M15 asked UVF to Assasinate Haughey while PM

J Mysterio

Hard to believe it's true, but seems to be:

English Independent

recedite

The UVF letter said they believed the MI5 plot was designed to destroy the Irish economy

Its hard to see how the UVF could have done a better job of this than aul Charlie himself.
Maybe that's the real reason they left him in place in 1985. By 1987 he had pretty much tanked the economy all by himself.

Sidey

recedite wrote: »

The UVF letter said they believed the MI5 plot was designed to destroy the Irish economy

Its hard to see how the UVF could have done a better job of this than aul Charlie himself.
Maybe that's the real reason they left him in place in 1985. By 1987 he had pretty much tanked the economy all by himself.

*sigh*
Garret FitzGerald was Taoiseach of an FG/Lab government from 1982-87.

The British didn't like Haughey in 1985 because he was opposed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Honestly, can we have some rudimentary basic knowledge of history and politics before people post on, ya know, the politics forum? Just a thought.

tomwaterford

Somewhat suprised noone has seen fit to comment on content of this

This letter Virtually confirms collusion beyond any doubt (the fact attacks by uda/uff rocketed in years after uvf turned down being mi5 plaything aswel)


Shows mi5 wished to use agents to launch biological warfare on the free state (and people will still say Britain is irelands friend at this time??)




Also gives some credence to the long held conspiracy that older people held in relation to fleas being into the free state and during war of independence and the late 40/early 50s as the free state sought outside help/international pressure to end partition

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

Somewhat suprised noone has seen fit to comment on content of this

This letter Virtually confirms collusion beyond any doubt (the fact attacks by uda/uff rocketed in years after uvf turned down being mi5 plaything aswel)


Shows mi5 wished to use agents to launch biological warfare on the free state (and people will still say Britain is irelands friend at this time??)




Also gives some credence to the long held conspiracy that older people held in relation to fleas being into the free state and during war of independence and the late 40/early 50s as the free state sought outside help/international pressure to end partition

These leaked papers also says martin mcguiness lured a provo to his death and gerry adams set up the loughnall 8.

So can we finally admit gerry was in the ira tom?

wes

How is this not a bigger deal? The mind boggles.

I don't get why the UK is given a free pass for there support for terror in this country.

tomwaterford

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

These leaked papers also says martin mcguiness lured a provo to his death and gerry adams set up the loughnall 8.

So can we finally admit gerry was in the ira tom?

I've never said he wasnt in the IRA .


....but yes let's gloss over planned biological warfare attacks on the free state by the British and plans by them to wreak our economy


.....and instead concentrate on gerry adams

Arthur Daley

wes wrote: »

How is this not a bigger deal? The mind boggles.

I don't get why the UK is given a free pass for there support for terror in this country.

Indeed. Didn't even make the bbc or sky tv news. Too busy reporting on new years honours for minor celebs, and Maggie refusing to allow a panda on board her Concorde to Washington. There should be questions in the Dail and Westminister next week over these alarming revelations.

wes

Arthur Daley wrote: »

There should be questions in the Dail and Westminister next week over these alarming revelations.

I hope that will happen, and that this isn't just dropped and forgotten about.

Seth Brundle

It's strange how the UVF turned it down. Why? Presumably they would have been assisted by MI5 so why not do it?
UVF bull?

Arthur Daley

Apparently Gusty Spence referred to the plans to assasinate an Irish politician that were turned down by the UVF/UFF somewhere in Peter Taylor's loyalists documentary during the late 90s. Peter Taylor pushed Spence on who this was but he wouldn't give the name. Would seem to tally with this now.

tomwaterford

kbannon wrote: »

It's strange how the UVF turned it down. Why? Presumably they would have been assisted by MI5 so why not do it?
UVF bull?

We killed 17 men on information supplied by British intelligence [but] MI5 were double crossing us all the time we were working with them."

Letter also confirms the uvf were backed up SAS at times and the British supplied the bomb to attack miami showband


How this hasn't been picked up by media and just ignored as a non issue is breathtaking

murphaph

tomwaterford wrote: »

Letter also confirms the uvf were backed up SAS at times and the British supplied the bomb to attack miami showband


How this hasn't been picked up by media and just ignored as a non issue is breathtaking

Because an anonymous letter is not proof of anything. I bet if the "uvf" letter had stated that there was never any collusion with the security forces that you wouldn't be so quick to accept its bona fides.

Sidey

kbannon wrote: »

It's strange how the UVF turned it down. Why? Presumably they would have been assisted by MI5 so why not do it?
UVF bull?

The UVF were seen by northern nationalists, in the latter stages of the conflict anyway, as the slightly-saner of the two main Loyalist groups, they saw themselves as inheritors of the legacy of the original UVF from 1912 and paid some sort of lip-service at least to having a code of conduct, rules of war etc. Mostly bull**** in practice of course, but at least there was some sort of vague notion of honourable conduct. The UDA on the other hand.....

If the letter is genuine it seems by 1985 the UVF were aware the British were using them to do their dirty work for them and were growing tired of being patsys. From this period on they focused their attacks much more on SF and IRA personnel and less on civilians; in contrast the UDA/UFF went on a major indiscriminate killing spree for the next 10 years, being responsible for events like the Milltown Cemetary attack, the killings of Pat Finucane and Eddie Fullerton the Ormeau Rd and Oldpark bookie's massacres, the Greysteel massacre etc. The UDA/UFF weren't banned until 1991!

tomwaterford

murphaph wrote: »

Because an anonymous letter is not proof of anything. I bet if the "uvf" letter had stated that there was never any collusion with the security forces that you wouldn't be so quick to accept its bona fides.

Tbh I think the risks associated with using paramilitaries name and claiming to speak for them....gives it credence


(afaik pira killed/banished out of ireland several people over this very issue...issuing threats in its name....I assume loyalists do likewise)



Have you anything to suggest it's all falsehoods?

bilbot79

I think in these times of relative peace it's best not to stoke the fire regardless of whats happened.

What's done is done and what's won is won.

murphaph

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbh I think the risks associated with using paramilitaries name and claiming to speak for them....gives it credence


(afaik pira killed/banished out of ireland several people over this very issue...issuing threats in its name....I assume loyalists do likewise)



Have you anything to suggest it's all falsehoods?

No but that does not imply a word of it is true. You asked why the media aren't all over this like a rash and I'm telling you it's because there's no proof if any of it is even true.

If the media want to investigate and see if they can dig up some facts the they might have something more to report.

As it is the media has done its job, otherwise we would not even be aware of this letter's existence.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

No but that does not imply a word of it is true. You asked why the media aren't all over this like a rash and I'm telling you it's because there's no proof if any of it is even true.

If the media want to investigate and see if they can dig up some facts the they might have something more to report.

As it is the media has done its job, otherwise we would not even be aware of this letter's existence.

There has never been any proof about Gerry Adams either but the media have been all over him like a rash for 40 years in fairness or any republican, allegations are made against.

RTE's prime political radio show (SOR) has no plans to even cover it on his first show back today.

Shedbebreezy

3 days old and less than 20 comments. If it was the other way around there would be thousands. Barely a mention in the media either. Crazy

tomwaterford

Shedbebreezy wrote: »

3 days old and less than 20 comments. If it was the other way around there would be thousands. Barely a mention in the media either. Crazy

It's astonishing and blantent coverups ....imagine If the ira had gotten it's hands on antrax and it emerged they were actively approaching its members to deploy it in the 6 counties or London? ?


For those interested in equality and fairness and open reporting the saving grace appears to be that survivors of the miami showband massacre don't appear willing to let this lie

FrancieBrady

tomwaterford wrote: »

It's astonishing and blantent coverups ....imagine If the ira had gotten it's hands on antrax and it emerged they were actively approaching its members to deploy it in the 6 counties or London? ?


For those interested in equality and fairness and open reporting the saving grace appears to be that survivors of the miami showband massacre don't appear willing to let this lie

Like Bloody Sunday it will be the persistent calls of families and individuals that will uncover Britain's part in the conflict/war. You only get Taoisigh doing photo ops on the Dail steps if you are an alleged victim of one side etc etc.

tomwaterford

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like Bloody Sunday it will be the persistent calls of families and individuals that will uncover Britain's part in the conflict/war. You only get Taoisigh doing photo ops on the Dail steps if you are an alleged victim of one side etc etc.

To give varadkar credit where it's due....if there is any Taoiseach who's been half descent in relation to the national interest In the 6 counties in my lifetime it's him



It would take extraordinary levels of self delusion for anyone to deny exiatance of collusion now (but the threat of biological attacks on the free state by British was a suprise to me even..and it shouldn't have been)

....rte or tv3 should approach the leadership of both the uda and uvf for interviews and comments in relation to this....there good enough to give dissidents a voice at times

FrancieBrady

tomwaterford wrote: »

To give varadkar credit where it's due....if there is any Taoiseach who's been half descent in relation to the national interest In the 6 counties in my lifetime it's him



It would take extraordinary levels of self delusion for anyone to deny exiatance of collusion now (but the threat of biological attacks on the free state by British was a suprise to me even..and it shouldn't have been)

....rte or tv3 should approach the leadership of both the uda and uvf for interviews and comments in relation to this....there good enough to give dissidents a voice at times

Of all Taoisigh I am not really suprised to see the image obsessed Varadkar climb on this politically expedient bandwagon.
As long as he gets kudos for it, it will continue. But I am as yet unconvinced that the welfare of those living in northern Ireland is his prime interest.

tomwaterford

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of all Taoisigh I am not really suprised to see the image obsessed Varadkar climb on this politically expedient bandwagon.
As long as he gets kudos for it, it will continue. But I am as yet unconvinced that the welfare of those living in northern Ireland is his prime interest.

Wheter it's expident or not....varadkar is accumulating some dangerous enemies..


.by actually looking to stand upto gaurds corruption and messing,aswell as perusing nationalist interest in the 6 counties.....he is either bravest or most naive Taoiseach in generations


I really hope he pulls the British up over this and the "missing" documents on there side

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

It's astonishing and blantent coverups ....imagine If the ira had gotten it's hands on antrax and it emerged they were actively approaching its members to deploy it in the 6 counties or London? ?


For those interested in equality and fairness and open reporting the saving grace appears to be that survivors of the miami showband massacre don't appear willing to let this lie

I would guess that the anthrax threat removed any credibility the letter might have had.

Reads to me that a parmilitary group concerned about growing links between the Irish and British governments wrote a letter of falsehoods in an attempt to sow division. They were hardly writing it out of a sense of altruism towards the South.

FrancieBrady

tomwaterford wrote: »

Wheter it's expident or not....varadkar is accumulating some dangerous enemies..


.by actually looking to stand upto gaurds corruption and messing,aswell as perusing nationalist interest in the 6 counties.....he is either bravest or most naive Taoiseach in generations


I really hope he pulls the British up over this and the "missing" documents on there side

Could just be as likely that Varadkar is having a pop at the DUP with May's blessing though.
May needs the DUP but she also needs to keep them under pressure and where better than from Dublin.

Some Irish Taoisigh have form in kowtowing to British PM's, read Jack Lynch's 'sorry to be annoying you' telephone call to Heath transcript after Bloody Sunday for signs of that.

We shall see how committed Leo is to his new course in time.

James Brown

wes wrote: »

How is this not a bigger deal? The mind boggles.

I don't get why the UK is given a free pass for there support for terror in this country.

They are the best at PR. Look at the royals ffs.

Creol1

murphaph wrote: »

No but that does not imply a word of it is true. You asked why the media aren't all over this like a rash and I'm telling you it's because there's no proof if any of it is even true.

If the media want to investigate and see if they can dig up some facts the they might have something more to report.

As it is the media has done its job, otherwise we would not even be aware of this letter's existence.

No-one is saying there is conclusive proof it is true. But then again whoever wrote the letter was hardly going to include photo ID and proof of address with the letter to verify their identity.

What is undeniable is that there is a prima facie case for the British authorities to answer. The letter was on headed paper and signed off as "Capt W Johnston", which was how the UVF signed off; the letter was taken very seriously by the Dept of Taoiseach; and the letter would fit with our knowledge of the collusion that took place. All of these factors mean that there is plausibility of the letter being genuine, demanding further investigation and answers from the British Government.

As far as I am aware, there has been no comment and no denial from the British Government, nor has there been any comment or denial from the UVF or their political wing, the PUP.

Charles Haughey was a detestable individual, but it is not about the individual; for another country to assassinate the prime minister of our country is to strike at the very heart of the State.

We must be conscious of the fact that MI5 and MI6 in the 70s and 80s, and to a certain extent today, were a law unto themselves. Harold Wilson came to the belief that elements in MI5 were plotting against him, and we know now this was not without foundation. If elements in MI5 were willing to scheme against their own prime minister, then what scruples can we expect them to have had against the prime minister of another country, especially someone seen as an enemy on account of his opposition to the war with Argentina?

I don't know what the truth is in this case and what the answers, but we are not going to get answers unless we start asking the questions.

blanch152 wrote: »

Reads to me that a parmilitary group concerned about growing links between the Irish and British governments wrote a letter of falsehoods in an attempt to sow division. They were hardly writing it out of a sense of altruism towards the South.

If that was their intention, surely they would have written the letter when Fitzgerald was taoiseach, because it was he who enjoyed good relations with MT. Haughey's return to office in '87 was always going to see relations go south given his troubled relationship with MT, so there would hardly have been a need.

Wheeliebin30

Creol1 wrote: »

No-one is saying there is conclusive proof it is true. But then again whoever wrote the letter was hardly going to include photo ID and proof of address with the letter to verify their identity.

What is undeniable is that there is a prima facie case for the British authorities to answer. The letter was on headed paper and signed off as "Capt W Johnston", which was how the UVF signed off; the letter was taken very seriously by the Dept of Taoiseach; and the letter would fit with our knowledge of the collusion that took place. All of these factors mean that there is plausibility of the letter being genuine, demanding further investigation and answers from the British Government.

As far as I am aware, there has been no comment and no denial from the British Government, nor has there been any comment or denial from the UVF or their political wing, the PUP.

Charles Haughey was a detestable individual, but it is not about the individual; for another country to assassinate the prime minister of our country is to strike at the very heart of the State.

We must be conscious of the fact that MI5 and MI6 in the 70s and 80s, and to a certain extent today, were a law unto themselves. Harold Wilson came to the belief that elements in MI5 were plotting against him, and we know now this was not without foundation. If elements in MI5 were willing to scheme against their own prime minister, then what scruples can we expect them to have had against the prime minister of another country, especially someone seen as an enemy on account of his opposition to the war with Argentina?

I don't know what the truth is in this case and what the answers, but we are not going to get answers unless we start asking the questions.



If that was their intention, surely they would have written the letter when Fitzgerald was taoiseach, because it was he who enjoyed good relations with MT. Haughey's return to office in '87 was always going to see relations go south given his troubled relationship with MT, so there would hardly have been a need.

It was a war. A dirty war

People died on both sides.

Political members died on the British side.

Why is anyone surprised a country will do whatever it feels necessary to protect it's people from terrorists no matter how wrong it seems.

Seth Brundle

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

It was a war.

No it wasnt. It was terrorist thugs on both sides who decided for themselves to kill and injure. Neither side had a mandate from the public.
If you lived there and publicly disagreed with them you ran the risk of losing your life.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

A dirty war

Are there clean wars?

J Mysterio

Discussing this on Newstalk with Miami Showband survivor now.