Collins and the Provos

by JB Malone Wed Jan 05, 2005 04:59

What a pity the provos have also followed Collin's example and become wimpy in the face of the enemy.
BTW, you have presented a distorted and selective interpretation of the War Of Independence period. I am not going to waste my time rebutting each point, you are not worth the time, but I will just say that it is a pity the provos did not have the same amount of success as Collins did when he sorted out the 'Cairo Gang'.

by seamus Wed Jan 05, 2005 17:37

Surprised that JB Malone hasnt "bothered" to rebutt the excellent article on the similarity between the Provos and the "old" IRA.
As a child, born in 1969, I grew up with the war in the north and could never fathom the difference between the old IRA and PIRA. I read my history and saw the exact same comparison of tactics as listed above. The establishment could laud Collins and his IRA but unleashed nothing but venom for modern day republicans. Seems like it was ok for us in the 26 counties to fight a guerilla war againts Brit imperialism but dare the long suffering republicans in the 6 counties descide to finish the occupation of Eire for once and for all, and oh wow, how bad they were etc etc. Face facts, its sheer hypocrisy of any of the Dublin government parties or opposition to criticise the PIRA while lauding Collins at Beal na mBlath.
Just look at today, they all call for decomissioning while we export 20 billion in weapons each year, and allow the transport of tonnes through Shannon Airport every week. HYPROCRITES! Im off to get sick....

by Real freedom Wed Jan 05, 2005 20:48

Borrowing the same name is hardly original.

I thought that Collins was acting on behalf of an elected government unlike a group who until recently could not muster more than 5% in elections whether North or South.

Peter Quinn, if you had happened to have got on the wrong side of these self-styled 'freedom' fighters who acted as judges, juries and executioners you might then have respect for a system of laws, despite its imperfections.

Recently in Village magazine, Gerry Adams wrote about having to tell his granddaughter about the death of her pet dog.

How many innocent people died like dogs becasue of gradh-mo-chroi, kiss-me-arse individuals like you?

Ireland for the Irish was a great rallying cry as long as we could get out of it to survive.

by Curious Thu Jan 06, 2005 00:13

Just wondering about the relevance of this thread to the Indymedia NEWS wire.
Does it relate to some recent event, development or revelation?
Or did Peter just fancy musing over a speech given by a politician in 1984?

by rooster Thu Jan 06, 2005 00:18

How did Collins deal with the RIC?
Quite frankly he was ruthless. He identified that these men were tools of British rule in Ireland and he directed his men against them much like the PIRA targetting of RUC and UDR. Did they have to be on duty for Collins, of course not. They were shot on or off duty coming home from Mass, in front of their families etc etc.


By condoning republican murders of policemen you also condone loyalist murders of innocent catholics.

by Barry Thu Jan 06, 2005 00:22

How does an innocent, unarmed Catholic minding his own business equate to an armed member of a British paramiltary police force, enforcing British rule at the point of a gun, in Ireland.

Justify how an innocent Catholic can be killed?

by Peter Quinn Thu Jan 06, 2005 01:05

"By condoning republican murders of policemen you also condone loyalist murders of innocent catholics."

How exactly?

by kintama Thu Jan 06, 2005 01:24

I seem to recall Humphrey Atkins stating once that ' measured response' activities like shooting up black taxis full of nationalists on the way home from work was 'only playing into the hands of the terrorists'.
Rooster for Secretary of State .

by rooster Thu Jan 06, 2005 02:25

You asked me to explain so I will.
When working class protestants see their relatives being executed we get a teency weency bit upset and so a minority of individuals say,
"right I'm gonna do something about it"

by Shane Gallagher Thu Jan 06, 2005 03:36

Collins was left to make that deal while the weasel de Velara hid knowing the consequences of signing. Collins also knew that signing the deal was akin to signing his death warrant. But he had no choice - the British had just told him to sign or (to paraphrase) "have a war against the Irish people" waged by the British. This meant genocide and despite whatever fantasies still held in the heads of Fianna Failers we would have lost.
And even if we had got the whole island (and no-one ever talks about this), what price would have been paid? The civil war which would have erupted between the Nationalists and Unionists would have been an absolute slaughter.
Collins was the last truly Gaelic leader left - after he was gone all we got was a British law system, a mostly British parliamentary system, a British education system and a British civil service. What happened to the Brehon law courts? The language? Most of the true revolutionaries were dead - Collin's death was the breaking point for the Gaelic revival movement and the west Brits took over.

by Rabbit in the Moon Thu Jan 06, 2005 04:19

Curious asks why is it "he"s talking about a politician in 1984...because this was written in 1985, by the late Mick Timothy.

by Rabbit in the Moon Thu Jan 06, 2005 04:21

just what "history" books have you been reading shane?

by Barry Thu Jan 06, 2005 09:57

He had no authority whatsoever to sign any deal. Furthermore he didnt make any heartbreaking choice. It is quite clear he bullied, intimidated and used every fraudulent trick in the book to make Britains treaty a reality. He ended his career as Britains faithful ally.

The stinking British treaty he helped foist upon this island has divided us for generations. That is exactly what Britain intended - divide and conquer. And conquer they most definitely did. The state which Collins helped establish has even covered up and colluded in the mass murder of its own citizens by the British in the Dublin Monaghan bombings. Thats a measure of its true independence.

It completely usurped Irish sovereignty. Remember the man turned his back on the revolutionary Irish republic and took an oath to the British monarch. He accepted arms from the British and turned them upon his fellow Irishmen at their behest. That is outright treachery and collaboration by any stretch of the imagination.

Thankfully this traitor got his just desserts in Beal na blath. Unfortunately DeValera never got his, but at least one of them got the message.

The treaty debate is all too often reduced to an idiotic argument about Collins and Dev. It was about accepting British dominion in Ireland and rejecting the sovereign independence of the Irish people and nation. Simple as that. Whichever political opportunist took which side is totally irrelevant. Personalities arent the issue. Sovereignty is, and always will be.

by South African Friend of Ireland Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:28

Barry,

Has there ever been, or do grounds exist currently, to challenge the issue of the border in international law, given the current global trend towards many countries trying to right the wrongs of the past?

by pat c Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:17

Michael Collins wasnt "just a collaborator", things are more complex. Remember as CiC of the Free State Army, even during the Civil War he continued to supply guns to the IRA in the 6 Counties. He also (while CiC FSA) arranged the assassination of Sir Henry Wilson, CIGS.

And he even maintained his links with the Anti Treaty IRA, attempting to bring about a ceasefire. He was still implementing these policies up to the day he was killed in action. The policy of executing Republican POWS and atrocities by the FSA only came about months after Collins death.

Even those who became the military opponents of Collins in the Civil War retained their respect for him. Erskine Childers wrote in An Phoblacht in September 1922: ‘For no one will be ungenerous enough to doubt that HIS ruling motive was that the Treaty was a necessary halting place on the road to a recognised republic, that [in his opinion] it gave us freedom to achieve freedom …’

by Séamus Ó Cadhain Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:53

As for 'Real Freedom's' claims that Collins was representing a democratically elected government when he conducted his ruthlessly effective guerilla warfare, that didn't seem to occur to him in 1916. Collins believed that British imperialism had no place in Ireland and was prepared to fight it with or without the support of quislings.

As for Rooster's claim that, to put it another less sanitised way, "any taig will do", this illustrates vividly the mindset of loyalism. While republicans were engaged in a legitimate war against the forces of a foreign occupying power, loyalists saw themselves - irrationally - in a religious war against popery. An IRA member, or a Catholic, can then be equated as military target. Rosemary Nelson and Pat Finucane, as law-upholding Catholics, were prime targets, because they exposed the sectarianism of Rooster and his relatives' system of misgovernment.

Fair play to Rooster, although: He tells it like it is.

by rooster Fri Jan 07, 2005 02:28

Finucane provided legal cover for IRA men and was from a family well known for republican activism, have you forgotten his brother.

Nelson was a similar case, although it is a little known fact that she was not the intended target of that particular operation.

by Barry Fri Jan 07, 2005 04:14

Good question about the legitimacy of partition under International law. The 32 County Sovereignty Movement (the best looking, sweetest smelling, most intelligent political grouping in our fair nation) have made a submission to the UN, as well as an additional clarifying addendum highlighting the illegality under international law of British occupation.

There is a strong case to be made that Britain is in violation of a number of UN charters and covenants on self determination etc.

For example, the British occupation clearly violates The UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, article 4 of which clearly states ;

"All armed action, or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependant poples shall cease in order for them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected".

Article 6 states :

"Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the charter of the UN"

The partition of Ireland, and the denial of the right of the Irish people to determine their future as a unit without external interference is also in breach of ;

The International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

It is clear that our country was partitioned under the threat of "immediate and terrible war" by a hostile foreign armed power. This is in clear breach of all standards of International law, and the main reason why Britain was so keen to have the GFA passed in the North.

It was not passed in the South, people merely voted to do away with articles 2&3 of the free state constitution. This exercise was clearly NOT the Irish people voting as a unit. The last time that happened was in 1918. They voted overwhelmingly for independence.

In 1998 2 seperate referenda, on 2 seperate subjects were held on either side of Britains illegally imposed border. Mo Mowlams warning of blood flowing on the streets of the free-state should be remembered also. This was clearly a threat of what the consequences would be if Britain didnt get the result it wanted. Britain slaughtered dozens of innocent civilians in the south during the 70s, so it was hardly an idle threat.

Britains solid refusal to accept the expressed will of the people in 1918 and recognise our Declaration of Independence is clearly in breach of international law. It is and always was an ILLEGAL occupation.

We have been advised by lawyers with expertise in this field that had 32 CSM not made this submission to the UN prior to the GFA then there would be no case whatsoever for full Irish sovereignty over this nation.

Basically its up to the Irish people to put pressure on to have our sovereignty as a nation respected.

To those who would scoff at this course of action I would point out to them the rights now afforded to aboriginal peoples among others whose situation appeared hopeless until fairly recently. Who as well would have believed the likes of Pinochet and Kissinger would end up dodging international arrest warrants. We have rights as a people under International Law, why dont we fight for them ?

by Barry Fri Jan 07, 2005 04:40

A more detailed view of the international challenge to partition can be read at

http://www.32csm.netfirms.com/unsubmission.html

ps Ignore the orangeman until he learns to talk to people with an ounce of civility. Obviously was never reared with manners.

by South African Friend of Ireland Fri Jan 07, 2005 07:04

Thanks Barry for the explanation and the link.
I will definitely follow up.
I have noticed a lack of civility from certain
correspondents on this site. You are probably right. Lack of breeding. Probably
dragged up instead of brought up.

by Michael Hennigan Fri Jan 07, 2005 16:34

Barry, you are an advocate of violence who regrets that DeValera wasn't shot and rejoices that Collins was.

Are you a member or supporter of the 32 County Sovereignity Movement which has been linked with the Omagh bombing?

Collins lived in a period when European powers viewed war as an inevitable means of seeking redress. The Europe of recent decades is a very different one.

In the past, there were victors and vanquished- the latter often were simply wiped out or enslaved.

Barry appears to be one of the 'all or nothing' types- no surrender, no compromise - and spare no blood but his own.

Everyone who has ever compromised for peace has been abused as a traitor by lesser people.

Are the Palestinians likely to get a better deal in future than the one Yasser Arafat rejected? I doubt it - that is not saying that they don't deserve a better deal.

Arafat would ahve better served his people if he had had the vision of Michael Collins.

What real sovereignity did we have when as recently as the 1950's almost 20% of our population left Ireland to become British and American subjects?

by Barry Fri Jan 07, 2005 20:01

Yes Michael, I do support 32 csm, but no it was not behind the Omagh bombing. It is strictly a political organisation which produces newspapers, statements etc, not bombs. Funny you dont mention the fact that the British security services are becoming increasingly linked with the bombing, but there you go.

As for being a no surrender type, thanks for the compliment.

Spare no blood but my own ?
Thats a bit of an assumption about someones character youve never met. Why do you assume Im a coward ? It assumes I have no comprehension of what conflict involves, or what its effects are on human beings, no matter what side they are on, if any. Untrue.

The reason why European countries dont go to war against each other today is quite simple. They no longer occupy each others nations. They respect each others sovereignty. Britain has never respected ours, and occupies part of this nation with a military force greater than that currently in Iraq. Thats a hostile miltary act which is bound to create a military response from amongst the Irish people - just like it would anywhere else in the world. Just like in Palestine.

Simply because I strongly believe Britain has no right to occupy my country doesnt make me a "lesser person". Nor does it make me a bloodthirsty fanatic. The British governments presence here is simply a recipe for disaster, I want to see an end to it once and for all. I know full well what the British presence relies upon,(division, corruption, sectarianism and hypocrisy) and I am sick to the back teeth of it.

As for asking me what real sovereignty do we have ? Not much obviously, otherwise there wouldnt be any need for a sovereignty movement. Your not trying to blame the 32 csm for the economic malaise of the 1950s are you ?

by rooster Sat Jan 08, 2005 01:18

"Yes Michael, I do support 32 csm, but no it was not behind the Omagh bombing. It is strictly a political organisation which produces newspapers, statements etc, not bombs. Funny you dont mention the fact that the British security services are becoming increasingly linked with the bombing, but there you go."

British security services are becoming increasingly linked with the bombing because they are the ones investigating it. Your not still trying to blame the british army are you?

by Barry Sat Jan 08, 2005 04:27

Are you denying theres a cover up ? Why ?

by rooster Sat Jan 08, 2005 04:44

I also saw her press conference, where she said that the responsibility for the attack lay with the people who planted the bomb, not with police officers north or south of the border who may have made mistakes on that day. This has been discussed on numerous occasions on this board and still no-one has been able to put any proof across that it was the fault of the security forces.

BARRY, can you put across clear concise reasons why you think it is the fault of the security forces?

I did'nt think so!

by Séamus Ó Cadhain Sat Jan 08, 2005 14:44

Is it a case that Rooster's chickens are coming home to roost (guffaw!).

His/her inability to countenance the wrongs of sectarian muder is astoundingly psychopathic.

While I agree with Rooster that blaming British forces for the entirety of the Omagh bombing is patently absurd, the reasons for RUC Special Branch officers' ignoring the advice of their own officer, that a bomb attack was imminent, have not been forthcoming.

by mr. funny peculiar Sat Jan 08, 2005 20:57

The old "Omagh bombing" chant crops up endlessly in these discussions ...

I don't think anybody is suggesting that British "intelligence" actually planted the bombs but there are a hell of a lot of unanswered questions about their activities in relation to the infiltration of fringe Republican groups. The convictions in relation to the Omagh bombing were based on "evidence" from witnesses - or perhaps "paid informers" would be a more accurate term - like David Rupert whose credibility was to say the least rather dubious .... and are very far from what any reasonable person would consider a "safe conviction" .....

Funny how those who seem to be obsessed by the Omagh incident and love to pontificate on about it never mention "Dublin-Monaghan", an atrocity against the civilian population the perpetrators of which have never been brought to justice ..... I wonder why ......
Must have had good alibis ..... or maybe just friends in high places ...
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch74.htm#17574


Ah shure anyway it was a long time ago and isn't time a great healer ........

by Barry Sat Jan 08, 2005 21:01

Also the fact that Garda special branch supplied the car as well. Not to mention the fact that all British soldiers in Omagh, a garrison town, were confined to barracks on that very day. And the log book disappeared from Omagh RUC station. So did Special branch notebooks concerning Omagh (stolen during the Castlereagh raid).

Then theres the case that the Omagh bombing itself wasnt even investigated.

By the way I see the 2 branchmen who fitted up Colm Murphy have now been charged with perjury. Thats probably a first in the history of the 26counties. All very, very odd.

And extremely tragic.

by rooster Wed Jan 12, 2005 13:34

Not to mention the fact that all British soldiers in Omagh, a garrison town, were confined to barracks on that very day.

So let me get this straight? Your calling for more army foot patrols?

by Barry Wed Jan 12, 2005 13:52

And a racist sectarian bigot, now go away and troll somewere else you pest.

by South African Friend of Ireland Wed Jan 12, 2005 14:29

Well said Barry.

But Rooster, stay away from South Africa !

by Desperate Dan Wed Jan 12, 2005 16:15

Barry, a query,

I saw a very short report on teletext (I think) that the two branchers were going to be charged wih perjury and that this would have implications on the outcome of the reserved decision in Murphy's appeal. Did not see the papers making a big splash of the story though, I wonder why? As I recall it the judge at the original trial said he was going to accept the word of the Branchers even though he fully believed the defence claim that the two had written the statement themselves, the statement they claimed had been dictated by Murphy. One of the coppers involved had been implicated in perjury in some other high profile case, but I can't remember which one it was. Can you?

Also of interest, 10 police from the West Midlands (England) are now facing charges for brutality leading to the death of a prisoner. This is the same force that fitted up the Birmingham Six way back when and have always been viciously anti-Irish. I believe the name of the prisoner who died was Powell, don't know if he was Irish or not though.

by Barry Wed Jan 12, 2005 16:42

Yep dan, detectives Liam Donnelly and John Fahey have been charged with over 40 counts of perjury relating to the trial of Colm Murphy.

Despite this having been proven at Colms trial through ESDA analysis, which the States own forensic experts totally agreed with, Colm was sentenced to 14 years on this evidence ALONE.

The judge first berated the branchmen , calling them a disgrace, but then amazingly claimed SOME of their testimony had a ring of truth about it and found Colm guilty, sentencing him to 14 years and branding him with the slaughter at Omagh.

Given the absolutely disgraceful media demonisation of Colm, along with the State fit up, one can only conclude that this was a political show trial, orchestrated by the state. There was no justice whatsoever in that bizarre, pathetic excuse for a trial.

This is just another example of official corruption and dirty goings on both sides of the border which surrounds the entire Omagh tragedy, the truth of which is slowly but surely unravelling.

Hopefully Colms appeal will be successful now that these two liars are on trial. I wish him and his family all the best.

These 2 guards had also been caught out fitting up the criminal Dutchy Holland in the past, in the aftermath of Veronica Guerins murder. Holland beat that particular charge as a result.

As regards the unfortunate death in custody you refer to in England sorry, dont know much about it but Ill let you know if I hear anything.

by D Dan Wed Jan 12, 2005 18:34

You are a fount of knowledge Barry :) I knew it was some big case all right, but that it wasn't political. Yeah, their stupidity got Holland off. I am more than ever convinced that the cops can rarely convict here without an informer (or several in the case of the Guerin gang ) or by making up the evidence. No wonder they need the Special Court, or even another extra 'Special' one, an idea floated by McDowell recently.

Didn't expect you to know about the West Midlands story, just letting people know in general as not widely reported here.

I'm off now.

by Barry Wed Jan 12, 2005 23:17

Virtually zero acquittal rate (for republicans). A garda need only say to the judge you are a member of an illegal organisation to secure a conviction. And its still not good enough for that effing brit loving nazi McDowell.

by Devil Dog Wed Jan 12, 2005 23:30

I mean, it's not like Republican terrorists ever attempted to intimidate witnesses, now is it?

by Barry Wed Jan 12, 2005 23:41

A witness they intimidated into falsely implicating Colm Murphy made this clear in court.

by Virtual Thu Jan 13, 2005 00:40

Nothing new about the guards dictating suspects statements. They were doing that back in the time of the 'Heavy Gang'.

by mr. funny peculiar Fri Jan 21, 2005 21:15

Omagh bomb conviction overturned

Colm Murphy was originally sentenced to 14 years in jail
The only man jailed over the 1998 Omagh bombing faces a retrial after winning his appeal against the conviction.
Colm Murphy, 51, from Dundalk, County Louth, jailed for 14 years in 2002, said his conviction for conspiring to cause the explosion was unsafe.

At Dublin's Court of Criminal Appeal, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns granted a retrial on two grounds relating to the evidence of detectives at his trial.

by Matty Thu Feb 03, 2005 17:54

Interesting. The IRA and the PIRA use exactly the same tactics.

Since when did the original IRA put bombs in shopping centres? Or try to kill the British PM?

What a load of rubbish.

by One-Eye Thu Feb 03, 2005 18:25

There were no shopping centres in 1919-21.
The IRA DID target commercial property, not least in Liverpool. (See 'Legion of the Vanguard' by John Pinkman.)

Collins sent men over to stiff Field Marshall Henry Wilson AFTER the Treaty.

Dan Breen led an attack on the Brit Viceroy in 1919

Tom Barry suggested leading an assault on the British Parliament!!! { See J Bowyer Bell IRA - Secret Army.)

Collins also sent several squads over to tail individual Cabinet Ministers witgh a view to whacking them all on the same day. Unfortunately the order never came (Joe Good - memoirs of a Revolutionary)

Learn some history b4 you comment on it

You Stupid boy.

by One-Eye Thu Feb 03, 2005 18:37

Rooster, who was the target of rosemary nelsons assassination then? The bomb was under her car.

Where did you come across this 'little known fact' which you fail to back up?

How come you claim such intimate knowledge of 'little known facts' when you are so ignorant of well-known (and published and verifiable) ones?

Arse

by One-Eye Thu Feb 03, 2005 18:43

Thanks a million, Rooster. Some time ago some big ginger bastard hit me a slap and i hadn't the balls to go after him. Using your logic I can now kick shit out of the next red-haired old lady or small child I come across, and claim it as a 'measured military response. That'll teach the carrot-topped fuckers. Yabba dabba do - any ginger minge will do

by Sligo Republican Socialist Thu Feb 03, 2005 20:09

When Michael 'Nazi' McDowell was asked on Radio 1 News at One Today whether Kevin Barry was also a criminal since McDowell had called Bobby Sands a criminal, he refused to answer saying he wouldnt go down that road.

Wonder why that was?

Wouldn't be because it would show him up for the hypocrite he is?

Wonder what he has to say about attending a recent commemoration and monument unveiling in my County of Sligo. He was speaking on Benbulben at a monument for Sligos 'Noble Six' - six IRA volunteers executed after capture by Free State forces on Benbulben mountain in North Sligo. Amongst those executed were relatives of Michael McDowell and FF TD Jimmy Devins who also attended.

Perhaps McDowell might like to clarify - Was their execution by the forces of this state 'Criminal' and were the six IRA men, including his ancestor 'criminals' since they had taken up arms against this state?