Allegation McGuinness ordered RUC assassinations

Happyman42

snafuk35 wrote: »

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.

Allegations by people with a vested interest?????????? :rolleyes:
Isn't that what people are horrified by in the case of Jean McConville. Absurd and hypocrital post alert!

fryup

dlofnep wrote: »

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.

well thats because most of the violent activity/aggression was coming from the catholic/nationalist side

the IRA killed more people than anyone else during the troubles and that is a fact

Fratton Fred

BFDCH. wrote: »

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.

What myth?

These officers aren't on trial here.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What myth?

These officers aren't on trial here.

The reason they were targets is relevant to an tribunal surely?

Crooked Jack

fryup wrote: »

well thats because most of the violent activity/aggression was coming from the catholic/nationalist side

the IRA killed more people than anyone else during the troubles and that is a fact

If you care to direct your attention towards post 24 you'll see a list of catholic civilians killed by the RUC in 1969, before the PIRA even existed, yet loyalists had begun a fresh murder campaign as early as '66. The pogroms of 1969 against the nationalist community are also well documented while no similar attacks on the loyalist community can be pointed to. How then can you state that most of the violence was coming from the nationalist/republican side. RUC violence against nationalists predates the most recent phase of the conflict as well with murders stretching back to the very beginning of the state, yet despite a few flurries of activity the IRA in the north was largely inert since the Civil War, particularly in the years following the end of the Border campaign in '62 (although it had pretty much petered out by '59/'60.)
Indeed many historians point out that by 1969 the nationalist community had little or no appetite for another fight with the state and support for republicanism fell as more and more people integrated themselves into the state. It was the violence of loyalism, often in the guise of the B SPecials and the RUC that ignited the Troubles so quite contrary to what you're saying, IRA violence was a response to RUC/State violence and not the other way around.

Happyman42

Crooked Jack wrote: »

If you care to direct your attention towards post 24 you'll see a list of catholic civilians killed by the RUC in 1969, before the PIRA even existed, yet loyalists had begun a fresh murder campaign as early as '66. The pogroms of 1969 against the nationalist community are also well documented while no similar attacks on the loyalist community can be pointed to. How then can you state that most of the violence was coming from the nationalist/republican side. RUC violence against nationalists predates the most recent phase of the conflict as well with murders stretching back to the very beginning of the state, yet despite a few flurries of activity the IRA in the north was largely inert since the Civil War, particularly in the years following the end of the Border campaign in '62 (although it had pretty much petered out by '59/'60.)
Indeed many historians point out that by 1969 the nationalist community had little or no appetite for another fight with the state and support for republicanism fell as more and more people integrated themselves into the state. It was the violence of loyalism, often in the guise of the B SPecials and the RUC that ignited the Troubles so quite contrary to what you're saying, IRA violence was a response to RUC/State violence and not the other way around.

That is what is called 'a spanner in the partitionist mantra' Jack.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

The reason they were targets is relevant to an tribunal surely?

No, its not.

Fratton Fred

Crooked Jack wrote: »

If you care to direct your attention towards post 24 you'll see a list of catholic civilians killed by the RUC in 1969, before the PIRA even existed, yet loyalists had begun a fresh murder campaign as early as '66. The pogroms of 1969 against the nationalist community are also well documented while no similar attacks on the loyalist community can be pointed to. How then can you state that most of the violence was coming from the nationalist/republican side. RUC violence against nationalists predates the most recent phase of the conflict as well with murders stretching back to the very beginning of the state, yet despite a few flurries of activity the IRA in the north was largely inert since the Civil War, particularly in the years following the end of the Border campaign in '62 (although it had pretty much petered out by '59/'60.)
Indeed many historians point out that by 1969 the nationalist community had little or no appetite for another fight with the state and support for republicanism fell as more and more people integrated themselves into the state. It was the violence of loyalism, often in the guise of the B SPecials and the RUC that ignited the Troubles so quite contrary to what you're saying, IRA violence was a response to RUC/State violence and not the other way around.

But it wasn't an act carried out in the name of civil rights. It was an act of murder.

If you are trying to tell me that the two officers were actively engaged in an act of violence against innocent people then please provide some evidence.

This was a simple act of premeditated murder against two policemen who were just doing their job.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, its not.

Then why is the tribunal interested in the specific role (border Superintendents) these 2 officers had?:rolleyes:

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But it wasn't an act carried out in the name of civil rights. It was an act of murder.

If you are trying to tell me that the two officers were actively engaged in an act of violence against innocent people then please provide some evidence.

This was a simple act of premeditated murder against two policemen who were just doing their job.

the evidence is in the post that I replied to earlier and that you quoted me on.

These were not two ordinary policemen, these were people who had been involved with(at the very least turning a blind eye) loyalist terrorists in the border area. They myth that they were just policemen is the myth I referred to earlier.

K-9

BFDCH. wrote: »

the evidence is in the post that I replied to earlier and that you quoted me on.

These were not two ordinary policemen, these were people who had been involved with(at the very least turning a blind eye) loyalist terrorists in the border area. They myth that they were just policemen is the myth I referred to earlier.

I see nothing in that report that these 2 men were involved in collusion.

Can you quote where it says that?

BFDCH.

K-9 wrote: »

I see nothing in that report that these 2 men were involved in collusion.

Can you quote where it says that?

Have another read, you must have missed the bit...it was the whole bit.

This is the definition of collusion from the tribunal.

‘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.’


Harry Breen was present during discussions about connections with Loyalists in Down, BMCB admitted to being a member, breen did nothing, he produced a gun, breen did nothing, brought in two home made sub machine guns and discussed plans to make more for terrorist purposes, breen did nothing. He was also witness to loyalist arms trafficking and did nothing.

On another occasion he helped transport and test the machine guns manufactured by loyalists, do i need to go through the whole thing for you?
‘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’
When you see a statement like that made by an RUC officer, you can see the nature of the collusion between the RUC from the highest level right down to the rank and file and loyalist terrorists.

Fratton Fred

BFDCH. wrote: »

Have another read, you must have missed the bit...it was the whole bit.

This is the definition of collusion from the tribunal.

‘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.’


Harry Breen was present during discussions about connections with Loyalists in Down, BMCB admitted to being a member, breen did nothing, he produced a gun, breen did nothing, brought in two home made sub machine guns and discussed plans to make more for terrorist purposes, breen did nothing. He was also witness to loyalist arms trafficking and did nothing.

On another occasion he helped transport and test the machine guns manufactured by loyalists, do i need to go through the whole thing for you?
‘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’
When you see a statement like that made by an RUC officer, you can see the nature of the collusion between the RUC from the highest level right down to the rank and file and loyalist terrorists.

So what you are saying then, is that as there was collusion going on in Dundalk and senior members of the Gardai were turning a blind eye to it, every copper in ireland is a justifiable target for Loyalist paramilitaries?

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So what you are saying then, is that as there was collusion going on in Dundalk and senior members of the Gardai were turning a blind eye to it, every copper in ireland is a justifiable target for Loyalist paramilitaries?

No. Can you not understand the Queen's English. I was clearly talking about the RUC and Breen in particular.

Comparing the actions of one Garda(that hasn't been proven) with a 'police service' that was rotten to the core is one of the most stupid things I have ever seen.

K-9

BFDCH. wrote: »

Have another read, you must have missed the bit...it was the whole bit.

This is the definition of collusion from the tribunal.

‘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.’


Harry Breen was present during discussions about connections with Loyalists in Down, BMCB admitted to being a member, breen did nothing, he produced a gun, breen did nothing, brought in two home made sub machine guns and discussed plans to make more for terrorist purposes, breen did nothing. He was also witness to loyalist arms trafficking and did nothing.

On another occasion he helped transport and test the machine guns manufactured by loyalists, do i need to go through the whole thing for you?
‘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’
When you see a statement like that made by an RUC officer, you can see the nature of the collusion between the RUC from the highest level right down to the rank and file and loyalist terrorists.

What was the affidavit for? I notice it is dated 1999. I don't know how creditable that siite is, the home page doesn't seem to work.

Okay, we appear to have one mans evidence that Breen was involved. Unfortunately, going on previous comments on this thread, that isn't sufficient, especially if somebody might have had a grudge.

BFDCH.

K-9 wrote: »

What was the affidavit for? I notice it is dated 1999. I don't know how creditable that siite is, the home page doesn't seem to work.

Okay, we appear to have one mans evidence that Breen was involved. Unfortunately, going on previous comments on this thread, that isn't sufficient, especially if somebody might have had a grudge.

An Irish Judge says otherwise...rather than a thread :-)


Weir's affidavit was published in the 2003 Barron Report which was the findings of an official investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings commissioned by Irish Supreme Court Justice Henry Barron. The Barron Inquiry interviewed Weir in February 2001; Mr Justice Barron concluded that "Weir's evidence overall is credible".

Fratton Fred

BFDCH. wrote: »

An Irish Judge says otherwise...rather than a thread :-)


Weir's affidavit was published in the 2003 Barron Report which was the findings of an official investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings commissioned by Irish Supreme Court Justice Henry Barron. The Barron Inquiry interviewed Weir in February 2001; Mr Justice Barron concluded that "Weir's evidence overall is credible".

and none of which would have been known to Martin McGuinness when he gave the order to murder the two officers.

The IRA killed them because they could and because they wanted to protect the "Good Republican" Slab Murphy. The fact that ONE of the officers is accused of collusion (By an RUC officer who was convicted of murder) is pretty irrelevant to the tribunal or the allegations.

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and none of which would have been known to Martin McGuinness when he gave the order to murder the two officers.

The IRA killed them because they could and because they wanted to protect the "Good Republican" Slab Murphy. The fact that ONE of the officers is accused of collusion (By an RUC officer who was convicted of murder) is pretty irrelevant to the tribunal or the allegations.

How do you know it wasn't known? How do you know McG gave the order, do you have proof? get yourself a long to the tribunal, the country needs geniuses like you.
Why would killing these officers protect slab Murphy?
The fact that they were involved in collusion is irrelevant to this tribunal, but it is relevant to the thread given that a lot of posters are trying to imply these police officers should be seen in the same light as the Guards, who by and large did the job they were supposed to do.

Fratton Fred

BFDCH. wrote: »

How do you know it wasn't known? How do you know McG gave the order, do you have proof? get yourself a long to the tribunal, the country needs geniuses like you.
Why would killing these officers protect slab Murphy?
The fact that they were involved in collusion is irrelevant to this tribunal, but it is relevant to the thread given that a lot of posters are trying to imply these police officers should be seen in the same light as the Guards, who by and large did the job they were supposed to do.

they were sent to Dundalk to discuss the smuggling activities of Slab Murphy. The collusion accusations also relate to the murder, by the IRA, of a farmer in the area who offered to give the Gards information on his smuggling activities.

Hoe do I know our Marty was involved? I'm reading the accusations made at the tribunal. And f he did know they were involved in collusion, then he should have reported it.

but, as I say, the reason the IRA killed these officers was because they could.

Exile 1798

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and none of which would have been known to Martin McGuinness when he gave the order to murder the two officers.

"Allegedly"

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The IRA killed them because they could and because they wanted to protect the "Good Republican" Slab Murphy. The fact that ONE of the officers is accused of collusion (By an RUC officer who was convicted of murder) is pretty irrelevant to the tribunal or the allegations.

I agree with this. (except for the gratuitous Slab comment)

It is irrelevant to the tribunal. It was brought up in response to the "collusion barely existed at all / RUC sectarianism a Nationalist myth" line being promulgated pompously by a few posters, who very obviously chose the wrong thread to get on their soapbox.

The serious allegations surrounding Harry Breen, and given that even minus those specific allegations the mere fact that he was a senior RUC officer in Armagh throughout the murder triangle era when local Loyalists and elements of the RUC worked hand in glove - by Smithwick's own very general reference terms, would be enough to consider him involved in collusion. It's called being hoisted on your own petard. The point is political, not legal. Then again, Smithwick and the coverage surrounding it is 99% politics, and so is this thread.

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

they were sent to Dundalk to discuss the smuggling activities of Slab Murphy. The collusion accusations also relate to the murder, by the IRA, of a farmer in the area who offered to give the Gards information on his smuggling activities.

Hoe do I know our Marty was involved? I'm reading the accusations made at the tribunal. And f he did know they were involved in collusion, then he should have reported it.

but, as I say, the reason the IRA killed these officers was because they could.

hahahaha. reported it to who? The RUC? 'RUC, you are colluding with Loyalist terrorists, I would like you to arrest yourselves'

If I were to accuse you of being a clown and an idiot.
Would that make you a clown and an idiot? I would've just made it up and accused you of it, should it then be taken as fact?
Or should we rely on proper evidence like your own posts to condemn you as a clown or an idiot?
I think we should wait until the verdict and facts/evidence are confirmed before making allegations that you have no proof to back them up with.

For example, the Barron report proving that there was a huge amount of RUC collusion, in all senses of the word, with Loyalist terrorists and that they were involved in the sectarian murder of civilians and IRA members alike; that Breen, who was killed in this instance, was involved in that collusion is supported by Judge Barrons conclusion that Weirs evidence was credible (he had been an upstanding member of the RUC after all)

K-9

BFDCH. wrote: »

An Irish Judge says otherwise...rather than a thread :-)


Weir's affidavit was published in the 2003 Barron Report which was the findings of an official investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings commissioned by Irish Supreme Court Justice Henry Barron. The Barron Inquiry interviewed Weir in February 2001; Mr Justice Barron concluded that "Weir's evidence overall is credible".

Fair enough. I would take note of "evidence overall is credible".

Exile 1798 wrote:

It is irrelevant to the tribunal. It was brought up in response to the "collusion barely existed at all / RUC sectarianism a Nationalist myth" line being promulgated pompously by a few posters, who very obviously chose the wrong thread to get on their soapbox.

The serious allegations surrounding Harry Breen, and given that even minus those specific allegations the mere fact that he was a senior RUC officer in Armagh throughout the murder triangle era when local Loyalists and elements of the RUC worked hand in glove - by Smithwick's own very general reference terms, would be enough to consider him involved in collusion. It's called being hoisted on your own petard. The point is political, not legal. Then again, Smithwick and the coverage surrounding it is 99% politics, and so is this thread.

I accept there was collusion, it was a dirty war after all. What I don't accept is different standards applied in say the Jean McConville case that was mentioned.

Obviously the authorities are held to higher standards, tribunals etc. but dismissing sources as vested interests is a bit too convenient. Who wasn't in some way or another!

Fratton Fred

BFDCH. wrote: »

hahahaha. reported it to who? The RUC? 'RUC, you are colluding with Loyalist terrorists, I would like you to arrest yourselves'

If I were to accuse you of being a clown and an idiot.
Would that make you a clown and an idiot? I would've just made it up and accused you of it, should it then be taken as fact?
Or should we rely on proper evidence like your own posts to condemn you as a clown or an idiot?
I think we should wait until the verdict and facts/evidence are confirmed before making allegations that you have no proof to back them up with.

For example, the Barron report proving that there was a huge amount of RUC collusion, in all senses of the word, with Loyalist terrorists and that they were involved in the sectarian murder of civilians and IRA members alike; that Breen, who was killed in this instance, was involved in that collusion is supported by Judge Barrons conclusion that Weirs evidence was credible (he had been an upstanding member of the RUC after all)

if I was a clown and an idiot then I would resort to personal abuse when I am struggling to engage in a rational arguement.

There is a very clear allegation that Martin McGuinness ordered the murder of these two officers. Their relatives deserve to know the truth, yes or no?

BFDCH.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if I was a clown and an idiot then I would resort to personal abuse when I am struggling to engage in a rational arguement.

There is a very clear allegation that Martin McGuinness ordered the murder of these two officers. Their relatives deserve to know the truth, yes or no?

you've struggled with rational arguement the whole way through this thread, let me be clear I was trying to show you how an allegation is different from something that can be taken as fact based on evidence as you seem to have trouble grasping that. I was not calling you a clown or an idiot, i said if i did would it be taken as fact that you were with out an evidence to back it up...the answer is no it shouldn't be.

I agree that their relatives deserve to know the truth, the whole truth, including their own actions which may or may not have had a bearing on their death.

edit- also, you kind of did resort to personal abuse in that you resorted to the 'i know you are but what am i' retort when you thought i was calling you a clown and an idiot.

walshb

dlofnep wrote: »

The RUC colluded with loyalist terrorists, and routinely attacked and harassed the nationalist community. It was a corrupt organisation. Please don't make false assessments of the RUC as being 'good'.

So true. A horribly bent and corrupt and devious force. Used on this island to oppress one people and to promote another.

walshb

K-9 wrote: »

There's a danger of mixing up the RUC, the organisation, and good, professional coppers.

No, there is no danger. The RUC was never anything but what I described above. Never!

fasttalkerchat

walshb wrote: »

No, there is no danger. The RUC was never anything but what I described above. Never!

There might have been a good one among them but they all followed bad orders. The PSNI has many former RUC members but they don't behave the same way 99% of the time.

Happyman42

walshb wrote: »

So true. A horribly bent and corrupt and devious force. Used on this island to oppress one people and to promote another.

And it's extraordinary to see how many 'Irish' people will reject that this was daily life for their fellow citizens in NI. Denial is a cursed thing.

walshb

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

There might have been a good one among them but they all followed bad orders. The PSNI has many former RUC members but they don't behave the same way 99% of the time.

Yes, but that's maybe because now they just can't get away with it. Bad apples with no scope to rot!

Border-Rat

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

There might have been a good one among them but they all followed bad orders. The PSNI has many former RUC members but they don't behave the same way 99% of the time.

Is this the voice of experience?