Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Was the Republican campaign justifiable?
Options
Comments
-
I never believed the GFA as a surrender. You say "many republicans" whereas I'd say "some republicans". Most republicans agreed with the Sinn Fein stance as shown in how the agreement was accepted.You had the IRA in the 50s, coming from the Irish Republic to the near boarder. That wasn't about equality, that was about basic Republican aggression.
To many, that fight still goes on. To many Republicans, the 1998 agreement was a surrender and they don't see the GFA working and think it cements partition. Can't say I disagree with them on the partition bit.
To some of these republicans the only conclusion was to have every unionist and loyalist lined up at the ferry ports and airports all ready for the trip back to Britain.
It does in a way cement partition but it also places the future of the north in the people of Irelands hands and not in the British governments hands. The north can have a referendum for reunification and us down here will also need one whereas Britain will have no involvement in the process.
Partition is a legacy of British rule in not only Ireland but in Cyprus, India/Pakistan and Palestine/Israel.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »bar a ridiculous conspiracy theory that you are trying to manufacture.
More evasive rubbish from you Liam. So its ridiculous to think that if Germany won WWII that the gas chambers wouldn't have kept going afterwards and the number of innocent deaths wouldn't have kept rising? Are you having a laugh?
If you dont think so, I am of the belief that your opinions expressed re the deaths of innocents lack integrity and honesty tbh if you evade having these opinions put to the test against historical scenarios.0 -
The Westerner wrote: »Liam Byrne wrote: »bar a ridiculous conspiracy theory that you are trying to manufacture.
More evasive rubbish from you Liam. So its ridiculous to think that if Germany won WWII that the gas chambers wouldn't have kept going afterwards and the number of innocent deaths wouldn't have kept rising? Are you having a laugh?
Not at all, but you obviously are because I said nothing whatsoever remotely like the above.
I don't know why you are resorting to putting words in my mouth or completely misrepresenting everything I say; I have given you the benefit of the doubt a number of times at this stage but based on the above I am starting to think that you don't deserve it.
The next post that misrepresents me will be reported.If you dont think so, I am of the belief that your opinions expressed re the deaths of innocents lack integrity and honesty tbh if you evade having these opinions put to the test against historical scenarios.
The charter prevents me from saying what I think of your above assertion; you have absolutely no basis whatsoever on which to accuse me of a lack of integrity or honesty, and you can now forget about any further replies based in that bull****.
I know you'll probably spin that to manufacture some more falsehoods, but since you are making such unfounded and false accusations under a pseudonym and don't even remotely know the real me, I really don't care.
I have made my points clearly and succinctly, and I have been 100% honest and straightforward - you have no basis for the above whatsoever.
Say hi to Nodin for me.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Not at all, but you obviously are because I said nothing whatsoever remotely like the above.
I don't know why you are resorting to putting words in my mouth or completely misrepresenting everything I say; I have given you the benefit of the doubt a number of times at this stage but based on the above I am starting to think that you don't deserve it.
The next post that misrepresents me will be reported.
The charter prevents me from saying what I think of your above assertion; you have absolutely no basis whatsoever on which to accuse me of a lack of integrity or honesty, and you can now forget about any further replies based in that bull****.
I know you'll probably spin that to manufacture some more falsehoods, but since you are making such unfounded and false accusations under a pseudonym and don't even remotely know the real me, I really don't care.
I have made my points clearly and succinctly, and I have been 100% honest and straightforward - you have no basis for the above whatsoever.
Say hi to Nodin for me.
Evasion mixed with spin, threats and blackmail this time Liam. I have put my point to you time after time and you kept evading. Do you honestly expect me to come to another conclusion? And yes I'll be happy to say hello to nodin for you............;).0 -
Yes but that was 1998 and it is now 2011. There is Republicans who are disillusioned with Sinn Fein and are now questioning the path they are on.I never believed the GFA as a surrender. You say "many republicans" whereas I'd say "some republicans". Most republicans agreed with the Sinn Fein stance as shown in how the agreement was accepted.
To some of these republicans the only conclusion was to have every unionist and loyalist lined up at the ferry ports and airports all ready for the trip back to Britain.
It does in a way cement partition but it also places the future of the north in the people of Irelands hands and not in the British governments hands. The north can have a referendum for reunification and us down here will also need one whereas Britain will have no involvement in the process.
Partition is a legacy of British rule in not only Ireland but in Cyprus, India/Pakistan and Palestine/Israel.
Sinn Fein can hold United Ireland conferences all they want, it really is not making the big difference they will have hoped for.0 -
Advertisement
-
I never believed the GFA as a surrender. You say "many republicans" whereas I'd say "some republicans". Most republicans agreed with the Sinn Fein stance as shown in how the agreement was acceptedYou had the IRA in the 50s, coming from the Irish Republic to the near boarder. That wasn't about equality, that was about basic Republican aggression.
To many, that fight still goes on. To many Republicans, the 1998 agreement was a surrender and they don't see the GFA working and think it cements partition. Can't say I disagree with them on the partition bit.
To some of these republicans the only conclusion was to have every unionist and loyalist lined up at the ferry ports and airports all ready for the trip back to Britain.
It does in a way cement partition but it also places the future of the north in the people of Irelands hands and not in the British governments hands. The north can have a referendum for reunification and us down here will also need one whereas Britain will have no involvement in the process.
Partition is a legacy of British rule in not only Ireland but in Cyprus, India/Pakistan and Palestine/Israel.
Actually Britain can veto a united Ireland even if its voted for,if it doesn't benefit the sovereignity of the united kingdom.
Something not many know.0 -
For once I agree with Keith,wowzers!
Yes but that was 1998 and it is now 2011. There is Republicans who are disillusioned with Sinn Fein and are now questioning the path they are on.I never believed the GFA as a surrender. You say "many republicans" whereas I'd say "some republicans". Most republicans agreed with the Sinn Fein stance as shown in how the agreement was accepted.
To some of these republicans the only conclusion was to have every unionist and loyalist lined up at the ferry ports and airports all ready for the trip back to Britain.
It does in a way cement partition but it also places the future of the north in the people of Irelands hands and not in the British governments hands. The north can have a referendum for reunification and us down here will also need one whereas Britain will have no involvement in the process.
Partition is a legacy of British rule in not only Ireland but in Cyprus, India/Pakistan and Palestine/Israel.
Sinn Fein can hold United Ireland conferences all they want, it really is not making the big difference they will have hoped for.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Ideally it should mean both. But double-standards are the order of the day.
The IRA can attack because there's a war on (meaning war rules apply) but the British Army can't act like there's a war on, and the opposing "side" (ironically with the same mentality and more in common with the IRA than ordinary decent people) will get whinged about by apologists for doing exactly what the IRA were doing.
Farcical at times, but what can you do.
Double standards are indeed the order of the day.
The British army (which I deliberately didn't refer to in my question to Keith) were in Northern Ireland as a peacekeeping force, since the British Government decided that there wasn't a war on.
Some of them genuinely tried to fulfil that role.
Others colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries, and enabled murder gangs that escalated the "conflict" in so doing.
The commanding officers who chose not to bring these errant soldiers to justice have the blood of innocents on their hands just as surely as paramilitary groups do.
I won't deny that the IRA killed innocents.
Having said that, they never, to my knowledge, sank to the same depths as the Shankill butchers, for instance.
Hence, my question to Keith still stands:
He said:Agree with this Junder. If people condone the PIRA, then they can't moan about Michael Stone or other Loyalists.
So I responded:So does that mean that if people condone Loyalist Paramilitary gangs, they can't moan about the PIRA?
It shouldn't be too hard to say either "Yes" or "No" - unless the double standards you referred to prevent that.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Ideally it should mean both. But double-standards are the order of the day.
Farcical at times, but what can you do.
Double standards are indeed the order of the day.
The British army (which I deliberately didn't refer to in my question to Keith) were in Northern Ireland as a peacekeeping force, since the British Government decided that there wasn't a war on.
Some of them genuinely tried to fulfil that role.
Others colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries, and enabled murder gangs that escalated the "conflict" in so doing.
The commanding officers who chose not to bring these errant soldiers to justice have the blood of innocents on their hands just as surely as paramilitary groups do.
I won't deny that the IRA killed innocents.
Having said that, they never, to my knowledge, sank to the same depths as the Shankill butchers, for instance.
Hence, my question to Keith still stands:
He said:Agree with this Junder. If people condone the PIRA, then they can't moan about Michael Stone or other Loyalists.
So I responded:So does that mean that if people condone Loyalist Paramilitary gangs, they can't moan about the PIRA?
It shouldn't be too hard to say either "Yes" or "No" - unless the double standards you referred to prevent that.
No argument here. Like I said before the only side I acknowledge is right v wrong / fighting back re general fighting / decent people v murders.
So whichever murder gang someone is backing is irrelevant, and I've already emphasised my objection to British Army actions in Iraq as an example.
Think the thread has run its course, though - anyone who has equated murder with "fighting back" or can't see that both sides were as bad as each other isn't going to suddenly see clearly.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »No argument here. Like I said before the only side I acknowledge is right v wrong / fighting back re general fighting / decent people v murders.
Agreed.Liam Byrne wrote: »So whichever murder gang someone is backing is irrelevant, and I've already emphasised my objection to British Army actions in Iraq as an example.
Think the thread has run its course, though - anyone who has equated murder with "fighting back" or can't see that both sides were as bad as each other isn't going to suddenly see clearly.
I don't think it's as simple as that, unfortunately.
To say that one side was as bad as the other would be to ignore the fact that any attempt to peacefully "fight back" was brutally oppressed by the very forces who were meant to be impartial peacekeepers.
That doesn't justify the murdering of innocents by Republican forces - but it does, very firmly, place the initial impetus for the tragic situation that Northern Ireland subsequently became, on the actions of some members of the security forces, and the hardline Loyalist (rather than ordinary Unionist) leaders.
I abhor equally the killing of all innocents.
However, until that abhorrence is shared equally by people of all political persuasions, the situation in Northern Ireland will remain that of dormant hostilities, rather than peace.
Personally, I'd hate to have the responsibility of contributing to sectarian hatred on my conscience. So, I try to give a balanced viewpoint, without denying the very real suffering endured by the people of Northern Ireland - all of them.
Eventually, I hope that recognition of the atrocities that were carried out will not be seen to be "siding with the enemy", by people of all political persuasions.
That will take time, though.
Unfortunately, blind refusal to accept the truth will prolong the amount of time necessary - but, I'm an eternal optimist in the cause of peace.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes some are disillusioned but thats their own impatience getting the better of them. This is all part of a long process and won't be achieved overnight but what people forget is that the overwhelming majority of republicans support the Sinn Fein strategy.Yes but that was 1998 and it is now 2011. There is Republicans who are disillusioned with Sinn Fein and are now questioning the path they are on.
Sinn Fein can hold United Ireland conferences all they want, it really is not making the big difference they will have hoped for.
You're into the area of vetoing the will of the people of a whole island.FUNKY LOVER wrote: »Actually Britain can veto a united Ireland even if its voted for,if it doesn't benefit the sovereignity of the united kingdom.
Something not many know.
The agreement acknowledged and recognised that any future change in the status of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom is only to be brought about by the freely exercised choice of "a majority of the people of Northern Ireland" and that both the British and Irish governments are under a binding obligation to implement that choice.0 -
I have always pointed out the hypocrisy of the PIRA and its supporters. It is when Republicans talk about the Ulster volunteers and the "wrong" things they did (according to them) and yet think PIRA attacks on the RUC and British Army and Protestants is perfectly legitimate. So I just use that logic for the Ulster volunteers.Double standards are indeed the order of the day.
The British army (which I deliberately didn't refer to in my question to Keith) were in Northern Ireland as a peacekeeping force, since the British Government decided that there wasn't a war on.
Some of them genuinely tried to fulfil that role.
Others colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries, and enabled murder gangs that escalated the "conflict" in so doing.
The commanding officers who chose not to bring these errant soldiers to justice have the blood of innocents on their hands just as surely as paramilitary groups do.
I won't deny that the IRA killed innocents.
Having said that, they never, to my knowledge, sank to the same depths as the Shankill butchers, for instance.
Hence, my question to Keith still stands:
He said:
So I responded:
It shouldn't be too hard to say either "Yes" or "No" - unless the double standards you referred to prevent that.0 -
I have always pointed out the hypocrisy of the PIRA and its supporters. It is when Republicans talk about the Ulster volunteers and the "wrong" things they did (according to them) and yet think PIRA attacks on the RUC and British Army and Protestants is perfectly legitimate. So I just use that logic for the Ulster volunteers.
I'm a Republican, and a Nationalist.
I have Protestant friends. I hate neither Protestants, nor Unionists.
On the other hand, I have very valid criticisms of the actions of some members of the security forces, and genuine, sincerely held loathing for the needless slaughter of innocents.
However, you know, as well as I know, that nothing in Northern Ireland is black and white.
Therfore, there is no earthly reason why you can't condemn the murder of innocents. Whether they were Catholic or Protestant shouldn't matter.
Neither should it matter what opinions anyone else holds. Your morals are your own. So, either you condone the murder of innocents, or you do not. It's that simple.
The people of Northern Ireland are a warm, friendly, decent people, for the most part.
It's time to let the bitterness go. Never to forget, but to recognise that when Communities feel oppressed, afraid and threatened, when people refuse to recognise the injury done to others - then that is what breeds hatred.
What both communities need to do now, is openly acknowledge that not everything "their" side did was right. And not everything "the other" side did was wrong.
When that happens - then the real healing will begin.0 -
-
???Partition is a legacy of British rule in not only Ireland but in Cyprus, India/Pakistan and Palestine/Israel.
Cyprus - Ottoman Empire (then as Turkey) in conflict with Greece
India/Pakistan - Muslims v Hindi & Sikh for an independent state.
Israel/Palestine - Jews v Arabs. If anything, they were both fighting not only for a state to be formed but for it to be partitioned.0 -
The Westerner wrote: »Evasion on an extraodinary scale Liam. Are you saying your not bothered how many innocents die here?
I'll ask you again like so:
If the outcome of any event happening in World War 2 was changed in any way and this led to Germany and Japan winning the war, where probably more innocents would have died than really occurred, would you prefer that World War 2 happened the way it did, in order to keep the number of innocents deaths down?
Yes or no?
You appreciate in the very first response to your question liam answered your question and exposed your straw man argument that he would do nothing unless he could ensure a perfect war with no civilian deaths.
Given that this is not his position, something that he has stated isn't his position, it seems some what nonsensical that you keep asking him the same question over and over and saying that he is evading the question because he is not complicit in your straw man.
Liam's position if I'm following (and feel free to correct me Liam) is not that if you kill a civilian in a war it is an immoral war, accidents will happen when you are carrying out a war. But you must take all actions to ensure you won't kill civilians and willfully targeting civilians as the IRA did is the hight of immorality.
(and by all actions to ensure I mean properly doing this, not the IRA's nonsense of planting a bomb in a busy shopping centre and then ringing in a bomb threat 5 minutes before it explodes)0 -
You appreciate in the very first response to your question liam answered your question and exposed your straw man argument that he would do nothing unless he could ensure a perfect war with no civilian deaths.
Given that this is not his position, something that he has stated isn't his position, it seems some what nonsensical that you keep asking him the same question over and over and saying that he is evading the question because he is not complicit in your straw man.
Liam's position if I'm following (and feel free to correct me Liam) is not that if you kill a civilian in a war it is an immoral war, accidents will happen when you are carrying out a war. But you must take all actions to ensure you won't kill civilians and willfully targeting civilians as the IRA did is the hight of immorality.
(and by all actions to ensure I mean properly doing this, not the IRA's nonsense of planting a bomb in a busy shopping centre and then ringing in a bomb threat 5 minutes before it explodes)
Nope, I think your wrong.If the outcome of any event happening in World War 2 was changed in any way and this led to Germany and Japan winning the war, where probably more innocents would have died than really occurred, would you prefer that World War 2 happened the way it did, in order to keep the number of innocents deaths down?
Zombrex, this the last of the questions I wanted LB to answer, which, I think, he pretty much evaded in post 854. I only asked for a yes or no answer at that stage. So your strawman theory is flawed here I believe. I wanted to test his beliefs against an alternative historical outcome (the outcome of WWII, not IRA actions). I dont think he answered it very well.0 -
yes it was...
After being abandoned by the Republic of ireland, a large anti catholic/pro britian movements were established. Catholics were on the recieving end of this violence,intimidation,gerrymandering, bigotry, by the British state.. Their crys for help fell on deaf ears, and as a result the provos gained strength and popularity because they were seen as the only ones trying to do something about it. Civil rights marches ran it course the day of the massacre in derry. peaceful protests got nowhere, people felt this was the only other way. things had to stop.0 -
The Westerner wrote:Zombrex, this the last of the questions I wanted LB to answer, which, I think, he pretty much evaded in post 854. I only asked for a yes or no answer at that stage.
You asked for a yes or no question that doesn't have a yes or no answer, based on a false premise that I don't accept genuinely accidental deaths.
The equivalent of asking "have you stopped committing crimes" of someone who has never committed a crime.
No, I don't accept any enforced deaths while waging war.
But since you were just likely to twist that into supporting the Nazis, instead of what it really means - finding an effective tactic that doesn't involve deliberately killing innocent civilians - there was no point in answering.
You already misrepresented me numerous times and so it's fair to assume you would do so again - and probably will do with this very post.
Given that Zombrex got my views pretty spot-on having read the same posts as you did, any inability by you to draw the correct conclusions is obviously down to your own failing/bias/agenda.
Mind you, the deflection towards discussing Nazis instead of unjustified IRA murders is probably an added bonus for you.0 -
UIyes it was...
After being abandoned by the Republic of ireland, a large anti catholic/pro britian movements were established. Catholics were on the recieving end of this violence,intimidation,gerrymandering, bigotry, by the British state.. Their crys for help fell on deaf ears, and as a result the provos gained strength and popularity because they were seen as the only ones trying to do something about it. Civil rights marches ran it course the day of the massacre in derry. peaceful protests got nowhere, people felt this was the only other way. things had to stop.
So, if the British state did all these things, how come they only happened in Northern Ireland.0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »You asked for a yes or no question that doesn't have a yes or no answer, based on a false premise that I don't accept genuinely accidental deaths.
.........
Layout your principles alongside an example of an actual war or two. Thats not a "yes" or "no" scenario.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »You asked for a yes or no question that doesn't have a yes or no answer, based on a false premise that I don't accept genuinely accidental deaths.
The equivalent of asking "have you stopped committing crimes" of someone who has never committed a crime...........
Same old tune I see. I was testing your beliefs against the outcome of a past historical event.
This also posted by Nodin if you still have him on ignore:Layout your principles alongside an example of an actual war or two. Thats not a "yes" or "no" scenario.Originally posted by Liam Byrne: Mind you, the deflection towards discussing Nazis instead of unjustified IRA murders is probably an added bonus for you.
Not at all. I've always thought the NI conflict should have been brought under U.N. supervision, where crimes of all sides when in a conflict scenario could have been tried impartially under the auspices of the ICC (remember my links to Ocampo back up the thread?).
It would have dealt with neatly Irish republicans objections to being tried under the British courts system (not neutral) as well as them not recognising that same system. Would have also ensured crimes by the British and others would have received that same neutral trial in the eyes of republicans.0 -
I heard Sinn Fein is now the second most popular party in the South. Thankfully the anti-Nationalist sentiments aired in this thread don't seem to be reflective of the population as a whole. It must really stick in the west-brit craw.0
-
Half of all senior IRA members in the Troubles were working for intelligence services, a secret dossier of evidence into the murder of two RUC men has claimed.
The remarkable document has laid bare a startling series of claims about the infiltration of both the police and terror groups during the ‘Dirty War’.
It claims the IRA ran agents in the RUC and also that Dundalk Garda station was regarded by British intelligence as “a nest of vipers”, with at least two officers actively assisting the Provos.
The information is contained in a secret 24-page document in the name of Ian Hurst — a British intelligence whistleblower — which has been seen by the Belfast Telegraph.
The sensational claims are due to be made to Justice Peter Smithwick’s Dublin tribunal of inquiry into the murder of two senior RUC officers in 1989.
The victims, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Robert Buchanan, died in a hail of IRA gunfire as they crossed the border following an intelligence exchange with the Garda in Dundalk.
The dossier also claims:
The shadowy Force Research Unit (FRU) had a file on suspected rogue gardai prepared to pass information to the IRA and act as its agents. MI5 also had a network of agents with the Garda.
The IRA had a network of informants in public agencies such as social security offices and vehicle licensing departments.
One in four IRA members was an agent, rising to one in two among senior members.
Martin McGuinness was involved in all strategic military decisions taken by the IRA.
At the centre of the web of intrigue sat the IRA’s head of internal security, the agent known as Stakeknife, who took information from rogue gardai while himself working for British intelligence.
Perhaps the most shocking claim is that a rogue Garda Sergeant leaked intelligence to Stakeknife. Stakeknife has been identified as Freddie Scappaticci, a veteran Belfast republican.
Scappaticci has strongly denied working for British intelligence and said he had cut his links with the IRA in 1990. He is legally represented at the Smitwick Tribunal and is now considering giving evidence in person.
Last night Mr Hurst refused to comment on the document.
He said: “I believe that this was made public to mess me about. I cannot comment on it because of an injunction preventing me from giving details of my career in special forces.”
Mr Hurst worked in military intelligence between 1981 and 1990, spending most of that time in the FRU, responsible for handling agents and informants in Irish paramilitary groups. The injunction has been varied to allow him to give evidence to Smithwick in Dublin.
However tribunal lawyers are insisting that he give his testimony in closed session, something he suspects is part of a deal with the British authorities to limit potentially embarrassing disclosures.
One of the alleged rogue officers in Dundalk has already been indentified. Owen Corrigan, a detective sergeant, was named by Jeffrey Donaldson under Parliamentary privilege. Mr Corrigan, now retired, has always denied the allegation and appeared at the tribunal to reject them. He is one of three gardai, two based in Dundalk and one in Donegal, named in the document.
In the document Mr Hurst says “the fact that a Garda was passing information to the IRA did not bother me anymore or any less than in the same way members of the RUC/UDR/BA (British Army) occasionally passed information to the IRA and regularly to members of various loyalist paramilitaries.”
Mr Hurst assisted John Stevens’ inquiry into security force collusion with terrorists in Northern Ireland.
The document states Lord Stevens told him that of 210 terrorist suspects he arrested, only three were not security force agents, and some worked for several agencies.
Background
The Smithwick Tribunal is examining claims that members of the Irish police or other employees of the Irish State colluded in the murders of the two most senior RUC officers to die in the Troubles. Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Supt Robert Buchanan were shot dead while returning from a meeting at Dundalk Garda station in the Republic. The tribunal has so far heard evidence from a number of witnesses, some of whom have alleged that members of the Garda passed information to the IRA.
A MAN FROM THE DARK CORNER OF MILITARY INTELLIGENCE
Doubts about Ian Hurst’s reliability were dispelled after I published stories based on his information back in 1999.
The first, an unlikely sounding tale claiming military intelligence had doctored bullets used to shoot Gerry Adams, was immediately confirmed by the Defence Advisory Committee. After that he was arrested, and I was questioned under caution.
For a time I gave him the pseudonym Martin Ingram to obscure his identity, but now that alias has been dropped.
He was the first member of the Force Research Unit (FRU) — the dark corner of military intelligence which ran agents in terrorist groups — to speak publicly.
He had two tours of duty in Northern Ireland. Between 1982 and 1990 he was in Londonderry handling agents like Frank Hegarty, an IRA quartermaster later murdered for betraying a cache of Libyan weapons, and Willie Carlin, who got out just ahead of the execution squad.
A second tour was in Enniskillen between 1990 and 1991. There he met his wife, from a Donegal republican family. That affected his vetting and he bought himself out of the Army in 2003.
Penetration of the Provisionals
Mr Hurst was responsible for handling agents in the IRA and for a time had enhanced access to other agents’ reports, though not their names, on military intelligence computers. He has painted a picture of an organisation penetrated at almost every level and with its head of security, Stakeknife, working for the other side. The document says: “As a rough guide you should expect one in four PIRA volunteers to be agents of one agency or another.” Lord Stevens (above), the former Met chief, is quoted as
saying that only three out of 210 terrorist suspects he arrested in a collusion probe in Northern Ireland were not working for either the RUC, MI5 or the Army. The document claims that Hurst secretly taped a conversation with RAF Air Vice Marshal Andrew Vallance, who was quoted as telling him that the most sensitive matter was the identity of Stakeknife and his role as a British agent.
IRA agents within the Garda
The document claims that the FRU had a file on suspected rogue gardai prepared to pass information to the IRA and act as its agents. It names three people who were allegedly on the list, two in Dundalk and one in Donegal. It quotes Basil Walsh, a senior Garda officer who Mr Hurst met in 1999, as saying he was aware of one named Garda who worked for the IRA. Mr Walsh allegedly told him “that every time something was done to try and eradicate the mess something happened to intervene”. The document also claims MI5 had a network of agents with the Garda. MP Jeffrey Donaldson has named retired detective sergeant Owen Corrigan under Parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons in April 2000, as being a “rogue garda”. Mr Corrigan denies all allegations of collusion. Last week former agent Kevin Fulton claimed Corrigan was passing information to the IRA and was regarded as a “friend” of the group
Role of McGuinness in the IRA
MR Hurst once backed claims that Martin McGuinness reported to MI6, the British foreign intelligence agency. This was based on a document passed to him, and accepted by him in good faith, after he left the Army but which appears to have been a forgery. The document does not repeat that claim but it does put Mr McGuinness in a central role in the IRA. It states the IRA’s “security unit came under the operational command of Northern Command” and adds “the person in charge of that unit throughout the entire Troubles was PIRA member Mr James Martin McGuinness”. It accuses McGuinness of being “directly involved in matters of life and death for persons rightly or indeed wrongly suspected of informing on PIRA members. Mr McGuinness was also a key player in the long-term strategic strategies used by PIRA”. McGuinness has always denied such a leading role and stated that he left the IRA in the early 1970s.
Republican intelligence gathering
It is claimed that the IRA had a network of informants in public agencies such as social security offices and vehicle licensing, North and South. This echoes claims by Martin McGartland , a former RUC agent in the IRA. One section of the document reads: “PIRA was extensively penetrated at all levels, most sources of the information to PIRA were readily identified (by military intelligence) but seldom compromised.” To back up its claims that the intelligence services turned a blind eye to IRA intelligence sources, it claims that in the early 1990s a FRU agent was targeted by the IRA with the help of a social security employee who is still working in the same office. It claims that the IRA could informally “obtain information from driver licensing, social security, councils, utilities far quicker than the FRU”, especially in cross-border areas where red tape was involved in working through the RUC and Garda.
Stakeknife, the Army’s key agent
Stakeknife was a key military intelligence agent within the IRA, a man with a hotline of his own which gave him direct contact with dedicated handlers in an office known as the ‘rat hole’. When he called, he identified himself with a code number, but Mr Hurst learned his true identify by chance while manning the phone. Stakeknife had been caught drink-driving and gave uniformed police the hotline number in an effort to extricate himself. Hurst vouched for him, and it has been claimed that Stakeknife was Freddie Scappaticci, though Mr Scappaticci strongly denies this. The document expands on Stakeknife’s role as head of the IRA internal security. It claims he controlled IRA agents in the Garda. The most corrosive suggestion which Justice Peter Smithwick will have to consider is that officers Breen and Buchanan were allowed to die rather than risk compromising the Army’s most important agent in Ireland.
The web of collusion and spies
MR Hurst has frequently claimed some members of the RUC, UDR and Army colluded with terror groups. The statement portrays a wilderness of mirrors in which every organisation has the other penetrated to some degree and “all sources have a shelf life”. It talks of British agents in the Garda, Garda agents in Northern Ireland, IRA agents in the RUC and Garda and RUC agents in the IRA. It states “the fact that a Garda was passing information to the IRA did not bother me any more or any less than in the same way members of the RUC/UDR/BA (British Army) passed information to the IRA and members of various loyalist paramilitaries. It was a matter for HQNI and the RUC and way above my pay grade ... in other words it was a strategic and not a tactical problem”. It concludes that none of this “registered massively on the Richter scale, it was just a fact of life, indeed it was well within the rules of our game!”
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/half-of-all-top-ira-men-worked-for-security-services-16093721.html
The ira, just another wing of British intelligence?0 -
-
Half of all senior IRA members in the Troubles were working for intelligence services, a secret dossier of evidence into the murder of two RUC men has claimed.
The remarkable document has laid bare a startling series of claims about the infiltration of both the police and terror groups during the ‘Dirty War’.
It claims the IRA ran agents in the RUC and also that Dundalk Garda station was regarded by British intelligence as “a nest of vipers”, with at least two officers actively assisting the Provos.
The information is contained in a secret 24-page document in the name of Ian Hurst — a British intelligence whistleblower — which has been seen by the Belfast Telegraph.
The sensational claims are due to be made to Justice Peter Smithwick’s Dublin tribunal of inquiry into the murder of two senior RUC officers in 1989.
The victims, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Robert Buchanan, died in a hail of IRA gunfire as they crossed the border following an intelligence exchange with the Garda in Dundalk.
The dossier also claims:
The shadowy Force Research Unit (FRU) had a file on suspected rogue gardai prepared to pass information to the IRA and act as its agents. MI5 also had a network of agents with the Garda.
The IRA had a network of informants in public agencies such as social security offices and vehicle licensing departments.
One in four IRA members was an agent, rising to one in two among senior members.
Martin McGuinness was involved in all strategic military decisions taken by the IRA.
At the centre of the web of intrigue sat the IRA’s head of internal security, the agent known as Stakeknife, who took information from rogue gardai while himself working for British intelligence.
Perhaps the most shocking claim is that a rogue Garda Sergeant leaked intelligence to Stakeknife. Stakeknife has been identified as Freddie Scappaticci, a veteran Belfast republican.
Scappaticci has strongly denied working for British intelligence and said he had cut his links with the IRA in 1990. He is legally represented at the Smitwick Tribunal and is now considering giving evidence in person.
Last night Mr Hurst refused to comment on the document.
He said: “I believe that this was made public to mess me about. I cannot comment on it because of an injunction preventing me from giving details of my career in special forces.”
Mr Hurst worked in military intelligence between 1981 and 1990, spending most of that time in the FRU, responsible for handling agents and informants in Irish paramilitary groups. The injunction has been varied to allow him to give evidence to Smithwick in Dublin.
However tribunal lawyers are insisting that he give his testimony in closed session, something he suspects is part of a deal with the British authorities to limit potentially embarrassing disclosures.
One of the alleged rogue officers in Dundalk has already been indentified. Owen Corrigan, a detective sergeant, was named by Jeffrey Donaldson under Parliamentary privilege. Mr Corrigan, now retired, has always denied the allegation and appeared at the tribunal to reject them. He is one of three gardai, two based in Dundalk and one in Donegal, named in the document.
In the document Mr Hurst says “the fact that a Garda was passing information to the IRA did not bother me anymore or any less than in the same way members of the RUC/UDR/BA (British Army) occasionally passed information to the IRA and regularly to members of various loyalist paramilitaries.”
Mr Hurst assisted John Stevens’ inquiry into security force collusion with terrorists in Northern Ireland.
The document states Lord Stevens told him that of 210 terrorist suspects he arrested, only three were not security force agents, and some worked for several agencies.
Background
The Smithwick Tribunal is examining claims that members of the Irish police or other employees of the Irish State colluded in the murders of the two most senior RUC officers to die in the Troubles. Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Supt Robert Buchanan were shot dead while returning from a meeting at Dundalk Garda station in the Republic. The tribunal has so far heard evidence from a number of witnesses, some of whom have alleged that members of the Garda passed information to the IRA.
A MAN FROM THE DARK CORNER OF MILITARY INTELLIGENCE
Doubts about Ian Hurst’s reliability were dispelled after I published stories based on his information back in 1999.
The first, an unlikely sounding tale claiming military intelligence had doctored bullets used to shoot Gerry Adams, was immediately confirmed by the Defence Advisory Committee. After that he was arrested, and I was questioned under caution.
For a time I gave him the pseudonym Martin Ingram to obscure his identity, but now that alias has been dropped.
He was the first member of the Force Research Unit (FRU) — the dark corner of military intelligence which ran agents in terrorist groups — to speak publicly.
He had two tours of duty in Northern Ireland. Between 1982 and 1990 he was in Londonderry handling agents like Frank Hegarty, an IRA quartermaster later murdered for betraying a cache of Libyan weapons, and Willie Carlin, who got out just ahead of the execution squad.
A second tour was in Enniskillen between 1990 and 1991. There he met his wife, from a Donegal republican family. That affected his vetting and he bought himself out of the Army in 2003.
Penetration of the Provisionals
Mr Hurst was responsible for handling agents in the IRA and for a time had enhanced access to other agents’ reports, though not their names, on military intelligence computers. He has painted a picture of an organisation penetrated at almost every level and with its head of security, Stakeknife, working for the other side. The document says: “As a rough guide you should expect one in four PIRA volunteers to be agents of one agency or another.” Lord Stevens (above), the former Met chief, is quoted as
saying that only three out of 210 terrorist suspects he arrested in a collusion probe in Northern Ireland were not working for either the RUC, MI5 or the Army. The document claims that Hurst secretly taped a conversation with RAF Air Vice Marshal Andrew Vallance, who was quoted as telling him that the most sensitive matter was the identity of Stakeknife and his role as a British agent.
IRA agents within the Garda
The document claims that the FRU had a file on suspected rogue gardai prepared to pass information to the IRA and act as its agents. It names three people who were allegedly on the list, two in Dundalk and one in Donegal. It quotes Basil Walsh, a senior Garda officer who Mr Hurst met in 1999, as saying he was aware of one named Garda who worked for the IRA. Mr Walsh allegedly told him “that every time something was done to try and eradicate the mess something happened to intervene”. The document also claims MI5 had a network of agents with the Garda. MP Jeffrey Donaldson has named retired detective sergeant Owen Corrigan under Parliamentary privilege in the House of Commons in April 2000, as being a “rogue garda”. Mr Corrigan denies all allegations of collusion. Last week former agent Kevin Fulton claimed Corrigan was passing information to the IRA and was regarded as a “friend” of the group
Role of McGuinness in the IRA
MR Hurst once backed claims that Martin McGuinness reported to MI6, the British foreign intelligence agency. This was based on a document passed to him, and accepted by him in good faith, after he left the Army but which appears to have been a forgery. The document does not repeat that claim but it does put Mr McGuinness in a central role in the IRA. It states the IRA’s “security unit came under the operational command of Northern Command” and adds “the person in charge of that unit throughout the entire Troubles was PIRA member Mr James Martin McGuinness”. It accuses McGuinness of being “directly involved in matters of life and death for persons rightly or indeed wrongly suspected of informing on PIRA members. Mr McGuinness was also a key player in the long-term strategic strategies used by PIRA”. McGuinness has always denied such a leading role and stated that he left the IRA in the early 1970s.
Republican intelligence gathering
It is claimed that the IRA had a network of informants in public agencies such as social security offices and vehicle licensing, North and South. This echoes claims by Martin McGartland , a former RUC agent in the IRA. One section of the document reads: “PIRA was extensively penetrated at all levels, most sources of the information to PIRA were readily identified (by military intelligence) but seldom compromised.” To back up its claims that the intelligence services turned a blind eye to IRA intelligence sources, it claims that in the early 1990s a FRU agent was targeted by the IRA with the help of a social security employee who is still working in the same office. It claims that the IRA could informally “obtain information from driver licensing, social security, councils, utilities far quicker than the FRU”, especially in cross-border areas where red tape was involved in working through the RUC and Garda.
Stakeknife, the Army’s key agent
Stakeknife was a key military intelligence agent within the IRA, a man with a hotline of his own which gave him direct contact with dedicated handlers in an office known as the ‘rat hole’. When he called, he identified himself with a code number, but Mr Hurst learned his true identify by chance while manning the phone. Stakeknife had been caught drink-driving and gave uniformed police the hotline number in an effort to extricate himself. Hurst vouched for him, and it has been claimed that Stakeknife was Freddie Scappaticci, though Mr Scappaticci strongly denies this. The document expands on Stakeknife’s role as head of the IRA internal security. It claims he controlled IRA agents in the Garda. The most corrosive suggestion which Justice Peter Smithwick will have to consider is that officers Breen and Buchanan were allowed to die rather than risk compromising the Army’s most important agent in Ireland.
The web of collusion and spies
MR Hurst has frequently claimed some members of the RUC, UDR and Army colluded with terror groups. The statement portrays a wilderness of mirrors in which every organisation has the other penetrated to some degree and “all sources have a shelf life”. It talks of British agents in the Garda, Garda agents in Northern Ireland, IRA agents in the RUC and Garda and RUC agents in the IRA. It states “the fact that a Garda was passing information to the IRA did not bother me any more or any less than in the same way members of the RUC/UDR/BA (British Army) passed information to the IRA and members of various loyalist paramilitaries. It was a matter for HQNI and the RUC and way above my pay grade ... in other words it was a strategic and not a tactical problem”. It concludes that none of this “registered massively on the Richter scale, it was just a fact of life, indeed it was well within the rules of our game!”
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/half-of-all-top-ira-men-worked-for-security-services-16093721.html
The ira, just another wing of British intelligence?
If the ira are a british intelligenge wing I think loyalists and the victims of the ira should take that up with the british government.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »...
If there's one reason why the IRA campaign is justified it has to be in the anti-Irish, British nationalist ideas of people like the above British poster who seems fairly obsessed with defending his country's rule in Ireland, and demeaning all the native Irish who object to it, on this forum.0 -
-
Pathetic loyalist troll is pathetic.
Just a word of warning; the moderators here detest Republicans and/or Nationalists. The likes of Fratton Fred can flame untill the cows come home without reprieve. Anyone aspiring to be a moderator here need not worry about acumen so much as affiliation/stance re: Anglo-American doctine/dogma.
In short, don't give them an excuse.0 -
Advertisement
-
Border-Rat wrote: »I heard Sinn Fein is now the second most popular party in the South. Thankfully the anti-Nationalist sentiments aired in this thread don't seem to be reflective of the population as a whole. It must really stick in the west-brit craw.
What "anti-Nationalist" sentiments? The thread is about the IRA terrorism and murder campaign, and the IRA and their apologists don't have a monopoly on nationalism, even though they would like to pretend that they do.
As for the "west Brit" bull**** - well, anyone who resorts to that clichéd crap in order to try to diss differing views ends up basically saying that they don't want their views listened to, because they don't want to even acknowledge that decent people rightly abhor what the IRA stand for.0
Advertisement