NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm surprised this didn't make it onto NS General at all. (I looked at about the first 8 pages but found nothing)

Certainly confirming what many, many, many people here have suspected for decades, an inquiry by the Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland stated that terrorists were paid as informers by the Special Branch (the force that deals with national security measures, threats, subversive activity and terrorism... that sort of thing) as the CID and police protected them from prosecution, coupled with general collusion between the police and terrorists - in relation to at least 12 separate murders.

This was only between 1991 and 2000. A year before September 11 and British police were aiding terrorists?

Northern Secretary Peter Hain said this morning that the O'Loan report would make 'extremely uncomfortable reading' for anyone involved in government and the police.

A Downing Street spokesman described the report as deeply disturbing and said it was about events which were wrong and which should never have happened.

Sinn Féin's Chief Negotiator Martin McGuinness said the report showed that state terrorism was used against the nationalist community.

He said he was concerned that Ms O'Loan had also raised the prospect that the collusion was even more widespread.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0122/mccordr.html

Nuala O'Loan's report said UVF members in the area committed murders and other serious crimes while working as informers for Special Branch.

It said two retired assistant chief constables refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Special Branch officers gave the killers immunity, it said.

The officers ensured the murderers were not caught and even "baby-sat" them during police interviews to help them avoid incriminating themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6286695.stm

Any thoughts or comments on this?

(Forgive me if this has already been posted - I've seen nothing on it)

That's a pity, because this will cause further rifts between the PSNI and the republican community.

at least 12 seperate murders.
Ive seen a bit of a CNN report on this.. they are saying "its just the tip of the Iceberg"

This didn't make the 6 O'clock news. But a bunch of people picking stuff up of the beach did. I'm not sure I want to elaborate. It's too depressing.

That's a pity, because this will cause further rifts between the PSNI and the republican community.#1 The truth can be painful.
#2 The truth will set you free.

I guess they just wanted to compete against the US government.

People were killed to save lives.the assassins, deserve to go to hell.

all the assassins and the people giving the orders.. both sides.

If you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler before he killed five million civilians and plunged the world into war then would you? (Assuming that is that there isn't a C&C style reprucussion.)

Same thing.

People were killed to save lives. Just like every time a nation goes to war, or a criminal is sentenced to death.

Does that make it right? No. But I don't see how this is any more of an issue than capital punishment or governments going to war.

Nothing new here, NI authorities have been collaborating with loyalist terrorist groups for years now...

If you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler before he killed five million civilians and plunged the world into war then would you? (Assuming that is that there isn't a C&C style reprucussion.)

Same thing.

People were killed to save lives. Just like every time a nation goes to war, or a criminal is sentenced to death.

Does that make it right? No. But I don't see how this is any more of an issue than capital punishment or governments going to war.

A voluntary worker?
A female taxi driver?
A man babysitting his grandchildren?
Another taxi driver?
A former radar operator in the RAF?
A father of six?
Maybe you should see who was killed before making wild asserations. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6286097.stm)

If you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler before he killed five million civilians and plunged the world into war then would you? (Assuming that is that there isn't a C&C style reprucussion.)

Same thing.

People were killed to save lives. Just like every time a nation goes to war, or a criminal is sentenced to death.

Does that make it right? No. But I don't see how this is any more of an issue than capital punishment or governments going to war.

They weren't specifically killing PIRA or Sinn Fein members(not that Sinn Fein members deserve to die), they were killing random civilians who just happened to be in the Republic of Ireland.

A voluntary worker?
A female taxi driver?
A man babysitting his grandchildren?
Another taxi driver?
A former radar operator in the RAF?
A father of six?
Maybe you should see who was killed before making wild asserations. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6286097.stm)
Which is any worse than bombing hospitals in Iraq?

People die. It's tragic. It's unavoidable.

But how many volenteers, taxi drivers, grandfathers and parents have been saved from the intelligence gathered from these protected informants?

I'm not saying that this sort of thing is right I'm just saying people shouldn't overreact to the government breaking some eggs for the omlet.

So the British government supported the murder of innocent Republican Irishmen? The Police and other agencies gave the greenlight to Loyalist factions.

This raises a few interesting points. Does this mean that the IRA as a matter of fact is needed to protect Republican community from what we see here and other loyalist groups?

Also better question yet, does anyone see if this thing really hits the fan, and more and more is released, the IRA will use it as an excuse to re-arm?


Meh, me personally I am disgusted in the British government. I think the US should just slip the Republicans a few stinger missiles and kilos of c4, to prevent any further murders of this type from happening under the threat of whole buildings be levelled as revenge. Would make a better ceasefire.

If you could go back in time and assassinate Hitler before he killed five million civilians and plunged the world into war then would you? (Assuming that is that there isn't a C&C style reprucussion.)Apart from the fact that it never worked when someone did try to assassinate him, it's history and shouldn't be altered. Besides, what about the other 6 million victims?

Same thing.

People were killed to save lives. Just like every time a nation goes to war, or a criminal is sentenced to death.

Does that make it right? No. But I don't see how this is any more of an issue than capital punishment or governments going to war.You're speaking as though going to war and the death penalty were good things or were excusable.

Which is any worse than bombing hospitals in Iraq?

Why? Are US forces paying and protecting the Sunni or Shia militas or bombers in Baghdad? Because that's your analogy...


People die. It's tragic. It's unavoidable.
Yeah. We're not talking about a heart attack or a car crash. We're talking about the state aiding terrorists to kill its own citizens.


But how many volenteers, taxi drivers, grandfathers and parents have been saved from the intelligence gathered from these protected informants?

You have no idea who the UVF are do you? In fact, I doubt you have any understanding of what is going on there, whatsoever.

I'm not saying that this sort of thing is right I'm just saying people shouldn't overreact to the government breaking some eggs for the omlet.
Yeah, lets not be critical of a government that pays people to murder its own citizens. D'oh. Silly me.

Meh, me personally I am disgusted in the British government. I think the US should just slip the Republicans a few stinger missiles and kilos of c4, to prevent any further murders of this type from happening under the threat of whole buildings be levelled as revenge. Would make a better ceasefire.

Ah, no. From my personal experience giving high explosives to people in strained, conflict situations is a bad idea.

I agree, actually I think I saw on the news recently something about a new anti-violence treaty Gerry from Fein signed, and that hopefully the conflict will be dying down significantly over the next months and years.

Escalation is never an answer, and you should always remember that your enemy, no matter how much you vilify him, call him a 'terrorist' etc, he is still a person capable of negotiation and reason. The death of peace is the assumption that your enemy cannot reason and negotiate, the US should best take note of this.

Meh, me personally I am disgusted in the British government. I think the US should just slip the Republicans a few stinger missiles and kilos of c4, to prevent any further murders of this type from happening under the threat of whole buildings be levelled as revenge. Would make a better ceasefire.

they did

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm
well that went well.

so which came first, the us chicken or the uk's eggs? i mean wouldn't it be embarassing if the uk were killing terrorists the US was funding?

They weren't specifically killing PIRA or Sinn Fein members(not that Sinn Fein members deserve to die), they were killing random civilians who just happened to be in the Republic of Ireland.

Urr... none of those people were killed in the Republic of Ireland.

You're speaking as though going to war and the death penalty were good things or were excusable.
I'm against the death penalty. Generally speaking I'm also against war.

Frankly, however, this world is about choosing the lesser of two evils.

Say for example, there's a terrorist state that's threatening the rest of the world. Would it be wrong to invade and neutralise them? Or does it only become moral to fight when you're defending yourself? In other words is it more moral to stop the terrorist state before they can hurt anyone or to hang back and claim the moral high ground of self defence after you've left them harm others?

If you think war is inexcusable, then you need to make a heck of a lot more threads complaining about the injudices in the world.

Two things make this "amoral" in my mind. The first is that it would appear to break the law that the Special Branch is supposed to be enforcing. The second (and much more important factor) is that they were caught.

And yes, I know who the UVF are. Kinda helps that my family is Irish.

The American government financed Saddam Hussien. Why? Because it served their interests to do so at the time. Sure it bit them in the ass, but getting rid of Qassim seemed like a good idea at the time - and probably was all things considered.

So the British government protected a terrorist group because it served their own interest. It happens. Intelligence agencies do nothing but play god and cross moral lines. Why? Because they have to.

Is state sponsered murder a good thing? No, of course not - but tell me: what would you do to protect your country and loved ones?

I'm not saying I agree with the actions of the Special Branch (I rarely agree with anything most governments do), but I'm saying that this sort of thing happens every day in every nation in the world. Wet works. Spy stuff. Cloak and dagger. Innocent people die: sacrafical lambs.

Try not to get anyone killed and you get everybody killed.

Again, I reitterate that I don't support this but I don't see how it's any more repellant than the War on Terror, the Gulf Wars or even the death penality.

Urr... none of those people were killed in the Republic of Ireland.

My mistake.

they did

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm
well that went well.

so which came first, the us chicken or the uk's eggs? i mean wouldn't it be embarassing if the uk were killing terrorists the US was funding?


And also probably also will donate as long as there come reports of Loyalist attacking Republicans. This news report is just going to make the coffers of the PIRA ring like payday. There are many Irish families in the northeast USA who came to America fleeing the violence and famine, they have a weakspot for their history and heritage.
There has been violence since the 1500s and uprising after uprising. And the money will keep coming from the US as long as there is not a united Ireland. As long as the UK chooses to meddle in Irish affairs this matter sadly cannot end. All people living in north Ireland who this matter concerns are ethnically Irish and hence logically wouldn't it make sense to incorporate them into Ireland, where it geographically anyway belongs.
The UK came to its sense and left India, left all of it's colonies in Africa. Why is it so insistent on holding onto a territory that has been fighting for nigh 500 years to be seperate?

If the UK continues to be so stubborn about this matter, sadly I do see nothing but bloodshed ahead of them. Small matters like this will probably explode into cries for freedom from the North Irish Republicans soon, and how they cannot live as part of a nation which conspires to kill some of the people who live in it. And these cries will be heard by the rich Irish Americans who will send arms and money over to support "the just cause for liberation and unification."

...as long as there is not a united Ireland....

Hi. Em, yeah. You grossly over estimate the enthusiasim for that.

so which came first, the us chicken or the uk's eggs? i mean wouldn't it be embarassing if the uk were killing terrorists the US was funding?

The US's eggs I would imagine.

It's funny though because the US is strong on *other* peoples terrorism.

What the UK should do is start claiming that it is the biblical Jesus homeland. Then US foreign policy might change.

its an issue of self determination, unionists want to stay and the republicans want to go and in all honesty theres not much to choose between either of them. yet the UK will face international condemnation if it abandons the unionists. if it even can. I don't think they ever got round to writing down just how you sever the act of union, which of course will have a knock on effect on our relationship with scotland...... i think tony would quite willingly give ireland to the republicans but all that will do is cause an upsurge in unionist violence.

All people living in north Ireland who this matter concerns are ethnically Irish and hence logically wouldn't it make sense to incorporate them into Ireland, where it geographically anyway belongs.
Not everyone in NI views themselves as Irish. Much of the unionist population are descended from Scots and regard themselves as distinctly Northern, not Irish in the same way as we are.

The UK came to its sense and left India, left all of it's colonies in Africa. Why is it so insistent on holding onto a territory that has been fighting for nigh 500 years to be seperate?
The majority of people in NI are unionists. That's why. There is little else to gain from NI given that it's a leech on the UK economy.

If the UK continues to be so stubborn about this matter, sadly I do see nothing but bloodshed ahead of them. Small matters like this will probably explode into cries for freedom from the North Irish Republicans soon... -snip-
You're 40 years behind the times. We've been through the Catholic civil rights movement, and the armed attempts to force separation from Britain. That's how we got to where we are now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Civil_Rights_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_troubles

I would like to see a united Ireland, but I would not like such a thing to happen through violence. You can't point guns at people and expect them to see things your way.

That's a pity, because this will cause further rifts between the PSNI and the republican community.

Not sure how, it was not unknown before, just unproven,
but this kind of thing was the reason that republicans wanted the RUC disbanded and an untainted police service created to take its place.
The government offered a name change and the Unionists felt that was a step
too far.

This may however make people understand that the republican view on policing
is not terrorists wanting a policefree state but rather wanting certainty that the
police force will be a decent and just one for everyone.

Not everyone in NI views themselves as Irish. Much of the unionist population are descended from Scots and regard themselves as distinctly Northern, not Irish in the same way as we are.


True much of the unionist population do go to great lengths to proclaim
they are not Irish, doesn't change the fact that they are though. But
by not admitting it they can try to avoid feeling like traitors I guess.

They are descended from the Scots who of course were in turn descended
from the Irish, just depends on where you decide to jump on the merry
go round I guess, but they were born in Ireland, their parents were, their grandparents were
right back till 1611, that might make them blow ins to some but they're Irish
by any definition.


The majority of people in NI are unionists. That's why. There is little else to gain from NI given that it's a leech on the UK economy.

I always feel it should be mentioned with statements like this that the majority are unionists
due to very very careful drawing of the boundaries.
When you very carefully draw a line to ensure a majority of whoever, irregardless of previously accepted boundaries and definitions it tends to be called gerrymandering. Generally not looked upon as a democratic process.
There are some benefits to the UK in holding on, minor though they may seem, part of it is just holding on to the last tatters of empire, but it also does give them
a claim to larger territorial waters etc.


You're 40 years behind the times. We've been through the Catholic civil rights movement, and the armed attempts to force separation from Britain. That's how we got to where we are now.

This generation of republicans have put armed struggle aside, but if the unionists do
continue to spit in the faces of those trying to get politics working
then who knows what the next generation will bring.



I would like to see a united Ireland, but I would not like such a thing to happen through violence. You can't point guns at people and expect them to see things your way.

Hear hear to peace and all that. But the political process must be entered into
with the intention of building not destroying or we will end back up at square one.