Was MI6 behind the Brighton bombing?

JCSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,247
Website
skinflicks.blogspot.com
A Times journalist, who clearly is suspicious of the Martin McGuinness as 007 thesis that has recently emerged, explores the ramifications of that particular idea:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 25,00.html

Here's the crux of his point:

In the Troubles, where almost everything on the surface was a lie or a deception, the only hard certainties are the bullets, the bombs and the dead bodies left in the ditch. In the summer of 1984 Patrick Magee, a veteran bomber, acting on the orders of the IRA’s Army Council, really did plant a bomb behind the bath panel of room 621 of the Grand Hotel. When that bomb exploded six weeks later it very, very nearly killed Margaret Thatcher and most of her Cabinet.

If McGuinness had been an MI6 agent then MI6 must have known about the Brighton bomb and then allowed the potential decapitation of the British Government to go ahead. Therefore MI6 was really behind the Brighton bomb. Instead of being plausible the thesis that McGuinness was a MI6 agent becomes nonsensical.
 


Ramon Mercadar

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
15,002
They would also have had to be behind the mortar-bombing of the Cabinet in 1991 in that case. And the assassination of Thatchers personal friend Ian Fow MP etc etc
 

Bogwarrior

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
322
Didn't Mc Guinness tell the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, he left the IRA in the 70s? Are you saying he lied under oath, in what was supposed to be a quest for justice for the Bloody Sunday families? Many IRA operations took place without Army Council knowledge. Anyway Ingram has not stated WHEN McG became a tool of the Brits.
 

Slartibuckfast

Active member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
145
Website
www.5wwwww5.com
I repeatedly asked Ingram the exact same question about Brighton and Downing Street months ago on the (now seemingly sadly defunct Debate Central website) and he ignored it no less than 3 times.

The man's out for attention. He even claims in his book (I read the back cover) to have met an unmasked Gerry Adams face to face during a Belfast gun battle in the early days. He claims Adams tried to plug him but the gun jammed. Could but true but then again...you gotta have some sort of exciting tale to sell your book with.
 

Worldbystorm

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
321
Ramon Mercadar said:
They would also have had to be behind the mortar-bombing of the Cabinet in 1991 in that case. And the assassination of Thatchers personal friend Ian Fow MP etc etc
Ian Gow, actually.

But this stuff about the Brighton bombing is beyond stupid.

Norman Tebbit's wife was paralysed from the waist down and is still in a wheelchair to this day.
 

Slartibuckfast

Active member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Messages
145
Website
www.5wwwww5.com
Worldbystorm said:
But this stuff about the Brighton bombing is beyond stupid.
That's the point.

Obviously the Brits would never have let it happen so just about disproving MMcG was a tout.
 

Ramon Mercadar

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
15,002
Indeed it was Gow. That was a typo.

The trouble is if you look hard enough you will see all of history as conspiracy. Its easy to see a guiding hand where there is none.

Although I did have my doubts about Brian Boru, there is some evidence that he was a Viking agent and was silenced by his handler.
 

JCSkinner

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,247
Website
skinflicks.blogspot.com
Seems to me that Marty McFly is probably the only top Shinner NOT to have been a Brit spy. And the Brighton Bombing is one way of effectively disproving Ingram's book-peddling yarn.
But I am interested to know whether anyone actually believes that Marty was a spy for the Brits, either before Brighton or afterwards.
 

Worldbystorm

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
321
JCSkinner said:
Seems to me that Marty McFly is probably the only top Shinner NOT to have been a Brit spy. And the Brighton Bombing is one way of effectively disproving Ingram's book-peddling yarn.
But I am interested to know whether anyone actually believes that Marty was a spy for the Brits, either before Brighton or afterwards.
Not really.
 

merle haggard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
5,434
The Times journalist is none other than Kevin Toolis , author of the terminally dreadful "Rebel Hearts" ( I believe he had to flee from East Tyrone during the writing of it) . In this article he also claims MI5 approached Martin McGuinness in a plea to get him to call the war off . Factually untrue , pure fantasy . As is the notion hes dedicated his life to the destruction of the British state . As a former British minister on the steps of Stormont the other day he did not strike me as such a person .
 

Worldbystorm

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
321
merle haggard said:
The Times journalist is none other than Kevin Toolis , author of the terminally dreadful "Rebel Hearts" ( I believe he had to flee from East Tyrone during the writing of it) . In this article he also claims MI5 approached Martin McGuinness in a plea to get him to call the war off . Factually untrue , pure fantasy . As is the notion hes dedicated his life to the destruction of the British state . As a former British minister on the steps of Stormont the other day he did not strike me as such a person .
You've heard about destroying something from the inside out I presume merle? :wink:
 

Bogwarrior

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
322
Worldbystorm said:
merle haggard said:
The Times journalist is none other than Kevin Toolis , author of the terminally dreadful "Rebel Hearts" ( I believe he had to flee from East Tyrone during the writing of it) . In this article he also claims MI5 approached Martin McGuinness in a plea to get him to call the war off . Factually untrue , pure fantasy . As is the notion hes dedicated his life to the destruction of the British state . As a former British minister on the steps of Stormont the other day he did not strike me as such a person .
You've heard about destroying something from the inside out I presume merle? :wink:
I've heard that excuse before from Provo supporters, "We're entering Stormont to destroy it from within." Nice line, apart from the fact, that when it was brought down, they were protesting in the streets to have it re-established. As an ex-Sticky yourself, you, more than others, should know that Revolutionaries who enter the Establishment, are more contaminated by the Establishment than vice-versa.
 

Worldbystorm

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
321
A fair point Bogwarrior. And indeed you're right. Quite entertaining it is to see Rabitte et al these days, in a blackly humourous sort of way.

I've known a few, a very few, who haven't been entirely corrupted.

However, play the long game and who knows what the results would be, and you know I don't think the traditional strategies have worked.
 

Bogwarrior

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
322
Worldbystorm said:
A fair point Bogwarrior. And indeed you're right. Quite entertaining it is to see Rabitte et al these days, in a blackly humourous sort of way.

I've known a few, a very few, who haven't been entirely corrupted.

However, play the long game and who knows what the results would be, and you know I don't think the traditional strategies have worked.
Seems the only strategy that DID work (partially) was a concerted, popular, guerilla struggle, as in the Tan War.. Or are you saying your freedom was achieved by sneaky politicians clandestinely entering Governments, with their fingers crossed?
 

Pidge

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
427
Bogwarrior said:
Worldbystorm said:
A fair point Bogwarrior. And indeed you're right. Quite entertaining it is to see Rabitte et al these days, in a blackly humourous sort of way.

I've known a few, a very few, who haven't been entirely corrupted.

However, play the long game and who knows what the results would be, and you know I don't think the traditional strategies have worked.
Seems the only strategy that DID work (partially) was a concerted, popular, guerilla struggle, as in the Tan War.. Or are you saying your freedom was achieved by sneaky politicians clandestinely entering Governments, with their fingers crossed?
The key word being "popular".

And yes, in some ways that is how the Free State came into being.
 

Worldbystorm

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
321
Bogwarrior said:
Worldbystorm said:
A fair point Bogwarrior. And indeed you're right. Quite entertaining it is to see Rabitte et al these days, in a blackly humourous sort of way.

I've known a few, a very few, who haven't been entirely corrupted.

However, play the long game and who knows what the results would be, and you know I don't think the traditional strategies have worked.
Seems the only strategy that DID work (partially) was a concerted, popular, guerilla struggle, as in the Tan War.. Or are you saying your freedom was achieved by sneaky politicians clandestinely entering Governments, with their fingers crossed?
Well, I didn't include the 1918-21 situation in my thoughts because it seems to me that post-21 the nature of SF and SF related organisations changed, as Pidge noted, from ones that could command broad support to much smaller and essentially elitist factions.

But, taking your primary point, it doesn't appear to me that the 1918-21 situation could be replicated in the future. So, even if we include that period of struggle, it's hard to see how it applies to the contemporary period. And if you think that that was the only strategy that worked doesn't that also suggest implicitly the redundancy of the strategies that were attempted post-21?
 

merle haggard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
5,434
Constitutional nationalism , Irish nationalism pledged to work within a British constitution is a tired old strategy . Theres nothing remotely new about it save for the fact Sinn Fein retains some of the outward symbols of revolutionary seperatism in a very superficial manner ( along with commandantist internal structures to quell dissent , a sad mixture). But the ideology and practice is the same as constitutional nationalism, the revolutionary ideology is long gone . The entire seperatist raison d'etre is gone , its self serving now . The British institutions are now uppermost . We've been here before many times and the strategy is a total failure . The vanity of these politicians , tired old comfortable men with careers that depend on British institutions and US and British respectability is far too great to admit to the total failure of their strategy . Theyll cling to it no matter what rather than admit any error, never mind deliberate wrongdoing ( as we saw in the OTR debacle where they consistently lied and lied again about what theyd done)
The rest of us will just have to get on with devising a new strategy for republicanism while the British constitutional farce goes on in the background . And while this is being done the tired old constitutional nationalists will demand their followers join the PSNI and jail those attempting to formulate new strategies , to protect the British institutions on which they depend and to silence dissent and criticism against them . Its not hard to work out where this constitutional nationalist strategy of Sinn Fein is going , and to see how closely it overlaps with British counter insurgency strategy .
 

Seánod

Active member
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
208
Bogwarrior said:
Seems the only strategy that DID work (partially) was a concerted, popular, guerilla struggle, as in the Tan War.. Or are you saying your freedom was achieved by sneaky politicians clandestinely entering Governments, with their fingers crossed?
That is true. And it's like a breath of fresh air to see you even admit that there was at least something partially successful about the Tan War.

Mind you, that war was all over in two years or so. I think there was quite an effort here in the 6 counties for some 25 to 30 years. All good generals need to recognise when the game is up, though. I think the best chance for a full-scale insurrection was at the height of the hungerstrike. Had the IRA armed the people, or been able to arm them, there would have been an uprising, rather than riots. Still, ultimately, the demographics of the 6 counties, the lack of support from the Free State, and taking on a global power, would probably ultimately have led to a rolling back of that insurrection.

We're going to get a united ireland in the long grass...and at some time in the future there may be a need for a popular insurrection again. All popular insurrections need a political context though. The political context of the Tan War was the Sinn Féin electoral success of the time, and the establishment of the provisional government.

I believe we will have "partial success" under the GFA, but it will not deliver us the ultimate goal. That will be played out by different people at a different time. That will probably be the time for traditional republicanism to re-assert itself.
 

Pidge

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
427
merle haggard said:
Constitutional nationalism , Irish nationalism pledged to work within a British constitution is a tired old strategy . Theres nothing remotely new about it save for the fact Sinn Fein retains some of the outward symbols of revolutionary seperatism in a very superficial manner ( along with commandantist internal structures to quell dissent , a sad mixture). But the ideology and practice is the same as constitutional nationalism, the revolutionary ideology is long gone . The entire seperatist raison d'etre is gone , its self serving now . The British institutions are now uppermost . We've been here before many times and the strategy is a total failure . The vanity of these politicians , tired old comfortable men with careers that depend on British institutions and US and British respectability is far too great to admit to the total failure of their strategy . Theyll cling to it no matter what rather than admit any error, never mind deliberate wrongdoing ( as we saw in the OTR debacle where they consistently lied and lied again about what theyd done)
The rest of us will just have to get on with devising a new strategy for republicanism while the British constitutional farce goes on in the background . And while this is being done the tired old constitutional nationalists will demand their followers join the PSNI and jail those attempting to formulate new strategies , to protect the British institutions on which they depend and to silence dissent and criticism against them . Its not hard to work out where this constitutional nationalist strategy of Sinn Fein is going , and to see how closely it overlaps with British counter insurgency strategy .
What's confusing about your position is that you criticise constitutional nationalism for being "tired [and] old", pointing to the (perceived) lack of results as evidence of a failed method.

Then, at the same time, you point to militant nationalism as a valid method, even though it too has failed and is, arguably, even older than constitutional nationalism.

Neither strategy/tactic/principle/whatever has worked, so it's not proper for you to criticise something on the basis of its lack of results.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top