Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The name Alex Jones sounds about right... During my time in the forces I was interviewed on multiple occasions for positive vetting. Although I was never interviewed by the same men it was always a Mr Smith and a Mr Jones... " He sounds Welsh to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Charles Haughey was told by loyalist paramilitaries 30 years ago that MI5 had ordered his assassination, declassified state papers show. Records from his office while he was taoiseach in 1987 reveal that the UVF wrote to him to tell him that British intelligence also launched a smear campaign against him. The loyalists claimed their organisation was used by MI5 and MI6, backed up by British army special forces, from 1972 to 1978 and again in 1985. “In 1985 we were approached by a MI5 officer attached to the NIO (Northern Ireland Office) and based in Lisburn, Alex Jones was his supposed name,” the UVF said. “He asked us to execute you.” The previously secret letter, on UVF headed paper, showed the loyalists told Mr Haughey that the MI5 operative gave details of his cars, photographs of his home, his island, Inishvickillane, and his yacht, Celtic Mist. “We refused to do it, we were asked would we accept responsibility if you were killed we refused,” the UVF said in the letter. Signed in block capitals “Capt W Johnston”, the name used by the UVF in all its formal statements, it closed with the line: “We have no love for you but we are not going to carry out work for the Dirty Tricks Department of the British.”" Well, if someone claims to be speaking on behalf of the UVF, they must be being truthful and, as the UFV is such a trusted and honest organisation with absolutely no connected to anything corrupt or dishonest, anything they say must to true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The name Alex Jones sounds about right... During my time in the forces I was interviewed on multiple occasions for positive vetting. Although I was never interviewed by the same men it was always a Mr Smith and a Mr Jones... He sounds Welsh to me. " Or train robbers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Im still up for just carpet bombing cork  "Why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting story but it is simply that, a story . I cannot see any member of the British Government or forces wanting to become directly or indirectly involved in the murder of a politician. It is more or less impossible to commit murder and get away with it , let alone a senior politician. A simple risk assessment of the situation would show it was not even with considering . " When David Davis said the phase 1 agreements wouldnt be a legal agreement I took that as a guarantee that it would. By the same note if you doubt the veracity of this then we can all take it as proof positive that its true. If either of you said the sku was blue Id put my head out the window to check it hadnt changed colour. The article states that its not just a letter but they had supporting documents from MI5 sent with it as proof. As to your bizarre and ludicrous point that political assassinations dont happen then 3 letters would provide ample evidence of how asinine your point is: JFK RFK MLK. But I hear you say, thats American and maybe not even the American government. Well lets leave the Americans and their cartoonish attempts on Castro with an exploding cigar to one side. The British government had Reinhard Heydrich, Czech leader, killed. They along with the Americans and Belgians had Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba killed. The Brits tried to kill Hitler and failed and wanted Col Nasser, leader of Egypt killed but couldnt do it. And lets not forget that the British government colluded with loyalist terrorists to assassinate targetted Catholic individuals in Northern Ireland at this time. So, the British government has successfully assassinated foreign leaders. It has tried unsuccessfully to murder others. It was colluding with loyalist terrorists in assassinating particular Catholics in Northern Ireland. But the idea that they wanted to work with the terrorists they were working with already to kill a foreign leader is far fetched  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Im still up for just carpet bombing cork
Why? ". It's as good a place as any other?. Apart from that I've got two aunty's there I dislike terribly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting story but it is simply that, a story . I cannot see any member of the British Government or forces wanting to become directly or indirectly involved in the murder of a politician. It is more or less impossible to commit murder and get away with it , let alone a senior politician. A simple risk assessment of the situation would show it was not even with considering . When David Davis said the phase 1 agreements wouldnt be a legal agreement I took that as a guarantee that it would. By the same note if you doubt the veracity of this then we can all take it as proof positive that its true. If either of you said the sku was blue Id put my head out the window to check it hadnt changed colour. The article states that its not just a letter but they had supporting documents from MI5 sent with it as proof. As to your bizarre and ludicrous point that political assassinations dont happen then 3 letters would provide ample evidence of how asinine your point is: JFK RFK MLK. But I hear you say, thats American and maybe not even the American government. Well lets leave the Americans and their cartoonish attempts on Castro with an exploding cigar to one side. The British government had Reinhard Heydrich, Czech leader, killed. They along with the Americans and Belgians had Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba killed. The Brits tried to kill Hitler and failed and wanted Col Nasser, leader of Egypt killed but couldnt do it. And lets not forget that the British government colluded with loyalist terrorists to assassinate targetted Catholic individuals in Northern Ireland at this time. So, the British government has successfully assassinated foreign leaders. It has tried unsuccessfully to murder others. It was colluding with loyalist terrorists in assassinating particular Catholics in Northern Ireland. But the idea that they wanted to work with the terrorists they were working with already to kill a foreign leader is far fetched "Heydrich wasn't a Czech leader, he was a leading figure in Hitler's SS. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Im still up for just carpet bombing cork
Why? .
It's as good a place as any other?.
Apart from that I've got two aunty's there I dislike terribly "No where in Ireland is worthy of carpet bombing or any other kind of bombing for that matter | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Im still up for just carpet bombing cork
Why? .
It's as good a place as any other?.
Apart from that I've got two aunty's there I dislike terribly
No where in Ireland is worthy of carpet bombing or any other kind of bombing for that matter ". Lighten up, were starting with underlay before hitting it with Axminster  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting story but it is simply that, a story . I cannot see any member of the British Government or forces wanting to become directly or indirectly involved in the murder of a politician. It is more or less impossible to commit murder and get away with it , let alone a senior politician. A simple risk assessment of the situation would show it was not even with considering . When David Davis said the phase 1 agreements wouldnt be a legal agreement I took that as a guarantee that it would. By the same note if you doubt the veracity of this then we can all take it as proof positive that its true. If either of you said the sku was blue Id put my head out the window to check it hadnt changed colour. The article states that its not just a letter but they had supporting documents from MI5 sent with it as proof. As to your bizarre and ludicrous point that political assassinations dont happen then 3 letters would provide ample evidence of how asinine your point is: JFK RFK MLK. But I hear you say, thats American and maybe not even the American government. Well lets leave the Americans and their cartoonish attempts on Castro with an exploding cigar to one side. The British government had Reinhard Heydrich, Czech leader, killed. They along with the Americans and Belgians had Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba killed. The Brits tried to kill Hitler and failed and wanted Col Nasser, leader of Egypt killed but couldnt do it. And lets not forget that the British government colluded with loyalist terrorists to assassinate targetted Catholic individuals in Northern Ireland at this time. So, the British government has successfully assassinated foreign leaders. It has tried unsuccessfully to murder others. It was colluding with loyalist terrorists in assassinating particular Catholics in Northern Ireland. But the idea that they wanted to work with the terrorists they were working with already to kill a foreign leader is far fetched "A bit like the IRA gun running accusations against Haughey himself, I may choose to believe it or not but, without stronger supporting evidence to substantiate the allocations, it's probably better not to act on them. And for the record, there is far more substantiating evidence regarding Haughey's transgressions in numerous areas not just in the area of, so called, Irish nationalism, than in any of allegations you make here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting story but it is simply that, a story . I cannot see any member of the British Government or forces wanting to become directly or indirectly involved in the murder of a politician. It is more or less impossible to commit murder and get away with it , let alone a senior politician. A simple risk assessment of the situation would show it was not even with considering . When David Davis said the phase 1 agreements wouldnt be a legal agreement I took that as a guarantee that it would. By the same note if you doubt the veracity of this then we can all take it as proof positive that its true. If either of you said the sku was blue Id put my head out the window to check it hadnt changed colour. The article states that its not just a letter but they had supporting documents from MI5 sent with it as proof. As to your bizarre and ludicrous point that political assassinations dont happen then 3 letters would provide ample evidence of how asinine your point is: JFK RFK MLK. But I hear you say, thats American and maybe not even the American government. Well lets leave the Americans and their cartoonish attempts on Castro with an exploding cigar to one side. The British government had Reinhard Heydrich, Czech leader, killed. They along with the Americans and Belgians had Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba killed. The Brits tried to kill Hitler and failed and wanted Col Nasser, leader of Egypt killed but couldnt do it. And lets not forget that the British government colluded with loyalist terrorists to assassinate targetted Catholic individuals in Northern Ireland at this time. So, the British government has successfully assassinated foreign leaders. It has tried unsuccessfully to murder others. It was colluding with loyalist terrorists in assassinating particular Catholics in Northern Ireland. But the idea that they wanted to work with the terrorists they were working with already to kill a foreign leader is far fetched
A bit like the IRA gun running accusations against Haughey himself, I may choose to believe it or not but, without stronger supporting evidence to substantiate the allocations, it's probably better not to act on them. And for the record, there is far more substantiating evidence regarding Haughey's transgressions in numerous areas not just in the area of, so called, Irish nationalism, than in any of allegations you make here.
"Haughey was gun running. You wont find anyone here who'll deny that. And he was not an honest or good man. But the gun running was for the money long before he was leader. The letter was backed up with extensive information on Haugheys vehicles, future travel plans, his home and other places he was likely to be and other details that would have been beyond the reach of the UVF and a waste of resources to obtain just to send a letter to say they werent doing it. And they admitted to collusion with the British government in murders of Catholics in the letter, something they had previously and since denied because that would have been detrimental to their aims. And we also know that this admission was true as theres been overwhelming evidence that this collusion happened. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting story but it is simply that, a story . I cannot see any member of the British Government or forces wanting to become directly or indirectly involved in the murder of a politician. It is more or less impossible to commit murder and get away with it , let alone a senior politician. A simple risk assessment of the situation would show it was not even with considering . When David Davis said the phase 1 agreements wouldnt be a legal agreement I took that as a guarantee that it would. By the same note if you doubt the veracity of this then we can all take it as proof positive that its true. If either of you said the sku was blue Id put my head out the window to check it hadnt changed colour. The article states that its not just a letter but they had supporting documents from MI5 sent with it as proof. As to your bizarre and ludicrous point that political assassinations dont happen then 3 letters would provide ample evidence of how asinine your point is: JFK RFK MLK. But I hear you say, thats American and maybe not even the American government. Well lets leave the Americans and their cartoonish attempts on Castro with an exploding cigar to one side. The British government had Reinhard Heydrich, Czech leader, killed. They along with the Americans and Belgians had Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba killed. The Brits tried to kill Hitler and failed and wanted Col Nasser, leader of Egypt killed but couldnt do it. And lets not forget that the British government colluded with loyalist terrorists to assassinate targetted Catholic individuals in Northern Ireland at this time. So, the British government has successfully assassinated foreign leaders. It has tried unsuccessfully to murder others. It was colluding with loyalist terrorists in assassinating particular Catholics in Northern Ireland. But the idea that they wanted to work with the terrorists they were working with already to kill a foreign leader is far fetched
Heydrich wasn't a Czech leader, he was a leading figure in Hitler's SS. "He was the reigning leader of the region regardless of how he got there. Given that the Queen is currently the ruling monarch in several countries that Britain invaded and took by force it would be a case of stones in glass houses for the British government to complain about installed leaders. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting story but it is simply that, a story . I cannot see any member of the British Government or forces wanting to become directly or indirectly involved in the murder of a politician. It is more or less impossible to commit murder and get away with it , let alone a senior politician. A simple risk assessment of the situation would show it was not even with considering . When David Davis said the phase 1 agreements wouldnt be a legal agreement I took that as a guarantee that it would. By the same note if you doubt the veracity of this then we can all take it as proof positive that its true. If either of you said the sku was blue Id put my head out the window to check it hadnt changed colour. The article states that its not just a letter but they had supporting documents from MI5 sent with it as proof. As to your bizarre and ludicrous point that political assassinations dont happen then 3 letters would provide ample evidence of how asinine your point is: JFK RFK MLK. But I hear you say, thats American and maybe not even the American government. Well lets leave the Americans and their cartoonish attempts on Castro with an exploding cigar to one side. The British government had Reinhard Heydrich, Czech leader, killed. They along with the Americans and Belgians had Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba killed. The Brits tried to kill Hitler and failed and wanted Col Nasser, leader of Egypt killed but couldnt do it. And lets not forget that the British government colluded with loyalist terrorists to assassinate targetted Catholic individuals in Northern Ireland at this time. So, the British government has successfully assassinated foreign leaders. It has tried unsuccessfully to murder others. It was colluding with loyalist terrorists in assassinating particular Catholics in Northern Ireland. But the idea that they wanted to work with the terrorists they were working with already to kill a foreign leader is far fetched
A bit like the IRA gun running accusations against Haughey himself, I may choose to believe it or not but, without stronger supporting evidence to substantiate the allocations, it's probably better not to act on them. And for the record, there is far more substantiating evidence regarding Haughey's transgressions in numerous areas not just in the area of, so called, Irish nationalism, than in any of allegations you make here.
Haughey was gun running. You wont find anyone here who'll deny that. And he was not an honest or good man. But the gun running was for the money long before he was leader.
The letter was backed up with extensive information on Haugheys vehicles, future travel plans, his home and other places he was likely to be and other details that would have been beyond the reach of the UVF and a waste of resources to obtain just to send a letter to say they werent doing it.
And they admitted to collusion with the British government in murders of Catholics in the letter, something they had previously and since denied because that would have been detrimental to their aims. And we also know that this admission was true as theres been overwhelming evidence that this collusion happened."Whereas I have little doubt that members of both the RUC and UDR illegally colluded with UVF and possibly other Loyalist Paramilitary groups I've seen no convincing evidence, even in The Republican Times, that convinces me that there was any official policy of collision within the RUC or UDR. I also have no doubt the members of the British security services were infiltrated into paramilitary organisations on both sides and that, on occasions, in order to protect their cover, they well have been a part of very questionable actions, including murder and other terrorist activities; and i definitely question the morality of the decisions made that allowed that. However I do not believe that there was any official collision between the British Government and any paramilitary or terrorist organizations in Ireland and definitely do not believe any allocations made by the UVF or any other, so called, Loyalist paramilitary organisation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might make a good story and draw attention but I cannot see any government ( whether in the UK or Ireland ) either wanting to or planning to murder innocent citizens . Some horrible attocities were committed during the troubles but these were by various terrorist organisations and nothing to so with any government . " 
Ok so will take ur word for it, but u do no these terrorist organisations where being run by British security services? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might make a good story and draw attention but I cannot see any government ( whether in the UK or Ireland ) either wanting to or planning to murder innocent citizens . Some horrible attocities were committed during the troubles but these were by various terrorist organisations and nothing to so with any government .
Ok so will take ur word for it, but u do no these terrorist organisations where being run by British security services? "A bit of convincing evidence to support that claim would be helpful, don't you think? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a case just last week were the leader off the uvf in North Belfast he was a paid special branch infomer from 1994 he took part in an organised murders his handlers new about these murders an let them happen he was advised by these handlers not to answer police questions Olson the rest off his gang were also informers working for special branch the committed a lot of murders in North Belfast mostly after the ceasefires his name is Gary haggerty Google him he's one off many paid an controlled by mi5 special branch on both sides of the conflict do some research may read a book unquiet graves" However if someone has admitted committing various murders can we place any reliability on anything that they say . ? I would take statements from people such as this with a pinch of salt . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a case just last week were the leader off the uvf in North Belfast he was a paid special branch infomer from 1994 he took part in an organised murders his handlers new about these murders an let them happen he was advised by these handlers not to answer police questions Olson the rest off his gang were also informers working for special branch the committed a lot of murders in North Belfast mostly after the ceasefires his name is Gary haggerty Google him he's one off many paid an controlled by mi5 special branch on both sides of the conflict do some research may read a book unquiet graves" The british goverment were in it up to their eyeballs they condoned organised murder and till this day have got away with it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might make a good story and draw attention but I cannot see any government ( whether in the UK or Ireland ) either wanting to or planning to murder innocent citizens . Some horrible attocities were committed during the troubles but these were by various terrorist organisations and nothing to so with any government . " Bullshit.. As an ex soldier who served two tours over there with some albeit minor experience of covert ops I can tell you that you are naive beyond naive if you don't think we the state and it's associated groups were not involved in less than lawfull activities.. Murders took place by all sides in that conflict.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might make a good story and draw attention but I cannot see any government ( whether in the UK or Ireland ) either wanting to or planning to murder innocent citizens . Some horrible attocities were committed during the troubles but these were by various terrorist organisations and nothing to so with any government . Bullshit.. As an ex soldier who served two tours over there with some albeit minor experience of covert ops I can tell you that you are naive beyond naive if you don't think we the state and it's associated groups were not involved in less than lawfull activities.. Murders took place by all sides in that conflict.. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might make a good story and draw attention but I cannot see any government ( whether in the UK or Ireland ) either wanting to or planning to murder innocent citizens . Some horrible attocities were committed during the troubles but these were by various terrorist organisations and nothing to so with any government . Bullshit.. As an ex soldier who served two tours over there with some albeit minor experience of covert ops I can tell you that you are naive beyond naive if you don't think we the state and it's associated groups were not involved in less than lawfull activities.. Murders took place by all sides in that conflict.. " As I already said, I have no doubt that individuals in the RUC and UDR were involved in illegal acts of collision. I also have no doubt that members of the British Intelligence services infiltrated paramilitary and terrorist organisations on either side of the divide. I have also agree that some of those infiltrators would have been involved in murderous and terrorist activities and that the decisions taken by British Intelligence that allowed this were morally questionable. I'll even accept that action wasn't taken when perhaps it should have been to protect an informer or other asset because it was perceived as good source of information. However none of that, in my view, amounts to convincing evidence that the British Government had an official policy of collision with any paramilitary or terrorist organisation on either side. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might make a good story and draw attention but I cannot see any government ( whether in the UK or Ireland ) either wanting to or planning to murder innocent citizens . Some horrible attocities were committed during the troubles but these were by various terrorist organisations and nothing to so with any government . Bullshit.. As an ex soldier who served two tours over there with some albeit minor experience of covert ops I can tell you that you are naive beyond naive if you don't think we the state and it's associated groups were not involved in less than lawfull activities.. Murders took place by all sides in that conflict.. As I already said, I have no doubt that individuals in the RUC and UDR were involved in illegal acts of collision. I also have no doubt that members of the British Intelligence services infiltrated paramilitary and terrorist organisations on either side of the divide. I have also agree that some of those infiltrators would have been involved in murderous and terrorist activities and that the decisions taken by British Intelligence that allowed this were morally questionable. I'll even accept that action wasn't taken when perhaps it should have been to protect an informer or other asset because it was perceived as good source of information. However none of that, in my view, amounts to convincing evidence that the British Government had an official policy of collision with any paramilitary or terrorist organisation on either side." The absence in print of a policy sanctioned at ministerial level or above does not mean that the things you accept went on were not nodded through or kept off any agenda.. As with the Cia in South America and the death squad's murdering those seen to be the opposition or speaking out.. Ditto journalists in several countries.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No official policy but by letting this happen in the ranks off the army an police an speacial branch they were doing nothing to stop it ,it went right to the top off government at the time they let these informers run riot killing innocent people ,police men ,taxi men ,builders sitting in their van having lunch .all allowed to happen by our government " Whilst I'm definitely not a person who just automatically assumes that what my government says must be true, given the choice of believing my government and a bunch of current and former terrorists, whether they call themselves Loyalist or Republican, unless convincing substantiating evidence shows otherwise, I choose to believe my government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might make a good story and draw attention but I cannot see any government ( whether in the UK or Ireland ) either wanting to or planning to murder innocent citizens . Some horrible attocities were committed during the troubles but these were by various terrorist organisations and nothing to so with any government . Bullshit.. As an ex soldier who served two tours over there with some albeit minor experience of covert ops I can tell you that you are naive beyond naive if you don't think we the state and it's associated groups were not involved in less than lawfull activities.. Murders took place by all sides in that conflict.. As I already said, I have no doubt that individuals in the RUC and UDR were involved in illegal acts of collision. I also have no doubt that members of the British Intelligence services infiltrated paramilitary and terrorist organisations on either side of the divide. I have also agree that some of those infiltrators would have been involved in murderous and terrorist activities and that the decisions taken by British Intelligence that allowed this were morally questionable. I'll even accept that action wasn't taken when perhaps it should have been to protect an informer or other asset because it was perceived as good source of information. However none of that, in my view, amounts to convincing evidence that the British Government had an official policy of collision with any paramilitary or terrorist organisation on either side. The absence in print of a policy sanctioned at ministerial level or above does not mean that the things you accept went on were not nodded through or kept off any agenda.. As with the Cia in South America and the death squad's murdering those seen to be the opposition or speaking out.. Ditto journalists in several countries.." I've normally found in the past that the absence of proof that something happened is often because it didn't actually happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might make a good story and draw attention but I cannot see any government ( whether in the UK or Ireland ) either wanting to or planning to murder innocent citizens . Some horrible attocities were committed during the troubles but these were by various terrorist organisations and nothing to so with any government . Bullshit.. As an ex soldier who served two tours over there with some albeit minor experience of covert ops I can tell you that you are naive beyond naive if you don't think we the state and it's associated groups were not involved in less than lawfull activities.. Murders took place by all sides in that conflict.. " Hello . I am quite happy to be considered naive ( or beyond naive ) if this is the price to be paid for c assuming that the government do not murder innocent people ( regardless of which side of the terrorist / political divide that they originate from . Unless there is substantial supporting evidence I would prefer to consider any government innocemt of the activities referred to . I would pay litle attention to statements/ claims by former terrorists . If they were prepared to murder people and engage in criminal activity in the past , why should any of their claims be believed now . No doubt there were rogue operators in both the security forces and police and considerablby more in organisations such as UVF , UFF , IRA , Prov IRA etc ( the rogues in these organisations using them as cover for committing crimes, eiher financial or political ) . I grew up on the border of what was labelled the murder triangle . Some of the events there a lot of people in the area will remember for the rest of their lives | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The same files claim Gerry Adams was rumoured to have set up an IRA gang for ambush by the SAS as they tried to blow up a police station." The documents said that the rumour this happened was circulating around Belfast, but theres been no proof. Adams has certainly been responsible for misery, injury and murder in his time, whatever his denials are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It might make a good story and draw attention but I cannot see any government ( whether in the UK or Ireland ) either wanting to or planning to murder innocent citizens . Some horrible attocities were committed during the troubles but these were by various terrorist organisations and nothing to so with any government . Bullshit.. As an ex soldier who served two tours over there with some albeit minor experience of covert ops I can tell you that you are naive beyond naive if you don't think we the state and it's associated groups were not involved in less than lawfull activities.. Murders took place by all sides in that conflict.. Hello . I am quite happy to be considered naive ( or beyond naive ) if this is the price to be paid for c assuming that the government do not murder innocent people ( regardless of which side of the terrorist / political divide that they originate from . Unless there is substantial supporting evidence I would prefer to consider any government innocemt of the activities referred to . I would pay litle attention to statements/ claims by former terrorists . If they were prepared to murder people and engage in criminal activity in the past , why should any of their claims be believed now . No doubt there were rogue operators in both the security forces and police and considerablby more in organisations such as UVF , UFF , IRA , Prov IRA etc ( the rogues in these organisations using them as cover for committing crimes, eiher financial or political ) . I grew up on the border of what was labelled the murder triangle . Some of the events there a lot of people in the area will remember for the rest of their lives " What about claims by solicitors, journalists, mps an the police ombudsman? Ur not naive ur bias on the side off a government that has let it's citizens get murdered | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting story but it is simply that, a story . I cannot see any member of the British Government or forces wanting to become directly or indirectly involved in the murder of a politician. It is more or less impossible to commit murder and get away with it , let alone a senior politician. A simple risk assessment of the situation would show it was not even with considering . When David Davis said the phase 1 agreements wouldnt be a legal agreement I took that as a guarantee that it would. By the same note if you doubt the veracity of this then we can all take it as proof positive that its true. If either of you said the sku was blue Id put my head out the window to check it hadnt changed colour. The article states that its not just a letter but they had supporting documents from MI5 sent with it as proof. As to your bizarre and ludicrous point that political assassinations dont happen then 3 letters would provide ample evidence of how asinine your point is: JFK RFK MLK. But I hear you say, thats American and maybe not even the American government. Well lets leave the Americans and their cartoonish attempts on Castro with an exploding cigar to one side. The British government had Reinhard Heydrich, Czech leader, killed. They along with the Americans and Belgians had Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba killed. The Brits tried to kill Hitler and failed and wanted Col Nasser, leader of Egypt killed but couldnt do it. And lets not forget that the British government colluded with loyalist terrorists to assassinate targetted Catholic individuals in Northern Ireland at this time. So, the British government has successfully assassinated foreign leaders. It has tried unsuccessfully to murder others. It was colluding with loyalist terrorists in assassinating particular Catholics in Northern Ireland. But the idea that they wanted to work with the terrorists they were working with already to kill a foreign leader is far fetched
Heydrich wasn't a Czech leader, he was a leading figure in Hitler's SS.
He was the reigning leader of the region regardless of how he got there.
Given that the Queen is currently the ruling monarch in several countries that Britain invaded and took by force it would be a case of stones in glass houses for the British government to complain about installed leaders."Heydrich Wasn't the Czech leader by any stretch of the imagination, he was a German Nazi, assassinated by Czech resistant fighters in a joint operation with the Brits | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"An interesting story but it is simply that, a story . I cannot see any member of the British Government or forces wanting to become directly or indirectly involved in the murder of a politician. It is more or less impossible to commit murder and get away with it , let alone a senior politician. A simple risk assessment of the situation would show it was not even with considering . " Really? Did you not cover Empire at school? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Narcissists Prayer That didnt happen. (I believe my politicians) And if it did, it wasn't that bad.(There were only a few rogue operators) And if it was, that's not a big deal. (There was blame on both sides) And if it is, that's not my fault. (There was collusion by the RUC and special forces but not by the government) And if it was, I didn't mean it. (There was no official policy) And if I did... You deserved it. (Haughey was an alledged gun runner anyway) That a basic summary of the thread so far?" All we're saying is provide substantial proof which, so far, you haven't. As for being biased! Yes, I'll happily admit that I have a bias that gives more weight and credence to what a democratically elected government says rather than a bunch of known murdering paramilitary terrorists say, unless it's backed up by reliable substantiating evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Narcissists Prayer That didnt happen. (I believe my politicians) And if it did, it wasn't that bad.(There were only a few rogue operators) And if it was, that's not a big deal. (There was blame on both sides) And if it is, that's not my fault. (There was collusion by the RUC and special forces but not by the government) And if it was, I didn't mean it. (There was no official policy) And if I did... You deserved it. (Haughey was an alledged gun runner anyway) That a basic summary of the thread so far? All we're saying is provide substantial proof which, so far, you haven't. As for being biased! Yes, I'll happily admit that I have a bias that gives more weight and credence to what a democratically elected government says rather than a bunch of known murdering paramilitary terrorists say, unless it's backed up by reliable substantiating evidence." The type of substantiating evidence that the British government claims they "lost". And the type of evidence the British government supressed by wrongfullyy removing Stalker from the enquiry and replacing him with Sampson and then refusing to make public the findings? Some people would look at the "lost" files, wrongfull removal of a British judge and subsequent suppression of the findings of the enquiry and cry foul. Others will say its acceptable. I guess its down to the naivety of people who believe the "lost" files, removal of the judge and suppression of the findings and believe those things would exonerate the British government versus those who believe those things would condemn the British governments actions. Because Im 100% sure the British government would ban the publishing of an enquiries findings when those findings would find them innocent. I mean its well known that innocent parties hide the evidence that theyre innocent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Narcissists Prayer That didnt happen. (I believe my politicians) And if it did, it wasn't that bad.(There were only a few rogue operators) And if it was, that's not a big deal. (There was blame on both sides) And if it is, that's not my fault. (There was collusion by the RUC and special forces but not by the government) And if it was, I didn't mean it. (There was no official policy) And if I did... You deserved it. (Haughey was an alledged gun runner anyway) That a basic summary of the thread so far? All we're saying is provide substantial proof which, so far, you haven't. As for being biased! Yes, I'll happily admit that I have a bias that gives more weight and credence to what a democratically elected government says rather than a bunch of known murdering paramilitary terrorists say, unless it's backed up by reliable substantiating evidence. The type of substantiating evidence that the British government claims they "lost". And the type of evidence the British government supressed by wrongfullyy removing Stalker from the enquiry and replacing him with Sampson and then refusing to make public the findings? Some people would look at the "lost" files, wrongfull removal of a British judge and subsequent suppression of the findings of the enquiry and cry foul. Others will say its acceptable. I guess its down to the naivety of people who believe the "lost" files, removal of the judge and suppression of the findings and believe those things would exonerate the British government versus those who believe those things would condemn the British governments actions. Because Im 100% sure the British government would ban the publishing of an enquiries findings when those findings would find them innocent. I mean its well known that innocent parties hide the evidence that theyre innocent. "I can't spend as much time as would be needed to debunk every accusation you're making in just this one post, never mind this whole thread, so I'll concentrate on just one area for now. On a point of fact: Stalker was not a judge but the Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester. The Stalker/Samson enquiry was not into whether collision existed in the RUC or UDR but into whether a Shoot to Kill policy existed in the British Security services in relation to Irish terrorists. Stalker did actually publish his findings privately and concluded, rather damningly for the RUC, that he had to regard the investigation of some matters by the RUC as slipshod and in some aspects woefully inadequate. He was left with two alternative conclusions, either that some RUC detectives were amateur and inefficient at even the most basic of murder investigation routines; or that they had been deliberately inept. Stalker infers that there might have been a shoot to kill policy adopted by some members of the RUC but never actually says so. At no point does Stalker even mention the subject of collusion at governmental or any other level. That's not really very surprising because Stalker was inquiring about whether there was a shoot to kill policy and not whether there was any collusion between any part of the British state and paramilitary terrorists. I could debunk more of the accusations and allegations you've made but I really don't want to spend the time on it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Stalker enquiry was undermined and Stalker was reduced to advertising double glazing because he got too close to the truth. Fact is we have a number of levels of classification from 'Restricted' to 'Top Secret UK Eyes Only (NNI)(not northern ireland), that is to say the documents or anyone with knowledge of their content is not allowed out of the UK mainland. If anyone here think that that sort of knowledge ever gets into the public eye they are deluded. For Christs sake it is only 2 and a bit years ago that a lot of documents relating to the Battle of Waterloo were declassified!" Maybe in the next 200 years, or quite possibly a lot less, evidence that supports these allegations may come to light and enter the public domain but currently it hasn't. I haven't suspended my scepticism of government but, on this issue, I'm even more sceptical of known murders, terrorists and paramilitary groups. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Narcissists Prayer That didnt happen. (I believe my politicians) And if it did, it wasn't that bad.(There were only a few rogue operators) And if it was, that's not a big deal. (There was blame on both sides) And if it is, that's not my fault. (There was collusion by the RUC and special forces but not by the government) And if it was, I didn't mean it. (There was no official policy) And if I did... You deserved it. (Haughey was an alledged gun runner anyway) That a basic summary of the thread so far? All we're saying is provide substantial proof which, so far, you haven't. As for being biased! Yes, I'll happily admit that I have a bias that gives more weight and credence to what a democratically elected government says rather than a bunch of known murdering paramilitary terrorists say, unless it's backed up by reliable substantiating evidence. The type of substantiating evidence that the British government claims they "lost". And the type of evidence the British government supressed by wrongfullyy removing Stalker from the enquiry and replacing him with Sampson and then refusing to make public the findings? Some people would look at the "lost" files, wrongfull removal of a British judge and subsequent suppression of the findings of the enquiry and cry foul. Others will say its acceptable. I guess its down to the naivety of people who believe the "lost" files, removal of the judge and suppression of the findings and believe those things would exonerate the British government versus those who believe those things would condemn the British governments actions. Because Im 100% sure the British government would ban the publishing of an enquiries findings when those findings would find them innocent. I mean its well known that innocent parties hide the evidence that theyre innocent. "It would be a difficult ( If not impossible ) task to lose all your available evidence. In any event a variety of procedures have to be followed. The evidence is not there probably because it never existed in the first place . I would guess that anyone who thinks it is possible to lose evidence easily has never taken litigation against a public sector organisation. The disclosure procedure are extensive . It is difficult to see why anyone would give any credibility to terrorists organisations . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It doesn't sound that likely an operation, seeing as they may have more easily finished the job themselves, rather than involve an unreliable third party. Either they were not interested in doing it, thus suggest it to implicate it to others, or they were and it would have been donr and dusted. " Done and dusted | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe in the next 200 years, or quite possibly a lot less, evidence that supports these allegations may come to light and enter the public domain but currently it hasn't. I haven't suspended my scepticism of government but, on this issue, I'm even more sceptical of known murders, terrorists and paramilitary groups." You are sceptical of self admitted murderers... Question: What is a murderer? Answer: A non state sanctioned killer. Funny how so many people share your bias. When the killer is in a uniform (and I used to wear one) and says the killing was legal then that's OK provided their superiors back them up or say we ordered it. But when someone kills without state sanction especially if they are attacking agents of the state then they are not to be trusted although there is a massive body of evidence dating back to the formation of the first records that the state will use any and all force and deception to remain in tact. Never mind, you continue to trust the state before anyone else when it is the state that is being accused of wrongdoing. By the way, when I speak of the state I speak of all states not just the UK state. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe in the next 200 years, or quite possibly a lot less, evidence that supports these allegations may come to light and enter the public domain but currently it hasn't. I haven't suspended my scepticism of government but, on this issue, I'm even more sceptical of known murders, terrorists and paramilitary groups. You are sceptical of self admitted murderers... Question: What is a murderer? Answer: A non state sanctioned killer. Funny how so many people share your bias. When the killer is in a uniform (and I used to wear one) and says the killing was legal then that's OK provided their superiors back them up or say we ordered it. But when someone kills without state sanction especially if they are attacking agents of the state then they are not to be trusted although there is a massive body of evidence dating back to the formation of the first records that the state will use any and all force and deception to remain in tact. Never mind, you continue to trust the state before anyone else when it is the state that is being accused of wrongdoing. By the way, when I speak of the state I speak of all states not just the UK state." . You can of course put that same mode of thinking to the creation of the Irish state and come to the exact same conclusions?. There's not many innocents at high levels on either side | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can of course put that same mode of thinking to the creation of the Irish state and come to the exact same conclusions?. There's not many innocents at high levels on either side" Of course you are right. In fact Eamon De Valera cynically set up Micheal Collins when he sent him to London to sign the Irish Free State settlement. Which ironically was another piece of Tory fudge placing party before country to remain in power and resulted in the sectarian divide that has plagued Ireland both north and south of the border and mainland UK with violence for nearly a century. The irony is that the same Tory party is now repeating the same act and that has not gone unnoticed by me and others. Nor am I unaware of how we can see the same patterns all over the world if we just look without our rose tinted political glasses. There is a reason for the adage: Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why in the final sentence of my last post said that when I spoke of the state I spoke of all states throughout recorded history. And before thinking i am going off topic, this is just about what has happened between the British and Irish states remember it is not that long ago that we witnessed a state killing those it considered a threat by means of radioactive polonium and ricin poisoning on the streets of London and then there are the CIA's hair-brained efforts to kill Castro that are so well documented. And how about the French State sinking of the Rainbow Warrior killing one of its crew in Auckland harbour in order to stop Greenpeace protesting their testing an atomic weapon at Mururoa Atoll. All states will say and do anything to protect their 'vital' interests' up to and including sending 6 million Jews to gas chambers and starting a war that cost some 40+ million lives world wide. But as I said most people feel a lot more comfortable believing the fairy tale that the state is a benevolent protector rather than face the truth that all states are (at the very best) dormant monsters that will sacrifice all under their control to continue. And when the state decides it is going to expand then it will destroy anything that stands in its way until it is destroyed. As for the fob off of 'rogue elements' that is nothing but 'plausible deniability'. Not all actions of the state are sanctioned at the very highest levels in fact most are not. Remember whenever actions are carried out on behalf of the state without the tacit approval of those running the state there are immediate and severe consequences for those who overstep their authority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe in the next 200 years, or quite possibly a lot less, evidence that supports these allegations may come to light and enter the public domain but currently it hasn't. I haven't suspended my scepticism of government but, on this issue, I'm even more sceptical of known murders, terrorists and paramilitary groups. You are sceptical of self admitted murderers... Question: What is a murderer? Answer: A non state sanctioned killer. Funny how so many people share your bias. When the killer is in a uniform (and I used to wear one) and says the killing was legal then that's OK provided their superiors back them up or say we ordered it. But when someone kills without state sanction especially if they are attacking agents of the state then they are not to be trusted although there is a massive body of evidence dating back to the formation of the first records that the state will use any and all force and deception to remain in tact. Never mind, you continue to trust the state before anyone else when it is the state that is being accused of wrongdoing. By the way, when I speak of the state I speak of all states not just the UK state." The legal definition of murder is the illegal killing of one human being by another. Whether the state sanctions the killing or not is not relevant, the only relevant question, for it to be murder or not, is was the wad killing lawful. However the topic under discussion on this thread is not whether some people were illegally killed but whether the British Government was complicit in their murder or whether the British Government conspired to have people illegally killed. So far insufficient reliably, convulsive and collaborative has been put forward to reach that conclusion even on the balance of probabilities, never mind beyond any reasonable doubt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The legal definition of murder is the illegal killing of one human being by another. Whether the state sanctions the killing or not is not relevant, the only relevant question, for it to be murder or not, is was the wad killing lawful. However the topic under discussion on this thread is not whether some people were illegally killed but whether the British Government was complicit in their murder or whether the British Government conspired to have people illegally killed. So far insufficient reliably, convulsive and collaborative has been put forward to reach that conclusion even on the balance of probabilities, never mind beyond any reasonable doubt." Actually it is not. The definition of murder is as above but with one massive proviso. In the UK the person killed must have the 'Protection of The Crown', and there is a similar clause in the laws of every other state in the world. Therefore if a state decides to kill you then you no longer have their protection and being outside the protection of the law your killing is not murder. And to be clear before you say 'but international law'. The reality is there is n such thing as 'international law' when it comes to sovereignty and sovereign law. That is sort of the point of Sovereignty and what the state will do anything to preserve. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The legal definition of murder is the illegal killing of one human being by another. Whether the state sanctions the killing or not is not relevant, the only relevant question, for it to be murder or not, is was the wad killing lawful. However the topic under discussion on this thread is not whether some people were illegally killed but whether the British Government was complicit in their murder or whether the British Government conspired to have people illegally killed. So far insufficient reliably, convulsive and collaborative has been put forward to reach that conclusion even on the balance of probabilities, never mind beyond any reasonable doubt. Actually it is not. The definition of murder is as above but with one massive proviso. In the UK the person killed must have the 'Protection of The Crown', and there is a similar clause in the laws of every other state in the world. Therefore if a state decides to kill you then you no longer have their protection and being outside the protection of the law your killing is not murder. And to be clear before you say 'but international law'. The reality is there is n such thing as 'international law' when it comes to sovereignty and sovereign law. That is sort of the point of Sovereignty and what the state will do anything to preserve. " I think the legal term you're referring to is "Under The Queen's Peace". You are correct that the killing of a person not under The Queen's Peace is not illegal but that is covered by my definition. If the killing is legal, and killing a person not under The Queen's Peace would be legal, then it's not illegal and the definition I gave clearly said "the illegal killing". However The Queen's Peace applies to all British Subjects, everyone within the realm and to anyone who in anyway is interacting with a British Subject; with the sole exception of an alien enemy in the heat of war or in the actual exercise thereof. The killing, otherwise than in the heat of war or the actual exercise thereof, of an alien enemy, is not excused by the sole fact that he is an alien enemy, and such a killing may still be murder. The absence of The Queen's Peace could never be a valid defence in the killing of a British Subject because all British Subjects automatically have The Queen's Peace (that's not to say there are not other legal ways to kill a British Subject but absence of The Queen's Peace is not one of them). It also would not be a valid defence for the killing of a citizen of another country, such as an Irish Citizen, unless the killing was in the heat of war or the actual exercise thereof. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the legal term you're referring to is "Under The Queen's Peace". You are correct that the killing of a person not under The Queen's Peace is not illegal but that is covered by my definition. If the killing is legal, and killing a person not under The Queen's Peace would be legal, then it's not illegal and the definition I gave clearly said "the illegal killing". However The Queen's Peace applies to all British Subjects, everyone within the realm and to anyone who in anyway is interacting with a British Subject; with the sole exception of an alien enemy in the heat of war or in the actual exercise thereof. The killing, otherwise than in the heat of war or the actual exercise thereof, of an alien enemy, is not excused by the sole fact that he is an alien enemy, and such a killing may still be murder. The absence of The Queen's Peace could never be a valid defence in the killing of a British Subject because all British Subjects automatically have The Queen's Peace (that's not to say there are not other legal ways to kill a British Subject but absence of The Queen's Peace is not one of them). It also would not be a valid defence for the killing of a citizen of another country, such as an Irish Citizen, unless the killing was in the heat of war or the actual exercise thereof." Sorry, it is 41 (and a bit years) since I last studied law so forgive me if I am a bit rusty... But firstly if a person firstly disavows their allegiance to the crown and are subsequently declared outlaw by the state they no longer have the protection of the crown. Secondly in this case we are talking about one sovereign state ordering or tacitly supporting a conspiracy to kill the head of state of another sovereign state. Which I believe is an act of war. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find that unlikely, however stranger things have happened. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
