Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Stakeknife Arrested.

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,790 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Do not both trying to find quotes from the other 299,999. You missed the point, most security services were law abiding. Otherwise the statistics would have been a lot worse.

    'Most' IRA soldiers obeyed the law too and engaged with the British Army, only a few bad apples did stuff they shouldn't have. i.e. Kingsmill, Jerry McCabe etc.


    We can all play the 'bad apple' game.

    It is patently clear why the British do not want a Truth Commission. They want to continue to hide behind the charade that so many Irish sycophants and hat doffers want to believe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    'Most' IRA soldiers obeyed the law too and engaged with the British Army,

    Well, apart from the approx 650 civilians they murdered and thousands injured...

    The important thing was at the end of the Troubles, IRA members were afraid to go out on operations, because they didn't trust those they were sent out with not to be informers, or spies. According to reports in the media "Some former members of the IRA now wonder if there were more informers inside the Provos than actual committed members."
    It is patently clear why the British do not want a Truth Commission.

    Because the paramilitaries on both sides will never tell the truth? The leader of a major party for decades claims he was not in the IRA and most people do not believe him, for example.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,790 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    cycle4fun wrote: »




    Because the paramilitaries on both sides will never tell the truth? The leader of a major party for decades claims he was not in the IRA and most people do not believe him, for example.

    If you believe the reason that they won't do a Truth process is because they think somebody else wont tell the truth, you are delusional and in a minority of hundreds rather than hundreds of thousands.
    It is clear from what we know now that the British were up to their oxters in it.
    And more and more is to come.

    Polish up that deflection keyboard, you are going to need it


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Wheres Me Jumper?


    cycle4fun wrote: »
    Well, apart from the approx 650 civilians they murdered and thousands injured...

    The important thing was at the end of the Troubles, IRA members were afraid to go out on operations, because they didn't trust those they were sent out with not to be informers, or spies. According to reports in the media "Some former members of the IRA now wonder if there were more informers inside the Provos than actual committed members."

    it certainly looks like they were totally compromised toward the end, and didn't know who to trust. in effect they had no option but to surrender. the Brits allowed them a way-out in order to "retire" with some modicum of self-respect intact.
    from a military point of view, i think great credit must go to the SAS for their role in this.
    cycle4fun wrote: »
    Because the paramilitaries on both sides will never tell the truth? The leader of a major party for decades claims he was not in the IRA and most people do not believe him, for example.
    i agree, but i wouldn't be expecting total transparency and honesty from the Brits either. leopard spots etc. but i'm sure they will argue that the end justified the means. try telling it to the families of innocent people who were murdered by their friendly informants? it would require a moral contortionist to go along with such a line of reasoning imo.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,071 ✭✭✭user2011


    bonzodog2 wrote: »
    I'd always assumed it was Steak-knife until I saw it in print for the first time only a few months ago

    "Efforts by the British Ministry of Defence to silence Hirst led to a court injunction forbidding him to use or promulgate Scappaticci’s code name, ‘Steak Knife’. So instead he called ‘Scap’ ‘Stakeknife’ and the media followed suit. ‘Scap’s’ real code name though was ‘Steak Knife’."


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/blaze-at-palace-barracks-in-co-down-36553873.html

    Wonder if M15 bods were spotted running towards the blaze with boxes of documents? :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,097 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    cycle4fun wrote: »
    Until the plantations of America there was just one people there.

    Nope. Various tribes often with mutually unintelligible langauges, very different cultures and so on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,097 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    It is patently clear why the British do not want a Truth Commission. They want to continue to hide behind the charade that so many Irish sycophants and hat doffers want to believe.

    They were ruthless imperialist bastards everywhere, but when they came here they were very nice and stayed for tea.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,490 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    It is amazing who the PIRA and Sinn Fein were so compromised at the end. No wonder they sued for peace.

    Since then, the 'war' has been about image. Sinn Fein have done well in pullin the wool over peoples eyes but history will not be kind to them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,785 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    markodaly wrote: »
    It is amazing who the PIRA and Sinn Fein were so compromised at the end. No wonder they sued for peace.

    Since then, the 'war' has been about image. Sinn Fein have done well in pullin the wool over peoples eyes but history will not be kind to them.

    So the provos sued for peace and the UK govt even though they allegedly had them on the run said,'ok'.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    Correct, because the government representing the people always wanted peace. All governments do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,490 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    So the provos sued for peace and the UK govt even though they allegedly had them on the run said,'ok'.

    That is a simple way of putting it but yes, the British and Irish government were looking for a peaceful resolution to the conflict since Sunningdale.

    Remember, the goal of the PIRA was a United Ireland by military means, i.e. get the British to leave Ireland by force.

    The goal of the British and Loyalists was to stop that.
    When the PIRA stopped, the loyalists stopped as well (bar maybe the LVF under Billy Wright but he was killed off so that was that.)
    When the PIRA stopped, it was job done for the British and thus began the process of demilitarisation of the north.

    The PIRA failed and it took them a few decades to realise that it was never going to happen militarily for them. They dressed up a defeat like a victory when the IRA when on a permanent cease fire. A well oiled piece of modern marketing it must be said.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,757 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    If you totally ignore the billions of euros worth of damage they were inflicting in England of course


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,490 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    If you totally ignore the billions of euros worth of damage they were inflicting in England of course

    Proves my point, thanks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,785 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    markodaly wrote: »
    That is a simple way of putting it but yes, the British and Irish government were looking for a peaceful resolution to the conflict since Sunningdale.

    Remember, the goal of the PIRA was a United Ireland by military means, i.e. get the British to leave Ireland by force.

    The goal of the British and Loyalists was to stop that.
    When the PIRA stopped, the loyalists stopped as well (bar maybe the LVF under Billy Wright but he was killed off so that was that.)
    When the PIRA stopped, it was job done for the British and thus began the process of demilitarisation of the north.

    The PIRA failed and it took them a few decades to realise that it was never going to happen militarily for them. They dressed up a defeat like a victory when the IRA when on a permanent cease fire. A well oiled piece of modern marketing it must be said.

    So where does Gen Glover's assessment come into all this, as head of the UK land services, four years after Sunningdale, when he said, 'the provos will not be defeated militarily'


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    If you totally ignore the billions of euros worth of damage they were inflicting in England of course

    But most attacks were failing and they were running out of "volunteers".
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/terror-plot-foiled-as-two-ton-lorry-bomb-is-stopped-at-port-1413426.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,790 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    So where does Gen Glover's assessment come into all this, as head of the UK land services, four years after Sunningdale, when he said, 'the provos will not be defeated militarily'

    'e wuz a 'Bad apple'


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,490 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    So where does Gen Glover's assessment come into all this, as head of the UK land services, four years after Sunningdale, when he said, 'the provos will not be defeated militarily'

    They didn't have to defeat them militarily but back them into a corner and get peace terms. Terms totally acceptable to the British public who to be honest don't give a damn about NI.

    The overall aim of the British security forces was to stabilise the region and bring it back to normal, which they did.
    The overall aim of the PIRA was a UI by force which was a failure, all flag waving aside


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,790 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    markodaly wrote: »
    They didn't have to defeat them militarily but back them into a corner and get peace terms. Terms totally acceptable to the British public who to be honest don't give a damn about NI.

    The overall aim of the British security forces was to stabilise the region and bring it back to normal, which they did.
    The overall aim of the PIRA was a UI by force which was a failure, all flag waving aside

    I remember their aim was to never never negotiate with 'terrorists' but they were glad to and even quietly dropped their demand that they decommission before talks.

    Smacks of desperation to me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    So where does Gen Glover's assessment come into all this, as head of the UK land services, four years after Sunningdale, when he said, 'the provos will not be defeated militarily'

    Two points.
    (A) It is well known and documented "In considering a situation he would assess the worst possible case and plan accordingly to produce the best."
    (B) The IRA when he prepared his report (soon after taking over command in Northern Ireland in 1979) was a different IRA to the one in the 1990's.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,554 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


    Who ultimately won? I would say that the British did. They wanted an end to the war at almost any cost and they got their way.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,757 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    cycle4fun wrote: »
    But most attacks were failing and they were running out of "volunteers".
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/terror-plot-foiled-as-two-ton-lorry-bomb-is-stopped-at-port-1413426.html

    It only took one to do 700 million pounds of damage in Manchester.

    You know you're link also mentions the downing of a helicopter through a mortar attack in South Armagh right? Belfast was certainly compromised alright, I think Gerry Bradley reckons around 90% of operations were called off or foiled, but South Armagh was still operational, '93 was the time of the SA sniper.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    markodaly wrote: »
    They didn't have to defeat them militarily but back them into a corner and get peace terms. Terms totally acceptable to the British public who to be honest don't give a damn about NI.

    The overall aim of the British security forces was to stabilise the region and bring it back to normal, which they did.
    The overall aim of the PIRA was a UI by force which was a failure, all flag waving aside

    The British wanted peace too. City of London financiers weren’t too happy their nice shiny glass buildings didn’t stand up too well to cheaply manufactured fertiliser based bombs of which the IRA could have kept making and sending over.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    I remember their aim was to never never negotiate with 'terrorists' .
    You remember wrong, they quietly invited Gerry Adams and his comrades over to London in the early seventies in order to ask them to give up their armed struggle for a U.I.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,785 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    markodaly wrote: »
    They didn't have to defeat them militarily but back them into a corner and get peace terms. Terms totally acceptable to the British public who to be honest don't give a damn about NI.

    The overall aim of the British security forces was to stabilise the region and bring it back to normal, which they did.
    The overall aim of the PIRA was a UI by force which was a failure, all flag waving aside

    Thats all very well, but in 1989, Peter Brooke, Secretary of State for NI also said that he found it impossible to envision a Provo defeat. Hence the back channel contacts which began in the early 90s.

    Hardly the actions of a govt or army who have the opposition on the run.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    It only took one to do 700 million pounds of damage in Manchester.

    It only took 2 planes to make both twin towers collapse in 9/11. Your point being?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,757 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    cycle4fun wrote: »
    It only took 2 planes to make both twin towers collapse in 9/11. Your point being?

    That a high failure rate is acceptable when one success is so devasting


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    Thats all very well, but in 1989, Peter Brooke, Secretary of State for NI also said that he found it impossible to envision a Provo defeat. Hence the back channel contacts which began in the early 90s.

    Hardly the actions of a govt or army who have the opposition on the run.

    I think most people in '89 thought there would always be the odd off duty policeman being killed or whatever, same as every week or two there seems to be a gangland murder in Dublin now. It is difficult for governments to prevent all illegal activity all of the time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,097 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    markodaly wrote: »
    It is amazing who the PIRA and Sinn Fein were so compromised at the end. No wonder they sued for peace.

    .

    If they were fatally compromised, why would there be a peace process? Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
    markodaly wrote: »
    Proves my point, thanks.

    You don't thus far have one.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭cycle4fun


    Odhinn wrote: »
    If they were fatally compromised, why would there be a peace process?

    Because both governments wanted peace, same as they always did. The peace process was a way of achieving that.


Advertisement