The Dissappeared: The Other Side of the Story

Chicken Ryan

I was reading an article in the Irish Times yesterday about one of the trouble's disappeared, Kevin McKee who was a member of the Provisional IRA when he was murdered. The dissappeared are victims of the IRA who were abducted and murdered by the organisation during the troubles and secretly buried.
However, one of the things which annoys me about the so called disappeared is that these people are painted as so called victims. Many of those who were actually murdered were in some way involved in the conflict and this is one of the factors which seems most overlooked.

Take for instance Kevin McKee who was abducted and murder by the IRA. Kevin who was himself a member of the IRA and was murdered because he was an informer who allegedly passed on information to the British Army. If that is the case then why should I have sympathy for a terrorist thug who met his death with the same organisation he signed up to murder with?

And what about the British Armies role in the murder of Jean McConville? According to Brendan Hughes biography, McConville was`recruited by British intelligence and was subsequently caught passing on information to the British Army and initially given a warning before she was murdered. The army deliberately exploited her economic circumstances and placed her in a position where she ultimately lost her life.
So why it is the disappeared are made out to be victims when the evidence shows that some of them were involved in terrorist organisations?

Is it not the case that those who live by the sword die by the sword?

Sand

So why it is the disappeared are made out to be victims when the evidence shows that some of them were involved in terrorist organisations?

TLDR

- They're made out to be victims because they were murdered.
- There is an unusual level of sympathy because human beings on some level empathise with families that are not able to bury their dead.
- The quality of the evidence can be demonstrated by the killers fear of openly acknowledging the killing or its reasons.
- Even if they were "informers" that's only a crime to terrorists - terrorists had no right to murder them.

And for one post, shouldn't you be posting something about what a United Ireland would look like or some similar nonsense? Or did even you guys get bored of that and decide to branch out in the Provo's own enforcement of Nacht und Nebel?

Chicken Ryan

Fair enough their families deserve closure but are they not just as bad as the killers they were involved with?

Sand

Seeing as they were the victims of a murder rather than the perpetrators of it I think your question answers itself.

jellyboy

Your post says more about your mentality and lack of empathy or understanding of the issues in the north of Ireland

Whatever the circumstance of the dead ,doesn't mean that they deserve to die under a judge and jury of misguided fanatical self appointed judges

Their family's want closure and deserve to have a "Body" To mourn over
As they played no part in their demise

Theirs something about the DNA in Irish people that is interlinked into death and mourning

Theirs also something lacking in posts like yours
It's called compassion

Sand

The only thing lacking in his post is credibility.

Crooked Jack

A victim is a victim. if somebody has died as a result of the conflict, regardless of the role they did or didnt play, then they are by definition a victim

LordSutch

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

...However, one of the things which annoys me about the so called disappeared is that these people are painted as so called victims. Many of those who were actually murdered were in some way involved in the conflict and this is one of the factors which seems most overlooked.

You were doing fine until this point^ then you started to aportion blame onto the (disappeared) victims themselves!

nacho libre

Chicken Ryan wrote: »

Fair enough their families deserve closure but are they not just as bad as the killers they were involved with?

I'd be inclined to agree in some cases.

The head of the IRA nutting squad was the likely perpetrator, or at the very least, planner, of several murders. If he had been killed he would be technically seen as a victim, but personally i would not have much sympathy for him, seeing as he oversaw the torture and murder of several innocent people to cover his own tracks as it were. I would have sympathy for his family, though.

Godge

This is a ridiculous thread. There is no other side of the story.

These people were kidnapped, tortured and killed by the IRA. There was no justice here, no fair trial in public, just a summary execution and burial.

Even if they were informers, what did they do. They reported to the proper authorities on criminal activity.

Their kidnap, torture and murder showed that the IRA were not just interested in terrorising the "other side" but that they needed and wanted to terrorise nationalists to keep them in their place.

Nodin

Godge wrote: »

This is a ridiculous thread. There is no other side of the story.

These people were kidnapped, tortured and killed by the IRA. There was no justice here, no fair trial in public, just a summary execution and burial.

Even if they were informers, what did they do. They reported to the proper authorities on criminal activity.

.

....a simplistic black and white narrative which ignores the sectarian and brutal nature of the "proper authorities".

Banjo String

Godge wrote: »

Even if they were informers, what did they do. They reported to the proper authorities on criminal activity.

I'm willing to wager my entire months salary that you don't/never have lived in the north, especially not during the troubles.

The 'proper authorities' were a force representative of one side in the conflict. To the other side they were a sectarian murderous force, who took delight in beating young Catholic men, dragging them from their cars at the dead of night in remote checkpoints, and given half the chance would gun you down in the street, then claim they where threatened/justified afterwards.

Your profile location says Dublin 15. I bet your experience with security forces, the unnamed gards, and the Irish Amy, differs greatly from a Catholic man in Belfast or Derry, with a sectarian police force and a murderous occupying army roaming the streets.

I'm always amazed at the amount of righteous folk on these threads that display an utter lack of understanding of life in the north on these threads.

What I found hilarious is the amount of posters who sympathise with the rebels in the spring risings of late, who the British arm and support.

Karl Stein

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm always amazed at the amount of righteous folk on these threads that display an utter lack of understanding of life in the north on these threads.

They're testament to the success of the establishment media's censoring of the Nationalist/Republican experience of the troubles. I reckon that the show of solidarity from hundreds of thousands of people who protested the Bloody Sunday massacre and the burning of the British Embassy in Dublin scared the **** out of the establishment.

Conor Cruise O'Brien tried to use Section 31 to censor coverage of the troubles in Northern Ireland, which could have been seen as pro-nationalist, in papers such as The Irish Press; the editor, Tim Pat Coogan, published editorials attacking the Bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#The_Troubles

The shame of it, eh? God forbid anyone would allow the use of the Irish public airwaves to broadcast the Nationalist experience of day-to-day life in the thuggish sectarian state.

.jacksparrow.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

They're testament to the success of the establishment media's censoring of the Nationalist/Republican experience of the troubles. I reckon that the show of solidarity from hundreds of thousands of people who protested the Bloody Sunday massacre and the burning of the British Embassy in Dublin scared the **** out of the establishment.



The shame of it, eh? God forbid anyone would allow the use of the Irish public airwaves to broadcast the Nationalist experience of day-to-day life in the thuggish sectarian state.

And the propaganda machine is as strong as ever against republicans today.

In the eyes of the public every republican is a drug dealing scumbag, with absolutely no evidence provided.

The best weapon against republicans has always been the state controlled media.

FTA69

To be honest the act of disappearing someone is just wrong, regardless of whatever reasons the IRA thought they had for doing so at the time. If they felt it was important enough to shoot someone over, they should have at least stood over their actions. It's a bit low to kill someone for whatever reason and then decide you don't have the gumption to take responsibility for it; if you can't at least own up to the deed then don't do it in the first place.

Crooked Jack

FTA69 wrote: »

To be honest the act of disappearing someone is just wrong, regardless of whatever reasons the IRA thought they had for doing so at the time. If they felt it was important enough to shoot someone over, they should have at least stood over their actions. It's a bit low to kill someone for whatever reason and then decide you don't have the gumption to take responsibility for it; if you can't at least own up to the deed then don't do it in the first place.

In Voices From Beyond the Grave Brendan Hughes says a number of informers were 'disappeared' to save their republican families the shame of having to admit there was a tout in the family.
But yeah, I totally agree with you.

FTA69

Crooked Jack wrote: »

In Voices From Beyond the Grave Brendan Hughes says a number of informers were 'disappeared' to save their republican families the shame of having to admit there was a tout in the family.
But yeah, I totally agree with you.

I remember reading that and not really understanding it, surely "our Jimmy" is a known Volunteer in the area one minute and then never seen again the next minute; it doesn't take a genius to work out what happened and who the only people capable of disappearing someone are. McConville was killed for being an informer, and then they decided it would be bad publicity to claim her death. It was a bit cowardly to be honest, and ultimately it did them far more damage in the long run.

Crooked Jack

FTA69 wrote: »

I remember reading that and not really understanding it, surely "our Jimmy" is a known Volunteer in the area one minute and then never seen again the next minute; it doesn't take a genius to work out what happened and who the only people capable of disappearing someone are. McConville was killed for being an informer, and then they decided it would be bad publicity to claim her death. It was a bit cowardly to be honest, and ultimately it did them far more damage in the long run.

I dont know about that, it probably wouldnt have been that strange for people to go on the run and not be heard of for extended periods, but I completely agree with you, i only threw it out there because it popped into my head when I read your post.

Tramps Like Us

FTA69 wrote: »

I remember reading that and not really understanding it, surely "our Jimmy" is a known Volunteer in the area one minute and then never seen again the next minute; it doesn't take a genius to work out what happened and who the only people capable of disappearing someone are. McConville was killed for being an informer, and then they decided it would be bad publicity to claim her death. It was a bit cowardly to be honest, and ultimately it did them far more damage in the long run.

Perhaps there was a morale aspect to it, where these people were quietly dealt with as the IRA didn't want to demoralize or scare IRA volunteers, or prospective ones?

I agree that disappearing people was wrong but I am sure there was some logic behind it as touts had always been executed and their bodies dumped publicly and most IRA volunteers would have thought this was the best way to do things. Perhaps in McConvilles case it was because she was a woman - but men were disappeared too. But other touts turned up dumped on laneways like during the Tan war. It really is incomprehensible to me why they felt the need to hide the bodies.

No doubt they handled McConville wrong.

The McConville case is an excellent case study of state propaganda though, for many years it was repeatedly said she was killed for giving a British soldier a cup of tea/comforting a dying one when this was a lie. It was also never mentioned that her son was an IRA volunteer who was in jail... he later joined the INLA. Many point to it as something the "old IRA" would never do in their attempts not to be hypocrits, yet they did just that in the case of Mary Lindsay, yet you never hear that mentioned or that the OC involved went on to be senior in the Free State army and FF.

I think the British army must bare some of the blame for her death, they knew she was compromised, knew she was under close observation by the IRA knew what the consequences would be yet exploited her once again. Native agents have always been readily expendable assets for the BA/MI5

Manassas61

FTA69 wrote: »

To be honest the act of disappearing someone is just wrong, regardless of whatever reasons the IRA thought they had for doing so at the time. If they felt it was important enough to shoot someone over, they should have at least stood over their actions. It's a bit low to kill someone for whatever reason and then decide you don't have the gumption to take responsibility for it; if you can't at least own up to the deed then don't do it in the first place.

If they had any honor but there is a problem, they never had any honor. Cold blooded murderers who didn't give a sh*t who they murdered.

Crooked Jack

Manassas61 wrote: »

If they had any honor but there is a problem, they never had any honor. Cold blooded murderers who didn't give a sh*t who they murdered.

As ever, great contribution to the discussion Manassas61, plenty of food for thought there. Now off and do your homework.

Manassas61

Crooked Jack wrote: »

As ever, great contribution to the discussion Manassas61, plenty of food for thought there. Now off and do your homework.

You can't seem to stand the truth for some bizarre reason. As if you like the PIRA or something? I don't get what is controversial about saying the PIRA murdered many innocent people and had no honor.

LordSutch

The reality is Manassas61 that a massive amount of posters on boards.ie/politics openly support the PIRA and their past exploits, so much so infact that if a poll was conducted between supporting the Provo's in the Troubles Vs the security forces, the Provo's would win the poll by a large margin!

Painted Pony

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm always amazed at the amount of righteous folk on these threads that display an utter lack of understanding of life in the north on these threads.

The problem is not that Southerner’s do not understand Northerner’s, it is that (some) Northerner’s don’t understand what the IRA were about, or pretend not to. See below.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

They're testament to the success of the establishment media's censoring of the Nationalist/Republican experience of the troubles. I reckon that the show of solidarity from hundreds of thousands of people who protested the Bloody Sunday massacre and the burning of the British Embassy in Dublin scared the **** out of the establishment.

Exactly. Which goes to prove that most in the South did care about the plight of Northern Catholics. In addition to what you mention the FF government under Lynch fractured, precisely because of concern for them. The South was sympathetic to the plight of the oppressed in the North. They were not sympathetic to those who were subversives seeking to overthrow both states on this island, neither of which they recognised. In effect, they were enemies of the state. Oddly enough, some of us have a bit of trouble being warm and fuzzy to our enemies.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

The shame of it, eh? God forbid anyone would allow the use of the Irish public airwaves to broadcast the Nationalist experience of day-to-day life in the thuggish sectarian state.

Absolutely disgraceful! Imagine not allowing the avowed enemies of the state to use the apparatus of the state to help them subvert it. Sure didn’t Saddam make sure that Fox news could be received in every corner of Iraq. And I’m pretty sure Lord Haw-Haw got a Knighthood? :rolleyes:

(No doubt someone will be along to completely miss the point and remind us just how bad things were in the North!)

Banjo String

LordSutch wrote: »

The reality is Manassas61 that a massive amount of posters on boards.ie/politics openly support the PIRA and their past exploits,

I believe I've seen you post in support of the British army in a few threads L.S.

What's the problem?

LordSutch wrote: »

so much so infact that if a poll was conducted between supporting the Provo's in the Troubles Vs the security forces, the Provo's would win the poll by a large margin!

You should start a new thread with a poll, put that theory to the test.

It's a David/Goliath thing. Or perhaps some posters genuinely believe the Provos would never have existed, had the Brits not created them.

Karl Stein

LordSutch wrote: »

if a poll was conducted between supporting the Provo's in the Troubles Vs the security forces, the Provo's would win the poll by a large margin!

Probably because people are all too aware that the security services were players in the conflict and the lines between Loyalist murder gangs and the so-called security forces were rather blurred.

More here:

The Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman has identified police, CID and Special Branch collusion with loyalist terrorists under 31 separate headings, in her report on the murder of Raymond McCord and other matters.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0122/84836-mccordr/

Since the beginning of the current campaign the best single source of weapons (and the only significant source of modern weapons) for Protestant extremist groups has been the UDR.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/publicrecords/1973/subversion_in_the_udr.htm

The Glenanne gang was a loose alliance of Northern Irish loyalist who carried out sectarian attacks in the 1970s against the Irish Catholic and Irish nationalist [...] The gang included soldiers of the British Army, its Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), the Mid-Ulster Brigade of the illegal paramilitary Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) and some Ulster Defence Association (UDA) members. Former members have alleged it was commanded by British Military Intelligence and/or RUC Special Branch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenanne_gang

LordSutch

Banjo String wrote: »

I believe I've seen you post in support of the British army in a few threads L.S.

Correct Mr Banjo, I have always supported the security forces (BA,IA,Police,Gardai) in their struggle against the PIRA, INLA, UVF, UFF, etc.

The British army were a blunt tool against the Provo's, and thank God that they were effective most of the time, otherwise the Provo's would have murdered a lot more people. When I think of all the IRA bombs that were defused by the Royal engineers . . . . . .

Karl Stein

LordSutch wrote: »

I have always supported the security forces...

Did you support their collusion with loyalist murder gangs with their 85% civilian kill made up primarily of hundreds of innocent unarmed Catholics?

Let me guess.. those in the BA/UDR/RUC who colluded weren't true Ulster Scotsmen?

LordSutch

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Did you support their collusion with loyalist murder gangs with their 85% civilian kill made up primarily of hundreds of innocent unarmed Catholics?

Let me guess.. those in the BA/UDR/RUC who colluded weren't true Ulster
Scotsmen?

As I said, I have always supported the security forces (BA,IA,Police,Gardai) in their struggle against the PIRA, INLA, UVF, UFF, etc.

My full answer is already in post#27.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Sand wrote: »

TLDR

- They're made out to be victims because they were murdered.
- There is an unusual level of sympathy because human beings on some level empathise with families that are not able to bury their dead.
- The quality of the evidence can be demonstrated by the killers fear of openly acknowledging the killing or its reasons.
- Even if they were "informers" that's only a crime to terrorists - terrorists had no right to murder them.

And for one post, shouldn't you be posting something about what a United Ireland would look like or some similar nonsense? Or did even you guys get bored of that and decide to branch out in the Provo's own enforcement of Nacht und Nebel?

Sand wrote: »

Seeing as they were the victims of a murder rather than the perpetrators of it I think your question answers itself.

I actually feel physically sick after reading those two posts, filled as they are withy spurious claims that blacken the name of a child, murdered in cold blood, who cannot defend his name now, and seeking as they do to defend the child killers involved.

Karl Stein

LordSutch wrote: »

As I said, I have always supported the security forces (BA,IA,Police,Gardai) in their struggle against the PIRA, INLA, UVF, UFF, etc.

I have a simple question for you.

Do you condemn the BA/RUC/UDR for colluding with mass murderers of innocent unarmed people?