LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSpot on E>Y>O. anyone that replies to that idiot K is only encouraging this disgusting story.Originally Posted by eyeswideopen
Simply put ,the brits would have destroyed the leadership of PSF years ago if there was any truth to this.
Spot on E>Y>O. anyone that replies to that idiot K is only encouraging this disgusting story.
Simply put ,the brits would have destroyed the leadership of PSF years ago if there was any truth to this.
Why would they have destroyed them if they had them pretty well under control ?
Don't you think that Thatcher and her Tories would have not revelled in exposing the republican leaders to their supporters and would have been cleared ,in the eyes of the world for their role in the hunger-strikes.
Even accepting that some of the leadership were compromised by the brits, they could have finished off republicanism.
The provos war escalated after the hunger strikes and the level of support surged for SF and the IRA, and they nearly got the b1tch in '84. so they did;nt have them under as much control as you infer.
[quote]Is it possible that there were divisions and mixed messages from the British on this? Thatcher certainly relished her tough image and I'm sure wanted the hunger strikers dead.
I heard Martin McGuinness say to Eamon Dunphy on RTE Radio that he had talked to the British without authorisation from early on. The British never talked to anyone without playing them and manipulating them one way or another. it is astounding to think after that that he could be trusted in any way. The whole thing is very messy.Thatcher's emotions in regard to the hunger strikers would have been secondary to the international pressure and civil disorder in the 6 that propelled the desire for resolution. There is no point talking about British bad faith when the conditions of the offer were the same as what was ultimately put in place.
It is possible that the British made the offer in the expectation that it would be refused; they knew who they were dealing with and most likely had infiltrated the decision making process. Nonetheless, six men may have been saved had Thatcher's bluff been called. Furthermore there are indications that the negotiations that led to the offer and the decision to reject the offer may not have been authorised by the IRA army council. The IRA prison leadership accepted the offer but there is question as to whether the army council were aware of it in executive numbers.
Ultimately a lot of men died and both Thatcher and the SF leadership appear to have been strengthened out of it in some ways.The British could not have 'made hay' of the offer rejection as that would have shown them to have been 'talking to terrorists'. An acceptance of the offer would have provided this propaganda coup but for some strange reason the strategically stupid approach was taken.
[quote]If they knew that the republican leaders had acted as suggested, it would certainly have given the British leverage against them. If they had exposed them, and they had been replaced by new leadership, that might have been more difficult for the British to deal with.
I don't see that.Even accepting that some of the leadership were compromised by the brits, they could have finished off republicanism.
Point taken. Certainly not 100% control of the whole organisation.The provos war escalated after the hunger strikes and the level of support surged for SF and the IRA, and they nearly got the b1tch in '84. so they did;nt have them under as much control as you infer.
What 'disgusting story' are you referring to? I have referred here only to what has been established to be fact. It is your party that has been shown to have lied. concealed and covered up. If there is a 'disgusting story' then you are attempting to protect its authors.
Do you seriously think that this is all that the Brits have on your tamed leadership....really funny how you throw the 'P' in there to pretend you're not a shinner.
Seriously like, either you are excruciatingly naive or you are a corrupt player with a vested interest. Either way you are fooling nobody but yourself.
Maggie Thatchers little paid poddle katayuselessMI5tout is back.Were you away getting your tout money? So what has your MI5 handler got in store for us today?
If you're interested in establishing the truth about this, you are showing no signs of it.Maggie Thatchers little paid poddle katayuselessMI5tout is back.
I know the truth about this and nothing the British MI5 release to blacken the name of good men will change that. Half wit idiots may want to join in with the British propaganda machine if they want, but don't expect anything but disdain for me.
Also Katayusha is a tout and if you don't know that I'd advice you to be careful with him.
Well said, tout or not, its only the Mi5 led effort to redeem Thatcher in the eyes of the world that will gain anything from this,
When she dies, the world will once again be reminded of her role in the hunger strikes and the next brit Gov. (Conservatives) won't want the bad publicity just as it starts its tenure.
Reply With Quote