Was the Republican campaign justifiable?

From the posts on this forum so far, it's becoming increasingly obvious that Nationalists/Republicans have very little concrete to offer in opposition to the widely regarded narrative that the only parties fighting their self declared 'wars' were Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries with the security forces carrying out their UK State mandate to minimise loss of life and imprison those committing terrorist acts, whilst a political solution could be found.

The widely regarded narrative has always allowed for a small number of criminal acts having been committed by members of the security forces including collusion with loyalist paramilitaries on occasion.

This narrative is of no interest to Nationalist Ireland and especially Irish Republicans, because their political stance is to see 'the troubles' in the light of British Imperialism setting the two communities in Northern Ireland at each other's throats in order to maintain control over part of 'Ireland'. To this end they target their propaganda at the activities of the security forces. Given how few people were deliberately killed by the security forces without obvious just cause, it has always been a Republican propaganda imperative to link the security forces to Loyalist paramilitaries, despite the absurdity of those same security forces imprisoning over 10 000 Loyalists in UK jails.

It is a reflection of the low point that Irish Nationalism/Republicanism has found itself in that reference to The PIRA rarely appears linked to the historical Republican objectives of Irish independence and sovereignty, but only as some sort of freakish adjunct to 'The Civil Rights' movement. This extends to massaging and discounting PIRA 'military' successes - the reason the organisation was set up in the first place. It would appear that a civil rights narrative is now more acceptable to 'Nationalist' Ireland and SF as the acceptors of UK rule in Northern Ireland are more than happy to go along with this.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You have been presented with cold hard facts detailing the failures, collusion, incompetence, subversion and inability to be a civilian arbiter as regards your beloved 'security forces'.

Security forces that were nothing more than jumped up anti-Catholic militias and yet you continue to sing your fairy tale in the hope that it's incessant repetition will make it true.

You're an unashamed and deluded apologist for the failure of the statutory apparatus of NI to protect Catholics from 'the good old boys' when they sought equality.

The anti-Catholic militias you refer to as security forces were not referees. They were players in the conflict and there was only one team they had allegiance to.

Suck it up.

Once again, nothing more than the slavish repetition of none specific allegations. The lack of any qualitative evidence of widespread law breaking by any branch of the security forces stands out like a sore thumb.

God Bless America.

Nodin wrote: »

Stevens managed to get 94 convictions out of his inquiries, so something was going on.

Where's the detail on the 94 convictions?

Nodin said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/apr/17/northernireland.northernireland2


Sir John Stevens views on 'the troubles' appear to be those of a naive and incompetent fool - or else someone acting in a duplicitous role to lubricate the 'peace process' at that time. His only specific comments apply to Nelson who ended up in jail. The idea that The UDA needed Nelson to kill members of The Nationalist community is hilarious. Nothing else of substance appears in this newspaper article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/2954773.stm

There's even less of substance in this article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6286695.stm

RUC had agents inside UVF? Wow. They possibly got away with crimes as a result? Wow.

That's the nature of running agents inside any organised crime or terrorist gang. It's called a necessary evil in pursuit of the greater good.

None of this adds up to a row of beans and in no way conflicts with my views that law breaking within the security forces, was minimal. It takes place everywhere in the world.

Are you trying to do my job for me Nodin? LOL

Nodin wrote: »

He refers to them on page 15. I've no idea where theres an itemised list
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/special/2003/stevens/stevens.pdf

I'm afraid this figure includes Loyalist paramilitaries and others:

Stevens 1 was set up on 25th August 1989 following the leaking of security force intelligence by loyalists anxious to prove that they were targeting active republicans rather than innocent Catholics such as Laughlin Maginn, whose murder led indirectly to the investigation. In May 1990 a summary of Stevens’ report was published, which confirmed that collusion had occurred but concluded that it was not widespread or institutionalised. Although many of the documents leaked to the loyalists originated from police files, not a single police officer was charged. As a result of this investigation, 94 people were arrested, of whom 59 people were charged or reported to the DPP, resulting in 47 prosecutions and 183 convictions for separate offences. 32 UDA members were charged with 153 offences, 146 of which resulted in convictions. 11 UDR soldiers were charged with 15 offences, all of which led to convictions. In addition to these 43 people, three others were charged with involvement in Loughlin Maginn’s murder. British military intelligence agent Brian Nelson was also convicted of five counts of conspiracy to murder – but not the murder of Belfast lawyer Patrick Finucane – and other charges relating to terrorism.

http://www.birw.org/inquiries_PatrickFinucaneStevens3.html

Nodin wrote: »

Do please elaborate.


As the 'dirty work' was done by loyalists thats hardly suprising.

You're right - the 'dirty work' was done by Loyalists - and they didn't need someone to hold their hand whilst they were doing it and then arrest/jail them for it afterwords.

Chuck Stone said:

Was just talking to the folks there about the UDR seeing as it's all the rage in this thread at the moment.

There was an attempt by the British/NI authorities to recruit Catholics into the force but it didn't go well from the start.

It did go well at the start though. 18% of The UDR were RCs initially. Then the Republican propaganda and murders began...

My Mother, who lived in a mixed religion country area in County Derry, was telling me that some of the Unionists who she knew who joined the UDR were barely able to write their own names and were staunch anti-Catholics - ignorance and hate are a dangerous mix.

You'd know all about that. LOL

My Father who comes from the Bogside of Derry was saying that the push to recruit Catholics was viewed with suspicion by many and was seen as an attempt to divide the Catholic community.

By The IRA? LOL. Did Martin not like them? LOL

I have little doubt there were plenty of well-intentioned members of the unionist community in the UDR but it was doomed to become yet another Unionist militia because of some of the feeble minded anti-Catholic degenerates that were allowed to enroll.

Such lost opportunity.

By the way 'Chuck', The UDR were never a militia (American or otherwise) - they were a regiment of The British Army.

Dotsey wrote: »

??? you keep saying that to yourself and trying to convince yourself of it but that's severely wrong. For someone who has posted practically 24/7 in this thread your lack of understanding of the Troubles and of this period of Irish history is beyond belief, your complete tunnel vision and pro-British agenda you're pursuing is staggering. If it were left to people with your mindset there would never have been any type of peace in Ireland but thankfully there was people on both sides of the divide who could see the bigger picture and a way forward.

Prove it.

Nodin wrote: »

....evidently the did, going by the reports above.

You still haven't explained

How many cases of collusion are proven and if collusion did happen as many people think, there was thousands of Ulster patriots who joined the volunteers. The way Republicans go on about collusion is laughable because if it was as big as they say, many more Nationalists would have been killed and PIRA members.

The police was actually putting Ulster volunteers in prison.

realies wrote: »

From arming loyalist paramilitaries to directly encouraging UDA/UVF gunmen to target republican sympathisers to turning a blind eye to the sadistic torture and random murder of Catholics, collusion between the security forces and loyalists in Northern Ireland runs deep. Loyalist paramilitaries were effectively allies of British Army intelligence and the RUC, who viewed them as useful attack dogs in the war on Irish republicans and in terrorising and morally deflating Catholic/republican areas. At the same time, there were tensions between the British security forces and loyalists. The British pretty much held loyalists in contempt, and would rather not have worked with them at all. And of course, the authorities would arrest and imprison loyalist paramilitaries for periods of time, which helped to bolster the idea that Britain was a neutral arbiter in a ‘tit-for-tat’ conflict between two sets of mad Irishmen – loyalists on one side, and republicans on the other. In fact, as the evidence of collusion shows, the conflict was between the forces of the British state and their loyalist allies on one side, and republicans on the other.The way you and other posters go on here keith its as if you don't believe that it happened or that it was just small scale and yet you should know deep down that the Crown forces were on the unionist/loyalist side in this conflict.But you know all this anyway and it gets a bit pointless going on and on and on about it.

I never denied collusion. And frankly I don't blame people involved in collusion. Seeing your friends being blown apart and being attacked every day, it is enough to send anyone over the edge.

realies said:

From arming loyalist paramilitaries

Detail please...

to directly encouraging UDA/UVF gunmen to target republican sympathisers

Detail please...

to turning a blind eye to the sadistic torture and random murder of Catholics

Detail please...

collusion between the security forces and loyalists in Northern Ireland runs deep.

I think I've already proved that to be utter nonsense. But feel free to provide proof...

Loyalist paramilitaries were effectively allies of British Army intelligence and the RUC, who viewed them as useful attack dogs in the war on Irish republicans and in terrorising and morally deflating Catholic/republican areas.

You might be right there - but again, let's see some proof...

At the same time, there were tensions between the British security forces and loyalists.

Yes - 10 000+ Loyalists in jail probably made for difficult dinner parties!

The British pretty much held loyalists in contempt, and would rather not have worked with them at all.

Are you sure about that? - The contempt bit I mean...

And of course, the authorities would arrest and imprison loyalist paramilitaries for periods of time, which helped to bolster the idea that Britain was a neutral arbiter in a ‘tit-for-tat’ conflict between two sets of mad Irishmen – loyalists on one side, and republicans on the other.

Yes - they imprisoned over 10 000 of them.

In fact, as the evidence of collusion shows, the conflict was between the forces of the British state and their loyalist allies on one side, and republicans on the other.

Well, not really old boy. The best you can say is that The UK State got lucky with all those Loyalist volunteers.

The way you and other posters go on here keith its as if you don't believe that it happened or that it was just small scale and yet you should know deep down that the Crown forces were on the unionist/loyalist side in this conflict.

Sympathetic to the same goals perhaps realies...