Collusion - The truth comes slowly

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309
Seeing how all the brits are probably drunk at this hour may I pre-empt their responses.

pages 1-10 will be strong denials of any collusion.

Pages 10-20 will be full of celebration of the murders followed by "ach, so what sher. it was only fenian tea eggs they were killing"
Page 2 will have republican MOPEry.
 


CastleRay

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
9,162
Johnny Adair was the leader of the West Belfast UFF and he was arrested by the RUC and jailed for sixteen years. Just one example of many.
Adair was arrested and convicted on a new charge of Directing Terrorism, simply because they couldn't infiltrate his grouping with agents or in other words they couldn't "collude" with him to prevent his murderous campaign. This charge was never used on the Provo leadership mainly because collusion was producing results in winning the war on their terrorism from within.
 

eoghanacht

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
32,410

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309
At state sanctioned murder, imagine that!
Here we go again. Because the word collusion was wrongly used in the report we now have these idiots claiming that there was state sanctioned murder.
 

friendlyfire

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
2,517
Without a doubt it was state sanctioned,the truth is in the report...
Despite being linked by intelligence in the importation of these weapons, senior members of the UVF, UDA and Ulster Resistance were not the subject of police investigation. Given the gravity of the conspiracy and the impact of that the importation has had on so many lives, this decision was indefensible” 4.200
The narrative spin from elements of the media over the decades that the British state was the peacemaking middleman... when in fact as is slowly coming into the public arena the British State was a willing participant from the very start!

Covering up the cover-ups....it is now near impossible Stakeknife,informers/agents,Dublin/Monaghan,Glenanne gang a dirty war blamed over the decades on the big bad Republicans...."is fuascloídh an fhírinne thú"



Comments on the Launch of the Police Ombudsman
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309
Without a doubt it was state sanctioned,the truth is in the report...

The narrative spin from elements of the media over the decades that the British state was the peacemaking middleman... when in fact as is slowly coming into the public arena the British State was a willing participant from the very start!

Covering up the cover-ups....it is now near impossible Stakeknife,informers/agents,Dublin/Monaghan,Glenanne gang a dirty war blamed over the decades on the big bad Republicans...."is fuascloídh an fhírinne thú"



Comments on the Launch of the Police Ombudsman
The vast majority of the weapons were recovered and senior loyalists were arrested after being caught red handed with them. Collusion my arse.
 

DavidCaldwell

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
3,949
I agree with you that many loyalists did get prosecuted and jailed but they were for the most part just the foot soldiers. Given that the UDA was able to operate openly as a legal organisation until the 1990s and that dual membership of the UDA, and the UDR in particular was well known, one has to wonder why this situation was allowed to exist. Now that the UDA is illegal how come its representatives are allowed to operate in plain view even to the extent that they are feted by both administrations on this island even getting invited to the Áras?

Finally how many of the planners , controllers, arms and intelligence suppliers as well as active participants from the security services have been brought to book for their actions?
Not banning an organisation does not prove that the government approved of it - after all the government never banned Sinn Fein (with similar issues of dual membership with the IRA), while the Spanish government banned the political wing of ETA. My understanding is that the reason why the UDA was not banned was that it made it easier for the security forces to gather information about Loyalist paramilitarism. But after a point, it was banned.

If running informers and not banning linked organisations is called collusion, then the security forces colluded with both sets of paramilitaries. I think it is obvious that such "collusion" with the IRA was intended to stop the IRA's activities. It is likely that similar "collusion" with the Loyalists was intended to stop their activities.

There is a problem of conflating such "collusion" with the criminal collusion of e.g the Glenane gang - namely that things get even less clear.
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,364
The problem is that the term collusion covers things which have absolutely nothing to do with what CNRs are accusing the police of. CNRs think that the police directed the UVF killers and covered up for them. The report does not in any way say that. However because the idiot Ombudsman has thrown the word collusion into the report they CNRs think they can throw those accusations out there as if they are facts.

In the Loughinisland case the term collusion is used to describe keeping an informer in place within the UVF unit which carried out the murders. Arresting him would have removed the ability to gain intelligence on future attacks and would have left the UVF free to carry out future attacks with impunity. The decision to keep the informer in place may have been wrong, but it was not collusion.
The report is very clever.
Republicans are happy because it stated collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries.
The rest of us are happy because we read what they meant by "collusion".
If this report had not used the word "collusion" it would have been rejected by republicans. Now it is embraced and lauded.
it's simple stuff. Tell everyone what they want to hear.
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309
The report is very clever.
Republicans are happy because it stated collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries.
The rest of us are happy because we read what they meant by "collusion".
If this report had not used the word "collusion" it would have been rejected by republicans. Now it is embraced and lauded.
it's simple stuff. Tell everyone what they want to hear.
A good point. Maguire had to use the C word or he would have been hounded out of his job like the last guy.
 

A REASON

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
7,312
We don't need a report to tell us there was state collusion on a massive scale. The uvf/uda/ruc/british army etc etc were all on the one side in their murderous campaign against Nationalists.
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309
We don't need a report to tell us there was state collusion on a massive scale. The uvf/uda/ruc/british army etc etc were all on the one side in their murderous campaign against Nationalists.
Yet another example.
 

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,364
We don't need a report to tell us there was state collusion on a massive scale. The uvf/uda/ruc/british army etc etc were all on the one side in their murderous campaign against Nationalists.
I know you want to believe that but the facts don't back it up. Over 30 odds years.
Murders of Catholics by Group responsible.

Religion Summary British Security Republican Paramilitary Loyalist Paramilitary not known Irish Security Totals
Catholic.............. 303 ........................444 ..................................735 ..............39 .............1 .......1522

Imagine the scale of deaths if you if this was true, or even half true. "The uvf/uda/ruc/british army etc etc were all on the one side in their murderous campaign against Nationalists"
 

Dasayev

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
2,811
Widespread collusion is a given at this stage. It's clearly a murderous and unlawful strategy, but there is a certain logic to it. Use agents to attack the Nationalist community in order to put pressure on the IRA. The use of Loyalists allows for a situation of plausible deniability and all that.

Even the use of the word "informant" is a way of hiding the truth. These people weren't informants, they were agents provocateurs, at the very least.

With the IRA under pressure, the British are then able to negotiate from a position of strength, and maintain their geo-strategic interests.

So that is the mad, but logical position. However, what if it was much worse than that?

Using this strategy to perpetuate the conflict, instead of bringing it to an end.

Afterall the Troubles went on for decades, and we know war is a profitable business. Not only was it a great training ground for the British military, but we can also see how civil liberties have been eroded.

When the British bombed Dublin in 1972 that helped bring in legislation to combat the IRA, and the Birmingham pub bombings heralded the Provention of Terror Act.

And if we look at the Sunningdale Agreement - that was brought down by the the Ulster Workers Strike, probable MI5 involvement, and then the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, probable British Army involvement, delivered the coup de grace.

So, collusion itself is quite sinister, but it does look even more sinister when you look at it in that light.
 

A REASON

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
7,312
I know you want to believe that but the facts don't back it up. Over 30 odds years.
Murders of Catholics by Group responsible.

Religion Summary British Security Republican Paramilitary Loyalist Paramilitary not known Irish Security Totals
Catholic.............. 303 ........................444 ..................................735 ..............39 .............1 .......1522

Imagine the scale of deaths if you if this was true, or even half true. "The uvf/uda/ruc/british army etc etc were all on the one side in their murderous campaign against Nationalists"
I'm afraid the facts do back what I said up. The british side killed over 1,000 innocents, the vast majority of them Nationalists. Their war was against the native Irish, it didn't matter one bit if they had anything to do with the PIRA, it was a vicious, murder campaign and the truth will come out.
 

Sword of Gideon

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
5,460
Widespread collusion is a given at this stage. It's clearly a murderous and unlawful strategy, but there is a certain logic to it. Use agents to attack the Nationalist community in order to put pressure on the IRA. The use of Loyalists allows for a situation of plausible deniability and all that.

Even the use of the word "informant" is a way of hiding the truth. These people weren't informants, they were agents provocateurs, at the very least.

With the IRA under pressure, the British are then able to negotiate from a position of strength, and maintain their geo-strategic interests.

So that is the mad, but logical position. However, what if it was much worse than that?

Using this strategy to perpetuate the conflict, instead of bringing it to an end.

Afterall the Troubles went on for decades, and we know war is a profitable business. Not only was it a great training ground for the British military, but we can also see how civil liberties have been eroded.

When the British bombed Dublin in 1972 that helped bring in legislation to combat the IRA, and the Birmingham pub bombings heralded the Provention of Terror Act.

And if we look at the Sunningdale Agreement - that was brought down by the the Ulster Workers Strike, probable MI5 involvement, and then the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, probable British Army involvement, delivered the coup de grace.

So, collusion itself is quite sinister, but it does look even more sinister when you look at it in that light.
 

McSlaggart

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
18,195
Give us a day or so and there will be more comments.

My point of view is, broadly speaking, Unionist, but there is probably more that we agree on than you imagine, including the following
- the killings in Loughinisland and in the Dublin and Monaghan bombing were very wrong, were crimes;
- those responsible should face justice;
- that security forces and indeed the British and Irish governments are made up of people who, with a few exceptions, are not saints.

To me, one central principle in conflict like what happened here is that something is right only if everyone thinks it so. It is not enough for my side to think something is OK. Rather, we need to find other ways of doing things, find alternative paths that are acceptable (or at least not totally unacceptable) to all sides. That may be difficult, but with any luck we can find small steps that are acceptable and then move on from there.

I have mentioned some of my opinions that I think you will agree with. For completeness, I must mention some opinions that you may disagree with -
- the security forces as a whole did not co-operate or run the Loyalist paramilitaries; (evidence for would be the fact (if I remember correctly - I cannot find a reference at the moment) that a higher proportion of Loyalist killings were followed by successful prosecution and imprisonment);
- the Loyalist killings were crimes, collusion was a crime, Republican killings were crimes.
The British army did nothing about the terrorists in its ranks.
 

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,364
I'm afraid the facts do back what I said up. The british side killed over 1,000 innocents, the vast majority of them Nationalists. Their war was against the native Irish, it didn't matter one bit if they had anything to do with the PIRA, it was a vicious, murder campaign and the truth will come out.
Nonsense "The uvf/uda/ruc/british army etc etc were all on the one side in their murderous campaign against Nationalists."
That is tens of thousands of people over 30 years and waging this "murderous campaign" they only managed to kill 1068 ?
How do you explain that?
 

Glaucon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
8,468
There's a pretty simple rule in this discussion: collusion was never as endemic as many Nationalists think but also never as minor as many Unionists believe.

Of course that excludes people like Covenanter who think that state/paramilitary collusion was a good thing and whitewash the murder of civilians.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top