Drive-by shootings by British Army in Northern Ireland

pO1Neil

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why are you not convinced the IRA carried outbtge Birmingham pub bombings?

Also, why were all those places bombed at the busiest time of day? The Warrington bombs (note plural) went off outside a MacDonald's on a Saturday lunchtime. What infrastructure or economic damage did that cause that would not have been caused at 3am on a Tuesday?

Well if they wouldn't have given warnings beforehand if they intended to cause harm to civilians. For example the US gave warnings to civilians that there would be airstrikes on Libya during the 1980's, obviously not intended to cause harm to ordinary people but they did & to plenty of them

Well the Birmingham bombs don't fit the pattern of IRA attacks. They had 5 years of experience of bomb attacks in N.ireland & never came close to the type of carnage seen in Birmingham. What ever you think of them they there not stupid, they would have known a bomb in crowed pubs of civlians would have created a huge anti-Irish backlash. I think it was Loyalists hell bent on creating that type of atmosphere.

But I'm opened mind & if you can prove me wrong I'm prepared to listen.

Fratton Fred

pO1Neil wrote: »

Well if they wouldn't have given warnings beforehand if they intended to cause harm to civilians. For example the US gave warnings to civilians that there would be airstrikes on Libya during the 1980's, obviously not intended to cause harm to ordinary people but they did & to plenty of them

Well the Birmingham bombs don't fit the pattern of IRA attacks. They had 5 years of experience of bomb attacks in N.ireland & never came close to the type of carnage seen in Birmingham. What ever you think of them they there not stupid, they would have known a bomb in crowed pubs of civlians would have created a huge anti-Irish backlash. I think it was Loyalists hell bent on creating that type of atmosphere.

But I'm opened mind & if you can prove me wrong I'm prepared to listen.

It makes no difference if they intended to kill people or not, they were still the targets. If they really wanted to avoid casualties, then why detonate bombs at the busiest time?

The Balcombe street gang claimed responsibility for the Birmingham bombs did they not?

K-9

pO1Neil wrote: »

Well if they wouldn't have given warnings beforehand if they intended to cause harm to civilians. For example the US gave warnings to civilians that there would be airstrikes on Libya during the 1980's, obviously not intended to cause harm to ordinary people but they did & to plenty of them

Well the Birmingham bombs don't fit the pattern of IRA attacks. They had 5 years of experience of bomb attacks in N.ireland & never came close to the type of carnage seen in Birmingham. What ever you think of them they there not stupid, they would have known a bomb in crowed pubs of civlians would have created a huge anti-Irish backlash. I think it was Loyalists hell bent on creating that type of atmosphere.

But I'm opened mind & if you can prove me wrong I'm prepared to listen.

I thought the IRA had always said Guildford was an IRA operation? Sure it played a big part in the fours release.

And just a friendly mod warning, it isn't for somebody else to prove a conspiracy theory about loyalists, the burden of proof is on you.

pO1Neil

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It makes no difference if they intended to kill people or not, they were still the targets. If they really wanted to avoid casualties, then why detonate bombs at the busiest time?

The Balcombe street gang claimed responsibility for the Birmingham bombs did they not?

Civilians were not the targets of the IRA, if they were the targets they would have intended to kill them.

No they did not claim responsibility for Birmingham. That was Guildford & Woolwich

pO1Neil

K-9 wrote: »

I thought the IRA had always said Guildford was an IRA operation? Sure it played a big part in the fours release.

And just a friendly mod warning, it isn't for somebody else to prove a conspiracy theory about loyalists, the burden of proof is on you.

Well they claimed responsibility for when other civilians were killed in operations why would they lie about Birmingham. Daith O'Connell said if a IRA Volunteer had carried out this attack he would subject to a court martial & executed & rightfully so. It makes no sense for the IRA's strategy to bomb a purely civilian target.

And yes Guildford was a military target they took responsibility for.

K-9

pO1Neil wrote: »

Well they claimed responsibility for when other civilians were killed in operations why would they lie about Birmingham. Daith O'Connell said if a IRA Volunteer had carried out this attack he would subject to a court martial & executed & rightfully so.

Well yes, it seems they denied it at the time but Joe Cahill and others later claimed it was an IRA operation, maybe not sanctioned at a high level, but there's a lot there to suggest it was.

Was Guildford claimed by the IRA at the time? Can't remember if a warning was given.

pO1Neil

K-9 wrote: »

Well yes, it seems they denied it at the time but Joe Cahill and others later claimed it was an IRA operation, maybe not sanctioned at a high level, but there's a lot there to suggest it was.

Was Guildford claimed by the IRA at the time? Can't remember if a warning was given.

I guess nobody can prove for sure whether it was a IRA operation or not. We'll probably never know who did it.

I'm not sure if they did straight away after Guildford (They considered Guildford a military target so there's a good chance they did claim it straight away) They certainly admitted it was them after Guildford four got done for it.

the IRA was the only military force who apologized for injuries to civilians after operations. Which is more that can be said for the regular BA or the blood thirsty SAS at Loughgall who shot a two civilian brothers in the head. And I wont even start on loyalists who considered a high number of dead Catholics in a operation a great success, like Dublin & Monagan the UVF claimed it was a huge success (yeah four dead babies & about a dozen young women a great success). Were the IRA would considered something even half as bad as that a complete disaster like Enniskillen.

ChicagoJoe

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It makes no difference if they intended to kill people or not, they were still the targets. If they really wanted to avoid casualties, then why detonate bombs at the busiest time?

The Balcombe street gang claimed responsibility for the Birmingham bombs did they not?

Did the British army claim responsibility for Dublin and Monaghan bombings, McGurk's bar etc or did they put the blame their loyalist friends as usual ?

pO1Neil

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Did the British army claim responsibility for Dublin and Monaghan bombings, McGurk's bar etc or did they put the blame their loyalist friends as usual ?

They put the blame on their Loyalist friends. McGurk's bar was done with the aid (and maybe members) of the Military Reaction Force, a undercover unit who operated with a license to kill who have been in the news lately linked to the death of other innocent Catholics. The MRF were finally put out of action by Brendan "Darky" Hughes & two of his units when they attacked the fronts the MRF was using. You can see Hughes telling Pete Taylor about in this documentary here at about 21 - 25 mins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=titIgKOXzRk

They didn't claim responsibility for the Dublin bombings but all the evidence suggests they did.

It's funny how the IRA get all the attention for civilian deaths when the Loyalists/British Army killed around twice as more of them than Republicans did.

K-9

pO1Neil wrote: »

I guess nobody can prove for sure whether it was a IRA operation or not. We'll probably never know who did it.

I'm not sure if they did straight away after Guildford (They considered Guildford a military target so there's a good chance they did claim it straight away) They certainly admitted it was them after Guildford four got done for it.

Can't find anything on it, but by omission it could well be that they did, it would stand out if they didn't.

I'm not sure they admitted they got the wrong people quickly, only when the Balcombe Street gang got arrested AFAIK.

pO1Neil

K-9 wrote: »

Can't find anything on it, but by omission it could well be that they did, it would stand out if they didn't.

I'm not sure they admitted they got the wrong people quickly, only when the Balcombe Street gang got arrested AFAIK.

Yeah but that's the fault of the British legal system not the IRA. All IRA members refused to recognize the legitimacy of the British or Irish courts.

K-9

pO1Neil wrote: »

Yeah but that's the fault of the British legal system not the IRA. All IRA members refused to recognize the legitimacy of the British or Irish courts.

What do you mean? That the IRA not stating that the police had the wrong people until the police had the actual culprits in custody was the fault of British legal system? The British legal and police system is at fault for the Bimingham Six and Guildford 4, not much it can do if the IRA feels it can't recognise it.

I'm not seeing the connection from what I wrote to your reply at all.

The gang admitted their involvement to the police, that the police did nothing with it is is their own fault, not the IRA's or indeed the British courts.

Nodin

pO1Neil wrote: »

............
It's funny how the IRA get all the attention for civilian deaths when the Loyalists/British Army killed around twice as more of them than Republicans did.

Funnier still how we're talking about it on a thread supposedly on the specific topic of BA killings.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

Funnier still how we're talking about it on a thread supposedly on the specific topic of BA killings.

A specific topic on a N.I. thread?

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

A specific topic on a N.I. thread?

True, true.

pO1Neil

K-9 wrote: »

What do you mean? That the IRA not stating that the police had the wrong people until the police had the actual culprits in custody was the fault of British legal system? The British legal and police system is at fault for the Bimingham Six and Guildford 4, not much it can do if the IRA feels it can't recognise it.

I'm not seeing the connection from what I wrote to your reply at all.

The gang admitted their involvement to the police, that the police did nothing with it is is their own fault, not the IRA's or indeed the British courts.

Yes, but the cases against the four, six & Maguire seven were so ridiculous anyone involved in law should have been able to tell these people were not the right people. It resembled Stalin's Soviet show trials they were so ludicrous.

Sand

Hmm, this was so quiet it slipped under the radar. Certainly didn't get the screaming headlines of the original claims back in November of last year.

Back in May of this year the PSNI indicated they had investigated the claims made in Panorama and found none of the men involved had admitted to any crime or being involved in any of the claimed incidents. I could and did tell you that months ago, of course. The deaths the claims are made over will be reviewed by the HET as part of its already assigned work but otherwise that's it.

There is some odd mentions around June 11th on Amnesty International and some Provo fansite (the phrase "RUC/PSNI" is used heavily...) about a perceived reversal of the decision. Apparently one of the families was going for a court ruling to force a judicial review of the case. The PSNI then apparently informed the family that a full investigation would take place, and that a DCI Hanna would lead the investigation.

That doesn't make it to the BBC, and I think they may have pulled a bit of a fast one...it turns out DCI Hanna was appointed to head the HET back in April, but that wouldn't have been clear in June when these stories came out. Or maybe there was no deliberate malice - it may have been the PSNI stressing there would be an investigation by the HET, and that being misinterpreted.

TL;DR: seems like in May the PSNI view was there was no crime admitted to in the documentary and the HET would review the case anyway as part of their normal work. When that wasn't good enough, they said there would be an investigation, led by DCI Hanna (....of the HET). Just saying the same thing in a slightly different way.

padma

Lets look at the case of Jim Bryson and Patrick Mulvenna, both shot dead while getting in to or out of a car I cant remember. In the programme it mentioned how Jim Bryson was a top target. Both Jim and Patrick were shot dead by assassins bullets. The army had a celebration the night they were shot, putting up their pictures in their barracks claiming the kill.. It never came out on the news that the British Army killed them. or Loyalists etc, but yet in the barracks they celebrated their deaths as proud as punch.

This speaks of an assassination by the British army, who everyone in the North at the time and in later years believed in the assassination squads due to certain killings where no one claimed responsibility. Remember the claims after every killing? Loyalist, Republican whatever. One of the reasons that people believed in these squads was because majority of these killings happened when they were not on active duty and when they were unarmed. on top of this in this particular case people believe the guns came from the direction of a watchtower over Ballymurphy.

I'm sure by now Sand, you can understand the PSNI have passed by lots of different investigations, have blazed over various aspects of the historical killings in the North for both Political and historical purposes. Everyone who knew these two chaps and those from the neighbourhood believe they were shot dead by the army.

This is just one incident, there is many more.

Sand

padma wrote: »

The army had a celebration the night they were shot, putting up their pictures in their barracks claiming the kill..

Were you there celebrating with them?

I'm sure the British didn't hold a minutes silence to commemorate the man's life and contribution to the peace process, but is that so surprising?

This speaks of an assassination by the British army

It speaks of big boy rules. Both men were Provo volunteers, happy to participate in a terrorist campaign to assassinate and bomb unarmed civilians. I see Ed Moloney and Bob Mitchell indicating a rare agreement between the Provos and the British Army when it came to Bryson:

“A controlled psychopath”, is how an IRA colleague described Bryson to one of the authors in 2001. “A cunning ruthless killer”, was the judgement of the Battalion Intelligence Officer with the Royal Green Jackets regiment

They lived by the sword, they died by it. In the hierarchy of victims during the troubles, they are somewhere near the bottom of the pile.

This is just one incident, there is many more.

You're right that there is many cases of British soldiers murdering civilians during the troubles. Which makes it odd you use the case of Bryson and Mulvenna, who were no innocent victims.

padma

Sand wrote: »

Were you there celebrating with them?

I'm sure the British didn't hold a minutes silence to commemorate the man's life and contribution to the peace process, but is that so surprising?



It speaks of big boy rules. Both men were Provo volunteers, happy to participate in a terrorist campaign to assassinate and bomb unarmed civilians. I see Ed Moloney and Bob Mitchell indicating a rare agreement between the Provos and the British Army when it came to Bryson:



They lived by the sword, they died by it. In the hierarchy of victims during the troubles, they are somewhere near the bottom of the pile.



You're right that there is many cases of British soldiers murdering civilians during the troubles. Which makes it odd you use the case of Bryson and Mulvenna, who were no innocent victims.

The case of both of them outlines the British Army had targets..and they pursued them. This was the whole purpose of this army within an army.. As for Jim Bryson and Patrick Mulvenna..both of whom are honoured in their communities as effective soldiers who helped protect the neighbourhood during the night internment was introduced and after the Ballymurphy massacre. They were one such target. Jim Bryson due to him braking from the prison shipand for fighting off 5 ruc men in a paddywagon..escaping and walking around Ballymurphy a wanted man with an armalite around his shoulder.

And Patrick Mulvenna .married to Gerry Adams sister and from an old Republican family etc..etc..

But what is important here is after the mrf did their show..why would they lie? What is their to gain from it? A bunch of guys who did what they did..are proud about what they did etc..it is plain that even you who is supportive of the unionist tradition want to deny them. Why? Whats wrong with what they did that you feel the need to pretend they never existed..

Being truthful..does it go against what you believe the British army to be about and therefore it shocks you or is it just an opportunity to paint the British unionist and loyalist side as men without reproach..if so now may be a good opportunity to realise there are two sides to the story of Ireland and both sides is what makes the culture and history of Ireland a fascinating lesson about achieving world peace and reaching across the divide illusion.

Sand

padma wrote: »

The case of both of them outlines the British Army had targets..and they pursued them.

Yes, and? Why is it shocking that the British army targeted terrorists? That's what happens in wars isn't it? Honestly, the Provo outrage at armed men shooting back at their heroes is mystifying to me.

But what is important here is after the mrf did their show..why would they lie? What is their to gain from it?

By all accounts the Official IRA was targeting Bryson as well at the same time, and claimed responsibility for killing him when news of his death broke - which was later withdrawn. The fallout led to bitter conflict between the Officials and the Provos. The British probably took the position of never interrupting an enemy when he is making a mistake. Having the Officials and the Provos at each others throat suited them.

Big boy rules like I said.

A bunch of guys who did what they did..are proud about what they did etc..it is plain that even you who is supportive of the unionist tradition want to deny them. Why? Whats wrong with what they did that you feel the need to pretend they never existed..

Nobody denies the MRF existed. The point of dispute is if they were a plain-clothes intelligence unit, or some sort of murder gang rampaging around NI carrying out drive by shootings. There is plenty of evidence for the former, none for the latter.

Being truthful..does it go against what you believe the British army to be about and therefore it shocks you or is it just an opportunity to paint the British unionist and loyalist side as men without reproach..if so now may be a good opportunity to realise there are two sides to the story of Ireland and both sides is what makes the culture and history of Ireland a fascinating lesson about achieving world peace and reaching across the divide illusion.

I point you to my earlier post:

You're right that there is many cases of British soldiers murdering civilians during the troubles.

I have no illusions about crimes committed by the British army in Northern Ireland. But in this particular case there is just a lot of heat, and no light. I'll need more than Provo accusations - the Provos are *notorious* liars and are engaged in a full scale effort to deny objective history, all to better suit their own current political agenda.

It is interesting for example that the mural for Bryson and Mulvenna was opened and controlled by Sinn Fein: Bryson would have been intensely hostile to the peace process. Sinn Fein cant allow figures like Bryson to sit outside their narrative in case they serve as martyrs or rallying points for dissidents. So instead they drag Bryson into their narrative, all carefully controlled and managed by them.

And you're right there are two sides to the conflict - you might try examining the other sides point of view some time.

padma

Okay, So now, you purport to know how a man who has been deceased for 40 years would feel about the current peace process? A provo, who lets be frank here was of a notorious unit who now all are a strong part of the peace process, and one of the many units within the provisionals who without them joining the peace process the ceasefire would probably never have happened.

The provisional movement were behind the ceasefire brokered on the 31st of August 94, I believe 21 years to the day on Jim Bryson and Patrick Mulvennas death, some even say it was an interesting date because of these two notorious Provos anniversary which is held every year.

I know of the Unionist movement, and have a respect for their tradition, however its not often we here of a respect for the Irish tradition and culture from Unionists although Gusty Spence seemed to have admired the IRA etc.. going so far as to say if he was born catholic he would have joined them etc, but this is not important, what is important would be if the British Government came clean about certain aspects of its conduct over the war and its collusion with certain groups within Ireland. even though the guys who claimed to have done what they done on behalf of the crown, drive by's etc, was admitted to by the British Government. Until the British Government open up their books on its policy and actions in Ireland no proof will ever be found.

You and I know this, so anything else, what we believe about death squads etc, whether from our own study of the conflict or what we heard from eyewitnesses etc is pointless until it all comes out. This is why personally I believe in a truth and reconciliation process, similar to South Africa. Also amnesty for past wrongdoings and so on and so forth.

As you and I know the British Army dont send their own to prison, even cases like the young lad who was slightly handicapped shot dead I believe in South Armagh for running away frightened. So truth and reconciliation is a key to building a lasting peace in Ireland.

Otherwise it boils down to who is right and who is wrong. The truth is both sides believe they were right and no matter how much you or I try to influence outsiders opinions in believing the other was wrong, it wont matter as those who were within the conflict and have lost family members have two choices either 1, learn to live with thy neighbour or 2, continue a war that no one wants or need, thankfully, Northern Ireland for the majority has chosen to learn to live with their neighbours.

There are some outstanding issues on the GFA and within time when they are ready I believe with proper logic coming into play it will happen.

Sand

padma wrote: »

Okay, So now, you purport to know how a man who has been deceased for 40 years would feel about the current peace process?

I think the people claiming Bryson - a very dangerous, very violent ultra militant who intimidated his colleagues - would have a Damascene conversion are the ones engaged in theorycrafting. Bryson in his own time had no time for politics...and his CO in the PIRA ( a certain G Adams...no wait, that's too obvious, Gerry A) had a very difficult time keeping him under control.

Saying he would have had no time for the peace process is taking his own views and actions on their merits. Claiming he would have...that's where you need to start using your imagination. So it's you purporting to known things you cant possibly know.

I know of the Unionist movement, and have a respect for their tradition, however its not often we here of a respect for the Irish tradition and culture from Unionists although Gusty Spence seemed to have admired the IRA etc..

I'm not sure I'd consider the IRA to be part of Irish tradition or culture.

what is important would be if the British Government came clean about certain aspects of its conduct over the war and its collusion with certain groups within Ireland.

Provos cant criticise the British for failing to come clean when Gerry Adams - Brysons commanding officer by all accounts - engages in farcical denial that he was in the PIRA.

And the British cant "come clean" to acts they have not carried out. Many of the rampant Provo accusations about "collusion" and "dirty war" are conspiracy theories. Nothing more.

Until the British Government open up their books on its policy and actions in Ireland no proof will ever be found.

What if they open up the books, and still no proof is found? Will that be taken as proof that the British altered the books or removed the evidence? That is the great thing about conspiracy theories...they are usually built with some get out clause to avoid confronting reality.

This is why personally I believe in a truth and reconciliation process, similar to South Africa.

Truth and reconciliation is pointless if only one side is expected to tell the truth - as noted above, Adams refuses to even acknowledge what is well known. The Provos are engaged in a huge conflict to rewrite the past and deny objective history.

If the Provos want truth and reconciliation, then they need to start telling the truth themselves. Most people experience *deep* cynicism when it comes to Provo's relentless fight to discover the truth about what their political enemies did.

As you and I know the British Army dont send their own to prison,

They do. Lee Clegg was convicted and jailed. See my point on truth and reconciliation - an important starting point is to stop feeding the untrue narrative and to instead deal with the facts.

Otherwise it boils down to who is right and who is wrong. The truth is both sides believe they were right and no matter how much you or I try to influence outsiders opinions in believing the other was wrong, it wont matter as those who were within the conflict and have lost family members have two choices either 1, learn to live with thy neighbour or 2, continue a war that no one wants or need, thankfully, Northern Ireland for the majority has chosen to learn to live with their neighbours..

I'm an outsider. Look at my location - I'm not from Northern Ireland. I'm not on a side in that place. I'm one of the outsiders looking in going "Jaaaaysus"

I'm criticising the wide eyed belief in claims about a secret British army death squad driving around carrying out drive by shootings. Because there is no evidence to support the wild claims. The PSNI have looked at it, and confirmed what I said months ago - nobody on the documentary admitted to any crime or wrongdoing. That didnt surprise me because I actually watched the documentary on an objective, factual basis. Truth and reconciliation requires the ability to weigh the evidence on what *is* true...not merely looking for evidence of what you *want* to be true. Provos have never demonstrated that they have *any* interest in a real truth and reconciliation process. Admitting what their shiny, suited leadership got up to back in the 70s and 80s might damage their current efforts to go mainstream in the Republic afterall.

Given its an Irish forum, Provo sympathisers are much more common here than Loyalists. I'm sure Loyalist forums are a joy to read, full of well balanced, well researched opinions. But I don't read them. Instead I see a lot of Provo threads full of well balanced, well researched opinions...

padma

you, my good man, are an interesting chap I do say, you on the one hand talk about how there is no proof the MRF carried out what they said they did, and at the same time seem to claim that Gerry A was there OC as if you have all the proof in the world he was the co at the time. Can you see, the two different things that are happening here with your thought on paper?

Sand

padma wrote: »

you, my good man, are an interesting chap I do say, you on the one hand talk about how there is no proof the MRF carried out what they said they did, and at the same time seem to claim that Gerry A was there OC as if you have all the proof in the world he was the co at the time. Can you see, the two different things that are happening here with your thought on paper?

I'm referring to the accounts of open PIRA members who openly acknowledge Adams as their OC within the PIRA. We know the SF leadership is packed with men with PIRA experience - McGuiness openly acknowledges his role in the Derry PIRA. Gerry Kelly is a convicted terrorist. Alex Maskey was involved with the PIRA and interned in the 1970s. He only got involved in politics in the 1980s. Martin Ferris was a member of the PIRA. And so on and so on...until Adams.

Adams is an odd character. After-all he managed to refuse to do anything about the abuse of his niece by his brother for decades. He refuses to do to acknowledge his role in the PIRA openly...instead we are asked to believe that the ultra violent, ultra militant hard men of the PIRA followed the lead of a non-member who never engaged in militant activity. Despite PIRA members (your heroes) indicating Adams was a high ranking member of the PIRA.

Can you see why your idea of a "truth and reconciliation" process will never be treated with more than contempt when Adams and the Provos expect us to swallow that crap? If Provos are honestly committed to the truth, then they need to start telling the truth themselves.

padma

It just went over your head didnt it.

So some people who were anti the peace process claimed that he was in the PIRA etc..etc..its not a big deal..people claim whatever they want for whatever purposes..however the point of this thread is about what the MRF claimed or confessed to on tv.

Sand

padma wrote: »

It just went over your head didnt it.

It went over yours...

So some people who were anti the peace process claimed that he was in the PIRA etc..etc..its not a big deal..people claim whatever they want for whatever purposes..however the point of this thread is about what the MRF claimed or confessed to on tv.

What did I say about the Provos campaign to control the past and rewrite history? Anti the peace process...that's like being a counter-revolutionary isn't it?

As for what was confessed to on TV - the answer is clear: No crime was confessed to on TV. Anyone could have told you that back in November. The PSNI confirmed it in May. The HET will look at the cases as part of their normal work - if they turn anything up it will be released. The end.

padma

What you say is what you believe..i disagree with your analysis. What the guy confessed to is what he confessed to. The PSNI have their agenda..as do the HET. And you.

Are you calling the confessionist a lying scumbag? Or do you believe him? I believe him. As do others on this thread..the only ones who dont believe him seemed to be those who have an interest to keep up a face of some sort of British morality on the conduct of their system.

So..do you believe him? Or is he another dirty lying scumbag..i mean why would he say what he said..have u gave that serious thought..and please no more talk about how you hate IRA terrorists crap..

Sand

Do you believe him when he says Patrick McVeigh, John and Gerry Conway, Aiden McAloon and Eugene Devlin, Joe Smith, Hugh Kenny, Patrick Murray and Tommy Shaw
Daniel Rooney and Brendan Brennan were "hardcore baby-killers, terrorists, people that would kill you without even thinking about it....killers themselves, and they had no mercy for anybody."?

Do you believe him when he says ""We didn't go around town blasting, shooting all over the place like you see on the TV, we were going down there and finding, looking for our targets, finding them and taking them down,"?

Either you accept the guy is reliable and legit...or you don't. I'll help you out though - you will never find a quote from Panorama where any of them actually say "*I* shot an unarmed civillian" or "*I* saw X shoot an unarmed civillian". All you'll find is rambling bollocks where they talk about how they terrorised the IRA and won the war single handed...

padma

I believe him when he says the tactics they used was to wipe out targets, terrorize catholic communities, drive by street barriers and fire shots, make people afraid and so on so forth. Thats what I believe, I do not believe in his beliefs or ideology, simple really, so, do you believe that or do you believe his ideology etc.