Collusion - The truth comes slowly

earwicker

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
4,698
Collusion removed any moral authority to rule the British state ever had. Simple as that, I'm afraid.
 


Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309
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.
Again a report is published which says absolutely none of the above and you take the incorrectly used word "collusion" and use it to pretend that the above in fact did happen. We are going to see a lot of this in the coming weeks.
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309
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.
Er, no they didn't. Why are you making this up?
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309
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.
Another quite blatant liar.
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309
Collusion removed any moral authority to rule the British state ever had. Simple as that, I'm afraid.
Another one jumping the shark.
 

McSlaggart

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
18,332
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.
Once an army/state loses credibility it never gets it back.
 

A REASON

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
7,312
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?
Only 1068? Are you joking?
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
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.
There most certainly are Unionists posters on here who would definitely believe that but I would extremely doubt that Covenanter is among their number.
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309
Once an army/state loses credibility it never gets it back.
I think the British army and state are fairly credible Taggart. Did you have somewhere else in mind? Putin's Russia perhaps which pummelled one of its own provinces into rubble.
 

McSlaggart

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
18,332
I think the British army and state are fairly credible Taggart. Did you have somewhere else in mind? Putin's Russia perhaps which pummelled one of its own provinces into rubble.
Winston Churchill, secretary of state for war and air, suggested that the RAF use various chemical agents in Iraq in 1920 during a major revolt there.....


............. British Prime Minister Tony Blair that "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."
 

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,364
Again a report is published which says absolutely none of the above and you take the incorrectly used word "collusion" and use it to pretend that the above in fact did happen. We are going to see a lot of this in the coming weeks.
You don't seem to understand that 10's of thousands of heavily armed Loyalists and Security Forces colluded to wage war on innocent Catholics over 30 years. The UDA alone had 40,000 members at it's peak. The reason they only killed 1000 in over 30 years is because they were extremely lazy.
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309
Winston Churchill, secretary of state for war and air, suggested that the RAF use various chemical agents in Iraq in 1920 during a major revolt there.....


............. British Prime Minister Tony Blair that "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."
I know it really upsets you Taggart, but Winston Churchill is one of the most popular politicians on the planet. Pretty damned credible.

Blair on the other hand is widely reviled, but we should never forget that at his height you lot were so far up his arse that all we could see were the soles of your boots.
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309
You don't seem to understand that 10's of thousands of heavily armed Loyalists and Security Forces colluded to wage war on innocent Catholics over 30 years. The UDA alone had 40,000 members at it's peak. The reason they only killed 1000 in over 30 years is because they were extremely lazy.
The usual CNR claim is that they were stupid. That fits in with their scenario which has the evil Brits pointing them in the right direction to murder people, because otherwise they would probably have shot themselves. Of course we should point out that CNRs are not sectarian per se. Not like the Proddies.
 

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,364
Only 1068? Are you joking?
Why would I be joking. Look it up on the Cain site , it really is in print there.

I can only assume you are from the Shinnerbot Keep Posting Nonsense division. I can't believe you actually believe this nonsense you are posting.
The next step for you is to accuse me of making jokes about the deaths of innocent Catholics, many of whom I knew. But sure crack on.
 

Covenanter

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

JacquesHughes

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
1,255
It may be that the special branch can be distinguished from the RUC in general, and under the guise of ' agencies not communicating intelligence to each other', was functioning as a private army colluding and protecting perpetrators behind the scenes; but unlike Northern Ireland's other private armies, financed by the public purse, relieved of the burden of raising money, and it's operatives are quite possibly drawing pensions to this day. A murky story is indeed emerging, police records destroyed, outside enquiries seen off, and the truth obstructed by other State mischief such as 'investigations' (like that quashed in 2012) which are themselves a form of misinformation.
 

Covenanter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
10,309
It may be that the special branch can be distinguished from the RUC in general, and under the guise of ' agencies not communicating intelligence to each other', was functioning as a private army colluding and protecting perpetrators behind the scenes; but unlike Northern Ireland's other private armies, financed by the public purse, relieved of the burden of raising money, and it's operatives are quite possibly drawing pensions to this day. A murky story is indeed emerging, police records destroyed, outside enquiries seen off, and the truth obstructed by other State mischief such as 'investigations' (like that quashed in 2012) which are themselves a form of misinformation.
Yes you are correct to differentiate between the Special Branch and the rest of the RUC. However in defence of SB I would point out that this report does not accuse them of assisting the terrorists in carrying out this attack. It doesn't say that they knew it was going to happen and failed to prevent it. What they stand accused of is doing their upmost to keep their informers in place. That is what is being called collusion. Practically every CNR poster here is using the word collusion to pretend that the report is saying that SB and indeed "the state" helped to murder these people and that is palpable nonsense.
 


Most Replies

Top