Drive-by shootings by British Army in Northern Ireland

tdv123

junder wrote: »

The clmc was a loose confederation of the loyalist paramilitaries and certainly did not ' command' anyone. It was little more then a talking shop

Sean Grahams, Greysteel, Loughinislands massacres were all coordinated by the CLMC with members of the UDA & UVF working together in incidents. They were also responsible for the intelligence passed on to the INLA to rub out Billy Wright because they didn't want it to look there was gaps in the Loyalist structure. If you don't know any of that I'm afraid your look at the conflict with orange tinted glasses

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

Sean Grahams, Greysteel, Loughinislands massacres were all coordinated by the CLMC with members of the UDA & UVF working together in incidents. They were also responsible for the intelligence passed on to the INLA to rub out Billy Wright bI ecause they didn't want it to look there was gaps in the Loyalist structure. If you don't know any of that I'm afraid your look at the conflict with orange tinted glasses

Since I am loyalist I would say I have considerable more insight into my community then you can ever have. No doubt on very very rare occasions the UVF and UDA where able to put aside petty grievances to act together, but as I said they where rare. As for the clmc and Billy Wright, now your just going into the realms of tin foil hats

tdv123

junder wrote: »

Since I am loyalist I would say I have considerable more insight intomy community then you can ever have. No doubt on very very rare occasions the UVF and UDA where able to put aside petty grievances to act together, but as I said they where rare. As for the clmc and Billy Wright, now your just going into the realms of tin foil hats

No offense attended mate but like I said earlier your looking at it with orange tinted glasses.

Their tactics, objectives & targets were the exact same their was no (except in name only) difference between them until the drugs war broke out in the late 90's. They were basically just branches of the BA used to take out revenge attacks on Catholics when ever the the BA got attacked by Republican guerrillas. Even the British themselves described them as nothing more than glorified gangsters getting rich of terrorism.

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

No offense attended mate but like I said earlier your looking at it with orange tinted glasses.

Their tactics, objectives & targets were the exact same their was no (except in name only) difference between them until the drugs war broke out in the late 90's. They were basically just branches of the BA used to take out revenge attacks on Catholics when ever the the BA got attacked by Republican guerrillas. Even the British themselves described them as nothing more than glorified gangsters getting rich of terrorism.

Now you really have got the tin foil hat on, oh and FYI, I don't wear glasses

tdv123

junder wrote: »

Now you really have got the tin foil hat on, oh and FYI, I.don't wear glasses

So now your argument has deteriorated into insults?

CLMC would be like the 5 families of New York. They work independently from each other on stuff like drug dealing but the leaders have to make big decisions about war together. The UVF would be like the Luchcese family & UDA would be like the Gambino family.

The IRA were actually fighting a war with political goals they'd be more comparable to the Viet Cong or French Revolutionary Army.

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

So now your argument has deteriorated into insults?

CLMC would be like the 5 families of New York. They work independently from each other on stuff like drug dealing but the leaders have to make big decisions about war together. The UVF would be like the Luchcese family & UDA would be like the Gambino family.

The IRA were actually fighting a war with political goals they'd be more comparable to the Viet Cong or French Revolutionary Army.

Que the violins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWqKPWO5T4o&feature=youtube_gdata_player. Really what planet are you on, if you want a discussion then try using facts and not fantasy. The loyalist paramilitaries where not some mafia type familes headed by some sort of dons but individual fiefdoms headed by whoever was the local commander, who generally got his position through being more ruthless then the next guy, much like your vaunted IRA regardless of thier so called ASU's. Ironically the closest comparison are the old gealic watches of this Islands ancient history

tdv123

junder wrote: »

Que the violins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWqKPWO5T4o&feature=youtube_gdata_player. Really what planet are you on, if you want a discussion then try using facts and not fantasy. The loyalist paramilitaries where not some mafia type familes headed by some sort of dons but individual fiefdoms headed by whoever was the local commander, who generally got his position through being more ruthless then the next guy, much like your vaunted IRA regardless of thier so called ASU's. Ironically the closest comparison are the old gealic watches of this Islands ancient history

That information is coming from the mouths of senior British figures. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6276416.stm

If you know more now than British army officials why are you not working for MI5? Or maybe that's what your doing here lol :pac:

Billly McKee & the provos defeated any army credentials the UVF might have had after they were humiliated at the Battle of Short Strand. After that the only way the UVF could compete was through gangsterism.

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

That information is coming from the mouths of senior British figures. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6276416.stm

If you know more now than British army officials why are you not working for MI5? Or maybe that's what your doing here lol :pac:

Billly McKee & the provos defeated any army credentials the UVF might have had after they were humiliated at the Battle of Short Strand. After that the only way the UVF could compete was through gangsterism.

Wow you got me, after so many years posting on this site, I have been uncovered, I am an MI5 spy. As for 'the battle of short strand'

tdv123

junder wrote: »

Wow you got me, after so many years posting on this site, I have been uncovered, I am an MI5 spy. As for 'the battle of short strand'

Trying to blame the killings all on the PIRA classy. Had the loyalist death squads & there supporters not tried to set about another pogrom on the Catholic minority like they did in bombay street in 69 there would be no battle. The PIRA can't be blamed for people getting caught in the crossfire the blame squarely lies on the UVF & there tens of thousands of supporting rioters.

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

Trying to blame the killings all on the PIRA classy. Had the loyalist death squads & there supporters not tried to set about another pogrom on the Catholic minority like they did in bombay street in 69 there would be no battle. The PIRA can't be blamed for people getting caught in the crossfire the blame squarely lies on the UVF & there tens of thousands of supporting rioters.

Bombay street?
http://malachiodoherty.com/2009/08/12/the-pogrom-myth/

padma

It would be well worth your while to read the debate in the comment section on that piece to sway your leanings.

Karl Stein

junder wrote: »

Bombay street?
http://malachiodoherty.com/2009/08/12/the-pogrom-myth/

Yeah Bombay street.

Horrible isn't it Junder when your crowd get shown up for the murderous ethnic cleansers they were.

Shame on you.

tdv123

junder wrote: »

Bombay street?
http://malachiodoherty.com/2009/08/12/the-pogrom-myth/

Sure if the UVF say it's a myth it must be true.

Bombay Street was there then the Loyalists came & then it was gone & 1500 people were left homeless, 9 killed & scores injured. But obviously those BBC reporters are just trying to demonize the UVF :rolleyes:

I guess Bloody Sunday & Ballymurphy are myths as well are they?

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

Sure if the UVF say it's a myth it must be true.

Bombay Street was there then the Loyalists came & then it was gone & 1500 people were left homeless, 9 killed & scores injured. But obviously those BBC reporters are just trying to demonize the UVF :rolleyes:

I guess Bloody Sunday & Ballymurphy are myths as well are they?

Sorry I thought malachi was a respected journalist not a member of the UVF, you learn something everyday

tdv123

junder wrote: »

Sorry I thought malachi was a respected journalist not a member of the UVF, you learn something everyday

With books titled "I was a teenage Catholic" as if it were some sort of crime to be a Catholic teenager he clearly has a chip on his shoulder.

Anybody trying to defend pogroms clearly has an agenda. I don't deny or try to defend atrocities like kingsmill or teebane they happened & so did the bombay pogrom.

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

With books titled "I was a teenage Catholic" as if it were some sort of crime to be a Catholic teenager he clearly has a chip on his shoulder.

Anybody trying to defend pogroms clearly has an agenda. I don't deny or try to defend atrocities like kingsmill or teebane they happened & so did the bombay pogrom.

Since malachi was a teenage catholic, what's the issue about writing a book about being a teenage catholic, clearly he has insight on the subject matter, just because he doesn't parrot the usual republican propaganda doesn't make his opinion any less valid

tdv123

junder wrote: »

Since malachi was a teenage catholic, what's the issue about writing a book about being a teenage catholic, clearly he has insight on the subject matter, just because he doesn't parrot the usual republican propaganda doesn't make his opinion any less valid

When he starts defending pogroms & massacres it does make it less valid. I used to be a Catholic as well I don't run around preaching that they all deserved to be burned out of their houses.

Peter Taylor is a good journalist who has written several books on the conflict & done a series on the 3 different view points & no biased favoring.

junder

tdv123 wrote: »

When he starts defending pogroms & massacres it does make it less valid. I used to be a Catholic as well I don't run around preaching that they all deserved to be burned out of their houses.

Peter Taylor is a good journalist who has written several books on the conflict & done a series on the 3 different view points & no biased favoring.

I didn't see him defending any massacres or pogroms. In fact the only person who has in anyway defended or justify and terrorist actions is yourself and even when you do admit to any wrong doings on the part of republicans you always attempt to shift the blame to ' criminal' acting with out authority. Will lets look at an event where authority was allegedly given

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/martin-mcguinness-ordered-murder-of-census-worker-fresh-allegations-from-ira-supergrass-raymond-gilmour-29994313.html

I can pretty much guess your response

Sand

@tdv123

I'll give you an example. If the they IRA did something like Dublin & Monaghan bombings were the UVF (possible British intelligences) goals was to create as much dead bodies as possibles The IRA strategy was to economic & financial damage slaughter innocent people.

See, you making unsupported statements like that doesn't make them true. Lets say I was to respond: "The IRA strategy was to slaughter innocent people". Then we have two opposed *opinions*

Everyone has an *opinion*. Both are equally valuable so we end up with a circular "Is-Is'nt-Is-Is'nt-Is..." argument which is slightly less useful than a dog chasing its tail - at least the dog is having fun.

How we progress is that we examine the *evidence*.. When you say if the IRA did something like the Dublin & Monaghan bombings it makes me wonder if you are completely unfamiliar with the IRA bombing campaign. Seriously, are you familiar with the work of the Provisional IRA? I'm getting the sense that you're quite young and are only familiar with the shiny, scrubbed, friendly Uncle Gerry Adams Sinn Fein.

You heard of the Birmingham 6 and Guilford 4? I'm sure you have as a (very valid) example of flawed British (in)justice. But are you aware that the IRA *did* indeed bomb those pubs - killing 26 people and wounding 247 just out having a pint in Birmingham and Guilford - it was just the wrong people imprisoned for it? And then you say *if* the IRA did something like the Dublin and Monaghan bombings...

Look - you have an opinion. Examine the evidence. If you struggle to support your opinion with evidence, then maybe you should review your opinion.

Name one attack the the Army Council sanctioned on civilians?

Uh, all of them?

Name the Provisional IRA men tried and imprisoned by the Army Council for the Birmingham and Guilford pub bombings.

Yes it [forced suicide bombing] did actually & disguised many Republicans & helped the Provos loose support which they needed.

And yet the strategy was pursued for several years in many different attacks. With no significant loss of IRA support - sure, some might have had troubled views on the tactic. But it didn't endanger their support then. Or yours even today. You complained that the loyalists enjoyed support even despite horrendous attacks and atrocities - do you appreciate now how some could be troubled by Loyalist terrorist attacks but still support them?

It's puzzling to me because there was *always* an alternative to those horrendous attacks and atrocities. If people really were as bothered by those attacks as you claim why didn't they withdraw support for the Provos and Loyalists and instead turn to peaceful political action? For whatever reasons they preferred tit-for-tat killings and murder over talking and compromise, and it took 30-40 years of bloodshed before even the most depraved were exhausted. And even now "dissidents" on all sides still want more blood.

You seem to place a lot of weight in the unified loyalist command structure - seemingly the loyalist terrorist groups were a monolithic bloc, all taking orders from HQ under strict discipline - do you think the IRA army council approved or did not approve those attacks on civilians? If they did approve - you have your answer for the above question about the council approving attacks on civillians. If they did not approve, why do you think the nominally unified loyalist command structure was more effective at controlling and directing the actions of many different groups?

It's that a joke hardly anybody complies with the Geneva covnention anymore if they can get away with it. It was a war. It was low intensity guerrilla warfare. There the Army of the of Irish Republic.

Well, they could get away with it in the ranks of the self described "Army of the Irish Republic". By the way - its actually an insult to the Irish army for a gang of thugs who carry out no-warning pub bombings to declare themselves the army of the Irish republic and sneer at the Geneva Conventions.

Also, you seem to be sneering at Bobby Sands too. He starved himself to death for the right to be treated as a prisoner of war. But you think that's a joke?

Also - if there was a war, do you think it was okay for British Army soldiers to drive around Belfast and Derry randomly murdering civilians? After all, it was a war, wasn't it? **** happens, right?

@Nodin

If you can find a quote of mine that supports the deliberate targeting of civillians, I'd like to see it please .

Well, I actually said X, and you're playing the old game of "Prove Y, else X is disproved"

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

@Nodin


Well, I actually said X, and you're playing the old game of "Prove Y, else X is disproved"

You seem to be playing the Tony Blair trick of mentioning Al Qaeda in one sentence and Saddam in the next, then denying you've conflated the two.

You might address the points I've raised with regards the actual issue now and again.

Sand

@Nodin

Fairly ironic thing to say really.

Here is what I said:

Now, when it comes to "our" side deliberately targeting civillians, I get told "Well, it was a war, **** happens".".

Here is what you said.

If you can find a quote of mine that supports the deliberate targeting of civillians, I'd like to see it please .

I was accusing Provos of hypocrisy, of being terribly interested in killings by the "other side" but being completely disinterested in the victims of "their side". Civilian deaths are absolutely unacceptable acts that only a vile, murderous group would cause, unless it was the IRA that carried out the attack - in which case, civilian deaths are an unfortunate reality of war, mourned by the IRA more than any. This thread is proof enough.

Of course I wouldn't accuse posters here of supporting attacks on civilians. As already established, no poster supports attacks on civilians - they just support groups which consistently and deliberately attacked civilians for decades. Very different things. They feel "troubled" that the group they support carried out these acts which they don't support, but they somehow find the inner strength to carry that cross. A very complex amorality.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

@(...............)complex amorality.

More blather.

Are you going to address the points I've raised with regards the actual issue at any stage in the future?

Sand

What points? What is the "actual issue" to your mind?

I can see from your posts on this thread that you're desperate to try portray the conflict in Northern Ireland as just one more occasion of post colonial policing. There is three problems with that: firstly it betrays a European centric/arrogant interpretation of national struggle. Malaya, Cyprus, Burma, Kenya, Aden. Shure, they're all just the same in that they are not "us". Different and distinct, just like all the others.

Secondly, unlike in Malaya, Cyprus, Burma, Kenya, Aden the "imperialists" didn't go home. Rightly or wrongly, after 400 years, they are home. *They* are not the minority, they are the majority in that corner. On the plus side - they are mainly drawn from Scotland. Scotland is called Scotland, not Pictland, because of the Irish. The Scots have been renowned as "hard men" in Ireland since medieval times - they were imported as mercenaries by Irish Gaelic lords because they could be trusted to fight to the death for their king. Irish kings could rely upon them far more than they could upon their own family (interesting fact - at the time of the Norman invasion, the High King of Ireland was engaged in a life and death struggle with his grandfather, father, brothers, uncles and nephews - Gaelic inheritance laws were a Darwinian disadvantage). And they like a pint, just as much as we do. Plenty of common ground to be shared if you can just climb out of the trench you've dug yourself into. There is plenty of humour and friendship to be found in what is different.

EDIT-I have to add to this point: My family name is definitely Gaelic. "Real" Irish. All the way back to the good old medieval days. I don't have to struggle with translating anglo names like Smith into some more nationalist friendly bull**** like "Fhuinneog O'Smithigh-Trying-Too-Hard". But then, the family names of the "planters" who were also Gaelic weren't trying too hard either. When the IRA - like all nationalist movements - ask me to divide Irish people into "real" Irish and "not real" Irish, who ask me to divide people into victims and valid if unfortunate targets, I have to wonder what I am supposed to make of people who have family names which are clearly English or Saxon in origin but who would be offended if I were to describe them as anything other than Irish. Quite frankly - the definition of "Irish" has moved on since the 16th century. Tony Cascarino is proof enough of that. Move on.

EDIT2 - I was also amused by my own mothers bemusement when she visited Scotland recently. She exclaimed that all the local place names seemed to be in Irish. I had to explain to her that they seemed to be in Irish because they were in Gaelic - a shared language because the first "imperialism" was Ireland -> Pictland = Scotland. Unfortunately, the gits were like a boomerang. They came back. With a humourless dry ****e religion.

The third point is that you acknowledge my actual point -that Provos are hypocritical in their hysterical view of the dead in the conflict. You are unable or unwilling to contest that, so you attempt to misdirect onto grounds you feel more comfortable on - NI, as just one more post-colonial battlefield. Just like Kenya. Right.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Sand wrote: »

Provos are hypocritical in their hysterical view of the dead in the conflict.

Fancy that, propaganda eh? It wasn't used as a tactic before the Troubles came along then?

actual soldiers try not to put bombs in pubs, shops, homes etc.

'Actual soldiers' through the availability of better delivery systems, had a nasty habit of dropping bombs (from 4lb magnesium incendiaries to nuclear warheads) from a great height on to pubs, shops, homes etc.

junder

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Fancy that, propaganda eh? It wasn't used as a tactic before the Troubles came along then?



'Actual soldiers' through the availability of better delivery systems, had a nasty habit of dropping bombs (from 4lb magnesium incendiaries to nuclear warheads) from a great height on to pubs, shops, homes etc.

Eh? Nuclear warheads in northern Ireland , care to back that up or is it just hyperbole

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

What points? What is the "actual issue" to your mind?

I can see from your posts on this thread that you're desperate to try portray the conflict in Northern Ireland as just one more occasion of post colonial policing. There is three problems with that: firstly it betrays a European centric/arrogant interpretation of national struggle. Malaya, Cyprus, Burma, Kenya, Aden. Shure, they're all just the same in that they are not "us". Different and distinct, just like all the others..

It would be nice if you actually read what I added.....I was comparing the methods of the British army, who employed the same methods and often the same personnel in these various theatres.

Sand wrote: »

Secondly, unlike ...................ya. Right.

That has nothing to do with what I posted.

Nodin

junder wrote: »

Eh? Nuclear warheads in northern Ireland , care to back that up or is it just hyperbole

He's referring to the usual notion that the factory manufactured, quality controlled explosive munition - when delivered by a professional state force - is somehow a nobler beast than that cooked together in Paddys back yard.

Godge

Charles Rocher wrote: »

The numbers are the numbers. Take it up with CAIN if you think they're wrong.

Incorrect.

The PIRA killed about 650 civilians.

152 of which were unintended targets.
34 of which were contractors for the BA.
19 of which were alleged criminals and drug dealers
8 Protestant civilians during street disturbances (probably attacking Nationalist areas.

Let us look at the numbers you provide. The numbers you account for add up to 213 (152+34+19+8) which means that the IRA deliberately targeted and killed 437 (650-213) uninvolved civilians according to your numbers.

Charles Rocher wrote: »

Because when it comes to out-and-out blood lust for killing civilians the percentages tell us who went after soft targets who were unlikely to shoot back and who went after the armed apparatus of the sectarian statelet.

.

No, the perecentages tell us nothing. If one group killed 10 people in total, 8 of whom were innocent civilians, they would have an innocent civilian rate of 80%.

That would be much more than the IRA yet in any sane world the IRA were the killers and terrorists.

Sand

Still no update on the investigation into the MRF ninja death squad roaming Northern Ireland, despite 6 months passing. Seemed to be an open and shut case given the headlines. And the book publicised by the show cant be doing all that well - its been withdrawn from Amazon with one customer review that doesn't sound too positive

Having read the manuscript notes for this book, and being an Armed Forces Veteran myself, I look forward to seeing this book denounced in the press and the author hauled before the courts.

Don't believe a word of it!

Still, prophets are despised amongst their own aren't they? And I still expect this to pass into "fact" amongst certain circles.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Still no update on the investigation into the MRF ninja death squad roaming Northern Ireland, despite 6 months passing. Seemed to be an open and shut case given the headlines. And the book publicised by the show cant be doing all that well - its been withdrawn from Amazon with one customer review that doesn't sound too positive



Still, prophets are despised amongst their own aren't they? And I still expect this to pass into "fact" amongst certain circles.

An anonymous armed forced veteran denounces it? Well that's me disabused of any notion I had.

It's amazing how you can fail to place the last piece of the jigsaw if you refuse to look at all the other pre-assembled pieces.