The Winds Around Loughgall

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect. these innocent men were simply murdered for being irish.



the squaddy bigots were fully to blame for those innocent people being murdered for being irish. i can bet that any of them that may be still alive are the typical ukip style bigots who have contempt for the irish as much as other immigrants.



not as many as followed after the SAS murdered people for being irish. nothing near it. whatever their aim it ultimately failed, but then again long term failure is the BA in a nutshell.

Murdered for being Irish?

I'm guessing the Loughall gang were "martyred" not just for being Irish but also because they were packing 90kgs of semtex and carrying automatic weapons.

Look the Shinners can't have it every way, you can't say on the one hand it was a war and that the likes of that gang were on "active service" then complain when a unit gets it's arse spanked by in an ambush - things like that happen in war!

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

no no they were killed for being irish, of that i have no doubt. the only evidence of any supposed terrorist attack was from the rucba from all i could ever find on the event over the years.

What do you think the semtex in the digger bucket was for?

Maybe they were just taking it for a drive to buy it an ice cream:rolleyes:

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

the only evidence of any supposed terrorist attack was from the rucba from all i could ever find on the event over the years.

So you don't accept the evidence given at subsequent hearings in the ECHR, the footage of the aftermath etc.

And most bizarrely you don't accept the IRA's own statement afterwards that started with "8 Volunteers of the East Tyrone Brigade died on active service while launching an attack at Loughgall"

tomwaterford

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you don't accept the evidence given at subsequent hearings in the ECHR, the footage of the aftermath etc.

And most bizarrely you don't accept the IRA's own statement afterwards that started with "8 Volunteers of the East Tyrone Brigade died on active service while launching an attack at Loughgall"

The main controversy about this was

The police station was supposed to be empty when it was attacked (it was during a closed period for it-a easy target)

There's some evidence from statements that they drove up to it and drove off again upon seeing people still about....Obviously had a meeting and felt they would take the attack irregardless and kill the officers inside...so drove back circa 5 mins later and launched the attack...

The controversy being the sas put ruc members in the line of fire to carry out an ambush (admitedly to great sucess)

But there is further evidence to suggest (coroners report linked through pat finucine centre. ..but wholl accept that link?) that they took trophies from the dead from the dead



It is without doubt they were attacking the police station and we're cut down....but the stagedy of killing ira members while effective....also made it more lean as it had to adapt


A senior commander of the British said years later that it made the IRA more ruthless in rural areas...as they had killed the cowboys/naive types and unlike in Belfast and Derry where they'd strike to make the most headlines/news....around Tyrone and armagh especially they just wanted to kill/above doing damage....hence they would attack in middle of night or at any time

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

The main controversy about this was...

Oh I fully appreciate it was controversial, the whole shoot to kill policy, the allegations that some were executed as they surrendered etc.

And I'd go further and say I had no real issue with the IRA campaign on military installations or targets, and even the RUC. I regard events like Warrenpoint, Ballygawley etc. as completely different to, say La Mon.

But the claim that there was no IRA attack at all was just...bizarre.

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

Murdered for being Irish?

I'm guessing the Loughall gang were "martyred" not just for being Irish but also because they were packing 90kgs of semtex and carrying automatic weapons.

Look the Shinners can't have it every way, you can't say on the one hand it was a war and that the likes of that gang were on "active service" then complain when a unit gets it's arse spanked by in an ambush - things like that happen in war!

Jawgap wrote: »

What do you think the semtex in the digger bucket was for?

Maybe they were just taking it for a drive to buy it an ice cream

i wouldn't be surprised if the explosives and automatic weapons were planted. after all, murdering a few irish for being irish would have to be covered up. wouldn't be beyond impossibility where the SAS and or rucba would have been concerned.

tomwaterford

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh I fully appreciate it was controversial, the whole shoot to kill policy, the allegations that some were executed as they surrendered etc.

And I'd go further and say I had no real issue with the IRA campaign on military installations or targets, and even the RUC. I regard events like Warrenpoint, Ballygawley etc. as completely different to, say La Mon.

But the claim that there was no IRA attack at all was just...bizarre.

Aye....only look at the aftermath photos...it was blown up
1 of the men was found with the lighter still in his hand ffs and the IRA claimed responsibility for the attack and men who were cut down.....



But there's what they sign up for....it'll only end in a coffin or a prison cell....not a life for anyone to lead

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

the explosives and automatic weapons were probably planted. wouldn't be beyond impossibility where the rucba would be concerned.

Lots of things are not beyond impossibility - it doesn't make them probabilities;)

Even for you the above statement is bizarre - do you have anything that would suggest the Brits etc planted the explosives and weapons on the gunned "volunteers"?

And even if they weren't armed, and even if they didn't bring the semtex, what were the bulk of the IRA in that area doing in the town - meeting of the local committee?

tomwaterford

Jawgap wrote: »

Lots of things are not beyond impossibility - it doesn't make them probabilities;)

Even for you the above statement is bizarre - do you have anything that would suggest the Brits etc planted the explosives and weapons on the gunned "volunteers"?

And even if they weren't armed, and even if they didn't bring the semtex, what were the bulk of the IRA in that area doing in the town - meeting of the local committee?

It's not possible.....some were found in the aftermath with the guns beneath the rubble

IE they were gunned down before the bomb detonated???..
.

Is insulting to peoples intelligence to suggest they weren't on an attack?

Jawgap

tomwaterford wrote: »

It's not possible.....some were found in the aftermath with the guns beneath the rubble

IE they were gunned down before the bomb detonated???..
.

Is insulting to peoples intelligence to suggest they weren't on an attack?

I'm not suggesting they weren't on an attack - that's @EotR's ball of crazy!!

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

i wouldn't be surprised if the explosives and automatic weapons were planted. after all, murdering a few irish for being irish would have to be covered up. wouldn't be beyond impossibility where the SAS and or rucba would have been concerned.

Seriously?

And you think the IRA made up the statement about IRA activity and IRA members? Maybe the IRA was all constructed by the Brits as part of your plot to kill Irish people, fake terrorist organisations and non attacks to kill groups of Irish men who just happened to collide into a barracks wall with a JCB...

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously?

And you think the IRA made up the statement about IRA activity and IRA members? Maybe the IRA was all constructed by the Brits as part of your plot to kill Irish people, fake terrorist organisations and non attacks to kill groups of Irish men who just happened to collide into a barracks wall with a JCB...

the ira existed as it freed northern ireland from the jaws of sectarian rule which had been supported by britain, for which the majority are most greatful as the sectarian orange state had to go. britain createed the provisional ira via it's support of sectarian rule.

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

the ira existed as it freed northern ireland from the jaws of sectarian rule which had been supported by britain, for which the majority are most greatful as the sectarian orange state had to go. britain createed the provisional ira via it's support of sectarian rule.

You seem to be suggesting an "effect and cause" relationship!! Probably not strange in your world, but here in the real world it's not how it works!

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

the ira existed...

And their statement saying Loughgall was attacked by their volunteers...did that exist?

Why do you disregard the IRA statement about IRA members carrying out an IRA attack and claim that the only evidence of this came from RUC sources and it was a set up?

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

And their statement saying Loughgall was attacked by their volunteers...did that exist?

Why do you disregard the IRA statement about IRA members carrying out an IRA attack and claim that the only evidence of this came from RUC sources and it was a set up?

because given the aims of the RUC and BA to uphold sectarian rule and kill irish citizens where possible, and the tendantsy for groups to make statements in relation to eledged incidents to look good, nothing can be ruled out

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

because given the aims of the RUC and BA to uphold sectarian rule and kill irish citizens where possible, and the tendantsy for groups to make statements in relation to eledged incidents to look good, nothing can be ruled out

So, 'fake news' is your response?

......and this grand conspiracy......the lack of an attack, the planting of weapons, the circulation of fictitious statements......etc.......everyone in that conspiracy has managed to keep quiet over the last three decades? No talking to reporters? No memoirs? No internet postings?

......if that's the case then it must be unique among conspiracies!!

....are are you suggesting that perhaps the Shinners and the 'RA were content to collude with the British security establishment because the outcome of the operation / ambush at Loughgall played into both their respective narratives?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

because given the aims of the RUC and BA to uphold sectarian rule and kill irish citizens where possible, and the tendantsy for groups to make statements in relation to eledged incidents to look good, nothing can be ruled out

Your theory is that the IRA made statements to shore up this alleged British policy of killing as many Irish people as possible...you do know that it's complete fantasy and raving?

You also do those men a serious disservice, by denying them what they themselves would want, to be remembered for giving their lives on active service.

corner of hells

Deleted User wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

because given the aims of the RUC and BA to uphold sectarian rule and kill irish citizens where possible, and the tendantsy for groups to make statements in relation to eledged incidents to look good, nothing can be ruled out

Your theory is that the IRA made statements to shore up this alleged British policy of killing as many Irish people as possible...you do know that it's complete fantasy and raving?

You also do those men a serious disservice, by denying them what they themselves would want, to be remembered for giving their lives on active service.

I think EoTR might have passed out , Conor.

Yamanoto

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect. these innocent men were simply murdered for being irish.

I think you've outdone yourself there eotr, which is quite some feat to be fair.

timthumbni

end of the road wrote: »

no no they were killed for being irish, of that i have no doubt. the only evidence of any supposed terrorist attack was from the rucba from all i could ever find on the event over the years.

In next weeks episode eotr explains how years of his extensive research has caused him to believe that ww2 was faked in a Hollywood film studio and that hitler crash landed on the moon and lived out his days eating cheese (that the moon is made of) with elvis, lord lucan and Shergar.

JupiterKid

I remember the Loughgall ambush. It was ugly - but then so were the years 1969to 1998 in Northern Ireland. It was 30 years ago now, over a generation ago FFS! Ireland has since moved on.

horsebox1977

tomwaterford wrote: »

The main controversy about this was

The police station was supposed to be empty when it was attacked (it was during a closed period for it-a easy target)

There's some evidence from statements that they drove up to it and drove off again upon seeing people still about....Obviously had a meeting and felt they would take the attack irregardless and kill the officers inside...so drove back circa 5 mins later and launched the attack...

The controversy being the sas put ruc members in the line of fire to carry out an ambush (admitedly to great sucess)

But there is further evidence to suggest (coroners report linked through pat finucine centre. ..but wholl accept that link?) that they took trophies from the dead from the dead



It is without doubt they were attacking the police station and we're cut down....but the stagedy of killing ira members while effective....also made it more lean as it had to adapt


A senior commander of the British said years later that it made the IRA more ruthless in rural areas...as they had killed the cowboys/naive types and unlike in Belfast and Derry where they'd strike to make the most headlines/news....around Tyrone and armagh especially they just wanted to kill/above doing damage....hence they would attack in middle of night or at any time

This is somewhat correct.

The RUC stationed was unused and empty, however if the SAS put soldiers in it and came under fire from the IRA they would be allowed to open fire.

So they basically manipulated the situation to kill the men (including innocent civilians too, whereby an SAS man emptied a magazine into 2 men returning from work).

The SAS could of course have arrested all the IRA men but that would not go down well with Thatchers shoot to kill policy.

horsebox1977

To the OP,

You should know your audience.
This site has so many partionists, anti Republican West Brits, it's quiet unbelievable.

PowerToWait

horsebox1977 wrote: »

The SAS could of course have arrested all the IRA men but that would not go down well with Thatchers shoot to kill policy.

It also wouldn't have gone down well with IRA leadership who colluded and set them up. That Tyrone faction weren't playing ball, were known renegades and had to go.

BalcombeSt4

timthumbni wrote: »

A huge miscalculation..... hmmm maybe they should have let them murder their police targets and god knows how many more over the coming years. Luckily their own friends had given the game up and the sas were able to prevent many, many innocent murders by getting rid of these absolute terrorists.

You seem to have know clue about this incident. The IRA were not taregtting any police officers. As far as they knew the barracks was unmmaned, just like as it had been for the Birches station. I just showed you stats, the IRA's campaign was drecreasing before Loughgall not increasing. After Loughgall, the IRA killed killed 20 British soldiers in the summer of 1988. Thtough at the whole 1985 they managed to kill 2 soldiers.

All the SAS did was intensify the war, gave the Republican movement 8 new martyrs, the biggest show of Republican solidarity since the hunger strikes of 81, a whole new generation of recruits & helped loyalists target people like Pat Finucane. (Oh and they also shot dead two brothers on their way to work, great at saving life yea)

They may have saved some lifes, but almost certainly assisted & took part in cross border activity. And it's likely they have blood on their hands from innocent people of this state.

nacho libre

PowerToWait wrote: »

It also wouldn't have gone down well with IRA leadership who colluded and set them up. That Tyrone faction weren't playing ball, were known renegades and had to go.

I think it was Ed Moloney that suggested they were set up by an agent, who was- still is- a very senior figure in republican circles, as they were known hawks deeply opposed to what Gerry Adams was trying to do.

BalcombeSt4

nacho libre wrote: »

I think it was Ed Moloney that suggested they were set up by an agent, who was- still is- a very senior figure in republican circles, as they were known hawks deeply opposed to what Gerry Adams was trying to do.

For good reasom to, Adams since atleast 86 (maybe even earlier) clearly wanted an end to the war because he knew it was hitting SF political success, but in my view when he took control of the movement in 86 he shouldn have ended it then instead of lasting 10 more years of 100's of more people killing & dying just to give Adams some leverage.

Notice how it was the most active volunteers the "British" killed after 86, Jim Lynagh, Paddy Kelly, Dom Mchlinchy, Dessie Grew, Martin McChaughey, Tony Doris, Larry marley, Declan Arthurs, Padraig McKearney, Mairead Farrell, Kevin Barry O'Dennell, Pat McGeown etc

tomwaterford

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

For good reasom to, Adams since atleast 86 (maybe even earlier) clearly wanted an end to the war because he knew it was hitting SF political success, but in my view when he took control of the movement in 86 he shouldn have ended it then instead of lasting 10 more years of 100's of more people killing & dying just to give Adams some leverage.

Notice how it was the most active volunteers the "British" killed after 86, Jim Lynagh, Paddy Kelly, Dom Mchlinchy, Dessie Grew, Martin McChaughey, Tony Doris, Larry marley, Declan Arthurs, Padraig McKearney, Mairead Farrell, Kevin Barry O'Dennell, Pat McGeown etc

SF as an organisation only hap hazardly ran elections prior to 1986 to say it was electorally damaging is baffling


They ended the was because simply it was at stalemate....the british could never gain enough traction to defeat them militarily....nor could the ira in its then form deliver a knock out blow
There was enough arms,and members to continue indefinently. (this was its leverage)


Surly it stands to reason the more active members were...the more likely they were to be killed???



Alot of reasons why it ended also was....because likes of uvf and lvf through mini massacres were trying to drag it into full scale civil war....given what was happenibg in europe in civil wars at the time (bosnia etc)....they were wise not to follow them into the mire of massacres

Conto

By the late 1980's some within the Provisional leadership were intent on sabotaging the war. The arsenal they possessed was unprecedented in Irish revolutionary history. Bolstered by state of the art Libyan weapons, there was bold talk of a 'Tet Offensive' style onslaught which was intended to create liberated zones across the North. However it never came to fruition, with catastrophes such as that at Loughall used as examples of why an 'alternative' approach to armed struggle was needed, in other words a compromise/surrender. It is suspected by many former operatives that the Loughall martyrs were betrayed by a high level informer, as were many other Volunteers in the years that followed.

On the one hand you have the likes of Jim Lynagh who were preoccupied with escalating the war and you have others at leadership level who soon after were openly intent on running it down. Evidently there was not a genuine desire to escalate the war on the part of Adams and his cohorts, thus many more young volunteers were unknowingly fighting a lost cause and died needlessly. It all leaves a sour taste in the gob. Jim Lynagh and the Loughall slain wanted to break away from the Provos but reluctantly stayed put after the '86 split, it is logical that Adams and co. would have wanted such 'dissenters' out of the picture. The arsenal was acquired but it was never really put to use. In acquiring it perhaps they had to be seen to be stepping up the war given all the big talk from the likes of McGuinness at the '86 Ard Fheis.

end of the road

i don't really think they would have needed to "step up" the war anyway seeing as the mainland campaign was having an effect.