PDA

View Full Version : State Collusion in Pat Finucane Murder


Chris 84
Dec 12th, 2012, 02:01 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20662412

Pat Finucane was a human rights lawyer who represented several high profile IRA prisoners including Bobby Sands. In 1989 he was brutally murdered in front of his family by a loyalist paramilitary group (they smashed in the door while the family was at dinner, killed him and then fired 12 more bullets into his face for good measure while his children hid under the table) and since then, much like with Bloody Sunday, the British government has done its best to cover up the truth. they STILL refuse to hold a full public inquiry, and although this report shows that the authorities did indeed collude with the loyalists in this murder, it doesn't go as far as some would like.

we know that the IRA killed innocent civilians. we know the UVF, etc killed innocent civilians, but it is about time that the British government came clean about their role in the murder of innocent civilians (as well as the unlawful murder of republican activists) when it is plain for all to see.

this particular part of the report is especially damning:

"Sir Desmond found that "in 1985 the security service assessed that 85% of the UDA's 'intelligence' originated from sources within the security forces"."

in other words, the British security forces, and presumably the state in general were supplying loyalist paramilitaries with information which enabled them to carry out their murders. if anyone is so naive to think that this wasn't general policy then they're crazy. uk governments can talk about not giving in to terror and pointing to atrocities carried out by the ira, eta, al quaeda or whoever, but their actions are no better.

KournikovaFan91
Dec 12th, 2012, 02:32 PM
Dublin-Monaghan bombings another prime example, although that case is even worse since it was carried out in another sovereign state against civilians.

Although there are many many cases of collusion that have yet to be investigated, could you imagine if this was Iran colluding with Islamists against the UK, the West would be going bat shit crazy.

Melange
Dec 12th, 2012, 03:36 PM
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrkrpyzeHj1r028eno2_400.gif

*JR*
Dec 12th, 2012, 08:09 PM
The Bloody Brits were state terrorists there. :rolleyes:

Halardfan
Dec 12th, 2012, 09:34 PM
Even if we arrive at a view that the British governments actions are on a level with the IRA's, we have former IRA men at all levels of the Northern Irish government, many of them have never admitted their roles in murder and mayhem, or said, often literally, where the bodies are buried.

If we are investigating this then investigate everything and everyone. I know I have a question or two for Gerry Adams.

KournikovaFan91
Dec 12th, 2012, 10:48 PM
When a sovereign state is sponsoring terrorism its a much more serious problem than random groups like ETA, IRA etc. It actually violates international laws.

Its like the USA's illegal involvement in Nicaragua, that the ICJ ruled in Nicaragua's favour, of course the Dublin government never had the balls to take the UK to the ICJ over Dublin-Monaghan however I'd imagine Ireland would win that case. UK security services supporting the UDA and UVF directly contravenes international law regarding and the acts carried out by those groups subsequently violate the sovereignty of Ireland.

Chris 84
Dec 12th, 2012, 11:17 PM
Even if we arrive at a view that the British governments actions are on a level with the IRA's, we have former IRA men at all levels of the Northern Irish government, many of them have never admitted their roles in murder and mayhem, or said, often literally, where the bodies are buried.

If we are investigating this then investigate everything and everyone. I know I have a question or two for Gerry Adams.

the same can be said of british government officials. they've never admitted anything, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that the orders were coming from higher up if 85% of UDA intelligence came from the brits.

people think whatever they want about certain republican politicians and certain unionist politicians in northern ireland. they have their suspicions, they know what the paramilitaries did, but they are trying to move past that. the british government on the other hand, attempts to present itself as squeaky clean and the truth is covered up. the fact is that they are just as guilty of crimes against "their own people" as saddam hussein was against his.

Halardfan
Dec 13th, 2012, 11:36 AM
the same can be said of british government officials. they've never admitted anything, but it doesn't take a genius to work out that the orders were coming from higher up if 85% of UDA intelligence came from the brits.

people think whatever they want about certain republican politicians and certain unionist politicians in northern ireland. they have their suspicions, they know what the paramilitaries did, but they are trying to move past that. the british government on the other hand, attempts to present itself as squeaky clean and the truth is covered up. the fact is that they are just as guilty of crimes against "their own people" as saddam hussein was against his.

I don't think it's worse if its state sponsored, or not, both are appalling and awful.

We spent vast amounts of time and money on the Bloody Sunday enquiry, much to the anger of Ulster Protestants who wondered why countless IRA atrocities weren't getting similar attention. But I supported that as a special case.Now people want to unveil further wrongdoing by the British government.

I see there are two sustainable options...either we have some wholesale Truth and Reconciliation style set up where everyone of every side owns up to their crimes (though the cost and scale of it would be unimaginable)...or we say these things are best left undisturbed for the sake of a better future.

What is not acceptable is to focus on the crimes of one side only, we will drive the Protestant community into the arms of their reawakening terrorist element.

KournikovaFan91
Dec 13th, 2012, 03:24 PM
I don't think it's worse if its state sponsored, or not, both are appalling and awful.


What? So a member of the UN security council engaging in terrorism is just the same as a random group of citizens disgruntled with their government doing the same. :help:

Also these inquired investigate GOVERNMENT involvement in the Troubles, it doesn't even investigate Unionist Paramilitaries.

Also Belfast's unionists/loyalists haven't exactly shown maturity over the last 2/3 weeks. When the Republicans lost a vote on Irish Language recognition they didn't riot in the street and throw a complete temper tantrum over it.

Chris 84
Dec 13th, 2012, 03:58 PM
I don't think it's worse if its state sponsored, or not, both are appalling and awful.

We spent vast amounts of time and money on the Bloody Sunday enquiry, much to the anger of Ulster Protestants who wondered why countless IRA atrocities weren't getting similar attention. But I supported that as a special case.Now people want to unveil further wrongdoing by the British government.

I see there are two sustainable options...either we have some wholesale Truth and Reconciliation style set up where everyone of every side owns up to their crimes (though the cost and scale of it would be unimaginable)...or we say these things are best left undisturbed for the sake of a better future.

What is not acceptable is to focus on the crimes of one side only, we will drive the Protestant community into the arms of their reawakening terrorist element.

the protestant community? what do they have to do with british-sponsored terrorism? we KNEW the UDA had carried out finucane's execution. everyone knew that as fact. what people didn't know (although many suspected) is that the british actually gave them information about finucane, suggested him as a target (evidence suggests the UDA would not have targeted him otherwise), provided them with a weapon used in the attack, and then covered the whole thing up and tried to defeat the ends of justice. this is by no means an anti-unionist thing (anti-protestant isn't really a suitable term considering the number of protestants who have been involved in the cause of irish republicanism over the years), it is about the British government accepting responsibility.

you surely don't think that the IRA or the UVF should be held to the same standards as the British government? sure, some people support the actions of the paramilitaries, but at the end of the day, they are illegal organisations. Great Britain is, as KournikovaFan91 says, a member of the un security council and we vote for these governments. what the IRA or the UVF do isn't done in our name as British subjects, but what the state does is. you can't honestly think that it should be an all-truth or no-truth situation when we are delaing with such different bodies. and just to reiterate, this isn't about unionist paramilitary crimes. it is about British state crimes, which is altogether different.

Halardfan
Dec 13th, 2012, 07:40 PM
I'm not denying the seriousness of British government involvement. Or the crimes of mindless Protestant terrorists.

What I'm opposing is the downplaying of the seriousness of IRA atrocities. These ex-IRA men are today powerful politicians themselves, many were directly involved in murder more than British politicians were. Yet some here are supportive of them.

The history of Northern Ireland is a catalogue of atrocities, from all sides. I absolutely don't think what the British government did was worse than what the IRA did.

You know the Protestants will have a list of atrocities they want investigating, their own suspicions about certain prominent Sinn Finn politicians, would you support a wholesale investigation and pursuit of these people.

In the end for the sake of the peace process, people have had to stomach Sinn Finn/IRA in power, acting like statesman. For the sake of peace people have turned a blind eye to their litany of crimes. I support that.

For the good of the peace process, for the future, any enquiry should either be wide ranging and investigate both sides, or should not take place at all.

Again about what the British government did I don't defend it, or justify it in any way. But it's the view of the IRA and its current serving politicians I don't accept.

KournikovaFan91
Dec 13th, 2012, 07:52 PM
Ehh the British government in accountable or is supposed to be to the citizens of the UK so when the government aids in the killing of its own citizens and the citizens of another sovereign state that is a far more serious crime those of the IRA, UVF or even fucking Harold Shipman or the Yorkshire Ripper to give non political examples. Those 4 are examples of individuals who've decided to carry out their crimes. The UK government represents the people of the entire United Kingdom not just the individual RUC officer or MI5 agent but the entire country.

When you work for a government body you are representing the rest of the country not just yourself.

The government of the UK is elected by the people, holds power in the international sphere and ironically condemns others (usually Muslim countries) for the state sponsor of terrorism. Lockerbie a classic example, condemning Libya/Iran when at the same time the UK authorites were running round helping kill its own citizens for political purposes.

Chris 84
Dec 13th, 2012, 07:57 PM
I'm not denying the seriousness of British government involvement. Or the crimes of mindless Protestant terrorists.

What I'm opposing is the downplaying of the seriousness of IRA atrocities. These ex-IRA men are today powerful politicians themselves, many were directly involved in murder more than British politicians were. Yet some here are supportive of them.

The history of Northern Ireland is a catalogue of atrocities, from all sides. I absolutely don't think what the British government did was worse than what the IRA did.

You know the Protestants will have a list of atrocities they want investigating, their own suspicions about certain prominent Sinn Finn politicians, would you support a wholesale investigation and pursuit of these people.

In the end for the sake of the peace process, people have had to stomach Sinn Finn/IRA in power, acting like statesman. For the sake of peace people have turned a blind eye to their litany of crimes. I support that.

For the good of the peace process, for the future, any enquiry should either be wide ranging and investigate both sides, or should not take place at all.

Again about what the British government did I don't defend it, or justify it in any way. But it's the view of the IRA and its current serving politicians I don't accept.

the crimes of paramilitaries aren't necessarily WORSE than the crimes of the British government, but where the British government sends death squads to execute her own citizens, that is something which warrants a full investigation and total openness.

"In the end for the sake of the peace process, people have had to stomach Sinn Finn/IRA in power, acting like statesman."

do you feel the same way about mandela? umkhonto we sizwe committed many terrorist acts and killed many civilians and mandela was their leader and founder.

*JR*
Dec 13th, 2012, 07:59 PM
....The history of Northern Ireland is a catalogue of atrocities, from all sides. I absolutely don't think what the British government did was worse than what the IRA did....

Listen, "John Bull" :boxing: the (modern) IRA wouldn't have needed to exist if the British Admiralty had merely kept the "safe harbour" ports it felt it needed post-WWI in a nearby country via an agreement (like the US did with a later infamous place in Cuba called Guantanamo Bay).

Sure Castro could gin up demonstrations outside of it, but Fidel never tried to take it by force, even during the Bay of Pigs or Cuban Missile Crises. But lo and behold, the Bloody Brits had to carve 6 counties out of Ireland instead, and create a fictional entity called "Ulster Province".
:spit:

Halardfan
Dec 13th, 2012, 08:38 PM
Listen, "John Bull" :boxing: the (modern) IRA wouldn't have needed to exist if the British Admiralty had merely kept the "safe harbour" ports it felt it needed post-WWI in a nearby country via an agreement (like the US did with a later infamous place in Cuba called Guantanamo Bay).

Sure Castro could gin up demonstrations outside of it, but Fidel never tried to take it by force, even during the Bay of Pigs or Cuban Missile Crises. But lo and behold, the Bloody Brits had to carve 6 counties out of Ireland instead, and create a fictional entity called "Ulster Province".
:spit:

Yeah, let's argue about what happened post World War 1 when none of here were born and many of my ancestors weren't even British.

Or we could think what is good for the future. My arguement is simple...if there is a search for truth and justice then it must involve all sides and all crimes. Can anyone give me a reason why that shoułdnt be so?

Morning Morgan
Dec 13th, 2012, 09:00 PM
Because people cannot deal with so much shit at one time.