lemming wrote: »

This thread is not about RUC or British state collusion

I know it's not, but this issue for years has been referenced as an insinuation that British collusion with Loyalists (which was state policy) was somehow a natural process as "the guards were at it as well." Already we are seeing some politicians trying to peddle this line and using this case to do so. This broader debate wasn't instigated on this thread like, so crying whataboutery is a bit silly.

and to try and portray this as some sort of zero-sum game is absolute dishonesty

I didn't do that at all.

It's either acceptable that members of the Gardai had a close hand in two men being murdered whilst they represented the police of a neighboring foreign state on matters relevant to both jurisdictions, or it is not acceptable.

Who said it was acceptable? I simply said it was a case of the IRA being tipped off by a guard, and wondered how this was such a massive surprise that the IRA may have had contacts within certain cops?

Further, what sort of message do you think it serves to fostering cooperation between the PSNI and the Gardai today?

Couldn't care less to be honest, I've no time for any of them.

that the Gardai are not above refusing or being unwilling to act on intelligence of credible threats to those visiting officers lives.

The officers themselves did not act very effectively on credible threats to their own lives!