MI5/MI6 Northern Ireland

Adam9213

In your opinion were the Loyalist paramilitaries almost entirely controlled by the intelligence services?

When the Stevens inquiry were researching into loyalist paramilitaries they were researching around 500 members of loyalist paramilitaries and nearly every single one of them were informers/agents.

Nearly all of the high ranking loyalist agents were informers, probably all of the high ranking loyalists were informers but nearly all of them admit or were outed as being informers, some of these agents/informers are known to have carried out dozens of murders and anyone who knows anything about Northern Ireland knows it would be nearly impossible to carry out one murder without the intelligence services knowing it was going to happen.

It was the Pakistani daleks.

Adam9213

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was the Pakistani daleks.

You?

EmmetSpiceland

Adam9213 wrote: »

Nearly all of the high ranking loyalist agents were informers.

Sure about half of the highest ranking republicans were “informers“ too.

You could say both “sides“ were being bankrolled by the brits, to a certain extent.

Adam9213

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Sure about half of the highest ranking republicans were “informers“ too.

You could say both “sides“ were being bankrolled by the brits, to a certain extent.

Not at all, the republicans\IRA weren't anywhere at all infiltrated to the extent the loyalists were.

Lucy8080

There was no problem up north. The paramilitaries on both sides were so infiltrated by security forces that , in reality,the British were fighting the British.

Neither an Irish nationalist/unionist, republican/loyalist ever had much interest in violence.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There may be more than a smidgen of truth in the above (admittedly wild) speculation.

Fuascailteoir

The formal British forces targeted Republicans. They then used their proxies to target the family members of Republicans. Nothing sapped morale more than killing family members of Republicans from the mid 80s onwards. The epitome of a dirty war but the writing was on the wall then.

Adam9213

Lucy8080 wrote: »

There was no problem up north. The paramilitaries on both sides were so infiltrated by security forces that , in reality,the British were fighting the British.

Neither an Irish nationalist/unionist, republican/loyalist ever had much interest in violence.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There may be more than a smidgen of truth in the above (admittedly wild) speculation.

There were parts of the IRA which had almost no infiltration whatsoever and were attacking as good at the end of the troubles as as the start or even during the war of independence.

Lucy8080

Adam9213 wrote: »

There were parts of the IRA which had almost no infiltration whatsoever and were attacking as good at the end of the troubles as as the start or even during the war of independence.

"Almost no infiltration" ,in fairness, is not a resounding endorsement of any organisation.

fryup

Adam short for Adams ??

And we go and hire the man from the biggest colluding outfit as our police commissioner. Couldn’t make it up.

Adam9213

Lucy8080 wrote: »

"Almost no infiltration" ,in fairness, is not a resounding endorsement of any organisation.

Well during a 30 year guerilla war it would be impossible to have some brigades without any infiltration especially when you were living in the most militarised zone on the planet and coming up against some of the best intelligence services in the world, so almost no infiltration is quite remarkable.

bobbysands81

Of course there was no collusion by the Brits, they’re the good guys in all this.

It’s our fault we were colonised.

Kylta

The loyalist and the british state had the same interest so naturally with them it was hand in glove as they say.
Out of all the spys/informers I would've like to see steak knife brought to justice, that was a pure scumbag.

JohnnyFlash

People should read this book. The Provos were almost completely infiltrated by intelligence services by the end of the 80’s. At the very highest levels. Maybe even the highest level of all.

EmmetSpiceland

Adam9213 wrote: »

Not at all, the republicans\IRA weren't anywhere at all infiltrated to the extent the loyalists were.

Ah come on now, when half your senior members are in the pocket of “the enemy” you’re cause is fairly well compromised.

Sure even the republican’s “Witchfinder General” was a tout. He’d find out who the informers were directly from the brits, themselves.

Then he’d torture the poor bastards into confessing, they’d be shot, or “disappeared”, and he’d go off to collect the Queen’s shilling.

circadian

Look, Gerry, we get it. This whole staying home thing is boring for most of us but we're not heading onto boards to blow our own trumpets in a roundabout way.

You should go back to posting videos of yourself on twitter.

Adam9213

Replying to Johnny flash


They were highly infiltrated but not infiltrated to anywhere near that extent, if they were infiltrated to that extent by the 1980s as you as you say then how could they almost kill the PM and his entire war cabinet in a mortar attack in London in 1990s?

What that book refers to is the Belfast and Derry brigade which were almost entirely infiltrated, they barely killed any soldiers after the late 80s.

The only people they could manage to kill were innocent civilians like in the shankill fish shop bombing, two members of the IRA were going to kill the highest ranking members of the UDA or UVF I can't remember one of which was Johnny Adair (who happened to be an agent along with the others he was meeting) he was conveniently tipped off and was nowhere to be seen, It came out a few years ago an agent in the IRA was told to set the bomb to explode prematurely and it did it exploded and killed the bomber and a bunch of innocent civilians.

Mission accomplished for the security services their precious agents saved, a dead IRA man and widespread revulsion at the IRA for all the dead civilians.

eastie17

"Say Nothing" by Patrick Radden Keefe is also an excellent read

Serious amount of detail from the Boston College archive of interviews of all who were there on the Republican side, its specifically about the disappearance of Jean McConville but covers the hunger strikes and other notable events during that timeline.

Interesting allegations about Gerry and the hunger strikers and some deals that were allegedly available and some decisions that he allegedly made off the back of those offers that had significant consequences (vague enough?)

Adam9213

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Ah come on now, when half your senior members are in the pocket of “the enemy” you’re cause is fairly well compromised.

Sure even the republican’s “Witchfinder General” was a tout. He’d find out who the informers were directly from the brits, themselves.

Then he’d torture the poor bastards into confessing, they’d be shot, or “disappeared”, and he’d go off to collect the Queen’s shilling.

And? No substance to your point here apart from naming one informer, if they were so infiltrated how by the 90s were they still managing to assassinate politicians and almost kill the PM and his entire war cabinet in a mortar attack.

Do you know how much intelligence would be needed to be gathered for an operation like that, which was gathered and passed on high up in the IRA without the Brits knowing about it.

Adam9213

eastie17 wrote: »

"Say Nothing" by Patrick Radden Keefe is also an excellent read

Serious amount of detail from the Boston College archive of interviews of all who were there on the Republican side, its specifically about the disappearance of Jean McConville but covers the hunger strikes and other notable events during that timeline.

Interesting allegations about Gerry and the hunger strikers and some deals that were allegedly available and some decisions that he allegedly made off the back of those offers that had significant consequences (vague enough?)

Do you have to be vague?

Fuascailteoir

eastie17 wrote: »

"Say Nothing" by Patrick Radden Keefe is also an excellent read

Serious amount of detail from the Boston College archive of interviews of all who were there on the Republican side, its specifically about the disappearance of Jean McConville but covers the hunger strikes and other notable events during that timeline.

Interesting allegations about Gerry and the hunger strikers and some deals that were allegedly available and some decisions that he allegedly made off the back of those offers that had significant consequences (vague enough?)

The issue of adams and the hunger strikers never made any sense. The hunger strikers acting initially under sands were autonomous of the IRA in that they were doing so against the recommendations of the leadership and were told that the IRA would not cease activities outside the prison which they had done for the first one. Sands and the other hunger strikers were committed to that course of action. The IRA leadership could not force concessions from the British government and they did not.

Adam9213

Fuascailteoir wrote: »

The issue of adams and the hunger strikers never made any sense. The hunger strikers acting initially under sands were autonomous of the IRA in that they were doing so against the recommendations of the leadership and were told that the IRA would not cease activities outside the prison which they had done for the first one. Sands and the other hunger strikers were committed to that course of action. The IRA leadership could not force concessions from the British government and they did not.

It wasn't about concessions though really was it? It was about much more than that, psychological warfare would be the main one.

Adam9213

The British played the best psychological war game going, they would even pay people to give out false information to newspapers to influence the minds of the everyday person and to make people more against the IRA and against republicanism in general.

The Tetrarch

Getting the word informers four times into the opening post is impressive.
I never ever find the need to use the word.

Adam9213

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Getting the word informers four times into the opening post is impressive.
I never ever find the need to use the word.

Why would some guy sitting on his a** all day watching tv with no interest in world conflict ever find the need to use the word informer?

The Tetrarch

Adam9213 wrote: »

Why would some guy sitting on his a** all day watching tv with no interest in world conflict ever find the need to use the word informer?

Incorrect. I spend almost all my time on my PC writing programs.
Correct. I have no interest in conflict. I prefer peace.
Is the word informer you use so often people reporting criminal activity?

Adam9213

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Incorrect. I spend almost all my time on my PC writing programs.
Correct. I have no interest in conflict. I prefer peace.
Is the word informer you use so often people reporting criminal activity?

Yeah you prefer "peace" easy to say that sitting on your a** on your PC writing programs completely oblivious to what goes on in the world.

maccored

Adam9213 wrote: »

In your opinion were the Loyalist paramilitaries almost entirely controlled by the intelligence services?

When the Stevens inquiry were researching into loyalist paramilitaries they were researching around 500 members of loyalist paramilitaries and nearly every single one of them were informers/agents.

Nearly all of the high ranking loyalist agents were informers, probably all of the high ranking loyalists were informers but nearly all of them admit or were outed as being informers, some of these agents/informers are known to have carried out dozens of murders and anyone who knows anything about Northern Ireland knows it would be nearly impossible to carry out one murder without the intelligence services knowing it was going to happen.

The RUC put a stop to the Stevens inquiry. Blind eye and collusion.

The Tetrarch

Adam9213 wrote: »

Yeah you prefer "peace" easy to say that sitting on your a** on your PC writing programs completely oblivious to what goes on in the world.

You know everything about everyone.
And everything that goes on in the world.

Adam9213

The Tetrarch wrote: »

You know everything about everyone.
And everything that goes on in the world.

No but I at least try to be knowledgeable on what's going on or has gone on, rather than fooling myself about how much of a peaceful guy I am sitting in a first world country on my computer eating packets of crisps.