FBI/Ruc honoured for defeating Irish terrorism

by C Murray Sun Aug 26, 2007 22:10

There is a big difference between a publically commissioned piece of scultpture for a
commerorative purpose and a piece of art that edifies people , or creates an awareness
in the mind of the viewer/participant. The memorial is most definitely in the former category
where a publically funded piece of propaganda is being placed to educate. its a victor's
privilege to memorialise, but its in bad taste given the suppression of enquiries into
security force collusion into deaths of civilians for politcal purposes= insulting to the memory
of victims of collusion atrocity.
The latest Dublin/Monaghan enquiry has been delayed again and Mr Ahern is on record
stating that he does not think that criminal charges will arise:-

Interesting investigative book by Joe Tiernan.
The Dublin and Monaghan Bombings (2004)
contact details:- dublinmonaghan@eircom.net

I suppouse that the edification of the perceived victor, in this case the RUC and the joint
governments ,advised the 74 year old artist's taste in depicting scenes from 9/11
and that the plethora of erection shaped obelisks continue the vein of the phallic
imagery of war denoted in the language used by the men from wealthy western governments
to justify illegality. A memorial to victims of political oppression should be considered
as balance, but the cash goes into fetishing the dates that they want remembered.
In Medieval imagery the sculture was not a free-standing piece of art but part of the
music of a cathedral or building, there are really some shitty publically commissioned
pieces around but at least the Floozie in the Jacuzzi (courtesy of that paragon of taste
Smurfitt has been removed form O Connell street).

by Plato Mon Aug 27, 2007 08:14

Anyone with knowledge of the history of the RUC will be repulsed by this attempt to glorify it. The FBI has done itself a disservice by allowing it to be associated with the RUC. The RUC were a bumch of hate filled bigots, many in the ranks were psycopaths, who murdered men, women and children with ease. They were the catalyst that sparked the 30 years of mayhem.
As for the artistic aspect, no artist would create such a monsterous insult to the families of the murdered by glorifying the crimes of the RUC. It's like erecting memorials to the Gestapo in Tel Aviv.
And just as everyone thought that we were on a new road. Hate dies hard.

by Community Mon Aug 27, 2007 09:10

The long term policy of the FF administration appears to be the removal of differences and
the creation of wealth. It was a dirty war and the acknowledgement of memory including disclosure
of collusion and recognition of harm begins the process of repartion. this memorial denies
the victims of collusion. We have a Taoiseach insistent on fetishing the military asects of 1916
whilst denying the role of women and community, whilst denying the role of the Ireland of
equals envisaged by the leaders.

Look at public sculpture. There are three Markivecz stautes.
There is a stautue to women in the shape of a totem outside the access to Tallaght.
There is no memorial to the victims of collusion, we are selling Andersontown
and we have no protection for our monuments. How long does Mr Ahern reckon that
the deeply divided and unequal society created by US wealth is going to last, given
the unsustainability of FF policy. this memorial is an excerise in propaganda and
its variety is repellent= it is not art.

by rooster Mon Aug 27, 2007 20:55

"Anyone with knowledge of the history of the RUC will be repulsed by this attempt to glorify it. They were the catalyst that sparked the 30 years of mayhem.
As for the artistic aspect, no artist would create such a monsterous insult to the families of the murdered by glorifying the crimes of the RUC. It's like erecting memorials to the Gestapo in Tel Aviv."

Well plato, I have knowledge of the RUC and am not repulsed by this, in fact, I think it was about time that the american government recognised the work of the Northern Ireland security forces. In fact, had 9/11 happened a few years earlier then we may not have had 30 years of terrorism. And your analogy of the gestapo and Tel Aviv are so wide of the mark that it is not even worth commenting on.

by Plato Tue Aug 28, 2007 08:16

Well rooster what you say is sad. Even the madarins at Westminister couldn't stomach the RUC anymore and disbanded them.

"Well plato, I have knowledge of the RUC and am not repulsed by this, in fact, I think it was about time that the american government recognised the work of the Northern Ireland security forces."

The RUC were not the security forces of anywhere, they were a sectarian mob that murdered with impunity.

" In fact, had 9/11 happened a few years earlier then we may not have had 30 years of terrorism."

The 30 years of terrorism as you call it followed on from 50 years of sectarianism, bigotry and hatred. The only regret is that those that were caught up in the little hate filled statelet couln't endure the bigotary for a while longer. Another couple of years and the same Westminister mandarins would have had to dump it to save the embarrassment.
Get free rooster, dump the hate.

by rooster Wed Aug 29, 2007 16:16

"Even the madarins at Westminister couldn't stomach the RUC anymore and disbanded them."

the RUC was incorporated into the PSNI in order to appease republicans and was not actually disbanded just restructured.

"The RUC were not the security forces of anywhere, they were a sectarian mob that murdered with impunity."

I think if that was the case Plato there would be a lot more occupied plots in Republican and Loyalist cemeterys

"those that were caught up in the little hate filled statelet couln't endure the bigotary for a while longer"

Look at the people, they haven't changed that much, don't be fooled by the £200,000 houses and the 4x4's!

by Plato Wed Aug 29, 2007 17:28

"the RUC was incorporated into the PSNI in order to appease republicans and was not actually disbanded just restructured
I think if that was the case Plato there would be a lot more occupied plots in Republican and Loyalist cemeterys"

And the band played waltzing Matilda...

I'll leave you to your dreams.

by trealach MacSuibhne - none Thu Sep 27, 2007 00:08

It beggars belief that the Federal Bureau of Idiots and the Royal Ulster Criminals should try to make such a ridiculous claim of 'victory over terrorism' - but it is interesting to know that the FBI had an ivolvement with the RUC in the murder and terrorism of Catholics in Northern Ireland. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair and the British Army admitted publically that "The IRA will never be beaten on a Milatry footing" ...... how right they were - pitty America doesn't wake up to this and realise that War can never beat terrorism. The statue only serves the purpose of exemplyfying the ignorance of both the Federal Bureau of Idiots and the Royal Ulster Criminals.

by Barry - 32 csm Thu Sep 27, 2007 01:05

Im unaware of Tony Blair ever making such a claim and Id like to see a link to it . I do remember him repeatedly claiming that the IRA would never acheive their aims by military means .
As regards the British army they are of the opinion theyd effectively secured the conditions necessary for their future victory by 1982 according to their overall internal review of the Irish conflict . And they have without doubt fully secured their objectives which they set out in the mid 1970s for the defeat of republican seperatism , ideological and physical . Ulsterisation , Normalisation and criminalisation have been secured while making British rule in Ireland acceptable to the nationalist community , those were the stated objectives and the victory is total . The British army retain their guns and equipment along with the rebranded RUC while the provos surrendered theirs , one side won and one side lost . And you dont need to be a rocket scientist to see its the side that didnt surender their guns . Major British military installations remain and are incorporating 15% of overall British military intelligence resources on Irish soil . An MI5 HQ as opposed to an IRA HQ is being built in Co Down - thats what victory looks like and thats what defeat looks like for the respective protagonists . Its very simple . The provisionals did not secure a single objective , military or political . The British secured everything they set out to acheive .
The British followed their kitsonian theory as regards low intensity conflict , and refined their objectives by the mid 1970s and secured those objectives through overt and covert military means along with an intelligence war they won hands down as well as various political intiatives . They of course did not secure their victory by defeating the IRA in the field , they defeated them by a series of co-ordinated initiatives on and off the field of direct conflict . But they defeated them without a doubt , totally . Seperatist ideology was decomissioned prior to the weapons and constitutinal nationalism adopted in its stead . The provisionals were locked into a process there was no escaping from .The RUC played a vital role in all of this , as will the PSNI continue to do alongside MI5. And with the fully pledged support of the provisional movement also .
The FBI helped out quite a lot too in suppressing western europes most irksome insurgency and their role in the conflict is something that needs much more stringent analysis .
But to claim the RUC lost while the provos acheived any kind of vicory is a complete nonsense . Republicanism was definitely dumbed down to acheive its defeat but i hadn realised it was actually that dumb . The defeat is glaring and the victory is glaring . cop on .

by JIm - dont have one Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:00

i dont understand when i hear that the RUC and the FBI defeated irish terrorism, u'd swear it was al qaeda these guys were fightin!
anyway, im still confused because the report given by the British MOD was "British government could not defeat the IRA" now if the Brits couldnt beat them, what makes you think the FBI and the RUC did??

by Barry - 32 csm Thu Sep 27, 2007 20:26

Where does it say this ? Numerous military experts involved in Britains counter insurgency efforts in Ireland made submissions to the report , only one out of dozens claimed the British army failed to defeat the IRA MILITARILY , no doubt aware of the continuing necessity for "geo political dualism" - lies for a politically strategic purpose . He still claimed the British army had a great success against the provisionals and all objectives were met . When one side meet all their military and political objectives and the other side fail to acheive a single military or political objective and surrender their weapons to a British body then they have been fully defeated . What was stated was a reference to the analysis of one military strategist
Martin van Creveld stated that the British Army is unique in Northern Ireland in its success against an irregular force.... it ( the British army) achieved its desired end-state, which allowed a political process to be established without unacceptable levels of intimidation. Security force operations suppressed the level of violence to a level which the population could live with, and with which the RUC and later the PSNI could cope. The violence was reduced to an extent which made it clear to the PIRA that they would not win through violence. This is a major achievement, and one with which the security forces from all three Services, with the Army in the lead, should be entirely satisfied. It took a long time but, as van Crefeld said, that success is unique.” That was what was said .
Aware of the ramiifications for the peace process the NI media seized upon this lone sentence and ignored 99.9% of the rest of the report and its contributors . The rest of the reports contributors showed no such restraint and made clear it was a total success and pretty much crowed about it . The bulk of the report refers repeatedly to the “defeat of the PIRA” and call the operation a “major achievement”, a “success” and a “unique” one at that . Contributors from the military intelligence community stated “By 1980 almost all the military structures which eventually defeated PIRA were in place.”

The former head of the British military, Gen. Mike Jackson who was responsible for the reports compilation said it was not just the British army's longest-ever mission, but also one of its most important. It was "one of the very few waged on British soil," he wrote in a foreword to the overview report at the end of operation banner . Jacksons foreword to the report claims it was "one of the very few ever brought to a successful conclusion by the armed forces of a developed nation against an irregular force."

There is nothing whatsoever there about any failure by the British to defeat the IRA . They claim they won , were totally successful and not only that but occupied Ireland is "British soil ".

That in no way resembles a report that contains a shred of an admission that the the provos were not defeated by the British .

Jacskons forewrod to the report is echoed in his keynote Dimbleby speech on the defence of the realm , not only claiming full victory but pointing out how strategically important Ireland is in Britains geopolitical strategy . This backs up the publications of Professor GR sloan of the Royal naval in Dartford , another key military strategist who expalins the necessity of of "geo political dualism" to secure British victory in Ireland . " dualism " is a polite technical term for a lie , a lie told for straegic purposes . Britain tells lies for strategic purposes . Its necessary for the peace process to preserve the Comical Ali type propaganda of the sinn fein leadership to proclaim to their more gullible menbers and supporters that they won . Britain is anxious to facilitate this deception of the most foolish .

Id remind you Saddam Hussein held a victory parade through the middle of Baghdad immediately after the first gulf war . Ridiculous as that was there no British army bases or puppet parliaments in Iraq at the time unlike what is staring us in the face in Ireland . I passed through the provos victory parade through the falls road on the night of the 94 ceasefire . Myself and my companions in the car , 2 ex political prisoners , were threatened with violence for refusing to celebrate . we still refused and I still refuse to believe an obvious lie when the truth is staring me in the face .

5000 uniformed British troops remain in occupied Ireland as a standing garrison along with a massive military intelligence resource investment and a large covert contingent . They forced the bulk of the insurgents to accept this occupation , accept the the occupation forces , surrender their weapons and enter the British puppet parliament on what they fully regard as British soil and a British parliament ..
The defeat was total . The presence of these occupying forces on what they regard as British soil and the provos acceptance of that only confirms what is perfectly obvious .

by Rosc Catha Fri Sep 28, 2007 00:35

General Petraeus has claimed he is using the successful strategy of Britain in Ireland to defeat the Iraqi insurgency. However 'fighting the last insurgency' may well be a mistake in the Iraqi context.
http://www.rusi.org/events/ref:E466804A9E83DD/

by rooster Sat Sep 29, 2007 19:12

"one side won and one side lost . And you dont need to be a rocket scientist to see its the side that didnt surender their guns"

I think the fact that we had a 30 year conflict with each other we all lost a little in our own way and now that its finished we can all take a little portion of victory.

by Barry Sat Sep 29, 2007 19:38

now if you can point me to any victory for the republican seperatist cause Ill try and take some crumb of comfort from it .

by rooster Sat Sep 29, 2007 19:43

well, your not getting baton charged, tear gassed, pelted by rubber bullets or murdered by Loyalists to name but a few good things!

by Dapper Tandy Sat Sep 29, 2007 19:57

Speaking to his Unionist comrades last night, the Fianna Fail appointed Senator, Eoghan Harris, called on them to ensure that those who lost the war,-Irish republicans,- do not win the battle over the interpretation of the history of the last 37 years.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/WHY-THE-UUP-AND-THE.32...54.jp

by Sage Sat Sep 29, 2007 20:01

Well said Plato I concur in total with all of your comments!

by Barry Sat Sep 29, 2007 20:15

rooster the state only adopts overtly repressive measures like youve mentioned when the state itself is under threat . As the defeated and largely disarmed nationalist population is no longer a threat to the British states existence in Ireland it currently does not need to activate loyalist gangs or baton charge them . In fact the British state has incorporated elements of those who once who opposed it to suppress those who might continue to oppose it .

By 1946 nobody was carpet bombing Berlin anymore . That doesnt mean Germany won any kind of vicotry in WW2 .

by rooster Sun Sep 30, 2007 02:19

rooster the state only adopts overtly repressive measures like youve mentioned when the state itself is under threat .

thats the way its always been, when a state is under attack or in danger it will always make moves to ensure its own survival (look at Burma at the moment) political parties are the same also, they will say anything, absolutely anything to get elected and once there to stay there.
In the context of Northern Ireland, the insurgency is over and people are not getting killed, there is regeneration and investment coming into the country again and for that we should be grateful.
As for surrender, the unionists never got the decommissioning that they wanted, they wanted to see the IRA handing in AK47's at police stations, they had to settle with promises instead.
So what we got was a situation were both sides learned to compromise, a worthy end result don't you think?

by Barry - 32 csm Sun Sep 30, 2007 07:32

The conflict was between the British government and Irish insurgents . It was concluded in westminster and whitehall , not a signed surrender in Brownlow House . That unionists opted to align themselves with the British state does not mean they were the British state or that they won the war , merely that they were on the winning side . They clearly were not the leaders of the British state althought they were quite useful to it , as were many from the nationalist political leadership .
The British government were more than satisfied with the fact the provos surrendered their weapons to a British governemnt body and thats all that was important in the scheme of things . Their confirmation was the only one that mattered . One thing both unionists and the shinners share is an over exaggerated sense of their own importance in the scheme of things as opposed to their usefulness in the scheme of things . Ultimately the sinn fein leaderships acceptance of the state was more straetgically important than the unionists defence of it , therefore facilitation of the shinners requests was more important than confirmation to unionist allies of total victory. The fig leaf for adams and mcguiness was essential for them to carry on delivering victory for the British state and British objectives , some of which coincide with unionist objectives but not all .
To the victors the spoils , the pawns only get scraps from the table thanks to their own low expectations .