Allegation McGuinness ordered RUC assassinations

southsiderosie

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So the murder of two RUC officers is ok then?

Crooked Jack wrote: »

well at the time, yes. It was.

john reilly wrote: »

a result

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why?

what did these two men do that gave someone the roght to deny their families of a father/husband/son?

john reilly wrote: »

they where members of a terrorist organisation

MOD NOTE:

I am not comfortable at all with where this is heading. As a reminder, the charter states clearly:

Please note that any post deemed to incite hatred or promote violence will be dealt with in the strictest possible manner. Whatever your politics we expect discussion in a manner fit for adults, but first and foremost human beings.
Celebration/promotion/triumphing of murder, violence or aggression will result in an immediate banning from the forum and deletion of your posts.

Please be mindful of this before posting on this thread again.

dlofnep

Murder is never "OK". In the context of the troubles, many members of the RUC who actively colluded with loyalist terrorists, and were engaged in wide-scale sectarianism would have been deemed a legitimate target by Republican paramilitaries. I'm not sure why you find this shocking Fratton Fred.

Whether or not they were a police force at an official level is really irrelevant. There is no difference between a hit on a loyalist, and a hit on a sectarian member of the RUC in the eyes of those who were victims to their actions. The question all boils down to whether or not you feel that violence is ever warranted in any situation.

It would be dishonest to attempt to classify the RUC in the same way that you'd classify a member of today's PSNI, or the Gardaí. They did not operate as an unbiased, non-sectarian police force. Which is why the vast majority of people who died at the hands of the RUC were indeed from Catholic/Nationalist origins (Source: CAIN).

I can understand why someone from the nationalist community who lived under the unjust nature of the RUC would have had empathy for attacks on them in retaliation for their actions. You don't have to agree with the said attacks, to understand why they occurred.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

Murder is never "OK". In the context of the troubles, many members of the RUC who actively colluded with loyalist terrorists, and were engaged in wide-scale sectarianism would have been deemed a legitimate target by Republican paramilitaries. I'm not sure why you find this shocking Fratton Fred.

Whether or not they were a police force at an official level is really irrelevant. There is no difference between a hit on a loyalist, and a hit on a sectarian member of the RUC in the eyes of those who were victims to their actions. The question all boils down to whether or not you feel that violence is ever warranted in any situation.

It would be dishonest to attempt to classify the RUC in the same way that you'd classify a member of today's PSNI, or the Gardaí. They did not operate as an unbiased, non-sectarian police force. Which is why the vast majority of people who died at the hands of the RUC were indeed from Catholic/Nationalist origins (Source: CAIN).

I can understand why someone from the nationalist community who lived under the unjust nature of the RUC would have had empathy for attacks on them in retaliation for their actions. You don't have to agree with the said attacks, to understand why they occurred.

My issue with this is that there is a very clear allegation that a man who recently ran for president colluded with officers of this state in the murder of officers of another. Somehow though, the conversation seems to be blaming the victims for being in the RUC and conveniently ignoring the allegation.

If the roles were reversed, the republican spin machine would be in overdrive, as it is, this has barely made the news.

Fenian Army

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My issue with this is that there is a very clear allegation that a man who recently ran for president colluded with officers of this state in the murder of officers of another. Somehow though, the conversation seems to be blaming the victims for being in the RUC and conveniently ignoring the allegation.

If the roles were reversed, the republican spin machine would be in overdrive, as it is, this has barely made the news.

Martin McGuinness was in the 'RA shocker

"Very clear" allegation from a very dubious source too.

Fratton Fred

Fenian Army wrote: »

Martin McGuinness was in the 'RA shocker

"Very clear" allegation from a very dubious source too.

Dubious enough that an enquiry has been set up.

Fenian Army

Dubhlinner wrote: »

From the books I've read and anecdotes I've heard from Catholics who lived through the troubles the image of the RUC as some sort of unionist militia is completely unfounded.

Even looking at the beginning of the RUC they chose to keep the emblem of the RIC and not use a red hand (which was proposed and designed) This was intended so they would have a cross community ethos. They also initially reserved a third of the recruitment places for catholics which represented the percentage of society in northern ireland that were Catholic

The RUC was about 12% catholic before Patten. If it was really as bad as is made out there'd be no Catholics at all. Catholic members of the UDR was far lower. The real reason numbers were so low was predominantly the fear of IRA. Hence since the IRA have stood down numbers of catholics have gone up.

Probably depended on where you lived.

The RUC was approx 40% catholic at its inception - lots of ex RIC men who were determined to enforce Brit rule in Ireland.

Fenian Army

Removing two senior RUC men was hardly the worst thing the IRA did. The RUC had blood on their hands and were inherently sectarian and biased. If you want to try and get people outraged about the IRA and MMG there are better examples to pick. FWIW I don't think MMG was involved but I don't think it really matters (to me anyway).

A war was fought, people died, innocent people, as well as the likes of these RUC men. Lets be glad it's over.

Dubhlinner

dlofnep wrote: »

It would be dishonest to attempt to classify the RUC in the same way that you'd classify a member of today's PSNI, or the Gardaí. They did not operate as an unbiased, non-sectarian police force. Which is why the vast majority of people who died at the hands of the RUC were indeed from Catholic/Nationalist origins (Source: CAIN).

Yet many republicans today say precisely the same thing about the PSNI. Drive through Newry you'll see "Different name, Same Aim" posters all over the place. If you look at stats you'd see the majority of raids are in nationalist areas.

Also its worth bearing in mind the majority of PSNI officers of today, are in fact, former RUC members.

Therefore if people really believed the hype about the RUC, they wouldnt be supporting the PSNI.

Reality is though, people know deep down the image of the RUC as an ultra sectarian force is made up.

Crooked Jack

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Yet many republicans today say precisely the same thing about the PSNI. Drive through Newry you'll see "Different name, Same Aim" posters all over the place. If you look at stats you'd see the majority of raids are in nationalist areas.

Also its worth bearing in mind the majority of PSNI officers of today, are in fact, former RUC members.

Therefore if people really believed the hype about the RUC, they wouldnt be supporting the PSNI.

Reality is though, people know deep down the image of the RUC as an ultra sectarian force is made up.

There is no question that the RUC was little more than the armed wing of the old Stormont Regime, a blunt unionist weapon to beat nationalists with. Their record speaks for itself.
The reason nationalists and republicans were willing to engage with the PSNI was to hold them to account to ensure that they wouldn't become the force the RUC was. It also served to bed down the peace process.
I have no doubt it was a difficult and distasteful decision for all those involved but it was just another sacrifice nationalists and republicans made to ensure the Irish people weren't forced into another war.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

There is no question that the RUC was little more than the armed wing of the old Stormont Regime, a blunt unionist weapon to beat nationalists with. Their record speaks for itself.
The reason nationalists and republicans were willing to engage with the PSNI was to hold them to account to ensure that they wouldn't become the force the RUC was. It also served to bed down the peace process.
I have no doubt it was a difficult and distasteful decision for all those involved but it was just another sacrifice nationalists and republicans made to ensure the Irish people weren't forced into another war.

there does appear to be a big question over that.

The above seems to be more of an excuse to kill rather than an actual explanation.

Still, this all makes interesting reading, it is interesting to see how flippant and dismissive the republicans can be.

No doubt Gibraltar is still the slaughtering of defenceless people though.

paky

is this coming from the same guy that says mcguinness is an informer? i'd take such allegations with a pinch of salt. your gona hear more and more of such 'allegations' surfacing with sinn fein's rise in popularity
btw allegations prove nothing

Fenian Army

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there does appear to be a big question over that.

The above seems to be more of an excuse to kill rather than an actual explanation.

Still, this all makes interesting reading, it is interesting to see how flippant and dismissive the republicans can be.

No doubt Gibraltar is still the slaughtering of defenceless people though.

I dont think its entirely fair that you ask questions that if you know people answered may lead to them being banned, as was pointed out in the thread... justifying violence etc.

Bit mad that there are elected representatives the length and breadth of Ireland who would give answers that we are not allowed to put up on here.

I'd like to go into further detail about this matter but well, it's thin ice and a bit unclear as to what is actually allowed.

dlofnep

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Yet many republicans today say precisely the same thing about the PSNI. Drive through Newry you'll see "Different name, Same Aim" posters all over the place. If you look at stats you'd see the majority of raids are in nationalist areas.

The PSNI is an extension of the old RUC, and I have said this before. But they are leaning in the right direction, and the "old guard" is gradually being ironed out. It will take another generation before the PSNI is up to scratch.

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Reality is though, people know deep down the image of the RUC as an ultra sectarian force is made up.

No, it isn't made up. It's documented fact - well established by a multitude of statistics, from raids to killings - all heavily against the Catholic/Nationalist community.

Happyman42

Fenian Army wrote: »

I dont think its entirely fair that you ask questions that if you know people answered may lead to them being banned, as was pointed out in the thread... justifying violence etc.

Bit mad that there are elected representatives the length and breadth of Ireland who would give answers that we are not allowed to put up on here.

I'd like to go into further detail about this matter but well, it's thin ice and a bit unclear as to what is actually allowed.

Absolutely right there, the politics forum has to have a look at the charter again in relation to discussion of subjects like this. It is entirely weighted to favour one side of the argument. Expressing and reflecting the motivations of those involved in the Troubles is not the same thing as inciting people to do the same.

Nobody wants a mudslinging match and while it is not a subject for the feint of heart or the overly senistive, much more latitude must be given if the debate is to be free and genuinely revealing. That is the purpose of these forums after all, is it not? Let the debate breath a little.

junder

battle_hardend wrote: »

golden lane wrote: »

if anybody killed policemen, or for that matter anybody else.....they should be put on trial...

nobody should be above the law.....

do you want to open a can of worms , if you put mc guinness on trial , you put countless former RUC men on trial too

If you put a former RUC officer or soldier on trial then you have to put the likes of mcguinness on trial

Fenian Army

junder wrote: »

If you put a former RUC officer or soldier on trial then you have to put the likes of mcguinness on trial

Junder, how do you think things should be dealt with?

I'd favor a complete amnesty, as it is it is only two years anyway and I think people would be more inclined to let the truth come out if that was the case...

That'd be for everyone, Brit, RUC, PIRA etc who support the peace process. What do you think?

paky

junder wrote: »

If you put a former RUC officer or soldier on trial then you have to put the likes of mcguinness on trial

sure if thats the case we should put the queen on trial for bloody sunday

Happyman42

Indicative of the general media in this country I get a warning for making a simple, heart felt request.:rolleyes:
It would be great to see if people on the other side of the debate want free speech or fettered speech. Thank this post if you support free speech.
I now have an inkling of what Section 31 must have felt like.

Exile 1798

KeithAFC wrote: »

A guy involved in the PIRA ordering the killing of good RUC men shocker. I can't say this is surprising at all and I imagine it shocks no one. It has been done and nothing can be done now. I feel sorry for the families but life has to move on.

KeithAFC wrote: »

Some RUC officers colluded with Ulster volunteers but that was only a small percentage. But don't let the facts distract from the myth. You know that as much as I do.

Dubhlinner wrote: »

From the books I've read and anecdotes I've heard from Catholics who lived through the troubles the image of the RUC as some sort of unionist militia is completely unfounded.

Dubhlinner wrote: »

Reality is though, people know deep down the image of the RUC as an ultra sectarian force is made up.

It's appropriate that our resident sectarian bigot Keith should blunder in so heedlessly and Dubhlinner should get on his/her high horse about "the myth" of RUC collusion. Appropriate for us, unfortunate for them.

Let's look at the sworn affidavit of RUC Officer John Weir concerning RUC-Loyalist collusion throughout the Armagh in the 70s.

20. I was friendly at that time with RUC Constable Billy McBride and I visited his home on one occasion at a time when Chief Inspector Harry Breen was present. We discussed McBride's connection to a group of Loyalists in Co. Down called Down Orange Welfare, which was headed by a retired Army officer, Lt. Col. Edward Brush. McBride told us he was a member of this group, which was almost entirely composed of members or ex-members of the security forces. He produced a .38 revolver from a drawer in his living room and after I had examined it he replaced it in the drawer. He then went into another room and brought out two home made sub-machine guns, copies of the Sterling machine-gun. He explained that Down Orange Welfare was manufacturing Sterling sub-machine guns and that the two he had shown me were the prototypes and were of imperfect design. McBride added that the group were in the process of making an M1 carbine, an American rifle, and that the only remaining problem to be tackled was the ejector mechanism for spent bullets. He anticipated that this would not present any insuperable difficulty. In Chief Inspector Breen's presence he then offered me the two sub-machine guns because he knew about my connections to Loyalist paramilitaries. I accepted them and took them to Mitchell's farmhouse.

21. Constable McBride was a gunsmith and, following this initial meeting with him, guns changed hands on several occasions. On one occasion, after McBride had told me that he had received four new sub-machine guns from Down Orange Welfare, I contacted Armstrong who soon arrived with McClure at Newry RUC station. Armstrong had a conversation with Chief Inspector Breen, whom he knew well, and the three of us went to McBride's house where we collected the guns. These sub-machine guns were transported to Mitchell's farmhouse where I later test fired them in a hayshed. They worked perfectly. Mitchell subsequently sold these weapons to Jackie Whitten, a UVF paramilitary leader in Portadown for 100 pounds each. I then gave the 400 pounds to McBride so that the money could be used for the manufacture of further weapons. In summary, Down Orange Welfare was using RUC officers in Newry RUC station - McBride, Breen, myself - and another RUC officer, Sergeant Monty Alexander from Forkhill RUC station - to supply weapons to the UVF in Portadown. I later learned that these weapons were being manufactured by Samuel McCoubrey in Spa, Co. Down.

27. After leaving McCaughey's father's house I drove McCaughey back to Armagh and dropped him off at the RUC station. I then proceeded to Bessbrook RUC station where I had living quarters even though I was still stationed in Newry. I went to work early on the morning after the killing and carried on with my normal work. However, over the following week I told three colleagues about what had happened. These were Chief Inspector Breen, Constable Bob Hamilton and RUC Special Branch Constable Ian Begley. All of these three men already knew about collusion between Loyalist paramilitaries and RUC officers including McBride, Sergeant Monty Alexander and myself. Chief Inspector Breen also knew about similar illegal activities by McCaughey and Armstrong. Ian Begley, for example, had previously told me that he thought McBride had been involved with Jackson in the murder of a Catholic close, I believe, to Mayobridge in South Down in the early 1970s.

28. I think it is important to make it clear that this collusion between Loyalist paramilitaries such as Robin Jackson and my RUC colleagues and me was taking place with the full knowledge of my superiors. I recall that after I had told Chief Inspector Breen about my involvement in the Strathearn murder, that he told me to forget about it. I also recall later witnessing a conversation between Chief Inspector Breen and Inspector Harvey who was in charge of Newry CID when both men discussed with approval McCaughey and Armstrong's continuing activity in Loyalist terrorism with Robin Jackson. And I recall another occasion, in the toilets at the Pitbar near Bessbrook when RUC Special Branch Constable David Miller indicated to me that he knew I had been involved in the Strathearn murder and suggested he would not object if I was to kill an identified IRA man in Newry. For these and other reasons I did not think there was the slightest possibility that I would ever be arrested or charged with my role in the Strathearn murder.

29. Some months after the Strathearn murder I was called to a meeting with the head of RUC Special Branch in Newry, Chief Inspector Brian Fitzsimmons. He confirmed what I had already been told by Chief Inspector Breen that I was to be transferred to Newtownhamilton RUC station. During this meeting Mr. Fitzsimmons let me know that he was aware that I had been involved in Loyalist terrorist activity for some time but it was clear he was not bothered by this. He told me that he knew all about my paramilitary past activities with James Mitchell and that my local connections to Loyalist paramilitaries were part of the reason why I was being placed in charge of Newtownhamilton RUC station. I understood the message of my meeting with Chief inspector Fitzsimmons to be that I had the green light to carry on with my activities. I now know that Chief Inspector Fitzsimmons rose to the rank of Assistant Chief constable and that he was killed in the Chinook helicopter crash in Scotland in 1994.

http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/2.1_CODE_weiraff.html

If Harry Breen were alive today he'd be sitting safe from prosecution, enjoying an enormous Patten pension, like hundreds of other former senior RUC officers.

The Smithwick Tribunal - which has so far uncovered not one single piece of evidence of Gardai collusion in the ambush of RUC Officers Breen and Buchanan - set out the following in it's opening term of reference.

However, I can say at this stage that the issue of collusion will be examined in the broadest sense of the word. While it generally means the commission of an act, I am of the view that it should also be considered in terms of an omission or failure to act. In the active sense, collusion has amongst its meanings to conspire, connive or collaborate. In addition, I intend to examine whether anybody deliberately ignored a matter, or turned a blind eye to it, or to have pretended ignorance or unawareness of something one ought morally, legally or officially to oppose.

http://www.smithwicktribunal.ie/smithwick/OPENING%20STATEMENT.htm

By Judge Smithwick's own terms, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen - and the entire leadership of the RUC from the 70s and 80s are guilty of gross collusion.

southsiderosie

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely right there, the politics forum has to have a look at the charter again in relation to discussion of subjects like this. It is entirely weighted to favour one side of the argument. Expressing and reflecting the motivations of those involved in the Troubles is not the same thing as inciting people to do the same.

Nobody wants a mudslinging match and while it is not a subject for the feint of heart or the overly senistive, much more latitude must be given if the debate is to be free and genuinely revealing. That is the purpose of these forums after all, is it not? Let the debate breath a little.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Indicative of the general media in this country I get a warning for making a simple, heart felt request.:rolleyes:
It would be great to see if people on the other side of the debate want free speech or fettered speech. Thank this post if you support free speech.
I now have an inkling of what Section 31 must have felt like.

MOD NOTE:

There is no forum on this site which allows discussion of moderation on thread, so I am not sure why you think this forum is any different.

If you want to have a discussion on how threads in this forum are moderated, you can post about it here.

If you want to have a discussion on boards.ie's policy regarding discussions around political violence, you can start a thread in the Feedback forum.

If you have an issue with a specific infraction, then PM the moderator who carded you, and if you are unsatisfied with the response, then you can take it to Dispute Resolution.

Finally, there seems to be a bit of confusion here about what free speech actually is: free speech is the right to say what you want to say. However it is not the right to say it wherever you want to. Anything you post on this website must be within the posting guidelines of this website. If you want the unfettered ability to say whatever you want, start a blog. In the meantime, if you want to continue posting on this site, then you need to be mindful of the rules of the forum you are posting in.

Just to be absolutely clear: I do not want to see any more discussion of moderation on this thread - I have identified the relevant outlets if people are unhappy with moderation. Hopefully this thread can stay on-topic from this point on.

snafuk35

KeithAFC wrote: »

A guy involved in the PIRA ordering the killing of good RUC men shocker. I can't say this is surprising at all and I imagine it shocks no one. It has been done and nothing can be done now. I feel sorry for the families but life has to move on.

McGuinness claims he left the IRA in 1974. He denies any involvement with its violent activities ever since so obviously he hasn't moved on. He's still lying. Never mind that Gerry Adams claims he was never even a member of the IRA!

Happyman42

snafuk35 wrote: »

Never mind that Gerry Adams claims he was never even a member of the IRA!

Don't you think if they could've proved he was a member that they would have locked him up? The only way it could work was to separate the 2 organisations. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. Simple and smart political expediency.

COYW

This individual was presidential material in these of a sizeable section of the electorate. I really despair for this country.

Crooked Jack

This individual wasn't Presidential material in the eyes of the majority of the electorate. I really despair for this country.

Happyman42

COYW wrote: »

This individual was presidential material in these of a sizeable section of the electorate. I really despair for this country.

Yeh, we need to get back to the old days, Dev and the boys!
Maybe if he'd quoted bad poetry at the oppressors he would be more fit to be pres?:rolleyes:

Fenian Army

If Marty didnt leave in '74 he is hardly gonna say otherwise and get himself locked up is he?

BFDCH.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

It's appropriate that our resident sectarian bigot Keith should blunder in so heedlessly and Dubhlinner should get on his/her high horse about "the myth" of RUC collusion. Appropriate for us, unfortunate for them.

Let's look at the sworn affidavit of RUC Officer John Weir concerning RUC-Loyalist collusion throughout the Armagh in the 70s.

http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/2.1_CODE_weiraff.html

If Harry Breen were alive today he'd be sitting safe from prosecution, enjoying an enormous Patten pension, like hundreds of other former senior RUC officers.

The Smithwick Tribunal - which has so far uncovered not one single piece of evidence of Gardai collusion in the ambush of RUC Officers Breen and Buchanan - set out the following in it's opening term of reference.

http://www.smithwicktribunal.ie/smithwick/OPENING%20STATEMENT.htm

By Judge Smithwick's own terms, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen - and the entire leadership of the RUC from the 70s and 80s are guilty of gross collusion.

great post, goes a long way to dispelling the idea that these men were innocent, law abiding policemen doing the job they were employed to do.

snafuk35

Happyman42 wrote: »

Don't you think if they could've proved he was a member that they would have locked him up? The only way it could work was to separate the 2 organisations. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. Simple and smart political expediency.

So until the armed struggle was over all that Gerry was doing was mixing their drinks and hanging their jackets up? Sure.

Happyman42

snafuk35 wrote: »

So until the armed struggle was over all that Gerry was doing was mixing their drinks and hanging their jackets up? Sure.

Until you can prove it, yeh, that's what he was doing.

I could make loads of allegations about TD's who are on the take, but I can't name them because I can't prove it. I would be swiftly banned.
Why are you allowed to make this allegation without producing proof?
And the word of a journalist is NOT proof (to save you scurrying off to google.)

snafuk35

Happyman42 wrote: »

Until you can prove it, yeh, that's what he was doing.

I could make loads of allegations about TD's who are on the take, but I can't name them because I can't prove it. I would be swiftly banned.
Why are you allowed to make this allegation without producing proof?
And the word of a journalist is NOT proof (to save you scurrying off to google.)

Brendan "Darkie" Hughes said he was in the IRA and that Adams ordered the murder of Jean McConville. This has been corroborated by no less than Dolours Price who admitted to having driven the woman to where she was murdered. The IRA unit that killed McConville answered to Adams. Those statements have weight not only because you are talking about two veteran republicans who were totems of the armed struggle but because they were taken by historical researchers at Boston College on condition that they would not be released until after their deaths. Boston College was forced to release the information years later after their motion to quash a subpoena was unsuccessful. Adams comically claimed that Hughes who has since died had an agenda from beyond the grave! Nobody believes a thing Adams says.