Independent Media Centre Ireland     http://www.indymedia.ie

Is Martin McGuinnes a British Agent? The new revelations considered.

category national | crime and justice | opinion/analysis author Monday February 06, 2006 08:27author by Brian

A look at the recent statements by the FRU source known as Martin Ingram who states that Martin McGuinness is a paid agent of the British government.

As I think everybody knows there has been an upsurge in revelations about British intelligence agency infiltration of (some would say control over) the IRA in recent weeks. This has culminated in a definitive statement from a former British army intelligence officer and handler that Martin McGuinness, widely considered the most powerful IRA figure of the last two decades, is a paid agent of the British government. It has come from a former warrant officer in the Force Research Unit who uses the pseudonym Martin Ingram. His real name is well known, he is personally also known and friendly with many Irish journalists so there is no real doubt about his identity or the fact that he really did serve in the British Army's Intelligence Corps in various places in Northern Ireland in the mid-80s. (The Force Research Unit is sort of a special Irish unit of that Intelligence Corps). In particular he served in Derry and was the handler for Frank Hegarty who infiltrated the Provisional IRA on his behalf during c.1984 and its the story of what happened to Hegarty that seems to confirm for Ingram that McGuinness is in fact a British agent. So basically he was told by his superiors to use Hegarty to get close to McGuinness and that is what happened the thing being that Hegarty rose suspiciously fast in the local IRA hierarchy even though he wasn't all that well known to McGuinness. In a space of only a few months he knew enough to pinpoint a huge arms dump held locally for example. So it seems that Ingram feels that Hegarty rose through the ranks so fast because he was an informer, in other words that McGuinness knew that and was systematically assisting the FRU in its task of infiltrating all ranks of the IRA. Hegarty after a while fled to the UK and was watched by FRU minders until he received word from McGuinness inviting him back to Ireland where he was ultimately to meet his death. The crucial point in this episode is that Ingram says that it was the commander of the FRU who "thought Frank to be a security concern and his depression was a potential problem for the FRU." So according to Ingram no great pains were expended in delaying him in the UK and his return and subsequent death seem to have been designed to solve that problem from the FRU's point of view.

So sure for most people its a conspiracy theory too far to say that McGuinness is a British government agent but the fact is that we now have a person in the know in the British intelligence community in Derry who is saying just that and his opinion must carry some weight. It is not the only reference that points this way and I thought I would point out a few more references for people to mull over before they dismiss this theory out of hand:

1) This is an account of a conversation between the former O/C of the Southern Command of the IRA (while being simultaneously a garda agent) Sean O'Callaghan, and Brendan Dowd, discussing the opinions of the senior IRA figure Brian Keenan while they were both held in Full Sutton prison in England:
" 'Does he [Brian Keenan] really think he was set up?' I asked Dowd. Dowd just smiled and said 'He thinks it was McGuinness.' 'He must be off his head,' I said, while at the same time being perfectly aware how Keenan came to such a conclusion. Keenan had been arrested at a security force roadblock just outside Banbridge in County Down, in March 1979. McGuinness was arrested at the same roadblock, but in a different car. Keenan maintained to Dowd that shortly before his arrest McGuinness, who was driving a car that may well have been known to the security forces, waved him down to tell him something that he, Keenan, regarded as unimportant. Keenan was adamant that the car he was in was clean and unknown to the security forces. He thought it possible that McGuinness, spotting that he himself was under surveillance, decided to take the opportunity to get rid of Keenan, who he knew was wanted on specific charges relating to the British bombing campaign. Waving down Keenan's car, he maintained, could have been McGuinness's way of pointing out to the police that there was another 'interesting' car in the area. Even Keenan, paranoid and untrusting as he was, couldn't really believe that McGuinness was an informer.....[goes on to say that the Marxist Keenan was against the Catholic Adams and McGuinness]...
Whether or not there is any substance in Keenan's belief that he was set up by a member of the Army Council, or in Dowd's allegation that Keenan blamed McGuinness in particular, it is certainly true that following Keenan's imprisonment Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness assumed a degree of control over the republican movement that they could not have dreamed of while Keenan was around.....
If Keenan really believed that he was set up by McGuinness, he has done nothing about it since he was released from prison four years ago. Was he simply speculating, thinking out loud ? But if that was the case why did he send such a definitive message out of the jail: 'I was set up by a member of the Army Council. I know who it is. Wait until I get out.' "(1)

2) I believe it was Andrew Hunter the then conservative MP who stated once in the Sunday Times that he had heard that one of the British army units stationed in Derry in the 70s was given strict instructions to leave McGuinness alone.

3) One book that some claim has spurred a lot of the new thinking on British government control over the IRA is 'The Secret History of the IRA' by the experienced local journalist Ed Moloney. Here are a few quotes from a review of this book in the Telegraph (Oct 12 2002 p.3) by Toby Harnden:
"Is Martin McGuinness a high-level informer who has been working for the British for the past two decades? .....[This is one of] the tantalising questions raised by this important and compelling work, which slices through many of the convenient untruths that have been peddled by the political elites of Belfast, Dublin and London.
...
Moloney also offers remarkable insights into such men as Martin McGuinness, who he says held nearly every senior IRA rank but did much to undermine the organisation.
...
Although the book does not name the high-level informer who was apparently working for the British, there is a strong implication that McGuinness is the most likely "tout" . As with a good mafia thriller, the reader is soon guessing which of the protagonists is wearing a wire for the Feds. If Moloney knows, he is not saying. But when he writes that "no one ever suggested Martin McGuinness or any other senior figures at his level were passing on information to the British", one suspects that this was not meant to be taken at face value."

Yet if this was true I respectfully submit that the accepted interpretation of the troubles has to go out the window. Basically its obvious then that the Republican paramilitary groups were just as much in the pocket of the British intelligence agencies as the loyalist groups and yet if that is the case then clearly those agencies, and indeed the occupying British army, had to be there for some other reason than the suppression of terrorism because the 'terrorism' was all along their carefully nurtured baby. My tuppence worth on that question is that the troubles were an Irish version of the Italian 'strategy of tension'. This strategy was so called by the Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti and describes the reason why the Italian intelligence agencies, in alliance with those of the US and the UK, sponsored terrorism in Italy in the 70s and 80s. Basically they wanted to scare people into supporting those agencies and accompanying draconian security legislation etc. Again the story unfolded for the Italian public in much the same way that it has for us here in that first people began to realise that the right wing groups were really just the security agencies out of uniform and then they were later to find out that the left wing Red Brigades, ostensibly the latter's enemy, were also run by the security forces in alliance with the CIA and the P-2 masonic lodge.(2)

But I think furthermore that this revelation, if it is true, that McGuinness is a British agent must in fact also make people think about the whole structure of Irish civil society and not just the paramilitaries. What I mean is that the same intelligence agencies from the UK and the US (and working no doubt through domestic agencies as well, North and South) obviously also attempt to control political parties, media outlets, trade unions, police forces and judiciary etc and the question is have they had as much luck controlling those entities as they have the paramilitaries? Bear in mind they bring a lot of power and money to the table to do this. Ingram says that in the mid 80s he knew of one offer of £50,000 cash being offered to an IRA figure as an initial sweetener to persuade him to inform. If Tom Gilmartin's revelations about some Irish politicians are anything to go by then you have to wonder what you could buy with that kind of money in those circles. Of course those agencies also have huge information sources that they can use to blackmail people with as well and in fact Ingram says that Denis Donaldson was blackmailed when the RUC Special Branch found out that he had been caught stealing on a covert Marks and Spencers security camera. (3) Just look at the recent leadership contest in the Lib-Dem party in Britain and imagine how you could manipulate that race if you had access to the sort of information that modern agencies have access to by electronic and other means.(4)
Ingram provides a glimpse of that kind of infiltration of civil society when he talks about RUC Special Branch running senior agents within the Official and Democratic Unionist Parties where "they could and would be able and willing to exert influence." He says likewise that as regards the UK intel agencies' relationship with Irish government ministers and the gardai that "the level of penetration was high including Gardai commissioners." So maybe its sensible for Irish people to ask some hard questions sometimes about the various elements of Irish civil society and without being paranoid maybe we should be cautious if there is too cozy a consensus between this 'establishment' and the policies of the UK or US governments. I include the US because its obviously the home of the most powerful of those agencies as this reference in the Guardian to the CIA's role in the UK illustrates:

"Indeed, in 1991 journalist Richard Norton-Taylor revealed the existence of a list of something like 500 prominent Britons, including around 90 in the media, who were in the employ of the CIA, and paid through the old friend of the intelligence services, the BCCI."
(http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve04/1181miners.html Guardian May 5 2004)

There are a lot of rumours out there of course and for example the Phoenix has this to say about Minister for Justice Michael McDowell who is particularly distinguished in criticising the Republican movement including McGuinness:

"In the present climate of dirty tricks, the Stormont controversy and other manoeuvres by shadowy people in Britain Intelligence, one is entitled to ask if the same people are pulling [Lord] Laird's strings - as well as McDowell's."
(The Phoenix Dec 16 2005)

Without adding or detracting from the obvious implication of the Phoenix's remarks you cannot help thinking that if this was true, taken together with the story on McGuinness, it implies that much of Irish political discourse is a kind of Punch and Judy show with the participants no doubt sharing a great joke at the gullibility of the Irish public as they wait for their checks from the one 'puppetmaster' !

Footnotes
Martin Ingram's recent revelations are contained in an article at cryptome (http://cryptome.org/ingram-spies.htm), an interview with Radio Free Eireann in New York (http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/060114_133008rfeirean...n.MP3) and a long discussion at the slugger o'toole website (http://www.sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/...1/P0/ ).

1. Sean O'Callaghan 'The Informer' (London, 1998) p.264 .

2. You can read a more elaborate discussion of the strategy of tension in the Irish context at www.indymedia.ie/article/70223 . This is revised at http://oireland.tripod.com/index.html with more international comparisons in the Appendix.

3. He was working as a security guard on contract for them at the time.

4. Even Tony Blair was an agent of MI5 before he became PM: http://tinyurl.com/d9b32 which is the Bristol 'Evening Post' of 13 September 2005. This is from David Shayler who reviewed his MI5 file, see http://www.bilderberg.org/sis.htm#agent .

Comments (80 of 80)

Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
author by SourceWatchpublication date Mon Feb 06, 2006 17:37

Martin Ingram is still not that objective in such matters? People on the ground are needed to corroborate the theory of Frank Hegarty's corrupt promotion.

Hasn't Ed Moloney also been in the pay of the BBC? (yes). The Telegraph has leaked many 'stories' against Republicans in the past - many which have only had British intelligence sources - no surprise for that Tory rag.

I've no blind loyalty, and anything is believable. Although an Irish politician would hardly refuse money - McDowell wouldn't need the payments to be such a Unionist and an inconsistent "dullard" as one Irish journalist called him recently..

Shannon could just be a quid pro quo - $40m extra war-revenue p.a. instead of old subsidies. there may be more.

The police are the clincher for me - Garda Commissioners, like serior judges, are political appointees. It's the extent of the corruption that's unknkown. They might even go as far as false leaks to cast aspertions on senior Republican figures to create dissent in their ever-swelling ranks.

author by historianpublication date Tue Feb 07, 2006 10:12

Given that Indymedia is so sensitive regarding what is posted here, and quick to delete what are regarded as offensive comments, is it okay to publish these unsubstantiated rumours? It may be titilating but it is an accusation about a real person from a source who was described by the Gardai in relation to the Cory Report as completely unreliable.

author by Saoirsepublication date Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:00

I'm a socialist, not a republican but I come from a republican background and I am quite willing to be suspicious of ANY of the Provos. Like most Derry people, I cannot get my head around the idea that McGuinness is the high-up agent that everything suggests is still lurking in the Provos. He leads a simple life, has no outward trappings of wealth. He drives a very flash car but so do all the Provo leaders [probably armoured, I don't know]. His family recently acquired a cafe/chippy in which his wife and daughters work all the hours that are sent - not exactly what you would expect of people who had an agent's money coming in on top of an MLAs salary etc. As far as we know, he doesn't have a big house in Donegal like Adams and a lot of the Belfast ones do.

So, just as in Belfast everyone is saying "it's not Adams, it must be McGuinness", in Derry everyone is saying "It's not McGuinness, it must be Adams". It is, of course, possible that it's neither of them. So who is it???

author by Richeypublication date Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:20

I think we should apply a bit of common sense when we hear these stories. First of all, remember the context: the Stormontgate trial collapsed in chaos very recently. Big questions were being raised about Special Branch and others. It would be perfectly rational for these people to start putting about rumours about agents in SF/IRA to distract attention from themselves.

Secondly, people should ask themselves: could the Provo strategy over the last 25 years have developed in the way that it did, without any input from British agents in positions of influence? Would it have been logical? The answer is, yes, of course it could.

When the current leadership took over the movement in the late 70s, it was clear that armed struggle in itself wasn't going to be enough; there was no sign of a British withdrawal, in fact the Brits were digging in for the long haul. So it was inevitable that the Provos would try to broaden the struggle by getting involved in political agitation. The hunger strikes speeded things up, but they probably would have gone that way sooner or later anyway. And once they started contesting elections, sooner or later they were going to have to face up to the fact that the IRA campaign prevented SF from overtaking the SDLP or making any real gains in the south.

Combined with the fact that total victory against the British forces was clearly not on the cards, this would have been enough in itself to convince the leadership that a ceasefire was necessary. It wouldn't have been necessary for there to be Brit agents in positions of influence. Even if McGuiness or any other senior figure WAS working for M15, they would still have had to carry all the other, non-informers in the leadership with them (unless you believe that the entire republican leadership is working for M15, and I haven't seen anyone claim to believe that).

author by Barrypublication date Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:24

And minister mcguiness certainly does have quite a lavish holiday home in Gortahork if I remember correctly, built in 1998 . A sumptous lodge style abode with its own private lake and hand crafted Irish oak fittings made by pricey irish artisans. None of yer B&Q muck, thank you very much . Before the touts began to be outed he was quite happy to publicise it and its inner decor .

As well as that garda special branch are on hand to chase off any locals , including kids ,who dare to fish on the lake now it belongs to a british minister . Martin doesnt like anyone coming near his holiday home ( he actually phoned the gards to move on 2 local youngsters he saw fishing one day) and the garda are only too happy as well to move on any nosey parkers who might wonder how on earth he was able to afford it .

author by Barrypublication date Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:37

"Even if McGuiness or any other senior figure WAS working for M15, they would still have had to carry all the other, non-informers in the leadership with them (unless you believe that the entire republican leadership is working for M15, and I haven't seen anyone claim to believe that)."

Well they only needed to control the organisations entire internal security apparatus for years , which the British certainly did . As the internal security unit was no more high powered and hard to penetrate than the army council why do you not believe the British could accomplish a leadership take over as well ? . And Adams and McGuinness spent the greater part of their time in that movement removing every last leadership element which they viewed as a threat to their own positions and the direction in which they wanted to go . Thats when they werent promoting British agents such as Scappitticci , Denis Donaldson , Frank Hegarty etc to senior posts in the republican movement . And as soon as ALL internal opposition was removed ( which took them 20 years) they implemented MI5 strategy in full .

British counter insurgency strategy was , and is " Ulsterisation , normalisation , criminalisation of political prisoners - making some form of British rule acceptable" - that has been acheived completely. MI5 counter insurgency strategy has a remarkable overlap with the provisionals entire strategy without a doubt . It is identical except by way of spin and presentation .

author by ernie o malleypublication date Tue Feb 07, 2006 14:56

for barry , contact Dessie O'Hagan, Im sure he will oblige.....

author by DDpublication date Tue Feb 07, 2006 15:19

It is wrong to publish such serious allegations against an individual with such insubstantial evidence. (The great 'new look') Indymedia deserves to be taken more seriously than this.

author by Barrrypublication date Wed Feb 08, 2006 00:28

" for barry , contact Dessie O'Hagan, Im sure he will oblige....."

Please explain why I should contac Mr OHagan and how will this individual oblige me ?

Are you insinuating anyone who doesnt trust British Minister McGuinness is a lesser republican type , more suited to the stickie variety ? Unlike British crown minister McGuinness Ive never been a member of the sticks at any time. Ive no desire to contact Mr OHagan unless you can clarify why I should ?

author by Johnpublication date Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:33

All this speculation simply shows that the Brits are far cleverer than the Republicans. That's why they won the war. Its possible that McGuinness is a British agent. Its also possible that he's not and that the story has been planted by British Intelligence in order to sow discord among Republicans. If its the latter, the posts on this page show they're succeeding admirably. That's the beauty of it all. We'll never know which is true. I certainly don't. You have to hand it to the Brits, their intelligence services certainly know their job. And, to think that at the height of The Troubles the Republicans were saying that 'British Intelligence' was an oxymoron. Its all becoming unbelievably hilarious. Much better than any Soap. I can't wait for the next installment.

author by Bupivacainepublication date Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:15

The reality is that it no longer matters, who the agents are. The IRA is gone, and we are back to a position politically, that was on the table in 1972;

"A series of round-table talks were held at the Darlington Conference in an effort to find agreement on the political future of the region. Unionists, the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (APNI) and the Northern Ireland Labour Party (NILP) took part, but the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) refused to attend because of the continuation of internment. From the talks the government produced a discussion paper The Future of Northern Ireland: A Paper for Discussion (30 October 1972). The paper stated that Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom (UK) as long as the people of Northern Ireland wished. But it added that: "There are strong arguments that the objective of real participation should be achieved by giving minority interests a share in the exercise of executive power." Although the term was not used the government was suggesting power-sharing. The document also introduced the idea of an Irish dimension, something which was bound to be viewed with suspicion by unionists. "Any new arrangements for NI should, whilst meeting the wishes of Northern Ireland and Great Britain, be, as far as is possible, acceptable to and accepted by the Republic of Ireland."

When looking at McGuinness' role in the events of the last thirty years, the key event may well have been the role that he played in neutralising the IRA Executive; a body elected by IRA volunteers.

It is revealed in Maloney's book, that the then Chairman of the Executive, Seamus McGrane accused the Army Council of withholding key documents from the executive. He also said that McGuinness had given a commitment that there would be no SOS, "we only had to wait a few weeks to see the commitment flounder." It is also noted that at this point McKevitt intervened to call McGuinness a liar.

The subsequent speech by McGrane at the 1997 Convention (See Moloney), is highly significant historically, in that it represents, the last clarion call of militant republicanism. McGrane, who had sat on the Executive for eleven years, elected by fellow IRA volunteers, was subsequently arrested for running a Real IRA training camp, made up of teenagers. We all know what happened to McKevitt.

The hardline Executive was beheaded, and the person at the centre of the beheading was clearly McGuinness. The significant fact, is that the Executive came close to derailing Adams' peace strategy; but when it failed, its dissident members were cast out into the wilderness, whilst the volunteers who had elected it, fell in unswervingly behind the Adams/McGuiness peace strategy.

Of all the things that he is alleged to have done, history will show that this was McGuiness' real masterstroke......................

author by Dapper Tandypublication date Thu Mar 02, 2006 14:46

Are you suggesting that McGuinness should have taken the same path as CIRA and RIRA and end up in total irrelevance?

author by Bupivacainepublication date Thu Mar 02, 2006 17:50

He played a key part in cutting the real militants loose; whereby they were picked off by the Irish State one by one (something that was not going to happen were they to remain witin the PIRA); and, if you are a conspiracy theorist, culminating in the Omagh bombing, which was the red light for them to be put completely out of business.

Throughout the process, which led to the culling the Executive, the IRA's constitution was continually being ignored by the Army Council - and volunteers were lied to in the interests of the "peace process."

Post 1997 - regardless, of any actual developments on the ground, the volunteers were just being used as a bargaining tool by Sinn Fein. There was no chance that those who had split with McKevitt were ever going to go back to war; despite noises from S.Armagh to the contrary.

So this raises the issue, for those that believe that McG was/is a spy, that the cutting loose of the militant executive, was the greatest present that he could ever have given to his paymasters....

Whose peace process was/is it?

author by sparkeypublication date Fri Apr 14, 2006 00:03

Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness are not spies, or else the British security forces were prepared to allow the IRA to kill and blow to smithereens so many hundreds of soldiers, police, politicians, civilians, over the past thirty years. Which is the more likely?

author by Barrypublication date Fri Apr 14, 2006 01:10

You seem to assume that governments which imported hundreds of assault rifles , pistols , grenades and rocket launchers and distributed them to fanatical sectarian bigots wouldnt stoop so low as to let their own soldiers and police die in order to win the endgame . Just as any general will sacrifice a certain amount of troops and absorb a certain amount of casulaties if the military manouvre is essential for victory .
They won the endgame without doubt . You seem to attributing the virtues of morality , honesty and basic common decency to the British establishment and its security planners . An interesting analysis and defence of the Sinn Fein leadership .

author by By Any Means Necessarypublication date Fri Apr 14, 2006 18:31


"volunteers: took on the world’s number two imperialist power

It is important to put this in a wider political context, as this leadership was not merely a bunch of ageing yuppies, like the Blairites, but a layer of working class fighters forged in the crucible of a life-and-death struggle in the nationalist ghettoes of the north, especially Belfast, taking on the world’s number two imperialist power.

Critiques of them as ‘middle class’ by social workers and teachers belonging to Irish Trotskyist groups which had never summoned up the revolutionary spirit to so much as throw a stone at the occupying imperialist army never much impressed me (and do not today either).

A major problem was simply the objective conditions which the republicans had to confront. They faced not only a powerful imperialist enemy, but also repressive state apparatuses both sides of the border in Ireland. The south, for instance, maintained continual harassment and repression of republicans all the way through the armed conflict of the past generation.

It was much easier to belong to any of the small Trotskyist groups than it was to be in Sinn Féin in any part of Ireland.

They denounced bombings in Britain as if they seriously believed a national liberation struggle against an imperialist power a few miles away, which had incorporated part of the oppressed nation’s territory within its own state, could possibly be won without armed actions, including within the imperialist state.

Of course, Marx and Engels had championed Irish freedom and argued that, as long as British workers remained tied to the apron-strings of the British bourgeoisie in Ireland, they would never attain real class consciousness or achieve anything significant in Britain itself.

Lenin was devastating about the record of the British left of his day in relation to Ireland. The Bolsheviks ensured that one of the conditions of membership of the Third International was that if a party was in an imperialist country and there was a national liberation struggle going on against your government you had to provide it with material support.

Trotsky declared that any British socialist who refused to provide full support for the struggle in Ireland (and India and Egypt) deserved to be branded with infamy, if not with an actual bullet."

End Partition. The first step to freedom.

author by John Meehanpublication date Sat Apr 15, 2006 15:17

I agree with DD's comments above - this story deserves a quick entry into the rubbish-bin.

The material quoted here falls a long way short of proof - the only definitive fact is that an ex-British agent "Martin Ingrams" has made a serious allegation, and there is no corroboration. Martin McGuinness denies the claim, so we should accept his word in the absence of further real evidence.

Indymedia needs to seriously consider its editorial and journalistic responsibilities here.

By contrast, real evidence is in the public domain regarding the double agents Denis Donaldson, Seán O'Callaghan and Freddie Scappatticci. Stick to facts. Don't feed into conspiracy theories.

author by Barrypublication date Sat Apr 15, 2006 17:05

.

no evidence for these assertions
no evidence for these assertions

author by Derrymanpublication date Mon May 29, 2006 00:08

I agree with John Meehan's contribution above.

A 'document' is supposedly shown to 'Martin Ingram' who then tells us that a code on that 'document 'refers to Martin McGuinness

Nobody questions this and the bulletin boards are packed with people going 'I told you so'

The timing of this so-called 'expose' is also very interesting

author by kaiser billpublication date Mon May 29, 2006 13:47

with all the media hype and coverage of previous stories of similar content I am amused to see how very little coverage this piece has been given, could it be a case of British Censorship? Or is it so unbelievable that it does not merit airing? The latter being the case then since when have the British media decided to be so kind to Martin as not too blemish his good name and character?

author by bad boys rulespublication date Mon May 29, 2006 13:51

If the allegations are true this is very, very damaging to the British government.

author by kaiser billpublication date Mon May 29, 2006 16:30

If this was to be true wouldnt it mean that the ceasefire called in 94 was called by the brits and not the P.I.R.A. ? I have seen an army disarmed, and now humiliated with false goals, riddled at the top level with agents whose agenda is brit motivated, the benefactor of this pantomime is who?

author by Philpublication date Mon May 29, 2006 17:27

Whilst I have have no time for the Adams/ McGuinness leadership I am praying that these allegations are lies, because I couldn't bear to imagine what would be the outcome if they were proven to be true. Republicanism would come crashing down like the Twin Towers and too many people have died and sacrificed too much for that to happen.
I for one don't believe that these allegations are true but an attempt to destroy Republicanism for ever.

author by Willy Nillypublication date Mon May 29, 2006 17:52

Martin McGuinness is NOT a Brit agent. The Brits know that after Donaldson that they can fling the muck at anyone in the higher echelons and it will stick. I do hope however that when they eventually get over this that they will reconsider their involvement in the current shambles that is the attempt to set up a government with Paisley and turn to real community politics. The Brits and the Unionists will see that it futile to try and set up a Government without the Main players involved.

author by Harrypublication date Mon May 29, 2006 18:09

But, Mr Nilly, you miss the point, the unionists do not want the "Main player involved", Sinn Fein. That is their policy. Why should Sinn Fein do what a bunch of sectarian Neanderthals want? The unionists already refuse to form a government, with Sinn Fein. Now you want Sinn Fein to say, "We agree". The Agreement gives nationalists the right by law to sit in government in the North – that is the part the unionists have a problem with. Sinn Fein have said that if the unionists do not play ball, their Stomont bauble should be abolished (see link below). Which part of doing it that way round have you have a problem with?

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76265

Related Link: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76265
author by Willy Nillypublication date Mon May 29, 2006 18:24

The part were Republicans make fools of themselves while trying to win the acceptance of these Neanderthals.

author by Philpublication date Mon May 29, 2006 18:36

Then Why didn't Republicans take this path in 1974? There's no difference with what was on offer then and now. A 6 county government with a Unionist Ruler! Such a waste of life!

author by Harrypublication date Mon May 29, 2006 19:02

Nilly
Republicans do no need to "win the acceptance of these Neanderthals". Republicans govern as of right. It is the basis of sectarian unionism that apartheid must operate in all sections of society – starting with who rules the sate and all the way down to preventing RCs/nationalists from being able to live in the same areas as unionists/Protestants (loosly). Being forced to share power with republicans will force unionism to implode, to self-destruct. It will lead to the end of Partition, which is based on sectarian apartheid on the island as a whole – though the Achilles heel is that nationalists did not play ball up north or down south.

Phil
It is not a "6 county government with a Unionist Ruler!" Unionists cannot rule unilaterally with power sharing as of right. That is why they oppose it. That is why the nationalist population overwhelmingly supports it. It is different from 1974, because the reforms forced through by over 30 years of conflict have made the position of the nationalist population more secure, and the position of the unionist population more insecure. That is why they refuse to form a government, why the unionist paramilitaries carried on a sustained campaign of sectarian attacks, why the Orange Order is determined to re-establish its right to march, why the most reactionary pro-imperialist sections of the British establishment have tried to sabotage the agreement at every step, why the most reactionary elements in the South have joined up their thinking with this approach. Certainly, there is an attempt to stabilise partition, and the main thrust of this strategy is to deny at all costs the right of Sinn Fein to represent the nationalist population in government. To allow that presence in government is to vindicate the republican struggle, as far as they are concerned.

The issue is not whether you are for or against Sinn Fein. It is whether you support the right of the nationalist population to choose representatives to sit in government as of right.

author by Philpublication date Mon May 29, 2006 19:57

Well it's all gone from a 32 county Socialist Republic to jointly ruling a 6 county Statelet. Who do you think you are talking to Harry? After a 30 year war it all boils down to getting on a equal footing with Unionists so that Republicans can destroy the Unionist veto and their connection with Britain and sweep us into a United Ireland. I think that what we've seen in recent months is British determination that this won't happen and Republicans have contributed to their own downfall by foolishness in totally surrendering arms, standing down the Army, ordering Volunteers to give themselves up to the cops, nominating Paisley, etc etc. All stupid attempts to appease the Enemy and win their approval. "Look we're good now, let us in!"

author by Barrypublication date Mon May 29, 2006 21:45

this "strategy" advocated by Harry was precisely the same as advocated by the sticks and the SDLP from the beginning of he conflict . I believed we referred to their leadership as British collaborators and agents throughout that entire period because of this strategy which we rejected outright . It appears they were right and we were wrong . An apology to the Irish people would now seem highly appropriate in those circumstances .

author by Harrypublication date Tue May 30, 2006 01:45

“Moving the goalposts Phil Mon May 29, 2006 18:57
Well it's all gone from a 32 county Socialist Republic to jointly ruling a 6 county Statelet.”

Well now Phil, I believe the phrase “32 County Democratic Socialist Republic” is the one that was used.

What is the democratic element and what is the socialist element and how might they be combined?

The democratic element is in the creation of a state covering the whole island in which political equality is the cornerstone, freedom of speech, the press, etc is the guaranteed and sectarian discrimination is outlawed and denied a right of effect in society. The socialist element is in creating an equal society in which economic and social disadvantage is abolished through ending the rule of Private property and privilege.

Today we have two states, one based on nationalism and capitalism that has a consensual basis – there is no one in open revolt against it, quite the contrary. It is a stable entity, by and large. It is trying to integrate itself into the structures of European and world capitalism, but is held back (to some degree) by the revolutionary traditions within Irish nationalism and anti-colonialism. The political establishment that runs it is not going to work for a united Ireland because that would potentially destabilise the socio-economic structures that preserve the privileges of that establishment. They don’t particularly care about the position of the nationalist minority in the North, but will do so if forced by political pressure from below. By and large they will attempt to diffuse and defuse the simple demand for a United Ireland. It is as important for them to undermine Sinn Fein politically in the South as it is for the ‘securocrats’ and unionists in the North. This is what is meant by seeing eye-to-eye or ‘doing business’ with Ian Paisley. It is a partitionist charade that gives the illusion to the a-political (and most people are most of the time) of a ‘coming together’ on an all-Ireland basis.

The important point, however, is that the southern state is an expression of the partial independence won in 1921. As such, it represents a democratic advance and is politically far in advance of the part of island that remains under direct colonial control. Even under capitalism that remains the case.

The other state on this island is a colonial enclave that is incapable of creating a consensual basis for rule because it is based on the sectarian apartheid and ideology I mentioned earlier. The incentive and pressure for a United Ireland will come from the nationalist minority in the north. But they are cut off in a politically organised sense from the national majority (in the rest of the island) by Partition – which, because it has structural, also has political effects. Where once the revolutionary segment of the national majority was a minority of the minority in the North (during he period of armed struggle), now they are a majority of that minority. They achieved that position in a peaceful context because the section of the minority representing the interests of the southern political establishment, the SDLP, were incapable of articulating the democratic demand for a United Ireland and the reforms and all Ireland dimension to politics that it entailed. Sinn Fein does represent that.

Now you may or may not accept the foregoing, but, for the sake of argument, let us accept that there are impediments to a united Ireland of any kind, never mind a socialist one. That being said, what is the main element of attack for those who wish to prevent either? It is aimed at Sinn Fein. It is because the political advance of Sinn Fein represents the greatest danger to the imperialist settlement of 1921, to the continued political role of direct British interference in Ireland and the southern political establshments's conrol over the southern state.

One way to undermine Sinn Fein and the republican struggle generally is to make republicans think they have entered a cul-de-sac, by undermining republican morale with tales of touts and spies, interminable dragging out of the main prize of the Good Friday Agreement (the right of nationalists to rule as of right), the refusal to grant promised reforms on policing while pressurising Sinn Fein to accept unacceptable conditions, regular manufactured crises about alleged IRA activities, and importantly the harnessing of the most reactionary elements in the South (including Fianna Fail) to this project.

One way out of this manufactured political maze it to maintain a clear and undiluted democratic focus:

* Reform the executive with a right to Sinn Fein participation or get rid of Stormont.

* Bring in the promised policing reforms, all of them including the right of nationalist communities to have control over their own policing, or refuse to accept existing policing structures.

* Proceed with the all-Ireland dimension

* Continued, relentless and undiminished exposure of the sectarian tactics and behaviour of unionism

These demands should be pursued both the north and the south. They are achievable but only if pursued determinably. I suspect that Sinn Fein, if it was ever complacent, will snap out of it as it becomes increasingly clear that the reactionary structures of the northern state continually reinvent and reform themselves. The only thing wrong with Gerry Adams’ nomination of Ian Paisley as First Minister is that he did not say “I nominate the insufferable sectarian bigot to the position he was elected to occupy by the community he represents”. Sinn Fein is not required to like Ian Paisley, just to relentlessly expose unionist refusal to share power with their nationalist neighbours and their tolerance and even promotion of sectarianism.

There are no guarantees that reform is continuous. A political leadership is not a military high command. The republican opponents of Sinn Fein behave like a catatonic ‘leadership in waiting’ with a militarised understanding of politics. There is no understanding of the advances represented by the Good Friday Agreement, and of Sinn Fein’s role in pursuing those demands, only of the inevitability of bad things happening, because they are not part of a stultified and irrelevant ‘plan’ that is an excuse for a political inaction and cynical largely ineffectual commentary.

One thing that Sinn Fein needs is a critical constituency that is capable of formulating demands at the level of the state, and that does not indulge in interminable naval gazing, the search for traitors, etc. The latter approach just makes its proponents easy meat for manipulation. The opponents of Sinn Fein in the nationalist community are (with one or two exceptions) like people suffering from long-term depression, incapable of independent political action and bereft of the possibility of objective analysis. The threads of Indymedia are filled with moaning, bad jokes, wait-for-it-to-happen: I-told you-so moments manufactured and provided by the northern and southern establishments and a compliant media, and ‘where-did-it-all-go-wrong’ wailing.

Lads, get a grip and start to put identifiable demands to the British, the unionists and the southern government. Stop behaving like an unwitting (because you appear - thus far - to have few wits) fifth column.

author by tom eilepublication date Tue May 30, 2006 14:41

Harry ,the only "Identifiable demand " I can think of for republicans to address to the Brits is Go.
Were you thinking about making some sort of transitional demands on British imperialism?

author by Jerry Corneliuspublication date Tue May 30, 2006 14:43

An excellent idea. Perhaps they could withdraw as far as the Isle of Man as a transitional phase.

author by Philpublication date Tue May 30, 2006 15:39

Martin McGuinness is a spy? Oh come on, if he were what would it benefit the British Government to unmask him? It would not only ruin the Provos but any chance the Brits had of getting the farce that is the GFA off the ground. Most importantly if the Brits were found to be running the Provos from the top, especially complicit in using human bombs to kill their own troops, then what damage would that do to their War in Iraq? The whole deck of cards that was the dirty war in Ireland would come tumbling down around them. No right thinking person believes that McGuinness was a Brit agent but that the DUP were behind the allegations is looking more and more likely. Surely then Martin and Gerry you don't expect us to accept these people as the future leadership of this Northern part of Ireland?

author by tom eilepublication date Tue May 30, 2006 16:21


Lads, get a grip and start to put identifiable demands to the British, the unionists and the southern government. ……………….Harry writing on indymedia today

He called on Iraqis to "get a grip" on security and on those behind the violence through local and central governance……. British Defence Secretary ,Des Browne speaking today http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5029806.stm

author by Conspiracy Theoristpublication date Tue May 30, 2006 18:02

Phil Quotes

'then what damage would that do to their War in Iraq? The whole deck of cards that was the dirty war in Ireland would come tumbling down around them

What price Truth?

author by Philpublication date Tue May 30, 2006 18:23

Truth is the first victim in any war, but the truth always finds it's way out, and it will.

author by Bicriupublication date Tue May 30, 2006 18:29

What a surprise sinn fein has rubbished the claim!!!!

The question is not is he, but who else is?

I have been suspicious of many senior republican figures who have done little jail time and amassed a fortune over the years.

slab murphy being a prime suspect. I wonder did this guy
ever really want a united Ireland? His wealth is due to the border existing. I assume belonging to a socialist movement and being a committed socialist he has redistributed his wealth to those less well-off then himself.

author by Fear Morpublication date Tue May 30, 2006 18:50

The people in every area controlled by Sinn Fein can see this for themselves.

author by Philpublication date Tue May 30, 2006 20:32

The lesson for those still trying to carry on a war against Britain is get out now while you still have your liberty or lives. If this is as far as we've got with very determined and brave Volunteers then you will surely fail. I now believe that no cause can justify dying and killing because ultimately those we trust to lead us will betray us by their own selfish lust for power and greed for wealth.

author by Harrypublication date Tue May 30, 2006 23:05

Tom Eile (to Brits):
"Go"........... "
(Minutes pass.)
"Dum de dum. ………. Hey ho”
(Aimless looking about, accompanied by a tuneless whistle or two.)
"Errr..... Eh, have they gone yet? No. Ok, will I say it again? Maybe I should repeat the message.”
(Sharp intake of breath.)
Go, I really mean it this time you Brits."
(Gradual dawning realisation that “Go” policy is not having intended effect.)
“What do we do now? Ideas, anyone?”

[By the way Phil, your alternative ‘Give up before we start policy’ has the advantage over Tom’s that it does not require expenditure of effort for little if any discernable return.]

author by tom eilepublication date Tue May 30, 2006 23:10

Ideas anyone ho hum?
I've got a good one . If you can't beat them ,join them .how about that?

author by Donnchadhpublication date Wed May 31, 2006 03:12

I dont think McGuiness was any kind of spy but there's no doubt that at a certain point the intrests of the Adams - McGuiness leadership and the British Government were the same - the standing down of PIRA. In 1986 the movement split into Republican Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein Lite. Once Sinn Fein Lite had recognised the Free State they also had to recognise Free State law - which said that IRA volunteers were criminals and that the IRA was a criminal conspiracy. The traditional Republican Movement still exists in the form of Republican Sinn Fein and the Continuity IRA. The traditional movement has its constituency and so does Sinn Fein Lite. Indeed the political marketplace demanded a Sinn Fein Lite as Fianna Fail had deserted this ground and the SDLP were completely ineffective. No one can deny that the Adams/McGuiness leadership has been very successful in growing their market share. The big question is what will they do with this power? Will they manage to keep to the aim of Irish Unity or will they go the way of Cumainn na nGael, Fianna Fail and Clann na Poblachta? Meanwhile we are seeing something of a division between the middle aged Provisional leadership and Republican youth.

author by Philpublication date Wed May 31, 2006 18:33

Didn't the Brits try to claim that Martin McGuinness fired the first shots on Bloody Sunday? Now they claim that he's an Informer who colluded with them to kill British solders using human bombs. What next, The Yorkshire Ripper was really a rogue IRA man sent over by McGuinness to terrorise English women, because he hates women especially English ones? I don't agree with Martin nor Gerry but I also can't be in agreement with the unfounded allegations made by the gutter journalists in the Sunday World, which are an attempt to destroy someone because he is a Republican.

author by Andy Townpublication date Wed May 31, 2006 21:39

I'm sure we're talking about the same drunk, writes nice things about the bar owners in return for drinks. My pal this My pal that yet none of them can stand the sight of him. They tolerate him for the free publicity.

author by Barrypublication date Mon Jun 12, 2006 08:18

Heres the text of Martin McGuinnesses speech to the Ard Feis in 1986 . Its quite clear from reading this he was lying through his teeth with a straight face to the assembled ard feis . Basically theres little doubt at all from reading this that his word counts for absolutely nothing .

Martin McGuinness address to Ard Feis on the issue of abstentionism (Resolution 162), Sinn Féin Ard Fheis, Dublin, (2 November 1986).

"I can give a commitment on behalf of the leadership that we have absolutely no intention of going to Westminster or Stormont. As regards to my contributions in the run up to today’s debate, I have steadfastly refused to become involved in a public slanging match with those who oppose this motion, but issues have been raised by some of the defenders of abstentionism that need to be confronted and challenged. They argue that some TDs entering Leinster House will make it impossible to conduct armed struggle against British rule in the 6 counties. They tell you that it is inevitable certainty that the war against British rule will be run down. These suggestions deliberately infer that the present leadership of Sinn Fein and the leadership of the Irish Republican Army are intent on edging the republican movement on to a constitutional path. To bolster their arguments, they draw a comparison between a pre-1970s leadership of the republican movement which had surrendered before the war began, and the present leadership of this movement.

Shame — Shame — Shame.

Successful electoral strategy in the 6 counties is testament enough of that government’s inability to overcome the resistance of a new generation of IRA freedom fighters supported on equal terms by articulate and committed Sinn Fein freedom fighters. It will be a sad day for this movement that the record of the present generation of republican soldiers and Sinn Fein activists needed to be defended on this platform. Sadly the inference that the removal of abstentionism would lead to the demise of military opposition to British Rule has indeed called into question the commitment of the IRA to pursue the struggle to a successful conclusion.

I reject any such suggestion and I reject the notion that entering Leinster House would mean an end to Sinn Fein’s unapologetic support for the right of Irish people to oppose in arms the British forces of occupation. That, my friends, is a principle which a minority in this hall might doubt but which I believe all our opponents clearly understand. Our position is clear and it will never, never, never change. The war against British rule must continue until freedom is achieved.

But we are not at war with the government of the 26 Counties — the reality of this fact must be recognised by us all. And, in accepting this reality, we must also accept that after 65 years of republican struggle, republican agitation, republican sacrifice, and republican rhetoric we have failed to convince a majority in the 26 counties that the republican movement has any relevance to them. By ignoring reality we remain alone and isolated on the high altar of abstentionism, divorced from the people of the 26 counties and easily dealt with by those who wish to defeat us. Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue and this leadership is charged with the responsibility to make our struggle more and more relevant to Irish people.

In a Sunday Tribune article last Sunday we were told that we endanger the purity of republicanism because we attract quantity rather than quality. This is a calculated insult to Irish people which ignores a very important fact the struggle against the British could not have been carried out as successfully as it has been without an adequate supply of both quantity and quality.

It is a fact that IRA volunteers, some very young and some with only a limited knowledge of republicanism have given their lives and liberty for the struggle. They were committed to Irish freedom and fought and died in this cause — are they to be regarded as inferior and less important than those who regard themselves as republican elitists?

We are told, among other things, that we are counter-revolutionaries and that if we lose this vote we will be discredited. It’s sad and surprising that this could have been said by a republican. The British government have a different opinion of us, however. They fear this movement, they fear this leadership. They have every right to fear us because, in or out of Leinster House, we led the most dangerous and committed revolutionary force in Ireland for 65 years.

This Ard Fheis and you, the delegates, deserve to know the whole story of this debate. In fact, what you’re witnessing here is not a debate over one issue, but two — abstentionism and the leadership of the republican struggle. The two issues should not be confused and those who are considering leaving along with members of the former leadership should consider carefully what I am about to say. The reality is that the former leadership of this movement has never been able to come to terms with this leadership’s criticism of the disgraceful attitude adopted by them during the disastrous 18 months ceasefire in the mid-1970s. Instead of accepting the validity of our case, as others who have remained have done, they chose to withhold their wholehearted support from the leadership which replaced them.

Some of the former leadership have already gone. They were not squeezed out, they left us. Some stayed and will stay after this debate. If those who remain leave this movement today it will not be just because of the abstentionist vote.

Finally, those opposed to this issue know there isn’t going to be any split in Sinn Fein, they also know that the ranks of the IRA contain a minority of volunteers who, while opposed to the removal of abstentionism from Leinster House, have committed themselves to stand shoulder to shoulder in unity with their comrades. They will not split, they will not walk away from the armed struggle. They are the real revolutionaries. If you allow yourself to be led out of this hall today, the only place you’re going - is home. You will be walking away from the struggle. Don’t go my friends. We will lead you to the republic."

author by molepublication date Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:05

shure there was never any rogue agents in the organisation, tis all lies, LIES YA HEAR , twas doomed to failure from 1986 onwards, now they run through the hoops because my friends they are defeated, yep DEFEATED, wow what a kick in the teeth to all involved ehh, spies exposed at the highest levels, some of em mcguiness wingmen ehh Dont take a genius to put 2 and 2 and get 4, ahh shure would ya leave em be, they got nice holiday homes now, big money now boys, shure tis like getting tickets to the circus

author by Donnchadhpublication date Mon Jun 12, 2006 15:03

The trouble is that Martin McGuiness was never a republican to begin with - more of an armed civil rights protestor. He says himself he joined the Republican Movement as a reaction to the brutality of the Stormont Regime - not for any idealogical reasons. He was happy to stay with the Stikkies even after they had accepted partition. The only reason he defected to the Provisionals was that they were in his words "more active" not because they defended the 32 county Republic declaired in 1916 and ratified by the First 32 county Dail Eireann. Again in his speach, quoted here by Barry, he shows that he still did not understand the republican position in 1986. The republican position was - and is - that the Republic continues to exist despite its territory being under occupation. Men like O Bradaigh did not need to be "lead to the Republic" by Martin McGuinness - they were already part of it. I'd have to say, though, that some of the blame for all this lies with the leadership which promoted men, like McGuiness, who didnt understand basic republicanism to such high rank. Its no wonder that McGuiness now says that Bobby Sands died for equality and civil rights - McGuiness probably actually believes that. He didnt Martin - fortunately we have Sand's own words which cannot be twisted, Sands wrote in his prison diary on March 1, 1981: "I am dying not just to end the barbarity of H-Block, or to gain the rightful recognition of a political prisoner, but primarily because what is lost here is lost for the Republic." Needless to say Bobby Sands believed that he was part of this existing Republic - he did not need Martin McGuinness to lead him to it.

author by Harrypublication date Mon Jun 12, 2006 17:11

Martin McGuiness .... says himself he joined the Republican Movement as a reaction to the brutality of the Stormont Regime - not for any idealogical reasons. He was happy to stay with the Stikkies even after they had accepted partition. The only reason he defected to the Provisionals was that they were in his words "more active" not because they defended the 32 county Republic declaired in 1916 and ratified by the First 32 county Dail Eireann.

Donnchadh - that confirms it, you live in Cloud Cuckoo land.

Why do you think the vast majority joined the IRA, for the same reason as Martin McGuinness. Read O'Hearn's book on Bobby Sands and you will find the same sort of reasons outlined for his joining the movement.

People get politics from their real lived experiences. Republicanism was only relevant because it offered a means to fight back, and that is what young people wanted to do in reaction to British/RUC/UDR brutality aimed at the demand for equality and civil rights. The worked-out politics came later. And they adapted republican politics .The military suicide refusing to recognise the courts was the first to go. Why don’t you propose bringing that refusal back – see how you get on.

author by Davy Carlinpublication date Mon Jun 12, 2006 17:25

While some of those more 'experienced - and pre recent conflict Republicans, 'had the politics, the reality, and indeed the real 'immediacy, though for many, was as Harry States.

Quote -

'People get politics from their real lived experiences. Republicanism was only relevant because it offered a means to fight back, and that is what young people wanted to do in reaction to British/RUC/UDR brutality aimed at the demand for equality and civil rights. The worked-out politics came later. And they adapted republican politics '.

- Therefore I would agree with this point, as it stands

author by ohhharrybooypublication date Mon Jun 12, 2006 17:44

so you are saying he didnt/does not give a damn about the republic then, well that explains a lot, explains why his wingman was a brit spy and lord knows how many are crawling around still, and why he pushed for what..well essentially they have today, but no wait tis the brits that pushed using the moles to achieve their agenda and make it look like republicans were achieving theirs, you know some1 once said the irish were dumb and ya know waht boyo, they could have a serious point there because the british beurocrats have been laughing now for about 20 years or so, imagine if you knew every single strategy your opponent was going to try--in fact you had nice senior moles that could actually change direction suttely of that policy and make it look like you were caving to demand, jasus now that gives a whole new meaning to the word idiots, doesent it, trust us says adams and mcguiness, shure weve got more leaks than the titanic, we cant lose!!

author by Donnchadhpublication date Mon Jun 12, 2006 19:03

Harry you dont really seem to be disagreeing with me - McGuiness joined the movement as a reaction to British state brutality, as did many others, but an armed struggle is a ridiculous way to react to a ligitimate state operating the level of brutality the British operated in the late sixties. The reason for the armed struggle was that the British state was and is an illegitimate usurper in Ireland . If Martin McGuiness believed he was fighting for civil rights under British law - as he now claims, then the correct approach was the one taken by John Hume, McGuiness should have been a member of the SDLP then, rather than turn the provisionals into a born again SDLP as he has done now. You say the politics came later - well it seems pretty careless to start shooting people and leave it till later to work out why your doing it. It seems that by the time Martin and Gerry got around to wondering why they were in the Republican Movement, they had realised they didnt really want to be in it.

author by Donnchadhpublication date Mon Jun 12, 2006 19:16

And Harry, I dont know why Bobby Sands joined the Republican Movement in the first place - but the quote I gave you from his prison diary shows, in no uncertain terms, that by the first of march 1981 he knew exactly why he was still in it - to defend the Republic - not for equality of treatment under British law.

author by Davy Carlinpublication date Mon Jun 12, 2006 20:30

Those who where driven to ‘take up arms, as opposed to ‘Armed struggle

Donnchadh

there where 'various reasons to take up arms – {putting aside McGuiness}

for example

I had known many personally from the Murph, Falls and Twinbrook where I lived {through out 70's and 80's}, who took up arms, initially, for no other reason than for defence, the only 'politic was the 'politic to defend their loved ones who where being beaten, shot and murdered before their very eyes.

Therefore they joined 'whatever organisation which could provide the means to that defence' through the force of arms, and for some, it then, moved to wanting to 'hit back

With that, some, only then, and eventually, became politicised within the ideology of Republican politics.

They did not initially 'sign up because they where thoroughbred Republicans they signed up because Republicans could provide the means to the defence they sought through weaponry.

Of course others joined up via a tradition while others again did so who already were ‘politicised, but the reality was that many many joined within the various aspects of, ‘politics of defence, to hit back, to seek 'real justice and change etc etc and not because they woke up one morning and realised that they were a Republican.

Indeed if the events around them had of been different the vast majority of them would have just went about their daily toil, and family lives

As I have found out personally, such events help ‘create such persons, who in real terms, believe that they are provided with no other alternative other than to be driven into various forms of arms.

Whether childhood weaponry or adult weaponry.

Indeed one may be a brick the other a gun – but for many - each in kind were driven to 're - act in such ways, initially, and soley, by the events around them of Unionist and British making, and not initially by an ideology .

author by Donnchadhpublication date Mon Jun 12, 2006 21:07

And as Harry said, Bobby Sands probably also joined to defend his community, but the Provisional IRA quickly went from defence in 1970 to offence. The reason for this offensive was not to force the British to concede civil rights but to drive the British from the territory of the Republic. Bobby Sands understood this in 1981, and more than likely well before that. To have carried out a twenty five year campaign which saw so many noble volunteers loose their lives and spend decades in British prison camps, along with so many civilians killed and mamed, not to mention enemy forces, all for civil rights under British law would have been obscene. The only cause which could have justified and necessitated such sacrifice was and is the defence of the Republic and full Irish Independance from British rule. The SDLP would have eventually won civil rights under British law, indeed the PIRA campaign delayed this outcome. Its no wonder that the current provisional leadership is so lost and easy to manipulate if they thought that all that sacrifice was just for equality of treatment under British law.

author by Donnchadhpublication date Mon Jun 12, 2006 21:17

I take your point Davy that not all volunteers were in a position to take time to study and think about Republicanism, but I dont think that excuse is available to someone of Martin McGuiness's rank. Also I could repeat that the PIRA leadership in the seventies are not without blame for promoting men to high rank who dont seem to have a clue what the real function of the IRA is.

author by Sharon - Individualpublication date Mon Jun 12, 2006 21:23

....the struggle , as I understand it , is not about seeking a share in our own colonisation .
Not wanting to go 'off topic' , but I am reminded , from reading the above posts , that 'Christian civilisation' was conferred on so-called "savages" by means of the bayonet , the whip and the cudgel : the British delivered "human rights and democracy " to the Irish by means of the tank , the bomb and the bullet .
Must we endure another eight centuries of that ?

Sharon .

Related Link: http://1169andcounting.blogspot.com
author by Harrypublication date Tue Jun 13, 2006 00:50

The British and the unionists drove those who fought for civil rights off the streets with guns - what do you think happened in Derry on Bloody Sunday?

The move from defence to offensive action was a product of possibility not something inherent and exclusive to republican politics. The struggle today is still about achieving a United Ireland through breaking the unionist sectarian monolith.

In 1919-21 young men and women joined the struggle for the same reasons, defence of their community, reaction to British brutality. They also had the advantage of defending the Sinn Fein election victory of 1918 – a powerful democratic impetus.

Post 1968, the 1918 election victory was but a distant memory and played no role in the re-ignition of the struggle. The nationalist minority in the North was abandoned by the southern establishment who managed eventually to insulate the southern population from the struggle for democratic rights (one of which includes a United Ireland) centred on the North. The minority in the North was left to forge the struggle on its own to a large degree; with significant though limited support from the South.

You have to link the demand for a United Ireland with its practical expression through politics. Otherwise it is just a museum piece with no practical relevance. Deriding others because they do not live the 1916 population is like deriding the 1916 lades for not living precepts put forward by the 1798 leaders. It is a recipe for irrelevance – but then a policy that elevates the tactic of abstentionism to one of principle welcomes irrelevance as a political bedfellow.

author by Donnchadhpublication date Tue Jun 13, 2006 01:43

1. The British and the unionists drove those who fought for civil rights off the streets with guns - what do you think happened in Derry on Bloody Sunday?

By the time Bloody Sunday happened the PIRA offensive was well on the way. If there had been no IRA in existence, just civil rights marchers, the British would not have reacted with such vengence. Certainly the Stormont regime reacted to the civil rights movement with violence, the US government also reacted with violence to the anti-Vietnam war movement also, but nobody thought of starting an armed struggle to force the US government to stop attacking anti-war protests. In other words it was the clash of the Irish Republic represented by the IRA and the British occupation forces which made the situation a war instead of a civil rights campaign.

2. The move from defence to offensive action was a product of possibility not something inherent and exclusive to republican politics.

Moving to offensive action was always inherent to the function of the IRA, i.e. to force an end to British occupation. It dosnt matter how much civil rights the British grant to their Irish subjects - the function of the IRA is to defend the Republic and remove an alien occupation.

3. The struggle today is still about achieving a United Ireland through breaking the unionist sectarian monolith.

This is a complete fallacy. The Unionist sectarian monolith was structurally incapable of evolving to meet the demands of the modern world and was loosing its grip on power with every passing year. Now the provisional movement has thrown it a life line by making it update its structure. The six county statelet was a rotten embarrassment for the British government, but now it is developing into a modern Free State that will be very difficult to root out.

4. In 1919-21 young men and women joined the struggle for the same reasons, defence of their community, reaction to British brutality. They also had the advantage of defending the Sinn Fein election victory of 1918 – a powerful democratic impetus.

Let's be a little reasonable, when Dan Breen opened fire on RIC men in Soloheadbeg, there was a very low level of British brutality in Ireland, certainly nothing to merit killing local policemen escorting explosives for a quarry. Breen never suggested that these were bad or brutal policemen. The reason Breen's action was justified is that those RIC men were usurping the functions of the Republic.

5. Post 1968, the 1918 election victory was but a distant memory and played no role in the re-ignition of the struggle. The nationalist minority in the North was abandoned by the southern establishment who managed eventually to insulate the southern population from the struggle for democratic rights (one of which includes a United Ireland) centred on the North. The minority in the North was left to forge the struggle on its own to a large degree; with significant though limited support from the South.

I dont think the civil war and partition were distant memories in 1968. They are all too real now also.

6. You have to link the demand for a United Ireland with its practical expression through politics. Otherwise it is just a museum piece with no practical relevance. Deriding others because they do not live the 1916 population is like deriding the 1916 lades for not living precepts put forward by the 1798 leaders. It is a recipe for irrelevance – but then a policy that elevates the tactic of abstentionism to one of principle welcomes irrelevance as a political bedfellow.

Tell me exactly what precepts of the 1798 leaders did the 1916 lads not live up to? Given their dedication to Wolfe Tone its highly unlikely they went against anything he said. Abstentionism could never have been thought of as a tactic. When you join the system the occupier has devised to occupy a territory, you become part of the occupier's resources. In the case of the six counties the provisional leadership has been a tremendous asset to the British state in ligitimising, updating and normalising British rule. No doubt there are many in PSF who feel that by modernising the six county statelet they will take away the benefit to the unionists of partition. This hope is misplaced. The only benefit the Unionists accrue from partition is the joy of denying self determination to the Taigs. They now have a new copperfastened status quo which will continue to provide them with this pleasure for as long as they desire.

author by Harrypublication date Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:07

A sentence by me above should read: “Deriding others because they do not live the 1916 [Proclamation] is like deriding the 1916 [leaders] for not living precepts put forward by the 1798 leaders”.

Answer

"1. By the time Bloody Sunday happened the PIRA offensive was well on the way. If there had been no IRA in existence, just civil rights marchers, the British would not have reacted with such vengence. Certainly the Stormont regime reacted to the civil rights movement with violence, the US government also reacted with violence to the anti-Vietnam war movement also, but nobody thought of starting an armed struggle to force the US government to stop attacking anti-war protests. In other words it was the clash of the Irish Republic represented by the IRA and the British occupation forces which made the situation a war instead of a civil rights campaign."

The IRA campaign was given initial impetus by the Falls Road Curfew of June 1970 and subsequently by the introduction of Internment in August 1971. During 1970 and 1971, the British Army developed quickly into the racist and brutal army of occupation that was its traditional role in Ireland. The population, radicalised by the demand for civil rights, its leaders energised also by the Civil Rights movement in the US and the anti-Vietnam War movement, and frustrated and angered by unrelenting sectarianism and inequality, fought back.

The comparison with the US is nonsensical. No part of the US constitutes a colony of itself and in fact there were ulta-left attempts to start an ‘armed struggle’ in defence of the Vietnamese revolution, which were a complete diversion from the huge mass movement against the Vietnam War. The black population did adopt a stance of armed self-defence in some instances (the Black Panthers), but again a mass movement was more powerful in the long term.

In Ireland there was a foreign army of occupation which imported tactics and attitudes from Malaya, Kenya and Cyprus – and from previous periods of conflict in Ireland.

"2. Moving to offensive action was always inherent to the function of the IRA, i.e. to force an end to British occupation. It dosnt matter how much civil rights the British grant to their Irish subjects - the function of the IRA is to defend the Republic and remove an alien occupation."

It was because civil rights demands and demands for basic equality. were met with bullets that the armed struggle gained impetus. It would never have happened otherwise – if it did, it would have been the damp squib that was the 1956-61 campaign that petered out quickly and barely affected the North.

Your commentary is the same as that of the revisionist historians and politicians: the civil rights campaign was driven off the rails by the IRA who appeared out of nowhere. It is reactionary nonsense on their part, militarist nonsense on yours.

"3. The Unionist sectarian monolith was structurally incapable of evolving to meet the demands of the modern world and was loosing its grip on power with every passing year. Now the provisional movement has thrown it a life line by making it update its structure. The six county statelet was a rotten embarrassment for the British government, but now it is developing into a modern Free State that will be very difficult to root out."

Completely agree on the inability of unionism to evolve – no argument at all there.

The state though is incapable of evolving into a “modern Free State” because the state is inherently sectarian. Normal democratic precepts are sectarian precepts in the North: majority rule equals sectarian rule. If unionism was being thrown a “life line” they would grab it with both hands. In fact they shun it with every fibre of their being. Entering into a power sharing arrangement with Sinn Fein destroyed David Trimble’s political creditability. The DUP intend to prevent at all costs the setting up of a functioning governing structure where nationalists rule as of right and where unionism cannot exercise power exclusively. This will break up the unionist monolith because unionism is a form of apartheid, which cannot survive cohesively or coherently when its enforced separation from nationalists cannot function. The trick to movement in the North is to take the power of majority rule out of the equation at every instance. The power of unionists to prevent the setting up of the Executive should be withdrawn.

"4. Let's be a little reasonable, when Dan Breen opened fire on RIC men in Soloheadbeg, there was a very low level of British brutality in Ireland, certainly nothing to merit killing local policemen escorting explosives for a quarry. Breen never suggested that these were bad or brutal policemen. The reason Breen's action was justified is that those RIC men were usurping the functions of the Republic."

The RIC were an adjunct to and under the control of the British military. It is another myth peddled by revisionists that the poor old RIC were simple “local” country policemen just doing their day-to-day duties. The RIC played a vitally important role in local intelligence, leading to arrest and capture of republicans and in counter insurgency actions – as well as infamous assassinations alongside the Auxiliaries and Black & Tans. On the day the Dail met, many of the TDs were captives of the British. Breen, later a Fianna Fail TD, certainly calculated that unless the defence of the Dail was combined with an armed defence of its integrity, the British might eventually erode a purely political struggle.

Just like your analysis of the north, your analysis of what happened in 1918 is general and abstract. It is a sad commentary on the decline in history teaching on the period – again a function of the revisionist history project of which you are just one victim.

"5. I dont think the civil war and partition were distant memories in 1968. They are all too real now also."

Most of those who joined the IRA in the North at that time knew little or nothing about it. Ask them. People who came from republican families, like Gerry Adams, did. But the vast majority did not. What the RUC-B Specials did and the actions of the British army turned people into republicans. Irish republicanism is a natural and logical reaction to the effects of British imperialism. It is given new life as the struggle ebbs and flows again in a new time period and in a new context. The tactics employed change as the new context unfolds politically. Your tactics are ossified in the past.

"6. Tell me exactly what precepts of the 1798 leaders did the 1916 lads not live up to? Given their dedication to Wolfe Tone its highly unlikely they went against anything he said. Abstentionism could never have been thought of as a tactic. …..."

Didn’t say the 1916 leaders “did not live up to” anything. They adapted to the Home Rule crisis of 1912 and the Fist World War, just as the United Irishmen were given practical impetus by the then recent French and American revolutions. Don't forget, Patrick Pearse started as a 'constitutional' supporter of Home Rule in 1912. The British capitulation to the unionists and the denial of Home Rule turned him in a republican direction.

I have also answered this point partly above – the Six County state will never ‘modernise’, it will remain sectarian for as long as it exists. It is a sectarian entity set up purely to maintain a sectarian majority based onthe idea that Protestant = British. That is the difference with the southern state, where Irish nationalism has proved itself largely uninterested in religious differences and where Protestants generally consider themselves as Irish as everyone else..

Abstentionism IS a tactic. It makes sense when you can politically and MATERIALLY create an alternative structure of political power – as in 1918. Otherwise it is just the preserve of the wilfully powerless eccentric. It is a challenge to take on the instructions of the powerful and the oppressors. But that is a test of your political mettle. Your fears read like exactly that, fear. Face your fears and attempt to represent your political constituency

”When you join the system the occupier has devised to occupy a territory, you become part of the occupier's resources."

Avoid being born then. You become part of the ‘system’ the day you draw breath, get out of hospital, go to school-college, play football, pay taxes, draw benefits.

Go and live on an uninhabited South Sea island if you want to avoid being part of the ‘system’. Don’t make such a political fetish out of the system of oppression. Build a movement that tests its inability to bring real change and then also try and win people to an alternative.

You are stuck in an apolitical rut, the victim of manipulation and disinformation, such as the moronic title of this thread.

author by Davy Carlinpublication date Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:41

Still on the specifics of –

‘Those who where driven to ‘take up arms, as opposed to ‘Armed struggle’

And so,

Although Donnchadh makes some interesting points, on the quote

‘the function of the IRA is to defend the Republic and remove an alien occupation’

- I say maybe so, but, again, that was not why the vast majority of young volunteers originally joined

And if I look past some of Harry’s slight sarcasm at the end of his post, I can agree with some of what he says though in relation to that.

Harry – Quotes –

‘Most of those who joined the IRA in the North at that time knew little or nothing about it. Ask them. People who came from republican families, like Gerry Adams, did. But the vast majority did not.

Totally agree –

And also

Harry Quotes-

‘It was because civil rights demands and demands for basic equality. were met with bullets that the armed struggle gained impetus. It would never have happened otherwise – if it did, it would have been the damp squib that was the 1956-61 campaign that petered out quickly and barely affected the North’.

To a large extent agree.

author by Barry - 32 csmpublication date Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:10

Leaving the squabbles about ideological purity , reformism and unionist monoliths to the side , the purpose of the armed insurgency was very simple - to remove an alien occupying army and the colonial institutions on this island that had no right to be there. And still have no right .

In order to avoid being removed that alien army of occupation devised a political / military strategy , namely Ulsterisation , Normalisation , Criminalisation , making some form of Bitish rule acceptable to the nationalist population and an admission that there will always be "an acceptable level of violence" that British rule in Ireland will happily put up with as a result of its presence . As Cheif negotiator for the provisionals Martin McGuinness played a key role in making that strategy a total success . That is the state of play as regards the peace process that the British and the US now hold up and promote as a means of conflict resolution throughout the world . And why wouldnt they , the occupier under this model of conflict resolution no longer becomes classed as an occupier but a neutral party , the rebels surrender their arms on the ocupiers insistence while the occupier and his militias keep theirs and the disarmed rebels promise to administer the occupiers rule for him , so he can say to the rest of the world he isnt an occupier but the legitimate sovereign government. . They even commit themselves to joining the occupying forces and removing threats to the occupier .

Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams knew bringing about precisely such a situation was what British strategy was geared towards since the mid 1970s , was why they built the H-Blocks , was why they made repeated attempts to introduce devolution and power sharing . They knew this was precisely why Britain armed the loyalists and directed their terror campaign - to terrorise people into lowering their political aims and accepting British rule in some form . And yet they decided to accept and implement this British strategy and make it their own , tarted up with talk about monoliths and new dispensations and all the rest . And in order to do this , to implement their strategy by stealth they clearly and plainly lied to their support at every step along the way , lied , conned and eceived until every rubicon was crossed piece by piece . In acting in this manner both have clearly acted as agents of influence , British counter insurgency strategy has been implemented in full , a total success . Can anyone point out one strand of which hasnt been ? Ca anyone point out one strand of it which sinn fein opposes ? Not at all , in fact sinn fein supports it under the guise of the GFA , demands British institutions are restored and "Patten implemented" . In the name of fuck how did things ever get to this sickening state of affairs ? Only British infiltration and control at the hicghest level could have delivered such a comprehensive victory for Britain and such a comprehensive material and ideological defeat for the republican insurgency .

author by Davy Carlinpublication date Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:34

Barry Quotes –

‘And why wouldn’t they , the occupier under this model of conflict resolution no longer becomes classed as an occupier but a neutral party , the rebels surrender their arms on the occupiers insistence while the occupier and his militias keep theirs and the disarmed rebels promise to administer the occupiers rule for him , so he can say to the rest of the world he isn’t an occupier but the legitimate sovereign government. . They even commit themselves to joining the occupying forces and removing threats to the occupier ‘

-Sound point.

Barry Quotes-

‘’ a comprehensive material and ideological defeat for the republican insurgency ‘.

Yep – but also,

-a comprehensive material and ideological defeat for the republican ‘Radical politics once espoused.

From sitting as British ministers they then delivered to the most disadvantaged, privatisation through to closures, while almost trying to push through an amnesty for ‘state murderers, {until a grassroots backlash occurred}

The only thing that would have been ‘deemed ‘radical, was abolishing the 11 plus {which most wanted gone away} and the issue of academic selection, but oh, now we are told that that to may very well, now, be up for grabs,

Indeed, Barry, it could not be any more comprehensive – this, within ‘ALL’ aspects of such a once radical and insurgency Movement.

Indeed the, once nail , sees still the hammer continue to hammer, even at a now level surface.
.

author by Barrypublication date Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:50

Where they merely a tactic and not a principle ? Was their purpose merely a means to undermine and remove internal political opponents to a reformist agenda that led to total defeat ? How did we get from the abolition of ALL private property in Ireland in 1982 , a motion in support of Albania as the only true model of socilaism in 1986 , to "socialism is not on the agenda" in 1987 ?
Was it all posturing , manouvering and lies as much of the rest has been exposed as ?

author by Larrypublication date Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:53

Barry:
"In the name of fuck how did things ever get to this sickening state of affairs ? Only British infiltration and control at the hicghest level could have delivered such a comprehensive victory for Britain and such a comprehensive material and ideological defeat for the republican insurgency."

Self deluding, self defeating catatonia inducing paranoia - one thing is for sure; they are well and truly into your head. Snap out of it! Wake up!

author by Barrypublication date Tue Jun 13, 2006 13:03

So accepting partition and British occupation as legitimately permanent , Stormont , the loyalist veto , Ulsterisation Normalisation , Criminalisation , surrendering weapons and negotiating a seedy amnesty deal for British war criminals was just a bad dream then ? Phew , twas only my imagination after all .

author by Davy Carlinpublication date Tue Jun 13, 2006 13:04

Espoused - meaning = {to simply}, 'choose, 'to pick out, 'to select.

Indeed as I stated in my most recent article on the Blanket also attached -

' Quote-

'And of course such Socialism {Radical Republicanism} was at times used and seen in shifts for positioning, splits, and ousting's to name but a few of its 'uses, in the course of the revolution.

Related Link: http://www.phoblacht.net/DC0506064g.html
author by Donnchadhpublication date Tue Jun 13, 2006 18:46

Harry since you are one of the few people who tries to argue for the existence of any kind of coherent provisional policy, I think your point are worth analysing in detail – Though Barry has eloquently cut to the chase of the matter.

1. The IRA campaign was given initial impetus by the Falls Road Curfew of June 1970 and subsequently by the introduction of Internment in August 1971. During 1970 and 1971, the British Army developed quickly into the racist and brutal army of occupation that was its traditional role in Ireland. The population, radicalised by the demand for civil rights, its leaders energised also by the Civil Rights movement in the US and the anti-Vietnam War movement, and frustrated and angered by unrelenting sectarianism and inequality, fought back.

This is all true, but you refer to the British army as an army of occupation. The civil rights movement, as an organisation, did not regard them as an army of occupation, they regarded them as part of the legitimate security forces of the legitimate British state in Ireland. The Republican position was that they were a usurping occupation force – usurping the functions of the Irish Republic. If you regard the British state as a legitimate maker of the law in Ireland, i.e. as a state which can legitimately deliver civil rights and equality of treatment, you cant go around shooting its security forces – even if they are brutal. It seems you regard the IRA as broken into two distinct groups

1) The Republican leadership of people like O Bradaigh, MacStiofan and O Connell, who certainly regarded themselves as functionaries of the Irish Republic with a legal imperative to wage war on British occupation forces whenever the opportunity arose.

2) A rank and file largely made up of people just pissed off at the lack of civil rights which the British state provided at the time.

By this logic the 1986 split happened because group 2 took over the movement.
There are problems with this however. People who attacked British forces just for more British civil rights would just be politically motivated criminals, not soldiers of the Irish Republic.

2. The comparison with the US is nonsensical. No part of the US constitutes a colony of itself and in fact there were ulta-left attempts to start an ‘armed struggle’ in defence of the Vietnamese revolution, which were a complete diversion from the huge mass movement against the Vietnam War. The black population did adopt a stance of armed self-defence in some instances (the Black Panthers), but again a mass movement was more powerful in the long term.
In Ireland there was a foreign army of occupation which imported tactics and attitudes from Malaya, Kenya and Cyprus – and from previous periods of conflict in Ireland.

According to the traditional republican position there is no comparison, but according to the position of the civil rights movement the catholics in the six counties were in exactly the same position as the blacks in the USA. Both were oppressed minorities in legitimate states. Armed struggle was a completely inappropriate response.

3. It was because civil rights demands and demands for basic equality. were met with bullets that the armed struggle gained impetus. It would never have happened otherwise – if it did, it would have been the damp squib that was the 1956-61 campaign that petered out quickly and barely affected the North.Your commentary is the same as that of the revisionist historians and politicians: the civil rights campaign was driven off the rails by the IRA who appeared out of nowhere. It is reactionary nonsense on their part, militarist nonsense on yours.

You can be sure I didn’t say the IRA appeared from no where, but when they did appear the British knew they were facing an army which saw itself as the legitimate authority in Ireland and not a group of civil rights protestors who could be bought off with a bit of power sharing.

4. The state though is incapable of evolving into a “modern Free State” because the state is inherently sectarian. Normal democratic precepts are sectarian precepts in the North: majority rule equals sectarian rule. If unionism was being thrown a “life line” they would grab it with both hands. In fact they shun it with every fibre of their being. Entering into a power sharing arrangement with Sinn Fein destroyed David Trimble’s political creditability. The DUP intend to prevent at all costs the setting up of a functioning governing structure where nationalists rule as of right and where unionism cannot exercise power exclusively. This will break up the unionist monolith because unionism is a form of apartheid, which cannot survive cohesively or coherently when its enforced separation from nationalists cannot function. The trick to movement in the North is to take the power of majority rule out of the equation at every instance. The power of unionists to prevent the setting up of the Executive should be withdrawn.

You obviously haven’t read much Freud. It seems patients never ever want to give up their symptoms, no matter how much apparent grief they give them. They always have to be brought kicking and screaming to the cure. It has to be said that the only really important power the “majority” have in the six counties is the power to refuse to end partition. The GFA copperfastens this power for them. Shedding the overt sectarianism just takes the pressure off them to make any change in this direction.

5. The RIC were an adjunct to and under the control of the British military. It is another myth peddled by revisionists that the poor old RIC were simple “local” country policemen just doing their day-to-day duties. The RIC played a vitally important role in local intelligence, leading to arrest and capture of republicans and in counter insurgency actions – as well as infamous assassinations alongside the Auxiliaries and Black & Tans. On the day the Dail met, many of the TDs were captives of the British. Breen, later a Fianna Fail TD, certainly calculated that unless the defence of the Dail was combined with an armed defence of its integrity, the British might eventually erode a purely political struggle.Just like your analysis of the north, your analysis of what happened in 1918 is general and abstract. It is a sad commentary on the decline in history teaching on the period – again a function of the revisionist history project of which you are just one victim.

Sadly everything you say about the RIC can also be said about the gardaí today in the free state – do you suggest this is a good enough reason to start killing them. The assignations alongside the Tans obviously would never have happened if the IRA had not began an armed struggle. I really have to quote that last sentence again: “Breen, later a Fianna Fail TD, certainly calculated that unless the defence of the Dail was combined with an armed defence of its integrity, the British might eventually erode a purely political struggle” Do you say that this logic is valid? If so, if the defence of the Republic today is not combined with an armed struggle is it not likely that the British will eventually erode a purely political struggle. Indeed, anyone looking at the way the provisionals bend over backwards to appease the unionists and to try to get into power might say that “eventually” is hardly the word. Of course the revisionists you are referring to are the likes of Roy Foster, Ruth Dud-ley Edwards, Eoghan Harris etc. Id have to say that the weasel words of revisionists who try to legitimise British rule in Ireland are a lot less insidious than the actions of revisionists who took over the republican movement by continually lying to its members and led them into a British created partitionist assembly. Telling us all that Bobby Sands died for the GFA is far more horrifying than anything Eoghan Harris or his mates could ever have thought up.

6. Abstentionism IS a tactic. It makes sense when you can politically and MATERIALLY create an alternative structure of political power – as in 1918. Otherwise it is just the preserve of the wilfully powerless eccentric. It is a challenge to take on the instructions of the powerful and the oppressors. But that is a test of your political mettle. Your fears read like exactly that, fear. Face your fears and attempt to represent your political constituency

”When you join the system the occupier has devised to occupy a territory, you become part of the occupier's resources."

Avoid being born then. You become part of the ‘system’ the day you draw breath, get out of hospital, go to school-college, play football, pay taxes, draw benefits.

Go and live on an uninhabited South Sea island if you want to avoid being part of the ‘system’. Don’t make such a political fetish out of the system of oppression. Build a movement that tests its inability to bring real change and then also try and win people to an alternative.

Lets look at what entering a partitionist assembly really means. The truth is that entry to the 26 county Dáil has, from the establishment of the Irish Free State, been dependant on a rejection of the ideals of 1916. Those who accepted the treaty in 1921 made a sacrifice when they accepted a limitation on / castration of the revolution, imposed by the British state. The British Empire laid down its law as The Law. The oath of allegiance was not an “empty formula,” but a symbolic castration, an integration into British law and a profound turning away from and deligitimisation of the principals on which the First Dáil was founded. This sacrifice was elevated to the level of a rite of initiation by those who had accepted it, much the same way as circumcision is among certain peoples. Those who remained outside castration and The Law were and are hated as unclean outcasts who subvert the legitimacy of The Law. The depth of hatred shown by those who had accepted what they regarded as a necessary sacrifice for those who had not can be gauged in the ritualistic killings at Ballysheedy, county Kerry during the civil war. The breaking of the hands with hammers before the victims were butchered must be regarded as an attempt to impose symbolic castration. Today the provisionals are directing the same hatred to those who stay outside British law. They call them “dissidents” have been involved in attempts to violently suppress them, including kidnapping and murder. The fact is that once you have bowed to British law you start to need its protection against those who have not bowed. Naturally you begin to support and nurture the system which sustains you. And who can say they have not already seen the signs of pleasure in the faces of provisionals who have obtained high position in the Imperial system.

author by Donnchadhpublication date Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:36

Has anybody noticed that PSF supporters have written both the PSF and RSF pages on Wikipedia. Needless to say they have painted themselves in glowing colours and claimed to be the original party set up in 1905. No mention that their policies and beliefs now are exactly what the Republican Movement fought a civil war against in 1922, and continued to fight against, i.e. accepting the legitimacy of British created partitionist assemblies which usurp the functions of the 32 county Irish Republic. Naturally enough they do an absolute hatchet job on the Republican Sinn Fein page. I tried to edit the RSF page to add a little truth, but the provisionals were in straight away to re-edit. Maybe they have a department for this, or maybe they used some of that 26 million withdrawal to make a big donation to Wikipedia. Either way its pathetic to see PSF so desperate to hide the truth.

author by Donnchadhpublication date Thu Jun 15, 2006 03:52

An interesting note from Tommy McKearny

http://www.fourthwrite.ie/tommy3.html

author by Brianpublication date Tue Jun 27, 2006 03:37

One simple point that I forgot to include above is that it is apparently accepted among Irish journalists that Sean MacStiofain was an agent of the Gardai, possibly from 1969. (1) But if that is accepted then why not the allegations against McGuinness since MacStiofain's role and status in the IRA in the early 70s would be directly analogous to McGuinness' for the late 70s and since ? Also does that not call into question the people selected by MacStiofain to attend the Cheyne Walk conference in 1972, which includes McGuinness. Presumably he would be expected to select other government agents in order to assist his handlers in controlling the IRA?

In any case I thought I might summaries where we are in this controversy.
On Sunday 28 May the northern edition of the Sunday World and the Sunday Tribune revealed a document that Martin Ingram received from a member of RUC Special Branch which it is felt proved that Martin McGuinness was an agent for MI6. It was a transcript of an intercepted phone conversation between McGuinness and his handler, since it is a short document I might as well reprint it here:
"J118: As I said, Patsy (SA3) was all for it, Tommy (SA1) was ready to go, he said he would have no problems asking the crew for their support.

G: Do you think there will be any problem with it?

J118: I know our fella (J119) has everyone geared up for it, he (J119) thinks it is his idea.

G: I think you should push this along as quickly as possible.

J118: Murray (B328) is pushing, starting to ask a lot of questions about Belfast Command.

G: Don't worry, we will look after things in that department, you just concentrate on the checkpoints.

G: We must have another meeting next week. In the meantime you can use the number I gave you in updates on the progress of things."

The numbers correspond to computer or file index reference numbers that identify each person of interest. In other words if anybody reading the document wanted to get background information on the person mentioned then they could just punch those numbers into a computer terminal and get the info. The point is that these are not codenames as such, they don't prove that anybody is an agent. G is said to be the MI6 handler, J118 Martin McGuinness, J119 Martin's brother Willie McGuinness, and B328 Sean 'Spike' Murray, Operations Director for Northern Command. It is reported to refer to planning for the 'human bomb' attack on the Coshquin checkpoint in 1990 and that it shows the MI6 handler was the prime mover in that incident. Obviously its a confusing document standing on its own but Martin Ingram says that he has checked it with other sources in the intelligence community which have authenticated it. The document he got also had various intelligence codes and jargon attached that proves its authenticity but which he cannot reveal for fear of compromising his source. The Sunday World newspaper followed the story up the next week reporting that it had a second security source, albeit anonymous, which confirmed the information and added that McGuinness' codename was 'Fisherman'.
So the bottom line is that a lot rests on the interpretation of the document by Ingram - and his sources - but the fact is that Ingram has already been proved right and trustworthy over Stakeknife and quite a number of other issues. Personally I think he has to be authentic when you see this kind of line being put about against him from some security sources who are briefing Jim Cusack:
"Many [British Intelligence officers who served in the North] suffered from high stress levels and nurtured suspicions ...Since the ending of the Troubles these tensions have evolved into bitterness and anger among former members of the intelligence community who now wish to reveal the fact that deaths were allowed to occur.....Many of these police and military intelligence officers suffered breakdowns after the Troubles ended as a result of the pressure they had been placed under. The decision by some to begin to talk about what they did and knew is - according to other former senior police - a kind of "therapy"."(2)
Frankly once you hear that kind of talk made against Ingram then you know he is cosher. The intelligence agencies are always looking for their slander angle and the 'mad' or 'Walter Mitty' one is particularly popular. I think they are trying to discredit Peter Preston the same way. (3)

More details emerged later about the source of the document. Martin Ingram received it (and other documents not yet revealed, he stated in the radio interview) in a dead letter drop from a member of RUC Special Branch approximately two years ago and apparently at the same time as the DUP received similar but not identical documents which show McGuinness as a British agent. In passing it might be worth pointing out that when Martin McGuinness responded to these allegations he said that it was part of a DUP plot against him. That's as opposed to blaming the British security forces or intelligence agencies which maybe was a little unusual. You might speculate that he did that to anticipate the DUP, preventing them from releasing their documents, because if they revealed them at that point it would look too much like the plot that he was talking about. Its also interesting to note that two years ago there was quite a lot of upheaval in PSNI Special Branch after the head of Special Branch, Bill Lowry, had been sacked.(4)

Martin Ingram also says that during the testimony he gave to the Saville Inquiry the British government seemed particularly anxious that he wouldn't name any agents. He reckons this was because they were nervous that he would name McGuinness at that time three years ago.(5) In any case McGuinness came well out of the enquiry having fortunately secured the services of Dermot Gleeson (a leading Irish lawyer and one time attendee at Bilderberg meetings) to represent him.

Anyhow for a few weeks this has obviously been the topic of the day (although the big media outlets in the Republic were strangely mute for a few days after the story broke and played down the story after that) and this thrown up two important voices that agree with the claim that McGuinness is an agent:

1) Raymond Gilmour was an RUC Special Branch agent in the IRA in Derry in the early 80s and he is now on the record saying that he feels McGuinness protected him because he was also an agent:
"I could never understand how I was allowed to run so long and do so much damage. Now I suspect that McGuinness was looking out for me." Gilmour in his book also points out how he was advised not to give evidence or implicate McGuinness during his supergrass trial and this apparently wasn't the only time that happened:
"Statements by another supergrass, Robert Quigley, implicated McGuinness in organising IRA activity, but he was never charged." (6)

2) Fr Denis Faul who, among other things, was at one time chaplain to the Republican prisoners in the Maze, also believed that McGuinness (and most of the IRA leadership ?) were British agents:
"Faul often would tell them [warning his pupils], “it will sooner or later emerge that your commanding officer was a tout, and that his commanding officer was a tout too. And whilst you’re rotting away, they will be getting off scot-free.” If only more imams in Britain today spoke like that to young Muslims tempted by jihad.

Faul’s warning was only mildly hyperbolic. He was vindicated when it emerged that two leading Provisionals, Denis Donaldson and Freddie Scappaticci, had been on the British payroll — the tip of an iceberg. And he would have been unsurprised by allegations that Martin McGuinness was a British agent: he had claimed as much to me more than five years ago. “One thing about the Brits,” he would say. “Just remember, they play cricket. Nice and long and slow.”

This observation brought him little pleasure: he felt that though the British State was clever, it had cynically sold out the ordinary decent Catholics...."(7)

Two further points might be made by way of corroborating what Ingram has said. The first is the point that his handler was said to be from MI6 which is interesting because there have always been rumours of MI6 communication with, and closeness to, the IRA in general and McGuinness in particular.
From Liam Clarke: "Some links to MI6 were even approved by the IRA. McGuinness had a so-called "back channel" to Michael Oatley, a former head of MI6's anti-terrorism operations. Oatley negotiated an IRA ceasefire in 1974-75. After it broke down he left open a secret channel of communication with two intermediaries in Derry, Brendan Duddy and Denis Bradley. This allowed messages to be passed to the IRA and McGuinness.....His [McGuinness'] political value, underlined by his hotline to a senior MI6 officer, may be sufficient to explain why McGuinness has often seemed a protected species."[I wonder is that hotline an example of 'hiding things in plain sight' !lol](8)
.
From Ed Moloney: "Perhaps the most surprising aspect of last week’s rocket attack on the London headquarters of MI6, apparently by the Real IRA, is that this is the first time that its headquarters, or indeed any building belonging to Britain's foreign spy agency, has been the acknowledged target of an attack by a Republican paramilitary organisation. One possible reason why serves to highlight intriguing aspects of the odd relationship that has existed between the various leaderships of the Provisional Republican movement and members of Britain's Secret Intelligence Services over the years of the Troubles......[the article hints at the closeness of the relationship, and ends:] All this may give a cogent explanation as to why the Provisional IRA never targeted Michael Oatley’s colleagues."(9)

From the Phoenix Magazine:" [Michael Oatley] He first met McGuiness in 1972 in Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, when he was a highflyer at MI6 headquarters in Century House. A year later he became second in command at British Secret Service (MI6) headquarters in Northern Ireland at Laneside, Craigavad. Since then , McGuiness and Oatley have got together regularly over the years in secret, and at one time (during the 1981 hunger strike) met on an almost daily basis. More recently, Oatley and McGuinness met in Donegal in 1990. It was that meeting which sparked the ongoing peace process of the Hume-Adams talks, a Downing Street declaration, and speculation about a peace deal. Officially, Oatley retired as a Controller (one of the highest ranks in the Secret Service) in 1991 on reaching the age of 56. However, never a man to let friendships die, he kept in regular contact with Martin - with consequences which we are now reading about."(10)

By James Casbolt – Former MI6 Agent: "...many organised crime and terrorist groups and these groups like the IRA are full of MI6 agents." (11)

The second point of corroboration as it were concerns the question of whether or not it was remarkable and suspicious that Frank Hegarty was promoted so rapidly and given access to great secrets despite being known as indiscreet and even known for earlier giving information to the army while he was in the Official IRA. Liam Clarke seems to accept that Ingram's account of this is agreed in Republican circles:
"IRA veterans agree with Gilmour that McGuinness often promoted suspected informers to positions where they could do most damage. One example was Frank Hegarty, an agent who worked for Martin Ingram. He was suspected of being an informer, but McGuinness personally put him in charge of hiding newly imported weaponry from Libya."(12)

Barry in one of his comments has also said that that is the feeling in Derry while during the radio interview Ingram cleverly extracted the same opinion from Eamonn McCann, a friend of Frank Hegarty and neighbour of Martin McGuinness, who admitted that he was "astonished at Franko's progress in the Provisional IRA." Eamonn conceded that Hegarty was "absolutely absolutely" not a discreet or particularly intelligent person, in fact Eamonn says that he was indiscreet "in a way I have never encountered in anybody else" among paramilitaries and that he was "not up to the job" of being an IRA/FRU agent. This then obviously corroborates Martin Ingram's view that his rapid promotion in the IRA was suspicious.

Now for the speculative bit! I was just wondering about one phrase that Ingram used in the radio interview when he said that he doesn't think that McGuinness was motivated by money and this has got me thinking about what could have caused him to become an agent. While this is just pure speculation I just wonder whether or not he might have succumbed to another weapon in the intelligence agency armoury which is known as the 'false flag' operation. To explain how this works imagine some target called X living in Ballydebob who an intelligence agency wishes to recruit. Say for the sake of argument that he isn't motivated by money, is not the sort that would be easily intimidated and is suspicious and unsympathetic to intelligence agencies and the security forces in general. But a survey of his loyalties and lifestyle has thrown up the fact that he is a diehard supporter of the local stamp collecting club, hypothetically speaking !lol. So what the agency might do is that it will get him to work for them under false pretences in that it will encourage him to do some act thinking that it was for the good of the stamp collecting club rather than the agency. They would do this either by recruiting his superior or colleague in the club or by using somebody from the international stamp collecting club who is on their books. (Philip Agee in his book on the CIA (Inside the Company) says that the CIA control a huge list of international organisations like that, trade unions, student bodies etc). Of course after a period of time if the guy has done anything illegal then they will blackmail him, threatening to charge him over the illegal act or expose him to irrate colleagues, and this blackmail will keep him working for them after he has discovered that he was conned.

This has got me thinking about the problems in the Catholic church and I would just like to say at the outset that I, a Catholic, derive no pleasure from pointing out these issues. And although I am no theologian I would also like to point out that AFAIK Catholics do not worship the Pope or look upon him as a God. Catholics pray 'for' not 'to' the Pope at the end of mass and Papal Infallibility is just a canon law legal doctrine a bit like the way the divine right of kings impinges on English common law and the way similar doctrines work in French law that encapsulate a kind of 'infallibility' on the part of the state. It doesn't mean that the Pope is considered a God after all if that was the case then Pope's who are later canonised would not need to go through such a lengthy process to get there. I say this because the depth of scandal and corruption that is now evident in the Catholic Church could possibly touch those at the pinnacle of what is after all a very hierarchical organisation. Consider this kind of statement from Fr Brian d'Arcy:

"This is the man [head of the Legionaries of Christ and the subject of 'well founded' accusations of child abuse] who accompanied John Paul II to Mexico in 1979, 90 and 93. Despite knowing that these accusations had been made against him, Pope John Paul gave a public tribute to him calling him, "an efficacious guide to youth." And as late as 2004 John Paul II congratulated him for, "intense, generous, and fruitful priestly ministry."...[earlier in the article:] If you want to find out why the sex abuse scandals were handled badly by the church that's the reason. The clerical club, right to the very top, closed ranks and destroyed the credibility of our precious church." (13)

Clearly a serving Catholic priest is not going to write that in a mass circulation newspaper unless he feels strongly that there is huge corruption at the Vatican level of the church. It is this background that must be considered when you hear that a former member of US Army Counter Intelligence in Italy in 1947, William Gowen, in a deposition given as part of a court case earlier this year, has apparently claimed that the then Monsignor Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, was an OSS/CIA asset. Possibly an agent of none other than James Angleton. (14). While this is only one source for a serious charge it nonetheless ties in with the many stories of cooperation between the Vatican and the CIA e.g. in relocating German political refugees after WWII and in Poland in the 80s. It also might be linked with the many other allegations of shady dealings at the Vatican made by people like the Kerry Jesuit Fr Malachi Martin.(15)

Fascinating, I hear you say :-), but how does that fit in with Ireland and the IRA? The point is that the former personal secretary of this Montini, Archbishop Alibrandi, as the Papal Nuncio to Ireland from 1969-1989 was very close and supportive of the IRA leadership (16) and was lobbying the Irish government on Ulster politics as early as 1970. (17) Other stories circulate which must have involved the Papal Nuncio in 1970:
"Take a look at the Timewatch programme on this shown on BBC2 in 1996. They had witnesses who said the CIA had a meeting with the Provo high command to be and leaders of the Catholic heirarchy in Co. Fermanagh in 1970."(18)

So I know its speculation but I would suggest that if the CIA are the close colleagues of MI6 in this destabilisation, as e.g. the former UK Defence Minister Enoch Powell stated (19) , then it was probably done through their agents at the high ranks of the Catholic Church.

And you thought the Republican Movement had problems!lol

Footnotes
The radio interview mentioned is at: http://irishfreedom.net/RFE/radio%20free%20eireann.htm (Radio Free Eireann, New York, 3/6/06), the other article here on indymedia: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76319 , and the Sunday World story: http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/mcguinness-spy.htm . (Many thanks to all who commented BTW its too huge to go through one at a time!)
1. http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/11/26/sean-mac-stiofain/ noting Liam Clarke's article of the Sunday before Mac Stiofain died and Jim Cusack in the Sunday Independent 21 Dec 2003 http://britishcollusion.com/monaghan14.html .

2. Sunday Independent 4 June 2006 .

3. http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76492 .

4. He was interviewed here: http://www.phoblacht.net/lowry1.html . He seemed pretty tight lipped about it all saying at one point: "Were they [the IRA] extensively penetrated? The former RUC man smiled, but refused to be drawn. 'Penetration of all terrorist organisations was good.'"

5. http://www.martiningram.blogspot.com/ .

6. Sunday Times 4 June 2006 p.5 .

7. The Times 23 June 2006 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2239124,00.html .

8. Sunday Times op. cit.

9. Sunday Tribune 24 Sept 2000 http://www.bytecenter.com/members/bbs/RepublicanAlterna...=3406 .

10. 14 Jan 1994 quoted in "Orwellian Ireland" http://oireland.tripod.com beginning of Chapter 3 .

11. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4540 I know this article stands on its own in the sense that there is no way to prove that Casbolt was genuinely in MI6 but at least as part of a pattern surely you cannot ignore sources like this. Incidentally there is no reason to shy away from his statements about the drug trade, books like Rodney Stich "Drugging America"( Alamo, 2005) (available free at http://www.defraudingamerica.com/list_of_books.html ) show that he is not alone in claiming that MI6 and the CIA have an undocumented but powerful role in that area.

12. Sunday Times op.cit.

13. Sunday World 11 June 2006 p.71 .

14. radio interview with Attorney Jonathan Levy 27 Feb 2006 http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0602/20060227_Mon_Greg1.mp3 and http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0602/20060227_Mon_Greg2.mp3 .The background to the courtcase is at www.vaticanbankclaims.com .

15. Malachi Martin was from a Republican family in Ballylongford in Kerry, a brother of the UCD historian and conservationist F.X. Martin ( http://www.historyireland.com/magazine/features/feat5.html ). For his shocking insights into corruption at the Vatican see e.g. the reviews of the his books on Amazon (like at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/03854...75210 ) and an interview with William H Kennedy, a friend of Malachi's, at http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0605/20060502_Tue_Greg2.mp3 . A Dominican friend of his, Fr Charles C. Fiore, says that: "He knew the Popes from Roncalli to Montini to Wojtyla, and on several occasions met secretly with John Paul II, to whom he gave a copy of Keys of This Blood."(http://www.unitypublishing.com/newswire/fiore1.html) Fr. Fiore himself has been trying to highlight the type of abuses that we have seen in Ireland: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I...26940 .

16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaetano_Alibrandi and http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_200...45885 .

17. http://gazette.ireland.anglican.org/150202/panorama1502...2.htm .

18. http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=72419 .

19. "Orwellian Ireland" http://oireland.tripod.com Chapter 4 footnote 114 .

author by Donnchadhpublication date Tue Jun 27, 2006 04:28

Brian, Sean MacStiofáin was one of the finest Irishmen who ever lived. He gave most of his life to the cause of Irish freedom. You should think twice before you repeat such rubbish in public. You just blacken a man's good name without offering a shred of evidence except that a few unnamed hacks have spread the rumour. Dont you know that most of them are on the MI5 payroll. The same might be said about McGuiness. He might have been an unscrupulous lier who tried to hijack the republican movement to get himself and Gerry big jobs in Her Majesty's service - but that is just the behaviour of a common lacky not a tout.

author by Barrypublication date Tue Jun 27, 2006 13:42

Firstly regardless of Ingrams document which in all honesty cannot be regarded as proof on its own, it is nothing short of remarkable to look at McGuinnesses ability to evade capture apparently by hiding in plain sight .ie giving television interviews admitting he was an IRA commander at the height of the troubles and internment while living at home and within sight of the barracks . That in itself is very disturbing . The people he appinted to senior positions in the IRA and Sinn Fein included a number of exposed British agents , such as Willie Carlin whom he appointed both treasurer and PRO of Sinn Fein in Derry . And Frank Hegarty , a man known to be an informer in Derry from the early 70s . And 2 supergrasses who never put him away . The fact none of these agents , or the MI5 controlled internal security unit that Adams and McGuinness personally created never sought to do McGuinness harm leads on to the distinct conclusion McGuinness was a protected species as far as the British was concerned . And the deal McGuinness negotiated with the British has without doubt delivered in their entirety Britains counter insurgency objectives in Ireland . The side deal he was caught out negotiating in secret went further and guaranteed British intelligence operatives total amnesty from prosecution for their many horrific crimes in Ireland .
Whether Ingrams allegations are true or not frankly it is the only explanation that makes the remotest bit of sense .
As regards McGuinness motivation or weak spot I suggest republicans try and track down those volunteers who were imprisoned with him during his very brief stint in the free state for membership charges in the 70s . From what Ive been told by a man who was there Martin did not find the experience of jail altogether to his liking . And thats putting it mildly . Indeed his reaction to his incarceration in turn produced a reaction from his fellow prisoners that made him quite an unpopular chap indeed .
Safe to say he never saw the inside of a cell again .

author by Donnchadhpublication date Tue Jun 27, 2006 19:19

I see your point Barry. Its shocking to think that the whole hijacking of the Republican Movement in 1986 could have been directed by MI5. But a look at republican history since 1921 is littered with such defections, and usually for the same reason - the lure of easy power in the safety of the British Imperial system. It could also be true, however, that the British just spared McGuinness because they recognised an unprincipled lacky when they saw one and reasoned that he would do more damage to the republican cause on the streets than in prison. In this, of course, they would have been 100% correct.

author by real continuity provo republicanpublication date Tue Jun 27, 2006 19:32

How many agents are in the CIRA? It seems they can't sneeze without the security forces knowing. Can you even call the CIRA a military wing, what miltary actions do they undertake that doesn't involve them getting arrested. I also believe there is problems in RSF over a row with prisoners. Why don't you tell us all about this Donnacadh or is this the provo's fault aswell. Poor RSF 20 years old and still as useless as the day they were formed in 1986 after losing a vote. Anti democratic morons.

author by Ugotta bekiddinpublication date Tue Jul 25, 2006 16:31

To suggest that martain mc guinness as the top ira commander in derry was an informer is to suggest that he was informing on himself. For indy media to faciltate the use of smoke amd mirrors and badly concocted theory about another informers depression being a factor is stretching credulity to the last. The british are well able to make their own agents 'dissapear' and would not need to use such a risky and convoluted plan to get rid of an agent.

Having successfully placed/turned spies in sinn fein over the years it has always been the intention of the british, as one spokeperson put it ' to disolve sinn fein'. In other words expose some high ranking spies thereby giving some percieved credence to anyother allegations, misinformation and black propaganda. With these conditions in place the scene could then be set to tarnish or ruin genuine, high ranking members or even the leadership itself. That would in all objectivity apear to be just what is happening.

Whats truely disturbing is the way people in the irish media and worse again independent media just run with the story and dont even try to fully analyse the motivations, conditions etc behind such stories, rumors and blatant mistruths.

author by Harrypublication date Tue Jul 25, 2006 17:42

You have to understand Mr Bekiddin that a couple of morons on this page believe and then regurgitate and embellish everything MI5 and its coterie of helpful journalists concoct.

I have tried to steer them away from their chosen path, but alas to no avail. At least it keeps them off the streets where they might encounter the hazard of oncoming traffic moving in opposite directions.

author by Sheepstealerpublication date Tue Jul 25, 2006 17:57

I don't believe for one minute that Mr. McGuinness is a British agent, the idea is ludicrous in my opinion, and I would not be a fan of the political road Sinn Féin Nua ventured down, but I believe this to be speculative nonsense.

author by Jack Grantham - Jack Granthampublication date Sat Sep 30, 2006 05:29

Martin Ingram aka Ian Hurst is a liar.

The person who calls himself Martin ingram but is in fact ex Int Corps SSgt Ian Hurst (known as rocky) is a liar of the highest order. His book STEAKNIFE is almost complete fiction, as are his assertions that Martin McGUINNESS was an agent of the state. He is dementedly lying completely about his past service in FRU. He only ever served in sleepy backwaters of the Province and never came face to face with anyone except low level eyes and ears agents. He never ran STEAKNIFE or even met him. In short, his book is a complete fabrication based on god knows what. He endangers the lives of serving and former soldiers as well as civillians with his ridiculous fairy tales. Hopefully he will appear in court at some of the current inquiries and investigations so he can be shown to be the liar he really is.

More at http://ingramis.blogspot.com/

This message from

http://www.jackgrantham.blogspot.com/

Related Link: http://www.jackgrantham.blogspot.com/
author by Brendan Keane - Digging Spacepublication date Sat Sep 05, 2015 03:17

The test of our leaders is where their actions take us. If the Irish leader leads us to the restoration of our language, our esteem in self and self-determination (recognizing there is an establishment) then from this accomplishment can come the awareness a polity needs to demand more share of the pie. Developing our own view, a culture of sophistication and traditions of diligent self-advocacy can only come from art, literature and self-development. The political rhetoric is inherently false on some level, as is any diplomacy. Bold liars, willy nilly leading us like lemmings of a cliff are quite another phenomenon. I expect McGuinness made some backroom deals. I also expect he did so on behalf of his people. Is he a double agent though? Has he done harm to the Irish? Is there evidence he hurt Irish posterity?


http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74119

Indymedia Ireland is a media collective. We are independent volunteer citizen journalists producing and distributing the authentic voices of the people. Indymedia Ireland is an open news project where anyone can post their own news, comment, videos or photos about Ireland or related matters.